And? He probably has more money than all of us as well. And he wants the rest of us to shoulder the burden of the debt created by his ever-dropping taxes.
As to the solution, I like the one posted (by Martin Hyde maybe?) in another thread. All income over $1 million (from any source) is taxed at the the top marginal rate. This is very similar to the Buffett Rule, I think, but probably even simpler.
What makes you think 15% is lower than most people pay? Most households pay 0%. We’ve been over this many, many times. Looks like he’s in the fourth quintile.
I’m glad we can finally get a liberal to come out and admit what this is really about- jealousy. They don’t care what the rate is, they just want to stick it to the rich, who they falsely perceive as not having done anything to earn their money.
ETA: They also want to handwave this chart, which is really the important one when “fairness” is discussed.
So, I’m guessing that for ‘moral’ reasons, left wing 'dopers are just not going to vote for Romney in the next election? That’s…well, that’s shocking! :eek: I would have never guessed that, and I bet Romney is seriously disappointed that he won’t be getting left wing 'doper, or perhaps even broader left wing support in the coming election.
I’m guessing that, proportionally speaking, ol’ Mitt isn’t exactly in the same league as Buffet. I know, I know…they are all ‘rich’. But that doesn’t mean they all have the same amount. At a guess, if ol’ Mitt gave away $37 billion he’d be about $36 billion and some change in debt.
And liberal 'dopers would STILL be saying how he wasn’t ‘morally’ fit to be president.
Really? So do you think the average liberal would be in favor of taking away half the wealth of the super rich and then burning it all in a ditch? If it’s just about punishing those who are successful…
No liberal has an actual desire for sane tax policy, or to solve the deficit and debt in the way that’s most obvious, easiest, and does the least damage? It’s all because they’re crying that they don’t own a yacht?
I’m curious. What did Mitt Romney do to earn the $42 million in income he received over the last two years? He gave the money to somebody else and they used it to generate wealth.
It’s not about jealousy, it’s really not. I’m comfortably in the top quintile on that chart too, and not at all upset at how much taxes I will pay (certainly a higher rate than Mitt). Some of us really do want to have a discussion about the most effective way to raise the revenues required to run the government.
I agree. We should discuss if it is fair for 20% of the population to earn 60% of the income. Or for the bottom 20% to earn what appears to be about 4%.
And, as you know, the wealth numbers are even more “unfair”.
See post #12. This issue isn’t whether people have to send in additional checks to the IRS out of the goodness of their hearts. That’s a ridiculous, juevenile talking point invented probably by Karl Rove which has nothing to do with the discussion whatsoever.
You cannot possibly interpret my statement about needing to raise taxes instead of cut services as talking about how republicans need to donate more to the IRS than they’re legally required to do. It’s intellectually dishonest, and a non-sequitor at best.
Mitt should be worried about getting right-wing votes in Florida right about now. This information will not help him there. And the GOP should worry about how this feeds directly into Obama’s re-election message in the fall.
Mitt gave away something like 10% or so of his income the last two years. Warren has given away about half of his wealth so far, and pledged to give away 99% of it before he dies. So you’re right, they aren’t in the same league.
My point was merely to knock down the ad hominem that Rune posted - that Romney’s detractors aren’t as generous to charity as he is.
The guy makes more than 99.9% of the population and his tax percentage is 4th quintile? What sense does that make? He keeps more of the money he earns than 40% of the population.
That 40% of the population isn’t rolling in money, they’re regular people trying to make ends meet, and out of the money they earn, the government takes MORE than they take from Romney.
When did my post imply anything about this being jealousy? It has nothing to do with that. It’s demonstrably true that the rich have had massive gains in recent years as a direct result of favorable policy. Despite having these hugely favorable policies under the justification of “job creation,” we’re not exactly swimming in jobs.
My stance is that it’s just not sane or responsible to enact policies that shoulder massive burdens on people who can’t afford them.
First, no I don’t believe most rich people do anything to earn as much as they do, and that many do much more harm than good. And second, no I don’t care about exact rates; what I care about is taking away the majority of their money and investing it back in the economy. And yes, I do want to stick it to the rich, as punishment for all the harm they’ve done.
I have no problem with class warfare, and neither do the rich; the problem with class warfare in this country is that it’s all about the rich pounding on everyone else, and everyone else collectively rolling around in ecstasy babbling “Hit me more! Harder! Harder!”
That seems to be a common attitude on the Right; that liberals just want to tax out of some weird hunger to tax for its own sake, then waste the money.
That’s not true, I don’t think. His plan is to keep the 15% rate, but not for people in his tax bracket. I’ll check for a cite, but I’m pretty certain that is the case.
