PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues Romney's Effective Tax Rate in 2011: 14%


Mr. Kotter
09-21-2012, 01:03 PM
http://money.cnn.com/2012/09/21/pf/taxes/romney-tax-return/index.html?hpt=hp_t1 (http://money.cnn.com/2012/09/21/pf/taxes/romney-tax-return/index.html?hpt=hp_t1)

And, BTW, 4,000 millionaires are AMONG the 47% moochers Romney demonized the other day....

http://money.cnn.com/2012/09/18/pf/taxes/romney-income-taxes-millionaires/index.html?iid=EL

Can't wait for the spin on this....

Romney paid 14% effective tax rate in 2011

By Jeanne Sahadi @CNNMoney (https://twitter.com/intent/user?screen_name=cnnmoney)September 21, 2012: 2:24 PM ET

<!--storytext-->
NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Mitt Romney made $13.7 million last year and paid $1.94 million in federal income taxes, giving him an effective tax rate of 14.1%, his campaign said Friday.

His effective tax rate was up slightly from the 13.9% rate he paid in 2010.
<!-- ADSPACE: business_news/jobs_and_economy/quigo/ctr.220x200 --><IFRAME style="POSITION: absolute; VISIBILITY: hidden" id=748246 height=0 marginHeight=0 border=0 src="http://ads.cnn.com/html.ng/site=cnn_money&cnn_money_position=220x200_ctr&cnn_money_rollup=business_news&cnn_money_section=jobs_and_economy&cnn_money_subsection=quigo&page.allowcompete=no&params.styles=fs&page.allowcompete=yes&tile=1348253775831&page.allowcompete=yes&domId=748246" frameBorder=0 width=0 allowTransparency marginWidth=0 scrolling=no></IFRAME>

Quiz: What the rich really pay in taxes (http://money.cnn.com/quizzes/2012/pf/taxes/rich-pay-tax/?iid=EL)


The majority of the candidate's income came from his investments, said Brad Malt, a lawyer who presides over Romney's blind trust, in a blog post.
The couple gave just over $4 million to charity. (Related: How much should the rich pay?) (http://money.cnn.com/2012/08/30/pf/taxes/rich-taxes/index.html?iid=EL)

In addition, the Romney campaign said Romney's tax filings from 1990 to 2009 show that the couple paid 100% of the federal and state income taxes they owed and that their overall average annual effective federal tax rate was 20.2%. Annually they never paid an effective rate below 13.66%.
More documents related to Romney's 2011 tax return and his taxes over the 20-year period will be released at 3 p.m ET.

Related: 4,000 millionaires in Romney's '47%' (http://money.cnn.com/2012/09/18/pf/taxes/romney-income-taxes-millionaires/index.html?iid=EL)

Romney has been criticized by both Democrats and even some Republicans for not releasing more than two years' worth of tax returns. Criticism reached a crescendo when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, repeatedly claimed, without identifying the source of his information, that Romney hadn't paid federal income taxes for a decade.

In response, Romney has said he never paid less than a 13% effective tax rate in any year over the past decade. He further said the obsession over his tax returns is "small minded (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/08/16/romney-says-he-paid-at-least-13-in-taxes-for-last-ten-years/?iid=EL)."

And the GOP presidential nominee has often gotten flak for having paid a low effective tax rate given his outsized income.

But contrary to popular perception, Romney's effective federal income tax rate is still higher than that of most Americans -- 80% of whom have an effective rate below 15%. That number, however, does not include other federal taxes such as the payroll tax.

Romney's running mate, Paul Ryan, released his final 2011 tax return this summer. He paid $65,000 on $323,416 in income, giving him an effective tax rate of 20%. (Related: Romney vs. Obama on tax policy) (http://money.cnn.com/2012/09/07/news/economy/tax-obama-romney/index.html?iid=EL)

The reason Romney's rate is so low -- despite having one of the highest incomes in the country -- is because his income was derived almost entirely from capital gains and dividends from his extensive portfolio of investments. And that form of investment income is typically taxed at just 15%, well below the 35% top tax rate for high earners. http://i.cdn.turner.com/money/images/bug.gif (http://money.cnn.com/2012/09/21/pf/taxes/romney-tax-return/index.html?hpt=hp_t1&iid=EL#TOP)

Saul Good
09-21-2012, 01:04 PM
Good for him as long as he did it legally. Let's simplify the tax code, and we won't have to worry about this shit.

patteeu
09-21-2012, 01:05 PM
Repost, but I'll give you a break because it was close and you had a bigger article to cut and paste than I did.

KC_Lee
09-21-2012, 01:05 PM
So he took advantange of tax deductions to reduce his tax rate? And the problem with this is?

Saul Good
09-21-2012, 01:05 PM
What percent of the deductions under the code should he tell his accountants to take? Should he have told them not to take any deductions? Half of the deductions? What makes sense to you?

I have to assume that you don't take advantage of legal tax deductions available to you, or you'd just be another hypocritical shill...

vailpass
09-21-2012, 01:06 PM
Good for him as long as he did it legally. Let's simplify the tax code, and we won't have to worry about this shit.

X2.

There isn't a single person amongst those that bitch about someone that does all they can to legally minimize their income tax burden that wouldn't do the exact same thing were they in a position to do so.

Mr. Kotter
09-21-2012, 01:07 PM
So he took advantange of tax deductions to reduce his tax rate? And the problem with this is?


The problem? A tax code that has been bought and sold to their lapdogs in Congress by those who are paying among the lowest rates....but who garner the lion's share of wealth.

Just may be note-worthy to middle class and working class types.

patteeu
09-21-2012, 01:07 PM
I'm not sure what kind of spin you're waiting for here. :shrug:

stonedstooge
09-21-2012, 01:07 PM
Cheap ass fucker could have had his accountant increase his percentage like most wealthy people do.

Saul Good
09-21-2012, 01:08 PM
The problem? A tax code that has been bought and sold to their lapdogs in Congress by those who are paying among the lowest rates....but who garner the lion's share of wealth.

Just may be note-worthy to middle class and working class types.

That thieving son of a bitch only paid $2,000,000 in taxes last year? Grab the pitchforks!

KC_Lee
09-21-2012, 01:08 PM
The problem? A tax code that has been bought and sold to their lapdogs in Congress by those who are paying among the lowest rates....but who garner the lion's share of wealth.

Just may be note-worthy to middle class and working class types.

So are you upset that President Obama itemized his return as well to lower his tax rate?

Donger
09-21-2012, 01:09 PM
The problem? A tax code that has been bought and sold to their lapdogs in Congress by those who are paying among the lowest rates....but who garner the lion's share of wealth.

You forgot to mention that those people also pay the vast majority of taxes taken in this country.

Does that fact bother you or something?

vailpass
09-21-2012, 01:10 PM
So are you upset that President Obama itemized his return as well to lower his tax rate?

That's half racist.

Mr. Kotter
09-21-2012, 01:10 PM
I'm not sure what kind of spin you're waiting for here. :shrug:

14%....when many middle class and working class folks pay a higher percent? I think they'll try to find some way to spin that so it won't piss too many more people off...than it already has. Guess we'll see though.

KC native
09-21-2012, 01:10 PM
If it's even worse when you see that his income has been mischaracterized due to fee conversions over the course of his career.

vailpass
09-21-2012, 01:11 PM
Who exactly is pissed about Romney paying 14%? Aside from obama supporters?

KC_Lee
09-21-2012, 01:11 PM
That's half racist.

Ok, then let me rephrase; Are people upset when FILL IN YOUR OWN RICH LIBERAL PERSON CALLING FOR HIGHER TAXES ON THE WEALTHY HERE itemizes thier tax return to reduce thier tax rate?

Saul Good
09-21-2012, 01:12 PM
14%....when many middle class and working class folks pay a higher percent? I think they'll try to find some way to spin that so it won't piss too many more people off...than it already has. Guess we'll see though.

Are people supposed to get pissed off at Mitt Romney? Did he write the tax code? Is he a congressman?

I'm pretty sure he handed his shit over to an accounting firm and said, "tell me what I owe". Then, he paid it. Then, he gave $4,000,000 additional to charity.

Donger
09-21-2012, 01:12 PM
14%....when many middle class and working class folks pay a higher percent? I think they'll try to find some way to spin that so it won't piss too many more people off...than it already has. Guess we'll see though.

Heck, I can't wait to see how old Harry responds.

Mr. Kotter
09-21-2012, 01:13 PM
You forgot to mention that those people also pay the vast majority of taxes taken in this country.

Does that fact bother you or something?

Not at all....if they didn't also hoard the vast majority of wealth taken in this country--a higher percentage of income, than in total taxes paid (on a per capita basis.)

That fact should bother you, and all of us.

KC native
09-21-2012, 01:14 PM
Are people supposed to get pissed off at Mitt Romney? Did he write the tax code? Is he a congressman?

I'm pretty sure he handed his shit over to an accounting firm and said, "tell me what I owe". Then, he paid it. Then, he gave $4,000,000 additional to charity.

Romney has a JD. He played a role in using an arcane law to get fee conversions (that's how that IRA got so big).

The NY AG is probing Bain and others about this practice because they were warned when they started it that it might not be legal.

Donger
09-21-2012, 01:14 PM
Not at all....if they didn't also hoard the vast majority of wealth taken in this country--a higher percentage of income, than in total taxes paid (on a per capita basis.)

That fact should bother you, and all of us.

Rich people don't bother me at all. Sorry they do you.

Mr. Kotter
09-21-2012, 01:15 PM
....Then, he gave $4,000,000 additional to charity.

Personally, I'd like to see his charitable contributions pre-2004 or so....before he started running for President. :hmmm:

Mr. Kotter
09-21-2012, 01:15 PM
Rich people don't bother me at all. Sorry they do you.

Yeah..."Let them eat cake."

vailpass
09-21-2012, 01:15 PM
Ok, then let me rephrase; Are people upset when FILL IN YOUR OWN RICH LIBERAL PERSON CALLING FOR HIGHER TAXES ON THE WEALTHY HERE itemizes thier tax return to reduce thier tax rate?

Thank you, half black people around the nation are pleased you have decided not to specifically target their income tax practices.

Saul Good
09-21-2012, 01:16 PM
Personally, I'd like to see his charitable contributions pre-2004 or so....before he started running for President. :hmmm:

Today is your lucky day, then. He's releasing 20 years worth.

KC_Lee
09-21-2012, 01:17 PM
Thank you, half black people around the nation are pleased you have decided not to specifically target their income tax practices.

I do what I can, but I see no response to either the version of the question I posed.

Donger
09-21-2012, 01:17 PM
Yeah..."Let them eat cake."

Okay, Maid Marian.

Saul Good
09-21-2012, 01:17 PM
Yeah..."Let them eat cake."

$4,000,000 buys a lot of cake.

vailpass
09-21-2012, 01:19 PM
I do what I can, but I see no response to either the version of the question I posed.

Of course you don't. obama's entire campaign is focused on avoiding the issues. It's their only choice, an election on the merits would result in obama's immediate disqualification.

thecoffeeguy
09-21-2012, 01:19 PM
Obots will always look for something to bitch, scream and complain about, even when its fully legit...

Baby Lee
09-21-2012, 01:20 PM
Personally, I'd like to see his charitable contributions pre-2004 or so....before he started running for President. :hmmm:

Now you're just being a dick.

KC native
09-21-2012, 01:20 PM
Today is your lucky day, then. He's releasing 20 years worth.

No he's releasing a summary which will show his calculated liability which could be wiped out with actions afterwards or on other forms.

alpha_omega
09-21-2012, 01:26 PM
Well, that's 14% more than 47% of Americans, right?

Brock
09-21-2012, 01:30 PM
Obots will always look for something to bitch, scream and complain about, even when its fully legit...

So will RW idealogues.

DaneMcCloud
09-21-2012, 01:31 PM
X2.

There isn't a single person amongst those that bitch about someone that does all they can to legally minimize their income tax burden that wouldn't do the exact same thing were they in a position to do so.

Exactly.

But with that said, it is ridiculous that the money you earn, more opportunities exist for tax shelters.

vailpass
09-21-2012, 01:31 PM
Exactly.

But with that said, it is ridiculous that the money you earn, more opportunities exist for tax shelters.

Isn't the other side of that coin the less money you earn, the less you need tax shelters?

Not to say we don't need to allocate the necessary funds for comprehensive study of our tax codes as the first step to a sweeping overhaul.

KC_Lee
09-21-2012, 01:33 PM
Exactly.

But with that said, it is ridiculous that the money you earn, more opportunities exist for tax shelters.


Which why I like Herman Cain's 9-9-9 plan so much. Everyone pays the same rate.

qabbaan
09-21-2012, 01:40 PM
$4 million in charitable contributions on $13.7 million in income, less $2 million in taxes, is pretty impressive.

vailpass
09-21-2012, 01:43 PM
$4 million in charitable contributions on $13.7 million in income, less $2 million in taxes, is pretty impressive.

Meh. Bastard should have paid more. I don't care for how he earned that money and I really don't like the fact that he has that money and I don't.

DaneMcCloud
09-21-2012, 01:43 PM
Isn't the other side of that coin the less money you earn, the less you need tax shelters?

Not to say we don't need to allocate the necessary funds for comprehensive study of our tax codes as the first step to a sweeping overhaul.

Yes, on both.

I don't think there will ever be a sweeping overhaul because millions of jobs would be lost. Just think about the sheer number of CPA's that would be virtually worthless if our tax code was simple and straightforward.

What would happen to all those dorks?

qabbaan
09-21-2012, 01:49 PM
Meh. Bastard should have paid more. I don't care for how he earned that money and I really don't like the fact that he has that money and I don't.

I just pulled my return from last year, and my Effective Tax Rate was 15%.

HemiEd
09-21-2012, 01:53 PM
Not at all....if they didn't also hoard the vast majority of wealth taken in this country--a higher percentage of income, than in total taxes paid (on a per capita basis.)

That fact should bother you, and all of us.

They earn it then they hoard it?

Are they supposed to gather up a few boxes of hundreds and toss it out of the open windows in their cars?

4 million to a charity is pretty impressive.

Baby Lee
09-21-2012, 01:55 PM
Yes, on both.

I don't think there will ever be a sweeping overhaul because millions of jobs would be lost. Just think about the sheer number of CPA's that would be virtually worthless if our tax code was simple and straightforward.

What would happen to all those dorks?

I sense you are being TIC here, but there is a good bit of merit in analyzing things of this nature.

Our tax structure is a creature our collective creation. There are no immutable laws of the universe mandating its complexity.

So if we've gotten to a point where only individuals committed to full time analysis of those complexities can fully realize savings for their clients, then the government has just created busy work for the intelligent and driven. A white collar version of one worker digging a hole, then another worker filling it in.

qabbaan
09-21-2012, 02:02 PM
I just pulled my return from last year, and my Effective Tax Rate was 15%.

I will also add that I didn't do anything fancy at all. I just contribute to a 401(k) and had a lot of charitable contributions.

qabbaan
09-21-2012, 02:04 PM
BTW, When is Harry Reid going to hold his apology press conference? I don't want to miss it.

dirk digler
09-21-2012, 02:05 PM
Mittens can't even keep things straight in regards to his taxes. This guy is probably one of the most incompetent candidates to ever run for POTUS.

I guess she should drop out now since she is not qualified now.

The decision to pay more income taxes than he is required to runs contrary to Romney’s previous statements.

“If I had paid more than are legally due, I don’t think I’d be qualified to become president,” Romney said in an interview in July.

qabbaan
09-21-2012, 02:07 PM
Mittens can't even keep things straight in regards to his taxes. This guy is probably one of the most incompetent candidates to ever run for POTUS.

I guess she should drop out now since she is not qualified now.



Pretty disappointed that this "issue" fizzled, huh?

dirk digler
09-21-2012, 02:09 PM
Pretty disappointed that this "issue" fizzled, huh?

I know releasing a summary that no one will believe will settle it.

Alex Castellanos, the former Mitt Romney strategist from 2008 who has alternately been critical and praising of the current campaign, left no doubt where he stands on the decision to release a summary of the candidate's tax rates over 20 years.

"At first I thought this was an April Fool's Joke," said Castellanos, who tweeted something to that effect at me earlier. "But it isn't April. I can't imagine that David Axelrod will now say, I'm glad Mitt put this issue behind him. This will drag Mitt's taxes back into the debate. And there's not many days left. I just can't imagine why they would do this. There are 40 days left and you have now made more of them about Mitt's taxes....you don't serve a life sentence and then confess afterward. They've taken their beating on this (already) ... I just don't understand how a (being) 'little pregnant' strategy (works)."

Other Republican operatives have emailed in with a similar reaction - that the summary is going to revive, instead of settle, questions on an issue where what had seemed to be the worst was already behind Romney.

DaneMcCloud
09-21-2012, 02:11 PM
I sense you are being TIC here

Yes, I was just joking.

:thumb:

qabbaan
09-21-2012, 02:18 PM
I think this shows that there is nothing to see, and that they were just waiting for the moment they judged most opportune to drop the tax information. They chose the moment right before the debate on domestic policy, so it takes away the debate issue unless Obama wants to give Romney an opportunity to highlight how generous his family is to charitable organizations.

blaise
09-21-2012, 02:19 PM
It's funny how often liberals say that Mitt is a complete disaster. Barry is only barely ahead. The actual disaster would be if Obama lost. It would be a gigantic embarrassment of a Presidency. To come in claiming you replaced the worst President ever and then lose to Mitt, who you say is running a disaster of a campaign? I hope Mitt wins if for nothing more than comedic effect.

tiptap
09-21-2012, 02:26 PM
You forgot to mention that those people also pay the vast majority of taxes taken in this country.

Does that fact bother you or something?

No. There life style reflects their success very well. But it is a bit gamed when their burden doesn't reflect the rate a majority of Americans pay in Federal Income Taxes and ever so less when all taxes are taken into account.

Mr. Kotter
09-21-2012, 02:26 PM
It's funny how often liberals say that Mitt is a complete disaster. Barry is only barely ahead. The actual disaster would be if Obama lost. It would be a gigantic embarrassment of a Presidency. To come in claiming you replaced the worst President ever and then lose to Mitt, who you say is running a disaster of a campaign? I hope Mitt wins if for nothing more than comedic effect.

Are you really THIS dumb? Historically, Romney ought to have a 4-6% lead. Instead he's going to lose his home state, his birth state, and probably Ryan's home state. Talk about disaster, and embarrasment....

qabbaan
09-21-2012, 02:28 PM
Are you really THIS dumb? Historically, Romney ought to have a 4-6% lead. Instead he's going to lose his home state, his birth state, and probably Ryan's home state. Talk about disaster, and embarrasment....

ROFL

blaise
09-21-2012, 02:28 PM
Are you really THIS dumb? Historically, Romney ought to have a 4-6% lead. Instead he's going to lose his home state, his birth state, and probably Ryan's home state. Talk about disaster, and embarrasment....

No, you're a moron. And people dislike you. Most people really dislike you.

And you forgot, "heh" and a bunch of stupid emoticons.

jjjayb
09-21-2012, 02:28 PM
The problem? A tax code that has been bought and sold to their lapdogs in Congress by those who are paying among the lowest rates....but who garner the lion's share of wealth.

Just may be note-worthy to middle class and working class types.

What part of that article says he pays the lowest rates. Do you know what the average effective tax rate is? I'll give you a hint. It's lower than what he paid.

Donger
09-21-2012, 02:28 PM
No. There life style reflects their success very well. But it is a bit gamed when their burden doesn't reflect the rate a majority of Americans pay in Federal Income Taxes and ever so less when all taxes are taken into account.

Yeah, I know that I pay my mortgage every month in percentages and not dollars.

tiptap
09-21-2012, 02:38 PM
Look Donger I have had to pay AMT every year (my mortgage interest counts for nothing in the tax rate I end up paying) and the Clinton surtax since 1994. I am pissed that the system is gamed. I am not hurting but that doesn't change that it pisses me off. But if you already OWN outright 10 million or more I can see your wish to do even better on avoiding progressive taxes on the dividends and stock gain.

dirk digler
09-21-2012, 02:50 PM
I think this shows that there is nothing to see, and that they were just waiting for the moment they judged most opportune to drop the tax information. They chose the moment right before the debate on domestic policy, so it takes away the debate issue unless Obama wants to give Romney an opportunity to highlight how generous his family is to charitable organizations.

I agree with you they waited until the most opportune time in their minds to release them but it wasn't for the reasons you listed. They are trying to change the subject from the 47% tape.

Of course what they should have done is just release what they promised to do which was just the 2011 taxes and never release a summary. All that does is invite more scrutiny and questions as Castellanos said.

Pawnmower
09-21-2012, 03:53 PM
14%....when many middle class and working class folks pay a higher percent? I think they'll try to find some way to spin that so it won't piss too many more people off...than it already has. Guess we'll see though.

most working people have deductions .....i don't know the exact numbers, but over well over 50% of the population pays less than 14% federal income tax after deductions & return

qabbaan
09-21-2012, 06:27 PM
Well, this thread sunk like a rock. Haha

Dallas Chief
09-21-2012, 06:38 PM
Not at all....if they didn't also hoard the vast majority of wealth taken in this country--a higher percentage of income, than in total taxes paid (on a per capita basis.)

That fact should bother you, and all of us.

WTf happened to you man? Mad that you make squat as a teacher. If you don't like it then do something about it. They earned it they can hoard it if that's what gets them off. The guy gave away $4M to charity and paid $1.9M in taxes. Clearly a money hoarder. STFU

Mr. Kotter
09-21-2012, 07:52 PM
Well, this thread sunk like a rock. Haha

Wanna bet the headlines and impact on Romney's chances at pulling an upset at this point don't sink though, eh?

most working people have deductions .....i don't know the exact numbers, but over well over 50% of the population pays less than 14% federal income tax after deductions & return

Do your homework, and get back to me....because in terms of total tax burden, you are wrong.

WTf happened to you man? Mad that you make squat as a teacher. If you don't like it then do something about it. They earned it they can hoard it if that's what gets them off. The guy gave away $4M to charity and paid $1.9M in taxes. Clearly a money hoarder.

"Earned" is a relative term; corrupted by the same GOP that now demonizes public servants---police, firemen, teachers, DMV employees, etc--they are all evil, EVIL, I tell you....because the pension and benefit system they were promised is being pulled-out from underneath them, at a point in their careers when "moving" or "changing careers" really is not a practical alternative. But, hey, as long as the rich keep getting richer, screw hard-working middle class folks who've played by the rules, yet....now, have the rug yanked out from under them, because, well, the rich need to be richer. Okay. Makes sense, to Dittoheads and "great Americans" I suppose.

petegz28
09-21-2012, 08:00 PM
Is there anything illegal about any of this???

Mr. Kotter
09-21-2012, 08:01 PM
Is there anything illegal about any of this???

Voters will soon decide whether or not that is a relevant question. I suspect it's not.

KC native
09-21-2012, 08:16 PM
Is there anything illegal about any of this???

The only thing I know of that's questionable with Romney's taxes are his history with fee conversions. Several private equity firms (Bain is one) are being probed on this right now. No one will end up with criminal charges but there are probably going to be some sizeable settlements.

patteeu
09-22-2012, 11:28 AM
14%....when many middle class and working class folks pay a higher percent? I think they'll try to find some way to spin that so it won't piss too many more people off...than it already has. Guess we'll see though.

:stupid: Here's the spin (aka the truth to which you are apparently oblivious):

1. Very few if any working class people pay a higher effective rate than that.

2. The majority of middle class taxpayers pay a lower effective rate too.

This graph only goes to 2005, but it shows a pretty clear picture of where each earning quintile falls on the effective tax rate scale. You don't start seeing an effective rate of 14% until you get to the top 20% of earners.

http://www.econdataus.com/effind05.jpg

patteeu
09-22-2012, 11:30 AM
If it's even worse when you see that his income has been mischaracterized due to fee conversions over the course of his career.

Even worse? Even worse than not bad at all? And you supposedly work in the financial industry? You've got to be kidding me.

patteeu
09-22-2012, 11:31 AM
Personally, I'd like to see his charitable contributions pre-2004 or so....before he started running for President. :hmmm:

It's in the original thread on this subject (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=264034).

patteeu
09-22-2012, 11:35 AM
Exactly.

But with that said, it is ridiculous that the money you earn, more opportunities exist for tax shelters.

It's a natural outgrowth of the progressive tax system. What makes financial sense for someone in the top marginal rate bracket (e.g. tax free municipal bonds) won't make financial sense for someone in a lower bracket. Even though a person in a lower bracket is allowed to invest in tax free munis, they can get a better aftertax return by investing in taxable bonds so there's no reason for them to afford themselves of this "shelter".

Furthermore, people in the top marginal rate bracket have a greater incentive to lobby Congress for tax breaks than someone who doesn't pay income tax at all or someone in a lower bracket.

Get rid of the progressive tax system and you get rid of both of these negatively perceived issues.

RINGLEADER
09-22-2012, 12:47 PM
14%....when many middle class and working class folks pay a higher percent? I think they'll try to find some way to spin that so it won't piss too many more people off...than it already has. Guess we'll see though.

I believe the middle class pays the same capital gains tax rate as Romney.

Pretty sure Romney would pay the same income tax rate on payroll income if he had any.

If you think higher capital gains taxes would be a good thing (even though the evidence suggests otherwise - something Obama refuses to acknowledge in the interest of "fairness"), then please explain to us all how that would benefit the greater economy.

Or are you saying that Obama's desire to tax this kind of income (which would cover the deficit for approximately 18 days in the span of 10 years) in the interest of "fairness" yields a greater benefit than the potential it has for slowing capital into the economy even further?

suzzer99
09-22-2012, 02:27 PM
:stupid: Here's the spin (aka the truth to which you are apparently oblivious):

1. Very few if any working class people pay a higher effective rate than that.

2. The majority of middle class taxpayers pay a lower effective rate too.

This graph only goes to 2005, but it shows a pretty clear picture of where each earning quintile falls on the effective tax rate scale. You don't start seeing an effective rate of 14% until you get to the top 20% of earners.

http://www.econdataus.com/effind05.jpg

Now show the top .1%.

chiefzilla1501
09-22-2012, 02:36 PM
Wanna bet the headlines and impact on Romney's chances at pulling an upset at this point don't sink though, eh?



Do your homework, and get back to me....because in terms of total tax burden, you are wrong.



"Earned" is a relative term; corrupted by the same GOP that now demonizes public servants---police, firemen, teachers, DMV employees, etc--they are all evil, EVIL, I tell you....because the pension and benefit system they were promised is being pulled-out from underneath them, at a point in their careers when "moving" or "changing careers" really is not a practical alternative. But, hey, as long as the rich keep getting richer, screw hard-working middle class folks who've played by the rules, yet....now, have the rug yanked out from under them, because, well, the rich need to be richer. Okay. Makes sense, to Dittoheads and "great Americans" I suppose.

Earned is not a relative term. If you build something that makes money, you earned it. Mitt had better advantages in terms of growing up with some money, but that's not what built Bain. What built Bain were good ideas and flawless execution. Hate the business model if you want. But don't pull the BS that he didn't earn that money.

And if you're upset about pulling pensions, then maybe you should take that up with the unions that negotiated ridiculously unsustainable long-term benefits for their workers. If the public sector unions really cared about their employees, they would negotiate contracts that are beneficial to both the taxpayer and the employee. But they're not doing that. And by "playing by the rules", I suppose you're talking about crooked union leaders that are squandering taxpayer money and giving backdoor hand jobs to politicians to earn better perks for their union base. Is that the kind of "play by the rules" system you're speaking about?

Trivers
09-22-2012, 02:39 PM
wow. When the 1st Quintie is not paying, but receiving -1 to -6% income tax, then you know the system is really broken.

suzzer99
09-22-2012, 02:44 PM
Yes because poor people are kicking so much ass in this country right now, we need to increase their tax burden. That will help the economy.

Trivers
09-22-2012, 02:54 PM
Yes because poor people are kicking so much ass in this country right now, we need to increase their tax burden. That will help the economy.

But isn't this income redistribution?

Is it right and ethical for the government to take from one person and give to another??

RINGLEADER
09-22-2012, 03:47 PM
Yes because poor people are kicking so much ass in this country right now, we need to increase their tax burden. That will help the economy.

Note to CP:

I'm broke.

Sincerely,

Uncle Sam

suzzer99
09-22-2012, 04:04 PM
But isn't this income redistribution?

Is it right and ethical for the government to take from one person and give to another??

Those people are all still paying payroll tax. It just looks like they're paying negative income tax because they're getting a refund based on some of the payroll taxes. Try to keep in mind these are working poor making almost nothing, and every cent of their disposable income goes towards necessities. Also try to keep in mind that every developed nation on earth does this.

In the last decade or so the wealthy have gotten much wealthier based largely on tax breaks. Meanwhile working poor and middle-class have slipped backward. Republicans answer to this? Raise taxes on the working poor.

Also just to clarify, someone who pays only payroll taxes still pays a higher percent of their income in taxes than Romney. And the Republican answer is to lower taxes for the Mitt Romney's and raise taxes for the people paying only payroll tax. It makes zero sense.

qabbaan
09-22-2012, 05:13 PM
the Republican answer is to ... raise taxes for the people paying only payroll tax.

Link

bkkcoh
09-22-2012, 06:09 PM
It seems if a person pays $5,400 in to the government in taxes and ends up getting $2,200 back a a refund is a lot different then someone who pays in $1,200 in taxes and as a results of EIC gets $5,000 back from the government.

Those who get more back from the government then they pay into the government aren't going to vote the people out of office that are for this type of 'buy-off'. No one in their right mind would want to cut their own throat in that situation.

I don't think the majority of the people if asked without any cameras around would say that is truly right. There needs to be a temporary safety net of some type for people when they fall on bad and hard times. But the cycle has to be broken somehow. With the lack of jobs in the US, that is going to be difficult.

patteeu
09-23-2012, 07:07 AM
Mittens can't even keep things straight in regards to his taxes. This guy is probably one of the most incompetent candidates to ever run for POTUS.

I guess she should drop out now since she is not qualified now.



He paid more in taxes that he had too AFTER he made that statement (which was retrospective) and precisely because people like you would call him a liar if his earlier estimates didn't match his actuals.

patteeu
09-23-2012, 07:41 AM
It seems if a person pays $5,400 in to the government in taxes and ends up getting $2,200 back a a refund is a lot different then someone who pays in $1,200 in taxes and as a results of EIC gets $5,000 back from the government.

Those who get more back from the government then they pay into the government aren't going to vote the people out of office that are for this type of 'buy-off'. No one in their right mind would want to cut their own throat in that situation.

I don't think the majority of the people if asked without any cameras around would say that is truly right. There needs to be a temporary safety net of some type for people when they fall on bad and hard times. But the cycle has to be broken somehow. With the lack of jobs in the US, that is going to be difficult.

I don't think that's completely true. I think there might be a small number of people in that position who recognize how dangerous that is for our country and who would vote against their own personal interests in order to serve the greater good. Kotter wouldn't do it, of course, and there are probably more Kotters than big-picture-thinkers in that group, but I believe a minority would be on the right side.

That said, no one in their right mind would not take full advantage of the system as long as it remains the way it is. It makes no sense to piss into the wind by sacrificing your own wellbeing while the system remains broken.

mlyonsd
09-23-2012, 07:47 AM
I see the jealous are still at it.

BigRedChief
09-23-2012, 08:19 AM
I see the jealous are still at it.I've said all along that as long as whatever Mitt did with his taxes was legal (and no one is insinuating otherwise), no biggie to me.

A gotcha political system has been out in place. Both sides have over 100 people working full time doing nothing but looking at video's. blog posts and anything that they can use to make the other side look bad. It's a natural progression in a partisan environment.

The bigger issue is the tax code. Everyone understands fairness. Maybe they have a difference in opinion as to what is "fair". But, I bet that the majority of Americans understand that its not fair that millionaires and billionaires pay a lower tax rate than the average American. On the flip side its not fair that some people pay no taxes. You fix both with a minimun tax.

patteeu
09-23-2012, 09:09 AM
I've said all along that as long as whatever Mitt did with his taxes was legal (and no one is insinuating otherwise), no biggie to me.

A gotcha political system has been out in place. Both sides have over 100 people working full time doing nothing but looking at video's. blog posts and anything that they can use to make the other side look bad. It's a natural progression in a partisan environment.

The bigger issue is the tax code. Everyone understands fairness. Maybe they have a difference in opinion as to what is "fair". But, I bet that the majority of Americans understand that its not fair that millionaires and billionaires pay a lower tax rate than the average American. On the flip side its not fair that some people pay no taxes. You fix both with a minimun tax.

:facepalm: They don't. What is this, are you trying to out-Kotter Kotter?

http://www.econdataus.com/effind05.jpg