RSS
Who Pays What in Taxes
About Mitt Romney's taxes...
Between 87 percent and 97 percent of American taxpayers have an effective tax rate that is lower than the 15 percent rate under which Mitt Romney says he falls.
But, hey, let's not let the facts get in the way of a good ol' class-warfare smear.
Democrats, "progressives" and other connivers hoping to capitalize on the ignorance of the Menckenian "boobeoisie" made much of Mr. Romney's statement that his effective tax rate is about 15 percent.
They then bloviated along some variation of the line that "here's yet another rich bastard taxed at nearly half the rate of most working Americans!" Or, as one New Jersey newspaper editorialist put it, it's yet further proof that the "game is rigged for the fat cats."
How embarrassing and shameful for those lacking the intellectual wherewithal to understand the facts and for those intentionally misrepresenting them.Read the rest here...
posted by Spencerblog at
11:58 AM
51 Comments:
I kept it out of previous debates, but I had a feeling that the effective tax rate would have settled the argument Bob and I had in the other thread.
Clearly Mitt Romnet needs to pay a higher tax rate than the three percent behind him! The horror!!!
BWAA HAA HAA HAA
Steve - That's alright. I'm just trying to get a working understanding of the concepts and rules behind the issue. Regardless of what we all pay as a percentage, the fact remains that investments are taxed at around 15% and if you make a living through investing, I'm not so sure you should be getting a tax break. The author says the tax breaks are necessary as an incentive, but I think people like Romney and Buffet would continue to invest, even if the rate was at 30%. Because they would still reap huge profits.
I guess a good test of this would be to pull out some old tax returns and do the calculations.
Take the original taxed amount, the capital gains amount, and get the effective rate and amount in total - I think we'd be floored by the amount. He's paying his fair share.
Steve - I ran the figures, and what I first thought I heard my accountant say was wrong. Suffice it to say I'm not even near 35%. It's closer to 15%, and this article gets it right. I still believe that if you make a living as a private-equity manager like Romney, your profits should be taxed as income, but to be fair, most tax payers are not even near the 35%.
Good man, Bob. I'm going to buy you a beer for that.
Thanks Gil. I'm trying to set an example. Like I keep telling Jake. If it walk's like a sailor, and it talk's like a sailor, it ain't a soldier.
As long as they're not walking and talking like "Corpseman", Bob.
Go for max, Bob, request the finest Russian Imperial Stout or Belgian Quad available at the bar!
Tsk, tsk, the smearers just can't win.
Steve, you should join us sometime.
Gil - As per our conversation -From Dec. 2008 -"President Bush has approved a $17.4 billion auto bailout, with $13.4 billion in emergency loans to prevent the collapse of GM and Chrysler and another $4 billion to be handed out in February." So we have to give some of the credit to Bush.
Jake - Its ok to admit you were wrong. Go ahead. Try it. People respect others who can admit a mistake. But those who refuse to admit they are wrong end up looking foolish.
Ask my wife, Bob. I'm regularly wrong about a whole variety of things.
In this case, though, you expect us to believe you're right and the dictionary is wrong?
That's almost as arrogant as your Commander-in-Chief.
this debate has gone on for so long between the two of you I forget what it was about...
Soldier vs Sailor?
Steve, 8pounders -Jake insists that the two women in this picture, sharing the first openly gay kiss after the abolishment of "don't ask don't tell" are soldiers. I say thay are sailors. Anyone want to voice an opinion? http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2823782/posts
Gentlemen,
As is Bob's custom, he is trying to distract from the essence of the original argument; Marines urinating vs lesbian tonsil hockey, which was more distressing to our allies.?
Bob thinks it's some kind of critical flaw that I used the generic "soldiers" rather than the specific "sailors". Bob has belabored this point despite dictionary proof that it was appropriate usage. You know, like "Onward Christan Soldiers".
Believe me, I am as bored by Bob's pettiness as you are.
Thanks Jake. Lets have them weigh in on that too. Which is more distressing to our allies - Marines urinating vs lesbian tonsil hockey, which was more distressing to our allies?
BTW - Jakes trying to switch things up a little bit. Here's Jakes statement that I took exception to - "If anything is a black eye on the the world stage, it is this administration's political pandering with our military. The highly-publicized picture of those two female soldiers kissing undermined American fighting men and women all around the world."
If we're talking about our allies with respect to their struggles with these extremists - I say anything and everything we do has negative implications. We're the most public country in the world, we're the mass media center of the globe. They could be airing "Jersey Shore" in Palestine or an old "Mr. Rogers Neighborhood" and they're still going to be outraged with our way of life. Unless we shut ourselves off to the rest fo the world, its not changing.
Steve - That wasn't the issue. Realistically, whats going to offend them more? American soldiers pissing on dead bodies or two women kissing?
I'm offended the two women weren't doing more than that! (Hey-oooh!!!)
I guess it depends on the allies but if they take my attitude, it's the descecration of the corpses.
Thank you Steve.
Jake - You know why I keep hammering away? Because when you make B*** S*** statements like that, someone has to call you out on it, and it's obviously not going to be Gil, Danny, of Charlie Two Times.
Don't ask, don't tell (DADT) was a reasonable, responsible policy that reflected the consensus of most Americans.
But Obama needed to end DADT to firm up his support in the gay community. It's the same thing as his decision to stop the Keystone pipeline to appease the environmental whackos.
I think it is despicable for Obama to use the military for partisan politics. The world depends on America to fight terrorism and enforce stability. When evil regimes see how weak and easily manipulated our dilettante Commander-in-Chief is, it puts all our fighting men and women at risk.
Even you, Bob, can recognize the huge difference between a few young Marines acting badly, and Obama corrupting a reasonable policy for his own selfish political gain.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jake - I find it sad that you would prevent an openly gay person from serving this nation when you yourself weren't willing to serve. Our allies are all on board. Many have been for years. The Pentagon's biggest critics of the new policy have publicaly stated that it hasn't had a negative effect. And as my son would say "Nobody really cares". Being gay isn't a crime Jake. And gay's are entitled to every right that you're entitled to. That includes the right to serve their nation without having to hide their true identity or without fear of loosing a position in the military that they have earned. You've already made clear your refusal to credit Obama with doing anything right or anything good, so I'm not surprised that you would call this decision an act of selfish political gain. The following is a list of Nations that allow gay's to serve openly in the military. The fact is Jake, they were laughing at us when we were preventing intelligent and qualified military personel from serving because of their sexual orientation.
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Slovenia
South Africa
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
UK
Uruguay
Facts are what the facts are, Jake: Bob cannot recognize the huge difference between a few young Marines acting badly and Obama corrupting a reasonable policy for his own selfish political gain. But since you are a loyal Spencerblog follower you already know that... Bob is Bob...
Charlie Two Times - Jake insists that the two women kissing, dressed in Navy blues, are soldiers. So much for facts. BTW Charlie, Jake isn't even Jake. If you reread his Paterno post, he refers to his son as the real Jake. Again. So much for facts.
Bob agrees his taxes are not as high!
I have some thoughtful questions about the whole gay in the military issue, though?
As someone who has served before all this permissiveness, today's service has issues to contend with that most people don't think about. Or they say, "Tough, do it anyway!"
Fact: All Military personnel are not equal.
Woman are not permitted in particular rules of engagement. Does that include Lesbian woman? How about Gay men? If we are truly equal, woman and men should sleep and shower together. If I have to shower with a guy who is looking at me as a sex object, why shouldn't woman have to shower with me? If 3500 woman were coming home from Iraq and Afghanistan in body bags, would the American people see it the same?
Now to my neanderthal moment..
IF I were in a foxhole and all hell is breaking loose around me, would I want the lesbian/gay person sharing that foxhole with me IF I get to choose?
So the rules say a Gay man can be in the front line shooting areas, but not a lesbian woman, do you see the conflict?
Also to my good friend, Bob!
How do you feel knowing you are paying 15% of your pay to the Fed, and 49% of citizens of this country pays ZERO? Don't you think everyone needs to row the boat?
To my good friend Danny - On Taxes-Unlike some people on Spencerblog, I'm not afraid to admit when I'm wrong. That being said, I have no problem with the 49% who pay no Federal Taxes. They still pay state sales tax, local tax, social security, etc. This is not their choice. If you were to ask most, if not all of the 49% if they would prefer to remain in teir current financial situation and pay no Federal tax, or if they would prefer to make what Bob or Dannythman makes and pay Federal Tax, what do YOU think their answer would be?
To my good frind Danny - Re: the gay issue. When I was in the Navy I had to shit, shower, and shave with everyone else. So did you Danny. Were you ever really concerned that someone might be checking out your junk? Because to be honest with you Danny, that thought never crossed my mind. But let's just say that was a concern. Couldn't they have been checkin out your junk under don't ask just as easily as they can now? At least now, under the current policy, you might actually know if a fellow soldier is gay, and you can avoid taking a shower at the same time. How do people like you handle using a locker room at a gym? Do you walk in and yell "I'm Dannytheman and I'm Straight. Please to don't look at my junk" As for the fox hole situation, most logical people would be more concerned with their partners fightig ability than their sexual preference. And let me tell you something Dannytheman. There are some bad mother f****** gay guy's out there who could kick your ass. You keep dressin like an outlaw biker in your leather chaps, and you just might meet a few.
Bobby my good friend,
I was proud of you for admitting you were wrong, not condemning you there.
There were no woman on my cutters or on my crew. As far as I know there were no gay men. BUT, if I had found someone checking out my junk and admiring it I would have settled it as we always did in the service. In the Hawser locker or behind the trash cans.
So.... You would be OK with men and woman on ships and on base showering together as a rule? I mean the Military spent billions outfitting our newer ships for gender specific space requirements. Wouldn't it be cheaper to just shower together. And let's let woman be in forward area while we are at it. I mean as long as I don't act like I am enjoying it, it shouldn't matter, right?
See you and I disagree, I think everyone should pay. It must be something. 5%, 10%. But something.
Danny, old buddy old pal - You write "You would be OK with men and woman on ships and on base showering together as a rule?" I never said that. That wasn't the issue. We were discussing members of the same sex. Now personally, I wouldn't have minded showering with members of the opposite sex. I think (or at least I hope) that you wouldn't either, would you?
So back to your fox hole question. In battle, if given a choice, would you choose your partner based on the sexual preference or their ability to fight?
Bobby, my brother from another mother, we need to discuss gender? So woman are not equal? Or they are equal but different? There problem is that there are 2 genders and multiple sexual preferences. Political correctness has run wild.
To answer your question about foxhole honestly? I want the man with the most ability that I know is not homosexual based on my history and personal knowledge of the gay men I have met up to that time. In grunt units, it's different than us sailors who had warm chow all the time.
This is not to say, that there are not excellent asskicking soldiers that are gay, I would prefer to choose. We both know in the Military we don't get that choice.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Danny - You're the one that came up with the hypothetical fox hole scenario. Now you can't give me a "straight" answer? If you had a choice between a straight guy who was just an average fighter and gay guy who was an exceptional fighter, who are you going to pick?
I, of course, want the best person.
I just don't want to shower with him if he is gay. I am not a bigot. I just don't want to be sexually harassed!
Danny - How many cases have you heard of servicemen being sexualy harassed by gay servicemen?
Danny - BTW, I should remind you of this quote from the famous General Halftrack. Or was it General Moters? "There are no showers in foxholes" And there is no sex in the champaign Room.
Danny - You wrote "See you and I disagree, I think everyone should pay. It must be something. 5%, 10%. But something."
OK. The hardest working man that I personally know is 52. He lost his job when the hotel where he worked was sold, and the new owners fired most of the employees to bring in their own staff. He's raising 4 kids by himself, ages 7 to 16. He's an amazing father. He was out of work for two yrs., but always worked any part time job that came along. And he was always looking. He almost lost his house in Folcroft & he had to sell his car to make a mortgage payment. He finally landed a job with Avis. He now makes about $10 an hour. A lot of his money is eaten up by public transportation costs to get back & forth to work. This is the guy that you're worried about because he's paying zero in federal tax? And yet you will defend the laws that allow someone like Romney to pay 15% on his income, because it comes from capital gains? Do you see anything wrong with this picture?
Bob,
They're going to kick you out of the Effete Liberal Condescension Society if you keep spelling "champagne" wrong.
Jake (or whatever your name is)- You're right and I'm wrong! It is "champagne". Thanks for the correction. I'm sure the correct spelling of this word will come in handy when I'm writing about the Romney years in the White House.
Boob, or whatever your name is,
That's only because Michelle chose to have her $100 million vacation in Spain where it's called "cava".
Fake Jake (who refers to his son as the real Jake)- A 100 million vacation? There's an old saying. You're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.
Where do you come up with 100 million?
It's called INCOME tax, Bob.
I am sorry for your friend! But of Romney has to pay taxes twice, your friend should donate something. Yes, that is how I feel.
I did not get to dictate him having 4 children, I didn't tell him to keep his home in Folcroft. Losses of jobs and employment happens to most people.
Everyone rows to the best of their ability! Everyone!
Danny - Such compassion! What sense does it make to give people public assistance and then take it back? What it comes down to is this. You think you are going to teach these people a lesson by making them pay into something when they litteraly have nothing.
Get it through yor head Danny. Very few of these people choose to live like this. Most are victims of circumstances. Most, like my friend, are just hanging on by a thread. What good is taxing them more going to do?
Jake?, you need to be a little more civil.
Danny, I still maintain that growth on the investment (not dividends) are income. If I invest 50G and it grows to 75G, I have made 25G. Steve, I do understand your point of view but that 25G was not from my original wages. It was growth. Should it be taxed at the same rate as wages? You have given me food for thought that perhaps we need to coddle investors. But real investors are doing so at the ground level, not on the DOW or NASDAQ. That is where my problem with capital gains is. I think Bob likes to call it day trading.
Rus - point remains the same. Cap gains tax is either the second or third tax placed on these funds. I'd only raise it if the corporate tax was lowered. Further, let's remember that 1) this potential rate hike will have a negligible effect on paying down the debt, 2) why would I trust anyone in DC to use the funds to pay down any debt when they could expand the size of government?, 3) the economic outcome of raising the cap gains tax in an unstable economy is plain old idiotic, and my favorite: 4) this is nothing more than Obama's way of rallying the troops to his side for votes in 2012; he knows that voters in general are stupid and won't exert much of their time on this issues when "fairness" just sounds so right!
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home