Most of Obama’s income is royalties from his books, and subject to normal income taxes (as opposed to the lower rate for capital gains taxes). I believe the tax returns he’s released show about a 30% rate. Actually, I just looked at his 2011 return, because he has 12 years worth posted on his website, and it looks to be about 29.4% give or take.
Oops, my percentage is too low. I was using a payment due amount, which was lower than the total tax bill. Then I realized I was calculating off income after adjustments and deductions. If you go back and calculate off unadjusted income, it’s more like 19%.
Why would you calculate from gross income? If Romney did that, he’s paying like, 5%.
I don’t know what you are talking about. Reid is a troll, because he is saying things to stir up trouble.
So now you think Romney is justified in refusing to “cite” his tax returns? I thought that all along. Reid is not justified in refusing to “cite”, since that would show him up as a troll and liar.
You are going to have to re-write this in English if you want an answer.
[QUOTE=Fiddle Peghead]
The two have nothing to do with each other. Wanting to make Obama a one-term president and ignoring their duties as representatives of the voters is reprehensible.
[/QUOTE]
No, it’s the same thing. There is nothing inherently reprehensible in wanting Obama out of the White House, and they are not ignoring their duties. I am presuming that the GOP won their Congressional races by majority, ergo, it is a reasonably safe bet that those who voted for them want them to oppose Obama.
You are assuming that it is objectively true that Obama and the Dems are superior. It isn’t, that’s just an opinion. Other people can disagree with that opinion, and oppose Obama, and not thereby commit any wrongs.
Saying so makes some liberals scream and jump up and down, but that doesn’t change anything.
Regards,
Shodan
I figured I’d use the numbers that got the lowest possible percentage. The debate is about what all those deductions should be, not what they are currently.
I’ve been thinking about the OP title question, and to me it seems most likely that the amnesty thing is a likely reason.
No, it’s not about deductions. It’s about tax rates. The very wealthy pay less than their secretaries, because most of their income comes from investments, which are taxed at 15%.
How much would be enough?
So? On their salary they pay the full rate. just like secretaries pay 15% on on capital gains. Just like you and me. The rich have more to invest. That brings the overall percent down.
Have I not been clear? The capital gains rate should be the same as the ordinary income rate. Anything else distorts the market. The free market incentivizes investment already; you may have heard of profits? It is not the function of government to stimulate investment artificially.
At least. Unearned income of any type should be taxed at a *higher *rate than earned income, not lower.
Have you heard of risk? The rates are lower to help counter the element of risk and get people to invest more. Is all this really new to you?
But just so I understand you, if we eliminated the special status for capital gains, you’re happy. You’d ask for nothing else? Nothing.
And if your goal is to reduce the amount of money available to people looking for investors, that’s a genius idea.
No reason to think that will happen, unless you’re one of the types who think investors need encouragement to invest and become “job creators”. Even with current tax rates, a lot more money gets “invested” in moneyshuffling than in actual wealth creation, such as is produced by actual companies that make and sell actual things.
As for your claim about “risk”, there is no such thing if you’re big enough. The government, IOW the rest of us, will bail you out.
Color me confused. Why did you bring up charity at all? Are you saying he gives half his money to charity and hides the rest? Do you think anyone but a few bloggers would make a big stink if he paid a low tax rates solely due to charitable contributions? Big investments in municipal bonds?
I could see him delaying the release to maximize the impact of him being such a wonderful person, but we’re way past that.
Please give a cite that CBS said any such thing. Plus the story about Bush did not start with the forged documents - it was pretty big news long before they emerged. In fact the forged documents pretty much ended the story. Interesting, huh?
So, “moneyshuffling” is just your word for "stuff you don’t understand? Amid the money shuffling, at some point dollars get invested in something. You do realize that, don’t you?
Also, you seem to have this notion of “investors” as guys like Romney, Buffet, Soros, etc. How about the massive amounts of money in things like state pension funds, where hundreds of millions of dollars are invested in the hopes of going teachers, firemen, etc. and comfortable retirement?
Why should the government compensate investors for risk? Is that in the constitution?
The captial gains rate is just a give away to the investor class anyway. What are they going to do with their money anyway? Buy bonds? Yeah right.
To the contrary, I’m just getting started.
Because with Romney it plays a large roll. He gives a lot to charity. Hell, he gives a lot to his church alone. The lower capital gains tax was (obviously? likely?) what I was going o bring up next, it being the other main reason a wealthy person’s overall tax is lower than yours (I assume) or mine. But it’s certainly a good thing you “stopped me right there”, by golly. Next thing you know I would have made the very point about capital gains that you did. So you really saved the day there.
They don’t “compensate” investors. They acknowledge the risk involved and the value to society of having capital at the ready. And since they can’t reduce the risk, they make the upside a little more attractive. Whether you realize it or not, that helps the economy and everyone in it.
THAT is precisely my point. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
So, there was no issue before Reid spoke? In any case, to release the name of the informant Reid would have to get the informant’s permission. That might not be possible, since it might result in the informant getting kicked out of his country club. Romney doesn’t need anyone’s permission to release his returns, on the other hand.
This must be reactionary logic at work. The poster needs to show the cite, and Romney needs to reveal his returns.
When I said that I’d have no trouble with rumors if Obama stonewalled about his birth certificate you said
Please find one instance where I objected to someone speculating when a Dem was stonewalling. It is not unknown to happen - look at Weinergate. Go and find an example of my supposed sin.