Do you have a higher effective tax rate than mitt romney

Keridan said:

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.

Click to expand...

You can't really meaningfully look at tax burdens without looking at state taxes. It artificially skews it to make it seem like rich people pay more taxes. Federal taxes hit you harder the more you make, state taxes hit you less hard the more you make. So just looking at federal gives you a highly distorted picture.

Keridan said:

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.

Click to expand...

Yeah, that's true that we don't know his state taxes. Odds are though that he paid less than 1%. All the regressive ones would disappear in his bracket. Massachusetts has a capital gains tax rate of 5%, but New Hampshire has 0%, so he probably filed for New Hampshire.

teamosil said:

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.

Click to expand...

your dishonesty is rampant

1) Romney's residence for tax purposes has a state income tax. Last I checked it was at least 5%

2) ROmney owns expensive homes in three states-at least two of them have among the highest property taxes in the country

3) Romney buys lots of stuff for all his large family. that means a fair amount of sales taxes. He also travels a lot-airport and hotel taxes. He probably employees people so he is paying some of their FICA taxes as well

4) the tax system is not intended to be progressive. rather some taxes are, some are not. trying to argue a progressive system (FIT) is not progressive enough by including non-progressive taxes in the "rate" is dishonest

teamosil said:

You can't really meaningfully look at tax burdens without looking at state taxes. It artificially skews it to make it seem like rich people pay more taxes. Federal taxes hit you harder the more you make, state taxes hit you less hard the more you make. So just looking at federal gives you a highly distorted picture.

Click to expand...

Again, these are state taxes. Is your solution to have federal government make up for all the differences between state economies and then make it all progressive?

These are separate governments.

teamosil said:

Yeah, that's true that we don't know his state taxes. Odds are though that he paid less than 1%. All the regressive ones would disappear in his bracket. Massachusetts has a capital gains tax rate of 5%, but New Hampshire has 0%, so he probably filed for New Hampshire.

Click to expand...

I say that even if we did know his taxes, we run into part 1 of this answer. As it is, it makes for an uninformed comparison between the statistics you posted and his FIT.

Keridan said:

Again, these are state taxes. Is your solution to have federal government make up for all the differences between state economies and then make it all progressive?

These are separate governments.

Click to expand...

It doesn't matter to me whether the federal government makes it's tax scheme more progressive to counter the states or the states make their more progressive. All that matters is the total tax burden. What those taxes are called isn't important.

teamosil said:

It doesn't matter to me whether the federal government makes it's tax scheme more progressive to counter the states or the states make their more progressive. All that matters is the total tax burden. What those taxes are called isn't important.

Click to expand...

Teamosil, I enjoy debating with you. I find it hard to continue this discussion, however. When you aren't interested in the details, it makes the argument take on a measure of ideals and that is a whole different story.

It's also worth pointing out that the details here involve independent economies, governments, spending needs, rewards for that spending, business practices, cultures and more.

Keridan said:

Teamosil, I enjoy debating with you. I find it hard to continue this discussion, however. When you aren't interested in the details, it makes the argument take on a measure of ideals and that is a whole different story.

It's also worth pointing out that the details here involve independent economies, governments, spending needs, rewards for that spending, business practices, cultures and more.

Click to expand...

In another thread he continually claimed that the rate he cited was an apples to apples comparison which of course was a lie. he then claimed that all of Romney's other taxes (state income, state property and don't forget the gorilla in the room that lefties NEVER EVER count-the massive federal death tax that in some years could take more than half of a 100 Million dollar estate) were LESS THAN ONE PERCENT OF HIS INCOME even though Mitt's home state has an income tax of about 5%

teamosil said:

It doesn't matter to me whether the federal government makes it's tax scheme more progressive to counter the states or the states make their more progressive. All that matters is the total tax burden. What those taxes are called isn't important.

Click to expand...

so the states have a duty to make stuff more progressive or the federal government does if the states don't

WHY?

TurtleDude said:

In another thread he continually claimed that the rate he cited was an apples to apples comparison which of course was a lie. he then claimed that all of Romney's other taxes (state income, state property and don't forget the gorilla in the room that lefties NEVER EVER count-the massive federal death tax that in some years could take more than half of a 100 Million dollar estate) were LESS THAN ONE PERCENT OF HIS INCOME even though Mitt's home state has an income tax of about 5%

Click to expand...

This topic is so in-depth, far-reaching, and heated that it's hard to break it all down. Maggie posting that simple calculator and a lot of step-by-step discussion has helped this particular thread. I understand that people desire everything to be fair, but there is such complexity here that it's easy for fair, equal, and progressive to become impossible to agree on.

Being a private business owner who's taxes are predicted to fall around 40% this year, I've taken a lot of time to educate myself and break down who is taking my money. It's not very simple.

All issues about progressive taxation, capital-gains tax, and tax loopholes aside, I don't really see how this is Mitt Romney's fault. He didn't write the tax code. He has simply taken whatever advantages the system has provided him. Honestly, who would not do the same? Now, does this mean that there are not perfectly valid questions raised by a millionaire paying that tax rate? No, of course not. Did Romney handle this far more awkwardly than he should have? Definitely, but honestly, who can fault Romney for what doing what we all try to do: legally try to save money on our taxes.

Keridan said:

Teamosil, I enjoy debating with you. I find it hard to continue this discussion, however. When you aren't interested in the details, it makes the argument take on a measure of ideals and that is a whole different story.

It's also worth pointing out that the details here involve independent economies, governments, spending needs, rewards for that spending, business practices, cultures and more.

Click to expand...

I mean, it's not like there is really a "right" and a "wrong" answer about whether you should consider all taxes or just federal or state taxes one at a time. Depends what you want to know. Personally, the aspect of it that I think is important is how we as a whole society our distributing the costs of maintaining our society. The thing I am interested in with tax questions is how the way that we divide up the burden of sustaining our society affects things like intergenerational income mobility. I want to understand what pressures are causing the rich to rocket away while the middle class are basically stagnating. So, to me, the total tax burden is what matters. It doesn't matter to me at all whether the type of taxes different brackets pay are state or federal or consumption or income, I just care about the total because it is the total that affects people's economic condition.

DrunkenAsparagus said:

All issues about progressive taxation, capital-gains tax, and tax loopholes aside, I don't really see how this is Mitt Romney's fault.

Click to expand...

It isn't Romney's fault. Not at all. It's a problem with the tax code. Romney's example just highlights how screwed up it is.

It also creates a major political problem for Romney though. He can't stand there anymore and run the "the rich are paying their fair share" angle anymore because he himself disproves that. The Bain history also makes it hard for him to use the "the rich are job creators" line too. So, he's pretty much hogtied on the core planks of the Republican platform.

Higgins86 said:

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!

Click to expand...

Yes you, as well as the great majority of us, have to pay payroll taxes on our entire income, in addition to income tax on our entire income. Those who's income is primarily from investments, only have to pay SS taxes on the portion of their income up to the $106,800 Cap.

In Romney's case, he only had to pay .1% of his income in payroll taxes for 2010, whereas the middle class have to pay payroll taxes on their entire income.

2010 Family Trust Return | Mitt Romney for President

teamosil said:

I mean, it's not like there is really a "right" and a "wrong" answer about whether you should consider all taxes or just federal or state taxes one at a time. Depends what you want to know. Personally, the aspect of it that I think is important is how we as a whole society our distributing the costs of maintaining our society. The thing I am interested in with tax questions is how the way that we divide up the burden of sustaining our society affects things like intergenerational income mobility. I want to understand what pressures are causing the rich to rocket away while the middle class are basically stagnating. So, to me, the total tax burden is what matters. It doesn't matter to me at all whether the type of taxes different brackets pay are state or federal or consumption or income, I just care about the total because it is the total that affects people's economic condition.

Click to expand...

You can consider state taxes when voting for Governor and state elections, because that is where they change. It's not so much a right or wrong as it is relevant or irrelevant. We are the United States of America. The country was designed on the basis of states having their own controls.

I'd be happy to take up your post on another thread. I disagree with parts of it, but don't want to derail on it.

teamosil said:

It isn't Romney's fault. Not at all. It's a problem with the tax code. Romney's example just highlights how screwed up it is.

It also creates a major political problem for Romney though. He can't stand there anymore and run the "the rich are paying their fair share" angle anymore because he himself disproves that. The Bain history also makes it hard for him to use the "the rich are job creators" line too. So, he's pretty much hogtied on the core planks of the Republican platform.

Click to expand...

He actually can run for president of the US saying the rich pay their fair share when the top 1% pay over 36% of the FIT collected. Also, 13.9 has been higher than the other examples posted on this thread. Even taking the standard or everyone deductions, most people fall well below that.

Catawba said:

Yes you, as well as the great majority of us, have to pay payroll taxes on our entire income, in addition to income tax on our entire income. Those who's income is primarily from investments, only have to pay SS taxes on the portion of their income up to the $106,800 Cap.

In Romney's case, he only had to pay .1% of his income in payroll taxes for 2010, whereas the middle class have to pay payroll taxes on their entire income.

2010 Family Trust Return | Mitt Romney for President

Click to expand...

We touched on this. SS is supposed to be a situation where you get back what you put in. It's not progressive because it is a forced government retirement "plan". If you took the cap off or put it on capital gains, you just end up paying the millions back to people like Romney.

If you want to abolish it, I'll sign up. The government has shown how irresponsible it can be with money, I wouldn't choose them for a bank anyway. Of course, that's why they force us. If you want to remove the cap, that works too, but I'm going to laugh next year when Romney shows an additional million or so from social "security".

DrunkenAsparagus said:

All issues about progressive taxation, capital-gains tax, and tax loopholes aside, I don't really see how this is Mitt Romney's fault. He didn't write the tax code. He has simply taken whatever advantages the system has provided him. Honestly, who would not do the same? Now, does this mean that there are not perfectly valid questions raised by a millionaire paying that tax rate? No, of course not. Did Romney handle this far more awkwardly than he should have? Definitely, but honestly, who can fault Romney for what doing what we all try to do: legally try to save money on our taxes.

Click to expand...

Bingo. Romney pays the legal rate.

Keridan said:

You can consider state taxes when voting for Governor and state elections, because that is where they change. It's not so much a right or wrong as it is relevant or irrelevant. We are the United States of America. The country was designed on the basis of states having their own controls.

Click to expand...

The line between states and the federal government is very blurry at best. Expenses get shifted back and forth. The federal government gives money to the states, the federal government mandates spending by the states. There is no area of life that is exclusively a state responsibility anymore. People move states regularly, they live in one state and work in another. Many people find themselves working in a dozen different states regularly for their job. Even if you have a job where you physically sit only in the state you live in every day, you're on the phone with other states, conducting business across state lines, continuously. Where in the days of the founders people thought of themselves first as a citizen of Massachusetts and only secondarily as a citizen of the US, now people identify primarily as a citizen of the US and may or may not identify with their state at all really. So, I don't really buy that federalism is a very meaningful concept anymore. It's no longer really a relevant way to split up governance. It doesn't really hurt anything except that it is inefficient, so I don't necessarily think we need to totally dismantle it or something, but it isn't like blurring the tax systems of two sovereigns together. It's more like looking at the state and local taxes together.

But, more specifically, I don't think it matters which path the taxes go through. It all goes to the same basic function- maintaining our society. Our roads, our schools, our protection, etc. This isn't just a question of federal policy or a question of state policy, it's a question of how we want to distribute the burden of maintaining that society. Right now we basically have a flat distribution for taxes except for that the very poor and the very rich pay much less. The very poor, I can see that. That makes some sense to me. They need a hand to get back in the game. They don't have the money anyways. But the very rich? That makes no sense. They need the money the least and they are drawing the most benefit from society. They should be paying at least as much as the middle class, and really they should be paying more.

Keridan said:

He actually can run for president of the US saying the rich pay their fair share when the top 1% pay over 36% of the FIT collected.

Click to expand...

Again, that's just FIT. That isn't the whole story. The 1% pays a considerably smaller portion of taxes overall.

But, even putting that aside, the reason they are paying so much is because they're getting so much of our GDP. The percentage that the top 1% pays is more a reflection of how wide the gap between them and the middle class has become. When they pay a really high percentage, that is because they are getting more and more of the pie while the rest of us get less and less. That's an argument for MORE progressive taxation, not less.

And it isn't really the 1% that we are concerned aren't paying their fair share. That's a catchy way to talk about it, but really it is more like the 0.1% or even the 0.01%. The super rich investors. Most of the 1% still makes their money by working. They are indeed paying fairly reasonable taxes. It's the Romneys of the world that make huge amounts of money, but pay virtually nothing because of the capital gains tax break.

Keridan said:

Also, 13.9 has been higher than the other examples posted on this thread. Even taking the standard or everyone deductions, most people fall well below that.

Click to expand...

Only if you just look at FIT. If you look at all taxes, almost everybody pays a higher percentage than Romney.

I checked my last three years of returns - and YES I do. But then I make my money in good old fashioned wages so the government does not give me the discriminatiory preferencial rate that it does for most of Romney's money.

teamosil said:

It isn't Romney's fault. Not at all. It's a problem with the tax code. Romney's example just highlights how screwed up it is.

It also creates a major political problem for Romney though. He can't stand there anymore and run the "the rich are paying their fair share" angle anymore because he himself disproves that. The Bain history also makes it hard for him to use the "the rich are job creators" line too. So, he's pretty much hogtied on the core planks of the Republican platform.

Click to expand...

Well said. Hopefully, this return will spark a loud national debate on the entire issue of capital gains preferences and the discriminatory rate it offers. In the edn, Romney and others like him may end up doing a public service...................... just not the one they intended to perform.

haymarket said:

I checked my last three years of returns - and YES I do. But then I make my money in good old fashioned wages so the government does not give me the discriminatiory preferencial rate that it does for most of Romney's money.

Click to expand...

You pay a higher effective FIT rate than 13.9%?? Wow, you must make a lot of money.

Keridan said:

You pay a higher effective FIT rate than 13.9%?? Wow, you must make a lot of money.

Click to expand...

A professional does my taxes. he provides me with a sheet which tells me what my tax rate was. It is higher than 13.9.

Do I make a lot of money? Some here have called me a unsuccessful loser who is only trying to attack the winners in our society. So its hard to say.

Keridan said:

You pay a higher effective FIT rate than 13.9%?? Wow, you must make a lot of money.

Click to expand...

You don't need to make that much....

haymarket said:

A professional does my taxes. he provides me with a sheet which tells me what my tax rate was. It is higher than 13.9.

Do I make a lot of money? Some here have called me a unsuccessful loser who is only trying to attack the winners in our society. So its hard to say.

Click to expand...

Since I don't suppose you'll release that sheet (and I don't think you should have to), we will have to work within the information we have here. On that sheet, does it list just your FIT or does it include your FICA and State taxes as well. Hugely different beasts. If you need a breakdown of why and want to answer it, I started a thread just for that purpose at http://www.debatepolitics.com/general-political-discussion/117696-fit-sit-and-fica.html and I would love your input.

I'm also not asking for your income amount because there is no need, but I would like an honest answer if you are going to state them as evidence. How much of your percentage was FICA, State, and Federal?

Secondly, I have not called you those things. Please don't ascribe it to me as that will not help discussion along.

iliveonramen said:

You don't need to make that much....

Click to expand...

The minimum amount of income when filing married jointly (as one has to assume Romney does) is $112,600.00. Now, the problem is that since we have very messed up incentives in this country, to get an actual comparison of only wealth-based rates, you have to assume the same number of dependents and familial deductions as he used. Otherwise, you aren't comparing wealth, but family size. One could even get into showing a similar % of deductions from businesses and such to make a fair income comparison, but I only mention that and don't explore it because it's more debatable.

99percenter said:

I know i do.

Mitt Romney Tax Returns Released: Paid Just 13.9% Rate In 2010, Had Swiss Bank Account

Click to expand...

I don't know for certain, I'll try your link tomorrow...but I don't pay income tax at all and I get a hefty return every year, so I have confidence I'm paying less than 13%.

In either case, I don't care about politicians doing shady things like hiding money...they're politicians, this is what they do. Obama isn't exactly blameless himself. I know that when I begin building wealth I'll be looking for ways to keep it away from Uncle Sam, too.

Keridan said:

Since I don't suppose you'll release that sheet (and I don't think you should have to), we will have to work within the information we have here. On that sheet, does it list just your FIT or does it include your FICA and State taxes as well. Hugely different beasts. If you need a breakdown of why and want to answer it, I started a thread just for that purpose at http://www.debatepolitics.com/general-political-discussion/117696-fit-sit-and-fica.html and I would love your input.

I'm also not asking for your income amount because there is no need, but I would like an honest answer if you are going to state them as evidence. How much of your percentage was FICA, State, and Federal?

Secondly, I have not called you those things. Please don't ascribe it to me as that will not help discussion along.



The minimum amount of income when filing married jointly (as one has to assume Romney does) is $112,600.00. Now, the problem is that since we have very messed up incentives in this country, to get an actual comparison of only wealth-based rates, you have to assume the same number of dependents and familial deductions as he used. Otherwise, you aren't comparing wealth, but family size. One could even get into showing a similar % of deductions from businesses and such to make a fair income comparison, but I only mention that and don't explore it because it's more debatable.

Click to expand...

I will check that out tonight when I get home from work.

haymarket said:

I will check that out tonight when I get home from work.

Click to expand...

I appreciate that. And please remember that I don't invalidate the numbers if they don't come directly from FIT, but it changes the basis for discussion and comparison.

tessaesque said:

After I receive my tax refund and tuition "refund" I end up paying an effective rate of 3%. I claim 0 and do not file my charitable giving/donations. I take no deductions outside of my tuition, which isn't really a "deduction", I don't think...

Click to expand...

Damnit!!! I want a federal investigation. :lol: