Chart: Economic Policy Institute
Taking Mitt Romney's own estimate that he pays a tax rate of 15 percent, this chart compares what he owes the IRS to what an average American family would pay. Ethan Pollack of the Economic Policy Institute, who posted the chart, writes that this is a matter of long-term policy choices by our government:
Why is the government favoring Romney’s income over that of most Americans? After all, it's not like he’s been working recently—he’s been running for president for the better part of five years. And even if he did have the time to actively manage his investments, he’s not able to because they’re in a blind trust. As for the risk factor, sure he’s risking his capital, but he’s not bearing any more risk that most households in this economy face. So tell me again, why is it so important for the government to subsidize rich people like Romney at the expense of average American households?
Mr. Romney seems to like the general drift of American tax policy just fine. Under Mr. Romney's plan, the richer you are, the more likely you are to get a smaller tax bill.
The exception to the long trend is the 1990s, when we had higher taxes and -- hey! -- growth.
Leave a Comment:
So, Romney ultimately couldn't resist bragging about his wealth, and Gingrich wants us to believe that despite his half million dollar credit line at some jewelry store, he's just a poor struggling slob like the rest of us who's battling the rich so he can become president for our benefit. So, tell me once again who's out of touch with America?
Over 250 Representatives and Senators are millionaires and about 60 of them are worth over $10 million. It's not like there are many (if not any) "average" income type people in Congress or the Oval Office. Nowadays ONLY the weathly have the $$ and time to run for office. Our current President (who is also worth more than a Million) spent 750 Million Dollars (3/4 of a BILLION) to get elected and his campaign staff has stated they plan on raising around 1 BILLION this time around. What is your point? If it is that the wealthy is out of touch, than most of our Congress and the President could also be out of touch.
The difference is that most Dems understand that 340,000 is a lot of money. Romney doesn't. That's what makes him out of touch. Obama wasn't raised with a silver spoon. God bless those who made their own money on their own two feet and not on the backs of others. I think these jokers shouldn't be paid anyway. If you've got a couple mil the bank , forfeit your salary, on both sides of the aisle.
The chances are good that some elected politicians are indeed out of touch with the average American, Skip, but I did not reference them. My concern is with two wanna-be presidents - one who brags that more than three hundred thousand dollars he "earned" giving speeches is, in his own words, "not a lot of money", and the other who would like nothing more than to see our children mopping floors and cleaning toilets between classes, presumably while he shops for trinkets. Draw your own conclusions about reality, as I have, from that.
OK - I agree with your concern. But I am concerned ALSO about some of the folks that ARE in Congress that may be out of touch too. It's fine to be concerned about those "wanna-bes" .....but maybe you should draw the same conclusions about the ones already in office that have that same reality. Romney and Gingrich may not get elected and as I said 250 millionaires already have - and my "conclusion" is that some of them are no better at being in touch with the common man.
Amazing. For once, we agree. Still, I have no control at all over who is elected to congress or the senate to represent any state besides my own. And since I live in an overwhelmingly so-called Red State, you can see I have little if any say here either. Such is the reality that I know.
Get rid of government altogether, run everything with public trusts with dedicated funding and which are run by professionals whose pay is in the contract that creates the trust.
And where is the accountability in that scheme? I prefer true majority rule, in which the great mass of people actually have a say and have their interests served, and in which the wealthy few still have their individual say but have no power at all as a class. There never has been such a system, and such a system has never yet been possible, and won't be for the foreseeable future. The Internet may be the seed from which that system grows. We'll see. But your idea, a tiny self-perpetuating class of technocrats has been done before in many guises. The outcome has always been terrible.
"And where is the accountability in that scheme?" (I hope that is directed to me.) The accountability in the scheme is where it is right now, in the rule of law. Is Monk assuming the government is accountable or holds anyone accountable? No, it doesn't. Monk prefers true majority rule, in which the great mass of people actually have a say and have their interests served, but that is NOT what is happening. We have a government that ONLY serves the rich and will never do anything else.
"But your idea, a tiny self-perpetuating class of technocrats has been done before in many guises. The outcome has always been terrible." Excuse me? That is how things are RIGHT NOW! All successful programs are public trusts run by contracts that carry the force of law and have dedicated funding source. You do not need a government for that. All the federal government does with federal income taxes you pay is either squander the tax money on military waste or give it back to the states.
I live in a town too small to have its own police department so we contract with the County Sheriff Department for law enforcement services. What is the difference between them and Blackwater? Oh, you will say, Blackwater is out of control! So is the Sheriff Department, murdering innocent people every year. Who will supply oversight to Blackwater? The same people who supply oversight to the sheriffs, namely the rule of law and the courts. You have a problem with law enforcement, you make a claim with the court, and they investigate.
The city of Maywood, Ca, has no government. It laid off all city government officials and contracts out for all its services. There is no reason we cannot all be like that.
You ignored a key sentence.
999!
Maybe we should increase the capital gains tax?
I know - crazy talk. AUSTERITY!!!
Something else happened in the 90's with our deficit too...What was that again?
If Willard wants to keep off shore accounts and invest in other countries, let him run for office IN THOSE countries. We need some one that invests in AMERICA!!!!
Why should the government subsidize the wealthy? It shouldn't. Why DOES the government subsidize the wealthy? Because the government is the wealthy. You disagree with that statement? Then trying running for office on your middle class salary and see how it goes if you can't find a billionaire backer.
And it's most likely he's not risking his own capital but rather taking advantage of the odd fact that carried interest (doing a good job managing other people's capital) is also a form of capital gains. But it's not from risking his own capital.
What a huge waste of money...on campaigns...combined they could do much better things like feeding, housing and caring for our brothers and sisters. So, so sad.
Yup and if corporations created jobs instead of super pacs...
It's like when agriculture produces more of a crop than can be sold, and so the excess is destroyed instead of distributed to people who need it but can't afford it. Apparently, destroying the crop is a better use than having it 'go to waste' feeding the needy.
"Why am I throwing all this money into a hole in the ground?" Moneybags asks rhetorically. "What would you have me do instead? Fund schools and hospitals? Build roads and bridges? You actually expect me to throw my money away on useful things? The idea! "
You cannot be for tax cuts and against deficits at the same time. If Romney tries to take those positions, he will paint himself into a corner. When he says we can cut government spending, he will be forced to specify what he wants to cut. If he stays ambiguous about what he wants to cut, then Dems use Paul Ryan's plan to tell voters this is how the Republicans will cut spending. If Romney tells people he is going to cut Medicare and Medicaid, he will lose the election.
You can be for tax cuts and against deficits if you are secretly for deficits as an excuse to cut social programs.
We've seen this movie on a perpetual loop for three decades now. We're sold on tax cuts as the way to spur the economy and then, surprise of surprises, teh deficit! Oh, no! What to do? Why, we must cut social programs (which are the only thing that could be causing this calamity). And we must cut taxes yet more to spur economic growth. Ye gads! Did the deficit grow again? Social programs are to blame! Back, back foul demons! And now, more tax cuts!
So it goes, over and over again, like the kinetoscope from hell.
If I'm not mistaken, one of the goals of the GOP is to ELIMINATE the Capital Gains Tax ENTIRELY. Which would push Romney's tax bill to nearly zero.
I find it quite humorous how "ordinary people" defend policies like this when the net effect on them is nil, or even worse.
If you're not in the top 1% earning bracket in America, chances are ...
* Your kids are getting a worse education; their teachers are less-experienced; their textbooks are older; the facilities at school are fairly outdated.
* Over the past decade, your income has not gone up by more than 10%
* You're paying a far higher percentage of your income on taxes than the wealthiest 1%
* Most of YOUR retirement savings was lost over the past 5 years
* Your insurance premiums are a higher percentage of your net worth, and are getting larger
* Your health care costs are a far higher percentage of your net worth, and are getting larger
* You can't afford the kinds of medical specialists that the 1% have
* The interest rates you pay for loans are FAR HIGHER than what the 1% pay
* You probably rent your living space from a corporation, partnership, or entity owned or operated by people in the 1%
* You have about 99% greater likelihood of losing your home to foreclosure
and so on....
So if you're NOT part of the 1% and yet DEFEND the economic policies of the GOP just as a matter of principle, even though they clearly work against your own needs and those of your family and loved ones, please explain to us how you convince yourself that it makes sense to keep sucking air for these folks?
Millions of people raised cain over SOPA and PIPA this week ... many many times the number of people who've complained about not getting a raise over the past decade while the 1% have increased their income by hundreds of times in the same time period.
What's wrong with this picture? SOPA and PIPA don't affect your quality of life AT ALL!
Yet very basic things like policies that give tax cuts to billionaires and large corporations while paying for them by gutting your kids' school budgets is ... just not an issue with these folks?
I don't get it. Sorry.
Right-wingers are serfs who lust to throw themselves at the feet of the rich from whom all things good and beautiful flow. They seek to pledge their lives, fortunes and sacred honor in obeisance to the rich who are their lords and masters and who lead lives close to God.
Right-wingers believe in "linear economics" where the rich are creators of wealth and everyone else earns a gratuity by serving the rich. The government is unjust because it takes the hard-earned money created by the rich and gives it to the lazy poor, where the money disappears. If the government did not take from the rich and give to the poor then there would be a lot more money for the rest of us. Ayn Rand said so.
Capital gains should be taxed at the same rate as ordinary income after the original investment base has been adjusted for inflation. Why should income from work be taxed differently than passive income? If any type of income should be treated better it is income from labor.
Does this take into account charitable contributions - LDS members are encouraged to tithe - and that's deductible so less income is taxable.
obviously someone who says fetuses and corporations are people has little concept of reality. join the real world then ask for my vote.
Isn't it amazing that the economic boom times correspond with higher capitol gains taxes?
And periods of high unemployment correspond with lower capitol gains taxes?
I'm just sitting by waiting for Romney to explain his Caymen Island money and a video of janitors protesting Gingrich.
The new line isn't "that's class warfare,"
it's "you're trying to divide America,"
Yeah, I don't think that ones working either. But watch Mitt repeat it over and over again.
What was really telling was that the heckler who asked about him about being a 1%, was asking a lot of questions before Romney responded...
Something about being asked about being a part of the 1% really got under his skin... hehe..
http://www.breitbart.tv/stuff-liberals-say/