Mitt Romney, Tax Returns, and the Idle Rich

[Mission Accomplished]

I do not have a problem paying taxes. I have a serious problem with how my tax money is handled. I only bring home roughly 51% of my income. Then I look around and see all this waste and mismanagement. Pisses me off.

Well, we keep electing officials GOPer who want to show you that you tax money is being mismanaged yet they are the ones managing the money. Can you see the irony??? That is like giving your money to someone who is anti-investing working in the investment field and being befuddled when he comes to you and says "looks like it didn't work I have seemed to lose all your money on these rigged investments. Better stay away from investing your money."

 

[Stoked]

Well, we keep electing officials GOPer who want to show you that you tax money is being mismanaged yet they are the ones managing the money. Can you see the irony??? That is like giving your money to someone who is anti-investing working in the investment field and being befuddled when he comes to you and says "looks like it didn't work I have seemed to lose all your money on these rigged investments. Better stay away from investing your money."

I agree with this except the assertion that it is a GOP problem. It is both the Gop and the Dems. Equally guilty.

 

[green]

The problem I have with Romney is that he seems very out of touch with common man or woman and his flip flopping. Dont believe he is doing it? Then just go check out some old videos on him on youtube.

Also what I dont get is that somehow investing and wallstreet types have become more valued than workers. How is it that the common working man who gives everything he's got is taxed at twice the rate of these people who have more than they will ever need. Im not necessarily advocating that investors get taxed to death because I understand that they are taking risks. But Cmon, how is that fair that someone who is struggling to make it has to pay a higher percentage than those people who arent doing anything labor intensive, and dont even need all that money. And workers are taking risks themselves. Such as injury risks and the risks of never living full filling lives.

I guess what Im getting at is that the labor force is mostly what makes the world go around. And the others are just a bunch of leaches. And yet they are still taxed at a lower rate. It just doesnt make sense to me.

First of all, you are completely wrong with your assumptions. Romney pays 13.9% EFFECTIVE TAX. If you make $45,000 your effective tax rate is around 3%. Romney still paid higher taxes than 80% of Americans. He is NOT paying 1/2 the taxes of the working man. They working man, due to deductions pays a lot less than Romney does. Have you ever filed a tax return, and received more back than you paid in taxes. This happens a lot due to tax "credits" ala welfare checks. In that case, you didn't pay any taxes, but made money off taxes. To say a school teacher pays 25% taxes and Mitt pays 13.9% is a complete lie. This is a very common misunderstanding, and shows how pathetic Newt is by trying to prey on your ignorance (p.s. Newt wrote the tax code Romney abides by. Who is the real villain here? The man that obeys the law or the man that wrote the law?).

So, what I am getting at is the labor force is taxed at a much lower rate and because the leaches pay higher taxes and provide jobs, the labor force can survive.

Here is a dumbed down explanation:

https://money.cnn.com/2012/01/18/news/economy/Romney_effective_tax_rate/index.htm

 

[green]

Dont forget policing the world and endless wars. Or extravagant parties for poloticians. Or government bureaucracies.

Im willing to pay some taxes, just not more than my fair share

How about a flat tax system. 10 percent for workers, 20 percent for businesses. That would eliminate the lower half and the upper half from getting away with not paying any.

I completely disagree. This is America, where you can take risks and either be rewarded for those risks, or be bankrupted. In your system, you want to reward people who DON'T take risks. You want to reward people who DO NOT try to innovate, create, improve upon, but instead want to let someone else take all the risks. That is not American.

Business owners shouldn't have pay twice the taxes when they are the ones that took the risks. They are the ones that went into debt, developed ideas, hired you, took chances and then succeeded (especially when most business fail). If you keep penalizing people for being/trying to be successful, there will be no incentive to be succeed.

 

[green]

Romney's tax rates are significant symbollically, not personally. After Buffet cam out and siad capital gains tax rates should be raised, Romney is a symbol of that who's running for President. I agree making money off money is not a personal flaw.

Which is embarrassing, especially for tea party people. It is funny watching those people run around and claim they are for free markets, lower taxes, capitalism then jump on Romney's back for doing everything they claim they want Americans to do. But then again, these are the same people that complain about taxes being too high as they stand in line to collect their welfare checks and food stamps.

 

[One Brow]

In your system, you want to reward people who DON'T take risks. You want to reward people who DO NOT try to innovate, create, improve upon, but instead want to let someone else take all the risks.

If your workers don't take risks, don't innovate, create, or improve upon, then you are a poor boss. Your dichtomy of innovators vs. laborers is self-defeating.

 

[green]

.

 

[Mission Accomplished]

I agree with this except the assertion that it is a GOP problem. It is both the Gop and the Dems. Equally guilty.

Well, I some what agree I think when push comes to shove money comes first. But, the GOP's company stance is anti regulation and pro rich everyday and twice on Sundays. So, if when we speak of government programs not living up to snuff. Well, Repubs have pretty much told you already we don't want to use our watch dogs to watch the companies. So, when companies go bad you can't say bad government entity you have to look at who is influencing these agencies. And I do agree that there are many Dems that are corrupt and they need to get voted out also. But, the point can't be lost that if you are rich you want someone who favors the rich to represent you. So, the poor and the middle class that vote in Republicans should not be angry when things don't go their way. It is obvious which way those clowns are voting and it isn't for us.

 

[Stoked]

Well, I some what agree I think when push comes to shove money comes first. But, the GOP's company stance is anti regulation and pro rich everyday and twice on Sundays. So, if when we speak of government programs not living up to snuff. Well, Repubs have pretty much told you already we don't want to use our watch dogs to watch the companies. So, when companies go bad you can't say bad government entity you have to look at who is influencing these agencies. And I do agree that there are many Dems that are corrupt and they need to get voted out also. But, the point can't be lost that if you are rich you want someone who favors the rich to represent you. So, the poor and the middle class that vote in Republicans should not be angry when things don't go their way. It is obvious which way those clowns are voting and it isn't for us.

And the Dems want to spend everydiem they can on feel good government programs. Then they want to find ways to get even more so that they can spend that to. The motivations are the same and the only difference is the methods. GOP want to control how it is spent and the Dems want to control how it is spent. But that is the problem, they both want to spend.

Do away with all foreign aid. Make countries make new claims to why we should give it
Rewrite the tax code
Cut government duplicity and waste

 

[Mission Accomplished]

I completely disagree. This is America, where you can take risks and either be rewarded for those risks, or be bankrupted. In your system, you want to reward people who DON'T take risks. You want to reward people who DO NOT try to innovate, create, improve upon, but instead want to let someone else take all the risks. That is not American.

Business owners shouldn't have pay twice the taxes when they are the ones that took the risks. They are the ones that went into debt, developed ideas, hired you, took chances and then succeeded (especially when most business fail). If you keep penalizing people for being/trying to be successful, there will be no incentive to be succeed.

Is this what you want you call successful??? At who's expense???https://www.massaflcio.org/workers-press-romney-layoffs-%2526%2523039%3B94,-bain-impact-issue Guess it doesn't matter because it is a dog fight out there. WWJD? I'll tell you what he wouldn't do join the GOPer in their all out smug war to destroy our nation. It is funny to think someone who made his millions off of laying people off is someone we want to get people to work.

 

[green]

Is this what you want you call successful??? At who's expense???https://www.massaflcio.org/workers-press-romney-layoffs-%2526%2523039%3B94,-bain-impact-issue Guess it doesn't matter because it is a dog fight out there. WWJD? I'll tell you what he wouldn't do join the GOPer in their all out smug war to destroy our nation. It is funny to think someone who made his millions off of laying people off is someone we want to get people to work.

Wow. So, what do you want? Do you not want any businesses? Do you want everyone to just be a government employee? But then, you are still an employee of a business, and a business that has no control over it (ie profits/losses). You think this system is bad, look at countries where the government owns everything. There HAS to be balance in everything. Balance means sometimes, you give breaks to owners, ie taxes, deductions, etc. It also means you give breaks to workers, ie free public education, owners pay half of your SS taxes/unemployment taxes/etc, child deductions, etc. But to tax owners twice as much as workers is ridiculous, when the owners are the ones providing the jobs.

 

[franklin]

K, I'm bored so here goes breaking down partisan rhetoric...

I do not have a problem paying taxes. I have a serious problem with how my tax money is handled. I only bring home roughly 51% of my income. Then I look around and see all this waste and mismanagement. Pisses me off.

They need to take it from you, give it to someone who wants to retire early, so they can spend it on a product made by a rich guy's company, and then complain that the rich are getting richer. Meanwhile, consuming without producing pushes margins higher which means you have to pay more for products and services. Bleeding hearts redistribute from you to the rich and think they're actually doing society favors.

I believe in progressive taxation for other reasons though.

First of all, you are completely wrong with your assumptions. Romney pays 13.9% EFFECTIVE TAX. If you make $45,000 your effective tax rate is around 3%.

Leftists like to counter this by including SS and FICA, which is 15.3% alone. This and all the other taxes put a whole lot of people in a higher immediate rate than the rich, as SS is capped at the first $106,000 in income. The counter to this argument is the benefit payout ratio is much higher for the lower income earners later on. SS and FICA should either be left out of the discussion or discounted to account for both sides of the equation.

If your workers don't take risks, don't innovate, create, or improve upon, then you are a poor boss. Your dichtomy of innovators vs. laborers is self-defeating.

Employee paychecks are guaranteed, the employer's is not. Income security is the trade off these innovative workers make themselves.

(p.s. Newt wrote the tax code Romney abides by. Who is the real villain here? The man that obeys the law or the man that wrote the law?).

While Newt is screaming about Rich Romney, he is campaigning on the platform of cutting capital gains tax for rich guys like Romney to zero. Mitt will not.

owners pay half of your SS taxes/unemployment taxes/etc, child deductions, etc.

That's part of total employee compensation.

But to tax owners twice as much as workers is ridiculous, when the owners are the ones providing the jobs.

Our economic policy is pro-business. They should pay more for the increased demand that would otherwise not be there. What's with the right being against a progressive tax code these days anyway?