Check in if you, or someone you know, pays a higher tax rate than Mitt Romney.

But in the years I worked, I definitely paid more than that. Some years, counting Social Security withholding, we were paying more like 25%.

I was over 20%. I've said for years that the system is rigged for investors and the self-employed. If you work for a W-2 or are retired on a pension, you get fucked. They've taken away nearly every deduction we ever had. Remember the interest deduction? Medical had no threshold or a very low one.

Some up, some down, depends a bit on how much I sold of what.

What really gets me is he's paying this rate on money he doesn't even have to work for.

to provide an exact number. I can definitely tell you that my income is well under six figures per year; not halfway to NINE figures like Mittens!

As I pay off my house, I'm losing the mortgage interest deduction. 2011 will be OK because I did a solar energy project.

Pretty much everyone I know pays more in taxes than the Mittens. My husband and daughter sure do.

here's the problem: http://bureaucountydems.blogspot.com/p/income-inequality-99-versus-1.html

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Ikuv9guiVSg/TxogOY3t88I/AAAAAAAAAIs/9RWnV64WEKw/s1600/income+graph.png?

Man, I don't know any richies...oh well.

on the amounts that exceed the cap, and because the SS tax is 7.65% for employees and 15.30% for the self-employed (depending upon whether there will be a further extension of the temporary reduction), all working class Americans who pay income taxes pay taxes at a tax rate which exceeds the tax rate imposed upon Rmoney's declared income.

To the extent that Rmoney has undeclared income and does not pay taxes on accounts in Switzerland (reportedly now closed) and/or the Cayman Islands, his actual tax rate is even lower than what has been reported.

The SS tax is a tax upon income obtained from being employed. Although it is not formally designated an income tax, it should not be disregarded when looking at the overall tax rate applied to earnings from employment.

I can't believe everyone here pays what they say. You have to be making a LOT of money to pay an effective federal tax rate (what we are talking about) of greater than 15%.

Effective federal tax rate is not the marginal rate. It does not include FICA or state taxes. It is federal income tax paid divided by gross income.

I'll use myself as an example. 2010 was my last year working before I retired. I did pretty good income-wise. I had wage income, a very little bit of interest and dividend income (less than $200), and nothing else. I took the standard deductions and exemptions. No fancy stuff at all. I had a $1500 energy tax credit from replacing my heat pump which failed last winter (replacement was over $8K.) No other fancy credits or deductions.

From my TurboTax summary:

Adjusted Gross Income $104K
Taxable Income $84K (after standard deduction and exemptions)
Tax Due $11K (from the tax tables, married filing jointly)
EFFECTIVE TAX RATE 10.8%

Even without the $1500 energy credit my effective tax rate would have been 12%.

Now, I would like to see the same numbers from some of you that are claiming to have paid more than Mittens in effective federal tax rate. Either you have adjust gross income of $150K or more (which is well above median household income, and almost halfway to becoming a 1%er), or you need a new tax preparer.

Not trying to defend the Mitt here, but the numbers I see flying around don't make sense. I think evryone is defining their own idea as to what a "tax rate" is.

Using your numbers and the 2011 table, it looks like you'd need about $95k of taxable income before you'd be at 15%, again, well over the median household income. Probably puts adjusted gross at about $115k.

but made over 200k. I can't see how a household making less than 100k would pay more than 15%.

I will not be told that my tax rate doesn't include payroll taxes.

I categorically reject that attempt to downplay what the working class actually pays in taxes.

It's not trying to downplay anything. But if we want to have a meaningful discussion we have to use terms that we all agree on. The term being used for Mitten's tax returns were "effective ferderal income tax rate."

If one decides to contribute to the discussion using terms of one's own definition, then you have to identify that fact, or we are all missing something. If we can't trust one to use consistent definitions in this discussion, what about other discussions?

Not trying to dis you at all. But we need to make sure we are all using the same terms and definitions, especially when discussing taxes and dollars, which can be precisely calculated. (Maybe it's just my anal engineer thing? )

Together with spouse, total combined taxable income of $67,000. No home interest deduction, no kids. Total tax rate: 28%.

Yes, we are middle class, and with no kids, we'll have to prepare to care for ourselves in our old age (wouldn't want to burden the nieces and nephews with it). We're also still paying on student loans, but make too much money to deduct that interest.

We are doing well, all things considered, and manage to give a little to the less fortunate, which does decrease our tax obligation a bit.

But I resent like hell working this hard while still paying for our education and being taxed at a higher rate than a guy who "earns" more in an hour than I net in an entire month.

The Tikkis

marginal rate 25%