• 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
The GOP might not be as helpful as it should be but its the dems that want to tax her more and more and more

If taxes and spending are the only issues important to her, I would vote GOP this time around in her position. It still won't make things better, but it might lessen the potential damage.

However, I factor in other things. I don't know how I will be voting and I'm actually in a worse position being a private business owner. I will have to vote case-by-case.
 
If taxes and spending are the only issues important to her, I would vote GOP this time around in her position. It still won't make things better, but it might lessen the potential damage.

However, I factor in other things. I don't know how I will be voting and I'm actually in a worse position being a private business owner. I will have to vote case-by-case.

if you are a productive member of society your interests are not helped in the long run by a party that seeks to create more dependency which is seduced into voting for that party with the wealth of the productive
 
if you are a productive member of society your interests are not helped in the long run by a party that seeks to create more dependency which is seduced into voting for that party with the wealth of the productive

If only it were that simple! I understand your point, but you have to remember that other things are very important to me. We are close to breaking the barrier on gay marriage and I do support some of the social programs that the GOP doesn't generally care for.

I'm not really arguing with you so much as stating that how I weight things isn't purely on money and even if the democrats aren't playing exactly my game, I can't immediately support all financial moves by the GOP.
 
Keridan

Okay. I pulled out my returns for the last four years. If we use the Romney figure of 13.9% as the base, in two years I had slightly higher rates I paid - maybe one full percent higher. In one other year it was almost identical to that of the Romeny rate. In the fourth year it was about a full three points lower but that was in a year I was retired and had not yet gained another job and was low year in book royalties for me compared to normal years when the figure is higher.

I hope that helps.

We normally have several sources of income including a full time job for the state, part-time political consulting work, my wife occasionally does some temp part time work as a Speech Pathologist to keep her certification and skills up, two teacher pensions, tax shelter payments from which they take out 20%, investments, book royalties and a few other miscellaneous checks from other things. I once got a check from oversees when characters I created for a book were used by a film company as inspiration for other characters. I guess they were trying to avoid a lawsuit and figured it was better to take the initiative.

So my income varies from year to year.
 
Last edited:
He's not paying less of a percentage than most Americans. Remember, 47% of taxpayers pay nothing at all. Someone making $60,000 is not paying 18%. A married taxpayer earning $60,000 taking no deductions, having one child, is paying 5.75%. Single taxpayers, no dependents, get screwed, however. Their tax rate is 14.58% on that same $60,000. Our tax code is a freakin' MESS.
This is perhaps the main reason (and simply fairness) that I believe we should have a flat tax with no g-damn deductions. Yes, Romney paid more in taxes than I did, but it hurt him less. I get the liberal argument on this one, I still don't agree with it, because it is not fair that someone who earns more gets penalized for it. However, I also do not agree that someone who earns more pays a lesser percentage either.

simplify the whole damn thing. one rate regardless of how the money is made, no deductions, problems solved on all ends (including far higher government revenue)
 
if you are a productive member of society your interests are not helped in the long run by a party that seeks to create more dependency...

if the Democrats really wanted to increase dependency, they would seek to overturn the 5-year limit on welfare benefits. but they ain't.
 
Keridan

Okay. I pulled out my returns for the last four years. If we use the Romney figure of 13.9% as the base, in two years I had slightly higher rates I paid - maybe one full percent higher. In one other year it was almost identical to that of the Romeny rate. In the fourth year it was about a full three points lower but that was in a year I was retired and had not yet gained another job and was low year in book royalties for me compared to normal years when the figure is higher.

I hope that helps.

We normally have several sources of income including a full time job for the state, part-time political consulting work, my wife occasionally does some temp part time work as a Speech Pathologist to keep her certification and skills up, two teacher pensions, tax shelter payments from which they take out 20%, investments, book royalties and a few other miscellaneous checks from other things. I once got a check from oversees when characters I created for a book were used by a film company as inspiration for other characters. I guess they were trying to avoid a lawsuit and figured it was better to take the initiative.

So my income varies from year to year.

Thank you for taking the time to break this down. Especially since you have so much going on!

Would you mind clarifying whether or not that includes FICA? If so, I'd be curious about the result. If not, I'm sorry for your pain!
 
Thank you for taking the time to break this down. Especially since you have so much going on!

Would you mind clarifying whether or not that includes FICA? If so, I'd be curious about the result. If not, I'm sorry for your pain!

NO - it does NOT include FICA.
 
Actually, with three dependents that you mentioned, an income of 200k pays 22% in FIT after standard deductions, which don't include the tuition and healthcare deductions. I also assumed you were single, since you didn't mention otherwise. You are absolutely in the top 3% and fall in the rare exception who have a higher rate than Romney, however.

Even if you pretend FICA counts as FIT and add the maximum (which you hit at 106k) and apply both sides to your paycheck (making it 8.4 instead of 4.2), you end up with an additional 4.4%.

Let's look at it. 22% FIT, 4.4% FICA. That puts you at 26.4% federal taxes. Are you saying your state has a tax rate of 23.6%?? Where do you live? I won't be going there.

I also hate to be the one to tell you, but President Obama isn't out there fixing things for people in the 200k pay range. Right now, he's pushing for more taxes on people wealthier than you, but not with the intent of lowering your taxes. He just wants to cover a bit more of the incredible spending habit government can't seem to break.

Unfortunately, neither party is looking out for you.

What tuition deduction ...? As I said I have two dependents. My final tax rate included state and property taxes etc.



so you think Obama respects you more by wanting to tax you even more

that is idiotic. and if you do what my grandparents did-save as much as they could and invest it, the dems want to tax what you derive from that investment at a rate at least as twice as high as it is now taxed.

rather than complaining rightfully that your earned income is taxed too much because too many people want to much government and the politicians don't want to tax those masses for what they want, you seem envious of those who have investment income even though dividends are currently taxed at 45% and dems want to tax it at over 60%

Under the Obama healthcare reform I was able to keep my sons on my healthcare insurance. I am not in the upper 1% that is under his plan. In addition ... I am not just considering myself yet the middle income earners that received a tax break under Obama.

People like Romney and others whose "income" is earned primarily by capitol gains are able to legally cheat the system and that is what Obama is focused on. In fact, in one debate Romney even commented that under Gingrich tax plan he would have to pay no income tax.

I don't know how you're figuring your taxes, my friend, but I'd suggest you get a new tax preparer. Seriously.

$190,000 earnings; 4 dependants claimed; $18,000 mortgage interest tax deduction [estimated] = Effective tax rate for Federal income taxes: 18.53%. Add SS/Medicare onto that and you've got, this year, 22.73%. (If you looked at Line 60 of your income tax return, you should see a number somewhere around $35,000, assuming your income is around $190,000. If you have other deductions, it would be less.)

Marginal Tax Rate Calculator

i don't think he understands how tax brackets work.

Look carefully at the tax code and I have two dependents not four ... I receive no tuition deductions. Include state, property and other assessments.
 
NO - it does NOT include FICA.

Thank you for clarifying. From what you have said, it seems you are one of the ones who does pay a higher basic FIT and gets FICA on top of it.

I don't want to get into your deductions and such, but my guess is you do alright for yourself and it also appears that you work hard for it. To me, that lends credibility to opinions you have shared.

It doesn't really change my stances, but it helps me get more information.
 
Actually, with three dependents that you mentioned, an income of 200k pays 22% in FIT after standard deductions, which don't include the tuition and healthcare deductions. I also assumed you were single, since you didn't mention otherwise. You are absolutely in the top 3% and fall in the rare exception who have a higher rate than Romney, however.

Even if you pretend FICA counts as FIT and add the maximum (which you hit at 106k) and apply both sides to your paycheck (making it 8.4 instead of 4.2), you end up with an additional 4.4%.

Let's look at it. 22% FIT, 4.4% FICA. That puts you at 26.4% federal taxes. Are you saying your state has a tax rate of 23.6%?? Where do you live? I won't be going there.

I also hate to be the one to tell you, but President Obama isn't out there fixing things for people in the 200k pay range. Right now, he's pushing for more taxes on people wealthier than you, but not with the intent of lowering your taxes. He just wants to cover a bit more of the incredible spending habit government can't seem to break.

Unfortunately, neither party is looking out for you.

so you think Obama respects you more by wanting to tax you even more

that is idiotic. and if you do what my grandparents did-save as much as they could and invest it, the dems want to tax what you derive from that investment at a rate at least as twice as high as it is now taxed.

rather than complaining rightfully that your earned income is taxed too much because too many people want to much government and the politicians don't want to tax those masses for what they want, you seem envious of those who have investment income even though dividends are currently taxed at 45% and dems want to tax it at over 60%

I don't know how you're figuring your taxes, my friend, but I'd suggest you get a new tax preparer. Seriously.

$190,000 earnings; 4 dependants claimed; $18,000 mortgage interest tax deduction [estimated] = Effective tax rate for Federal income taxes: 18.53%. Add SS/Medicare onto that and you've got, this year, 22.73%. (If you looked at Line 60 of your income tax return, you should see a number somewhere around $35,000, assuming your income is around $190,000. If you have other deductions, it would be less.)

Marginal Tax Rate Calculator

I have two dependents ... (two children ... there is no tax deduction for helping another person.) That is 3,500 per year.

I am now down to the last of mortgage and have no interest deductions.

There is no tuition deduction in my income bracket ... !

Standard deductions?

The republican tax codes favor the .5 % who make multimillions.

I pay far greater a percentage in taxes than Romney. In fact ... his 14 % is misleading as it did not include some of his earned income.

Here this might help some of you ...


Taxable income Tax on this income
$0–$6,000 Nil
$6,001–$37,000 15c for each $1 over $6,000
$37,001–$80,000 $4,650 plus 30c for each $1 over $37,000
$80,001–$180,000 $17,550 plus 37c for each $1 over $80,000
Over $180,000 $54,550 plus 45c for each $1 over $180,000

Now keep in mind ... those making multimillions are shielded and have various means to legally not pay taxes ... hence that is why people like Romney pay far less a percentage of tax than I do.

The wealthy should have to pay their fair share ... and no i am not jealous of the wealthy contrary to what Fox news tells us.

Warren Buffet is exactly right on!
 
Last edited:
What tuition deduction ...? As I said I have two dependents. My final tax rate included state and property taxes etc.

If you are paying for over half of the expenses of the family member with a medical concern, they are a dependent. That is what I was using there. We can take that off, though. You also get HOH though. If you change it to 2 dependents and HOH (which I didn't include before), that drops your effective FIT to 20.85 which is even lower. If there is a special reason you can't claim the HOH, it only changes it up to 22.66%, which doesn't much alter my point.

I don't have the information on the tuition deduction right here, so I will retract that. It did not alter any of the numbers I presented, however.

Including state tax is a bit off topic here. It's one of 51 separate governments, economies, and structures. Unless your feeling is that the federal government should be balancing all state taxes, it belongs more in Governor and state level election threads.
 
I have two dependents ... (two children ... there is no tax deduction for helping another person.) That is 3,500 per year.

I am now down to the last of mortgage and have no interest deductions.

There is no tuition deduction in my income bracket ... !

Standard deductions?

The republican tax codes favor the .5 % who make multimillions.

I pay far greater a percentage in taxes than Romney. In fact ... his 14 % is misleading as it did not include some of his earned income.

Here this might help some of you ...




Now keep in mind ... those making multimillions are shielded and have various means to legally not pay taxes ... hence that is why people like Romney pay far less a percentage of tax than I do.

The wealthy should have to pay their fair share ... and no i am not jealous of the wealthy contrary to what Fox news tells us.

Warren Buffet is exactly right on!

I see you edited while I was typing my reply.

First, if the numbers are skewed for not including Romney's earned income vs capital gains, I would like to both see the link and point out that it would go up as a percentage since income is taxed at a higher rate.

If they are so shielded, and he definitely tried to avoid taxes, how come he still ended up paying a higher tax rate than 97% of the country?

Yes, standard deductions. We are not talking marginal rates. Everyone gets those deductions. I would be interested to see the source for the income taxes you presented in your quote.

Since you are in the 33% marginal bracket, are you in favor of the Bush tax cuts that lowered that from 36%?

Fox is a red herring, especially since I can't remember the last time I watched it other than the debate.
 
Thank you for clarifying. From what you have said, it seems you are one of the ones who does pay a higher basic FIT and gets FICA on top of it.

I don't want to get into your deductions and such, but my guess is you do alright for yourself and it also appears that you work hard for it. To me, that lends credibility to opinions you have shared.

It doesn't really change my stances, but it helps me get more information.

Thank you very much Keridan for those kind words.

Sadly, I am too often pictured here as a loser who simply wants to suck at the government teat and knows nothing of business, money or what it takes to be successful in America.

I learned my work habits at the Leon Troksty commune I was sent to as a child. I did so well I was given the August Spies award.

that last part i a joke. ;)
 
Thank you very much Keridan for those kind words.

Sadly, I am too often pictured here as a loser who simply wants to suck at the government teat and knows nothing of business, money or what it takes to be successful in America.

I learned my work habits at the Leon Troksty commune I was sent to as a child. I did so well I was given the August Spies award.

that last part i a joke. ;)

And a good one! I laughed :)

I generally think of you as someone who wants to help the greater good but often disagrees with me on the approach. Nothing wrong at all with either part of that!

I was raised by a conservative republican accomplished attorney and a very liberal democratic doctor of economics. I am pretty aware of the importance of not making assumptions about the other person in a debate and that not agreeing is not the same as being evil.
 
I see you edited while I was typing my reply.

First, if the numbers are skewed for not including Romney's earned income vs capital gains, I would like to both see the link and point out that it would go up as a percentage since income is taxed at a higher rate.

If they are so shielded, and he definitely tried to avoid taxes, how come he still ended up paying a higher tax rate than 97% of the country?

Yes, standard deductions. We are not talking marginal rates. Everyone gets those deductions. I would be interested to see the source for the income taxes you presented in your quote.

Since you are in the 33% marginal bracket, are you in favor of the Bush tax cuts that lowered that from 36%?

Fox is a red herring, especially since I can't remember the last time I watched it other than the debate.

As Buffet pointed out ... he and Romney do the same thing ... they moved money about to earn money and hence their 'income" is based on capitol gains giving them an ability to not to pay taxes. that is the issue.

Year 2011 income brackets and tax rates
Marginal Tax Rate[5] Single Married Filing Jointly or Qualified Widow(er) Married Filing Separately Head of Household
10% $0 – $8,500 $0 – $17,000 $0 – $8,500 $0 – $12,150
15% $8,501 – $34,500 $17,001 – $69,000 $8,501 – $34,500 $12,150 – $46,250
25% $34,501 – $83,600 $69,001 – $139,350 $34,501 – $69,675 $46,251 – $119,400
28% $83,601 – $174,400 $139,351 – $212,300 $69,676 – $106,150 $119,401 – $193,350
33% $174,401 – $379,150 $212,301 – $379,150 $106,151 – $189,575 $193,351 – $379,150
35% $379,151+ $379,151+ $189,576+ $379,151+
[edit]

You mention Romney paid higher taxes than 97% ... well we have a shrinking middle class and he paid the taxes of a lower middle class income earned. I am basing that comment that you are factual that 97% of Americans pay less than 15%.

As you can see I fall into the 33% and then FICA and payroll minus my deductions put me at about 38% for federal. I have state, property and other taxes as well ... and I have a good accountant.

My point is ... answering the OP that I pay a much greater % of income than Romney. I agree with Warren Buffet and Obama that our current tax code favors the uber wealthy.

Props to you on your comment on Fox ... and that was not directed at you ... just at the right pundits that simplify the entire discussion that Democratic issues with the uber wealthy paying far less in taxes than middle class Americans earning 40,000-200,000 is simply jealousy and class envy.

sent from iphone
 
Last edited:
As Buffet pointed out ... he and Romney do the same thing ... they moved money about to earn money and hence their 'income" is based on capitol gains giving them an ability to not to pay taxes. that is the issue.

You mention Romney paid higher taxes than 97% ... well we have a shrinking middle class and he paid the taxes of a lower middle class. I am basing that comment that you are factual that 97% of Americans pay less than 15%.

As you can see I fall into the 35% and then FICA and payroll minus my deductions put me at about 38% for federal. I have state, property and other taxes as well ... and I have a good accountant.

My point is ... answering the OP that I pay a much greater % of income than Romney. I agree with Warren Buffet and Obama that our current tax code favors the uber wealthy.

Props to you on your comment on Fox ... and that was not directed at you ... just at the right pundits that simplify the entire discussion that issues with the uber wealthy paying far less in taxes than middle class Americans earning 40,000-200,000; is simply jealousy and class envy and that is the real red herring.

sent from iphone

I did post a link for that 97% comment a ways back and would be happy to do so again.

The 35 and 38% tax brackets are marginal rates, not effective. If you are paying those rates, your accountant is missing something big.

Regarding FIT, SIT, and FICA, I did start a thread to discuss the differences, but everyone seems to want to discuss them here. Put without flourish, state is a separate government and FICA is intended to be flat because of the style of ROI.

You do pay a higher % even with effective rates as you fall into the top 3% of earners. That is not what I'm addressing. You get that point and it is worth sharing on a thread regarding that question.

Posting the marginal tax brackets is not addressing effective rate. Could you please look with standard deductions and dependents and HOH (if applicable) included (not counting any itemized) and see if you find fault with the math I presented?

If you really feel the need to include state and FICA, could you at least look at them separately? You have three effective tax rates here. You can add them together after, but the separate levels are at least worth considering.

You are welcome to agree with President Obama and Warren Buffet. I feel the numbers are clearly against them, but I have the same right to disagree. I'm not saying anything about envy or using anyone's talking points or any such stuff. I find fault with the premise.
 
I have two dependents ... (two children ... there is no tax deduction for helping another person.) That is 3,500 per year.

I am now down to the last of mortgage and have no interest deductions.

There is no tuition deduction in my income bracket ... !

Standard deductions?

The republican tax codes favor the .5 % who make multimillions.

I pay far greater a percentage in taxes than Romney. In fact ... his 14 % is misleading as it did not include some of his earned income.

Here this might help some of you ...




Now keep in mind ... those making multimillions are shielded and have various means to legally not pay taxes ... hence that is why people like Romney pay far less a percentage of tax than I do.

The wealthy should have to pay their fair share ... and no i am not jealous of the wealthy contrary to what Fox news tells us.

Warren Buffet is exactly right on!

Buffett is FOS. and he profits when dems are in power. He loves the death tax because BH has major holdings in insurance companies that sell life insurance as a reaction to the death tax. He liked the fact that Obama wants to nix the big pipeline because the alternative is railway transportation which again BH has major interest in,

and its amazing how the top one percent still manage to pay 40% of the income tax and almost all the death tax with those loopholes you keep braying about

and its the dems who want to tax you MORE
 
It is supposedly a retirement program.

Supposedly being the key word.


But hey, I'm all for dropping or fixing SS.

The majority of Americans are for fixing it.

I'm just not for pretending it's the same as FIT or goes to the same places or should be progressive like FIT.

It goes into the unified budget, just as does the FIT, and it is mandatory tax just as is FIT.

Show me a candidate ready to fix the debt spending the government is doing and I'll happily take a look.

Obama Offers Plan to Cut Deficit by Over $3 Trillion

Show me any one ready to take on the mess that is SS and I'll take a look.

In debt talks, Obama offers Social Security cuts

FICA is not FIT and any money spent out of it is a debt the government isn't admitting to because of overspending.

And under taxing the rich. No one said FICA is FIT, it is however part of the effective Federal taxes the working class has to pay on their entire income.
 
if the Democrats really wanted to increase dependency, they would seek to overturn the 5-year limit on welfare benefits. but they ain't.

Its been up to the states since 1996:

"On August 22, 1996, Clinton signed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act, which ended the welfare entitlement and replaced it with a new block grant providing $16.5 billion per year to states to assist the needy."

The new program, called Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), differed from its predecessor in a number of important ways, including:

* Eliminating the Welfare Entitlement: Recipients are no longer guaranteed welfare benefits based on eligibility. The 1996 law also eliminated a child care guarantee for welfare recipients, but provided increased funding ($13.9 billion over six years) for child care through a newly created Child Care and Community Development Block Grant. The 1996 law did not affect Medicaid or food stamp eligibility, though critics contend that links between these programs have resulted in numerous recipients being denied Medicaid and food stamp assistance.
* Establishing Work Requirements: TANF requires recipients to be working within two years of receiving benefits. This general mandate is reinforced by rules requiring states to reach fixed and rising work participation thresholds. By 2002, 50 percent of families receiving assistance in every state must be engaged in work-related activities.
* Establishing a Five Year Lifetime Limit on Assistance: To address long-term welfare dependency, TANF placed a five year lifetime limit on assistance, but allowed states to exempt up to 20 percent of such cases for hardship reasons. States are allowed to reduce this lifetime limit below 5 years, and almost half of the states have done so.

Welfare
 
Last edited:
Supposedly being the key word.

Them using this money in the general fund is not as simple as that. This is not a program that is intended to support general government spending. When the government uses this money, they are not simply taxing it away and spending, they are creating an account payable or new debt here. They still have to pay that money back. This is a huge difference. Even if you give them more, you are just adding more debt, not lowering it.

The majority of Americans are for fixing it.

Good for them. I support fixes that involve the government (mis)managing less of our money.

It goes into the unified budget, just as does the FIT, and it is mandatory tax just as is FIT.

See above, it's listed on the budget, but it is an account payable, not a cash value.


I have read these and wouldn't mind discussing them elsewhere. I won't point out the specific items that bother me here for fear of derailing. I will state that I do find them highly misleading, just like I do a lot of the GOP proposals.

And under taxing the rich. No one said FICA is FIT, it is however part of the effective Federal taxes the working class has to pay on their entire income.

You want to treat FICA as FIT here. You are claiming it goes into the general spending budget without accepting that it only creates a debt to do so. Lowering FICA on anyone only increases the debt incurred. Treating as a general spending fund without a cap or making it progressive is the same as a HUGE increase on the wealthy who already pay a very progressive FIT and telling them that on top of the government spending all the money they put into retirement for themselves, they also have to fund everyone else's retirement because they managed to make money.
 
Family of four, Standard Deduction, my wages tips etc. was a little over $28,000, my federal income tax withholding was $922.85. My "refund" is a little over $6K - giving me, I suppose, a tax rate of roughly

my Federal Income Tax rate, is, I suppose, -19%, give or take.
 
Single taxpayers, no dependents, get screwed, however. Their tax rate is 14.58% on that same $60,000.

That's me. :sigh:
 
Family of four, Standard Deduction, my wages tips etc. was a little over $28,000, my federal income tax withholding was $922.85. My "refund" is a little over $6K - giving me, I suppose, a tax rate of roughly

my Federal Income Tax rate, is, I suppose, -19%, give or take.

Do you work in food service?
 
Back
Top Bottom