Romney releases his tax records--paid a meager 14% in 2010A

dat is MIT-MASS professsssor Dr. Bill_mr! does Dr. Wattsony runing da nue Programmie on Obamatrix yet!
;-00000

$3 million is nothing to sneeze at.

That's a whole lot MORE than the ordinary folks in the 15% bracket pay.

It is so silly to POUT that he pays the same rate, when INDEED what he pays in actual dollars is NOT chump change.

Mitt Romney has made his own fortune. His forte is turning around failing companies, if he can. He's an astute businessman. The US citizen needs jobs.

The US needs an astute businessman. A man who has had experience as a governor. A man with ideas.

Mitt will have my vote.

Eleanor wrote:

$3 million is nothing to sneeze at.
That's a whole lot MORE than the ordinary folks in the 15% bracket pay.
It is so silly to POUT that he pays the same rate, when INDEED what he pays in actual dollars is NOT chump change.

I don't want to pay Rombey's share; why do you?

He should be paying taxes at a higher ate than me, not a lesser rate. I'm a wage earner.

Mr_Bill wrote:

<quoted text>
I don't want to pay Rombey's share; why do you?
He should be paying taxes at a higher ate than me, not a lesser rate. I'm a wage earner.

Why should you complain??

He pays WAY MORE than you do.

How much of his earnings do you think he should pay??

Eleanor wrote:

<quoted text>
Why should you complain??
He pays WAY MORE than you do.
How much of his earnings do you think he should pay??

about 60%.

Mr_Bill wrote:

<quoted text>
about 60%.

60% is a whole LOT of money.

What if you got wind of a great investment and it paid off BIG TIME?

Say you invested $10,000 and it turned around to be worth a $1,000,000. Would you want to GIVE the government $600,000 of your windfall??

<I didn't think so>

Eleanor wrote:

<quoted text>
60% is a whole LOT of money.
What if you got wind of a great investment and it paid off BIG TIME?
Say you invested $10,000 and it turned around to be worth a $1,000,000. Would you want to GIVE the government $600,000 of your windfall??
<I didn't think so>

No.

It was 80% before Reagan came in; and we saw nothing but debt & less jobs from tax cuts for the wealthy.

They DO NOT DELIVER.

Mr_Bill wrote:

<quoted text>
I don't want to pay Rombey's share; why do you?
He should be paying taxes at a higher ate than me, not a lesser rate. I'm a wage earner.

when his income was salary based, he was paying at a higher rate ... if you want to pay 15%, then, derive your income from investments, not a paycheck.

don't demonize the man for following the law, dickhead.

Mr_Bill wrote:

<quoted text>
No.
It was 80% before Reagan came in; and we saw nothing but debt & less jobs from tax cuts for the wealthy.
They DO NOT DELIVER.

and it was about the same as today's after all the deductions...

but, hey, who needs the rest of the story, huh.

Eleanor wrote:

$3 million is nothing to sneeze at.
That's a whole lot MORE than the ordinary folks in the 15% bracket pay.
It is so silly to POUT that he pays the same rate, when INDEED what he pays in actual dollars is NOT chump change.

Neither are his accounts in Switzerland and the Cayman Islands.

carey529 wrote:

<quoted text>
when his income was salary based, he was paying at a higher rate ... if you want to pay 15%, then, derive your income from investments, not a paycheck.
don't demonize the man for following the law, dickhead.

Mit was just playing by the rules to pay the lowest amount of taxes possible, wouldn't you, I would and do. No problem with Mit. If you make a living by labor (wages / salary) and your taxable income would need to be below $69,000 to pay less than 15% of in income tax (see comp table at: http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_bracke... ). Of course if you don't 'labor' for a living, that is you live on investments etc. you get lower rates. Is it better to encourage 'work', that is labor or investment. If you say investment, don't gripe about the work ethic in the USA. Government policy favors investment over labor!
Why can't we keep it simple and tax all "Income" from whatever LEGAL source at the same rate?(Legal? let's tax illegal income at 100%)

Eleanor wrote:

$3 million is nothing to sneeze at.
That's a whole lot MORE than the ordinary folks in the 15% bracket pay.
It is so silly to POUT that he pays the same rate, when INDEED what he pays in actual dollars is NOT chump change.

Yea, but a minimum wage worker runs out of money before a rich man does, it take a higher portion of his/her wages to get by...should prices be dependent on one's income? One of the origional arguements for the Income Tax is that the rich can afford to pay more than poor folk.

Living off investments, that is the good life. Most "workers" are dependent on their employer, and wages paid. That almost makes them modern day serfs.

Most of the discussion is about Tax Rates. That shows a big lack of understanding about taxes. In the case of Income Tax "Taxable Income" is as important or more important than rates. The poor pay a 10% rate BUT the very poor pay nothing because the standard deduction and other deductions and credits reduce their Taxable Income to 0.(actually they pay withholding, but that is 'refunded -- in effect they are lending a part of their wages to the feds for 0% interest).

Only one thing about federal tax law is certian. It is so complecated, and filled with special provisions for this group or that group THAT PEOPLE CAN'T UNDERSTAND it. Tax law must be simplified!

Lawrence Wolf wrote:

<quoted text>Neither are his accounts in Switzerland and the Cayman Islands.

hey,-sswipe, if you don't like the tax laws, when your idiot liberals control the congress and the white house, why don't you change the tax laws...

oh, yeah, your idiot liberals DID have control, didn't they...
and they pissed away all that time bribing, intimidating and threatening each other to pass that soon to be repealed obamacare. didn't they.

well, hey, next time, right?
hold your breath waiting. PLEASE!
LMAO!

Questioner wrote:

<quoted text>
Mit was just playing by the rules to pay the lowest amount of taxes possible, wouldn't you, I would and do. No problem with Mit. If you make a living by labor (wages / salary) and your taxable income would need to be below $69,000 to pay less than 15% of in income tax (see comp table at: http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_bracke... ). Of course if you don't 'labor' for a living, that is you live on investments etc. you get lower rates. Is it better to encourage 'work', that is labor or investment. If you say investment, don't gripe about the work ethic in the USA. Government policy favors investment over labor!
Why can't we keep it simple and tax all "Income" from whatever LEGAL source at the same rate?(Legal? let's tax illegal income at 100%)

he was...and still the liberal vultures attack...

i have YET to hear one of them admit that even their messiah took FULL ADVANTAGE of loopholes and deductions...
imagine that!

carey529 wrote:

<quoted text>
he was...and still the liberal vultures attack...
i have YET to hear one of them admit that even their messiah took FULL ADVANTAGE of loopholes and deductions...
imagine that!

Remember an ounce of image is worth a pound of performance. Politics is about image, on both sides. The Media are politicians; they have analysts, that is they pay people to blow hot air.

Expletive!@#@*, if you aren't envious of Romney's abilty to use the rules you are a fool. Most just wish they could do as well.

Wheather the rule are any good is what we need to discuss.

carey529 wrote:

<quoted text>
hey,-sswipe, if you don't like the tax laws, when your idiot liberals control the congress and the white house, why don't you change the tax laws...
oh, yeah, your idiot liberals DID have control, didn't they...
and they pissed away all that time bribing, intimidating and threatening each other to pass that soon to be repealed obamacare. didn't they.
well, hey, next time, right?
hold your breath waiting. PLEASE!
LMAO!

Can anything be dumber than supportng Romney's shameful offshore millions? You are proof that the answer is yes.
Your recent blabberings seem increasingly desperate. You have nothing to support your idiocy, so you are left with little more than feeble insults to those who don't share your hateful and ignorant views. You could use a little humility. You haven't earned your arrogance.

Questioner wrote:

<quoted text>
Remember an ounce of image is worth a pound of performance. Politics is about image, on both sides. The Media are politicians; they have analysts, that is they pay people to blow hot air.
Expletive!@#@*, if you aren't envious of Romney's abilty to use the rules you are a fool. Most just wish they could do as well.
Wheather the rule are any good is what we need to discuss.

Mitt Romney is to patriotism what Chris Christie is to anorexia.

Lawrence Wolf wrote:

<quoted text>Can anything be dumber than supportng Romney's shameful offshore millions? You are proof that the answer is yes.
Your recent blabberings seem increasingly desperate. You have nothing to support your idiocy, so you are left with little more than feeble insults to those who don't share your hateful and ignorant views. You could use a little humility. You haven't earned your arrogance.

You're nothing but a spineless Marxist wallowing in class warfare and envy.

HOW MANY jobs did Romney create?

HOW MANY jobs did Romney eliminate?