• 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!

Do you have a higher effective tax rate than mitt romney

Do you have a higher effective tax rate than mitt romney?

  • Yes

    Votes: 21 53.8%
  • No

    Votes: 18 46.2%

  • Total voters
    39
wtf is Romney deducting, to have such a low effective rate?

does he have 30 wives in Gloucester?
 
doesn't matter how much money he paid if he is still paying a less % than many Americans. If I say earned $60k in a year and got taxed 18% I have sacrificed more for taxes than Romeny and have far less to spend on my family than he does!

but he paid millions compared to what you paid less than 10,000 for and he received absolutely no additional benefits
 
State taxes would be negligible for mitt because almost all of his income is probably in cap gains.

uh so it is your learned position that his home state of taxachussetts doesn't tax his income or that he doesn't pay state sales tax or property taxes on his homes in the most expensive area of Boston or in california or New Hampshire?
 
but he paid millions compared to what you paid less than 10,000 for and he received absolutely no additional benefits

There are things known as "Indirect" benefits... ;)
 
There are things known as "Indirect" benefits... ;)

that tends to be a term for wanting to try to claim he gets more when there is no proof. He actually probably uses less
 
I pay in about 30% in taxes and I don't get paid squat!
 
And just a follow up question. How many people paid more than $3,016,300 in the final dollar figure?

AND gave millions to charity. I heard somebody say that Mitt's charitable donations were not deducted before arriving at the tax rate he is said to have paid. I forget who. Sorry.

Imagine if you made one million dollars, gave all of it to charity, and were then derided for being a millionaire who paid nothing in income tax. That's pretty much what's going on here.
 
Between state and federal, virtually everybody that isn't super wealthy, who isn't living off investment income only, and who doesn't have serious heavyweight tax attorneys and accountants finding every possible loophole pays a higher effective rate than Romney. He pays amongst the lowest effective tax rates in the country.

The bottom 20% of the income range pays an average of 16.2%
The average American pays 27%
Even most people in the top 1% pay 30%
Romney pays 13.9%

http://www.ctj.org/pdf/taxday2011.pdf
 
I pay in about 30% in taxes and I don't get paid squat!

that includes everything I assume

federal income taxes

the forced retirement contributions AKA FICA

state sales tax

state income tax (some states don't have)

property taxes

gasoline taxes

hotel taxes

airport taxes

car registration fees

the 11% excise tax on firearms, archery gear, ammo

etc?

one thing people forget and never count is the surcharge on the rich-federal and state death taxes. at one point 55% over one million dollars could be taken by the federal government with some states taking a decent chunk as well
 
...The bottom 20% of the income range pays an average of 16.2%
The average American pays 27%
Even most people in the top 1% pay 30%
Romney pays 13.9%

http://www.ctj.org/pdf/taxday2011.pdf

are you just talking about Federal income taxes?

I read that my deductions are at least half of what a typical American has.
 
Between state and federal, virtually everybody that isn't super wealthy, who isn't living off investment income only, and who doesn't have serious heavyweight tax attorneys and accountants finding every possible loophole pays a higher effective rate than Romney. He pays amongst the lowest effective tax rates in the country.

The bottom 20% of the income range pays an average of 16.2%
The average American pays 27%
Even most people in the top 1% pay 30%
Romney pays 13.9%

http://www.ctj.org/pdf/taxday2011.pdf

there you go with your lies again

that 16% rate of the bottom 20% is based on all taxes and ASSUMES lots of things

the thing you cite is a SOROS funded far left propaganda site
 
there you go with your lies again

that 16% rate of the bottom 20% is based on all taxes and ASSUMES lots of things

the thing you cite is a SOROS funded far left propaganda site

somehow, effective & marginal tax-rates are getting confused.
 
that tends to be a term for wanting to try to claim he gets more when there is no proof. He actually probably uses less

Not more than a person that pays less... just more than you are claiming that he gets. He gets an indirect benefit by helping others get better education, by increasing the strength of the military to protect his interests, by creating a better standard of healthcare for millions... etc.
 
somehow, effective & marginal tax-rates are getting confused.

yep you are right. mitt's marginal and effective rates are essentially the same due to the fact that so much of his income is taxed at the "marginal rate" of 15%

for someone in the middle class who might be in the 25% marginal bracket not much of his income is actually taxed at 25% and with enough deductions maybe none of it is
 
Not more than a person that pays less... just more than you are claiming that he gets. He gets an indirect benefit by helping others get better education, by increasing the strength of the military to protect his interests, by creating a better standard of healthcare for millions... etc.

that is not a basis to justify higher taxes. its like saying my law firm gets the indirect advantage of me going to a good law school and that benefit is more than the one I get by having an education that earned me a 6 figure salary a few years out of law school
 
that is not a basis to justify higher taxes. its like saying my law firm gets the indirect advantage of me going to a good law school and that benefit is more than the one I get by having an education that earned me a 6 figure salary a few years out of law school

Go reply on the other thread TD. Timed test to see if you're a lawyer is ticking over there.
 
that is not a basis to justify higher taxes. its like saying my law firm gets the indirect advantage of me going to a good law school and that benefit is more than the one I get by having an education that earned me a 6 figure salary a few years out of law school

I don't see the comparison... but then again I am already bored. We are talking about TAXES!
 
No, both my source and Romney are using effective tax rates.

More dishonesty-you are comparing "effective tax rate" for ALL TAXES including the vast majority that are not intended to be progressive vs ONE tax for Mitt that does not take into account state taxes
 
Between state and federal, virtually everybody that isn't super wealthy, who isn't living off investment income only, and who doesn't have serious heavyweight tax attorneys and accountants finding every possible loophole pays a higher effective rate than Romney. He pays amongst the lowest effective tax rates in the country.

The bottom 20% of the income range pays an average of 16.2%
The average American pays 27%
Even most people in the top 1% pay 30%
Romney pays 13.9%

http://www.ctj.org/pdf/taxday2011.pdf

Okay ... I see you post this link a lot and these misleading numbers. Let's take a look at it.

First of all, let's hit FICA. There is no reason for this program to be progressive. You get out what you paid in (or at least that was the dream that started it). If you want to take the limit off, my immediate thought is how interesting it will be when Mitt starts getting millions a year back in SS.

I will give you that both employer and employee sides of FICA should be calculated if you are going to count it. This government forced retirement "savings" plan has caused people to take less pay for years. Besides, Romney pays both sides of his on what he makes as actual salary.

State taxes are a completely separate entity. They shouldn't be counted with federal because they have a separate use, collection system, and entirely different government running them. Are you expecting the federal government to balance out all state taxes? If so, we are in for some much larger control here.

Additionally, it was an "average" of state taxes. That's not really a good basis. Some states, such as NC charge up to 7.5% on all income plus a consumption tax. Alaska pays you to be a resident. If you want to come picket with me here in NC for fairness, I'll paint the signs. However, each state has its own economy and those taxes don't average well or show a decent representation of federal taxation.

Romney's state taxes weren't included. He could pay anywhere from 0 to up to 10% in state taxes. I'd be interested to find out, but I don't really consider it relevant to federal tax discussions.

I looked at your link and it cites ITEPNet as the source for the spreadsheet, but I didn't see where that information was readily checked on that site. Could you guide me? I'd be interested to see.

It isn't an army of super accountants and attorneys that makes the numbers look so different, it's the numbers being presented.
 
hey, if Romney is breaking any laws, let the IRS investigate him. I'm sure they already are.

:)
 
its useless to include state & local taxes, when each state has its own tax rules.

That's true that different states have different rates, but those are the averages. If you just don't include state taxes you're just artificially distorting the data to make it look like the super rich people pay most the taxes. Rich people pay mostly federal taxes, middle class people pay mostly state taxes.
 
Back
Top Bottom