A tough new Obama ad that — surprise! — is accurate

[pbrauer]

Glenn Kessler, Washington Post's Fact Checker rates this ad ad accurate; awards it a rare Geppetto Checkmark for a campaign ad.



Voice Over:“Chances are you pay a higher tax rate than him [Mitt Romney]….Mitt Romney made $20 million in 2010 but paid only 14 percent in taxes…probably less than you. Now he has a plan that would give millionairesi another tax break. And raises taxes on middle class families by up to two thousand dollars a year.”

Article is Here

The Pinocchio Test

This ad is tough, but we cannot fault the accuracy of its key points. To some extent, the Romney campaign has been hoist with its own petard by refusing to provide sufficient detail that shows how the numbers add up in Romney’s tax and budget plans. So we are left with the judgment of a respected and independent third party.

We hold campaign ads to a high standard, particularly attack ads. If Romney releases the missing details, and a new analysis finds that Romney can meet the stated goals of his tax plan, then we can certainly revisit this analysis. But, until then, for the first time in this frequently nasty campaign, we award a rare Geppetto Checkmark for a campaign ad.​

 

[laurcunningham]

Glenn Kessler, Washington Post's Fact Checker rates this ad ad accurate; awards it a rare Geppetto Checkmark for a campaign ad.



Voice Over:“Chances are you pay a higher tax rate than him [Mitt Romney]….Mitt Romney made $20 million in 2010 but paid only 14 percent in taxes…probably less than you. Now he has a plan that would give millionairesi another tax break. And raises taxes on middle class families by up to two thousand dollars a year.”

Article is Here

The Pinocchio Test

This ad is tough, but we cannot fault the accuracy of its key points. To some extent, the Romney campaign has been hoist with its own petard by refusing to provide sufficient detail that shows how the numbers add up in Romney’s tax and budget plans. So we are left with the judgment of a respected and independent third party.

We hold campaign ads to a high standard, particularly attack ads. If Romney releases the missing details, and a new analysis finds that Romney can meet the stated goals of his tax plan, then we can certainly revisit this analysis. But, until then, for the first time in this frequently nasty campaign, we award a rare Geppetto Checkmark for a campaign ad.​

"By adding up to two thousand dollars of additional taxes on middle-class Americans." That is really unfortunate and sad to me.

 

[MaggieD]

Glenn Kessler, Washington Post's Fact Checker rates this ad ad accurate; awards it a rare Geppetto Checkmark for a campaign ad.



Voice Over:“Chances are you pay a higher tax rate than him [Mitt Romney]….Mitt Romney made $20 million in 2010 but paid only 14 percent in taxes…probably less than you. Now he has a plan that would give millionairesi another tax break. And raises taxes on middle class families by up to two thousand dollars a year.”

Article is Here

The Pinocchio Test

This ad is tough, but we cannot fault the accuracy of its key points. To some extent, the Romney campaign has been hoist with its own petard by refusing to provide sufficient detail that shows how the numbers add up in Romney’s tax and budget plans. So we are left with the judgment of a respected and independent third party.

We hold campaign ads to a high standard, particularly attack ads. If Romney releases the missing details, and a new analysis finds that Romney can meet the stated goals of his tax plan, then we can certainly revisit this analysis. But, until then, for the first time in this frequently nasty campaign, we award a rare Geppetto Checkmark for a campaign ad.​

It's misleading. We've hashed and rehashed this ****. "You pay more." The last line of the commercial. Hardly: Pants on Fire.

 

[specklebang]

14% of 20 million is $2,800,000.00. So right off the top this is a bit of a stretch to say that you pay "more".

Now, is Romney chomping at the bit to award himself and his fellow super-rich a tax cut? Yeah, probably. On the other hand Obama has done some really nice things for his buddies.

Let's face it. Why do these guys want to be President? HINT: It's not the salary.

 

[Redress]

It's misleading. We've hashed and rehashed this ****. "You pay more." The last line of the commercial. Hardly: Pants on Fire.

Not pants on fire, but mostly true:

PolitiFact | Mitt Romney would cut millionaires

Obama said Romney is proposing a tax plan "that would give millionaires another tax break and raises taxes on middle class families by up to $2,000 a year."

The claims are based on a study by the Tax Policy Center, which used what Romney has said about his tax plan and attempted to calculate outcomes for different groups of taxpayers.


The study prioritizes the idea that the plan would be revenue neutral. In that scenario, millionaires lose deductions, but the lower rates would still decrease their tax bill by an average of $87,000.


Middle-class taxpayers would see lower tax rates, too, but the loss of exemptions and deductions would hit them harder. People making $200,000 or less a year would see their taxes rise by an average of about $2,000.

 

[MaggieD]

Not pants on fire, but mostly true:

PolitiFact | Mitt Romney would cut millionaires

Sorry. I wasn't talking about the tax reduction, I was talking about "You pay more." (That's my favorite site.)

 

[Fletch]

Romney paid $3,000,000 in taxes last year. $3,000,000. Most people wouldnt hit that threshold if they lived a thousand years. So anyone who paid less than he did last year really has no room to complain. And only sounds foolish doing so.

 

[Redress]

Sorry. I wasn't talking about the tax reduction, I was talking about "You pay more." (That's my favorite site.)

The you pay more is accurate for people making under 200K. From the article I linked:

In fact, the elimination of the deductions would mean outright tax increases for everyone with incomes below $200,000. People with taxable income between $50,000 and $75,000, for example, would see an average net tax increase of $641. They’d save $984 from Romney's rate cut, but lose $2,672 in write-offs.

Further reading: FactCheck.org : Romney’s Impossible Tax Promise

 

[MaggieD]

The you pay more is accurate for people making under 200K. From the article I linked:

Further reading: FactCheck.org : Romney’s Impossible Tax Promise

"You (edit: *may*) pay a greater percentage," is accurate. "You pay more," is not.

 

[Redress]

"You pay a greater percentage," is accurate. "You pay more," is not.

No, you pay more dollars. All the fact checking is in agreement on it.

 

[Boo Radley]

"You pay a greater percentage," is accurate. "You pay more," is not.

I'm missing the distinction.

 

[Helix]

i hate negative ads. the debate should be about our multi-decade experiment with trickle down economics, not about what one guy pays in taxes.

 

[MaggieD]

I'm missing the distinction.

If Romney paid $2.8 million in taxes (per Specklebang's post above..an estimate, I'm sure), unless someone paid more than $2.8 million in taxes, they did not pay more. Gads.

 

[Boo Radley]

If Romney paid $2.8 million in taxes (per Specklebang's post above..an estimate, I'm sure), unless someone paid more than $2.8 million in taxes, they did not pay more. Gads.

That's not what the add says. Listen again. The entire conversation is about the rate, not real dollars.

 

[Boo Radley]

i hate negative ads. the debate should be about our multi-decade experiment with trickle down economics, not about what one guy pays in taxes.

I actually hate political ads. Largely they are seriously inaccurate. Anything close to accurate is to be praised. But, what saddens me most is that negative works. Cheapens the discourse all around.

 

[Redress]

If Romney paid $2.8 million in taxes (per Specklebang's post above..an estimate, I'm sure), unless someone paid more than $2.8 million in taxes, they did not pay more. Gads.

Oh, I see what you are saying. Never mind me, I thought you meant something completely different.

Oh, and on that aspect: FactCheck.org : Does Romney Pay a Lower Rate in Taxes Than You?

 

[Boo Radley]

Oh, I see what you are saying. Never mind me, I thought you meant something completely different.

Oh, and on that aspect: FactCheck.org : Does Romney Pay a Lower Rate in Taxes Than You?

So, their rate his less than his. Not the 2.8 millinon figure, but a smaller rate. 12.9 is less than 14.

 

[Republic Now!]

No, you pay more dollars. All the fact checking is in agreement on it.

There is no way people pay more than Romney when they don't even make as much as he pays.

 

[Republic Now!]

Oh, I see what you are saying. Never mind me, I thought you meant something completely different.

Oh, and on that aspect: FactCheck.org : Does Romney Pay a Lower Rate in Taxes Than You?

Last time someone complained about payroll taxes, I agreed and said we should reform them. They then said my opposition to them was from my conservatives masters making me believe imaginary things about them.

If your only claim to the unfairness of taxes is payroll taxes, why are you looking at the income tax and not payroll taxes?

 

[Helix]

I actually hate political ads. Largely they are seriously inaccurate. Anything close to accurate is to be praised. But, what saddens me most is that negative works. Cheapens the discourse all around.

election season is my superbowl. this is the time when we should celebrate that we don't have dictators for life, warlords, or an unelected feudalistic monarchy. my preference is that we as a society have a serious debate about what we've tried and how we should tweak it to make it work better for the greatest number of people. instead, we get hyperbole and ad hominem attacks. ideally, both candidates would take the high road out of respect for the country and the office. hopefully, i'll live long enough to see an election like that.

 

[Redress]

Last time someone complained about payroll taxes, I agreed and said we should reform them. They then said my opposition to them was from my conservatives masters making me believe imaginary things about them.

If your only claim to the unfairness of taxes is payroll taxes, why are you looking at the income tax and not payroll taxes?

Show where I have made a claim as to fairness of the tax system. Go ahead, I will wait while you look.

 

[Republic Now!]

Show where I have made a claim as to fairness of the tax system. Go ahead, I will wait while you look.

You linked to an article about it. Romney pays more than 97% of the country without counting payroll taxes. Apologies if I misunderstood your point.

 

[Boo Radley]

election season is my superbowl. this is the time when we should celebrate that we don't have dictators for life, warlords, or an unelected feudalistic monarchy. my preference is that we as a society have a serious debate about what we've tried and how we should tweak it to make it work better for the greatest number of people. instead, we get hyperbole and ad hominem attacks. ideally, both candidates would take the high road out of respect for the country and the office. hopefully, i'll live long enough to see an election like that.

Amen. Amen.

 

[specklebang]

This ad is exactly the same kind of deceptive, dishonest bull**** as the "you didn't build that" ads. Just plain ridiculous. Neither one of these candidates is fit to kiss my ass let alone lead a country.

Phooey©

 

[Objective Voice]

Glenn Kessler, Washington Post's Fact Checker rates this ad ad accurate; awards it a rare Geppetto Checkmark for a campaign ad.



Voice Over:“Chances are you pay a higher tax rate than him [Mitt Romney]….Mitt Romney made $20 million in 2010 but paid only 14 percent in taxes…probably less than you. Now he has a plan that would give millionairesi another tax break. And raises taxes on middle class families by up to two thousand dollars a year.”

Article is Here

The Pinocchio Test

This ad is tough, but we cannot fault the accuracy of its key points. To some extent, the Romney campaign has been hoist with its own petard by refusing to provide sufficient detail that shows how the numbers add up in Romney’s tax and budget plans. So we are left with the judgment of a respected and independent third party.

We hold campaign ads to a high standard, particularly attack ads. If Romney releases the missing details, and a new analysis finds that Romney can meet the stated goals of his tax plan, then we can certainly revisit this analysis. But, until then, for the first time in this frequently nasty campaign, we award a rare Geppetto Checkmark for a campaign ad.​

While it is clear that unless you made well over $20M, the average middle-class American did not pay more than Mitt Romney paid in federal income taxes last year. It's very likely that few in the middle-class even came close. However, the true emphasis of the Obama ad is how much of a percentage of your gross income did you pay in federal income taxes as a middle-class wage earner not how much you actually paid.

Clearly, Mitt Romney pays a lower federal income tax rate than most middle-class Americans. A 14-15% tax rate consumers far less of your gross earnings than 25-29%. Thus the thrust of the ad is actually the marginal tax rates not dollar amounts.