Romney says he pays about 15 percent in income tax - Page 5

Papa_Complex · 01-20-2012, 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shmike

Give it a rest, Sean.

According to TWFix...

Anybody making over $375k or worth over $1 million:

Made their money without paying taxes.
Hide their wealth in offshore accounts.
Have been known to renounce citizenship to avoid taxation.
They also rape babies and infected your Grandmother with AIDS.

If he fails to disclose, then I can make any reasonable assumptions about those funds that I like.

Homeslice · 01-20-2012, 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shmike

Give it a rest, Sean.

According to TWFix...

Anybody making over $375k or worth over $1 million:

Made their money without paying taxes.
Hide their wealth in offshore accounts.
Have been known to renounce citizenship to avoid taxation.
They also rape babies and infected your Grandmother with AIDS.

There is no magic $ cutoff, but people who make more money have more access to tax-cheating techniques.

Someone who is single, doesn't own property, and works a simple 9-to-5 office job, has access to virtually none of those techniques.

So the whole idea that we should cry a river for wealthy people because they shoulder the majority of the tax burden is BS imo. Yeah, we get it, you paid most of the country's taxes......But you also have more access to creative tax-reducing tools than most people.

Vacations to Tahoe written off as so-called "business expenses" simply because one of your clients happened to be there? Check.

Your new F250 written off because you "need" it to "service" your rental properties? Check.

Your speaking fees collected without being reported to the IRS? Check. (OK, I'm speculating there

)

pauldun170 · 01-20-2012, 03:13 PM

I'm not wealthy, but I play a wealthy person on TV.

Now that I have proven myself as a credentialed source on the subject down with those things of the sort and all that business.

Captain Morgan · 01-20-2012, 05:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pauldun170

I'm not wealthy, but I play a wealthy person on TV.

Now that I have proven myself as a credentialed source on the subject down with those things of the sort and all that business.

Apparently, I'm also wealthy, as are many Americans. At least according to the AMT exemption amount of 48.5k for a single person, since the AMT was created to reduce the amount of exemptions for a "wealthy person". Rolling eyes.

udman · 01-20-2012, 07:03 PM

How Much the Rich Pay
Mitt Romney, the 1% and taxes.

Mitt Romney's disclosure this week that his effective federal tax rate is "probably closer to the 15% rate than anything" has created the predictable political uproar. The White House and its media allies figure they've now got their stereotype of the Monopoly man, albeit without his cane and top hat, who they can crush in their planned class-warfare campaign.

We're not sure if facts will matter in this cacophony, but someone should at least try to introduce a little reality into the debate, especially since Mr. Romney seems so unprepared to make the case.

Start with the fact that, like Warren Buffett, Mr. Romney said he makes most of his money from investments, not wages or salary. Thus his income is really taxed twice: once at the corporate tax rate of 35%, then again at a 15% tax rate when it is passed through to him as dividends or via capital gains from the sale of stock.

All income from businesses is eventually passed through to the owners, so to ignore business taxes creates a statistical illusion that makes it appear that the rich pay less than they really do. By this logic, if the corporate tax rate were raised to, say, 60% from today's 35% and the dividend and capital gains tax were cut to zero, it would appear that business owners were getting away with paying no federal tax at all.

This all-too-conveniently confuses the incidence of a tax with the burden of a tax. The marginal tax rate on every additional dollar of capital gains and dividend income from corporate profits can reach as high as 44.75% at the federal level (assuming a company pays the 35% top corporate rate), not 15%.

The Congressional Budget Office recently examined the distribution of federal taxes on various income groups. The report was ballyhooed by liberals as proof of rising income inequality, but that argument is for another day. What everyone has ignored is what CBO found about the relative taxes paid by different groups. And, lo, the rich pay more, which is probably why the press didn't report it.

The nearby table from the CBO report shows that in 2007 the average income tax rate paid by the 1% was 18.8%, compared to 4.2% for Americans in a broadly defined middle class from the 21st to 80th income percentiles. The poorest 20% on average paid a net negative income-tax rate of 5.6% because of the checks they receive for tax credits that are "refundable." These are essentially transfer payments redistributing income from the rich and middle class to the poor.

As for all federal taxes, CBO found that in 2007 the top 1% paid an average rate of a little under 30%, compared to 15.1% for middle-income earners. In calculating this overall tax burden, CBO takes account of payroll taxes, which moves the rate of the lowest 20% of earners into positive territory at 4.7%. CBO also apportions to individuals who are shareholders the tax that corporations pay on corporate profits.

The main point is that the average effective tax rate on the richest 1% is already twice as high as that of the middle class. No matter how many times Mr. Buffett asserts it, secretaries and plumbers do not on average pay a higher tax rate or less in taxes than do CEOs. Here is what the CBO concludes: "Taken as a whole, the federal tax system is progressive."

In any event, raising tax rates has not over time succeeded in increasing tax shares from the rich. When the top income-tax rate was as high as 70% in the 1970s, the top 1% paid about 19% of all federal income taxes. At the current rate of 35% the top 1% pay just under 40% of all income taxes. Liberals say this is because the rich earn a larger share of income. But when tax rates are lower, the rich have less incentive to seek tax shelters and more incentive to put their money to work in income-earning, revenue-producing ventures.

Mr. Romney said at Monday's Republican presidential debate that he would like to see a top income-tax rate of about 25%. Mr. Obama is seeking a rate closer to 42%, for starters. Mr. Romney's challenge is to persuade Americans that lower rates will mean more jobs and growth, and more revenues for the government. One certainty is that if he stays on his current path of playing defense, Mr. Romney won't deserve to be the GOP nominee because he's likely to lose the fall election.

askmrjesus · 01-20-2012, 10:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by udman

This all-too-conveniently confuses the incidence of a tax with the burden of a tax. The marginal tax rate on every additional dollar of capital gains and dividend income from corporate profits can reach as high as 44.75% at the federal level (assuming a company pays the 35% top corporate rate), not 15%.

First off, I just want to say that the number of these fucking things---> %
in this thread, is bumming me out. If you look closely, or from far away, they sorta look like 96. 96 is the seriously fucked up version of 69.

Anyway, here's how it works; Let's say you're a nice Mormon guy with a few bucks in his pocket, and you want to open a Dildo company. You set up shop in Maryland, where anybody be a corporation, and leave a very faint paper trail. You are now Dildos Inc. Since corporations are people, you're now also twins!

Next, you open an office in the Caymans, for your new subsidiary company, Dildos International. They in turn, open Expanding Universe of Children, in Lichtenstein, who then opens Consolidated Douche-bag Industries, in Liberia.

Ok, now what? Turns out, Mormons suck at making dildos. Who knew? So, Dildos Inc., "loans" it's funds to Dildos International, the Zen Dildo Masters (TM) These guys are good. Investors line up. They've come up with a dildo that looks just like toaster. Actually, it is a toaster, but the good folks at Dildos International, are not here to judge you.

Expanding Universe of Children gets the contract for the new Dil-doasters, and subs the work out to China.

Meanwhile, back at Consolidated Douche-bag Industries, a crack team of douchebags has created a 9,056 page quarterly report, for Dildos Inc.

Apparently, we owe them money.

JC

Homeslice · 01-21-2012, 02:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by udman

Start with the fact that, like Warren Buffett, Mr. Romney said he makes most of his money from investments, not wages or salary. Thus his income is really taxed twice: once at the corporate tax rate of 35%, then again at a 15% tax rate when it is passed through to him as dividends or via capital gains from the sale of stock.
.

Who wrote this article? That statement is flat-out wrong and misleading.

Papa_Complex · 01-21-2012, 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Homeslice

Who wrote this article? That statement is flat-out wrong and misleading.

Correct. The money isn't taxed again; just the additional income it makes via capital gains/dividends. Income is income, though different types are taxed in different ways.

Homeslice · 01-21-2012, 06:30 PM

But if Romney was just a partner of Bain Capital, then he wasn't using HIS money to invest in Dildos, he was using the collective's (Bain's) money. Same with the profits, they wouldn't go straight to him, they'd go through Bain first.

Hell, even if he was the sole proprieter at Bain, I doubt he could hide all those profits from the IRS.

askmrjesus · 01-21-2012, 07:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Homeslice

But if Romney was just a partner of Bain Capital, then he wasn't using HIS money to invest in Dildos, he was using the collective's (Bain's) money. Same with the profits, they wouldn't go straight to him, they'd go through Bain first.

Hell, even if he was the sole proprieter at Bain, I doubt he could hide all those profits from the IRS.

It doesn't matter whose money it is, Bain was likely paying capital gains rates, since most of their income came from returns on investment. The whole fucking thing is rigged.

Romney didn't have to worry about the IRS. Between all the lawyers and tax accounts on staff, and a convenient office in Luxembourg (a country with extremely secretive banking laws), all Bain had to do was bury the IRS in paperwork. Not even the mighty IRS has enough people to track down all the details of multiple shell companies in multiple countries.

These guys essentially build giant moats of quicksand around themselves, and dare you to walk through.

JC

01-20-2012, 07:03 PM	#5
udman You are not the Man!! Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Austin TX Moto: Hawk GT Posts: 750	How Much the Rich Pay Mitt Romney, the 1% and taxes. Mitt Romney's disclosure this week that his effective federal tax rate is "probably closer to the 15% rate than anything" has created the predictable political uproar. The White House and its media allies figure they've now got their stereotype of the Monopoly man, albeit without his cane and top hat, who they can crush in their planned class-warfare campaign. We're not sure if facts will matter in this cacophony, but someone should at least try to introduce a little reality into the debate, especially since Mr. Romney seems so unprepared to make the case. Start with the fact that, like Warren Buffett, Mr. Romney said he makes most of his money from investments, not wages or salary. Thus his income is really taxed twice: once at the corporate tax rate of 35%, then again at a 15% tax rate when it is passed through to him as dividends or via capital gains from the sale of stock. All income from businesses is eventually passed through to the owners, so to ignore business taxes creates a statistical illusion that makes it appear that the rich pay less than they really do. By this logic, if the corporate tax rate were raised to, say, 60% from today's 35% and the dividend and capital gains tax were cut to zero, it would appear that business owners were getting away with paying no federal tax at all. This all-too-conveniently confuses the incidence of a tax with the burden of a tax. The marginal tax rate on every additional dollar of capital gains and dividend income from corporate profits can reach as high as 44.75% at the federal level (assuming a company pays the 35% top corporate rate), not 15%. The Congressional Budget Office recently examined the distribution of federal taxes on various income groups. The report was ballyhooed by liberals as proof of rising income inequality, but that argument is for another day. What everyone has ignored is what CBO found about the relative taxes paid by different groups. And, lo, the rich pay more, which is probably why the press didn't report it. The nearby table from the CBO report shows that in 2007 the average income tax rate paid by the 1% was 18.8%, compared to 4.2% for Americans in a broadly defined middle class from the 21st to 80th income percentiles. The poorest 20% on average paid a net negative income-tax rate of 5.6% because of the checks they receive for tax credits that are "refundable." These are essentially transfer payments redistributing income from the rich and middle class to the poor. As for all federal taxes, CBO found that in 2007 the top 1% paid an average rate of a little under 30%, compared to 15.1% for middle-income earners. In calculating this overall tax burden, CBO takes account of payroll taxes, which moves the rate of the lowest 20% of earners into positive territory at 4.7%. CBO also apportions to individuals who are shareholders the tax that corporations pay on corporate profits. The main point is that the average effective tax rate on the richest 1% is already twice as high as that of the middle class. No matter how many times Mr. Buffett asserts it, secretaries and plumbers do not on average pay a higher tax rate or less in taxes than do CEOs. Here is what the CBO concludes: "Taken as a whole, the federal tax system is progressive." In any event, raising tax rates has not over time succeeded in increasing tax shares from the rich. When the top income-tax rate was as high as 70% in the 1970s, the top 1% paid about 19% of all federal income taxes. At the current rate of 35% the top 1% pay just under 40% of all income taxes. Liberals say this is because the rich earn a larger share of income. But when tax rates are lower, the rich have less incentive to seek tax shelters and more incentive to put their money to work in income-earning, revenue-producing ventures. Mr. Romney said at Monday's Republican presidential debate that he would like to see a top income-tax rate of about 25%. Mr. Obama is seeking a rate closer to 42%, for starters. Mr. Romney's challenge is to persuade Americans that lower rates will mean more jobs and growth, and more revenues for the government. One certainty is that if he stays on his current path of playing defense, Mr. Romney won't deserve to be the GOP nominee because he's likely to lose the fall election. __________________ You can put lipstick on a VS Forum, but it's still a VS Forum...

01-21-2012, 06:30 PM	#9
Homeslice Elitist Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: SF Bay Area Moto: Gix 750 Posts: 11,351	But if Romney was just a partner of Bain Capital, then he wasn't using HIS money to invest in Dildos, he was using the collective's (Bain's) money. Same with the profits, they wouldn't go straight to him, they'd go through Bain first. Hell, even if he was the sole proprieter at Bain, I doubt he could hide all those profits from the IRS.