It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Romney would pay less than 1% in taxes under Ryan plan

page: 4
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in


posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 12:10 PM

Originally posted by bjax9er

Originally posted by jacobe001

So you have no problem with a GOVERNMENT POLITICIAN paying almost 0 taxes, but were supposed to give these GOVERNMENT thieves ours?

Originally posted by bjax9er
well that's a lot more than i paid in taxes last year.
sounds like a fair share to me.

after all it's his money, not yours, or anyone else's.

edit on 12-8-2012 by bjax9er because: add

first $200,000 is'nt $0 taxes

and it's a lot more than my $7,000

They love to play the - fair share - game.


What are we going to do about the $16 Trillion National Debt ?

What are we going to do about the $$$ Trillion deficits ?

What are we going to do about the - Fiscal Cliff -?

posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 12:12 PM
the u.s. of a. should not be extracting socalled taxes from the sovereign residents.
this is against the U.S. Constitution - only capital gains should be taxed.
see for the best on the non ratified 16th and 17th irs amendments.

posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 02:40 PM
Pay your fair share is properly translated to:

Give us more money so we can then in turn launder that money through our shill green industry businesses in the form of subsidies and bailouts so they in turn can donate money to our campaigns.

We are all paying more than our fair share and they must start doing more with less.

posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 03:21 PM

Originally posted by 11235813213455
Pay your fair share is properly translated to:

Give us more money so we can then in turn launder that money through our shill green industry businesses in the form of subsidies and bailouts so they in turn can donate money to our campaigns.

We are all paying more than our fair share and they must start doing more with less.


You just described the - Solyndra Scandal - perfectly.

Lets all pay lots of taxes so Obama can distribute it as he sees fit.

posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 03:53 PM

Originally posted by timetothink
reply to post by jacobe001

Romney didn't work a job, he had no INCOME tax to pay....that is the point most of you are missing.....if taxes are dropped from investments it would be for everyone...not just the rich....that is FAIR.

I think that the point you evade is that most normal people are struggling to get by. There is no money to invest.

So when the tax is dropped from investments it IS ONLY FOR THE RICH.

And that is not fair.

posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 04:28 PM

"eliminate taxes on capital gains, interest and dividends."

can someone explain to me just how eliminating taxes on capital gains, interest, and dividends would help small businesses???

how would it even encourage the ones playing in the markets that would produce such income from investing a small business??

seems to me that it would more than likely encourage more of what we had before and after the last and current financial crisis!!! yes, rich people!!! don't invest in that great idea and the person that is trying to get it into reality!! go chance the tax free quick money, (more than likely guarenteed not to hit rock bottom by the gov't that will be sure to bail them out if there's a need!!!

our budget wouldn't be in such a mess if these investors hadn't been so determined to make a quick million or so!! and, the normal taxpayers already are paying a pretty high price for their mistakes! loss of jobs, raising prices and devaluing dollar, loss of important services our local and state gov'ts use to have a means to give us!!!
now they think that the gains, that wouldn't be anything close to a gain if it wasn't for the gov't invtervening,, at everyone's expense....should be exempt from tax?
an, oh ya.....we soon to be seniors can just pay for that one with the loss of the money we've put into social security and medicare.

ya, sure, tell ya what, they get off without paying taxes on the risky investments that only seem to be risky for the taxpayers, well....forget about me paying any taxes either!!!!

posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 04:36 PM

Originally posted by timetothink
reply to post by jacobe001

Romney didn't work a job, he had no INCOME tax to pay....that is the point most of you are missing.....if taxes are dropped from investments it would be for everyone...not just the rich....that is FAIR.

By "everyone" you mean only those that don't work, but rather derive their income from Investments??

What country are you talking about?? Cuz 99% of the USA just lost all thier spare "investment" funds when the Romney crowd gambled our 401ks away...and then took more of our money in Bailouts when they lost, cuz they were "too big to fail"...apparently they still think they are...the middle-class though?...ef em, right? They can go ahead and fail.

Now they want a 1% tax rate???

Who the hell makes thier money off of investment income these days? Geez, most are just happy to have a job and a paycheck with hopes of one day paying off their debts.

Don't worry though...if you ever amass 5 or 10 Million and can live off the interest, you won't get taxed on it! Until pay up to finance the tax breaks for the wealthy.

edit on 13-8-2012 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 06:33 PM
The complaint from me is not about the rich in general ....
In every post, I thought I made it perfectly clear it is about the Government + Mega Corporations and The Financial Industry in bed with our Government, where they exist in a revolving door between each other, and stealing my taxes to prop them up via Bail Outs, an Offensive Military, subsidizing failing companies etc

These Rich I have a problem with because they are thieves and criminals taking from the American Public at everyone else's expense.

Originally posted by timetothink
reply to post by ColCurious

Lobbying HAS to be outlawed....

everyone complains about what the rich get away with, but they forget most of it is change the laws....don't beat up the people taking advantage of it.

edit on 13-8-2012 by jacobe001 because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 06:44 PM
I stopped reading there, because anything these scoundrels, Obama, Bush, Romney etc, have absolutely nothing to offer that will help this country except the circle jerk they exist in. And that is from all Presidential Administrative track record going back thirty years.

Tell me, why would these scoundrels offer tax breaks and tax incentives to off shore or outsource jobs going way back when if they were really concerned about the Average American?

This was intentional in order to funnel the profits from the costs savings in using Commie Cheap Labor directly into the Big Wall Street Banks that are connected at the hip to our criminal government.

And Romney is going to be no different when it comes to the average American.
Romney’s New Tax Incentive for Outsourcing U.S. Jobs

How Romney's Plan Would Reward Foreign Outsourcing

The Washington Post recently reported that some of the companies Mitt Romney’s firm Bain Capital invested in were “pioneers in the practice of shipping work from the United States to overseas call centers and factories.” Even more troubling than his business record is his platform as Republican presidential candidate, which includes a policy that would encourage and further accelerate the outsourcing of American jobs to foreign countries.

Originally posted by CookieMonster09

What the Ryan Plan is attempting to do is to encourage and stimulate investment in the economy. That's why he is cutting the tax rates on investment earnings (capital gains, interest, and dividends). This investment in the economy will help stimulate job growth.

posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 11:00 PM
reply to post by sensfan

It can't, the one's who attempt to justify otherwise are either: Just Plain Stupid, Mislead (Propaganda), or Absolutely Complicit.

posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 11:09 PM

Originally posted by bjax9er

Originally posted by interupt42
reply to post by bjax9er

You are looking at all wrong and the way they wan't to see it. You need to look at income to tax ratio not cumulative amounts.

He paid $200K but is worth almost 300 million.

I don't care how much money he has or how much he makes but he should at MINIMUM have to pay the same tax ratio that the middle class has to Pay as well.

i think you are looking at it all wrong, and the way the left wants you to see it.
a heavy progressive income tax, is how they (the left) pit the rich against the poor. class warfare.
this heavy progressive income tax is the second plank of communism.
remember there were no income taxes before 1913.

10 planks of communism

Communism, really? Are you deluded? You are rooting for the Criminal Enterprise that started the whole economic catastrophe. Class Warfare, started by Milton Friedman, one of your hero's I'm sure.

posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 11:12 PM
First I have been the top tax executive at a U.S. multinational for many years and do this for a living. Some of you will probably hate me for that. But, at least I have given this a lot of thought over the years. Lots of interesting comments here.

Second, no one in this thread has discussed the spend side of the equation. At some point, the government either needs to collect sufficient taxes to pay for its spending or print sufficient money to do so. Absent that, once the debt to GDP ratio hits approximately 120%, country economies have typically collapsed into mass inflation, Roman Empire, Germany WWI, Brazil 1980s, Argentina 1990s are examples, etc. Guess what, mass inflation negatively hurts the poor worse than the rich. So getting there is not a good idea for anyone.

As it stands now in this country, individuals who earn $50,000 or less pay virtually no taxes except FICA taxes. Between $50,000 - $100,000, some taxes, but, the rates are still pretty low. The bulk of the tax burden at high rates is shouldered by individuals making between $100,000 to $500,000. Those numbers may sound like you are rich, but, if you lose 40% or more to taxes each year, the amount left to save is not so much. Those making more than that can often shelter their income from higher rates of taxation via the methods indicated by other posters, i.e. lower taxes on investments.

The real issue is how to strike a fair balance between taxing earned (wage) income, v. investment (interest, dividends) that colllects sufficient revenue for a properly sized government. The so called fair tax doesn't do that as it only taxes consumption and the poor spend virtually all their income on consumption, while the rich spend a very low percentage. That shifts the tax burden on the rich to nearly 0%.

A fairer system would be something like this. Provide an exemption for each family member equal to $10,000. Eliminate itemized deductions. Allow tax deductible IRAs/401(k)s up to $20,000 annually per spouse with distributions from these plans also being tax free upon distribution. That will encourage savings. Tax all remaining income at a rate of 20% irrespective of character, i.e. wages, interest, dividends etc. I would eliminate tax preferences such as muni interest, CSV life insure, annuity tax free income build-up etc. Those are huge shelters for the rich.

Here is a loophole that many richuse. Take your after-tax saving you don't need until retirement, contribute it to an annuity. At age 62, you can distribute the annuity like an IRA when the funds are needed rather than annuitizing it and pay taxes at likely a lower rate since your income is likely to be lower. There is no limit on the amount that can be contributed. If you are super rich like Bill Gates, you set-up your own foundation, deduct the contributions to it, travel around the world doing things you would do anyway, make sure the foundation is employing your family members and effectively paying tax on only 50% of your income since 50% is the contribution limit. That is how the super rich are moving their rates down from 15% to 7.5%.

With respect to corporations, I would eliminate tax on corporations as long as they distributed 50% of their income annually to shareholders. Exceptions would be made for investment in capital equipment in the U.S. Offshore income would be treated as distributed to the U.S. annually each year would therefore have to be distributed each year. Failure to meet the tests at the corporate level would result in a 50% tax on income not distributed or not reinvested into the U.S.

There, that should send me to the unemployment line, stimulate investment in the U.S., allow individuals to save for retirement, allow the very poor to essentially pay no taxes and everyone else to pay at a reasonably low rate. It would also force corporations to pay their cash hords out or reinvest in the U.S. while virtually forcing them to bring offshore earnings back into the U.S. I don't think you can make it too much simpler than that.

posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 11:25 PM

Originally posted by sensfan

Romney’s 2010 tax rate—he has only released complete information for that year, so it is unclear what his burden would have been in other years—would have come in at a tiny 0.82 percent for the year, far lower than the already low 13.9% rate he actually paid. That huge drop would come primarily from the Ryan plan’s proposal to eliminate taxes on capital gains, interest and dividends. Romney’s income in 2010 came largely from those sources, so those taxes made up the bulk of the overall effective tax rate on his reported $21.6 million income. Romney would also enjoy the Ryan plan’s reduction in the marginal tax rate from 35 to 25 percent which, in conjunction with other measures like eliminating the Alternative Minimum Tax, would drop his effective tax rate down under one percent.

There you have it folks. More proof that Romney and Ryan just want to pander the the rich at the expense of middle and lower class Americans. How does that seem fair? How can something like this be justified?

Tax plan favors the rich - big time

Instead of worrying about how much in % of taxes Romney would pay under a tax plan, why don't we worry about scrapping the TAX SYSTEM that is UNFAIR and setup a National Sales Tax system that is fair for everyone, including Romney because everyone has to BUY things and the Romney's are no exception.

Its NO SECRET that REPUBLICANS are for the FREE TAXING the RICH and DEMOCRATS are for the ENSLAVING THE POOR. At some point, we have draw a line in the sand and turn this thing around.
edit on 8/13/2012 by Labrynth2012 because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 11:37 PM
reply to post by Labrynth2012

Well the rich may have to buy things, but, it is a low percentage of their income. They can also buy things outside the U.S. and pay no U.S. taxes and obtain VAT refunds. I know a lot of you fair tax advocates feel pretty strongly about the system. But, there are huge loopholes in it and it pushes the burden of tax onto the poor disproportionately. In my post above, if you want a consumption tax, take the same plan laid out above except increase the annual IRA limits to $100,000. That essentially puts everyone into a consumption system up to $100,000 and taxes the rest. The 'fair tax' i.e. a national sales tax allows income to escape taxation entirely by either not spending it or spending it in a location where the fair tax does not apply.

Just think, a guy making $10M a year paying say $1.5M a year in taxes could now almost by a house in the Cayman Islands on the tax savings alone and never pay taxes. The offshore scams that could be put in place are pretty easy. Offshore buying club where prices are heavily discounted on landed value, but, the member pays a fee to an offshore party not subject to the tax etc. Just look at how successful states are at collecting use tax on out of state purchases. Do you really want the federal government chasing down offshore on-line purchase scams such as the one I outlined above? That also may have the effect of pushing more jobs offshore...

posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 03:27 AM
reply to post by sensfan

Why are you more concerned about what someone does with their own money than what the government does with everyone's?

Big friggin deal!! Maybe that will bring some more jobs back to this country. Remember, the wealthy is the one people that hire the rest of us poor souls.
Geez.. have some common sense.

posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 07:20 AM
reply to post by interupt42

Obama supports both of those too...

I'm not sure where I stand on this issue, but who decides how much is enough money to take from someone? What if they earned that money? (Yeah I know this argument, everyone gets help along the way through life, but don't discount an individual's drive to become successful.) How is it someone else's right to take what is not theirs?

posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 08:47 AM
Does it really matter the wealthy elite already paid nearly 0% taxes for those that are tax exempt. I want to know how much the middle class is paying? As long as it doesn't go up and goes down.

The consumption tax seems the best for me. Hopefully, we can get someone in office to promote that.
edit on 14-8-2012 by amfirst1 because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 12:30 PM

can someone explain to me just how eliminating taxes on capital gains, interest, and dividends would help small businesses??? how would it even encourage the ones playing in the markets that would produce such income from investing a small business??

There are several examples for small business owners. Let's say you have a capital gain from the sale of your restaurant. That capital gain gets taxed. Eliminating this tax would help the small business owner keep more money in his pocket and reinvest the proceeds into his business.

Business owners save for retirement. Eliminating taxes on dividends would help a business owner keep more of their investment savings for themselves.

Business owners will oftentimes lend money to other business owners, or put Emergency Fund Savings into a CD (Certificate of Deposit). Eliminating taxes on interest income would again help the business owner reinvest the savings back into his business -- This means more jobs, more expansion, etc.

The problem with taxing capital gains, interest, and dividends is that it is regressive, and doesn't encourage investment in the economy. It penalizes investment, instead of encouraging investment.

Basically, in a nutshell, the ultra-ultra elite have rigged the tax system to keep themselves exempt from paying taxes or pay minimal taxes, while the bulk of the population is saddled with unsustainable taxes and unsustainable debt loads.

We have taxes on everything now -- income taxes, payroll taxes, estate taxes, sales taxes, ad nauseum -- and massive debt up to our eyeballs. Our Founding Fathers would have revolted against the current tax system a long time ago. It didn't used to be like this.

posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 11:12 PM
reply to post by RealSpoke

First off, sorry for my late reply.

Interesting read
but slightly inaccurate according to a colleague of mine, who teaches in economic and social fields and IS himself a former greek citizen.
(I also compared his assesments with wsj and other german pages and they checked out)

Greece's tax revenue is around 30%/GDP at the very most and has steadily declined since 2001.
After 2008 it was also effected by the tanking economy due to the GFC, ill-considered austerity measures and a general lack of reforms of course.

The fundamental causes of the actual loss of tax revenues in Greece (which amounted to 25%/GDP in 2007, shortly before(!) the GFC hit) are the far-reaching tax evasion and tax avoidance, major loopholes in Greece’s tax system (vast tax exemptions), failing control mechanisms and complicated nature of their system and a general absence of incentive for tax-payers to disclose their actual taxable incomes.
Greece's shadow economy is the biggest whitin the EU.

Still, this is not what primarily caused Greece's financial desaster which was (as you correctly stated) caused by "bankers and corrupt politicians". BUT it sure adds up to the dire situation they are facing today.
edit on 17-8-2012 by ColCurious because: (no reason given)

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2  3   >>

log in