what romney paid?

Martin Ent Inc wrote: He paid what was legally owed, get over it if you paid more then you had to or didn't take advantage of the tax rules then Bwah ha.

I don't have to get it over it. If you support subsidizing a billionaire with your taxes, then hey, vote for him and bend over and enjoy.

Something the Dog Said wrote:

Martin Ent Inc wrote: He paid what was legally owed, get over it if you paid more then you had to or didn't take advantage of the tax rules then Bwah ha.

I don't have to get it over it. If you support subsidizing a billionaire with your taxes, then hey, vote for him and bend over and enjoy.

Good thing he doesn't need to do that because Romney is nowhere close to being a billionaire.

I take ever advantage I can as far as being self employed I pay very little

Martin Ent Inc wrote: I take ever advantage I can as far as being self employed I pay very little

You must be a very proud patriot.

Yes, Yes I am. because the the Illegal tax law says I can so get over it.

Something the Dog Said wrote:

Martin Ent Inc wrote: He paid what was legally owed, get over it if you paid more then you had to or didn't take advantage of the tax rules then Bwah ha.

I don't have to get it over it. If you support subsidizing a billionaire with your taxes, then hey, vote for him and bend over and enjoy.

How is not taxing someone now equated with a subsidy? I mean, I understand how the government writing a check to your landlord, or putting cash on your SNAPS card, or paying the school district for the breakfast and lunch that your child eats at school is a subsidy, but I don't understand how not appropriating your money all of sudden became the equivalent of the government subsidizing you.

Another thing I don't understand. In principle I sort of agree that Warren Buffet shouldn't be taxed at a lower rate than his secretary is, but what I don't understand, especially when it is the middle and lower classes that are struggling at the moment, is why the solution to this situation is to tax Warren Buffet more rather than to tax his secretary less. 15% off the top for one level of government, plus all of the excise taxes levied by the feds to match the income tax paid by the secretary to fund the social welfare programs (which is a separate income tax from the other income tax that is levied on a sliding scale), plus all of the excise taxes levied on telephones and energy (which is levied at a higher rate for companies than it is for Buffet's secretary), plus the excise tax levied by the feds for unemployment, plus the federal corporate income tax (which the president himself tonight admitted was one of the highest to be found anywhere on the planet), plus a few more miscellaneous taxes here and there, seems to be a pretty "fair" share of the tax burden for one person to bear after all. Why is the "progressive" solution to a perceived lack of fairness always to raise the taxes on one group rather than to lower the taxes of another group to the same level that the first group is already paying?

The "middle class", which, according to the president is a combined income of less than $250K per year, are not paying the majority of the income tax anyway, so how much could it really cost to lower the rate at which they are currently being taxed to match the tax rate currently levied against the "rich" folks who are earning more than that? We can't, after all, spend our way to prosperity or tax our way out of this debt, and we all agree a stronger middle class will be beneficial to the union's economy, and growing the economy is the only way to get us out of the hole our general government has dug us into, and we all agree that increasing the amount of money retained by the middle class will make it stronger (which is why the income tax rate for the social welfare programs was cut by 2% - a tax cut which the president favors extending according to his speech tonight), so why not strengthen the middle class by lowering their other income tax burden to the same level that the rich folks are paying?

Raising the taxes on the rich won't help the middle class any, they will still be paying out as much as they were before, right? Only lowering the taxes levied on the middle class will help them at the current time and lowering it to the same level that the rich are taxed would seem to accomplish making the tax rates "fair" according to the defined parameters of the "progressive" new "Buffet Rule" that Obama came up with. Why then isn't this avenue being pursued? I'm certain that bipartisan support could be found for cutting the taxes for the middle class, why, I'm even certain that bipartisan support could be secured without further cutting the current tax rates levied against the "rich" folks out there. It lowers taxes, which Republicans love, and it helps strengthen the middle class, which is a priority for Obama's reelection campaign. That's what anyone would call win-win no matter which side of the aisle the sit on, isn't it?

PrintSmith wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote:

Martin Ent Inc wrote: He paid what was legally owed, get over it if you paid more then you had to or didn't take advantage of the tax rules then Bwah ha.

I don't have to get it over it. If you support subsidizing a billionaire with your taxes, then hey, vote for him and bend over and enjoy.

How is not taxing someone now equated with a subsidy? I mean, I understand how the government writing a check to your landlord, or putting cash on your SNAPS card, or paying the school district for the breakfast and lunch that your child eats at school is a subsidy, but I don't understand how not appropriating your money all of sudden became the equivalent of the government subsidizing you.

Another thing I don't understand. In principle I sort of agree that Warren Buffet shouldn't be taxed at a lower rate than his secretary is, but what I don't understand, especially when it is the middle and lower classes that are struggling at the moment, is why the solution to this situation is to tax Warren Buffet more rather than to tax his secretary less. 15% off the top for one level of government, plus all of the excise taxes levied by the feds to match the income tax paid by the secretary to fund the social welfare programs (which is a separate income tax from the other income tax that is levied on a sliding scale), plus all of the excise taxes levied on telephones and energy (which is levied at a higher rate for companies than it is for Buffet's secretary), plus the excise tax levied by the feds for unemployment, plus the federal corporate income tax (which the president himself tonight admitted was one of the highest to be found anywhere on the planet), plus a few more miscellaneous taxes here and there, seems to be a pretty "fair" share of the tax burden for one person to bear after all. Why is the "progressive" solution to a perceived lack of fairness always to raise the taxes on one group rather than to lower the taxes of another group to the same level that the first group is already paying?

The "middle class", which, according to the president is a combined income of less than $250K per year, are not paying the majority of the income tax anyway, so how much could it really cost to lower the rate at which they are currently being taxed to match the tax rate currently levied against the "rich" folks who are earning more than that? We can't, after all, spend our way to prosperity or tax our way out of this debt, and we all agree a stronger middle class will be beneficial to the union's economy, and growing the economy is the only way to get us out of the hole our general government has dug us into, and we all agree that increasing the amount of money retained by the middle class will make it stronger (which is why the income tax rate for the social welfare programs was cut by 2% - a tax cut which the president favors extending according to his speech tonight), so why not strengthen the middle class by lowering their other income tax burden to the same level that the rich folks are paying?

Raising the taxes on the rich won't help the middle class any, they will still be paying out as much as they were before, right? Only lowering the taxes levied on the middle class will help them at the current time and lowering it to the same level that the rich are taxed would seem to accomplish making the tax rates "fair" according to the defined parameters of the "progressive" new "Buffet Rule" that Obama came up with. Why then isn't this avenue being pursued? I'm certain that bipartisan support could be found for cutting the taxes for the middle class, why, I'm even certain that bipartisan support could be secured without further cutting the current tax rates levied against the "rich" folks out there. It lowers taxes, which Republicans love, and it helps strengthen the middle class, which is a priority for Obama's reelection campaign. That's what anyone would call win-win no matter which side of the aisle the sit on, isn't it?

Lowering taxes on everyone, and there by lowering revenue, will not solve our mounting debt problem, or balance our budget. Unless you are willing to start cutting into the very things that make this nation the greatest this world has ever seen.....a strong military, and infrastructure that works, people growing old without fear of being destitute, innovations and research in health care, some of the finest artistic talent in the world, the list is endless.....but it takes money, and a central government to keep it working. We might as well become 50 separate nations.....then we WOULD be just another European Union, and we all see how well that is working out. Be careful what you wish for....if the Republicans have their way, and manage to lower taxes and cut into all the social programs the military and where ever else they can to make ends meet......pick a wealthy state to live in, because the poor states, and we have plenty of them, will become one "Greece" right after another.....without a central government that is strong, we are no longer a "United" States. You get what you pay for, and apparently no one wants to pay for this nation to grow and prosper......so let it die I guess. It was a great trip while it lasted.

Remember al gore's hockey stick? That is how much federal spending has increased in the last decade. It is unsustainable and increasing taxes 10% will add up to nothing when the Dc crowd is spending $2 for every one we take in. Back to mitt, a man who pays 13% in taxes and 13% to charities while also providing capital to companies starting out is being a good American.

Something the Dog Said wrote:

Martin Ent Inc wrote: He paid what was legally owed, get over it if you paid more then you had to or didn't take advantage of the tax rules then Bwah ha.

I don't have to get it over it. If you support subsidizing a billionaire with your taxes, then hey, vote for him and bend over and enjoy.

How do you justify you're "tax the rich more" rhetoric with this little fact...

Why does the president want to increase America's tax burden? You may think it's just a way to increase revenues and reduce the deficit. But even the president knows he can't solve the fiscal crisis by helping himself to bigger and bigger chunks of the income of America's most successful people. Even if individuals earning more than $200,000 were taxed at a 100 percent marginal rate--and we confiscated their passports so they could not flee--the take would come to $1.27 trillion, or just 77 percent of this year's deficit.

http://www.aei.org/article/society-and- ... les-money/

I have a better idea... cut spending.

Something the Dog Said wrote: Except that the flat tax codes that the Republicans have proposed would increase the tax burden on the middle class while lowering it for the 1%.

This is exactly what I was getting at earlier... what is "fair", and why hasn't Romney satisfied his?

I disagree with this very statement, because I truly believe you're arguing two sides of the same coin. Let's just throw out some random percentages here:

According to your sentiments, you believe (based on Romney anyway) that every person with the ability pays an effective 15% tax rate, would this be accurate? They all take the Capital Gains tax instead of income tax in most circumstances. Let's just assume that's true.

I don't know about the average, but I pay about 32% of my income to taxes each year with very little in refund. I make good money, but obviously not as much as I'd like.

Would you suggest a situation in which, as an example, Capital Gains are taxed the same as income tax, but across the board taxes are set at a lower rate, say... 22%?

Yes, those who pay less than 22% now would have to be brought into consideration, but is this what you are envisioning when you say "fair"? Is a flat-tax by percentage, or by percentage of income relative to national expenditures? At what point are you willing to say that a Progressive tax system is fair? the "rich" would end up paying more, not less, as you stated, correct?