Skip to main content

View Diary: Mitt Romney: It's fair I pay a lower tax rate than people making $50,000 (348 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  OK if you disagree (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    abraxas

    then why hasn't a dem  congress or president proposed a 35% capital tax gains rate? It isn't whether it is fair or not fair it is what the  current cap rates are.

    this is missing the picture entirely. I mean he's a twit and all, but he's paying the legal rate on his returns, just like me.

    •  You know, it used to be 20% - maybe more (8+ / 0-)

      But got dropped awhile back.

      And it is NOT that it is the legal rate, it is the idiocy of his response.

    •  The proposal is on the table (21+ / 0-)

      it's called the Buffet Rule.

      The Buffett Rule is a simple principle that everyone should pay their fair share in taxes. No household making more than a $1 million should pay a smaller share of their income in taxes than middle-class families pay. For the 98 percent of American families who make less than $250,000, taxes should not go up.
      http://www.whitehouse.gov/...

      Mitt Romney thinks it would be unfair.

    •  But he was asked the question.... (11+ / 0-)

      ...didl he think it was fair. The legality of it was not the question in the context of this interview.

      •  Capital gains rates (0+ / 0-)

        have been taxed lower than income rates for ever. Why is it suddenly unfair this year?

        •  since the eighties (15+ / 0-)

          Since the 1980's is not forever. It could be as high as 95% in the fifties.

          Just fyi. It has always been wrong to give more to those with unearned income to those with wages. But now we have a chance to change it.

          •  take a look (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            condorcet, joynow

            http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/...

            A) there's no 95% rate, B) it's not just the 80's. But why the furor this year only?

            •  Because thanks to OWS, (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              mdmslle, schnecke21

              income inequality is an issue that finally has some traction.

            •  just asking (0+ / 0-)

              what's the T  for ?  

            •  Because mister t, we have huge unemployment (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              schnecke21

              And workers wages are stagnant for a decade, which means in effect they're going down. All while those at the top use these fixed tax codes created using this same faulty logic to get richer and richer. After 40 years of being fee conservative trickle down bullshit, and in particular the last 10, Americans finally realize its bullshit and they are being duped.

              We want a system whee everyone plays by the same rules. If you bank 20 million this year, you pay the top tax rate not some 9% bullshit or less than some construction worker slaving away for 50,000 a year.  Fuck dat.

              Why we wait? Americans are just starting to realize its bullshit. That's why. These fuckers have been peddling this "job creator" "lower taxes mean more jobs" nonsense since Reagan. After 40 years we've got enough empirical evidence that it doesn't work that way. That's why.

              For the record, I am not a member of Courtesy Kos. Just so you know. Don't be stupid. It's election season. My patience is short.

              by mdmslle on Sun Sep 23, 2012 at 08:28:44 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  so what wasn;t thsi an issue in (0+ / 0-)

                oh say 2008? 2009? 2010? When we had control and COULD have passed a bill?

                Here's a clue: It wasn't a priority (or even a thought)  for the Dems (or needless to say the gop).

                •  Income inequality attributable to capital gains (0+ / 0-)

                  A recent (Dec 2011) Congressional Research Service Report entitled "Changes in the Distribution of Income Among Tax Filers Between 1996 and 2006" identifies increases in income from capital investments as a main cause of income disparity.  The author Thomas L. Hungerford states "Changes in capital gains and dividends were the largest contributor to the increase in the overall income inequality."

                  You can find the report in a rather strange place - the website for the Federation of American Scientists.  They normally concern themselves with nuclear war and such.

                  To another point made earlier, IMHO the double taxation argument is bogus because while the corporation paid taxes on retained earnings, i.e. income, the investor paid capital gains on the increase in market value of the shares - a totally arbitrary amount assigned by whims of the market.   The value of the stock has little to do with whether the corporation earned income in the year of the stock sale, but instead is a reflection of whether the the new purchased thinks the corporation will earn income in the future worthy of the purchase price.  

                •  Priorities. (0+ / 0-)

                  Health care, War, equal pay were all on the table and dealt with in those years.   And tax rates were in discussion constantly during those years.  Tax brinksmanship took the spotlight, but there was discussion about all aspects of the tax code:

                  A line item on taxing carried interest at ordinary income rates was included in the Obama Administration's 2008 Budget Blueprint.[7] On April 2, 2009, Congressman Levin introduced a new and substantially revised version of the carried interest legislation as H.R. 1935.[8] Proposals were again made by the Obama Administration for the 2010,[9] 2011[10] and 2012[11] budgets.

                  "Wall Street expertise, an industry in which anything not explicitly illegal is fair game, and the illegal things are fair game too if you think you won't get caught." — Hunter

                  by Back In Blue on Mon Sep 24, 2012 at 06:32:09 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Ah yes ,priorities (0+ / 0-)

                    That suddenly appear, with no chance of passage during the election year. Those priorities.

                    •  People wake up when they wake up. (0+ / 0-)

                      As I pointed out, there were proposals in every year of Obama's administration and there were other big issues that took priority.  It's not like there isn't a very long list of issues that don't get the attention they deserve.  

                      I think up until Romney's taxes became an issue (by his own making) most Americans had never heard of carried interest and only those who have investments understood capital gains.  Now that people are starting to understand how ridiculous and basically unfair carried interest is taxed, they are not too happy.

                      Clearly, the Obama admin has focused on the issue of Romney's taxes (again Romney made this an issue in the first place and is making it far worse) because it is working, but they focused on it early on (before it had such amazing traction) because it is in stark contrast to Obama's position.  IF the Obama admin did not have at any record on this issue, I would agree with you more, but they do and this is directly in line with their positions.

                      Obama has said many times in different ways that it's up to the American people to drive the agenda in D.C.  It's up to us to make sure D.C. follows through.

                      "Wall Street expertise, an industry in which anything not explicitly illegal is fair game, and the illegal things are fair game too if you think you won't get caught." — Hunter

                      by Back In Blue on Wed Sep 26, 2012 at 11:30:39 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

            •  Complete picture from the same source. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              splintersawry

              Capital gains have been taxed from the beginning of the income tax, but the rates and other provisions have changed frequently. From 1913 to 1921, capital gains were taxed at ordinary rates, initially up to a top rate of 7 percent. Because of concern that the high income tax rates during World War I reduced capital gains tax revenues, from 1922 to 1934 taxpayers were allowed an alternative tax rate of 12.5 percent on capital gains on assets held at least two years. From 1934 to 1941, taxpayers could exclude percentages of gains that varied with the holding period. For example, in 1934 and 1935, 20, 40, 60, and 70 percent of gains were excluded on assets held 1, 2, 5, and 10 years, respectively. Beginning in 1942, taxpayers could exclude 50 percent of capital gains on assets held at least six months or elect a 25 percent alternative tax rate if their ordinary tax rate exceeded 50 percent. The 1969 and 1976 Tax Reform Acts substantially increased capital gains tax rates. The 1969 Act imposed a 10 percent minimum tax, excluded gains, and limited the alternative rate to $50,000 of gains. The 1976 Act further increased capital gains tax rates by increasing the minimum tax to 15 percent. In 1977 and 1978, the maximum tax rate on capital gains reached 39.875 percent with the minimum tax and 49.875 percent including interaction with the maximum tax. In 1978, Congress reduced capital gains tax rates by eliminating the minimum tax on excluded gains and increasing the exclusion to 60 percent, thereby reducing the maximum rate to 28 percent. The 1981 income tax rate reductions further lowered capital gains rates to a maximum of 20 percent.

              The Tax Reform Act of 1986 repealed the exclusion of long-term gains, raising the maximum rate to 28 percent (33 percent for taxpayers subject to certain phaseouts). When the top ordinary tax rates were increased by the 1990 and 1993 Budget Acts, an alternative tax rate of 28 percent was provided. Effective tax rates exceeded 28 percent for many high-income taxpayers, however, because of interactions with other tax provisions. The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 reduced capital gains tax rates and introduced a separate rate schedule for long-term gains. Beginning May 7, 1997, long-term gains in the 15 percent tax bracket were taxed at a 10 percent rate, and gains in higher tax brackets were taxed at 20 percent. Beginning in 2001, capital gains in the 15 percent bracket on assets held at least five years were taxed at 8 percent. Capital gains in the 28 percent and higher brackets on assets purchased in 2001 or later and held for at least five years were to be eligible for an 18 percent rate. The multiple rates introduced in 1997 have been criticized for their complexity. The Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 reduced tax rates on capital gains and dividends to 5 and 15 percent for gains realized on or after May 6, 2003, and before 2009 as described above.

              When fascism came to America, it was wrapped in a flag and carrying a bible.

              by BigBuck on Sun Sep 23, 2012 at 09:22:13 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  Coloreds have never held jobs of high distinction. (4+ / 0-)

          Why is it suddenly unfair this century?

        •  Um, no (0+ / 0-)

          Maximum capital gains tax rate under Reagan's tax reform in 1986 was 28%, which was the same as for regular income.  It started diverging a few years later when the tax rate was raised for regular income under Bush Senior and Bill Clinton, while capital gains remained at 28%.  

          Also, note that saying that 15% is too low does not mean that one automatically supports taxing capital gains the same as regular income -- it's entirely possible to support an amount that falls somewhere in between, which is the stand of President Obama.

          Political Compass: -6.75, -3.08

          by TexasTom on Sun Sep 23, 2012 at 08:42:57 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  No, you're missing the picture... (8+ / 0-)

      Mitten's argument is that for wealthy folks like him who take every tax advantage they legally (and maybe not so legally?) have are smart folks who are to be applauded.  

      But poor and middle class folks, the 47% who pay no taxes because they take every tax advantage they have are moochers, free-loaders, dependent on government, looking for a handout, victims.

      "Wall Street expertise, an industry in which anything not explicitly illegal is fair game, and the illegal things are fair game too if you think you won't get caught." — Hunter

      by Back In Blue on Sun Sep 23, 2012 at 07:45:24 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  You know this, how? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jdld
      he's paying the legal rate on his returns, just like me.

      Okay, the Government says you MUST abort your child. NOW do you get it?

      by Catskill Julie on Sun Sep 23, 2012 at 07:57:30 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I think we should flip it (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mdmslle, native, htowngenie

      I think it should be 15% on earned income, and 35% on income gained from investments over a certain amount.

    •  The question of the proper (0+ / 0-)

      level of captial gain taxation v. labor has been an issue of tax policy for years and was one of the central issues in the recodification of the tax code in 1986.

    •  Ironically, the GOP Saint Ronald of Reagan ... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mdmslle

      signed legislation making the estate tax identical to the ordinary income tax.  That was done in conjunction with reducing the tax on ordinary income, and was done for the purpose of not distorting economic decisions.  But it lasted for about a year before the lobbyists did their magic on it and convinced Congress that nobody would invest in anything unless capital gains taxes were even lower.

      Bin Laden is dead. GM and Chrysler are alive.

      by leevank on Sun Sep 23, 2012 at 08:27:37 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Obama's is 23.5% for those earning over 25K (0+ / 0-)

      or something like that
      The Dems in congress have a bill that changes it too

      Ryan's proposal is 0% on capital gains

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site