• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Romney Paid 1.9 Mllion Dollars in Taxes in 2011

PeteEU said:
No it is not enough and especially not enough for a guy who wants to be President.

14% effective tax rate... it is even less than the 15% capital gains tax rate, hence he got money BACK from the feds... pathetic.
Click to expand...

He could have paid much less, but in keeping with what he said he would pay.....he didn't claim all of his charitable contributions.
 
American said:
He claimed about half on his taxes.
Click to expand...

I know, Elvis never deducted his charitable contributions from his taxes because he thought that was wrong, and everybody knows Elvis was The King!!!
 
Maybe someone can explain this to me. If I'm a single individual who doesn't have dependents or a mortgage making 30k a year I'm in the 15% bracket. How is it a fair tax system that I am paying a greater percentage than someone who made 7+ million after their charitable deductions? Does anyone really think having kids represents as much of a financial burden to someone in Mitt's income range as it does to those making 100k or less? No matter how you slice it, it is obvious that the over taxed rich is just an illusion created to conceal the rampant greed of the American affluent. I guess we can add that myth ton the same book of fairy tales with the one about tax breaks equal job creation.
 
Taylor said:
43% to taxes and charity and that's still not enough. Of course not - these are liberals. You could take 100% away and they'd still hate the guy for making so much in the first place.
Click to expand...



thank_ you _- I was Just thinking the same thing" __ Lol' _ :lol:
 
Loki97 said:
Maybe someone can explain this to me. If I'm a single individual who doesn't have dependents or a mortgage making 30k a year I'm in the 15% bracket. How is it a fair tax system that I am paying a greater percentage than someone who made 7+ million after their charitable deductions? Does anyone really think having kids represents as much of a financial burden to someone in Mitt's income range as it does to those making 100k or less? No matter how you slice it, it is obvious that the over taxed rich is just an illusion created to conceal the rampant greed of the American affluent. I guess we can add that myth ton the same book of fairy tales with the one about tax breaks equal job creation.
Click to expand...

You're not creating jobs by not having a mortgage. You have no deductions.
 
Loki97 said:
Maybe someone can explain this to me. If I'm a single individual who doesn't have dependents or a mortgage making 30k a year I'm in the 15% bracket. How is it a fair tax system that I am paying a greater percentage than someone who made 7+ million after their charitable deductions? Does anyone really think having kids represents as much of a financial burden to someone in Mitt's income range as it does to those making 100k or less? No matter how you slice it, it is obvious that the over taxed rich is just an illusion created to conceal the rampant greed of the American affluent. I guess we can add that myth ton the same book of fairy tales with the one about tax breaks equal job creation.
Click to expand...

Please change your lean to "progressive".
 
jonny5 said:
Thats not enough? How much is enough for one person to pay? What does Romney get for his patriotic sacrifice which is larger than 99.9% of americans? He paid 3 million in 2010. Still not enough? How about 10 million? Would that be enough? How about the govt collect everything earns (cap gains essentially)? Hes already rich. He can live off his assets. Too much?

Mitt Romney Taxes: Campaign Releasing 2011 Returns
Click to expand...

um 30% like the rest of us or more as it should be a progressive tax? so he should pay 6 mill +.

Though paying low taxes is not the reason he's losing. It's bad ideas and policy.
 
shiang said:
um 30% like the rest of us or more as it should be a progressive tax? so he should pay 6 mill +.

Though paying low taxes is not the reason he's losing. It's bad ideas and policy.
Click to expand...

You don't pay 30% to the feds and if you do, you need to shoot your accountant. If you're doing your own taxes and paying 30%, same advice.
 
Loki97 said:
Maybe someone can explain this to me. If I'm a single individual who doesn't have dependents or a mortgage making 30k a year I'm in the 15% bracket. How is it a fair tax system that I am paying a greater percentage than someone who made 7+ million after their charitable deductions? Does anyone really think having kids represents as much of a financial burden to someone in Mitt's income range as it does to those making 100k or less? No matter how you slice it, it is obvious that the over taxed rich is just an illusion created to conceal the rampant greed of the American affluent. I guess we can add that myth ton the same book of fairy tales with the one about tax breaks equal job creation.
Click to expand...

How is it fair that someone making $30K a year paying 15% when there is someone making $2K a year receiving a ton of public assistance might be getting a $3500 refund of money you paid in? "Fair" is relative and subjective
 
Fisher said:
How is it fair that someone making $30K a year paying 15% when there is someone making $2K a year receiving a ton of public assistance might be getting a $3500 refund of money you paid in? "Fair" is relative and subjective
Click to expand...

What magnitude of distance is there between someone making 7M and someone making 30k vs 2k and 30k? I agree that the earned income credit needs to be reevaluated if for no other reason than we can't continue to make having kids the best means of supporting yourself. If fair is completely subjective then don't whine when the majority take more away from the affluent minority and quit crying they already pay too much in taxes.
 
BACotner said:
Please change your lean to "progressive".
Click to expand...

I guess I could hide behind "other" like may of the far right do here. How about I decide what best describes me and you worry about yourself or is it just your nature to presume you have the right to dictate others' actions?
 
Loki97 said:
Maybe someone can explain this to me. If I'm a single individual who doesn't have dependents or a mortgage making 30k a year I'm in the 15% bracket. How is it a fair tax system that I am paying a greater percentage than someone who made 7+ million after their charitable deductions? Does anyone really think having kids represents as much of a financial burden to someone in Mitt's income range as it does to those making 100k or less? No matter how you slice it, it is obvious that the over taxed rich is just an illusion created to conceal the rampant greed of the American affluent. I guess we can add that myth ton the same book of fairy tales with the one about tax breaks equal job creation.
Click to expand...

How is it fair that he pays several millions for his privilege of living in this land of opportunity, and, even if you make 30K, you pay 4500? which would be as stretch. Using your logic, why shouldn't this rule apply all across the spectrum. For instance, if you buy a pair of pants for $50, and you make 500/week, that is 10% of your income. Assuming Romney makes a million a month, then should Romney pay 25 K for his jeans, after all, it is the same percentage. That seems fair.

What you are talking about is class envy and redistribution. Progressives have been successful in making many people believe that the road to riches is paved with someone elses money, instead of using your own abilities to become one of them.
 
Taylor said:
43% to taxes and charity and that's still not enough. Of course not - these are liberals. You could take 100% away and they'd still hate the guy for making so much in the first place.
Click to expand...

Thank you for this fine post.. spot on..

Hows much did Erkle Obama or Stupid Joe give to charity?....they only use OUR money for that called their "cronies"...
!
 
Loki97 said:
What magnitude of distance is there between someone making 7M and someone making 30k vs 2k and 30k? I agree that the earned income credit needs to be reevaluated if for no other reason than we can't continue to make having kids the best means of supporting yourself. If fair is completely subjective then don't whine when the majority take more away from the affluent minority and quit crying they already pay too much in taxes.
Click to expand...

When have I ever whined or cried about either? I was just pointing out that what is fair is subjective. It that scenario the money paid in by you would go right back out to somebody else.

Conservative thinks I am trying to steal his money if that gives you a clue.....
 
Travis007 said:
Thank you for this fine post.. spot on..

Hows much did Erkle Obama or Stupid Joe give to charity?....they only use OUR money for that called their "cronies"...
!
Click to expand...

Yeah, Mittens only kept 13 of the 14 million he made mostly from capital gains. His tax rate was a whole 14%. Everybody else pays a lot more.
 
jet57 said:
Yeah, Mittens only kept 13 of the 14 million he made mostly from capital gains. His tax rate was a whole 14%. Everybody else pays a lot more.
Click to expand...

not really..

Obama is such a loser Mitt gave so much more to charity even.... Obama ranks a big zero as always

Obama's Immelt of GE Id bet is paying much less..
 
Loki97 said:
Maybe someone can explain this to me. If I'm a single individual who doesn't have dependents or a mortgage making 30k a year I'm in the 15% bracket. How is it a fair tax system that I am paying a greater percentage than someone who made 7+ million after their charitable deductions? Does anyone really think having kids represents as much of a financial burden to someone in Mitt's income range as it does to those making 100k or less? No matter how you slice it, it is obvious that the over taxed rich is just an illusion created to conceal the rampant greed of the American affluent. I guess we can add that myth ton the same book of fairy tales with the one about tax breaks equal job creation.
Click to expand...

You wouldn't be paying a higher rate. At $30k with no dependents and no deductions your effective rate would be less than 13%.
 
jimbo said:
How is it fair that he pays several millions for his privilege of living in this land of opportunity, and, even if you make 30K, you pay 4500? which would be as stretch. Using your logic, why shouldn't this rule apply all across the spectrum. For instance, if you buy a pair of pants for $50, and you make 500/week, that is 10% of your income. Assuming Romney makes a million a month, then should Romney pay 25 K for his jeans, after all, it is the same percentage. That seems fair.

What you are talking about is class envy and redistribution. Progressives have been successful in making many people believe that the road to riches is paved with someone elses money, instead of using your own abilities to become one of them.
Click to expand...

The fact, the more you make, the more you need the government to maintain a stable geopolitical, financial, and law enforcement order so you can keep making those big bucks and hold onto the bucks you've got. For example, if we hadn't done TARP and we had allowed the financial institutions to crater, what would Mitt have lost? He probably would have lost a hundred million dollars or more. What would the guy making $30k lose? He probably has a net negative worth. So should he pay the same amount to prop up the banking system as the guy who has tens of millions hanging in the balance?
 
jimbo said:
How is it fair that he pays several millions for his privilege of living in this land of opportunity, and, even if you make 30K, you pay 4500? which would be as stretch. Using your logic, why shouldn't this rule apply all across the spectrum. For instance, if you buy a pair of pants for $50, and you make 500/week, that is 10% of your income. Assuming Romney makes a million a month, then should Romney pay 25 K for his jeans, after all, it is the same percentage. That seems fair.

What you are talking about is class envy and redistribution. Progressives have been successful in making many people believe that the road to riches is paved with someone elses money, instead of using your own abilities to become one of them.
Click to expand...

Actually you are just illustrating the point that Romney's tax burden is much less of issue in his finances than it is in those of the person making 30k. Many things that are essential don't increase in price parallel to your income. If the person who makes 30k uses $200 in electricity each month it is highly unlikely that Romney and his clan use 50k worth per month even with multiple homes.
 
Loki97 said:
Actually you are just illustrating the point that Romney's tax burden is much less of issue in his finances than it is in those of the person making 30k. Many things that are essential don't increase in price parallel to your income. If the person who makes 30k uses $200 in electricity each month it is highly unlikely that Romney and his clan use 50k worth per month even with multiple homes.
Click to expand...

It also highlights the difference between income and DISPOSABLE income -- that portion of a person's income over which he has complete discretion. In 2005, the average person's net disposable income dipped into negative territory for the first time since 1933. Yes, that's in 2005 -- under George W. Bush. Disposable Income Definition | Investopedia

That means that any income tax is putting the average person into the red and actually limits the ability to pay his or her bills.

OTOH, above a certain income level, ALL income is disposable income. If someone making $20 million a year pays a couple million in taxes, it will have very little impact on his or her life.

This is the concept that too many conservatives don't seem to grasp ... or care about.
 
Grim17 said:
Of course he was, we all knew that... What is so sad, is that the democrats don't give a damn. They long ago abandoned ethics, morals and embrace anything that will get them votes.
Click to expand...

Nobody likes Reid. His approval rating was like 9% in the last election.

Except the incredibly wise GOP Primary voters in Nevada went and picked someone who is literally insane. Thanks a lot, tea partiers. Now we're stuck with this douchebag until next time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom