Do the American People care about Romney's tax returns?

[hombre]

Trust me, we all understand the difference.

Um, no. I didn't want to single them out, but you're forcing my hand Read BFly's post #39, or Fresno's posts earlier- they're both maintaining that the "average middle class" family pays an effective tax rate higher than Romney, and that is clearly false.

[hombre]

And the effective tax rate for the Top 0.1%, or the Top 1%, is around 24%. The effective tax rate for the Top 10% is around 18%. In the two years where Romney has released some info, he has paid a rate between 13-15%. That is significantly lower than average for his income.

And as to this point- I'll try this one more time. Romney's income is almost 100% cap gains/dividends- so it is always going to be taxed right around a 15% marginal rate. Obviously, for other members of the Top 1%, their income is NOT 100% cap gains/dividends. If it is derived (in part) from salaries/bonuses, excercise of stock options, or inheritance- these will all be taxed at higher marginal rates.

So it makes perfect sense that the effective rate of the "1%" is going to be higher than Romney- as it should, under current tax laws. It seems like you're trying to make this a perjorative, that he pays less than the "1%," when again it is both (1) fully legal and (2) should be full expected.

[hombre]

The very lowest effective tax rates, those for people making $18,400 per year or less, is 2.1%. You are just making up fake numbers that don't correlate with reality whatsoever.

I'm not a tax accountant but I do have an MBA and did study this for several years....long enough to recognize a fantasy when I see one.

Your numbers might be correct if we are talking about overall tax burdens. Our discussion is now, and has been, solely Federal income taxes/rates.

I promise you that someone making $18,400 is paying zero in Federal income taxes- in fact, with Earned Income Credit, their Federal tax liability is negative (i.e. they are getting a net refund).

Since apparently my example is "fantasy"- please tell me what a couple making 50K a year, with 2 kids, pays in federal taxes. Since it's "fantasy," please show me specifically what numbers are way off in my estimation/calculation, and how the real answer is materially different from $600. I thought I was using current rates from the Federal tax tables, and current levels for the standard deduction/personal exemptions, but again I'm no tax expert. Please instruct me as to where my estimations are grossly incorrect?

[hombre]

It's not as cut and dried as either of you are making it out to be, but Fly and Fresno are much closer to the truth than you are (especially if you are using a fanciful 2.1% effective tax rate for the middle class --- that is pure fantasy).

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/21/millionaires-the-middle-class-and-taxes-actual-numbers/

The median effective tax rate for middle class earners between $50-75k is 15.1%. Romney's effective tax rate was 13.9%.

Again, you are not talking only Federal income taxes. I don't have time right now to read all Krugman's numbers, but some other taxes must be in there (probably payroll).

I make more than 75k- I just pulled out my 2011 and 2010 taxes- my effective Federal income tax rates were 7.1% and 6.7%. And I don't have any capital gains, nor tax shelters in the Caymans lol

I don't want anyone in here to reveal private financial information, but I'd be willing to be almost all of you have effective rates below Romney's

[hombre]

The fact is that the median effective tax rate for earners between 50-75k is higher than Romney's effective tax rate of 13.9%.

Geez Louise- I'll try this one more time... that is incorrect if we are talking Federal Income taxes ONLY. I don't have time now to look up other numbers.

And I'm willing to bet you (don't worry, gentlemen's bet Jason lol) that your effective rate for Federal income taxes is below 13.9%. Probably substantially below it, as are mine- you can check your taxes tonight, and PM me if you wish. I don't expect nor want you to throw out personal financial data on an Internet board.

I did notice you completely dodged my challenge- ie.. if you're going to call someone's example/numbers "fantasy," I expect you to be able to tell me where my assumptions are incorrect. About the only thing you said (paraphrasing) was "some people have big deductions, some don't." Well, I went out of my way with my example to NOT give my hypothetical family any big deductions. All they received were the standard deduction, personal exemptions, and child tax credits that EVERY American with kids receives. So you can't wiggle off the hook that way.

I'm not in the habit of creating "fantasy" numbers out of thin air to win some internet argument- so I'll ask again, please tell me specifically where those numbers I threw out are fantasy, for your "typical" family of four making 50K.

[hombre]

If eveything is all hunky dory, why wont he release them....im willing to avatar bet that he paid zero taxes in 2008 or 2009 thanks to capital losses

Because he's made the calculation that he has nothing to gain politically by doing so.

He's released 2 yrs, with a 3rd coming. You and I both know if he releases 4, liberals will demand 6. If he releases 8, they will demand 10. Whatever he releases, the Left will maintain that whatever he holds back "is where all the skeletons are buried" and "he must have something to hide" lol. If you think I'm wrong, just scroll through this thread, you'll see that sentiment expressed numerous times.

Meanwhile, it will be Christmas in August for the left-leaning media/blogoshpere. Of course, none of this will come directly from the White House. But it will be a no-cost fishing expedition for anyone with a political agenda- and there will more inane articles/stories about houses built with elevators to the sand, expensive boarding schools, frivolous shopping sprees/trips, you name it. Anything to gin up as much Populist/class warfare rhetoric as possible, to keep Romney on the defensive. In politics, any day where you have your opponent on the defensive is a good day.

Bottom line, this thread is a microcosm of what's going on out there- the people who are clamoring most loudly for these tax forms aren't Independents/moderates- they are political lost causes to Romney. Again- read through this thread- does anyone out there really believe that if ol Mitty releases 8 more years of tax returns, suddenly Fresno, BFly, Moonlight, elD are going to ditch the Obama Express and come on over to the Grand Ol' Party?? LOL!!!

I think Romney has already made the calculation that he'll let the Left b*tch and moan about seeing more tax returns- and he might even get lucky that a Harry Reid will overplay his hand with unsourced charges from the floor of the Senate that would make McCarthy blush. That can only help his side. He's willing to bet that most Independents/moderates understand that he's a wealthy guy, and that if two years of tax returns weren't an issue for McCain or (an also uber-rich) John Kerry, than it shouldn't be an issue now.

[hombre]

....im willing to avatar bet that he paid zero taxes in 2008 or 2009 thanks to capital losses

This will be about the 7th time in this thread that I've posed this question: but why in the world would we expect anything otherwise?

We've already established Mitt makes 100% of his money from capital gains/dividends- ie. appreciation of his (mostly) stock portfolios. So in a year like 2008, where the stock market took a huge tumble- OF COURSE he will have paid zero taxes- he will have enormous capital losses. Probably in the tens of millions, if he's really worth $200MM.

Check your 401(k)statement- I'm 99% sure you had capital losses that year as well. And 2001, for that matter. If you didn't, please PM me the name of your investment adviser, pronto

[cardboardbox]

Again, you are not talking only Federal income taxes. I don't have time right now to read all Krugman's numbers, but some other taxes must be in there (probably payroll).

I make more than 75k- I just pulled out my 2011 and 2010 taxes- my effective Federal income tax rates were 7.1% and 6.7%. And I don't have any capital gains, nor tax shelters in the Caymans lol

I don't want anyone in here to reveal private financial information, but I'd be willing to be almost all of you have effective rates below Romney's

I had no tax shelters or cap gains either, and no kids last year, effective rate of about 10%.

[cardboardbox]

This will be about the 7th time in this thread that I've posed this question: but why in the world would we expect anything otherwise?

We've already established Mitt makes 100% of his money from capital gains/dividends- ie. appreciation of his (mostly) stock portfolios. So in a year like 2008, where the stock market took a huge tumble- OF COURSE he will have paid zero taxes- he will have enormous capital losses. Probably in the tens of millions, if he's really worth $200MM.

Check your 401(k)statement- I'm 99% sure you had capital losses that year as well. And 2001, for that matter. If you didn't, please PM me the name of your investment adviser, pronto

exit question: How much tax does the far left expect to be paid in a year with no income?

[hombre]

What Fresno Bob says here is true.



The answer to B-Fly's question is "yes".



Ah, now we see why you (but not anyone else, btw) are talking about effective federal income tax rates only. That's the only way that you can parse the information to make it look like Romney pays more than the average middle class family. Joe and Jane Schmoe actually work, you know, at jobs. Payroll taxes, while not relevant for someone like Mitt Romney, are critical to pretty much everyone else in this entire country. A guy who makes more than $40 MILLION without a job is not the norm. A family making $60k by working is the norm. The median effective tax rate, all normal things included, for earners between $50-75k is higher than Mitt Romney's 13.9%. The normal middle class family pays a higher effective tax rate than Mitt Romney did in 2009, despite making somewhere in the order of 100 times less money.

I've been speaking all along about Federal income taxes. If BFly and Fresno weren't, then I apologize.

However, if you want to include payroll taxes, your numbers also appear to be off:

http://www.freeby50.com/2011/03/effective-income-tax-rates-by-income.html

That table uses IRS data for 2008-2009, and for incomes of 50-75K it shows an average effective tax rate of 8.5% of AGI

And as for my "fantasy" numbers- I've asked you directly, twice, to tell me where my numbers in my example are incorrect or misleading. You have nothing in response. If that's the case, I'd appreciate if you'd lay off the perjoratives and the Harry Reid unfounded accusations that I'm somehow culling numbers out of thin air, that have "no basis in reality"- you're better than that.

[OaklandA's]

Geez Louise- I'll try this one more time... that is incorrect if we are talking Federal Income taxes ONLY. I don't have time now to look up other numbers.

You guys are talking about two different things - Federal INCOME tax rates, and total Federal tax rates. Most earners pay 7.65% of their income in Federal taxes (6.2% for FICA, 1.45% to Medicare), up until the $106,800 threshold. For Romney, obviously, this portion is negligible. The data that eldiablo linked is correct - the median effective Federal tax rate for those with incomes from $50-75K was 15.1% in 2011. That seems to agree with the numbers that you paid - you paid around 7% in Income tax, and another 7.65% in other federal taxes, so your TOTAL Federal tax rate was around 15%.

If you look at the total Federal effective tax rate, including Social Security, Medicare, and Federal Income tax, then it is true that many in the middle class paid a higher effective Federal tax rate than Romney.

[Moonlight J]

[hombre]

The fantasy is that you created an uneven playing field, as I believe I've been pretty clear about. You're essentially saying "if a middle class person had no payroll income, their effective tax rate would be lower than Mitt Romney's". Well, no sh!t. However, that's just not helpful or relevant. The chart you reference here is, again, federal income tax rates. That's only a small part of the picture, as I believe I've made clear.

Aargh- you're absolutely right, that's not the chart I wanted to post. It doesn't include payroll taxes.
That's what I get for trying to do this at work... obviously I can't multi-task

Can't we just talk about Strasburg

[Kevin Seitzer]

Can't we just talk about Strasburg

What's Strasburg's effective tax rate? And do the American people care? Washington is so out of touch these days.

[hombre]

What Fresno Bob says here is true.



The answer to B-Fly's question is "yes".



Ah, now we see why you (but not anyone else, btw) are talking about effective federal income tax rates only. That's the only way that you can parse the information to make it look like Romney pays more than the average middle class family. Joe and Jane Schmoe actually work, you know, at jobs. Payroll taxes, while not relevant for someone like Mitt Romney, are critical to pretty much everyone else in this entire country. A guy who makes more than $40 MILLION without a job is not the norm. A family making $60k by working is the norm. The median effective tax rate, all normal things included, for earners between $50-75k is higher than Mitt Romney's 13.9%. The normal middle class family pays a higher effective tax rate than Mitt Romney did in 2009, despite making somewhere in the order of 100 times less money.

The reason that I've been talking about Federal income tax is not to "parse the information...", it is to get the best apples-to-apples comparison there is. Because you're right, tax laws are incredibly complex/nuanced.

You're arguing "well, we should be looking at everything people pay" so we should include payroll taxes as well. Obviously, then that "helps your side" because Romney doesn't pay payroll taxes, while most working Americans do.

But if you want to look at taxes "all-in" as apparently you do- then you're not being fair if you don't mention the fact that the income flowing to Romney is being double-taxed; the corporate earnings and/or dividends have already been taxed at the corporate level, before they flow through to Romney.

Of course, none of the Obama ads, nor any of his supporters in here, will mention this fact. All they will do is say "geez, rich guys get to pay 15%, that's totally unfair." Nowhere will they mention that before they even get their hands on the remainder, anywhere from 10-40% of these earnings/dividends have already been taken out in corporate taxes.

That is one of the major rationales to having a capital gains tax rate below most people's marginal rates- to offset the fact that a big bite has already been taken out at the corporate level.

And pls save the "hey ExxonMobil makes $6B and doesn't pay any taxes" rebuttal- we both are smart enough to know that is the exception, rather than the rule, when it comes to corproate tax rates.