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

[southparkcpa]

Back to tax rates please....the personal stuff is hijacking the thread. I LOVE talking tax rates.


FACT

So any married couple with income at or near 150K pays a LOWER rate than Romney.

FACT

If above is true...he pays a higher rate than 95 percent of the country or there about based on IRS public information.

http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pa...ome-taxes.html

[PlumberKhan]

Originally Posted by southparkcpa

Back to tax rates please....the personal stuff is hijacking the thread. I LOVE talking tax rates.


FACT

So any married couple with income at or near 150K pays a LOWER rate than Romney.

FACT

If above is true...he pays a higher rate than 95 percent of the country or there about based on IRS public information.

http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pa...ome-taxes.html

None of what you stated was fact.

[southparkcpa]

Originally Posted by PlumberKhan

None of what you stated was fact.

They are both facts.....

[Timmy®]

Originally Posted by southparkcpa

Back to tax rates please....the personal stuff is hijacking the thread. I LOVE talking tax rates.


FACT

So any married couple with income at or near 150K pays a LOWER rate than Romney.

FACT

If above is true...he pays a higher rate than 95 percent of the country or there about based on IRS public information.

http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pa...ome-taxes.html

I'm just jumping in the middle here but -

he makes more than 99.5 percent of the country.

and he's paying less than he should in taxes because a lot of his money is falsely labeled as "investments"

so what does the above have to do with anything?

[southparkcpa]

Originally Posted by Timmy®

I'm just jumping in the middle here but -

he makes more than 99.5 percent of the country.

and he's paying less than he should in taxes because a lot of his money is falsely labeled as "investments"

so what does the above have to do with anything?

I dont have a dog in the fight, I am in it as a CPA for some clarity so Ill remain impartial.

Why is he paying less than he should? I reviewed the tax return. It appears accurate, I saw nothing falsely labeled. He did not set the tax rate. The firm who did his return, PWC, I worked for , for many years. Best firm in the world IMO.

A couple, with income of 100K and 2 kids pays less than 7K total tax . IMO that is less than they should.

He has NO TAX advantage with his overseas investments that I can see.

[PlumberKhan]

Originally Posted by southparkcpa

They are both facts.....

Oh. OK then.

Those are some sobering facts. What kind of world do we live in? How can these people survive?

Dark days indeed.


Sent from my Double-Wide using Semaphore...

[palmetto defender]

Originally Posted by PlumberKhan

You didn't.

Catholics are touchy people. They like to touch things and thingies.

I tjink YOU said it too BTW. LOL.
In fairness to you though, you have defamed virtually every other religion.

[palmetto defender]

Originally Posted by Warfish

I believe very deeply in the freedom of speech, opinion and expression.

I believe very stringly in your right to support, and express support, for a particular religion.

But I equally suport, equally strongly, the rights of others to be equally critical of those same religions if they feel it warranted.

I do not feel that and that alone is equaivalent to bigotry, which is defined as:



To put it in alternative terms, I may be strongly critical of the New York Jets, but that deos not in and of itself mean treat fans or employees of the New York Jets (as a group) with hatred and intolerence.

So no, I'm not Devil's Advocate'ing here. It is a core fo my beliefs that the freedom to express, positive and negative, is one of the most important we posess, and attempts to stifile it by denouncing, inaccurately, those who may be of an opposing viewpoint as "Bigots", "Racists" or the like is neither appropriate, nor constructive.

Look, freedom of speech is fine. But you can't (at least shouldn't) go around calling people ni****ers, sp**s, Ki**s, dagos (more acceptable-LOL), or other pergoratives. Faggots, cu**s, or others. It's a total lack of civility.
And defaming mainstream religion falls into that as well. Civility please.
Defaming the Jets is , of course, not only acceptable but required at this point.

Now you can have the right (until Bloomberg decides not) to use inappropriate labels and descriptions. BUT, you yourself then have the position to be labelled in my opinion. It's the tit for tat concept. I endorse that concept fully.
It's nicey nice until somebody breaks the rules.
The does not apply to political differences or sports differences or differences on female appearance.

[chiefst2000]

Originally Posted by Timmy®

I'm just jumping in the middle here but -

he makes more than 99.5 percent of the country.

and he's paying less than he should in taxes because a lot of his money is falsely labeled as "investments"

so what does the above have to do with anything?

How is his money falsely labeled as investments?

As an aside my effective federal income tax rate is around 13% and I am in the category that Southpark described above.

[Winstonbiggs]

Originally Posted by 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.

I happen to agree with you. I can't blame Romney for the tax code and I certainly expect everyone to comply with the law as he apparently has and do the best they can.

What I don't understand is why Romney who has never been in federal government has allowed himself to be pinned into a corner by Democrats who are in office and responsible for the tax code that Romney is complying with?

Why not use his own complex tax return to explain how he intends to make the tax code simple and fairer for everyone instead of letting Obama who was in the Senate when the Democrats controlled Congress and was President when the Democrats controlled Congress and the Oval office, who are the people responsible for the current tax code, dictate the fairness debate?

Had he used his own returns as an example of how a Romney Presidency would attack the tax code he might have been able to go on offense rather they allow the Democrats to win this argument based on his own defensive position on his own returns. Returns which are in compliance with the law that his opponent had some control over.

[Warfish]

Originally Posted by Winstonbiggs

I happen to agree with you. I can't blame Romney for the tax code and I certainly expect everyone to comply with the law as he apparently has and do the best they can.

What I don't understand is why Romney who has never been in federal government has allowed himself to be pinned into a corner by Democrats who are in office and responsible for the tax code that Romney is complying with?

Why not use his own complex tax return to explain how he intends to make the tax code simple and fairer for everyone instead of letting Obama who was in the Senate when the Democrats controlled Congress and was President when the Democrats controlled Congress and the Oval office, who are the people responsible for the current tax code, dictate the fairness debate?

Had he used his own returns as an example of how a Romney Presidency would attack the tax code he might have been able to go on offense rather they allow the Democrats to win this argument based on his own defensive position on his own returns. Returns which are in compliance with the law that his opponent had some control over.

Now THAT is a good post. Nice recovery.

[palmetto defender]

Originally Posted by Winstonbiggs

I happen to agree with you. I can't blame Romney for the tax code and I certainly expect everyone to comply with the law as he apparently has and do the best they can.

What I don't understand is why Romney who has never been in federal government has allowed himself to be pinned into a corner by Democrats who are in office and responsible for the tax code that Romney is complying with?

Why not use his own complex tax return to explain how he intends to make the tax code simple and fairer for everyone instead of letting Obama who was in the Senate when the Democrats controlled Congress and was President when the Democrats controlled Congress and the Oval office, who are the people responsible for the current tax code, dictate the fairness debate?

Had he used his own returns as an example of how a Romney Presidency would attack the tax code he might have been able to go on offense rather they allow the Democrats to win this argument based on his own defensive position on his own returns. Returns which are in compliance with the law that his opponent had some control over.

Romney is a very intelligent man. But he is not a slick operator. He is also not a politician (not a good one anyway). He is a manager/leader.
We have had both. Prefer a leader type. We currently do not have one.
Romney, I believe, makes the false assumption that people can understand his concepts. He is also naive when it comes to the American public.