What also is interesting is the current tax rates are the lowest they have been in decades and the Bush tax cuts didn't "beget" growth at all. Aother interesting fact.... Your "job creators" ceos and big business are seeing record breaking growth in salary and profits. So what Romney and all his sheep want to do is decrease taxes for those groups that already are making record breaking profits?
Do you believe Romney's tax proposals would grow or shrink the 47% of people that don't pay income taxes now? And do you think this is a good or bad thing?
Short term, we should be focused on tax revenue. Longer term, i think everyone should have some skin in the game. My preference is for a flat tax *rate*, leaving some room at the extreme bottom end (TBD), but even then, all should some "ownership" in society.
There's not really any logical explanation for his overpayment except that he's eirher embarrassed to pay so little or he truly believes his rate is too low. Neither can be reconciled with the RomRyan position that taxes on rich job Creators are currently too high- it does fit with the Obama plan though
You know things are going bad when a candidate uses the ****storm over denigrating half the country as a cover for releasing his income tax returns. Hey Mitt, we're all paying attention now. Nice try. Will the 2008 returns be the October surprise?
20% marginal rate cut would not change the salary brackets, so the number paying would not grow or shrink eliminating deductions for upper income may result in more paying income taxes (if they were able to use deductions to shelter all their income before) if incomes rise it could bump more people into the 1st taxable bracket
The liberals have been silenced by Romney's 2011 tax return. They have been reduced to complaining that he paid more taxes than he should have. A complete 180 for the liberals and they're now trying to argue out of the other side of their mouth.
I think that it's just incoherent Romney's arguments: 1. The rich pay too many taxes and must be able to invest more. 2. I will only pay what's legally obligated, it's so stupid to pay more that I wouldn't be qualified to be president of the United States. Romney's actions 1. Pay more taxes, contradicting arguments 1 or 2. 2. Hope that people forget that there's more tax returns. Is he even trying to be a viable candidate anymore?
? This would be true if no tax credits existed, but they do. Things like the EITC are a large part of why people don't pay income taxes. If someone owes $5,000 in taxes and has $4,000 in tax credits, they pay $1000 now. With a 20% reduction in rates, they would pay $0. Try again.
Why does Mitt think the USA is a foreign country? Mitt Romney Calls U.S.A. a 'Foreign Country' in His Tax Returns Maybe Mitt Romney thinks he lives in Switzerland? When the former Massachusetts governor released his official 2011 tax return Friday, he (or whoever actually filled out the form) appeared to have mistakenly referred to the United States as a foreign country. "If you have a foreign address," the tax return instruction reads, "also complete spaces below." In the space below, under "foreign country name," Romney's form reads "USA." more at the link NOT READY
Is that 47% people who got "refunds", because the government loves people who get refunds. What refund means is that either people overpaid on their prepaid tax liability throughout the year or their standard deductions, and exemptions are more than their tax liability. Poor people do not do itemized deductions they just take the standard. Poor people get their refunds mainly on disabilities and the child tax credit which lowers the tax liability. Uncle Sam would rather you pay more and cut you a check then try to collect, trust me its much harder.
This article sums it up perfectly. It's not complaining, it's pointing out the huge logical hole Mitt has himself in. He promised he didn't pay less than 13%. That wasn't true so he just paid more than he should. Which goes against what he thinks would be intelligent behavior AND contradicts what he is espousing as smart economics. The only positive? Government didn't least get more revenue to pay down us debt. The carried interest tax "loophole" should be getting a ton more attention. As someone who benefits from the current law I personally like it the way it is, but any logical review of it and it makes no sense. Mitts compensation as a function of his carried interest positions, both historically and continuing today, is not investment income. It's just not. Finally, this obviously sounds real nitpicky and jealousy, but am I supposed to be impressed by Mitts charitable contributions. Ignore the fact that his "charity" of choice is reflected in the above picture on this page, but is $4 million on his income, with his net worth, all that great? I'd give away a **** ton of wealth if I had that much. But that's just me. He certainly can choose to be greedier and not give it away so good for him.
So it would make you happier if Romney had given nothing to charities so his taxes would be a higher percentage of his income? How amazingly odd.
This does not change the math that 47% of households pay no income taxes. That does not smack of everybody paying their fair share. I have no problem with the poor, who need all of their money to make ends meet, not paying taxes. I reject the notion that the poor are 47% of the populace.
We'd be happier if he had been honest and not lied by deferring some charitable gifts, thus artificially raising his tax rate above his 13% threshold. Had he not deferred those gifts, his 2011 tax rate would have been just 9%. And this is when he knew people would be looking at/asking for the returns during his campaign, mind you. I can only imagine how much sleight of hand the last 10 years of his returns would show. The tax code, especially when it comes to the uber wealthy, is an absolute joke.
