Quote:
Originally Posted by buggyone
Of course, Mitt loves his running mate's tax plan! He would pay even less taxes than the 13.9% he paid for 2010. The 13.9% rate for a multi-gazillionaire is not too shabby but a .82% is even better. No tax for capital gains or investments is a windfall for the super-rich like Romney. You do have to get money to run the government from somewhere, though. Yes, that is from RAISING taxes on the middle class (you and me) by 20%. It is now ROMNEYHOOD and RYANHOOD - robbing from the poor and middle-class to give to the super-rich.
Read all about it from this article in the Arkansas Times.
"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? Well, the vast majority of Romney's income came from capital gains, interest, and dividends. And Ryan wants to eliminate all taxes on capital gains, interest and dividends.
Romney, of course, criticized this idea when Newt Gingrich proposed it back in January by pointing out that zeroing out taxes on savings and investment would mean zeroing out his own taxes.
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."
|
If all that your side intends to do is discuss Romney taxes, then we will be frozen in time while the issues of jobs, the economy and the like will simply go unanswered.
The premise of this post relative to Romneys taxes tells all of us that the left just plain refuses to discuss the issues that should frame this campaign.
First, what you bring up....in May 2011 Bill Clinton ran into Paul Ryan and part of their conversation was picked up by mikes. Now, I cannot tell you word for word, but basically, just as he has said on many occassions, when complimented on his budget work by Clinton, he said that the conversation must start somehwere.....he has also said many times, and ignored by this post that his budget is a guide, a starting point for the discussion that must take place, and NOT, as this post implies an ending.
In addition, Romney has made it very clear that he is NOT running on the Ryan budget in anyway.
I, personally, accept the Ryan budget as it is.....much needs to be changed but it is the model that the country needs so much right now to begin to address our impending finanical doom.
The implications, and the left is becoming adept at using insinuation and implication to replace facts, are wrong in so many ways. It is just wrong on the factual side and does nothing for the debate that must take place.
This election is really a very clear choice as the oft used cliche goes.
If you visit the Obama website, and I know I am being general but hoping that someday we can engage is real issue discussion instead of the insinuation and implication kind of rhetoric...but if you visit the Obama website and look under JOBS and the economy, you will find one word very prominenent. INVESTMENT IN. which to me means monetary investment at the government level in job creations..picking the industry and the companies that YOU want to pick and investing taxpayer money in them.
If you visit the Romney website,you see a myriad of words like cutting taxes, cutting spending and cutting government regulation, increasing trade, energy production and the like.
From my perspective, the choice is government making all the calls or allowing what made the country great to work once again.
Speaking of Romney taxes serves the same purpose as discussing Jeremiah Wright, or Saul Alinsky.
Lets talk our country.....is that so hard ?