Red states and income taxes FU Romney

[SLYY]

Welll duhhhhh - most of his income was already subjected to income taxes once.   The 14% is on top of income taxes!  

Not that incompetent libs will ever grasp that but it is what it is.  

I would hope most people are aware of this...I mean, there is a reason why his taxes are only 14%.  It doesn't change the fact that his income for the year 2011 was over $13 million dollars.  You pay taxes on your income earned whether it comes by way of interest/investments or not.  That is the price of living in America.  As such, most people don't sympathize with Romney or his tax plan allowing him to pay much less in taxes...if elected.  

[Soul Crusher]

I would hope most people are aware of this...I mean, there is a reason why his taxes are only 14%.  It doesn't change the fact that his income for the year 2011 was over $13 million dollars.  You pay taxes on your income earned whether it comes by way of interest/investments or not.  That is the price of living in America.  As such, most people don't sympathize with Romney or his tax plan allowing him to pay much less in taxes...if elected.  

Cap Gains / investment income is not treated the same as earned income under the code. 

Hate the code not the taxpayer   

[SLYY]

Cap Gains / investment income is not treated the same as earned income under the code.  

Hate the code not the taxpayer  

Hence, the 14% rate, no one is arguing that.  I don't hate either, I am merely stating why this tax issue isn't going well for Romney - well that and his off shore accounts, of course.

[Soul Crusher]

Hence, the 14% rate, no one is arguing that.  I don't hate either, I am merely stating why this tax issue isn't going well for Romney - well that and his off shore accounts, of course.

Personally I am in favor a very low flat rate across the board or do away with all taxes and have a flat national sales tax and thats' it. 

[GigantorX]

According to the statistic I posted, he pays less than the average American in taxes.  Moreover, if he paid a penny more than 14.1%, you better believe he would have been happy to show all the world...it would only help him in this election.

What taxes are being compared in that statistic?

Federal?
State?
Local?
Capital Gains?
Income?
Corporate?

[SLYY]

What taxes are being compared in that statistic?

Federal?
State?
Local?
Capital Gains?
Income?
Corporate?

Federal income taxes as well as federal payroll taxes.  The statistics from 2010-2011 seem to be very similar with regard to the graphic.  I mention this because Romney did not share his federal payroll taxes with us on his 2011 tax return.  Regardless, it would make a nominal, if any difference at all in the 2011 statistics.  I base this on Romney's 2010 13.9% federal income tax rate where he did include his payroll taxes.  In 2010, Romney paid one-tenth of 1 percent of his income in payroll taxes.

[garebear]

That's great and all but I think it has more to do with those states being in the southern U.S. than it does with them being "Red States." Remember, those states were Blue about 30 or so years ago.

Do you mean about fifty years ago?

[GigantorX]

Do you mean about fifty years ago?

Yes, sorry.

Federal income taxes as well as federal payroll taxes.  The statistics from 2010-2011 seem to be very similar with regard to the graphic.  I mention this because Romney did not share his federal payroll taxes with us on his 2011 tax return.  Regardless, it would make a nominal, if any difference at all in the 2011 statistics.  I base this on Romney's 2010 13.9% federal income tax rate where he did include his payroll taxes.  In 2010, Romney paid one-tenth of 1 percent of his income in payroll taxes.

Ok. But I still fail to see the big deal in all of this, and that is to say I don't think your making a stink, either. This stuff gets brought up every election cycle. And it goes exactly like it's going:

1.) The Republican is rich, evil and rich...and therefore cheating/stealing in some way. The Republican makes a lot of money which means that he is stealing from hardworking middle-class Americans and is, in some way, responsible for all their suffering. He is an unfeeling, uncaring monster who eats the very souls of children and uses living human beings as foot rests.

2.)The Democratic incumbent/challenger makes a shit load of money in roughly the same way as the Republican, pays the same amount in taxes, will be working in the same finance/lobbying sector after he/she retires from public service etc but it isn't ever really brought up in the media thus the Democrat is portrayed as an "in touch", middle-class person who doesn't make much and can totally relate to those that the evil Republican rich, white devil is feasting upon. This Democrat is a real working class hero.

Did I get all of that?

[garebear]

Yes, sorry.
Ok. But I still fail to see the big deal in all of this, and that is to say I don't think your making a stink, either. This stuff gets brought up every election cycle. And it goes exactly like it's going:

1.) The Republican is rich, evil and rich...and therefore cheating/stealing in some way. The Republican makes a lot of money which means that he is stealing from hardworking middle-class Americans and is, in some way, responsible for all their suffering. He is an unfeeling, uncaring monster who eats the very souls of children and uses living human beings as foot rests.

2.)The Democratic incumbent/challenger makes a shit load of money in roughly the same way as the Republican, pays the same amount in taxes, will be working in the same finance/lobbying sector after he/she retires from public service etc but it isn't ever really brought up in the media thus the Democrat is portrayed as an "in touch", middle-class person who doesn't make much and can totally relate to those that the evil Republican rich, white devil is feasting upon. This Democrat is a real working class hero.
 
Did I get all of that?

I'm sure that you know about the Civil Rights Act of '64, as well as the political re-alignment that followed, but I'm not sure where you were going with your original post on the subject.

That said, you DO have a valid point in your analysis.

However, the difference is a POLICY difference. Sure, they can all get up on stage and preach to the middle class, but the Republican Party is not walking the walk in any policy sense.

Extension of tax cuts for the richest is indefensible at any time, but doubly so if middle-income earners are struggling in hard times and their cut is secondary.

You can lay the tired line of trickle-down economics if you wish, but please don't. It has never worked in the past and won't work in the future.

[whork]

Its like this:


Fact 1:

The republican party wants tax breaks for the rich while raising them on the middle class (Ryans Healthcare program etc...)



Fact 2:

The GOP have the highest number of voters on welfare.




The result:
The rich get richer
More people on welfare

= huge Deficits and the destuction of the middle classs.

Only braindead Neocon who lets FOX do their thinking can support the GOP.

[GigantorX]

Its like this:


Fact 1:

The republican party wants tax breaks for the rich while raising them on the middle class (Ryans Healthcare program etc...)



Fact 2:

The GOP have the highest number of voters on welfare.




The result:
The rich get richer
More people on welfare

= huge Deficits and the destuction of the middle classs.

Only braindead Neocon who lets FOX do their thinking can support the GOP.

Oh boy.....

[whork]

Oh boy.....

Truth hurts doesnt it?

[GigantorX]

Truth hurts doesnt it?

If you say so.....