chinookpirate wrote: what is behind the numbers?

how is it that he can generate so much income and pay so "little"?

could it be he is risking his personal capital and in so doing, generating jobs? economic growth?

could it be that he is targeting individuals and groups in need and giving away his income to give a hand up?

from the way you write this post and others in this thread, it appears you believe that although he paid Six Million Two Hundred Thousand Dollars in taxes, he simply didn't pay enough and that is just wrong.

The Romneys sent somewhat less to Washington over that period, paying an estimated $6.2 million in federal income taxes. According to his 2010 return, Romney paid about $3 million to the IRS, for an effective tax rate of 13.9 percent.

 

 

For 2011, Romney estimates that he will pay about $3.2 million, for an effective rate of 15.4 percent. That’s in line with his earlier estimates, but sharply lower than the rates paid by President Obama and Romney’s closest Republican rival, Newt Gingrich.

 

 

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...bUMQ_story.html

 

 

 

 

I wish I paid only 13.9%

woosh...

maybe it's time you take a tax class.

chinookpirate wrote: woosh...

maybe it's time you take a tax class.

I really don't need to but thank you for the advice



It appears that Romney didn’t even use any unusually aggressive tax strategies. Instead, his low rate is due to the fact that almost all of his income was in the form of dividends and capital gains, which are currently taxed at only 15%.  (As he pointed out in the last debate, he would have paid almost nothing under his opponent Newt Gingrich’s proposal to not tax investment income at all.) He then used large charitable contributions and other deductions to further reduce his taxable income.



http://www.forbes.com/sites/fi...like-mitt-romney/



Mitt is just another out of touch fat cat republican

---------------------------------------------
--- dawgdan wrote:

chinookpirate wrote: woosh...

maybe it's time you take a tax class.

I really don't need to but thank you for the advice



It appears that Romney didn’t even use any unusually aggressive tax strategies. Instead, his low rate is due to the fact that almost all of his income was in the form of dividends and capital gains, which are currently taxed at only 15%.  (As he pointed out in the last debate, he would have paid almost nothing under his opponent Newt Gingrich’s proposal to not tax investment income at all.) He then used large charitable contributions and other deductions to further reduce his taxable income.



www.forbes.com/sites/fi...like-mitt-romney/



Mitt is just another out of touch fat cat republican

---------------------------------------------
Dan, with all due respect, Romney uses the same loopholes as Buffett, POTUS and every other person afforded loopholes. As I've said forever, close the loopholes and the tax rates are fine. And for corporations, end the subsidies.

It's not that difficult. BTW, LA and LLC even have me convinced on dividend tax increases.

jzimmeht wrote:

---------------------------------------------
--- dawgdan wrote:

chinookpirate wrote: woosh...

maybe it's time you take a tax class.

I really don't need to but thank you for the advice



It appears that Romney didn’t even use any unusually aggressive tax strategies. Instead, his low rate is due to the fact that almost all of his income was in the form of dividends and capital gains, which are currently taxed at only 15%.  (As he pointed out in the last debate, he would have paid almost nothing under his opponent Newt Gingrich’s proposal to not tax investment income at all.) He then used large charitable contributions and other deductions to further reduce his taxable income.



www.forbes.com/sites/fi...like-mitt-romney/



Mitt is just another out of touch fat cat republican

---------------------------------------------
Dan, with all due respect, Romney uses the same loopholes as Buffett, POTUS and every other person afforded loopholes. As I've said forever, close the loopholes and the tax rates are fine. And for corporations, end the subsidies.

It's not that difficult. BTW, LA and LLC even have me convinced on dividend tax increases.

I'm all for closing the loopholes so that everybody pays their fair share, but nobody kicks and screams about that   then those who make millions and millions. Why should the people who make the most pay the least?

---------------------------------------------
--- dawgdan wrote:

jzimmeht wrote:

---------------------------------------------
--- dawgdan wrote:

chinookpirate wrote: woosh...

maybe it's time you take a tax class.

I really don't need to but thank you for the advice



It appears that Romney didn’t even use any unusually aggressive tax strategies. Instead, his low rate is due to the fact that almost all of his income was in the form of dividends and capital gains, which are currently taxed at only 15%.  (As he pointed out in the last debate, he would have paid almost nothing under his opponent Newt Gingrich’s proposal to not tax investment income at all.) He then used large charitable contributions and other deductions to further reduce his taxable income.



www.forbes.com/sites/fi...like-mitt-romney/



Mitt is just another out of touch fat cat republican

---------------------------------------------
Dan, with all due respect, Romney uses the same loopholes as Buffett, POTUS and every other person afforded loopholes. As I've said forever, close the loopholes and the tax rates are fine. And for corporations, end the subsidies.

It's not that difficult. BTW, LA and LLC even have me convinced on dividend tax increases.

I'm all for closing the loopholes so that everybody pays their fair share, but nobody kicks and screams about that   then those who make millions and millions. Why should the people who make the most pay the least?

---------------------------------------------

But that's the problem Dan, they don't pay the least. They pay significantly more than most in real dollars. Dan,I've asked this many times and have never been given an answer on U.L. What is a fair amount?

It's a pretty simple question yet nobody will answer the question. What number works and what layers of income should pay what?

I'm not trying to be adversarial, I'm just curious what you think what one person should contribute to the tax system.

Thanks in advance for your opinion.

Cheers

it has nothing to do with "fair share" It has everything to do with risk of capital.

Government wants to find oil? give tax incentives to get those with capital to risk it. doing so, creates jobs and if they find it, cheaper stable energy for domestic manufacturers to prosper, creating more jobs etc.

Want greater investment into Green energy, solar, flex fuels, wind? give tax incentives for those with capital encouraging them to risk it.

Problem is, oil companies did just that. Then as oil profits soared, profits were offset with the green energy credits and political opportunists whipped the ignorant into a frenzy.

get it?

jzimmeht wrote:
---------------------------------------------
--- dawgdan wrote:

jzimmeht wrote:

---------------------------------------------
--- dawgdan wrote:

chinookpirate wrote: woosh...

maybe it's time you take a tax class.

I really don't need to but thank you for the advice



It appears that Romney didn’t even use any unusually aggressive tax strategies. Instead, his low rate is due to the fact that almost all of his income was in the form of dividends and capital gains, which are currently taxed at only 15%.  (As he pointed out in the last debate, he would have paid almost nothing under his opponent Newt Gingrich’s proposal to not tax investment income at all.) He then used large charitable contributions and other deductions to further reduce his taxable income.



www.forbes.com/sites/fi...like-mitt-romney/



Mitt is just another out of touch fat cat republican

---------------------------------------------
Dan, with all due respect, Romney uses the same loopholes as Buffett, POTUS and every other person afforded loopholes. As I've said forever, close the loopholes and the tax rates are fine. And for corporations, end the subsidies.

It's not that difficult. BTW, LA and LLC even have me convinced on dividend tax increases.

I'm all for closing the loopholes so that everybody pays their fair share, but nobody kicks and screams about that   then those who make millions and millions. Why should the people who make the most pay the least?

---------------------------------------------

But that's the problem Dan, they don't pay the least. They pay significantly more than most in real dollars. Dan,I've asked this many times and have never been given an answer on U.L. What is a fair amount?

It's a pretty simple question yet nobody will answer the question. What number works and what layers of income should pay what?

I'm not trying to be adversarial, I'm just curious what you think what one person should contribute to the tax system.

Thanks in advance for your opinion.

Cheers

Jake


I understand what your trying to say and why nobody has an answer for you. There is no plain and simple answer for this question with our current tax code. Why do come people pay 14 or 15 % and others get nailed at 28 to 30 %.. Until the current tax code is over hauled, these kind of differences will continue to plague all taxpayers. What is a fair tax? is a flat tax fair? who knows the answer to those questions as I am not a tax expert only a taxpayer.

Thanks Dan, it's a difficult conversation and I appreciate your response.
I don't believe there is an answer to the question; I doubt anyone can answer the question as to what's fair amount. After all, you and I couldn't agree on a set number or percentage.

Can anyone come to a conclusion as to what's fair? I would say no.

I'd have to agree with you - at least on Federal taxes.
I've proposed a flat-tax ala Steve Forbes --- maybe 25-28% of gross income with no deductions. I'll admit, though, it's partly because it's easier for me to understand taxes/benefits that way.
Others on UL viewed that as unfair because the poor would pay a greater real %age of their needed income for essentials of daily living (food, shelter etc.).

I think the fairest idea is everybody paying something but how much that is - I can't say.

I'd be willing to do 5% on the first $50k. 25% on everything above.

Your first $50k is about setting up house, buying food, clothing, utilities. No reason to tax the first $50k everyone makes at the same rate as the $250-300k.

Also, people who WORK and make less than a certain amount get a rebate back instead of paying tax. I say continue this. I would rather limit welfare to those who are working then to those who are not.

Outside of that get rid of the deductions and treat income all the same.

---------------------------------------------
--- AJDawg wrote:

I'd have to agree with you - at least on Federal taxes.
I've proposed a flat-tax ala Steve Forbes --- maybe 25-28% of gross income with no deductions. I'll admit, though, it's partly because it's easier for me to understand taxes/benefits that way.
Others on UL viewed that as unfair because the poor would pay a greater real %age of their needed income for essentials of daily living (food, shelter etc.).

I think the fairest idea is everybody paying something but how much that is - I can't say.

---------------------------------------------

You'd be adding quite a bit of tax revenue with this proposal.  So much so that I think the 25% on anything above $50K is probably too high.  25% on someone making between say $100,000-$150,000 with no deductions is too high.  Their lifestyles would not be much better than someone making $50-$75K.  How much does one have to make before the 25% really wouldn't impact them?  For me, I'd say that number would have to be in the $500K range.