College Liberal

Silly lib, sanders effective tax rate (13.4%) is < romney's effective tax rate (14.5%)

Actually Romney paid close to 13% in some years, or as he said "I never paid less than 13%"... and he would have paid just 10 or 11% in 2011 but he purposefully did not take an allowed deduction that year sho he would not dip below 13%.

HIs low effective rate, and that of most in his earning range as well as up to that of the Forbes Top400 (average effective tax rate estimated at 18-19%, average income $380million), mainly dure to low capital gains rates and high end loopholes, show that the US tax system is seriously screwed up.

Thanks goodness for Google... http://bfy.tw/5MMT we don't have to rely on what Romney may have said in passing. Cool, right? That you could actually check something before talking about it as if you know...

There are likely some years Romney had a higher effective rate, and some years Sanders did (the tax return Sanders released was likely a low effective rate year, and average effective rates at that income level are in the 20-30% range), and that is what is nuts, considering Romney made 50-120+ times as much. It goes back to the point...
the US tax system is seriously screwed up with massive favoritism for the uber rich. This could be fixed very easily by taxing all capital gains above a certain level at income tax rates.

That's awesome that you're willing to assume what bernie paid instead of going by the returns that he released (e.g., actual knowledge). Must make your pitchfork weigh less.

And I have no problem if the Uber rich pay the same tax rate as the less fortunate. The percentage is not as important to me as the bottom line. What bernie has not told the bern-outs and what they're too lazy to research is that in the socialist countries he puts on a pedestal (Denmark, for example) the lower income earners pay over a 40% income tax rate, while the rich pay 56%. That is exclusive of sales tax and luxury taxes which are obviously flat taxes. So, the effective tax rate is actually only a +/- 10 point difference. Most experts agree that a portion of the Uber rich would leave the US if bernie's tax scheme became a reality (see, e.g., what happened when Google went public) and others would stop buying on speculation to avoid outrageous capital gains taxes. So there is no telling if the net effect on the economy would be a gain in revenue.

He's right. I'm from Massachusetts, and Romney paid just 13 percent while the middle and lower classes had to pay between 25 and 30 percent, depending on who was in the State Capitol at any given time. But you are also correct with the plus/minus percentage (I looked it up, it was actually really enlightening).

i couldn't find a website that shows that romney paid under 14%. i also can't find a website that says that 2014 was an odd year for bernie (and if that's the case, why not release more than just one year of returns?). but i didn't feel like continuing a back and forth with someone so ignorant about business in the US. i deal with it all the time and know that companies are very conscious of the tax implications of their investments and very often forego opportunities that result in higher taxes because it squeezes their margins. instead, they wait and choose other opportunities that will ultimately net higher profits and reduce the overall taxes they pay.

Bernie only released one atypical year, so yeah, those who understand tax forms understand that in, say the early 2000s, he paid a much higher effective federal rate because he was still paying SS then.

The percentage is not as important as the bottom line you say.. and then go o to =talk about percentages, while getting the numbers wrong-- for someone touting Googling, it's strange that you didn't bother to Google away.
Here's something to Google while your at it-- polls of "happiest" citizens... guess which nation is in the top 5 pretty much every time.

But in any case, Denmark is just a straw man, as what you really should be looking at is US taxes, say in the 1960s and 1970s and even (gasp) under Reagan in the 1980s.

then you trot out the old Hoary "the rich will leave" argument, when that number is of course you (gasp) assuming, with no numbers and little thought on it other than the sound bite. Will the Kochs give up their US citizenship? Doubtful.

And then you basically trot out the "the rich won't invest so they can avoid capital gains taxes", except with an even more backward twist-- do you really think stock speculation creates jobs? The usual argument of the defender of the rich is that they won't invest and create jobs if their taxes are raised .. which is just silly, lol, if one thinks for half a moment-- as we saw in the 1950s and 1960s, when faced with higher tax rates the wealthy invested MORE than now, in deductible business infrastructure, which creates jobs. Because they face such LOW taxes now they have no incentive to create jobs with deductible-from-income investment, so they speculate on stocks and stash their low-taxed profits in the Caymans.

Would there be a net gain in revenue-- absolutely, because of the JOBS (new taxpayers) created.

IN any case, I never said I was for Sanders' tax plan (he wants to raise taxes on the working poor), I am for Clinton's, which is the first small step toward getting the tax rates of the UBer wealthy -- the 0.1%-- back to a fair rate. It is criminal that small business owners--doctors, plumbing company owners, restaurant owners, dentists, some attorneys, small construction companyowners-- pay a higher average effective tax rate than those who make 10 to 5000 times as much.

True. He's a top 5% earner. Yuge difference!

[image deleted]

Lol

Thanks

Interestingly, the hypocrisy of the situation doesn't affect the validity of the hypothesis.

It demonstrates that there is no "fair share" if they're paying 100% of taxes (which is the implication).

no, bail them out with taxpayer money

The one College Liberal situation where both scenarios are true. Kudos!