[This comes to us from a volunteer with the Jay Chen campaign, which is taking on an increasingly erratic and spooked Ed Royce. I forgot to ask whether I could use the volunteer’s name, but I’m posting it under the Admin account either way. The part of the title after the colon is also mine, as if you couldn’t figure that out. — GAD]
Ed Royce, champion of tax cuts for millionaires everywhere!
We have approached the economy the same way since 2002, with tax cuts for the wealthy. We are also now in the fifth year of a recession, after a budget surplus in the 1990s. Congress continues to tell us that they know what is best, but now it’s time for us to tell our leaders what we have known for a long time: tax cuts for the wealthy do not work.
Ed Royce, who has been in Congress for the past twenty years, recently voted to extend the Bush Tax Cuts for the Wealthy to 2013. Why would Ed Royce and the rest of Congress consistently support something that does not work? In order to support its wealthy donors, the only people who benefit from this bill.
Republicans tell their supporters that tax cuts for wealthy businessmen allow for more money to be invest in jobs and pay raises. What Republicans do not tell their supporters is that most major business owners invest that money only in their own paychecks. After all, major businesses are in charge of increasing their profits, not benefiting the American economy that has allowed them to succeed and thrive.
The only way the American economy can move forward is if everyday Americans are given tax breaks while wealthy business owners go back to paying their fair share. We can only improve the economy by giving it to the people who need it the most: everyday Americans. Every person needs necessities like food, clothes, and basic appliances, and it is this daily consumption that powers the American economy.
These past ten years, we have given the wealthy the opportunity to give back to the country that supported them. They have proven, however, that short-term greed prevails over long-term self-interest. Now it is time to trust the American people with that money.
The multiplier between the average worker’s salary and CEO pay has multiplied exponentially over the last two decades. Corporate profits have hit all-time highs while real wages have actually dropped in recent years. Reducing taxes for the wealthiest does not result in job creation, it results in wealth accumulation in Cayman Island accounts, and increased deficits that the rest of us have to foot. Ed Royce will continue to sell the trickle down myth as long as voters keep electing him. It’s time to end the fairy tale and bring forth real economic policies that work.
I’m sorry, I must have missed the logic in this argument.
The “Bush” tax cuts have been around since 2002 (which means they’ve been around through a Democrat dominated legislature with a sitting Democrat President . . . let’s not pretend that if the cuts really were all Bush’s fault or a bad idea that they couldn’t have been repealed at any time at will from 2004 to 2006), the economy is still floundering, therefore they must not work.
Well, democracy has been around since 1776, the economy is still floundering, therefore democracy must not work.
From 2002-2008, there was a Republican President. Democrats did not have a 2/3 majority in either house to override a veto.
From early-to-mid-2009 (when Franken was sworn in), Democrats did not have a 60-vote majority in the Senate required to overcome a Republican filibuster that was put to an unprecedented amount of use.
From mid-2009 until late 2009 (when Kennedy died), Democrats did have a 60-vote majority in the Senate, but were focused on the health care bill. Even had this not been so, repealing the Bush tax cuts was thought unnecessary as they were due to expire.
From late 2009 through 2010, Democrats returned to the position of before Franken’s swearing-in, being unable to override a filibuster.
From 2011-2012, Republicans controlled the House and Democrats could not overcome a filibuster.
The time that it could have been repealed was in December 2010, when Republicans credibly threatened a government shutdown if Democrats did not go along with renewal of the tax cuts (in exchange for which Democrats got some help for the long-term unemployed.) I was one of those who thought that Obama should have called what seemed like a bluff. The following summer, the Republicans lurched towards a government shutdown over something as previous innocuous as a routine increase in the debt ceiling — so I guess it wasn’t a bluff.
“Let’s not pretend that … [the cuts] couldn’t have been repealed at any time”? We’re not pretending, Ryan! We’ve been trying to eliminate the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy while retaining them for the middle class — and the Republicans are still threatening to blow up the ship!
Good Lord, I’ve lost the ability to keep track of time! I meant 2008-2010.
Anywho . . . are we going to apply this fallacy to democracy and capitalism at large or can we stick with “if we say it often and loud enough it must be true!”
The author indicates that the wealthy are “…the only people who benefit from this bill.” and “Ed Royce, …, recently voted to extend the Bush Tax Cuts for the Wealthy to 2013.” in reference presumably to HR8, I believe that is the correct bill that passed the house a few weeks ago.
Wrong…what those who voted for the bill agreed upon was to extend all the tax cuts- not just those for the wealthy. Lower income tax taxpayers all the way through the ulta-wealthy would benefit from the bill that was passed through lower tax rates. Additionally, HR8 would extend the AMT patch which is a growing issue for a number of taxpayers- especially here in CA with a high state income tax. HR8 would also allow for more beneficial Sec 179 treatment.
There is no need to over-exaggerate to get a point across…if you feel that tax rates should only be kept low for those who have taxable income lower than say $250K, then that is your position but there is no reason to indicate a falsehood.
Here is the bill text: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c112:2:./temp/~c11253TleE::
Also remember that taxes will already be going up next year due to the 2010 health care legislation for singles with earned income higher than $200K and married couples with combined earned income higher than $250K…this is already an “ouch” for those who will be impacted.
“But, It’s Not That Bad, … Is It?”
(I inherited the mess from Bush)
(Romney is worse)
” LATEST VIDEO NEWS UPDATE”
[left column]
“But, It’s Not That Bad, … Is It?”
http://larouchepac.com/
*What is so funny is that it is the so-called “Middle Class” that go to Wal-mart, Costco, CVS and Target to spend their money. Take away the buying power of the lower and middle class people and you have NO Consumer Economy!
Who are the rich people in society? The ones that have money left over every month and don’t know what to do with it….except going on vacation and calling their Hedge Fund Managers. The single moms trying to send their kids to high school and community college, two partner working families trying to pay the rent and feed themselves and their kids, seniors on fixed incomes that cannot afford their prescriptions and food every month……..those are folks who don’t need to pay 28% income tax – when folks like Mitt Romney are paying 13%. What a dolt Romney is:
Now every American will feel ripped off paying anything more than 13% next year to the IRS.
Tax the American Companies that have offices and companies overseas at 35% whether they bring that cash back here or not! Otherwise, sell out to foreign companies and hold NO foreign ownership or annual income positions. Bring those jobs back to our country, at decent wages – you cowardly, turncoat, one worlders!
Just some pure math:
Romney’s 2010 income tax rate as heard so much: 13.75% (federal income tax of $3,009,766, net of foreign tax credit, divided by AGI of $21,646,507)…excluding his household employee and self employment tax. 2011 still not released, perhaps not even completed yet.
Amount of 2011 income that a single person, non-itemizer, with no kids has to earn (all ordinary income) to pay 13.75% is $56K in 2011 (they would pay $7756 of federal income tax).
Amount of 2011 income that a married couple, non-itemizer, with no kids has to earn (all ordinary income) to pay 13.75% is $111K in 2011 (they would pay $15,256 of federal income tax).
Amount of approx income needed to pay 28% of earned income in federal income tax (assuming a CA taxpayer and that they actually pay their CA tax and claim the itemized deduction):
-Single taxpayer: $620K (they would pay $174K of federal income tax)
-Married couple: $820K (they would pay $229K of federal income tax)
Hopefully the math above is correct…adding kids, college, additional itemized deductions, long term cap gains, qual dividends, etc…adds a lot of complexity to the figures.
TJ: You asked me to look at two posts; I now have.
In the 8:06 post from Monday, I took the author to be referring to the part of the proposal that is contested. Pretty much everyone would like to see income below $250,000 reduced (again, I could clarify further but you know what I mean.) The issue, and the point of controversy in the bill, is what happens with income above that figure.
– – – – –
As for 12:25, so far as I can tell, your math checks out. I agree that saying “Mitt pays 13.75% while I pay (a marginal rate of) 36% (or whatever)” is misleading in the way that you suggest. That said, I doubt that it would even make the top ten of Mitt’s misleading statements from the past two weeks alone.
The initial entry is very misleading and yet all over the place in the media and slants views…I take it when someone says the vote was to “extend Bush Tax Cuts for the Wealthy to 2013” and “…wealthy donors, the only people who benefit from this bill.” to mean that the bill that was voted on and only one to have passed only benefits the wealthy (i.e. leaves the lower and middle income out in the cold) to actually mean that- honesty is a passing virtue in more than one area of life unfortunately.
One could easily surmise that someone who votes for the above bill as presented in the post only cares about the so called wealthy instead of everyone (lower, middle, and higher income earners). Fine to present a point of view, but no need to present falsehoods to do so.
Democrats have been clear that they will vote for a bill extending the tax cuts for income — not “people,” income — under $250,000. The only contentious issue is whether those tax cuts will also be extended for income over $250,000. That’s the difference between the two proposals being promoted.
Those who favor the contested tax cuts for the wealthy are concerned only (save for some discredited trickle-down theory) with helping the wealthy. That’s no falsehood. I hope that that clarifies things.
No…if I am someone who wants to extend ALL the existing Bush Tax Cuts including the contested tax cuts, I am in favor of helping ALL of those who pay fed income tax (and some who actually pay zero fed income tax) NOT just the wealthy.
If I was in favor of helping only the wealthy, I would propose and vote for a plan that would let the existing Bush Tax Cuts expire for those under $250K and extend only for those above $250K.
and yes, I understand that those who have income over $250K will still benefit from the lower rates on that income under each plan.
No you wouldn’t propose helping only the wealthy, TJ, because that sort of brazen proposal would not pass.
This is a simple hostage-taking: “give us our extra tax cut and we’ll release yours unharmed.” Don’t overcomplicate it.
Of course I would not propose it, but your poster accused Ed Royce (or insert anyone else who voted yes) of only helping the wealthy whereas the yes vote helped everyone…
Unfortunately, tax policy is way too complicated- that is why we need to simplify, simplify, simplify. Double unfortunate that so many things similarly held hostage in politics…the 2010 healthcare debates specifically comes to mind as well as a myriad of others. It is too bad that singular good items can’t be voted on their merits.
Often, when people say “simplify,” they mean something like a flat tax. I remember it being pointed out that one could fill out a flat tax on a postcard. I’m not sure if that’s the thrust of your call to simplify. If so, one could fill out a four-level progressive tax on a postcard too.
This is precisely a case where a simple good idea — retaining the lower tax brackets for income up to $250,000 per year — CAN be voted upon separately. And then we can have a second simple vote on the proposal to retain the lower tax bracket for income above that level. I’m completely fine with seeing that vote go forward.
We have largely a semantic disagreement here: you’re saying that the whole integrated bill helps everyone; she’s referring to just the second (and separable) part of the proposal which the Republicans refuse to detach despite Democratic proposals that they do so.
*Admin – Please….the photoshop of Ed with the babe that broke into the Presidential dinner? Cute….but you should be forthcoming with the fact that this was not a real
photo..
TJLocalSA – Liars figure, but figures don’t lie – they say.
Sounds like you are quite familiar with the Romney Accounting methods. So, you
are NOT an Enrolled Agent? Then you probably will be under investigation soon!
Where you do work? H & R Block? Our apologies to any inference that the Software
at H & R Block has anything wrong with it. But my goodness….how do you apologize for Bain Capital (NOT MY JOB – BLIND TRUST – which you failed to mention) and then you talk about taxes without any remote context. Try current small business write-offs to start. Get a grip dude! Come on man!
RAW- I believe I have already answered your questions about me working at H&R Block (nope, they have their niche though) and whether I am an EA (nope, they also serve a valuable purpose). I doubt that I would be under investigation, but I am more than willing to participate in any type of investigation by the proper authorities. I am not sticking up for Bain nor do I apologize for them- I don’t know enough about them to do either. The only reason I am familiar with Romney’s tax figures is that I have the publicly available copy of his 2010 tax return (203 pages)…I am not familiar with his acctg methods other than what I can derive from his 2010 fed tax return.
The only context that I was bringing to the table was the pure raw math of taxes which is where we agree…”figures don’t lie”…
I hear some people say or imply something like “I hate to pay a higher tax rate than the rich (i.e. Romney)”…I personally don’t like that either but everyone should know what that really means. When a lot of these same people actually do the math, they see that they don’t pay a higher rate while others do but may be surprised it is not as high as they may have thought. As the above figures show (if you disagree, please do so and “show the math” as my 10th grade math teacher used to say), for a married couple with no kids and not itemizing (they will only bring the % down, so this is most conservative) to pay more than Romney, they would need income higher than $111K…still quite low compared to Romney’s millions obviously.
Some say, I pay 28% in taxes why does Romney get to pay 13.75%..well, actually that person may pay a marginal rate of 28% but they don’t pay 28% of their income in federal income taxes…as the above shows for a married couple to pay 28% of their income in federal income tax their income would be $820K (on this figure, I am assuming they itemize due to them presumably living in CA and paying CA tax).
Of the above figures from my prior post, the one that really surprised me is the 28% amount which takes a lot of income (by my standards at least) to get to. Relatively quick to get to Romney’s 13.75% though which also surprised me- fortunately there are a lot of other “tax breaks” for taxpayers in that arena such as education breaks, child breaks, daycare breaks, student loan breaks, etc…
I personally have been quite blessed and am fortunate enough to pay a higher tax rate than Romney and likely a higher rate than most of America. I thank the Lord everyday to have been so blessed. Until the law is changed to treat investment income the same as earned income, there will always be a disparity between investors and workers.
TJLocalSA – you are long winded and WRONG! Quite a combo!
Please tell me where I am wrong…I am one to admit when I am wrong, but would like to know what I am wrong about- I presume that you don’t agree with the figures, but the figured don’t lie. Guilty as charged about being long winded.
Is there a AMT on line 45? and if not, can you tell why there is not?
Please tell me where I am wrong – are you mental?
RAW- No, I am a professional…I thought you were too. It is just math…what is wrong, you can’t figure it out?
Cook, no AMT is not applicable because Regular Tax is higher than Alternative Minimum Tax in all the cases that I indicated above with the exception of Romney’s which he is in AMT. In most cases, the lower end taxpayers (i.e. the 13.75% references, non-Romney) don’t make enough to get into AMT due to the AMT rate being higher than the regular rate and not having itemized deductions. For the higher end taxpayers referenced above, they are not in AMT although they are much closer…For example, the $820K married couple’s AMT is about $3K lower than their regular tax.
For the other case referenced, my own, yes, I am in AMT.
I Photoshopped the colored background and the false framing broken by Lady Salahi’s head, but so far as I know the main part of the photo is real. Could be wrong! Check it yourself, it’s on the intertubes.
That photo’s real. She was hanging all over everyone, even little Ed Royce.
That what I get for trying to “improve” it. Oh well.
Glad that we got the important issue of the picture figured out…now, maybe you guys can let the original poster know that the bill that passed the house was/is a benefit for all taxpayers who pay income tax, including the low and middle class, and not just the wealthy. After that is done, maybe you can help RAW come up with where I am wrong.
Yes — it was a benefit to them generally proportional to their wealth. It was also offset by detriments to them (in terms of services, macro-economic effects of debt, provoking catastrophe down the line, etc.) that were inversely proportional to their wealth.
Would we be better off then just going back to the pre-Bush tax cuts era? Essentially, just let all of the Bush-tax cuts expire as they were originally planned to “sunset” anyways?
If Congress and the POTUS does nothing, that is what will happen. I personally struggle a lot with this especially considering that the Bush tax cuts were originally negotiated to sunset which was an integral part of the passing of the cuts if I recall. Sure would be nice to know before the end of the year, which seems optimistic at this point, which would give some clarity and stability to tax situations.
The one thing we have on the table right now is that the house has passed HR8, at least it is a start. Does not seem that the Senate will even take the bill up.
At the end of the day unless action is taken, virtually everyone who pays income tax will see an increase to what they pay. For those who don’t pay income tax yet get refundable benefits, may see those benefits disappear.
TJ — we might be better off, if we weren’t in a recession. That makes it a bad time to do that. For right now, the middle-class and the working class need their extra money — and the wealthy, who have captured most of the gains of the past 33 years, do not.
Don’t dress this up. Some of the tax cuts enacted in the early aughts are good; others bad. Democrats want to cut out the latter while retaining the former; Republicans don’t. Republicans want to hold the good tax cuts hostage so that they can retain the bad tax cuts. It’s like saying that they won’t let us cut out a tumor unless we agree to also cut out an even larger amount of healthy tissue — because they just love that tumor so much. Republicans just need to flat out surrender on this one. It’s unconsciounable to say that we must either have both the bad and the good or neither of them, when it’s extremely easy to have the good without the bad.
If you don’t think that people who make more than $250K a year are also struggling and needing the money, you are dead wrong. I live it daily. I see it daily. I feel it daily. if you were talking maybe $1MM of taxable income then you could possibly say that the additional taxes would not be missed by anyone else other than their savings account. Oh and maybe the apartment building that the person would otherwise rehab or make other investments in.
There are plenty of people like myself who are very debt adverse, save up to pay for a new roof, paint the house, or buy a new car. We pay for it the day the item is in possession. That is much more difficult to do when you are not keeping as much you make. When you pay $25K for a new roof, that is a big chunk for most people even if they make $400K. That hurts. It also hurts to think that your neighbor feels that your money does not mean as much to you as it does them. By the way, if a couple works and makes a good living, does that make them somehow not part of the “working class”? I work every day…I struggle to do what I do…I fortunately make a good living that could end any day…I don’t live on my investments…I am also part of the working class.
I have not dressed this up at all I don’t think. I have not even espoused a position in the above other than maybe saying that I struggle with the tax cut expiration sunsets…I have simply indicated tax figures and what was passed by HR8. Apparently, that rubs some the wrong way.
I would say that Repubs are holding together trying to say that the package as a whole is better than piece mealing it out. Not sure that I agree with that as everything should stand on its own yet can be looked at together. Kind of like the health care debate of a few years ago, and arguably still today…I believe there were a lot of Repubs who would say that there are a lot of pieces of the legislation that are good and would have easily passed if presented on its own. Did the Dem’s hold those items that everyone agrees to be “good” hostage for what just some agree to be “good”? Feels like the same thing to me…I have a feeling you would not say they were holding it hostage or that they were justified in doing so.
Speaking of financial literacy, TJ, the people making over $250,000 DO GET THE TAX BREAK on money earned up to $250,000. They’re not disqualified from it; nor should they be. The question is whether a $350,000 household should get the tax break on that additional $100,000 — or whether someone like Romney should get a huge tax break on the additional $20 million of income (or whatever. And yes, I know that his are already taxed as capital gains — if even that.)
With respect (and I hope that my respect for your commentary in general does come through), how much income do you think most people in this country have? Yes, they may be struggling — vacationing in Greece or even (shudder) New York rather than Macao — but we’re really using very different senses of the word “struggle” there, aren’t we? A few luxuries aside, I was still careful with money when I was in AMT territory, but I was not “struggling” the way I see people around me, with incomes in the $20,000 range, struggling. It is misleading (I’m tempted to say “obscene”) to sweep all of the pain of income deprivation into the same category by saying “we’re all struggling.” No, really, we’re not. With due respect, I suspect that most rich people could not live the life of the working class or the poor. They’d die first.
They will get some breaks but not all breaks…for example, without the extension, they take reductions in the amount of itemized deductions that they get to claim. It will be a big deal going forward. That is something that is likely beyond “literacy” and more “mastery”. They will continue to benefit from lower tiers of tax rates…no dispute and hopefully you don’t get the impression that I don’t know that. If there is one thing that hopefully you get, although RAW does not seem to get, is that my numbers and technical knowledge seems to be generally spot on.
You are being over the top…I have never been to Greece, New York, or Macao. I know people who have gone who should be taking a “staycation” instead though because they have gone into debt to do so and will be handcuffed by that debt in the future. By using this type of example, you are insulting those of us who make a good living, save our money, drive old cars (none of mine have under 120K miles on them), live in undersized houses, make wise financial decisions, etc….I would love to vacation to those places but am absolutely unwilling to sacrifice my families financial future to do so. My struggle and those of families in similar circumstances may not be a struggle on if I I can put food on the table (although see below for this months struggle with food) but it certainly is not a struggle to determine what high flying vacation spot we should go to.
AMT is not a good measure of income status by the way…there are lots of variables. The worst part of AMT is that if you make over $1MM you are far less likely to be hit by AMT.
I also am not struggling the way that some of my neighbors who makes $20K a year struggles- yes, I even live in a neighborhood where I am willing to bet there are plenty who make that type of money. An area where I can hand out food everyday of the week and there are takers- some who are very thankful and some who seem to be disgusted that there is not more. It is a different type of pain for sure.
Greg’s quote: ” For right now, the middle-class and the working class need their extra money — and the wealthy, who have captured most of the gains of the past 33 years, do not.” You my sir indicated that there is a group that does not need their extra money…that is a falacy. I would guess that you would consider my situation to make me “wealthy” yet I can guarantee that I need my extra money. That is an insult to me….one that I can understand you stating, yet one that is still insulting to say that I and my family do not need our extra money. As our cash (yes, greenbacks) for groceries and household items is gone this month (yes, this so called wealthy family uses a cash envelope system), we are cleaning out our pantry of the old food and being creative. Yes, this family sure could use some “extra money”.
I believe that you will find a lot of “rich” (a terrible term without definition as used by most people other than someone with more than they have) at one time had very little, sure there are those who are supported by family, but a lot have not. As one of my financial mentors, Dave Ramsey, says “Broke, you are passing through. Poor is a mindset.” A lot of today’s rich, have once/twice/thrice been “broke” yet are not “poor”- they could also again be “broke” without being “poor”. They would not die…they would find a way to pass through.
*Such bull-hockey….or is it bat-hockey. Is Romney your client TJ?….if not you have no business talking about it…..Professionally. 2ndly, if he is your client….you have no business talking about it Professionally. Romney has 500 pages in his 2011 Tax Return….and you are going to explain it in two paragraphs……G T – – -!
Tax calc’s of Romney are public info and are all over the news and the posts on this blog. Under your rationale, he must be your client as you brought up his rate…oh wait, under rationale you could not talk about it either- unless you are not a professional. In the above, all I have done is put out the % and the figures to support the %- again, all available to those who choose to seek. I don’t believe his 2011 tax return is out yet, so maybe you are the one with inside information. The other calcs presented are purely simple math in order to show what is often a misperception.
I am not explaining Romney’s taxes…just the tax rate of him and others, which I believe you first brought up: “.those are folks (see your definition of folks above) who don’t need to pay 28% income tax – when folks like Mitt Romney are paying 13%. What a dolt Romney is: Now every American will feel ripped off paying anything more than 13% next year to the IRS.”
You say I am wrong and call me names…I say, put up your facts. Apparently you are more interested in just saying that I am wrong and throwing around %’s, which sounds good but does not really add much to the conversation.
“Romney has 500 pages in his 2011 Tax Return….and you are going to explain it in two paragraphs……G T – – -!”
What was your answer again? How much could be disallowed by the IRS
if he hasn’t even fully submitted it yet?
Did you call Mitt and ask him all the details…eh?
RAW….answer to what? You never asked a question…if you ask a question, I am more than willing to answer it. You are the one who is saying that his 2011 return has 500 pages in it. I have not seen it…maybe you have. You should contact the media if you have seen it. I have seen his 2010 return which is available on-line. How much could be disallowed? 100% of anything can be disallowed.
I still would like to know what you think I am wrong about…I know you won’t answer though because you find it easier to just insult rather than answer and the fact that my figures are correct. I did not think you had trouble with math and tax calcs, but apparently that I am wrong about. I on the other hand will answer pretty much any question you pose to me and if I don’t know the answer, I will let you know.
Just for the record, I feel like I should try to weigh in on the merits of this conversation, but every time I start reading it from the beginning my brain tries to crawl out through my ears. I’m going to presume that you two have it under control.
Associate Editor enjoys the presence of both of you on this site and has to have a little drink and lie down now.
You should weigh in…everyone should weigh in. RAW should step up and indicate where I am wrong instead of just calling me out- it is just the facts. Others should weigh in and support the tax figures as presented since they are accurate. If the position is supportable, the position does not need lies to support it. Unfortunately, facts get in the way for a lot of people.
Everyone should calculate their effective tax rate instead of saying that they or others pay too much or looking at their marginal rate and comparing it to Romney’s 13%. Here is the math to get to an apples-to-apples comparison for probably 90% of taxpayers who have net tax (obviously if your credits wipe out any tax you may have, the below will not work for comparison):
–Form 1040 (tax on line 55 less credits lines 64a/65/66/67 divided by AGI on line 38)
–Form 1040A (tax on line 35 less credit on lines 38a/39/40 divided by AGI on line 21)
–Form 1040EZ (tax on line 10 less credit on line 8a divided by AGI on line 4)
I find that a lot of people don’t realize how little tax that they actually pay as a % of their income. They feel that they are paying a lot more than the rich people down the street. They feel they are paying way more as a % than Romney does. Some are, some aren’t, but the majority don’t even know!! That is a huge shame- being afraid of the numbers.
Financial illiteracy is a HUGE problem in this country in my opinion. Everyone should take steps to educate themselves.
Can’t I delegate this? I’m sort of busy! Anyone?
If it is important to you, you will respond. Hopefully others will too. You cannot and should not delegate the calculation of your own personal tax rate- pull your return out and do the math.
RELEASE MY TAX RATE??? SIR, I AM A CANDIDATE FOR PUBLIC OFFICE!!!
If you decide to release it, that is your choice. What I am saying is that you at least need to know it! Not your marginal rate (important and what most people focus on and compare when they hear Romney is at 13.75%) but instead your actual rate (aka effective tax rate)- total net fed income tax paid divided by AGI. That is Romney’s 13.75% that is quoted so often.
I don’t know how many times I hear someone say something like “I pay 25% yet Romney is paying 13%”….um, no you actually pay around XX% (i.e. much lower than the 25%) if you actually did the math. Still may be unfair to have Romney at 13% due to his investment activities compared to most of taxpayers’ wage/earned income activities, but at least understand the situation.
Your point is well-taken. Of course, I prefer the figure that includes such things as state income tax, sales tax, and payroll taxes, the latter of which I pay and Romney does not.
Not to always be the contrarian, but Romeny did pay approx $29K of Soc Sec/Medicare tax (i.e. payroll tax) in 2010 based again on his publicly available income tax return. Starting next year, he will be paying substantially more Medicare on his investment income tax due to the healthcare tax increase.
During 2010, he paid (possibly not his tax liability, just what he paid during 2010- he may have owed in Apr 2011 for example) approx $672K of state income tax.
Good luck finding anyone who knows how much sales tax that they personally pay. I could probably figure it out for me personally, but even as a numbers guy who keep good records of pretty much every dollar spent, it would be tough.
Really? I thought he wasn’t making money of payroll. One pays payroll tax on investment income?
Two things:
1. He has author/speaking income as well as director fees of approx $594K which is subject to self-employment tax…the equivalent of payroll taxes for a self-employed person.
2. Starting in 2013 for high income taxpayers, there will be a 0.9% Medicare surcharge on earned income (i.e. for Romney, that would likely be on the income in #1 above) and 3.8% additional tax on investment income. I presume that it will apply to Romney, although there are some complicated exclusions. I did however probably imply that the 3.8% will be Medicare which I don’t believe will be the case- just additional income tax.
just for the record, ed’s wife is much better looking than the blond you have him pictured with…and thanks guys for getting us back to the fundamentals of the campaign, issues such as who is tom daly banging and why is ed royce hanging out with leggy blond hookers
She’s not a hooker, she’s the female of the couple that crashed one of Obama’s White House parties.
I wasn’t sure how to illustrate an “Ed Royce on tax cuts” story. I thought that anything depicting actual tax policy might be a little too titillating for our readership. This seemed like a safer choice.
As for Daly — we just report on the affairs of the day. And, of course, it’s not about the sex, it’s about the possible misappropriation of public funds and the employment discrimination! (OK, and maybe the sex….)
just becasue she crashed the white house for reality television does not mean that she is not a hooker.
but back to the more interesting topic, i think you guys are on to something. i think a five to seven part piece on the sexual proclivities of everybody from larry agran to christina shea to the glabbs to the fullerton city council would make us all feel better about our mundane lives adn boring marriages…come on guys, give a homey a break
All right — personally, I don’t have information suggesting that she’s a hooker. Maybe you are better connected.
Strange — I was about to start on such the piece you suggest when a bluescreen error message appeared on my monitor stating: “Don’t listen to willie.” I’m not going to mess with Microsoft. Just sayin’.
Also just sayin’ – what a genius publicity stunt that WOULD have been for a hooker – spend the evening with the White House gate crasher blonde! Are we sure that’s not what happened?
Wait — are you calling Ed Royce a hooker? Because I’m almost positive that that is not literally true.
for a small but significant fee, you guys can hire me to run the tmz department of the orange juice blog…it wouldn’t take much, just double what they are paying greg and vern
*TJlocalSA – has reinvented the “Halley’s Comet” argument. If you can’t think of an answer to a direct question …simply refuse to admit that a question was asked. We like that….we may use it sometime in the future.
In the meantime, releasing the percentage of your income that you paid…is much akin to saying: “I know a man….what man…a man with power….what power….the power of hoodoo….You do? You do what? Remind me of a man! A circular argument is not argument at all..Maharishi Yoga!
Go write your own blog….you are buring up valuable clicks with worthless horsepuckey!
RAW- you guys are the ones who are not answering a direct question (repeat: where am I wrong?). You are a great slight of hand misdirection magician….accuse the write of something and never support it- quick look over there! I think that every entry that is about taxes you end up doing exactly this. Cast dispersions upon me, don’t answer questions, accuse me of something, misdirect… and then refuse to further the discussion- take your ball and go home…nice.
Where did you ask the question you are referring to? This is crazy- can anyone else find it? Perhaps, just maybe, have a civil discussion…crazy idea in today’s day and age. Vern, Greg, Willie, Cook, anyone…help me out!
I am starting to think that you only post half of what you think you are posting…
News Flash…they aren’t going to admit they were mistaken. When cornered, they descend into incoherent gibberish.
I guess that I have not been around long enough to understand that this is acceptable behavior…I even try to get my 3 kids to behave better. Hopefully, I am able to add something to the conversation.
Just keep on trucking. The Winships bring a lot to the site, but some of it is inscrutible. In such cases, it’s better not to scrute with it for too long. I’m still recovering from being in court yesterday. Every time I try to read the exchange, my astral body flees from my office chair and hovers near the ceiling. I’m taking that as a hint not to mess with elemental forces.
GD- No need to get buried down in the RAW non-sense. Focus on two posts of mine from August 27, 2012 at 12:25 PM and 8:06 AM (yes, that sounds very egotistical). Just pure numbers from a numbers guy and trying to keep the original poster honest in their description of what was passed by the House.
Pure #’s above shows when taxpayers get to the point of paying the same % in federal income tax as Romney of 13.75% ($56K for a single, $111K for joint; could be more income due to kids/deductions/etc…but won’t really be lower for a wage earner) and when someone starts paying 28% of their earned income ($620K for single; $820K for joint) in taxes. I honestly was surprised at how much income one needs to earn prior to paying 28% of their AGI in fed income tax and was also concerned at how quickly a wage earner pays the same % of fed inc tax as someone who pays their bills through investment efforts.
OK — but later. Honestly, man, I’m unwound enough to write at this point but not enough to do math or legislative analysis. I’ll do it tonight.
You will have to decide between the above and the CA pension reform just released by our state…
the bottom line is this, romney is a very rich guy who moves money internationally to take advantage of shelters and other vehicles that are, for better or worse, legal. the peasants cannot in a coherent manner comprehend this, not because they are stupid but because it is out of their comfort zone (sort of like someone at jpl explaining in detail how the mars thing got to mars). all that will come out of any additional disclosure is that romney is a rich guy with international tax shelters, not an understanding of their complexity or their legality. give somebody something that they do not understand and are inherently suspect of and all they are going to do is find the evil in it, regardless of the reality. i agree with romney, there is no reason to release the records.
now, can we get back to talking about who is banging who
That’s certainly one possibility, wills old chap. The other possibility is that he is cheating on his taxes. It comes down to whether you think that Romney is the sort to get close enough to the line to think that he can cross it and then bail himself out of caught — which would be a damn good thing to know about the potential President before voting. His “Schroedinger’s Candidate” super-position regarding his residency from 1999 t 2002 — where he upped the ante on nature by, when simultaneously being a possible resident of Utah and Massachusetts, first took the form of a resident of Utah when it favored reducing his tax liability and then three years later retroactively took the form of a Massachusetts resident when that became necessary for him to run for Governor of that Commonwealth — suggests that he is not too scrupulous when it comes to going beyond complexity into actual illegality.
“Schroedinger’s Candidate” — dang, I really ought to copyright that before publishing this one. Let me look up a good intellectual property attorney who can help me file — SQUIRREL!
I can tell you that from my personal professional experience, that most of those who are “cheating” the system are also the ones who are so far away from Romney’s financial status that it is not even funny. I can’t tell you how many screwed up situations that I have seen from people thinking that they can deduct certain things or earn income under the table without reporting it. They are trying to small time game the system…i.e. small time b/c the tax dollars at stake numbers are not in the Romney-sphere yet important to that tax filer.
On the other end of the spectrum, the high income earners, are generally planning their financial situation using the tax law to their advantage by paying the least amount of tax which is also the right amount of tax under the code. Change the code and you get a different result.
addendum…there are definitely those who make a boat load of income who also cheat the system. I do feel that they generally try to structure around the system though instead of slapping it in the face and playing the audit lottery instead.
Repeal the 16th admenment and have the state tax you instead.
Come on, you know that Condoleezza Rice would slap you silly if you tried that.
TJLocalSA – You really need to run for office. You can sell that nonsense out on the campaign trail and people will love it. You are following the exact chemical logic of “laughing gas”. Just in case you thought people were buying Stupidity, Lies and Deception 101 – they do….when nothing else is available or you can plead victimization
and expect folks just to give up because you wore them out.
500 Pages……hmmm. How many lies can you tell in 500 Pages? How many of those Pages are made from pulp made in the good old USA? Come on now….everyone wants you to respond to us….come on, come on….we know you are truly that stupid..but we also know you have it in you….don’t you?