- Joined
- Mar 11, 2009
- Messages
- 41,104
- Reaction score
- 12,202
- Location
- South Carolina
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
They only call it class warfare when we fight back.
The tax returns would not only show how much he pays in FIT, but it would also show where he earned the money. There are reports he still gets money from Bain Capital.
Oh dear god I'm getting taxed twice not only when I pay income tax but also when I pay sales tax!
Your assumption is that benefit can be measured in a straight-line calculation, which is obviously not the case.
Even if part of that $53k does go to thinks like tools, a business is still a lot better off in a society where the workers produce so much value that the company can afford to buy expensive tools though, right?
For a point of comparison, how much luck do you think Bill Gates would have had launching Microsoft in Somalia? Not much. The reason is because all the things a society needs to sustain a company like Microsoft exist here, but not there. Those things take money to maintain.
I don't buy the base dollar amount argument. Or rather I think that is an argument why taxes should be MORE progressive, not less. It isn't like Romney created that money. If there were no Mitt Romney, it wouldn't just be like that money didn't exist. Maybe some of it- the money he actually produced with his own actual work. But the vast majority of it would still exist, it'd just be in somebody else's pocket. Bain would have had a different CEO, or some of those companies he shut down would still be paying people's paychecks, or who knows what, but the money would still be out there. So when he pays 15% and somebody else pays 30%, it isn't like we're benefiting from Romney paying 15%, we're losing 15% that we would have gotten in taxes had that other person ended up with the money instead of him.
Well, a partial reroll then. Their advantages relative to the homeless guy are radically diminished without law and order. All their money- which is really just numbers in a computer somewhere- doesn't even necessarily mean anything at all without a system of laws. Probably their only real advantage would be that there would probably be more to barter with in Gates' mansion than the homeless guy has in his cart. But then again, the homeless guy is better at finding food...
Amazon paid 4% taxes... So basically no taxes. Despite a $3.5 billion profit.
The 16 Profitable Companies That Pay Almost Nothing In Taxes
I don't know how much my grandmother paid... Safe bet it is a much higher percentage than that although obviously a lower absolute amount.
I support eliminating the sales tax because it is regressive relative to income.
Jan 17, 2012 is the day the Romney Campaign stepped in it...
Remember folks, he doesn't really make any money on speaking fees!!
$374,000
All those unemployed people in S.C. are can really relate with that...
I can think of one thing that lowers his effective tax burden if hes a dutiful Mormon as he claims to be, they require a 10% tithe of income. Thats a pretty hefty writeoff.
Maggie said it early in the thread, his property taxes are probably the equivalent of a median income salary, his sales taxes possibly in the same range and as an employer hes got other taxes hes paying as well. Should his effective rate be higher? I dont know without a detailed look at his dedeuctions, income and hedges to taxation.
DO we need to reduce taxation hedges? Absolutely. Start by counting stock options as salary with immediate wage taxes payable on them but (and this one will make the liberals here scream) lower the capital gains--tax them once as income, then largely leave them alone. That ought to shut Buffet the **** up, too. Thats my opinion anyway.
Jan 17, 2012 is the day the Romney Campaign stepped in it...
Remember folks, he doesn't really make any money on speaking fees!!
$374,000
All those unemployed people in S.C. are can really relate with that...
what a particularly stupid slogan. How, precisely, does investing in American businesses constitute attacking the middle class?
Yep, especially the ones that had planned on working at the new Boeing plant that Obama killed.
Um, that plant is alive and well last time I checked. Did you hear something we didn't?
And Boeing didn't actually create any jobs. It just moved them to a state where it could pay workers less. So it's a net loss for workers, and consumer spending. Good for Boeing's shareholders though.
What is your point?
So guess Obama should not make money on books, Pelosi should not make money on stocks.
Here is a clue, most politicians in Congress are better off than the average American.
To harp on one person or one party is plain ignoring the real world.
Your statement may not be valid. Cost of living is not equal across the States or even within a State. My income in a farm town (Wray, CO) would allow me live well above the average. I could not survive very well in SF, California. So it boils down is what will your income buy your where you live.
Not true. If he earns a salary (which he does), he pays FICA just like everyone else. If his state requires he chip in on unemployment, he does that, too. (In Illinois, employees don't pay into that fund. Employer pays it all.) Disability? You only pay disability insurance premiums if you choose to.
Then you go on to gripe about how much sales tax he pays. More than you, I'll bet....since he spends a whole lot more. Property tax? He probably pays a fortune in property taxes, depending upon the cost of his home. Etc. "So in effect, they don't really pay those either." Logic fail.
Why do you think Warren Buffett (the left's hero) pays a lesser percentage than his secretary? He pays himself only $100K in annual salary and takes the rest as dividends...or perhaps stock options. Hypocrite, that one.
As to Romney? When he "revealed he pays about 15% in taxes," he was talking about his effective tax rate; not his tax bracket. Compare that to yours. Yours is probably closer to 5%. Take the total amount of income tax you paid last year (don't count Social Security) and divide that number by your Adjusted Gross Income. (If you even paid any income tax last year....since 47% of "taxpayers" paid none at all.
Um, that plant is alive and well last time I checked. Did you hear something we didn't?
And Boeing didn't actually create any jobs. It just moved them to a state where it could pay workers less. So it's a net loss for workers, and consumer spending. Good for Boeing's shareholders though.
As for the 15% vs 30% and such, the dollar amounts really do matter. It's progressive in that when they make more, they pay more. They pay VASTLY more every year. They aren't getting off free. I still have trouble with the very idea that 1% of the people pay 38% percent of the total federal income tax revenue and people are saying it isn't progressive enough. This may have to be an agree to disagree situation.
He's taking advantage of the tax code. Just like Romney is. The difference is Buffet thinks the tax structure should be changed, Romney doesn't give a **** and thinks there's nothing wrong with paying less than his secretary. In fact his tax plan would effectively cut out almost any federal taxes he owes.Why do you think Warren Buffett (the left's hero) pays a lesser percentage than his secretary? He pays himself only $100K in annual salary and takes the rest as dividends...or perhaps stock options. Hypocrite, that one.
He's taking advantage of the tax code. Just like Romney is. The difference is Buffet thinks the tax structure should be changed, Romney doesn't give a **** and thinks there's nothing wrong with paying less than his secretary. In fact his tax plan would effectively cut out almost any federal taxes he owes.
Buffet would be a lot more credible if his Berkshire Hathaway companies didn't owe taxes dating back 10 years.
He needs to put up or shut up.
Yeah, until the courts rule on the NLRB ruling. If they decide the NLRB was within its rights, the Dreamliner can no longer be assembled in South Carolina.
Buffet would be a lot more credible if his Berkshire Hathaway companies didn't owe taxes dating back 10 years.
He needs to put up or shut up.
The NLRB already announced it would drop the suit a month ago.
And even if it hadn't been dropped, saying that Obama "killed" the plant was premature and unfair. The NLRB did it, and the suit was dependent on the union complaint (I don't think the NLRB can sue without a complaint, which is why it dropped the suit because the union dropped its complaint, but I'm not sure). And it's not like it was creating new jobs anyway, just moving them from a different state.
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?