Comments about ‘Letter: Mitt Romney's taxes shows a double standard’

The total percentage of taxes that Romney pays in federal, state, and local taxes combined is about the same percentage that is paid by the bottom 20% of the population. People in the middle income brackets pay more. Fix this problem and then we can talk about the poor not paying enough.

Romney's latest tax return was "adjusted," he didn't claim over a million dollars in charitable deductions, thus making him pay more income taxes than was required. It would have looked really bad for Mitt's total federal tax bill to fall below the 12.4% FDIC bill paid by all the riffraff in the 47%. Mr. Romney will be able to get this money back if he files an amended return in the next few years.

So much for Romney's financial holdings being in a "blind" trust.

Note also that his income is new income and not previously taxed. It is passive income, not active income. His tax rate is taking advantage of the original idea to spur investment in productive economic activity, which he doesn't do. Romney is in a class of people who are actually scamming the American public.

Hypocrisy maybe?

Why do peopple who pay no income taxes complain?

I wonder how many if these whiners paid 2 million in taxes?

Anyone who is paying 2 million is paying their share and the shares of dozens of other

Mitt, I am sorry so many lazy and unresponsible people are crying that they pay a few thousand and you pay two million and they want you to pay more.

16th Amendement:

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

Article 1, Section 2:

"Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers"

Article 1, Section 9:

"No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken."

Which one of those "taxing authority" clauses mentions capital gains? Romney paid the same rate as you or I paid when he first EARNED INCOME. Capital gains is a 2nd tax levied only on the "rich" who put their money to work to build the factories and the businesses that create the jobs so that you and I have a job.

It's so typical that liberals want to close those factories and shut down those businesses and put everyone out of work when they demand that no tax is high enough and no "rich" guy pays enough. They will not be satisfied until they have destroyed every business.

Liberals worry so much about how Romney spends HIS money even though they refuse to accept the fact that most of his income was from capital gains which means it is taxes at a lower rate than other income,(thanks in part to Bill Clinton who lowered capital gains tax rates). What we should be worried about isn’t how Romney spends his money but how Obama is spending OUR money! That’s the real problem!

@Chris B;

Percentages buddy, percentages.

Why should those who aren't millionairs have to pay a higher percent of their income than the wealthy Mitt does? The fact he pays millions isn't relevant. The fact that he pays 14% while the rest of us pay 30% is immoral.

@ Ranch hand. Do yourself a favor and look up tax rates for capital gains taxes! It means the income to purchase the stocks was already taxed once! That's why capital gains tax rates are lower--like 14% max.

ChrisB: "Mitt, I am sorry so many lazy and unresponsible people are crying that they pay a few thousand and you pay two million and they want you to pay more."

That statement is ignorant and insulting on so many levels.

I have worked all my life. I still work - hard. I don't have a Cayman Islands tax shelter, and I don't have Swiss bank accounts.

As soon as this issue emerged I went to my tax returns for the last several years to see what my total federal tax rate was. It's been 25%-30% for the last decade. That's just the tax bracket I'm in. I don't have a lot of deductions because I live a fairly simple, straightforward, pay-as-I-go life.

My tax rate is typical of most middle-income Americans. Mitt Romney is paying taxes on his income at half that rate.

It's not about total dollars, it's about proportional fairness. The current system is rigged to favor the hyper-wealthy, Mitt Romney wants to make that rigged system even worse for the middle class, and I object to that.

If Mitt hadn't worked hard, invested, made good business decisions, and been successful are the libs suggestint the gov't would have spent 2 million less?

Hardly.

So why should Mitt be punished for his success?

Who would pay the 2 million paid in taxes last year if Mitt hadn't been rich? The govt still would have spent the exact same. So who would have had to pay for this? Just keep pushing these costs to another rich guy and make him pay even more?

The lazy people who cry at paying a couple thousand when Mitt is paying millions are going to keep crying until the lazy people pay 0 in income tax(which most already do) and Mitt and other rich people pay 100%

"It means the income to purchase the stocks was already taxed once! That's why capital gains tax rates are lower--like 14% max."

What has that got to do with anything?

The INVESTMENT portion, which has,as you say, already been taxed once. It is NOT taxed again when one has a gain. Only the gain portion is taxed.

If you invest $50,000 in stock, and sell that stock for $100,000 you are only taxed on your gain of $50,000.

Your point is not relevant. But is one that you make over and over.

He pays plenty...along with the rest of us. As mentioned here,he's already paid on other income and if he is getting away with paying less than you think he should then who's fault is that? Spending is and will continue to be the real problem. When we get real about that, then we can get real about a solution.

"Do yourself a favor and look up tax rates for capital gains taxes!"

This coming from the guy who just yesterday came up with the most bogus stats I've ever seen? Hilarious! Words you have credibility you have not.

"Mitt, I am sorry so many lazy and unresponsible people are crying that they pay a few thousand and you pay two million and they want you to pay more."

The class warfare that Mitt and his ilk employ everyday. Definitely bringing us "together." Clearly.

If you make it more difficult to invest, fewer people will invest! Fewer investors mean fewer jobs; fewer jobs mean fewer tax payers. Fewer tax payers mean more deficits and more debt! So simple isn’t it!

Mountainman do yourself a favor and look up capital gains taxes on carried interest and management fees. Romneys income was not from investing in IPOs or other entreprenureal adventures. His income came from carried interests..payments for future earnings..and management fees..two percent of assesed value. All of which is smoke and mirrors. Occassionaly one of Bains "investments" paid off and made money, but it was absolutely inconsequential to the Bain partners because they had all ready been paid in carried interest and managment fees.

You may believe that Romney is a great capitalist and a builder of value, but it's absolutely not true. He's an opportunist, and that's all.

"If you make it more difficult to invest, fewer people will invest! Fewer investors mean fewer jobs; fewer jobs mean fewer tax payers."

5 years ago, Apple Stock was worth about $140 per share. A $50,000 investment then would be worth $250,000 today. Quite the nice $200,000 gain.

Can anyone make a case that I created one job by buying that stock?

Mountanman: "If you make it more difficult to invest, fewer people will invest!"

And yet the economy did much, much better when taxes were higher.

Moreover, there are many kinds of investment that we should be encouraging. For example, investing in our schools, our roads and bridges, our power grids, basic scientific R&D, our national parks, etc.

Mitt thinks investing in Chinese energy companies with ties to Iran is a good idea.

I think investing in America's schools, youth and infrastructure is a much better idea.

Can you imagine the uproar if Romney had decided to invest all his money in tax-free municipal bonds and paid zero taxes on their income?

Can you imagine how liberals would howl if he decided to be even more generous with his charitable contributions and gave everything to charity so that he showed no income and thus had zero tax?

Would the mainstream press be heralding his phylanthropy and praising all the good that was done with those charitable dollars? Hardly. They would be lamenting his low taxes and how the government was cheated out of dollars they could have used on another GSA Vegas trip.