Taxes, charity cost Romney 57.9 percent of income

[brotherplanet]

Taxes, charity cost Romney 57.9 percent of income


With President Obama expected to use his second-chance debate this week to portray Mitt Romney as an uncaring rich guy, a new analysis of the GOP candidate's wealth shows that the millionaire was so generous that he kept just 42 percent of his income.

Obama's team has mocked the 14.1 percent tax rate that Romney is in as shirking his responsibility. But Charlottesville, Va.-based Marotta Wealth Management, which pens a widely-followed research blog, found that when Romney's tax burden and charitable gifts are included, he paid out 57.9 percent of his income.

"Giving $2.3 million to charity certainly should not be the basis of any criticism," said David Marotta. "It is money the Romney's did not keep for themselves, so I am counting it with the money lost to taxes."

His basic math for Romney's 2011 return: $18.6 million in income minus $10.8 million in taxes and charity results in a net of $7.8 million, 42.1 percent of gross. Ditto for 2010, said Marotta.



Taxes, charity cost Romney 57.9 percent of income

[Luminiferous]

Taxes, charity cost Romney 57.9 percent of income


With President Obama expected to use his second-chance debate this week to portray Mitt Romney as an uncaring rich guy, a new analysis of the GOP candidate's wealth shows that the millionaire was so generous that he kept just 42 percent of his income.

Obama's team has mocked the 14.1 percent tax rate that Romney is in as shirking his responsibility. But Charlottesville, Va.-based Marotta Wealth Management, which pens a widely-followed research blog, found that when Romney's tax burden and charitable gifts are included, he paid out 57.9 percent of his income.

"Giving $2.3 million to charity certainly should not be the basis of any criticism," said David Marotta. "It is money the Romney's did not keep for themselves, so I am counting it with the money lost to taxes."

His basic math for Romney's 2011 return: $18.6 million in income minus $10.8 million in taxes and charity results in a net of $7.8 million, 42.1 percent of gross. Ditto for 2010, said Marotta.



Taxes, charity cost Romney 57.9 percent of income

Why isn't Romney posting all of this and telling people to lay off questioning his tax returns??

To my knowledge you do not "lose" charitable donations to taxes... People donate money to claim on their tax deductions, which I guarantee Mittens and Ann did...every year.

"Donations to charity are tax deductible expenses. These donations can reduce your taxable income and lower your tax bill. Not everyone will be able to deduct their charitable contributions, however. You will need to itemize your tax deductions in order to claim any charity. "

http://taxes.about.com/od/deductionscre ... nation.htm

[DEATH ROW JOE]

Taxes, charity cost Romney 57.9 percent of income

You suck at math. Taxes and charity amount to 34% of his income when you combine 2010 and 2011.

Regardless, a voluntary charitable donation is not a tax, especially when he's giving 10% of his income to the Mormon church. Taxes are not voluntary.

2011:
13.7 million income
1.95 million taxes
4 million in charity

2010:
21.6 million income
3 million taxes
3 million charity

11.95/35.3 = 33.9% (top tax rate now is 35%, for most of Reagan's presidency it was 50%).

You fail at life birtherplanet.

[tylamonroe]

Taxes, charity cost Romney 57.9 percent of income

You suck at math. Taxes and charity amount to 34% of his income when you combine 2010 and 2011.

Regardless, a voluntary charitable donation is not a tax, especially when he's giving 10% of his income to the Mormon church. Taxes are not voluntary.

2011:
13.7 million income
1.95 million taxes
4 million in charity

2010:
21.6 million income
3 million taxes
3 million charity

11.95/35.3 = 33.9% (top tax rate now is 35%, for most of Reagan's presidency it was 50%).

You fail at life birtherplanet.

Are you including state and local in your numbers?

[DEATH ROW JOE]

Taxes, charity cost Romney 57.9 percent of income

You suck at math. Taxes and charity amount to 34% of his income when you combine 2010 and 2011.

Regardless, a voluntary charitable donation is not a tax, especially when he's giving 10% of his income to the Mormon church. Taxes are not voluntary.

2011:
13.7 million income
1.95 million taxes
4 million in charity

2010:
21.6 million income
3 million taxes
3 million charity

11.95/35.3 = 33.9% (top tax rate now is 35%, for most of Reagan's presidency it was 50%).

You fail at life birtherplanet.

Are you including state and local in your numbers?

In 2009 and 2010, he paid 630K/year in state and local taxes and deducted it from his taxes so the total paid in state and local taxes is 900K over both years.

Add that 900K to 11.95 million and you get 12.85 million.

12.85/35.3 = 36.4% tax rate.

Might as well reduce his charitable gifts by the 1 million it reduced his income tax liability in 2010 and 2011 when he took the charitable deduction.

11.85/35.3 = 33.5% rate when you include charitable gifts, taxes, state and local taxes and take into consideration the portion of charitable gifts, state and local taxes that are picked up by other tax payers via the deductions.

[tylamonroe]

Thanks for digging up that info, really, no sarcasm.

Are we to think he is a monster for giving 7 million in charity and STILL paying a 35% rate?

I think the dems are out of steam on that argument. Back to magic underpants and the war on women on Tuesday I suppose.

[brotherplanet]

Thanks for digging up that info, really, no sarcasm.

Are we to think he is a monster for giving 7 million in charity and STILL paying a 35% rate?

I think the dems are out of steam on that argument. Back to magic underpants and the war on women on Tuesday I suppose.

Yep. I don't think Romney would make a good president, but lord knows the only way for someone to show their support for Obama is to paint Romney as a demon from the 7th level of Hell.

Cracks me the fuck up!

[DEATH ROW JOE]

Are we to think he is a monster for giving 7 million in charity and STILL paying a 35% rate?

Who said he was a monster? The reason the tax rate came up is because before the 47% video, Romney's plan to boost the economy was a tax cut that mostly benefited the top earners. So he was suggesting that high tax rates on the top earners is slowing down the economy. The fact is the wealthy are facing a very light tax burden. Even though they are paying a lot of money, it's not keeping them from consuming and investing. He has so much money he is giving it away.

He wants to increase defense spending but does not want to raise taxes. Who is supposed to pay for the increased defense spending? He's cutting programs that provide health care for the poor to pay for more defense spending. If he wants to increase any spending, he should pay for it with a tax hike on the people who are least burdened by taxes, not by cutting programs that help poor people.. If he wants more defense spending, then raise taxes on people making 1 million a year.

Yep. I don't think Romney would make a good president, but lord knows the only way for someone to show their support for Obama is to paint Romney as a demon from the 7th level of Hell.

There you go with your straw man arguments. Nobody is painting Romney as a demon from the 7th level of hell. You're a liar and an imbecile.

[HerveVillechaizeLounge]

Are we to think he is a monster for giving 7 million in charity and STILL paying a 35% rate?

Who said he was a monster? The reason the tax rate came up is because before the 47% video, Romney's plan to boost the economy was a tax cut that mostly benefited the top earners. So he was suggesting that high tax rates on the top earners is slowing down the economy. The fact is the wealthy are facing a very light tax burden. Even though they are paying a lot of money, it's not keeping them from consuming and investing. He has so much money he is giving it away.

He wants to increase defense spending but does not want to raise taxes. Who is supposed to pay for the increased defense spending? He's cutting programs that provide health care for the poor to pay for more defense spending. If he wants to increase any spending, he should pay for it with a tax hike on the people who are least burdened by taxes, not by cutting programs that help poor people.. If he wants more defense spending, then raise taxes on people making 1 million a year.

Yep. I don't think Romney would make a good president, but lord knows the only way for someone to show their support for Obama is to paint Romney as a demon from the 7th level of Hell.

There you go with your straw man arguments. Nobody is painting Romney as a demon from the 7th level of hell. You're a liar and an imbecile.

I believe the plan is to get more people actually working. More people working, more taxes being collected less money going to people on welfare, etc...

[Danzig in the Dark]

I believe the plan is to get more people actually working. More people working, more taxes being collected less money going to people on welfare, etc...

You believe? Don't you know what his plan is or is it too complicated for you to understand?

[tylamonroe]

I believe the plan is to get more people actually working. More people working, more taxes being collected less money going to people on welfare, etc...

You believe? Don't you know what his plan is or is it too complicated for you to understand?

Please. We have to pass it so we can find out what is in it. That is how things are done now.

[HerveVillechaizeLounge]

I believe the plan is to get more people actually working. More people working, more taxes being collected less money going to people on welfare, etc...

You believe? Don't you know what his plan is or is it too complicated for you to understand?

I love how you dumbasses get hung up on how things are said instead of what is said. It's not complicated at all. Now Obama's plan... now that's an easy one to follow. Tax the people that actually PRODUCE and CONTRIBUTE and give it to the people who don't. But why look at Obama's failure over the past 4 years. Let's nit-pick over peoples language, that's how we'll get our boy elected.

[HerveVillechaizeLounge]

I believe the plan is to get more people actually working. More people working, more taxes being collected less money going to people on welfare, etc...

You believe? Don't you know what his plan is or is it too complicated for you to understand?

Please. We have to pass it so we can find out what is in it. That is how things are done now.

According to Obama... you are correct.

[Tommy2Tone84]

Thanks for digging up that info, really, no sarcasm.

Are we to think he is a monster for giving 7 million in charity and STILL paying a 35% rate?

I think the dems are out of steam on that argument. Back to magic underpants and the war on women on Tuesday I suppose.

Yep. I don't think Romney would make a good president, but lord knows the only way for someone to show their support for Obama is to paint Romney as a demon from the 7th level of Hell.

Cracks me the fuck up!

I don't think Romney is a demon from the 7th level of Hell but you know, that paranoia runs both ways. Conservatives try and paint Obama to be the lead horseman of some coming Apocalypse. What cracks me the fuck up is Reagan spent like a fucking sailor, Bush Sr and Jr spent like drunken sailors but now they are pulling out the "fiscal responsibility" card on Obama for spending like a drunken sailor. About the only guy who hasn't spent like a drunken sailor in the executive office the last 30 years is Bill Clinton.

What also cracks me the fuck up is Conservatives have had a national health care plan on the books for years, Romney put government run health care in place at the state level when he was governor, I even saw him take credit for Obamacare a few months ago on tv, but now he is trying to call it a hostile government takeover from some socialist agenda.

That shit cracks me the fuck up right there.

[Danzig in the Dark]

I believe the plan is to get more people actually working. More people working, more taxes being collected less money going to people on welfare, etc...

You believe? Don't you know what his plan is or is it too complicated for you to understand?

I love how you dumbasses get hung up on how things are said instead of what is said. It's not complicated at all. Now Obama's plan... now that's an easy one to follow. Tax the people that actually PRODUCE and CONTRIBUTE and give it to the people who don't. But why look at Obama's failure over the past 4 years. Let's nit-pick over peoples language, that's how we'll get our boy elected.

You have no clue what Romney plans to do. He's offered few specifics and Ryan's plan has been picked to shreds already. You just repeat some bullshit talking points you heard and pretend like you comprehend, hence your "Tax the people that actually PRODUCE and CONTRIBUTE and give it to the people who don't" comment.

Looking at all the taxes

Jul 19th 2012, 17:07 by D.R.

MY COLLEAGUE suggests that America’s wealthy already pay at least their fair share of the cost for the public goods they depend on to prosper. He notes that in recent years, the top 5% of earners have received 32% of the country’s adjusted gross income, but paid 59% of federal individual income taxes. “If that’s not giving something back, what is?”, he asks.

This is a case of cherry-picking the data. Yes, the federal income-tax system is progressive through most of the income distribution—although it becomes extremely regressive at the high end, because of the low rates applied to qualified dividends and long-term capital gains (as Mitt Romney can attest).

However, federal income taxes account for just 27% of total government revenue collected in America. And the remaining three-quarters of the tax pie is quite regressive. The middle class may not pay much federal income tax. But they sure pay the payroll tax for Social Security and Medicare, which the rich can mostly skip out on since it only applies to the first $110,000 of wage income. (The Medicare levy, unlike its bigger Social Security counterpart, is not capped). The masses also pay a much greater share of their income in sales and excise taxes than the rich do, because they cannot afford to save.

The fact of the matter is that the American tax code as a whole is almost perfectly flat. The bottom 20% of earners make 3% of the income and pay 2% of the taxes; the middle 20% make 11% and pay 10%; and the top 1% make 21% and pay 22%. Steve Forbes couldn’t have drawn it up any better.

A charitable interpretation of the position that the rich already pay enough taxes is that its advocates have simply made a good-faith oversight about all those other pesky levies that the vast majority of Americans get stuck with. If they really think that a world where people earning the top 32% of income pay 59% of the taxes is fair, then they should support radical reform to make that a reality.

To start, we’d have to eliminate the flat payroll tax and its $110,000 income ceiling, and replace those revenues with the progressive income tax. We’d also need to tax dividends and capital gains as ordinary income. Then we’d have to modify sales taxes—by, say, taxing things rich people buy, like yachts, at a higher rate than things poor people buy, like generic-brand groceries.

However, I am yet to see the Cato Institute or Tax Foundation beating the drums for such policies. That suggests a somewhat less sympathetic account: that they are trying to focus public attention on a narrow slice of data that justifies letting the rich pay as little as possible, while obscuring the full picture, which leads to precisely the opposite conclusion.

Addendum: A commenter reminds me that most states do indeed exempt food from sales tax, in a rare nod to progressivity outside the income-tax system. However, it’s worth noting that Mississippi, the poorest state in the union, is one of the few that still levy the full rate.

This post has been revised to reflect the distinction between the Social Security and Medicare portions of the payroll tax.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democrac ... and-rich-0

[Luminiferous]

I love how you dumbasses get hung up on how things are said instead of what is said. It's not complicated at all.

So it's different if a Republitard says it and not a Demtard?

[Skate4RnR]

Both parties spend like a motherfucker, they just spend it on different things. I'm not getting fucking shit out of paying for two goddamn wars. I'm not getting shit for paying subsidies for bullshit so we can feed a cow 56lbs. of grain to produce this cow to eat when THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO EAT FUCKING GRASS! Those who stay away from red meat pay the same shit as everyone else so eat a fucking dick bitch.

[johnk5150]

Why isn't Romney posting all of this and telling people to lay off questioning his tax returns??

To my knowledge you do not "lose" charitable donations to taxes... People donate money to claim on their tax deductions, which I guarantee Mittens and Ann did...every year.

"Donations to charity are tax deductible expenses. These donations can reduce your taxable income and lower your tax bill. Not everyone will be able to deduct their charitable contributions, however. You will need to itemize your tax deductions in order to claim any charity. "

Misleading. There are limits to what is deductible. Some people just give. I don't do a single tax return where every donation is deducted.