Mitt Romney has promised throughout the campaign that he would eventually release his 2011 tax returns, in addition to the 2010 materials he made available earlier in the year. Apparently, today's the day.
At the surface, we learned this afternoon that Romney had an income of about $13.7 million last year -- not bad for a guy who hasn't had a day job at any point in the last six years -- and paid roughly $1.9 million in taxes, for an effective tax rate of 14.1 percent.
That means Romney, despite vast wealth and no job, pays a lower effective tax rate than most of the middle class. But in this case, there's more to the story.
Mitt and Ann Romney also donated about $4 million -- about 30 percent of their income -- to charity in 2011, though they only claimed a deduction of about $2.25 million from those donations, according to the campaign.
That means the Romneys voluntarily paid a higher tax rate than they were legally required. The full documents, which only cover the 2011 tax returns, will be posted online at 3 p.m. today.
This can get a little complicated, so let's be clear about the details. If Romney had simply filed normally, taking all of the deductions to which he's legally entitled, he would have paid an effective tax rate of about 9 percent.
But that would have proven politically problematic, so purely for show, he deliberately overpaid the IRS, in order to increase his tax rate, on purpose. Romney was in the rather extraordinary position of selecting his own preferred tax rate, and then working backwards from there.
In other words, Romney chose to under-deduct and overpay his tax bill because he's running for office for Pete's sake. That's not my argument; that's the Romney campaign's argument.
In January, Romney insisted, "I don't pay more than are legally due and frankly if I had paid more than are legally due I don't think I'd be qualified to become president."
By this standard, Romney has now effectively disqualified himself.
Asked about the conflict between his statement in January and his actions in September, the Romney campaign said he "was in the unique position of having made a commitment to the public that his tax rate would be above 13%."
So, Romney said he'd be unqualified to be president if he paid more than is legally due, and then he paid more than is legally due, because of a "unique position." (In this context, it appears that "unique position" is now synonymous with "behind in the polls.")
As Jamison Foser added, even after paying more than he had to, and effectively picking his own rate, Romney still enjoyed a lower rate than much of the middle class.
All of this, of course, only refers to 2011. What about the previous years and the returns Romney has but won't disclose? They'll remain hidden for reasons the Republican campaign won't explain, but as part of today's release, Romney sought to prove he never paid zero percent -- as Harry Reid claimed -- by releasing a letter from his tax advisers summarizing his tax bills from 1990 to 2009. According to the letter, Romney also paid at least 13.66 percent over the two-decade period.
But much of this is still based on a "trust me" premise -- we don't have any proof to substantiate the summary, and the letter offers no information about various tax shelters and overseas investments.
Leave a Comment:
About Romney's "voluntary" tax overpayment by not taking his full deductions. There is probably nothing to stop him from amending his return within the next 3 years and receiving a refund of his extra tax payment PLUS INTEREST.
If Mitt had taken all available deductions for 2011, he would have paid a 9% effective rate. He said he never paid less than 13%. So, is it reasonable to assume that in several or all of the years prior to 2010 he paid significantly less than 13%, and therefore cannot possibly release the earlier years' returns lest he be shown up as a liar? Again.
From the linked article:
Maybe I'm going all birtheroid about this, but somehow I feel that the statement about how there was "no year in which the Romney's paid a lower effective federal personal tax rate than 13.66 percent" seems ripe for nuance and misstatement. I can't help but think that the actual and precise meaning is more like:
there was no year when the Romneys paid federal income taxes at all in which their rate was less than 13.66 percent.
That would allow for years in which they paid no federal income taxes within the timeframe indicated.
(In truth, the article says that the PricewaterhouseCooper summary is supposed to show that they owed state and federal income taxes every year, so I'm just having a bit of fun here.)
Ok, 14% is capital gains. Rachel, do your followers know that he already paid 37% on the money he is investing...or is that an after thought? And do your viewers know that he can lose all those investments? And that investment are used to make companies grow? Hire more people, etc. If you think 14% is too low for capital gains offer your suggestion. Should it be 30%? Tax people 34% on income, than tax 30% on their investments...investment that can go to zero? Perhaps get an accredited economist on your show to say what would happening by doubling the capital gains. Would investment remain unchanged? If not, what would happen to everyones 401k? This country is headed off a financial cliff...this tax return stuff is like Nero playing the violin as Rome burns.
So I don't hafta pay taxes cuz the money I got was taxed last year ?
I for one am curious how you know all these great details. Please get with Rachel's staff. I am sure they would love to have you on the show and discuss your exclusive information on Mitt's taxes.
What alternative universe are YOU living in Reckless?
Where is your "proof" that Romney paid 37% taxes on his "investments"?
An oh, yea, booo hooo - he could "lose" them - yea, well, how many people in the United States lost jobs and their pay because of some bad "investments" (and NOT THEIR OWN) in the last 4 years??????
And if I am fortunate to save a million dollars and leave it in the bank, I shouldn't pay taxes on the interest on that money? Interest that I did NOTHING to earn - just letting my money sit???? And that money should be taxed at a lesser rate that people who actively WORK for their pay???
Maybe YOU should get an "accredited economist" to explain some things to you - or maybe even just a CPA!!! You might want to consider learning a little about "ethics" and "morality" too!
I believe the rant is the standard right wing rant that profits on investments are monies being taxed twice , a crime ! The thirty seven percent figure is the last vestige of when we had a progressive tax schedule .
If what you say is all true, then I would expect the economy to be booming and we could rest easy. If those investment were in product businesses then fine zero taxes on gains, and we'll take it out from wages paid. If those investments were in financials producing nothing, the fine 100% taxes on 'gains'. From wages, workers could save, saving would produce earnings that are tax deductible, and be would invested in product businesses. Banks could only invest in equity stock and common stock could be traded only in Las Vegas. Any 'gains' have invested in producing business, to avoid taxes.
Far simpler economic system bankers would have hire investors to manage equity risk, saving would replace more complex financial instruments. As the nation's savings became the national equity holdings, the equity would grow. A the nations intellectual capital would be focused on running profitable production businesses, and banks would be face with managing business if and only if divesting increased equity or if the economy of scale merger increased equity. There would be large amount of capital available to start new businesses and hence new equity.
At worst it would force bankers out into the wider world of productive enterprises, where businesses are located. Bankers, equity managers, productive business wage earners all profit, all own equity in the system, every precaution taken. If you want to gamble, first guaranteed you can take care of yourself equity safe, and then gamble all you want in Las Vegas. Oh and by the way wages can be set based on merit, education and productivity.
When a person works, he or she earns money, they are taxed on it...that is called income tax. Depending how much you earn, that is between 0%-34% of your income. Then if there is extra money, people put money into their 401k or 403B...some people invest in to individual companies in the stock market. Like Google or Home Depot or Exxon for example. They are putting money in these companies in hopes that the company grows. If the company grows, the stock of the company goes up. If it goes up, a person sells the stock and takes a profit. That profit is subject to a "capital gains" tax. If a person makes $100 with an investment, the government wants $15. But here is the thing, you could invest all your extra money in HomeDepot, and HomeDepot could go out of business, so you can lose all your money. That is called taking risk. This investment idea is what makes this country great. People take their extra money and take a chance to make more...but they can lose it all too. My point, Romney made a lot of money a very long time ago...he was taxed 37% on that money. He made so much money (that was taxed at 37%), he doesn't have to work anymore...now all the money he is making is ALL off investments. That is why he is paying 14%....it is ALL capital gains. My point, if you think that is unfair, and what to raise capital gains tax, nobody will invest, companies will die, unemployment will go up even further, the market will crash and nobody will ever be able to retire because the money they have been saving in their 401k lost half its value. So, he is paying 14% off capital gains,so what, he already paid 37% off the money he is taking a risk with investments.
I changed the definitions all income is called wages.
Baloney, Reckless,
As long as anyone can make more money on their "investments" than they pay taxes, there will be investors.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/18/the-history-of-capital-gains-taxes/
Take a look at the capital gains tax rate in the mid 70's, and yet, there were still investors!!!
ok, let me just give you a backdrop here...I run a solo landscaping business for the past 10 years. I work 70/hr a week I clear 60k a year. I still have a flip phone still. Same old beat up truck still. Never bought anything for myself past decade. I have saved in the market, best buy, google when it was at 300...it is now trading over 700. I have a total of 100k of investments. If I keep investing smart, my money should double every 7 years. In 30 years, if I get around 10% return, in 30 years when I'm 65 I should have 1.5 million in the bank. This is what happens when your self reliant, frugal and smart. I know how this game works. Live way under your means...save, invest. Ain’t no Romney...but I’m living the American dream. I don’t care about his tax returns, pointing the finger at the rich is just an excuse not to succeed yourself. There are a lot of people in this country like me.
Onceare, Then raise the capital gain rate...it will do nothing to help the debt. Let's get'em. Let's stick it to him. What a great attitude to focus on. Just a waste of energy.
Another right-winger who worships Mammon.
Reckless, you are living in fantasy land! Instead of wasting your time posting here, you should be spending more time watching CNBC - you ever hear of the "fiscal cliff" - created by your good firends - the Republicans?.
If I were you, I'd put my money somewhere SAFE right now so that you keep what little you have. I really wouldn't count on your money "doubling every 7 years" - at least not for the near future!!!
Good luck!!
BTW, have you REALLY looked at what Romney and Ryan are proposing??? Their plans won't help you if all you are making is $60K a year!!
onceare, Dowjones average for the past 70 years offers a 10 percent return a year, some years or up, some years are down...on average, 10 percent. Look it up. These are real numbers, no fantasy land. I also just put 8k in a thing called TIPS Treasury Inflation Protected Securities. See, with the quantify easing by the fed, they bought old high interest debt and replaced it with low interest debt. But they printed money to do the swap...do you want to know why gas is going up, it is inflation. Once the economy picks up again, you will see it at the grocery store, just remember, in two years a gallon of milk will cost $10. Why is gold and oil have the same price relationship, but they each cost more with cash? It is because the fed put more printed money in curculation. So, buying TIPS will protect me. Youtube is great...all this information at your fingertips. Don't need cnbc, I do enough reading and youtube. Republicans are not my good friends, I don't like them as much as democratics. I want everybody out of my bedroom and bank account. And I understand the fiscal cliff, do you? The gov't needs 300bil a month to operate, it brings in 160bil a month in tax revenue, borrows the rest. If we 'get the rich', raise 3% on the affulent...it solves nothing, we still have to borrow like 110 billion a month. And there is still a 16 trillion dollar debt behind all this. We can not tax are way out of it. Let me repeat, because you will never hear a truer thing, we can not tax are way out of it. I make 60k, but I live way under my means...I still have a flip phone for heaven sakes...but I'm secure and happy as a clam. I don't care. There are more important things in life...and I assure you I will never take a dollar from the government. I was unemployeed for 5 months when I was 24...but I refused to take an unemployment check. So, I can not tell you how grounded in reality I am. Oh, in my free time, I'm learning how to computer programmer with youtube. Learning PHP and building website, pretty soon I will have a job earning 100k...hey, perhaps even start a business so I can stop the landscaping business. See, there is so much opportunity in front of us to do anything...just got to go after it. I don't cry, hold my breath and kick my feet over tax returns. I'm not depending on future social security checks...and a little mad the I'm going to get fine $1200 a year 2016 for not having health insurance. I'm healthy as an ox...there is less than a 1% chance I will need something major medical...that is a good bet. So, why is the government getting into my life. Just leave me alone. So, thank you...I'm living real life more than anyone. I strongly recommend everyone stop crying and do...rather than complain. These blogs just suck me in...seeing everyone complaining when you don't need to leave your house and learn everything you want on the computer to create a better life for oneself. Everyone just sounds so hopeless. It is upsetting. Complaining solves nothing. Everyone here is just wasting their time making excuses for not going after it.
onceare, just read your message again...you said Romney/Ryan plan "won't help me". I completely wholeheartly 100% agree with you. ....here is what might be hard to understand..."I DON'T WANT HELP". Is that shocking? I don't have a college education, I bring in around 60k with my biz, live way under my means, save money, self educate on investing and I'm not envious of the rich...and I'm taking steps to increase my personal skill set daily to make more money in the future. That is called the American Dream. I am so blessed...and so happy I don't have to feel that I want help from somebody. There is a sense of Pride about that. I wake up feeling like a million bucks....I'm lucker than the rich. If Romney pays 15% on his capital gains...good for him. I think Exxon pays more taxes then over half the country...I'm happy they can do that too. We should be thanking them...not putting it down. I guess it is all perspective. Just think if these people weren't there...we would be in the middle ages.
....which makes it income. And once it is income it should be subjected to the same tax code. This isn't rocket science.
This does not change regardless of the tax rate; by this logic we could tax any percent and the rule would hold true. So why argue for 14% instead of 0%? Or, likewise, argue for 100% instead? We are supposed to not tax new income a person makes simply because their income came with risk? Define risk and define the parameters when risk is inherently OK to take with taxation and when it is not. I take a risk when I pay my employees- should I be given a lower tax rate for that? I took a risk opening my own business, should I be given a lower tax rate for that? People take a risk when they become employed, should they be given a lower tax rate for that? At what point are you considering one risk acceptable for income tax and another not acceptable? By this logic it seems to me you'd be saying people shouldn't work because working comes with inherent risk and since the government is going to tax you for that risk you might as well just stay home and eat rabbit stew all day.
Slippery slope fallacy. You have no empirical evidence to base this assertion on: you are postulating that X is bad, not on the basis of X, but on the basis that something might possibly happen if X is changed. I am getting annoyed with the amount of conservatives who seem to be under the impression that their beliefs are facts. The two are not the same. Just because you believe bad things will happen does not make it so. Belief =/= fact
Strawman fallacy. No one is "pointing fingers at the rich." People are stating that the system is rigged to benefit the rich in the way that leaves the average person at a disadvantage, which it is. No one is saying we should take money away from the wealthy- but we should equal the playing field so that everyone has the same opportunity. For the record your investments aren't taxed as long as you keep them in your portfolio and do not touch them until retirement. We already give you tax-free income on your 401k or IRA as long as you don't touch it until retirement. Once you do so you then become subject to taxation laws. Changing the taxation rate to 70% would not affect you.
Actually it would. Provide evidence to your assertion that it would not help the debt.
Nope. Gas is going up as a result of supply and demand needs internationally. Inflation has little, if any, effect on gas prices considering that oil companies are internationally based and therefore are not subject specifically to US currency. If oil was produced solely here in the US you'd actually see the price go down. For the record we're suffering from deflation at the moment, not inflation.
Nope. But it is likely that a gallon of milk will go up some due in large part to weather and other problems that we've had leading to a shortage of supply. Supply and demand economics...again.
Nope. Both gold and oil are internationally owned and traded commodities that are subject to highest bidder standards which causes their prices to artificially inflate every single time a new bid is put into place. The price of gold has risen almost 2000% higher than what it actually should rise if it were keeping in line with inflation. This is because, once again, the US does not set the standard for these products. If you want to go into more detail the price of gold and the price of oil is intentionally manipulated to ensure that the highest price possible (without having a huge impact on demand) is being pushed forward by artificial sales on intentional trade deals. I actually happen to have an uncle who does this for a living. For the record he's so wealthy he owns 2 "castles" (not the fantasy style medieval ones; they call them castles because they are huge estates with courtyards- one is in Mongolia and the other in is Laos).
Actually your own math here proves that increasing taxes by 3% would decrease the amount we needed to borrow. Funny how that works, heh. Deficit= The amount you spend - The amount you take in. If we increase the amount we take in and couple that with slow reductions in spending we eventually get a surplus. That's how you eventually get to paying down future debt.
Cutting spending will not effect the current debt at this point in time; cutting spending and raising taxes will only effect future debt projections.
Nope. When you file your income taxes you will have the option to deduct the cost of your health insurance and put that cost towards your return. If you do not have health insurance you do not get this option. You will not be charged a fine. It works the exact same way as the mortgage deduction versus renting. If you are a renter you do not get to take your mortgage off as a deduction and do not get that reflected back in your rebate. Thus you end up paying more in taxes. See the difference?
And yet here you are complaining, whining, and crying about other people whom you believe to be complaining, whining, and crying (nevermind the fact that you are a. ignoring their argument and b. committing a logical fallacy by pandering to the strawman, but I digress)
A. If it is perspective then you should apologize for how arrogant and condescending you have been in assuming other people's thoughts, feelings, and emotions on the basis of your subjective interpretation. How rude.
B. Why should we be thanking them? This is a false premise.
C. Actually you do not know that we would be in the stone ages. This is called the hindsight fallacy. You are using knowledge that you have today and are retroactively applying it to something that happened in the past. For all you know if it weren't for Exxon we would have some other energy that we'd be using today. Until and unless you event the time machine you cannot know this as a fact. Therefore you are saying people should be thankful for them on the basis not of reality, but on a hypothetical. Once again fantasy=/=reality.
I just want to point out the irony of someone bragging that they are using YouTube and the Internet to gain their education while simultaneously deriding the idea of being helped. I wonder, how does the Internet tell you the Internet got started? What about Google? Please, do tell.
Cartoon,
very glad you took the time to review. The thing here, I don't support either
the far left or far right. I'm a guy that is self-reliant and doesn't want
anyone to tell me what to do especially the gov't. As far as investing...if I
put my extra cash in an established company or a start up, that is a risk. If I
keep it in the checking, that is not a risk. You cannot deny that. I can make a
million in the market, or lose everything...you have to concede that that is a
risk. If I make $100 profit, the gov't will want $15 of it. That is the current
law. I put around$300-$1000 a month into a trading account for over a decade.
It is a habit as much as brushing my teeth. I don't have fancy things...I forgo
it to save. Right now I own 50k of google. I actually made a 30k profit on it.
If I would have invested in Yahoo...I'd have no profit and actually lost money.
I'm I smart or lucky, probably more lucky so I don't get too big of a
head...but still, I made 30k. If I sold it now, I'd owe the government 4.5k
right now. If you want to raise the capital gain to 30% starting in 2013, and I
sold it in 2013...I'd owe the government 8k. So, really rich people wouldn't
care so much about paying 4.5k...but earning around 60k a year...that is a
month of me digging and planting trees 70/hr a week. So, that 4.5k is a big
deal to me. If I know it would be 30% next year, I'd sell it today, pay 4.5k
and get the profits of around 25k-ish in the checking account. Now image hedge
funds that own multi-million positions, and they are a lot smarter than
me...I'm guessing, I could be wrong...but they would probably sell too, save
that extra money and put it in bonds or something. Now, that is up for debate.
You say companies wouldn't sell positions to pay half as less taxes? Do you
want to risk that now? Obama doesn't, that is why he said he wouldn't raise
capital gains I believe in 2009. He might have said something different to
appease people on the left...but I think my general thought process, and in my
own personal real life situation is hopefully worth accepting. If you had a
choice between 25.5k or 21k...which one would you pick? So, everyone is up and
arms about 15% romney is paying, well, that is what I would pay too on this
deal. Ok, I just thought about something...what about a progressive capital
gains tax that separate me in a different class than Romney? That can get
tricky too. Hedge funds would break up into groups, get some tricky
accountants, and probably still get around it. 15% keeps it simple, and level.
Banging the drum on 15% to me is people not understand the capital gains tax.
It is different from income tax. And the idea of everybody saying Romney is not
paying taxes and hiding things is a little naive too. A couple years ago, I
screwed up my taxes, owned 4k more. I thought the IRS was wrong, so I fought it
some...I cannot tell you how relentless the IRS is just over 4k. IRS is by far
the most efficient gov't agency. It collects 1.4 trillion a year...so they are
really good. They are middle age king's guards that go house to house
collecting the kings gold. If the IRS was all over me for 4k...do you think if
a rich person is short...do you think they would go after that same person as aggressively
as they did me? I'd say yes. I hope you agree. See what happens to the celebs
that don't pay?...they go to jail. The IRS are hawks. So, I have a great deal
of faith in them to get what they think they are due. Now, Romney has the
worlds best accounts, and they will follow the law, but they will find
loopholes too...but they follow the law, or the IRS will tell them they are not
following the law. So, Romney, if the IRS is great at what they do...has to be
clean with paying taxes through the years...or we would know. Since the IRS is
under Obama, Obama can call the IRS, which I sure he did, and asked them to
review everything. This is what ALL sitting Presidents do. The classic,
"let's get him on tax evasion" strategy. If there was something we
would know. I know Meadow and Ed know these things...the reason why they want
taxes release is to reaffirm the Romney is really rich to continue the
narrative of class warfare. It is an extremely powerful strategy. And I hope
people understand, in the 90's when Romney was making insane money, working in
a business, he was subject to a 37% income tax under the then tax code. So,
since the IRS is awesome in getting there money...they go after me for 4k....I
have to make the assumption he paid his taxes, or we would know. Now, Romney
has just investments...that are taxed at 15%. That is the law. Why is everyone
so mad? Is everybody mad at Romney or the law? Obama had the house and Senate
for 2 years...be mad at him for not raising the capital gains to 30% then. Why
isn't everybody up in arms about Obama not doing that rather than saying Romney
is a cheat? Romney has followed the law. Again, I'm just saying...it is wasted
energy. He is a rich guy...so what? Being envious of the rich is a sure fire
way of never becoming rich. It creates a mental block or a mental wall saying
something is unfair. That is just my thinking. I don't know what "strawman
fallacy" means. I really don't...and I don't want to know what it means.
Now,
there is a general theme of me being in a fantasy vs. reality. Do you know what
is real. I go on the computer, I download an operating system for free, I get on
youtube for free, and I'm learning how to program in C++. I'm getting pretty
good. Pretty soon, maybe in a couple months, I will take what is called a
brainbench test that will cost $90. I hopefully will get a good score, if not,
I will take it again. When I get a good score, I will put it on my resume. I'm
going to send my resume to companies. If they don't call on me, I will actually
walk into the company and tell somebody I got a 99% on a C++ brainbench
score..."interview me!, test me!" With this motivation...and new
skills, I going to go out on a limb here and say somebody will hire me. If
not...I will be relentless until somebody does. Somebody will, I can bet my
life on it. I am the perfect example, of not complaining...going the extra step
to make something out of myself. So, can I say...if people in general pulled up
themselves by their bootstraps like this, things would be better in this
country? There is an equal playing field in my opinion, you can succeed for
free. Why are the smartest kids in India trying to get in this country? The
stuff they know, we can learn for free on the internet. You can take every
class on MIT online. Do you think those smart kids in India are saying the
United States doesn't have an equal playing field? If they are...why are they
doing everything in their power to get here?
I’m not going to get too much into the quantitative easing stuff. It is pretty simple, the fed bought high interest debt on the books and swapped it with low interest debt. That is quantitative easing. To do this, the
fed had to print money to pay for this swap.
They are not telling us how much they did, which is a little scary…so we
do not know how much extra printed money is in the economy. There is a thing called the ‘money-multiplier’. The more money exchanges hands X the amount
of cash in the system equals inflation.
Call me crazy, but with this quantify easy, there is a whole bunch of dormant
cash in the system. When things pick upmore…more the excess money exchanges hands of more…we will see this inflation. I absolutely assure you. Extremely funny cartoon, explanation ofQuantitative Easing, go to youtube and type in “Quantitative easing explained” ..worth checking out.
Now with the government, again, it takes 300 billion to operate a month, we collect160k of revenue (from the Romney's and Exxon's), we borrow 140k bill a monthfrom China, Brazil, etc. Tax the rich more, that elusive 3%...your right, we
have to borrow less each month. But we still have to borrow over 100 bil a
month...that is the deficit. The debt behind that is 16trillion. You like
reality, so let me give you an example comparing the gov't verse a real person.
If the government was a real person...let's say the person is making 60k a
years. So he is bring in 4k or so after taxes. Image if this person used all
this 4k a month, but has lived way above his means. Has been doing this for
decades. In the 80's he was spending his entire pay check AND putting 2k on his
credit cards a month, 90's he was breaking even, not going out to eat, etc, but
not paying what he owed on his credit cards in the 80's. 00's He started living
it up again putting 3k a month on his credit cards...in 2008-2012, he is still
using his spending his entire pay check and putting an extra 3k a month on
credit cards. And something happens, he gets demoted at work, takes a pay cut
(less tax revenue coming in)...but he is still putting 3k a month of credit
cards. So, this guy, earns 60k, but has 90k of credit card debt. If that person
is still spending 3k a month on credit cards...would that be irresponsible? Was
he irresponsible in the 80's and 00's (Reagan and Bush)...of course...but his
he still irresponsible? A rational person would tell the other person, 'hey,
stop going out to dinner every night...live within your means to start".
Let's say this person got a 3% increase in his wages, but still was going out
to dinner every night, putting 3k on the credit cards...would he put a dent in
the 90k of debt he has? It would help his current spending problem, he would
only be putting 2.5k on his credit cards a month....but is there a bigger
problem here? Is the 3% an issue? Granted, the Republicans spent a lot, but
this is as much as a democratic problem. It is a government problem. In the
past 3.5 years, the national debt went from 11trillion to 16 trillion. Bush had
more tax revenue so it went up in the same amount in 8 years. Here is the
scaring question...when will these countries like China and Brazil stop lending
us money? Just like the individual...the credit card company is going to cut
him off soon. As a country...we have a huge problem with this debt, it is the
elephant in the room. At this pace, the debt will be 21 trillion in 4 more
years. The government will fold...so SS checks, no defense, etc. ....so, which
leads me to my point, why is msnbc going so crazy over tax returns...like I
said before...it is like Nero playing the violin as Rome burns.
Holy @!$%# dude paragraphs paragraphs paragraphs. You can't cluster run on sentences like that dear god.
Risk is a perspective problem. There is risk in everything you do. You only have the illusion that you are secure or that you are investing in something solid, but this is a side note. You are again assuming what a business will or won't do and you are doing so on the basis not of historical reality, but on the basis of what you believe will happen. When we taxed capital gains at a 70% did it stop new ventures? No, actually back then we had more businesses starting per year than we do today. And we had less businesses failing per year. Cutting taxes more often than not is associated with people taking on greater risks- to this I will meet you half way- and from that more often than not people gambling more money which causes more and more instability in our market place. This is why higher tax rates typically lead to less market crashes, less severe market crashes, and less likelihood of market crashes. Market crashes come about because people are taking stupid risks that they would not have taken if the government had a better policy of management.
As I stated earlier if your stocks are all invested in 401ks then you aren't selling your stocks and making capital gains. You are investing in a 401k that is spread across multiple companies in industries that have a typically high return rate and then the government agrees to not tax this money or the money you put into your 401k as long as you don't touch it until your retirement. If you are putting money into the stock market and then selling it and making a profit that money is new income which then has to be taxed. There is no reason to tax this income at a lower level rate.
At the very worst you'd be saying that people would sell off their stocks artificially early (their loss) at the risk of a higher tax one year all so that the next several years there is less risk and therefore more stability in the average of your returns. That'd be the stupidest investment plan a person could engage in. You'd be denying yourself stability and in particular guaranteed rates of higher returns in favor of instability and no guarantee return of rates. The only trade off would be the latter has the potential of returning more money, but with a bigger chance that none will be returned at all and the latter has a return of less, but with very little chance that the money will be lost. If you truly were a conservative the second would be your choice.
I have no idea what on Earth you're talking about here. What I said is that you're artificially claiming risk exists in certain areas while artificially saying it does not in other areas. Risk is inherent in life. You take on risk in everything you do. Thus if you make the basis of taxation that risk is being incurred that's completely paradoxical and illogical.
No, as I explained before this is a strawman. People are not upset that Romney paid 15% inherently. They are upset that he has paid that rate while simultaneously saying that his taxes should be lowered and the rest of Americans should have their raised. It's about "keeping it level" as you say.
...no one was going to have capital gains taxed at a progressive rate because it's capital gains. But if you're going here you do realize that your argument is that because it wouldn't be 100% effective we therefore shouldn't even try? That's very lazy and whiny of you (considering that was the main theme of your rant last post I'd just like to point that out). And how exactly does the 15% keep it level? By your own argument you're getting screwed in comparison to people like Romney.
A. This has nothing to do with your previous post or the post I put in response to it
B. Romney likely did not violate any tax laws, I agree with this, although neither of us know that it is true and won't know that it's true until we see his tax returns. With that said the complaint here is that he hides things via the law (the law is established so that someone like him can get away with paying less than what he actually should be paying). And yes Romney does have assets overseas. Among many of the assets he owns, he owns a slave labor shop in China that produces small appliances. He also has openly admitted to having money in the Camen Islands and in Switzerland. This is important because Obama has proposed that we end these tax shelters and other tax loopholes that Romney takes advantage of to artificially pay a lower rate and because Romney insists that other people are lazy for paying only payroll and other taxes while he's so lazy, apparently, that he will shelter his money to avoid paying any. I think people automatically assume that when liberals say he's avoiding paying taxes we mean he's doing something illegal. All of this is legal and that is our argument- it should not be legal.
So when you don't pay your taxes that means you are in debt to the federal government, state government, or local government (whomever you owe). Tax collectors are the same as debt collectors. Yes they will call you, send you mailers, and even garnish your wages if they have to. That's because you owe them a debt. It isn't that they are the big bad government- the private agencies are the same (in fact did you know that the IRS doesn't do it's own tax collection, but rather that the service is outsourced to 3rd party debt collector contractors? more than likely you never dealt with an IRS agent personally, but instead dealt with a private sector agent working on behalf of the IRS).
With that said there actually are a lot of options available to people to handle the IRS. The IRS isn't an unreasonable agency. I have never owed them money before personally, but I have had to deal with debt collectors and I have had to deal with the IRS in terms of identity theft. They have a 24/7 hotline that you can call that you can go over your taxes and any money the IRS thinks you own. They will set you up on payment plans. They had dedicated tax specialists that will help you go through your taxes to figure out what happened and why you owe. You actually can go to your local Department of Revenue and sit down and talk with a person there and figure out what happened and why. If I had to guess the reason why it was such a bad experience for you lies in the fact that you lack the legal knowledge to represent yourself, lack the knowledge of tax laws and codes, and cannot afford to have a lawyer represent your in the case of either. In which case you might have suffered as a direct result of your lower income. And a wealthy person, presumably, would not have this problem. Which means that wealthy person would not have suffered as much (assuming he or she had dealt with the problem).
I'm not sure what celebrities have gone to jail recently for tax fraud, but I know Wesley Snipes is a big time celebrity who did go to jail for that issue. In Snipe's case he wasn't actively working with the IRS to pay it off. He made some weird statement about income taxes not being real and that he doesn't recognize the right of the federal government to tax and therefore he secretly didn't have to pay taxes. That's what landed him up in court- he refused to work with the IRS and therefore wasn't able to work out a deal that kept him out of jail. In his particular case he actually chose to be arrested. For most people I recognize that isn't a conscious choice that they'd make, which is why we don't have a huge percentage of those who are audited by the IRS going to jail.
With that said we have seen the re-emergence of debtors being arrested for their debts. And I certainly will agree with you that this is bad. However it should also be noted that the private sector is driving these arrests, not the public sector. In either case it makes me nervous.
Name a presidential candidate in US history who was arrested, charged with, or who had to drop out of running because he was hit with "tax evasion." I've never, ever heard of this and if I've never heard of it before or seen it happen you can't call it a strategy. For the record it would be illegal for Obama to call the IRS and tell them to vet Romney's tax records. Just so you know.
This is so laughably stupid I feel compelled to call it "retarded" except for the fact that I realize that phrase is insulting to mentally disabled persons. No they want Romney to release his tax returns to re-affirm the narrative with empirical evidence that Romney pays a smaller rate than the rest of the US despite his wealth. There is no secret strategy here you idiot. Maddow and the rest of the Democratic Party have been telling you exactly why they want Romney to release his returns. If you haven't gotten that it's because you're so goddamn busy coming up with fantasies about why they would want it that you aren't freaking listening. The argument from the Democratic Party has been that we need to go back to the rates under Bill Clinton, that we need to increase taxes on capital gains and close certain loopholes (like offshoring loopholes), and that we need to end entitlement programs to the very wealthy. That has been the Democratic narrative since the year 2000. That was the narrative that freaking Al Gore ran on. But no, no really it's because Maddow isn't quite sure that Romney is a multi-millionaire. Are you f'ing kidding me????
People aren't mad. You are perceiving that people are angry because people are disagreeing with you. That is your subjective reality- it is not objective fact. Stop freaking doing this. Belief =/= fact.
People want the law changed. That's why people are asking for the law to be changed. This isn't rocket science.
A. This argument would mean that I now can lay blame at Republicans since Republicans had, by your phrasing of the statement, control of the US Congress. So now we've already established that now I can be mad at Republicans (again). Good goin' tex
B. No he did not have control of the Senate for 2 years. This is a lie. He did not have a filibuster proof majority during his time as president. Technically speaking he did during the brief period where Byrd and Kennedy were alive and while Frankin was a US senator, but since most of that Byrd and Kennedy were spent getting treatment and Frankin was contesting his win in court and therefore wasn't able to assume his seat, this really doesn't count. In total I believe there were 4 weeks in which the Senate was filibuster proof. The Republican Party made the argument that they wanted to see Obama kicked out of office and made the decision to filibuster anything and everything that got through. Filibusters are being used at an unprecedented rate. In fact the US Congress has initiated the filibuster more times in the past 4 years than it has at any point in US history combined.
Because Obama cannot make the US Congress do anything. Obama can set an agenda, but each individual representative of the US Congress has to decide whether or not he or she is going to follow that agenda. Right now you have an entire political party that has decided it will not participate in anything that Obama wants done which is why virtually no bills have been passed in the past 2 years and barely any were passed in the first 2 years. What very little Obama has been able to accomplish is remarkable considering he did not have a filibuster proof majority in the US Senate.
And I don't want to know what it means. Right, because you don't care whether or not something is factually true you only care if it fits into your world view. If it doesn't fit into your world view then it must be because other people are envious or evil or some other conspiracy that doesn't ever have you questioning your own views. Appeal to ignorance! That's what we should aim for! Let's be stupid because that's better than being smart! Smart people suck! And, by your own logic, because you've now put that mental block into place that means you'll prevent yourself from ever becoming smart! Congratulations jackass you just called yourself a moron. Good lord.
A strawman fallacy is when you purposely misrepresent or mischaracterize someone else's argument in order to attack a phantom position the person making the argument never presented. No one is envious of the rich. Get that through your skull. People are NOT upset that Romney is a millionaire. People are upset that he calls everyone else lazy for not being a millionaire (including you) and that he feels so entitled as a millionaire that he gets to cut his tax rate while raising everyone else's rate (including YOU).
Yes and you have displayed here that not only do you live in a fantasy world, but that you RESENT other people for trying to show you reality. Yet you STILL feel entitled to assert that YOUR fantasies are reality. If you want to live in a fantasy world by all means go ahead. But do not project that onto the rest of us. See the difference???
When we talk about the playing field what we are talking about is that the country incentivizes it's laws to disproportionately help those who are already privileged and to disenfranchise those who are not. I actually am one of those kids from India that you're talking about (how very racist of you, for the record). My family came here and worked their asses off to put me through school. I used PUBLIC money going to PUBLIC schools and went to a PUBLIC college to get my job. But if I did not have the PUBLIC support I got I would not have been able to do it. That is the part of the equation you don't seem to realize. You need SOME help to get where you are going- you don't do anything on your own. The fact that you keep talking like this just shows a. that you're ignorant as hell and b. that you're arrogant as hell. The "smart kids in India" come to America using PUBLIC assistance to attend schools supported by PUBLIC dollars so that they can get an education in a country where the melding of corporate and public interests has produced a vibrant economy and economic opportunity. By being given a leg up they are then able to go on to become taxpaying citizens. But when you do things like cut student loans, increase tuition, cut funding to public schools, and stop funding to the states you then make it impossible for these objectives to be reached. That's because you create an unequal playing field. US citizens at this point at time are even more disadvantaged than kids in India. Why? Because India puts an active effort into funding it's schools and helping students gain scores high enough to qualify for internships or for study abroad here in the US. That is why you have such a low portion of the Indian population dropping out of school- because they literally aren't allowed to. If they do they end up in poverty. That is the argument made by Democrats and for those who aren't racist it's a compelling argument as to why our government needs to be more involved and more efficient.
And for the record I happen to work in the industry that you're talking about: a benchmark test won't get you a job in computer programming, engineering, or design. You have to have a portfolio to present showing your talent off and a certificate. There actually are regulations in the industry that prevent programmers from hiring people who do not have a degree (at least an associate's) in the field (and these are private regulations for the record, so don't give me that "the government is preventing me from doing it" crap). You actually should have went and talked to the professionals you were hoping to get hired by. You MIGHT be able to get a job working in game testing (although they pay crappy as hell) and you MIGHT be able to get people to hire you to do websites freelance. But in those cases it will likely end up with you only making spare income on the side and it likely won't have you leaving the landscaping business until you get a degree. And isn't it funny that you talk about the Massachusetts Institute of Technology here. Hmm, guess what- that school that you are using to further your education is a school that is provided for you by the PUBLIC. Mr. pulls himself up by the bootstraps apparently relies a hell of a lot on government.
Ahhh I love the level of jerkiness here. Yes people who have went to school and minored in business are stupid, but you know everything.
The fed purchases money from banks and other entities in the form of bonds. It then exchanges those new bonds with newly printed money at the quantitative rate (I.E. the value of the bond).
When you engage in quantitative easing you end up raising the cost of each bond, but this in turn devalues the return rate of the bond over the long term. It's a secondary means of increasing the amount of revenues available to a society without directly issuing more bonds. The fed already came out and stated it was not going to issue any more bonds (loans) this year so that means the only means for it to print more money (without an action from congress) will be to purchase already existing bonds as a means of printing new money. The issuing of government bonds or the purchasing of government bonds does not cause inflation or deflation in and of itself as long as the printed amount meets the bond amount (it would result in inflation if it exceeded this amount, true). Because the fed isn't issuing new bonds (so taking loans from other countries and private investors) the fed now only is left with that one option (buying existing contracts). By doing so the fed is able to artificially keep rates at a lower than market rate (close to 0%) without causing the markets to increase their rates as a result. The only problem is this will cause the value of the bond to diminish rapidly over, say, the next 20 years (or whatever the bond was issued). So basically the person who sold the asset to the fed got a huge chunk of change up front in exchange for what will be a diminished, below market return from the government however many years out the bond was issued for. This latter means of printing money by the fed, for the record, causes deflation. Like I said the government isn't at risk of inflation- it is at risk of deflation (which, for the record, is worse).
This is not how inflation works. Inflation and deflation have to do with the value of assets in the economy. If the value of intangible assets goes down (meaning there are more intangible assets available) this causes the real world purchasing cost of each dollar to go down which then means you have to spend more to buy the same item as before (inflation). When intangible assets go up (meaning there are less assets available) then this means we experience deflation with the real world purchasing power of the dollar going up instead of down. To this extent I think you understand whatever libertarian website you're reading. What the libertarians don't tell you, however, is that even though we've switched from the gold standard we still value our currency in tangible assets and fixed assets. The problem is, during a recession your fixed assets get put on the back burner and your tangible assets end up plummeting in value. This creates a pocket where the amount of money you have available does not immediately match the asset value, even though the asset physically hasn't changed. That is why we lower the interest rates during recessions and raise them during economic booms. This is because we need the interest to be near the rate of housing and other goods that are produced.
Interestingly enough the things Democrats keep whining about wanting to have happen- the construction of roads, bridges, etc.- would cause the real world value of these assets to pick back up which would mean we could raise interest rates and return our dollar amount to what it was prior to the recession. By cutting spending we actually ensure that the opposite happens.
No, we don't. We have not issued new bonds at the federal level since 2011 when the fed announced it would not be issuing new bonds anymore. Sigh
No it did not. You are confusing debt projections with our current debt levels. What is the current debt in the United States? Do you even know? I'll give you a hint: it's 13trillion. The 16 trillion you are referring to comes from a CBO estimate over 10 years as a projection of what the recession will cost us if no changes are made. You want to see things change? Then raise the minimum wage, produce more fixed or tangible assets like bridges and houses, or raise taxes. All of these things put the projected debt from 16$trillion back to 11$trillion in 10 years according to that SAME CBO report you're referencing. But Republicans don't tell you this latter part. They just scare you with the idea of 16 trillion dollars because it's a big number that people cannot wrap their heads around.
As for the credit card analogy I'm just going to say this- governments do NOT work like your credit card. The problem here is that you've used a credit card analogy to the point that you confuse the analogy (fantasy) with reality. Governments do not borrow money in the way that a person using a credit card borrows money. Since governments are the entity that prints the money this would be impossible unless we had an international currency. Because we do not have an international currency when you are saying the government "borrows" money what you are saying is the government issues new bonds to foreign nations who purchase the bond in exchange for a set rate (like 3% over 20 years). The government then is able to print money up to the bond amount. We borrowed (not we're borrowing) about 2.3 trillion from various nations around the world with about 1trillion coming from China and Japan in order to pass our stimulus measures. This amount is not a continued rate, although yes the fed did not print that money all at once (which is where I think you're getting confused). The fed prints money up to the point of the bond issued- so if the bond is issued for $1,000 then the fed will print money up to $1,000. But this doesn't mean that the fed will print all $1,000 at once. The stimulus package, for instance, was worth about $780 billion, but was then distributed over 2 years. Which means the fed printed a large amount right away and then printed money as it saw fit to fulfill the pre-designated amount of $780billion.
The national debt, if nothing changes, is projected to be around 22 trillion around the year 2020. However this only happens if a. unemployment and underemployment stays at above 8% b. we continue fighting the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq (or subsequent wars spending the same amount) c. we spend no money on fixed assets d. there is no increase in tangible asset worth (so the housing market doesn't bounce back) and e. if we maintain the current tax rate (I.E. the Bush tax cuts). Change ANY of these factors and the projected debt drops. That is because these factors all play in to what the CBO uses to figure out what the debt will be in the future. The CBO says in it's own reports that if you change any factor it will change the results and even tells you what predictive model they are using (usually it's the agricultural based model (name is escaping me at the moment) since that's the oldest means of measuring economic value that we have).
And no, since the US is not actively issuing bonds even if the US defaults on the bond rates that doesn't mean that suddenly all hell breaks loose (slippery slope fallacy, again). What ends up happening is we don't pay up on our bond. More than likely because we are a super power the thing that will happen will be China, Japan, and the other nations that have lended to us will simply ask that the bond in default be re-issued for a later date, but will ask for a higher interest rate. The US has faced this problem before and it didn't lead to a catastro-bleep so I'm not sure why people suddenly and magically think that it will in the future.
Now I can already guess that you're going to use Greece as the example. All I have to say is this: Greece was a part of the Euro. Once you understand that, you'll understand why Greece isn't a comparable model to the US (and also why their economy collapsed in a way that isn't possible to happen here in the US). The same goes with nations like the Ukraine and Yugoslavia.
Damnit I hate how you can't go back and edit your stuff on Newsvine. OK I need to rephrase this
You'd be denying yourself stability and in particular guaranteed rates of return in favor of instability and no guarantee of returns. The only trade off would be that the latter has the potential of paying off more in the short term (with a far more likelihood that it will fail) while the former would pay off less immediately, but more in the long run with very little chance of failure. If you truly were an economic conservative the second would be your choice.
That wording makes a lot more sense. Teaches me to proof read before I post ;-)
On my paragraph regarding filibusters I sort've just trailed off there. I needed to add that the reason why Obama cannot pass everything lies mostly in the fact that he does not and has not had control of the US Congress. But this also assumes that he would pass things if he had control. To that extent I am willing to meet you half way: Obama is an economic conservative so perhaps he would not tax capital gains at a higher rate. My point here was simply that Obama can't be blamed for something that he doesn't have control over. Now if he had a supermajority (or if Republicans simply stopped filibustering every damn bill) then we could say yeah he can be faulted for this. But that still would not denounce the argument that Romney is the child of a privileged system. So your red herring argument here- that's an argument meant to scapegoat away from the subject at hand- does not hold up even by your own logic.
Should have added here in parenthesis (I.E. we need to keep the interest rate close to that of the rate of inflation: because the assets are worth more than the market value rate, we lower interest to deflate their cost. When the market picks back up we'll increase the interest to inflate their cost)
I should also add that although $780billion was allocated for the stimulus bill, not all $780 billion was printed. I believe the total amount was something like 600 billion and then rest went back into bond securities when Republicans took control of the House. I am not quite certain where the printing stopped, so don't quote me 100%. It might have been closer to the 780 goal, but I seem to be recalling that they stopped short at like $120 billion to go.
Wow, Cartoon, I'm glad YOU answered him - I only got to the point where he states he gets his financial advice from youtube.....
Yeah roflmao I just realized how long my response was.
I do not think that the Internet necessarily can be a bad place for information or even YouTube for that matter. But, like with all things, you have to have evidence and established academic precedent for the things you're saying. For instance Harvard gives many classes, including economic classes, over YouTube. So it's not all bad. But you're using Harvard's official YouTube page. It's not some random person on the web, it's someone who has a doctorates in the area they are teaching who publishes works in that area. Neil Degrasse Tyson even has a YouTube page where he gives physics and astronomy information. Again in and of itself that's totally OK. But you have to know that this is a reliable source before you take information from them.
And who is it that so often seems to think that whatever they read on the internet is true or not? Last time I checked it wasn't a Democratic congresswoman who said "well I read it on the Internet" for why she thought Shariah Law was being put into effect in her state.
Part of why I wanted to answer though is because of the misinformation regarding how bonds, borrowing, and printing works. I hope my very short explanation there helps people to understand what is going on. The short version is at this particular point in time Democrats are being the economically realistic ones. Now in the future that may change, but right now what Republicans are proposing- cuts to education, to infrastructure, etc.- will all cause the long term value of the dollar to plummet. The only way this makes sense is if your entire goal is to sell off fixed assets (like federal buildings and Social Security) to make a HUGE profit in the short term, but bankrupt the country in the long term. Likewise this is why Ronald Reagan contributed more to the national debt than any other president in US history AND why Eisenhower was able to take our debt from 120% of GDP down to 20% (by building fixed assets: roads, bridges, schools, etc).
I still don't see that it "helps" the poor and needy to decimate government programs and then proceed to do away with tax credits for charitable donations. That would be an immediate double-whammy. Was this in some Ayn Rand novel too?
Rachel, I love you, you're one of the most incisive, intelligent political reporters ever allowed on tv for more than a few minutes... but why the heck are you ignoring Gary Johnson's campaign? It seems that MSNBC is only in the pocket of Obama and not covering a very viable, personable and honestly qualified candidate for the Presidency who will be on the ballot in all 50 states (unless Romney's lawyers succeed in getting him barred, as they are trying desperately to do).
C'mon Rachel! Give Gary a chance and let your viewers know about this wonderful candidate! We do have another choice! There is also the issue of why he's been banned from most of the debates up to this point, and the presidential debates upcoming. Ross Perot and Ralph Nader got a lot more press than this guy... How come?
Perhaps if Libertarians didn't have holes in their thinking, we might have a look.
The larger problem is using a small pitch fork to move a 50 foot pile of .... First you have to move the first 30 feet of it from Republicans, then 15 feet if it of from Democrats, the last 5 feet might be useful to compost grow a few new ideas. Unfortunately we have only two feet to vote with, and one of those is stuck in the mouth. Hopping to the polls on one foot is what is needed!
If Libertarians didn't talk like GOPers that want legal pot, they might get more play.
So If Romney could explain all these trying , troubling , details without having to lie it would take all the fun out of it for him ?
Or if he would lie to ease our acceptance of obviously conflicting data might that trouble him ?
He promised his daddy he wouldn't be brain washed by facts ?
The faster he thinks the behinder he gets ?
I give up Mittsy !
How come your too good to tell us the troot ...
What a guy. Next he's going to sponsor some "illegals" because he's running for office for Pete's sake.
All Mitt has to do is file an amended return within 3 yrs. Then when he doesn't win the election he gets a refund of the overpayment. I worked at IRS 30 yrs.
I think we should all applaud Governor Romney....... for the news today of his latest tax return. It takes a real leader to publicly agree with the Democrats. And to lead by example. I bet the GOP and Grover are all proud of him showing that the wealthiest Americans can willingly pay an extra 4+% on their income tax with no negative effect (even if it was meant to bolster his claim that he never paid less than 13%). My wishes would be that the rest of the GOP fall in line behind the Governor and follow his lead. Bravo!
All Mitt has to do is file an amended return within 3 yrs. Then when he doesn't win the election, he gets a refund of the overpayment.
I wonder a bit about that average 20 percent rate during Mitt's Dark Ages. Is this the actual figure, or something that was rounded off a bit? Was it rounded using Paul Ryan's standard of rounding numbers? Was it actually an average rate of 10.2 percent, rounded up to 20?
Wait just a minute here. Didn't Willard say if he paid one dollar more than he should have he isn't qualified to be President?
Why does ANYBODY think that Mittens won't 'amend' his tax return in the next three years? Especially if he doesn't win the Presidency...does he think the 47% that don't pay federal income taxes also don't file returns and know the rules?
Confuseing,, this is one of the last issues left to flip-flop on? "I will lower my own tax rate". Next he will say how he is going to increase the size of the Dept. of Education?
Along with his inflated 2011 tax return candidate "Robme" also proferred a 20 year tax summary stating he paid ( actually the word used was "owed"-hmmmm) anywhere from 13.6 % to 20.2 % during those years. His released returns show 13.9% and 14.1% . Mutt claims he wont release more due to Dems unfairly picking over and distorting the returns . If the summary's figures are to be believed is he asking us to seriously swallow the notion that there would be a furor over less than 3/10 of a percent? Not to mention that it would look much better for him having some years in the 20+% bracket. MY math says over 20% rate somewhere ( when 0% is a realistic possibility )plus to the day of death aversion to releasing those returns no matter the political fallout equals ............ AMNESTY PROGRAM ! I believe Daddy Warbucks paid a hefty fine in addition to taxes owed to keep 100 % of his butt out of the slammer for prior cheating on overseas accounts. I may be arranging facts to support a biased premise but if the shoe fits................. Of course Mutt and Queen Ann can shut me up by simply doing what EVERY other presidential candidate for decades has done and what 63% of American population wants including many Repuglicans. We're NOT going away Thurston !
14 minutes ago · Like
While I am as giddy as the next liberal over the gaffes of the Mittster, I am concerned that many democrats will be lulled into thinking that this is a cake walk for the President. It isn't by a long shot! There is only a percentage point between them.
Rachel, I feel that you and your cohorts should be urging all to make sure they vote and don't assume that the President has it made. This is definitely one of the most important elections EVER. I know this has been said before. But for seniors, the lower income families, or families who have seriously sick children, their future is in the balance. It is literally a life and death for millions of Americans if the President loses this election.
This has been observed by someone but if Romney has never paid less 13% and he would have paid 9% (or whatever but less than 13%) then his taxes have actually fallen under Obama.
Just think, they put Leona Hemsley in prison for tax evasion but I really think it was because she opened her mouth about the dirty secret the rich have in saying, "the RICH don't pay taxes, only poor people do."
Now we have Mittens saying 47% don't pay taxes.
If Mittens admits that he is worth 13.7 million, REMEMBER....that's not counting what he has stuffed under the mattress, hidden in the Caymens and elsewhere. So, he pays taxes on what he admits he has and not his actual money.
oh. so The romney's have been audited and charged with breaking the tax law? this is news. I guess thats what harry Ried meant when he said that he knows Romeny didn't pay any tax.
I prupose a new law. If anyone wants to critisize someones taxes returns on national tv, that person should have to publish thier tax returns at the same time. What did Ms. Maddow pay?
Ya know when you have to play 6 degrees to Kevin Bacon with blame in regards to tax returns you've pretty much just admitted to losing the debate
RecklessQuaker, if I were you and was really expecting to have any money for retirement, I'd start selling some of the stock purchased and put it into something that doesn't got south when the next Republican-inspired financial disaster occurs. Something such as CDs or Tbills. Not a high interest rate true, but should another economic disaster occur you'll at least still have your principle.
Now, as to your ideas concerning tax rates themselves: there is no valid economic reason for income from dividends, interest or capital gains not to be taxed at the same rate as "earned" income. One reason used to reduce capital gains taxes was because those taxes were hurting elderly people who sold their homes on retiring in order to move to a smaller place. A house purchased for $10,000 in 1950 could, during the 1980s, easily have sold for 10 times that, depending on the building's condition and location.
It would have been better to exempt or, better still, establish a reduced level of capital gains taxes for any property, including stocks, etc, held for longer than a certain period of time; say, 15 years. Allowing for the increased value realized from the sale to annualized over a set period, usually four years, would also have been an excellent way to prevent any economic hardship caused by such an increase in value.
By the way, you do realize don't you, that the return on your investment in stocks are the dividends you receive from owning those shares? Basing a retirement on the assumption that the value of a share of stock purchased in 2012 will have increased by X amount by the time you retire is not investing.
It's called gambling...
This is funny "there is no valid economic reason for income from dividends, interest or capital gains not to be taxed at the same rate as "earned" income" yes there is reasons it should be lower.
1. many elderly citizens reley on dividends and bond interest as there primary income source.
2. the higher the tax rate on capital gains the lower the potential return and less investments will be made
3. funny how liberals talk about "fair" share but some home how it's always raise cap gains tax not lower and flaten earned income? explain.
...so then raise the interest to compensate for the tax. That was a hard solution
On the basis of what evidence?
Because taxes don't lower and flatten earned income? How does this even make sense?
Captain,
Errr.... LOTS of people rely on dividends and bond interest as their primary income source - like Romney?
That is NOT a reason for it to be taxed lower than wages. One of the reasons people save money and put it into tax-free bonds and investments is because they assume they will be earning less money -even from their investments- when they retire and will pay lower taxes on that income. Are you sayiing a person who makes $100K/year from investments should pay a lower rate than a person who works for the same amount? Age really isn't a factor here!
I'll ask the same question Cartoon did? On the basis of what evidence? There has never been a time when people reduced investments because of taxes! That would be just stupid!!! What do you think people are going to do with their money? Hide it in the back yard or put it under their mattresses????
OOOPS!, your ignorance is showing!!! You really ought to be careful about that!
What I think you were trying to say was that "liberals" like progressive taxation, which you obviously think is unfair. Do you REALLY think it is fair that those who make less money pay a larger percentage of what they have to live on for taxes, when the rich should be paying LESS of what they have to live on?
Whatever someone like Romney pays for taxes, the truth is that it won't hurt his style of living one iota - he won't have to make the decision to either pay his rent, or his heat, or buy food. This IS as issue with people who live near the poverty level. And YOU think that is fair?
YEA, I believe progressive taxation is the only moral way to deal with taxes, and quite honestly, that was how the tax code was originally designed! BTW WHY should Romney pay a smaller percentage in taxes than I do when he makes way over 200 times what I make (and he didn't lift a finger to make it - whereas I go to work each day)?
When you cut taxes or regulations you encourage people to gamble their money (borrow and spend). When you keep taxes high and keep the rates stable (not constantly raising or lowering) you encourage people to save and invest. Lowering taxes and reducing regulations will spur economic growth, but it will be gambling based growth (I.E. you'll likely see a huge increase in revenues in maybe the first year or the second year, followed by a recession as you know your money disappears...just like EVERY OTHER TIME you've been to a casino). The economic growth we saw during the Bush Administration is proof positive of this concept. He made dramatic cuts to the tax code and there were dramatic cuts to the regulatory system (although granted those began taking place in the late 90's and did not go into full effect until about 2003). What we saw was enormous gains in what else but the financial sector (I.E. the gambling capitol of the world!) and immediately we were followed by the second greatest economic collapse that has ever existed in our history. The fed right now is attempting to keep things stable, but is attempting to do so in a way that favors businesses. The irony here is that libertarians actually have somewhat of an argument: we shouldn't be spending money in the economy through federal bank actions. Where the libertarians are wrong though is that we should be spending money, but it should be through congressional actions in the form of fixed assets (as the primary focus) and tangible assets (secondary focus).
You people are insane!
Errr.... LOTS of people rely on dividends and bond interest as their primary income source - like Romney?
That is NOT a reason for it to be taxed lower than wages. One of the reasons people save money and put it into tax-free bonds and investments is because they assume they will be earning less money -even from their investments- when they retire and will pay lower taxes on that income. Are you sayiing a person who makes $100K/year from investments should pay a lower rate than a person who works for the same amount? Age really isn't a factor here!
well, this makes no sence. people save and buy tax free bonds because they assume? no they accept a lower return because the return is not taxed. $1 tax free is equivilant to makin $1.3 taxed.
if age has nothing to do with it, then why is this in your response? "when they retire and will pay lower taxes on that income"
I'll ask the same question Cartoon did? On the basis of what evidence? There has never been a time when people reduced investments because of taxes! That would be just stupid!!! What do you think people are going to do with their money? Hide it in the back yard or put it under their mattresses????
Have you taken your pills? if fact at the end of every year invest engage in a practice called, tax loss selling. the therory here is to sell those investments that you made that didn't turn out as planned and take the loss so you can write off any gains you took during the year. And no one keeps track of the investments that have not been made, i mean thats equivilent to saying every incomplete pass is the quarterbacks fault, there is no stat for dropped pass.
Because taxes don't lower and flatten earned income? ahhh, yes they do. in fact that is exactly the point of a progressive tax system? I mean come on you liberals state goal has been to flaten out income since karl marx first introduced communism. the point of the statement is lets lower earned income tax down to 15%, why is discrimination bad for any other aspect of life except for the sorce of income?
ooppps your liberal is showing!
ohh, and yes people have hide money in there backyard, and under the mattress. why do you think all these gold selling companies are all about? everyone knows this this is why Obama wanted everyone who sells $600 or more of gold to report the sale. that's part of Obama care. look it up. (hypothetical)I just bought a bunch of silver coins, with post tax dollars, do you think if i sell them next month for a profit i'm going to report that money? errrrrr
A. You did not answer any of the questions asked
B. You provided no counter-evidence
C. You re-asserted your debunked positions
D. Good lord your counter-arguments are convoluted. Geeeze
It struck me that Romney has made YET ANOTHER CONTRADICTION (big surprise). He has said that one should not pay anything more in income taxes that one is legally obliged. Ok, but then HOW can he criticize those who do not owe Federal income taxes due to their income level and deductions????
By his own statements, he has disqualified himself to be President while he has elevated that 47% to be qualified.
Without working for the past 6 years, isn't Mitt Romney a TAKER, i.e. "moocher"?
Rachel missed one very important point in her opening comments on Romney's tax avoidance scheme. He didn't permanently avoid the tax deduction that would have resulted from $1.75 M of charitable contributions. He just deferred it to next year when no one will be looking. His overall tax rate next year will be much lower than 14%.
So can someone help me out with this?
If Mitt's income is almost all capital gains and in most of the 90's the cap gains rate was somewhere around 28%-30% then how does his summary explanation have his average tax rate somewhere around 20%?
Does that mean that most of his income is from off shore?
Thanks
time for some critical thinking. If we are just guessing at what Mr. Romney;s intentions were at deduction less than he could have with respect to his charity donations is it not likely that his motive was to ensure a margin of error int he event of an audit? i know that i file my taxes conservatively for this reason. in business it's better to plan for the worst and hope for the best.