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.
Romney was robbed of 35% of what was coming to him before he ever saw it. Or more like 40%.
Then they taxed the rest 15%....so it got taxed twice.
Throw any personal income tax on there and he is likely paying 50 to 60% overall.
Warren Buffet can suck on that.
it didn't get taxed 2 times.
Example:
He earns 1,000,000. Gets taxed at 35% and is left with 650,000
He then invests the 650,000 and makes 350,000 on it...he only pays taxes, at 15%, on the 350,000.
People have that wrong too...the "double taxed" thing just isn't, just like the "romney pays less than everyone else" just isn't.
No he puts some money into a company. Say he owns 50%. The company makes 2,000,000 pre-tax. So he is going to get 1,000,000. Now the company gets hit with 35% taxes. So he only gets 650,000 which he has to call capital gains. So he pays another 15% of the 650 K. And if he invests the rest in the "stock market", his stock growth will only cost him 15%, but if he is getting dividends on which he will pay 15%, those dividents are 35% less than what they were pre-tax.
Obama and romney pay the same tax rate on their capital gains, 15%.
Obama is a multi-millionair and makes millions each year just like ronmey.
The rich don't pay taxes at a lower rate at all. Romney, Obama, Me with 5 figures, and everyone in-between pay the same exact cap gains rate.
I don't understand your point. Why do you keep repeating this?
Because people keep pointing to what romney pays on his cap gains and saying he pays less than other people.
Romney was robbed of 35% of what was coming to him before he ever saw it. Or more like 40%.
Then they taxed the rest 15%....so it got taxed twice.
Throw any personal income tax on there and he is likely paying 50 to 60% overall.
Warren Buffet can suck on that.
So are you playing semantics games or do you actually understand that when people complain about him paying less, it's his overall effective rate....which is made lower because of the low capital gains tax. He's not doing anything wrong, he is making use of the system, which many have argued is skewed to help the rich.
So are you playing semantics games or do you actually understand that when people complain about him paying less, it's his overall effective rate....which is made lower because of the low capital gains tax. He's not doing anything wrong, he is making use of the system, which many have argued is skewed to help the rich.
Those investments are what create every job in this country, including government jobs since those jobs are provided with money taken from producers. So...you tax the rich at a higher rate and a bunch of the rest of you get laid off. And that's how you unskew the system to stop helping the rich. You are fundamentally ignorant about how economies work.
They're not hiring because they don't need to hire.
Do you expect businesses to hire people they don't need?
Never mind that's a stupid question to ask a dimwitcrap, of course you expect businesses to hire people they don't need.
They're not hiring because they don't need to hire.
Do you expect businesses to hire people they don't need?
Never mind that's a stupid question to ask a dimwitcrap, of course you expect businesses to hire people they don't need.
Right and business don't need employees when people aren't purchasing products and services. So if we enable people to increase their purchasing power we start up the hiring cycle.
They're not hiring because they don't need to hire.
Do you expect businesses to hire people they don't need?
Never mind that's a stupid question to ask a dimwitcrap, of course you expect businesses to hire people they don't need.
Right and business don't need employees when people aren't purchasing products and services. So if we enable people to increase their purchasing power we start up the hiring cycle.
They're not hiring because they don't need to hire.
Do you expect businesses to hire people they don't need?
Never mind that's a stupid question to ask a dimwitcrap, of course you expect businesses to hire people they don't need.
Right and business don't need employees when people aren't purchasing products and services. So if we enable people to increase their purchasing power we start up the hiring cycle.
You can purchase until your face turns blue, and it's not going to create a single new job unless someone has the investment capital to start a business and produce the supply to meet your demand. Purchasing creates the opportunity for jobs; investment actually creates the jobs.
I don't understand your point. Why do you keep repeating this?
Because people keep pointing to what romney pays on his cap gains and saying he pays less than other people.
So are you playing semantics games or do you actually understand that when people complain about him paying less, it's his overall effective rate....which is made lower because of the low capital gains tax. He's not doing anything wrong, he is making use of the system, which many have argued is skewed to help the rich.
Romney was robbed of 35% of what was coming to him before he ever saw it. Or more like 40%.
Then they taxed the rest 15%....so it got taxed twice.
Throw any personal income tax on there and he is likely paying 50 to 60% overall.
Warren Buffet can suck on that.
Must be nice to just pick numbers out of the air and pretend like you know what you're talking about. Taxed twice. lol. As soon as you said that, all your credibility went out the window.
Because people keep pointing to what romney pays on his cap gains and saying he pays less than other people.
So are you playing semantics games or do you actually understand that when people complain about him paying less, it's his overall effective rate....which is made lower because of the low capital gains tax. He's not doing anything wrong, he is making use of the system, which many have argued is skewed to help the rich.
But people are comparing his effective rate to other people's actual rate. Compare it to everyone's effective rate and romney pays more than well over half of all americans.
I'm not playing semantics, I'm just trying to keep the truth in the light here.
