PDA

View Full Version : Mitt Would Pay 0.82 % in Taxes Under Ryan's Plan



Qtec
08-12-2012, 03:17 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style='font-size: 17pt'>Mitt Romney Would Pay 0.82 Percent in Taxes Under Paul Ryan's Plan </span>

Under Paul Ryan's plan, Mitt Romney wouldn't pay any taxes for the next ten years -- or any of the years after that. Now, do I know that that's true. Yes, I'm certain.

Well, maybe not quite nothing. In 2010 -- the only year we have seen a full return from him -- Romney would have paid an effective tax rate of around 0.82 percent under the Ryan plan, rather than the 13.9 percent he actually did. How would someone with more than $21 million in taxable income pay so little? <span style='font-size: 14pt'>Well, the vast majority of Romney's income came from capital gains, interest, and dividends.<u> And Ryan wants to eliminate all taxes on capital gains, interest and dividends. </u></span>

Romney, of course, criticized this idea when Newt Gingrich proposed it back in January by<u> pointing out that zeroing out taxes on savings and investment would mean zeroing out his own taxes.</u>

Almost. Romney did earn $593,996 in author and speaking fees in 2010 that would still be taxed under the Ryan plan. Just not much. Ryan would cut the top marginal tax rate from 35 to 25 percent and get rid of the Alternative Minimum Tax -- saving Romney another $292,389 or so on his 2010 tax bill. Now, Romney would still owe self-employment taxes on his author and speaking fees, but that only amounts to $29,151. Add it all up, and Romney would have paid $177,650 out of a taxable income of $21,661,344, for a cool effective rate of 0.82 percent.

But what about corporate taxes? Aren't they a double tax on savings and investment, so Romney's "real" rate is higher than his headline rate? No. As Jared Bernstein of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has pointed out, Romney has structured his investments as "pass-throughs" that avoid corporate tax. In other words, the 0.82 percent tax rate is really a 0.82 percent tax rate.

It might seem impossible to fund the government when the super-rich pay no taxes. That is accurate. Ryan would actually raise taxes on the bottom 30 percent of earners, according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, but that hardly fills the revenue hole he would create. The solution? All but eliminate all government outside of Social Security and defense -- a point my colleague Derek Thompson has made in incredible chart form.

Maybe Harry Reid's mysterious source that Romney didn't pay taxes for a decade was really a time-traveler from the future. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>If Romney wins, it could very well be true</span> </div></div>

link (http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/08/mitt-romney-would-pay-082-percent-in-taxes-under-paul-ryans-plan/261027/#)

Q

LWW
08-12-2012, 04:46 AM
Tell us wht you think a capital gain means please.

Also ... who pays a capitlal gains tax?

Last ... why are you against cutting taxes for the middle class?

Gayle in MD
08-12-2012, 05:16 AM
Two fascist crooks! Romney and Ryan.

Is it just me, or does Ryan look like Dracula? /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

Only the millionaires and billionaires, and the ignorant religious radicals will be lining up to vote for Romney.

Working people have got his number.

Mitt's choice of Ryan will sink his ship for sure!

Even the Tea Party jerks, don't want to lose their Medicare annd SS.

Now we have Romney, the personification of greedy, corrupt corporate pigs, linked up with the guy who is a the biggest tool for the wealthy CEO, corrupt and greedy pigs.

What a perfect match,... only the 99% is more than ready, this time. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

G.

Qtec
08-12-2012, 05:31 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Tell us wht you think a capital gain means please.<span style="color: #3333FF">Look it up!</span>

Also ... who pays a capitlal gains tax? <span style="color: #3333FF">Look it up!</span>

Last ... why are you against cutting taxes for the middle class? </div></div>

I'm not.

DON"T YOU KNOW ANYTHING????????? Every time you reply to a post its with questions!

Q

LWW
08-12-2012, 07:33 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Tell us wht you think a capital gain means please.<span style="color: #3333FF">Look it up!</span>

Also ... who pays a capitlal gains tax? <span style="color: #3333FF">Look it up!</span>

Last ... why are you against cutting taxes for the middle class? </div></div>

I'm not.

DON"T YOU KNOW ANYTHING????????? Every time you reply to a post its with questions!

Q </div></div>

I don't need to look anything up.

I've had capital gains in more than one year, and have pad a quite substantial amount of tax on it.

I also realize that most of the capital gains tax in the US s paid by the middle class.

I also realize that, and even Obama has conirmed this, that lower capital gains tax rates generate more revenue and mre growth.

But, being a nice guy ... first question in your own words, what is a capital gain I've given you several clues.

Second question ... who pays the lion's share of capital gain taxes? Here's another hint ... middle class families.

Third question ... why are you for raising taxes paid by the middle class and reducing taxes paid by the <span style='font-size: 14pt'>EEVILLL RICH</span>?

Oh ... before you say it ... that's exactly what you supprt, and you support it because you are told to think that and don't realize because you haven't a clue what a apital gain is, who ays the tax and what the effects are.

Qtec
08-12-2012, 07:47 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I've had capital gains in more than one year, and have pad a quite substantial amount of tax on it. </div></div>

LOL..."lots of taxes!"

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I also realize that most of the capital gains tax in the US s paid by the middle class. </div></div>

Total BS. But go on.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Fewer than <span style='font-size: 14pt'>one in seven individual income taxpayers reported taxable capital gains in 2006.</span> Over half of taxpayers with gains had incomes below $75,000, but<span style='font-size: 20pt'> most capital gains were reported by very high income taxpayers. </span></div></div>



<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I also realize that, and even Obama has conirmed this, that lower capital gains tax rates generate more revenue and mre growth. </div></div>

More total BS. Show us.

You scold Harry Reid for making claims he can't/won't back up BUT you do the same thing in every post you make!!!

Give us some facts, if you have any.

Q

LWW
08-12-2012, 08:27 AM
LEARN SNOOPY LEARN (http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/joshua-gilder/2012/05/11/how-barack-obamas-buffett-tax-hurts-the-middle-class)

LWW
08-12-2012, 08:31 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I've had capital gains in more than one year, and have pad a quite substantial amount of tax on it. </div></div>

LOL..."lots of taxes!"

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I also realize that most of the capital gains tax in the US s paid by the middle class. </div></div>

Total BS. But go on.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Fewer than <span style='font-size: 14pt'>one in seven individual income taxpayers reported taxable capital gains in 2006.</span> Over half of taxpayers with gains had incomes below $75,000, but<span style='font-size: 20pt'> most capital gains were reported by very high income taxpayers. </span></div></div>

LEARN SNOOPY LEARN (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54jr3Ceu894&feature=youtube_gdata_player)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I also realize that, and even Obama has conirmed this, that lower capital gains tax rates generate more revenue and mre growth. </div></div>

More total BS. Show us.

You scold Harry Reid for making claims he can't/won't back up BUT you do the same thing in every post you make!!!

Give us some facts, if you have any.

Q

</div></div>

LEARN SNOOPY LEARN (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54jr3Ceu894&feature=youtube_gdata_player)

LWW
08-12-2012, 08:33 AM
Know what a capital gain is yet?

Qtec
08-12-2012, 08:53 AM
LOL. That's proof????????????

Nutjob.

Q

Gayle in MD
08-12-2012, 09:13 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">LOL. That's proof????????????

Nutjob.

Q </div></div>

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pM2OK_JaJ9I

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

LWW
08-12-2012, 10:53 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">LOL. That's proof????????????

Nutjob.

Q </div></div>

It's obvious you are unfamiliar with the concept of truth.

This is where you explain that just because Obama acknowledges that higher capital gains rates generate less revenue doesn't mean that Obama acknowledges that higher capital gains rates generate less revenue.

LWW
08-12-2012, 11:02 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Know what a capital gain is yet? </div></div>

Obviously you don't ... sad, so sad.

But ... being a tax dodger yourself, I never expected you would.

Stretch
08-12-2012, 01:10 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Know what a capital gain is yet? </div></div>

Obviously you don't ... sad, so sad.

But ... being a tax dodger yourself, I never expected you would. </div></div>

So, because he will not play your little Q and A games he is obviously a tax dodger. It's this kind of F'ed up logic that makes you the laughing stock of the board. Well done! St.

Soflasnapper
08-12-2012, 02:29 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> LEARN SNOOPY LEARN (http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/joshua-gilder/2012/05/11/how-barack-obamas-buffett-tax-hurts-the-middle-class) </div></div>

Try to understand this analysis (http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1286) to understand why you are quite mistaken.

Your first mistake is to think that Charlie Gibson is any kind of economic expert. Nobody on television is. He's as vulnerable to being spinned as anyone.

And he's just repeating spin.

Here's a question for you. If that is so, why would Reagan have agreed to zero out capital gains preferred rates in his '86 tax reform deal? (Check it out-- capital gains were taxed at regular income rates under that reform.)

The facts are that when or if capital gains are taken in a taxable event is discretionary to a great degree-- until the gains are realized (by selling the capital asset), no taxes are due.

When an increase in capital gains taxes is put into law, people that can time when they realize the gains take it in the year before the rate hike occurs. Because so many 'rush out the door' with those gains in hand before the rate hike kicks in, there is less the next year to be realized.

The same rushing out the door occurs when the rate is decreased. The first year it's decreased, people who have been timing when to take those gains decide the reduced rate is a great time to do that, and then again, it creates a one-off effect in the first year.

So Gibson gets spun on those two facts (which are true, but quite misleading), and somehow you fail to prevent yourself from being punked by this same simplistic syllogism.

The whole issue of capital gains is misunderstood in several ways. Simply having a capital gain realized doesn't even mean you owe any money, since if you roll it over into a similar investment type, all cap gains is stayed indefinitely until a final realization of the gains that are not reinvested.

This is true for stocks, bonds, houses, etc. Rollovers. Look into it.

Then, the claim of so many not-rich people with cap gains neglects to mention that those gains are in tax-deferred IRAs or 401ks other pension holdings, and thus immune from any taxation on any gains, whether interest or dividends or capital gains, until that money is taken out after achieving the age when that is allowed.

Finally, where the non-rich really used to have capital gains (in their houses, although not so much these days), once you are ready to downsize and not reinvest everything from a house sale into a comparably priced new home, there is an exemption on paying any capital gains on your primary home, up to a capital gains figure of $250k (or $500k if you are married), any time you sell your primary residence at a capital gains profit.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What's the best tax break available to Jane and John Q. Public? If they're homeowners, it's selling their house.

Homeowners already know the many tax breaks that Uncle Sam offers, most notably mortgage interest and property tax deductions. Well, he also has good tax news for home sellers: Most of them won't owe the Internal Revenue Service a single dime.

When you sell your primary residence, you can make up to $250,000 in profit if you're a single owner, twice that if you're married, and not owe any capital gains taxes.

"Most people are not going to have a tax obligation unless their gain is huge," says Bob Trinz, a senior tax analyst at RIA, which provides tax information and software to tax professionals.

Some sellers are surprised by this break, especially if they've been in their homes for a while. That's because before May 7, 1997, the only way you could avoid paying taxes on your home-sale profit was to use the money to buy another, more-expensive house within two years. Sellers age 55 or older had one other option. They could take a once-in-a-lifetime tax exemption of up to $125,000 in profits. And in all instances, there was tax paperwork (Form 2119) to fill out to show that you followed the rules.

Read more: Capital gains home-sale tax break a boon for owners http://www.bankrate.com/finance/real-est...x#ixzz23MlKKTfO (http://www.bankrate.com/finance/real-estate/capital-gains-home-sale-tax-break-a-boon-for-owners-1.aspx#ixzz23MlKKTfO)

[...]

Another bonus of the new rules: You don't have to buy another home with your sale proceeds. You can use the money to travel to Europe in style, buy an RV and drive across the country or get all those designer shoes you never could afford before.

Even better, there's no limit on the number of times you can use the home-sale exemption. In most cases, you can make tax-free profits of $250,000 (or $500,000 depending on your filing status) every time you sell a home.

Read more: Capital gains home-sale tax break a boon for owners http://www.bankrate.com/finance/real-est...x#ixzz23MlmJ7lH (http://www.bankrate.com/finance/real-estate/capital-gains-home-sale-tax-break-a-boon-for-owners-1.aspx#ixzz23MlmJ7lH)
</div></div>