4 ms·

A quick point and a theory: First, it's not true that the average American pays 15% in income taxes. An typical family in the middle of the income spectrum pay

A quick point and a theory: First, it's not true that the average American pays 15% in income taxes. An typical family in the middle of the income spectrum pays about 5.6%.[1] As far as Romney's returns go, I have a hunch that the political problems wouldn't be in the numbers, but in something like his charitable giving, of which there's an awful lot. What if one of the church programs he gave to turns out to have had some politically incorrect pamphlets, for example? Suddenly he'd be in a position to have to defend everyone he'd ever given $1 (or more likely, $10,000). [1] http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3151 http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3151

scarmig 14y ago
I misspoke: it's not that Romney pays a lower average income tax rate, but pays a lower average federal tax rate, including payroll. For most people, income taxes make up a negligible part of that total tax burden. I doubt the charitable giving would be a problem, and I'm also skeptical of the "Romney took a tax amnesty in 2009" theory. At this point I think it's mostly bull-headedness: Romney thinks no one has a right to see his private financial information, and he's sticking by that, come hell or high water.
- twoodfin 14y ago
  For most people, income taxes make up a negligible part of that total tax burden. Ignoring the employer "contribution" sleight-of-hand, payroll taxes in 2012 are 4.2% SS + 1.45% Medicare, or 5.65%. Adding in the income tax burden, and you're still looking at a total Federal tax burden of under 12%.
  - rayiner 14y ago
    The average American is barely getting by. Meanwhile, doctors, engineers, etc, are paying 20-25%. That's just non-sensical.
  - debacle 14y ago
    You're missing the point. If you spend most of what you earn, that's an additiona 10% (in my state) on sales tax. Most very wealthy don't spend nearly what they earn, so the effect of sales tax is negligible.
    - twoodfin 14y ago
      How am I missing the point? First the claim was that Mitt Romney pays a "lower than average income tax rate", which is demonstrably untrue. Then the claim was that he pays a "lower than average Federal tax burden" and that the income tax as a burden on the average American was "negligible" relative to their payroll tax burden. I didn't even bring up the fact that Bain pays corporate income taxes on its profits before they're disbursed to owners like Romney. Even discounting that, the average person's Federal tax burden is still lower than Romney's, assuming he's being truthful when he says his income rate was never lower than 13%. And the average American's income tax burden is not "negligible" relative to the payroll tax burden: it's about 50/50. Now you're trying to bring state taxes into it. Guess what: Romney makes most of his money off of capital gains and is a Massachusetts resident, where long term capital gains are taxed at 5.3%. Yes, Romney could "afford" a much greater tax burden. He could "afford" a tax burden of 95% and still live comfortably. That's not an argument (or at least a good one) for such a thing. It's also not the point under debate (that somehow the rate of taxes he pays is lower than the average American's).
      - scarmig 14y ago
        You're speaking inaccurately. People in the middle 20% paid an effective rate of 15.5 percent. And trying to add in corporate tax rates is a bit-too-clever slight of hand.
dsr_ 14y ago
I have seen it suggested that the problem is not in the taxes themselves -- it may be in the state he declared as his primary residence. If he declared residence in one state but voted in Federal elections in a different state, he may have committed voting fraud. Ah -- found a source for speculation: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/17/mitt-romney-tax-returns-voter-fraud-theory http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/17/mitt-rom...

scarmig 14y ago

I misspoke: it's not that Romney pays a lower average income tax rate, but pays a lower average federal tax rate, including payroll. For most people, income taxes make up a negligible part of that total tax burden. I doubt the charitable giving would be a problem, and I'm also skeptical of the "Romney took a tax amnesty in 2009" theory. At this point I think it's mostly bull-headedness: Romney thinks no one has a right to see his private financial information, and he's sticking by that, come hell or high water.

twoodfin 14y ago
For most people, income taxes make up a negligible part of that total tax burden. Ignoring the employer "contribution" sleight-of-hand, payroll taxes in 2012 are 4.2% SS + 1.45% Medicare, or 5.65%. Adding in the income tax burden, and you're still looking at a total Federal tax burden of under 12%.
- rayiner 14y ago
  The average American is barely getting by. Meanwhile, doctors, engineers, etc, are paying 20-25%. That's just non-sensical.
- debacle 14y ago
  You're missing the point. If you spend most of what you earn, that's an additiona 10% (in my state) on sales tax. Most very wealthy don't spend nearly what they earn, so the effect of sales tax is negligible.
  - twoodfin 14y ago
    How am I missing the point? First the claim was that Mitt Romney pays a "lower than average income tax rate", which is demonstrably untrue. Then the claim was that he pays a "lower than average Federal tax burden" and that the income tax as a burden on the average American was "negligible" relative to their payroll tax burden. I didn't even bring up the fact that Bain pays corporate income taxes on its profits before they're disbursed to owners like Romney. Even discounting that, the average person's Federal tax burden is still lower than Romney's, assuming he's being truthful when he says his income rate was never lower than 13%. And the average American's income tax burden is not "negligible" relative to the payroll tax burden: it's about 50/50. Now you're trying to bring state taxes into it. Guess what: Romney makes most of his money off of capital gains and is a Massachusetts resident, where long term capital gains are taxed at 5.3%. Yes, Romney could "afford" a much greater tax burden. He could "afford" a tax burden of 95% and still live comfortably. That's not an argument (or at least a good one) for such a thing. It's also not the point under debate (that somehow the rate of taxes he pays is lower than the average American's).
    - scarmig 14y ago
      You're speaking inaccurately. People in the middle 20% paid an effective rate of 15.5 percent. And trying to add in corporate tax rates is a bit-too-clever slight of hand.

dsr_ 14y ago

I have seen it suggested that the problem is not in the taxes themselves -- it may be in the state he declared as his primary residence. If he declared residence in one state but voted in Federal elections in a different state, he may have committed voting fraud. Ah -- found a source for speculation: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/17/mitt-romney-tax-returns-voter-fraud-theory http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/17/mitt-rom...