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
Mama Says
January 24th, 2012
11:20 am
your side
Welcome to the Occupation
January 24th, 2012
11:21 am
Steve – USA: ‘Why do do some people here love calling Romney Willard when he uses Mitt?”
Reminds me, I was watching Candy Crowley’s program on CNN Sunday afternoon and in an interview with Jim DeMint he referred to the Democratic party as the “Democrat party”, a cynical little bit of propaganda and language manipulation that would have done Joseph Goebbels proud, which naturally went unchallenged. After all, what’s a nice well behaved mainstream journalist going to do to challenge that?
And you know who pioneered this Goebbels-esque manipulation of language to destroy your political enemies? (Hint: he’s one of our lucky finalists in the current beauty pageant for president.)
The attempt by some leftists to get back at the right by ridiculing Romney as “Willard” is a belated effort to strike at an enemy that has a big head start in that game.
Talking Head
January 24th, 2012
11:21 am
“Have you not been following the economic figures of late? They’re moving “in the right direction”. Not fast enough. But they’re moving”
Yes, I have. I see a lot of temp/seasonal job growth, low paying/minimum wage job growth. I also see more and more people taking themselves out of job market by essentially quitting looking for jobs, and roughly 50% of those who are unemployed have been for more than 40 weeks. We are still not done with this recession/depression, we are still waiting to bottom out.
Jimmy62
January 24th, 2012
11:23 am
I wonder why you guys had no problem with this when it was John Kerry running? Is it because he had a D by his name? Or because he married in to his money instead of actually earning it?
getalife
January 24th, 2012
11:24 am
willard is willard’s real first name.
newton is the newt’s real first name.
.
Jimmy62
January 24th, 2012
11:26 am
Welcome to the Occupation: Yeah, I’ve heard of Keynes. He was wrong. At least there’s no historical evidence to show he was right. It’s never actually worked. And the multiplier tends to be less than 1.
Welcome to the Occupation
January 24th, 2012
11:26 am
Talking Head: “Yes, I have. I see a lot of temp/seasonal job growth, low paying/minimum wage job growth. ”
That’s of course correct. But that’s systemic, not cyclical, and there is nothing – absolutely nothing — anywhere on the horizon of policy offerings by these two parties to address that structural fact.
We are still not done with this recession/depression, we are still waiting to bottom out
Ultimately, I share your pessimism. The post-Fordist, consumerist model of world capitalism will not work with immiserated workers who can only finance their spending through debt, if debt is only forgiven for the big bankers. It won’t work.
getalife
January 24th, 2012
11:28 am
And willard had a Swiss bank account and offshore funds.
He is a tax cheat.
Brosephus
January 24th, 2012
11:28 am
“Have you not been following the economic figures of late? They’re moving “in the right direction”. Not fast enough. But they’re moving”
Yes, I have. I see a lot of temp/seasonal job growth, low paying/minimum wage job growth. I also see more and more people taking themselves out of job market by essentially quitting looking for jobs, and roughly 50% of those who are unemployed have been for more than 40 weeks. We are still not done with this recession/depression, we are still waiting to bottom out.
A case of one seeing the glass half full while another sees the glass half empty. Nevermind the fact that they are both looking at the same glass.
carlosgvv
January 24th, 2012
11:31 am
Mama Says
If you were to go back and read every post I have ever made here, you would never find me saying all I want is to take money from others.
Chris Jones
January 24th, 2012
11:31 am
@philosopher: You drew your own conclusion from what I said about encouraging capital investment. My real conclusion is that some incentive is required in return for risking capital in an economic endeavor; I prefer pure profit as the incentive, while the current system requires the addition of tax incentives to even make a profit in many cases because profit margins for many endeavors are so low–and that is bad. Your conclusion reveals an absurd, cartoonish understanding of economics, plus which it does not flow at all from my argument. Your hysterical nonsense reveals exactly why I don’t want a tax on income that suits the preferences of non-reasoning, very likely unproductive persons like yourself. See how easy (and therefore pointless) it is to take someone else’s statement to some absurd conclusion? I assume (hope with all my heart) that your screen name is not the same as your profession.
Matti
January 24th, 2012
11:31 am
Jimmy62: “I wonder why you guys had no problem with this when it was John Kerry running?”
You were misinformed on that. Many of us were disappointed that Kerry was the best the Dems could put up that year. This is not a new feeling, special to this year’s Repubs.
Talking Head
January 24th, 2012
11:32 am
“And willard had a Swiss bank account and offshore funds.
He is a tax cheat.”
No matter where he puts his money in the world, The US makes him pay taxes.
md
January 24th, 2012
11:32 am
“True, but the owner’s investment could be “labor” as opposed to finances. Not necessarily the same for an outsider.”
No…..the owners investment could be labor AND investment…….there is no such thing for the most part of labor only without some form of investment.
(Prostitution is the closest I can think of, but a smart whore might want to “invest” in condoms and checkups)
Doggone/GA
January 24th, 2012
11:34 am
“We sell that classic car and make a profit. Where is the Labor?”
Who produced that car that you we able to buy and sell? Labor produced it. No labor, no product.
Welcome to the Occupation
January 24th, 2012
11:35 am
Jimmy62: “Yeah, I’ve heard of Keynes. He was wrong. At least there’s no historical evidence to show he was right”
Oh please, not another boring Keynes was wrong, no he wasn’t, nanana back and forth, please.
The world financial system after World War II was largely built on the Keynesian model (I say “largely” bec it was with some key deviations, which themselves prove the rule; Keynes wanted a different reserve currency than the dollar.). The unprecedented growth of prosperity – which made the America you take for granted possible – in the decades following the war IS the proof of the truth of his theories.
The reason for its breakdown were ultimately geopolitical and ideological, NOT economic. There was no strictly economic reason to suddenly abandon employment as our primary policy objective and take up inflation control instead, but the oil shocks and inflations of the 70s sure served as a convenient pretext for the ruling class interests and banking interests to rein in a labor movement that had gotten too bold and reorder the world financial system along different lines, ones that would serve the interests of bankers instead of workers. THAT’s the real class war that was waged — and it was won going away.
AT
January 24th, 2012
11:37 am
If freedom is the default of your gov’t philosophy the question should be “Why should wealth be taxed so much?” Other than Marxist policies against the bourgeois, I’d like to hear a reason.
A Tax Cheat or A Wife Cheat (Is this the Best Republicans Have To Offer?)
January 24th, 2012
11:37 am
@Steve – USA (I support “None Of The Above”)
January 24th, 2012
11:07 am
Why do do some people here love calling Romney Willard when he uses Mitt? I noticed that some hosts on MSNBC do the same thing. None of the other Networks do.
I realize what his birth name is but he calls himself Mitt.
People just trying to be clever?
*********************************************************************
No, just people telling the truth.
Is he or you ASHAMED OF THE NAME WILLARD?
Thulsa Doom
January 24th, 2012
11:39 am
Jay,
I began reading that article you posted for me from the CRS and 10 minutes in I noted the article making a couple of broad based statements that were in direct conflict with general economic assumptions. Someone with a cursory knowledge of economics would realize after a few pages that this piece was written with an intended bias.
So I looked up the CRS to see what kind of work they do. Similar to the CBO they have to work with the parameters and assumptions given to them by Congress- which is why the CBO often ends up wrong. And as the article below points out it looks like this piece was written to bolster a congressman’s point of view.
If Twain were alive today he might be sorely tempted to change it to “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and Congressional Research Service reports.”
It would be overkill to condemn all Congressional Research Service reports because many contain unbiased and useful research. Indeed, since its founding in 1916, the Library of Congress’ Congressional Research Service has carefully nurtured its reputation as nonpartisan, independent and “above the fray.”
But far too often, the CRS and its staff members are at the mercy of lawmakers who request reports merely to buttress their own ideology. The reports are requested by members of Congress, who pretty much tell the CRS the parameters of the research being conducted and the specific questions to answer. If they want to engineer a report that strongly backs their viewpoint, it’s fairly easy to do.
When the CRS report is completed, it goes directly to the lawmaker, who then brandishes it at a press conference and cites it authoritatively.
It’s one of the most-loved ruses in Congress because it allows a politician with few facts on his side to enhance his arguments by citing a Congressional Research Service report that – voila! – is in complete agreement. Periodic efforts to reform this process have failed.
http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA276.html
md
January 24th, 2012
11:39 am
“Judging from historical data, it found no evidence that it increases investment or savings and in fact concluded that it might have a net negative effect, because lowering capital gains taxes cuts government revenue and increases govt borrowing.”
Except most historical data doesn’t include today’s abundance of offshore investments…….we are in an entirely different era…….with mobility and technology increasing at warp speed.
A Tax Cheat or A Wife Cheat (Is this the Best Republicans Have To Offer?)
January 24th, 2012
11:40 am
@Brosephus
January 24th, 2012
11:13 am
Why do do some people here love calling Romney Willard when he uses Mitt?
I’m guessing it’s for the very same reason that some here enjoy calling Obama by his middle name Hussein, even though he doesn’t use it.
**********************************************************
TOUCHE’
Kapow!
Jm
January 24th, 2012
11:40 am
Jay
Bloomberg has a column saying Romney should advocate for ending the carried interest “loophole”
Wonder what took them so long
Even if ending CI exemption us a super half arsed solution
Georgia, The " New Mississippi "
January 24th, 2012
11:40 am
I might have to become a Mormom . Maybe I can get a piece of the action.
A Tax Cheat or A Wife Cheat (Is this the Best Republicans Have To Offer?)
January 24th, 2012
11:43 am
@Steve – USA (I support “None Of The Above”)
January 24th, 2012
11:07 am
Why do do some people here love calling Romney Willard when he uses Mitt? I noticed that some hosts on MSNBC do the same thing. None of the other Networks do.
I realize what his birth name is but he calls himself Mitt.
People just trying to be clever?
***********************************************************************
Did you ASK why people call Obama Obozo, Hussein?
If no, WHY NOT?
Atlantan
January 24th, 2012
11:43 am
“why shouldn’t more affluent Americans also sacrifice in some way as well?” What the heck are you talking about Jay? Man you are ignorant and apparently envious with a hint of greed. You want more of what someone else earned, but you want the govt to do your dirty work for you. Pretty sad.
How much do you give to charity? What is your sacrifice for the common good? Shouldn’t you do more?
Typical Prog filled with envy and ignorance.
Thulsa Doom
January 24th, 2012
11:43 am
“Judging from historical data, it found no evidence that it increases investment or savings and in fact concluded that it might have a net negative effect, because lowering capital gains taxes cuts government revenue and increases govt borrowing.”
md,
When I also read that statement it was then that I realized this piece that Jay cited had an inherent bias. This statement is so wrong on so many levels its not even funny. Not to mention that it is in conflict with the preponderance of statistical evidence out there.
Erwin's cat
January 24th, 2012
11:44 am
gee….where’s my outrage…only $6.2 million
How is taxing him and the 1% more gonna fix the debt and deficit?
Misty Fyed
January 24th, 2012
11:44 am
“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.”
Typical liberal thought……..It doesn’t matter if it would hurt him or not. Its his money. You have no claim to it. I doubt Jay or any of you other libs would “suffer” if you were forced to give up cable ( or satellite) and contribute what you paid toward higher taxes. The degree you would suffer has nothing to do whatsoever with whether you should or not.
Brosephus
January 24th, 2012
11:45 am
md
That was the one I had in mind that doesn’t necessarily require the owner to invest any upfront capital.
A Tax Cheat or A Wife Cheat (Is this the Best Republicans Have To Offer?)
January 24th, 2012
11:45 am
@Georgia, The ” New Mississippi ”
January 24th, 2012
11:40 am
I might have to become a Mormom . Maybe I can get a piece of the action.
*******************************************************
If you are black you better think twice about it.
Mormons believed that blacks were cursed.
Joe Hussein Mama
January 24th, 2012
11:46 am
Welcom — “The attempt by some leftists to get back at the right by ridiculing Romney as “Willard” is a belated effort to strike at an enemy that has a big head start in that game.”
Oh, I don’t know. Seems like hitting hopeful Senator George Allen with that “Felix Macacawitz Allen” handle back a few years ago not only knocked him out of the race, it knocked him right out of politics.
FWIW, I think it’s juvenile and silly to use names like that (on any side of the political fence) but there’s not much I can do about it. I just think the political discourse is improved when we say things like “Speaker Boehner” and “President Obama” instead of ‘Orangeface Crybaby’ or ‘Jug-Eared Pretender.’ But that’s just me.
Talking Head
January 24th, 2012
11:46 am
87% of Americans pay less than what Romney pays in taxable income.
Joe Hussein Mama
January 24th, 2012
11:47 am
matti — “You were misinformed on that. Many of us were disappointed that Kerry was the best the Dems could put up that year. This is not a new feeling, special to this year’s Repubs.”
Completely agree. I keep saying that this is 2004 all over again, but with the parties reversed.
getalife
January 24th, 2012
11:49 am
Good question Peter.
It’s politicians making promises and the gop will never vote to close corporate loop holes.
Just lies.
A Tax Cheat or A Wife Cheat (Is this the Best Republicans Have To Offer?)
January 24th, 2012
11:50 am
@AT
January 24th, 2012
11:37 am
If freedom is the default of your gov’t philosophy the question should be “Why should wealth be taxed so much?” Other than Marxist policies against the bourgeois, I’d like to hear a reason.
***********************************************************************************
You answered your own question.
Because they are bourgeois who are:
A wealthy, 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.
Mama Says
January 24th, 2012
11:51 am
Carlos,
just responded to what u posted on religion.
if you summarize like that then u have to be the opposite
getalife
January 24th, 2012
11:51 am
“No matter where he puts his money in the world, The US makes him pay taxes.”
False.
Jm
January 24th, 2012
11:52 am
Scientists have devised an experiment to determine if we live in a multiverse
Trippy
See popsci.com for more
GM
January 24th, 2012
11:52 am
Whats amazing is how these low, middle class poor whites rep are sticking up for Mitt, this man would not let these southern idiots come to his house, yet they are running around boosting about his millions he made off capitalism.
Could any conservative Georgian tell me what Newt has done for the state of Georgia? how many jobs has he brought to Georgia with his influence? yet these country poor middle class whites are bragging this wife cheater is one of their own, this approved behavior by the georgia conservatives hypocrites is the reason why other regions think Georgia southerners sleep with their cousins and a bumch of bible thumping hypocrites. wake up hypocrites conservatives you are not in this state along”””””
getalife
January 24th, 2012
11:52 am
“87% of Americans pay less than what Romney pays in taxable income.”
False,you are batting .000.
DawgDad
January 24th, 2012
11:53 am
“If the gap between the rich and the rest is growing larger — and it is — the tax code is making that gap worse.”
To answer your question first, Jay, wealth is taxed at a lower rate (1) to encourage investment, and (2) because in theory the wealth has already been taxed as income at the prevailing rate of income tax.
And, the tax code isn’t making the gap wider, it just isn’t destroying wealth at a rate to suit the tastes of the wealth-envious among us. High capital gains tax rates don’t just penalize the wealthy – they penalize or impact the vast majority of citizens directly or indirectly.
For the wealth-envious, wealthy people are destined to die just like all of us and the ownership interests in their fortunes will be distributed over time. In the meantime, there are far better tax, spending, and debt policy options than raising capital gains tax rates; the left is unwilling to cut Federal spending in meaningful ways, unwilling to embrace consumption tax policy options, unwilling to undo the tangle of tax incentives and Federal subsidies, and bent on hurtling us into oblivion and subjucation with debt and monetary policy. Add in their unholy alliance with big bankers and Wall Street and international corporations operating far outside of the interests of the American taxpayers and there is nothing at all compelling about the arguments of the left.
Jm
January 24th, 2012
11:54 am
Getalife 11:51
Not false
Talking Head
January 24th, 2012
11:54 am
get,
““87% of Americans pay less than what Romney pays in taxable income.”
False,you are batting .000.”
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2012/01/19/media-myth-debunked-97-percent-americans-pay-less-romneys-15-percent
jewcowboy
January 24th, 2012
11:56 am
Just a point of fact, the average effective tax rate in America is 11%.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/27899.html
This does not include payroll taxes though, which when added, push the average above 15%. On wealthy individual payroll tax impact is virtually negligible.
carlosgvv
January 24th, 2012
11:56 am
Mama says
How is it you don’t know what the word “hyprocisy” means?
getalife
January 24th, 2012
11:56 am
th,
99% don’t hide their millions in offshore accounts.
JamVet
January 24th, 2012
11:56 am
And, the tax code isn’t making the gap wider…
Then I respectfully submit the obvious question, what is?
Obama is over
January 24th, 2012
11:56 am
Your analysis ignores the fact that Romney’s wealth was originally taxed at the corporate rate of 35% and THEN taxed at the 15% investment rate. Just like the $100mm that President Clinton has made since leaving office. I have said many times that it is obvious that the tax code needs to be reformed. However, Obama will only increase taxes because it is the source of his power. Having usurious taxes forces lobbyists, corporations, and high net worth individuals (i.e. the 1%) to go to Washington and negotiate tax breaks, set aside programs, and Government subsidies not available to average Americans. Lobbyists, accountants, and lawyers generate billions of dollars annually going through this macabre ritual in Washington. Since Obama blew the majority of his political capital cramming through Obamacare, he desperately needs to raise taxes in order to create political capital to hold over his constituents. A simplified tax code would remove this political capital. He can make a case for raising taxes by targeting Wall St., the 1%, corporate jet owners, and big business- all the while negotiating back room deals with these same people in exchange for a campaign check. In the end, average Americans are going to pick up the tab. Obama may talk about tax reform as an election campaign soundbite, but his history in office thus far proves that he is not interested. Remember, the alternative minimum tax (AMT)) was originally designed so that the 1% would be paying their “fair share.” Today the AMT affects a significant portion of the middle class income. With the peak of the baby boomer generation retiring at age 65 in 10 years, Americans should encourage savings programs that benefit income investments, not penalize them. Inevitably as the Social Security retirement age is pushed out to age 70, current Obama supporters will regret raising tax rates on investment income while they wait on Government retirement handouts that may or may not be there. I prefer to be a master of my own destiny and not depend on Big Government for my retirement.
Jm
January 24th, 2012
11:57 am
Dawgdad
Unfortunately neither of those are really true
Investing time or money should be taxed equally
Instead, it is all over the damn board depending on a huge number of things
The tax code needs a huge rewrite
Jay
January 24th, 2012
11:58 am
So md, Thulsa, let me get this straight:
A 2010 study doesn’t account for “today’s abundance of offshore investments…….we are in an entirely different era…….with mobility and technology increasing at warp speed”?
It certainly accounts for it a lot better than the 1997 partisan-driven study cited by Thulsa.
I also find in interesting that Thulsa dismisses the CRS study as “biased” in some way based on nothing more than the fact that he doesn’t like its conclusion. He offers no evidence that he even took the time the read the study.
A Tax Cheat or A Wife Cheat (Is this the Best Republicans Have To Offer?)
January 24th, 2012
11:58 am
Willard’s money CAME FROM NOT WORKING.
It came from Bain profits.
Why shoud anyone be envious of ill gotten gains.
Jm
January 24th, 2012
11:59 am
Get em talking head
Good job
Redneck Convert (R--and proud of it)
January 24th, 2012
11:59 am
Well, I’m late getting on here on account they made me work this morning. It’s awful when you almost don’t have time to blog and they make you work. One day I’m going to ask the people on this blog how it feels to just be able to fire away at somebody without having somebody standing over you.
Anyhow, while I was hauling and lugging I was thinking how nice it would be to finish your taxes and realize you got $38 million to spend in the next two years. I think after I got the new double-wide and moved into a gated community, I’d hire Bruno and Doom to peel and seed grapes for me and keep them so busy they wouldn’t have the runs at the keyboard and other people could get some words in edgewise.
Anyhow, the debate last night was kinda interesting. I never seen people smile like that while they were taking a knife to the other fellow. Now I just wish this Ron Paul would go back to the asylum and Sanitorium would get a honest job and stop boring us. Then we could see some real fireworks.
It’s lunchtime so I’ll munch on some beenie weenies and try and catch up with what everybody here has said so far. Have a good lunch everybody.
Welcome to the Occupation
January 24th, 2012
12:01 pm
JHM: “Seems like hitting hopeful Senator George Allen with that “Felix Macacawitz Allen” handle back a few years ago not only knocked him out of the race, it knocked him right out of politics”
As opposed to what George Allen actually did knocking him right out of politics?
DawgDad
January 24th, 2012
12:01 pm
“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. ”
And this fuels the economy to provide the luxury products and services. Consumption taxes fund State and Local governments.
DonMinGA
January 24th, 2012
12:02 pm
I read these blogs for a good laugh, but today it didn’t work. I guess I’ve finally had enough of the smear campaign/war being raged on people with opinions other than let the wealthy get whatever legislation they desire because they have had good fortune in their life. Statements like “typical liberal thought” (and you can exchange socialist for liberal freely it seems on this blog) get attacked as if the USA has a thought police. Good lord, when I spent 8 years serving my country I thought I was defending the right of people to have differing opinions without being called un-American, unpatriotic and definitely not socialist. It is a difference of opinion on what is best for America. As for our more conservative friends on this blog, I want you to put on your thinking caps too and stop letting people tell you a differing opinion is evil and socialist. Anyone telling you that is acting like the slobs from the USSR that hated difference of opinion and branded anyone having differing thoughts as traitors. THAT is EXACTLY what you are doing! If you call yourself a proud American, stop it today. Otherwise, you’re acting like the communists you claim to revile.
My next point is really simple. For all of the complaints about President Obama’s policies being Marxist/Socialist and it being bad for our business economy and it is costing us jobs in this country, very seldomly is it pointed out that the jobs we are bleeding are being outsourced TO Communist/Socialist countries around the globe (including Europe). Why aren’t you on here raging agaisnt that rather than people saying those enjoying said wealth should be taxed on it. So now we know its not a fear of socialized medicine or anything else causing these companies to relocate. It is an effort by big business to move America’s policies back towards the 19th and early 20th centuries as it regards workers rights. I have zero problem with people having the opportunity to become wealthy. I do have a problem with people deciding they can live with becoming wealthier by making other people poorer.
Talking Head
January 24th, 2012
12:02 pm
“th,
99% don’t hide their millions in offshore accounts.”
get,
ok, the money that is deposited in offshore accounts is subject to US tax.
Welcome to the Occupation
January 24th, 2012
12:04 pm
Tax Cheat: “Willard’s money CAME FROM NOT WORKING. / Why shoud anyone be envious of ill gotten gains.”
The little man, you know he got him a weakness for them OUTlaws. Sends a tingle down his legs.
getalife
January 24th, 2012
12:06 pm
“The tax code needs a huge rewrite”
Your party fights for lower taxes but the loop holes are failure for them doing their jobs to close them.
It is corporate welfare and your party will never fix it.
JOE Cool
January 24th, 2012
12:08 pm
$45 Million and has the nerve to tell yall “I’m Also Unemployed”…LOL
CONs are so gullible.
A Tax Cheat or A Wife Cheat (Is this the Best Republicans Have To Offer?)
January 24th, 2012
12:08 pm
#Erwin’s cat
January 24th, 2012
11:44 am
gee….where’s my outrage…only $6.2 million
How is taxing him and the 1% more gonna fix the debt and deficit?
****************************************************************************************
Income. DUH
This is income that the government will receive from taxpayers that will help fix debt and deficit..
philosopher
January 24th, 2012
12:09 pm
Chris Jones :
Poor baby- I simply responded to the words you put on paper. If you can’t take the heat, take a little more care with what and how you say what you mean. Name calling and insults will not make your point any clearer or give it more value.
JOE Cool
January 24th, 2012
12:10 pm
Here’s your “Middle Class” Candidate (snarc) http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/assets/money%20shot.jpg
larry
January 24th, 2012
12:10 pm
$45 Million and has the nerve to tell yall “I’m Also Unemployed”…LOL
Wonder how many of that 45 million is unemployment benefits?
Brosephus
January 24th, 2012
12:15 pm
$45 Million and has the nerve to tell yall “I’m Also Unemployed”…LOL
CONs are so gullible.
Both parties push candiates that claim to understand the problems of the everyday people. When was the last time you saw an “everyday” person running for a major office?
Romney = 1 %
January 24th, 2012
12:15 pm
Romney believes the 99%
are not too BIG to fail.
David Granger
January 24th, 2012
12:15 pm
Jay, I agree with you completely here.
But I can’t help but wonder: Why is this such a big deal with Romney, and yet nobody ever said a damn thing about Ted Kennedy and his family’s enormous capital gains income every year? And when John Kerry only released information about HIS income, without any information about his wife’s enormous capital gains income, nobody said a peep.
JOE Cool
January 24th, 2012
12:15 pm
“I’m Also Unemployed”-Mitt Romney
FYI, that’s a RICH mans joke.
JamVet
January 24th, 2012
12:15 pm
And, the tax code isn’t making the gap wider…
DawgDad second request:
Then I respectfully submit the obvious question, what is?
Also, I would be interested in answers from Talking Head, Mysty, 62, Mama, Doom adn any others with thoughts. (presuming that they agree with DD…)
Erwin's cat
January 24th, 2012
12:16 pm
Tax Cheat – Duh??….try again, take all of the 1%’ers wealth and you have effectively fixed nothing.
getalife
January 24th, 2012
12:16 pm
willard connects well with the establishment and the 1 %. He is a elitist and tax cheat like the rest of the 1 %
Out of touch with the rest of the American people.
The newt is seizing on this fact but he lobbied for bailed out freddie.
So, the gop fight is a 1 % elitist and his lobbyist.
The gop deserve to lose.
DawgDad
January 24th, 2012
12:17 pm
“So now we know its not a fear of socialized medicine or anything else causing these companies to relocate”
No, the big Corporations (especially international corporations) are typically in favor of government-run health care – they want to be relieved of the burden of offering social benefits to their employees and funding the benefit packages and risk. Globalism is pushing us away from private sector solutions because of this, because the left is open arms to step in and take control, incrementally as opportunity presents itself, and unwilling to embrace private sector/free-market solutions empowering the consumer and others outside of government.
GM
January 24th, 2012
12:17 pm
Mitt:” I feel the American worker pain” of course you do $45 million will make you fell anything.
The previous generation did not vote for his dad, yet this generation of rep has him as the favorite, like I said earlier this generation of rep conservative are much more dumber then the previous generation of rep.
stands for decibels
January 24th, 2012
12:18 pm
When was the last time you saw an “everyday” person running for a major office?
hmm. this guy maybe?
RB from Gwinnett
January 24th, 2012
12:19 pm
Jay – “why would it be such a terrible idea to end the Bush tax cuts”
You know the tax rates enacted by Bush expired already, Jay. Stop lying to the people about that.
And be honest, you don’t really want anything to do with Bush’s tax decisions, you want the Obama tax increase on rich people and you’ve selected the 39% rate because it sells well with your “blame Bush” rhetoric and gets your base of sheep all riled up. If Obama wants to raise taxes on wealthy people, he needs to grow a pair, propose it, defend it, sell it, own it, and leave Bush out of it. He did leave office 3 years ago, you know…
Georgia, The " New Mississippi "
January 24th, 2012
12:19 pm
@ Tax Cheat or A Wife Cheat (Is this the Best Republicans Have To Offer?)
January 24th, 2012
11:45 am
Mormons recruit pretty hard in Warner Robins. They will talk to anyone that will listen. You have to acknowledge Joseph Smith as the chosen one and you are in. I have actually read through the Book of Mormom that was given to me. They copied the bible and added to the beginning of the books to make things ‘line up”. They have high ethical standards…… I could never be a Mormon or lay claim to any other religion that puts church doctrine ahead of the teachings of Jesus.
getalife
January 24th, 2012
12:20 pm
Poor rb,
He cries about attacking his hero w.
He was a disaster.
Admit it.
Man up son.
JOE Cool
January 24th, 2012
12:21 pm
Brosephus
January 24th, 2012
12:15 pm
No pushing the “everyday” person card, but one thing I personally know, is there are 2 different types of individuals who are rich: the ground up Vs Old Money. Give me the man/woman thats worked from the ground up, because he/she knows struggle.
JOE Cool
January 24th, 2012
12:23 pm
stands for decibels
January 24th, 2012
12:18 p
lol
JOE Cool
January 24th, 2012
12:24 pm
Sheeeeeeets
Erwin's cat
January 24th, 2012
12:24 pm
GM – I challenge you to make a post that doesn’t wreak of bigotry
RB from Gwinnett
January 24th, 2012
12:26 pm
getaclue, you’re a waste of blog space, dude. Go hump somebody else.
Marietta Al
January 24th, 2012
12:27 pm
Jay, not one mention that he gave away 16% of his income to charities of his choice. Libs are overlooking this every way they can. Did you or anyone on here give away 16%? That plus his taxes sums up to around 30% (I know you could figure that one out), half of which to the useless, wasteful government pockets.
WOODSTOCK MIKE
January 24th, 2012
12:28 pm
I hate Mitt Romney, he’s rich and I’m a loser!!
jewcowboy
January 24th, 2012
12:28 pm
Brosephus,
“When was the last time you saw an “everyday” person running for a major office?”
I was actually reminded of that yesterday when I heard about Rand Paul and his run in with TSA. Then Ron Paul jumping on it and condemning the TSA.
Well guess what, that is what millions of Americans go through…but feathers get ruffled when it is a Congress-critter. The Marquise de Pompadour would be proud.
Thulsa Doom
January 24th, 2012
12:32 pm
“I also find in interesting that Thulsa dismisses the CRS study as “biased” in some way based on nothing more than the fact that he doesn’t like its conclusion.”
Nope. I find it biased for the simple reason that 10 minutes into it it was plainly obvious with some of the blanket statements that the article was written with an agenda. That statement alone that both I and md immediately recognized as BS is specifically refuted by other govt studies such as the CBO report that I detailed below. Now the report I cite below is from 1988 but it studied cap. gains taxes and revenue and other aspects of tax policy over a 30 year time frame from 1954-84. And its much more indepth at 125 pages. That dinky little report you cited is terribly lacking.
“He offers no evidence that he even took the time the read the study.”
Check below Jay. And I can find plenty of articles that counter your obviously biased piece. As a matter of fact an Ohio State economist came out with a piece just a few days ago stating that the optimal cap. gains tax rate that optimizes federal tax revenues should be 9.9%. Not that I believe that though.
Bottom line Jay is that the majority of studies conducted on the cap. gains tax that I’ve seen indicate that a lower cap. gains tax maximizes tax revenue. There are some liberal articles and economists that state the optimal cap. gains tax rate could be as high as 25-33%. If that were true I would go with that.But regardless the interesting point is that the liberal pieces that I have read have it pegged that low and not at 40, 50, or 70% as top cap. gains tax rates.
And if we really want to throw away all the various reports lets just make it simple. Look up the IRS tax tables going back to the early 1920s. Look at cap. gains tax rates and tax revenues collected as a % of GNP. You will generally find that the lower the cap. gains tax rate the higher the % of taxes collected by the govt as a % of GNP. It wasn’t a perfect correlation but it looked to me like the roughly ideal rate is around 18-20% and of course there were years where we collected good taxes with rates at around 25-30% to bolster the liberal argument. But when cap. gains tax rates were substantially higher federal tax revenue dropped.
Bottom line is that jacking up cap. gains tax rates substantially is just going to come back and bite us in the butt with ultimately decreased economic activity and decreased tax revenue.
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/84xx/doc8449/88-CBO-007.pdf
Deb
January 24th, 2012
12:33 pm
GM,
Really? You think Obama earned his money the honest way? Didn’t you see that his tax returns were released, too? He and Michelle earned a paltry 1.8 million–poor Obabma? The annual pay for a president of the U..S is not quite a half million, so what are you thinking…..he has a second job to earn that extra million-plus the honest way? He’s a millionaire just like all those other “capitalists” that the left loves to hate.
Welcome to the Occupation
January 24th, 2012
12:36 pm
Deb: “Really? You think Obama earned his money the honest way? Didn’t you see that his tax returns were released, too? He and Michelle earned a paltry 1.8 million–poor Obabma? ”
Argument boils down to: yeah sure capitalists are corrupt, but what are you going to argue, that your guys are any better?
Our corrupt role models are better than your corrupt role models (to paraphrase Ann Coulter).
Blackmail.
Thulsa Doom
January 24th, 2012
12:37 pm
“When was the last time you saw an “everyday” person running for a major office?”
How about “the rent is too damn high” candidate?
http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=the+rent+is+too+damn+high+candidate&qpvt=the+rent+is+too+damn+high+candidate&FORM=VDRE#
DawgDad
January 24th, 2012
12:41 pm
“Then I respectfully submit the obvious question, what is?” [increasing the wealth gap]
Technology, primarily. Technology has expanded markets for products, services, and labor, enabled enormous economies of scale in reaching customers, transaction processing, accounting, finance, management, investment, arbitrage, production, you name it. The landscape of opportunity to generate huge profits from enormous volumes of small transactions is almost limitless.
Add in the effect of globalization on labor markets. Without globalization I might be making three times my current wage for the same work, based on wage growth up through the early mid nineties. Add in our ineffective banking and finance laws and inability of government and other institutions to fairly and effectively audit financial transactions, regulate securities, and bust monopolies and you see what we have. Add on top of that drugs, piracy, gun running, and other illegal activities.
Take your typicaly ghetto-born sports star or rap singer. No longer is he playing only to local paying customers at the stadium or in dive jazz halls, with only skimpy newspaper reports to a broader audience, he’s on satellite all over the world, marketing his name and image and performance or art all over the world.
Common Sense
January 24th, 2012
12:44 pm
So if I am to use the side of some of these bloggers that investment income should be taxed at a lower rate or no rate at all because the money used in that has already been taxed, why do I have to pay a high tax rate on my gambling profits? Aren’t the risk the same? And why should I pay sales tax on anything, the money I spent has already been taxed? You can’t have your cake and eat it too!
Welcome to the Occupation
January 24th, 2012
12:53 pm
DawgDag:
“Add in the effect of globalization on labor markets. Without globalization I might be making three times my current wage for the same work, based on wage growth up through the early mid nineties”
Doesn’t that upset you a little bit?
You’re way to forgiving of this ‘globalization’ thing by treating it as a natural, neutral economic development, instead of the deliberately orchestrated policy outcome that was lobbied for and brought about by specific interests.
Way too forgiving.
Gator Joe
January 24th, 2012
12:54 pm
Jay:
It’s hilarious to watch middle and lower economic class Republicans supporting, and fawning over, the likes of Romney, many out of their bigotry and racist tendencies. Blinded by their bigoted hatred of the President, they vote against their own self-interest. I picture these pathetic people kneeling aroung the supper table of the 1% waiting for crumbs and scraps to be tossed to them.
DawgDad
January 24th, 2012
12:57 pm
Common Sense: “why do I have to pay a high tax rate on my gambling profits” Good question. Why are cigarettes and alcohol taxed at higher rates than other products? Sin taxes. From a libertarian point of view these are noxious. For politicians, easier pickin’s.
As for sales taxes on top of income already taxed, they fund different levels of government. Now, you have an argument in the case of States with income tax and sales tax, though sales tax may capture back some wealth not derived from previously taxed income.
DawgDad
January 24th, 2012
1:02 pm
Gator: That’s a very bigoted (elitist?) view of middle and lower class Republicans.
DawgDad
January 24th, 2012
1:05 pm
Occupation: Don’t jump to conclusions. I used to live in Richard Gephardt’s district and witnessed up close what the Democrats did to him over his objections to NAFTA.
WOODSTOCK MIKE
January 24th, 2012
1:06 pm
Here’s a guy that gave over 7 million dollars to charity and you have these sick liberals bashing him for it. These liberals don’t give back a dime and sit here and bash somebody like Romney. How pathetic.
YOUR party SUCKS! But MINE is GRRRRRREAT! (formerly That Black Guy)
January 24th, 2012
1:07 pm
William Smith
January 24th, 2012
9:50 am
This is like a reverse of Robin Hood. Take from the poor and give to the rich
______________________________________________________________________________
Robin Hood took from the TAX COLLECTOR (gov’t) and gave back to the TAXPAYER. He didn’t go around looking for poor people to give the money to.
Sorry Charlie
January 24th, 2012
1:17 pm
Dog,
The labor to build that car is irelevant to me, because number one, it was 50 years ago and two, our business didn’t provide the labor to build it. It was already existing.
YOUR party SUCKS! But MINE is GRRRRRREAT! (formerly That Black Guy)
January 24th, 2012
1:20 pm
Who did the Obama administration pick to head OMB?
A Bain Capital executive.
http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/new-obama-omb-director-bain-alum/317976