what romney paid?

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%.

Why... it's not fair that everyone contribute equally? Why not. Seems very fair to me.

RCCL wrote:

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?

When you say you are paying 32% in taxes, are you just talking about federal income tax? Because if so, you are making very good money. You'd have to be well into the top 35% tax bracket and make over $900K if single or around $1.1 million if married. And I'm just assuming all your income is from wages and you take the standard deduction. If you itemize, have tax credits, or capital gains you can make far more before you pay 32%.

Just to give you an idea of the effective federal income rate that people actually pay after deductions, credits, "loopholes", etc, here is a table from the CBO...

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=456

For 2007 the middle 20% of income earners paid just 3%, while the top 1% paid an effective rate of 19%.

The bottom 40% on average paid nothing and got money back.

This topic has been about federal income tax, but the table also shows effective tax rates for all federal taxes including payroll taxes.

For 2007 the middle 20% paid 14.3% while the top 1% paid 29.5%. So the top 1% is still paying an effecive federal tax rate more than twice what the middle 20% pays.

Hmmm...

Nope, not making that kind of money...

I should say, I think that percentage was based off of all of my take-outs, federal and state combined... but...

lemmie re-check my math from last year real quick

archer wrote: 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.

I would not argue against the need for a strong federal government to conduct the union's foreign and federal relations archer, but the reality of the situation is that the Revolutionary War was fought to eliminate being ruled over by a central government endowed with plenary power. The Constitution did not establish a single united State and a central entity with the sovereignty to govern it. It established a federal government with the power and authority to administer a limited portion of the sovereignty that the free, independent and sovereign states themselves possessed. The federal government itself is not sovereign, it has delegated powers, not sovereign authority.

We can't spend our way to prosperity, nor tax our way out of the debt hole the federal government has sunk the union of states into seeking to exercise sovereignty over the individual welfare of the citizens of the states that it does not actually possess. We can't cut our way out of it either for that matter. The only way out of this hole is to stop digging it deeper and to grow our way out. If that means that the states have to bear the burden for their own citizens instead of expecting everyone else to pitch in towards that effort, then that is what will have to occur. It is not military spending that has created the debt, nor the spending on working infrastructure. There have indeed been times when such spending was the primary reason for incurring debt, the world wars, the building of the interstate system among them, but such is not the case today. The cause of the debt today is the individual welfare spending. I am not responsible, even partially, for making sure that someone who is a citizen of New York does not grow old without fear of becoming destitute, that is a problem for the State of New York to address for its citizens. I am not a citizen of New York, nor am I the citizen of a single united state, I am a citizen of the State of Colorado. This is the republic, and how it is to operate, that was created by the Constitution. If a different republic, or the elimination of the republic to be replaced by a single state, is thought to be the most desirable then by all means, let's have that discussion and amend our Constitution to reflect that change. If you think you can get 75% of the states to agree to surrender their independence and sovereignty in favor of having a single state with a single sovereign government the let's see if you are correct in that belief and start the amendment process. I'm willing to have that debate and accept the consequences that result from it. Are you?

Are you willing to place the interpreted power seized by the federal government to address the individual welfare of the citizens as it is currently doing on the line and dispense with any question regarding the matter once and for all? A single sovereign government would, after all, unquestionably have the plenary authority to compel its citizens to purchase health insurance. I'm more than willing to forever answer through the amendment process provide for in our Constitution what the limits, or lack of limits, there are on the federal government. I'm willing to clearly define whether the powers exercised by the federal government are sovereign to the federal government or delegated powers where the sovereignty still belongs to the States that have joined the union. I'm willing to clearly define through the amendment process whether the States that belong to the union may or may not succeed from the union. I'm willing to clearly define via amendment whether this is a single united nation or a union of free, independent and sovereign states and then take whatever steps are necessary to align our current laws with how the question is decided. If the answer is that this is a union of independent and sovereign states that have the ability to withdraw from the union at any point in time I am more than willing to sacrifice any claim I may have upon the federal government and the posterity (not that there is really any question that I already have none) for what I have contributed towards ensuring that I will not wind up poor and destitute in my old age and rely instead solely upon the citizens of my own state to address this matter as they think best.

I'm willing to entirely do away with any questions or opinions on these matters that is subject to being interpreted or reinterpreted one way or the other depending upon which political philosophy happens to hold majority power at any given point in time. The time has come, in fact is far overdue, for these matters to be conclusively decided by the consent of the governed instead of interpreted by the reigning political philosophy that happens to have 5 or more votes sitting in one court, a representative sitting behind a single desk, 60 or more seats occupied in the Senate and 218 or more seats occupied in the House of Representatives. As long as the answer to any of these questions is a matter of opinion or interpretation, there is really no absolute answer to any of the questions. I think the union needs a definitive and final answer to these fundamental questions that comes from the people themselves before it becomes irrelevant and the union is nothing more than the latest in a long line of failed empires.

RCCL wrote: Hmmm...

Nope, not making that kind of money...

I should say, I think that percentage was based off of all of my take-outs, federal and state combined... but...

lemmie re-check my math from last year real quick

Yes, that's probably it. If you are in the top 10% of earners, from the table you pay about 27% for all federal taxes. If you add in the state income tax then you are getting close to 32%.

The Romney discussion has been just about the effective rate of federal income tax paid. The best way to see what your effective federal tax is would be to check your last year's tax return. Just divide your total tax (line 61 on a 1040) by your adjusted gross income (line 37).

As I've mentioned before I'll bet most people on this board paid a lower effective fed income tax rate than even Romney did (I think he was 13.9%). We were well below that and the middle 20% of income earners only average 3%.

Side note: everyone is "shocked" that Romney made 21 million and how he made it. Former President Bill Clinton made 76 million, how did he make it? Peddling influence like Newt Gingrich? Speaking fees? Why would companies pay a disbarred attorney that much?

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.

Do yo make any dividends from stocks?

Sooo...

I have a correction...

my Federal income tax is around 15-16%

Sometimes I should really learn to look, then post... :Whistle

I'm going to go sit in the corner, now....

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote:

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%.

Why... it's not fair that everyone contribute equally? Why not. Seems very fair to me.

Just want to point out that I generally agree with GOP twin (as I usually do, but he is so busy posting to notice).

But now after 6 or 7 pages or political discussions that add up as usuall....why not discuss what is fair in regards to the language being used, I brough this up in the 2nd post!!!!

Why is the % the measure of fairness. why not $$$'s you simply ignored me, but continue to discuss this without the numbers.

We do everything else in $'s.

How does someone who pays $6 milllion at 15% getting away with anything even if it goes to 1% of his income

THAT IS STILL $400,000 - which is about what most of you will pay in taxes your whole life over to every govt you have ever served.
If you want more of his money to run your lives or to "Pay his share" you are just complaining because you were not as capable, get over it.

It would be reasonable to complain if you made $60k and he made $60k and you paid 30% and he paid 10%....now lets talk %, because it is a % of a fixed number. Otherwise, the fact that Americans are bad at math, and even worse at understanding the fundimentals behind it, is very apparent in this threat and the popular attitude.

But I understand, you all want more money coming into your families without earning it, greed is very powerful...it makes you feel like it is appropriate to talk about money with this symbol % vs. this one $.

Next we can have the convo and I can explain the subtlies of relative humidity vs. absolute and why your beer can gets wet on a hot humid day, and you can use the logic in this thread and deny the water on the can because it is not raining. Get it?

If you want more, earn more, if you need help and cannot hack it, admit it and half the problem is solved. The problem will go on as long as able people believe they need any other citizen to contribute more than they do. If you are able, why do you need someone else's $ or %.

How about one fixed amount for those that don't collect any public funds directly (that discludes people in with kids in the school system) and another for those in need. Divide the amount that those in need...need by the number of people over 18 in the first group and send out bills. 1,000,000 accountants free to dig more ditches.

This is the symbol for 2012 greed (%)....this is the symbol for American money ($).

FredHayek wrote: Side note: everyone is "shocked" that Romney made 21 million and how he made it. Former President Bill Clinton made 76 million, how did he make it? Peddling influence like Newt Gingrich? Speaking fees? Why would companies pay a disbarred attorney that much?

He was president.

He was also president during the best economic times in recent history....and since people on here like to give the pres credit for everything that we do on his watch.....

You know this.

Remember the only thing that really disgraced his is not commonly accepted in politics (cheating etc.).

So RCCL...how much did you pay in fed taxes....not %, how much? Since you were posting numbers so we can compare/contrast...I would like to contrast the amount you paid vs. the millions the Romney's paid, rather than compare the similar percentages that are in reality not even close the the same contribution. Let's say you made $100k and paid $15k vs. the Romney's what say $3mil in taxes last year. That would mean they paid 200x what you paid....in % for those addicted....that is 20,000% more or in words, the Romney's likely paid twenty thousand percent more than RCCL's family...or for most out here it is twenty to fifty thousand percent less than the Romney's paid. So if obsessed with %, why not use these %s. So you can have the same % of income in taxes but pay 50,000% more in $s....hmmm now those are real %s.

Let's just admit we want other people's money without earning it. It is not about the poor or needy, it is about your family and getting more for less.