jclalor 12
Recommended Posts
Lefty 0
QuoteThat's the beauty of it, he dug himself a hole. Does any one think for a second, that in all those years he will not reveal, that he did not pay one dime more that he had to?
Man, I don't know what you're even arguing right now. The best answer for this post, if I'm interpreting it correctly, is billvon's reply in post #3.
Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful.
-Calvin
-Calvin
QuoteQuoteQuote
I've always thought brackets were determined pre-deduction. What sense would it make to measure it afterwards?
It is just sloppiness with language. Bracket is the tax rate on the top income (actually top wage, there are lots of different brackets). The correct phrasing that we are looking at for Romney is "effective tax rate"
Hmmm...so Romney claims he paid a certain tax rate, donates money to charity and is thus able to lower his tax rate, and people are crying foul over this? Is that really a wise angle to attack from?
It works for many. How dare Romney do with that money when the government knows the best way to spend it.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
kallend 2,182
Maybe he was born in Kenya,
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
QuoteIn 2010 his taxable income was...
Bold added by me.
Blues,
Dave
"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)
(drink Mountain Dew)
Quote>You really think Mitt "missed" some deductions?
Yes. The alternative is what? That he intentionally didn't take them so he could keep his tax rate up? That's nanothermite territory.
Except that's exactly what he did, donated over 4 million to charities but only claimed 2.25 million of it in order to keep his tax rate up where he said it was. The charitable donations are admirable. The tax code that says a guy making over 13 million should pay taxes at a rate half that of someone making 1% of him sucks. The posturing with his deductions isn't nefarious, just kind of silly, but I'm curious how he squares it with the quote in the original post...
Quote"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".
Blues,
Dave
"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)
(drink Mountain Dew)
jclalor 12
QuoteThat's nanothermite territory.
It looks like there were others besides myself sucked into this web of lies, now they got NPR.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2012/09/21/161588138/romneys-tax-release-gives-more-fodder-to-critics-who-already-had-surplus
muff528 3
A person is not required by law to claim all deductions he is entitled to.
A person is required by law to pay taxes on that income if he does not take that deduction. So, based on the legal deductions he chose to take, Romney paid all taxes required by law and not a dollar more ...just like he said. He did not pay more than he owed so that self-imposed "disqualification" does not apply.
It is not uncommon for folks who may come under political scrutiny to err on the safe side with their taxes. It is not nefarious trickery. These same cautious "tactics" might also be found in, say, Harry Reid's or Nancy Pelosi's tax returns.
A person is required by law to pay taxes on that income if he does not take that deduction. So, based on the legal deductions he chose to take, Romney paid all taxes required by law and not a dollar more ...just like he said. He did not pay more than he owed so that self-imposed "disqualification" does not apply.
It is not uncommon for folks who may come under political scrutiny to err on the safe side with their taxes. It is not nefarious trickery. These same cautious "tactics" might also be found in, say, Harry Reid's or Nancy Pelosi's tax returns.
QuoteQuoteQuoteIn 2010 his taxable income was...
Bold added by me.
Blues,
Dave
Taxes are only paid on taxable income, hence the reason I differentiated that in the calculation.
Using the gross income as the denominator and then crying that someone is paying such a low tax rate is nonsense.
If that's your opinion, than you should have no problem with the people who pay zero taxes, as they have zero taxable income.
Personally, I'd like to see a lot fewer deductions for everyone...they're being abused as a form of welfare for those with any income. It's just that instead of writing us a check, we're forgiving a portion of debt owed. If I owed you a thousand bucks, and you said "meh, just give me $600 and we'll call it good", you've effectively given me $400.
Also, I think the wealthy should pay taxes at a rate at least as high as those making a small fraction of their income.
Blues,
Dave
"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)
(drink Mountain Dew)
kallend 2,182
Quote
So, on average he paid 17.6% of his taxable income. Given that the 15% income tax bracket is $34k single $68k married, I'd say he did pay a tax rate at least as high as someone earning a fraction of his income.
Not as high as me.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
Either you misunderstood or I misstated my position. I'm not suggesting that Romney cheated on his taxes. I think the tax code that says he should pay taxes at the rate of someone grossing 0.2% (1/500th) of him is fundamentally flawed, given that folks grossing 1% of him are paying close to twice that rate. All those details you posted are part of what I think is the problem. I think deductions for local taxes are great, but the rest of that stuff is the kind of vote-buying that has unnecessarily complicated our tax code.
FWIW - I don't think donations to churches (or any charitable organization) should be tax deductible unless said organization can show *tangible* charitable output at a rate greater than say, 50% of gross receipts. By tangible, I mean something more than counseling, be it food, coats, housing assistance, healthcare, etc. Yes, the 50% is just a number I pulled out of the sky, but when I'm picking charities, I look at their costs as a percentage of their production, and if they're keeping most of the money they get just to keep the doors open, I don't think they should be tax-exempt. That's probably too far off-topic to be relevant, I'm just throwing it out there. Not having tithed in many years, I honestly don't know whether those donations are tax-deductible, but I don't think they should be. If a church has a charitable outreach, let it organize that as its own 501c, but the part that just goes to pay for the preacher, and his car, and new church facilities, and a private school, and a TV network...that stuff is essentially for-profit in my book. I know one person who makes a very nice living running his own (secular) 501c, including traveling the US on all sorts of adventure vacations, and while I admire his stated goals, I'm opposed to the basic premise of his tax-exempt status.
Blues,
Dave
FWIW - I don't think donations to churches (or any charitable organization) should be tax deductible unless said organization can show *tangible* charitable output at a rate greater than say, 50% of gross receipts. By tangible, I mean something more than counseling, be it food, coats, housing assistance, healthcare, etc. Yes, the 50% is just a number I pulled out of the sky, but when I'm picking charities, I look at their costs as a percentage of their production, and if they're keeping most of the money they get just to keep the doors open, I don't think they should be tax-exempt. That's probably too far off-topic to be relevant, I'm just throwing it out there. Not having tithed in many years, I honestly don't know whether those donations are tax-deductible, but I don't think they should be. If a church has a charitable outreach, let it organize that as its own 501c, but the part that just goes to pay for the preacher, and his car, and new church facilities, and a private school, and a TV network...that stuff is essentially for-profit in my book. I know one person who makes a very nice living running his own (secular) 501c, including traveling the US on all sorts of adventure vacations, and while I admire his stated goals, I'm opposed to the basic premise of his tax-exempt status.
Blues,
Dave
"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)
(drink Mountain Dew)
davjohns 1
The guy pays more taxes in a year than I will pay in my life and some people continue to complain that he isn't doing enough. If I were him, I might consider leaving the country and letting the whiners have it.
With all the things this country should be worrying about...Mitt Romney's taxes???? I can only conclude that large numbers of people are blinded by hate fuled by a masterful media campaign and truth twisting. He apparently even paid more in taxes just to appease some people and that was a dismal failure.
I think I need to read 1984 again to make sense of the political landscape of the US today.
With all the things this country should be worrying about...Mitt Romney's taxes???? I can only conclude that large numbers of people are blinded by hate fuled by a masterful media campaign and truth twisting. He apparently even paid more in taxes just to appease some people and that was a dismal failure.
I think I need to read 1984 again to make sense of the political landscape of the US today.
I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..
But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.
But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.
jclalor 12
QuoteQuoteThe guy pays more taxes in a year than I will pay in my life and some people continue to complain that he isn't doing enough. If I were him, I might consider leaving the country and letting the whiners have it.
With all the things this country should be worrying about...Mitt Romney's taxes???? I can only conclude that large numbers of people are blinded by hate fuled by a masterful media campaign and truth twisting. He apparently even paid more in taxes just to appease some people and that was a dismal failure.
I think I need to read 1984 again to make sense of the political landscape of the US today.
Politics are a funny thing, some people worry about birth certificates and rounds of golf, while others worry about income taxes and employment history.
He did not pay more taxes to appease anyone, He stated that he never paid less than 13%, and he had get creative to to keep his word. I would be thrilled to pay 13%.
How can you reconcile his theory, that on one hand, he will reduce the tax rate and then on the other hand, replace the lost revenue with reducing deductions? Are you not in the least worried that he refuses to name one deduction he is willing to cut? I don't think people are so much in love with Obama, as just completely turned off by Romney. According to almost every one's rules on being re-elected, with the current economy, Anne Romney should be picking new White house china patterns by now.
BIGUN 1,506
We're on the same page. As I was reading, the thought prevailed, "He pays 3 million in taxes in one year. An amount most of us strive to achieve as income in a lifetime."
Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.
That's the beauty of it, he dug himself a hole. Does any one think for a second, that in all those years he will not reveal, that he did not pay one dime more that he had to?
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites