Romney 2011 Tax Return

[Brother James]

Well, he has released it. He made $13.7 million last year. Rich guy, eh? He paid $1.9 million in income tax. That's only 134 %. Wow. But wait. He gave $4 million to charity. So of the $9.7 million he kept for himself, he paid 20% of it in taxes. That's a little better, especially since the tax rate on capital gains and dividends is only 15%. Of course, the companies were subjected to a tax rate of up to 35% (highest in the world) before they paid those dividends, so there's more than 15% being paid.

What do you think? Is Romney paying his "fair share"? How much did Joe Biden contibute to charity last year? Obama? But just wait and see what the media do with this. I expect it will be comical. Just remember, of the $13.7 million he maid last year, he only kept $7.8 million for himself. Not bad, but certainly some degree of generosity. And, of course, the charitable contributions don't include help to individuals, which his wife says he does but which is not deductible.

 

[aspen]

Not even close to the 90% tax rate for the rich in the 1950s.

If you have enjoyed the privilege of making large amounts of money in the United States, you should be paying higher taxes than those who have not enjoyed the same privileges. Democrat or Republican.

Businesses profit off the rich constantly - I recently moved to a different neighborhood and the prices for food in the local grocery store are considerably lower for the same food I used to shop for in my former neighborhood. Why is this ok, but the government taking a larger percent in taxes from the rich is seen as stealing? Corporations receive federal welfare, along with their profits - why shouldn't they pay as much or more than people who are poor?

 

[Brother James]

Not even close to the 90% tax rate for the rich in the 1950s.

Apples and oranges. When the top rate was 70% or 90% nobody paid that. Everything was deductible.

If you have enjoyed the privilege of making large amounts of money in the United States, you should be paying higher taxes than those who have not enjoyed the same privileges. Democrat or Republican.

And they do. Warren Buffet's company, Berkshire Hathaway, pays 35% in taxes. Then they pay him his dividend and he pays another 15% on his personal return. Owners of large companies are hit this way. Almost 50% is taken by the government. 47% don't pay anything at all, and some of those get up to $8000 in tax "refunds" that they never paid in in the first place. Is that not "fair" enough?

Businesses profit off the rich constantly - I recently moved to a different neighborhood and the prices for food in the local grocery store are considerably lower for the same food I used to shop for in my former neighborhood. Why is this ok, but the government taking a larger percent in taxes from the rich is seen as stealing? Corporations receive federal welfare, along with their profits - why shouldn't they pay as much or more than people who are poor?

Well, let me ask you this. If you were going to spend a million bucks to open a grocery store, and you were forced to charge exactly the same prices, would you rather locate in the high-crime inner city where you have to have security guards, high levels of theft losses, robberies, etc. or would you go to the high-income suburb? If you are rational you'd pick the latter. Now, if you are willing to take the risk you can locate in the high crime area but you'll most certainly demand higher prices just to make up for your higher costs and probably to give you a higher level of profit for all the trouble. Nothing at all wrong with that.

I don't believe any business should get money from the gov't, farmers, nobody. But welfare? Come on. Tax breaks are completely different than actual redistribution.

 

[aspen]

James - you might want to go back a re-read my last post - I wrote that rich neighborhood have higher prices not lower prices.

Also, here is some interesting information with a link to check out more information about tax rates.
Thanks to the Tax Foundation and other sources, we've analyzed tax rates over the past century, along with government revenue and spending over the same period.
This analysis revealed a lot of surprising conclusions, including the following:

• Today's government spending levels are indeed too high, at least relative to the average level of tax revenue the government has generated over the past 60 years. Unless Americans are willing to radically increase the amount of taxes they pay relative to GDP, government spending must eventually be cut.

• Today's income tax rates are strikingly low relative to the rates of the past century, especially for rich people. For most of the century, including some boom times, top-bracket income tax rates were much higher than they are today.

• Contrary to what Republicans would have you believe, super-high tax rates on rich people do not appear to hurt the economy or make people lazy: During the 1950s and early 1960s, the top bracket income tax rate was over 90%--and the economy, middle-class, and [background=transparent]stock[/background][background=transparent] [/background][background=transparent]market[/background] boomed.

• Super-low tax rates on rich people also appear to be correlated with unsustainable sugar highs in the economy--brief, enjoyable booms followed by protracted busts. They also appear to be correlated with very high inequality. (For example, see the 1920s and now).

• Periods of very low tax rates have been followed by periods with very high tax rates, and vice versa. So history suggests that tax rates will soon start going up.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/history-of-tax-rates-2012-5?op=1#ixzz279Z0BdMG

 

[Brother James]

Your right, I didn't read it well, so you're wrong. Prices are actually higher in the inner city in most places I've lived, and the stores are crappier.

Tax rates are one thing. Effective rate is a completely different number. For example, there are many people who are in the 25% tax bracket whose effective rate is 7% or 8% or 9%. You have to be careful in evaluating tax rate claims because they are usually manipulated. Take a married couple with two kids making $100k a year. They are in the 25% tax bracket. That means that each new dollar they earn will be taxed at 25%. But their effective tax rate is going to be 8.7%. Their actual federal tax will be $8,656. Now, if you talk about their tax bracket they are in the 25% tax bracket and they'll tell you they are paying taxes at a higher rate. But on income of $100k they pay $8656 in taxes, which rounds to an effective tax rate of 8.7%. That is lower than Romney's rate.

The media cook the numbers to make them sound how ever they want them to. But these are plain raw facts. The reason is that a married couple will have $11,600 as a standard deduction, $14,800 in personal and dependent exemptions, which gets their taxable income down to $73,400. The tax on that is $10,656 but they will also receive $1000 each for the kids as a child tax credit. That's why they are down to 8.7%. I could create even crazier scenarios to make some other point, but this is not atypical of normal peoples' situations.

Those 90% tax rates you are saying are not harmful were never actually paid by anybody. That's why I told you it was apples and oranges.

Now, I have no problem with some rates going up. I see no need for dividends to be taxed like capital gains. That only came about in 2004 and was never the case before. I can see many places where the tax system can be changed. But I can only see doing that if spending can be cut too, and that means entitlements. Interest on the massive debt has to be paid. Current recipients of Social Security and Medicare have to be paid. We have to have an army, navy, and air force. So there aren't too many other places to cut. You simply cannot raise taxes high enough to close the gap without them. Sure, you could impose a 90% tax rate if you think that's a good idea, but you'd utterly wreck the economy unless you made every expense in the world a deduction like it was back then. And what would be the point of doing that?

 

[Foreigner]

Apples and oranges. When the top rate was 70% or 90% nobody paid that. Everything was deductible.

-- Aspen already knows that.
It's like today's corporations. They are taxed at the highest rate of any industrial nation on earth, but companies like General Electric can make BILLION yet still pay ZERO in taxes.

GE CEO Jeff Emmelt sits on Obama's fiscal commission. Perhaps Obama needs to tell him to pay his "fair share."




.