The right wing is distracting everyone from Mitt's taxes by complaining that poor people pay no federal income taxes. LINK
One recent diarist made comparisons of Mitt's tax rate to his/her own rates. LINK
The outcome: Mitt's tax rate is a little less than that of the diarist, after considering payroll taxes.
Well, that's one way to analyze the tax rates. Compare your actual rate to Mitt's actual rate. But that's apples and oranges because Mitt makes so much more money than most.
There's another way to look at this question. It leads to a very different result. We'll put you in Mitt's bracket and calculate the tax outcome. Follow me over the apples and oranges squiggle.
All dollar data in thousands
Mitt's tax data
Mitt's adjusted gross income for 2010 totalled $21,646
Mitt's taxable income income for 2010 totalled $17,120
Mitts tax for 2010 was $3,010
The math $3,010 / $21,626 = 13.9%
Source: LINK
Your hypothetical tax data
You had a great year. Your boss decides to give you a bonus over and above your standard normal compensation. You ended up earning $21,646. The same as Mitt.
Suppose further that you had the same filing status and itemized deductions so that your taxable income amounted to $17,120. Same as Mitt
How much tax would you be paying?
Well, $17,120 * 35% = $5,992 - $30 = $5,962 (2010 IRS Tax Tables - Married filing joint)
Plus 1.45% times $21,646 = $314 Medicare tax (I ignored FICA -- it's $6 and Mitt pays some on his self employment income.)
Total $6,276
Compare and contrast
Mitt paid $3,010. You paid $6,276
You would have paid more than TWICE as much tax as Mitt. On exactly the same taxable income.
Why???
Virtually all of Mitt's income is from 'carried interests', qualified dividends, etc. He pays capital gains rates and other preferential rates. Your income is 'ordinary income' from wages, salaries.
Source: LINK
So the right wing is making noises that its unfair that people near or below the poverty line pay no federal income tax?
Mitts tax preferences are the very definition of unfair.