Fact Check: Is Romney's tax rate really lower than yours?

[chiefst2000]

Originally Posted by Winstonbiggs

And of course amending his return after the election to take the deduction at the full rate is out of the question.

He certainly pays less then I do and he keeps claiming to lower deductions to keep his plan revenue nutral without actually naming deductions he is going to reduce. BS

Well he pays more then I do and the guy has said that if they can't find enough deductions to keep things neutral they'd adjust the rate decrease to make it work. This was stated clearly in the 60 minutes interview as well as on the stump. Not that you would care what his plan is as it is clear the false left wing media narrative is more important then actual policy.

[chiefst2000]

Originally Posted by SafetyBlitz

He planned to artificially increase his tax rate by paying more than he owes. It's just shady when you remember that he only released a couple of years of tax returns.

As for the Mormons, I mean, no, they're not nefarious. But read about Joseph Smith. PK was on to something comparing it scientology. I don't celebrate scientologists giving to their church. Hell, I'm Roman Catholic, and I don't celebrate anyone giving them money that they'll turn around and use to cover-up pedophilia.

What do those organizations do with their money, not all faiths are equal in how they spend their tithe.

I know that the Catholics run countless orphanages and homeless shelters with their tithe. They help families in need. I also know that Jewish Charities do similar things, run orphanages, feed the hungry, help sick children etc. I don't know much about the Mormon church but I'd assume they do the same types of things unless you have information to the contrary.

[Warfish]

Originally Posted by Winstonbiggs

He certainly pays less then I do

You're lying.

He paid more than you did.

Please at least make an effort to use the universally agreed upon definitions of words.

He paid a lower tax rate than you, perhaps. That is not the same in any definition as "paid less".

He paid at least (conservatively speaking here) 1.9 million ($1,900,000.00) in income taxes MORE than you paid in, assuming you are also a 1%'er who paid in at least $100,000 (which I doubt).

Please note this ignores all other forms of taxes, of which he also, I am willing to bet, paid substantially more than you did.

You are better Winston, that such obvious talking-point-based blatant dishonety.

[Warfish]

Originally Posted by SafetyBlitz

Hell, I'm Roman Catholic, and I don't .....

You're an active, practicing, faithful tenent adhering Roman Catholic?

Or are you a lapsed Catholic who does not in any way practice currently?

[chiefst2000]

Originally Posted by Warfish

You're lying.

He paid more than you did.

Please at least make an effort to use the universally agreed upon definitions of words.

He paid a lower tax rate than you, perhaps. That is not the same in any definition as "paid less".

He paid at least (conservatively speaking here) 1.9 million ($1,900,000.00) in income taxes MORE than you paid in, assuming you are also a 1%'er who paid in at least $100,000 (which I doubt).

Please note this ignores all other forms of taxes, of which he also, I am willing to bet, paid substantially more than you did.

You are better Winston, that such obvious talking-point-based blatant dishonety.

I doubt he paid even a lower rate then Winston. As a married homeowner with 2 kids, making a nice 6 figure income, my federal income tax rate is right at the 12% mark. Now I also pay around 10% in property tax, 8% in state tax, almost 16% in entitlement tax, and 10% in mortgage interest and 5% in charitable donations. I contribute the maximum yearly to 401K and also get tax deductible health insurance. My insurance premiums have gone up from 16K a year in 2009 to 25K a year in 2013 (effing Obamacare). Single people that rent would pay more but most middle class families are more burdened by local taxes then Federal. If you add up all the taxes I pay it ends up around 46% of my income.

So the liberals understand out there if someone like me, the average productive suburbanite family, is already paying close to 50% of income to some form of taxation there is no tax increase formula that will ever close a trillion dollar deficit. It is impossible. Its why those with real understanding of the challenges we face understand that without a cost cutter in office we are screwed.

[SafetyBlitz]

Originally Posted by Warfish

You're an active, practicing, faithful tenent adhering Roman Catholic?

Or are you a lapsed Catholic who does not in any way practice currently?

Atheist.

Maybe agnostic?

There could be a creator.

[Warfish]

Originally Posted by SafetyBlitz

Atheist.

Maybe agnostic?

There could be a creator.

So...

Originally Posted by SafetyBlitz

Hell, I'm Roman Catholic, and I....

...was, not, in fact, true at all.

Thanks for the clarification.

I am also an agnostic, so at least we share that.

[Winstonbiggs]

Originally Posted by chiefst2000

I doubt he paid even a lower rate then Winston. As a married homeowner with 2 kids, making a nice 6 figure income, my federal income tax rate is right at the 12% mark. Now I also pay around 10% in property tax, 8% in state tax, almost 16% in entitlement tax, and 10% in mortgage interest and 5% in charitable donations. I contribute the maximum yearly to 401K and also get tax deductible health insurance. My insurance premiums have gone up from 16K a year in 2009 to 25K a year in 2013 (effing Obamacare). Single people that rent would pay more but most middle class families are more burdened by local taxes then Federal. If you add up all the taxes I pay it ends up around 46% of my income.

So the liberals understand out there if someone like me, the average productive suburbanite family, is already paying close to 50% of income to some form of taxation there is no tax increase formula that will ever close a trillion dollar deficit. It is impossible. Its why those with real understanding of the challenges we face understand that without a cost cutter in office we are screwed.

Unlike you I don't have kids who are any longer deductible, a majority of my income comes from wages most of with are at the top federal tax bracket. Since I'm self employeed my retirenment money comes off the top line and is not part of my adjusted gross income and as you well know is taxable later so no that doesn't reduce my tax rate from the adjustment it simply defers the tax until later.

I have very little income from dividends, have avoided tax free's like the plague because I think they very well could be viral and my investments are long term none interest paying since I don't need income now.

Since the OP was about rates and I'm paying in the low 20's effective federal tax rate I clearly do pay a higher rate then Romney.

Now while you keep telling us Romeny has a revenue nutral tax plan that lowers rates by getting rid of deductions, I would like to know which deductions are going to go? As you well know most every deduction has a constituent and getting rid of them without actually naming them is hardly belivable.

[Winstonbiggs]

Originally Posted by Warfish

You're lying.

He paid more than you did.

Please at least make an effort to use the universally agreed upon definitions of words.

He paid a lower tax rate than you, perhaps. That is not the same in any definition as "paid less".

He paid at least (conservatively speaking here) 1.9 million ($1,900,000.00) in income taxes MORE than you paid in, assuming you are also a 1%'er who paid in at least $100,000 (which I doubt).

Please note this ignores all other forms of taxes, of which he also, I am willing to bet, paid substantially more than you did.

You are better Winston, that such obvious talking-point-based blatant dishonety.

Your thread was about rates and I was reponding about rates. Didn't mean to imply that I paid more in actual taxes then Romney. I figured that was a given, apparently not.

As far as better, I don't believe earning in the top 1% makes me better or worse then you or anyone else.

[MnJetFan]

He (Romney) gave away hundreds of thousands in charity and only took 10% charged to his taxes. How much did Obama give? Zilch!

[SafetyBlitz]

Originally Posted by Warfish

So...



...was, not, in fact, true at all.

Thanks for the clarification.

I am also an agnostic, so at least we share that.

Well, ethnically/culturally I'm Roman Catholic. I was raised in it, church every Sunday.

I went to Catholic High School, was baptized, had communion, was confirmed, and know the New Testament along with Church History and when I have kids some day, they'll be baptized, have communion, and be confirmed - so they can have the same good sense to reject it that I did.

But the point is, I can speak about that religion with some authority - certainly enough to know where the money goes... for that new parking lot, those marble floors, the Vatican, hiring lawyers to defend priests and that Bishop in the luxury apartment in Manhattan.

Just because they might use 1/3 of your tithe on helping the poor, it doesn't make up for the 2/3 that they spend on themselves.

[chiefst2000]

Originally Posted by Winstonbiggs

Unlike you I don't have kids who are any longer deductible, a majority of my income comes from wages most of with are at the top federal tax bracket. Since I'm self employeed my retirenment money comes off the top line and is not part of my adjusted gross income and as you well know is taxable later so no that doesn't reduce my tax rate from the adjustment it simply defers the tax until later.

I have very little income from dividends, have avoided tax free's like the plague because I think they very well could be viral and my investments are long term none interest paying since I don't need income now.

Since the OP was about rates and I'm paying in the low 20's effective federal tax rate I clearly do pay a higher rate then Romney.

Now while you keep telling us Romeny has a revenue nutral tax plan that lowers rates by getting rid of deductions, I would like to know which deductions are going to go? As you well know most every deduction has a constituent and getting rid of them without actually naming them is hardly belivable.

There are all kinds of loopholes involving trusts and foreign tax credits that could be adjusted or eliminated. They can eliminate mortgage deductions for people over a particular income threshold, they can eliminate the deduction for state and/or property taxes paid. They can eliminate the deduction for health insurance expense. They could eliminate the loophole for carried gains that hedge fund managers take advantage of.

My point? When in office you go to the IRS and take models of income and deductions being utilized by particular income categories then go in and model how much on average they would pay with those deductions eliminated then adjust the bracket rate accordingly.

[palmetto defender]

On my taxable income I pay at a higher rate than Romney. So what?
While I have no salary as I have retired, I have substantial corporate bond income which is taxed as ordinary dividends or ordinary income. That is MY CHOICE because of the % return. My corporate dividends are taxed at 15%, the same as Romney.
If I choose, I could have ALL my income in tax free municipal bonds. Even if I had $1 million in income, I would pay ZERO.
It's called intelligent financial planning. Romney is a smart person with good advisors. I respect smart.
BTW, on my lawyer's advice, I also own nothing. Not any money, my house, my cars, my boat. Not a dime. All in a trust. Not for everybody but a money saver.

[kennyo7]

Originally Posted by chiefst2000

There are all kinds of loopholes involving trusts and foreign tax credits that could be adjusted or eliminated. They can eliminate mortgage deductions for people over a particular income threshold, they can eliminate the deduction for state and/or property taxes paid. They can eliminate the deduction for health insurance expense. They could eliminate the loophole for carried gains that hedge fund managers take advantage of.

My point? When in office you go to the IRS and take models of income and deductions being utilized by particular income categories then go in and model how much on average they would pay with those deductions eliminated then adjust the bracket rate accordingly.

You tell us which loopholes he could close.
How about he comes out and tells us which loopholes he WILL close.

[Warfish]

Originally Posted by Winstonbiggs

Your thread was about rates and I was reponding about rates.

Even in any discussion of rates, "He certainly pays less then I do" is not accurate.

He paid a lower rate is the only accurate way to say it. "Less" is not.

And again, as has been pointed out, there is almost no way he paid a lower rate than you either.

I figured that was a given, apparently not.

As far as better, I don't believe earning in the top 1% makes me better or worse then you or anyone else.

[Warfish]

Originally Posted by SafetyBlitz

Well, ethnically/culturally I'm Roman Catholic. I was raised in it, church every Sunday.

I went to Catholic High School, was baptized, had communion, was confirmed, and know the New Testament along with Church History and when I have kids some day, they'll be baptized, have communion, and be confirmed - so they can have the same good sense to reject it that I did.

So as I said, your claim of being a Roman Catholic was not accurate, and you are instead a lapsed inactive former Roman Catholic.

But the point is, I can speak about that religion with some authority - certainly enough to know where the money goes... for that new parking lot, those marble floors, the Vatican, hiring lawyers to defend priests and that Bishop in the luxury apartment in Manhattan.

I have serious doubts that you can speak "with authority" on the Catholic Church simply because you were raised in the faith and then went lapsed early in your life. Perhaps you may recall some dogma, yes. But detailed knowledge (i.e. authority) on how and where "the money goes", no, I do not believe that.

Just because they might use 1/3 of your tithe on helping the poor, it doesn't make up for the 2/3 that they spend on themselves.

A perfectly reasonable position to take if true, and your termination of active membership of that group would certainyl be in-line with such a position.

[SafetyBlitz]

Originally Posted by Warfish

So as I said, your claim of being a Roman Catholic was not accurate, and you are instead a lapsed inactive former Roman Catholic.

Sure, fine.

Originally Posted by Warfish

I have serious doubts that you can speak "with authority" on the Catholic Church simply because you were raised in the faith and then went lapsed early in your life. Perhaps you may recall some dogma, yes. But detailed knowledge (i.e. authority) on how and where "the money goes", no, I do not believe that.

Well nobody knows where the money goes, the Vatican is very secretive.

I do know that 3.3 billion was spent on sexual abuse cases in the US in the last 15 years alone. 1.3 of which in California (laxed their statute of limitations on these crimes, other states are presently following suit).

But yea, go to any Catholic Church, step inside and walk to the center, look around in 360 degrees, then go read the New Testament. Jesus doesn't need that marble flooring, stain glass windows, high arches and gold chalices. In fact, he'd rather had met on the field outside and used all that money on the poor.

Originally Posted by Warfish

A perfectly reasonable position to take if true, and your termination of active membership of that group would certainyl be in-line with such a position.

It's probably not a fair representation of what they do, on my part. It might be 2/3, 1/3 in the other direction. Either way, their overhead is unnecessarily large, and much of what they spend their money on is antithetical to Jesus' philosophy.

[SafetyBlitz]

Oh yea, and they're all tax exempt...

[Warfish]

Originally Posted by SafetyBlitz

Sure, fine.

Well nobody knows where the money goes.

It's probably not a fair representation of what they do, on my part.

Indeed.

Originally Posted by SafetyBlitz

Oh yea, and they're all tax exempt...

So is every Black "Church" run out of a strip-mal and bussed to the polls on election day to vote (D), and every Islamic Center that right now could be plotting to murder you.

Personally, I'm for ending all tax-exemptions for all "charitable" and "special interest" groups, universally. Part of my "everyone pays" Flat Tax preferences.

[CraigFL]

Originally Posted by SafetyBlitz

But see, we're not talking about what he did with the money that he kept. We're talking about his tax rate.

He left 1.5 million out of his deductions because he wanted to artificially raise his tax rate, as people would be watching this time around.

And good for him that he's charitable. Never said the guy was a bad man. Just disagree with his politics. But even if we did decide to speak about where his charitable donations went, we'd likely have to talk about the Church of Latter Day Saints.

Typical liberal cr@p. The guy pays MORE in taxes the he should have had to, due to his HUGE charitable donations, and the liberals try to twist it into a bad thing. No issue with Obama taking all his deductions, after his paltry donations. What is wrong with people?! And who cares where he gave it as long as it's listed as not for profit. He could've given it to the United Way where $.98 on a dollar go to administrative fees. (yes a hypothetical number but it is very high)