Romney tax returns illuminating for policy reasons, not personal reasons
Mitt Romney has released the broad outlines of his tax returns for 2010 and 2011 — $45 million in income over those two years, with $6.2 million in taxes paid. The complete returns for 2010 and more detailed estimates of what he will pay in 2011 will be released later today.
Overall, Romney paid taxes at a 13.9 percent rate. For comparison’s sake, two other wealthy men who are prominent in American politics paid a considerably higher percentage of their income in taxes in 2010: Newt Gingrich paid at a rate of 31.7 percent; Barack Obama paid at a rate of 26.3 percent.
So why that immense difference? Why did Obama and Gingrich pay taxes at almost twice the rate of the considerably wealthier Romney?
Because while Gingrich and Obama made most of their money through work, most of Romney’s income was generated by doing nothing and allowing money to make money. Under the American tax system, that kind of self-perpetuating wealth is taxed at less than half the rate of income generated through labor.
If the gap between the rich and the rest is growing larger — and it is — the tax code is making that gap worse.
And that’s really the major issue here. Based on the two years made available so far, Romney’s tax returns are useful less as a source of insight into the candidate than as a case study of the gross inequities of current tax policy.
Why should wealth be taxed at such a lower rate? And remind us again — why would it be such a terrible idea to end the Bush tax cuts for Romney and others as a way to help address the deficit problem? If we’re going to have to cut Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and other programs that help average Americans — and at some point we will — why shouldn’t more affluent Americans also sacrifice in some way as well?
As Warren Buffett put it yesterday, Romney is “not going to pay more than the law requires, and I don’t fault him for that in the least. But I do fault a law that allows him and me earning enormous sums to pay overall federal taxes at a rate that’s about half what the average person in my office pays.”
It’s hard to argue that someone with a net after-tax income of $38.8 million — a tidy sum during a two-year period in which millions of his fellow Americans lost their jobs, homes and careers — would suffer much if asked to contribute more.
– Jay Bookman
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
434 comments Add your comment
GM
January 24th, 2012
9:09 am
Stevie Ray
This why misformed news channels like fox, rush, sara can take you idiots anything, you can not even compare this man to Obama, this man was born with a siliver spoon his mouth look at his family history.
Obama is the American dream comes from single parent house hold worked his way to law school and become President, oh I forgot blacks do not suppose to have the America dream, please turn off fox and idiot”””’
ByteMe
January 24th, 2012
9:09 am
The money has already been taxed at the higher rate when he first earned it. It was also already taxed by the companies that made the profit. How hard is it for you guys to understand such a simple concept?
It’s so simple, you didn’t understand it.
We’re not talking about re-taxing the original money. We’re talking about taxing the profits made by investing the money… And those profits have yet to be taxed at the individual level.
Look Beyond the Numbers
January 24th, 2012
9:10 am
@ByteMe – then buy an insurance policy protecting against such risk.
scott
January 24th, 2012
9:10 am
Hey while we are questioning what Romney gives, why don’t you also look at what Biden and Kerry give. Its funny everybody went after Romney for his wealth but yet you clowns probably looked right past Kerry’s wealth when he ran for POTUS which I am sure far surpasses Romney’s.
Chris Jones
January 24th, 2012
9:10 am
Making money through capital gains is work. Why do you exalt physical labor like bricklaying over an intellectual activity like allocating capital? An investor makes decisions on how to allocate capital, and that capital is then used to fund market activities. It is taxed at a lower rate than physical labor because–sit down, lefties, this will shock you–it is a valuable activity and ought to be encouraged. Since investors are rarely motivated by immediate survival needs, you need some other way of encouraging them to perform their valuable function. Lower taxes work nicely in that regard.
Now, Jay, this constant looking into someone else’s wallet and stoking envy based on comparative tax rates would just go away if we ended the income tax system. Income taxes lead to attempts by the government to control behavior and implement social policy through tax policy. That situation leads, as you and many others have demonstrated, to a focus on aspects of the tax policy itself (such as rates for different activities) instead of a focus on first cases, which is whether the income tax should exist at all. You have to turn to Fair Tax supporters to hear a reasoned discussion not based on envy, and a focus on the issue of freedom from government supervision of our incomes.
ByteMe
January 24th, 2012
9:11 am
So you think a person that worked hard, paid taxes on wages and saves some money to invest should pay the same rate on that money as he paid on the original money? If he spends all his money then he only has to pay sales tax on the money (7 or 8%) and if he saves the money and invest it then he should pay 35% on the money earned?
You are equating average person with Romney now? Is average person a millionaire?
If average person invests and makes a profit on investment, tax it at average person’s rate instead of poor person’s rate. Is that clear enough for you?
Zedd
January 24th, 2012
9:11 am
Tomorrow’s headline from the president’s state of the union: “President attacks the American Dream!” So his election campaign will focus on”Fairness”. What happened to the American dream that you can take an idea or something your good at and turn that into a successful business, make a bunch of money, retire early and grow old watching your grand children grow up? Life isn’t fair! If you want something, you better be prepared to get off your butt and fight for it every day! That is the type of attitude we’ll need to overcome this mess our politicians have burdened us with and once again retake our place as the best country in the world!
Doggone/GA
January 24th, 2012
9:11 am
“Why can someone live off of investment earnings at a lower tax rate, but if I borrow into my investment money, I’m taxed far higher than 15%?”
It’s the penalty you pay for not being taxed on that income each year. The whole point of deferred retirement plans is that the money accumulates, and it not taxed until you retire. At which point, it is presumed that your income is lower and you will be taxed at a lower rate.
But if you take money out before the allowed age (59 1/2 I think) then you pay a penalty in lieu of those deferred taxes that you haven’t been paying.
jhunt163
January 24th, 2012
9:11 am
@ Paul 8:58..Kudos!..Sounds like you are only one of a few posters on this blog that even has a clue. Also people need understand that we want investment, investments create business’s and provide the necessary capital for existing businesses to expand. I would love to see the reaction of some on this blog when their retired Grandmother just learned that her dividends on which she is dependent to live on just jumped to 28%.
TaxPayer
January 24th, 2012
9:11 am
Joel,
Sometimes a little dramatization is needed in order to make sure the point gets made and given your reply I’m not sure I was overly dramatic at all. Perhaps I should try harder.
barking frog
January 24th, 2012
9:11 am
the fact that many americans want to eliminate taxes on
the wealthy and allow the poor to starve while they park
their cadillacs in front of their cathedrals and punish
women for not using just say no birth control is the
disgusting thing about the newt campaign.
ByteMe
January 24th, 2012
9:12 am
@ByteMe – then buy an insurance policy protecting against such risk.
They have those? Where?? Truly curious.
Look Beyond the Numbers
January 24th, 2012
9:12 am
@ByteMe … While we’re at it, lets take away every incentive for people to save and invest in this country. The capital gains rates are an enticement to put money back into the country.
Also, if the law changes and capital gains are taxed at ordinary rates, I am sure there will be outrage when someone suffers an investment loss and is able to offset it against ordinary income.
Paul
January 24th, 2012
9:12 am
Brosephus
I believe the answer is because the withdrawn funds were originally earned income before they were invested as tax-exempt.
My underlying point in all this was, there are always going to be trade-offs and exceptions in any broad policy implementation. We see that in many candidates’ tax reform plans. Frankly, some of them end up sounding pretty much like what we have – only difference is they limit deductions and lower rates.
There is a good reason for not taxing pension savings: it provides the means for retirement savings to grow faster, producing a higher amount available at retirement. This reduces demand for income-based old age programs.
Normal
January 24th, 2012
9:13 am
Greed is good?
Huh, I thought greed was one of the seven deadly sins of the Christians. Imagine that…
scott
January 24th, 2012
9:13 am
Byteme. No. YOU don’t understand. It was taxed at the higher rate when he first EARNED it. He earned it through salary. He invested the money and made money on it. Why should that be taxed at a higher rate than the current Cap gains tax? In my opinion, Uncle Sam should just keep their hands off ANY of that money he earned through reinvestment. This falls under the same argument of why shoudl people get bailed out of home loans they made? I lost some money during the dot com burst. How come Uncle Sam didn’t come give me some bailout money for some poor investment decisions?
markie mark
January 24th, 2012
9:15 am
“the fact that many americans want to eliminate taxes on
the wealthy and allow the poor to starve”……
BULL@##@ – plain and simple
JOEL
January 24th, 2012
9:16 am
markie mark
January 24th, 2012
9:15 am
“the fact that many americans want to eliminate taxes on
the wealthy and allow the poor to starve”……
BULL@##@ – plain and simple
Now thats funny!
stands for decibels
January 24th, 2012
9:17 am
Why do you exalt physical labor like bricklaying over an intellectual activity like allocating capital?
because bricklayers produce something of tangible value. Investors don’t.
jconservative
January 24th, 2012
9:17 am
Nice approach to the discussion Jay.
Without getting into the debate over right or wrong, good or bad, I would suggest that by its very nature income tax serves as a re-distributor of wealth. Government takes money from “taxpayers” to finance the services “voters” demand.
If everyone paid the same “rate” then everyone would pay the same. But everyone does not pay the same rate. Some have loopholes, some do not. And there are the several different sources of income all taxed at different rates.
This election will provide an opportunity for voters to make a decision if the candidates will allow a debate on the issue. See Jay’s point in his column on taxes and Social Security/Medicare.
Obama will propose that the top 1% pay more into the system. Gingrich/Romney will propose that the $20,000. a year couple on SocSec/Medi pay more into the system.
Both proposals will result in more government revenue; a tax increase in Grover’s world.
The question is will voters take the opportunity and vote on this issue or will they vote on the several other issues in the political marketplace? Such issues as how one got his money, who lobbied who, religion, birthplaces, skin color, failed marriages and the ever popular “starting a new war somewhere”.
My money is on the “other issues” being the deciding factor.
Brosephus
January 24th, 2012
9:18 am
If you really want to start talking about being fair, why are we not questioning why a majority of the people do not pay anything at all.
Ask GWB and his GOP Congress. They increased the numbers with their tax sale. As much as they increased it, however, the “majority” pays taxes. The last time I checked 53% is greater than 47%.
JOEL
Is that retirement fund not an investment vehicle? Why is my investment vehicle subject to different tax rules as opposed to others?
md
January 24th, 2012
9:18 am
“We’re not talking about re-taxing the original money. We’re talking about taxing the profits made by investing the money… And those profits have yet to be taxed at the individual level.”
Yet not a soul here has proposed to do the same with THEIR capital gains……or tax cuts for that matter.
401k’s and pensions deferred………no tax. Capital gains rate on selling one’s home……for the majority = 0%.
Bunch of hypocrites……
Not Rich but Affected
January 24th, 2012
9:18 am
I am baffled by Warren Buffet’s insistence on raising the 15% long-term capital gains tax rate, and by people calling that income “unearned.” Yes, techinically the income earned off of the investments was not earned in the traditional sense… but at some point (and yes, it may have been a loooong time ago) the original outlay of money that funded the account was. Prior to that original investment being made, it had been earned in the traditional sense, and it was taxed at the higher tax rate. Raising the capital gains tax rates is a MAJOR disincentive to invest, and truth be told, we NEED as many people investing in their own personal accounts as possible, because there will be no safety net (i.e. social security in its current form) to sustain the masses in the future. The government needs to find ways to meaningfully cut their wasteful spending, not just keep raising taxes on the “rich” (there are a lot of investors that are NOT rich -myself included – that would be affected by raising the 15% cap gains rate).
barking frog
January 24th, 2012
9:19 am
‘BULL@##@ – plain and simple’
afraid not markie, you have either not been listening,
comprehending or counting the votes newt is getting..
JOEL
January 24th, 2012
9:20 am
Brosephus,
Its not, simply pay tax on it initially, invest it, then pay capital gains tax.
Cary Gershon
January 24th, 2012
9:21 am
I’d say Newt needs a better CPA
jhunt163
January 24th, 2012
9:21 am
“because bricklayers produce something of tangible value. Investors don’t.”
Wouldn’t it be funny if nobody made the investment to start the brick making company. Then we have no wall and no laborers…
Bart
January 24th, 2012
9:22 am
Wow, this place stinks of wealth envy!
And stupidity of why dividends and interest corporate and municipal investments are taxed at a lower rate in are overly complicated tax codes.
back2bama
January 24th, 2012
9:22 am
I don’t envy anyone what’s for me it is for me. I have done soul searching read many articles; however, I can’t come to grips why anyone with that much money would want to be POTUS. I am mean how could you not be an elitist the average Joe or Josephine will never relate to this type of wealth.
robo
January 24th, 2012
9:23 am
@Chris Jones
Tax policy ought to encourage/discourage certain behaviors. It’s the government acting as referee, not interloper in economic activity. Indeed, government has the ability to overstep its defined role, but that’s why check and balances exist. I’m not exactly sure how hard Gov. Romney worked on his allocating capital activity versus people out there who are in low-paying/high demanding jobs like bricklaying and waitressing. It’s a fact that Romney is out of touch with the average persons’ daily concerns. The FAIR Tax would be awful for the average American. Certainly the tax code could be simplified, but the FAIR Tax is not the answer.
Doggone/GA
January 24th, 2012
9:23 am
“Wouldn’t it be funny if nobody made the investment to start the brick making company. Then we have no wall and no laborers”
And wouldn’t it be funny if nobody wanted to work for that company. Then we have no income, no profit…and investors who lost their money.
Invested money produces NOTHING without the bedrock of the workers in the company. Everything is dependent on labor.
td
January 24th, 2012
9:24 am
ByteMe
If average person invests and makes a profit on investment, tax it at average person’s rate instead of poor person’s rate. Is that clear enough for you?
It is very clear to me that you must not have made wise decisions in your life up to now and you realize that, unless you do some serious work and sacrifice, then you will never be wealthy and if you are not going to be wealthy then “damn it” I want to make those people who did make good decision pay. That is very clear to me. It is also very clear to me that you have not put any money away for you later years in life and plan on living off the government so you want the government to have all the money they can confiscate from the producers.
Donovan
January 24th, 2012
9:24 am
Well cry me a river Jay Bookman and all the rest of you class envy whiners. You all remind me of the screwed up followers of Islam who have no problem with killing non-believers, but have a problem with the use of charging interest in business dealings.
I will remind you all that 50% of this country does not pay income taxes, but the remaining percentage carries the water for the rest. And as personal income rises so does the burden of taxation for the upper brackets. You want equity? How about EVERBODY paying into the system?
You Occupy types want everything for nothing and disregard the entitlements that fund your miserable lives. Where do you think such funding comes from?
Mitt Romney has nothing to be ashamed of in his release of his tax records. He is entitled to everything under the law that permits him to do so. However, he is obliging to appease those who feel the need to see confidential information. Kind of like being unnecessarily strip seached at the airport. Using Warren Buffet as your spokesman is a convenient joke. The man is in the twilight of his life and doesn’t care about the ramifications of a sudden new change in tax laws. You can damn well believe he cared about the progressive tax system when he first started building his fortune.
It always boils down to the haves-and-the-have-nots in life. An age old complaint rooted in pure jealousy.
It is the Democrat Party that takes the Robin Hood argument to a new level and in an election year it is taken to ridiculous levels of sheer distasteful vitriol. A cheap form of trying to win a contest.
What you people should be doing is applying your elite circumspection to your leadership that has screwed up this country with irresponsible spending, borrowing, and government growing. Rather then tearing apart people who have plans to rectify the problems facing us you should know that your obstinate rejection is nothing more than throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
stands for decibels
January 24th, 2012
9:26 am
yebbut DGA, if we upset the jerb-creators’ tender feefees they may go Galt and start their own way-cool libertarian paradise in Somalia!
md
January 24th, 2012
9:26 am
In today’s world economy, I can see this type animosity biting folks in the butt……there are other options around the globe for investinf one’s money…….be careful what you wish for.
Folks that have money have it for a reason……they don’t make a habit of giving it away. Even the great Warren only pays what the law tells him to pay. Ever wonder why he employs an army to NOT pay taxes?
As for the belief system and ideologies…….since roughly half of those making millions want to pay more, I’d say they should go for it……50% of that money would certainly be better than 0%…..it that is what they truly believe. Bite the bullet for their convictions……….or not.
stands for decibels
January 24th, 2012
9:27 am
Wow, this place stinks of wealth envy!
Wow, you stink of plutocrat bum. I hope it’s tasty, at least.
Right Thinker
January 24th, 2012
9:27 am
Please don’t quote Warren Buffet unless you plan to point out he owes back taxes of over $1 Billion. It’s quite easy for Buffet to say he doesn’t mind a higher tax rate, the problem is he isn’t paying anything while disputing taxes back as far as 2004. Put up or SHUT UP!!!
As for Romney, because he didn’t physically earn the money is not a factor. His wealth was earned by risk taking and investing. He could have lost millions. While the jealousy and envy of Liberals runs rampant, hopefully their desire to inflict revenge via the tax code won’t come to fruition. After all this is Mitt Romney’s money NOT Jay Bookman, Barack Obama, nor Nancy Pelosi. Note Romney did make generous charitable donations, how much do your Liberal politicians donate? Let’s call on all those wealthy Liberals to release their tax returns, Pelosi, Feinstein, Rockfeller, Kerry, Kohl.
Obama’s class warfare and socialist agenda are dragging the country down. Instead of celebrating success he demeans it, attempts to demonize achievers. The country’s problem isntblacknof taxes, it’s too much spending.
stands for decibels
January 24th, 2012
9:28 am
And Jay, before you start tut-tutting about my post @ 9.27, kindly tell me how that’s any more personally insulting than this clown telling me what I do and don’t “envy” based on a policy position?
Paul
January 24th, 2012
9:29 am
Cary Gershon
He likely has a good accounting firm doing his taxes. Fact is, there are very, very few vehicles left by which earned income, particularly if it’s not tied to an individuals’ business, can be diverted and escape taxation.
Which leads to another point. Much is made of the ’small businessman.’ I’ll put out (and don’t ask for a cite, it’s all based on what I’ve seen) that many of those folks cheat the system on a regular business. Taking the family out to dinner several times a week and writing it off as a business expense. Leasing cars for the spouse and kids and charging it to the business. That sort of stuff.
And I’d wager many of the tax cheats are sitting in the audience grumbling at Romney’s effective rate.
Which was arrived at without cheating.
JOEL
January 24th, 2012
9:29 am
Doggone,
I think it is fair to say that investment and labor are necessary. To say everything is dependent on labor is pretty ignorant.
stands for decibels
January 24th, 2012
9:29 am
Anyway, speaking of goods and services of tangible value, I gotta go produce some without the distractions here. Later, kids.
Paul
January 24th, 2012
9:30 am
robo
“Tax policy ought to encourage/discourage certain behaviors”
Is that what Newt calls ‘Right Wing social engineering’?
Midori
January 24th, 2012
9:31 am
I wonder which generation of conservatives whites are the most dumbest and hateful? I think think this generation wins out
Exhibit A: td
Exhibit B: Recon
Exhibit C: Scout
Exhibit D: Kayaker
mm
January 24th, 2012
9:31 am
“That is $6.2 million more then the bottom 47% paid combined.”
I smell poverty envy.
barking frog
January 24th, 2012
9:32 am
Paul 9:29 as a small business owner I must say that you
have now quit preachin’ and and gone to meddlin’…
Soothsayer
January 24th, 2012
9:32 am
“This separation of government from people, this widening of the gap, took place so gradually and so insensibly, each step disguised (perhaps not even intentionally) as a temporary emergency measure or associated with true patriotic allegiance or with real social purposes. And all the crises and reforms (real reforms, too) so occupied the people that they did not see the slow motion underneath, of the whole process of government growing remoter and remoter.
“To live in this process is absolutely not to be able to notice it—please try to believe me—unless one has a much greater degree of political awareness, acuity, than most of us had ever had occasion to develop. Each step was so small, so inconsequential, so well explained or, on occasion, ‘regretted,’ that, unless one were detached from the whole process from the beginning, unless one understood what the whole thing was in principle, what all these ‘little measures’ that no ‘patriotic German’ could resent must someday lead to, one no more saw it developing from day to day than a farmer in his field sees the corn growing. One day it is over his head.”
– Milton Mayer
They Thought They Were Free – The Germans, 1933-45
Paul
January 24th, 2012
9:33 am
Donovan
“Mitt Romney has nothing to be ashamed of in his release of his tax records. He is entitled to everything under the law that permits him to do so.”
I believe Jay said that. The issue is, is current tax policy what we should retain, especially as it facilitates the growing gap between very wealthy and average households?
jhunt163
January 24th, 2012
9:35 am
Thanks for your insight Midori, you just added a great deal to the conversation at hand.
markie mark
January 24th, 2012
9:35 am
Barking, I comprehend enough to recognize ludicrous stupidity when I see it in print.
Paul
January 24th, 2012
9:35 am
Hi Midori!!!!
barking frog
’round these parts, we call that ‘EOI’ing”
Doggone/GA
January 24th, 2012
9:35 am
“To say everything is dependent on labor is pretty ignorant.”
To deny it is even more ignorant. How much would invested money earn if the business is so poorly run that it loses it’s employees and can’t hire more? Invested money is invested in the LABOR done by the employees. No labor, no company…because no labor means no customers. And no customers means no company too.
Bruno
January 24th, 2012
9:36 am
Obviously my words will fall on deaf ears with this crowd, but there is a critical difference between money earned via labor and money made through investing. When investing, there is significant risk of loss of capital. In laymen’s terms, there’s a good chance you’re going to lose what you started with. I’m sure some of you 401K holders may know what I’m talking about. As such, it makes sense to me to offset this risk by lowering the tax rate when you’re successful.
Jay attempted some tap dance a while back claiming that there is a corresponding risk of loss when someone employs you, but I’m not buying that.
Abe's ghost
January 24th, 2012
9:37 am
http://www.snopes.com/quotes/lincoln/prosperity.asp
nelson
January 24th, 2012
9:38 am
Mitt gives over 10% to charity. that is tithing. Mitt knows how to make money Barack is evxperienced in giving it away[the taxpayers money] No question MITT THE NEXT PRESIDENT OF THE U.S.
Nola Orange
January 24th, 2012
9:39 am
td
January 24th, 2012
9:09 am
If he spends all his money then he only has to pay sales tax on the money (7 or 8%) and if he saves the money and invest it then he should pay 35% on the money earned? Now with you logic why should a person invest their money in a capital invest company that creates jobs?
Would you still be making money on your investments? The argument that someone won’t invest in a moneymaking opportunity because of a few percentage points tax rate is bunk. If you can make money, there will be investors.
Libertarian
January 24th, 2012
9:41 am
I said it last time Jay addressed this. Exempt the first $100k or $200k of capital gains from taxation. That way you still encourage savings among the middle class and don’t hurt retirees who live off investment income. I’d guess that most people who make above $200k a year in capital gains are the Romney/Buffet types-investment bankers/wall street types who make money off money and do little to no actual work. These people should pay more taxes…especially if a person making $300-$400k owning a small business and actually creating jobs is going to have to pay 30-35%. Romney was exactly right last night to point out that under Newt’s tax plan, he’d pay zero taxes. That’s just silly.
ByteMe
January 24th, 2012
9:42 am
I leave to eat breakfast and a whole host of interesting responses….
The capital gains rates are an enticement to put money back into the country.
Actually, that would be true if the rate were ONLY for investments made in this country. It’s not.
Let’s see… td does his usual personal attack that I tuned out. Okee-dokee….
scott yells: YOU don’t understand. It was taxed at the higher rate when he first EARNED it
And any profits he makes on that money — just the same as the profits he would make if he were to start his own business with it — should be taxed at personal tax rates. Why should the rate paid for starting your own business be less than the rate paid for investing in someone else’s business? Turns out I DO understand
md
January 24th, 2012
9:44 am
And once again, where is the discussion on the risk side of the equation? Folks have no problem bitching when less tax is made on the “profits”, but shrivel up and and blow away when one actually losses money on an investment……..shall we regulate both ends??
I somehow don’t think folks here would like that aspect of the equation…..it is soooo much easier bitching about the perceived unfairness……
JOEL
January 24th, 2012
9:44 am
Bruno,
Thank you, I tried to state the same thing as you earlier, just not as eloquent. You have a better way with words.
ByteMe
January 24th, 2012
9:44 am
As such, it makes sense to me to offset this risk by lowering the tax rate when you’re successful.
It’s already offset by being a deduction against future capital gains.
Recon 0311 2533
January 24th, 2012
9:44 am
“Kerry’s wealth when he ran for POTUS which I am sure far surpasses Romney’s.”
Scott, you mean the wealth that Kerry earned when he married Teresa Heinz.
robo
January 24th, 2012
9:44 am
50 million without health insurance; the most unequal distribution of wealth in any advanced country on Earth; endless climate change; unnecessary increased defense spending; slashed funding for education and stem cell research; massive hunger …. no, the GOP does not feel anyone’s pain in the 99 percent. The right-wingers in this forum are living in their own little la-la land where life is good while so many others suffer. They don’t get it.
TaxPayer
January 24th, 2012
9:46 am
I see the Republicans are back to defending Mitt’s tax rate. So that must mean they oppose Newt. But they just voted for him in South Carolina and the polls in Florida say they support him. Those poor Republican heads must really be straining. Essplosions imminent. Watch out!
barking frog
January 24th, 2012
9:46 am
markie mark,9:35, evidently not or you would quit commenting..
Paul
January 24th, 2012
9:47 am
Recon
“you mean the wealth that Kerry earned when he married Teresa Heinz.”
In that case, he really did earn it!
Brosephus
January 24th, 2012
9:48 am
To all:
Appreciate the answers to the questions. I was asking just as a point of debate, and that was achieved without all the name calling and stuff.
As an aside, I see the wealth envy and such is in full swing now.
JOEL
January 24th, 2012
9:48 am
“To deny it is even more ignorant. How much would invested money earn if the business is so poorly run that it loses it’s employees and can’t hire more? Invested money is invested in the LABOR done by the employees. No labor, no company…because no labor means no customers. And no customers means no company too.”
and vice versa, thats why I said both investment and labor are necessary. Obviously you don’t understand that its a two way street.
Paul
January 24th, 2012
9:50 am
robo
“living in their own little la-la land where life is good while so many others suffer. They don’t get it.”
Goes both ways. You mentioned that in the same post as health insurance. You do recall the response of those with ‘Cadillac health insurance plans” provided by employers at no or greatly subsidized rates to the idea of counting that as income, don’t you?
(hint: they weren’t all right-wingers)
William Smith
January 24th, 2012
9:50 am
We have three men running for President. One has a billion dollar warchest to seek re-election. One makes over 40 million dollars in two years. Lastly, one has a credit limit of 500 thousand at Tiffany’s. The only thing they have in common is they know the suffering of the average American. This is like a reverse of Robin Hood. Take from the poor and give to the rich. I have a question for the three candidates. Why do they think Americans are mad as hell?
TaxPayer
January 24th, 2012
9:51 am
Being “employed” by the military has no risk of loss. I’m sure that’s a relief to many. Then again, military don’t pay any taxes so there is no risk of loss, right. Is that how it works. It’s just the poor saps at Imperial Sugar that had any risk. I mean, the owners lost a lot in that explosion. Then, there’s that American Pad and Paper. Again, the owners lost out while the employees just kept right on taking home a paycheck. Yep. That’s how it works in BizarroLand.
md
January 24th, 2012
9:51 am
“No labor, no company…because no labor means no customers.”
Might want to take the elevator down a few floors to the China discussion……there is no shortage of labor on this planet. And I wouldn’t hang my hat on the service industries either….not with the exponential explosion of technology.
Thomas
January 24th, 2012
9:52 am
Raise the tax rates and also force journalists to be journalists-
“would suffer much if asked to contribute more”
Well- Jay- it sure looks like Romney does contribute more than Obama- Facts are so damn disturbing. Why should we deal with them?
Romney
In total, the Romneys donated about 16.4 percent of their adjusted gross income of $42.5 million in the two-year period, according to their 2010 tax returns and an estimate for 2011 taxes. The 2010 return shows $3 million in charitable contributions, and the 2011 estimate shows $4 million.
Obama
In 2004, before Mr. Obama entered the Senate, he and his wife gave $2,500 to charity, 1.2 percent of the taxable income. The next year, the donations jumped, to $77,315, or nearly 5 percent of the taxable income.
td
January 24th, 2012
9:52 am
January 24th, 2012
9:31 am
“That is $6.2 million more then the bottom 47% paid combined.”
I smell poverty envy.
No, it is not poverty envy at all but rather being sick and tired of being punished by the government for playing the game of the life the correct way.
The top 50% of wage earners completed HS, knew when it was time to not party and instead go study and we knew that having children young and out of wedlock was a recipe for not becoming successful. We understood that you must get to work before you boss, go home after your boss. We understand that until you have worked on a job and proved your worth to an organization then it is better to keep your mouth shut and not piss your boss up. We know that you suck it up and work until you find a better situation and not just walk out the door.
Then when we start to get rewarded for all these many years of hard work, the government comes in and tells us that we must now pay for the people that chose not to make the same decisions because they were not as lucky as you or not given the best opportunities to succeed. We are told we must take care of the people that were the trouble makers in our classrooms in HS, we must take care of the people that slept during class all day because they were out all night partying. We must take care of the people that chose to go to a friends house or out at night instead of reading their text book. We must now take care of the person that decided to have unprotected sex and a baby or three without being married and without an education.
Now go ahead libs and tell us how you want your government to confiscate more of the money of the achievers to take care of the people that refuse to make the correct choices in life and refuse to work hard.
Recon 0311 2533
January 24th, 2012
9:53 am
“Sorry, this is a family-friendly blog. If you want to know HOW, Recon … ask YOUR mommy and daddy.” My parents have been deceased for some time. Kind of a stupid comment Jay, but so is the blog topic. Hmmm, maybe someone jacked his name. Naaw, there’s too much morality on this blog.
Doggone/GA
January 24th, 2012
9:53 am
“and vice versa, thats why I said both investment and labor are necessary. Obviously you don’t understand that its a two way street”
Certainly I understand it. But I can start a business and if I have enough customers so that I can live decently, there’s no need for me to seek an investor. I can do the work I’m hired to do, my customers are happy and I’m happy. I can have a labor based business and not require investment.
Investment would only be neccessary if I decided I wanted more customers than I can handle alone. I could, if I chose, seek an investor to help me HIRE MORE LABORERS to do the work for my customers.
It’s all based on labor and customers, investment is a sideline…not a neccessity. Because if my business is growing steadily, and I have enough demand for my company’s services, I could use my own money to slowly grow my company and not need outside investors at all. They are only needed if I want to grow my company faster than I can do it alone. But it’s STILL all labor based.
Atlanta1
January 24th, 2012
9:54 am
I’m not going to read through all of the arguments above – the hate from both sides gets old.
So, if this has already been said – I apologize.
When the money was originally made (meaning the portions invested) – they started off of a base that was earned at the tax code ordinary Americans make. The portion that has been invested over the years has been taxed at the 13 to 15 % range. The reason that these taxes are lower is simple – to encourage people with money to reinvest into the market place to help it grow – which generates non-government jobs.
You want a system that is fair. Fine. Go to a pure consumption tax and allow those at ‘x’ income to recoup their taxes (if you truly feel that this is fair) – although I grew up thinking that if EVERYONE is paying the same % (with no exceptions and no write offs) – then that would be FAIR.
Brosephus
January 24th, 2012
9:56 am
Scott, you mean the wealth that Kerry earned when he married Teresa Heinz.
Would he be taxed at capital gains rates for that increase?
Welcome to the Occupation
January 24th, 2012
9:57 am
Jay: Why should wealth be taxed at such a lower rate?
If you believe that wealth equals royal privilege, as Republican dogma has been preaching for decades now, then it naturally follows that people with great wealth should enjoy greater privilege.
And eventually, why not go ahead and take this to its natural conclusion and reduce taxes close to zero altogether — which is what, ironically, Newt’s plan would do, by removing capital gains taxes altogether, not Romney’s.
So the natural conclusion to be drawn from your point, Jay, is that Romney’s tax records point up not so much what a Romney president would look like, but a Gingrich presidency.
ByteMe
January 24th, 2012
9:59 am
So the natural conclusion to be drawn from your point, Jay, is that Romney’s tax records point up not so much what a Romney president would look like, but a Gingrich presidency.
It’s all an ink-blot test anyway. We see in our candidates what we want to see.
Midori
January 24th, 2012
9:59 am
Hi Paul
Brosephus
January 24th, 2012
9:59 am
“That is $6.2 million more then the bottom 47% paid combined.”
I smell poverty envy.
No, it is not poverty envy at all but rather being sick and tired of being punished by the government for playing the game of the life the correct way.
The top 50% of wage earners completed HS, knew when it was time to not party and instead go study and we knew that having children young and out of wedlock was a recipe for not becoming successful.
You do realize that there are people high up in that top 50% of wage earners who also belong to the 47% who end up with no fed income tax liability, right?
TaxPayer
January 24th, 2012
10:00 am
Investors can make money without workers! Is that what the new line is (well it is true, doncha know). But what of the job creator. Whom would that be if the investor does not need to create jobs in order to make money. The one getting the biggest tax cut!
Mick
January 24th, 2012
10:00 am
For those who have the time to read, andrew sullivan lays it all out brilliantly-
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/01/15/andrew-sullivan-how-obama-s-long-game-will-outsmart-his-critics.html
SouthGaDawg
January 24th, 2012
10:00 am
Jay,
You also left out the part where Romney donated 7 million to charity. Furthermore, you neglected to mention – as did CNN in its article – that 80% of Americans pay an effective tax rate below 15%.
But, hey, if you would have included that it would have taken the hot air out of your class-warfare sails.
Unbelievable.
Welcome to the Occupation
January 24th, 2012
10:00 am
We live some 230 years after the French Revolution and yet there are people working day and night to reintroduce royal privilege back into modern society, namely through the worship of wealth.
This effort is a frontal assault on modern society and an attempt to roll it back wholesale.
md
January 24th, 2012
10:02 am
td….you can save the choices sermon…..folks here tend to discount that variable of the equation…..it is only about the money.
Much like our very own gov’t…..anybody else filled out a FAFSA form? Has plenty of lines for “income”, but not nary a line for “outgoing”, they just don’t care. A small business owner may be in debt 3 million dollars, but FAFSA says one makes too dang much money and the child doesn’t qualify for financial aid……..doesn’t surprise me a bit.
Jm
January 24th, 2012
10:02 am
“most of Romney’s income was generated by doing nothing”
Running companies and making capital investment decisions is not “doing nothing”
Good grief
Recon 0311 2533
January 24th, 2012
10:02 am
“Would he be taxed at capital gains rates for that increase?”
He only dated her for six months and they married in a civil ceremony, so I don’t think there were sufficient after tax dollars invested to qualify.
A Tax Cheat or A Wife Cheat (Is this the Best Republicans Have To Offer?)
January 24th, 2012
10:03 am
@stands for decibels
January 24th, 2012
7:53 am
$6.2 million in taxes paid.
Who’ll be the first to say “that’s more than any of you Godless Librulz posting here so shut up with your wealth envy”?
**********************************************
You sound like a self righteous idiot.
No one evies your bourgesois morality or conscience.
Mitt Romney is in a highly privileged class of modern Capitalists. Typically composed of businessmen and others who derive their income from the labor of others. Known to take pride in affluence, spending heavily on luxuries.
Usually conservative and/or opposed to government taxation or other policies that are unfavorable to their profit flow.
Brosephus
January 24th, 2012
10:03 am
Recon
Welcome to the Occupation
January 24th, 2012
10:03 am
ByteMe: “It’s all an ink-blot test anyway. We see in our candidates what we want to see.”
Ink blot, really? A difference between a 13% tax on capital gains and nothing?
I don’t think so, ByteMe!
ByteMe
January 24th, 2012
10:04 am
Running companies and making capital investment decisions is not “doing nothing”
Would be a true statement if only he were actually running the companies and making capital investment decisions within those companies.
He didn’t. Was a passive income gain.
md
January 24th, 2012
10:05 am
“It’s all based on labor and customers, investment is a sideline…not a neccessity.”
Incorrect…….just opening the doors requires some form of “investment”……a business license for starters. Depending on the company, I don’t know very many where some form of investment is not necessary……
Can you name a few?
ByteMe
January 24th, 2012
10:05 am
A difference between a 13% tax on capital gains and nothing?
You’re assuming that what he’s saying now is exactly what going to happen when he gets into office. When’s the last time that happened?
Jm
January 24th, 2012
10:06 am
Get rid of the corporate tax rate and raising capital gains tax rates is perfectly fine
A Tax Cheat or A Wife Cheat (Is this the Best Republicans Have To Offer?)
January 24th, 2012
10:06 am
@gadem
January 24th, 2012
8:01 am
He is certainly a wealthy man, but the thing that will hurt him is that he will look to be out of touch with the average Joe. He will be labeled an elitist…
_______________________________________________
He is an ELITIST. DUH
Certainly not an AVERAGE JOE OR JANE.
Welcome to the Occupation
January 24th, 2012
10:06 am
Tax Cheat: “Mitt Romney is in a highly privileged class of modern Capitalists. Typically composed of businessmen and others who derive their income from the labor of others.”
Forget deriving his income from the labor of others, that’s the work of pikers compared to what Romney does. He’s way past that. His income is derived purely from itself.
It’s like asexual reproduction in biology.
A Tax Cheat or A Wife Cheat (Is this the Best Republicans Have To Offer?)
January 24th, 2012
10:07 am
Enter your comments here
Brosephus
January 24th, 2012
10:07 am
md @ 10:05
I think she talking about outside investors and not the investment from the owner.
Recon 0311 2533
January 24th, 2012
10:08 am
“most of Romney’s income was generated by doing nothing” Sounds a bit like pot and kettle as I’m certain that researching viable investment opportunities requires about as much work as researching blog topics and in the latter probably considerably less.