Romney reveals his tax rate is close to 15%

[Genx87]

Sounds like Romney needs to hire Kerrys accountant. Kerry managed to get his down to 11% in 2003.

 

[nageov3t]

Mitt Romney is wealthy? I'm stunned and amazed.

what shenanigans are you expecting to see in his tax returns that we don't know already?

 

[dank69]

Mitt Romney is wealthy? I'm stunned and amazed.

what shenanigans are you expecting to see in his tax returns that we don't know already?

I think the motive here is to remove plausible deniability.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally Posted by cybrsage
Psst...Obama is also a .01%er

No shit, Captain Obvious.

BTW, did you see in that article that the Obamas paid a tax rate of 32.5%?

32.5% Vs 15%

 

[cybrsage]

Option 3 not on your radar, huh?
3. $3716151 isn't bad take home for a year, no need to squeeze any more with potentially shady tactics.

I would have considered it had Obama not been a politician.

 

[alkemyst]

I love how his 370k income from speaking fees is "not very much". 370k is more than the yearly income for 99% of Americans.

That shows more about him than his tax rate.

And 99% of Americans make more than 99% of the world. So are they overpaid too?

 

[dank69]

And 99% of Americans make more than 99% of the world. So are they overpaid too?

Did somebody say he was overpaid? No. Nobody said he was overpaid.

 

[Throckmorton]

And 99% of Americans make more than 99% of the world. So are they overpaid too?

You fail at math... Americans are 4% of the world. And only 10% of Americans are in the world's top 1%.


Mitt Romney also fails at math if he thinks $370k isn't very much. That amount alone, with no other income, would put him in the top 1% of Americans.

 

[Bitek]

Must be nice. Stupid me, I build things for a living and have to pay normal person taxes.

Too bad I didn't have a rich daddy to set me up with enough wealth to live off of and spend my time investing and firing people and not paying taxes.

 

[Patranus]

32.5% Vs 15%

And?

Who gives a shit how much Romney pays?

Oh ya, the "progressives" who envy his wealth.

 

[Nintendesert]

No shit, Captain Obvious.

BTW, did you see in that article that the Obamas paid a tax rate of 32.5%?

Are you accusing the President of being too stupid to hire an accountant??? :thumbsdown:

 

[marincounty]

And?

Who gives a shit how much Romney pays?

Oh ya, the "progressives" who envy his wealth.

It's about fairness. Rich people paying less of their income in taxes as a percentage of income than middle class people. If you can't understand the outrage I can't help you.
And nobody envies Romney.

 

[Anarchist420]

It's about fairness. Rich people paying less of their income in taxes as a percentage of income than middle class people. If you can't understand the outrage I can't help you.
And nobody envies Romney.

Fairness is subjective.

 

[xBiffx]

Anyone who makes their income primarily from investments will pay less that some one who makes their from a salary. It doesn't matter if its $10K or $10M. Anyone who can't understand why this is a good thing never invested a cent and wants this country's economy to fail. If there is no one investing, we are all screwed, plain and simple.

 

[feralkid]

Anyone who makes their income primarily from investments will pay less that some one who makes their from a salary. It doesn't matter if its $10K or $10M. Anyone who can't understand why this is a good thing never invested a cent and wants this country's economy to fail. If there is no one investing, we are all screwed, plain and simple.

I think you may not understand: it's 15% of the profits that are taxed, not 15% of investment.

 

[Throckmorton]

Are you accusing the President of being too stupid to hire an accountant??? :thumbsdown:

Income is income... Are you suggesting that Obama somehow break the law? What kind of accountant would facilitate that? Romney didn't pay 15% by "hiring an accountant" but by making his income through capital gains.

I'm tired of his "hire an accountant herp a derp" bullshit. If you don't understand taxes, STFU.

 

[xBiffx]

I think you may not understand: it's 15% of the profits that are taxed, not 15% of investment.

You may not understand there is zero risk in a salary hence the higher tax rate. There is a great deal of risk in investing hence they tax the profits at a lower rate. There needs to be an incentive to invest. Without it this county's economy, like I said before, would suffer greatly. There is no incentive to invest if you can get that income by other safer means and have the same tax liability.

 

[Jhhnn]

Anyone who makes their income primarily from investments will pay less that some one who makes their from a salary. It doesn't matter if its $10K or $10M. Anyone who can't understand why this is a good thing never invested a cent and wants this country's economy to fail. If there is no one investing, we are all screwed, plain and simple.

Your conclusion doesn't follow from the premise. In times past, taxes on investment income were much higher, and yet investment still occurred at a rate sufficient to grow the economy.

From somebody who ought to know-

I have worked with investors for 60 years and I have yet to see anyone — not even when capital gains rates were 39.9 percent in 1976-77 — shy away from a sensible investment because of the tax rate on the potential gain. People invest to make money, and potential taxes have never scared them off.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinion/stop-coddling-the-super-rich.html?_r=1

As he points out, the Uber wealthy were still Uber wealthy when paying much higher taxes...

 

[xBiffx]

Your conclusion doesn't follow from the premise. In times past, taxes on investment income were much higher, and yet investment still occurred at a rate sufficient to grow the economy.

From somebody who ought to know-



http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinion/stop-coddling-the-super-rich.html?_r=1

Besides the 1930's and perhaps to a degree but not as much the 1980's, when has the stock market been so volatile? We have seen gains and loses in the thousands of points on the DOW, for example. No one is jumping on that roller coaster without a great deal of incentive. Like I said, anyone who can't understand this hasn't invested much, or more specifically, hasn't gotten their ass handed to them yet.

As he points out, the Uber wealthy were still Uber wealthy when paying much higher taxes...

Again, looking at everything from a liberal's perspective. I am not saying anything about the tax rate affecting the bottom line of the rich. Of course they probably could afford it. What I am saying is, who the fuck is going to invest if there is no incentive to outweigh all the risk you are taking on. There are much safer ways to earn an income. The rich and the effect on them has nothing to do with it, people not investing and that effect on the economy has everything to do with it. But again, thinking that since the rich can afford it we should do it and that's all that matters is exactly what is wrong with liberal thinking like yours.

 

[Jhhnn]

You may not understand there is zero risk in a salary hence the higher tax rate. There is a great deal of risk in investing hence they tax the profits at a lower rate. There needs to be an incentive to invest. Without it this county's economy, like I said before, would suffer greatly. There is no incentive to invest if you can get that income by other safer means and have the same tax liability.

In a mildly inflationary economy, there's always incentive to invest. That's not true at all in a deflationary scenario, of course, which is why Repubs are desperately trying to achieve that. Money gains value stuffed into one's mattress, with no risk at all.

 

[Jhhnn]

Besides the 1930's and perhaps to a degree but not as much the 1980's, when has the stock market been so volatile? We have seen gains and loses in the thousands of points on the DOW, for example. No one is jumping on that roller coaster without a great deal of incentive. Like I said, anyone who can't understand this hasn't invested much, or more specifically, hasn't gotten their ass handed to them yet.

Have you considered the possibility that low capital gains rates increase volatility by encouraging investors to cash in rather than to hold? That hot money chases short term gains? Or that cap gains rates have zip effect on real investment?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jared-bernstein/warren-buffett-capital-gains-tax_b_932625.html

 

[Generator]

When I first read about capital gains a decade ago my eyes were the size of saucers. 12 years later these Bush taxes have lead to the most absurd, corrupting wealth disparity in American history.

The bottom line is this tax code is a flat out scam for 99% of the country. The idle rich have the resources to earn in their wealth in anyway they see fit. Suppose we all got paid in shit. That's right...fucking shit! Except the rich have the alchemy to turn shit into gold. They defer income for a year or two or TWENTY and pay 15% with still some magic yet to be used. Deductions to faux charities they own, offshore companies/accounts. THIS IS A FLAT OUT SCAM!!!

Enough of this horse shit and drop the rate to a flat 15%. Let this paper tiger army spoil for all I care. Not like we get anything else for our tax dollars except a hookers and blow congress and the status quo's elections.

 

[Paul98]

This is exactly the type of person we can NOT have as president. This person doesn't live in the reality that 99.9% of the population lives in. We need a highly intelligent person who understands the problems and what the average american goes through.

 

[xBiffx]

Have you considered the possibility that low capital gains rates increase volatility by encouraging investors to cash in rather than to hold? That hot money chases short term gains? Or that cap gains rates have zip effect on real investment?

Nice deflection. How does the length of investment have anything to do with this discussion? Investing or not investing is what matters. Having many short term investments is much better than having much fewer long term ones. Time has no bearing on this issue. Thanks for the graph illustrating that. Keep trying though.

 

[feralkid]

You may not understand there is zero risk in a salary hence the higher tax rate. There is a great deal of risk in investing hence they tax the profits at a lower rate. There needs to be an incentive to invest. Without it this county's economy, like I said before, would suffer greatly. There is no incentive to invest if you can get that income by other safer means and have the same tax liability.

So you think the rich would go work for wages if the tax on capital gains was higher than the income tax rate?