• 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!

Romney reveals he pays about 15% in taxes(edited)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Romney's tax rate is only half as high as the middle class pays

that is one of the most moronic assumptions in the tax debate-that the rich "are pulling more benefit" out of society. In reality they do far more to benefit society before we even start to talk about taxes

its a lie the left invented to serve as a facade to hide the "from each according to their ability" nonsense

if you want to base taxes on what people use than you would have to admit that the millions who pay no income taxes use far more than one millionaire which would destroy that basis for your tax "fairness" nonsense

Your assumption is that benefit can be measured in a straight-line calculation, which is obviously not the case.
 
Re: Romney's tax rate is only half as high as the middle class pays

Looking only at federal income taxes is a deception. That is less than half of all taxes. It is the only progressive tax in the system. It is progressive in part because it has to offset the bulk of other taxes that are regressive. If you look at all taxes, they pay a much smaller percentage. If you looked at what percentage of sales taxes different brackets pay you'd find that the middle class pay like 90% of sales taxes and the top 1% pay only maybe 2% of them for example. You couldn't draw conclusions about what share of the taxes the rich pay overall based on that alone either.



Why is it not fair? By definition they're pulling more benefit out of society. Why shouldn't they have to chip more back in to keep the society they're reaping that benefit from strong?

Though TD has a stronger wording, I am inclined to agree with him. Logically, they use less of the resources. They don't receive any of the federal money. They pay for the education of their employees through wages, they pay gasoline and road taxes for any supplies they ship, etc. I could get into all of it, but in reality, the only gains they make for it being an educated and safe society are the same gains everyone else makes individually and they pay more for it.

As for the sales tax, they pay for what they consume. My guess is that a 1-on-1 comparison shows the wealthy person paying far more due to fancier houses and cars. Paying the same percentage is not regressive, it's flat. The argument that they can afford more is irrelevant to that issue. They still pay higher taxes overall by far and states do have the option to drop sales tax in favor of income tax.
 
Re: Romney's tax rate is only half as high as the middle class pays

Is Romney breaking any laws with his tax rate of 15%? If not then what's the problem? (aside from envy of course)
 
Re: Romney's tax rate is only half as high as the middle class pays

Though TD has a stronger wording, I am inclined to agree with him.

You don't want to hitch your cart to that horse. :) I'm not replying to him because we've had that same debate like 500 times. Every time he is unable to come up with counter arguments to all the arguments people present on it and just goes off to another tread to claim the same thing over again... I suspect he's doing it intentionally to annoy people at this point.

Logically, they use less of the resources. They don't receive any of the federal money. They pay for the education of their employees through wages, they pay gasoline and road taxes for any supplies they ship, etc. I could get into all of it, but in reality, the only gains they make for it being an educated and safe society are the same gains everyone else makes individually and they pay more for it.

No, the gains they draw from it are not nearly the same. For example, the stimulus spending appears to have boosted the stock market by approximately 25%. So Bill Gates drew roughly $10 billion in benefit from that. How much benefit did the average taxpayer get out of the stimulus? Maybe they got a new job a few weeks earlier because of it? Or maybe not even that?

Companies require a large, educated, prosperous, society to make money. They need customers that can afford to buy their product, employees that are educated enough to do the job, employees that are healthy enough to work, etc. You're right that they pay the employees, but that doesn't mean they don't benefit from them being educated and whatnot. The median productivity of an American worker is an outstanding $97k/year. That's how much value they bring to their employer. But the median compensation is only $44k/year. So, the employer is keeping more than half of the value employees generate. So, roughly, each person gets half the value of their education, but their employer is collecting the other half.

On top of that, you have things like defense, police, and fire. Those things benefit the super rich because they have more to protect. The homeless guy on the street would probably be better off if there were no police, where Bill Gates would be like $40 billion worse off. So, the value of police to Bill Gates is much greater.

Also, you have infrastructure. A company that runs heavy semi trucks all over the country is drawing way more benefit from the highways. An office in Nevada gets way more benefit out of the electricity of the Hoover Dam than an individual does. The internet has done a smidge more for amazon.com than it has done for my grandmother. And so on.

As for the sales tax, they pay for what they consume. My guess is that a 1-on-1 comparison shows the wealthy person paying far more due to fancier houses and cars. Paying the same percentage is not regressive, it's flat. The argument that they can afford more is irrelevant to that issue. They still pay higher taxes overall by far and states do have the option to drop sales tax in favor of income tax.

"Regressive" means "a lower percentage of their income". At least that's the common usage of it. If you want to talk about what percentage of Romney's income he pays in taxes and compare that to the percentage the middle class pays, you can't really exclude those taxes that the middle class pays more of. That's just distorting the comparison.
 
Re: Romney's tax rate is only half as high as the middle class pays

Is Romney breaking any laws with his tax rate of 15%? If not then what's the problem? (aside from envy of course)

No, not breaking any laws. The problem for his campaign is that a lot of folks who bust their humps just to get by and pay over 20% aren't thrilled with the vision of guy worth a quarter billion and earning millions a year to sit on his ass and pay 15%. More a fairness issue than an envy issue.
 
Re: Romney's tax rate is only half as high as the middle class pays

Is Romney breaking any laws with his tax rate of 15%? If not then what's the problem? (aside from envy of course)

Envy? Seriously, you're going with that old canard?

The problem is that we have $14 trillion in debt and are considering cuts to spending that will cripple the middle class just so this guy and those like him can have a ridiculously low tax rate.
 
Re: Romney's tax rate is only half as high as the middle class pays

Is Romney breaking any laws with his tax rate of 15%? If not then what's the problem? (aside from envy of course)

No, not breaking any laws. The problem for his campaign is that a lot of folks who bust their humps just to get by and pay over 20% aren't thrilled with the vision of guy worth a quarter billion and earning millions a year to sit on his ass and pay 15%. More a fairness issue than an envy issue.

Well, not just that they aren't trilled about it. They aren't going to listen to a guy whose career has been focused on destroying jobs and who pays half the taxes they do preaching about how "job creators" are "paying their fair share already". His own example kills his rhetoric.
 
Re: Romney's tax rate is only half as high as the middle class pays

When I read posts that seem to protest the 1% or even top 10%, over envy or 'social injustice' or whatever, I ponder a hypothetical. What would happen to the 53% or 99% if they, the 'top bracket' decided to withdraw all their money from the economy and ‘stuff it in the mattress’ (gone Galt for those who understand)? Who would lose their jobs? How/who would the government tax then? What percentage would the 53% or 99% have to pay then?
 
Re: Romney's tax rate is only half as high as the middle class pays

Envy? Seriously, you're going with that old canard?

.

Ya know my x girlfriend always had to be "sicker" than I was.
 
Re: Romney's tax rate is only half as high as the middle class pays

When I read posts that seem to protest the 1% or even top 10%, over envy or 'social injustice' or whatever, I ponder a hypothetical. What would happen to the 53% or 99% if they, the 'top bracket' decided to withdraw all their money from the economy and ‘stuff it in the mattress’ (gone Galt for those who understand)? Who would lose their jobs? How/who would the government tax then? What percentage would the 53% or 99% have to pay then?

When you're playing your "what if" games, do you also wonder what would happen if the 99% decided to boycott the businesses that those wealthy folks use to support their lifestyles?
 
Re: Romney's tax rate is only half as high as the middle class pays

When you're playing your "what if" games, do you also wonder what would happen if the 99% decided to boycott the businesses that those wealthy folks use to support their lifestyles?

I wonder this all the time.
 
Re: Romney's tax rate is only half as high as the middle class pays

When you're playing your "what if" games, do you also wonder what would happen if the 99% decided to boycott the businesses that those wealthy folks use to support their lifestyles?

Not really, as I see it the only ones of the 99% required to 'support their lifestyles' would be in the IMMEDIATE area. The 1%ers would be retracting from their societial connection thus the interaction with the vastness of society would be greatly reduced. Also consider the numbers we are talking about 250k or so vs. 150m or so (of earners).
 
Re: Romney's tax rate is only half as high as the middle class pays

Not really, as I see it the only ones of the 99% required to 'support their lifestyles' would be in the IMMEDIATE area. The 1%ers would be retracting from their societial connection thus the interaction with the vastness of society would be greatly reduced. Also consider the numbers we are talking about 250k or so vs. 150m or so (of earners).

Er, where do you think the 1% gets their money? They skim percentages off the work and purchases and whatnot of the 99%. Without the 99%, the 1% has no income whatsoever, their companies all shut down immediately, etc.

To answer your question, if the 1% just magically disappeared tomorrow, their wealth would one way or another work it's way into the hands of non-1%ers (that's all that's left) so the median American household would gain $436,000 in net worth (that's the difference between the average household net worth and the median American household). Hard to say how that money would be concentrated. Probably the wills of most 1%s have other 1%s as their beneficiaries, and the estates of those without wills go to their relatives, who are usually going to be 1%ers too, but eventually you'd either get to a 99%er or you'd run out of heirs before you hit a 99%er and it would go to the government. Either way though, massive win for the 99%ers.

If they did not disappear, but tried to liquidate all their assets to shove the money under their matresses, it actually works out to the same thing. They would start selling off shares in companies, so those company's values would plummet way before they could get all their money out. Ultimately whatever money they took out would have to come from a 99%er who was buying up their shares. The 99%er would be getting it at a very low price because of the huge selling panic. So, effectively, by liquidating all their assets they would just be transferring ownership of all the companies to 99%ers are a very low rate. The values of those companies would eventually return to a reasonable P/E ratio, and the 99%ers would become rich. So, again, massive win for the 99%ers.
 
Last edited:
Re: Romney's tax rate is only half as high as the middle class pays

You don't want to hitch your cart to that horse. :) I'm not replying to him because we've had that same debate like 500 times. Every time he is unable to come up with counter arguments to all the arguments people present on it and just goes off to another tread to claim the same thing over again... I suspect he's doing it intentionally to annoy people at this point.

I get a kick outta TD. He's clear in his thoughts and unapologetic. Sometimes he and I fall on the same side and sometimes not, but he usually at least gives me a smile.

No, the gains they draw from it are not nearly the same. For example, the stimulus spending appears to have boosted the stock market by approximately 25%. So Bill Gates drew roughly $10 billion in benefit from that. How much benefit did the average taxpayer get out of the stimulus? Maybe they got a new job a few weeks earlier because of it? Or maybe not even that?
The stimulus was a mistake and spent poorly. Considering a key point in my beliefs is that government spending is one of the worst-managed systems I can imagine, I won't get too much into that. I honestly have doubt that it did much for the stock market even.

Companies require a large, educated, prosperous, society to make money. They need customers that can afford to buy their product, employees that are educated enough to do the job, employees that are healthy enough to work, etc. You're right that they pay the employees, but that doesn't mean they don't benefit from them being educated and whatnot. The median productivity of an American worker is an outstanding $97k/year. That's how much value they bring to their employer. But the median compensation is only $44k/year. So, the employer is keeping more than half of the value employees generate. So, roughly, each person gets half the value of their education, but their employer is collecting the other half.

This is too vague. Do you have the link so I can analyze the methodology used to determine median productivity? Oftentimes it is not a net of all input. Last time I saw figures like this, it only showed what monetary value was produced minus the wage and raw material used by the employee. That does not account for a million other business costs. Your information could be different, but I would need to look at it.

As for the educated, prosperous society, that benefits everyone. The business owner already pays higher wages for someone with more education, as well as more of the taxes that funded the schools. They also pay taxes for every employee on top of what that employee is able to pay because the job was provided. Additionally, the more they pay the employee, the more they pay in taxes.

On top of that, you have things like defense, police, and fire. Those things benefit the super rich because they have more to protect. The homeless guy on the street would probably be better off if there were no police, where Bill Gates would be like $40 billion worse off. So, the value of police to Bill Gates is much greater.

That guy on the street would not be better off without police. He is protected as much as possible from assault and murder by them. If he tried to steal to get ahead because of the absence of police, he would meet Bill Gates' armed guards that he hired with his tax savings that have no need for due process without police. The billions in taxes Gates' pays would more than cover the man hours and bullets used.

Bill Gates has more to protect, but he paid more in taxes for those things.

Also, you have infrastructure. A company that runs heavy semi trucks all over the country is drawing way more benefit from the highways. An office in Nevada gets way more benefit out of the electricity of the Hoover Dam than an individual does. The internet has done a smidge more for amazon.com than it has done for my grandmother. And so on.

The internet, while invented by DARPA, is not provided by the government and is not a function of taxes.

The power used from that power plant is taxed on use, so the more they use, the more they pay.

The semi trucks pay more tolls, gas taxes, maintenance service taxes, sales taxes on the trucks, and taxes again to employ the driver.

"Regressive" means "a lower percentage of their income". At least that's the common usage of it. If you want to talk about what percentage of Romney's income he pays in taxes and compare that to the percentage the middle class pays, you can't really exclude those taxes that the middle class pays more of. That's just distorting the comparison.

Sales tax is a consumption tax, not an income tax. Income tax is progressive or regressive because it is a percentage of all money coming in. Consumption tax is based on what is used and is flat. Just because Romney makes more does not mean he consumes more.
 
Re: Romney's tax rate is only half as high as the middle class pays

The median effective tax rate in the US is 27%. That's how much the typical American pays between state and federal taxes. Megamillionaire robber baron Mitt Romney, however, only pays 15%.

That is not uncommon at all for the superrich. They do not pay many of the taxes middle class people pay at all- no FICA, no unemployment, no disability, etc. And many of the taxes that apply to a large portion of middle class's income- sales, property, vehicle, etc- apply to only a very tiny percentage of the income of someone as wealthy as Romney, so in effect, they don't really pay those either.

But, you might think, we have a progressive income tax system. Certainly the super rich get hit up on that one. But, nope, they don't. The progressive income tax system really only affects up to upper middle class people. People in really high paying jobs pay 35%, in addition to the other taxes listed above. But once you break past that into the super rich, they don't get paid in wages, they get paid with equity, and equity is only taxed at a measley 15%. So, in addition to being excused from most types of taxes, they get a 20% reduction in their tax break because they don't have to work to make their income.

Romney reveals he pays about 15% in taxes - CNN.com


Cue Fox News talking points...

"socialism blah, blah, blah, job-creators, yadda, yadda, Marxist, do-do-do, dah-dah-dah...lies..."
 
Re: Romney's tax rate is only half as high as the middle class pays

This is too vague. Do you have the link so I can analyze the methodology used to determine median productivity? Oftentimes it is not a net of all input. Last time I saw figures like this, it only showed what monetary value was produced minus the wage and raw material used by the employee. That does not account for a million other business costs. Your information could be different, but I would need to look at it.

It's the BLS's number. But, regardless of which of those things it includes, the $53k the company keeps is benefiting the company- whether it is by covering their miscellaneous expenses or as profit, if the worker were less educated, that would be less money to cover their expenses or profit.

As for the educated, prosperous society, that benefits everyone. The business owner already pays higher wages for someone with more education, as well as more of the taxes that funded the schools. They also pay taxes for every employee on top of what that employee is able to pay because the job was provided. Additionally, the more they pay the employee, the more they pay in taxes.

. . . Bill Gates has more to protect, but he paid more in taxes for those things.

You're begging the question. You can't say "they shouldn't pay higher taxes because they pay higher taxes". I'm arguing that they should pay high taxes because they benefit more. I thought you were arguing that they should not pay high taxes because they benefit more, but here you're arguing that it is ok that they benefit more because they pay high taxes. Can't have it both ways.

That guy on the street would not be better off without police. He is protected as much as possible from assault and murder by them. If he tried to steal to get ahead because of the absence of police, he would meet Bill Gates' armed guards that he hired with his tax savings that have no need for due process without police. The billions in taxes Gates' pays would more than cover the man hours and bullets used.

Nobody is trying to kill the homeless guy. He might not be able to take Bill Gates' compound or whatever. He'd probably be able to steal something from somewhere though. And some band of thugs would eventually take Gate's compound. Maybe the homeless guy would end up the leader of some band of thugs somewhere or who knows what. Seems to me like a re-roll is more in the interests of somebody who rolled poorly this time than somebody who rolled really well this time.

The internet, while invented by DARPA, is not provided by the government and is not a function of taxes.

The R&D to create it was paid for by taxes, much of the network infrastructure was paid for or subsidized by taxes, many of the core backbone servers are government run, etc.

The power used from that power plant is taxed on use, so the more they use, the more they pay.

The semi trucks pay more tolls, gas taxes, maintenance service taxes, sales taxes on the trucks, and taxes again to employ the driver.

Question begging again.

Sales tax is a consumption tax, not an income tax. Income tax is progressive or regressive because it is a percentage of all money coming in. Consumption tax is based on what is used and is flat. Just because Romney makes more does not mean he consumes more.

Not sure how you think that plays into the argument. Romney pays much lower tax rates total than middle class people. One of the reasons is because one of the major taxes- sales tax- hits poor and middle class people pretty hard, but doesn't hit super rich people hardly at all.
 
Re: Romney's tax rate is only half as high as the middle class pays

Yeap ,weeze gots to get them thar rich greedy bastards.How day they not pay all they income in taxes so we can has our welfares,foodstamsp,section 8s. My ten kids I am raisins all by myselfs needs they cheetos,hot pockets and barbecue pork rinds.
don't you be knockin' bbq pork rinds now...lol
 
Re: Romney's tax rate is only half as high as the middle class pays

don't you be knockin' bbq pork rinds now...lol

I heard Obama is going to make those illegal:2razz:
 
Re: Romney's tax rate is only half as high as the middle class pays

I heard Obama is going to make those illegal:2razz:
:shock: not if he wants my vote in november..lol
 
Re: Romney's tax rate is only half as high as the middle class pays

It's the BLS's number. But, regardless of which of those things it includes, the $53k the company keeps is benefiting the company- whether it is by covering their miscellaneous expenses or as profit, if the worker were less educated, that would be less money to cover their expenses or profit.

You're begging the question. You can't say "they shouldn't pay higher taxes because they pay higher taxes". I'm arguing that they should pay high taxes because they benefit more. I thought you were arguing that they should not pay high taxes because they benefit more, but here you're arguing that it is ok that they benefit more because they pay high taxes. Can't have it both ways.

Nobody is trying to kill the homeless guy. He might not be able to take Bill Gates' compound or whatever. He'd probably be able to steal something from somewhere though. And some band of thugs would eventually take Gate's compound. Maybe the homeless guy would end up the leader of some band of thugs somewhere or who knows what. Seems to me like a re-roll is more in the interests of somebody who rolled poorly this time than somebody who rolled really well this time.

The R&D to create it was paid for by taxes, much of the network infrastructure was paid for or subsidized by taxes, many of the core backbone servers are government run, etc.

Question begging again.

Not sure how you think that plays into the argument. Romney pays much lower tax rates total than middle class people. One of the reasons is because one of the major taxes- sales tax- hits poor and middle class people pretty hard, but doesn't hit super rich people hardly at all.

Okay, I'm still going to bed after this, but you got your response in before I finished my last cigarette. I'll give a quick, simplified clarification response.

The 53k might be used some on rent and stuff, but I meant that the last figures I saw didn't include even the tools needed, just the raw materials. That is a flawed basis for comparison. I will check CBO tomorrow.

I was arguing that they already pay more in taxes and cover their fair share and then some, not that they should have their taxes lowered (though I do believe all taxes could be lowered proportionately if government wasn't full of fools). Saying he pays 15% so he doesn't pay enough sounds right if you don't take in all the other factors, including the base dollar amount. Which is my problem with the "fair share" argument in general.

A reroll isn't what's being discussed unless you plan to take away all current wealth and assets before getting rid of the police. Those who had an advantage still have one. Bonus points for the gaming reference, though.

Fair point on internet, but then you get into how much amazon pays in taxes vs. your grandmother :p

My last point was only to clarify why regressive isn't a proper terminology. He certainly does pay less than the 99% combined in consumption tax, but he pays more than any individual because he uses more. Are you proposing a tax that costs more for consumption as you buy more or eliminating sales tax in favor of income tax? I don't understand what the proposal is to rectify this. Overall, he's still paying fortunes more than others and not necessarily seeing a proportionate gain.
 
Re: Romney's tax rate is only half as high as the middle class pays

The 53k might be used some on rent and stuff, but I meant that the last figures I saw didn't include even the tools needed, just the raw materials. That is a flawed basis for comparison. I will check CBO tomorrow.

Even if part of that $53k does go to thinks like tools, a business is still a lot better off in a society where the workers produce so much value that the company can afford to buy expensive tools though, right?

For a point of comparison, how much luck do you think Bill Gates would have had launching Microsoft in Somalia? Not much. The reason is because all the things a society needs to sustain a company like Microsoft exist here, but not there. Those things take money to maintain.

Saying he pays 15% so he doesn't pay enough sounds right if you don't take in all the other factors, including the base dollar amount. Which is my problem with the "fair share" argument in general.

I don't buy the base dollar amount argument. Or rather I think that is an argument why taxes should be MORE progressive, not less. It isn't like Romney created that money. If there were no Mitt Romney, it wouldn't just be like that money didn't exist. Maybe some of it- the money he actually produced with his own actual work. But the vast majority of it would still exist, it'd just be in somebody else's pocket. Bain would have had a different CEO, or some of those companies he shut down would still be paying people's paychecks, or who knows what, but the money would still be out there. So when he pays 15% and somebody else pays 30%, it isn't like we're benefiting from Romney paying 15%, we're losing 15% that we would have gotten in taxes had that other person ended up with the money instead of him.

A reroll isn't what's being discussed unless you plan to take away all current wealth and assets before getting rid of the police. Those who had an advantage still have one. Bonus points for the gaming reference, though.

Well, a partial reroll then. Their advantages relative to the homeless guy are radically diminished without law and order. All their money- which is really just numbers in a computer somewhere- doesn't even necessarily mean anything at all without a system of laws. Probably their only real advantage would be that there would probably be more to barter with in Gates' mansion than the homeless guy has in his cart. But then again, the homeless guy is better at finding food...

Fair point on internet, but then you get into how much amazon pays in taxes vs. your grandmother :p

Amazon paid 4% taxes... So basically no taxes. Despite a $3.5 billion profit.

The 16 Profitable Companies That Pay Almost Nothing In Taxes

I don't know how much my grandmother paid... Safe bet it is a much higher percentage than that although obviously a lower absolute amount.

My last point was only to clarify why regressive isn't a proper terminology. He certainly does pay less than the 99% combined in consumption tax, but he pays more than any individual because he uses more. Are you proposing a tax that costs more for consumption as you buy more or eliminating sales tax in favor of income tax? I don't understand what the proposal is to rectify this. Overall, he's still paying fortunes more than others and not necessarily seeing a proportionate gain.

I support eliminating the sales tax because it is regressive relative to income.
 
Re: Romney's tax rate is only half as high as the middle class pays

The median effective tax rate in the US is 27%. That's how much the typical American pays between state and federal taxes. Megamillionaire robber baron Mitt Romney, however, only pays 15%.

That is not uncommon at all for the superrich. They do not pay many of the taxes middle class people pay at all- no FICA, no unemployment, no disability, etc. And many of the taxes that apply to a large portion of middle class's income- sales, property, vehicle, etc- apply to only a very tiny percentage of the income of someone as wealthy as Romney, so in effect, they don't really pay those either.

But, you might think, we have a progressive income tax system. Certainly the super rich get hit up on that one. But, nope, they don't. The progressive income tax system really only affects up to upper middle class people. People in really high paying jobs pay 35%, in addition to the other taxes listed above. But once you break past that into the super rich, they don't get paid in wages, they get paid with equity, and equity is only taxed at a measley 15%. So, in addition to being excused from most types of taxes, they get a 20% reduction in their tax break because they don't have to work to make their income.

Romney reveals he pays about 15% in taxes - CNN.com

No wonder Romney didn't want to release his tax records! And no wonder he supports continuing the tax breaks for the wealthy!
 
Re: Romney's tax rate is only half as high as the middle class pays

Romney wants to make a good thing better for himself and his 1% buddies, to hell with the National Debt and the middle class that is stuck paying for it:

Report says Romney, Gingrich and Perry tax plans add billions to deficit, favor the rich

"The latest analysis from the group, a joint venture of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution think tanks, found the Romney plan would lower federal revenues by $600 billion in 2015."

"According to the Tax Policy Center, the tax cuts in Romney's plan go disproportionately to the highest earners. Those making more than $1 million would see an average tax cut of more than $295,000, while those making less than $40,000 would see an average tax cut of less than $1,000."

Report says Romney, Gingrich and Perry tax plans add billions to deficit, favor the rich - Political Hotsheet - CBS News
 
Re: Romney's tax rate is only half as high as the middle class pays

No wonder Romney didn't want to release his tax records! And no wonder he supports continuing the tax breaks for the wealthy!
The tax returns would not only show how much he pays in FIT, but it would also show where he earned the money. There are reports he still gets money from Bain Capital.
 
Re: Romney's tax rate is only half as high as the middle class pays

doing well, working hard and making money appears to be seen as an attack on the unproductive by those who hate the industrious

hmmm.........


The LORD Your God said:
...You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor’s.”...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom