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.
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©
An objectively fair tax would be everyone paying the same amount. The problem would be that that would force government to play only a very limited role. Which wouldnt be a bad thing, IMHO.I linked to multiple stories about the add, both the accurate part and the inacurate part. I am a firm believer in fact checking and don't believe in rejecting fact checks when they are not convienient.
And there is no such thing as a "fair" tax system, since what is fair is subjective.
An objectively fair tax would be everyone paying the same amount. The problem would be that that would force government to play only a very limited role. Which wouldnt be a bad thing, IMHO.
I get the impression, and you can correct me if I am wrong, that the fact checkers were taking liberties with Romneys plan. He did no propose tax increases on the middle class, but the fact checkers, in pursuit of making the whole of the plan revenue neutral, simply projected tax increases on the middle class to make Romneys numbers work. It would be more accurate to say that Romneys numbers dont add up than it would be to assume tax increases that are not in the plan.The point of the ad, which is that Romney's tax plan will cut taxes for the wealthy while raising it for the rest of us, is in fact accurate.
I get the impression, and you can correct me if I am wrong, that the fact checkers were taking liberties with Romneys plan. He did no propose tax increases on the middle class, but the fact checkers, in pursuit of making the whole of the plan revenue neutral, simply projected tax increases on the middle class to make Romneys numbers work. It would be more accurate to say that Romneys numbers dont add up than it would be to assume tax increases that are not in the plan.
Well, the cost of a Big Mac is a greater burden upon the lower and middle classes as well, but its price is 'fair' in that it is set by an objective market. Taxation reflects, or should reflect, the cost of government. To say that every American should pay equally for the operation of that government strikes me as fair. To say that my neighbor should pay more than I for the same services does not.However, such a tax would burden the poor and middle class far more than it would the rich, as in it would affect negatively the lifestyle of the poor and middle class far more than the rich. Fair is not an objective word, so trying to apply it to taxes objectively is doomed to failure.
Well, the cost of a Big Mac is a greater burden upon the lower and middle classes as well, but its price is 'fair' in that it is set by an objective market. Taxation reflects, or should reflect, the cost of government. To say that every American should pay equally for the operation of that government strikes me as fair. To say that my neighbor should pay more than I for the same services does not.
Do you honestly think Romney got $3,000,000 worth? Ask yourslef this question--How much did you pay and did you get your moneys worth? Or did you get back more than you put in? Most of the benefits anyone get from government come at the state and local level. The federal governments role is mainly robbing Peter to pay Paul. Romney is Peter.As a percentage, did Romney use less of our government (tax payer funded) resources than the taxpayer who is supposedly paying a higher percentage of their income to uncle Sam?
Example: If Romney is collecting dividends, are those dividend increasing(or stable)because those businesses he is invested in are cutting back on employee benefits or outsourcing overseas etc, thus requiring those US employees to seek out public assistance.
What percentage of the system does Romney use to gain a profit vs the average taxpayer who supposedly paying a higher percentage rate, I wonder.
I linked to multiple stories about the add, both the accurate part and the inacurate part. I am a firm believer in fact checking and don't believe in rejecting fact checks when they are not convienient.
And there is no such thing as a "fair" tax system, since what is fair is subjective.
MITT'S PLAN
Reducing and stabilizing federal spending is essential, but breathing life into the present anemic recovery will also require fixing the nation’s tax code to focus on jobs and growth. To repair the nation’s tax code, marginal rates must be brought down to stimulate entrepreneurship, job creation, and investment, while still raising the revenue needed to fund a smaller, smarter, simpler government. The principle of fairness must be preserved in federal tax and spending policy.
Individual Taxes
America’s individual tax code applies relatively high marginal tax rates on a narrow tax base. Those high rates discourage work and entrepreneurship, as well as savings and investment. With 54 percent of private sector workers employed outside of corporations, individual rates also define the incentives for job-creating businesses. Lower marginal tax rates secure for all Americans the economic gains from tax reform.
Make permanent, across-the-board 20 percent cut in marginal rates
Maintain current tax rates on interest, dividends, and capital gains
Eliminate taxes for taxpayers with AGI below $200,000 on interest, dividends, and capital gains
Eliminate the Death Tax
Repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT)
Corporate Taxes
The U.S. economy’s 35 percent corporate tax rate is among the highest in the industrial world, reducing the ability of our nation’s businesses to compete in the global economy and to invest and create jobs at home. By limiting investment and growth, the high rate of corporate tax also hurts U.S. wages.
Cut the corporate rate to 25 percent
Strengthen and make permanent the R&D tax credit
Switch to a territorial tax system
Repeal the corporate Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT)
Tax
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.
I think it's disingenuous to point to Romney's income and claim he pays a lower percentage than most Americans simply because he doesn't pay the payroll tax (when there is no reason for him to do so), especially when pointing this out is meant to justify a change to the income tax.
The ad is about Romney's tax plan. His proposal to change the tax system.
And I showed how that part is a lie.
No you did not. You have not read any of the articles linked, which explain how the numbers are arrived at. He claims it should be revenue neutral, and that he does not want to cut deductions for those under 200k. However, those are mutually exclusive. If you cut tax rates as he proposes and only cut deductions for those under 200k, then the plan is not revenue neutral. If you make it revenue neutral, then deductions have to be cut for the middle and lower class people, resulting in them paying more money in taxes.
Which links shows that Romney plans to increase taxes on the middle class?No you did not. You have not read any of the articles linked, which explain how the numbers are arrived at. He claims it should be revenue neutral, and that he does not want to cut deductions for those under 200k. However, those are mutually exclusive. If you cut tax rates as he proposes and only cut deductions for those under 200k, then the plan is not revenue neutral. If you make it revenue neutral, then deductions have to be cut for the middle and lower class people, resulting in them paying more money in taxes.
Yes I did. The article linked in the OP assumes that Romney will make the tax cuts neutral..his web site makes no mention of that. The study's assumptions are a fantasy.
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.
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.
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.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?