HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Mitt Romney: It's fair I ...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sun Sep 23, 2012, 10:15 PM

Mitt Romney: It's fair I pay a lower tax rate than people making $50,000

Mitt Romney: It's fair I pay a lower tax rate than people making $50,000

by Jed Lewison



Hot damn, he is the gift that keeps on giving:

Pelley: Now, you made on your investments, personally, about $20 million last year. And you paid 14 percent in federal taxes. That's the capital gains rate. Is that fair to the guy who makes $50,000 and paid a higher rate than you did?

Romney: It is a low rate. And one of the reasons why the capital gains tax rate is lower is because capital has already been taxed once at the corporate level, as high as 35 percent.

Pelley: So you think it is fair?

Romney: Yeah, I think it's the right way to encourage economic growth, to get people to invest, to start businesses, to put people to work.

In Mitt Romney's world, the only people that matter are the people that start businesses. The poor schlubs who shop at them just don't count. And before you complain about him wanting business owners to pay lower taxes than their customers, just pause for a moment and be glad he's willing to pay any taxes at all.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/09/23/1135658/-Mitt-Romney-It-s-fair-I-pay-a-lower-tax-rate-than-people-making-50-000

Mitt looks like he's having a meltdown in that clip.

101 replies, 18764 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 101 replies Author Time Post
Reply Mitt Romney: It's fair I pay a lower tax rate than people making $50,000 (Original post)
ProSense Sep 2012 OP
reformist2 Sep 2012 #1
Aerows Sep 2012 #67
geckosfeet Sep 2012 #2
Tennessee Gal Sep 2012 #12
Aerows Sep 2012 #69
valerief Sep 2012 #3
unblock Sep 2012 #34
valerief Sep 2012 #90
tularetom Sep 2012 #4
Major Nikon Sep 2012 #15
tularetom Sep 2012 #81
Major Nikon Sep 2012 #82
Mosby Sep 2012 #96
SunSeeker Sep 2012 #27
Incitatus Sep 2012 #5
SickOfTheOnePct Sep 2012 #6
ProSense Sep 2012 #7
SickOfTheOnePct Sep 2012 #8
ProSense Sep 2012 #17
SickOfTheOnePct Sep 2012 #20
ProSense Sep 2012 #24
SickOfTheOnePct Sep 2012 #29
ProSense Sep 2012 #30
SickOfTheOnePct Sep 2012 #35
ProSense Sep 2012 #42
SickOfTheOnePct Sep 2012 #47
ProSense Sep 2012 #57
SickOfTheOnePct Sep 2012 #61
ProSense Sep 2012 #65
SickOfTheOnePct Sep 2012 #70
ProSense Sep 2012 #72
JDPriestly Sep 2012 #41
DLnyc Sep 2012 #9
SickOfTheOnePct Sep 2012 #10
DLnyc Sep 2012 #14
SickOfTheOnePct Sep 2012 #16
ProSense Sep 2012 #18
SickOfTheOnePct Sep 2012 #23
ProSense Sep 2012 #25
SickOfTheOnePct Sep 2012 #31
ProSense Sep 2012 #36
SickOfTheOnePct Sep 2012 #39
starroute Sep 2012 #22
SickOfTheOnePct Sep 2012 #26
ProSense Sep 2012 #28
SickOfTheOnePct Sep 2012 #33
ProSense Sep 2012 #40
SickOfTheOnePct Sep 2012 #44
HiPointDem Sep 2012 #51
SickOfTheOnePct Sep 2012 #56
ProSense Sep 2012 #55
SickOfTheOnePct Sep 2012 #59
ProSense Sep 2012 #62
SickOfTheOnePct Sep 2012 #66
JDPriestly Sep 2012 #50
SickOfTheOnePct Sep 2012 #68
ProSense Sep 2012 #74
SickOfTheOnePct Sep 2012 #75
ProSense Sep 2012 #77
King_Klonopin Sep 2012 #97
starroute Sep 2012 #93
dorkulon Sep 2012 #94
JDPriestly Sep 2012 #43
SickOfTheOnePct Sep 2012 #45
HiPointDem Sep 2012 #49
JDPriestly Sep 2012 #95
grantcart Sep 2012 #19
SickOfTheOnePct Sep 2012 #21
JDPriestly Sep 2012 #53
grantcart Sep 2012 #89
Marr Sep 2012 #11
SickOfTheOnePct Sep 2012 #13
Hutzpa Sep 2012 #32
unblock Sep 2012 #37
lexw Sep 2012 #38
abelenkpe Sep 2012 #46
HiPointDem Sep 2012 #48
SickOfTheOnePct Sep 2012 #52
HiPointDem Sep 2012 #54
jmowreader Sep 2012 #58
StevePaulson Sep 2012 #60
SickOfTheOnePct Sep 2012 #63
Aerows Sep 2012 #71
SickOfTheOnePct Sep 2012 #73
ProSense Sep 2012 #76
SickOfTheOnePct Sep 2012 #78
ProSense Sep 2012 #80
Aerows Sep 2012 #84
Aerows Sep 2012 #83
Aerows Sep 2012 #87
Aerows Sep 2012 #64
trouble.smith Sep 2012 #79
MADem Sep 2012 #85
Th1onein Sep 2012 #86
JHB Sep 2012 #88
SoapBox Sep 2012 #91
Spitfire of ATJ Sep 2012 #92
Third Doctor Sep 2012 #98
spanone Sep 2012 #99
drynberg Sep 2012 #100
CJCRANE Sep 2012 #101

Response to ProSense (Original post)

Sun Sep 23, 2012, 10:17 PM

1. Someone should ask Mitt, are capital gains more important than labor? If not, why tax them different

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reformist2 (Reply #1)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 01:23 AM

67. He answered that question

Working people are not valuable, according to Mitt. Only 'capital', which means having shit tons of money. According to him, that creates jobs, and we all know even he doesn't believe that, but it helps his narrative that he is a 'job creator' if he has money. Even if he is a job destroyer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Sun Sep 23, 2012, 10:18 PM

2. How is investment income considered already taxed? What a crock'o'shit.

I use my regular NET income to invest. I get NEW income from those investments. How has that NEW income been taxed?

WTF - does this lying asshole think we are all stupid?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geckosfeet (Reply #2)

Sun Sep 23, 2012, 11:28 PM

12. That's what I think, too.

The money invested has been taxed and is not taxed again. The interest on that money is income which has never been taxed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geckosfeet (Reply #2)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 01:26 AM

69. The problem with lying

is that there is a point where you can lie so much, that you don't even know the truth anymore, and you begin to believe your own lies, and think you are imparting great truth by telling them.

That's Mitt Romney and his running mate Paul Ryan in a nutshell. It's no coincidence the two biggest liars in the nation hooked up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Sun Sep 23, 2012, 10:18 PM

3. ALL money has already been taxed!!!! When you get it as income, it gets taxed again.

Capital gains s/b taxed like income.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to valerief (Reply #3)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 12:37 AM

34. that's not technically true, although i certainly agree all income should be taxed the same.

labor expenses are deductible from corporate taxes. so if a corporation pays out all its revenue in wages and salary, then it pays zero income. only the employees pay income taxes.

if, however, a shareholder pays capital gains taxes, presumably the stock went up in value (although the capital gain could be from a successful short), which in turn presumably happened because the company made a profit (although stock prices are based primarily on future expectations, not solely on past performance), and the company presumably paid taxes on that profit.

but i agree with the conclusion that the bottom line is that money is generally taxed WHENEVER it changes hands from one legal entity to another, which even includes the gift tax and the estate tax. deductions for business expenses and charitable contributions are the exception, not the rule, and they're there for specific policy reasons. there's nothing especially deserving about capital gains and dividends that should qualify them for exceptional treatment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unblock (Reply #34)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 09:45 AM

90. Thanks for the specifics. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Sun Sep 23, 2012, 10:28 PM

4. The top corporate tax rate may indeed be 35%

But I guarantee none of the large corporations in the US actually pay anywhere near that. Maybe they should tax capital gains enough to make up the difference between what the corp actually paid and the 35% cap.

Romney would be paying the whole 35%. Or damn close to it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tularetom (Reply #4)

Sun Sep 23, 2012, 11:44 PM

15. You'd have to be a complete fucking moron to believe Romney

Bain's main marketing point was they aggressively looked for ways to transfer income that would normally be taxed individually by 35% to capital gains and dividends that were taxed at 15%. So if Bain was actually paying 35% on this and then Romney was paying 15%, that equals 50%. So why on earth would Bain do this if you could just count it as normal income and pay only 35%, instead of 50%? The only plausible explanation was that Bain was effectively paying far less than 35%, if anything at all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #15)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 01:55 AM

81. Where did I say I believed Romney?

Of course Bain and/or the corporations they invested in did not pay 35% tax on their profits.

What I said was that the rate may be 35% on paper but no corporation pays anywhere near that amount. And that they should tax capital gains at a rate that represents the difference between what the corporation actually pays and the 35% that the tax laws say it should pay. So if a corporation pays 10% then the shareholders should pay 35 minus 10 or 25% on any profits realized when they sell their shares. If the corporation pays zero then the shareholder should pay the entire 35% when they sell.

Perhaps you should read the entire post and not just the title.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tularetom (Reply #81)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 02:03 AM

82. I mean "you" in the general sense, not you particularly

Replace you with anyone. It's my fault I didn't make it more clear.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #82)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 06:00 PM

96. bain is an LLC

Many ways to set those up but if its set up as a pass-through LLC they don't pay any corporate tax, the owners pay cap gains tax on their own returns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tularetom (Reply #4)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 12:24 AM

27. The EFFECTIVE corporate tax rate is 12.1; many huge corporations (like GE) pay zero.

Romney's suggestion that corporations pay 35% in taxes is ludicrous. The effective tax rate for corporations in the U.S. is 12.1%, much lower than most other developed nations.

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/03/30/456005/reminder-corporate-taxes-very-low/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Sun Sep 23, 2012, 10:40 PM

5. Keep digging, buddy

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Sun Sep 23, 2012, 10:49 PM

6. Romney is full of crap regardng the money already being taxed once

And he absolutely should be paying a higher rate.

But the question was stupid too, because someone making $50,000 last year did not pay a higher rate than Romney did.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SickOfTheOnePct (Reply #6)

Sun Sep 23, 2012, 11:04 PM

7. The effective tax rate of someone

"But the question was stupid too, because someone making $50,000 last year did not pay a higher rate than Romney did. "

...earning $50,000 is 16.6 percent. So the question wasn't stupid, but Mitt's response is another wheel off the track.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #7)

Sun Sep 23, 2012, 11:14 PM

8. I'd be curious to see where you get 16.6% figure

Standard deduction for single person in 2011 was $5800, and personal exemption was $3700.

With an AGI of $50,000, taxable income would be $50,000 - $5,800 - $3,700 = $40,500

Taxes due for a single filer for that amount would be $6244.

Effective tax rate is taxes paid/AGI or $6244/$50000, which is an effective tax rate of 12.488%

Yes, Romney should be paying a much higher rate, but that argument can and should be made without being dishonest about what others are paying.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SickOfTheOnePct (Reply #8)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 12:00 AM

17. First,

"Yes, Romney should be paying a much higher rate, but that argument can and should be made without being dishonest about what others are paying. "

...how on earth do you know what Romney means by "effective tax rate"? Remember, his rate (whatever he means) would have been 9 percent this year if not for the fact that he manipulated the filing.

Secondly, the only person being dishonest is Mitt, and people need to stop bending over backward to make excuses for him. At the very least, stop trying to shoot holes in valid argument against him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #17)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 12:13 AM

20. Effective income tax rate is a standard calculation

Income taxes paid/AGI. That is where the 14.1% figure came from on Friday when his federal returns were released. A federal income tax return isn't going to include payroll taxes.

You are free to keep repeating incorrect information, but that doesn't make it any more correct. Your 16.6% figure includes numbers that weren't included in Romney's 14.1% figure, and is an average across a $25,000 income range.

The question asked on "60 Minutes" was specifically about his 14.1% effective tax rate, and it included an incorrect assertion that someone making $50,000 would pay more. This is factually incorrect, and the numbers prove it

Why not make the very valid case that he doesn't pay enough on hard facts?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SickOfTheOnePct (Reply #20)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 12:18 AM

24. And you

"You are free to keep repeating incorrect information, but that doesn't make it any more correct. Your 16.6% figure includes numbers that weren't included in Romney's 14.1% figure, and is an average across a $25,000 income range."

...are free to keep insisting that capital gains counts, but not payroll taxes. You're free to continue to make these arguments knowing that Mitt's tax returns are incomplete, manipulated bullshit. You're free to continue making these arguments after you have already acknowledged that his claim in the OP is absurd.

"Why not make the very valid case that he doesn't pay enough on hard facts?"

The case has been and continues to be made, you simply choose to ignore it.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #24)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 12:28 AM

29. I'm sorry that you don't like facts

But they are what they are.

The tax returns released by Romney on Friday do not include payroll taxes. The 14.1% effective tax rate on Romney's returns does not include payroll taxes. That is a fact - you may not like it, but it is what it is.

The question was asked about the 14.1%, which does not include payroll taxes - it's an effective federal income tax rate, taxes paid/AGI. A standard calculation.

To honestly compare someone making $50,000, you have to use the same calculations, i.e., taxes paid/AGI. That would be 12.488%, which last time I checked, is less than 14.1%. So the premise of the question was false.

A better question would have been why Romney paid a lower percentage in all federal taxes than someone making $50,000, because he obviously does pay less.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SickOfTheOnePct (Reply #29)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 12:34 AM

30. Who cares what it includes?

I'm sorry that you don't like facts

But they are what they are.

The tax returns released by Romney on Friday do not include payroll taxes. The 14.1% effective tax rate on Romney's returns does not include payroll taxes. That is a fact - you may not like it, but it is what it is.

The question was asked about the 14.1%, which does not include payroll taxes - it's an effective federal income tax rate, taxes paid/AGI. A standard calculation.

To honestly compare someone making $50,000, you have to use the same calculations, i.e., taxes paid/AGI. That would be 12.488%, which last time I checked, is less than 14.1%. So the premise of the question was false.

A better question would have been why Romney paid a lower percentage in all federal taxes than someone making $50,000, because he obviously does pay less.

Your argument is skewed toward wealth. A lot of people don't pay taxes on capital gains, but you don't discount that in your argument.

Fact: The effective tax rate of a person earning $50,000 is 16.6 percent.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1404639

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #30)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 12:39 AM

35. Who cares what it includes?

Only people that are interested in being honest.

You can repeat the 16.6% figure all you like, but I've shown you the numbers to prove you wrong, and as Bill Clinton said at the convention "Arithmetic".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SickOfTheOnePct (Reply #35)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 12:52 AM

42. There you go

Who cares what it includes?

Only people that are interested in being honest.

You can repeat the 16.6% figure all you like, but I've shown you the numbers to prove you wrong, and as Bill Clinton said at the convention "Arithmetic".

...even Bill Clinton thinks your argument is bogus.

Bill Clinton Goes After Mitt Romney’s 47 Percent Claim
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021401331

They pay taxes, and at a higher rate than Romney.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #42)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 12:59 AM

47. And who said they didn't pay federal taxes?

I certainly didn't.

47% don't pay federal income tax. Fact.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SickOfTheOnePct (Reply #47)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 01:08 AM

57. Fact:

Low-income Americans pay a greater share of their income in taxes than Romney.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1404810

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #57)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 01:12 AM

61. Yep, and here's another fact

People at $50,000 and below don't pay a higher percentage of their income in federal income tax than Romney does.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SickOfTheOnePct (Reply #61)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 01:21 AM

65. Wrong

"People at $50,000 and below don't pay a higher percentage of their income in federal income tax than Romney does."

What is it with you and Romney? The chart generously puts Mitt at 15 percent, but his rate for 2010 was under 14 percent, and even with the manipulation, it's still in that range for 2011. Now check the $40K to 50K category. Also note that if Romney hadn't manipulated his return, his rate would have been lower than someone earning $30K.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #65)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 01:34 AM

70. Yes, you're wrong

I'll bold, perhaps that will help you grasp the key points.

"People at $50,000 and below don't pay a higher percentage of their income in federal income tax than Romney does. " (Includes only individual income tax, to include capital gains, not payroll taxes, corporate taxes, or estate taxes)
Your chart:
"Effective federal tax includes individual income tax, payroll tax, corporate tax and estate taxes" And the footnote states that the payroll tax in the chart includes both the employer and employee contributions.

One side of the equation include all federal taxes, and the other side includes only the individual income tax, to include capital gains. How can you say the comparison is valid and keep a straight face?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SickOfTheOnePct (Reply #70)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 01:37 AM

72. So you're back to that argument?

Really?

Give it up!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SickOfTheOnePct (Reply #29)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 12:51 AM

41. Romney's capital gains income (the majority of his income) is not subject to payroll taxes.

In fact, whether Romney pays payroll taxes would be a good question. It is possible that he does not.

In any event, most of Romney's income is not subject to payroll taxes. If he does pay any payroll taxes at all, the amount he would pay as a percentage of his income would be so small that it really would not affect his overall tax rate.

If Romney does not pay payroll taxes, then he does not contribute to the very important funds that pay for certain social safety net programs. That is sad.

***

By the way, Romney's argument that his tax rate is fair because the money he receives has already been taxed makes no sense. Romney has stated that corporations are people. If the corporation is a person, it should, of course, pay taxes on its income. And if Romney is a separate person (true unless we are talking maybe about an S corporation or a sole proprietorship) then seems to me that Romney should pay his taxes on his income.

Although Romney takes a cut from the corporation's profits, the taxes the corporation pays are no more relevant to the tax rate Romney should pay than are the taxes of an employer to the tax rate that an employee pays. The employer and employee are two separate "people" for tax purposes. So are the corporations in which Romney invests and Romney.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SickOfTheOnePct (Reply #6)

Sun Sep 23, 2012, 11:17 PM

9. A person making 50,000, in my experience, will have between 28 and 33% of that withheld.

Actually anywhere from 30,000 to 100,000, you're going to be in that 28 to 33% range, in my long experience.

Maybe less than 14 of that 28 to 33 is FEDERAL INCOME tax, but nonetheless you don't get any of the money, it goes to Medicare, Social Security, State and Local taxes.

Plus you are actually paying another 7% that your employer takes out of what he/she would be paying you to pay his/her share of your Soc. Sec.

so 35 to 40% of your pay goes to taxes.

Note that only the first 100,000 or so of the 20,000,000 Rmoney makes in a year is counted in figuring Social Security tax, so Social Security and Medicare taxes would add less less that about 0.1% out to that 14%.

So most of us pay a much higher percentage of our income to taxes (by 2 or 3 times) than Rmoney does.

(oops edit 2nd to last paragraph to un-gibberishize it. Sorry. I'm no accountant, but I've never in my life had a paycheck that wasn't missing at least 28% in withholding, almost always about 33%, in fact.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DLnyc (Reply #9)

Sun Sep 23, 2012, 11:23 PM

10. Then compare apples to apples and not to oranges

The question was specifically about his federal income tax liablity in 2011, which was 14.1%. Someone making $50,000 doesn't pay that high of an effective rate in federal income tax.

I agree that if you add in all the taxes you pay, your rate will be higher than 14.1%, but then again, so would Romney's.

The argument that he doesn't pay a high enough federal income tax rate is a good enough argument that it doesn't need to be made in a dishonest way. Comparing the rates side by side, with the same taxes is good enough.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SickOfTheOnePct (Reply #10)

Sun Sep 23, 2012, 11:40 PM

14. Okay, sort of.

The question was about ". . . you paid 14 percent in federal taxes . . .", not about federal INCOME taxes.

Most people would consider Social Security and Medicare taxes to be 'federal' taxes, I think.

If they aren't federal taxes, what kind of taxes are they?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DLnyc (Reply #14)

Sun Sep 23, 2012, 11:45 PM

16. Fair enough

But the 14.1% figure came from the federal income tax returns from 2011 that the Romney campaign released on Friday, so it's a certainty that the question referred to federal income taxes, which don't include Social Security and Medicare taxes.

Yes, Social Security and Medicare taxes are federal taxes, but they are not federal income taxes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SickOfTheOnePct (Reply #16)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 12:09 AM

18. Romney released a bullshit return

"But the 14.1% figure came from the federal income tax returns from 2011 that the Romney campaign released on Friday, so it's a certainty that the question referred to federal income taxes, which don't include Social Security and Medicare taxes. "

...to try to fool people.

Romney Lawyer Admits They Manipulated Taxes to Conform to 13% Claim
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021398109



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #18)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 12:17 AM

23. Absolutely, they manipulated the charitable deductions

No doubt that his effective rate would have been under 10% had he taken all of his deductions. That doesn't change the fact that the question posed, i.e., is it fair that someone making $50,000 pays at a higher effective rate than 14.1%, is based on a false premise.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SickOfTheOnePct (Reply #23)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 12:21 AM

25. No, it doesn't

"No doubt that his effective rate would have been under 10% had he taken all of his deductions. That doesn't change the fact that the question posed, i.e., is it fair that someone making $50,000 pays at a higher effective rate than 14.1%, is based on a false premise."

...change the facts: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1404639

And no matter how often you repeat that the premise is "false," the facts dispute your claim.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #25)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 12:35 AM

31. Using two different calculations

to compare rates is intellectually dishonest. You may be comfortable with that kind of dishonesty, but I'm not.

You're calculating Romney's rate based only on federal income tax paid, then the $50,000 earner's rate based on federal income paid, employee Social Security and Medicare tax paid, employer Social Security and Medicare tax paid, and state income tax paid.

It obviously isn't an issue of you not understanding, it's just an issue of you choosing to spread false information, which is, of course, your right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SickOfTheOnePct (Reply #31)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 12:40 AM

36. You need to stop projecting.

"Using two different calculations to compare rates is intellectually dishonest. You may be comfortable with that kind of dishonesty, but I'm not. "

And you're doing it every other word.

"You're calculating Romney's rate based only on federal income tax paid, then the $50,000 earner's rate based on federal income paid, employee Social Security and Medicare tax paid, employer Social Security and Medicare tax paid, and state income tax paid."

And you're calculating Romney's rate based on his capital gains (and whatever else is included in that "effective rate"), which has a different rate than actual income and a different calculation, then dismissing everyone elses tax basis.

"It obviously isn't an issue of you not understanding, it's just an issue of you choosing to spread false information, which is, of course, your right. "

Then you're being condescending and dismissive of the facts.





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #36)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 12:44 AM

39. Not projecting, just giving you the facts

Your decision to ignore them is purely your own.

Federal income tax has a definition, i.e., it includes certain things and it excludes certain things. It includes capital gains and taxes on wages. It doesn't include payroll taxes, it doesn't include state income taxes, it doesn't include property taxes or sales taxes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SickOfTheOnePct (Reply #16)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 12:15 AM

22. It's all there on the same form 1040

Your saying that the figure came from the federal income tax return so it didn't include Social Security and Medicare is just plain wrong. All of those appear on the same form.

You enter your income, less deductions, exemptions, and credits and calculate the tax on it. You enter the Social Security/Medicare you owe -- which is calculated on total income, with no deductions. You add it all up, subtract what was withheld during the year, and that's what you owe.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to starroute (Reply #22)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 12:22 AM

26. Only the self employed have to pay

Social Security and Medicare taxes on their 1040, and the employer portion of those taxes (for the self employed) are deductible from taxable income.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SickOfTheOnePct (Reply #26)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 12:28 AM

28. It just struck me,

by arguing that payroll taxes don't count, you're making the same claim that Mitt made in his 47 percent comment: that there are people who don't pay income taxes.

Now, do you want me to collect all the evidence, a lot of it posted in recent days, from the tax experts and others disputing your claim?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #28)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 12:36 AM

33. 47% of wage earners don't pay federal income tax

That's a fact as well.

And no, payroll taxes are not considered federal income tax.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SickOfTheOnePct (Reply #33)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 12:45 AM

40. They pay taxes. That's the friggin point.

The point is that Romney is making a RW argument, and you are helping to spread a false dichotomy.

People pay, and they pay a larger share of their income in taxes than Romney. Period.

You still have no idea what's in Romney "effective tax rate," and you have no idea if he paid zero income tax or a ridiculously low rate in any of the past 10 years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #40)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 12:55 AM

44. Who said they didn't pay taxes?

I said that 47% don't pay federal income taxes, and that is true.

You don't know what's in his effective tax rate? Well, seeing as it's from his federal 1040, it would be federal income tax, including capital gains taxes. Not Social Security taxes, not Medicare taxes, not state incomes taxes.

You're correct in that we don't know what he paid prior to 2010, but we do know what he paid in 2010 and 2011, because he has released those returns.

And if you don't believe me that 47% don't pay federal income tax, perhaps you'll believe the Center for Budget Policy & Priorities:

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3505

Close to half of U.S. households currently do not owe federal income tax. The Urban Institute-Brookings Tax Policy Center estimates that 46 percent of households will owe no federal income tax for 2011. A widely cited figure is a Joint Committee on Taxation estimate that 51 percent of households paid no federal income tax in 2009. (The TPC figure for 2009 also is 51 percent.)


That doesn't mean they don't pay any federal taxes, it just means they don't pay any federal income taxes. When all federal taxes are added up, there is no doubt that someone making $50,000 pays a higher percentage in federal taxes than Romney does, but the 60 Minutes question was specifically about the 14.!% effective federal income tax rate, not the overall federal tax rate. And the premise was false, as I've proven using the IRS tax tables.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SickOfTheOnePct (Reply #44)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 01:04 AM

51. & 1/3 of those people make less than $10K a year. about 500,000 make over $100K.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #51)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 01:07 AM

56. I'm not arguing that they should pay federal income tax

Except for the high earners, I'm simply stating that they don't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SickOfTheOnePct (Reply #44)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 01:06 AM

55. Here are a couple of charts from your link






Every State Taxes Its 1 Percent At A Lower Rate Than Low-Income Households
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021390130

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #55)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 01:10 AM

59. OK

Of course, that has absolutely nothing to do with the conversation at hand regarding federal income taxes, but if it makes you feel better, by all means, go for it!

I guess you chose to ignore the statement at the website regarding the percentage that pay no federal income tax...which you said I was lying about...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SickOfTheOnePct (Reply #59)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 01:14 AM

62. First,

OK

Of course, that has absolutely nothing to do with the conversation at hand regarding federal income taxes, but if it makes you feel better, by all means, go for it!

I guess you chose to ignore the statement at the website regarding the percentage that pay no federal income tax...which you said I was lying about...

...you know the damn point of this debate is percentage of income, and that the Romney and the RW are using the "federal income tax" claim to obscure the fact that low income American pay a larger percentage of their income in taxes than do the wealthy.

Secondly, after you continue throwing around the word "dishonest," don't put words in my mouth. I said nothing about you "lying."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #62)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 01:22 AM

66. What I know is

a) a question was asked specifically pertaining to federal income taxes
b) the question had a false premise, i.e., that someone making $50,000 paid a higher federal income tax rate than Romney did
c) someone making $50,000 will pay a higher total effective rate in all federal taxes (income, excise, payroll) than Romney did, but that wasn't the question
d) someone making $50,000 will most likely pay a higher total effective rate in all taxes (state, local, property) than Romney did, but that wasn't the question

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SickOfTheOnePct (Reply #33)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 01:03 AM

50. I don't think that 47% of wage-earners pay no taxes.

That 47% includes people who primarily live on Social Security benefits as well as people on disability and children. None of those groups are wage-earners.

Romney was not talking about 47% of wage-earners.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #50)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 01:26 AM

68. It's 47% of households n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SickOfTheOnePct (Reply #68)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 01:41 AM

74. You said "wage earners," but

now you're saying "households"? Where are you getting your facts, and why did they suddenly change?

Romney said nothing about "households." In fact, no one is talking about households.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #74)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 01:44 AM

75. I thougth it was wage earners

But the CBPP link says households.

And households came up because I was asked a question...I wasn't aware I needed your permission to answer another poster's question that was posed to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SickOfTheOnePct (Reply #75)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 01:48 AM

77. So you're wrong

"I thougth it was wage earners But the CBPP link says households."

If you were arguing "wage earners" for most of the thread, and now are correcting yourself to say it's households, your previous argument is wrong.

"And households came up because I was asked a question...I wasn't aware I needed your permission to answer another poster's question that was posed to me. "

Red herring, I said nothing about your right to respond.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SickOfTheOnePct (Reply #33)

Tue Sep 25, 2012, 07:04 AM

97. What does that say about "the wage"?

Why are we splitting hairs here? Keep it simple...

1) People like Mitt have an income based on earned interest and capital gains.
The system, as it is, in the U.S. is that we tax labor at a higher rate than wealth
which is justified by a lot of tripe. (Romney doesn't even stick to the script that
the capital gains tax rate is lower to "incentivize investment", otherwise, the wealthy
would sit on their mountain of money and sulk and not create jobs.)

The focus should be on WHY and HOW this situation came to be.

2) The term "working poor" is an oxymoron that should disturb anyone with
the slightest bit of common sense and decency.

The Earned Income Tax Credit was devised by republicans to give welfare
recipients incentive to work. Now the "working poor" are called moochers
for not paying Federal income tax. Always the scapegoats.

3) Elizabeth Warren is correct -- the system is rigged in favor of the wealthy.
And you can see, Mitt feels no shame about it.

Was Mitt's Tax return an "Amended" return ?????

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SickOfTheOnePct (Reply #26)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 12:53 PM

93. You're right -- I've paid self-employment tax for so long I didn't realize

For me, it all gets lumped together on the same form. For someone with only W-2 income, though, it's shown on the W-2 but not on the 1040.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SickOfTheOnePct (Reply #16)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 04:08 PM

94. Not necessarily. If you added Romney's SS & Medicare to the tally, it wouldn't budge the number

at all. It'd still be 14.1%. So your conclusion doesn't apply.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SickOfTheOnePct (Reply #10)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 12:55 AM

43. Romney's tax rate would not be that much higher if he added in his payroll and income taxes.

No way because the tax rate is a percentage, and the amount that Romney would pay in payroll taxes as a percentage of his overall income would be tiny. Counting that as taxes paid would not increase the percentage of his income that he pays in taxes by much at all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #43)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 12:58 AM

45. I agree 100%

And if the question had pertained to his total federal tax burden and that of someone making $50,000, it would have been easily shown that someone making $50,000 pays a higher percentage in federal taxes overall than Romney does.

But that wasn't how it was asked.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #43)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 01:02 AM

49. what payroll taxes would he have? is he someone's employee?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #49)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 04:20 PM

95. If he were subject to payroll taxes, it would not change the percentage of his income that

he pays in combined payroll/income/capital gains taxes by much.

He is probably only paying or virtually only paying capital gains taxes. If you want to be technically precise and don't count payroll taxes as income taxes, then you shouldn't count taxes on capital gains as income taxes either. And if you didn't, the who knows what Romney's tax rate would be.

Someone was objecting to the fact that we were comparing the overall tax rate on lower income people and including in it the payroll taxes while not including payroll taxes in Romney's rate.

I was saying that whether Romney pays payroll taxes or not, the amount he would pay in them would be so small as to not affect the overall percentage he pays in taxes by much if anything.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SickOfTheOnePct (Reply #6)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 12:09 AM

19. If you include payroll taxes they did.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grantcart (Reply #19)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 12:15 AM

21. Payroll taxes aren't included

in the calculation of effective rate for federal income taxes, which is what the 14.1% referred to.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SickOfTheOnePct (Reply #21)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 01:05 AM

53. So, include the amount Romney pays in payroll taxes and see how much difference it makes -- none.

I would like to see all income subjected to the payroll tax. That would probably eliminate any alleged Medicare or Social Security problems. Might even be able to lower the rate overall if you imposed payroll taxes on all income including capital gains.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SickOfTheOnePct (Reply #21)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 07:33 AM

89. lol you sure put a lot of effort into this. In your earlier post you did not specify a specific


kind of income tax just federal taxes.


I replied that if you include payroll taxes then yes people who make $ 50k pay a higher rate than Romney.


So let's be clear, people who make $ 50,000 a year pay a higher rate in federal taxes than Romney.


You sure go out of your way to argue a Republican position.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Sun Sep 23, 2012, 11:27 PM

11. So why doesn't the same logic apply to labor? Why doesn't it "discourage work" when you tax

workers more than investors?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marr (Reply #11)

Sun Sep 23, 2012, 11:33 PM

13. When you get to a certain point, it does

For instance, I'm currently in the 28% marginal bracket in a high pressure job. I'm not interested in taking the next promotion, if offered, because I've seen what it does to the guy that's in it now. It would be a hefty payraise, but would put me in the 33% marginal bracket, after which I'd basically be working for 67% of my pay. The added stress and pressure wouldn't be worth it to me.

But that's me - I'm less interested in the addtional money than I am in not stroking out at work.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 12:35 AM

32. ay yi yi yah

nt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 12:41 AM

37. gee, my income was already taxed when i earned it, so why should i pay sales tax when i spend it?

because the general rule is, every time money changes hands, someone pays taxes.

there are exceptions (labor expenses and charitable contributions, e.g.) but there's no good reason for capital gains to qualify as an exception. it's ONLY because the rich and powerful primarily face that tax that it gets preferential treatment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 12:42 AM

38. :D

"He's a gift that just keeps on giving."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 12:58 AM

46. To encourage people to invest? In what cayman island accounts?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 01:00 AM

48. what? capital has already been taxed at the corporate level? can someone explain to me

 

what kind of taxes he's talking about?

as i understand it, mitt made most of his money using borrowed money. i'm really confused here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #48)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 01:04 AM

52. Capital gains are profits

And as profits, they are subject to the corporate tax rate. He's trying to say that since they were already taxed, it's fair to only tax him at 15% on the capital gains.

Doesn't float with me - when I was in college, I worked at a grocery store, and every quarter, we received bonuses based on the quarterly profits of the company. Since it came to me as a bonus to my pay, and not as capital gains on investment, I had to pay the full income tax on it.

I don't see why he shouldn't have to do the same.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SickOfTheOnePct (Reply #52)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 01:05 AM

54. profit = what remains after expenses, including taxes, is my understanding.

 

corporate *income* (less deductions) has been taxed, but what mitt got as profit hasn't been taxed, just like my paycheck wasn't taxed until i get it & have to pay taxes on it.

why do i have to pay more than mitt? he got to deduct the cost of my paycheck (if i worked for him) from his corporate tax bill.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 01:09 AM

58. He is so glad I didn't interview him

Me: Now, you made on your investments, personally, about $20 million last year. And you paid 14 percent in federal taxes. That's the capital gains rate. Is that fair to the guy who makes $50,000 and paid a higher rate than you did?

Romney: It is a low rate. And one of the reasons why the capital gains tax rate is lower is because capital has already been taxed once at the corporate level, as high as 35 percent.

Me: Except that in a lot of cases, the capital hasn't been taxed at the corporate rate. Let's say I work for General Electric, and part of my compensation is an option to buy 100,000 shares of their stock for $15 per share. I exercise my option and pay $1.5 million to a brokerage for this stock. Right now it's trading on the open market at $22. If I hold that stock for two years and sell it back to the brokerage I bought it from, or to any other brokerage for that matter, I pay capital gains tax on the profit. Now, what this translates into is a situation where if I receive a $1.5 million paycheck in a form I can take to the bank and deposit now I pay 35 percent on it, but if I receive the same $1.5 million paycheck in a form I have to leave in the dresser drawer for two years before I can cash it, I pay 15 percent. Better: the paycheck you're paying 15 percent tax on might grow significantly in those two years because stocks are known to do that. You're talking dividends but my guess, and it must remain a guess because you refuse to release your returns, is that most of your income comes from redeeming options and selling stock -- and you paying 15 percent on this is total bullshit.

(On edit: if I would have hit him with this, the next thing you would have seen is a Romney-face-shaped blob of MAC NW30 hit the desk because he would have fainted so fast and thoroughly he would have fallen out of his makeup.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 01:11 AM

60. My Friend Pays Around 60%

Read this article.

My friend may pay up to 60% of his income in one form of tax or another.

http://republicansareadisease.com/?p=52924

The whole Republican Plan is to have the poor and working Americans pay half their wages in taxes so the filthy rich can just compund their wealth.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to StevePaulson (Reply #60)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 01:16 AM

63. No doubt your friend pays a higher percentage than Romney

But he obviously doesn't understand marginal tax rates, because he isn't paying "the full 35%" on all of his income, so his federal burden is not 48%+

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SickOfTheOnePct (Reply #63)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 01:34 AM

71. It's really lovely that you express so much concern

for us here at DU, especially when you help to explain that people don't understand tax rates even when they pay them.

Why, without your great concern and valuable wisdom in this thread, we might think that there is something the FUCK wrong with Romney paying a lower tax percentage than a person that makes $50K a year.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aerows (Reply #71)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 01:41 AM

73. Sorry that you don't like facts

But they are what they are.

The top marginal rate is 35%, and it kicks in at $379,150. So, it's quite simply impossible to ever pay the full 35% on all income - that's a mathematical certainty.

And there most certainly is something wrong with Romney paying a 14.1% federal income tax rate, but that doesn't change the fact that someone making $50,000 is paying a 12.488% federal income tax rate, which, in another mathematical certainty, is less that 14.1%.

What I don't get is why people feel the truth isn't bad enough, so we have to lie in order to make the case that Romney doesn't pay enough in taxes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SickOfTheOnePct (Reply #73)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 01:45 AM

76. What facts?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #76)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 01:49 AM

78. I consider IRS tax tables

to be factual. You don't? That's where I got the 12.488% figure from.

Whereas you keep posting the same graph over and over, even though you've been shown, repeatedly, that the calculatons used in the graph are not the same calculations used in calculating the effective federal income tax rate, which was the subject of the interview question.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SickOfTheOnePct (Reply #78)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 01:53 AM

80. Sure

"I consider IRS tax tables to be factual. You don't? That's where I got the 12.488% figure from."

...you want to focus on a narrow point to obfuscate from the larger point, which is that low-income Amercans pay a higher rate than high income earners.

You still have no idea what Romney is including in his "effective tax rate."



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #80)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 02:14 AM

84. This guy is "concerned"

That someone might think Romney pays too little taxes, while a person making $50K thinks they pay too much because they pay a higher percentage than Romney does.

And YES, they are going to think just that when they see he doesn't pay the same percentage, and YES, they are going to think he doesn't pay his share because he DOESN'T.

I hope I cleared that up for him, but I know I didn't have to tell you and every other person with common sense that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #76)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 02:12 AM

83. I haven't heard a fact yet, either

You and I don't always agree, ProSense, but on this one, I am 100% with you.

What fact have we heard yet?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SickOfTheOnePct (Reply #73)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 03:54 AM

87. I was about to argue with you

Then I realized that you have no common sense.

It's useless to argue with people who will hold onto a point that, in theory would work, but in practice, never does. Sigh.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 01:20 AM

64. If this guy

was any bigger of an asshole, we'd have to call him the Grand Canyon and sell tickets. He'd probably find a way to insult working people and claim he is a national treasure.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 01:52 AM

79. You would think they would have learned with McStain that Americans don't want to hear that bullshit

 

It's like they're all stuck on stupid over there on the right. Good news for us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 02:35 AM

85. There is apparently something "you people" just don't get.

Corporations are people, my friend.

But workers aren't people, they are a fungible commodity.




That's Mittsy for ya, in two sentences....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 03:46 AM

86. But we LABOR, Mr. Romney. We LA-BOR

We smell your shit and your piss when we clean your toilets. We wear our feet and our legs out when we wait on your table, Mr. Romney. We mow your lawns, and wash your Cadillacs, Mitt. And we build the car elevators you use for those Cadillacs. We LABOR.

You, and the greedy fucks you represent, don't LABOR. We do. We burn our bodies up, working for fucks like you. WE actually produce something, Mitt, even if it's only your cleaned up toilet or a well-trained dressage horse. We LABOR.

You don't. You send our fucking jobs to China, and our dollars, you know the ones WE wore ourselves out to earn, to the Cayman Islands.

Miserable piece of shit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 07:27 AM

88. I get taxed on my income. If I buy goods and services with my after-tax income...

...does that mean the people I buy them from don't have to pay taxes because that money was already taxed? Hell, no!

So, Mitt, what's the best way to encourage business owners to pay their employees more, since that would cut into their profits? Should we use an incentive-based method? How about marginal tax rates within post-WW2 norms? Those created a disincentive to maximize profits by minimizing employee pay.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 11:47 AM

91. Wow....what "brass" this clown has. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 12:02 PM

92. Republicans have always pushed for zero capital gains tax.

And they've always claimed it's double taxation.

Thanks Mitt,....for exposing that fraud.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Tue Sep 25, 2012, 09:02 AM

98. Same old trickle down shit.

I pay less in taxes because I create jobs. A 30 year old lie.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Tue Sep 25, 2012, 09:05 AM

99. so what has mitt romney done to 'start a business' or 'put people to work' ? nothing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Tue Sep 25, 2012, 10:29 AM

100. RMONEY IS HIDING BEHIND A BIG FAT MYTH

By saying corporations (people, right?) pay up to 35%, Rmoney borrows a page from his buddy ole Lyin' Ryan by making it seem ok to pay so little 'cause the $$ has already been taxed...by many many large corporations pay very little or ZERO $$ for tax. What a sleeze, plus the real story here is that Willard fudged the charity numbers so they agree, after the lie, that he'd said earlier that he'd never paid less than 14% and that he wouldn't be qualified to be President of the USA if he paid more than he had to. Willard's tax accountants played with the charity so that he'd pay just over 14% instead of the original, which was around 9%. Willard is the poster boy for PHONY .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Tue Sep 25, 2012, 02:32 PM

101. Um...no one is asking the obvious question...

"Romney: Yeah, I think it's the right way to encourage economic growth, to get people to invest, to start businesses, to put people to work."

So what did you invest in, what businesses did you start, who did you put to work (with the money you saved with the low capital gains tax rate)?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread