Romney's Taxes

[Danzig]

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...ing_them_.html


“I don't pay more than are legally due and frankly if I had paid more than are legally due I don't think I'd be qualified to become president. I'd think people would want me to follow the law and pay only what the tax code requires.”

By his own standard, then, he is not qualified to become president. But as much as it reveals the absurdities of Mitt Romney, his voluntary overpayment underscores the absurdities of the current tax system. Romney owes so little because of the tax code’s favoritism toward the rich. Whereas the top rate on salary, wages, and tips is 35 percent, the top rate on interest, dividends, and long-term capital gains is only 15 percent. This is economically inefficient, because it encourages businesses and individuals to structure their affairs to take advantage of the differential. It is also instinctively unfair, because it privileges a hedge-fund manager’s carried interest over a factory worker’s wages.

[Thepaindispenser]

Originally Posted by Riot

I didn't say that, fool. I said the opposite. In fact, I used the word "generous" to describe their charitable deductions.

If you can't read, stop trying to comment.

The Romney's charitable deductions are not the issue here.

I read it correctly, you repeated one of the Democrats spins that Romney purposely gave less to charity to keep his tax rate above 13%.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Thepaindispenser

I read it correctly, you repeated one of the Democrats spins that Romney purposely gave less to charity to keep his tax rate above 13%.

Is that why the Clintons took used underwear (Willy's) as a deduction and the Gore's reason for donating less than 1% like Obama and Biden?

Support for America's waste! Fukk charity!

[Dahoss]

I'm hoping one of the smarter members here can explain something to me about Romney's taxes.

How is Romney going to respond when the democrats bring up the fact that Romney in fact paid a lower effective tax rate than Obama last year, despite earning so much more? Isn't that what Obama's point about taxes has been all along?

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Dahoss

I'm hoping one of the smarter members here can explain something to me about Romney's taxes.

How is Romney going to respond when the democrats bring up the fact that Romney in fact paid a lower effective tax rate than Obama last year, despite earning so much more? Isn't that what Obama's point about taxes has been all along?

How is he going to explain not turning over the returns but rather a carefully worded Auditors report citing averages. What is he hiding in the details?

[Dahoss]

Originally Posted by jms62

How is he going to explain not turning over the returns but rather a carefully worded Auditors report citing averages. What is he hiding in the details?

I'm sure thepaindispenser will straighten it all out for us.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Dahoss

I'm hoping one of the smarter members here can explain something to me about Romney's taxes.

How is Romney going to respond when the democrats bring up the fact that Romney in fact paid a lower effective tax rate than Obama last year, despite earning so much more? Isn't that what Obama's point about taxes has been all along?

i was talking to someone at the gym earlier, and mentioned that something was wrong in having romney have to leave off some of his deductions in order to pay around 13-14%, and ryan paid an effective rate of 20%. a guy walking by said 'yeah, but how much money did romney pay?' then he said there should be a flat tax. i asked how those two comments could be reconciled with each other, as the man is obviously at odds with himself. if he thinks there should be a set percentage for everyone, how can he than defend a lower rate for a richer man? yeah...he couldn't.
there is NO earthly reason why romney should be paying that effective rate. it's absolutely ridiculous, indefensible, obscene and unconscionable that a man worth a quarter of a billion dollars should be paying a lower effective rate than most of us do.
as i said before, i get that we want to get people to invest...but in this case (and probably in many others), it seems romney in fact is part of the 47% that is taking the govt for a ride.

many have said for years the tax code needs reworking-but knowing who pulls the strings, what are the odds of that happening?

[Danzig]

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slate..._returns_.html


note where it talks about what tax rate he'd have paid had he taken the full deduction on charitable donations, rather than what he claimed in order to remain around 13%.....and where it would put him in relation to the 47% that it won't be 'his job to worry about'.

[pmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Danzig

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slate..._returns_.html


note where it talks about what tax rate he'd have paid had he taken the full deduction on charitable donations, rather than what he claimed in order to remain around 13%.....and where it would put him in relation to the 47% that it won't be 'his job to worry about'.

So, what would his rate been if he just "gave at the office" like Uncle Joe and let the Feds take care of the redistribution?

The guy gave millions to charity that lowered his Federal Tax bill. Should we do away with deductions for charitable contributions?

If Romney pays too little as an effective rate, the only real discussion on this topic should be how capital gains, dividends and interest should be taxed and what are the implication are of jacking those rates to a high level for those who invest the most.

Yes. Close corporate loopeholes, consider thoughtful tax reform, but the implications of somehow sticking it to those that are "rich enough" is not so simple... And even if you do, it's no budget balancing solution.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by pmacdaddy

So, what would his rate been if he just "gave at the office" like Uncle Joe and let the Feds take care of the redistribution?

The guy gave millions to charity that lowered his Federal Tax bill. Should we do away with deductions for charitable contributions?

If Romney pays too little as an effective rate, the only real discussion on this topic should be how capital gains, dividends and interest should be taxed and what are the implication are of jacking those rates to a high level for those who invest the most.

Yes. Close corporate loopeholes, consider thoughtful tax reform, but the implications of somehow sticking it to those that are "rich enough" is not so simple... And even if you do, it's no budget balancing solution.

i don't recall saying anything negative about his charitable contributions. matter of fact, i said either a bit further back, or in another thread, that those are a good thing.
however, in mentioning his effective tax rate is lower than most-exactly how does suggesting a change mean i want to 'stick it to him'? rather, i would suggest that his rate should probably be higher than most of us, not lower-that right now, we are the ones getting stuck. he's worth 250 million, i'm worth a fraction of that. so why is my rate higher? how does that make sense? and yes, having the highest income folks paying a higher effective rate than the rest of us would absolutely have an effect on the budget. how could it not?
he paid about half his running mates effective rate, with ryan also having a fraction of romneys worth. why?


what would his effective rate have been? his income is taxed at 15%, because it's investment income instead of employment income. in other words, the govt is in effect allowing him tax breaks. you know, like the 47% he was attacking as being moochers.

serious reform is needed. but it won't happen. and why is romney taxed at 15% regardless of where he invests? money leaving the country gives him the same rate as money that stays in country. why? also, it seems we give them breaks so as to encourage these investments-but exactly where is the return for that? we don't have the job growth that is supposed to go with that. perhaps we need to study what we'd done in the past that did generate job growth, and get back to that system? wouldn't that make sense?

[pmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i don't recall saying anything negative about his charitable contributions. matter of fact, i said either a bit further back, or in another thread, that those are a good thing.
however, in mentioning his effective tax rate is lower than most-exactly how does suggesting a change mean i want to 'stick it to him'? rather, i would suggest that his rate should probably be higher than most of us, not lower-that right now, we are the ones getting stuck. he's worth 250 million, i'm worth a fraction of that. so why is my rate higher? how does that make sense? and yes, having the highest income folks paying a higher effective rate than the rest of us would absolutely have an effect on the budget. how could it not?
he paid about half his running mates effective rate, with ryan also having a fraction of romneys worth. why?


what would his effective rate have been? his income is taxed at 15%, because it's investment income instead of employment income. in other words, the govt is in effect allowing him tax breaks. you know, like the 47% he was attacking as being moochers.

serious reform is needed. but it won't happen. and why is romney taxed at 15% regardless of where he invests? money leaving the country gives him the same rate as money that stays in country. why?

Sorry point about contributions not directed at you personally. Point is, that impact should be removed when talking about effective rate.

I'm not so sure you can consider how dividends and cap gains are treated purely as a "tax break". What's the net impact of raising capital gains taxes to 35%?. Is it an overall positive for the economy? I seriously doubt it.

I would love to see tax reform addressing loopholes, that limited minimum Federal tax liability to zero, addressed the AMT in a sensible manner, committed to keep the mortgage deduction to give housing some additional confidence for now. Logically phase out the bush tax expiration, paired with some very serious committments on spending. Of course, this will never happen.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by pmacdaddy

Sorry point about contributions not directed at you personally. Point is, that impact should be removed when talking about effective rate.

I'm not so sure you can consider how dividends and cap gains are treated purely as a "tax break". What's the net impact of raising capital gains taxes to 35%?. Is it an overall positive for the economy? I seriously doubt it.

I would love to see tax reform addressing loopholes, that limited minimum Federal tax liability to zero, addressed the AMT in a sensible manner, committed to keep the mortgage deduction to give housing some additional confidence for now. Logically phase out the bush tax expiration, paired with some very serious committments on spending. Of course, this will never happen.

sure, it's a tax break. income from investment is taxed at a lower rate than income from employment.
and yeah, we need real reform. but it won't happen, since the people benefitting from the current system are in charge. just like term limits for congress- why would congress institute that? i'd like to see it, but who would make it happen?

[GenuineRisk]

Seeing as how a large chunk of RMoney's charitable contributions is his church tithe, which he is REQUIRED by his church to give, I am not as astounded by his generosity as some. Especially because the Mormon church was the major funder of the amendment that deprived gay and lesbian couples of civil rights in California. RMoney's "charitable" contributions went towards taking the right to marry the person of their choice away from citizens of this nation. Not cool, dude.

Of course, any church that is going to get that involved in politics should lose its tax-exempt status, in my opinion.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Seeing as how a large chunk of RMoney's charitable contributions is his church tithe, which he is REQUIRED by his church to give, I am not as astounded by his generosity as some. Especially because the Mormon church was the major funder of the amendment that deprived gay and lesbian couples of civil rights in California. RMoney's "charitable" contributions went towards taking the right to marry the person of their choice away from citizens of this nation. Not cool, dude.

Of course, any church that is going to get that involved in politics should lose its tax-exempt status, in my opinion.

how the roman catholic church still has tax exempt status, i don't know. and i think many churches ask for a tithe, the trick is getting it.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Thepaindispenser

I read it correctly, you repeated one of the Democrats spins that Romney purposely gave less to charity to keep his tax rate above 13%.

No,you didn't read it correctly. And that is not "Democratic" spin, the bolded part is a direct quote from Price-Waterhouse, Romney's accountant , in the tax release document.

Please - get a clue.