Who Paid A Higher Effective Federal Tax Rate Than Romney?

Superfreak said:
You are incorrect. His rate is still above the average of the top 50%. It is also above the average for the top 10%. It is below the average for the top 1 and 5% brackets. Which is because of where he gets his income relative to others in that category.
Click to expand...

Oh Glory be to the Lord that Mitt Romney pays a smidgen higher than the average rate for the top 50% of all income earners. Praise Jesus! And I was using the 2007 data, which was the most recent I found, so I wasn't incorrect based on the data I was using, but thanks!


Superfreak said:
It will. It is stupid to change the marginal rates as there are too many loopholes and deductions. Dems and Reps alike should want to raise cap gains. It ACTUALLY would raise the amount paid by the wealthy (which the Dems love) and help to balance the budget (which the Reps claim they want)
Click to expand...

I doubt it, but we'll see.
 
Superfreak said:
you are fucking idiot. He doesn't pay less than the average middle class family you idiot. I suppose you aren't going to blame Clintons tax cuts to cap gains? Just Bush's tax cuts to cap gains? Right Jarod? Are you too tired again today to back up your idiotic claims from yesterday?
Click to expand...

Where did I say he pays less money than the average middle class family...?
 
Superfreak said:
For Federal income taxes about 47.3% of the population have an effective rate of ZERO. I would be out of the other 50% most are able to get under 15% as well.

That said, it is time to raise the capital gains tax to that of ordinary income rates.
Click to expand...
I agree. It's one thing to incetivise investment it's another thing to disencentivise work.

You should be fair in your comments though and specificy that 47.3% have an effective FICA of 0% but those people are mainly poor to working class and earn less then the median income. They are also signicantly taxed by such regressive taxes as the payroll tax, consumer/sales taxes and sin taxes all impact the poor and working classes disproportionately more then they do the wealthy. So it's very unfair to give the impression that these people are not taxed. That simply isn't true.
 
Last edited:
Jarod said:
It is an embarrassment that he is paying a smaller percentage than the family of four trying to get by on $150,000 a year.
Click to expand...

Can you offer an example or evidence? I should probably know this but if one person making $150k paying the same marginal rate as two people making $75k each?
 
Dungheap said:
Oh Glory be to the Lord that Mitt Romney pays a smidgen higher than the average rate for the top 50% of all income earners. Praise Jesus! And I was using the 2007 data, which was the most recent I found, so I wasn't incorrect based on the data I was using, but thanks!
Click to expand...

Again... his rate is also higher than the average for the top 10%. as for 2007 data... no worries... I am using 2009 averages as that was the most recent I could find. The Romney numbers are from 2010... so we could both be off further still.

I doubt it, but we'll see.
Click to expand...

Well I think we can both agree that we hope you are wrong on that.
 
Jarod said:
Where did I say he pays less money than the average middle class family...?
Click to expand...

You truly are fucking retarded. HE DOES NOT PAY A LOWER RATE THAN THE AVERAGE MIDDLE CLASS FAMILY. YOU SAID HE DID.

Sorry I didn't word my response EXACTLY as you did. It obviously was enough of a difference to confuse a retard.
 
Superfreak said:
You truly are fucking retarded. HE DOES NOT PAY A LOWER RATE THAN THE AVERAGE MIDDLE CLASS FAMILY. YOU SAID HE DID.

Sorry I didn't word my response EXACTLY as you did. It obviously was enough of a difference to confuse a retard.
Click to expand...


He paid a slightly higher rate than the average filer earning between $100,000 and $200,000 (average rate is 12%).
 
Last edited:
Mott the Hoople said:
I agree. It's one thing to incetivise investment it's another thing to disencentivise work.

You should be fair in your comments though and specificy that 47.3% have an effective FICA of 0% but those people are mainly poor to working class and earn less then the median income. They are also signicantly taxed by such regressive taxes as the payroll tax, consumer/sales taxes and sin taxes all impact the poor and working classes disproportionately more then they do the wealthy. So it's very unfair to give the impression that these people are not taxed. That simply isn't true.
Click to expand...

1) I was fair. I stated FOR FEDERAL INCOME TAXES their effective rate is ZERO. It is.
2) We were talking about the effective FEDERAL INCOME TAX RATE of Romney vs. everyone else. So I was staying on topic.
3) Yes there are other taxes and many are regressive, but that is NOT what we were discussing or comparing.
4) The only people that have a FICA of zero are those that have no earned income. Everyone pays from dollar one up to dollar 106,800 (or somewhere in that neighborhood).
 
cawacko said:
Can you offer an example or evidence? I should probably know this but if one person making $150k paying the same marginal rate as two people making $75k each?
Click to expand...

As long as the Bush tax bill portion dealing with the marriage penalty is kept in place that should hold true.
 
The Dude said:
I only paid 12.3 percent. But I'm below middle class cause I Only made 125,000
Click to expand...
You must have more dependends or itemized deductions than I. My affective rate was 12.6 for joint filing. I guess I was wrong. I do pay a lower percentage then Mitt....but not by much.
 
Superfreak said:
you are fucking idiot. He doesn't pay less than the average middle class family you idiot. I suppose you aren't going to blame Clintons tax cuts to cap gains? Just Bush's tax cuts to cap gains? Right Jarod? Are you too tired again today to back up your idiotic claims from yesterday?
Click to expand...

Can you cite your claim? Or are you to tired today?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top