Newsvine
  • Welcome
  • Help
  • Report Bug
  • Conversation Tracker
  • Your Column
  • Replies
  • Friends
Type Comments Since You Last CheckedArticle Source Last Checked Stop Tracking All Clear Tracking All
Advertise | AdChoices
Log In | Register
Close the Login Panel
Existing users log in below. New users please register for a free account.

New Users:

Existing Users:

E-Mail:
Password:
Forgot Password?
Please enter the e-mail address or domain name you registered with:
E-Mail/Domain:
Back to Login
Log Out
  • Top News
  • Local News
  • World
  • U.S.
  • Sports
  • Politics
  • Tech
  • Entertainment
  • Science
  • Business
  • Health
  • Odd News
  • More
    • Arts
    • Education
    • Environment
    • Fashion
    • History
    • Home & Garden
    • Not News
    • Religion
    • Travel
What is Newsvine?

Updated continuously by citizens like you, Newsvine is an instant reflection of what the world is talking about at any given moment.

Get a Free Account
Help
Fun Stuff
  • Your Clippings
  • Leaderboard
  • E-Mail Alerts
  • Top of the Vine
  • Newsvine Live
  • Newsvine Archives
  • The Greenhouse
  • Recommended Articles
  • Wall of Vineness
Put a Seed Newsvine link on your own site

Romney says he pays US taxes — about 15 percent

Tue Jan 17, 2012 8:14 PM EST
politics, us, mitt-romney, romney, democratic-white-house
Kasie Hunt, Associated Press
< PreviousNext >
showing 1 of 6 photos
<p>Republican presidential candidate, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney campaigns at the Florence Civic Center in Florence, S.C., Tuesday, Jan. 17, 2012. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak)</p>

Republican presidential candidate, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney campaigns at the Florence Civic Center in Florence, S.C., Tuesday, Jan. 17, 2012. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak)

Advertise | AdChoices

FLORENCE — His wealth and taxes suddenly a campaign focus, Mitt Romney said Tuesday he pays an effective federal tax rate of about 15 percent. That's far less than if his earnings were wages rather than gains from investments and dividends, and the disclosure under pressure triggered a sharp response from the Democratic White House as well as one of his GOP presidential rivals.

Romney told reporters he also received money from speechmaking before he announced his presidential candidacy early last year "but not very much." He provided no details, but in his financial disclosure statement, released last August, he reported being paid $374,327.62 for such appearances for the 12 months ending last February.

That amount alone would place his income among the top 1 percent of all Americans, and Romney's description of it as a relatively small amount suggested his overall income was far higher.

It's well known that Romney's father was the chairman and president of American Motors, and he himself was a successful businessman and founder of Bain Capital, a private equity firm, where he earned millions. At the same time, his refusal to release his tax returns has been a persistent issue, and one that flared anew in a debate Monday night in which he grudgingly said he might release them in April.

On Tuesday, he said he would release at least one year's returns in April.

Republicans trying to defeat him in Saturday's South Carolina primary are hoping he'll make them public far sooner.

The White House, which expects Romney to win the Republican nomination and take on President Barack Obama this year, reacted, too.

Spokesman Jay Carney said: "This only illuminates what (Obama) believes is an issue, which is that everybody who's working hard ought to pay their fair share. That includes millionaires who might be paying an effective tax rate of 15 percent when folks making $50,000 or $75,000 or $100,000 a year are paying much more."

Newt Gingrich, the former House speaker who runs second in some polls in South Carolina, taunted the former Massachusetts governor: "I think we ought to rename our flat tax. We have a 15 percent flat tax, so this would be a Mitt Romney flat tax and all Americans would pay the rate" that he paid. Gingrich is expected to release his own returns on Thursday.

At 15 percent, Romney's federal income tax rate would still be higher than the rate paid by many Americans.

On average, households making between $50,000 and $75,000 will pay a federal income tax rate of 5.7 percent this year, according to projections by the Tax Policy Center, a Washington think tank.

However, when Social Security and other taxes are included, that same household would pay an average federal tax rate of 16.6 percent.

Overall, the average American household will pay 9.3 percent in federal income taxes— and 19.7 percent in all federal taxes.

Romney's wealth — he is worth between $190 million and $250 million— puts him among the richest Americans. But if most of his income is from investments, it could help him to significantly lower his federal tax bill compared to people who make money in other ways.

While the top federal tax rate for investment income— qualified dividends and long-term capital gains _is 15 percent, the top tax rate for wages is 35 percent on taxable income above $388,350. Wages are also subject to Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes, while investment earnings are not.

With unemployment high and the country still struggling to recover from the worst recession in decades, Obama's re-election campaign has signaled it intends to make income disparity a central part of this year's campaign.

Romney's remaining nomination foes emphasized in the debate in Myrtle Beach on Monday night that whatever vulnerabilities he might bring to a campaign against Obama, the party should know about them now.

Romney was asked about his taxes shortly before he left South Carolina for a high-dollar fundraiser in New York.

"What's the effective rate I've been paying? It's probably closer to the 15 percent rate than anything," Romney said. "Because my last 10 years, I've — my income comes overwhelmingly from investments made in the past, rather than ordinary income or rather than earned annual income."

By his own account, Romney hasn't received a regular paycheck since 1999. That's when he left the private equity firm he founded, Bain Capital, where he became a multimillionaire. Most of Romney's taxable income comes from investing the fortune he made there. He donated income from his time running the Salt Lake City Olympics to charity.

He also told reporters Tuesday that he has donated the proceeds from the sale of his book, "No Apology," to charity.

Romney said in the Monday debate he probably would release returns because it's tradition.

"I have nothing in them that suggests there's any problem and I'm happy to do so," he said then. "I sort of feel like we're showing a lot of exposure at this point."

At the White House, Carney said that as a candidate in 2008, Obama released multiple years of tax records and has disclosed his returns annually since becoming president. He said George W. Bush and Bill Clinton did the same thing, as did "nominees for each party for years and years and years." In a jab at the Republican front-runner, he said Romney's father, George Romney, released his own returns when he ran for the White House in 1968.

Obama has called on Congress to let Bush-era tax cuts on upper income earners expire at the end of 2012. Romney is opposed, as are most if not all of the Republicans in Congress.

But the former Massachusetts governor has also come under pressure from some of his Republican rivals for recommending no change in the capital gains tax for anyone making more than $200,000 a year. Gingrich, for example, wants to abolish the capital gains tax.

In the debate Monday night, Texas Gov. Rick Perry insisted that Romney release his returns, saying that the party needs to fully scrutinize its nominee now instead of later.

___

Associated Press writer Stephen Ohlemacher contributed from Washington.

© 2012 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
  • Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.

Back To Top | Front Page

Published to:

  • Kasie Hunt's Column, All of Newsvine
  • Groups: Political Analysis
  • Regions: United States , Florence/Myrtle Beach
  • Public Discussion (197)
Jump to discussion page: 1 2
are you crazy?-1425777

Really no surprising news but somewhere(south of heaven and much hotter) ronald reagan is smiling

  • 14 votes
#1 - Tue Jan 17, 2012 8:46 PM EST
Arieus

Romney says he pays US taxes — about 15 percent

This man is looking at the White House as his payday the sky. Elected resident he will get over 400k a year, free vacations paid for by the taxpayers, free medical, dental for him and his family, and most of all the pension plan after presidency that pays big for life.

He's already getting paid big dollars for screwing over the American business he profited from that went belly-up, not to mention he's probably in on all the insider-trading that politicians get while in congress and other political seats.

He has no real connection with the real people of America that is struggling to just pay their basic needs bills, and then he doesn't want the people to know what his taxes are from the past years.

The man is a political thief that needs to be tossed to the curb where he and many others belong.

Romney along with congress have robbed the American people, and it's time to collect it all back and toss the mudder-fudders in jail where the real criminals all belong.

REVOLUTION 2012

It's time to clean house, and clean out all these crooked and thieving, lying azz politicians, and putting an end to all their pension plans they set up for themselves.

  • 11 votes
#1.1 - Tue Jan 17, 2012 9:15 PM EST
Ron W.-1891955

It's fair that Capital gains are taxed less than earnings (15% vs more), because when one invests his/her money into a business, corporation or other business venture it helps the the economy grow. The Investor though has a chance of winning or of losing his/her money that is invested (that is why it is called a risk)

If there is no incentive of being taxed less on winning ventures, then there is no incentive to invest vs. choosing other ways of earning a living (or just hoarding one's money) ... and there is less investment which negatively limits the growth of business.

  • 6 votes
#1.2 - Tue Jan 17, 2012 9:20 PM EST
Reliant

Romney: $374,327.62 = "not very much."

Now there is a candidate that is out of touch with the majority of Americans.

Ron

I disagree with you that it is proper to preferentially value through lower interest rates, money earned through leveraging money vs. money earned through the labor and effort of American Citizens. When investors loose money they write off the loss, when Middle Class Americans loose jobs they often write off a part of their future. We need to value the day to day work of Middle Class and Poor Americans higher than a trust fund baby's dividends.

  • 10 votes
#1.3 - Tue Jan 17, 2012 10:20 PM EST
newsguru

BS.

Stop Coddling the Super-Rich - By WARREN E. BUFFETT

The Truth About Taxes - If you make money with money, as some of my super-rich friends do, your percentage may be a bit lower than mine. But if you earn money from a job, your percentage will surely exceed mine — most likely by a lot.

To understand why, you need to examine the sources of government revenue.. The mega-rich pay income taxes at a rate of 15 percent on most of their earnings but pay practically nothing in payroll taxes. It's a different story for the middle class: typically, they fall into the 15 percent and 25 percent income tax brackets, and then are hit with heavy payroll taxes to boot.

Back in the 1980s and 1990s, tax rates for the rich were far higher, and my percentage rate was in the middle of the pack. According to a theory I sometimes hear, I should have thrown a fit and refused to invest because of the elevated tax rates on capital gains and dividends. I didn't refuse, nor did others.

I have worked with investors for 60 years and I have yet to see anyone — not even when capital gains rates were 39.9 percent in 1976-77 — shy away from a sensible investment because of the tax rate on the potential gain.

People invest to make money, and potential taxes have never scared them off. And to those who argue that higher rates hurt job creation, I would note that a net of nearly 40 million jobs were added between 1980 and 2000. You know what's happened since then: lower tax rates and far lower job creation... - Source

  • 9 votes
#1.4 - Tue Jan 17, 2012 10:50 PM EST
Mike-475880

Ron, there is no way you can convince me that there would be no investing if the gains from that investing is taxed higher than it currently is.

  • 5 votes
#1.5 - Tue Jan 17, 2012 10:54 PM EST
truthseeker9000

Reliant, that is the best summation I've come accross. Period. Voted up.

  • 4 votes
#1.6 - Tue Jan 17, 2012 11:06 PM EST
Jonathan-1917156

Ron W.

When one puts money into the stock market, the company you are 'investing in' gets NONE of that money (unless it is an IPO or a new issue). In otherwords, any profits made from the stock market do NOT go into building the economy.

  • 8 votes
#1.7 - Tue Jan 17, 2012 11:19 PM EST
Just Neli

Ron W.-1891955

It's fair that Capital gains are taxed less than earnings (15% vs more), because when one invests his/her money into a business, corporation or other business venture it helps the the economy grow. The Investor though has a chance of winning or of losing his/her money that is invested (that is why it is called a risk)

If there is no incentive of being taxed less on winning ventures, then there is no incentive to invest vs. choosing other ways of earning a living (or just hoarding one's money) ... and there is less investment which negatively limits the growth of business.

You do realize that Romney was only paying 15% while he was buying up companies and exporting jobs, don't you. What rot.

I love to watch you folk try to tap dance your way around the truth. The way the law is now, every trust fund baby and speculator is sitting pretty. I would have absolutely no problem with giving business investors a tax break, but the days of the fat cat freeloaders like Romney need to end.

  • 6 votes
#1.8 - Tue Jan 17, 2012 11:19 PM EST
waffle

For quite some time now, the right wing noise machine has failed to draw a distinction between income tax and other taxes with its constant refrain that only 53% pay taxes. Now, however, when it comes to capital gains, they are suddenly full of fine distinctions between various forms of taxation and what constitutes too much.

I work for a living. I write embedded software. It took me four years of college and twelve years of real world experience to do what I do. I have a wife, a child and a mortgage. And I make code that saves lives. I make a meaningful contribution to society and for that my income is taxed at a rate TWICE that of Romney.

Romney, a man who has so much spare cash he could afford to do nothing more than run for president for the last four years. He's done nothing but live on the fat of his excessive wealth. I've poured blood, sweat and tears into lifesaving weather instrumentation. I fail to see why he merits half the tax rate I have, especially as his yearly income is an order of magnitude higher than mine.

  • 4 votes
#1.9 - Tue Jan 17, 2012 11:20 PM EST
Just Neli

Jonathan-1917156

Ron W.

When one puts money into the stock market, the company you are 'investing in' gets NONE of that money (unless it is an IPO or a new issue). In otherwords, any profits made from the stock market do NOT go into building the economy.

I love it. These folk are just not used to being called on their bogus explanations of why it's good for the whole country when only the 1% prosper.

  • 5 votes
#1.10 - Tue Jan 17, 2012 11:21 PM EST
TruettCollins

What everyone seems to miss is that he said that he was in the 15% bracket.....not that he paid 15%....with all the loop holes, off shore accounts etc...for the 1% in truth we don't know what he truly paid. That is why he says he will only release one year of returns (most likely the current one) after he jumps in and pays 15% for the first time in his career just for show.

  • 3 votes
#1.11 - Tue Jan 17, 2012 11:50 PM EST
ridin the barack express

Let's be clear on one thing, Barack Obama doesn't like paying taxes either.

While a candidate back in 2008 there were articles about Obama finances, from an MSN Money article on 6/9/2008:

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama wants to raises taxes on the wealthy, but as a member of that social class, he isn't eager to fall victim himself. He has invested at least $1 million in a fund that yields tax-free income.

Also in the article it was stated that the Obama's 2007 income was over $4 million. It's not just Romney that's a 1%er....

  • 4 votes
#1.12 - Tue Jan 17, 2012 11:52 PM EST
Smith Cassidy

Ron W.-1891955
It's fair that Capital gains are taxed less than earnings (15% vs more), because when one invests his/her money into a business, corporation or other business venture it helps the the economy grow. The Investor though has a chance of winning or of losing his/her money that is invested (that is why it is called a risk)

If there is no incentive of being taxed less on winning ventures, then there is no incentive to invest vs. choosing other ways of earning a living (or just hoarding one's money) ... and there is less investment which negatively limits the growth of business.

No, it isn't 'fair'.

The incentive is making more money. Period. Investments are a gamble, not a boon to the economy. Boons to the economy are companies that purchase goods from other companies which in turn purchase goods from other companies, so on down the road.

The stock market was a tool for raising capital for your company, nothing more. When you had an idea or the urge to do something, you could get people to back you and your idea, and as an incentive for backing your idea, they earned more than the principle invested. if you were successful. If you weren't, that was the risk. If everything was guaranteed, you wouldn't need investors, you could go to the banks for a loan.

What we have now is more like Vegas as opposed to an investments in ideas, businesses, individuals and families.

Taxes have little to do with investments. Know why? Because if I can double my money, I'm not going to care much about the 20%-30% taken in taxes (under normal non-cap gains rates) because I have still earned .70+ on every dollar invested as opposed to the penny if I put my money in a savings account.

Save the tax argument the 'right' is using to excuse the beneficial treatment for the wealthy. Only simple people follow that shiny coin to the pile of bull@!$%# that lies in wait.

  • 1 vote
#1.13 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 1:27 AM EST
ryoushi12

Hey waffle, maybe you can write romney and ask him for the "few" bucks he makes for giving the occasional speech.

Of course, a "few bucks" to romney is about $375,000 to the rest of us.

Yep, $375,000 is chump change to the presumptive republican nominee for president.

  • 1 vote
#1.14 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 1:37 AM EST
Jenni-Oh

10% less then I do. Lucky him.

  • 1 vote
#1.15 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 1:50 AM EST
PoliticoMan-1635309

Ron W.-1891955

@1.2- Most Americans, everyday people, are not buying into that argument, not in this economy.... Romney has the face of a man who realizes the majority of the people will not see his point of view, especially when they are reminded he once said to allow Detroit to go bust, allow the foreclosure process to go its course, he enjoys firing people (eventhough it was taken out of context) and corporations are people, those are losing arguments....and he had the nerve to compare the President to Marie Antoinette? Appears to me, he has enjoyed that life style more than the President. Seems to me, he is the one trying to have his cake and eat it too...

  • 1 vote
#1.16 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 1:58 AM EST
Alex. CA

The top one percent and romney are not in charge. The voters are in charge and they will be working on raising their taxes in November.

    #1.17 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 2:03 AM EST
    Ron W.-1891955

    100,000 Jobs created in th U.S. by the takeover of companies by Bain Capitol ... 10,000 jobs eliminated. Staple, Sports Authority and a number of other companies have flourished under their management.

    I would say that is a pretty good track record along with a lot of money collected by the Treasury in Income Taxes and the ability for people to earn wages and prosper the economy.

    Boons to the economy are companies that purchase goods from other companies which in turn purchase goods from other companies, so on down the road.

    Exactly ... and companies that are on the brink of failure or bankruptcy are no good to the economy and fall in need of either a hand up (if possible) ... which Bain has done ... or elimination (which Bain has also done) to prevent further bleeding and drain on Suppliers and the economy when they go belly-up.

    It's funny that no one complains when their 401k's or other retirement funds go up in value because of shrewd decisions to keep funds prosperous ... but love to play the Socialist game by envying and disparaging those who make it happen.

    • 3 votes
    #1.18 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 2:53 AM EST
    Smith Cassidy

    Ron W.-1891955
    100,000 Jobs created in th U.S. by the takeover of companies by Bain Capitol ... 10,000 jobs eliminated.

    Link? I will be pleasantly surprised if Romney creation 10 times as many jobs as he ended.

    Exactly ... and companies that are on the brink of failure or bankruptcy are no good to the economy and fall in need of either a hand up (if possible) ... which Bain has done ... or elimination (which Bain has also done) to prevent further bleeding and drain on Suppliers and the economy when they go belly-up.

    Bain's actions were profitable first, altruistic 2nd...if at all. There was no intent to benefit the economy or other businesses, just Bain's bottom line. That's practically the definition of Venture Capital.

    It's funny that no one complains when their 401k's or other retirement funds go up in value because of shrewd decisions to keep funds prosperous ... but love to play the Socialist game by envying and disparaging those who make it happen.

    This discussion is 100% Capitalism; Socialism is nowhere in sight.

    401ks are just another investment, risks and all. Just more favorable tax-wise for the middle class after retirement age.

    • 1 vote
    #1.19 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 3:09 AM EST
    Mike Rupert

    This guy becomes more of an out of touch embarrassment the longer he's in the public eye. Romney, stop trying to get laid. Go find something to do with yourself.

      #1.20 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 3:30 AM EST
      Ron W.-1891955

      Smith Cassidy

      Link? I will be pleasantly surprised if Romney creation 10 times as many jobs as he ended.

      http://news.yahoo.com/mitt-romneys-claims-job-creation-bain-capital-045400253.html

      p.s. Do YOU even have a 401k or similar? and are you sure Bain Capitol (or a hopefully profitable type company) is not in it's portfolio?

      • 3 votes
      #1.21 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 3:36 AM EST
      Ron W.-1891955

      newsguru

      p.s. and KUDOS to you for the love you give to the hyocritical Warren Buffett who still owes close to a billion dollars in back taxes that he has refused yet to pay. (I'd love to see the deal that he has made with the Obama Administration regarding that.)

      • 3 votes
      #1.22 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 3:46 AM EST
      PoliticoMan-1635309

      Ron W.-1891955

      #1.21- I think what most people find distasteful is that Bain profited from those jobs that were lost. Profits in the millions while people lost their source of income. One may argue that is what venture capitalism is all about but I find it hard to understand that point of view if you were one of those individuals who's lives was changed as a result of Bain coming to town. If Bain had not profited or profited very little or better yet donated some of the proceeds of those profits to those individuals who lost their jobs to enhance any compensation they (Bain) may have given those employees, then I think Romney would be in a stronger position regarding this issue. On the surface the term "Vulture" Capitalism may stick because people were hurt by his companies actions.... Makes me wonder how many people may be hurt by his actions as President? Bain Capital is not in the jobs creation business, their business is to make a profit for its investors, if jobs are created or lost, so be it....the bottom line is to make a profit, not create jobs......Can you produce a link regarding Buffet's back taxes you eluded to in #1.22. A Billion in back taxes? Really don't think the IRS will let that slide no matter who's President...

        #1.23 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 4:27 AM EST
        Ron W.-1891955

        PoliticoMan-1635309

        I think you may fail to see that it was just not Bain (or its Executives) that profited in the restructuring of the companies that were involved. It may have been you or hundreds of thousands of other people (even regular working folks) who benefit from the profit of companies like Bain through yearly profits in your 401k (or other type) programs that are usually contributed to by responsible working people (and usually matched in dollars in some proportion by companies that one works for) for the employees benefit.

        Hell, even Unions invest in these type of investment portfolios with companies such as Bain to help fund their pensions and retirement funds.

        Wouldn't that be a hoot if it were discovered that the SEIU or the AFL-CIO benefitted from investments in a fund which included Bain or similar type company.

        • 3 votes
        #1.24 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 4:45 AM EST
        Idj

        Hey Mitt, the unemployed lady you gave the $50 to, paid 'about' 30%. Do you Sir, have NO shame. And while you are out on the stump, care to speak on how YOU will fix this broken Tax System?

        • 2 votes
        #1.25 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 7:42 AM EST
        Borncorn

        My 401 (K) has capital gains in it and I will never get the preferential 15% tax rate. The distributions are taxed as ordinary income. I still invest it in the market. Why doesn't Romney have to pay the same ordinary income tax rates that I do? I do get the benefit of deferring the tax on the contribution, but that is just deferred. I still have to pay it upon retirement.

          #1.26 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 9:00 AM EST
          ridin the barack express

          Borncorn - you could have a Roth 401(k) and then all your growth and capital gains would be tax-free. If your employer doesn't offer that option, demand that they do.

          0% is even better than the preferential 15% tax rate you are whining about...

          • 1 vote
          #1.27 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 10:21 AM EST
          Alex. CA

          Please provide proof to show that Buffett owes taxes.

          • 1 vote
          #1.28 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 10:41 AM EST
          Ron W.-1891955

          C'mon Alex. CA ... The info is there in droves (just google it or something). If it's not, or you can't find it on your own, give me a shout.

          It's not that difficult.

          • 4 votes
          #1.29 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 12:58 PM EST
          Rahlly

          Buffett doesn't, his businesses do. And he doesn't run in minute detail every single business.

            #1.30 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 1:55 PM EST
            Ron W.-1891955

            Rahlly

            Buffett doesn't, his businesses do

            <Rolls eyes> (lol)

            • 2 votes
            #1.31 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 2:33 PM EST
            PoliticoMan-1635309

            Ron W.-1891955

            @1.24- It would be something to find out unions did benefit from the actions of Bain but at this point that is just pure speculation on your part with no credible evidence to back it up. If you do have evidence I suggest for you to produce it. What is not speculation however is that the primary purpose of Bain is not to create jobs but to create wealth for it's investors. Nothing wrong with that but again I think most working class and poor Americans will continue to find their actions of profiting off the misery of others distasteful...

              #1.32 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 5:19 PM EST
              Alex. CA

              It is up to the government to pass laws to give incentives to private businesses to act in ways that are less disruptive or destructive.

                #1.33 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 6:09 PM EST
                Reply
                Truth be told-1349420

                The White House, which expects Romney to win the Republican nomination and take on President Barack Obama this year, reacted, too.

                Well this is, I think, the third time that Romney is repeating this class. He never made it past mid-term before. If He fails again this time, they may kick him out of the GOP school for political failure. They can't keep wasting fund and energy on a student that enjoys failing.

                • 6 votes
                Reply#2 - Tue Jan 17, 2012 8:46 PM EST
                pg-974581

                if anyone doesnt realize romney is saying is saying he will show his taxes in april that it means he will show higher taxes than what he paid for 2010 on his 2011 tax forms wake up..if he is stating his taxes for appearance only is 15 percent but wont disclose his taxes now, he probably didnt pay much more than that ...it puts him clearly in the 1 percent and that will be a problem for him..appears he may manipulate his taxes to show he is paying more on his 2011 return than what he paid on 2010...

                • 7 votes
                Reply#3 - Tue Jan 17, 2012 8:48 PM EST
                MYOB-1251250

                Your right, hey mitten, lets see last years tax return.

                • 4 votes
                #3.1 - Tue Jan 17, 2012 9:00 PM EST
                WakeUpPeople-1385514

                All he has to do is say, "Under gingrich's proposal I would pay no taxes, since gingrich wants to abolish the Captial Gains tax completely!" Am I the only one who is more shocked by the 2nd to last paragraph than I am by the rest of the article?

                15% capital gains tax is nothing new. It's been that way for a while. Anyone who bought a house 30 years ago for $100,000 and is going to selling sometime in the next 20 years will be happy the Capital Gains tax is only 15% and not 35% or 50%!!!

                This is why "income tax" debates for the "1%" is stupid. Most of them don't even post any normal income. Most of them only post income from capital gains. You think people like Oprah and Warren Buffet pay 35% or more in income tax? Do you think they are even effected by the Bush tax cut? Not even close. It has no effect on them. Even if they do claim a $250,000 or $350,000 salary... 35% of that is nothing compared to the $20~$50mil they make every year from their investments.

                And republicans shouldn't be pointing fingers. Pelosi increased her wealth by 60% in one year while being speaker, from "smart investments" she said. She only paid 15% on all of that additional income. Nobody complained then.

                Both sides, republicans and democrats are wealthy crooks. Because most of congress makes the majority of their money from capital gains... you will NEVER see the CapGains tax go up. You are only going to see it go down, if anything.

                • 7 votes
                #3.2 - Tue Jan 17, 2012 9:23 PM EST
                PoliticoMan-1635309

                pg-974581

                @#3- If he attempts to manipulate his taxes to show a higher rate than previous years and that manipulation is discovered and disclosed, republicans can kiss the election good bye no matter how much voter suppression they try to invoke. Don't think Romney is that stupid but he just might be. In either case, with this disclosure people are already making a decision towards him, those that were for him are still for him, he might have lost a few, those that were against him, are still against him, can't see him picking up anti Romney votes in lieu of this news, those undecided, well, I don't know what it will take for them to get off the fence.... I wish I had the luxury of declaring over 300,000 / year in doing anything as "not very much" money as he describes it...

                  #3.3 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 2:15 AM EST
                  Alex. CA

                  The voters are in charge, They will be working on deciding which rates will go up and which rates will go down in November.

                    #3.4 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 2:18 AM EST
                    Borncorn

                    Anyone who bought a house 30 years ago for $100,000 and is going to selling sometime in the next 20 years will be happy the Capital Gains tax is only 15% and not 35% or 50%!!!

                    Since the capital gain on most peoples house sale is not taxed now, why are they going to be happy it's not higher?

                    • 2 votes
                    #3.5 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 9:02 AM EST
                    WakeUpPeople-1385514

                    there is capital gains tax on house sales. There are exclusions though (i.e. the $250K exclusion) and others. But never the less, its there.

                    All gains from the sale of your home have to be reported on a Schedule D as a "capital gain". If you owned the house for under a year it is a "short term gain" if you owned it for more than a year it is a "long term gain".

                    If you sold your house and made under $250K, the 15% cap gains tax can be waived if you meet certain criteria. If you made OVER $250k on the sale of your house, you can get the taxes on the first $250k waived.

                    Ask your accountant or tax lawyer. It's not that most people do not pay cap gains on house sales... it is that they can get out of paying taxes on the first $250K. But in my example, a house bought for $100,000 30 years ago and sold 20 years from now could easily sell for $500,000 or more. Which the gains of $400,000 are more than the $250K, so capital gains tax of 15% will still be applied to the remainder over $250k.

                      #3.6 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 4:36 PM EST
                      Reply
                      sistagirl

                      This is a man that does not consider over $300,000.00 in speechmaking "not very much" money. Is he for real? Do you really think this is a man that understand the average citizen and our issues? PLEASE! For him to even casually make that statement shows he's out of touch, damn!!!!!!!!!!!

                      • 15 votes
                      Reply#4 - Tue Jan 17, 2012 8:49 PM EST
                      Moby's ManCave

                      $374,000 dollars… that's 3 hundred and seventy four THOUSAND dollars!!! Awwww… it's pocket change for Romney, and like he said… really not worth mentioning. WTF, what world does this guy live in… oh, I forgot… the world of the 1%!!

                      • 12 votes
                      #4.1 - Tue Jan 17, 2012 9:06 PM EST
                      sistagirl

                      Mitt Romney lives in another world of that 1% and the corporate culture. He is saying that this will make him a better POTUS in getting jobs. Oh really? Then let's see Mitt how your past business did that....Bain Capitol, right? He's already talking about cutting corporate taxes even more while he raising taxes on lower income people. WE CAN NOT MAKE A MISTAKE with voting this guy in to power!!

                      • 5 votes
                      #4.2 - Tue Jan 17, 2012 9:23 PM EST
                      ridin the barack express

                      So Sistagirl - do either party candidates understand the average citizen and our issues?

                      The Obamas earned over $4 million in 2007 and invested over $1 million in funds that yield tax-free income.

                      So which out of touch 1%er will you be voting for in November...

                        #4.3 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 12:21 AM EST
                        expatdownunda

                        Idiotic athletes make far more!

                        Tiger Woods -- $75 million

                        Kobe Bryant -- $53 million

                        LeBron James --- $48 million

                        Phil Mickelson -- $46 million

                        Alex Rodriguez -- $35 million

                        Michael Schumacher $34 million

                        Tom Brady $31 million

                        Derek Jeter $29 million

                        Dale Earnhardt $28 million

                        Dwitht Howard $27 million

                        Dwayne Wade $26 million

                        Payton Manning $26 million

                        Carmelo Anthony $25 million

                        Jeff Gordon $24 million

                        Amare Stoudemire $24 million

                        These jerks could not tell their arses from a hole in the ground and look at their outrageous salaries. And you are upset about Romney? Get Real!!!!!!!!!

                        • 2 votes
                        #4.4 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 1:19 AM EST
                        ryoushi12

                        Well, at least they provide entertainment.

                        • 1 vote
                        #4.5 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 1:39 AM EST
                        Alex. CA

                        Do you see any of those other people spending most of their time trying to cut taxes for the top one percent only??

                        • 3 votes
                        #4.6 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 2:23 AM EST
                        expatdownunda

                        Romney wants to cut everybody's income taxes to 15%, not just the "1%! I don't think these athletes are entertaining - I think they are insufferable jerks!

                          #4.7 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 2:31 AM EST
                          lifeisgood43

                          expatdownunda...... have you seen the Romney plan. It raises taxes on the poor and gives the rich even more.

                          • 3 votes
                          #4.8 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 4:08 AM EST
                          PoliticoMan-1635309

                          Moby's ManCave

                          @4.1- With a net worth at over $250 million (1/4th of a Billion) Romney really comes from the world of the 0.001% not the 1.0%... He is part of the top 100 richest families in America today...

                            #4.9 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 4:40 AM EST
                            PoliticoMan-1635309

                            expatdownunda

                            #4.4- What do you mean " get real"? Those guys are not running for President.. Makes a big difference with you are running for President, have a net worth over $250 million, advocate that "Corporations are People ", the US should have allowed the auto industry to go bust and allowed the foreclosure process to go its course, put forth a tax plan which benefits those like himself and increases taxes on working class and poor Americans, and make a statement you enjoy firing people that you claim was taken out of context. Romney is nothing more than " THE MONOPOLY MAN FOR PRESIDENT". I think when most Americans analyze that characterization of him, he will be found unelectable by the majority of the electorate...

                            • 1 vote
                            #4.10 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 4:48 AM EST
                            sistagirl

                            riding the.....yes, I think the democratic candidate President Obama understands much more the average Joe than Romney could ever pretend at understanding or be coached to understand. He has in so many words said it already and because he can not relate, he will slip and say it again. Like his "corporation are people" and this recent bloopers the $300,000.00 is not much money. Get freakin real dude!!! This is an income that the average person takes how many years to accumulate and Mitt does not think it's much. Only a person who has lived in that world of "average" can really understand; Mitt never lived in that world. That's why he's saying stupid comments like we the average person are envious of him and his ilk. Please!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

                            • 2 votes
                            #4.11 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 7:06 AM EST
                            Reply
                            Mofongo

                            Romney, hopelessly out of touch and clueless about it.

                            He accurately states that the reason he pays only 15% on his millions of income is that it is unearned income from investments and it's completely legal. He's right. Those favorable tax treatments for unearned income from capital gains and carried interest were bought by paying off legislators years ago to ensure it was all perfectly legal.

                            But does legal = right? Should income Romney didn't even work for qualify for a lower tax rate than the salaries of a husband and wife trying to raise three kids by working two low wage jobs apiece?

                            Should those people who can't afford lobbyists to buy off politicians be satisfied with the fact that it's been made "legal" through corruption for so long that it's become an entitlement for the rich? Is corporate welfare somehow better than food stamps and pell grants?

                            The Republicans are going to have a huge problem if they thrust Mitt Romney forward into the spotlight in 2012. Cockroaches don't do well in the light of day. And once people get a good look at the cockroaches, they may just realize there is an infestation in our government that needs to be eradicated.

                            • 7 votes
                            Reply#5 - Tue Jan 17, 2012 8:59 PM EST
                            Moby's ManCave

                            Obama would absolutely destroy Romney.

                            • 5 votes
                            #5.1 - Tue Jan 17, 2012 9:07 PM EST
                            buckeyenut-2225921

                            "Obama would absolutely destroy Romney"

                            He'd probably Ah, Uhm, Uh, and, er him to death.

                              #5.2 - Tue Jan 17, 2012 9:52 PM EST
                              Just Neli

                              WakeUpPeople-1385514:

                              All he has to do is say, "Under gingrich's proposal I would pay no taxes, since gingrich wants to abolish the Capital Gains tax completely!" Am I the only one who is more shocked by the 2nd to last paragraph than I am by the rest of the article?

                              I just thought this bears repeating. Good one. 8-)

                              • 3 votes
                              #5.3 - Tue Jan 17, 2012 11:26 PM EST
                              Reply
                              Ron W.-1891955

                              ...

                                Reply#6 - Tue Jan 17, 2012 9:19 PM EST
                                Ed-2160927

                                I wonder how much of his fortune he has shifted into blind trusts and off shore accounts in the last year. And then he says Ill show you my return in April maybe. And the main stream media and the old guard has started chanting like a cheer leading squad that he is the nominee. The rank and file blue collar republican and the teabaggers must be in pure shock the next in line is going to be it. As much as it changes it all stays the same.

                                • 4 votes
                                Reply#7 - Tue Jan 17, 2012 9:20 PM EST
                                Mofongo

                                Apparently, you're not the only one wondering. CNN mentioned this morning that they have a team in the Caribbean at the moment tracking down Bain/Mitt's offshore activity. They didn't mention specific locations but I'm betting on a Cayman island entity. That's been a popular tax shelter with the private equity crowd over the past decade. And it probably wasn't a recent shift of his wealth in preparation for a presidential run. More likely it's just the advice from tax attorneys he's been following for years. It's probably been hidden offshore from day one. We'll probably see a story surface in the next month or so.

                                • 1 vote
                                #7.1 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 10:03 AM EST
                                Reply
                                Mike-1499840

                                all of your concerns would be solved by a flat tax. Everyone pays the same rate, regardless of income source.

                                • 2 votes
                                Reply#8 - Tue Jan 17, 2012 9:36 PM EST
                                Mike-475880

                                Flat tax favors the rich, sorry to inform you.

                                • 6 votes
                                #8.1 - Tue Jan 17, 2012 10:59 PM EST
                                bdebogota

                                A flat tax is a perfect Communist tax structure on paper that is a perfect Capitalist tax structure in practice.

                                • 1 vote
                                #8.2 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 12:23 AM EST
                                Rahlly

                                Flat taxes are unfair as they penalize the poorer people due to the value of money reflected.

                                Example: Person A make 20,000 a year. Person B makes 200,000 a year. Person C makes 2,000,000 a year. Make the flat tax rate 10%.

                                Person A pays 2K
                                Person B pays 20K
                                Person C pays 200K

                                Person A is now down 2,000 dollars. At 20K a year, that's food, healthcare, transportation. They were below the poverty line anyhow, taking 2,000 dollars from them doesn't help. It is in fact crippling

                                Person B is now down 20,000 dollars. They have 180,000. I don't know about you but most people I know can live off 180,000 dollars a year. The 20K means they likely will have to pay the mortgage off in 10 instead of 8 years but they can thrive on that. It's a hit but it isn't crippling.

                                Person C is now down 200,000 dollars. They have 1.8M dollars. One million, eight hundred dollars. The hit of 200K is in no way crippling to them. There will be no problems feeding, taking care of or providing for themselves or their family.

                                Whereas 2,000 dollars is a crippling hit for a person making 20K a year. 200K is not near as hard a hit on someone making 2M year.

                                  #8.3 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 2:24 PM EST
                                  Reply
                                  buckeyenut-2225921

                                  15% is better than zero right??

                                  • 1 vote
                                  Reply#9 - Tue Jan 17, 2012 9:49 PM EST
                                  Mike-1499840

                                  Buck,

                                  Especially if EVERYONE paid. Actually, the more I look at this stuff, the more I don't like taxes based on a percentage of income either. What we are paying for is government services. We should all pay the same price...just like a loaf of bread or a gallon of gas. Here's my tax solution.

                                  do away with all corporate taxes...they don't pay anyway...consumers do.

                                  All Federal revenues will come from the normal sources like excise taxes & tariffs. Individual taxes will be the same...a head tax if you will to pay for common use stuff like the Military that protects us all. Federalm Highways need to be totally supported by the federal tax on fuel. Same with the FAA controllers, they are supported by Aviation fuel tax and landing fees.

                                  If you wish to put an income "floor" in, below which you don't pay the head tax...no problem. You just don't get to vote in Federal elections. One exception...a combat tour in the Military gets you a lifetime franchise.

                                  The above would require some Constitutional work...but that's just to undo the breakage that the 16th amendment did.

                                  Regards,

                                  Mike

                                  • 2 votes
                                  #9.1 - Tue Jan 17, 2012 9:58 PM EST
                                  rational thought-3748544

                                  Great plan for fantasyland for the rich. What more could they ever want?

                                  • 3 votes
                                  #9.2 - Tue Jan 17, 2012 11:28 PM EST
                                  ryoushi12

                                  Hey mike, here's what the great prophet of the free market, Adam Smith, had to say about giving the rich a big fat tax break -

                                  "It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."

                                  • 3 votes
                                  #9.3 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 1:42 AM EST
                                  buckeyenut-2225921

                                  rational thought,

                                  "Great plan for fantasyland for the rich. What more could they ever want?"

                                  If that is the best rational thought you can add, please keep your rational thought to yourself.

                                    #9.4 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 7:49 AM EST
                                    rational thought-3748544

                                    nut

                                    Kiss it!!!

                                      #9.5 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 2:33 PM EST
                                      Reply
                                      Dave 49

                                      Romney says he pays US taxes — about 15 percent.. Says and He's worth every penny LOL

                                      • 1 vote
                                      Reply#10 - Tue Jan 17, 2012 10:10 PM EST
                                      expatdownunda

                                      Capital and wealth have more to do with high incomes than hard work does. Yup, he is worth every penny.

                                      • 1 vote
                                      #10.1 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 12:55 AM EST
                                      buckeyenut-2225921

                                      expat,

                                      "Capital and wealth have more to do with high incomes than hard work does"

                                      Every person I know who is worth large sums of money put hard work into their business to make the capital and wealth they now enjoy. If you think making it in business is easy and all people need to do is sit back and let the money roll in the door, I strongly suggest you go out and start a business and find out what work is really like. Watch while your workers tell you "that's not my job" or "my 40 is done" while you are in the office till long after they are gone planning their work for the next day, week or month. While they are at their kids sports event and you're in the office paying the bills and preparing qoutes I'm sure you'll think about how easy it is to grow wealth. Get a clue.

                                      • 1 vote
                                      #10.2 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 8:00 AM EST
                                      expatdownunda

                                      buckeyenut, I did not say that all you have to do is sit back and rake in the money. I know how hard businessmen work to build their fortunes -- that is one of the reasons that I believe in property rights -- their right to keep their fortunes and not have them stolen by government on behalf of the "needy".

                                      The point I was making is that it is not hard work alone that justifies investment income. Investment income has value in its own right. Investment multiplies the productivity of workers allowing the payment of much higher salaries to workers. It would take dozens of men with shovels to dig the same pipeline trench that can be dug with a single back-hoe. That back-hoe justifies a far higher salary for the ditch-digger than he ever could have earned on a shovel crew.

                                      Investment is very important for workers that want higher salaries. Don't expect me to set any of my income aside to invest if it will only be stolen away by government. I expect the day will be coming that Americans will be digging ditches with hand shovels again -- and will be paid for their productivity, which will be very low because their will be no investors.

                                      • 1 vote
                                      #10.3 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 1:15 PM EST
                                      Alex. CA

                                      expatdownunda Are you a millionaire??

                                        #10.4 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 2:23 PM EST
                                        Reply
                                        lifeisgood43

                                        Romney is toast if he makes it past the other Reps because it will be just him and Pres Obama. Romney will not be able to hide behind the other Reps. The gap between the riches and the poorer are growing every year. Also if the Reps get their way, then the gap will even be more open between the rich and the poor, because the Reps want the poor to pay more while the rich pays less. For example, Romney's plan gives more to the rich while the poor pays more.

                                        This man is really really out of touch.

                                        • 2 votes
                                        #11 - Tue Jan 17, 2012 10:29 PM EST
                                        sistagirl

                                        Lifeisgood. . .How many times throughout this race have we heard the republican candidates talk about how there are people who pay no taxes? That percentage have been spewed from 45% to 55% depending on who's saying it. What they don't say is those people are too poor or seniors who's income is so low and that dispite that they do at least pay other taxes. But now Mitt wants to tax them and give more money to higher income people (his people). People better wake up to what these repubs are planning before there is a total revolt and we come at them with for real pitchforks! ! !

                                        • 3 votes
                                        #11.1 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 12:04 AM EST
                                        jackzg-

                                        You guys have no clue what's you're talking about.

                                        • 3 votes
                                        #11.2 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 12:59 AM EST
                                        lifeisgood43

                                        What is it that we don't know. Come on and tell us, BIGSHOT

                                          #11.3 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 4:12 AM EST
                                          jackzg-

                                          How on earth do you expect a society to last more than a few decades if people who produce nothing are paid?

                                          Look, I know this is a very fundamental question. If it's too basic for you, I understand. There's no need to reply with anything like, "you don't care about the poor," or "if it were up to you all the poor people in this country would die." There's no need. I have compassion, I give to homeless beggers when I pass them on the street, voluntarily. That's not what I'm getting at.

                                          I'm getting at pure and simple economics. Tell me what percentage of citizens in this country don't pay taxes. What is it? 40%? 45%? 50%?

                                          This is fundamental. This is elementary

                                          1. If half the nation pays nothing and gets lots. What happens when the nation runs out of money?

                                          2. If an organization says to you that they will pay you and you don't have to work, why would you ever work?

                                          • 3 votes
                                          #11.4 - Thu Jan 19, 2012 12:08 AM EST
                                          Smith Cassidy

                                          I'm getting at pure and simple economics. Tell me what percentage of citizens in this country don't pay taxes. What is it? 40%? 45%? 50%?

                                          Income Taxes. Everybody pays many forms of taxation even if they don't pay Income Taxes.

                                            #11.5 - Thu Jan 19, 2012 12:36 AM EST
                                            Ron W.-1891955

                                            I think someone here needs to break down what types of taxes go to fund the Federal Government and all the spending they do towards the following programs.

                                            1.) National Defense,

                                            2.) National Emergency Programs

                                            3.) Government salaries, pensions, operating costs

                                            4.) Government Operation Expenses, Dept of Education, Commerce, Health, etc ...

                                            5.) Foreign and Domestic Subsidies

                                            6.) Entitlement Programs, Welfare

                                            7.) National Debt Reduction, Interest on the Debt

                                            There are many many more taxes that have no contribution to the size and spending of our National budget or cost of government.

                                            State Taxes, Property Taxes, Sales Tax, Gasoline Tax, Telecomunication Taxes, etc ... DO NOT go into the General Fund to remedy these problems, and I get tired of people saying "Well, some people don't pay income Tax ... but there are many more taxes that they DO PAY so this makes us even in contributing to the National problem."

                                            It doesn't come close to making it even, and remember ... those that pay Income Taxes also pay these taxes that the people who scream that this type of equality or contribution exists and makes them just as worthy as those who pay Income Taxes.

                                            Please, someone who has more time than I should do this so that this myth can be disspelled.

                                            I wish that I had the time.

                                            • 4 votes
                                            #11.6 - Thu Jan 19, 2012 1:48 AM EST
                                            Jonathan-1917156

                                            Ron,

                                            You forgot:

                                            8) Transfer payments to the states, without which, the states would have to raise state tax rates, but considering that some states pay more than others into that pot and others receive more than they pay in (usually blue states pay more in than they get back and red states get back more than they pay in), the state tax hikes would not be a one for one.

                                            • 1 vote
                                            #11.7 - Thu Jan 19, 2012 4:08 AM EST
                                            jackzg-

                                            Smith,

                                            Income Taxes. Everybody pays many forms of taxation even if they don't pay Income Taxes.

                                            Ron did a pretty good job responding to your reply. So, my response to you is to second what he said.

                                            • 3 votes
                                            #11.8 - Thu Jan 19, 2012 10:47 AM EST
                                            Smith Cassidy

                                            It doesn't come close to making it even, and remember ... those that pay Income Taxes also pay these taxes that the people who scream that this type of equality or contribution exists and makes them just as worthy as those who pay Income Taxes.

                                            Who said anything about 'even'? Are salaries even? Education? Opportunities?

                                            Regardless, how does one make the leap from some people not paying income taxes to the wealthy paying less in income taxes than the average middle class American? Have that make sense.

                                            • 1 vote
                                            #11.9 - Thu Jan 19, 2012 10:59 AM EST
                                            jackzg-

                                            Smith:

                                            Please, so that I can comment on your statement, show me one example of someone who is wealthier than you and who also pays a lower rate of income taxes than you.

                                            • 2 votes
                                            #11.10 - Thu Jan 19, 2012 12:23 PM EST
                                            Jonathan-1917156

                                            The person mentioned in the article is just such a person most likely.

                                              #11.11 - Thu Jan 19, 2012 1:17 PM EST
                                              jackzg-

                                              ...the wealthy paying less in income taxes than the average middle class American.

                                              Income tax rate.

                                              ...most likely.

                                              Show me.

                                              • 2 votes
                                              #11.12 - Thu Jan 19, 2012 1:30 PM EST
                                              Smith Cassidy

                                              jackzg-
                                              Smith:

                                              Please, so that I can comment on your statement, show me one example of someone who is wealthier than you and who also pays a lower rate of income taxes than you.

                                              I believe my tax rates are in the mid to high 20s when all is said and done; they definitely are not in the teens.

                                              And you are right, jackzg, I meant rate, or percent of income, not a whole number. Very important point.

                                              Jonathan-1917156
                                              The person mentioned in the article is just such a person most likely.

                                              Exactly.

                                              Show me.

                                              You mean send you a copy of my tax return? Is that the line you're going down?

                                                #11.13 - Thu Jan 19, 2012 1:33 PM EST
                                                jackzg-

                                                No, that's not the line I'm going down. The line I'm going down is what you said. Income tax rate. Not the effective rate mentioned in the article.

                                                It sounds like your rate is around the same as mine, so I believe you know your income tax rate.

                                                I don't want you to show me a copy of your tax return. I want you to show me either a copy of a wealthy person's tax return, or any other form of evidence that backs up your statement.

                                                Show me one person in this country who is wealthier than you and who also pays a lower rate of income taxes than you.

                                                  #11.14 - Thu Jan 19, 2012 2:01 PM EST
                                                  Smith Cassidy

                                                  Apparently that would be Romney, or any person who 'earns' his or her income via investments and pays Cap Gains rates. Or are you saying that isn't technically income?

                                                  • 1 vote
                                                  #11.15 - Thu Jan 19, 2012 3:29 PM EST
                                                  Jack-5030264

                                                  I got myself suspended on my other account, and I'm not being inconspicuous about it, so this account will be suspended too shortly, I'm sure.

                                                  Anyway, yes. You hit it Smithers. What I'm saying is that, as far as the IRS is concerned, it technically isn't income.

                                                  Next: you say, "Well capital gains are still income."

                                                  And then I say, "Oh, so you don't think capital gains should be taxed at a lower rate."

                                                  You say, "Exactly." And then I say, "Why not?"

                                                  .

                                                  Why not?

                                                  • 2 votes
                                                  #11.16 - Thu Jan 19, 2012 6:41 PM EST
                                                  Jonathan-1917156

                                                  Jack

                                                  Actually you won't be suspended, you will be BANNED.

                                                  And I say, capital gains should be taxed at the exact same rate as any other income.

                                                  • 1 vote
                                                  #11.17 - Thu Jan 19, 2012 6:49 PM EST
                                                  Jack-5030264

                                                  Right. Banned. That's what I meant.

                                                    #11.18 - Thu Jan 19, 2012 7:01 PM EST
                                                    Jack-5030264

                                                    Ok. So why not lower the income tax to the same level as capital gains? (Which is, I think, kinda what Romney was saying.)

                                                      #11.19 - Thu Jan 19, 2012 7:02 PM EST
                                                      Alex. CA

                                                      If they lower those tax rates, then they would have to drastically cut or eliminate the department of defense.

                                                        #11.20 - Thu Jan 19, 2012 7:13 PM EST
                                                        Jonathan-1917156

                                                        and if you do that, then you need to cut spending by more than half, possibly 2/3. So lets see,

                                                        No medicare,
                                                        No social security,
                                                        NO transfer payments to the states which will result in offsetting tax increases in the states
                                                        No common infrastructure development in the country at all, because alas, the federal government won't have the money.
                                                        As stated by Alex. CA, the Department of defence would have to be drastically cut.

                                                        None of those things that I stated were better off being done by government being done by government anymore. In other words, it will big time hurt the country.

                                                          #11.21 - Thu Jan 19, 2012 7:17 PM EST
                                                          Ron W.-1891955

                                                          Alex. CA - - - While the Department of Defense can be cut a little, there could be more effective cuts to other Government Programs and Departments that would be much more effective than ELIMINATING the Dept of Defense. Sheesh ... a lot more Departments with little, duplicitous, detrimental or no value.

                                                          • 4 votes
                                                          #11.22 - Thu Jan 19, 2012 7:23 PM EST
                                                          Jonathan-1917156

                                                          The department of defence current spends about half the entire worlds defence spending, in addition to that, spending has way more than doubled since 2000, so the department of defence can stand to be cut more than a little.

                                                          And NOBODY has ever suggested eliminating the department of defence, in fact the words 'drastically cut' specifically indicates the opposite of eliminating.

                                                            #11.23 - Thu Jan 19, 2012 7:33 PM EST
                                                            Ron W.-1891955

                                                            Jonathan-1917156

                                                            NOBODY has ever suggested eliminating the department of defence

                                                            #11.23 - Your comment this seed ... I beg to differ with you ...

                                                            drastically cut or eliminate the department of defense

                                                            #11.20 - Also this seed

                                                            • 4 votes
                                                            #11.24 - Thu Jan 19, 2012 7:42 PM EST
                                                            Alex. CA

                                                            I am not the one going around proposing to drastically cut taxes. I am not proposing anything. I am just doing the math. I do not believe in eliminating the dept of defense but people keep making crazy proposals without thinking about the consequences.

                                                              #11.25 - Thu Jan 19, 2012 7:51 PM EST
                                                              Smith Cassidy

                                                              Jack-5030264
                                                              Ok. So why not lower the income tax to the same level as capital gains? (Which is, I think, kinda what Romney was saying.)

                                                              Sorry to hear about your suspension/ban, Jack.

                                                              If we lower tax rates then severe cuts must follow, and the most obvious place to start is the military budget, as Alex and Jonathan have pointed out.

                                                                #11.26 - Fri Jan 20, 2012 1:14 AM EST
                                                                Reply
                                                                Dave 49

                                                                Romney says he pays US taxes — about 15 percent... But says it's all(White) compared to Obama

                                                                • 2 votes
                                                                Reply#12 - Tue Jan 17, 2012 10:35 PM EST
                                                                rational thought-3748544

                                                                Is it any wonder he's worth over $250,000.000? He receives over $350,000/year in just speaking fees. That alone is enough to put him in the top 1% of income earners.

                                                                • 1 vote
                                                                Reply#13 - Tue Jan 17, 2012 10:41 PM EST
                                                                Mike-475880

                                                                It's not really the amount of money he makes that I have a problem with, it's the fact he thinks it's not very much money. How out of touch can he get?

                                                                • 4 votes
                                                                #13.1 - Tue Jan 17, 2012 11:02 PM EST
                                                                Reply
                                                                jusbkoz

                                                                As long as his earnings are legitimate, I have no interest in his income and neither should anyone else.

                                                                  Reply#14 - Tue Jan 17, 2012 11:17 PM EST
                                                                  Skidude

                                                                  Under Reagan the capital gains tax was 28%. I thought Reagan was a Republican hero. They must have selective memory. I don't have any problem will someone making a lot of money. I do have problem with someone not paying their fair share in taxes. I pay more taxes than that sob. The current tax system is not Mitts fault, but I don't see him doing anything to change it. It's been proven that most of the wealthy don't use that money to create jobs, they just sock it away in an account somewhere. Similar to what Mitt is doing. He just sits on most of that money.

                                                                  What I find humorous is that I have a 401K plan where I have money invested in stocks. When I am retired and need that money, it will be taxed like regular income. I pay more taxes than Mitt now and when I am retired on a fixed income, I will be paying more than Mitt. The man could not be more out of touch with the people who actually have to work for a living. I think that idiot actually wants to attack Iran. What's scary is that he is the best that the GOP has to offer.

                                                                  • 7 votes
                                                                  Reply#15 - Tue Jan 17, 2012 11:21 PM EST
                                                                  rational thought-3748544

                                                                  The problem is that most politicians are out of touch with the working poor, the working middle class and small businesses, especially the Republicans. The other major problem is that in the "pay to play" environment in government they must spend half their time soliciting money for their next election campaign which makes them vulnerable to the demands of wealthy special interests.

                                                                  • 2 votes
                                                                  #15.1 - Tue Jan 17, 2012 11:39 PM EST
                                                                  expatdownunda

                                                                  Rational thought -- I certainly do not care what the ignorant working poor have to say.

                                                                    #15.2 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 12:52 AM EST
                                                                    Rahlly

                                                                    And not all working poor are ignorant.

                                                                    And yes, you did imply that. After all Rational Thought just said:

                                                                    The problem is that most politicians are out of touch with the working poor, the working middle class and small businesses, especially the Republicans. The other major problem is that in the "pay to play" environment in government they must spend half their time soliciting money for their next election campaign which makes them vulnerable to the demands of wealthy special interests.

                                                                    It is you who labeled us ignorant. Why? Because we are poor. I work hard and I make 18K. I am a part of the working poor. And my money is getting rather worn.

                                                                    Never mind, I don't need your answer, your posts are answers enough.

                                                                    Click.

                                                                      #15.3 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 2:28 PM EST
                                                                      Reply
                                                                      engineer guy-2787179

                                                                      I'm not sure why he's been so hesitant to release his returns in the first place. It's pretty well known that his income is primarily from investments, so assuming some combination of dividends and long-term capital gains, that's a 15 percent tax rate. The only reason I can see for his not releasing them is that there might be some skeletons hiding there.

                                                                      • 1 vote
                                                                      Reply#16 - Tue Jan 17, 2012 11:48 PM EST
                                                                      bdebogota

                                                                      It's not just how he made his money, it's how much of it he made. I think many Americans, who never saw a tax return in their lives which shows a person earning a yearly income in the tens of millions - without even having to get out of bed in the morning - are about to learn a real lesson about greed and the basic unfairness of the capitalist system as it presently operates in America. They will be stunned into resentment. To simply talk about earning tens of millions yearly is one thing; to actually see it on paper is a whole 'nuther thing. Reality bites.

                                                                      • 2 votes
                                                                      #16.1 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 12:01 AM EST
                                                                      rational thought-3748544

                                                                      Wealth by investment (taxed at 15%) has become more important than wealth generated by hard work and sweat of the brow (taxed up to 35%) in this country. Our corporate laws, regulations and tax code all pander to the wealthy investor and the middle class is left to pay most of the bills.

                                                                      Some will say that the top 1% pay over 20% of all federal income taxes to somehow justify their right to such lofty incomes. Well. why not? They make over 30% of the total US income. That's a no brainer.

                                                                      • 1 vote
                                                                      #16.2 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 12:18 AM EST
                                                                      expatdownunda

                                                                      Rational?,

                                                                      Wealth by investment IS worth more than wealth by the sweat of the brow! Wealth by investment provides about 4/5 of the energy used in production, while wealth by the sweat of the brow provides 1/5. People in the poorest countries in the world work harder than they do anywhere else.

                                                                      It is capital resources that make high wages possible, not "sweat of the brow". 80% of the energy used in production is provided by capital. Profit is the payment for the use of capital, which is only rewarded with less than 15% (usually closer to 5%) even though it is the main reason for high wages. Capitalism is a great deal for the workers.

                                                                        #16.3 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 12:50 AM EST
                                                                        ryoushi12

                                                                        And for expat, the words of wisdom from Adam Smith -

                                                                        "It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."

                                                                        Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all."
                                                                        Our merchants and masters complain much of the bad effects of high wages in raising the price and lessening the sale of goods. They say nothing concerning the bad effects of high profits. They are silent with regard to the pernicious effects of their own gains. They complain only of those of other people."
                                                                        The government of an exclusive company of merchants is, perhaps, the worst of all governments for any country whatever. - Romney anybody?

                                                                        Seems Old Adam Smith did think much of massive accumulated wealth, and said so in his book The Wealth of Nations, where ALL these quotes come from.

                                                                        • 2 votes
                                                                        #16.4 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 1:45 AM EST
                                                                        expatdownunda

                                                                        Right now the top 10% pay most of the income taxes, so I think Adam Smith is already getting his way! My problem with the current tax system is that it incentivizes spending over saving. We are exporting our wealth, market shares, and jobs overseas because we are not saving.

                                                                          #16.5 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 2:34 AM EST
                                                                          Alex. CA

                                                                          expatdownunda The voters will be working in November on deciding if their work efforts are worth less than investments. The voters are in charge and they will have the final word in November.

                                                                            #16.6 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 2:44 AM EST
                                                                            expatdownunda

                                                                            I am a voter, and I will not be voting for somebody that lives in a trailer house, earns less than $200K per year, or is worth less than a million dollars. I want somebody successful in office, because I want America the successful, not America the loser.

                                                                            I believe that a lot of other voters are realistic about this. Wealth is not a negative stigma, it is a positive and necessary characteristic of somebody that I will be willing to vote for.

                                                                            • 1 vote
                                                                            #16.7 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 12:59 PM EST
                                                                            Reply
                                                                            bdebogota

                                                                            This issue will kill his candidacy more than his incredible stupidity on the real issues. People viscerally and instinctively knew that he was a POS person in 2008 and now they are even more certain. He is a rich, elitist phoney who only wants to be POTUS as another line on his resume, and will say anthing anytime to anyone in order to get it. Once his tax returns are made public - which now will be inevitable - people will see that, from investments alone, Rombot was probably earning north of $15million/year for at least the last 5 years. And paying only $2.25million in taxes! And still wants to pay less taxes! This is the best news ever for the Obama campaign and, especially, for Obama-supporting Super Pacs. They will beat Rombot like a rented mule on this and there is no getting over the fact that virtually all his money was made at the expense of business and jobs in America. In short, in the Age of Greed, he is our real-life Gordon Gekko. So long, Mitt, it's been nice...or not.

                                                                            • 3 votes
                                                                            Reply#17 - Tue Jan 17, 2012 11:57 PM EST
                                                                            bdebogota

                                                                            Great ad for an Obama SuperPac: Show a stack of $100 bills adding up to $15million standing side by side with a stack of $100 bills adding up to 15% of the first stack. Then show a stack of $100 bills adding up to $35,000 standing side by side with a stack of $100 bills adding up to 35% of this second stack. No dialogue and don't change the picture for 30 seconds. Superimpose the following text: "American Capitalism Circa 2012." Maybe then the public will start to understand what is really going on in their country right now.

                                                                            • 2 votes
                                                                            Reply#18 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 12:14 AM EST
                                                                            rational thought-3748544

                                                                            Maybe then the public will start to understand what is really going on in their country right now.

                                                                            The sale of government to the highest bidder. Democracy no more.

                                                                              #18.1 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 12:25 AM EST
                                                                              bdebogota

                                                                              The sale of government to the highest bidder. Democracy no more

                                                                              Actually, that happened about the time that Eisenhower left office. All we are witnessing now is the profit-taking on their investment. We as a country have had our heads up our collective asses for more than 60 years...and running.

                                                                                #18.2 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 12:31 AM EST
                                                                                rational thought-3748544

                                                                                Yes, it's been a gradual process that accelerated noticeably and significantly beginning in the early 1980s under Reagan and continuing pretty much unabated until today.

                                                                                  #18.3 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 12:45 AM EST
                                                                                  Reply
                                                                                  RNDiane

                                                                                  Well, Mitt, I pay about 32%. So how's that 15% working out for you?

                                                                                  • 2 votes
                                                                                  Reply#19 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 12:21 AM EST
                                                                                  bdebogota

                                                                                  Not good enough, apparently.

                                                                                    #19.1 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 12:26 AM EST
                                                                                    ridin the barack express

                                                                                    If you actually pay 32% then, if you are single your taxable income is ~$750,000, or married filing jointly your taxable income is ~$1,000,000.

                                                                                    Your problem is that you have no investments with long term capital gains (to lower your rate %)...

                                                                                      #19.2 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 12:46 AM EST
                                                                                      engineer guy-2787179

                                                                                      This is completely wrong. The 2011 tax computation worksheet has a 33 percent tax rate for those whose taxable income is greater than $174,400, but not over $379,150.

                                                                                        #19.3 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 12:56 AM EST
                                                                                        ridin the barack express

                                                                                        No, it is not wrong. There is a big difference between a tax bracket rate and your effective rate.

                                                                                        On your exemptions and deductions you pay 0%. Then on the next ~8500 you pay 10%, on the next ~26,000 you pay 15%, on the next ~49,100 you pay 25%, on the next ~91,800 you pay 28%, etc. It caps at 35% over $379K.

                                                                                        If you are an engineer, then hopefully you understand the math and can see to pay an overall rate of 32% you have to make the taxable income I posted to achieve these rates.

                                                                                        Otherwise, your rate is less than 32%...

                                                                                          #19.4 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 1:08 AM EST
                                                                                          RNDiane

                                                                                          Ok well perhaps I do pay 28%. And I do take money out for my 401K. My point here is that I make less money that Mitt but pay more taxes. Is this fair? Warren Buffet says he pays 17%. He does not think that is it fair that he pays less taxes than his employees.

                                                                                            #19.5 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 1:11 AM EST
                                                                                            ridin the barack express

                                                                                            As far as Buffett, his salary is only like 100,000. But from the 2006 article where he compared his taxes with his secretary, if you ran the numbers, she paid ~8,900 and he paid ~8.9 million that year.

                                                                                            You are correct that Buffett paid 17%, but I think Buffett paid substantially more taxes than his secretary...

                                                                                              #19.6 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 1:28 AM EST
                                                                                              engineer guy-2787179

                                                                                              "If you are an engineer, then hopefully you understand the math and can see to pay an overall rate of 32% you have to make the taxable income I posted to achieve these rates."

                                                                                              You're right. I didn't take into account the "subtraction amount". For incomes over $379,150, the rate is 35 percent and the "subtraction amount" is $22,686. So,

                                                                                              0.35x - $22686 = 0.32x
                                                                                              x = $756,200 for 32 percent rate, filing single

                                                                                                #19.7 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 1:28 AM EST
                                                                                                engineer guy-2787179

                                                                                                Sorry about that, RTBE.

                                                                                                  #19.8 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 2:05 AM EST
                                                                                                  ridin the barack express

                                                                                                  no worries engineer, the current tax code doesn't have over 72,000 pages for its simplicity...

                                                                                                    #19.9 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 10:28 AM EST
                                                                                                    Reply
                                                                                                    bdebogota

                                                                                                    Wait until people actually see his returns in writing. This will be a real game-changer in American politics.

                                                                                                      Reply#20 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 12:24 AM EST
                                                                                                      expatdownunda

                                                                                                      This provides a genuine incentive for me to vote for Romney. If he paid more taxes than he needed to he would be an idiot. This shows that Romney is a very smart man with his values in the right place!

                                                                                                      • 1 vote
                                                                                                      Reply#21 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 12:42 AM EST
                                                                                                      FromUndaCheese

                                                                                                      This shows that Romney is a very smart man with his values in the right place!

                                                                                                      That's funny!!!

                                                                                                        #21.1 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 1:48 AM EST
                                                                                                        Reply
                                                                                                        jackzg-

                                                                                                        Why are people upset that he pays 15%? He didn't write the current tax code. And he just said last night that if it were up to him you all would also pay 15%. What's the problem? Don't you want lower taxes?

                                                                                                          #22 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 12:44 AM EST
                                                                                                          rational thought-3748544

                                                                                                          This country could not survive on a flat 15% tax rate. Romney knows it as well as every other politician and anyone else who has a modicum of knowledge about federal finances and what's required to push the US into the globalized 21st century.

                                                                                                          • 1 vote
                                                                                                          #22.1 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 12:50 AM EST
                                                                                                          expatdownunda

                                                                                                          Add some sales taxes and luxury taxes, and the country could do just fine on 15% income taxes. I believe we should get rid of income taxes, both corporate and individual.

                                                                                                          • 1 vote
                                                                                                          #22.2 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 1:09 AM EST
                                                                                                          jackzg-

                                                                                                          This country could not survive on a flat 15% tax rate.

                                                                                                          Are you an economist?

                                                                                                          Well, maybe you've read a book on the subject...?

                                                                                                          No?

                                                                                                          Any relevant studies or reports you can link me to?

                                                                                                          It may make you feel better about yourself to type on a public forum, but you can't actually believe your posts are worthwhile, or accomplishing anything, can you? I mean, are you trying to convince anyone? The guys who share your opinion on the subject don't need convincing. Your post is useless to them.

                                                                                                          I happen to think that there's nothing wrong with a flat 15% tax rate, if it's done properly. I could be wrong. Am I?

                                                                                                            #22.3 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 1:13 AM EST
                                                                                                            rational thought-3748544

                                                                                                            I believe we should get rid of income taxes, both corporate and individual.

                                                                                                            Then it would take a mighty huge sales tax and the wealthy would go ballistic over any increase in luxury taxes saying it was a job killer, but keep on believing the myth.

                                                                                                              #22.4 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 1:23 AM EST
                                                                                                              rational thought-3748544

                                                                                                              jackzg

                                                                                                              The total personal income in the US in 2010 was $12.4 trillion. Take 15% of that and you get 1.86 trillion. The 2010 Federal Budget was around $3.7 trillion. Do you see the problem. And this doesn't account for the fact that a 15% rate on the working poor and lower middle class would decimate their standard of living and buying power which would translate into less consumer demand and possibly millions of job losses.

                                                                                                              http://bber.unm.edu/econ/us-tpi.htm

                                                                                                              BTW, I do have a Masters in Business Administration (MBA). So, I've taken many courses in economics and finance. How about you? The Rush Limbaugh School of Economic Fantasy.

                                                                                                              ?

                                                                                                              • 2 votes
                                                                                                              #22.5 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 1:58 AM EST
                                                                                                              expatdownunda

                                                                                                              Rational,

                                                                                                              Then we are spending way too much, aren't we?

                                                                                                                #22.6 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 1:33 PM EST
                                                                                                                Alex. CA

                                                                                                                You are not supposed to cut spending during slow economic times. You are supposed to wait until economic growth accelerates.

                                                                                                                • 1 vote
                                                                                                                #22.7 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 2:28 PM EST
                                                                                                                rational thought-3748544

                                                                                                                You couldn't run the government the Republicans want on $1.86 trillion/year. They would spend that much on the military and back home projects, if permitted.

                                                                                                                • 1 vote
                                                                                                                #22.8 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 2:48 PM EST
                                                                                                                expatdownunda

                                                                                                                Alex, that may or may not be true. It depends on the circumstances. Right now we are so deeply in debt, and so is the rest of the world, that we cannot finance additional debt. And when we do spend during a recession it should be on infrastructure, and that does not mean community centers.

                                                                                                                • 1 vote
                                                                                                                #22.9 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 6:16 PM EST
                                                                                                                Jonathan-1917156

                                                                                                                only the experience in the countries that have committed to austerity measures show that the austerity measures have led to deficits that are just as large as the economy shrinks as the austerity measures kick in.

                                                                                                                But hey, lets just put the finances in the hands of the republicans, the same party that took the country from what was essentially a balanced budget to half trillion dollar deficits in less than 2 years. Now THAT is a track record to be proud of. As for the deficits under Obama, he INHERITED that.

                                                                                                                • 1 vote
                                                                                                                #22.10 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 6:20 PM EST
                                                                                                                Ron W.-1891955

                                                                                                                Jonathan-1917156

                                                                                                                Obama to Bush ... "and I'll raise you 4 1/2 Trillion dollars"

                                                                                                                the combined deficit for the four years 2009-2012 comes to $4.42 trillion

                                                                                                                http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/feb2009/budg-f27.shtml

                                                                                                                p.s. and ... he says BUDGET? ... "We don't need no stinkin budget" (lol)

                                                                                                                • 2 votes
                                                                                                                #22.11 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 7:51 PM EST
                                                                                                                Jonathan-1917156

                                                                                                                Ron W.

                                                                                                                And that figure does NOT account for the fact that you have NO CLUE about the difference between the calendar year and the fiscal year, so please remain ignorant, the world doesn't care.

                                                                                                                • 1 vote
                                                                                                                #22.12 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 8:25 PM EST
                                                                                                                Ron W.-1891955

                                                                                                                Jonathan-1917156

                                                                                                                Oh okay... you want to make it from 2010? Then let's include the 1.75 Trillion he's asking to have our limit raised for later this year.

                                                                                                                and imagine that ... I was able to respond to you without using any personal attacks. That little CoH thingy you know.

                                                                                                                • 4 votes
                                                                                                                #22.13 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 8:43 PM EST
                                                                                                                Jonathan-1917156

                                                                                                                Ron,

                                                                                                                I have no problem with it. In case you didn't notice, the nation/world is currently suffering from the biggest economic disaster since the great depression, the causes of which come DIRECTLY from what happened during the Bush administration. So please, remain ignorant about what is happening, the world really doesn't care what you think.

                                                                                                                • 2 votes
                                                                                                                #22.14 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 8:48 PM EST
                                                                                                                Ron W.-1891955

                                                                                                                Jonathan-1917156

                                                                                                                Doubling down on that personal insult thing, huh? Well, I guess every individual has their own style.

                                                                                                                I think time will show an enormous irony in what you are trying to assert, but you are free to discern what you may.

                                                                                                                Want to go for a third?

                                                                                                                • 3 votes
                                                                                                                #22.15 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 8:56 PM EST
                                                                                                                Jonathan-1917156

                                                                                                                naw, since you still don't know that the fiscal year for a given year runs from October 1st of the previous year to Sept. 31st of the fiscal year, and that when obama took office, the deficit for FY2009 was already 1 Trillion dollars, there is no point continuing.

                                                                                                                What you still don't understand is that:

                                                                                                                1) Obama inherited the record deficits as the 1.5T deficit in FY2009 was BUSH's last budget

                                                                                                                2) Congress is the ONLY entity that can reverse that

                                                                                                                3) The last thing you want to do when you are bleeding jobs, economic activity etc... is to compound the problem by cutting spending, because alas, that, wow, shockingly, bleeds more jobs and economic activity, and oddly enough, because the government is on the hook for unemployment insurance benefits, it actually not only reduces tax revenues, it also increases spending.

                                                                                                                The current deficit is the LEAST of our economic problems. Now, using the context of an economy that was still functioning, Bush Jr taking what was essentially a balanced budget, and blowing that sucker out of the water by 2 wars funded by debt, a prescription drug plan funded by debt, and a tax cut that mostly benefited the rich that was funded by debt, THAT WAS UNFORGIVABLE.

                                                                                                                So you can keep taking your teabagger bs and move on. the real world doesn't care.

                                                                                                                  #22.16 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 9:16 PM EST
                                                                                                                  WakeUpPeople-1385514

                                                                                                                  I have no problem with it. In case you didn't notice, the nation/world is currently suffering from the biggest economic disaster since the great depression, the causes of which come DIRECTLY from what happened during the Bush administration. So please, remain ignorant about what is happening, the world really doesn't care what you think.

                                                                                                                  Actually Jonathan... all of these problems stem from Clinton. It was one of the last things he signed into law before leaving office. Bush didn't help matters with his tax cuts for the wealthy and starting two wars... but the problems with the economy here and around the world, all stem from Clinton singing the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 (aka Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act) into law on Nov 12th, 1999.

                                                                                                                  But that's how politics works. It's all slight of hand. the really damaging bills that hurt many and benefit few get passed when nobody is looking and nobody ever remembers them doing it. Then everyone points the fingers at those left to try and clean up the mess.

                                                                                                                  • 4 votes
                                                                                                                  #22.17 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 9:31 PM EST
                                                                                                                  Jonathan-1917156

                                                                                                                  WakeUp.

                                                                                                                  While the legislation was signed under clinton, the legislation in question went through congress with a veto proof majority. There was nothing that Clinton could do that would have changed anything. He could have veto'd it, but then the veto would have been overridden. He also could have left it unsigned, but it would have then become law anyways. Either effect wouldn't have changed anything.

                                                                                                                  The other issue that I have with that is that the negative effects of that legislation were starting to be seen in 2003 when the derivatives industry started to build the bubble, Bush had 5 further years of time to try and reverse it, but he did nothing, in fact used the artificial 'economic gains' as a sign of his economic accomplishments.

                                                                                                                  Fortunately, I personally lost very little money because I saw this happening and stayed away from those investments, but that doesn't really help all those that were affected. I would have much rather the crap never have happened in the first place.

                                                                                                                  And NO, this is NOT an excuse for the Clinton administration, because he had his own little bubble that he rode, but was unsustainable as well. What I really fear is that going forward, we are just going to go after the next get rich quick vapour economic miracle, and get nailed yet again.

                                                                                                                    #22.18 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 9:46 PM EST
                                                                                                                    WakeUpPeople-1385514

                                                                                                                    Also to point out, talking about deficits... if the housing market didn't crash, causing banks world wide to go seriously into the red... and then causing the Fed to print trillians of dollars in cash to bail them out... the value of the US dollar would not have tumbled the way it did. An $800 mil deficit can easily turn into a $1.5tril deficit when the fiat currency takes a dive. It's part of the reason gas prices have jumped and everything is more expensive now. Remember when the US dollar was a lot stronger than the Candian dollar? That is a thing of the past...

                                                                                                                    So really... this second great depression happened from banks bribing (uh, I mean, lobbying) congressmen to write a bill that would overturn all the laws set in place after the first great depression, learning from what happened in the first great depression, to keep a second great depression from happening.

                                                                                                                    • 2 votes
                                                                                                                    #22.19 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 9:54 PM EST
                                                                                                                    Jonathan-1917156

                                                                                                                    WakeUP.

                                                                                                                    Well not sure exactly what you mean by the US dollar tumbling, because most of the other currencies that are primary trading currencies are worth less today than they were 3 years ago. Look at the Euro for example.

                                                                                                                    As for the housing market, well that was the bubble that was created, so the so called economic growth was based on something that was fake, just like the dot coms were fake. The difference with the housing bubble though is that when the bubble burst, it impacted pretty much the entire economy, whereas the dot coms only impacted those that were stupid enough to invest in companies that had no business model.

                                                                                                                    The fiscal deficit has very little if anything to do with the US dollar dropping (if it dropped at all). Remember that for a currency to drop, you need to have another currency to put that money into. Does anyone think that there is just such a currency at the moment?

                                                                                                                    (I am ignoring the fact that the US dollar never rises or drops, because as the global reserve currency, it is always considered 1.00 = 1.00. Instead, other currencies rise and fall around the US Dollar).

                                                                                                                      #22.20 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 10:03 PM EST
                                                                                                                      WakeUpPeople-1385514

                                                                                                                      There was nothing that Clinton could do that would have changed anything.

                                                                                                                      Still... he could have veto'd it. It had been on the table for years. In 1995 Robert Rubin, Clinton's Treasury Secretary, make a speech to congress saying the clinton administration was ready to repeal Glass-Steagall.

                                                                                                                      Clinton and Rubin signed off on the Travelers/SmithBarney/Citibank merger even though it was illegal at the time, knowing congress would pass the Gramm-Leach-Bliley act and Clinton would sign it into law THEN making the merger legal. The Gramm Leach Bliley act was commonly referred to as the "Citi-Travelers Act" on Capitol Hill!! Because everyone needed to pass it otherwise the merger that had already been approved would be deemed illegal and the company would have to split up after having just merged. Citibank alone spent $100mil that year lobbying.

                                                                                                                      Clinton was all for signing it. It wasn't like there wasn't anything he could do... he was chomping at the bit to put it through.

                                                                                                                      In the end, both sides... democrats and republicans are corrupt and greedy and ultimately both are playing for the same side.

                                                                                                                      • 2 votes
                                                                                                                      #22.21 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 10:04 PM EST
                                                                                                                      Ron W.-1891955

                                                                                                                      Jonathan-1917156 - - - You're losing your argument.

                                                                                                                      The Myth of the Clinton Surplus ... http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16

                                                                                                                      The sad thing is with the amount of money generated by the Internet Bubble .... there really SHOULD have been a surplus. And THAT is something that BOTH Republicans and Democrats can take ownership of.

                                                                                                                      • 3 votes
                                                                                                                      #22.22 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 10:06 PM EST
                                                                                                                      Jonathan-1917156

                                                                                                                      The removal of the glass-steagall restriction on retail-institutional bank mergers is NOT what caused the problems. It was the deregulation of the derivatives market that was the problem. No other developed country in the world prevents retail-institutional banks from merging, and in fact, the Basel II banking regulations actually pretty much require that a country's banking institutions be integrated, because that is really the only way to properly measure risk within a financial organization.

                                                                                                                      I am not sure what it is going to take to get people to understand that because they always focus on that one small bit, but the reality is that only a few banks bothered to integrate, not enough to cause the problems that occurred. I really would honestly like to know what it is going to take to get people to understand that bit, because it would save a lot of peoples time when they focus on a benign part of the legislation and COMPLETELY IGNORE the harmful parts of that legislation.

                                                                                                                        #22.23 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 10:10 PM EST
                                                                                                                        WakeUpPeople-1385514

                                                                                                                        Well not sure exactly what you mean by the US dollar tumbling, because most of the other currencies that are primary trading currencies are worth less today than they were 3 years ago. Look at the Euro for example.

                                                                                                                        Not all. The Riyal has been rock solid, as has the Dirham. The yuan has been rising since our depression. We have to convert into those currencies to buy oil, good and services. You think china just accepts US dollars as payment for things made in china? No, It has to get converted to the Yuan. Same with oil. While we list the price of oil in USD, oil is not bought with USD. USD has to be converted into the currency of the nation we are buying it from.

                                                                                                                        Also, it's also basic economic theory. What happens when you print more money? The value of that money goes down. Europe didn't have a crisis until a while after the US did. Which made the depression that much worse in the beginning.

                                                                                                                        When the ripple finally hit the EU, yes, it did plunge as well and went back to the same conversion rate to the USD. but the place that does most of manufacturing has been seeing a rise in the value of its currency and the place we get all our oil from has had a solid unfluctuating currency. So the value of the dollar is ultimately weaker, regardless of whether the currency markets say the dollar is still 1.00=1.00 or not.

                                                                                                                        • 3 votes
                                                                                                                        #22.24 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 10:17 PM EST
                                                                                                                        WakeUpPeople-1385514

                                                                                                                        It was the deregulation of the derivatives market that was the problem.

                                                                                                                        but banking derivatives could not have happened if mortgage companies couldn't also be investment banks and insurance companies. See what I mean?

                                                                                                                        Bank mergers are ok. Investment banks becoming mortgage banks becoming insurance companies is very bad. You can see the results of that in the 2008 crash.

                                                                                                                        Allowing an insurance company to insure a mortgage and then sell that insurance risk on the open market as an investment bank is literally what collapsed the economies of the world.

                                                                                                                        Gramm Leach Bliley made all of that possible. IT was the first domino to fall that set everything else in motion.

                                                                                                                        • 4 votes
                                                                                                                        #22.25 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 10:21 PM EST
                                                                                                                        Sally

                                                                                                                        so please remain ignorant, the world doesn't care.

                                                                                                                        Jonathan-1917156, in the future, please mind rule # 1 of the Code of Honor.

                                                                                                                        Above all else, respect others. Address issues and arguments and refrain from making personal attacks.

                                                                                                                        • 1 vote
                                                                                                                        #22.26 - Thu Jan 19, 2012 2:48 PM EST
                                                                                                                        Jonathan-1917156

                                                                                                                        Sally

                                                                                                                        And at what point does it take for someone to be called out on not understanding the facts (there are two definitions of the word ignorant, one pejorative and the other not). If someone chooses to live in la la land about the facts of how our government works, and uses that to constantly belittle people (which is a tactic of many on here that occupy both sides of the political aisle).

                                                                                                                        The problem here is that I have had experience with this person in the past with the exact same topic, him not understanding the difference between the Calendar Year and Fiscal Year when it comes to government budgets, yet the exact same lies come out of his mouth. He refuses to even acknowledge a fact that is very common knowledge in order to spout political rhetoric.

                                                                                                                        Having said that, I do apologize for venting my frustration.

                                                                                                                          #22.27 - Thu Jan 19, 2012 2:58 PM EST
                                                                                                                          Ron W.-1891955

                                                                                                                          Jonathan-1917156

                                                                                                                          Your apology is weak if I might say. You even ignored my statement after I adjusted for your statement of considering 2009. I took it from 2010 to the well publicized fact of Obama insisting on a deficit increase in the months to come which surpasses Bush's contributions to the deficit in shorter than 8 years. You lose that way as well. The deficit is growing at a much higher rate than Bush during his eight years at Obamas direcetion and there is really no end to his Kenesyian suggestions ir dictates (which are failed economic policies). I believe your personal accusations of ignorance are missplaced and your explanation to Sally is a bit self-serving.

                                                                                                                          Hey, here's something you can do. Write Obama and ask him to submit a budget that can be approved by the Senate (not done since he took office). That would be a good starting point.

                                                                                                                            #22.28 - Thu Jan 19, 2012 5:19 PM EST
                                                                                                                            Jonathan-1917156

                                                                                                                            My apology wasn't to you, it was to SALLY.

                                                                                                                            As for your latest crap, you ignore context. Bush did it during a time of so called economic expansion, this is happening in a time of extreme economic distress. You want a depression? the EASIEST way to do it is to cut 1.5Trillion dollars from the budget when there is nothing else to take up the slack.

                                                                                                                            And do you even know what a deficit is? The deficit has been DECREASING slowly over the last 3 years. (hint, deficit and debt are two different things).

                                                                                                                            As for Keynesian policies, the problem isn't the deficit spending that is going on now, it is that during the economic boom times, that the spending isn't cut. Just like the laffer curve, everybody forgets that there are TWO PARTS TO IT. Keynes NEVER EVER suggested unlimited government spending, he stated, government needs to be counter cyclical. That is, spend during times of economic distress, and save during boom times. Well Bush did the spending during the boom times which was just plain stupid.

                                                                                                                            You ALSO STILL ignore the fact that it is congress that determines the budget, not the president. The president can suggest, but it is still congress that has to pass legislation to authorize that spending. Now when members of congress can actually start suggesting spending cuts that affect their own constituents, then points can be made, but that isn't what has happened. The ONLY spending cuts that congressional members are willing to make are ones that don't affect their interests. Can't blame the president for that.

                                                                                                                            As for the deficit itself, I am NOT in anyway pissed off at the deficit, it is a necessary evil in the CONTEXT OF WHAT IS HAPPENING IN THE ECONOMY. I am however extremely pissed off at the lack of action on the structural changes that are needed in the economy to move forward and recover from the economic disaster that the events during the bush administration wrought on this country, and the global economy. Everything is a bandaid, which is a BIG problem for me. But hey, with this congress, we can't even get judges nominated because some idiots in the senate are determined to hold up any decisions made by this president.

                                                                                                                            As for budgets, well several items.

                                                                                                                            1) FY 2009 was Bush's last budget. That went from Oct 1, 2008 -> Sept 31, 2009
                                                                                                                            2) FY 2010 was Obama's first budget That went from Oct 1, 2009 -> Sept 31, 2010 (this was an actual consolidated budget)
                                                                                                                            3) even though there was no consolidated budget for FY 2011, there WAS a budget. There had to be, otherwise there would be no government, as it is the budget that authorizes spending. (this part must be lost on you).
                                                                                                                            4) In very few cases does a presidential budget submission ever get approved wholesale. The submission of a budget by the president isn't actually all that important except for one part. All the projections for spending for legislation that is already in force is in that submission. So the estimates for Social Security spending, etc... all come from the budget submission by the president. The rest of it can be thrown away, and very often is. (most of clintons budgets were often thrown away). The problem with getting a consolidated budget right now is in CONGRESS, not the president.

                                                                                                                            In general, I think you need to start taking some civics classes (I thought they were mandatory).

                                                                                                                            Seriously ron, you probably should put me on ignore (hell I will do the same thing) because until you stop bringing the partisan political bull@!$%# into every comment you make, you certainly won't get any respect from me. Who knows about anyone else, but that is for them to decide.

                                                                                                                              #22.29 - Thu Jan 19, 2012 5:39 PM EST
                                                                                                                              Reply
                                                                                                                              geebee-1497337

                                                                                                                              He's hiding the truth. Will only show 2011 tax return which is due 4/15/2012 once his accountants dope it to look like close to 15% paid. Oldest trick in the book. Make out a check to IRS on tax day for 11-13% and then say "SEE, IT WAS CLOSE TO 15% YOU SUCKERS".

                                                                                                                              • 1 vote
                                                                                                                              Reply#23 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 12:49 AM EST
                                                                                                                              FromUndaCheese

                                                                                                                              Dude's wife has MS and she imports horse's from France, not yet sure if they have made a wheel-chair that will fit on a horse, I'd call that karma!!! LOL

                                                                                                                              • 1 vote
                                                                                                                              Reply#24 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 1:44 AM EST
                                                                                                                              Skidude

                                                                                                                              What's interesting is that he was reluctant to release his tax return, even though we all knew what was in it. It's not illegal, but it's embarrassing. Most of us pay more taxes than that fat cat. He should have been fighting for higher capital gains taxes. We all pay more than him. The GOP answer to this is to introduce clever phrases like class warfare and "we just envy them". He represents the party that wants lower tax rates for the wealthy and big cuts to major social programs like social security and medicare. It just shows how out of touch he is with most americans.

                                                                                                                                Reply#25 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 7:16 AM EST
                                                                                                                                expatdownunda

                                                                                                                                Romney is no fat cat. For heaven sakes, he earned less than $400K last year! I don't want a president that does not understand money, business, and wealth creation. This hatred is just covetousness, envy, and small-mindedness. I don't wan't trailer trash in the White House, I want wealthy, successful people.

                                                                                                                                • 1 vote
                                                                                                                                #25.1 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 1:03 PM EST
                                                                                                                                rational thought-3748544

                                                                                                                                Wealth doesn't necessarily indicate wisdom or success. I want someone who has earned their success through building up America, not tearing it down, who has the wisdom and temperament to guide the country in the right direction for all Americans.

                                                                                                                                • 1 vote
                                                                                                                                #25.2 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 2:44 PM EST
                                                                                                                                expatdownunda

                                                                                                                                However, for me poverty would disqualify a candidate for office in my opinion.

                                                                                                                                  #25.3 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 6:17 PM EST
                                                                                                                                  Alex. CA

                                                                                                                                  What do the repubs know about macro economics with the track record that they have??

                                                                                                                                  Republican massive miserable failure in 2008....

                                                                                                                                  AT LEAST A 50 TRILLION DOLLAR LOSS IN 2008.

                                                                                                                                  Global Financial Assets Lost $50 Trillion Last Year, ADB Says....

                                                                                                                                  .http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aZ1kcJ7y3LDMMost notably, MGI finds that:Falling equities accounted for virtually all of the drop in global financial assets. The world's equities lost almost half their value in 2008, declining by $28 trillion. Markets have regained some ground in recent months, replacing $4.6 trillion in value between December 2008 and the end of July 2009. Global residential real estate values fell by $3.4 trillion in 2008 and nearly $2 trillion more in the first quarter of 2009. Combining these figures, we see that declines in equity and real estate wiped out $28.8 trillion of global wealth in 2008 and the first half of 2009.

                                                                                                                                  .http://www.mckinsey.com/Insights/MGI/Research/Financial_Markets/Global_capital_markets_entering_a_new_eraThe

                                                                                                                                  244 ACCOMPLISHMENTS of PRESIDENT OBAMA

                                                                                                                                  http://b4bmorenews.blogspot.com/2010/09/new-244-accomplishments-of-president.html

                                                                                                                                    #25.4 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 6:17 PM EST
                                                                                                                                    expatdownunda

                                                                                                                                    Alex,

                                                                                                                                    But this is because of 50 years of mismanagement, both Democrats and Republicans. Both sides are blaming the other side. But ALL Americans must take some blame for the collapse of America.

                                                                                                                                    I am not a Republican, but have voted for both parties, and even some third party candidates over the years. Ross Perot warned us about this in the early nineties, and people called him a kook. Now he has the last laugh. I have never voted for an elected president in my life in 7 presidential elections in which I have voted, and do not vote for big spend Republicans or Democrats, so I don't think I am to blame except to the extent that I have not done enough to get the right people in as candidates.

                                                                                                                                    America must get its house in order or it will go down -- America is well on its way to becoming a historical artifact.

                                                                                                                                      #25.5 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 6:25 PM EST
                                                                                                                                      Reply
                                                                                                                                      Jump to discussion page: 1 2
                                                                                                                                      Leave a Comment:
                                                                                                                                      You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
                                                                                                                                      You're in XHTML Mode. If you prefer, you can use Easy Mode instead.
                                                                                                                                      (XHTML tags allowed - a,b,blockquote,br,code,dd,dl,dt,del,em,h2,h3,h4,i,ins,li,ol,p,pre,q,strong,ul)
                                                                                                                                      Newsvine Privacy Statement
                                                                                                                                      As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
                                                                                                                                      FUN STUFF:
                                                                                                                                      • Leaderboard |
                                                                                                                                      • E-Mail Alerts |
                                                                                                                                      • Top of the Vine |
                                                                                                                                      • Newsvine Live |
                                                                                                                                      • Newsvine Archives |
                                                                                                                                      • The Greenhouse
                                                                                                                                      COMPANY STUFF:
                                                                                                                                      • Code of Honor |
                                                                                                                                      • Company Info |
                                                                                                                                      • Contact Us |
                                                                                                                                      • Jobs |
                                                                                                                                      • User Agreement |
                                                                                                                                      • Privacy Policy |
                                                                                                                                      • About our ads
                                                                                                                                      LEGAL STUFF:
                                                                                                                                      • © 2005-2012 Newsvine, Inc. |
                                                                                                                                      • Newsvine® is a registered trademark of Newsvine, Inc. |
                                                                                                                                      • Newsvine is a property of msnbc.com