• 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.
Everybody agrees that Romney pays mostly income taxes and most people pay mostly regressive taxes. Just screaming that over and over is idiotic. Everybody knows that. That has zero impact on what we're talking about- that the rich pay a much lower percentage of their income in taxes than working people do. Do you honestly not understand that? If you don't, you need to just settle yourself down and concentrate. If you do understand that and are just intentionally playing dumb to irritate people, then you need to find a hobby you aren't so bad at.



Of course not. They're called "food stamps". Some people are on food stamps, some are on both welfare and food stamps.

You are lying again, only a very small percentage of the "rich" (which obama calls anyone making more than 200K a year or over) are like that. and you claim I am Playing dumb while your posting here suggests that perhaps you aren't acting.

bottom line I already posted the fact that those making under 10 million a year pay the highest effective income taxes-higher than those making 100-200K, Higher than those making 200-500K a year etc. Until one hits the 10 million a year (and how many in the top one percent -which starts at 375K a year-are over 10 million a year versus under that amount) the average effective income tax rate increases with INCOME.

YOu have been destroyed on this issue and its obvious your ranting is based on both a serious amount of envy of the successful and a blatant and pathetically dishonest attempt to smear Romney
 
I wonder if its not a form of welfare WTH would a welfare reform act apply to it?

LOL. It's funny that you still pretend you're a lawyer and you would ask a question like that. The PRWORA implemented hundreds of changes across all kinds of stuff. For example, it created Americorp. What PRWORA did was scale back welfare dramatically. It ended the old welfare program- AFDC and created TANF to take it's place, but with radically tighter requirements and limited duration and whatnot. Then it made a bunch of changes to other program to lessen the impact on those getting kicked off and to make them more consistent with the new approach to welfare.
 
You are lying again, only a very small percentage of the "rich" (which obama calls anyone making more than 200K a year or over) are like that. and you claim I am Playing dumb while your posting here suggests that perhaps you aren't acting.

bottom line I already posted the fact that those making under 10 million a year pay the highest effective income taxes-higher than those making 100-200K, Higher than those making 200-500K a year etc. Until one hits the 10 million a year (and how many in the top one percent -which starts at 375K a year-are over 10 million a year versus under that amount) the average effective income tax rate increases with INCOME.

YOu have been destroyed on this issue and its obvious your ranting is based on both a serious amount of envy of the successful and a blatant and pathetically dishonest attempt to smear Romney

Read the post you just replied to. I said "the rich pay a much lower percentage of their income in taxes than working people do". And your reply is "you suck, working people pay high taxes idiot!"... Your posts are all like this. You need to do something about it.
 
Read the post you just replied to. I said "the rich pay a much lower percentage of their income in taxes than working people do". And your reply is "you suck, working people pay high taxes idiot!"... Your posts are all like this. You need to do something about it.

and you are lying because percentages only are measurable on federal income taxes and FICA. stuff like gasoline taxes etc are not subject to accurate measurement
 
LOL. It's funny that you still pretend you're a lawyer and you would ask a question like that. The PRWORA implemented hundreds of changes across all kinds of stuff. For example, it created Americorp. What PRWORA did was scale back welfare dramatically. It ended the old welfare program- AFDC and created TANF to take it's place, but with radically tighter requirements and limited duration and whatnot. Then it made a bunch of changes to other program to lessen the impact on those getting kicked off and to make them more consistent with the new approach to welfare.

lets do a poll

do you consider food stamps a form of welfare
 
and you are lying because percentages only are measurable on federal income taxes and FICA. stuff like gasoline taxes etc are not subject to accurate measurement

LOL. Dude, go google it. There are thousands of studies. Quit just making up excuses to ignore half the relevant data.
 
LOL. Dude, go google it. There are thousands of studies. Quit just making up excuses to ignore half the relevant data.

50 different states, none of which is tracked (when you buy something there is no record of who bought it, what income he had etc)

Its at best a guess.

and I ask one more time, what was the point of you whining about Romney? you never did answer how much sales tax he pays, the amount of property tax he pays etc. and guess what, those taxes have absolutely no relevance to the amount of income he has or what percentage of his income they make up
 
Yes, I do.
\

Just about everyone does. teamosil doesn't because his idiotic claim of only .5% of people being on "welfare" looks EVEN MORE stupid if one takes into account all the other handouts (DIRECT PAYMENT HANDOUTS) that this federal government engages in
 
Latest from the WSJ.

"Start with the fact that, like Warren Buffett, Mr. Romney said he makes most of his money from investments, not wages or salary. Thus his income is really taxed
twice: once at the corporate tax rate of 35%, then again at a 15% tax rate when it is passed through to him as dividends or via capital gains from the sale of
stock.

"The main point is that the average effective tax rate on the richest 1% is already twice as high as that of the middle class"

"In any event, raising tax rates has not over time succeeded in increasing tax shares from the rich. When the top income-tax rate was as high as 70% in the
1970s, the top 1% paid about 19% of all federal income taxes. At the current rate of 35% the top 1% pay just under 40% of all income taxes. Liberals say this
is because the rich earn a larger share of income. But when tax rates are lower, the rich have less incentive to seek tax shelters and more incentive to put
their money to work in income-earning, revenue-producing ventures. "

ED-AO800_1morem_G_20120119183304.jpg



Review & Outlook: How Much the Rich Pay - WSJ.com
 
50 different states, none of which is tracked (when you buy something there is no record of who bought it, what income he had etc)

Its at best a guess.

Ah lol. So you're using the standard right wing "when the data doesn't support your assumptions, just reject science!" strategy eh? Good one.

and I ask one more time, what was the point of you whining about Romney? you never did answer how much sales tax he pays, the amount of property tax he pays etc.

I've answered that several times. Pay attention. Those are regressive taxes, so at Romney's level they amount to pretty much 0% of his income. Possibly as high as 1% combined, but probably not even that. I've explained that to you maybe a dozen times already.

and guess what, those taxes have absolutely no relevance to the amount of income he has or what percentage of his income they make up

What percentage of people's incomes are going to taxes in different economic tiers is not relevant to examining whether the tax burden is distributed optimally across those groups. That's your position. Seriously, that's the position you want to take?
 
Latest from the WSJ.

That's just federal and income taxes, not all taxes. They left out all the regressive taxes. It's just the same flaw we've been pointing out over and over in Maggie and Turtle's posts.
 
I challenge anyone who can prove what the "poor" in each state pay in terms of sales tax
property tax, gasoline tax, hunting license fees, fishing license fees, dog tags, car registration fees. there are no records kept on that unlike income taxes and death taxes.
 
That's just federal and income taxes, not all taxes. They left out all the regressive taxes. It's just the same flaw we've been pointing out over and over in Maggie and Turtle's posts.

its not a flaw-its a fact that smashes your idiotic rants about the rich. "regressive taxes" play no role in figuring out progressive tax rates.

what is wrong with "regressive taxes? do you think all taxes should be progressive?
 
I challenge anyone who can prove what the "poor" in each state pay in terms of sales tax
property tax, gasoline tax, hunting license fees, fishing license fees, dog tags, car registration fees. there are no records kept on that unlike income taxes and death taxes.

Why don't you prove the opposite?
 
I challenge anyone who can prove what the "poor" in each state pay in terms of sales tax
property tax, gasoline tax, hunting license fees, fishing license fees, dog tags, car registration fees. there are no records kept on that unlike income taxes and death taxes.

You're being ridiculous. You think it is impossible to like keep track of how much somebody spends on dog tags for a year? lol.
 
Why don't you prove the opposite?

I don't have a need to, I am not the one making claims that the poor pay X amount of their income in "regressive taxes". First of all, it doesn't have anything to do with the federal income tax. and I don't need to prove the lack of records. Have you ever had anyone ask your income when you buy a six pack of beer or fill up your car

This is one of those stupid posts that are made in an attempt to try to attack a position you don't like when you really don't understand the issue or have any valid argument
 
its not a flaw-its a fact that smashes your idiotic rants about the rich. "regressive taxes" play no role in figuring out progressive tax rates.

Of course regressive taxes are relevant in evaluating whether our system is too regressive or too progressive... Duh.

what is wrong with "regressive taxes?

I've explained this to you patiently 100 times. Remember last time I told you to bookmark the post? Did you bookmark it? If so, please go back to the bookmark and read it again.
 
You're being ridiculous. You think it is impossible to like keep track of how much somebody spends on dog tags for a year? lol.

each individual can but the government does not have a data base that ties Joe Citizen named Joe Smith who has three dog licenses and his income. If I am a government attorney, I can subpoena the IRS and find out what you made last year and what you paid. Same with the state of California's income tax bureau. there is no way I can find out from any government agency what you paid in gasoline taxes, state sales taxes etc because the only consumer items where a record of purchase are kept are narcotics, firearms and in some states automobiles.
 
Of course regressive taxes are relevant in evaluating whether our system is too regressive or too progressive... Duh.



I've explained this to you patiently 100 times. Remember last time I told you to bookmark the post? Did you bookmark it? If so, please go back to the bookmark and read it again.

Its a rhetorical question. Look that up. Its a value judgment on your part since you see taxes as being properly allocated based on ability to pay. Since I reject that premise, your argument has no value. I believe taxes should be based first of all on value received meaning a regressive tax is far more valid-especially for stuff like sales taxes other use taxes
 
Of course regressive taxes are relevant in evaluating whether our system is too regressive or too progressive... Duh.



I've explained this to you patiently 100 times. Remember last time I told you to bookmark the post? Did you bookmark it? If so, please go back to the bookmark and read it again.

wrong as usual, most taxes are not intended to be progressive. when evaluating whether a federal tax is too progressive or not progressive enough, taking into account 50 states systems is rather silly. when federal income taxes are modified because of what my state does I will start listening to you. the fact that I live in a state that has high sales and income taxes and death taxes doesn't get me a credit or an offset any more compared to someone who lives in places like Florida which has no income tax
 
each individual can but the government does not have a data base that ties Joe Citizen named Joe Smith who has three dog licenses and his income. If I am a government attorney, I can subpoena the IRS and find out what you made last year and what you paid. Same with the state of California's income tax bureau. there is no way I can find out from any government agency what you paid in gasoline taxes, state sales taxes etc because the only consumer items where a record of purchase are kept are narcotics, firearms and in some states automobiles.

You understand that there are other ways to find things out than government records, right?

Its a value judgment on your part since you see taxes as being properly allocated based on ability to pay.

Oops. You forgot to look at it again didn't you. That isn't my argument at all. I've explained my arguments to you 100 times or more. As recently as yesterday. And I made a big deal about how you were just going to forget all about it and act like I never said anything. And here you are the very next day doing exactly that. Pathetic.
 
wrong as usual, most taxes are not intended to be progressive. when evaluating whether a federal tax is too progressive or not progressive enough, taking into account 50 states systems is rather silly. when federal income taxes are modified because of what my state does I will start listening to you. the fact that I live in a state that has high sales and income taxes and death taxes doesn't get me a credit or an offset any more compared to someone who lives in places like Florida which has no income tax

Again, regressive taxes are relevant when determining whether our tax SYSTEM is too progressive or too regressive. Do you understand? Where are you getting confused. I'm talking about the entire tax SYSTEM, not just one rate in a vacuum. You get it?
 
Again, regressive taxes are relevant when determining whether our tax SYSTEM is too progressive or too regressive. Do you understand? Where are you getting confused. I'm talking about the entire tax SYSTEM, not just one rate in a vacuum. You get it?

OUR SYSTEM was not designed to be progressive, flat or regressive

some taxes are designed to be progressive and nothing in the enabling legislation discusses other taxes from the several states as being relevant.
 
OUR SYSTEM was not designed to be progressive, flat or regressive

some taxes are designed to be progressive and nothing in the enabling legislation discusses other taxes from the several states as being relevant.

Go ahead and explain your argument. You think that nobody gave thought to how the tax system would affect different people differently? It was just a historical accident? Policies randomly thrown together? Even if that were true, which obviously is absurd, why the hell would that mean we shouldn't fix it now?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom