No Jeffrey, I disagree. The economy increased only a few percentage points, tax reveneues increased by more than the GDP.
Further, tax rate reductions are an economic stimulus, the whole reason the tax rate reductions were passed in 2002 was to stimulate the economy in the wake of a recession following the 911 attacks. Therefore, the economy may not have increased were it not for the stimulus of rate reductions, or it may not have increased as much. Either way, history has shown us that it worked, the economy grew and revenues grew.
If you read what I said, I wasn't bemoaning the fact that the so-called rich have to pay. That is how our progressive system works. It's actually called the 'ability to pay' concept.
What makes me turn green is constantly hearing people whine that high earners don't pay, or don't pay enough, or don't pay their share. The only thing that makes me more sick, is listening to rich people bitch about paying their tax (not all do). I sometimes say that too, "Would you rather be poor?"
I sincerely hope all of you who read this will someday be in a position to pay high taxes personally. We'll see how cheerful you are about it then! (In my experience - most aren't. Even the liberals!)
Well - seeing that you called me out personally - I have to respond. 😉
I agree with you that making wholesale characterizations of a huge portion of Americans is wrong - and foolish. Describing all of the lower income earning segment of America as being of a single ideology is rediculous. Conservative and Liberal ideology is documented to permeate all economic strata, with no clear weighting in any segment.
I think he was attempting to attack an ideology, which he foolishly assigned to an entire segment of income earners. I don't disagree with the attack on the ideology. I think it's wrong to seek from government that which we should provide for ourselves - in the long term. I personally do believe in a safety net (short term unemployment benefits, etc.)
You've taken particular offense at his remarks. Which begs me to ask a question. Why? Specifically. Are you offended because you count yourself one of the 47% who isn't required to pay much in taxes (I was in that category myself not long ago) and are offended at the ideological imposition he put upon you? (Assuming that you feel entitled, a victim of an unfair system, etc.) I could certainly understat that, if you are.
Or is it because you hold an ideology that believes the free market system IS inherently unfair, that you should be given more of what others earn because they somehow stole it from you, and that you as a human are born 'entitled' to receive all you need to survive from the government of your choosing? Clearly Mr. Romney thinks that ideology is wrong, but he didn't say what you said (bad Americans, lazy, etc.)
Which Sir, are you? How specifically did his remarks offend you? (I apologize for being a terrible speller. I've become hopelessly reliant on spell-check!)
Your comments are so remarkably perverted, twisted from reality, I scarcely don't know where to begin.
SS funds are separate; the general fund borrows from social security, and classically any 'overfund' of social security is not counted against a deficit in the general fund because it's supposed to be saved for someone's retirement.
Corporate taxes are part of expenses? Give me a break - what a cop-out!! It's still money the government is taking from the owner(s) of the business! Guess what, if they take too much, the business becomes uncompetitive, shareholders won't invest and the business MOVES. Keep asking yourself why businesses are leaving our shores. Many stay (thankfully), but many more should be here that aren't because we've taxed them away.
A tax paid by the business is a tax paid by the owner of the business. Ultimately the consumer is only willing to pay a certain amount for a good or service - you cannot pass on every expense to consumers by price increases without an effect on sales volume.
Therefore, Romney (and other investors) aren't really paying 15%, they're paying 50% (and that's just federal, in most states you can add on another 10-16% corporate and individual tax).
Corporations are taxed according to brackets, and they are very small in comparison to the earnings of large corporations. In 2011 Apple made a $34B profit, and from that will pay about $8B in taxes. Not always immediately - yes sometimes if you're doing something the govt. wants you to do, such as buy additional equipment, you can defer it. But deferral is all it is, the tax will be due at some point. The vast majority of Apple's earnings will be in the 35% bracket because the bracket starts at $75,000. (Do a little homework.)
Deductions and exemptions for the rich that only they can use? What a laugh! I do taxes for high income earners, estates, and corporations. Nothing could be further from the truth. Here's a little free education. The following are a list of some of the things you CANNOT deduct or claim if your gross income is over $300K a year which others who do not earn as much CAN deduct/claim:
Personal exemptions
American Opportunity Credit
Lifetime Learning Credit
Child Tax Credit
Student Loan Interest Deduction
Traditional IRA deduction
Ineligible for Roth IRA contribution
Retirement Savings Contribution Credit
Tuition & Fees Deduction
Earned Income Credit
Additional Child Tax Credit
State Income Taxes
State Property Taxes
Miscellaneous Deductions
There are more...
Most of these deductions/credits are taken away through 'phase-outs.' Little hidden tax increases that don't show up in the table. Others are taken away by something called AMT - Alternative Minimum Tax. In the end, if you earn to much, you don't get them. Take it from me - the more you earn, the more you pay. Households earning less than $50K gross pay less than 2% of their gross in taxes (unless your single).
I know this is how the system works - I'm just sick of uninformed people claiming the rich don't pay their share. Do they get more fire protection, more police protection, or better roads than you? Do they enjoy a larger percentage of national defense than you? They're kids don't get any special attention at our public schools because their parents pay 10x as much tax as the average home. So stop saying they aren't paying their share. They pay their share, and the share of five others.
Here's another homework assignment for you if you care to learn: the Bush 'tax cuts' actually increased federal revenue and moved the tax burden up the income scale. The top 10% of earners paid a higher share of the total revenue collected after the Bush rate reductions than under Clinton. It's all there in black and white - if you're interested in the truth.
I'm not agreeing with Romney's comments. I think characterizing whole segments of American citizens based on their income is silly. Buy you're doing it too - and your facts are completely backward.
Do a little homework and you'll find the truth is far from what you've been led to believe.
Your description of Romney's comments are not at all objective. Your characterization of the federal budget and taxes is neither informed, or independent. You are more misleading than any politician out there!
Payroll taxes are earmarked revenues for social security and medicare, they are not contributions to the general fund. They are retirement and healthcare programs. The largest contribution to the federal general fund is individual income taxes. And yes, those are paid almost exclusively by high earners. Who do you think is paying them? Check the IRS's data. 86% of federal income tax revenue paid by the top 25% earning filers. That's who pays. Fine - that's how the system works. Just stop saying the opposite!
You claim Romney doesn't? How truly uninformed you are of how things work.
Only Mr. Romney's corporate dividends and capital gains are subject to the lower 15% federal rate, all the rest of his income is taxed at the ordinary rate schedule (municipal bond income may also be exempt if he has them). BTW, anyone can buy these things and enjoy the same benefits if they choose. And why the low rate on corporate dividends and capital gains? Because the companies themselves are paying 35% on the same income!
If you owned a business (or at least one that made money) and found that, before you could spend the profits, you had to pay 35% federal tax at the corporate level, then another 15% when you issued a dividend to yourself, would you still claim that you're a 'deadbeat?'
It's true that lower income earning people do pay some taxes. Romney was referring to the subject at hand - the federal general fund (ya know - that defecit we've been talking about?) I really don't think he's been chatting about state sales and property taxes, did you? After all he's not running for governor again.
I think you're either completely misinformed, or an outright liar.
Again, please forgive my pathetic spelling!
No Jeffrey, I disagree. The economy increased only a few percentage points, tax reveneues increased by more than the GDP.
Further, tax rate reductions are an economic stimulus, the whole reason the tax rate reductions were passed in 2002 was to stimulate the economy in the wake of a recession following the 911 attacks. Therefore, the economy may not have increased were it not for the stimulus of rate reductions, or it may not have increased as much. Either way, history has shown us that it worked, the economy grew and revenues grew.
If you read what I said, I wasn't bemoaning the fact that the so-called rich have to pay. That is how our progressive system works. It's actually called the 'ability to pay' concept.
What makes me turn green is constantly hearing people whine that high earners don't pay, or don't pay enough, or don't pay their share. The only thing that makes me more sick, is listening to rich people bitch about paying their tax (not all do). I sometimes say that too, "Would you rather be poor?"
I sincerely hope all of you who read this will someday be in a position to pay high taxes personally. We'll see how cheerful you are about it then! (In my experience - most aren't. Even the liberals!)
Well - seeing that you called me out personally - I have to respond. 😉
I agree with you that making wholesale characterizations of a huge portion of Americans is wrong - and foolish. Describing all of the lower income earning segment of America as being of a single ideology is rediculous. Conservative and Liberal ideology is documented to permeate all economic strata, with no clear weighting in any segment.
I think he was attempting to attack an ideology, which he foolishly assigned to an entire segment of income earners. I don't disagree with the attack on the ideology. I think it's wrong to seek from government that which we should provide for ourselves - in the long term. I personally do believe in a safety net (short term unemployment benefits, etc.)
You've taken particular offense at his remarks. Which begs me to ask a question. Why? Specifically. Are you offended because you count yourself one of the 47% who isn't required to pay much in taxes (I was in that category myself not long ago) and are offended at the ideological imposition he put upon you? (Assuming that you feel entitled, a victim of an unfair system, etc.) I could certainly understat that, if you are.
Or is it because you hold an ideology that believes the free market system IS inherently unfair, that you should be given more of what others earn because they somehow stole it from you, and that you as a human are born 'entitled' to receive all you need to survive from the government of your choosing? Clearly Mr. Romney thinks that ideology is wrong, but he didn't say what you said (bad Americans, lazy, etc.)
Which Sir, are you? How specifically did his remarks offend you? (I apologize for being a terrible speller. I've become hopelessly reliant on spell-check!)
Your comments are so remarkably perverted, twisted from reality, I scarcely don't know where to begin.
SS funds are separate; the general fund borrows from social security, and classically any 'overfund' of social security is not counted against a deficit in the general fund because it's supposed to be saved for someone's retirement.
Corporate taxes are part of expenses? Give me a break - what a cop-out!! It's still money the government is taking from the owner(s) of the business! Guess what, if they take too much, the business becomes uncompetitive, shareholders won't invest and the business MOVES. Keep asking yourself why businesses are leaving our shores. Many stay (thankfully), but many more should be here that aren't because we've taxed them away.
A tax paid by the business is a tax paid by the owner of the business. Ultimately the consumer is only willing to pay a certain amount for a good or service - you cannot pass on every expense to consumers by price increases without an effect on sales volume.
Therefore, Romney (and other investors) aren't really paying 15%, they're paying 50% (and that's just federal, in most states you can add on another 10-16% corporate and individual tax).
Corporations are taxed according to brackets, and they are very small in comparison to the earnings of large corporations. In 2011 Apple made a $34B profit, and from that will pay about $8B in taxes. Not always immediately - yes sometimes if you're doing something the govt. wants you to do, such as buy additional equipment, you can defer it. But deferral is all it is, the tax will be due at some point. The vast majority of Apple's earnings will be in the 35% bracket because the bracket starts at $75,000. (Do a little homework.)
Deductions and exemptions for the rich that only they can use? What a laugh! I do taxes for high income earners, estates, and corporations. Nothing could be further from the truth. Here's a little free education. The following are a list of some of the things you CANNOT deduct or claim if your gross income is over $300K a year which others who do not earn as much CAN deduct/claim:
Personal exemptions
American Opportunity Credit
Lifetime Learning Credit
Child Tax Credit
Student Loan Interest Deduction
Traditional IRA deduction
Ineligible for Roth IRA contribution
Retirement Savings Contribution Credit
Tuition & Fees Deduction
Earned Income Credit
Additional Child Tax Credit
State Income Taxes
State Property Taxes
Miscellaneous Deductions
There are more...
Most of these deductions/credits are taken away through 'phase-outs.' Little hidden tax increases that don't show up in the table. Others are taken away by something called AMT - Alternative Minimum Tax. In the end, if you earn to much, you don't get them. Take it from me - the more you earn, the more you pay. Households earning less than $50K gross pay less than 2% of their gross in taxes (unless your single).
I know this is how the system works - I'm just sick of uninformed people claiming the rich don't pay their share. Do they get more fire protection, more police protection, or better roads than you? Do they enjoy a larger percentage of national defense than you? They're kids don't get any special attention at our public schools because their parents pay 10x as much tax as the average home. So stop saying they aren't paying their share. They pay their share, and the share of five others.
Here's another homework assignment for you if you care to learn: the Bush 'tax cuts' actually increased federal revenue and moved the tax burden up the income scale. The top 10% of earners paid a higher share of the total revenue collected after the Bush rate reductions than under Clinton. It's all there in black and white - if you're interested in the truth.
I'm not agreeing with Romney's comments. I think characterizing whole segments of American citizens based on their income is silly. Buy you're doing it too - and your facts are completely backward.
Do a little homework and you'll find the truth is far from what you've been led to believe.
Your description of Romney's comments are not at all objective. Your characterization of the federal budget and taxes is neither informed, or independent. You are more misleading than any politician out there!
Payroll taxes are earmarked revenues for social security and medicare, they are not contributions to the general fund. They are retirement and healthcare programs. The largest contribution to the federal general fund is individual income taxes. And yes, those are paid almost exclusively by high earners. Who do you think is paying them? Check the IRS's data. 86% of federal income tax revenue paid by the top 25% earning filers. That's who pays. Fine - that's how the system works. Just stop saying the opposite!
You claim Romney doesn't? How truly uninformed you are of how things work.
Only Mr. Romney's corporate dividends and capital gains are subject to the lower 15% federal rate, all the rest of his income is taxed at the ordinary rate schedule (municipal bond income may also be exempt if he has them). BTW, anyone can buy these things and enjoy the same benefits if they choose. And why the low rate on corporate dividends and capital gains? Because the companies themselves are paying 35% on the same income!
If you owned a business (or at least one that made money) and found that, before you could spend the profits, you had to pay 35% federal tax at the corporate level, then another 15% when you issued a dividend to yourself, would you still claim that you're a 'deadbeat?'
It's true that lower income earning people do pay some taxes. Romney was referring to the subject at hand - the federal general fund (ya know - that defecit we've been talking about?) I really don't think he's been chatting about state sales and property taxes, did you? After all he's not running for governor again.
I think you're either completely misinformed, or an outright liar.
Which?