not so golden arches

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Danzig

yes. poor little rich people, we really should stop picking on them....

i remember when they said romney paid what...11-12% tax? i paid 25% effective rate.
yeah, that makes sense.
people clamor for a flat tax (probably because they haven't thought about it much or looked at what it meant) but those same people gripe at me when i say why should i pay a higher percentage? they invariably say 'but he paid a larger dollar amount'. yes, and ......? if a flat tax says romney should pay 25%, why do i get grief when i mention i pay that, and he pays half that?
ah, inconsistencies, gotta love them...

Mitt Romney made $13.7 million last year (2011) and paid $1.94 million in federal income taxes, giving him an effective tax rate of 14.1%, his campaign said Friday.

He paid an effective rate of 14.1% because the vast majority of income made is investment income on money he has already been taxed on. He also was able to take a significant deduction for money he donated to charity ($4 million) or 29% of total income. So when you add taxes paid and money donated, it comes to a combined effective rate of 43.2% or 18.29% more than you paid.

BTW a person with an effective tax rate of 25% on a yearly income of $50K w/o any deductions including the personal exemption would pay $12,500 and would have to file over 155 years or three lifetimes of taxes to equal what Romney paid in a single year.

Hope that makes everyone crying 'unfair' feel a little bit better going into this Memorial Day weekend.