Romney Paid 13.9% Tax Rate on $21.6 Million in Income.
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
jsteele
Site Admin Online
Site Admin Online
That data used here is simply wrong. Kerry's tax rate was not 13.1. As I said before, this would be obvious if you simply used common sense. He receives a Senate salary which is close to $200,000. That is ordinary income. Kerry's wife is more in the Romney camp in the sense that her income is mostly not wage income and, hence, taxed at a lower rate. To get to 13.1, people are averaging Kerry's rate with his wife's rate. But, they file separately, so that is misleading. But, both Romney and Kerry are playing by the rules as they exist today. The problem is not that they play by the rules, the problem is with the rules. Romney wants to make the rules even worse. Kerry wants to make the rules more equitable. That is the issue. |
Anonymous
|
When the carried interest rule ( which allows the private equity and hedge fund industries to effectively disguise income as capital gains so as to only pay 15% income tax) was challenged a few years ago, those industries lobbied like crazy to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars and were successful in preventing the rules from being changed to tax their income as actual income.
Even if you believe that return on a capital investment has to be taxed at a lower rate because of double taxation, the money a private equity or hedge fund manager makes is compensation akin to a salary and bonus (usually a 2% management fee and 20% or more of returns on the investment) for managing other people's money. It's a salary and bonus scheme. It's income. There is no reason for them not to be paying the same marginal income tax rates as everybody else.None, other than the fact that they successfully bribed your congressman and managed to instill a Pavlovian response in the same fucking idiots who start to mechanically drool and wag their tails when they hear the words "free market" and "freedom", making them think that an ultra-rich guy's ability to avoid taxation is somehow an intrinsic element of capitalism. |
TheManWithAUsername
Member Offline
Member Offline
That chart apparently came from here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/tax-rates-of-presidential-candidates-in-one-chart/2012/01/24/gIQAOEEeNQ_blog.html In the text it says that Kerry's and McCain's numbers included their spouses. |
jsteele
Site Admin Online
Site Admin Online
Exactly. The article also says, "On his own, Kerry paid 22.9 percent in federal taxes". |
TheManWithAUsername
Member Offline
Member Offline
|
I was struck by how little the Clintons had paid. Following a link, I noticed that they gave 13% of their income to charity, but the writer included that for the overall calculation. I haven't crunched the numbers, but I believe everyone is doing the same with Romney.
I understand that that's technically correct, but I think it's unfair. A charitable gift isn't usually a loophole exploitation. Romney's case is a little strange b/c it's almost all to his church, which gives him some return, but still. (I also have a problem with calling a church that does so much prosthelytizing a charity.) |
Anonymous
|
Wow
A lot of mormon fans here defending Romney |
Anonymous
Well the Clinton's income is easy enough to look up. Their gross income was only $268K. Their income after all adjustments AND charitable deductions was $179K. They paid $50,932 in taxes. So when someone says they paid 18.6% that is on gross income. But net of deductions their tax rate was 28.5%. If you give Mitt Romney $8 million in deductions ($7M charitable, $1M "other") his comparable income was 34.5M and his taxes were 17.9% http://www.nytimes.com/1992/04/11/us/the-1992-campaign-clintons-tax-return-shows-36-income-rise.html I think that the most charitable review of his taxes is that he is generous to his church. I think that is a thing we should all respect. Regardless of whether he gets personal benefit, I doubt he gets $3.5M of benefit per year. Not a lot of people pay $70K per sermon. or 20 grand a hymn. And the church does good work. Although it is worth noting that the Clintons, not exactly rich in 1990, gave at about the same rate as Romney. On the other hand this analysis is confirmation that even after TMWAUN's observations, Romney still got off with a way lower tax bill. |
Anonymous
This is completely incoherent. He paid taxes at the required rate. Are you really suggesting that he should have thought, "Hmm, I'm running for president, why don't we use the ordinary income rate rather than the capital gains rate." That's ridiculous. Try not to be as reflexively myopic as the tea party. |
Anonymous
But that generosity is hardly voluntary. You can't be a church member in good standing without paying your 10%. I'm sure he does get the benefits of the business contacts and social network. |
Anonymous
|
. But, both Romney and Kerry are playing by the rules as they exist today. The problem is not that they play by the rules, the problem is with the rules. Romney wants to make the rules even worse. Kerry wants to make the rules more equitable. That is the issue. BINGO!! I cannot understand why people don't get this. It is not that he broke the law. It is that Romney and the likes have enough money to buy off congress to keep their tax rate extremely low in comparison to others. Romney and the likes also are lobbying congress to reduce their tax rate even lower. That's the problem. Also, under Romney's new proposal, his tax rate decreases, while mine increases. How is that fair and balanced. |
Anonymous
BINGO!! I cannot understand why people don't get this. It is not that he broke the law. It is that Romney and the likes have enough money to buy off congress to keep their tax rate extremely low in comparison to others. Romney and the likes also are lobbying congress to reduce their tax rate even lower. That's the problem. Also, under Romney's new proposal, his tax rate decreases, while mine increases. How is that fair and balanced. Ditto. And, most of his investments were in blind trusts. His investment advisors chose where to invest, not him. |
Anonymous
|
Help me out. Is the 13.9% a total tax rate including or accounting for(I know you can avoid medicare taxes and you cap out of ss) medicare, ss state taxes etc? If not what was his total taxes?
Also, does the cap gains tax go up if the bush taxes cut are not renewed? |
Anonymous
According to PolitiFact, Romney did inherit some money from parents, but he didn't keep it. He gave it to BYU to establish a school of public management in his father's name. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jan/20/mitt-romney/mitt-romney-says-he-didnt-inherit-money-his-parent/ I believe the NYT reported that his parents gave him $42,000 to buy his first house. He did have a comfortable upbringing and his parents probably paid for his education, but he's apparently much more of a self-made man than I had assumed. The new book that's out, The Real Romney, is quite interesting. Romney certainly pays a low tax rate but it's perfectly legal. Just as it was perfectly legal for Theresa Heinz Kerry to pay a low tax rate. (We can argue that it isn't John's money but that's splitting hairs.) The tax code needs to be changed. I'm not sure how likely that is, however. As someone pointed out upthread, there are plenty of very wealthy folks in Congress, on both sides of the aisle, who benefit from the current tax code. |
Anonymous
You dont file single you file joinlty of you are married. |
Anonymous
| since they are paying 15 percent already why not just make a flat tax for everyone to pay 15%. |