what romney paid?

Doesn't matter how you structure the tiers. There will never be enough until those in Congress learn to budget - spend only what you take in.

Popcorn Eater wrote: 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.

I'm actually on your side of the debate here PE... and actually, that was the one thing that frustrated me during the SOTU... Obama first mentioned that Buffet payed a smaller percentage than his secretary. Then, in a closing of the same portion of the speech, said something like "we shouldn't have Buffet paying less than his secretary", but didn't include "by percentage". Buffet did NOT pay less taxes than his secretary, in fact he probably paid millions more than she did, than she ever will.

The best Obama can hope for in this election is turning the Haves against the Have-Nots. I do not think it will win him an election, but it will sure divide the parties since they are portrayed as supporting either one, or the other, regardless of the true fact that both parties have both types of people.

Something the Dog Said wrote: You guys are such tools! He manipulated his income to take advantage of loopholes in the tax codes that are not available to the middle class. For example, $13 million of his 2010, 2011 income was in "carried interest" that was taxed at the capital gains rate. However that "carried interest" was actually compensation earned through his equity fund. Instead of being paid salary, as would 99.9% of Americans, fund managers take their payment in the form of equity/profits which instead of being taxed at their personal income tax level, are only taxed at capital gains rate of 15%. It has been estimated that closing that loophole which is only available to a limited number of fund managers would save the US over $4 billion per year from only 25 fund managers, including Romney, Soras, etc. So Romney at the same time that Romney was leveraging the equity out of US companies at the cost of thousands of jobs, he was able to also dodge paying full taxes.

He also manipulated his IRA investments as well. If you or I borrow from our IRA for investment purposes, that is taxed at 35%. However, Romney structured his IRA in the Cayman Islands which are not covered by that law, thus allowing him to freely borrow from the IRA for investment purposes without paying US taxes on it.

Whether or not these are legal, they certainly are not ethical, particularly for someone who claims to want to help the middle class.

If the tax code is 72,000 pages in length (as of 2010), is Romney 'manipulating the code' or attempting to follow it to the letter? Name-calling aside, let's look at the accounting info:

"When Romney pays 15 percent to Uncle Sam, that's not the first time that money was taxed. J.D. Foster, the Norman B. Ture Senior Fellow in the Economics of Fiscal Policy at The Heritage Foundation, explains that Romney's money has likely gone through four levels of taxation, meaning that the level of taxation was at 50 percent and likely much higher:

At the very least, he paid nearly 45 percent, but a chunk of this tax was collected before he even saw the remainder. Income from capital gains and dividends means the income was first earned by businesses, most likely corporations which paid tax at 35 percent. So Romney paid his 15 percent only after the government had taken its 35 percent cut. That leaves Romney with a combined tax of 45 cents on the dollar of corporate earnings.

So that's two levels of taxation -- the corporate rate and the capital gains rate. But there's more. Foster explains that Romney's cash was likely subject to taxes on capital income repeatedly in the past. Few investments are one and done; rather, most are earned taxed dividends and capital gains over extended periods that are reinvested and taxed again and again. This is a third "level" of taxation. And then Romney was also taxed at the individual rate as wage or salary income--a fourth level. And that's how you get above 50 percent in taxes. (And don't forget that Romney contributes 15 percent of his income to charity--money that might not be available if the capital gains tax were raised as many liberals propose.)

Source: Heritage Foundation

Are four levels of taxation, topping out at 50 percent "fair" enough?" Can we agree here that the problem is the tax code, and not a matter of 'paying a fair share' or 'manipulating the code' - not just for Romney, but for everyone in this country?

But it's just so fun to castigate and vilify those in our society who have worked hard and had great success.

Note that all of the rates used are the maximum possible percentage with no loopholes attached. The average corporate percentage paid is more like 22%, so while the article makes a valid point, the percentages are way off.

swampfish wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote: You guys are such tools! He manipulated his income to take advantage of loopholes in the tax codes that are not available to the middle class. For example, $13 million of his 2010, 2011 income was in "carried interest" that was taxed at the capital gains rate. However that "carried interest" was actually compensation earned through his equity fund. Instead of being paid salary, as would 99.9% of Americans, fund managers take their payment in the form of equity/profits which instead of being taxed at their personal income tax level, are only taxed at capital gains rate of 15%. It has been estimated that closing that loophole which is only available to a limited number of fund managers would save the US over $4 billion per year from only 25 fund managers, including Romney, Soras, etc. So Romney at the same time that Romney was leveraging the equity out of US companies at the cost of thousands of jobs, he was able to also dodge paying full taxes.

He also manipulated his IRA investments as well. If you or I borrow from our IRA for investment purposes, that is taxed at 35%. However, Romney structured his IRA in the Cayman Islands which are not covered by that law, thus allowing him to freely borrow from the IRA for investment purposes without paying US taxes on it.

Whether or not these are legal, they certainly are not ethical, particularly for someone who claims to want to help the middle class.

If the tax code is 72,000 pages in length (as of 2010), is Romney 'manipulating the code' or attempting to follow it to the letter? Name-calling aside, let's look at the accounting info:

"When Romney pays 15 percent to Uncle Sam, that's not the first time that money was taxed. J.D. Foster, the Norman B. Ture Senior Fellow in the Economics of Fiscal Policy at The Heritage Foundation, explains that Romney's money has likely gone through four levels of taxation, meaning that the level of taxation was at 50 percent and likely much higher:

At the very least, he paid nearly 45 percent, but a chunk of this tax was collected before he even saw the remainder. Income from capital gains and dividends means the income was first earned by businesses, most likely corporations which paid tax at 35 percent. So Romney paid his 15 percent only after the government had taken its 35 percent cut. That leaves Romney with a combined tax of 45 cents on the dollar of corporate earnings.

So that's two levels of taxation -- the corporate rate and the capital gains rate. But there's more. Foster explains that Romney's cash was likely subject to taxes on capital income repeatedly in the past. Few investments are one and done; rather, most are earned taxed dividends and capital gains over extended periods that are reinvested and taxed again and again. This is a third "level" of taxation. And then Romney was also taxed at the individual rate as wage or salary income--a fourth level. And that's how you get above 50 percent in taxes. (And don't forget that Romney contributes 15 percent of his income to charity--money that might not be available if the capital gains tax were raised as many liberals propose.)

Source: Heritage Foundation

Are four levels of taxation, topping out at 50 percent "fair" enough?" Can we agree here that the problem is the tax code, and not a matter of 'paying a fair share' or 'manipulating the code' - not just for Romney, but for everyone in this country?

First, I did not accuse Romney of manipulating the "code" but of manipulating his income so his compensation would not be taxed as ordinary income, as 99.9% of the population is. Second, you are incorrect in stating that his "investment" is already taxed at the corporate rate. It is not, it is classified as "carried interest" and was not previously taxed. Romney took advantage of a loophole that is only available to fund managers who are able to classify their compensation as "carried interest" which is not taxed at the corporate level, is not taxed as ordinary income, and instead is only taxed at 15%. Neither you or I are able to classify our compensation in this manner.

That is why I refer to you guys as tools, because you simply regurgitate the conservative talking points without bothering to understand the facts.

And poor Mitt lives in Taxachussets so what the Feds don't get, Boston will.

Something the Dog Said wrote: First, I did not accuse Romney of manipulating the "code" but of manipulating his income so his compensation would not be taxed as ordinary income, as 99.9% of the population is. Second, you are incorrect in stating that his "investment" is already taxed at the corporate rate. It is not, it is classified as "carried interest" and was not previously taxed. Romney took advantage of a loophole that is only available to fund managers who are able to classify their compensation as "carried interest" which is not taxed at the corporate level, is not taxed as ordinary income, and instead is only taxed at 15%. Neither you or I are able to classify our compensation in this manner.

That is why I refer to you guys as tools, because you simply regurgitate the conservative talking points without bothering to understand the facts.

Can you explain how Romney manipulated his income to get carried interest? You make it sound like he pesonally did something very ominous. The only "ominous" thing I can see is he did work as a hedge fund manager. Carried interest is the main way fund managers get compensated. Did he do something sneaky?

Now I will agree that carried interest should be taxed at a higher rate because unlike capital gains or dividends, the fund manager does not need to have his own money invested. He is basically getting a cut of the profit that his fund generates for his investors. The only risk I see is if his fund fails to produce, he may not get his carried interest. Also carried interest has not already been taxed as have dividends and capital gains (to a lesser extent, I think), another reason it should be taxed at a higher rate.

If you are jealous, just go get a job as a hedge fund manager. Good luck. Romney did nothing wrong that I can see, it's the law that needs changing. He paid every dime he owed. And if you don't wan't to pay any capital gains tax at all you can do something even Romney can't do. Just don't make enough money to get out of the 15% tax bracket. Maybe we should eliminate that "loophole" too, or how about the earned income credit "loophole" where you can get money back from the government even if you owe zero taxes? Rich people can't get that one either.

One other example to add...

Probably 99.9% of tax payers don't qualify for certain tax credits such as the energy credit. Is a tax payer unethical or unpatriotic as you have accused Romney if they take advantage of the energy credit or get a tax break for buying a Prius?

Turbo Tax.

pineinthegrass wrote: [Probably 99.9% of tax payers don't qualify for certain tax credits such as the energy credit. Is a tax payer unethical or unpatriotic as you have accused Romney if they take advantage of the energy credit or get a tax break for buying a Prius?

Or a wood stove.