Quantcast

Comments about ‘Obama win could cost Mitt Romney $5 million in personal taxes’

Return to article »

Published: Monday, June 4 2012 1:26 a.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Mountanman
Hayden, ID

Will the left ever be honest about the real cause of our national debt crisis? As has been pointed out to their deaf ears hundreds of times, if the government confiscated 100% of the wealth of the “rich” in America, it would not come close to paying for the mountain of federal debt the government’s out of control spending has incurred! In other words, we will NEVER tax our way out of this crisis! How can we solve the problem if we will not even acknowledge the cause of the problem; federal government over spending? Mitt Romney understands that but apparently the Obama administration and the Democrats never will!

KDave
Moab, UT

The President has no power to change tax rates.

Well Read
SALT LAKE CITY, UT

Mountainman - You need to get back in your cave :-) The only way to get out of the financial hole we are in is to attack the problem like most Americans do when they find themselves strapped for cash. 1. Increase revenue. Get a part time job. Government - raise taxes. 2. Cut expenses. Sell the extra car, pay off a credit card. Government - Cut expenses. Adjust the entitlements.

The high national debt is not by ant means Obama's fault. We are in two wears. Wars cost money! Obama did not start either war!! We can Thank Bush for the two wars. a reminder - When the wars were started NO ONE provided for increased revenue to pay for them. In fact Bush cut revenue (taxes). That is like a person getting a pay cut and then going out and buying a big expensive car and a second beachfront home and wondering why he can not ay his debts!!

We need to cut expenses and increase revenue! We can not just do either.

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

Not true --

The rich [just like everyone else] can avoid nearly ALL tax increases by simply re-investing their earnings as a tax shelter or deduction.

But they don't -- Which makes the point.

Sitting on, and hording cash is not stimulating the economy.

Tax the rich -- and smoke them out into circulating that money back into the economy.

williary
Kearns, UT

@Well Read

In addition to 2 unfunded wars, don't forget to mention the unfunded Prescription Drug plan, and the tax cuts that washed away a yearly surplus.

Oh yeah, and the Bank Bailouts that were started under Bush.

I believe both the Bush Tax Cuts, and Bank Bailout, amounted to larger amounts than the Stimulus that Obama passed.

And if you really want to get the facts, the truth is that SPENDING at the Federal Level has only increased 1.4% in Obama's first term so far. It increased 7.3% in W's first term, and another 8.1% in his second. Luckily for Bush, and his Republicans in control of Congress, the near depression hadn't kicked in yet and Revenues were higher, to cover their unfunded spending. Obama hasn't been so lucky. His unfunded spending to curb the near depression have created larger debts with less revenues coming in.

A Scientist
Provo, UT

Good. That's about what Romney pays to the Mormon Church, tax exempt.

Hellooo
Salt Lake City, UT

Thanks KDave for your brief, but very accurate statement. Re: Willary; the 1.4% increase in spending is if you attribute the 2nd half of the TARP expenditure, all of the war expenditures, and the stimulus package to Mr. Bush rather than the Obama administration and the Democrat controlled House and Senate during Mr. Obama's first two years in office. All of that spending could have redirected or eliminated, but instead the great peacemaker escaalated the wars, and passed new legislation, which massive new expenditures were cynically designed to fall on the states or in a second term after re-election. Great politics, but poor leadership, which is the hallmark of this administration. Even in the healthcare reform, it followed, then used its muscle to pass a poorly thought through nonsensical bill for political purposes only.

atl134
Salt Lake City, UT

@Mountanman
"Will the left ever be honest about the real cause of our national debt crisis? "

I think the left has been very clear that the national debt crisis is a result of decreasing revenue while increasing spending. Massive tax cuts alongside massive spending.

@williary

"Oh yeah, and the Bank Bailouts that were started under Bush. "

The bank bailouts were loans that got paid back with interest. Their deficit impact is near zero.

Jared
Average, SE

"even lower than the 15 percent [Romney] estimated for 2011, which irritated critics who felt a multi-millionaire investor should shoulder a higher rate than middle-class working families."

Mitt Romney has a higher effective tax rate than middle-class working families. The average income-tax rate for the middle slice of households—those making between $34,300 and $50,000—was 3.3% for 2007. For everyone, the average effective rate is 9%. If someone made $40,000 and filed as a single taxpayer, taking only the minimum deduction, his/her effective tax rate is 10% (this goes to 16.99% if that person makes $80,000/year, which is higher than Romney's effective rate but if someone is single, has no dependents, and is only taking the minimum deductions, that person needs a lesson in finances - buy a home, save for retirement, etc.).

Now, let's suppose someone makes $80,000/year, is married with 2 kids. Taking only the minimum deduction, taxes should be $5,369 for the year, which works out to an effective rate of 6.7%.

In short, Romney's rate is higher than most people's.

Hutterite
American Fork, UT

I don't mind if romney has to pay more taxes.

rvalens2
Burley, ID

I don't envy the rich.

I just want them to at a minimum, pay the same tax rate I do; whether those monies come from investment income or from working a 9 to 5 job.

And as for the fiscal disaster we are headed for ... it's spending that's the problem; government, at all levels, will spend whatever you give it.

atl134
Salt Lake City, UT

@Jared
How about if you include all other taxes like payroll taxes which disproportionately impact the poor? Or would that mess with the narrative you want to write?

apache1
Phoenix, AZ

I somehow don't feel much sympathy for Mitt Romney having to pay out an additional 5 million plus per year in taxes should Obama win reelection, the man is worth an estimated 250 million plus and growing. I have alot more sympathy for the middle class who are in a tailspin and who struggle to make ends meet in an economic tarpit that shows no signs of recovery for years to come. The expenses continue to rise and salaries are not keeping up with the cost of living increases nor are the raises being handed out by most companies. I don't see an easy road to recovery no matter who wins the election in November, this country is facing some very serious challenges on the financial front sooner than later. The poor and the middle class will be as always the ones who suffer the worst, while the rich simply sigh and wait it out.

mamiejane
Salt Lake City, UT

No modern economy, including ours, has never gotten out of a depressions or recession without increasing spending, which is what the President should be doing. But he doesn't have the courage to stand up to the right wing. We should be increasing spending on infrastructure, putting people to work and giving business a reason to hire. Once those employees start purchasing and paying taxes, the economy will improve and our debt will decrease, as it always has in the past. Government spending will actually go to people who will make purchases. Tax cuts for the rich will just result in more money in offshore bank accounts.

worf
Mcallen, TX

The number of millionaires in our country has been reduced by 126,000 in the past three and a half years. Just one reason for fewer jobs. New jobs are being created by foreign owned companies and investments.

It's not a loss to Romney that I'm concerned with, but to our country.

one vote
Salt Lake City, UT

cool

Jared
Average, SE

Re; atl134. The article never talked about payroll taxes or anything like that - just income so i focused on income taxes. If you include payroll taxes, in 2010 Romney paid payroll taxes on $500,000 of income (self-employment - speaking fees mainly). He paid more taxes than most people ever will at higher rates (that $500,000 gets taxed a lot). He just makes enough money from investments that overall his effective rate is low. I'm glad he pays what he does - I think he should pay even less than he does. We all should pay less in taxes (well, I don't make enough money to pay any federal taxes {one of the benefits of earning less than the poverty level when you factor in my dependents} and I live somewhere without state taxes). I pay property taxes but so does Mitt Romney. I pay sales taxes but so does Mitt Romney. The U.S. has one of the most progressive taxes systems in the world and contrary to popular belief, the Bush tax cuts made our tax system more progressive, not more regressive.

RedShirt
USS Enterprise, UT

To you liberals out there, you are wrong about the effects of raising tax rates. Over the past 80 years the US has averaged aroud 19% GDP in tax revenues, while spending 25% GDP. The US has a spending problem.

Raising taxes does not work. All that does is to push the wealthy to other states/countries where their taxes are less. On a state level this has been the case in NY, now Greece and France are having the same problem. Higher taxes only makes the wealthy move away, taking their money with them.

atl134
Salt Lake City, UT

@Redshirt
"To you liberals out there, you are wrong about the effects of raising tax rates. Over the past 80 years the US has averaged aroud 19% GDP in tax revenues, while spending 25% GDP. The US has a spending problem."

If we're so wrong then how about you tell us what the current GDP % of tax revenue that's being collected and just how close to the long term average it is? I agree that we're spending too much, but we're also taxing too little. Fact is if incresing taxes DIDN'T increase revenue then you wouldn't be complaining about increasing tax rates because nothing more would be taken from the taxpayers.

@Jared
"If you include payroll taxes, in 2010 Romney paid payroll taxes on $500,000 of income (self-employment - speaking fees mainly)."

Payroll taxes are capped. Out of Romney's over 20 million dollars in income, he paid the same amount in payroll taxes as someone making 200k. As a percent of income, Romney paid extremely little in payroll tax.

I don't think anyone is paying fair share, I want the Bush tax cuts repealed across the board.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments