Romney Releases Tax Info

inlet13

he still stands wrote:

http://news.yahoo.com/romney-reports-tax-bill-6-2-million-2010-050445144.html

paid 13.9% last year. I paid 23.8% on an income that amounts to 0.306% of Romney's income.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Let's kinda correct something.... He paid a hell of a lot more than 13.9% last year "in taxes".

The majority of his money is taxed twice (because of the investments), where your money (most likely) is not (at least to that degree). So, first, it's taxed at roughly 35% (corporate tax), then later taxed at 13.9% (capital gains). That's a lot when you add it up. Moreover, for him to invest that money in corporations is a good thing. It provides them with capital which can and does spill over to direct and indirect job creation. In other words, it can grant the treasury with more tax dollars (via new jobs).

Finally, every Presidential candidate including Obama wants to lower the corporate tax rate (because it's the highest in the industrialized world)... which would mean he would pay less in totality, because once again, he's taxed at 35% first.

I don't like Romney and there's plenty of places/areas to attack him, but I don't care about his taxes (provided he paid them). In my memory, we didn't do this sort of thing with John Kerry and Al Gore (other incredibly wealthy Presidential Candidates). This, and the upcoming campaign to take him down, is class warfare 101.... instead, we should be focusing on his shaky ideas on the economy, etc.

markin ball

brianlux wrote:

Many of us who are self-employed pay about 1/3. :wtf:

30%? Yikes. I paid 7% to 10% of my gross 2004-2011.

markin ball

inlet13 wrote:

he still stands wrote:

http://news.yahoo.com/romney-reports-tax-bill-6-2-million-2010-050445144.html

paid 13.9% last year. I paid 23.8% on an income that amounts to 0.306% of Romney's income.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Let's kinda correct something.... He paid a hell of a lot more than 13.9% last year "in taxes".

The majority of his money is taxed twice (because of the investments), where your money (most likely) is not (at least to that degree). So, first, it's taxed at roughly 35% (corporate tax), then later taxed at 13.9% (capital gains). That's a lot when you add it up. Moreover, for him to invest that money in corporations is a good thing. It provides them with capital which can and does spill over to direct and indirect job creation. In other words, it can grant the treasury with more tax dollars (via new jobs).

Finally, every Presidential candidate including Obama wants to lower the corporate tax rate (because it's the highest in the industrialized world)... which would mean he would pay less in totality, because once again, he's taxed at 35% first.

I don't like Romney and there's plenty of places/areas to attack him, but I don't care about his taxes (provided he paid them). In my memory, we didn't do this sort of thing with John Kerry and Al Gore (other incredibly wealthy Presidential Candidates). This, and the upcoming campaign to take him down, is class warfare 101.... instead, we should be focusing on his shaky ideas on the economy, etc.

So he's taxed at 35% first. It sure doesn't end that way. But I see your point in that with a tax code as complicated as the U.S.'s, you really need to gather all the info on deductions, charitable contributions, credits, incentives, etc., before making these types of "unfair" claims. That's a lot of homework, though.

BH10628

Don't hate the players hate the game.

This is not a Republican vs. Democrat or Romney vs. Obama issue. It isn't fair to criticize someone for what they pay when the government has established a system that they are abiding by. No one in their right mind is going to pay more than required by law. It isn't Romney, Buffett, Gore, Kerry, etc's. fault that our government created these loopholes. No one on this board would have paid more taxes than Romney if they traded places with him. The rules are the problem, not the law-abiding citizens that are governed by the rules.

Look at the bottom of this webpage. You might notice it says Ten Club, LLC. Why is it an LLC? Because LLC's get different (preferred) tax treatment than corporations. It's not Ten Club or PJ's fault for establishing themselves in a manner which minimizes their tax obligations nor is it Romney or anyone else's.

Jeanwah

Ya know what would actually make Romney look good? Joining forces with Buffet and now Gates. Let the public know that as a top 1 percenter and candidate for POTUS, he would tax himself higher, which would actually make himself look good. Because right now, there is no connection with the top 1% and the 99%. He may as well write himself off right now because there's no way he'll get in the White House with a 99% vote.

Cosmo

Romney makes in two day... more than I make in one year. That includes my bonuses and company matching to my 401K.
...
And what does Romney do for a living, again?

fife

unsung wrote:

Shouldn't have to pay anything. It is wrong, the government decides how much you can keep?

so how would defense be paid?

inlet13

Cosmo wrote:

Romney makes in two day... more than I make in one year. That includes my bonuses and company matching to my 401K.
...
And what does Romney do for a living, again?

So does Vince Carter (the washed up basketball player). He plays basketball and won't make the all-star team.... yet he earns roughly what Romney does.

There are plenty more dumb examples of people who make a ton of money and make more than you do in two days.

fear4freedom

Many of the people on here are really stupid! WOW

If you raise Capital Gains .....you give away all incentives for companies from around the world to come here and do business here! You take away incentive to strive and be entrepreneurial! You take away everything from creation of jobs to real estate moguls! You take away contractors, architects, engineers, metal and wood shops and all those jobs! WOW you people are DUMB!

ROMNEY PAYS DOUBLE WHAT ALL YOU PAY! DOUBLE! Get your facts straight!

brandon10

fear4freedom wrote:

Many of the people on here are really stupid! WOW

If you raise Capital Gains .....you give away all incentives for companies from around the world to come here and do business here! You take away incentive to strive and be entrepreneurial! You take away everything from creation of jobs to real estate moguls! You take away contractors, architects, engineers, metal and wood shops and all those jobs! WOW you people are DUMB!

ROMNEY PAYS DOUBLE WHAT ALL YOU PAY! DOUBLE! Get your facts straight!

Oh ya right, you are so smart. If we raise taxes for the wealthy they are all going to leave and take their businesses to countries that wont tax them like Indonesia, China, Mexico, and Korea. Have you seen the infrastructure or standard of living in these countries? That's where you are headed smart guy....

Wobbie

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

"He makes his money the same way I make my money," Buffett said. "He makes money by moving around big bucks, not by straining his back or going to work and cleaning toilets or whatever it may be. He makes it shoving around money."

do I or do I ?

kenny olav

fear4freedom wrote:

Many of the people on here are really stupid! WOW

If you raise Capital Gains .....you give away all incentives for companies from around the world to come here and do business here! You take away incentive to strive and be entrepreneurial! You take away everything from creation of jobs to real estate moguls! You take away contractors, architects, engineers, metal and wood shops and all those jobs! WOW you people are DUMB!

ROMNEY PAYS DOUBLE WHAT ALL YOU PAY! DOUBLE! Get your facts straight!

The Buffett Rule that Obama endorses only applies to those with incomes (including capital gains) above $1 million for the year. He wouldn't raise the capital gains tax itself. Obama's plan would simply ensure that no one who earned over a million bucks in a year will pay less than 30% in taxes for that year. That's just a basic level of fairness... I think he should go further.

How stupid am I to think this way?

Albert Einstein was an avowed socialist. You are no Einstein.

But I'm sorry, I've contributed to some of the nasty name calling around here. I'm really going to try not to let my disdain for Republican/conservative/libertarian policies get the best of me from now on.

SweetChildofMine

kenny olav wrote:

fear4freedom wrote:

Many of the people on here are really stupid! WOW

If you raise Capital Gains .....you give away all incentives for companies from around the world to come here and do business here! You take away incentive to strive and be entrepreneurial! You take away everything from creation of jobs to real estate moguls! You take away contractors, architects, engineers, metal and wood shops and all those jobs! WOW you people are DUMB!

ROMNEY PAYS DOUBLE WHAT ALL YOU PAY! DOUBLE! Get your facts straight!

The Buffett Rule that Obama endorses only applies to those with incomes (including capital gains) above $1 million for the year. He wouldn't raise the capital gains tax itself. Obama's plan would simply ensure that no one who earned over a million bucks in a year will pay less than 30% in taxes for that year. That's just a basic level of fairness... I think he should go further.

How stupid am I to think this way?

Albert Einstein was an avowed socialist. You are no Einstein.

But I'm sorry, I've contributed to some of the nasty name calling around here. I'm really going to try not to let my disdain for Republican/conservative/libertarian policies get the best of me from now on.

I thought we already gave away all the incentives of companies to start businesses here. Stop making up lies for these people. These people and corporations in the upper eschelons need to pay taxes. Besides when is the last time a corporation had money was concerned enough about creating jobs or kept people on their payroll when it interfered with profit? FACE IT. These people suck off the fat porkbarrel teet of government and dont pay back into the system that made them wealthy in the first place.

mikepegg44

has any one given any thought to the idea that people like buffet and others want more taxes so they can benefit further from government contracts? There is no doubt in my mind that people like Buffet benefit from the government having more money.

Does anyone think this money will be used for the good of the people? Any tax increase should be accompanied by legislation that makes it a crime to spend any increase in revenue on anything but the national debt.

interesting side notes: berkshire hathaway owes back taxes. if Buffet says people like him should pay more, why is the company haggling over the amount they owe? shouldn't they just pay what the IRS says they owe?

also, berkshire hathaway received around 200 million in government contracts in 07, cannot find any other data as of right now in a quick search...

interesting that a man whose company benefits greatly from government contracts and spending would want higher taxes isn't it? my question stands...does anyone think that the raise in revenue from a tax like this will go to benefit the people or pay for the debt?

kenny olav

mikepegg44 wrote:

has any one given any thought to the idea that people like buffet and others want more taxes so they can benefit further from government contracts? There is no doubt in my mind that people like Buffet benefit from the government having more money.

Does anyone think this money will be used for the good of the people? Any tax increase should be accompanied by legislation that makes it a crime to spend any increase in revenue on anything but the national debt.

interesting side notes: berkshire hathaway owes back taxes. if Buffet says people like him should pay more, why is the company haggling over the amount they owe? shouldn't they just pay what the IRS says they owe?

also, berkshire hathaway received around 200 million in government contracts in 07, cannot find any other data as of right now in a quick search...

interesting that a man whose company benefits greatly from government contracts and spending would want higher taxes isn't it? my question stands...does anyone think that the raise in revenue from a tax like this will go to benefit the people or pay for the debt?

I don't want to overly defend Buffett, but it's not uncommon for companies to owe back taxes or for it to take years to sort out with the IRS. Is there a scheme to tax millionaires for the purpose of enriching Buffett? That seems far-fetched to me.

The issue here is tax fairness. Economic fairness, really.

I think annual incomes should cap out at about $500 grand. I just don't see how it's possible to justifiably earn more than that.

I really wish Barack Obama was a socialist. I also wish we didn't have a President or Senate, but a Prime Minister who presides over a multi-party parliament, but getting back to reality... I think that in this election, there is a clear choice between two imperfect parties.

cincybearcat

kenny olav wrote:

The Buffett Rule that Obama endorses only applies to those with incomes (including capital gains) above $1 million for the year. H

This in addition to raising income taxes on those "millionaires" that make as a couple >$250,000. And here I thought Obama was an educated man. Must have skipped math class.

mikepegg44

kenny olav wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

has any one given any thought to the idea that people like buffet and others want more taxes so they can benefit further from government contracts? There is no doubt in my mind that people like Buffet benefit from the government having more money.

Does anyone think this money will be used for the good of the people? Any tax increase should be accompanied by legislation that makes it a crime to spend any increase in revenue on anything but the national debt.

interesting side notes: berkshire hathaway owes back taxes. if Buffet says people like him should pay more, why is the company haggling over the amount they owe? shouldn't they just pay what the IRS says they owe?

also, berkshire hathaway received around 200 million in government contracts in 07, cannot find any other data as of right now in a quick search...

interesting that a man whose company benefits greatly from government contracts and spending would want higher taxes isn't it? my question stands...does anyone think that the raise in revenue from a tax like this will go to benefit the people or pay for the debt?

I don't want to overly defend Buffett, but it's not uncommon for companies to owe back taxes or for it to take years to sort out with the IRS. Is there a scheme to tax millionaires for the purpose of enriching Buffett? That seems far-fetched to me.

The issue here is tax fairness. Economic fairness, really.

I think annual incomes should cap out at about $500 grand. I just don't see how it's possible to justifiably earn more than that.

I really wish Barack Obama was a socialist. I also wish we didn't have a President or Senate, but a Prime Minister who presides over a multi-party parliament, but getting back to reality... I think that in this election, there is a clear choice between two imperfect parties.

The issue here is tax fairness. Economic fairness, really.

but that is my point with the question, it isn't the theory I necessarily subscribe to, but it makes sense to me...Asking other people to pay more in taxes isn't that out of line if that money were going to actually help Americans. I think it has more to do with the fact many, many other businessmen, not just buffet, get lots and lots of money from the government. Of all the conspiracy theories that people come up with, I think this one is the least far-fetched. Tax them all more, so they have more to give Warren and the others in the billionaire club. The government taxing the rich more isn't going to benefit the poor in any meaningful way.

I think annual incomes should cap out at about $500 grand. I just don't see how it's possible to justifiably earn more than that.

How can you put a price on the risk it takes to start a business?
based on that comment, I don't think we will find a common ground on economic issues
maybe we can both agree that the tax system is fucked up, needs to be blown up, and re-done

SweetChildofMine

imalive wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

"He makes his money the same way I make my money," Buffett said. "He makes money by moving around big bucks, not by straining his back or going to work and cleaning toilets or whatever it may be. He makes it shoving around money."

do I or do I ?

How many times do I have to tell you not tot start singing a Bodeans song in the middle of a serious discussion?

kenny olav

cincybearcat wrote:

kenny olav wrote:

The Buffett Rule that Obama endorses only applies to those with incomes (including capital gains) above $1 million for the year. H

This in addition to raising income taxes on those "millionaires" that make as a couple >$250,000. And here I thought Obama was an educated man. Must have skipped math class.

Well sure there's that too. I was simply talking about the rule to ensure that people who make millions simply from investments pay a reasonable share.

I was aware that Obama wants to raise income taxes on couples who earn greater than $250K and I totally support that. 70% of Americans support that. We are massively in debt and we shouldn't have to cut essential services.

I saw today that Obama plans to slash the military budget by nearly $500 billion. Awesome!

Liberals are taking this country back. Republicans don't have anyone that the people trust anymore.

kenny olav

mikepegg44 wrote:

kenny olav wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

has any one given any thought to the idea that people like buffet and others want more taxes so they can benefit further from government contracts? There is no doubt in my mind that people like Buffet benefit from the government having more money.

Does anyone think this money will be used for the good of the people? Any tax increase should be accompanied by legislation that makes it a crime to spend any increase in revenue on anything but the national debt.

interesting side notes: berkshire hathaway owes back taxes. if Buffet says people like him should pay more, why is the company haggling over the amount they owe? shouldn't they just pay what the IRS says they owe?

also, berkshire hathaway received around 200 million in government contracts in 07, cannot find any other data as of right now in a quick search...

interesting that a man whose company benefits greatly from government contracts and spending would want higher taxes isn't it? my question stands...does anyone think that the raise in revenue from a tax like this will go to benefit the people or pay for the debt?

I don't want to overly defend Buffett, but it's not uncommon for companies to owe back taxes or for it to take years to sort out with the IRS. Is there a scheme to tax millionaires for the purpose of enriching Buffett? That seems far-fetched to me.

The issue here is tax fairness. Economic fairness, really.

I think annual incomes should cap out at about $500 grand. I just don't see how it's possible to justifiably earn more than that.

I really wish Barack Obama was a socialist. I also wish we didn't have a President or Senate, but a Prime Minister who presides over a multi-party parliament, but getting back to reality... I think that in this election, there is a clear choice between two imperfect parties.

The issue here is tax fairness. Economic fairness, really.

but that is my point with the question, it isn't the theory I necessarily subscribe to, but it makes sense to me...Asking other people to pay more in taxes isn't that out of line if that money were going to actually help Americans. I think it has more to do with the fact many, many other businessmen, not just buffet, get lots and lots of money from the government. Of all the conspiracy theories that people come up with, I think this one is the least far-fetched. Tax them all more, so they have more to give Warren and the others in the billionaire club. The government taxing the rich more isn't going to benefit the poor in any meaningful way.

I think annual incomes should cap out at about $500 grand. I just don't see how it's possible to justifiably earn more than that.

How can you put a price on the risk it takes to start a business?
based on that comment, I don't think we will find a common ground on economic issues
maybe we can both agree that the tax system is fucked up, needs to be blown up, and re-done

What does a salary cap have to do with the risk it takes to start a business? Salaries that large only factor in after the business is already successful, no? Look, I don't care how popular my idea (min salary: $50K, max salary: $500K) might be, we still have a progressive income tax for good reason, and it's realistic to make it more progressive... I doubt we'd ever get to taxing 100% of income over $500K... but while the Democratic Party may never be as progressive as I want it to be, I intend to help it at least be a solidly progressive alternative, rather than the wishy-washy party it's been since the 90's. It's not about left vs right. It's about forward vs backward.