No, I prepare taxes for a living, so I know what he meant. Can I still be mad?

Who cares, he's richer than most of us and he said O Brother Where Art Thou was his favorite movie.

Burn him!

Vulture Capitalist. Corporate Raider. Job Eliminator. Question Dodger. 1%-er. King of Unelectability. Douche Bag. Mother Raper. FATHER Raper. Kicker of Puppies. Destroyer of Worlds. Antichrist. Mets Fan.

Yeah that's all well and good.

Except for the part where one type of income is more equal than other types of income.

My favorite part of this is the GOP talking point that "He's already been taxed on that money once." Right, He was taxed on the initial $10. But last time I checked, that $10 turned into $20. That's still income, and that additional $10 wasn't taxed yet. It should be taxed at the same rate whether it be earned via labor or sitting on your ass and playing the financial markets.

Smart and Successful = Evil to the entitlement gang.

I can see that the first two entries have it covered. I'll also point out that Romney doesn't pay payroll taxes (Medicare or SS) on the vast majority of that income, so his overall rate of taxation is even lower compared to those of us suckers who get our compensation as ordinary income.

Most people also fail to understand that annual speaker's fees of $374,328 is "not very much" money.

I'm not buying USA Today's numbers. I make well under $1 million/year, and the actual real amount I actually really pay is above 25%.

chaddsfarkprefect: Smart and Successful = Evil to the entitlement gang.

That's racist.

I'll bet you $10,000 I did understand.

Wellon Dowd: Most people also fail to understand that annual speaker's fees of $374,328 is "not very much" money.

That's Bristol Palin money.

FTFA: While Romney's effective tax rate is higher than the national average, it's lower than the percentage paid by most high-income taxpayers. The average effective tax rate for taxpayers with AGI of $1 million or more is 25%, according to the Tax Foundation analysis.

Found the problem!

duffman13: Yeah that's all well and good.

Except for the part where one type of income is more equal than other types of income.

My favorite part of this is the GOP talking point that "He's already been taxed on that money once." Right, He was taxed on the initial $10. But last time I checked, that $10 turned into $20. That's still income, and that additional $10 wasn't taxed yet. It should be taxed at the same rate whether it be earned via labor or sitting on your ass and playing the financial markets.



/oblig

patentguy: I can see that the first two entries have it covered. I'll also point out that Romney doesn't pay payroll taxes (Medicare or SS) on the vast majority of that income, so his overall rate of taxation is even lower compared to those of us suckers who get our compensation as ordinary income.

So he won't be able to access SS or Medicare? Isn't that just deferred income, like teachers in WI? He pays more dollars in taxes every year than you will ever make, ever. I'm not saying that he shouldn't pay more, but some people speaking of percentages versus dollars are trying to make people think he actually pays less in real dollars.

/Reads the farking article
//reads it again
///reads it again.


It's under the shell in the middle!

That's the way the cookie crumbles

If he made $300,000,000, and paid 15%; he paid $45,000,000 in taxes.

That rate doesn't include the amount taxpayers pay in Social Security and Medicare taxes.

ummm, then I don't pay an effective rate of 5% do I you stupid farks.

Why be angry or even slightly annoyed by it? Everything was completely legal. Do I think the tax system needs some serious change? Definitely.

manimal2878: That rate doesn't include the amount taxpayers pay in Social Security and Medicare taxes.

ummm, then I don't pay an effective rate of 5% do I you stupid farks.

But that's YOUR money. Deferred income. You get a benefit for that and if you live long enough, you will get out more than you paid in, you stupid fark.

I fall into that sweet spot where everyone who makes more than me is a corporate fat cat who should pay considerably more in taxes than they do and everyone who makes less than me needs to get off the government tit.

s2s2s2: I'm not saying that he shouldn't pay more, but some people speaking of percentages versus dollars are trying to make people think he actually pays less in real dollars.

I haven't heard anybody claim this.

chaddsfarkprefect: Smart and Successful = Evil to the entitlement gang.

Weird, because to me it looks like those that seem to feel the most entitled are the millionaire parasites that feel entitled to grow fat on the labor and toil of the working class.

Josu: I haven't heard anybody claim this.

Which one sounds more evil?
1) He only pays 15%!
2) He paid 45 million in taxes last year.

TFA: The average effective federal tax rate for American taxpayers is 11%, according to an analysis of 2009 IRS data by the Tax Foundation

Way to cherry-pick your data: this average is skewed by the roughly 40% of people who don't pay federal income tax, and totally disregards the fact that federal taxes account for only about half of the total income tax burden of the average citizen, to say nothing of sales and other "money movement" taxes.

That rate doesn't include the amount taxpayers pay in Social Security and Medicare taxes.

Republicans love to have it both ways.

Talking about the deficit: OMG entitlements!

Talking about taxes: Oh, those regressive payroll taxes don't count, those are different.

The effective tax rate, meanwhile, is the amount a taxpayer pays in taxes as a percentage of total income. The average effective federal tax rate for American taxpayers is 11%, according to an analysis of 2009 IRS data by the Tax Foundation, a non-profit research organization. For individuals with adjusted gross income of $50,000 or less, the average effective tax rate is less than 5%, according to the Tax Foundation.
That rate doesn't include the amount taxpayers pay in Social Security and Medicare taxes.

See? Your effective rate is far less than Mitt Romney's as long as we ignore the bulk of the taxes you actually pay! It makes perfect sense!

Who farking makes up these rules?

FTFA: "An individual's tax bracket, sometimes referred to as the marginal tax rate, refers to the percentage of income that's taxed at the top tax rate - not the rate for the entire amount."


Ummm, no. The marginal rate is the highest rate that a person's income is subject to. It's true that the rate does not apply to the person's entire income, but it does not have to do with the percentage of the taxpayer's income. Heck, it might be that a person only has $1.00 subject his highest marginal rate.

/nit picking
//People understood. They just thought that if their own marginal rate felt so high that Mitt would also have a high rate since his income was so much damned higher than what the rest of us mortals make.

s2s2s2 (favorite: Super Troll): But that's YOUR money.

LOL

pkellmey: Why be angry or even slightly annoyed by it? Everything was completely legal. Do I think the tax system needs some serious change? Definitely.

I see no reason why one can't be annoyed or angry about a legally-established injustice. That's like saying we shouldn't have been mad about the third-class* status that black people were forced to have in the South after the conclusion of the Reconstruction after the civil war.

* I say third-class because first class was rich white people, second class was poor white people.

s2s2s2: manimal2878: That rate doesn't include the amount taxpayers pay in Social Security and Medicare taxes.

ummm, then I don't pay an effective rate of 5% do I you stupid farks.

But that's YOUR money. Deferred income. You get a benefit for that and if you live long enough, you will get out more than you paid in, you stupid fark.

Uh huh, my money. That's why every year the solution to solving the SS problem is to move the date I can get "my money" further away so that I'm more likely to be dead and never get it back.

Not too mention that it is not deferred income in any sense of the word since those that do live long enough, on average, get back far more than they put in. Therefore others are being TAXED to make up that difference.

you stupider fark.

Lsherm: Your effective rate is far less than Mitt Romney's as long as we ignore the government mandated retirement fund you actually pay! It makes perfect sense!

FTFY. It's a benefit. If you don't think so, let's end it and you can manage your own retirement.

s2s2s2: Josu: I haven't heard anybody claim this.

Which one sounds more evil?
1) He only pays 15%!
2) He paid 45 million in taxes last year.

Well, one is willfully ignoring the amount of money he is earning and the other is a perfectly accurate reflection of his tax burden.

manimal2878: Not too mention that it is not deferred income in any sense of the word since those that do live long enough, on average, get back far more than they put in. Therefore others are being TAXED to make up that difference.

Thank you for pointing out why we need to end those programs.

:D

s2s2s2: manimal2878: That rate doesn't include the amount taxpayers pay in Social Security and Medicare taxes.

ummm, then I don't pay an effective rate of 5% do I you stupid farks.

But that's YOUR money. Deferred income. You get a benefit for that and if you live long enough, you will get out more than you paid in, you stupid fark.

Its not "my" money any more. It does directly to someone already collecting SS. And no I don't think I will ever collect SS because the system is about to collapse under the weight of the Baby Boomers retiring over the next 10 years or so. This will result in my generation (everyone under the age of 40) getting the shaft. So no, I don't think of SS as "my" money and more of a "support the old people" tax.

s2s2s2: Which one sounds more evil?
1) He only pays 15%!
2) He paid 45 million in taxes last year.

Neither sounds "evil". Are you suggesting that those who say "He only pays 15%" are trying to make it sound like he pays fewer dollars than the average american? That hasn't been my impression.

s2s2s2: Josu: I haven't heard anybody claim this.

Which one sounds more evil?
1) He only pays 15%!
2) He paid 45 million in taxes last year.

Wendy's Chili: That rate doesn't include the amount taxpayers pay in Social Security and Medicare taxes.

Republicans love to have it both ways.

Talking about the deficit: OMG entitlements!

Talking about taxes: Oh, those regressive payroll taxes don't count, those are different.

Exactly, I thought an effective tax rate meant everything you pay to the government. If you start pulling certain types of taxes out and not counting them toward the total you are no longer talking about an effective tax rate.

Josu: Neither sounds "evil". Are you suggesting that those who say "He only pays 15%" are trying to make it sound like he pays fewer dollars than the average american? That hasn't been my impression

When you hear "15%" after hearing "300 million dollarz!" do you think most people ever reach the conclusion that that is about 45 million dollars? How are we rated in math here in the US?

Aadain: Its not "my" money any more.

Yeah, we should stop trusting the federal government with our retirement funds now, don't you think?

s2s2s2: manimal2878: Not too mention that it is not deferred income in any sense of the word since those that do live long enough, on average, get back far more than they put in. Therefore others are being TAXED to make up that difference.

Thank you for pointing out why we need to end those programs.

:D

Are they taxes or not? You can't have it both ways.

Here's my solution...

All income, regardless of how it's made, is subject to the same taxation rules. If the rich want to keep their Bush-era tax cuts on good ol' fashioned W-2 labor, their investments are now subject to that same tax rate. I would even include the transfer of real property subject to this same rule, but would allow for real property's true "profit" to be translated into constant dollars adjusted for inflation, and possibly to allow exceptions to those who have lived full-time in a home and own two or less.

I could care less about how much money he's made. But damn does he flub it when questions about it come up. Last night on the debate when he was asked how many years of tax forms he'd release he really dropped the ball (again).

I cannot fault him for making use of loopholes which exist. If it's "unfair" the loophole should be closed for everyone.

My father was slaughtered by Taxbongo. He was a great job creator, my father. When Taxbongo appeared and requested a special job, my father said he would creat it. He slaved a year before it was done.

Taxbongo returned and said he would tax him for it, and give the job to a union thug. My father refused. Without a word, Taxbongo taxed him to death, taking everything he owned. I loved my father. So naturally, I challenged his murderer to a duel. I failed. Taxbongo left me alive, but he gave me this: [holds up IRS form 1040]

I was eleven years old. And when I was strong enough, I dedicated my life to the study of accounting, asset protection, and tax law. So the next time we meet, I will not fail. I will go up to Taxbongo and say, "Hello. My name is Parthenogenetic. You taxed my father. Prepare to die."

s2s2s2: Josu: I haven't heard anybody claim this.

Which one sounds more evil?
1) He only pays 15%!
2) He paid 45 million in taxes last year.

3) A working stiff who made that much through sweat instead of capital gains would have paid 105 million in taxes, plus SS and medicare

I wouldn't say either are evil. But I would say that the difference betweens number 2 and number 3 is definitely farked up.

duffman13: Yeah that's all well and good.

Except for the part where one type of income is more equal than other types of income.

My favorite part of this is the GOP talking point that "He's already been taxed on that money once." Right, He was taxed on the initial $10. But last time I checked, that $10 turned into $20. That's still income, and that additional $10 wasn't taxed yet. It should be taxed at the same rate whether it be earned via labor or sitting on your ass and playing the financial markets.

You missed one step - when he invested that $10 and it turned into $20 it wasn't a magical event. The economic activity of some company or other is what turned it into $20 and taxes were paid on profits before he got the $20 back.

But the bottom line is this: if you don't like what Romney paid in taxes, elect folks who will change that. The reason he paid what he paid is because it's the law. Quite honestly, the rate on capital gains bothers me a lot less than the metric boatload of deductions that are available only to someone with the high level of income one must have to be able to afford to spend the money that earns the ridiculous deductions. Also on my personal hit list are corporate deductions. I don't have the exact numbers and I'm too damned lazy to look them up but plenty of economists have calculated that dropping the rate precipitously but also eliminating all but a few deductions (like mortgage interest and charitable contributions) would radically increase revenue. It is my opinion, however, that politicians want to keep the rate high so that they can then threaten non-supporters with the withdrawal of deductions, a ploy much easier to implement than a rate hike. I could possibly be too cynical about politicians but I doubt it.

s2s2s2: Josu: Neither sounds "evil". Are you suggesting that those who say "He only pays 15%" are trying to make it sound like he pays fewer dollars than the average american? That hasn't been my impression

When you hear "15%" after hearing "300 million dollarz!" do you think most people ever reach the conclusion that that is about 45 million dollars? How are we rated in math here in the US?

If he paid the roughly 36% that labor is taxed at, he'd pay approximately $108,000,000 in taxes.

Considering what portion of my income I have to give up to taxes, I do not see this as unfair to him, as he'd still be making close to two hundred million dollars.

TWX: pkellmey: Why be angry or even slightly annoyed by it? Everything was completely legal. Do I think the tax system needs some serious change? Definitely.

I see no reason why one can't be annoyed or angry about a legally-established injustice.

Most political analysts believe that the established laws come from the wishes of the majority that voted for it. If that doesn't represent you, you find another group/country/society to hang with or you actively do something to push your viewpoint. Becoming angry just affects you and has as much impact as indifference.

manimal2878: Are they taxes or not? You can't have it both ways.

They aren't supposed to be, in the long run. The fact they are mismanaged and the funds are spent when and where they aren't supposed to be makes them a tax. But they are supposed to act as a supplement to your retirement and medical insurance.

Also the fact that you can't opt out.