Romney Pay's 13.9% Effective Tax Rate

[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

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.

Unfortunately, you and those like you have pulled the wool over the eyes of people for too long... pandering and placing person against person in a class warfare struggle.. that only benefits the ever growing government leviathan and career politicians who buy votes with this system of envy and up-upmanship

Again... your subjective view of personal effect on persons skews your judgement... the reality is that freedom and equality come with positives and negatives... but you still, in the end, have equality... in your subjective dream world, you only have positives based on the power of who is being pandered to, negatives thrown upon those you vilify with your subjective bullshit, and you have no true blind equality

 

[DiamondDave]

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?

I do not care the personal situation of whatever person... what 20K means to me is subjective... what it means to you in my situation is subjective...

Fuck this goddamn subjectivity... it is what got us in trouble in the first place... and keeps the citizenry slave to the ever growing leviathan of all encompassing government

 

[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?

I do not care the personal situation of whatever person... what 20K means to me is subjective... what it means to you in my situation is subjective...

Fuck this goddamn subjectivity... it is what got us in trouble in the first place... and keeps the citizenry slave to the ever growing leviathan of all encompassing government

Is it your contention that exempting the first 20k earned will benefit one person more than another? If so, who?

 

[Lovebears65]

Why not get your facts straight. First his income is Capital gains which is investments. Which also means he already paid taxes on this to begin with and he is doubled taxed on the same money. He also gives 15 percent in charity so he is paying out 30 percent of his income. Do you give to charities or just take from them

 

[Wry Catcher]

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.

I don't worry about any of this, as a matter of fact we have become a plutocracy, evidenced by the fact that most members of the Congress are millionaires.

We don't need a plutocrat in the White House. Obama was a community organizer; Romney has been for at least a decade a 'coupon clipper'.

"A Republic, if you can keep it"; we have not.

 

[DiamondDave]

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?

I do not care the personal situation of whatever person... what 20K means to me is subjective... what it means to you in my situation is subjective...

Fuck this goddamn subjectivity... it is what got us in trouble in the first place... and keeps the citizenry slave to the ever growing leviathan of all encompassing government

Is it your contention that exempting the first 20k earned will benefit one person more than another? If so, who?

It is subjectively dependent on your individual situation on how that 20K is 'worth more'

And as shown by the percentages, over and over and over and over and over and over again... it creates a disguised progressive system that treats persons and their subsequent income differently based on income

Do you want the percentages YET AGAIN to show you this? I only ask because I tire of it because you simply ignore it later on, every time it is shown

 

[Article 15]

I do not care the personal situation of whatever person... what 20K means to me is subjective... what it means to you in my situation is subjective...

Fuck this goddamn subjectivity... it is what got us in trouble in the first place... and keeps the citizenry slave to the ever growing leviathan of all encompassing government

Is it your contention that exempting the first 20k earned will benefit one person more than another? If so, who?

It is subjectively dependent on your individual situation on how that 20K is 'worth more'

And as shown by the percentages, over and over and over and over and over and over again... it creates a disguised progressive system that treats persons and their subsequent income differently based on income

Do you want the percentages YET AGAIN to show you this? I only ask because I tire of it because you simply ignore it later on, every time it is shown

I want you answer a very direct question, that's what I want:

Is it your contention that exempting the first 20k earned will benefit one person more than another? If so, who?

 

[gallantwarrior]

Yes, what Romney is doing is perfectly legal. It's not illegal to have your money in Swiss Bank accounts or to have your business be a PO Box in the Caymen Islands...but it does look really bad for the person who wants to be President of the United States to do all these things, doncha think?

I'm paying double what he does in taxes, plus because of the Defense of Marriage Act, which he supports, I pay more taxes than other married couples across the US.

Good old Mittens...representing the 1% well.

Do you mean you pay twice as much in taxes than he does? Or do you pay twice the percentage based on your earnings?

 

[DiamondDave]

Is it your contention that exempting the first 20k earned will benefit one person more than another? If so, who?

It is subjectively dependent on your individual situation on how that 20K is 'worth more'

And as shown by the percentages, over and over and over and over and over and over again... it creates a disguised progressive system that treats persons and their subsequent income differently based on income

Do you want the percentages YET AGAIN to show you this? I only ask because I tire of it because you simply ignore it later on, every time it is shown

I want you answer a very direct question, that's what I want:

Is it your contention that exempting the first 20k earned will benefit one person more than another? If so, who?

It benefits person A making 18K more than it benefits person B making 23K.. It benefits person C making 25K and expenses more than person D making 25K and no living expenses... It benefits person E making 30K in City X than it does person F in Rural area Y.... It benefits person G making 40K more than it benefits person H making 10MIL.... and that is all based on situations and subjective criteria... hence why I make no argument of fairness.... only the argument of true absolutely blind equality without exemption or loophole, for eliminating SUBJECTIVITY...

The subjective system opens the door for more and more battles over the subjectivity... hey, people making 5K over the 'floor' then wish to vote in someone who will raise the floor... with the floor loophole persons will wish to pander for more loopholes for X deduction or Y loophole for Z situation... and it gets us right back to the same bullshit, just via a different path... and it is all only benefiting 1 simple thing... more government (size, regulation, power, and pandering)... people more worried about group X than about their own situations...

 

[Cammmpbell]

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 suspect PT-109 won't get into the picture.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Why not get your facts straight. First his income is Capital gains which is investments. Which also means he already paid taxes on this to begin with and he is doubled taxed on the same money. He also gives 15 percent in charity so he is paying out 30 percent of his income. Do you give to charities or just take from them

No he is not 'double taxed' on the same money. The capital gains from any given year that are taxable are new gains. They don't tax the old money over again.

This kind of stupidity on this board really ought to come to a halt. NOW!!!!!!

 

[gallantwarrior]

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.

His net worth is in excess of $250,000,000. His daddy owned the Nash automobile company. Anybody who earns less than $100,000 a year and votes for pricks like that is a little bit phuckin stupid. What the hell has he ever done except manipulate his inheiritance

Do you have a point? I'm not seeing the problem here. How many phuckin stupid idiots earning less than $100,000 annually voted for your boy, Obama? He's not exactly poverty-stricken. At least we know where Romney's money came from, you can't say the same for you shady Chicago thug.

 

[Article 15]

Is it your contention that exempting the first 20k earned will benefit one person more than another? If so, who?

It is subjectively dependent on your individual situation on how that 20K is 'worth more'

And as shown by the percentages, over and over and over and over and over and over again... it creates a disguised progressive system that treats persons and their subsequent income differently based on income

Do you want the percentages YET AGAIN to show you this? I only ask because I tire of it because you simply ignore it later on, every time it is shown

I want you answer a very direct question, that's what I want:

Is it your contention that exempting the first 20k earned will benefit one person more than another? If so, who?

Dave won't answer this. At least directly he won't and here's why:

What Dave is arguing is that he is against exempting the first 20k and applying a flax because it will disproportionately benefit the poor and lower income earners because that 20k represents a greater portion of their overall income. The problem (and the crux of his dodge) is that by saying this outright and in no uncertain terms, he must also own up to the reality that applying that tax to the first 20k instead of exempting it, the flat tax will also disproportionately hurt the poor and lower income earners.

Edit to add: I see he played the same old song and dance while I was typing this so the post still applies.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Questing, Would it be legal or ethical for a wealthy candidate to donate to his church, if the church in turn donates to a super PAC which supports him?

Since CU v FEC allows for anonymity, we will never know unless someone in the know has evidence and blows a whistle.

Here's a question for you. Would it be legal or ethical (not mentioning moral here) for a wealthy incumbent to funnel taxpayer funds into various special interest groups (unions, environmentalists, other social-engineering types) that in turn contribute heavily to his campaign?

 

[g5000]

I think it is hilarious Newt Gingrich is playing the class warfare card. What a douche.

The funniest part of all? Under Newt's tax plan, Romney would pay ZERO taxes!

Yeah! Newt wants NO capital gains taxes.

So you have to ask yourself exactly why Newt is fucking whining about Romney's taxes, eh?

Just all part of the full metal jacketed hypocrite package.

 

[Article 15]

It is subjectively dependent on your individual situation on how that 20K is 'worth more'

And as shown by the percentages, over and over and over and over and over and over again... it creates a disguised progressive system that treats persons and their subsequent income differently based on income

Do you want the percentages YET AGAIN to show you this? I only ask because I tire of it because you simply ignore it later on, every time it is shown

I want you answer a very direct question, that's what I want:

Is it your contention that exempting the first 20k earned will benefit one person more than another? If so, who?

It benefits person A making 18K more than it benefits person B making 23K.. It benefits person C making 25K and expenses more than person D making 25K and no living expenses... It benefits person E making 30K in City X than it does person F in Rural area Y.... It benefits person G making 40K more than it benefits person H making 10MIL.... and that is all based on situations and subjective criteria... hence why I make no argument of fairness.... only the argument of true absolutely blind equality without exemption or loophole, for eliminating SUBJECTIVITY...

The subjective system opens the door for more and more battles over the subjectivity... hey, people making 5K over the 'floor' then wish to vote in someone who will raise the floor... with the floor loophole persons will wish to pander for more loopholes for X deduction or Y loophole for Z situation... and it gets us right back to the same bullshit, just via a different path... and it is all only benefiting 1 simple thing... more government (size, regulation, power, and pandering)... people more worried about group X than about their own situations...

And yet, they all still get the same first 20k exemption. Nuttin' subjective about it.

 

[gallantwarrior]

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.

Neither does Romney.

 

[Decepticon]

Why not get your facts straight. First his income is Capital gains which is investments. Which also means he already paid taxes on this to begin with and he is doubled taxed on the same money. He also gives 15 percent in charity so he is paying out 30 percent of his income. Do you give to charities or just take from them

I pay close to 30% just in taxes?
Why does someone like Paris Hilton get to sit around the pool earning money on her capital gains, get a better tax rate than someone who goes to a job, day in, day out for 40 years and actually PRODUCE a good or service?

Seems to me that people who earn middle income wages spend more of their income on creating jobs (at the grocery store, at the auto repair store, at the clothing store) than rich folks do. So giving more money to middle class people makes more sense than redistributing it to the upper crust which is what has happened since the 80's.

 

[Lovebears65]

Why not get your facts straight. First his income is Capital gains which is investments. Which also means he already paid taxes on this to begin with and he is doubled taxed on the same money. He also gives 15 percent in charity so he is paying out 30 percent of his income. Do you give to charities or just take from them

I pay close to 30% just in taxes?
Why does someone like Paris Hilton get to sit around the pool earning money on her capital gains, get a better tax rate than someone who goes to a job, day in, day out for 40 years and actually PRODUCE a good or service?

Seems to me that people who earn middle income wages spend more of their income on creating jobs (at the grocery store, at the auto repair store, at the clothing store) than rich folks do. So giving more money to middle class people makes more sense than redistributing it to the upper crust which is what has happened since the 80's.

If you pay 30% you have to make at least 500K a year.. So your in the 1% .. 87% of the people only pay 15% in federal income tax

 

[g5000]

Why does someone like Paris Hilton get to sit around the pool earning money on her capital gains, get a better tax rate than someone who goes to a job, day in, day out for 40 years and actually PRODUCE a good or service?

Hasty generalization fallacy.