Actually, what this article belies is the fact that our income tax code is obscenely complex, costing our economy $400 BILLION a year in compliance costs.

If you want a fair and just economy, eliminate all income and payroll taxes (22.3% for a minimum wage worker!!) and have a flat consumption tax, while raising minimum wage by 25% (which would push all wages at the lower end of the spectrum up). Yes, I may be a Progressive/Liberal, but this conservative tax proposal combined with an increased minimum wage would equal an economic boom for everyone.

www.FairTax.org

Ben 636050, The Republicans put the 15% rate in for these millionaires and will never allow for lowering it. But you are right the American Citizens should vote out EVERY Republican and put Democrats in to fix this injustice. The real reason that Romney did not want to disclose his taxes is that Americans just might wake up and smell the Shlt that the Republicans have been forcing on us. Any American who has their income funneled through any other country should lose their American citizenship!

Wealthyeconomist All sales taxes and your consumption tax are terribly unfair to the poor and middle income makers while allowing the rich to escape tax on the majority of their income and and allowing the rich to amass huge untaxed wealth for them to use to just get richer. NOT Fair for the poor and workers to pay tax on all or almost all their income and let the rich off tax free.

I'll give you a FAIR tax system. First give everyone (every man woman and child) a flat $20,000 or $25,000 personal deduction (based upon what it cost to live) NO OTHER DEDUCTIONS ALLOWED. Then tax the remaining income at a rate of 10% on the first $500,000: 15% on 500,000 to 1 million; 20% for income 1 million to 10 million and 25% on income over 25 million, Add an additional 5% on ALL income for social security and another 5% for medicare. Tax all American corporations at the same rate(they want to be PEOPLE) and tax all foreign corporations at double our personal income tax rates for all income made in America. That should put a stop to American corporations locating on an island and not paying our taxes. Additionally all wars should be paid for as they occur by adding progressive tax surcharges to all the above tax rates.

Ben, by your logic there should be no gas tax, because wages were already taxed. Income is income, regardless of source. What you fail to realize is that while yes, the original income was taxed at the higher rate, the capital gains money wasn't also taxed as regular income in that same year.

The only thing the lower capital gains rate does is this .... once you've become rich, we are then going to start taxing your income at a lower rate (because most rich people like Romney earn most income as capital gains).

As far as lowering taxes creating jobs, the Republicans are doing it backwards. They lower taxes and expect that money to create jobs when what they should be saying is create jobs THEN you get your tax break.

Ben,

You do know that they money that they invest is not being taxed? Only the earnings.

You do know that it is unfair if someone makes $100K a year, all in investments and they pay no SS, no Medicare and only 15% capital gains tax and then another guy makes $100K as a salary and has to pay the government 30%+?

Ben, I could care less where the money comes from that is taxed at the 15% rate. The point is, he is wealthy enough to have money to invest. Why should income where I have to physically work be taxed at ordinary rates while income where someone does little is taxed at 15%. They make money either way. I'm sure this goes for Republicans and Democrats alike. I don't blame them, this is tax code but it needs to change. The problem is, most of our representatives like this perk so why would they want it changed.

Ben 636050 Tell me how much income tax Mitt Romney and his buddies had already paid on the money Bain Capital borrowed from banks to finance it's vulture capitalism. The hole in the argument for taxing investment capital is that for one it is often borrowed money, not earned money and the other is that when I take my earned money that I've already paid tax on and invest it in a savings account or in a slot machine at the casino I don't pay a 15% rate on my earnings like the rich do with their capital gains. In fact all money in the US could be considered already taxed money so none of us should pay taxes I guess. By the way their may be more Democratic millionaires in congress but the Republicans are the ones who seem to be bought by the rich and are kissing their a$$es. The Republicans have even come up with a name for the rich: "Job Creators". SO WHERE ARE THE JOBS? These "Job Creators" have had Tax Breaks and a gravy train since Baby Bush got into office and have been cutting American Jobs ever since. Check out how much excessive capital the corporations have on hand and they DO NOT give an F. for America or for American Jobs. I say tax the "Job Creators until they are ready to really become Americans and put America back to work.

Hey Ben, if you are not a right wing cool-aid drinker you do sound like one. I mean this in the fact that you skillfully leave out an important part of your argument which is key these days in making a far right or far left point. Yes, her is "obeying" today's tax laws and I agree with your point about changing laws people so not think are right instead of breaking them, but Romney and his ilk MAKE the laws. That is the difference. I am sure he is delighted with the effective tax rate as he and others like him have worked the last 40 years to get them like this and also make it possible to hide their money off-shore. Look at both sides of the argument instead of spouting off one-side points that neglect the part that does not serve your argument. Sort of like when climate change skeptics say that many scientists question climate change...what they neglect to say is that none of those "scientists are peer reviewed, most work for or are connected to big oil or coal, and many are not even scientists or even really associated in any way with climate research.

The American Tax code is unfair. It favors the rich because of the Golden Rule "He who owns the gold makes the rules". This is not just an American rule...this is a global rule active in all countries. The progressive tax system is socially fair and creates a stable political system that helps redistribute the wealth. It has always irked the rich...but they are so stupid and blinded by their greed that they don't realize they live like leeches on a robust and vibrant middle class. So the rich have chipped away at the American progressive tax code until it is now a shadow of itself and the the wealth has been transferring from the middle class to the rich until the point where we are now in which the American middle class is in danger of disappearing. When the middle class is gone they ( the 1%) will die from an era of political and social instability...that often leads to them being dragged out into the street and having their heads cut off. Unbridled greed kills!

The tax code was changed during the republican term of bush/cheney, in case anyone forgot. Don't believe for one minute any changes by a repub/tparty will be favorable to the middle and working classes. The R/Tp candidates have all come up with tax plans the voter will think "gee, that sure sounds fair," but always look behind the scenes, which is almost impossible. The R/Tp hides behind their lobbying paid by Big Money funders, the private equity, venture capital and hedge fund industries.

The repub/teaparty needs your vote to keep their moneyed group holding power over you. Once the repub/teaparty get in, they'll do what the repub/tparty governors have done to their states, cut taxes on corporations and cut funds for social programs - education, police/fire, etc. They'll go after SSecurity, Medicare, calling them socialism. Then there goes any 401Ks and savings. you may have. The R/Tps are for large corporations only, the billions - not small business that provide the jobs. Vote DEMOCRATIC in all elections. Let's not be fooled again!

Looks like Romney is only playing by the rules his republican friends have set up.

I don't understand why paying a 15% captital gains tax is such a problem for everyone. This is the same tax rate you would pay on all of your capital gains and many times, like the "death tax", the government has actually taxed this money twice. The rationale for maintaining a low capital gains tax is to encourage investmnent which is essential for an economic recovery.

SI

Mark:

My sentiments exactly.

No one likes paying taxes. Thats why you have accountants! Yea! Why would this guy be any different. The issue is this guy or even newt or even obama going to change the code so you cant shelter 100 million a year or whatevert and pay an equitable (notice I didn't say more) tax .Whats any different between working for your money and paying less as a 366 day old capital gain? Does anyone believe if they raise the top rate this guy or any of the rich will pay more? thats why obama's an idiot! I beleive in tariffs and sales tax progressive as well as a flat but slightly higher capital gains. Income taxes have to come down. Level playing field Not this crap.

Everyone who would pay more taxes than they absolutely have to please raise their hands.

Just as I thought. All a bunch of hypocrites.

If you want to bash someone bash the Congressmen who made the tax laws.

Gee...Romney pays less in taxes than I do...and I'm unemployed collecting social security! In all fairness, if he only has to pay 15% on millions of dollars, then the middle class on down shouldn't be paying anything at all.

Mark, the corporation and Romney are two different people.

"But you are right the American Citizens should vote out EVERY Republican and put Democrats in to fix this injustice."

I thought the Dems were in charge in 2009-2010? Why didn't they fix it then?

Mark very creative accounting. Dividends are not subject to corporate taxes, they are paid to stock holders and are not profit for the corporation. That is why S-Corps are used and the dividends are paid out to bring the corporate profits to ZERO so they don't pay any tax. This is why S-Corps exist. The dividends are taxed at the individual who recieved them at 15% after expenses even though it's income. A corporation can issue special shares of stock and elect to only pay dividends on those shares as well as giving them supreme power to elect the board members and control their pay. All share are equal but their shares are more equal. This is how the vote themselves 300 million dollar salaries at the expense of the average investor. Essentially it is stealing from the stock holder, although it is legal. The capital gains tax encourages people like Mit to zero out the profits of the s-corps and line their pockets rather than reinvesting in the company. Ontop of that it gives them a huge tax advantage over the average tax payer.

Yes, Romney is rich and pays less taxes and its all legal, BUT it's not fair and an example of how the right protects the 1% at the expense of the 99%.

www.fairtax.org

Seattle lower capital gains tax encourages board members to pay themselves dividends which pulls money out of investing in the company that produced the dividends. It is incentive for them to pay the 15% tax over the higher corporate rate. The only stumper is the average investor is the one that pays for it, not the board members which usually have special stock shares given out specifically for the purpose of corporate control over members, salary, compensation, and dividend disbursement. The average investor has no vote on it. If you want to encourage investment lower the corporate tax, treat capital gains as income and tax it as such, and dump lots of money into the economy to devalue the dollar. As soon as the value starts dropping, the super wealthy that have been hoarding the money and keeping it out of circulation will have to invest it or lose money.

BlueBurner, my question to you would be Did you get a Refund on your tax returns? If so you paid no taxes effectively. What people keep forgetting is the money he is investing to get this effective tax rate of ~15% was Already Taxed at the highest tax rate of 35%+. Now that same money is Re-invested in the Economy which creates jobs, that is why it is taxed at a lower effective rate. A much more effective way to spurr the economy than any Stimulus from the government. If you liberals can not see the simple logic of how this type of investment is better than Federal govt, stimulus, you just do not understand simple economics. Think about All the hands that Stimulus or Federal government spending has to go through to actually get to the people it is intended to help. Between his taxes and Charitible contributions his money had a more direct effect in truly helping those it is intended for versus taxing that money at a higher rate to pay a bunch of federal employees to distribute that exact same money.

"This is a fulsome release and we are very proud of it", I guess Mitt is not capable of a full release, ergo he can only have 13.9% of my vote, why is he being such an idiot.

It is lose lose situation better to get it out of the way now rather than later.

Squidword - your understanding of an S-corporation is sorely lacking. Dividends paid out (whether an S-corporation or not) does not bring a corporations profits to zero. Also, the income from an S-corporation is reported on a shareholder's return. That is why S-corporations pay no tax - it's because the shareholder's pay the tax on the income.

Tarheelone that is a total misconception. You are assuming this money came from him working and getting a regular salary, which it didn't. Invested money can come from any source including tax free munis, and even yes dividends. As a corporate board member you can elect to pay dividends to stock holders. You can even limit it to only special stocks held by board members. You can include it as part of a compensation package. It is NEVER taxed at 35% it is paid directly to the board member and he or she pays 15% after expenses.

This tax garbage did not all occur during one administration. It is like a fungus, creeping through the tax laws unnoticed and unpublicized over the years. An earmark here, an earmark there, tagged on to bigger important bills. This is what lobbiests do so well and how the politicians get their campaign contributions - these are some of the payoffs to special interests.

Bem - you're simply repeating a LIE that you heard on FAUX News (courtesy of Rupert Murdoch and the Koch Brothers).

Mitt Romney's income has not "already been taxed". See, he (and most other hedge fund and equity managers) don't take ANY of their income as wages (which would be subject to "regular folk" income tax rates as well as Medicare and Social Security taxes). Thanks to a loophole the GOP enacted for them, they can takes their wages as "carried interest". That money is not subject to ANY tax until they pull it out of their company vault, and then it's only taxed at 15%. ONCE,

Try not paying taxes on YOUR paycheck in the year you earned it and see how far you get. Oh, and you'll pay the "regular folk" rate, too.

And what about that line that read "Romney has a $100 million trust set up for his five sons. The campaign said the Romneys paid no gift taxes on the trust because they were able to use credits related to estate tax." See, that's the real beauty of having no "death tax"! You can transfer all the wealth you want to your kids by creating "living trusts" and exempting them from taxes as if you had really died! What a deal!

And Anwar, plenty of S-corps report no income. Because having one allows the owner to write off all sorts of things that "regular folk" can't deduct from their taxes. Want a Hummer? Have your company buy it - it's 100% tax deductible. Same goes for your cell phone, all the gas you need for your Hummer, your business suits, lunches, etc. etc. etc. Heck, you can even deduct part of your house if you "do business" out of it!

Your regular Joe who drives to his manufacturing job every day can't deduct those from his "income". But, hey, you're special, right?

A key point all you screamers missed: Simpson Bowles recommended 14 months ago to Obama that the personal and business tax code be completely reformed. Our president has not acted on his own panel's recommendation.

The tax code is mind numbingly complex and there are quirks in the code that were put there for a good reason that now may seem unfair. Chuck the code and start over.

The last president to reform the tax code was Reagan in 1986. He and Dan Rostenkowski ( democrat Chicago) hammered it through despite much screaming and hysteria from the left and the right, from investors and real estate agents.

It takes leadership and courage. A fairer, flatter, easier to administer tax code would yield huge benefits to our economy. Done correctly, it will encourage growth and RAISE tax revenues.

Do it Obama, do it now.

Hey Gary - you do realize the GOP has decreed that every bill in the Senate has to get at least 60 votes to go forward, right?

And I sure don't hear Mr. Romney clamoring for a simpler tax code that would (gasp) eliminate his carried interest loophole.

DO IT, GOP - I dare you.

Real - you are correct about the S-corporations' expenses which the tax law allows, but I was responding to Squidword's claim that S-corporations bring their profits to zero because because of dividend distributions, which is not correct.

Squidword's point was that many S-corps report no income, allowing their owners to pay no taxes despite gaining significant economic benefits.

Frankly I'm tired of the GOP tactic of trying to "smoke and mirror" the issue by arguing about some irrelevant detail to deflect focus from the REAL problem.

They only get away with this crap because the average American has NO IDEA how many sweet loopholes they've put in the tax code for the rich. But average America is waking up!

You do know the difference between the tax rate on income and the tax rate on capital gains don't you??

You do know that capital gains ARE income, don't you?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

RealAmerican, the parliamentary procedures for the Senate have been in place for 200 years. Your buddy Harry Reid used them as best he could to tie up President Bush. Same rules for both parties! Liberal hypocrisy never ceases to amaze me.

The real point, which you did not quite grasp, is that Obama cannot and should not reform the tax code unilaterally. Reagan and Rostenkowski reformed the code in 1986 in a bipartisan fashion. Liberal complained and conservatives alike complained, but they pushed it through. It took leadership from both sides, led by the White House.

John Boehner and other Republicans repeatedly mention ( heard it over the weekend) that reforming the tax code is one of their top priorities. It has to have White House involvement.

Obama and the Congress don't have much to show for themselves. A bipartisan plan to reform the code ( eliminate loopholes, get the corporate rate in line with other industrial nations, probably eliminate carried interest, etc) would have tremendous benefits for the economy. It could actually fly in an election year, if both sides were serious.

Obama woulld rather tinker around the edges with payroll taxes and make lame allusions to "everyone paying their fair share" rather than do the heavy lifting required to get landmark legislation like this passed.

Anwar money can move either in or out of an S-Corp from the Shareholder. They pay 15% on dividends and it is not taxed twice.

Simpson Bowles recommended 14 months ago to Obama that the personal and business tax code be completely reformed

And President Obama said okay, let's do it.

But the Republican Party, which controls the House of Representatives, said NO! because the wealthy might have to start paying taxes.

The House of Representatives writes laws, not the President.

Read the Constitution.

Squidword's point was that many S-corps report no income, allowing their owners to pay no taxes despite gaining significant economic benefits.

And then there's Romney's kids, who have reported income of 100 MILLION dollars, did nothing to earn it, and have paid NO TAXES whatsoever on ANY of it.

But a guy who makes $50,000 by breaking his back to make Romney rich will pay $15,000 in taxes.

For those who don't believe there's any connection between tax cuts and the deficit, I'd recommend the New York Times' "deficit-fixer" interactive:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?hp

Just try making a few small adjustments like putting the estate tax back to where it was under Clinton or letting the Bush tax cuts expire and see what happens.

John Boehner and other Republicans repeatedly mention ( heard it over the weekend) that reforming the tax code is one of their top priorities....

What's stopping him. He's the Speaker of the House of Representatives, his party controls the House of Representatives, the House of Representatives writes all federal tax laws, and there are no silly 'super majority' rules in the House of Representatives.

Does Congressman Boehner need someone else to do his job for him?

John Boehner: He doesn't do his job, and you're blaming it on the black man who didn't do it for him?

Commonsense, et al,

Typical liberals. You will cry and moan all day rather than try to fix something. It is always up to someone else. Obama's commission made tax reform a top priority and our food stamp president put the entire Simpson Bowles report on the shelf and left it there.

Tax Code Reform must have White House Leadership. Ronald Reagan was a leader. Rostenkowski was a crook, but he led his caucus. Boehner can submit all the bills he wants ( like Budget bills), but the Senate has to act on them ( Harry Reid has not passed a budget for 3 years).

All of these posts of yours whining about how unfair it is that a rich guy uses the tax code legally. Pelosi, Kennedy, Kerry use the same tax code. But when a Republican does it, OMG!!!!

If you don't like something, fix it. Your guy had all 3 levers of power, not he has 2.

We will take the Senate and the White House. We will fix the tax code. You may not like the results.

Excellent information, RealAmericansFirst.

Thanks!

We will take the Senate and the White House. We will fix the tax code. You may not like the results.

lol @ Gary. Will you take it because of your sterling record of standing up for all Americans? Oh, I don't think so...

Obama 2012. Keep America moving forward.

@Gary, I think your definition of "liberal" is anyone who disagrees with you on any topic whatsover. Cowboys fan? Must be a typical liberal. Only Steelers fans are truly 'conservative', right?

You will cry and moan all day rather than try to fix something.

That's exactly my complaint with the modern Republican Party. You say Bohener wants a new tax code? Well, as leader of the House of Representatives, which is charged by the Constitution with the duties to write laws and finance the government, all he has to do is get down to work.

Tax Code Reform must have White House Leadership

Sounds like a lot of crying and moaning without actually trying to fix anything.

What a bunch of baloney anyway. The House of Representatives writes laws. All the President has to do is sign it.

Tell Boehner to stop whining and get to work!

I'm loving the comment, "Romney pays less in taxes than I do....and I'm unemployed!"

Why do we get so worked up about tax rates? If we can take the above comment as fact, then there's a factual disconnect as I see it. I highly doubt an unemployed guy paid over $3.2 million in taxes for 2011. So who pays less in taxes again?

I earned $106,000 last year, and paid a little over $10,400 in federal taxes....just filed last night. Less than 10%, and that was with standard deduction only and 2 kids. So apparently the argument is that not only should people who earn more pay a higher dollar amount (which clearly from the above they already do, to the tune of over 300 times as much), but that dollar amount should be exacerbated even more by raising the rate itself.

Given the state of things, it is a matter of practicality that the rich will have to shoulder more of the burden in erasing deficits, because they are the only ones who literally have the means to do so. But let's stop calling that the fair approach; it is only a matter of necessity. They already pay over 300 persons' worth of taxes. When is enough enough?

The problem with Boehner writing tax laws is the amount of loopholes he would put in for the wealthy. The only solution is to tax capital gains over a million dollars at a 25% rate. It's ludicrous for a working man that earns a wage to pay a higher percentage of their money for taxes than someone that just lets their money work for them. I'm retired drawing a pension plus Social Security and pay a higher rate in taxes than he does on my 401k withdrawals.

readabookortwo, you ever think that the man was not unemployed for the whole year? Maybe he has a seasonal job and doesn't work in the winter months but makes good money in the summer months. Also did you ever consider that he was talking about percentage of income?

Romney actually paid more in tithes to the church (16%) than he's paid in taxes (13-15%) over the last two years.

On so many levels, this speaks to what is wrong with our politicians and how they've corrupted our financial system, tax system, and our government.

Unfortunately, it's now a fox guarding the hen house situation now; they'll never fix it.

I suggest a massive drive to vote out incumbants and all congressmen with any substantial wealth and replace them with smart everyday people who will work as PUBLIC SERVANTS for the better good of the ENTIRE country.

That's the only way these problems are going to be set straight. Maybe money controls the money, and our government, for now. BUT WE STILL CONTROLL THE VOTES!

Squidword, what I said in my statement above is completely accurate. Say a corporation earns $100 in profits, and ignoring the graduated rates for illustration purposes, pays tax at 35% on those earnings. There is $65 left to pay dividends to shareholders. These dividends, once paid, are subjected to a 15% tax. The only profit making or earnings activity takes place at the corporate level, the dividends are not earned income in the hands of the shareholder, but merely a distribution of corporate profits. Therefore, those earnings have been subjected to tax at 35% at the corporte level and 15% of the net distribution at the shareholder level for a total tax rate on those earnings of 45%. You might not like that answer, but those are the facts.

FYI, I have a Masters degree in taxation, am a CPA, and have 25 years of high level corporate tax experience, so I know what I am talking about here.

As far as the the comment about the corporation being a separate person, that really has nothing to do with my point. The dividend to the shareholder is a distribution of corporate earnings and was not earned by the shareholder (as many people point out above). Additionally, a corporation is really just a group of people (i.e., sharholders) that have pooled their resources into a large business.

But since you brought it up, if a corporation is a separate person, then they certainly should have all the rights of any other person, including the right to make political contributions and to lobby Congress.

Mark - ignoring all the deductions that corporation takes before the pay any taxes on their "profits" (60% of American corporations pay 0% taxes, you know) - here's a question:

How is that dividend any different than wages the same corporation pays to its actual hard-working employees?

Answer: The employees have to pay full income tax rates AND Medicare/Social Security taxes on their paychecks, but the investor gets to use his money for living expenses and only pay a 15% tax rate.

Fair? NO.

Right On WasillaWitch!!

I wish we could vote out every incumbent and start over fresh and new with honest individuals that put their country first rather than their bank account.

Lets see John Kerry's and Nancy Pelosi's tax returns. There is no law requiring any candidate release their tax returns, its a mere tradition. While we are at it, lets just see everyone's tax returns, then I'll wait for the complaints regarding everyone else's tax returns. Mitt Romney has broken no law, he just followed the laws as currently written.

This is not a Democrat vs Republican thing. It is a wealthy person vs a middle class or poor person thing. All of the politicians are in the same boat. Rich, making money very quickly on their investments and they are not about to do anything that makes them pay more in taxes, whether they are a Democrat or a Republican.

You guys realize this article is just meant to inflame, right? I mean, consider this quote

investing IRAs offshore can eliminate all taxes until withdrawals are made

Investing IRAs ANYWHERE eliminates all taxation until withdrawal, that's what an IRA does, it moves the taxation to retirement years. The article's full of these gems, it's just trying to angry up the blood, and many of you fell for it lock, stock and barrel.

Then why have them parked offshore? If these are just your typical IRA's, why not hold them here in the U.S.? I wonder if I can get my paycheck direct deposited in an offshore account? Ya think?

No, investing in an IRA domestically does defer taxes on income but only up to a limited amount. Investing in IRAs offshore can defer taxes on income in many cases without that limit. Also, depending on how and where and what arangements are made "offshore" withdrawals may not be taxable at all.

Exactly Paul. There is annual LIMIT in the US on what can be put into a 401K or IRA tax free.

Blue, I wondered the same thing. I heard a financial advisor say the reason is to protect it from possible lawsuits. Again, people will say that's so bad but it's legal.

Reading these posts, I do wish people would read about the tax code before excoriating somebody who, for all we know, has done nothing wrong. It would also help them understand that money gets taxed and retaxed many times. I believe the ultra rich could pay more in taxes. But, be careful, if they start messing with the tax code, it might have unintended consequences for the middle class who might also lose some deductions.

As somebody wrote above, why didn't Obama get it changed while the Dems had control of the WH, House and Senate? Must not really bother him that much. If you're not going to do anything to change it, then please stop complaining. Otherwise, what I read here makes you sound like whiny, jealous kids.

Alex just what tax service do you use? I want to see that law? IRAs have limits on investment. It is deferred tax, not exempt.

Yeah, no taxes for the rich because we all know that they are creating all the jobs........ NOT !!!

I am a tax lawyer, an IRA is an IRA (except of course, a Roth IRA), regardless of where you invest your money, the annual limit still applies, and both foreign and domestic are only tax deferred, not exempt. There are primarily two reasons for investing an IRA's assets offshore; the first is to diversify a portfolio, which is probably Romney's reasoning, and the second is if you plan to retire in a foreign country, since you can then hedge against currency fluctuations.

Limits don't change depending on what assets you hold, that just doesn't make sense, making up 'facts' to defeat an argument is just stupid.

Squidward, what are you talking about? I never said they were exempt, I said they eliminate taxation until withdrawal, also known as deferring.

As somebody wrote above, why didn't Obama get it changed while the Dems had control of the WH, House and Senate?

Maybe it had something to do with something called a filibuster ... the Democrats did try to change it. Remember the whole Bush-Tax-Exemptions debacle? Or did you already forget that the Republicans refused to sign the nuclear arms treaty to continue giving their buddies a tax break? Enter "bush tax cuts nuclear arms treaty" in google for a quick refresher.

Think about this. If an ultra-rich person gets elected, maybe no one will be able to buy his vote or support. The price would be too high.

I agree but Romney is not one of them. If the IRS and the tax courts determine certain activities to be legal -- then they are legal.

Ben is right - it's time to get the Democratics in to change the tax codes. We need to rid Congress of the repub/tparty. Put Democratics in Congress and with the internet, we have instant communication to be certain any legislation is good for Americans. The middle and working classes have done much more to grow the U.S. than any republican ever. They're out to take and take, leaving only the crumbs for those who have made them wealthy. Out with the repub/tparty of "NO" to jobs, of "NO" to equality. Yes, WE can!

Earthgirl

I actually don't know where to begin. You apparently believe that EVERY member of the democrat party is a saint or a god. The democrat party is perpetuating the ultimate hoax on you and your ilk. They are politicians, just like everyone else in government and as long as YOU continue to be hopelessly in "love' with the democrat party, this country will continue down the road to becoming a socialist state. Your last sentence is possibly the most emblematic of your total lack of understanding. Your beloved democrat party does not care about jobs. Your statement about equality tells me everything I need to know about you. There isn't a single form of government that guarantees equality to every person governed. Ours guarantees equal treatment under the laws. You apparently want equality of wealth or outcome. That would be called utopia and it does not exist in this universe.

If the IRS and the tax courts determine certain activities to be legal -- then they are legal.

Problem is...most of us hard working Americans can't afford the kind of accountants to make our own taxes "legal." Legal is one thing...fair is another. If I have to pay my fair share, everyone else should be required to as well.

Dave, it's the republicans that don't care about jobs. Sure they ran on jobs in 2010 but have yet to put forth a coherent jobs bill. What they have presented are give a ways to big oil and deregulation, none of which have been proven to create jobs.

The republican mantra of "lower taxes creates jobs" has been disproven. The policies of "starve the beast" have gotten us here and we need to get rid of those that believe "trickle down" economics is the answer.

You are WRONG. All Bills put forth by the House are Deadended at HARRY's desk drawer. Until that idiot is removed from office you will see no progress.

it's time to get the Democratics in to change the tax codes. We need to rid Congress of the repub/tparty. Put Democratics in Congress and with the internet, we have instant communication to be certain any legislation is good for Americans. The middle and working classes have done much more to grow the U.S. than any republican ever. They're out to take and take, leaving only the crumbs for those who have made them wealthy. Out with the repub/tparty of "NO" to jobs, of "NO" to equality. Yes, WE can!

Missouri Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill admitted Monday that she had failed to pay about $287,000 in back taxes and will sell a private plane that has created considerable controversy as she prepares to run for a second term in 2012.

Charlie Rangel – who sat on the House Ways and Means Committee and in fact was the CHAIRMAN of that committee that writes our damn tax laws - made an “honest mistake” in assuming that he somehow should be REPEATEDLY exempted from the laws he expected everybody else to follow.

John Kerry – who was the 2004 Democrat candidate for president of the United States – made an “honest mistake” when he decided he should screw his state in taxes he owed on his yacht and instead acted exactly like the corporations that move jobs offshorethat people like him constantly demonize. Because he damn sure moved his yacht offshore to avoid paying his taxes.

Yes of course change the Tax Code, Democrats don't follow it anyway

John Rowland

Bob Child / AP PhotoBOB CHILD
Republican
Governor (Connecticut)
December 31, 2003

In case you were wondering if Democrats were the only ones having fun with tax fraud, enter the Republican former Governor of Connecticut, John Rowland, the highest-ranking official on this list. Ousted from office in mid-2004, Rowland pleaded guilty in December 2004 to accepting $100,000 in gifts

Catalina VillalpandoReuters© STR New / Reuters
Republican
U.S. Treasurer
October 30, 1992

Two days after the press caught wind that the U.S. Treasurer was being investigated by the FBI, Catalina Villalpando resigned her post as one of the country’s top finance officials
Emmanuel OnunworTony Dejak, / AP PhotoTONY DEJAK
Republican
Mayor (East Cleveland)
December 3, 2003

The Nigerian-born Onunwor won his seat at as the head executor of East Cleveland on a platform vowing to oust city politics of corruption. Onunwor stood firm against the racketeering and corruption charges leveled against him, but was convicted of taking bribes and two counts of tax fraud in September 2004
Jack AbramoffGerald Herbert / AP PhotoGERALD HERBERT
Republican
Lobbyist
September 29, 2004

If this were a simple list of corrupt politicos and their associates, Jack Abramoff might well take the cake, the icing, and all the candles

Randy “Duke” CunninghamLenny Ignelzi / AP PhotoLENNY IGNELZI
Republican
U.S. Representative (California)
July 12, 2005

One of the most brazenly corrupt politicians in the modern era, the former Vietnam War hero copped a plea with investigators, admitting that he accepted $2.4 million in gifts and admitting to one count that he evaded his taxes in 2004.

Vincent Leibell
Republican
State Senator (New York)
June 25, 2010

Questions first arose in mid-2010 from federal investigators, as political veteran Vincent Leibell was in the midst of an election campaign for Putnam County Executive. Answers were found just six months later, when Leibell pleaded guilty to obstruction of justice and tax evasion,

Gary MillerDennis Cook / AP PhotoDENNIS COOK
Republican
U.S. Representative (California)
August 7. 2006

The fifth-term Rep. from California’s 42nd district has been under fire for years for being one of “the most corrupt members of Congress” according to the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW). Most of the allegations of his offenses derive from selling land in Monrovia, California, for which he pocketed millions and avoided paying state or federal taxes.

Well if you want to get into state politics, let me just say one word; Illinois

I won't bother listing the convictions

Ok he made a lot of money . But did he make any thing but money. Like did his money making lead to jobs , goods or anything else?

I think he made money with his money That is what the 1% scum suckers do IMO

@RA, deregulation has never been shown to create jobs. Give a ways to big oil in terms of more gulf deep water drilling is a hand out.

The only progress we've seen is with Obama.

Romney took his money out of Swiss accounts because it would hurt his electability. That is why he can't hire undocumented workers for a goodness sake. I'll bet 10 thousand dollars that is the only reason.

So who in your opinion is "one of us?" Your are too funny. I sure hope you didn't need the tax returns to determine that Gov. Romney is one of the 1% (what a stupid designation). It is also up to the IRS and tax courts to determine if investments are legal. If they are legal, then under the law they are fair. You don't like the tax code, then vote to change it. Also, Gingrich's firm was only contracted by one of government loan entities. What's he supposed to do?? Give back fees where he performed his job of advising? Now you are judge and jury as to where a person works???? What about Dodd & Frank who benefited??? What about all of the federal employees working for these organizations?? Are they benefiting by working for Freddie & Fannie? Grow up.

Also, we needed tax returns to reveal that as a Mormon Gov. Romney donates to the Mormon church??? Are people that stupid???

Ben:

They aren't the ones who are running for President.

The President should be exemplary in his actions. From paying taxes to "Sunday BBQ's with the family". He should be a role model for his country in all models of life, ethical and moral as well.

The President SHOULD NOT be a conniving scheming lying fu<k that pays exorbitant amounts of money to hide money from his constituents. A Swiss bank account? Lol. You are a lying cheating conniving prick to even think that up. This Presidential race sucks. The Republicans are clearly worthless and out of touch with reality, makes it easier for my man to stay right where hes at.

OBAMA 2012

By your standards, only an unborn child could be president. That ass's name you list last as your candidate shows you are a hypocrite and invalidates your comments anyway.

I am the 99%.......he isn't! My cost of living grows, my fixed income does not. His capital makes more capital and he has gained equity while the rest of us struggle to match our income to our basic expenses. It does not matter to me what taxes he paid, he is part of the oligarchy, and it continues in its desire to enslave everyone else.

Fortunately, this world is not my home, I'm just passing through!

The Capital gains history is interesting. It looks like long term capital gains used to be partially exempted until 1986.

Hey Andy1511451 when is the last time that you paid over $1,000,000 for taxes in one year, hmhmhm. So quit bitching and get to work so that can pay more than the misserable taxes that you pay. You could, just like Romney, become succcessful and pay more money to contribute to the economy even at the 15% rate.

Or do you just want to be a welfare child as Obama whant you to be.

It will be thinking and insults like those of LOL above that will keep the middle class sinking and the upper 1% rising. The lower earners are taxed more and have less and will always have less while the rich will have their cake and credit cards at Tiffany's from our lopsided system! Blame the Democrats and keep the rich living in the style that they have come to expect.......crumbs to the serfs, peons and rabble and if they ask too much we will put all our money and jobs overseas.

I believe it was both the Democrats and Republicans who both tried to push through legislation that would essentially shut down the internet. The internet enables small companies and start-ups to sell products / services to a larger customer base.

I'll vote for changing the tax code that benefits the wealthy at the expense of the poor and middle class.

My vote won't be for Romney or Gingrich.

Want to see the truth all laid out in pictures?

15 Mind-Blowing Charts About Wealth And Inequality In America

You do know that goes for both Democrats and Republicans right? Lets not forget Harry Reid, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi and all the others. Quit pretending that only Mitt Romney has taken advantage of the current tax code.

Your points = SO WHAT?? Also don't ask questions if you think (which you don't) you know the answer. Remember Obama extended the tax cuts. He owns them now. He also makes more than Gingrich. Want to question him??

Ben -

I don't have the answers as any questions were understandably rhetorical. As regards the tax cuts, I refer you to do a simple Google search. Type in "Bush tax cuts". You will find all you need to know (apparantly you've forgotten) just why the President signed the extention for another year. The Republicans own that tax bill and always have, always will.

Here is a little info about who makes what in income:

President Barack Obama and his wife, Michelle, paid $453,770 in federal income taxes in 2010 on $1.7 million in income, according to tax returns the White House released to coincide with the national income-tax filing deadline.

The Obamas reported donating $245,075 to 36 charities last year, compared with $329,100 to 40 different charities the previous year. The largest donation, of $131,075, went to the Fisher House Foundation, which provides free or low-cost lodging to veterans and military families receiving treatment at military medical centers.

Didn't see that Gingrich donated a quarter-million to charities.

Gingrich released one (1) 1040, he could have another dozen sitting unopened. There is no way Gingrich paid any 35% and, as a known liar, he'd have to show the cancelled IRS check before he can ever be believed, together with his signed, dated tax forms. Even then, with his record of deceit, he can't be believed. He's a bully, an in-your-face bold liar. The only House Speaker thrown out because of bad, bad ethics - by members of his own republican party. A leopard doesn't change its spots.

Earthgirl

I read this post and the only comment that seeps through my disbelief is that you are utterly hopeless. I have a suggestion. Stop doing drugs. Eventually your mind will return to a somewhat normal condition.

Let's get our history straight. In 2010, the Democrats were all for extending the Bush tax cuts to the middle class while letting them expire for those making over $250K/year. Republicans in the Senate threatened to filibuster any such bill unless they extended the tax cuts for all--as well as to block Senate action on just about anything else if the Democrats tried in the lame duck session (post 2010 election). Why Harry Reid didn't try to force a vote before the election is beyond me and shows a lot about his lack of leadership, but that's a different story. In any case, since it was a lame duck session and the Republicans were going to take control of the House in January, the Democrats cut a deal, which allowed for votes not only on taxes, but also on the extension of unemployment benefits. Clearing the deck also paved the way for a vote on the end of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy regarding gays in the military. Thus, while Obama and congressional Democrats may partially own the extension of the tax cuts, he would preferred to not have done so for the wealthy.

Excellent point. I'm always suspicious of people who first make the argument that their actions were legal. That tells me that they know they are doing something wrong, or at least that others would see it that way.

You might ask Harry Reid how much he donates to the Mormon Church as he is a member.

Wow! Just accuse. No facts. Prove he had insider info. Maybe you should educate yourself on investment strategies. Where did Romney break the law?

Wow! Just accuse. No facts. Prove he had insider info. Maybe you should educate yourself on investment strategies. Where did Romney break the law?

Yup.

Romney gave that money to the LDS church to be a member in good standing and to get a temple recommend. That means answering to someone in the church, learning the secret handshakes and wearing special jesus jammies. Temples, secret handshakes & special underwear is what Jesus is all about. Don't you Christians know anything? On the other hand, you will NEVER find out what the LDS church does with the money. That is none of your business.

Uh--not quite. Romney voluntarily donates to his Church. On the flip side, the US Government doesn't exactly ask its citizens for donations. If you don't pay what Uncle Sam demands, you're going up the river for a while. If you don't like our federal tax system, change it; but don't blame Romney for paying the amount of taxes the law requires, and don't blame him for being generous to his Church.

Income is income. It should all be taxed the same. There is no reason that the guy earning income while sitting on his private yacht sipping champagne should pay a smaller percentage than the guy earning his income while putting out fires, or teaching our children, or protecting our homes, or picking up our garbage etc.

You can put your voice to work when you vote Democratic in all elections. WE need Americans to know what the republican/tea party stands for: poverty for the middle and working classes. Encourage a vote for a Democratic for a return to a quality life for US and ours.

well, its not a bad idea for more people to pay SOMETHING in federal taxes, just to make them part of "the system" and give them a stake in controlling federal spending. 15% is too high for many of the 47% (IMO of course), but, except for the very poorest, even 5% would accomplish that goal.

Rick, who are these 47% that pay no taxes? I keep hearing this number thrown around, but I can say I dont know anyone that doesnt pay taxes. I am an average working class employee, having made somewhere between $11,000 and $39,000 per year in my 30 years in the workforce, and I dont recall ever NOT paying taxes.

They do pay income taxes you moron it comes out of your check, its the government that decides you get a refund or not, so stop blaming people at the lowest levels of income. How is it fair a man making millions pays 15% and the guy making 27,000 pays 15% on top of everything else after everything the guy takes home 23,000 a year roughly and some how you people think this person is the cause of our deficit? With this thinking why do we let them take moneu home at all taxes for everyone inder 40,000 should be 90% that'll fix our problems. #dumb

vermontguy: it IS a bad idea because people who pay no taxes can not afford rent, food, clothing, transportation and medical care. Already they are not able to supply their basic needs as it is. Which other needs would you have them give up? The reason that most can't afford these needs is because US employers have consistently increased their own profits and pay to top people like CEOs while cutting workers paychecks. In the last twenty years, 50% of Americans have lost 1/3 of their paychecks/earning power, while CEOs have gained 500%. If the top are taking all the money, then they need to pay the taxes, and pay it at the rates forced on those who should have earned (DID earn, just didn't get paid) the money...rather than them keeping more and more of workers earnings and then contributing even less to the US Treasury, while increasing the needs of average Americans for social services and ER care instead of preventive care.

Sure Rick. So have you grandma on SS, your teenagers in HS who work a part time job and any that may be in college pony up and stop being such deadbeats will ya! Oh, and if you have any single daughters with kids. NO MORE EIC or deductions for them. They need to pony up as well, you can feed their kid/s. And if you can't, oh well.

What you mean is 47% of the country is dirt poor. At 15% tax rate it would collect about as much tax as Mit paid. 47% of the U.S. vs. 1 person

$50,000.00 Income

17.262% 50,000 8631 2011 tax table

4.2% SSI

3.0% FUTA (employee portion only)

3% (average state income tax) (note: not all states have one)

1.45% Medicare Tax

Total tax paid if you earn $50,000.00 a year.

25.912% over 10% more than Mitt pays!

If you earn $209.00 - $721.00 your withholding is 15%

Rich how much are these people earning that your talking about? 10% starts at $800.00 A YEAR

income. (IRS Circular-E Pub. 15 cat #10000W) Did you invent your own tax rates or can you share the new rates with everyone? Or maybe you know some secret tax loopholes. This story is a common myth. The tax schedules are published online. Please go read them!

Squidword - A person's income of $50,000 is not going to be his/her's taxable income. Also, the employee does not pay FUTA, the employer does.

I don't have a problem with them not paying INCOME TAX. I do have a problem with getting a refund after not paying taxes.

Published on ZeroHedge (http://www.zerohedge.com)

Home > In Entitlement America, The Head Of A Household Of Four Making Minimum Wage Has More Disposable Income Than A Family Making $60,000 A YearIn Entitlement America, The Head Of A Household Of Four Making Minimum Wage Has More Disposable Income Than A Family Making $60,000 A Year
By Tyler Durden
Created 11/21/2010 - 23:18

[1]Submitted by Tyler Durden [1] on 11/21/2010 23:18 -0500

China [2] Federal Tax [3]

Tonight's stunning financial piece de resistance comes from Wyatt Emerich of The Cleveland Current. In what is sure to inspire some serious ire among all those who once believed Ronald Reagan that it was the USSR that was the "Evil Empire", Emmerich analyzes disposable income and economic benefits among several key income classes and comes to the stunning (and verifiable) conclusion that "a one-parent family of three making $14,500 a year (minimum wage) has more disposable income than a family making $60,000 a year." And that excludes benefits from Supplemental Security Income disability checks. America is now a country which punishes those middle-class people who not only try to work hard, but avoid scamming the system. Not surprisingly, it is not only the richest and most audacious thieves that prosper - it is also the penny scammers at the very bottom of the economic ladder that rip off the middle class each and every day, courtesy of the world's most generous entitlement system. Perhaps if Reagan were alive today, he would wish to modify the object of his once legendary remark.
From Emmerich:

You can do as well working one week a month at minimum wage as you can working $60,000-a-year, full-time, high-stress job.
My chart tells the story. It is pretty much self-explanatory.
[4]

Stunning? Just do it yourself.

Almost all welfare programs have Web sites where you can call up "benefits calculators." Just plug in your income and family size and, presto, your benefits are automatically calculated.
The chart is quite revealing. A one-parent family of three making $14,500 a year (minimu wage) has more disposable income than a amily making $60,000 a year.

And if that wasn't enough, here is one that will blow your mind:

If the family provider works only one week a month at minimum wage, he or she makes 92 percent as much as a provider grossing $60,000 a year.

Ever wonder why Obama was so focused on health reform? It is so those who have no interest or ability in working, make as much as representatives of America's once exalted, and now merely endangered, middle class.

First of all, working one week a month, saves big-time on child care. But the real big-ticket item is Medicaid, which has minimal deductibles and copays. By working only one week a month at a minimum wage job, a provider is able to get total medical coverage for next to nothing.
Compare this to the family provider making $60,000 a year. A typical Mississippi family coverage would cost around $12,000, adding deductibles and copays adds an additional $4,500 or so to the bill. That's a huge hit.

There is a reason why a full time worker may not be too excited to learn there is little to show for doing the "right thing."

The full-time $60,000-a-year job is going to be much more demanding than woring one week a month at minimu wage. Presumably, the low-income parent will have more energy to attend to the various stresses of managing a household.

It gets even scarier if one assumes a little dishonesty is throwin in the equation.

If the one-week-a-month worker maintains an unreported cash-only job on the side, the deal gets better than a regular $60,000-a-year job. In this scenario, you maintain a reportable, payroll deductible, low-income job for federal tax purposes. This allows you to easily establish your qualification for all these welfare programs. Then your black-market job gives you additional cash without interfering with your benefits. Some economists estimate there is one trillion in unreported income each year in the United States.
This really got me thinking. Just how much money could I get if I set out to deliberately scam the system? I soon realized that getting a low-paying minimum wage job would set the stage for far more welfare benefits than you could earn in a real job, if you were weilling to cheat. Even if you dodn't cheat, you could do almost as well working one week a month at minimum wage than busting a gut at a $60,000-a-year job.

Now where it gets plainly out of control is if one throws in Supplemental Security Income.

SSI pays $8,088 per year for each "disabled" family member. A person can be deemed "disabled" if thy are totally lacking in the cultural and educational skills needed to be employable in the workforce.
If you add $24,262 a year for three disability checks, the lowest paid welfare family would now have far more take-home income than the $60,000-a-year family.

Best of all: being on welfare does not judge you if you are stupid enough not to take drugs all day, every day to make some sense out of this Mephistophelian tragicomedy known as living in the USA:

Most private workplaces require drug testing, but there is no drug testing to get welfare checks.

Alas, on America's way to to communist welfare, it has long since surpassed such bastions of capitalism as China:

The welfare system in communist China is far stringier. Those people have to work to eat.

We have been writing for over a year, how the very top of America's social order steals from the middle class each and every day. Now we finally know that the very bottom of the entitlement food chain also makes out like a bandit compared to that idiot American who actually works and pays their taxes. One can only also hope that in addition to seeing their disposable income be eaten away by a kleptocratic entitlement state, that the disappearing middle class is also selling off its weaponry. Because if it isn't, and if it finally decides it has had enough, the outcome will not be surprising at all: it will be the same old that has occurred in virtually every revolution in the history of the world to date.

Anwar an employee does technically pay FUTA. Deducted directly from what the employer can pay them. So to does an end user pay corporate tax. If they didn't there would be no corporations. Furthermore when I was in that tax bracket my taxes averaged 15.5% Federal Income tax after deductions.

I have seen so many examples of this in many of the people i know. People who work minimum wage jobs that go out, and have as much money as the people making 50,000/yr. They are able to get extra money through under the table paying jobs, unemployment and disability checks. The craziest part is, the checks last forever. By the way, all those people I know, party every night of the week. This, all made possible by the great government of the US.

I have yet to see somebody use the welfare programs the way they were meant to be used.

sure that makes tons of sense. Take more from the poor so welfare costs must go up so they can afford food, electric and heat. That in turn will cost taxpayers $1.80 for each $1 the government increases welfare. Yep lets do that! How about instead stop welfare for ILLEGAL immigrants ! Deport EVERYONE who did not come here LEGALLY . The end result will be billions saved for education, billions saved for welfare, millions of jobs will go back to Americans and crime will go down, drug dealers will lose much of their pipleine and distribution network . This applies to ALL illegals from Mexico, Russia, Africa, Asia, and anywhere else they have snuck in from!

I don't care of romney's religion requires him to dance naked under the moon. And if he dies and gets his own planet, that's cool with me. There are enough planets in the universe for all of us!

Oh, well if it was in a movie it must be true!

I don't see why you are mixing religion with politics...what the country needs right now is someone who has a proven record of creating jobs.

The fact that Romney is a republican is what matters. A R/Tp in the WH will be the end of the US as we know it. Same with Gingrich, Santorum or Paul. All the R/Tp candidates are big money funded and are out for a select few. Vote Democratic in all elections. Our economy is in an upswing under President Obama. Imagine if our President had a Congress that worked for the middle and working classes. We'd have jobs go begging for people. But never under a republican/tparty Congress.

Earthgirl

Please do everyone a favor and move somewhere where a socialist government is already in place. You will be happy there.

So Dave, you don't like socialism? When can we expect you to demand the disbanding of the US Military? The largest socialist program on the planet. And while you at it, you need to start protesting SS, Medicare, all public schools, the fire department, Medical R&D, the CDC, those pesky people who build those roads you drive on, and you'll need to begin slaughtering your own meat and growing your own vegetables or, just take your chances with the truck on the side of the road, oh and you'll also need to disconnect from the public water system and find your own source of clean water. Better yet, so you can be sure that you are completely free of evil socialism, it's probably best if you stage a revolt and take down the entire government and move to a compound with your clan and just do it all for yourself. Be careful though, that clan just over the hill has an eye on your land. Think you can take them? Oh well, survival if the fittest. If you can't, oh well.

What about HARRY REID?

Why should a president of the United States have to answer to a church? Who does Romney get his temple recommend from? If you don't care, fine. But maybe, some Americans want to know.

Hi. That's a slippery slope though... There are deductions for donating money to charities, which I think there has to be or charities would suffer - and the government needs to have pretty broad and open rules for deciding what is and isn't a charity; especially in the case of religions.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not sticking up for Mormonism - I'm certainly not a Mormon, I don't even consider myself a Christian - but I'm saying that I don't think you want anyone in Washington (Republican or Democrat) to start saying ''Catholicism is a Charity, Judaism isn't, Red Cross is, Green Peace isn't...'' based on if they agree or disagree with that Charity's beliefs. That's a slippery slope.

But the rich own Congress, and they will never be satisfied until the poor pay all taxes and they pay or continue to pay nothing.

Flat taxes are assinine. When you make minimum wage, you can't even afford rent plus food plus transportation, and forget medical care. You really expect a McDonald's worker who makes $17,000 a year to be able to pay taxes? You live on those pay levels for a year and THEN you can talk.

That reminds me, the President said he'd veto the Defense Bill if the repub/tparty kept their poison pill in it. Well, the R/Tp made insignificant changes, and the President signed it, with added Addendums that nulled the R/Tp additions - the R/Tps tried to pull a fast one, again. If he wouldn't have signed, you can be certain the R/Tp Congress would have overridden his veto. But, what Fox and other MSM did not say was that the Defense Bill is a yearly event, kind of automatic, to fund the military, i.e., their monthly checks, health care, etc. Our President Obama won again. This is the kind of President we need, who is willing to take a political risk for the good of the country, not the good of a select few. Vote Democratic in all elections. Then WE all win!

Earthgirl

Your beloved democrat party controls the Senate. They would never vote to override his veto.

Gingrich should release his, too! What is he hiding? You can be cerain it's a lot of scum.

I don't think his 2005 - 2009 are any of your business.

When have we EVER seen Obama's tax returns.What this vetting and microscope only applies to Republicans? Why haven't I ever heard the cry for Kerry's tax returns either. Shut the Pres has paid MILLIONS on hiding EVERYTHING about his past. If he was such a great professor why haven't we heard from a single ex-student of his in FOUR years. And as for his community organizing skills and record, well we all KNOW what that is. Has Obama ever received a pay check NOT written by Uncle Sam. He HAD to become President to make his fortune. At least these other guys EARNED their money first and aren't using the office to MAKE money. Google Barack Obama author, you will find 39 books authored or co-authored attributed to the Pres. since he was elected in Nov. 08. This guy is a FAKE and couldn't lead a horse to water.

On this web site your comments are like screaming into a hurricane. I do appreciate the attempt at explaining what some would call obvious.

First no one is jealous, the man made a ton of money golf clap!!! and he is not an entreprenuer at all, BAIN picked Romney to run his business, Romney didn't start it, he doesn't create jobs, a person comes to his firm with an idea, the firm decides whether or not they want to be a part of it. People keep trumpeting staples the guy who actually came up with staples was going to start the company with or without Romney and Bain, heck Romney thought it was a bad idea and his people underneath him talked him into it. This isn't about jealousy or envy thats just a veiled cheap attack, this is about giving back to a nation that allowed you to become a multi millionaire.

Well Alex... it seems to bother you that he has made a ton of money...and with his income taxes ...he is giving back and now he is going into public life...do you think that this futur job is going to be a walk in the park ? If Bain picked Romney...they picked well...don't you agree... Whether or not he hesitated in taking the Staples job...it ended being a success. Non withstang the Olypics and...

I admit that he is a little belittling...but he IS a success and that's what needed. And he seems to have a backbone...and that's what's needed. His money has made him independent of influences...he will be focusing on the Country period.

Yeah, sure he earned it. He wasn't born with a silver, no platinum spoon in his mouth, was he? He didn't have Daddy buy his way into the world. Tell me how many low to middle class people do you know who go to great schools and get companies like Bain to have them run their business. It's all about who you know and when you're that rich, it's Daddy's friend that hires you. It's good to be rich. Let the little people scramble for the scraps.

Damn I'm poor, wonder why all those tax free so called religous institution's are not REQUIRED to have soup kitchen's or homeless shelter's!

When you get to the polls, remember that a vote for a third party is giving your vote to the R/Tp. You want a third party? Get started yesterday. It takes more than wishful thinking.

i would give away more than that. so there!

and in case you didn't pay attention, a lot of the federal budget isn't 'charity' - defense alone is almost $1T, so counting all 15% of his taxes as "charity" is completely wrong.

Slight

Great post. My guess is that most of the posters here would not give anything to any charity.

I give to charity until it hurts. Of course, I also don't deduct it from my taxes. I don't consider charity as a tax shelter. I consider it charity. Imagine that.

Dave,

Since when is giving to your church such a great charity? I give every week along with multi- millions of those "common people" at church. Also, give more in pledges when my church needs it. You die hard Teabaggers just love to twist facts and claim nobody but your "rich gods" do anything for this country. By the way, when was the last time a "rich god" died defending this country in a war they created? Any of Mitt's "boys" serving our country. Ha- you guys spouting that he is giving up allot to try and become POTUS, he should be honored to want to help the country that has helped him so much. But, I for one doubt that's his reason for wanting the job! Maybe power, prestige, and a superior feeling would more likely the reason's.

lulu98

I agree with everything you said, but what to did not address is the liberal/progressive/socialist agenda espoused by earthgirl. They do not want anyone except themselves to be rich.

Sorry Dave i have to disagree with you about earthgirl.

She wants everyone to be rich. Only I am pretty sure she believes in the whole "equitable distribution of wealth" BS that is permeating from our current administration. You know, the plan where everyone is rich, the ones who actually work for their money and the ones who are given part of someone elses earned money so that every one can be "equally rich".

Golly, Viet Vet, sound's to me like Earth Girl might actually be practiciing some Christ like idea's...Jesus didn't tell Nickydemus to work hard make lot's of money, stop by church on Sunday, and I'll see ya in heaven! Perhap's there in is the real problem...all these presidential candidate's wearing their religion on their sleeve's, for political benefit while practicing their true religion of Capitalism!

Well lets see how many Americans fall below the poverty line? How many Americans are unemployed and have no income to report?

You ask why so many pay nothing what about GE paying 0 in taxes?

He claims to be running on a moral platform is it morally correct to take advantage and bend the rules to fit your situation to avoid a law?

And on top of that he gave an additional 10% to charity.

Which he can use as a tax write off.

wreckinball - False.

Go read post #1.30

Wreck

Don't agree with your double tax argument. Capital gains tax only accrues on the difference between the purchase cost of an asset and the sales price. Assuming the purchase cost is after tax dollars, there is no additional tax paid on the initial investment.

The issue with the capital gains rate on carried interest is that the fund "investor" does not invest real money, only borrowed money so there is very little if any actual investment. Any gain is automatically taxed at capital gains rates.

If the "investor" were an investment adviser or manager and paid a bonus on investment gains, the same income would be taxed at ordinary income tax rates, the rates the rest of us (suckers) pay.

Come on its simple math he paid 14.5% taxes in total. Not that I am on his side but at least he did not pull a GE stunt and pull off the steal of paying no taxes!

No matter how you add it up the middle class has been carrying the ball for far to long! If there is to be a middle class we have to stop this hiding income overseas and come up with a fair tax system. I for one am all for a flat tax with only one exception. If the product is made here by Americans and sold here by Americans and the money is kept here in America then 15% tax. If its not made here or the money is profit from Americans but invested overseas then 30%. This would encourage job growth in America and be a much cheaper to administer taxation system.

Actually you are incorrect. Those in the top 10% of incomes, according to the IRS, pay 70% of all individual federal income tax. Those in the bottom 75% now pay only a mere 14%. If anything, it is the high income folks who are carrying the middle class.

Peter, the top ten percent appear to pay more and they do, but not in percentage. Obviously if I pay 10% of 1,000,000, it's 100K. If I pay 10% of 30k, it's 3k, so yeah 100k/103k = .97 x 100 or 97%! Of course they pay more!

Yeah, I know that someone paying 30k may pay less than 10%, especially if they have a family... but I seriously don't think the guy up top cares about 3k, do you? It's the guy paying 20-30% in the middle class who notices.