Romney admits his tax rate is close to 15%

[Oakvale]

When was the last time someone was so quickly locking up the nomination and, in parallel, so quickly revealing themselves to be a disastrous nominee?  Ever?

I know, it's amazing. Virtually every time Romney speaks I grow more confident of Obama's re-election prospects.

What's worse is that he's still the best (or least bad, I guess) potential nominee of the lot, which says something about the quality of the field.

[Politico]

I said no, in context, but the real answer is "yes, both should be zero."

People should not be penalized for gaining or maintaining wealth.

It's really quite remarkable, given how mind-numbingly stupid that point is, that you are able to type. Or, you know, that you've avoided dying in a freak accident involving a bath, a toaster and a bar of soap.

How's your Eurosclerosis?

[Politico]

That's some sharp ammunition if Obama goes the populist route.

I hope he goes that route so he can lose soundly. That populist garbage was a loser when Mondale tried it, and it will be a huge loser for Obama the incumbent. Obama will be lucky to get 44% if he goes that route.

[Politico]

That's some sharp ammunition if Obama goes the populist route.

until it's revealed that Obama tax rate is about the same.

Obama doesn't make his income on investment/capital gains...

No, he makes it on suckers who throw away their money on his mediocre books. How do you think Obama would like it if somebody redistributed Obama's income by pirating his books? He should have no problem, right? I mean, after all, Obama is such a big believer in redistribution, and has nothing to say about China's lack of respect for intellectual property...

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

That's some sharp ammunition if Obama goes the populist route.

until it's revealed that Obama tax rate is about the same.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/18/us/politics/facing-pointed-attacks-romney-urges-focus-on-obama.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Anything to take down Romney pleases me.

Now is the time Newt. Seize your chance and crush Mittbot

Newt wants Cap Gains at zero. He wants to give Mitt a tax cut, he doesn't want.

[RI]

I think the most interesting thing about Mitt not releasing his tax returns is that the tradition of releasing your tax returns when you run for president was started by George Romney in 1968.

[RosettaStoned]

Not sure how to vote on the poll. I don't have a huge problem with taxing unearned income at 15% but I don't like that we have an income tax at all. At this point even a Fair Tax/VAT sounds better.

^^^
This.

[tpfkaw]

Yes, they both should be taxed at the rate of 0.

Of course, income from investments is hardly "unearned."

[greenforest32]

That's some sharp ammunition if Obama goes the populist route.

until it's revealed that Obama tax rate is about the same.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/18/us/politics/facing-pointed-attacks-romney-urges-focus-on-obama.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Anything to take down Romney pleases me.

Now is the time Newt. Seize your chance and crush Mittbot

Newt wants Cap Gains at zero. He wants to give Mitt a tax cut, he doesn't want.

Oh yes I am well aware of this. They are all insisting that he release his tax returns so the media can hound him on paying such a low rate and yet under their own tax plans, Romney would probably be paying even less.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

In the 1970s, they weren't taxed the same. Unearned was taxed at a maximum of 70%, while earned income was a maximum of 50%. Earned income also has Social Security and payroll taxes, so it's ridiculously unfair to tax unearned at a lower income tax rate. If you're upper middle class, you can easily pay more than 15% in federal income taxes alone. It's outrageous that capital gains are taxed less.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Of course, income from investments is hardly "unearned."

Oh yeah, having lots of investments because your daddy was a ruthless businessman is sure earning that money.

[CultureKing]

I said no, in context, but the real answer is "yes, both should be zero."

People should not be penalized for gaining or maintaining wealth.

It's really quite remarkable, given how mind-numbingly stupid that point is, that you are able to type. Or, you know, that you've avoided dying in a freak accident involving a bath, a toaster and a bar of soap.

You make a compelling point.  I'll take a moment to contemplate the beauty of your logic.

Yeah, okay.  F**k off, dude.

I love the braindead rote responses.  You don't even bother to ask, "What's the alternative?"  Regardless, my answer to that unasked question: A consumption tax.  Ideally, a VAT in lieu of an income tax, which disproportionately impacts the wealthy.

You're the one who wants to keep the poor folks poor.

So you switch things up to disproportionately impact the poor?!
I really don't understand the arguments for VAT/Flat/Fair tax structures, they would basically entrench current class structures and encourage the rich to invest rather than innovate.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

So you switch things up to disproportionately impact the poor?!
I really don't understand the arguments for VAT/Flat/Fair tax structures, they would basically entrench current class structures and encourage the rich to invest rather than innovate.

Didn't you just answer your own question there?

[5280]

People should be allowed to keep their wealth, if they busted their ass to earn it so be it.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

People should be allowed to keep their wealth, if they busted their ass to earn it so be it.

Oh yeah, the 4th-7th richest Americans as shown on this list truly busted their ass to earn their money.
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2008/54/400list08_The-400-Richest-Americans_Rank.html

[5280]

People should be allowed to keep their wealth, if they busted their ass to earn it so be it.

Oh yeah, the 4th-7th richest Americans as shown on this list truly busted their ass to earn their money.
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2008/54/400list08_The-400-Richest-Americans_Rank.html

What if they weren't around to have the businesses today?

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

So to summarise: "f*** the poor... they weren't lucky... I want to keep my money... f***'em"

 

[courts]

I said no, in context, but the real answer is "yes, both should be zero."

People should not be penalized for gaining or maintaining wealth.

It's really quite remarkable, given how mind-numbingly stupid that point is, that you are able to type. Or, you know, that you've avoided dying in a freak accident involving a bath, a toaster and a bar of soap.

You make a compelling point.  I'll take a moment to contemplate the beauty of your logic.

Yeah, okay.  F**k off, dude.

I love the braindead rote responses.  You don't even bother to ask, "What's the alternative?"  Regardless, my answer to that unasked question: A consumption tax.  Ideally, a VAT in lieu of an income tax, which disproportionately impacts the wealthy.

You're the one who wants to keep the poor folks poor.

So you switch things up to disproportionately impact the poor?!
I really don't understand the arguments for VAT/Flat/Fair tax structures, they would basically entrench current class structures and encourage the rich to invest rather than innovate.

Less intrusion into your privacy, much simpler than the current system, harder to evade, gives government more of an incentive to reign in spending (since any tax hike will be immediately obvious). And there's even been "progressive" fair tax plans, for example Mike Gravel's proposal 4-5 years ago. Also again, I don't have a huge problem with taxing capital gains or something. Trust me, I don't have a rosy view of finance capitalism even if I get a kick out of people like Wonkish refuting more inane arguments on this site.

[Negusa Nagast 🚀]

People should be allowed to keep their wealth, if they busted their ass to earn it so be it.

It's one thing to earn it. Another to inherit it.

[Хahar 🤔]

If you sit back and watch your money become more money, that's not earning it.

[anvi]

I am just mystified by the pervasive anti-tax sentiment in the United States.  Compared to individuals in other countries, we are taxed very lightly, and in places with lower marginal rates for businesses in corporations, governments often recoup the revenue through high VATs, which cut into demand anyway.  And even with the nominally high marginal rates for businesses and wealthy individuals here, there are so many forms of deduction, loopholes and shelters that most pay nowhere near the nominal rate in the end.  Some very, very great fortunes were made by companies in the U.S. during decades with nominal marginal rates considerably higher than they are now.  And still, so many talk about taxes in the U.S. as if they were the eleventh plague that lays waste to the whole land or something.  And this ridiculous rhetoric of taxes constituting a form of punishment for amassing wealth, good grief.  How about we throw in with the rest of your startup costs the price of creating your own infrastructure, plus hiring a private police force and emergency services to provide various forms of protection of your property, plus hiring a permanent force of instructors to educate high-skilled employees you might need, and so on?  I can understand complaining about things like government waste, overspending, spending priorities, lack of accountability, debt and so on.  But, having lived and spent considerable amounts of time in other parts of the world with high standards of living, where people pay far higher taxes than exist here, it really makes me feel like those who complain bitterly about rates in the U.S. really need to go back to mommy for a diaper change quickly--and that includes people in both the upper and middle-classes, by the way.  Taxes here are not too high across the board, they are too low, across the board.  "But, no!!--we're fighting a war or two, the country is awash in debt, our infrastructure is collapsing, our education system is in crisis, we're doing nothing to control health care cost inflation--but give me a bigger tax cut, dammit!"  Our grandparents and great-grandparents were so much better citizens than we are that even comparing ourselves with them insults their memory.  If our generation had to fight WWII, we would have been routed in ten weeks.  

[Bull Moose Base]

Starting to wonder if a lot of Romney's big donors walked into a trap.  How many people out there even realized unearned income is taxed at a lower rate?  Very few.  There's a good argument the act of nominating Romney itself accomplishes more than Occupy Wall Street to shed light on a subject most Americans were in the dark about and threatens the 1% with the road to paying more taxes.  The anger Romney triggers might be the first thing in ages to check the flow of wealth upward to the top.

[TheGlobalizer]

I said no, in context, but the real answer is "yes, both should be zero."

People should not be penalized for gaining or maintaining wealth.

It's really quite remarkable, given how mind-numbingly stupid that point is, that you are able to type. Or, you know, that you've avoided dying in a freak accident involving a bath, a toaster and a bar of soap.

You make a compelling point.  I'll take a moment to contemplate the beauty of your logic.

Yeah, okay.  F**k off, dude.

I love the braindead rote responses.  You don't even bother to ask, "What's the alternative?"  Regardless, my answer to that unasked question: A consumption tax.  Ideally, a VAT in lieu of an income tax, which disproportionately impacts the wealthy.

You're the one who wants to keep the poor folks poor.

So you switch things up to disproportionately impact the poor?!
I really don't understand the arguments for VAT/Flat/Fair tax structures, they would basically entrench current class structures and encourage the rich to invest rather than innovate.

A VAT disproportionately impacts the wealthy, as they are much higher consumers of sophisticated goods that would get hit multiple times by the taxes.  (Hence, "value added" tax.)  I'd be fine with exempting out essential goods like food, as well.  Regardless, my point is that the taxation of consumption is *inherently* progressive, without being fundamentally unfair, and also has the side effect of encouraging fiscal discipline.  (I'm not a fan of government-driven social engineering, but all activities have consequences, and I'd rather the consequences encourage rather than punish the aggregation of wealth.)

Current tax policy creates a pretty substantial tax wall in the middle class, making it rather difficult for the poor to rise above their current social class.  (Personally speaking, I just passed through that wall - lost most of my deductions/credits and my net tax went way up.  As a person who was raised in a high school-educated family who now holds a doctorate (law), this barrier to upward mobility is pretty clear and punitive.)  I understand the impulse to tax the rich for being rich, but I think it's a lot more sensible to tax spenders (who tend to be rich) for engaging in such activity (which is the opposite of saving, a net public good).

I am very aware that the above is not a particularly libertarian position, but unfortunately, libertarians don't have a great solution for the taxes we should have.  (Advocating for tariffs is a joke position.)

[Filuwaúrdjan]

A VAT disproportionately impacts the wealthy

Remarkable.

[TheGlobalizer]

A VAT disproportionately impacts the wealthy

Remarkable.

Glad you agree.