Liberals and taxes
Liberals are notorious for not paying their taxes (see link below).
So how in the world can they go after Romney on his taxes, especially when his tax rate is higher than 97% of Americans?
https://www.experts-exchange.com/questions/27737416/Why-do-liberals-not-pay-taxes.html
So how in the world can they go after Romney on his taxes, especially when his tax rate is higher than 97% of Americans?
https://www.experts-exchange.com/questions/27737416/Why-do-liberals-not-pay-taxes.html
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
ASKER
I disagree. We have a former presidential candidate, many members in the current Obama administration, Warrent Buffett.
These are prominent libs.
These are prominent libs.
Right again Eric - the rich are being oppressed by the poor!
That ignores the reality of what I told you, and only proves you don't know how to convince someone with a good education.
You ought to post your question in the Math and Science Zone, and ask for a scientific answer instead of a political answer.
You ought to post your question in the Math and Science Zone, and ask for a scientific answer instead of a political answer.
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
ASKER
This is simple. Many prominent libs are not paying their taxes. But yet they demand to see Romney's tax return because they say he's not paying his.
No need for a mathematician.
No need for a mathematician.
>>This is simple. Many prominent libs are not paying their taxes. But yet they demand to see Romney's tax return because they say he's not paying his.
No. Most people believe Romney is paying his taxes. Every penny he legally has to pay. The reason Romney doesn't release them is because it exposes how little people in his position are required to pay with the current tax code and all the loopholes they use.
No. Most people believe Romney is paying his taxes. Every penny he legally has to pay. The reason Romney doesn't release them is because it exposes how little people in his position are required to pay with the current tax code and all the loopholes they use.
ASKER
But when your party (Democrats) has so many tax cheats, is this really a subject worth bringing up?
Again, Romney has a higher rate than 97% of Americans.
Again, Romney has a higher rate than 97% of Americans.
I answered this in my first post: Because it is election time. And everybody whines about everything they can find. It frankly doesn't mean a thing.
ASKER
So do you other guys agree with Dave? He's saying liberals don't really care, and that they're trying to score cheap political points via Romney's success?
(no real right answer)
(no real right answer)
I'm so sick of this election and can't wait for it to conclude. This is perhaps the most important election of our time -- which direction America is headed.
We voted (early) today (Nevada), and it made us feel a lot better then saw Argo. Still, can't wait until it's concluded.
We voted (early) today (Nevada), and it made us feel a lot better then saw Argo. Still, can't wait until it's concluded.
>>But when your party (Democrats) has so many tax cheats, is this really a subject worth bringing up?
Both parties have just as many tax cheats. Open your eyes man. Be realistic. The whole idea of this halo over all the republicans you keep portraying is embarrassing.
>>Again, Romney has a higher rate than 97% of Americans.
Answer me this? How does Romney have a higher rate than 97% of Americans when the conservative claim is that taxes are in the 30%+ range for the top 20% of this country. Romney paid 14%?
He paid 14% on his taxes. 20% of the country paid over 30% on their taxes. How is 14% higher than 30%? Or is 20% smaller than 3%?
Sounds like more Romney math that don't add up...kind of like his tax plan.
Both parties have just as many tax cheats. Open your eyes man. Be realistic. The whole idea of this halo over all the republicans you keep portraying is embarrassing.
>>Again, Romney has a higher rate than 97% of Americans.
Answer me this? How does Romney have a higher rate than 97% of Americans when the conservative claim is that taxes are in the 30%+ range for the top 20% of this country. Romney paid 14%?
He paid 14% on his taxes. 20% of the country paid over 30% on their taxes. How is 14% higher than 30%? Or is 20% smaller than 3%?
Sounds like more Romney math that don't add up...kind of like his tax plan.
ASKER
>>How does Romney have a higher rate than 97%
>>conservative claim is that taxes are in the 30%+ range for the top 20% of this country
I'm not exactly what you're talking about, but you need to realize tax rates affect behavior. If you increase the rates, the "rich" are just going to change up how they invest, which in turn will result in less tax revenue. If you want to soak the rich, you lower capital gains rates and encourage the "rich" to invest their money, realize a return, and pay taxes on it. Even Obama acknowledges this.
See Obama Agree with Eric Lynn Wright: Debate clip
IRS data from 2010 shows someone making between $50,000 and $75,000 on average pays an effective rate of 7.8 percent. Even someone making between $100,000 and $200,000 pays a 12.1 percent rate -- also lower than Romney'
>>conservative claim is that taxes are in the 30%+ range for the top 20% of this country
I'm not exactly what you're talking about, but you need to realize tax rates affect behavior. If you increase the rates, the "rich" are just going to change up how they invest, which in turn will result in less tax revenue. If you want to soak the rich, you lower capital gains rates and encourage the "rich" to invest their money, realize a return, and pay taxes on it. Even Obama acknowledges this.
See Obama Agree with Eric Lynn Wright: Debate clip
ASKER CERTIFIED SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
ASKER
>>He might pay MORE tax than 97% of all Americans, but he certainly does not have a higher RATE.
IRS data says differently. He in fact pays a higher tax rate.
>>Name two
Why only two? There are so many.
-Obama's Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner
-John Kerry
-Warren Buffet
-Democrat Senator Sherrod Brown
-Democrat Representative Charlie Rangel
-Democrat Senator Tom Daschle
-Nancy Killefer, Obama's nominee to be chief performance officer
-36 Obama aides owe $833,000 in back taxes
>>The Rich just place their money in tax havens - like Monaco, Liechtenstein or Switzerland (to avoid paying any tax whatsoever). Their money is placed in banks who then gamble on real estate or place money in government loans.
Works here in the US. JFK, Reagan, and GW Bush all lowered capital gains rates and all three saw increased tax revenue after. Again, SEE THE VIDEO LINK, WHERE EVEN OBAMA ADMITS THIS IS TRUE.
>>No, it is a myth that the Rich are interested in using their wealth for the good of the community.
Some do, some don't. It's their money, not mine, not yours, not the government's. But it's not as if the "rich" keep their money and do nothing with it. They buy goods and services that the rest of us provide. They invest in start ups that create jobs and and products the rest of us want to buy. God bless the rich.
IRS data says differently. He in fact pays a higher tax rate.
>>Name two
Why only two? There are so many.
-Obama's Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner
-John Kerry
-Warren Buffet
-Democrat Senator Sherrod Brown
-Democrat Representative Charlie Rangel
-Democrat Senator Tom Daschle
-Nancy Killefer, Obama's nominee to be chief performance officer
-36 Obama aides owe $833,000 in back taxes
>>The Rich just place their money in tax havens - like Monaco, Liechtenstein or Switzerland (to avoid paying any tax whatsoever). Their money is placed in banks who then gamble on real estate or place money in government loans.
Works here in the US. JFK, Reagan, and GW Bush all lowered capital gains rates and all three saw increased tax revenue after. Again, SEE THE VIDEO LINK, WHERE EVEN OBAMA ADMITS THIS IS TRUE.
>>No, it is a myth that the Rich are interested in using their wealth for the good of the community.
Some do, some don't. It's their money, not mine, not yours, not the government's. But it's not as if the "rich" keep their money and do nothing with it. They buy goods and services that the rest of us provide. They invest in start ups that create jobs and and products the rest of us want to buy. God bless the rich.
OK, you are avoiding being libellous by being inaccurate and disengenuous, viz: Geithner (from YOUR link) :-
"Two senior Senate Republicans likewise gave endorsements, echoing the argument of Obama transition officials that Mr. Geithner’s failures were innocent mistakes or technicalities."
Now that is then not true for Mr Geithner. Did Mr. Geithner call for Mr.Rommney to disclose his tax statement? According to you he did. Prove that as well.
It is far better in Scandanavia - every tax return is open for all to see.
>>Works here in the US.
Under all three presidents the debt rose. In fact it got so bad during President Reagans term that it was known here as Reaganomics. The only period when the US has been on a decent track was during Clinton when the 30 year/10 year bond market reversed due to the influx of foreign capital. The US as a nation has been continuously living off borrowed money. Then government has been utterly unable to raise enough taxation to cover its expenditure. It has also been very good at destroying foreign capital (as well as its own) with the IT boom of the ninties and the real estate boom in the 2000s. But in spite of that the US has been running a balance of trade deficit for nigh on 25 years. http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/balance-of-trade
The other point about this "works here in the US" is that I was not referring to capital gains tax, but taxation in general - which includes income tax, gains tax, inheritance tax and wealth tax. But since you mention capital gains, I think your argument is very loose indeed. First there is no relation between GDP and capital gains tax levels (why should there be?) (See the graph in the Wiki article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Top_Capital_Gains_Tax_Rates_and_Economic_Growth_1950-2011.jpg) and secondly the increase in revenue is not necessarily linked to the lowering of the tax - as usual there are many complex factors (http://backintheblackblog.org/2012/04/13/do-capital-gains-tax-increases-reduce-revenue/) and indeed business cycles are the most important.
>>They buy goods and services that the rest of us provide. They invest in start ups that create jobs and and products the rest of us want to buy.
They don't simply because there aren't enough of them. They buy Italian shoes, British boats, German cars and live in places like Monte Carlo and Abu Dabi. They don't inverst in start-ups (that was always speculative money now in hedge funds) and they don't make the products that we want to buy, because we can't afford it and the Chinese do that anyway.
It came as a great shock for Margaret Thatcher to find out after LOWERING taxation that the British bought foreign cars, foreign electrical goods, in fact mostly foreign luxuary goods and not British goods. By then of course with her M3 tight monetry control she'd shut down one third of British industry and moved most jobs abroad. This has been going on in the US for some time now. The US has been steadily loosing manufacturing jobs abroad. In fact many IT jobs have gone, simply because corporations can find it cheaper offshore.
"Two senior Senate Republicans likewise gave endorsements, echoing the argument of Obama transition officials that Mr. Geithner’s failures were innocent mistakes or technicalities."
Now that is then not true for Mr Geithner. Did Mr. Geithner call for Mr.Rommney to disclose his tax statement? According to you he did. Prove that as well.
It is far better in Scandanavia - every tax return is open for all to see.
>>Works here in the US.
Under all three presidents the debt rose. In fact it got so bad during President Reagans term that it was known here as Reaganomics. The only period when the US has been on a decent track was during Clinton when the 30 year/10 year bond market reversed due to the influx of foreign capital. The US as a nation has been continuously living off borrowed money. Then government has been utterly unable to raise enough taxation to cover its expenditure. It has also been very good at destroying foreign capital (as well as its own) with the IT boom of the ninties and the real estate boom in the 2000s. But in spite of that the US has been running a balance of trade deficit for nigh on 25 years. http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/balance-of-trade
The other point about this "works here in the US" is that I was not referring to capital gains tax, but taxation in general - which includes income tax, gains tax, inheritance tax and wealth tax. But since you mention capital gains, I think your argument is very loose indeed. First there is no relation between GDP and capital gains tax levels (why should there be?) (See the graph in the Wiki article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Top_Capital_Gains_Tax_Rates_and_Economic_Growth_1950-2011.jpg) and secondly the increase in revenue is not necessarily linked to the lowering of the tax - as usual there are many complex factors (http://backintheblackblog.org/2012/04/13/do-capital-gains-tax-increases-reduce-revenue/) and indeed business cycles are the most important.
>>They buy goods and services that the rest of us provide. They invest in start ups that create jobs and and products the rest of us want to buy.
They don't simply because there aren't enough of them. They buy Italian shoes, British boats, German cars and live in places like Monte Carlo and Abu Dabi. They don't inverst in start-ups (that was always speculative money now in hedge funds) and they don't make the products that we want to buy, because we can't afford it and the Chinese do that anyway.
It came as a great shock for Margaret Thatcher to find out after LOWERING taxation that the British bought foreign cars, foreign electrical goods, in fact mostly foreign luxuary goods and not British goods. By then of course with her M3 tight monetry control she'd shut down one third of British industry and moved most jobs abroad. This has been going on in the US for some time now. The US has been steadily loosing manufacturing jobs abroad. In fact many IT jobs have gone, simply because corporations can find it cheaper offshore.
>>IRS data from 2010 shows someone making between $50,000 and $75,000 on average pays an effective rate of 7.8 percent. Even someone making between $100,000 and $200,000 pays a 12.1 percent rate -- also lower than Romney'
Source of these numbers?
>>I'm not exactly what you're talking about, but you need to realize tax rates affect behavior.
Here's a nice conservative article for you to explain it:
Ari Fleischer: The Latest News on Tax Fairness - WSJ.com : http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444873204577537250318931044.html
So if the top 20% are paying 23.2% and the next 20% is paying 15.1%, then how is Romney's 14.1% more than 97% of the country?
Source of these numbers?
>>I'm not exactly what you're talking about, but you need to realize tax rates affect behavior.
Here's a nice conservative article for you to explain it:
Ari Fleischer: The Latest News on Tax Fairness - WSJ.com : http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444873204577537250318931044.html
You wouldn't know this from President Obama's rhetoric, but our tax system, according to a recent report by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), is incredibly progressive. Consider: The top 1% of income earners pay an average federal tax rate of 28.9%. (See the nearby table.) The average federal tax rate on the top 20% is 23.2%. The 20% of taxpayers earning between $50,100 and $73,999 pay an average 15.1%, and so on down the line. The CBO report includes payroll as well as income taxes paid.
So if the top 20% are paying 23.2% and the next 20% is paying 15.1%, then how is Romney's 14.1% more than 97% of the country?
ASKER
>>OK, you are avoiding being libellous by being inaccurate and disengenuous,
By stating facts, sources, references?
>>Mr. Geithner’s failures were innocent mistakes or technicalities.
Well that makes it all better, except the fact he heads up the IRS. And the fact he signed a document stating he would pay the income he end up withholding from his tax return.
>>The only period when the US has been on a decent track was during Clinton
You mean when Clinton benefited from the tech boom and a Republican controlled House ender Gingrich?
>>Under all three presidents the debt rose. I
No president in US history has spent as much as fast as Obama. No president has come close.
>>They don't inverst in start-ups
That's probably news to a lot of investors and small businesses here in the US.
>>First there is no relation between GDP and capital gains tax levels (why should there be
Again, as Obama admits, lower capital gain rates equates to higher tax revenue. If it happens once, ok, maybe a coincidence, but it happened 3 times -u nder JFK, Reagan, and GW Bush.
With ordinary income, you're legally guaranteed a return, where capital gains income is NOT guaranteed - you can work a whole year and not see a return. It involves a RISK. If you increase the risk with higher taxes, investors will have less incentive to invest.
Companies need capital/investment to expand and grow jobs. This is simple.
Merkel urges tax cuts to boost German growth
>>Source of these numbers?
IRS.gov
>>So if the top 20% are paying 23.2% and the next 20% is paying 15.1%, then how is Romney's 14.1% more than 97% of the country?
How many top 1%'ers are there?
By stating facts, sources, references?
>>Mr. Geithner’s failures were innocent mistakes or technicalities.
Well that makes it all better, except the fact he heads up the IRS. And the fact he signed a document stating he would pay the income he end up withholding from his tax return.
>>The only period when the US has been on a decent track was during Clinton
You mean when Clinton benefited from the tech boom and a Republican controlled House ender Gingrich?
>>Under all three presidents the debt rose. I
No president in US history has spent as much as fast as Obama. No president has come close.
>>They don't inverst in start-ups
That's probably news to a lot of investors and small businesses here in the US.
>>First there is no relation between GDP and capital gains tax levels (why should there be
Again, as Obama admits, lower capital gain rates equates to higher tax revenue. If it happens once, ok, maybe a coincidence, but it happened 3 times -u nder JFK, Reagan, and GW Bush.
With ordinary income, you're legally guaranteed a return, where capital gains income is NOT guaranteed - you can work a whole year and not see a return. It involves a RISK. If you increase the risk with higher taxes, investors will have less incentive to invest.
Companies need capital/investment to expand and grow jobs. This is simple.
Merkel urges tax cuts to boost German growth
Chancellor Angela Merkel said on Tuesday Germany needs to stimulate domestic economic demand and urged opposition parties to stop blocking proposed tax cuts in the upper house of parliament.
>>Source of these numbers?
IRS.gov
>>So if the top 20% are paying 23.2% and the next 20% is paying 15.1%, then how is Romney's 14.1% more than 97% of the country?
How many top 1%'ers are there?
>>No president in US history has spent as much as fast as Obama
I'm not defending Obama and I'm not getting involved in American politics. I'm just pointing out inconsistancies in the arguments presented here and the myth that tax reduction causes tax revenues to increase. They don't. Period.
Now onto Merkel. Again you've shot yourself in the foot. There is an argument going on here whether the increased revenue due to more people being in work and a demograhic anomily in the state pension fund, as to whether the pension contribution rate should be lowered and/or taxation be reduced. Merkel has the problem that the FDP coalition partner, who won't make it into parlement at the next election unless they score somewhere insists on cutting basic income tax. Yet the government is still BORROWING money this year and probably the next as well.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/obeying-eu-rules-german-budget-deficit-plunges-to-1-percent-of-gdp-a-817363.html
Originally the Merkel government wanted to balance the budget by 2016, it seems that they could do it in 2014.
Borrowing money to give away as tax breaks is the sort of fiscal irresponsibilty that the Republicans in the US have been critisizing. You balance the budget FIRST then give away tax breaks. Of course if you are in an election year.....
>>Companies need capital/investment to expand and grow jobs. This is simple.
Quite. And they normally get it from the banks - to some 90% of the time. But the banks have annilihated the money on real estate speculation. So the governments have had to put money into the banks because they had nothing to lend:-
Ireland : 60 billion euros
Britain: Royal Bank of Scotland ALONE 76 million pounds sterling
Germany: 100 billion HypoRealEstate, Bavaria; 100 billion Bank für Industrie und Wirtschaft, Frankfurt; WestLB 4 billion, etc..
Spain: around 60 billion Euros
the list goes on.
Even in Luxembourg we had to bail out Dexia. The bank cost 4 billion to buy and needed 90 billion to guarentee the 80 billion deposits of 4 million customers (around 20,000 a head so no really RICH people there). In fact that wasn't enough, the bank actually needed a second bail-out and was merged with another bank.
The World Bank estimates for the G7 countries that their governments have had to invest around 12.8% of their GDPs to restore the financial community - that community which ought to provide capital for industry and commerce. In the US that's about what the US as a NATION spends each year on Health. It is no wonder that government debt increased. Now it is the turn of the very same governments to suffer speculation because they did not put any regulation in place to stop this from happening a second time.
And why not? Because they are under enormous pressure from the same people and realy don't understand how the system works. Jean Claude Junker, our PM, proposed several years ago to introduce Euro-Bonds to control govermnent spending (great for the Industry - trading Eurobonds), but this was turned down by Germany and Holland - they might have to pay more interest. Lately however after France introduced a transaction tax (rather like a stamp duty), to control the speed at which this speculation operates, that very same Jean Claude rejected the idea for Luxembourg. Why, because his Bankers would have to pay the tax and their speculative operations would be damped down.
Here in Europe most banks have off-loaded their bad debt into bad-banks run by the government and have been injected with government cash and loans to continue operation. But the cry to reduce government spending, which in most countries accounts for more than a third of GDP, will mean many small businesses going to the wall, so they're not inclined to use this money for investment - in better plant, or markets or whatever. So we shall see more contraction taking place. Like the US and Germany still can borrow money relatively cheaply. But that is still short term. This means that if Germany has a chance at fiscal equality, they should grab it as soon as possible. And it is surprisingly the Socialists who are demanding no tax cuts until the budget is balanced.
Mind you, your idea of rich people careingly investing in industry has a sort home-spun cosiness about it.
I'm not defending Obama and I'm not getting involved in American politics. I'm just pointing out inconsistancies in the arguments presented here and the myth that tax reduction causes tax revenues to increase. They don't. Period.
Now onto Merkel. Again you've shot yourself in the foot. There is an argument going on here whether the increased revenue due to more people being in work and a demograhic anomily in the state pension fund, as to whether the pension contribution rate should be lowered and/or taxation be reduced. Merkel has the problem that the FDP coalition partner, who won't make it into parlement at the next election unless they score somewhere insists on cutting basic income tax. Yet the government is still BORROWING money this year and probably the next as well.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/obeying-eu-rules-german-budget-deficit-plunges-to-1-percent-of-gdp-a-817363.html
Originally the Merkel government wanted to balance the budget by 2016, it seems that they could do it in 2014.
Borrowing money to give away as tax breaks is the sort of fiscal irresponsibilty that the Republicans in the US have been critisizing. You balance the budget FIRST then give away tax breaks. Of course if you are in an election year.....
>>Companies need capital/investment to expand and grow jobs. This is simple.
Quite. And they normally get it from the banks - to some 90% of the time. But the banks have annilihated the money on real estate speculation. So the governments have had to put money into the banks because they had nothing to lend:-
Ireland : 60 billion euros
Britain: Royal Bank of Scotland ALONE 76 million pounds sterling
Germany: 100 billion HypoRealEstate, Bavaria; 100 billion Bank für Industrie und Wirtschaft, Frankfurt; WestLB 4 billion, etc..
Spain: around 60 billion Euros
the list goes on.
Even in Luxembourg we had to bail out Dexia. The bank cost 4 billion to buy and needed 90 billion to guarentee the 80 billion deposits of 4 million customers (around 20,000 a head so no really RICH people there). In fact that wasn't enough, the bank actually needed a second bail-out and was merged with another bank.
The World Bank estimates for the G7 countries that their governments have had to invest around 12.8% of their GDPs to restore the financial community - that community which ought to provide capital for industry and commerce. In the US that's about what the US as a NATION spends each year on Health. It is no wonder that government debt increased. Now it is the turn of the very same governments to suffer speculation because they did not put any regulation in place to stop this from happening a second time.
And why not? Because they are under enormous pressure from the same people and realy don't understand how the system works. Jean Claude Junker, our PM, proposed several years ago to introduce Euro-Bonds to control govermnent spending (great for the Industry - trading Eurobonds), but this was turned down by Germany and Holland - they might have to pay more interest. Lately however after France introduced a transaction tax (rather like a stamp duty), to control the speed at which this speculation operates, that very same Jean Claude rejected the idea for Luxembourg. Why, because his Bankers would have to pay the tax and their speculative operations would be damped down.
Here in Europe most banks have off-loaded their bad debt into bad-banks run by the government and have been injected with government cash and loans to continue operation. But the cry to reduce government spending, which in most countries accounts for more than a third of GDP, will mean many small businesses going to the wall, so they're not inclined to use this money for investment - in better plant, or markets or whatever. So we shall see more contraction taking place. Like the US and Germany still can borrow money relatively cheaply. But that is still short term. This means that if Germany has a chance at fiscal equality, they should grab it as soon as possible. And it is surprisingly the Socialists who are demanding no tax cuts until the budget is balanced.
Mind you, your idea of rich people careingly investing in industry has a sort home-spun cosiness about it.
>>How many top 1%'ers are there?
What?
Can you please explain the math in your answer, or admit your claim about Romney paying more than 97% of Americans is wrong?
What?
Can you please explain the math in your answer, or admit your claim about Romney paying more than 97% of Americans is wrong?
ASKER
it's not my math, for one. See the article and see where they reference their source data.
I don't think you're understanding the math in the article.
Romney pays more than 97% of ALL Americans. There are 3 percent of people that pay a lower rate.
I don't think you're understanding the math in the article.
Romney pays more than 97% of ALL Americans. There are 3 percent of people that pay a lower rate.
>>Romney pays more than 97% of ALL Americans. There are 3 percent of people that pay a lower rate.
How is that possible when Romney's rate is 14.1% and 20 percent of the country has a rate of 23.2%.
Please explain how that works in conservative land?
How is that possible when Romney's rate is 14.1% and 20 percent of the country has a rate of 23.2%.
Please explain how that works in conservative land?
ASKER
Post your source.
>>Post your source.
I did that originally up above, but here you go again:
Here's a nice conservative article for you to explain it:
Ari Fleischer: The Latest News on Tax Fairness - WSJ.com : http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444873204577537250318931044.html
I did that originally up above, but here you go again:
Here's a nice conservative article for you to explain it:
Ari Fleischer: The Latest News on Tax Fairness - WSJ.com : http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444873204577537250318931044.html
You wouldn't know this from President Obama's rhetoric, but our tax system, according to a recent report by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), is incredibly progressive. Consider: The top 1% of income earners pay an average federal tax rate of 28.9%. (See the nearby table.) The average federal tax rate on the top 20% is 23.2%. The 20% of taxpayers earning between $50,100 and $73,999 pay an average 15.1%, and so on down the line. The CBO report includes payroll as well as income taxes paid.
ASKER
>>The average federal tax rate on the top 20% is 23.2%.
Tax rate. Differs from what is ACTUALLY paid.
From my aritcle:
Tax rate. Differs from what is ACTUALLY paid.
From my aritcle:
IRS data, though, shows that Romney's effective income tax rate -- that's what he pays as a percentage of his income once deductions and other benefits are factored in -- is actually far higher than what most Americans pay.
>>Tax rate. Differs from what is ACTUALLY paid.
From your own article:
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/25/fact-check-is-romney-tax-rate-really-lower-than-yours/#ixzz2AtnmDCdq
In summary:
If you pick only the smallest part of taxes paid and then only a part of that which throws deductions in for the bulk, but not Romney (since he kept some out to stay above 14% and will file amended later to get himself his money back) then FoxNews can make this absurd claim!
If you add in all the taxes that most people pay such as payroll,, state, city, etc. Romney barely pays half of what most pay. There is no arguing that.
From your own article:
While Romney may or may not pay less [I thought they just established he pays less, now backing out of that?] than the average middle-class earner -- depending on how one defines middle class and how one defines tax rate [lets only talk about the parts that make him look better rather than the whole story] -- one thing is clear: Romney does pay at a lower rate than the typical wealthy person.
IRS data for 2010 showed those making between $1 million and $10 million typically paid at an effective tax rate of more than 25 percent.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/25/fact-check-is-romney-tax-rate-really-lower-than-yours/#ixzz2AtnmDCdq
In summary:
If you pick only the smallest part of taxes paid and then only a part of that which throws deductions in for the bulk, but not Romney (since he kept some out to stay above 14% and will file amended later to get himself his money back) then FoxNews can make this absurd claim!
If you add in all the taxes that most people pay such as payroll,, state, city, etc. Romney barely pays half of what most pay. There is no arguing that.
ASKER
Ok - not sure your point. But we've established he does pay a rate as outlined in the fox article.
Most of Romney's income is capital gains which is taxed at a lower rate than regular income, which, as I pointed out earlier, is a good thing.
If you combine that with his charitable deductions (never see those with libs, do you?), you'll see that he's right where he belongs.
This wealth envy is unreal.
Most of Romney's income is capital gains which is taxed at a lower rate than regular income, which, as I pointed out earlier, is a good thing.
If you combine that with his charitable deductions (never see those with libs, do you?), you'll see that he's right where he belongs.
This wealth envy is unreal.
ASKER