Submitted by
Users who Dugg This
I am Anomaly
14740 Followers
●●ĶÁĨ●● (ズﾑﾉ)
4301 Followers
Michael Pinto
6328 Followers
raghz rahgzy
146 Followers
njdoo7Jan 24, 2012
"Americans continue to elect these rich ****s****rs that don't give a f**k about them." -George Carlin
njdoo7Jan 24, 2012
Oddly, Romney's largest campaign contributors are banks, many of whom got bailouts.
Another oddity, is some of his largest contributors match those of Obama and Bush.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/guess-politician-and-follow-money
The big banks don't see much of a difference between Romney and Obama, as evidenced by their contributions, why should you?
sheopleherderJan 24, 2012
Always good to lobby against the people with the money you stole from the people. It's the best way to control the populace, use their money!
linuxpersonJan 24, 2012
"The big banks don't see much of a difference between Romney and Obama, as evidenced by their contributions, why should you?"
Because the MSM has brainwashed me to believe that political theater actually means there is a difference between the elite of the two party duopoly.
The illusion of having a choice makes me a feel like an empowered citizen! Don't piss in my cheerios.
njdoo7Jan 24, 2012
Ahh, the illusion of free choice.
http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2012/01/krieger%20pic.gif
stabsteerJan 24, 2012
They may both be rich and play into the elite crowd, but I'd take Obama any day over Romney of any of the Repubs that's for F'ing sure.
mjm6783Jan 24, 2012
I'd take Ron Paul, just to watch the whole f**king thing implode. Then maybe we could rebuild it in a slightly less corrupt form. Never gonna happen though.
stabsteerJan 24, 2012
Yeah that would be great, then the filthy rich would literally just make us all slaves instead of just the perception they don't own us already through the bought and paid for government.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
jpdeveerJan 25, 2012
At least Obama is better than the last president.
asfinktersezwutJan 25, 2012
Stop! Just Stop with the truthiness... you're breaking the spell...
wait.. I know how to stop you...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8qcccZy03s
asfinktersezwutJan 25, 2012
...oh man, I almost forgot - you're a linuxperson... this should work more effectively on you:
:%s/your\ reality/my\ reality/g
chadpyleJan 24, 2012
Now we're getting to the root of the problem. Follow the money and you'll have far more insight into how the candidates will govern the nation than listening to hours of unsubstantial demagoguery.
Closed AccountJan 25, 2012
But you'd think that a rich guy like Romney would be beyond the influence of the lobbyists.
And the 7 million, "donated" to his favorite religious club. Give me a break, what a phoney.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
adalseyJan 27, 2012
you would think. Site any president that never was influenced by anyone whether be it lobbyists, corporation or individual. Power comes responsibilities and extra perks to friends.
Closed AccountJan 27, 2012
I can understand that, it's a common sense comment. Everybody is influenced by the people around them. I can see - a banquet dinner, a night in the Lincoln bedroom, OK. What's not OK is perks that are affecting the country's whole social-economic spectrum to the worse, and the perks accumulating to a very few individuals.
Closed AccountJan 27, 2012
And what's even more perfidious, is lobbyists that push an entire category of people into conflict with another mass. The lobbyists' sponsors make money on the side of these conflicts. I'm talking about men in conflict with women, generations in conflict, etc. You'd think that nobody benefits, but, to the contrary, there are some who benefit - courts, lawyers, bureaucracies in general.
autokadJan 24, 2012
i dont think theres anything wrong with a two party system, its just that we got the wrong two parties =|
johnpaul191Jan 25, 2012
I would like to see at least three parties. Look at how much campaigning is "well, I'm a bit better than that other person". Even the Republicans fighting for the nomination now are having to explain a lot more because you have more than just two fighting it out. I'm no fan of Ron Paul, but he keeps calling out everyone else. If Rick Santorum had any guts he would do the same thing, but I suspect he hopes to get a VP spot or an appointment. Till then, he's out there selling books and future speaking engagements.
eraptorJan 25, 2012
They're hedging their bets. If they pulled their contributions to Obama, he'd simply bitch-slap 'em after he and the Democrat's are elected this November.
They figure he'll give them "breathing room" if they throw him some bones. Tragically, it worked after 2008.
Unfortunately, Mitt and the Conservative morons, who surround him, are FAR worse as they've proven by stonewalling ALL financial reform efforts. Scott Brown (R-Mass) is among the worst.
hediggmeJan 24, 2012
Warren Buffett should give Romney's tax guy a call. Buffett paid 17% on $39M.
markglJan 24, 2012
Are you really trying to compare 2 guys taxes with 2 sentences. Unless you're a genius at the US tax code system and can describe in detail why the difference, then you don't need to tell me about Warren Buffet.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
linuxpersonJan 24, 2012
He's talking about their overall effective Federal income tax rate, it's not rocket science.
njdoo7Jan 24, 2012
Wait, you don't need a PhD in math and law to compare to two overall tax rates?
13.9% versus 17%...
Seems far too complicated for anyone without a PhD to grasp to me...
/s (if it was needed)
sheopleherderJan 24, 2012
Wait I am confused, what's 17% - 13.9%?
njdoo7Jan 24, 2012
I would use a calculator to figure it out, but my calculator hasn't finished it's PhD dissertation so I cannot rely on it for the correct answer.
kaelyiestaJan 24, 2012
Is anyone really surprised that a system of violence would cater to those most able to bribe it?
One doesn't even need to understand basic arithmetic. Such a system as we have can only lead to these consequences, and only the propagandized can't see it.
njdoo7Jan 24, 2012
"and only the propagandized can't see it."
That's the whole point. How else would it continue?
linuxpersonJan 24, 2012
"Is anyone really surprised that a system of violence would cater to those most able to bribe it?"
According to our progressive friends on digg, this historical axiom can be overcome by electing the right shill to "reform" the system.
youareretardedJan 24, 2012
"According to our progressive friends on digg, this historical axiom can be overcome by electing the right shill to "reform" the system"
As opposed to electing the wrong shill? Or are you implying that progressives should have elected your shill?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
norman619Jan 24, 2012
These guys don't pay income taxes like you or I because they don't work regular jobs. Too many idiots here on Digg don't seem to get that. If Income tax may be 13.9% but they aren't looking at the many other taxes he and other like him pay. It's a dishonest representation.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
youareretardedJan 24, 2012
I don't know about you but in the title they said, "effective tax rate".
I’m not a genius like you but doesn't that mean it includes all his other types of income and taxes?
sandylandersJan 26, 2012
You are really retarded. Yes it does not include, property taxes, sales taxes etc. When you start adding these in more and more of your income shrinks. You can figure it out. And if you cannot, then, you are retarded.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
youareretardedJan 26, 2012
Silly rabbit, facts are for brains!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_rate
autokadJan 24, 2012
so your saying its 'right' that they pay less taxes because they dont work 'regular' jobs like the peasantry?
austrologiJan 25, 2012
investment income isn't the same as regular income. You are owed your paycheck no matter what, with investment income you aren't going to invest in something if when you lose, you lose everything but when you win you only get part of it. I mean with alot of investments its a fine line between investing and gambling, it doesn't take too much in terms of taxes before someone says screw it might as well invest my money somewhere else.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
autokadJan 25, 2012
i know the supposed difference between investment income and 'regular' income. I myself invest and do pretty good for myself. you shoud fire the person who does your taxes, because those losses can be deducted - you dont loose all of it.
i do agree dividends and perhaps capital gains should be taxed less for those investing under some arbitrarily small amount, such as 100k$, however it does NOT make sense for people who's incomes have such a large amount of money coming that way.
hedge fund managers take a chunk right off the top for the privilege of them investing your money, and they only get taxed at 15% because its considered capital gains. That is total BS. There is no chance for them to loose by the way.
its not rocket science to stop people from abusing the system, its just assh**es like you that perpetuate the lies so that they can keep doing it hurt everyone in the end.
letherialJan 25, 2012
"I mean with alot of investments its a fine line between investing and gambling"
Didnt we just have a economic collapse to that 'fine line' maybe we need less gambling and more investing...seems to me you raise the tax rate, someone is going to analyze the risk vrs reward a little better.
austrologiJan 25, 2012
its more nuanced than that, capital losses only offset capital gains. If you lose your shirt you'd have to gain your entire shirt back to say that you broke even.
I am not advocating carried interest of the hedge fund managers. That should go.
floepieJan 24, 2012
Gee, don't you think for at least a second it could be a satirical comment? Do you really think he thinks Buffett's tax guy needs some advice? You're funny.
markglJan 24, 2012
Oh ok, I guess you guys are for a flat tax then. 20% across the board. Done deal. If you're upset that the percentages are not equal then lets make them equal.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
njdoo7Jan 24, 2012
Are you retarded?
They compared the effective tax rates...that's it!
Nothing more nothing less.
linuxpersonJan 24, 2012
I'm all for a flat tax... flat as in 0%.
countess666Jan 24, 2012
anarchy FTW!!!!
linuxpersonJan 24, 2012
Basically every major city that exists today was built without a Federal income tax.
There were local, state, and federal governments prior to the Federal income tax.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
jceezJan 25, 2012
And back then we didn't have roads, ambulances, police officers etc.
PyriteGenieJan 25, 2012
"And back then we didn't have roads, ambulances, police officers etc."
We didn't? o_O
peppermintpigJan 25, 2012
jceez: back then = before the government invented itself there was total chaos and humanity survived only on accident in spite of it's inherent inability to self organize ( let's see you get out of that one XD )
countess666Jan 24, 2012
"Basically every major city that exists today was built without a Federal income tax.
There were local, state, and federal governments prior to the Federal income tax."
you should more clearly specify which type of tax you means.
now it reads like you mean all taxes.
and most of those cities back then did not have a extensive network of highways, rail, water and electric connections like they do today.
you can't run a country today like its the early 1800's.
youareretardedJan 24, 2012
"you can't run a country today like its the early 1800's."
But the right sure would like to!
stabsteerJan 24, 2012
True, although the small-minded Libertarians out there seem to think that would be peachy keen...
linuxpersonJan 24, 2012
Flat tax is specifically in relation to income taxes.
miklkitJan 24, 2012
And Buffet's secretary paid 32%.
njdoo7Jan 24, 2012
And Buffet's company has yet to pay the taxes it owes all the way back to 2002.
"Berkshire Hathaway, the eighth-largest public company in the world according to Forbes, openly admits to still owing taxes for years 2002 through 2004 and 2005 through 2009, according to the New York Post. The company says it expects to "resolve all adjustments proposed by the US Internal Revenue Service" within the next year. "
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/29/warren-buffett-taxes-berkshire-hathaway_n_941099.htmlComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
hibby76Jan 24, 2012
There are many "tax deferment" strategies that are perfectly legitimate. It's unclear if these are legitimate or not. The IRS does charge interest for taxes that were owed in the past.
njdoo7Jan 24, 2012
Are you trying to refute the fact that Buffet's company, which he owns 27% of, did not pay all taxes it owed?
They admit this fact themselves.
Adjustments get proposed by the IRS when you don't pay the correct amount.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
amaoicanJan 24, 2012
Cut the crap. You are a manipulative scumbag.
njdoo7Jan 24, 2012
You want manipulative?
"There are many "tax deferment" strategies that are perfectly legitimate. It's unclear if these are legitimate or not. The IRS does charge interest for taxes that were owed in the past."
That's manipulative. As were all those strawmans you used last week while getting debunked by me on economic concepts.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
njdoo7Jan 24, 2012
The same one where you contradicted yourself after denying reality:
amaoican: "inflation hasn't set in."
njdoo7: MIT project and CPI confirm inflation: http://bpp.mit.edu/usa/
amaoican: "You're bitching about 3% inflation? It was negative a few years ago, so yes, it's going to be a bit higher than usual now. Are you wanting 0% inflation?"
...
"I apologize if I said or implied there was NO inflation."
http://digg.com/news/world_news/u_s_debt_is_now_equal_to_economy
Who's manipulative?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
amaoicanJan 24, 2012
Excuse me for expecting inflation to be significantly above historical levels when people like you start screaming bloody murder from the rooftop about how inflation is out of control. What I meant by "inflation hasn't set in" is completely true - 3% is not above historical levels. That's what I meant by "hasn't set in".
amaoicanJan 24, 2012
PS This is what I mean by manipulation. You made a big dea about runaway (HIGH) inflation as a result of the post-recession steps the government and Fed had taken, and when I said that you were wrong and that inflation hadn't set in, you pretended to think that I meant inflation was 0, and you pointed to a chart of the value of a dollar stretching back to the 20s. A 90-ish year chart to look at the last 3-4 years. Brilliant.
So again, you are a manipulative scumbag. Cut the crap.
njdoo7Jan 24, 2012
"people like you start screaming bloody murder from the rooftop about how inflation is out of control."
Thanks for making it really easy with this strawman.
I merely pointed out that there is inflation, now and consistently over the past century, contrary to your assertions.
Anyone who goes and reads the comments will see this.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
njdoo7Jan 24, 2012
"You made a big dea about runaway (HIGH) inflation"
Please quote where I said this.
amaoicanJan 24, 2012
"Please quote where I said this."
That was easy.
linuxpersonJan 24, 2012
"Cut the crap. You are a manipulative scumbag."
Looks like you hit the college kid's nerve nj, good work.
amaoicanJan 24, 2012
Yes, he did a great job of repeating bulls**t over and over again. "Warren Buffett = Berkshire Hathaway! An IRS audit = GUILT! And I will repeat it over and over again until it's true!" Brilliant.
rthakidnJan 24, 2012
They may be perfectly legitimate. HOWEVER, when the main figure of BH laments the unfairness of the tax code, it seems a bit ingenuis when his company takes advantage of these "legitimate" strategies. don't you think?
njdoo7Jan 24, 2012
Or when he says he wants to pay more taxes, while the company he owns 27% of hasn't even paid all the taxes it already owes.
hibby76Jan 25, 2012
Just like it's "ingenuous" that you take advantage of the "mortgage interest deduction" loophole instead of paying your "fair share" of taxes.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
rthakidnJan 26, 2012
Wow Hib, out of everyone that read my post, you were the only one that caught my typo. Of course I meant disingenuous. You seem to think I fault Buffet for taking advantage of tax breaks. That’s the furthest thing from the truth. What’s disingenuous is for Buffet to whine about the tax code that he makes a fortune exploiting.
hibby76Jan 26, 2012
If Buffett wants to pay more, he's more than welcome to.
markglJan 24, 2012
Where are you getting that crap number?
miklkitJan 24, 2012
Oops. It has been a while since I read that article. Buffets receptionist payed 30%.
http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/05/01/taxes-warren-buffett-and-paying-my-fair-share/
markglJan 24, 2012
Still a crap number. Who pays 30% as a secretary??? She must make a s**tload.
http://www.bankrate.com/finance/taxes/2011-tax-bracket-rates.aspx
33% - $174,401 - $379,150Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
njdoo7Jan 24, 2012
I almost forgot to mention how Buffets company, which didn't pay taxes owed for 2005-2009 was still able to get taxpayer bailouts nearing 100 billion dollars:
http://blogs.reuters.com/rolfe-winkler/2009/08/04/buffetts-betrayal/Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
rednipJan 24, 2012
Except as an ad hominem rant, how does that figure in with Romney's 13.9% tax rate?
njdoo7Jan 24, 2012
Bringing up simple facts, like the fact that buffet's company got bailed out while not paying the taxes it owed, is not an ad hominem.
Did you miss the comment I replied to that brought up Buffet?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
linuxpersonJan 24, 2012
This entire article is an ad hominem rant.
linuxpersonJan 24, 2012
32% effective rate? Either she has no deductions or she sucks at turbo tax.
hibby76Jan 24, 2012
She probably earns $85k per year as ordinary income with few deductions.
amaoicanJan 24, 2012
I barely spend enough money, total, to be able to use itemized deductions if every penny I spent was deductible... and that's despite really wanting/needing deductions to reduce my massive tax bill :\
linuxpersonJan 24, 2012
Sorry wage slave, the government owns you and your labor. Don't like it? Move to the libertarian free market paradise of Somalia (that was run by socialists for two decades until it collapsed into stateless communism).
\fake-liberalComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
amaoicanJan 24, 2012
Huh? I'm questioning your surprise that someone would have "no deductions", not suggesting that I'm dissatisfied with my tax rate.
Okay, I guess I worded my statement poorly. I'm just saying, I spend a lot less than I make because I try not to buy frivolous s**t.
amaoicanJan 24, 2012
... Point being, I suppose if you bought frivolous s**t (like buying 'feeling good about yourself' from charity organizations which misuse the donations) you could get masssive tax deductions. But since you'd be giving them actual money, you'd end up with less, not more, buying power.
linuxpersonJan 24, 2012
Fair point, there are many people with no deductions. If they are moderate to high income with no deductions, they really need to seek out a tax accountant.
amaoicanJan 24, 2012
I disagree. Deductions are based on what you spend, not what you make. Most of the things you can deduct are things that I would never intentionally spend money on.
n0diggityJan 25, 2012
There is no one with 0 deductions, because there is the standard deduction which applies to everyone. If you don't itemize, you can claim the standard deduction which has generally been $8000 give or take. If you can be claimed as a dependent, it is a little lower still, but you can still deduct something at least.
hibby76Jan 25, 2012
You should really look up the definitions of libertarianism vs anarchy. Somalia is NOT libertarian. You should probably graduate from High School also.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
amaoicanJan 25, 2012
@n0diggity - as long as you're being pedantic, the standard deduction for an individual is $5800, and you can only take it if you are not a dependent. You also get something called an "exemption" (or personal exemption) which reduces your taxable earnings in proportion to the number of people (including yourself) for whom you provide financial support.
Incidentally, personal exemptions were originally enacted to represent the amount of money a person needs to subsist - that is, for basic food, clothing, shelter, etc - but now, at only $3700, really do not fulfill this original intent.
Finally, if you look up a few comments you'll see that I made a comment that I have no, or few, deductible expenses and have to take the standard deduction instead of itemized deduction, so in context it was clear what was meant.
PyriteGenieJan 24, 2012
87% of all Americans pay < 15% in income taxes.
chilidogsJan 24, 2012
That is a really specific claim that we are going to have to assume that you made up.
PyriteGenieJan 24, 2012
Put your ass in front of u and me all you want.
chilidogsJan 24, 2012
I have no idea what that means but it sounds really juvenile.
PyriteGenieJan 24, 2012
Or you could just: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2012/01/19/media-myth-debunked-97-percent-americans-pay-less-romneys-15-percent#comments#ixzz1jvAn8YL0Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
chilidogsJan 24, 2012
http://www.ctj.org/pdf/taxday2009.pdf
chadpyleJan 24, 2012
Roughly half of the population don't pay taxes and a large percentage are considered at or below the poverty line, which secures them a 10% tax rate; so, PyriteGenie may not be too far off.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
linuxpersonJan 24, 2012
"Roughly half of the population don't pay taxes and a large percentage are considered at or below the poverty line"
WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG.
Citation NEEDED.
Roughly half the population has an effective Federal income tax rate of 0% or lower. In other words, around half the population either doesn't pay Federal income taxes or receives more back from the Federal government than they pay in income taxes.
That doesn't count FICA, or state taxes, or city taxes, or government imposed "fees" (aka a disguised tax), the inflation tax, and inflated processes that are the result of taxes/regulations that all consumers pay for regardless of their direct tax contributions.
This argument has got to stop, it's pure bulls**t.
chadpyleJan 24, 2012
You'll get no argument from me on that, linuxperson.
I was only referring to the Federal income tax. The inflation tax is the real killer!
n0diggityJan 25, 2012
The real killer is stagnant wages plus inflation of the currency. Lower buying power on take home pay. This has been steadily happening over the last 2 decades.
linuxpersonJan 24, 2012
Not sure about that, citation?
The average earner pays an effective Federal income tax rate of around 15%. The average millionaire pays an effective Federal income tax rate of around 29%.
Bare in mind, that's just Federal income tax. In most places there are city and state income taxes as well. You really have to qualify your statements.
rthakidnJan 24, 2012
That's because Buffet hates secretaries. He should have paid his secretary in stock of BH, then she TOO could receive revenue from capital gains and pay at a 15% rate.
chadpyleJan 24, 2012
Buffet's secretary would have to be making over $174,400/year to fall into that tax bracket. I suppose that's possible but, seems unlikely.
treehugger87Jan 24, 2012
I'm guessing that Warren Buffet actually gives a rat's ass about the United States and wouldn't use foreign tax havens to hide his money. Romney is an unpatriotic coward.
hibby76Jan 24, 2012
So you're saying that you're a person who likes to pay MORE in taxes than what you owe, right?
Romney didn't write the tax code. If his tax return is legal and you're mad, then take it up with the elected officials not with Romney.
.........or did you send the government an extra $10k last year just because you're "patriotic"?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
treehugger87Jan 24, 2012
I'm saying that there are some things that I wouldn't do in order to avoid paying taxes. Hiding my income and assets in foreign holding companies is one of them: I consider the practice to be highly unpatriotic.
Are you sure Romney didn't write the parts of the tax code that he uses to keep his effective tax rate so low? Wealthy people have tremendous influence over our legislators. I'm an 100% certain that parts of our tax code were written word for word by a person or a group of people with a lot of wealth to protect and sufficient wealth to gain access to legislators who could add the wording to some piece of legislation.
rthakidnJan 24, 2012
TH you crack me up. Romeny wrote the tax code. Are you kidding me? Romney's offshore holdings were declared on his return. Buffet's holdings include foreign companies as well. It is not an attempt to not pay tax.
treehugger87Jan 24, 2012
You don't get s**t like this:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/14/tom-coburn-30-billion-millionaires-tax-breaks_n_1092692.html
or this
http://obsdailyviews.blogspot.com/2012/01/unfair-loophole-for-americas-richest.html
if the wealthy are not actively involved in writing the legislation that creates such things. Romney himself may not have written it, but rest assured he participates with other wealthy people to collectively lobby Congress for things that are in their financial interest.
Romney is required to declare his offshore holdings. Declaring them doesn't make him patriotic, it just provides evidence that he is willing to put his personal financial interests ahead of his country.
hibby76Jan 25, 2012
@treehugger87
Let me guess...you didn't like bush because he was dumb and you don't like Romney because he's smart.
It's not unpatriotic to follow the tax code and pay the taxes that you owe. It's not unpatriotic to claim your mortgage interest deduction. Romney has paid the taxes that the government says that he owes. That is not unpatriotic.
treehugger87Jan 25, 2012
@hibby. I don't like Romney because he is a vulture and I don't believe in his sincerity or his Patriotism. I think of creating offshore shell companies as the equivalent of prostituting your sister. Romney may be operating within the law, but that is pretty much meaningless given that millionaires like him write the tax codes to include loopholes for millionaires like him.
hibby76Jan 25, 2012
So I'm sure you'd agree that claiming mortgage interest that you pay as a deduction is similarly "unpatriotic", right? After all, just because it's legal and you can, it doesn't mean you should, right?
I thought we were talking about Romney's tax return and not about things that some anonymous rich guy may or may not have done.
I completely agree that the tax code is screwed up and that politicians often sell out to wealthy contributors. However that isn't what we're talking about here. It sounds like you should take up your issues with the elected officials, not people who play by the rules that they created.
treehugger87Jan 25, 2012
Offering a deduction for mortgage interest is a way that the tax code is used to encourage home ownership. Last I checked, having Americans own homes in America is pretty patriotic.
Why should the tax code reward and encourage hiding your money in a foreign country in order to avoid paying taxes? The answer is that it shouldn't. It makes no sense. Romney and the other wealthy traitors like him should be punished severely through the tax code for using foreign shell companies exclusively to lower their tax burden
hibby76Jan 25, 2012
So take it up with the elected politicians. You try to pay the minimum amount in taxes just like everyone else.....including Romney.
PyriteGenieJan 25, 2012
Ah, but only for homes of a certain size and value, right treehugger?
sheopleherderFeb 3, 2012
Writing off mortgage interest has a valid reason to exist. It promotes home ownership, and borrowing money, which is how our screwed up economy keeps perpetuating itself. Foreign tax shelters only promote US dollars flowing out of the US. Somehow I hope you can see that the 2 don't equate in the slightest...
hibby76Feb 4, 2012
I'm sure some politician who passed some law would declare that their laws had a reason to exist. That's how we got to a 70,000 page tax code.
PyriteGenieJan 24, 2012
Actually, Romney put an *additional* 15% into the system through his charitable donations. So he's *voluntarily* paying 30% taxes.
PyriteGenieJan 24, 2012
Novenator has a saying about blind buries and the strength of convictions. It's about the only thing I agree with him on, politically.
amaoicanJan 24, 2012
Charitable donations don't go to the government...
PyriteGenieJan 25, 2012
Hence why they get greater results.
hibby76Jan 25, 2012
That's what makes them useful. The government squanders them on $900 toilets and $15 bagels. Charities who can't print money actually make responsible decisions regarding how to spend, give, and invest their money.
treehugger87Jan 24, 2012
Not really. He's using his own charitable foundation to limit his tax. I wonder what cause the charitable foundation is supporting this week? March vacation for the Romney's in Costa Rica?
chadpyleJan 24, 2012
The majority of his donations go to the Mormon church, which is entirely his prerogative.
There are decidedly worse ways to dodge taxes than philanthropy; and this method is the rule (not the exception) among the nation's wealthy.
We can argue the motive but, the end result is undoubtedly positive.
PyriteGenieJan 24, 2012
Yeah, he should just close it down and quit helping people.
atomheartmotherJan 25, 2012
"We can argue the motive...."
We could, but surely you aren't suggesting that it's nefarious, right?
Unless there's a reason to believe that his contribution to the charity somehow benefited him personally, then it's simply a choice to give his money to a religious charity rather than the federal government. Same amount, same (lack of) direct benefit.
The only fault I could possibly see is if he didn't give the maximum amount he could under the law.
hibby76Jan 25, 2012
100% speculation but nice try.
hibby76Jan 25, 2012
The above comment is directed @chadpyle
Giving money away is a really bad way to "avoid taxes". Do the math.
Let's say your tax rate is 25% (for easy math).
You earn 100,000 and pay $25,000 in taxes leaving you 75k.
OR
you give away $10,000 and are taxed on $90,000 at 25% paying $22,500 in taxes leaving you $67,500.
You don't keep more by giving a bunch away. Simply put, you're not paying taxes on the money that you would prefer to give away than to keep.
Closed AccountJan 25, 2012
There is also this pesky thing called Alternative Minimum Tax for mere mortals like you and I. How in the world it was not triggered with such deductions is beyond me.
sheopleherderFeb 3, 2012
Romney used Tax shelters and foreign accounts to hide money that he rightfully owed. That is government sponsored tax evasion... Which had he paid we could have maybe spent a little more on your public education. But alas that didn't really work out for ya...
linuxpersonJan 24, 2012
According to you, investments that are subject to the lower capital gains rate are "tax havens". Since that is the case, you are dead wrong because the vast majority of Buffet's income is from capital gains.
Closed AccountJan 25, 2012
Correct me if I'm wrong, but did Warren Buffett disclose his tax returns? I am willing to bet that he also has serious money in tax havens.
eraptorJan 24, 2012
Mitt Romney isn't HALF the man Warren Buffett has proven himself to be. This is as true in leadership as it is in business/economic skills.
Mitt isn't qualified to carry Warren's bags, regardless of each man's effective tax rates.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
PyriteGenieJan 24, 2012
Well, we knew Mitt wasn't half the man Warren Buffet was when Mitt paid over TWICE the taxes Warren did.
truthroxJan 25, 2012
That's highly doubtful considering the wealth disparity that exists bewteen both men.
I see your math skills are on par with every other Conservative...in the toilet. It's no wonder your political representatives continue driving the nation's economy and budget into a ditch. Your basic math skills leave a lot to be desired.
PyriteGenieJan 25, 2012
@icerox: I await your empirical numbers.
eraptorJan 25, 2012
We thought YOU were the math whiz. Start cranking those numbers.
Here, I'll even help you out:
Take each man's reported income for the most recent year and multiply it by their effective tax rate. If Mitt's tax remittances exceeed Warren's by 2x, you've made your point. Otherwise, you're full of crap.
I don't need to run the numbers because I already know you're "full of crap" with this baseless assertion. Their respective wealth proves as much....Warren's a billionaire, Mitt's NOT. 'nuff said!!!
PyriteGenieJan 25, 2012
Just as soon as you empirically prove that Mitt contains 50 % the mass and volume of Warren. Or was that hyperbole, deserving a response of hyperbole? (And mathematically, Warren's company having paid a big fat goose egg in taxes for the past handful of years, mathematically comparing Mitt's return gives a Divide By Zero error.)Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
eraptorJan 25, 2012
Nice try, but we're comparing the men, NOT their companies.
Warren's effective tax rate is NOT zero. You LOSE!
hibby76Jan 25, 2012
Based on what??? The fact that Buffet is a liberal and not a moderate or conservative?
So far I haven't seen Buffet pay his taxes and then cut a check to the Government for an extra billion because he's wealthy. He can pay more in taxes anytime he wants.
4uNewsJan 25, 2012
http://4unews.com/30589/mitt-romney-tax-return-sheds-light-on-democrats-claim/
PyriteGenieJan 25, 2012
You're doing it wrong.
adalseyJan 27, 2012
When you are rich and you let your money work for you, why should you pay the same tax as individual who actually is working where the employer/company is actually subsidizing some of those taxes through payroll tax. So trusts, endowments and foundations should be in the same category as working individual for their income. Meaning having their interest income and capital gains taxed at 30% regardless. I WOULD LOVE THAT.
rastas11Jan 27, 2012
Who spends their money to better effect, YOU or the Government?
rastas11Jan 27, 2012
redo: your
stabsteerFeb 3, 2012
You still think the Repubs are gonna cut your 'middle class' taxes don't you? Sad...
dsmeek36Jan 24, 2012
but he knows what Middle Class people want and how they feel; he's unemployed, too!
norman619Jan 24, 2012
Please show us a politician that is actually middle class.
hibby76Jan 25, 2012
Especially one that has a shot in h*** at being elected President. Ron Paul is a millionaire but his net worth isn't so different from his peers who are also medical doctors of his age.
salbatrossJan 24, 2012
Mitt Romney is the epitome of the slimy rich guy.
NOTE: I am not saying that any particular politician is a great guy or that Mitt is worse than them as a person. Just that he's exactly the guy you'd expect to see show up in a sitcom to make fun of rich guys.
CrescentSkies_2Jan 24, 2012
To be fair he's living off intelligent investments that he's made and earned over the course of his life. In the end I'd rather have Romney who knows how to handle money than Obama (and I'd rather have Romney who doesn't want to legalize prostitution and heroin, and turn our military into a militia than Ron Paul).Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
corydorningJan 24, 2012
a militia? i guess you prefer the police state and nation building (of other nations, not our own).
to each their own, i suppose...?
attacking country and country will NEVER catch up to us. we can bomb whoever we damn well please. kill 'em all! :end-sarcastic-rant:
CrescentSkies_2Jan 24, 2012
/sigh
I support not having anything to do with other countries and so far from what I can tell so does every single republican candidate (except the laughing stock known as Newt).
However, we are a country. Whether our economy is in the rut or not we have power, land, and resources. If we're suddenly shown as a big country with a tiny little militia do you really think we'd never be attacked?
Wars happen, they always happen, and eventually we'll be sucked into one. I'd rather have a military ready and armed to protect the country than a militia which will be treated as a human sacrifice before we beg Britain to save our ass (assuming they aren't the ones killing us, ya never know foreign relations and all that).Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
chadpyleJan 24, 2012
Our country is only made more vulnerable by having our military diluted among 130 countries. Meanwhile, our overseas exploits are rapidly bankrupting the nation.
Historically, the great empires suffered their demise from overextending their reach. No amount of military might can prevent economic collapse.
Under a Ron Paul administration, the actual defense budget would likely go up.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
treehugger87Jan 24, 2012
"Intelligent investments?" What a joke! When you're already rich you don't have to make "intelligent investments", the system is rigged in your favor.
hibby76Jan 25, 2012
Hardly true. There have been lots of rich people who have lost lots of money. You clearly know little of money or investing.
treehugger87Jan 25, 2012
Which rich people? Lottery winners who spend it all on $1500 bottles or vodka? Or are you talking about Bernie Madoff, because last I checked his wife & kids were doing more than fine with all of the stolen money he left them.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
sandylandersJan 25, 2012
Treehugger,
How is John Corzine doing with his stolen money? There are just as many POS DemocRATS that will make your scheister list.
miklkitJan 24, 2012
It is called vulture capitalism when one buys a company, strips it of its assets, and then sells it.
hibby76Jan 25, 2012
So you'd prefer that no one purchases the company and that it goes bankrupt?
treehugger87Jan 25, 2012
I would rather see fair competition. Who's to say the same vultures didn't manipulate prices in order to put that company in the bad state it's in? Who's to say the same vultures didn't sabotage the market? They certainly have enough money and most certainly have the lack of moral character required.
Also, these vultures don't buy bankrupt companies, they buy successful companies who have little promise for growth (but could sustain at current levels for generations) or companies whose owners want to get out of the business and need someone to sell it to.
Are you Austrian by any chance?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
hibby76Jan 25, 2012
Thank you for treating us to 100% pure speculation.
Who's to say that they aren't conspiring with aliens? Who's to say that they haven't sold their souls to Satan himself? Who's to say that they don't have super-human powers that the rest of us don't posses.
Free markets are very difficult to manipulate. If a company that was for sale could have sold for more money to someone other than Bain they would have. If the offer wasn't enough, they wouldn't sell.
Go try to sell your car for $1,000,000. Show me how you can manipulate the market so that some sucker is buying it for far more than it's worth. Please, demonstrate exactly how this is done.
My guess is that you have a government job where many of the realities of the free market are kept from your innocent eyes and you believe everything you read from liberal bloggers while demonizing all fiscal conservatives.
hibby76Jan 25, 2012
Not Austrian.
"Fair" is a word that only has meaning when the two affected parties both agree.
If I agree to buy a hamburger for $3 and they agree to sell me a hamburger for $3, that's fair.
If everyone in the town agrees that hamburgers should be given out for free and they pass a law that says so, that doesn't make it "fair" even though nearly all agree.
Please provide evidence of Bain Capital magically manipulating prices to put a company that it purchased into a bad state.
Please provide evidence of Bain Capital magically sabotaging the market.
Please provide evidence of Bain Capital lacks moral character.
Please provide evidence that they only purchased successful companies (which are far more expensive). By the way, Staples was headed towards bankruptcy when it was acquired by Bain so I'll provide that evidence for you.
If I own a company I can try to cash flow it, dismantle it, or sell it. It doesn't matter how I acquired it. It's MY company therefore my decision.
You don't seem to be a very big fan of freedom.
Be careful with that word "fair" as it is a very easy word to manipulate into meaning anything you want, which means it often carries no meaning at all other than an opinion.
chadpyleJan 24, 2012
You're showing your ignorance, Crescent. RP is not a proponent of prostitution or drug use, he just doesn't see it as a federal issue, because it's not. And the military/militia argument is complete nonsense.
rednipJan 24, 2012
I'll disagree, Gov Romney doesn't seem 'slimy' overall, but he does seem to be ordered from Central Casting if one was looking for 'privileged, rich guy with little ability to connect to the common man'.
hibby76Jan 25, 2012
Romney is "too presidential"
Christie is "too overweight"
Santorum "just doesn't look presidential"
Gingrich is "too political"
Paul is "too quirky"
Make up your mind please.
treehugger87Jan 25, 2012
None of the people you list above represent the American people. Romney is too rich, Christie is a bully, Santorum hates homosexuals just because they're homosexual, Gingrich is a scumbag, immoral political insider and Paul wants to use America to experiment with ridiculous economic fantasies.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ultimisJan 25, 2012
They don't represent the American people because they're not liberal, we get it. Put down the koolaid for a bit please. "Christie is a bully" makes your entire comment laughable as you're using that as a fact that he doesn't represent the people.
treehugger87Jan 25, 2012
My criticism of these candidates has nothing to do with their political ideology. They are not appropriate candidates for leading a country. They do not represent the real concerns of real people.
You think I'm the first person call Christie a bully? He is a man incapable of having a civil dialog. He has proven over and over again that he is a charlatan and a bully, who prefers setting people up to get screwed than he does working with them to create solution.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
hibby76Jan 25, 2012
And Obama had never been elected before he was made president. We voted in a guy that was a "community organizer" and had mainly avoided making a decision on anything.
The constitution defines the eligibility requirements for president. Turns out that the president doesn't have to be thin, handsome, rich, poor, educated, or well spoken.
Welcome to America.
rednipJan 25, 2012
Obama was elected Senator both at the federal and state level, before winning the presidency. While it's true that he didn't have a great deal of experience, but claiming that he had none proves, I think, that you would do well to find a better source of political information other than the angry men of right wing talk radio.
ultimisJan 25, 2012
You didn't provide any "criticism". You provided insults: "Gingrich is a scumbag" which has absolutely *nothing* to do with representing the American people. You don't state *why* you think one is a bully and another is a scumbag, you state that they are and some how they are now suddenly disqualified.
I can list *dozens* of negative attributes on a much more detailed level about Obama, does that mean he doesn't represent his political base? Does that mean you will vow not to vote for him in the next election? Yeah that's what I thought.
Your criteria for "not representing the American people" is more likely that they *do not* fit your political persuasions. Instead of saying that, you toot your partisan whistle and continue on your merry way.
rednipJan 25, 2012
I don't recall making any of those observations, perhaps you confuse me with the strawman liberal made up by the reactionary media?
hibby76Jan 25, 2012
Traditional class warfare.
If you're rich then you're a "slimy rich guy". If you're poor or middle class you're a "hard working American".
salbatrossJan 25, 2012
When did I say, or even imply, that he represents all rich guys? In fact, I'm saying he's the sitcom parody of a rich guy. Not an accurate portrayal. Don't be such a douche.
hibby76Jan 25, 2012
So what makes him "slimy" vs "self reliant and successful"???
salbatrossJan 25, 2012
That creepy smile, his nonchalant proposal of a 10 grand bet, his characterization of 400k in speaker fees as "a little money," his offshore accounts.
hibby76Jan 25, 2012
His offshore accounts are listed in his tax return. He's not hiding anything.
He made $20M and only 370K or so was from speaker fees. That's 1/60th of his income. That's like $600 to someone who makes $35k per year.....it's not that much.
So you think the person with the best smile should be president? Let's just have GQ choose our presidents. I didn't realize you were so petty.
As for the bet, it was a bet from one millionaire to another. Either one could have afforded to lose.
salbatrossJan 25, 2012
Your apologetics are cute. I never said smiles should determine presidents, or that what he did was illegal, or that speaker fees formed a considerable portion of his income.
NeosopheusJan 24, 2012
"Corporations are people, my friend." - Mitt Romney
corydorningJan 24, 2012
+1 for the "my friend". not sure how many more times i can listen to him say that. hilarious!
Closed AccountJan 25, 2012
It will become an internet meme, my friend.
CrescentSkies_2Jan 24, 2012
One of the thousands of statements made by Romney that I disagree with...you know it's kinda sad that I'm supporting him, or that I'm picking him as the lesser of five evils...anyone else suddenly feel depressed about how our country's going?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
sheopleherderJan 24, 2012
When I vote for Ron Paul I am less depressed. At least I am making a statement to the establishment that I am able to handle a little bit of critical thinking.
CrescentSkies_2Jan 24, 2012
Ron Paul has severe issues. He takes good ideas and then drives them to the extreme.
He's already advocated legalizing heroin, prostitution, and hard drugs. He's advocated turning our military into a militia and expecting the countries around us to not attack out of the goodness of their hearts.
If you listen to half of what he says he's the best candidate in the world. When you listen to all of what he says, he needs to be put in a nuthouse.
letherialJan 24, 2012
At least he is consistent with his craziness
these other clowns spin circles to justify there own flawed logic.
hibby76Jan 25, 2012
No....he's an advocate of personal liberties. His fundamental belief isn't that prostitution is fantastic but rather consenting adults should be able to make choices and reap the consequences of those choices without the government telling them what to do all the time.
His message is that states should have more control to chart their own courses and the federal government should have less.
Try actually listening to what he says before you develop an opinion.
corydorningJan 24, 2012
is there a fifth i don't know about? and i don't feel depressed...i feel "enlightened". while i'm still holding out hope for Paul to win the nomination, even if he doesn't, the fact that the media continues to marginalize his message tells me he knows something that the american people need to know. and his base of supporters continues to build. maybe just maybe, the shills of america are waking up.
wishful thinking? maybe...time will tell.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
CrescentSkies_2Jan 24, 2012
words of the wise. Never vote for a politician based on what you think he may have said. That's how the senator who was sent to prison for corruption was re elected...while in prison.
corydorningJan 25, 2012
agreed. but ron paul's record speaks for itself.
NeosopheusJan 24, 2012
You act as if changing the captain of a sinking ship is going to rectify anything. The problem is systemic; if we want to address the problems, we need to address the underlying system that is the source of the problems.
hibby76Jan 25, 2012
And he goes on to say:
“Everything corporations earn ultimately goes to people. Where do you think it goes?”
NeosopheusJan 25, 2012
And what was the response of the crowd? He isn't fooling anyone.
hibby76Jan 25, 2012
How is he wrong?
agmlauncherJan 24, 2012
Brilliant. I grossed just $32,000 in 2011, most of which was self employment income, and my net tax rate was 17.4%
I also love how self-employment tax is 13.3% for all income up to 105,000 or whatever its, but then drops to just over 2% for all income over 105,000. That's brilliant. Way to punish small start-ups and favor businesses that make more a lot of money.
auditortuxJan 24, 2012
Its not to punish, the reason it drops after $105k is that Social Security has an upper limit to what it would pay out. Repeat after me, "Social Security is an investment"...
If you want to raise FICA (which we actually just lowered it) above its current limit, you'd either a) need to raise the maximum payout for Social Security (which would raise cries of giving money to those who really don't need it) or b) admit the Social Security is really just a welfare/entitlement program (and risk that "third rail" suddenly no longer being electrified)
amaoicanJan 24, 2012
"I also love how self-employment tax is 13.3% for all income up to 105,000 or whatever its"
The not-self-employed pay the same tax, but half of it is hidden as "employer contribution". This money goes toward your SS and medicare. In other words, you're being forced to save for your old age.
ponyponiponeJan 24, 2012
the 1% = own 40% of the wealth, pay 14% of the taxes
madtechnologistJan 24, 2012
the other 99% own 60% of the wealth, 50% pay 0 taxes. What's your point?
jrstinkfishJan 24, 2012
They pay 0 taxes? You want to maybe amend that statement so you don't look like you're mangling a Republican talking point?
corydorningJan 24, 2012
Sadly he's partially right. Too many ppl in this country don't pay taxes at all. This would be okay if taxes didn't exist.
That's why I think it's funny to see so many ppl bitch about the tax laws when they pay out nothing.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
salbatrossJan 24, 2012
INCOME taxes
corydorningJan 24, 2012
there are a bunch of ppl with INCOME that don't pay TAXES.
salbatrossJan 24, 2012
Let me explain this, because clearly it's not obvious. For example: 10% of 20k is not the same as 10% of a million. Taking 10% of 20k, obviously, is 2k, and it leaves the family with 18k. Now, depending on where they live, 20k, or 19k, may be the minimum liveable income--after all, there are only so many things one can skimp out on. Sometimes, a family needs literally every cent that comes in to make it. Not so with higher incomes.
chilidogsJan 24, 2012
"there are a bunch of ppl with INCOME that don't pay TAXES."
If someone works and doesn't pay income taxes then it is because they aren't paid enough to warrant it. A sane person would be asking why they are paid so little rather than suggesting that we should tax the working poor but republicans are hateful lunatics so that is what we are left with.
treehugger87Jan 24, 2012
Nobody pays out "nothing". Even unemployment checks have taxes withheld from them. You can't own property or drive without paying taxes. Everybody pays taxes.
madtechnologistJan 24, 2012
The poster was talking about income taxes, so that's what I was comparing. You can't just take part of the "facts" from two different arguments and try to fit them together to make your argument.....can't have it both ways. Either we're talking about tax rates (income/capital gains - the 14% mentioned) or we're talking about OVERALL taxes (which would make that 14% go significantly higher). Which is it?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
corydorningJan 24, 2012
they may pay out something...but they get it all back in the form of a tax return.
treehugger87Jan 24, 2012
@mad. The poster said nothing about income taxes:
"the 1% = own 40% of the wealth, pay 14% of the taxes"
Indeed, by definition income taxes are *never* paid on wealth, and wealth seems to be what the poster is talking about.
madtechnologistJan 24, 2012
Well, I'm assuming the poster is talking about income taxes, as that's a number that's commonly thrown around. Considering other taxes, I'm sure the "1%" pay more than what's stated (Democrat talking point?) considering sales tax, luxury taxes, estate taxes, etc that I'm sure equates to more than the 14% stated.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ponyponiponeJan 24, 2012
I'm talking about 1% of the population, owning 40% of the wealth of humanity, and a system which taxes them at an effective rate (Romney's 13.9% statement) of 14%.
How? Why? Who?
CrescentSkies_2Jan 24, 2012
actually he's correct. Take a look at the statistics :/ kinda makes you lose support for OCW
penglustJan 24, 2012
Again, it is a Repub talking point. Madtechnologist says to look at all the taxes paid as a percentage and is correct.
If you look at the people that pay little or nothing to the IRS they are usually still paying income tax to their state, sales tax, property tax indirectly through their rent, car taxes, various fees, etc. etc. etc.
This often still adds up to a greater percentage of their income than Romney pays.
It is a Repub misleading sound bite.
God I hate politics by sound bite.
CrescentSkies_2Jan 24, 2012
Well in all fairness are the democrats really any better?
madtechnologistJan 24, 2012
penglust, So the 14% that's being discussed as Romney's tax rate in the article and everyone is drooling about here, are you saying this is inclusive of his property and sales taxes? You are trying to mix arguments to fit your mold....either we are talking about income/capital gains (which is what I thought we were talking about, then, YES half the country PAYS NO TAXES)! Or are we talking about all the other taxes that EVERYONE pays, for which would significantly raise Romney's effective tax rate higher than the 14% that everyone has a boner about? Which is it? You can't mix facts to fit your argument - it's one way or the other.....
rednipJan 24, 2012
Our debt problem was not caused by giving the poor too much or not taking enough taxes from the middle class, it was the 15% rate for unearned income rather than the >30% rate for people who work for a living.
josh53188Jan 25, 2012
The poor don't pay FEDERAL INCOME TAX!!! Medicare + Social Security total up to 7.65% and State is variable. SSI has been reduced temporarily. Now go to richie rich, he only pays 7.65% up to ~$110,000. The rest is untaxed by FICA.
As far as tax burden is concerned, if you make more than 33k, you are responsible for 99% of all FEDERAL INCOME TAX but less responsible for MEDICARE and SSI as the pay increases. Currently, revenue from the top 1% is responsible for ~37% of all taxes collected and the top 5% including the top 1% are responsible for ~59% of all FEDERAL INCOME TAX. These are only statistics for Income tax and not FICA or other UN-EARNED TAX Revenue such as Capital Gains.
We all pay taxes for FICA, we all pay state - where applicable on Earned Income and in some places in Un-Earned income.
All that needs to be said is this, George W. Bush was the worst president since Nixon and his tax cuts while increasing spending have devastated our economy. The stimulus and bailouts that were given to the people and companies represented ~6% in GDP expenditures increase while the Bush Wars and tax cuts resulted in a ~27% increase in GDP expenditures relative to the reduction in tax revenues that resulted from the tax cuts.
Don't lie to yourselves either, we needed a stimulus but we didn't need tax cuts for the wealthy or a war with Iraq. War in Afghanistan was more than reasonable but not with Iraq.
rednipJan 25, 2012
Why does the GOP make the argument that the riches and the poorest should be taxed at the same overall percentage? Its like they don't care about the middle class at all and seem to say that the poor should be taxed the most, as there are more of them.
How silly.
dusanmalJan 24, 2012
If you want to complain, get your facts straight first. What you stated is unacceptable LIE. Now to the TRUE numbers:
From independent source, Tax Foundation: "...the top 1 percent of tax returns paid 36.7 percent of all federal individual income taxes and earned 16.9 percent of adjusted gross income (AGI)..."
Earned 16.9%, paid 36.7%... Enough said. The only fair taxation system is where people earning X% of income pay X% of all taxes. Rich top 1%, however you are led to hate their success pay 2.17 times MORE than they should in a fair taxation system.
So, stop gimme-whining and go succeed in life and be that rich 1%. I know people who came to this country without a penny and made it to that bracket with no Government tit' - hence everyone can do it.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
corydorningJan 24, 2012
While I don't dispute your TRUE numbers, this is digg. People on the internet are dumb. Others "go to college to get more knowledge".
ponyponiponeJan 24, 2012
The only fair way is to tax Wealth and not Income. Income and Sales tax both create deadweight loss, and deter growth. A Wealth tax adds pressure to keep money productive. These people own 40% of the wealth, and yet they have pay 0% Wealth tax, and an effective income tax that is only 14%! That they pay a higher percentage of the overall income tax revenue is a reflection of this unhealthy concentration of capital.
This creates a collusive environment for trading and investing, resulting in financial outcomes like Enron, Iraq War (yes that was an "investment") and 2007's multiple crashes. A whole lot of wealth these days is non-productive (sorry, but cash holdings is not productive, might as well be in a mattress).
What you don't seem to understand is that you are focusing on the bouncing ball of Reported Taxable Income, when the real economy and the mechanisms for its taxation are under a lot of pressure to support the existing class structure. That is the OPPOSITE of why capitalism was idealized. Capitalism allowed small entrepreneurs to use their ingenuity to create goods that consumers want and need by employing capital and labor for production. It was in response to Aristocratic and Royal political control over the economy. It was a way for common people to own land, and determine their livelihoods.
Today, capitalism is bolshevik, it presupposes a class of deserving individuals and is willing to incite political unrest in order to intensify the powers of that class. We can call these people the 1% or whatever, but just take a step back and see:
1% = Own 40% of Wealth, pay 14% in income tax.
corydorningJan 24, 2012
if you tax "income" the money is taxed before you can even turn it into "wealth". hard to create wealth if your returns are offset by taxes. then everyone lives check to check.
ponyponiponeJan 24, 2012
I agree! tax the wealth, and not the income :D
unclefireJan 24, 2012
Wealth is taxed. Its taxed when earned (wages, cap gains), taxed when held (real estate), taxed when bought (cars, boats, etc.). Taxed when used (gas taxes, licenses, personal property taxes). What more do you want?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ponyponiponeJan 24, 2012
I'm saying, replace a lot of the income taxes (not payroll, it pays for a social service) with a wealth tax (like property taxes for your city and county). This way poor people can continue to use all of their money to live, and large companies and individuals are discouraged from holding more than 1.5 Trillion Dollars in secure cash that is not being invested, paid out, or otherwise used. It is a highly destabilizing number, and should rightfully be taxed.
I'm not arguing to blindly increase taxation. I'm arguing to CHANGE the way we are taxed to reflect the modern economy, and promote entrepreneurship and ingenuity throughout the full economy, and not just for the 1% mafia.
unclefireJan 24, 2012
That's silly. You're suggesting we tax cash held in accounts? What about retirement savings held in taxable accounts? What about cash reserves companies have to hold for regulatory reasons for expenses.
You're suggesting we tax people's money just for the hell of it.
Sorry its just a dumb idea.
ponyponiponeJan 24, 2012
We already do: Property Taxes - homeowners pay tax on the value of their home. Estate Tax - estates of the deceased pay a tax on the value of the gift transfer. Many countries in the world have a wealth tax. Money is not a real thing, it is a tally of favors, and measure of relative value. That's why we allow the Fed to manage our currency. Wealth taxes are always lower, because it gets at money that would otherwise be invisible from tax (Cash Holdings), and encourages it to be used to earn more money (starting or expanding businesses)
PyriteGenieJan 24, 2012
Don't forget it's taxed when you're finished with it (death tax).
Closed AccountJan 25, 2012
Any smart person should die deeply in debt.
miklkitJan 24, 2012
That is only part of the story. The federal government gets more money from payroll taxes than from income taxes. And business taxes are an even smaller part of its income.
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/background/numbers/revenue.cfm
bobcat7407Jan 25, 2012
"The federal government gets more money from payroll taxes than from income taxes"
Did you misspeak? Or did you not look at your own link?
From your link:
"The individual income tax has been the largest single source of federal revenue since 1950, averaging just over 8 percent of GDP."
markglJan 24, 2012
My friend Bill can explain to you about eating the rich.
http://youtu.be/661pi6K-8WQ
Once you've eaten all of the rich peoples money, who's money do we eat then?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ponyponiponeJan 24, 2012
When you eat the rich, the money goes back into the portfolio of the "eater". How do you think the uberrich get so rich? They're eating people... whole.
markglJan 24, 2012
No it doesn't. It won't get back to me. The only way that would work is to just straight up take all their money and distribute it to everyone. That will never happen and I wouldn't want it to happen. I'd never want something that is mine and given to someone else.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ponyponiponeJan 24, 2012
If you create a company, and destroy someone else and take their company, you will own their company. That is "eating the rich" The rich do it among themselves. Now for a government to "eat the rich" the money would go to pay down federal debt, which decreases the amount necessary for the government to balance its budget. Once the budget is balanced, cuts made to the budget or surpluses generated decrease the next year's budget, and can lead to responsible decreases in taxes.
You may be jaded by the last surplus tax cut, because you got $500 in a federal stimulus check in 2003-4 from Bush, while the rest of the surplus tax cuts (and then some) went to the 1%. That's what they call "the Bush Tax Cuts."
If you were richer, you could eat some rich people and get uberrich, but because you're probably not (statistically speaking) you're better off choosing a long-term solution that decreases your long-run tax burden.
FYI: Romney ate a bunch of rich people while doing his slash/burn as an 80s banker. He's rich because he eats rich people, and the poor people who they employed...
markglJan 24, 2012
You watch too many Hollywood movies. Their goal was to not destroy companies to make money. You gotta get past that man, or else you'll be living in this world of hatred looking at the negative in everything.
bestenemyJan 24, 2012
Good honest, hard-working people continue to elect these rich ****s****rs who don't give a f**k about them!
- George Carlin
markglJan 24, 2012
Go away with the comedian quotes. They don't do nothing but make you lame.
corydorningJan 24, 2012
"They don't do nothing but make you lame."
Kind of like this comment? Just saying.
markglJan 24, 2012
See off topic already.
penglustJan 24, 2012
Bull s**t. The quote is spot on to the problem. Why do you think people who consistently want the Daily Show score much higher is current affairs.
markglJan 24, 2012
Because he pokes fun at current topics.
emo110Jan 24, 2012
But if you weren't already familiar with "current affairs" then you wouldn't get the joke...
treehugger87Jan 24, 2012
Go away with supporting Republicans. It doesn't do anything but make you lame.
sheopleherderJan 24, 2012
I just don't think that a guy that has America's best interests in mind should use foreign tax shelters...
treehugger87Jan 24, 2012
You're not the only one.
jceezJan 25, 2012
Yup. 13.9% isn't the alarming thing. Yes the majority of his taxes paid can be attributed to capital gains.... but the undisclosed overseas tax havens he's got
hibby76Jan 25, 2012
They're on his tax return......that's hardly "undisclosed".
jceezJan 25, 2012
Did you read the article?
"Romney’s holdings include an undisclosed amount in funds based in the Grand Cayman Islands and other overseas entities."
hibby76Jan 25, 2012
You said the "undisclosed overseas tax havens" which were disclosed on his tax return.
rednipJan 25, 2012
You seem to say that it's OK for Romney to hide money oversees if the account is noted on his returns.
It may be legal (for now) but it ain't right.
hibby76Jan 25, 2012
He didn't write the tax code. What he's doing is no different than you claiming your mortgage interest as a tax deduction. It's a legal way to reduce your tax liability. Don't be a hypocrite.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
spazattack5000Jan 25, 2012
Yeah it's JUST like that.
You can't be serious,
hibby76Jan 26, 2012
So you pay more taxes that what you owe? You don't claim your deductions? His tax return is 550 pages but it's the same idea........use the current law to pay the least amount as we're legally required to.
jhw539Jan 24, 2012
Bwhahahahaha - he was really working like hell (and looking slimy in the process) trying to hide that Swiss bank account. Closed it in 2010, but just couldn't get away with waiting until April and only releasing his 2011 returns.
Gods, can you imagine the embarrassing shenanigans he probably was pulling back in 2007, before he started running? Seriously - lets see if we can start some rumors here!
treehugger87Jan 24, 2012
I heard that Romney made a fortune funneling money from the sale of weapons to Iran in order to fund Nicaraguan Contras .
ridgerunner5Jan 24, 2012
Nonono, that was Bush.
macromorganJan 24, 2012
If he's following the letter of the tax code, why are we pissed off at 13.9%? Shouldn't we be pissed off at the tax code and the clowns who wrote it?
miklkitJan 24, 2012
We should be pissed at the corporate lobbyists who bought the politicians and wrote the laws for them.
McCain had 19 paid lobbyists flying with him in 2008.
mercedrocksJan 24, 2012
Come on. Thats a dumb answer.
They dont vote WE DO.
So I guess if anything people like you are stupid for listening and being unable to vote the RIGHT way.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
penglustJan 24, 2012
We should be pissed of at the politicians on both sides of the isles that listen to the **** s****rs.
ridgerunner5Jan 24, 2012
And the tax laws weren't written in 2008.
mercedrocksJan 24, 2012
Come on Dems dont believe in personal responsibility. Its always somebody else's fault, usually "the man's." lol
ren1999Jan 25, 2012
Romney paid 14% in Taxes while people making $12.50/hour paid 25%.
Romney earned his fortune dismantling businesses.
Romney flip-flops on many issues all the time.
ShovelbabyJan 25, 2012
When you look at the actual rate people pay, they do not pay 25% at the income level that you are referring to. The only people who pay more than 15% earn over $200,000.
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/numbers/displayatab.cfm?Docid=3163&DocTypeID=1
floepieJan 24, 2012
"I don't think you would want to have as a presidential candidate someone who would pay more than what he is billed."
Rather than defend these low rates with reason and rather than outing his returns sooner than later, he has surely landed two slugs in his feets.
futfanaticoJan 24, 2012
So basically the Libertarian wetdream has already become a reality, we just didn't realize it. He basically made money off closing US businesses, outsourcing jobs, paying himself dividends, and then hiding those dividend proceeds in the Cayman Islands.
THIS IS JUST THE ANSWER TO A JOBLESS RECOVERY!
strenothJan 24, 2012
You mean he made money buy helping staples and dominoes recover when both were about to crash and burn, amongst other companies that he saved from going bankrupt? His success rate at going into a failing business and turning it around is roughly 2 out of 3. So out of 3 companies that WOULD have gone out of business, he manages to save 2.
Now I'm not saying he's perfect, or that he maybe could have done better by america as a whole, but remember that companies like Bain make the most money when they reinvigorate a business, and then are able to sell it whole at a higher margin of profit, after having already gotten money from the company's revenue.
breaking it up and selling it off is a decision of last resort. The outsourcing jobs part you seem to be right on, but it'd be less of an issue (ie, companies would not do so as much) if the tax & labor costs in America were not so much higher than over seas. It's just simply financial sense to manufacture as inexpensively as you can.
PyriteGenieJan 24, 2012
Staples and Dominos were just a smokescreen, a beard, to hide the orgiastic bliss he gets at dismantling the corpse of Kay Bee Toys. /s
futfanaticoJan 24, 2012
Kay Bee Toys is the perfect example - a business that is doing fine in terms of producing a product, holding marketshare, and having lots of employees. The problem? They didn't make enough profit that went to shareholders or management. Heaven forbid! Thus, buy KB, pay a huge dividend to yourself, then start the layoffs and outsourcing.
However, I agree with strenoth that Bain has done some good work with tweaking corporate fundamentals. We also can't ever stop globalization, but I think tax policy as structured really encourages this dividend/outsource model. If I can make more money by killing companies (due to investment tax rates) as opposed to being a CEO (due to income tax rates), then why be a CEO?
linuxpersonJan 24, 2012
When will you get off your ass and jump start a toy business instead of lecturing people on digg?
linuxpersonJan 24, 2012
So now you're claiming Mittens is a libertarian?
craig1958Jan 24, 2012
The "social conservatives" will go nuts (OK, more nuts) when they see that he gave about $4million to the LDS church.
norman619Jan 24, 2012
Big shock! Romney's taxes aren't like the average person's. Nothing in his tax return is illegal. It just confirms what we already knew. He's a wealthy person.
ridgerunner5Jan 24, 2012
Which makes him EVIL
badsyntaxJan 24, 2012
I have a *really* hard time justifying why some should pay more on a dollar they earn than another. Ignoring capital gains and stuff of course, which skews things.
A flat tax *seems* to make a lot of sense, everybody pays, say 20%.
Now most people making under 30K a year don't pay anything, well, they get huge rebate checks (My wife and I have to pay every year, with 0 deductions, ugh) so asking them to take 20% of their VERY needed pay for a flat tax really seems unfair. However, somebody with billions wouldn't notice a difference between 20% and 80% in their daily lives.
I know we can't have a flat tax in this country without essentially screwing those who never have moldy bread or sour milk, but if you don't have a flat tax I can't see how it wouldn't be fair.
No income tax, and all sales based tax (except food/medicine/utilities) seems to make sense, as people who spend money pay for taxes, but I'm not sure if that would work either.
Either way, not a single republican candidate has the welfare of the country, without any personal bias, in mind, and thus, Obama will simply be re-elected. Maybe in 2016, we can get a less s**tty candidate :(
auditortuxJan 24, 2012
There are two simple systems you could do. A flat tax with a single deduction per person (say, $10k per adult, $5k per dependent child) so that those near the poverty line don't pay nearly anything (it also makes it effectively progressive).
The second option is a national sales tax with a "prebate" where every American gets a check at the beginning of every month that is how much someone at poverty level would have paid in taxes.
The second might work and would be a much more "fair" tax in the economic sense (you don't want to reduce the earning of income nor consumption, but if you had to pick, you'd rather reduce consumption), but fraud would be a huge issue.
amaoicanJan 24, 2012
I think a flat tax with a per capita deduction and a provision for negative amounts (if your adjust income is negative, government pays you) is the way to go.
E.g. If the per capita deduction is $15k/person and the tax rate is 40%, a family of 3 making $25k would get back $8k, thus allowing them to consume $33k worth of goods and services. Meanwhile, a single person making $50k would pay in $14k, thus allowing him to enjoy $36k in goods and services.
Oh, and to be clear, I see this negative income provision as _replacing_ all current forms of welfare - unemployment, social security, food stamps, disability, etc.
badsyntaxJan 24, 2012
But that simply isn't fair as people who earn more get taxed more, yet most likely use less public services. I don't agree with a tax benefit for extra kids at *all*, as that is just ridiculous and penalizes those without kids and is a freaking salary for those that choose to have too many.
There is simply no logical reason I can see to tax people at different rates depending upon their income, nor for the government to be obligated to help people financially who simply don't make enough money. Give them schooling sure, helping them find work great, but just a handout for nothing in return? That is insanity.
I could accept salary caps (like you can't make more than 20% more than your highest paid underling), profit sharing (ALL employees get a share... or they could take a loss), or the federal government simply not being allowed to collect taxes from citizenry anymore, but instead asking states to do just that, more than I could accept one person paying 10% while another pays 20%, especially when the 10% person is probably utilizing services the other is paying for.
amaoicanJan 24, 2012
"that simply isn't fair as people who earn more get taxed more"
Sure it is. My system recognizes that there's a portion of your money that you need to survive, and taxes the abundance, not the gross. If your business entails driving an ice cream truck, you can write off all expenses of maintaining the truck. So if your business entails driving a human body, why can't you write off all expenses of maintaining the human body? Ie clothing, feeding, housing.
But I stop short of saying that everyone should get to deduct just however frikkin much they want to in those areas. A shirt on your back is a necessity. A Ralph Lauren shirt on your back is a luxury. So it needs to be a statutory amount, not an itemized list.
"I don't agree with a tax benefit for extra kids"
You may have to learn to live with it. Support for tax reductions for families with children is bipartisan. At least my system consolidates all the damned incentives, tax credits, handouts, etc, into one system, and in such a way that there's no risk of a person being disincentivized from taking a higher paying job for fear of losing government cheese. E.g. in one of my liberal arts classes, we learned that under current law at the time, a family of 3 making $25k ended up having more "real" income than a family of 3 making $45k. The 'richer' family paid more tax of various kinds, the 'poorer' family got more benefits, and ultimately the poorer family was actually richer than the richer family. That means if you are sitting at $25k you might as well stay there rather than trying to move up. That's wrong.
"I could accept salary caps"
No. Horrible idea. Never say can't. I might be brought around to a "chief tax" - any amount you earn over some multiple of your higher/lowest/average underling gets taxed at a higher rate. But that would be a privacy and enforcement nightmare.
"more than I could accept one person paying 10% while another pays 20%"
I don't even see why you think percentages is fair, tbh. Why percentages? Why not raw dollar amounts? How about saying that each citizen is responsible for paying their per capita share of the federal budget, cap the amount of a person's paycheck the government can actually take out, then keep track of the uncollected amount. If/when they start making more than enough to pay their fair share, they continue to have to pay the statutory limit as a percentage until they're paid up. If a person dies with a balance and insufficient assets to make good, add it to the budget for that year so it gets redistributed across the population.
That's way more fair than everyone paying a percentage of their income!
amaoicanJan 24, 2012
I know this girl, she made $1000 last year. $1000. A thousand bucks! Because it is 1099 income, no tax was withheld and now she has to pay self-employment tax. Something like $150. She owes $150 in tax on $1000 of income. As you might imagine, she doesn't have it.
$1000 is nothing. I don't even know how she lived - presumably bumming. Setting aside how stupid it was for her to only earn $1000, do you really think it's fair to expect someone who made so little to pay in? I certainly don't.
Incidentally, there were reasons she didn't earn more - personal strife, in short. IMO, she should probably be on disability and/or other aide, but she is.. odd. Paranoid about the government.
concusionJan 24, 2012
Wow look at communism under Obama in full effect. How does Romney put food on the table with so many taxes.
RavenshoodieJan 24, 2012
Now we got him right where we want him!
m3g4tr0nJan 25, 2012
Hate the game, not the player.
al3efromanJan 25, 2012
This particular player's firm had enough money to hire a large lobbying organization to keep the carryover loophole, thus rigging the game.
m3g4tr0nJan 26, 2012
The game is rigged because we continually elect individuals based on social issues like abortion, immigration, and gay marriage. We need to put bulls**t social issues on the back-burner, and elect people who will reform the tax code to get the wealthy and corporations to pay their fair share.
I don't fault the businesses or the wealthy at all. If they found a loophole that allows them to keep their wealth, more power to them. They're just living in a world that we created.
ka5p3rJan 24, 2012
and you wonder why america is in such trouble.one reason,you elected them and like California re elect cons.
miklkitJan 24, 2012
We finally got a Democrat for Governor and are doing much better now.
PyriteGenieJan 24, 2012
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss -- literally.
madtechnologistJan 24, 2012
Why only focus on Republicans that do this? Seems hypocritical to 'pick and choose' where you want to apply your moral relevancy.
miklkitJan 24, 2012
OK, let's get mad at Buffet and Gates for wanting their taxes raised............
njdoo7Jan 24, 2012
While ignoring the fact that they don't really pay taxes on a lot of their income, and still wouldn't if their rates were hiked:
"Berkshire Hathaway, the eighth-largest public company in the world according to Forbes, openly admits to still owing taxes for years 2002 through 2004 and 2005 through 2009, according to the New York Post. The company says it expects to "resolve all adjustments proposed by the US Internal Revenue Service" within the next year. "
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/29/warren-buffett-taxes-berkshire-hathaway_n_941099.html
Gates funnels most of his money into a tax-exempt foundation.
corydorningJan 24, 2012
nothing but a publicity stunt. everyone of the idiots that say they want more taxes has every right to pay MORE taxes without any intervention from the government. yet for some reason, none of them choose to do so. hmm.................
(periods added for effect?)Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
emo110Jan 24, 2012
He's willing/going to pay more, so quit your whining............
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/business/2012/01/warren-buffett-to-match-republicans-tax-donations/
Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) then introduced the “Buffett Rule Act” in October, an option on tax forms allowing the wealthy to donate more in taxes to reduce the deficit.
Buffett told Time for this week’s cover story that he will match Republicans’ voluntary contributions.
“And I’ll even go three for one for McConnell,” Buffett said.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
corydorningJan 24, 2012
see my link below.
corydorningJan 24, 2012
here's your proof:
http://www.myfreedomfoundation.com/index.php/student_freedom_project/view/all_i_want_for_christmas_is...higher_taxes
corydorningJan 24, 2012
a downvote? for a video exposing those that "want" to pay more taxes?
wait a sec...you must be in the video!
CrescentSkies_2Jan 24, 2012
Or we could question Buffet and Gates about their statistics and how they may benefit from this. Call me crazy but I've never seen anyone write articles like this unless it was to personally benefit themselves. I have a strange feeling they have some incentive besides the "common good" for writing all this up.
mjm6783Jan 24, 2012
Agreed. Conversely, why do republicans insist on changing the subject or dismissing any criticism levied against them?
Also you used apostrophes as unnecessary quotations. And I think you might want to reconsider the use of the term moral relevancy. Perhaps you meant moral reasoning?
futfanaticoJan 24, 2012
I think this is a fair point, but let's recall the weird "budget balancing" stuff that Bush pulled to get his tax stuff passed instead of having to get majorities in Congress.
hiltonexeterJan 25, 2012
Romney is just another wealthy Republican that uses the tax code that is made to help the rich. This just shows that the richer you are in this country the less taxes you pay. And if the Republicans take over congress and the White house they will just make the tax code better for guys like Romney.The US tax code is built for the rich. It actually takes from the middle class, that is why the middle class is disappearing.
I am sure that Romney is proud of the fact that he is using every loop hole in the tax code. And that he has hidden money in the Cayman Islands, and probably many other countries that hide money from other countries,too!
crom99Jan 24, 2012
Who cares about this crap, he's Mormon! Amirite, evangelicals?
ShovelbabyJan 25, 2012
"The middle 20% of income earners pay taxes at an average rate of just 2.3%. The next highest 20% pay at an average rate of only 6.1%.
Even when you include payroll taxes, the effective rate for families in the middle of the income spectrum is less than 13%, according to data from the Tax Policy Center.
IRS data, meanwhile, show that families with incomes of between $50,000 and $100,000 paid an average 8.9% in income taxes, while those earning between $100,000 and $200,000 paid an average 12.7%."
http://news.investors.com/Article/598186/201201181847/myths-about-romneys-15-tax-rate.htm
The only people who pay more than 15% earn over $200,000. Mitt is NOT paying a lower percentage than the middle class.
mercedrocksJan 24, 2012
He pays a lower rate because its not income from wages, but investments which are rightly taxed at a lower rate because they have high degree of risk.
You can lose it all and the govt wont pay u back or let u write it off, unlike wages which are guaranteed. You can't lose your wages.
Jack up cpital gains taxes to 35% but then do be surprised if investments plummet and reduce the number of jobs.
Who's going to want to risk all their money with the govt taking a third if it pays off? Raise the rates if u want but then they ought to be able to deduct losses as if it were ordinary income.
Cant have it both ways.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
markusfarkusJan 24, 2012
I'd like to believe that investors would not rather make no money than make a little less money. Capital gains should be progressive like income tax. "Commoners" who are investing for retirement or their kids and are only making a few thousand a year doing so should pay a low rate, like 5%. But if investing is your "job" and you're making hundreds of millions of dollars a year doing so then it should be taxed at a higher rate.
mercedrocksJan 24, 2012
But what if u lose hundreds of millions of dollars or billions of dollars as was the case with Solyndra? Kodak? Or Chrysler and GM a few years ago when they went bankrupt and were bought by the govt? Everybody from employee pension funds to the average Joe lost money and couldnt write it off.
The point is you want people to invest since it creates more jobs which in turn create more taxes.
Otherwise people will just invest their money in countries with more appealing investment opportunities (ie lower capital gains taxes).Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
BluntzworthJan 24, 2012
"Otherwise people will just invest their money in countries with more appealing investment opportunities (ie lower capital gains taxes)."
This is where the divide between Nationalism and Capitalism sets in. People who invest in foreign countries are doing so to increase their wealth at the expense of their home country. That is what we as a country have to determine, do we value an economic system, Capitalism, over the security of our nation, United States of America?
mercedrocksJan 24, 2012
? So what is Canada? Its capitalist and has lower capital gains taxes (14.5 vs 15). Investing in Canada hardly undermines our "national security." In japan teh rate is actually 7%.
BluntzworthJan 24, 2012
When money is being invested outside of the US and is not subject to US tax laws, it undermines the US economy and as a result does undermine our national security. The lass of tax revenue and American jobs does undermine our national security, all those cool planes and big ships aren't cheap.
Just because you selected to strong allies of the US, does mean that it doesn't effect our economy.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
markusfarkusJan 24, 2012
I fail to see the connection. How does paying a higher rate when I make money on investments affect my ability to write it off when I lose money?
penglustJan 24, 2012
It does not. It would also no change the fact that if you had a winner at 1 mil and a loser at 500K you would only pay taxes on 500K.
Its a republican sound bite.
mercedrocksJan 24, 2012
And you sir are a lame cliche.
REPs = DEMs thats what's so funny. DEMs complain idiot REPS are in the pocket of Wall St while they collect campaign cash from the same guys.
mercedrocksJan 24, 2012
U can only write off to up to $3000. If u lose 3,001 dollars you're on the hook for the dollar, invest and lose a million your out $997,000.
Wages are GUARANTEED. Investments are not. Ask Kodak.
markusfarkusJan 24, 2012
So there is no connection. Got it.
Thanks.
penglustJan 25, 2012
BS. You can claim up to all your gains for the year plus $3000.
penglustJan 24, 2012
Point is it is not creating jobs at the moment. At least not in this country. We should also be taxing them on every dollar sent out of the country.
mercedrocksJan 24, 2012
How can u tax every dollar sent out of the country? That's stupid. Oftentimes they create companies they make and sell products exclusively overseas. Should we ban that too?
Moron.
jhw539Jan 24, 2012
"But if investing is your "job" and you're making hundreds of millions of dollars a year doing so then it should be taxed at a higher rate."
And it is very easy to do this - just tax capital gains THE SAME WAY REAGAN DID. As income, with the same rates and graduated scale. Capital gains taxes for the wealthy under Reagan were almost DOUBLE what they are now. Worked just fine then.
http://www.npr.org/2011/10/17/141407285/times-have-changed-since-reagans-1986-tax-reform
That worked, and worked very well. The only reason it isn't done is because the wealthiest have bought it down. Unfortunately, in their greed they've forgotten why the wealthy (who have always had the most power - which isn't necessarily bad if the meritocracy hasn't been perverted) invented progressive income taxes in the first place: if you don't want your head on a proverbial pike, you toss the commoners enough money to attend the games at the Coliseum every once in while...
theswashbucklerJan 24, 2012
"which are rightly taxed at a lower rate because they have high degree of risk"
Bulls**t. They are taxed at a lower rate because those that make their money have bought politicians to change the tax code so that they pay a lower rate.
mercedrocksJan 24, 2012
What does that have to do with risk? Wages and investment are 2 diff types of income, one GUARANTEED the other is NOT. You cant gamble your wages nor do u create jobs with it.
Do u want people to RISK THEIR MONEY to create new jobs or do u want them to tuck it away?
Lame.
theswashbucklerJan 24, 2012
You certainly are.
concusionJan 24, 2012
but I thought Obama is a communist that redistributes wealth. Apparently he did that for everyone but Romney right? Obama ruined this country with his communist agenda!!!!!!!!!!! Those damn rich up to 14 percent tax!!!! communism!!!!!!!!!! Marxist!!!!!! rape!!!!!!
nmw6Jan 25, 2012
Haha yeah if Obama is a "redistributionist" who "punishes success" he obviously isn't doing a very good job at it. I mean our middle class family pays a higher tax rate than Willard.
strenothJan 24, 2012
Just as a note (believe him or not as you will), Romney has claimed he would lower income tax (making highest income tax bracket 25%), and raise capital gain income tax (I do not know of a specific number, but probably something like 20%). Thus investors, who help stimulate the economy which is good and gets more tax money for the gov. in the long run anyway, would still pay reduced taxes, just not as reduced.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
zulshah06Feb 6, 2012
haha....what i already think and this actually happen...
cheers,
http://airplanesimulatorsim.blogspot.com/
karmashockJan 25, 2012
While Romney pays too little taxes it's symptomatic of an overly complex taxation system which is itself a response to an unreasonable tax rate.
The reality is that we can find ways to lower the tax rate if you won't compromise by building in loopholes that effectively negate taxable income from calculation. You can't stop that because most politicians right and left will make it happen.
The only way to stop it is to make the system too simple for loopholes. And the only way that will work is if the system is reasonable without loopholes.
Do you honestly think Romney or just EVIL republicans do this sort of thing? Everyone is doing it. Right left... everyone.
if you want this to stop... you have to strike a compromise we can all accept. Pointblank. If you're not prepared to do that then the loopholes remain and the actual tax rate is anyone's guess.
u2canfailJan 25, 2012
Holdings where? Tax heavens. Romney supports other countries! Not the USA.
sandylandersJan 25, 2012
He gives millions to charity. But, Odumbo and Moochelle, two model DemocRATS give paltry sums back in the form of charitable contributions. Those contributions are TAX DEDUCTIBLE which reduces his tax rate. He pays what the law tells him he must just as the rest of us do. What makes DemocRATS such stingy people?
concusionJan 25, 2012
yeah because Obama didn't work as a community organizer helping the poor
TomsfavouritesJan 25, 2012
He is a complete aristocrat. A red coat.
dustinthewind2Jan 25, 2012
How does this guy, who's worth hundreds of millions, pay a smaller percentage than someone like me, who makes far less than 1% of that? Welcome to the American tax system. Welcome to America.
cawpinJan 24, 2012
I don't particularly like Romney but why is this news? It isn't hard to lower your effective tax rate. You just have to know the breaks you are eligible for and put in a minimum of work to use them.
youareretardedJan 24, 2012
He represents his constituents well!
mister_666Jan 24, 2012
My dad lost his job of 15 years and we lost our house because of the unethical actions of a few. I hear that Romney was against mortgage assistance. He is going to have a hard time selling himself to people who lost their homes, are on the verge of losing their homes, or those who are upside down in their mortgages. In fact I think it is safe to say he is going to have a hard time selling himself to most of middle class america who would really be suffering if not for the bailouts especially when he has like 5 houses.
nairebisJan 25, 2012
What does Romney or any politician have to do with your dad, personally, losing his job? Exactly how is it the government's fault that you, personally, lost your house presumably because you couldn't make the payments?
And exactly how is the government supposed to guarantee that your house never loses value from what you paid for it? Guess what? If you're buying houses with the expectation that the value will always increase, then you're gambling, not buying a place to live. Gamblers sometimes lose.
mister_666Jan 25, 2012
Romney said he did not support and mortgage assistance. He said the the market should run its course. I didnt say it was Romney's fault, but that he is going to have a hard selling himself to people who lost their houses while he has numerous large homes. Get it?
Secondly it was the housing bubble that burst because of the actions of the gambling that banks took which led to my dad losing his job which led to us losing our house. We did not gamble, we were living within our means and yet we and many people like us got screwed because of the actions of others.
Dont come here and insult my intelligence when you obviously didnt read what I actually wrote and made all kinds of assumptions. And the point still stands. He is a rich kid who is so far detached from reality that he will have a hard time selling himself to those of us who live reality.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
kingliamJan 26, 2012
Just as a side note: we often focus on all the people who lost their homes, but its important to note that many people didn't lose their homes during the housing collapse because they were living within their means. I'm really sorry your dad lost his job and home, but had he paid off the house before he took out a mortgage?
Many people seem to feel they are entitled to government assistance to help pay their debts, even though their debt was caused by their own hand. I'm guessing Romney doesn't support government sanctioned mortgage assistance because the it begs the question: where do we draw the line? If we are going to help people with mortgages, why not credit card debt? Gambling debt? Health care debt? No offense, but why should the government help one sector of debt within the nation, but not another?
mister_666Jan 26, 2012
And how many people who havent lost their homes have lost incredible amounts of value in their homes, due to the actions of others?
How many people do you know that have a paid off house or can pay cash for a house? We bought a house that we could afford given my dad's paycheck, based on a job that he held for over 15 years. There was no indication that he would lose his job. You are implying that we bought a house that we were living above our means which insulting because we always strive to live on what we make. We did not have credit card debt, our cars were bought and paid for. So sorry we did not have over one hundred thousand to pay for a house outright.
Same me your entitlement speech. It does not beg any other question. People need housing and we bought a house and played exactly by the rules. We put money down on the house, we bought a house we could afford. Now because some people made major mistakes we had to pay the price.
kingliamJan 26, 2012
Don't take me the wrong way. I'm being general and not necessarily saying your dad's case is the same as others. Your dad's case is slightly different and very sad because he lost his job.
Nonetheless, you never answered my first question. Had he paid off the house before he took a mortgage on it? Don't get me wrong though, I'm not attacking your dad's case--I'm trying to comment on the issue of mortgage assistance.
I think we shouldn't confuse commonplace of taking out mortgages with financial responsibility. Many people lost their homes because they had 2nd and 3rd mortgages.
In terms of your first question, investments don't have a fixed value. They go up and down and you can't assume they will always increase. People lost their homes because they couldn't pay off the debt they had on them. If they had lived providently (as some did), they wouldn't have lost their homes.
I know many people who have paid off their homes because they didn't go into more debt than they could handle.
"You are implying that we bought a house that we were living above our means which insulting because we always strive to live on what we make." No, I didn't imply that. All I asked was if your dad paid off his home first before taking out a mortgage. I really am sorry for your dad and family. Its a tragic situation. I just don't agree with mortgage assistance programs.
mister_666Jan 27, 2012
The house a single mortgage on it. One monthly payment that was well affordable given my dad's monthly paycheck and the security of over 15 years on the job. You keep saying "All I asked was if your dad paid off his home first before taking out a mortgage" That is a really stupid question. If we paid of the mortgage we wouldn't have lost the house. Since we didnt have over $100 thousand to pay for the house outright, we had to "mortgage" the home in order to buy it. This is quite a common practice.
The only reason we lost our house is because my dad lost his job in an industry that was directly affected by the unethical and greedy actions of a few. Housing values went down because of those same actions. My sister's exboyfriend was a mortgage broker. He and many many people in that field sold mortgages to people who couldn't afford them by fudging their income numbers or by other fraudulent means. He had home appraisers who would appraise homes for tens of thousands of dollars more than they were actually worth. They artificially drove up all housing values. Him and people like him got rich while people like us got screwed. They drove the market up and made it unsustainable. Do you get that their actions affected everyone?
eraptorJan 24, 2012
Mitt's unfit for the Presidency.
If he's not loyal enough to pay his fair share of taxes, why in the world would the country trust him to be loyal enough to protect it's other interestsComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
nairebisJan 24, 2012
So the only people "fit" to be President are people who pay MORE than what the government says they owe in taxes? What ridiculous logic.
eraptorJan 25, 2012
Your baseless deflection won't work. Mitt came NOWHERE near meeting his statutory federal income tax obligations. Instead, he used every tax dodge available to EVADE his financial responsibilities as a citizen.
Offshore tax havens aren't used by responsible U.S. citizens, they are used by tax cheats. That's why organized crime CREATED them.
nairebisJan 25, 2012
Uh, no. Most of his income is from capital gains. He pays the capital gain rate. So do you, if you own any stocks.
eraptorJan 25, 2012
I've been in the "game" long enough to remember when capital gains rates were higher and WHY they were lowered. That rate reduction was NEVER meant to be permanent for the VERY reasons we are debating it now. Money managers and the rich always use the gap between capital gains and federal income tax rates to dodge their personal tax obligations.
This is NOT a new disgrace, it's an OLD tax dodge that Ronald Reagan dusted off.
By the way, I owe a substantial number of stocks and I STILL oppose this tax dodge. It's irresponsible AND harmful to the country. That's why I agree with Warren Buffett that this disgrace MUST change.
nairebisJan 25, 2012
It's not a "tax dodge", it's the freaking tax rate on capital gains. If you want it be raised, fine, then be in favor of raising it and make your voice heard. But that has nothing to do with Romney and the 10s of millions of others who have income from that source. You seem to be implying that investing in stocks is unethical because the tax rate is too low, which is absurd logic. Romney invested his money, he lives off his investments, and pays what the government requires him to pay. Exactly what would you have him do instead?
eraptorJan 25, 2012
@nairebis,
No matter how you try to avoid the truth, lower capital gains are a TAX DODGE. Why?
Because the financial services industry and people, like Mitt, paid lobbyists to "convince" U.S. politicians it was in the nation's best interest to LOWER them to BOOST economic activity which would benefit the country. As we all know now, that was a LIE, as evidenced by ongoing U.S. economic DETERIORATION that started when those rates were LOWERED. Instead of greater economic strength, money managers and "investors" use(d) the lower capital gains rates to AVOID their federal income tax OBLIGATIONS. This is supported by HISTORICAL TAX data, economic metrics and news acounts of the effort when it was PURSUED.
Legal technicalities do NOT give you, OR Mitt, the cover you mistakenly assume. By the way, John Stewart/TDS exposed your lie for what it is last night. I realize he put a satirical spin on that disgrace, but it rings true. Catch it on Hulu...
What do I expect from people like Mitt?
As a citizen of this country, I expect them to contribute as much to this country as they've sucked out of it. This doesn't mean a 100% tax rate. The statutory federal income tax rate which applies to their income (REGARDLESS of its source) would suffice. This is based on meeting one's TRUE financial RESPONSIBILITIES instead of expecting the less fortunate to pick up YOUR financial slack. Mitt's current tax compliance behavior makes him, and people/organizations like him, social parasites and deadbeats...NOTHING more.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
kingliamJan 26, 2012
Eraptor: If YOU has 20M in capital gains during the year, how much taxes would you pay?
And don't try to argue with me that you would pay more than 15%!
Also, be careful. Your argument has a false cause logical fallacy in it. The US going into economic deterioration wasn't necessarily caused by the capital gains rates being lowered. Many other things/factors happened those years and you can't -say- what caused it.
kingliamJan 26, 2012
Do you even know what you are talking about?? Mitt pays 14% because he is paying on capital gains. He is paying the rate the government requires. ALSO, the government has NO laws about putting money offshore. He cited and released all his gains within those accounts and paid taxes on them. Your argument is baseless.
cbroadJan 24, 2012
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_gains_tax_in_the_United_States
Short-term capital gains (investments held for one year or less [i.e. day trading]) are taxed on graduated tax rates and are more akin to the ordinary income tax rate.
Long-term capital gains (those over one year) are taxed at a lower rate to encourage long-term investment.
Those who are complaining that the loser income earners need to know what they're complaining about. As of now, the bottom two tax brackets pay no long-term capital gains taxes, everyone else is at a 15% rate. Next year, we're all getting screwed with an increase. I'm sure it'll make y'all feel better when you can join Mitt in paying a higher rate on your retirement savings.
I'm guessing that most of the people who have issues with Mitt making so much don't even consider investing money because they're too busy throwing it into upgrading their rig for the next FPS. You may not make millions every year, but you too can invest your money, and probably should before you get old and nobody wants to hire you.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
linuxpersonJan 24, 2012
Most of the whining children on this thread don't even know what retirement savings are.
rednipJan 25, 2012
Really? "Don't even know..." Ha. The modern American 'conservative' movement seems more akin to school yard bullies and the crazy men who claim that 'the end of the world is near' than educated people
limitgovJan 24, 2012
Get rid of income tax, problem solved.
bluto36Jan 24, 2012
then how will "progressives" get rich if they can suck govt teat?
limitgovJan 24, 2012
get off my teat!
miklkitJan 24, 2012
Why is it that the conservative states get more money back from the federal government than they pay, while the progressive states pay more than they get back?
Conservatives are the real welfare Queens.
http://blog.infographicworld.com/2010/10/18/red-vs-blue-state/
bluto36Jan 24, 2012
Romney is a State?
penglustJan 24, 2012
Careful there. You are letting facts get in the way of sound bites. The eyes of the masses will glaze over and be driven to the simple message.
That is the real problem with this country.
ridgerunner5Jan 24, 2012
I'm going to go with because most conservative states are in the heartland, and produce things like food, which the government subsidizes.
linuxpersonJan 24, 2012
Don't destroy my DNC talking points with logic.
rednipJan 25, 2012
You seem to ignore the fact that government subsidizes of agriculture are a political gifts in the first place which many in the GOP falsely claim to eschew.
treehugger87Jan 24, 2012
Yes. Great solution. I can't wait to be bar coded by my regional corporate overlord.
limitgovJan 24, 2012
how do you equate repealing the income tax with getting bar coded? Are you high again?
treehugger87Jan 24, 2012
The only way you could repeal the income tax is to basically strip government of all of its power. The only thing that prevents us from being bought and sold commodities of the corporations is the power of government to limit corporate power. Remove that power and corporations would find the cheapest way to access labor.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
apollogoldJan 27, 2012
THESE REPUGIATE REPUBLICANS.
ObaAdeleJan 27, 2012
No wonder, Bain Capital and other venture capitalists, capital gains groups spent a lot of time to lobby against the proposed increase in 2007 but he wants the 47% that have nothing to pay because they are too poor to pay fed income tax, how about that for dividing us into haves and the have-nots?
jokerasylumJan 27, 2012
No, really? Another wealthy politician business guy hiding his assets in foreign offshore accounts,? Say it ain't so Sam, say it ain't so! Private wealth is surely better than a nation right?
jokerasylumJan 27, 2012
No, really? Another wealthy politician business guy hiding his assets in foreign offshore accounts,? Say it ain't so Sam, say it ain't so! Private wealth is surely better than a nation right?
sandylandersJan 26, 2012
When 2012 ends there will be one reality. Obama is not going to run the table any longer. Even if he is re-elected he will face a hostile congress and he will truly be a a "lame duck." Once he leaves office, hopefully sooner rather than later this country will say good riddance.
adalseyJan 26, 2012
If you were rich you'll probably do what he did especially, when he is in finance, investing and banking. I would rather have this problem anytime.
adalseyJan 26, 2012
If you were rich you'll probably do what he did especially, when he is in finance, investing and banking. I would rather have this problem anytime.
4uNewsJan 25, 2012
http://4unews.com/30589/mitt-romney-tax-return-sheds-light-on-democrats-claim/