America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

He's not looking for facts, he's looking for fairness (and an argument).

Again the fallacy of basing his tax rate on AGI does not consider itemized deductions and exemptions...but you said that was pointless. If you want the unabashed truth, here you go. Even though a bit over 6 million is subject to the 28% AMT rate, all of his itemized deductions count against the ordinary income because what most fail to realize there is now 2 separate income taxes (capital gains/dividends and ordinary) When calculating his total tax liability you first remove 15% rate income from taxable income and apply the rate. You then apply the remaining taxable income to the IRS tax tables, or in this case since he is subject to the AMT tax it is 28%. Again refer to page 36/37 of the return I linked for you. All told Mitt has an effective rate of the 17% I mentioned because a small portion, after deduction and exemptions, is subject to the higher rate.

I did adjust it but you insisted on the AGI basis and insisted only 1% of his income was not subject to the 15% rate, so I showed you the numbers based on your rationale because in YOUR words those deductions don't matter. And I even mentioned in the post the numbers were based on your rationale. You insisted on confusing the issue. I will illustrate a simple example of why your line of reasoning is flawed.

Fuzz and RaginCajun are employees of LibCon Inc and both have annual salaries of $100,000. Both of these very handsome gentleman are married to lovely women and have 2 beautiful children. The wives do not work so both have an AGI of $100,000.

Do we pay the same tax rate? According to you we will since we have the same AGI and deductions don't matter, yes?

Fuzz doesn't like charity so no donations, nor does he pay a mortgage. Total tax liability is therefore $8,869. Under your logic your effective rate is 8.8%. Actual effective rate is 11.98%. If the government based your tax calculation on your AGI you would have a tax bill of $16,163. Tell me which you want to pay?

Ragin loves him some God and has a mortgage so he has itemized deductions. Ragin's liability is $6,556. Under your logic the effective rate is 6.5%, whereas actual effective rate is 10.47%

OHHHHH NOOOOOOS. The deductions do impact how one could view potential tax rates of an individual, yes?

This discussion is what I have been trying to get Fuzz moved on to once I corrected him regarding the tax rate. I would venture to guess that many blue-collar Americans believe the 15% rate is unfair, mainly due to the fact that it has been portrayed as a special rate for the 'rich'. Also due to the fact that many Americans do not own stock. I will even admit that this rate can only truly benefit the middle-middle class and up. Having said that, most lower middle class and poor do not pay any income tax and some even get paid to be poor through the earned income tax credit. So is it fair that nearly half of the country does not pay tax?

I know I know Fuzz social security and Medicare right? Ok so let's say that is an income tax even though it is not. That equates to 7.65%. Now understand not every 'rich' guy is like Romney where nearly all income is capital gains. Even with his special situation and EVEN using Fuzz's flawed logic of basing the rate of tax on AGI, even Romney paid twice the rate as the poor guy.

Difference in rates, deductions allowed, etc. is based on the government installing policies to attempt to effect a change in the population. The capital gain rate was intended to spur capital investment.

And again this is why the calculations you are bringing into the conversation, even though I calculated incorrectly in that first example, do not matter. Simply because the examples being brought into the conversation need to be COMPARED TO THE SAME THING.

Bottom line is it important when making comparisons that you compare the same stuff or no? Yes it is. Is your technically correct answer important to this, no. Charity and other deductions are legal and they are not taxes, though they can lower them. Gross income/taxes paid is an equal comparison because it shows just the tax burden on that gross income regardless of charity deductions, which is, as you have pointed out, a variable. For someone who is in the highest of income brackets a simple one gives more to charity therefore his tax rate is higher is not important because there is no change in tax bracket over an amount far far lower than the income we're talking about here. If you want to make the argument that Romney paid 17% fine, but then Buffet, Gates et al's income must be adjusted to get the same percentage as well. Now, if you want to do that, please, go right ahead. It would be interesting and we could do a great comparison. We don't though.

so you want to join sandusky. that is ok. jesus is patient and time has a way of maturing an corrupted mind. there is hope.

No you just slink away.

You do realize I have a job right?

Giving or receiving?

Nice. It allows you to be here more than me and you get paid. (you get paid right? your boss is rich and therefore you make a lot of money because he's not a cheapskate too.)

Having a job AND being able to post on a forum during the day is completely un.... oops....I almost said that 4-letter "F" word.

labor temple = right wing birthing center.

yall are slow

How did it morph from this distinctly left wing beginning?

Labor Temple was founded in 1910 by the Rev. Charles L. Stelze of the Presbyterian Home Mission Board. The first Labor Temple occupied the former Fourteenth Street Presbyterian Church, located at 225 Second Avenue near Union Square, and built in 1851. Under Stelze's leadership, Labor Temple would be "entirely unsectarian, where every man, if he have a message, may give it expression, and if it be good it will receive attention." On its opening day, Labor Temple was attended by five hundred members of labor unions, Socialist, Anarchists, and persons who took interest in labor matters and sociologists".

Had me laughing.