ROMNEY PAYS MORE IN TAXES THAN “THE 97%”
You’ve heard of the 99%.
How about the 97% who pay less in taxes than Mitt Romney?
Class envy is really, really unproductive and stupid.
Related posts:
Date: January 22, 2012
Categories: Politics
Leave a comment
Comments RSS TrackBack 55 comments
-
VinceL
in January 22nd, 2012 @ 10:12Reminds of a story in my area about one of these Ocuppy misfits who was arrested and jailed for writing messages in chalk on sidewalks.A newspaper columnist tought it was a waste of resources and time to jail someone for that.What I took from it was how pathetic it was for a 25 year old man to be playing with chalk.I’m going out on a limb here to predict he’ll always be in the 99%.
-
Chad Farthouse
in January 22nd, 2012 @ 20:32“I’m going out on a limb here to predict he’ll always be in the 99%.”
Way to go out on a limb there VinceL. You will also always be in the 99%. Along with John, me, and everyone else that reads or contributes to this blog, or even anyone we know. That’s the problem and the point. As George Carlin said, “The deck is stacked, the table is tilted, the game is rigged. It’s called the American Dream because you have to be asleep to believe it.”
-
Mason
in January 23rd, 2012 @ 08:43You are quoting George Carlin – a comedian – to claim you cannot reach the 1%, which by the way, he did reach.
Speak for yourself on ones ability to reach the 1%. I have noted many small business owners on here that have the potential to be there, as well as lawyers, doctors and tradesmen. Over the years, I have ran into a few tradesmen that barely finished high school that when on to start their own businesses and before long they had a handful of employees running around doing jobs. I have spent more than 20 years building a business that I plan on selling in a few years and retiring.
By contrast I have ran into many people over the years that bitch that the high managers make so much and they don’t. Then a few minutes later will proudly proclaim how they wouldnt want a manager job – too many responsibilities, they want to clock in when they are supposed to and go home when they are supposed to and not have to worry about work until the next morning.
I recommend you quit bitching, and start looking for ways you can make it instead of reasons you can’t.
-
oksteelerfan
in January 23rd, 2012 @ 10:40We small business owners would have a greater chance of getting there if the government didn’t take so much of our money not only in taxes, but making us have to pay for a class and get a license for this, send us money so you can certified in this, oh here is another regulation, so you must do this and this and this to be in compliance, then 3 years later come back and say oh you know all that money you spent to be in compliance, you wasted it because now we want you to do this and this.
-
John Steigerwald
in January 23rd, 2012 @ 10:42A cab license in NY City costs $1million.
-
Dan
in January 23rd, 2012 @ 15:44Well a license to operate a cab is only $510.
http://www.ehow.com/how_7292504_new-city-taxi-hack-license.html
There’s a difference between a medallion and a license. Two medallions recently sold for $1 million apiece, but that’s for the person who owns a contract to lease out a cab to individual operators. They’re long-term investments that provide a stream of annual income. The licensed driver pays you a fee to take out your cab, which you furnish, repair and pay all costs for except gas. Here’s an article about it. I wouldn’t exactly call whoever owns a medallion a small business owner, but a licensed driver I would.
http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/10/21/why-taxi-medallions-cost-1-million/
-
John Steigerwald
in January 23rd, 2012 @ 15:56The first link is a perfect example of how the government succeeds in preventing work from happening. Only Yellow cabs can pick people up in the five NYC boroughs? Why? How many palms were greased to create that monopoly? And the story says the application process for a license is “tedious.” And there are people out there who want to put the government in charge of our health care.
-
Chad Farthouse
in January 23rd, 2012 @ 12:46http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/us/harder-for-americans-to-rise-from-lower-rungs.html?_r=1&hp
-
John Steigerwald
in January 23rd, 2012 @ 13:39That’s really interesting. I have a feeling that our under educated, ill-prepared, 70% illegitimacy black population skews those numbers quite a bit. They are under educated because of terrible urban school systems. Obama and the democrats are beholden to the teachers’ unions and they block any real reform every time. Their solution is to throw more money at the problem. They pander to black voters and get 90% support. And you still haven’t given me your solution. I’ll give you the fact that there is economic inequality. I don’t care if it has happened naturally. What are you and the Occupy people suggesting to fix the problem? Taxing the rich more will not put more money in the bottom fifth. They pay ZERO income taxes.
**************************************************************************“This year, Congress will spend $3.7 trillion dollars. That turns out to be about $10 billion per day. Can we prey upon the rich to cough up the money? According to IRS statistics, roughly 2 percent of U.S. households have an income of $250,000 and above. By the way, $250,000 per year hardly qualifies one as being rich. It’s not even yacht and Learjet money. All told, households earning $250,000 and above account for 25 percent, or $1.97 trillion, of the nearly $8 trillion of total household income. If Congress imposed a 100 percent tax, taking all earnings above $250,000 per year, it would yield the princely sum of $1.4 trillion. That would keep the government running for 141 days, but there’s a problem because there are 224 more days left in the year.”
“How about corporate profits to fill the gap? Fortune 500 companies earn nearly $400 billion in profits. Since leftists think profits are little less than theft and greed, Congress might confiscate these ill-gotten gains so that they can be returned to their rightful owners. Taking corporate profits would keep the government running for another 40 days, but that along with confiscating all income above $250,000 would only get us to the end of June. Congress must search elsewhere.
“According to Forbes 400, America has 400 billionaires with a combined net worth of $1.3 trillion. Congress could confiscate their stocks and bonds, and force them to sell their businesses, yachts, airplanes, mansions and jewelry. The problem is that after fleecing the rich of their income and net worth, and the Fortune 500 corporations of their profits, it would only get us to mid-August. The fact of the matter is there are not enough rich people to come anywhere close to satisfying Congress’ voracious spending appetite. They’re going to have to go after the non-rich.”
“When government taxes profits, corporations report fewer profits and greater costs. When individuals face higher income taxes, they report less income, buy tax shelters and hide their money. It’s not just rich people who try to avoid taxes, but all of us — liberals, conservatives and libertarians.
What’s the evidence? Federal tax collections have been between 15 and 20 percent of the nation’s Gross Domestic Product every year since 1960. However, between 1960 and today, the top marginal tax rate has varied between 91 percent and 35 percent. That means whether taxes are high or low, people make adjustments in their economic behavior so as to keep the government tax take at 15 to 20 percent of the GDP. Differences in tax rates have a far greater impact on economic growth than federal revenues.
So far as Congress’ ability to prey on the rich, we must keep in mind that rich people didn’t become rich by being stupid.”
–The Great Walter E. Williams—
-
oksteelerfan
in January 23rd, 2012 @ 14:25You hit the nail on the head John. Government has to cut spending, this country can not provide them enough money.
Our government is a classic example of the phrase Champagne taste on a beer’s budget.
-
Tim
in January 23rd, 2012 @ 20:20Champagne tastes like crap. But ya, let’s cut spending. The biggest federal programs are Soc. Sec., Medicare and Defense.
-
oksteelerfan
in January 23rd, 2012 @ 14:23It’s unreal anymore. I laugh when I hear a politician saying we need to keep companies here and help more small business owners. Quit piling more and more rules and regulations and taxes on them would be a great place to start.
-
Naum
in January 22nd, 2012 @ 10:32Um, no.
By extracting out state, local and FICA tax, one could make this point, but reality is that state, local, and FICA taxes are regressive and when factored in, means Romney pays a lower rate than most people.
And here is a nice chart (source: CBO/IRS), showing how those top brackets pay less federal income tax than the “middle class” — http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lxzy9aMQsi1qz4sr8o1_500.jpg
-
John Steigerwald
in January 22nd, 2012 @ 12:00Words can’t describe how much I hate posts that being with “Um”.
-
John Steigerwald
in January 22nd, 2012 @ 12:02Words can’t describe how much I hate posts that begin with, “Um.” Obviously, if you’re not actually working in a job, you’re not paying payroll taxes. And he paid those taxes the FIRST time he was taxed on that money.
-
Paul
in January 22nd, 2012 @ 14:08I don’t read past the “Um”. Just like I quit listening to anyone that says “um” as their first utterance. They can’t have anything to say.
-
Matt
in January 22nd, 2012 @ 17:48According to the Democrats the FICA taxes that are paid are tucked away in an account for said taxpayer to be paid to the individual in the future. Therefore if he is paying less in FICA taxes he is only short changing himself.
State and local taxes are also irrelevant, some states do not have an income tax. State and Local rates are always going to be at a flat rate, because it it easy to move to the neighboring state and/or locality to minimize these taxes. The state of Maryland a few years ago tried a millionaire surtax and they ended up losing money because those who would have been affected either physically moved or moved their tax residency.
-
John Steigerwald
in January 22nd, 2012 @ 17:58There should not be and should never have been an income tax.
-
Naum
in January 23rd, 2012 @ 09:18FICA taxes are capped at ~105K, after that the rate is 0%.
And maybe it is not a coincidence that when the nation’s tax rates were at their progressive apex, was America’s golden age (1930s – 1970s), when the middle class, hitherto not widespread, became ubiquitous. A period when the economic shape resembled a diamond with few on the bottom (and a good bit of that a sad legacy of Jim Crow), instead of the pyramid as it has for nearly ~6000 years of human history.
-
John Steigerwald
in January 23rd, 2012 @ 10:07I remember when it was capped at $59,000. Obama would like it to be uncapped. And, as the great Walter Williams often points out, Social Security is built on one big fat government pile of steaming bull shit.
*********************************************************************************************************************Here’s what the 1936 government pamphlet on Social Security said:
“After the first 3 years — that is to say, beginning in 1940 — you will pay, and your employer will pay, 1.5 cents for each dollar you earn, up to $3,000 a year. … Beginning in 1943, you will pay 2 cents, and so will your employer, for every dollar you earn for the next 3 years. … And finally, beginning in 1949, twelve years from now, you and your employer will each pay 3 cents on each dollar you earn, up to $3,000 a year.”
Here’s Congress’ lying promise: “That is the most you will ever pay.”
Another lie in the Social Security pamphlet is: “Beginning November 24, 1936, the United States government will set up a Social Security account for you. … The checks will come to you as a right.”
Therefore, Americans were sold on the belief that Social Security is like a retirement account and money placed in it is our property.
The fact of the matter is you have no property right whatsoever to your Social Security “contributions.” You say, “Williams, you’re wrong! We have a right to Social Security payments.”
It’s Not ‘Insurance’
In a U.S. Supreme Court case, Helvering v. Davis (1937), the court held that Social Security is not an insurance program, saying, “The proceeds of both (employee and employer) taxes are to be paid into the Treasury like internal revenue taxes generally, and are not earmarked in any way.”
-
Erik
in January 22nd, 2012 @ 12:07Off Topic but it looks like that evil bastard Dick Cheney is up to his old tricks again!
http://postgazette.com/pg/12022/1204988-28.stm
-
John Steigerwald
in January 22nd, 2012 @ 12:10Yeah, but let’s not build that oil pipeline that would create 20,000 jobs. Dick is sitting in a cave in Wyoming right now, cackling and rubbing his hands together over his latest gas price increase.
-
Ochotexto
in January 22nd, 2012 @ 12:39The “class envy” argument is stale and irrelevant. Kennedies, Clinton, Obama are all millionaires too. But nice try.
-
John Steigerwald
in January 22nd, 2012 @ 17:41Those guys love being rich. They don’t have class envy. They preach it and create it in order to get votes. About as low as you can go as a politician.
-
Tattoo Rick
in January 22nd, 2012 @ 13:59JS you were great at reading sports headlines off a teleprompter (ironic you share a talent with Obama) Please ask for you old job back cause you make a fool of yourself daily attemting to argue politics. The people in the small pool that is readers of your blog school you every day. You can’t even seem to pull off big fish in small pond on your own blog. Maybe you should see if you can get Rush’s (Jeff Christie) old job spinning records. Funny how Jeff Cristie sounded just like a liberal DJ and Rush is a powerhouse conservative? I wish everyone that follows this fraud could listen to 5mins of his old radio show.
-
John Steigerwald
in January 22nd, 2012 @ 17:33He was 19 years old. Being schooled is in the eye of the beholder. I read off a teloeprompter because our sportscasts had to be scripted and the director had o follow the script. Nobody ever sold me as America’s next great orator. I didn’t use one to order a pizza, which Obama needs to do. As a matter of fact I was really good at doing live shots in the field. One of the many reasons I made the big bucks for 30 years. If this blog is so trivial, what;s it say about you that you can’t resist it?
-
Mason
in January 22nd, 2012 @ 18:17Another goofy liberal that can’t win an argument, so he attacks people.
Did you decide to take a break from crapping on police cars at an ows rally Rick?
-
bald guy
in January 23rd, 2012 @ 02:31Sure Romney pays more taxes. But, he gets a lower tax rate. I, as most Americans, pay a higher percentage of my income to tax than does Romney. Do you think that’s fair? Do you think that the more wealthy someone is, the less percentage of their income should go to taxes?
Of course Romney believes that $300,000 worth of speaking fees in a year is “not much money.” Do you agree with that?
Oh, and what happened to your prediction that “Newt is toast”? You paid more attention to ABC and the mainstream media than did the Republicans in South Carolina. I’m not going to be premature in my declaration that the race is over. But, the toast looks pretty good now.
-
John Steigerwald
in January 23rd, 2012 @ 06:01Romney does not pay a lower rate than you on his income. He pays 15% on his investments and that’s the second time he pays taxes on that money. The first time he paid 39%. And I don’t know why anyone would care how much he makes doing speeches. How does that take money out of your pocket
The fact that the ABC story was a non factor is further evidence that Obama is toast. He’ll make a lot more than 300,000 per speeech next year. Ask Bill Clinton.
-
bald guy
in January 23rd, 2012 @ 14:24I asked you if you thought that his earning over $300,000 in a year from speaking fees is “not much money,” as he stated. I don’t have a problem with his earning the money. It’s his inability to relate to Americans who don’t agree that $300,000 income in a year isn’t much money. I still don’t know whether you agree with Romney’s statement.
Oh, and Clinton would be the first to say that his speaking fees earn him a lot of money. There are a lot of rich politicians in both parties that relate to what the middle class is dealing with. Romney isn’t one of them. He’s much more elitist, as his $10,000 bet shows.
-
John Steigerwald
in January 23rd, 2012 @ 15:25And your envy show through more clearly on every post. I don’t think $300,000 in a year, for a guy who’s worth $100 million is a lot of money and I don’t think you have any reason to worry about how much anybody else is making. Relating to the plight of the downtrodden and envious is overrated. Did you vote for John Kerry?
-
John Steigerwald
in January 23rd, 2012 @ 06:16If you go out and earn $100 million, you’ll pay 39% and if you invest it, you’ll pay 15% on the interest earned. He’s being taxed twice. You’re being taxed once. The fact that the ABC story had no effect in South Carolina is further proof that Obama is toast.
-
Dan
in January 23rd, 2012 @ 09:38I think it’s more further proof that most Americans just don’t care about infidelity anymore. Why? Same reason why a guy like Rick Santorum and his litter of 67 kids doesn’t start with a 10-point lead in the polls anymore.
-
bald guy
in January 23rd, 2012 @ 14:59No, he’s being taxed once on the initial earnings and once on the gains. No income is taxed twice. One tax on the initial income and one tax on the interest earned.
However, our tax for actually working is higher than the tax on earnings from not working – from just letting your money sit there and gain.
So, Romney, as he doesn’t work (other than the “not much money” – $300,000+ from speaking fees), gets to pay a lower tax on his money just sitting there, then most Americans do from actually doing work.
But to be clear. Nothing is taxed twice. Two different sources of income – earned income and income from gains.
-
John Steigerwald
in January 23rd, 2012 @ 15:19Come on Bald Guy. He has been taxed twice. He makes $100 and pays $39 in taxes. He invests $61 (you call it letting it sit there…I call it invests) it and the $61 turns into a 100 and he’s taxed 15% on that. The fruits of his labor –the original 100– are taxed twice. The fact that you consider investments and saving to be “letting money just sit there” speaks volumes. How do you think the money that “just sits there” grows? It can only grow if someone either pays him interest on it —which someone would only do if he thought he could make the $61 grow even more by INVESTING it in something else. It’s called growing the economy. If you over tax the money made on investments, rich people, who didn’t get rich by being stupid with their money, will find other ways to shelter it. He had to be taxed at the rate that Americans are taxed from actually doing work before he let his money “just sit there.” Are you familiar with the stock market? If I invest a million dollars in the stock market, is my money just sitting there? Do you think that the money that “just sits there” grows magically?
-
bald guy
in January 23rd, 2012 @ 18:03The fruits of his labor are taxed once. The income gained by an investment is taxed once. No income is taxed twice.
-
John Steigerwald
in January 23rd, 2012 @ 18:14If not for his labor, there would be no9 money to tax in either case.
-
DormontDirtBag
in January 23rd, 2012 @ 10:09This garbage about “fair” all depends on who’s doing the defining.
Bald guy, you might pay a higher percentage of your income in taxes, but Romney pays a HUGE amount more, in gross terms, than you do.
How is that “fair”? Does Romney consume more public services than you? No. Does his car deteriorate public highways more than yours? No. Do you somehow contribute more to the general welfare? No.
He’s one man; you’re one man. Yet Romney pays vastly more in taxes than you. What an outrage, bald guy. It’s so unfair!
-
John Steigerwald
in January 23rd, 2012 @ 10:13How many people at Staples are paying income taxes this year?
-
bald guy
in January 23rd, 2012 @ 15:00Those working at Staples are paying a higher percentage of their income to taxes than Romney does for letting his money sit there and gain.
-
John Steigerwald
in January 23rd, 2012 @ 15:10Then they should vote for candidates who promise a flat tax. Like Newt. Why should it be your or anybody else’s business –especially the federal government’s–what Romney does with his money AFTER he’s paid taxes on it?
-
Nate
in January 23rd, 2012 @ 16:50If I’m a small business owner and I have a great idea that is going to revolutionize an industry and I need upfront capital, who do I go to? I go to guys like Romney, other venture capitalists that have funds and like to invest it in small business. If the tax rate on interest income was raised what motivation do the people with funds to invest have to give me their money? If its more profitable for them to put their money off shore than to invest in small business (or the stock market) our economy loses. Don’t you think politicians know this? The media is making this a big deal because small minded people like you will scream that this is a travesty and attack Romney. All the while the media and Obama (who directly gains from the negative publicity aimed at Romney) sit back and laugh their asses off. Stop being a dumb ass.
-
oksteelerfan
in January 24th, 2012 @ 17:35Total lie, especially if that person has a kid. By the time CTC, EIC, etc. are figured in the government is paying them.
I prefer a consumption tax myself, but a fair tax would work better than the system we have now.
Our tax code is as bad as our laws. We don’t need a book that thick for tax codes anymore than an attorney needs 100′s of law books, but that’s what governments are good for, pass more laws when the laws on the books already aren’t being enforced, change the tax code, although for one we never should have had an income tax and for two it should be simplified since the government thinks we need one.
-
Gary M
in January 23rd, 2012 @ 06:36I agree with the position, but not the point about the monies being taxed twice that the author makes.
I invest as well, just like millions of other people and I get taxed on any realized gains that the investment makes, not the initial capital.
Just like if I put it in a bank, I pay taxes on the interest, not the savings.
-
Chad Farthouse
in January 23rd, 2012 @ 07:41I see that your definition of toast is fluid.
-
John Steigerwald
in January 23rd, 2012 @ 10:09Not a definition–an opinion and I still think Obama is toast. Wait until he has to explain killing the pipeline and 20,000 jobs. And I see you still haven’t come up with a solution for all of those evil rich people making too much money. Do you want Obama to force CEOs to make less and pay their workers more or does just taking the money from the evil rich satisfy you?
-
Chris
in January 23rd, 2012 @ 10:38I would want him to force the CEO’s to take less and pay more, but that’s just me. Sometime’s John, i think you vastly underate how many people think completely different from you.
-
John Steigerwald
in January 23rd, 2012 @ 10:44This is why I can’t believe you’re serious. You want the president of the United States to be able to force a company to pay its wages based on what he considers fair? Where would he get that power? Google Hugo Chavez. You would be happy in Venezuela.
-
Chris
in January 23rd, 2012 @ 12:31I just think the wealth needs to be spread much more evenly than it is now. I’m not saying there shouldnt be some divide, bu ti think it’s ridiculous for a CEO to make say 10 million a year while his employees make 25K.
-
John Steigerwald
in January 23rd, 2012 @ 12:34It’s nice that you think it’s ridiculous. It’s more ridiculous — in what is supposed to be a free country — for someone to suggest that the government should be in charge of deciding what is or is not ridiculous or fair.
-
Gary M
in January 23rd, 2012 @ 13:14Chris,
There is a way to accomplish that, it’s called the board of directors. You may not like the inequality, but if the board doesn’t agree with you, it is their discretion, not the governments, to determine how to run their company.
Hey, you don’t like it? Don’t buy their products. Start a blog. Protest them, anything legal.
Can’t fight city hall? Well, a bank wanted to charge a fee for making one time payments to them via credit card. The people complained and away went the charge.One the other hand, what also should never happen is that we, the government, bail these companies out when they make, as you put it, ridiculous decisions. They should be allowed to fail or else, there is no retribution for their mistakes.
You can’t make private profits while taking public risks.
-
Nate
in January 23rd, 2012 @ 16:55Chris, please leave our country. I hear they need small minded people China, Vietnam, North Korea, and Cuba.
-
CS
in January 23rd, 2012 @ 23:30I think i will stick around, vote for Obama and try to ruin it for the rest of you big buisness brown nosers
-
DormontDirtBag
in January 23rd, 2012 @ 11:01Shouldn’t Roethlisberger, Crosby and Polamalu also be forced to take less? How about Brad Pitt, Oprah, and Matt Damon?
-
John Steigerwald
in January 23rd, 2012 @ 11:11I think we should send 100% of our pay to Washington and let the Department of Wages decide what’s fair for everybody. We could create a cabinet position with a Secretary of Wages. After all, our elected officials are looking out for us and know what’s best for us.
