Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Fact Check: Is Romney's tax rate really lower than yours? | Fox NewsPresident Obama's campaign, with a good dose of help from the media, is pushing a claim that millionaire Mitt Romney is taxed at a "lower rate" than someone making $50,000 a year.
The claim, though, is open to debate. It only holds up in a particular scenario in which both income and all payroll taxes are counted.
The president's campaign presumably is referring to Romney's release last week of his 2011 tax returns, which showed he paid an effective tax rate of 14.1 percent.
This revelation, as might be expected, fueled a wave of campaign stump speeches and videos. The latest was an Obama Web video blasting Romney's "strange take on tax fairness." It included clips of people accusing Romney of paying a lower rate than "average" Americans. An accompanying campaign email said: "Mitt Romney admitted he thinks it's fair that his $20 million income was taxed at a lower rate than someone making $50,000."
IRS data, though, shows that Romney's effective income tax rate -- that's what he pays as a percentage of his income once deductions and other benefits are factored in -- is actually far higher than what most Americans pay.
And it's certainly higher than what someone making $50,000 pays.
IRS data from 2010 shows someone making between $50,000 and $75,000 on average pays an effective rate of 7.8 percent. Even someone making between $100,000 and $200,000 pays a 12.1 percent rate -- also lower than Romney's.
So what is the Obama campaign referring to? There are a couple possibilities. The campaign likely is trying to make the point that Romney's income -- at least the huge chunk of it that is derived from investments -- is taxed at a 15 percent rate, while others who earn their money from a paycheck are taxed at marginal income rates going all the way up to 35 percent.
The latter percentage, though, comes down once deductions and exemptions are included. The Tax Foundation estimated in a report in January that Romney's rate in 2010 --which was also about 14 percent -- was higher than what 97 percent of Americans pay.
The math works out better for the Obama campaign's claims if all payroll taxes are included in the formula.
Since Romney earns most his income from investments and not from a paycheck, he doesn't have to pay much toward Social Security and Medicare taxes. But if both the employee and employer share of those taxes are included, according to a Tax Policy Center chart, the middle tier of earners would be paying a 15.5 percent effective rate. (As pointed out in an earlier report by FactCheck.org.)
That would be slightly higher than Romney's rate. The Obama campaign, asked about its latest Web video, told FoxNews.com "you can't ignore the payroll tax" considering how big of a hit that is for most middle-class families.
Fact Check: Is Romney's tax rate really lower than yours? | Fox NewsPresident Obama's campaign, with a good dose of help from the media, is pushing a claim that millionaire Mitt Romney is taxed at a "lower rate" than someone making $50,000 a year.
The claim, though, is open to debate. It only holds up in a particular scenario in which both income and all payroll taxes are counted.
The president's campaign presumably is referring to Romney's release last week of his 2011 tax returns, which showed he paid an effective tax rate of 14.1 percent.
This revelation, as might be expected, fueled a wave of campaign stump speeches and videos. The latest was an Obama Web video blasting Romney's "strange take on tax fairness." It included clips of people accusing Romney of paying a lower rate than "average" Americans. An accompanying campaign email said: "Mitt Romney admitted he thinks it's fair that his $20 million income was taxed at a lower rate than someone making $50,000."
IRS data, though, shows that Romney's effective income tax rate -- that's what he pays as a percentage of his income once deductions and other benefits are factored in -- is actually far higher than what most Americans pay.
And it's certainly higher than what someone making $50,000 pays.
IRS data from 2010 shows someone making between $50,000 and $75,000 on average pays an effective rate of 7.8 percent. Even someone making between $100,000 and $200,000 pays a 12.1 percent rate -- also lower than Romney's.
So what is the Obama campaign referring to? There are a couple possibilities. The campaign likely is trying to make the point that Romney's income -- at least the huge chunk of it that is derived from investments -- is taxed at a 15 percent rate, while others who earn their money from a paycheck are taxed at marginal income rates going all the way up to 35 percent.
The latter percentage, though, comes down once deductions and exemptions are included. The Tax Foundation estimated in a report in January that Romney's rate in 2010 --which was also about 14 percent -- was higher than what 97 percent of Americans pay.
The math works out better for the Obama campaign's claims if all payroll taxes are included in the formula.
Since Romney earns most his income from investments and not from a paycheck, he doesn't have to pay much toward Social Security and Medicare taxes. But if both the employee and employer share of those taxes are included, according to a Tax Policy Center chart, the middle tier of earners would be paying a 15.5 percent effective rate. (As pointed out in an earlier report by FactCheck.org.)
That would be slightly higher than Romney's rate. The Obama campaign, asked about its latest Web video, told FoxNews.com "you can't ignore the payroll tax" considering how big of a hit that is for most middle-class families.
So basically the article is saying is that Romney pays more of an "effective tax rate" than most Americans--and Obama had to add in payroll taxes to the equation--to make it look like Romney is paying much less than the average American. As we know investment income is not subject to payroll (social security/medicare taxes.)
Interesting
Fact Check: Is Romney's tax rate really lower than yours? | Fox NewsPresident Obama's campaign, with a good dose of help from the media, is pushing a claim that millionaire Mitt Romney is taxed at a "lower rate" than someone making $50,000 a year.
The claim, though, is open to debate. It only holds up in a particular scenario in which both income and all payroll taxes are counted.
The president's campaign presumably is referring to Romney's release last week of his 2011 tax returns, which showed he paid an effective tax rate of 14.1 percent.
This revelation, as might be expected, fueled a wave of campaign stump speeches and videos. The latest was an Obama Web video blasting Romney's "strange take on tax fairness." It included clips of people accusing Romney of paying a lower rate than "average" Americans. An accompanying campaign email said: "Mitt Romney admitted he thinks it's fair that his $20 million income was taxed at a lower rate than someone making $50,000."
IRS data, though, shows that Romney's effective income tax rate -- that's what he pays as a percentage of his income once deductions and other benefits are factored in -- is actually far higher than what most Americans pay.
And it's certainly higher than what someone making $50,000 pays.
IRS data from 2010 shows someone making between $50,000 and $75,000 on average pays an effective rate of 7.8 percent. Even someone making between $100,000 and $200,000 pays a 12.1 percent rate -- also lower than Romney's.
So what is the Obama campaign referring to? There are a couple possibilities. The campaign likely is trying to make the point that Romney's income -- at least the huge chunk of it that is derived from investments -- is taxed at a 15 percent rate, while others who earn their money from a paycheck are taxed at marginal income rates going all the way up to 35 percent.
The latter percentage, though, comes down once deductions and exemptions are included. The Tax Foundation estimated in a report in January that Romney's rate in 2010 --which was also about 14 percent -- was higher than what 97 percent of Americans pay.
The math works out better for the Obama campaign's claims if all payroll taxes are included in the formula.
Since Romney earns most his income from investments and not from a paycheck, he doesn't have to pay much toward Social Security and Medicare taxes. But if both the employee and employer share of those taxes are included, according to a Tax Policy Center chart, the middle tier of earners would be paying a 15.5 percent effective rate. (As pointed out in an earlier report by FactCheck.org.)
That would be slightly higher than Romney's rate. The Obama campaign, asked about its latest Web video, told FoxNews.com "you can't ignore the payroll tax" considering how big of a hit that is for most middle-class families.
So basically the article is saying is that Romney pays more of an "effective tax rate" than most Americans--and Obama had to add in payroll taxes to the equation--to make it look like Romney is paying much less than the average American. As we know investment income is not subject to payroll (social security/medicare taxes.)
Interesting
You have to account for payroll taxes also. Romney pays less than 3% in payroll taxes, if he pays any at all. Working Americans pay 15.3% if they earn under the SS cap of $106,800. Medicare taxes have no cap. And please don't try selling us on the idea that the employer pays half of those taxes. As an employer, I consider payroll taxes as a part of wages because they are due on the employee's earnings. If I didn't have to pay them, I would increase my employee's wages.
I paid over 30% in taxes. It is delusional to claim that I and people like me paid around 7.8%.
Fact Check: Is Romney's tax rate really lower than yours? | Fox News
So basically the article is saying is that Romney pays more of an "effective tax rate" than most Americans--and Obama had to add in payroll taxes to the equation--to make it look like Romney is paying much less than the average American. As we know investment income is not subject to payroll (social security/medicare taxes.)
Interesting
You have to account for payroll taxes also. Romney pays less than 3% in payroll taxes, if he pays any at all. Working Americans pay 15.3% if they earn under the SS cap of $106,800. Medicare taxes have no cap. And please don't try selling us on the idea that the employer pays half of those taxes. As an employer, I consider payroll taxes as a part of wages because they are due on the employee's earnings. If I didn't have to pay them, I would increase my employee's wages.
No it's not FAIR to add in payroll taxes. If you do you're talking about millions of Americans in this country who invest in 401K's for their retirement's--college educations--and millions of others who are seniors that would be required to pay payroll taxes on their dividend checks. These people--as Mitt Romney did--paid payroll taxes on their earned income to do so again would be called double taxation which is against US tax code.
Obama just threw in the earned income payroll tax--which is extremely misleading--in comparison to someone who earns most of their income through investments.
Says the person who constantly uses Think Progress, Media Matters, and the Huffington Post among other left wing partisan sites as a source. That truly makes your post funny beyond words."Fact Checking" by Fox News? I believe that's called an oxymoron. Holy shit, that's sooo funny...
Says the person who constantly uses Think Progress, Media Matters, and the Huffington Post among other left wing partisan sites as a source. That truly makes your post funny beyond words."Fact Checking" by Fox News? I believe that's called an oxymoron. Holy shit, that's sooo funny...
Says the person who constantly uses Think Progress, Media Matters, and the Huffington Post among other left wing partisan sites as a source. That truly makes your post funny beyond words."Fact Checking" by Fox News? I believe that's called an oxymoron. Holy shit, that's sooo funny...
It's not "who you use", but whether or not it's the "truth". I use Fox when they are telling the truth. They don't lie ALL the time. Just most of the time.
Fact Check: Is Romney's tax rate really lower than yours? | Fox NewsPresident Obama's campaign, with a good dose of help from the media, is pushing a claim that millionaire Mitt Romney is taxed at a "lower rate" than someone making $50,000 a year.
The claim, though, is open to debate. It only holds up in a particular scenario in which both income and all payroll taxes are counted.
The president's campaign presumably is referring to Romney's release last week of his 2011 tax returns, which showed he paid an effective tax rate of 14.1 percent.
This revelation, as might be expected, fueled a wave of campaign stump speeches and videos. The latest was an Obama Web video blasting Romney's "strange take on tax fairness." It included clips of people accusing Romney of paying a lower rate than "average" Americans. An accompanying campaign email said: "Mitt Romney admitted he thinks it's fair that his $20 million income was taxed at a lower rate than someone making $50,000."
IRS data, though, shows that Romney's effective income tax rate -- that's what he pays as a percentage of his income once deductions and other benefits are factored in -- is actually far higher than what most Americans pay.
And it's certainly higher than what someone making $50,000 pays.
IRS data from 2010 shows someone making between $50,000 and $75,000 on average pays an effective rate of 7.8 percent. Even someone making between $100,000 and $200,000 pays a 12.1 percent rate -- also lower than Romney's.
So what is the Obama campaign referring to? There are a couple possibilities. The campaign likely is trying to make the point that Romney's income -- at least the huge chunk of it that is derived from investments -- is taxed at a 15 percent rate, while others who earn their money from a paycheck are taxed at marginal income rates going all the way up to 35 percent.
The latter percentage, though, comes down once deductions and exemptions are included. The Tax Foundation estimated in a report in January that Romney's rate in 2010 --which was also about 14 percent -- was higher than what 97 percent of Americans pay.
The math works out better for the Obama campaign's claims if all payroll taxes are included in the formula.
Since Romney earns most his income from investments and not from a paycheck, he doesn't have to pay much toward Social Security and Medicare taxes. But if both the employee and employer share of those taxes are included, according to a Tax Policy Center chart, the middle tier of earners would be paying a 15.5 percent effective rate. (As pointed out in an earlier report by FactCheck.org.)
That would be slightly higher than Romney's rate. The Obama campaign, asked about its latest Web video, told FoxNews.com "you can't ignore the payroll tax" considering how big of a hit that is for most middle-class families.
So basically the article is saying is that Romney pays more of an "effective tax rate" than most Americans--and Obama had to add in payroll taxes to the equation--to make it look like Romney is paying much less than the average American. As we know investment income is not subject to payroll (social security/medicare taxes.)
Interesting
I paid over 30% in taxes. It is delusional to claim that I and people like me paid around 7.8%.
Mitt Romney is worth double the sum of the last eight presidents’ wealth, but he has paid one of the lowest tax rates. According to Joseph Thorndike at Tax Analysts, only President Richard Nixon paid a lower tax rate, at 6.1 percent, in the last 40 years.
I paid over 30% in taxes. It is delusional to claim that I and people like me paid around 7.8%.
