Romney Pay's 13.9% Effective Tax Rate

[DiamondDave]

But what you want is not "equal". That's been established.

No.. it is indeed equal.. it is not as subjectively 'fair' as you want it to be...

5% of every dollar, whether it is dollar 1 or dollar 1000000001 is indeed equal... every dollar is treated the same, and every person treated blindly the same no matter the income, race, ethnicity, sex, political leaning, marital status, sexual orientation, career choice, income origination, location, or whatever else..

But that's not good enough for a lib... it has to be pandering and subjective

Wrong, not equal. Peoples first dollars go towards life necessities while someones 1 millionth dollar does not. Taxing both of those dollars at the same rate only hurts the poor who are struggling for the necessities .

And that is subjective based on individual situation....

The first 10K to someone making 20K, but has no mortgage, rent or other expenses is subjectively worth less than someone making 20K who has these things... it is layer upon layer of subjectivity.... which is what got us in this mess in the first place

The value of a dollar is the value of a dollar... whether it is dollar 1 or dollar 1000001, it i s still a fucking dollar... what it is worth to YOU or Joe Blow should be irrelevant....

 

[Article 15]

So a progressive system to be fixed with another progressive system... fix taxing people differently with taxing people differently

Idiotic

your subjective 'pity' taking precedence over equal treatment

Nah.... I'll stick with all the positives and negatives that come with it, to have equal treatment

The current same dollar for dollar system is "equal". A flat tax rate on every dollar is "equal". A flax tax sans the first 20k is "equal".

The issue is what's "best" for our country, not what's equal.

By definition... and as shown many times... the current system is not equal.. and an alleged flat system with a floor (which is shown to be a disguised progressive system) is not equal...

But just keep believing that

The wealthy have the same low tax rate or tax exemption on the first dollars they earn that those who make less than them do. Nobody is given special treatment. I can agree that your system, on a dollar for dollar basis is equal. But you can't acknowledge that the same system with a first 20k exemption is equal as well because you aren't interested in an honest debate in what's best for the country. If that system had a clause where if one had an income about a certain amount that they would no longer be eligible for that exemption you would have a point. Since that's not the case, you don't.

For you, it's your way no matter who it hurts and yours would hurt a lot of folks.

This is why your system will never be implemented and you will bark at the moon over it for the rest of your life.

 

[AquaAthena]

Evil bastard.

Someone is missing the point. Guess who that is?

pretty much anyone who whines like a butt-fucked pig about Romney's taxes. He's no different than any other politician. He paid what he was legally required to, nothing more and nothing less. I do the same thing.

I wonder how many tax dollars Bill Clinton paid on his "speaking engagement" income?

Former president Bill Clinton enjoyed his most lucrative year ever on the speaking circuit in 2010, capping a decade of paid speaking events that has earned him $75.6 million since leaving office in 2001, according to a CNN analysis of federal financial records.

Clinton surpasses $75 million in speech income after lucrative 2010 – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

 

[RDD_1210]

No.. it is indeed equal.. it is not as subjectively 'fair' as you want it to be...

5% of every dollar, whether it is dollar 1 or dollar 1000000001 is indeed equal... every dollar is treated the same, and every person treated blindly the same no matter the income, race, ethnicity, sex, political leaning, marital status, sexual orientation, career choice, income origination, location, or whatever else..

But that's not good enough for a lib... it has to be pandering and subjective

Wrong, not equal. Peoples first dollars go towards life necessities while someones 1 millionth dollar does not. Taxing both of those dollars at the same rate only hurts the poor who are struggling for the necessities .

And that is subjective based on individual situation....

The first 10K to someone making 20K, but has no mortgage, rent or other expenses is subjectively worth less than someone making 20K who has these things... it is layer upon layer of subjectivity.... which is what got us in this mess in the first place

The value of a dollar is the value of a dollar... whether it is dollar 1 or dollar 1000001, it i s still a fucking dollar... what it is worth to YOU or Joe Blow should be irrelevant....

Food, shelter and health are not subjective needs. Just give up at this point if that's the best you can do. You ridiculous ideas have been proven to be.......well, ridiculous, yet again.

The system of taxing the dollars earned no matter who earns them is fair since it is blind to who is earning the money, but simply says you pay a sliding scale x% on each dollar earned, no matter who you are. Thats fair and doesn't punish the poor in the way you want to do.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The point is Romney is running to be President of the United States. It's not that he uses the tax code to his advantage, it is that he puts his funds in foreign banks which do not disclose anything. How do we know who or what his vast income supports?

If his $200,000,000 was placed in small banks around America it would provide ten times that amount to be loaned to American small business and prospective American home buyers.

Maybe that's chump change in the scheme of things, but leadership is not always doing what is best for the leader, mostly it is having a vision for the future and not asking others to do that which the leader would not do.

Romney's income isn't a product of his labor and one would expect as POTUS he would support others who, like him, have great wealth not derived from sweat. As a nation we are well on are way in destroying our democratic institutions and becoming a true plutocracy. IMHO we don't need a Plutocrat in the White House.

 

[Cammmpbell]

Good thing people like Mittens and Paris Hilton only pay HALF the tax rate that someone who goes to work every day, day in, day out for 40 years pays.

You got it.....I worked for the same company for 41 years and my total lifetime earnings was about $500,000. We lived modestly and educated all three of my children, two with masters degrees. While I was paying for the house and we were tithing to the church we were always tight but after my various homes were paid off and I quit the church when I was about sixty years old we're still paying at a higher rate than Romney but we don't have to worry about anything.

You earned 12,500/yr?

Began as paper boy in 1944...I was nine years old. Pay $3.60 per week

Began to mow lawns in 1946. I was eleven years old. Averaged $20 per week during summers

Continued both papers and mowing and began to buy my own clothes when I was fourteen
went in debt for my first car before I was able to legally drive it

Began working at a full service garage when I was barely sixteen

Worked 40 hrs junior and senior year HS and 60 hours during summers...$0.60 per hour

Hired at a Uranium processing plant in 1952...rotating shift...Pay $1.71 per hour

Worked five years and was drafted into the army infantry Pay...$73 per month

Returned in 1959 and continued my job as process operator pay $3.10 per hour
The company gave me seniority credit for the time I was in the army, continued in national guards

I play keyboards and piano so I was drawing checks from three places when my kids were young. My regular job, the national guards and playing when I could with small bands and combos. Discharged from guards in 1964 as a tank commander on an M-48 Medium Patton Tank

Was laid off because of seniority in February 1961 but relocated to the data processing center where they were installing a new $2.5 million main frame computer. Continued to work rotating shift work. Took a $200 a month cut...about 30%.

Worked about 18 months, learned to program in C T and Fortran 1 and made shift supervisor. With overtime about $700 a month.

In 1968 was set up to computer operations supervisor over three shifts and 40 employees. Pay...approximately $800 a month but worked straight days and no overtime

Our center had $66 million of computing and telecommunications equipment installed on 18,000 sq. ft. of floating floor. Our power bill to TVA was over half a million dollars per year and the center required over 400 tons of refrigeration. We installed Oak Ridge's first super computer...the Cray XMP 2/4. We later upgraded to a 4.

25 years later I retired after 41 years with the same company. Good pension and at age 62 began to draw social security...about $48,000 per year total. My wife has a similar career path and between the two of us and her part time job we make about $75,000 per year.

 

[Skull Pilot]

The point is Romney is running to be President of the United States. It's not that he uses the tax code to his advantage, it is that he puts his funds in foreign banks which do not disclose anything. How do we know who or what his vast income supports?

If his $200,000,000 was placed in small banks around America it would provide ten times that amount to be loaned to American small business and prospective American home buyers.

Maybe that's chump change in the scheme of things, but leadership is not always doing what is best for the leader, mostly it is having a vision for the future and not asking others to do that which the leader would not do.

Romney's income isn't a product of his labor and one would expect as POTUS he would support others who, like him, have great wealth not derived from sweat. As a nation we are well on are way in destroying our democratic institutions and becoming a true plutocracy. IMHO we don't need a Plutocrat in the White House.

Will you say the same about JFK?

When he was elected the Kennedy family was in the top 5 richest in the country.

His money certainly wasn't a product of his labor either.

 

[DiamondDave]

The current same dollar for dollar system is "equal". A flat tax rate on every dollar is "equal". A flax tax sans the first 20k is "equal".

The issue is what's "best" for our country, not what's equal.

By definition... and as shown many times... the current system is not equal.. and an alleged flat system with a floor (which is shown to be a disguised progressive system) is not equal...

But just keep believing that

The wealthy have the same low tax rate or tax exemption on the first dollars they earn that those who make less than them do. Nobody is given special treatment. I can agree that your system, on a dollar for dollar basis is equal. But you can't acknowledge that the same system with a first 20k exemption is equal as well because you aren't interested in an honest debate in what's best for the country. If that system had a clause where if one had an income about a certain amount that they would no longer be eligible for that exemption you would have a point. Since that's not the case, you don't.

For you, it's your way no matter who it hurts and yours would hurt a lot of folks.

This is why your system will never be implemented and you will bark at the moon over it for the rest of your life.

Subjectively best for the country.... and it's the subjectivity that has led us down the path of destruction...

The floor system is not equal... or do I have to break down the percentages again??

A flat sales tax is equal.. blind to situation.. no matter the situation of the person making the purchase.... a progressive system is by definition not equal

What next, more subjective bullshit and subsequent regulation to make it that people making 20K pay less for milk than people making 100K because those making 100K can afford it better according to some subjective criteria??

The reason people battle a true flat tax is because of this bullshit pandering.... people scream for equality in treatment, when it does not come with a negative... well, freedom and equality come with both positives and negatives.... and what they are seen as is also a subjective perception... but with the other systems, you actually have nothing because you don't even have true blind equality... you have levels of subjective policy reinforced by levels of subjective perception reinforced by levels of subjective reasoning.... and it has only served to play people against each other in a war of envy, jealousy, greed, and political scamming and power...

Sorry... I think that is more detrimental than having everyone with an equal stake in the game

 

[Wry Catcher]

Q. Who funds the Super PAC which is supporting Romney?


A. ?

 

[Skull Pilot]

Q. Who funds the Super PAC which is supporting Romney?


A. ?

Who funds SuperPacs supporting Obama?

 

[SFC Ollie]

So Romney pays over $6 million in taxes and that isn't enough.............

My effective tax rate for 2011 turns out to be 1.9%

I have no complaints................... About mine or his..............

 

[DiamondDave]

Wrong, not equal. Peoples first dollars go towards life necessities while someones 1 millionth dollar does not. Taxing both of those dollars at the same rate only hurts the poor who are struggling for the necessities .

And that is subjective based on individual situation....

The first 10K to someone making 20K, but has no mortgage, rent or other expenses is subjectively worth less than someone making 20K who has these things... it is layer upon layer of subjectivity.... which is what got us in this mess in the first place

The value of a dollar is the value of a dollar... whether it is dollar 1 or dollar 1000001, it i s still a fucking dollar... what it is worth to YOU or Joe Blow should be irrelevant....

Food, shelter and health are not subjective needs. Just give up at this point if that's the best you can do. You ridiculous ideas have been proven to be.......well, ridiculous, yet again.

The system of taxing the dollars earned no matter who earns them is fair since it is blind to who is earning the money, but simply says you pay a sliding scale x% on each dollar earned, no matter who you are. Thats fair and doesn't punish the poor in the way you want to do.

The individual situations are indeed subjective in perception of need... 10K to a person who paid off their house is not viewed the same as someone who has a $700 mortgage... 10K to a person in NYC is not viewed the same as to a person in Bald Knob Arkansas.... You start bringing subjectivity into it, and all hell breaks loose.. as we see today in our current fucked up system....

Your ridiculous ideas have been proven to be detrimental... yet you call for more of them.. insanity

And again, idiot... the sliding or floor scale just hides the progressive system... as I have shown time and time and time and time again.... Your subjective label of 'fair' does not change mathematical fact

 

[RDD_1210]

By definition... and as shown many times... the current system is not equal.. and an alleged flat system with a floor (which is shown to be a disguised progressive system) is not equal...

But just keep believing that

The wealthy have the same low tax rate or tax exemption on the first dollars they earn that those who make less than them do. Nobody is given special treatment. I can agree that your system, on a dollar for dollar basis is equal. But you can't acknowledge that the same system with a first 20k exemption is equal as well because you aren't interested in an honest debate in what's best for the country. If that system had a clause where if one had an income about a certain amount that they would no longer be eligible for that exemption you would have a point. Since that's not the case, you don't.

For you, it's your way no matter who it hurts and yours would hurt a lot of folks.

This is why your system will never be implemented and you will bark at the moon over it for the rest of your life.

Subjectively best for the country.... and it's the subjectivity that has led us down the path of destruction...

The floor system is not equal... or do I have to break down the percentages again??

A flat sales tax is equal.. blind to situation.. no matter the situation of the person making the purchase.... a progressive system is by definition not equal

What next, more subjective bullshit and subsequent regulation to make it that people making 20K pay less for milk than people making 100K because those making 100K can afford it better according to some subjective criteria??

The reason people battle a true flat tax is because of this bullshit pandering.... people scream for equality in treatment, when it does not come with a negative... well, freedom and equality come with both positives and negatives.... and what they are seen as is also a subjective perception... but with the other systems, you actually have nothing because you don't even have true blind equality... you have levels of subjective policy reinforced by levels of subjective perception reinforced by levels of subjective reasoning.... and it has only served to play people against each other in a war of envy, jealousy, greed, and political scamming and power...

Sorry... I think that is more detrimental than having everyone with an equal stake in the game

What a sad existence you must lead if you are that jealous of the poor. A true shame.

 

[Article 15]

By definition... and as shown many times... the current system is not equal.. and an alleged flat system with a floor (which is shown to be a disguised progressive system) is not equal...

But just keep believing that

The wealthy have the same low tax rate or tax exemption on the first dollars they earn that those who make less than them do. Nobody is given special treatment. I can agree that your system, on a dollar for dollar basis is equal. But you can't acknowledge that the same system with a first 20k exemption is equal as well because you aren't interested in an honest debate in what's best for the country. If that system had a clause where if one had an income about a certain amount that they would no longer be eligible for that exemption you would have a point. Since that's not the case, you don't.

For you, it's your way no matter who it hurts and yours would hurt a lot of folks.

This is why your system will never be implemented and you will bark at the moon over it for the rest of your life.

Subjectively best for the country.... and it's the subjectivity that has led us down the path of destruction...

The floor system is not equal... or do I have to break down the percentages again??

A flat sales tax is equal.. blind to situation.. no matter the situation of the person making the purchase.... a progressive system is by definition not equal

What next, more subjective bullshit and subsequent regulation to make it that people making 20K pay less for milk than people making 100K because those making 100K can afford it better according to some subjective criteria??

The reason people battle a true flat tax is because of this bullshit pandering.... people scream for equality in treatment, when it does not come with a negative... well, freedom and equality come with both positives and negatives.... and what they are seen as is also a subjective perception... but with the other systems, you actually have nothing because you don't even have true blind equality... you have levels of subjective policy reinforced by levels of subjective perception reinforced by levels of subjective reasoning.... and it has only served to play people against each other in a war of envy, jealousy, greed, and political scamming and power...

Sorry... I think that is more detrimental than having everyone with an equal stake in the game

When you have to trot out slippery slope fallacies and fail to acknowledge the realities of how your system would effect the lesser earners in the country your argument is lost.

Thankfully, you are part of a very small minority and your system will never be put in place.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

The point is Romney is running to be President of the United States. It's not that he uses the tax code to his advantage, it is that he puts his funds in foreign banks which do not disclose anything. How do we know who or what his vast income supports?

If his $200,000,000 was placed in small banks around America it would provide ten times that amount to be loaned to American small business and prospective American home buyers.

Maybe that's chump change in the scheme of things, but leadership is not always doing what is best for the leader, mostly it is having a vision for the future and not asking others to do that which the leader would not do.

Romney's income isn't a product of his labor and one would expect as POTUS he would support others who, like him, have great wealth not derived from sweat. As a nation we are well on are way in destroying our democratic institutions and becoming a true plutocracy. IMHO we don't need a Plutocrat in the White House.

Will you say the same about JFK?

When he was elected the Kennedy family was in the top 5 richest in the country.

His money certainly wasn't a product of his labor either.

Actually, most of the Kennedy fortunes were acquired through criminal activity.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The point is Romney is running to be President of the United States. It's not that he uses the tax code to his advantage, it is that he puts his funds in foreign banks which do not disclose anything. How do we know who or what his vast income supports?

If his $200,000,000 was placed in small banks around America it would provide ten times that amount to be loaned to American small business and prospective American home buyers.

Maybe that's chump change in the scheme of things, but leadership is not always doing what is best for the leader, mostly it is having a vision for the future and not asking others to do that which the leader would not do.

Romney's income isn't a product of his labor and one would expect as POTUS he would support others who, like him, have great wealth not derived from sweat. As a nation we are well on are way in destroying our democratic institutions and becoming a true plutocracy. IMHO we don't need a Plutocrat in the White House.

Will you say the same about JFK?

When he was elected the Kennedy family was in the top 5 richest in the country.

His money certainly wasn't a product of his labor either.

True. However, President Kennedy is not running for POTUS today and Romney is. Other than coming from wealth what other similarities are there between the two?

 

[Skull Pilot]

The point is Romney is running to be President of the United States. It's not that he uses the tax code to his advantage, it is that he puts his funds in foreign banks which do not disclose anything. How do we know who or what his vast income supports?

If his $200,000,000 was placed in small banks around America it would provide ten times that amount to be loaned to American small business and prospective American home buyers.

Maybe that's chump change in the scheme of things, but leadership is not always doing what is best for the leader, mostly it is having a vision for the future and not asking others to do that which the leader would not do.

Romney's income isn't a product of his labor and one would expect as POTUS he would support others who, like him, have great wealth not derived from sweat. As a nation we are well on are way in destroying our democratic institutions and becoming a true plutocracy. IMHO we don't need a Plutocrat in the White House.

Will you say the same about JFK?

When he was elected the Kennedy family was in the top 5 richest in the country.

His money certainly wasn't a product of his labor either.

True. However, President Kennedy is not running for POTUS today and Romney is. Other than coming from wealth what other similarities are there between the two?

I don't think Kennedy released his tax forms do you?

I think it's a red herring to make a big deal over tax returns.

So what if Romney is filthy rich, it has absolutely no bearing on what kind of president he would make. (not that I think he'd make a good one. after all I lived in MA when he was governor)

I think you should worry more about how senators and congressmen who only make 160K a year become multi millionaires after just a few terms in elected office than what a private citizen earns.

 

[DiamondDave]

The wealthy have the same low tax rate or tax exemption on the first dollars they earn that those who make less than them do. Nobody is given special treatment. I can agree that your system, on a dollar for dollar basis is equal. But you can't acknowledge that the same system with a first 20k exemption is equal as well because you aren't interested in an honest debate in what's best for the country. If that system had a clause where if one had an income about a certain amount that they would no longer be eligible for that exemption you would have a point. Since that's not the case, you don't.

For you, it's your way no matter who it hurts and yours would hurt a lot of folks.

This is why your system will never be implemented and you will bark at the moon over it for the rest of your life.

Subjectively best for the country.... and it's the subjectivity that has led us down the path of destruction...

The floor system is not equal... or do I have to break down the percentages again??

A flat sales tax is equal.. blind to situation.. no matter the situation of the person making the purchase.... a progressive system is by definition not equal

What next, more subjective bullshit and subsequent regulation to make it that people making 20K pay less for milk than people making 100K because those making 100K can afford it better according to some subjective criteria??

The reason people battle a true flat tax is because of this bullshit pandering.... people scream for equality in treatment, when it does not come with a negative... well, freedom and equality come with both positives and negatives.... and what they are seen as is also a subjective perception... but with the other systems, you actually have nothing because you don't even have true blind equality... you have levels of subjective policy reinforced by levels of subjective perception reinforced by levels of subjective reasoning.... and it has only served to play people against each other in a war of envy, jealousy, greed, and political scamming and power...

Sorry... I think that is more detrimental than having everyone with an equal stake in the game

What a sad existence you must lead if you are that jealous of the poor. A true shame.

jealous?? Nope.... tired of the hypocritical call for 'equality' only when it benefits you... and the disguising of unequal treatment of others and calling it equal, when it benefits you... all in the name of subjective 'fairness'

 

[Article 15]

tired of the hypocritical call for 'equality' only when it benefits you

Is it your position that someone who makes a lot of money wouldn't benefit from the first 20k of their income being exempt from a flat tax?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Q. Who funds the Super PAC which is supporting Romney?


A. ?

Who funds SuperPacs supporting Obama?

No one knows, that's the point of why CU v. FEC threatens our democratic institutions.

I do wonder though, if Romney's charatable deductions help fund the Super PAC which attacked Gingrich?