Romney's Taxes

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by pmacdaddy

So, what would his rate been if he just "gave at the office" like Uncle Joe and let the Feds take care of the redistribution?

The guy gave millions to charity that lowered his Federal Tax bill. Should we do away with deductions for charitable contributions?

If Romney pays too little as an effective rate, the only real discussion on this topic should be how capital gains, dividends and interest should be taxed and what are the implication are of jacking those rates to a high level for those who invest the most.

Yes. Close corporate loopeholes, consider thoughtful tax reform, but the implications of somehow sticking it to those that are "rich enough" is not so simple... And even if you do, it's no budget balancing solution.

i don't recall saying anything negative about his charitable contributions. matter of fact, i said either a bit further back, or in another thread, that those are a good thing.
however, in mentioning his effective tax rate is lower than most-exactly how does suggesting a change mean i want to 'stick it to him'? rather, i would suggest that his rate should probably be higher than most of us, not lower-that right now, we are the ones getting stuck. he's worth 250 million, i'm worth a fraction of that. so why is my rate higher? how does that make sense? and yes, having the highest income folks paying a higher effective rate than the rest of us would absolutely have an effect on the budget. how could it not?
he paid about half his running mates effective rate, with ryan also having a fraction of romneys worth. why?


what would his effective rate have been? his income is taxed at 15%, because it's investment income instead of employment income. in other words, the govt is in effect allowing him tax breaks. you know, like the 47% he was attacking as being moochers.

serious reform is needed. but it won't happen. and why is romney taxed at 15% regardless of where he invests? money leaving the country gives him the same rate as money that stays in country. why? also, it seems we give them breaks so as to encourage these investments-but exactly where is the return for that? we don't have the job growth that is supposed to go with that. perhaps we need to study what we'd done in the past that did generate job growth, and get back to that system? wouldn't that make sense?