The Right Way to Analyze Tax Data...
Posted on 09/22/2012 5:17:15 AM PDT by SoFloFreeper
Democrats say Mitt Romney manipulated his deductions to keep his overall 2011 federal income tax rate below a certain level for political purposes....
... the Romney campaign released a letter from his accountants saying that in the 20 years prior to 2010 the Romneys paid an average annual effective rate of 20.2 percent, never lower than 13.66 percent. On average, middle-income families — those making from $50,000 to $75,000 a year — pay 12.8 percent of their income in federal taxes, according to Congress' Joint Committee on Taxation.
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
Obamugabe has been running ads ALL WEEK LONG in Florida playing the class warfare card--TRUMPETING how Mitt's 14% tax rate is HIGHER than that of the middle class.
Now, we see that Mitt has never paid LOWER than 13.66%...indeed, Obamugabe is a liar.
Hey, do you think if a Republican had lied about Obamugabe, that the "journalist" Tom Raum would put that fact a wee bit HIGHER in his story?
In fact, I don't even see any reference to BO's claim that Romney pays more than the middle class....so maybe Tom the journalist just wants to avoid the truth.....
Hugh and series.
Anybody know how this “effective rate” is calculated? Is that based on adjusted gross income, or on the gross income subtotal before adjustments? The difference could be huge.
Making this an issue is insane.
The issue should be why the Democrats are lying their butts off every day, and why the voters shouldn’t believe anything they say.
We can never win on this issue.
Why? Because as long as Romney has more money than anyone anywhere, he is not paying enough.
Zippy says things like “I should pay more,” but of course he doesn’t. If he really believed that the wealthy should pay more, he would lead by example. THAT is the issue we should focus on if income and wealth are to be a campaign issue.
The way to handle this in a debate is for Romney to say something like this:
My personal philosophy on wealth is to be as productive as possible and make as much money as possible. In the process of doing this, I create many, many jobs and provide a means for many other people to make a good living. In terms of taxes, I believe that they are much too high, but I pay what is legally required of me. I believe that I am better suited to decide how much of the money I have earned to give to others than the government is. And I choose to give a substantial portion of my income to others. If I gave all of it away, my income the following year, and therefore my charitable giving would be substantially less. That would create a short term windfall for charity at the cost of long term giving. I believe that would be irresponsible of me as a charitable person.
And now I would be happy to hear about where Mr. 0bama spends his personal income. In particular, I’d like to hear about what charities and causes he gives to and why he allows his brother to live in a hut.
They’re complaining because Romney paid MORE in taxes than he could have? This only makes sense to a Democrat.
Rats certainly NEVER concerned themselves about the wealth of THEIR candidates for ANY office. They never concern themselves with the fact that most of them get very rich while serving as elected representatives. Rats never concerned themselves about their own not paying taxes! In a sane world, people would notice things like that.
Since when is paying a higher tax rate virtuous? If all is legal, higher is dumb.
But lay it out there as a choice for the voters: is this the America you want? And, BO, then try raising the Capital Gains rate to triple other countries and watch Atlas Shrugged occur over the next 4 years.
This seems to be the current talking point.
The New York Times article completely left out the fact that the Romneys paid over $4mil to charity. As a matter of fact, they phrased it in such a way that made it seem like the Romneys weren’t as charitable as in previous years!
Remember when Al Gore had $300 in charitable contributions on his tax return?
Wouldn't he want to keep it higher?
I heard this on the radio last night. I thought I heard right but thought they can’t be using this spin can they?
I guess I heard right. Attacking Romney because he paid too little tax? The spin I heard was during the Repub debates he said he wouldn’t pay more tax that legally required. So, since he paid a little more, now they’re trying to say he lied.
Just wow.
Whoops. Attacking cause he paid too much tax.
Apparently I’m supposed to be more angry about what Romney does with his money than what Obama does with mine.
Spent almost 40 years in banking lending to individuals and corporations, especially their owners. In general, conservatives are far more likely to have bigger deductions because they give more to charity and church. Of course the Dems will counter by saying this was to get a lower rate, but bottom line is less dollars in their personal pocket. In regard to corporate donations, conservatives tended to give to groups that benefited all of society whereas liberals tended to fund more specific causes that benefited only a small segment of society consistent with their liberal beliefs. This parody plays out in politics as well with conservatives generally wanting equality whereas liberals push for extended benefits for certain groups.
At first the Democrats said Romney did not pay enough tax, possibly none at all. Now they say he paid too much tax. There is no pleasing that bunch.
Mitt Romney adjusted his claimed charitable contributions to come out with a Tax Rate he said he never paid less than (13%). DEMS get confused when someone sticks by their word!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.