Recognitions:
Gold Member

## Romney pays 15% taxes

 Quote by mheslep Romney paid, I think, 200 times what the median tax payer pays in income taxes, and that doesn't include his property tax. But he doesn't get to vote 200 times on election day, he gets no bigger share of national defense than anyone else, he can't go to anymore than one national park at a time, can only ride in one car at a time on the government road, can only fly in one FAA controlled plane at a time.
I can't tell whether you're just being sarcastic, or whether you're actually suggesting that vote count should be based on net worth. Given Poe's Law, I'm inclined to lean toward the latter.

Recognitions:
Gold Member
Doh!

Send me the links to the other ones....

btw, have you done your taxes yet? I'm curious what a college student with two jobs pays as a percentage nowadays.

If you share that, I'll tell you what I pay in wealth tax.

Recognitions:
Homework Help
 Quote by rcgldr The study on this included two options. This is a quote from yahoo article (the orignal link is broke, but I saved the quote): Modify the Social Security tax cap. Workers pay into the Social Security system on earnings up to $106,800 in 2010. About 83 percent of worker earnings were subject to Social Security payroll taxes in 2008. If all earned income above$106,800 annually were subject to Social Security contributions but did not count toward benefits, Social Security's projected deficit would be completely eliminated. If the higher income counted toward Social Security benefits, about 95 percent of the shortfall would be absolved. Other ideas: apply a new Social Security formula to earnings above the current cap or raise the amount of the income cap to apply to 90 percent of all worker earnings.
 Quote by russ_watters For clarity, that's eliminating the cap on pay-in without changing the cap on pay-out, right?
That was one of the two options listed, the other was eliminating cap on pay-in and pay-out.

 Quote by russ_watters Yeah, I get that: I asked if that's what you want and I asked how you see how that affects the logic upon which the program was created.
These days it's just another tax, but at least one where the pay-out go to social security related payments as opposed to whereever the government wants to spend it. If the cap was removed, then FICA would be a flat tax, the kind of tax that republicans are supposed to favor.

 For perspective - here's the effective tax rates for a few years - http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfa....cfm?Docid=456 (this is CBO data, just easier to read IMO) So for every 1 Romney that is paying 15% taxes... there are 5 others in the same income paying at least 35% taxes. The justification for the 'Buffett rule' doesn't align with the 'Buffett facts' IMO.

Recognitions:
Gold Member
 Quote by mege For perspective - here's the effective tax rates for a few years - http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfa....cfm?Docid=456 (this is CBO data, just easier to read IMO) So for every 1 Romney that is paying 15% taxes... there are 5 others in the same income paying at least 35% taxes. The justification for the 'Buffett rule' doesn't align with the 'Buffett facts' IMO.
Please back this up with actual citations. The wealthy never pay 35%.

Mentor
 Quote by mege For perspective - here's the effective tax rates for a few years - http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfa....cfm?Docid=456 (this is CBO data, just easier to read IMO) So for every 1 Romney that is paying 15% taxes... there are 5 others in the same income paying at least 35% taxes. The justification for the 'Buffett rule' doesn't align with the 'Buffett facts' IMO.
You're misreading the data. The Romney disucssion is about the federal income tax, not the total federal tax (does not include the payroll tax). At 14% Romney pays just a little below the average for a 1%er, which was 19% in the most recent data.

Mentor
 Quote by rcgldr These days it's just another tax, but at least one where the pay-out go to social security related payments as opposed to whereever the government wants to spend it. If the cap was removed, then FICA would be a flat tax, the kind of tax that republicans are supposed to favor.[emphasis added]
You've got the shoe on the wrong foot here. Republicans don't favor removing the cap not because we're holding a position inconsistent with our values on flat taxes, but because SS is not "just another tax". Even (in my perception) the media understands this, which is why the issue of this thread was presented without a payroll tax component by the media - regardless of what liberals like to argue in this forum.

The reason this issue was brought to us without consideration of SS is that SS was created as a forced-savings retirement plan, not as a tax serving general government funding. Yeah, I know it has been abused somewhat, but removing the cap on pay-in without raising the pay-out for some people removes all remainging pretense. And we have liberals here arguing vehimently that (paraphrase) 'I paid in and the government made a promise that they'd pay me back plus interest. The government needs to keep that promise.' If we eliminate the cap on pay-in without also eliminating it on pay-out, we'd become a country that keeps that big promise to some while not keeping it for others. I don't think that's really a country liberals want to be, but more to the point, if the government broke that big promise for some I would think it would cause worry for the rest as well. And frankly, I think the media sees this, which is why they typically frame the issue the way they do, ignoring the SS component.
 That was one of the two options listed, the other was eliminating cap on pay-in and pay-out.
Sorry, I missed that one. But I'd be surprised if many people would support a change to the program that resulted in the government writing million dollar benefit checks to rich people. I'm also distrusting of the prediction on how it would help the program, since it doesn't have a timeframe attached to it. It doesn't change the structure of the program, so the pyramid-scheme-type flaw still exists. SS did fine for a long time, but is on a trajectory to not do fine. Extending it would be like starting over with a different pool of people: it would work fine again -- but only for a while.

Mentor
 Quote by ParticleGrl If you include state and local taxes,which tend to be regressive, its easier to do.
As I pointed out - but unless someone says they are reframing the issue, I must assume they are responding to the issue that was presented to them.

 Quote by turbo Please back this up with actual citations. The wealthy never pay 35%.
Same data from the CBO source:
http://www.cbo.gov/publications/coll...xRates2007.pdf

What do you want? The data is pretty self-evident. If I am making mistakes conveying it - that doesn't change the point: Romney is an outlier in taxes.

Seems to me he contributes much more than his 'fair share' even so.

 Quote by mheslep Better placed here ... On the tax question I think Romney should say, "I paid $3 million in taxes in 2010." In answer to follow up questions about percentages, he should say, "I paid$3 million in taxes in 2010. I gave away another $3 million in charitable donations in 2010" Romney paid, I think, 200 times what the median tax payer pays in income taxes, and that doesn't include his property tax. But he doesn't get to vote 200 times on election day, he gets no bigger share of national defense than anyone else, he can't go to anymore than one national park at a time, can only ride in one car at a time on the government road, can only fly in one FAA controlled plane at a time. The 20 Millions he earned in 2010, where did they come from? These 20 Millions were almost exclusively generated by the capital he owns and by the many, many people that work with that capital. Recognitions: Gold Member  Quote by mege Same data from the CBO source: http://www.cbo.gov/publications/coll...xRates2007.pdf What do you want? The data is pretty self-evident. If I am making mistakes conveying it - that doesn't change the point: Romney is an outlier in taxes. Seems to me he contributes much more than his 'fair share' even so. The data in your link soundly refutes your assertion. Nobody in the top 10% on average pays even 20% in income taxes. Disclaimer: I maxed out on SS contributions for more years than I can count over the years, and spent the last 5 of my working years comfortably in the top 2% of all earners, even without my wife's wages added in. My wife and I planned our finances and retirement in detail. I don't need too much help understanding wage-and-tax structure. Mentor Blog Entries: 4 How Mitt makes his money.  Mitt Romney’s$21.6 million of income in 2010 included profits from elite funds run by Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Golden Gate Capital Corp., illustrating how one of America’s wealthiest presidential candidates has diversified his private-equity fueled fortune. Trusts set up for Romney and his wife held investments in Goldman Sachs US$Liquid Reserves Fund and a Golden Gate Capital fund, as well as a Credit Suisse Group AG-backed collateralized- debt obligation, according to tax returns released yesterday by his campaign. Romney, who stepped down as head of private-equity firm Bain Capital LLC in 1999, also owns a stake in a buyout fund started by the Boston-based company in 2008. continued... http://www.businessweek.com/news/201...lden-gate.html http://www2.goldmansachs.com/gsam/do...ulrf_ds_en.pdf  Recognitions: Gold Member Thanks for the links, Evo. It is quite enlightening to see how the uber-wealthy can tap into interest rates that the rest of us can only dream of. Recognitions: Gold Member  Quote by ParticleGrl ... Of course he does! The networth of the US is something like 55 trillion. Romney controls at least 250 million (about 10^-6) of that. His tax revenue is also about 10^-6 of the defense budget. If we aren't over-defended, he pays pretty much the cost to defend his chunk of America. The median household in the US controls a few hundred thousand (maybe, does anyone have the number for median wealth?). So they control 10^-9 of the wealth, but pay 10^-8 of the defense budget. Under the same assumption, the median tax-payer pays 10x what it costs to defend his chunk of America. Romney gets a better deal. If the country fell to communists tomorrow, and they confiscated all private property, I'd be out a few thousand and my rust-bucket car. Romney would be out millions. Yes he has more in the bank to lose, though I credit most of the protection of Romney's assets to contract law. I credit protection of Romney's life and liberty against foreign threats, of which he has only one the same as you and me, to national defense. Put another way, if you, me and Romney had all been in the WTC 11 years ago of what relevance would be his bank account vs yours? Recognitions: Gold Member  Quote by turbo The data in your link soundly refutes your assertion. Nobody in the top 10% on average pays even 20% in income taxes. ... It has been a big news story for a week now that Gingrich, who's$3.1m income places him well into the 1%, paid 31.6% in taxes.
http://thepage.time.com/2012/01/19/newts-taxes/

Recognitions:
Gold Member
 Quote by mheslep It has been a big news story for a week now that Gingrich, who's \$3.1m income places him well into the 1%, paid 31.6% in taxes. http://thepage.time.com/2012/01/19/newts-taxes/
This thread isn't about Gingrich and it's not about his total tax liability. Romney pays far less than 20% in income taxes. Case closed.

Recognitions:
Gold Member