The Obama’s paid 26 percent of their adjusted gross income in federal income taxes.

96ws6, how about do some research?

Obama is a the President of US of A. You think his tax is hidden or something?

Beside, why ask how much Obama pay on his tax? What should matter is, it a fair rate? That should be the focal point of all sides.

Won't touch all of this, but Kerry never pretended to be anything other than affluent and never denied that much of his wealth was the result of his wife having inherited the Heinz fortune. That didn't stop the GOP from ridiculing Kerry for speaking French or wind surfing. Fair is fair.

Romney 15% "hum hum " one of the wealthiest people to ever run for U.S. President "PAYS" much lower rate than most Americans. The GOP Tea-ReTards rigged the "System" for the 1%, Trickle down is working big time for the RICH. Where is the IRS "Oops" forget - Their to busy destroying the middle class. Wake up America.

At least they put into the system. What about people who suck more then they put into the system? Lets not forget that many seniors live off their retirement accounts.

Obama paid 26% because most of his income was from his salary as POTUS and his book royalties. He paid 15% on his capital gains just like everybody else does including Buffett and Romney.

The reason guys like Buffett and Romney pay the rates they do is that almost their entire amount of taxable income comes from capital gains. In Buffett's case less than 1% of his income came from sources that would get taxed at a rate higher than 15%. You could raise the top marginal rate to 100% and a guy like Buffett would see his tax rate go from 17.4% to just a hair more than 18%. That's not much of a movement at all now is it?

So if you want to scream about the rates paid by the Buffett's and Romney's in the world, then scream about the capital gains rate. I'll warn you though...your screams will fall on deaf ears. Contrary to the unicorn filled world Patriotic American likes to "live" in, NEITHER DEMOCRAT NOR REPUBLICAN will touch this rate or even do as much as whisper about doing so in a sound proof closet with the lights out. Heard anybody mention anything about the capital gains rate in the deficit discussion? No? I didn't think so.

I'm not advocating one thing or another, I'm just being honest. That's where the disparity comes from and neither party will touch it.

How about the people who make the laws all work towards receiving investment income based on the inside track they get from making the laws that effect Wall Street. Do you think the low tax rate is going away if Congress future income after they leave office is effectively taxed at 15%? Why do most Senators and Congressmen all leave richer than when they started?

That is the ultimate question and that is damn unfair. This is really starting to make sense now and all the other fights are a distraction. Capitalism is rigged and the government has rigged it.

"The tax filers with under $50,000 in adjusted gross income paid at an average effective tax rate of about 3 percent."

So he still pays 5 times what the lower end of the middle class pays for an effective tax rate. Funny how the media wants everyone to believe that the average middle class tax payer pays more than Romney does. I made $117,000 last year and my effective tax rate was 10%.

But of course, as bigbenalaska says below.......its just not fair!

Actually, Obama has tried twice since he became President to change the "carried interest" rule that allows Romney to get away with paying 15% tax on his income.

The GOP knocked it down both times.

http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=8599&type=0

We have met the enemy, and they AREN'T us!

President Obama released six years of tax returns... Romney hasn't done anything illegal, but he sure has taken advantage of being part of the one percent that control and hold most of the riches of this country...

I don't understand how he can still make millions a year and not have to pay a higher rate of tax... Plus he really is not doing any real work...

Firstly, I doubt seriously that either Romey or Slippery as a Salamander Newt....knows what percentage or how much they paid in tax anytime in the last 10 - 15 years (Obama knows becauseit has been the subject of much media hype). They have accountants and lawyers do their taxes so that they can take advantage of every loophole and dodge available, on that you can be assured.

Secondly the most important word in this story and response is "adjusted" in "adjusted gross income" the adjusted bit is what is done by the lawyers and accountants to reduce the taxable income and therefore the tax. The more you can afford to pay the lawyers and accountants the more your income is "adjusted". So there is much talk about those who do not pay any tax, you can be relatively sure that a percentage of those who pay no tax have a very high gross income.....but there "adjusted" gross income is whittled away by "business losses" "trust income" "negative gearing" etc etc etc that they wind up paying nothing but are still driving a Caddy.

Now if you want to get on to corporations (you know those "people") then there are many of them who pay no taxes in the US, GE is a perfect example. I got a big laugh when Neil Cavouto (the Chief Spokesman of the 1%ers) went on about how the "liberals" and the liberal media were not saying anything about the fact that GE doesn't pay taxes.......duh Mr. 1%er.....I think that is what the whole Occupy Wall Street thing is all about companies like GE that reap the rewards of doing business in the US but pay no tax......in the next segment of the 1%er news brief he was questioning whether the Democrats were trying to distance themselves from the OWS Movement?

If it wasn't so stupid and it wasn't obviously taken as bible by so many people that believe the rich 1%ers, the "job creators" are the holding the key to their advancement based on the rubbish these Faux News clowns spew......it would be funny......but alas it's not funny it's just sad.

If we want to talk about true fairness then they should raise the tax rate on any money that was made on the Iraq war. Haliburton, defense contractors and private security firms racked in the cash from a war that the middle class paid for, in money and in lives. Did the Iraq war pay for itself? No, but it sure paid off for Haliburton and the others. So let's make them pay for it.

I'll explain why his effective tax rates will be low in two words: Capital Gains.

Smart investing... not a conspiracy. Let that marinate for awhile, that's a lot to take in.

"In 2004, John Kerry and his wife released portions of their separate tax returns that showed the couple paid an effective federal tax rate of about 13 percent on $5.5 million in income from the year before."

Funny how the media liberals didn't make such a big deal out of it in that election.......oh, that's right......he was a Democrat.

Fairness.

Before we get to that let's just touch on the newest bogeyman in the Liberal parade to demonize the successful American.

Capital gains are the difference between the price received from selling an asset and the price paid for it. This tax brings in surprisingly little revenue. From 1990 to 1995 collections were between $25 billion and $40 billion, less than 3 percent of total federal tax revenue. However during the dot-com boom when stock gains were huge. In 2000 revenue was at $120 billion from capital gains. You only pay when you sell your asset. Capital gains are NOT indexed for inflation. You pay for the gain in value but also for the gain due to inflation. This "inflation penalty" is why the capital gains rate is taxed at a lower rate than ordinary income. The government taxes fully any gains but it only allows a partial deduction for losses. A bias in the tax code against risk taking. Capital gains are also a form of double taxation. Most importantly, a lower Capital gains tax releases more capital for increased revenues for the tax. After the capital gains tax was cut in 1997, the receipts from capital gains taxes rose from $66.9 billion in 1996 to $114.7 billion by 1999, an increase of more than 71 percent.

Once again. Lower taxes generate more revenue due to increased investment of locked-in capital.

Now, fairness.

Can someone PLEASE explain to me what is fairness? In regards to taxes how will it be decided what is fair? Who will decide this whimsical tax rate? Who will be the omnipotent, unbiased, arbiter of fair taxation? Or is this just more of the typical Liberal envy for those who take risk, spend years creating commerce and succeed? Is it just more of the typical class-warfare that Barrack will have to run on because all his other policies are blatant failures?

Now remember, we have had numerous tax bracket rate changes for nearly 100 years and the effective revenue generated from total tax receipts has stayed in a fairly constant 18% +/_2 of GDP. Total income tax revenue has stayed at about 8.6% of GDP. The only consistent factor is to either raise GDP or to lower Payroll taxes.

But investment industry advocates pointed to the long-standing policy of Congress -- dating back to the 1920s and continuing under both Democratic and Republican Congresses and presidents -- of taxing the gains made from sale of stocks or other assets at a lower rate than wage and salary income as a way to spur investment, help launch new companies, and create private-sector jobs.

Except that "incentive" isn't really necessary and is no more effective than any other tax cut in creating jobs. After all, what else could the wealthy do with their surplus cash - hide it under the mattress? Bury it in the back yard? Technically, they could, but that wouldn't earn any income for them, so they'd still choose to invest to earn income, even if they had to pay the same tax rate as everyone else.

In fact, truth be told, they'd still invest even if those capital gains were taxed at a higher rate than "earned income" - though no doubt they'd squawk loudly and whine about the "unfairness" of it.

John Kerry was the wealthiest man to EVER run for the presidency (in modern history). He paid a tax rate of 13%, and you NEVER HEARD THE DEMOCRATS MAKE A PEEP ABOUT IT. Hypocrites.

I say put the capital gains tax for investments over $1 million at 22%, but keep investments under $1 million at 15% to protect pensioners, investment funds, and 401ks for the average guy. Or we could follow Obama's plan, where Romney has to pay about 24% on his investments. But definitely not Romney's plan, which would have him pay LESS than his current rate. And we ought to cut off offshore profit holdings. I mean, Bain has millions of dollars in offshore tax havens, so Romney is getting a score. I am tired of giving the wealthy legal loopholes. I want a simpler tax code that seeks to benefit ALL Americans, not just the wealthy hedge fund managers. But I ain't taking Gingrich's bait on decreasing taxes for the rest of us, because all that money that we get will come out of things like education or food stamps or (under certain GOP plans) entitlements.

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

FAIR TAX CODE 2012

What I find amazing, is that it is the republican's who want capital gains taxes reduced even further. A lot of people in the GOP wants this tax at 0 percent. If Romney is elected president, he could be in the position to give himself a very large tax break just by signing a bill from congress. No conflict of interest here.

To be fair one really has to look at the full situation and not just what Romney pays in isolation. For example, let's say that Romney earns (for illustration purposes) $100 million in dividends that are taxed at his level at a 15% rate. Dividends are corporate earnings that have been subjected to tax at the corporate level of 35%. So if you look at the full picture, the income that Romney receives as distributions (i.e., dividends) from his corporate investments is taxed at a total rate of 50%.

One can certainly debate the 15% individual tax rate on dividends, but it is important to understand the full picture.

People talk about Cap-Gains, and how it deserves to be at lower rates, since it has a risk attribute that must be factored in. But here is something that has bothered me for a while, and I still struggle with it.

For you to make a sell of an equity, which will yield cap-gains, someone has to buy that very same equity. Therefore, the net effect on the economy is nothing, as the very same amount of money you had locked in that equity is now locked by a different person. To put it another way, if you are making money by selling high, then someone is losing money when they buy high. Of course, it could always go higher, but the money is effectively never used, and remains trapped in the value of the equity forever. I understand why we want lower cap-gains rates, but I'm not sure it really helps. Heck, we even have the cap-loss exemptions built into the tax code to help offset any bad investments you make.

We should aim to lower all taxes on everyone down to 15% maximum... just have the government do less and waste less of our time and resources.

The breakdown was interesting. Now add all the other taxes paid. Sales tax, property tax, state tax, local tax, BMV tax, alcohol tax, tobacco tax, cable/satelite tax, utility tax, social security tax, tax tax tax tax tax. Sure this article covered income taxes but what does the average household pay in total taxes by percentage of income?

Abolish income taxes all together. A tiered sales tax is the way to go. Get your gross pay but start at a low rate of tax on food, a little higher for the everyday stuff and higher still for luxury items. Everyone including the crooks, drug dealers, off the books employees----everyone will pay taxes and at a fairly equal rate. The IRS can stick around and split the pot to the required locations like state and local governments. Let them do the complex math.

Lets also get a fair share for imports. Companies that export products to the U.S. should be taxed at the same rate as a U.S. company. It's like the concept of having to bid a job at Union rates even when you aren't a Union company.

The complexity of the tax laws almost make it necessary to have a professional do your taxes or purchase a tax program for your computer and hope you get it right. Only EZ form filers can be confident they are getting the best they can out of their return. The system is so bloated and complex and it doesn't need to be.

The old saying "Work Smarter Not Harder" would fit when it comes to the tax code. What really does amount to simple mathematics turns into a Calculus 3 exam. Instead of--this is what you make, this is what you owe--you have, this is what you make, this is what you owe----unless...........

As an independent I would like to see comparative taxes so called "corporate raiders" rather than assume the worst about Romney. Personally there are plenty of reasons not to vote for the man outside his taxes.

All this means is that the tax code is so complicated that there is absolutely no way of knowing what it should be. The tax code needs to be simplified and loop holes need to be at least combined so there isn't so much over lapping. Obviously even middle class families take advantage of breaks that are needed right now, its just way too messy.

@Rob Scan

Did you bother to actually read the article? Romney does not pay payroll taxes because his income is ALL UNEARNED INCOME.

The average tax load (INCLUDING PAYROLL TAXES) for all 140M taxpayers was over 19%. For the lowest income earners, it would be over 10%. For those making over $200K, it is would have been almost 25% (part of the payroll tax wouldn't apply since these people are over the cap).

This means that the majority of Americans pay a higher rate than Romney.

Information provided by the IRS itself proves you are incorrect... people are confusing their tax bracket with their EFFECTIVE tax rate. This is the final tax you paid after deductions divided by your total income.

According to the IRS, the average 'effective' tax paid by Americans was 11.6% last year. In fact you have to go all the way up to earners between $200k and $500k before you find an effective tax higher than Romney paid.

My household income was just under $90k and our final effective tax rate was 8.6%.

Perhaps it would be a good idea to read up on the history of Income Tax in the US.

Why was income tax introduced - basically to pay for the Civil War

What was the pretence of the Tax System - A system in which those who could afford to pay a bit more would, a graduated income tax.

Why is it now so complicated and filled with loopholes and tax dodge schemes - because those that could afford to pay more were also those who could afford to buy more influence, run for political office, and hire tax accountants and tax lawyers....and those persons didn't like the idea of paying more tax or for that matter any tax. Since the Civil War those influential tax avoiders have via their influence and positions, eroded, amended, changed, confused, compounded, complex, restructured, redirected and bought loophole after loophole so that the tax system now works in their favour.

This is all a matter of history you have to dig a bit but its there.

Now the system is so confusing that if you are a simple employee or small business who can not afford the biggest and best Tax Accountancy and Legal Firms then you just pay through the nose taking the obvious write offs, income vs expenditure route and pay what you owe.

However if you are a wealthy or even semi wealthy investor, a big business, multi-national, a career politician, one of those corporation "persons", a Union, a PAC, a Trust or anyone of a number of entities then you can weasel out of a good portion of income tax if not all income tax.

So the Tax System as it started was fair as it could be but it is now anything but fair. There is of course the myriad of additional taxes, user pays, excises etc etc etc which are also part of the "system"...note as soon as the Feds cut your tax the States bump theirs up to make up for the lost revenue.

Be absolutely sure of one thing.....there has not been a tax cut since the fall of the Roman Empire, there have been adjustments and re-distributions of the tax burden but not cuts.

Why fix it, well because if we don't the next tax cut will be at the fall of the American Empire (so to speak)

How to fix it, simple go back to square 1 tax is levied on an individuals taxable income which is income (all income) minus the relevant expenses in producing that income, the rate is graduated in a manner determined every 5 years to meet the budgeted expenditure of the running the country, States can only levy Sales/Consumption Taxes and User Fees. No loop holes, no trusts, no tax free income, corporations are entities (just like people) and taxed accordingly, the directors of corporations are taxed on all income, losses are not tax deductible (risk vs gain you know capitalism).

The problem....well the problem is that the career politicians that are running this country (both my countries in fact) and its various lower forms of government have absolutely no compulsion to change the Tax System....they are the direct beneficiaries of the Tax System, the lobbyists, the confusion, the complexity, the security. Tax cases are the only cases where the defendant must prove innocent rather than the Government proving guilt.....now that is what I call security. They are quite happy to be the beneficiaries of this Protection Racket that is the Tax System and are not about to kill the goose that laid the golden egg without a real fight (the last one was the American Revolution if I remember correctly).

The first symptom of the tax system going bad is a massive disparity between the wealthy and the rest of the population (hint hint) it is also the the first symptom of a massive revolution in the making (just read a history book its always the same look at the recent situation in Egypt the commoners just got tired of having nothing while the few at the top had everything)when the weight of numbers comes to a point that the haves can not defend themselves from the have nots then bang....bottoms up.

What is the real solution.....get money out of politics and get politics out of government .... the start demand Term Limits for all elected positions.

It really is simple...but sometimes I am just long-winded.

Unless you understand the basic tenets of taxation, fairness will remain an elusive concept. See my post #17 for basic principles that I learned in college many years ago. You may agree or disagree.

It won't they are all in on it....the rich get richer...the poor get poorer. That is the way Captalism works! WELCOME TO THE good OLE" USA, and don't complain about it, otherwise "you be a traitor of sorts..."

"Romney would sell this Country for a dime if he could make a penny on it"

People like Ben Nelson, Mary Landrieu and Bart Stupak have aleady sold us out. Yours is a rash prediction of the future, of which you know nothing but can only guess. Mine is based upon what has aleady happened and is verifiable.

Lynette there is no arguing that the greatest expanse of everyone's quality of living regardless of economic status has increased the most under capitalism. No other system ever tried anywhere has had the success capitalism has had.

If your so enlightened also, what type of system would you recommend? Ideas?

*Cricket Cricket*

The case against taxing “carried interest” at the lower capital gains rate was made in a Senate Finance Committee hearing in 2007 by Joseph Bankman, a professor of law and business at Stanford Law School.

Appears Joe was actually making the case for taxing carried interest as ordinaryincome

I find it truly fascinating to watch the Republican party self destruct. It seems that not a day goes by that they don't feed the opposition with luscious treats. The Republican debates alone will supply hundreds of hours worth of campaign commercials. Everything from the candidates idiotic statements to the crowds of supporters behaving like a mob at a witch trial. Romney's emergence as the nominee will only serve as the best argument the Democrats have to get re-elected. He plays right into their hands. They totally rejected the best potential candidate they had in Huntsman, long before they even looked at him. They only have themselves to blame for continuing to support a primary process that represents a very small and very obscure slice of America.

And then there is the behavior of the Tea Party! America is beginning to pay attention to all this ridiculousness. There was a time when they kept this kind of behavior in the closet or only displayed it amongst their closest cronies, but today it is wide open for everyone to see. Do these people really think that most Americans think like they do? It is truly delusional. These people are actually feeding off of their own BS rhetoric and actually believe they offer something the masses want.

It is pathetically sad really, because this relatively small group of fanatics actually think they have the country behind them. November is still a long way away, but if they continue on this path the Republican party stands to suffer one of the biggest losses of all time. What it means to be conservative has become so distorted that old school conservatives are going the way of the dinosaur. Republicans are fast becoming the third party. Libertarianism is gathering steam and will likely overtake the fanatical extreme right wing in an election or two, while Progressives are becoming the party of middle ground.

I will miss the old school conservatives because although I didn't often agree with them, they were willing to work together to achieve compromise and maintain some forward progression for the country.

I hope so, New day, I hope so.

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

big...

Please define "fairness".

I agree tony. See my post at #17 and you will realize this is an elusive concept with virtually no consensus.

Tony, how about no tax breaks that give corporations undue advantage over unincorporated business. As in...make the corporations pay the same tax rate on their kept profits as mom and pop have to pay. Or how about all income is taxed the same...as in capital gains and dividend income are taxed at the same rate as a working persons income.

James, You obviously know little or nothing about tax rates on C corporations. You are trying to compare corporate taxes to individual rates. Apples vs oranges does not make for good comparisons.

My company pays a net effective C-Corp tax rate, federal and state of around 40%. Is that fair enough for you or are you one of those drinking the kool aid ?

No, the issue is that at his level of wealth it is fair to ask whether he is a fair arbiter of what is a fair tax rate and what services a government should provide. It is always fair game to ask whether the rich are out of touch. F. Scott Fitzgerald thought it was fair, "the rich are different from you and me."

I didn't know you were talking about State Jim but had I, the story is even worse. Every single State competes for the corporations by giving out tax shelters and advantages while Mom and Pop get to pay the freight.

You obviously are going to say whatever stretch of the truth you think of to pretend that corporations do not get tax advantages on every level of government while Mom and Pop get nothing but the bill.

Not every corporation gets tax breaks. States do compete for major industries to locate in their states by offering incentives, but these bring JOBS, JOBS, JOBS to those states. Those with the jobs stimulate the economy for other jobs which leads to increased tax revenues. Most of these big industries are now attracted to right-to-work states where unions do not strangle free enterpprise.

Your buddy Obama made significant contributions to Solyndra and other "green companies". Who do you think is picking up the tab for that stupidity .... yeah, you and me and mom and pop.

But with the full force of the White House and a compliant media,

I wasn't aware of Gingrich and Perry falling under those categories.

Actually, Gingrich has no problem with Romneys 15% tax rate. He said it today. Also said he would not change Romneys rate.

Jim, you claim the States give tax incentives to bring the corporations in for the jobs. How many times have you read where small business was pushed out by the brought in corporations and then after the tax incentives wore off the corporation moved on to the next sucker leaving behind no jobs but a depresed segment of economy?

The right to work movement has worked well in only one area...keeping wages depressed lower than the States that have not fell prey to that folly.

You are quite brainwashed. Sorry.

Keep on believing it, James. We love having the new auto plants down here in the right to work states. Don't pay as much as the union scale, but it doesn't cost near as much to live down here. Taxes are lower, property is cheaper, everything cost less. That's because the union wages help raise the costs of everything else.

It would be nice if you had paved roads though. I'm not going to disparage you too much, but southerners expect a lot less from life - for one workers comp just isn't a big deal.

To all the gentlemen and ladies and other assorted folks gathered here, I will answer a frequently posed thought: "Define Fair". A fair is where a pig gets a blue ribbon. There is no fair in politics, just like there isn't fair in nature.

My opinion? Have all public employees publish their tax returns. How many in any cabinet or Tsar positions in the past 25 years have been called out for cheating the system? Let's make it "fair" for everybody.

I'm waiting to hear "fair share" defined...specifically, what should be considered to be a "fair share" in total federal, state, county, and local taxes.

In my state in 2006, 38.3% of income was the total tax bill for the "average" taxpayer. We just had the largest state tax increase in state history after four years with other increases, so I'd venture a guess that the number will be around 40% in 2012...and that's not for the evildoing "1%"...it's for the average taxpayer.

Even with those answers there are plenty of people who will vote for Romney because, despite a decade of proof that the "cut taxes for the job creators and jobs will come" joke is just an empty promise, people still want to believe this is a truism. It does not matter that FACTS show that Bush's decade (including 2 yrs of Obama) of those very same tax cuts didn't produce a bunch of net jobs. If that strategy actually produced jobs, we never would have seen Bush start with an unemployment rate around 4% and leave with an unemployment rate close to 8%. You'd think that such glaringly obvious proof that jobs (at least in the U.S.) aren't following these tax cuts for the wealthy would DO something to wake people up. Unfortunately, people are sheep who by and large don't think for themselves nor dig into data and ask rational questions. Big problem.

Dr,

Let take your rational to a conclusion. Since you say that tax rates on the wealthy need to be increased so jobs can be produced....why stop there. Lets increase all tax paying citizen rates to the maximum so we can produce even more jobs. What rate would you suggest?

Because it has also been demonstrated by history that increasing tax rates at certain times encourages business to put those profits into expanding their businesses (using these as deductible expenses) rather than being taxed on the unused profits. There is a balance. At this point too many in the GOP want neither taxes nor government, so it's impossible to debate the merits with them.

I didn't see anywhere in Dr's post where he mentioned increased taxes for everyone would create jobs. I didn't read anywhere about tax increases, just that tax cuts on the wealthiest were ineffective at creating jobs.

Basically, he's saying trickle down economics is proven to be a joke and a scam.

However, there is truth where, if a poorer person has more money and are practicing austerity, foregoing things they can live without but desperately want (i.e. a car instead of public transportation), they are more likely to spend it than a richer person who already has everything they need and more money than they know what to do with will invest in an uncertain economy. Personally, I think to beat this recession, there needs to be more tax cuts for the less affluent, who, in total dollar amounts, pay less federal and state taxes than the richer percentage. This, in turn, would increase overall income for states, who would see an increase in sales taxes and similar taxes.

I know if I suddenly had a couple extra thousand I didn't have to pay in taxes, I'd upgrade my life; be it my first house, more education, better living essentials, whatever it is I need to help survive in the future other than my retirement fund.

Wm,

First businesses don't hire based on taxes, they hire based on needed employment to reach whatever financial goal they might have. Second, deducations make the cost less expense however, if their is no reason for that expense it makes more sense to just pay the tax on the profits.

Thereal,

If you reduce tax cuts, that is a tax increase. Where is your proof that trickle down is a scam. We see trickle down in nature. We see trickle down in where America is. No other country in the history of man has been able to accomplish what we have been able to accomplish in the short amount of time. Your socialist countries still have the haves and the have not. Do you think the people of any socialist/communist country has the exact same care, influence, money, as any of its leaders and their circle of friends. The difference is at least here, you can break free. Don't give me this b.s. when I see people from other countries move here, start a business, work the ass off and make a good living.

You seem to know everything about the rich and how they spend, yet you are agreeing with me that tax cuts do stimulate. How do you know that that "rich" person will not spend their money on another home lets say for a family member, or pay college, or refunish their home and give the funiture to charity

Wm,

First businesses don't hire based on taxes, they hire based on needed employment to reach whatever financial goal they might have. Second, deducations make the cost less expense however, if their is no reason for that expense it makes more sense to just pay the tax on the profits.

Thereal,

If you reduce tax cuts, that is a tax increase. Where is your proof that trickle down is a scam. We see trickle down in nature. We see trickle down in where America is. No other country in the history of man has been able to accomplish what we have been able to accomplish in the short amount of time. Your socialist countries still have the haves and the have not. Do you think the people of any socialist/communist country as the exact same care, influence, money, as any of its leaders and their circle of friends. The difference is at least here, you can break free. Don't give me this b.s. when I see people from other countries move here, start a business, work the ass off and make a good living.

You seem to know everything about the rich and how they spend, yet you are agreeing with me that tax cuts do stimulate. How do you know that that "rich" person will not spend their money on another home lets say for a family member, or pay college, or refunish their home and give the funiture to charity

f-gump, How do you know that that "rich" person will not spend their money on another home lets say for a family member, or pay college, or refunish their home and give the funiture to charity

We see that "rich: people do not spend the money because they haven't. Taxes have been consistently getting lower over the last 30 years and we see what has happened.

The problem is that in those 30 years the mind set of business has changed. From the time after WWII through the 50', 60's and 70's business thought of the community and their employees. When making decisions they considered the effects on both the community and their employees. But starting in the 80's and continuing 'til today the thought process changed; they no longer cared about either only their bottom line. And this thinking has been the downfall of our economy and the worlds.

tax consumption at whatever rate it needs to be. That is the FAIR way to tax........

ha ha ha...hee hee hee...just laughable....

Actually, Ice is right on target. Your reply falls flat Lynette.

One little tweak by 6 hedge fund managers (who don't work together...wink, wink) and all of your little fish investment is in their pocket. Just the fees will eat up your meager investments.

Go ahead and donate to Wall Street fellows; I'm sure they appreciate your kindness.

Lynette...

I don't believe Ice was telling a joke.

I don't want to say that you also believe in the tooth fairy, but the stock market since 2000 has all the hallmarks of a rigged casino. We've all been told to save and invest. Savings pay zero in interest (not even a damn toaster) and investments are a crap shoot. And this is coming from someone as myself who has "played" the market since 1984. It's the middle guy who needs the capital gains to encourage saving. The guy who already has the capital is investing to make a profit. He risks capital because that's what he does to make a profit. The saver does not risk capital - he wants to protect principle and keep ahead of inflation.

@Wm

Sounds like you have a sour taste in your mouth from the market. Nothing wrong with that, we all win some and we all lose some. Remember back in 2000 when the markets were booming and you had an interest rate on savings anywhere from 6-10%? Thats all due to the stock market. If you want to be mad at anyone, be mad at the fed for bailing out crapshoot companies and then artificially maintaining low interest rates which ONLY benefit the large corporations and banks that have a direct line to the discount lending window at the fed.

Once you stop printing t he money to keep interest rates low, interest rates rise and you make money on your savings.

Granted once those interest rates rise, were in trouble again because our country can't even afford our debt obligations as it is now.

Lynette, I understand you see my comment as funny but I'm very serious. We can "pooh pooh" rich people all day long but "fairness" is all in how you look at it. When I see that Romney or Buffet or other rich people making a ton of passive income from investments, I don't get upset..... it motivates me! Maybe I don't have enough money or resources to have accounts in the Cayman Islands but I don't spend any time worrying about it. I have access to the stock market and mutual fund companies just like anyone else. I started investing in mutual funds with automatic deposits of $50/month so I know it can be done by anyone. You can make all the excuses you want but at the end of the day, it's your choice to invest or not invest. Maybe Romney makes millions of dollars from investments and I only make thousands. Is that fair? I don't know..... I do know that thousands of dollars is real money to me and I am happy to have it and to see it increase year over year.

30+ years ago, there was a legitimate "fairness" argument to be made. It was VERY expensive to buy an individual stock from a broker. Mutual funds catered to the wealthy and average Americans didn't have a lot of choices when it came to saving and investing. Today, we have so many tools available to us..... online brokers that charge $7-$10 per trade, mutual fund companies with low dollar points of entry, 401k's, Roth IRA's............ it's so easy to benefit by deferring, reducing, and even eliminating taxes (legally) if you commit to making a small effort. But I generally hear nothing but excuses from the masses. I will never live like Mitt Romney and you know what?... I don't want to. I enjoy my current lifestyle and am thankful every day that we have so many tools at our disposal to achieve my little piece of paradise.

good explanation gump, but sadly what your talking about doesn't work with peoples fairness agenda. people think that investment income should be taxed higher than earned income through work. sadly they don't realize if that were to happen no one would have jobs, because no new investment would take place.

He's not paying taxes on the money that was already taxed. He's paying taxes on the gains and gets to deduct his losses against his gains. It just follows the old adage that it takes money to make money. We're just saying that you don't need the tax advantage also. At Romney's level he's hardly a risk taker. He the guy who see when real estate hits bottom, but has the money to buy it up on the cheap. The rest of us meanwhile had to draw down our savings or protect what we had.

f-gump...

Many on this site don't care for factual numbers, percentages, or federal tax codes. They care about others paying their "fair share"...but can never seem to come up with numbers or percentages that show what someone else's "fair share" might truly be. There must need to be some mystery tied to the words "fair share".

Didn't they used to say something like that about obscenity...as in "I cannot give you a definition of obscenity, but I know it when I see it".

Well....'obscenity' and 'fair share' have one big thing in common. Both are centered around folks wanting to see somebody else getting screwed.

Fair share is that you pay commesurate with what you get......the folks who have 80% of the wealth should pay 80% of the taxes.....they don't.....

It's the rich who want to screw the rest of us......the rest of us want a fair shake....the Bush tax cuts inordinately favored the rich and has helped them siphon wealth off the rest of us.

They got richer during the recession. How many middle class folks do you know who got richer?

That increase in wealth during the recession bucks the trend. Usually, everyone suffers.

That should tell you something. It should tell you the game was rigged, and it should tell you that most Americans are not getting a fair shake.

Companies have obligations. Without workers, there's no comapny. No CEO is worth a 1000:1 pay ratio. Pocketing profits rather than doing right by workers= the economy we have now. This is a consumer economy. If consumers are routinely screwed by their employers, they don't have the disposable income that grows the economy. The labor force is maxed out in numbers and with their credit. The only way to grow the economy is to grow the wages of working people.

Trickle down is indeed what Bush I called it "voodoo economics". A consumer economy means bottom up lifts all boats, including the rich.

I begrudge no man an honest dollar. Realistically, not too many people get really rich without cutting corners, and hurting others. I think that's the basis for Matthew 19:24. The reference appears in Mark and Luke as well.

I don't envy Romney. I dislike him, and I feel sorry for him. I started out wanting to give the guy a break. I thought, that like Al Gore, the press was being too hard on him. No more. He's not only not a nice guy, but he's a spoiled rich kid, who is incredibly ambitious, but not genuine, and a hypocrite. People won't buy what he's selling.

A man who basically refers to 370K as though it's pocket change has no clue as to the struggles of the American people.

By the by, he makes Obama look like a pauper. Obama is what Mitt is not, a self made man. He does not come from money as did Romney. There's no political dynasty of any kind.

In point of fact, Obama is the perfect example of the American Dream. He grew up poor, took advantage of the opportunities that came his way, and has done well for himself. He is also a good family man. Gee, he'd be the GOP poster boy, except he actually does care about the people as a whole.

Romney is a 1% man all the way. In fact, his running, given his policies, is a conflict of interest. Obama is willing to have his taxes raised to help the nation, but Mitt's still hiding his returns.

Mare P...

"How many middle class folks do you know who got richer?"...you ask ?

My first answer is "me". So there's one ! And I earned it. Period.

I'm nowhere near being one of those evildoing, child-beating "One Percenters"....ohhh the horror !!!

But perhaps I'm a "Four Percenter" or a "5.1" or a "3.76".

What date should I circle on my calendar to be the date when I finally wake up to the horrifying national news that suddenly I'm not paying my "fair share" either ???

How much Romney is worth is irrelevant. Income taxes are based on income .... not on accumulated wealth.

Jim, It's funny how people don't get that. It should really be described in how many $$ they paid. I'm sure that number for Romney is much more than most of these whiners gross in income.

The fact that he pays more does not give him a bigger voice, even though to most in the GOP the opposite is true.

yeah ask big mouth fat boy michael moore!

Who? Like Wesley Snipes?

........................Jeffrey, Nice Biography !!!

If you are talking about those examples of higher education from the occupy cult who broke laws, raped, destroyed private property, prevented others from working, couldn't put two words together because they were strung out on drugs, and looked like human piles of sh---t, I'm sure the republican party would love them to vote democrat.

Affinity, you just threw out all credibility with your post ! The liberal mantra has reared its ugly head once again:

"We're smarter than you ! So if you don't agree with US ...... well then, hrrmph, you must be uneducated, or or, or "uninformed" the product of inbreeding, or or ( please insert here whatever other garbage you can create).

Your self-appointed superiority complex is truly quite amusing !

The only "fact" I see in your post is you consider your opinion as superior to that of everyone else.

Would somebody please pass out the pepto bismol !

Please educate all us and tellus where you live, and how many degrees you have and why we are all so uneducated !!!!!!!!!!!!!

Affinity...

In 2008 Mr. Obama got 96% of the black vote, 75% of the hispanic vote, and about 85% of the 18 to 22 year old vote...he scored the highest in urban centers throughout the nation...is that where all the smart people live these days ?

Hate to be a party pooper, but I live in a fairly wealthy state where there are stories in the news on a near daily basis reporting on the fact that nearly half the state's hispanic and black students never even make it thru high school...yet that demographic overwhelmingly supported Mr. Obama. Are they all taking 'distance-learning' classes to become intelligent enough to not end up voting for a Republican ?

Who did that research you describe.

Mr. Obama will win re-election if he can draw enough voters to the polls who either do not pay federal income taxes or cannot correctly spell his full name.

The Democrat party has as many or more nitwits as any other political party on the planet.

"...he was reared to be a gentleman, assuming responsibility for those less fortunate and exercising Christian stewardship through public service."

This was written about an exceptionally wealthy man ( FDR) who also ran for President in his day.

Were there leftists at that time who attacked FDR and tried to smear his name just because he was born rich????

Makes you think about Romney, doesn't it? Romney too was.... " reared to be a gentleman, assuming responsibility for those less fortunate and exercising Christian stewardship through public service."

Well, Romney wears magic underwear and that should make him good enough for all.

Perhaps, you have your underwear over your head or simply want to divert from the topic..

What in the hell does that remark have to do with the concept of "FAIRNESS" in taxation ? I know, that discussion may be way over your head, but at least TRY to make some sort of rational contribution to the discussion !

Your garments bunched Jim?

YOU brought out the discussion of underwear, didn't you genius ??

Romney would be the worst president!

Romney would have to try real damn hard to be worse than the Rookie-in-Chief who sits in the White house. Obama has raised our national trillions in only a few short years.

Newborn babies will be digging out from the piles of debt he has created for decades to come. My teens will have to face the political ramifications as well.

Hey Jim,,,, remind your kids that BUSH started all this crap!

Are you paid to post all this rightie crap or do you have no life whatsoever and endlessly post here? I can count how many posts that come from you, something strange! Well I have to go to work so I can't post endlessly here. Have a good day!

That's because POLITICIANS have been screwing with tax laws based on political posturing for about a century. The only ones who could rationally straighten this mess out would be Certified Public Accountants .... the guys and gals that have to deal with this convoluted mess o a regular basis.

I don't believe it would be all that hard Jim. We have census data showing how much income is out there and the distribution of those incomes. We have a cost estimate based on the prior years spending. It is a small math problem to set the rates after that...if there were no income exclusions or shelters.

How much smarter we could run the government if we just ran it for the benefit of the common good and cut out all the special interest garbage!

What do you define as "income exclusions" ? Are you one of those desiring to kill the deduction for mortgage interest.... something which would "KILL" an already weak housing industry ?

Are you one of those who would remove a deuction for charitable contributions to churches, schools, the Red Cross, the March of Dimes, etc, etc ad infinitum ??

The more I read your words, the more I am convinced you are talking about something of which you have little or NO KNOWLEDGE. You sure as hell don't set tax rates for a year AFTER the year has gone by and is finished. You certainly can't "plan" for retroactive tax laws as you seem to espouse.

Jim You are certainly a simple fellow but I do like your spunk. All deductions should be eliminated, yes.

The mortgage deduction does nothing but stimulate debt. charity is not charity if giving something means someone else pays your taxes. How many of the personal foundations set up by the rich have anything to do with helping out in a charitable manner?

If you don't understand how easily rates could be set , I don't know what to say. i think you just like screwing people by not paying your due taxes.

I would comment on the validity of your comments ....... but, I have to look hard for some validity.

No deduction for home mortgage interest would totally destroy the housing market which is already on life support. Then we could all live in apartments ! How wonderful !! What a Democratic plan !!!

No deductions for charitable contributions would mean the American Red Cross would die. Tell that to the people of Joplin, MO who benefitted from their help just a short time after people all across the Southeast, especially Alabama, benefitted from their assistance after the MASSIVE tornado outbreak of April 27th !

And of course, no one should receive a deduction for expenses directly incurred in producing that income. Tell that to teachers who sometimes pay for supplies out of their own pockets.

At my age, with two college degrees and a CPA certificate under my belt, I have already forgotten more about tax law than you will ever know. Furthermore, I certainly pay my share of taxes.

You, Mr. Andrews are in way over your head in discussing taxation law. You have again failed to prove that you know anything. Your concepts are base upon false notions that ignore most of what middle class America faces in taxation each year.

What about the people who have an income from Tax Free Muni Bonds? Should they pay "their fair share" on that income?

Even "tax free" municipal bonds are subject to the Alternative Minimum Tax if I am not mistaken. Tax free munis in my state are subject to state taxes unless the particular bond is from our state.

Jim, you want to call your self an expert but I have read nothing but slanted opinion from you. How does that measure up?

As far as charity goes...there is no data out there whatsoever to claim that contributions would decrease if there was no tax deduction for them. Unlike you seem to be...many people give because that was the way they were raised to think. I expect you would find if you actually studied the Joplin scenario, rahter than just shoot your mouth off, that most donations were not centered around tax deductions.

I think you are a man of money and lack any depth of character. You are kind of a putz but like I said, I like your grit. Maybe you should of paid some attention while in school?

Obama has been waging "Class Warfare" for quite some time now. He is a politician, not a leader.

Dale

Then why do companies sell stock to raise money,if it just goes to someone else?

slodon, I count that as new stock offering, which I excluded. But I stand by my statement. Go to a trade account, buy some shares, that money rarely goes to the company. It goes to a previous owner.

Garbage ! All you have to do is watch any NBA game, any NFL game or any MLB game and you will see LOTS of newly made millionaires ! Politicians are simply trying to keep up ! LOL !!

Please explain what system is rigged?

f.gump. if you have a lower rate for the rich than those making less than the rich it is a regressive system and guaranteed to make the richest richer and those under poorer.

That is rigged.

How many rich would remain that way if they were not given the special advantage of being able to keep more of their money than those who have less?

The tax sustem is rigged with loopholes, subsidies, deductions, and privileges aimed at the wealthy and major corporations. One example is that Exxon, the most profitable corporation in the world, not only paid no taxes, but used the code to collect tens of millions of dollars from the IRS.

As for Jim, a few well paid entertainers are a ridiculous example. The vast majority of Americans are not professional ball players and the wealthy own the entire team for profits. When are you going to complete your studies for a PhD in quarterback?

I'm a CPA and understand tax laws. My argument is no more ridiculous than the poster I responded to. Furthermore, in case you are too dense to understand "LOL" .... there was humor implied in my response. I guess that went ZZZZOOOOOOOMMMMMM right over your head.

The truth is that many become millionaires because they simply spend less than they make and they gradually build up a retirement nest egg. When are you going to complete your PHD in Logic ??

By the way genius, how much did Obama's buddies at GE pay in taxes this last year ? Care to answer that one ??

James and Aff,

I to provide tax services to people both low, middle, and high incomes. You want to bitch about loopholes, etc. ...thank your gov't for going into social engineering. Guess what, if you make more money, your tax rates increase. If you are fortunate to get to keep a little of your money and you invest, interest and dividends are taxed at income rates and capital gains are taxed less because if you have gains you can also have losses. Investors can loose it all so lower rates are used as a incentive to invest.

hummbird,

Are you waiting for a pauper to run for POTUS ?

Some candidates have modest roots but by the time they run for office, they have all achieved wealth.

It should only matter what the candidate's plan is to move the country toward a better tomorrow.

Decide whether you want socialism or capitalism. It's that simple.

Hummer,

Clinton makes $1M a speach around the world. Bet you won't criticise him!

Leona- WTH? My candidate is already President? And will be until 2016, so deal! Did you even read my post? Thought not!

I think what's more telling is Obama laughing with GE fatcat about there are no shovel ready jobs.

What do you think hummer

You are buying into propaganda. That requires no effort.

Go search the numbers, those are facts, not propaganda. It's easy to regurgitate what someone else tells you rather than look it up for yourself, isn't it?

You miss the point. It's called income inequality. It is very hard to have a functioning society, community, culture when those at the top have all the wealth and earnings, but decide they have no stake in the community beyond keeping peace and order, and those at the lower end see no opportunities to lend their limited but unrewarded work and talents to the community. A society that is composed of too many simply working for food and shelter is not a prospering society. It didn't work in Rome.

It's called a work ethic. Simply by pushing myself to the limit and going above and beyond what is asked of me, I've been able to double my income in a matter of a few years. It's extremely easy to do when your competition sits around complaining about how unfair everything is. It because we have a system that rewards the lazy and unmotivated to sit around and do nothing. Yes, it sucked...and it still does. What people these days don't seem to understand is that a 7 figure salary isn't going to just fall into your lap. You have to prove that your worth it, and earn it everyday thereafter.

Yes, Executive pay is insane and over the top, I agree. But it also that companies right to pay them whatever they want. I don't think you'd enjoy it if someone walked in a took money out of your pocket because someone makes less than you. Just because someone drive's a Cadillac doesn't mean I get to use it for a date. I have to earn my own. Why is this so hard to comprehend?

I'm out. This argument is like beating my head against a wall. Half of this nation has decided that what's in the pocket of those that succeed is owed to them because they lack the motivation or just don't want to try. There is no "man" keeping any of us down. For the most part, we are our own worst enemies. Until we look in the mirror and realize this, that's exactly what we'll be. We were the ones that went and took out the bad mortgages knowing we couldn't afford them. I doubt anyone had a gun held to their head when it was time to sign their name. We were the ones that stopped making payments on our debts that made the banks insolvent. We were the ones that wanted cheaper and cheaper stuff, while demanding higher wages and benefits forcing our jobs oversees. And now we are the ones sitting here looking for a scape goat in Congress, Obama, the Republicans, bankers...anyone but ourselves. It's our own fault we're in this mess and no government is going to get us out.

It won't be long before we are taken care of by the government from cradle to grave, and I guess I'm in the minority not wanting that.

Be careful that your "success" doesn't cloud your wisdom and lead you to judging the relative worth of others.

My "success" is mediocre at best, but it is mine. I expect others to put forth the same effort before demanding someone else line their pockets.

You know what, F**k all you Obama stupid f**king commies. I mean it. I'd never do anything to help that stupid F**k.

Stupid lying commie, got all you idiots following right along tripping on your tongues thinking he's some magical smart leader to change the world.

Pitiful. I knew dems were stupid, but I thought it stopped with Carter and Clinton. This guy takes the cake.

Wait til you finally look in the mirror. Worst buyers remorse ever.

It's yours when you get your 40 acres and a mule and make a go of it from there. Short of that, we live in a community, not just some experiment in Darwin's theory of evolution. In other words what is mine has both rules and limits. I accept being part of a social contract and not a jungle.

Being part of a community does not entitle you to my paycheck nor anything else I own.

I'm more than willing to help people who are down on their luck and got dealt some bad blows, but I refuse to support those that will not help them selves.