Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney tip-toed around the topic of his personal finances during Monday night’s Republican Party debate, but reporters covering the campaign trail in South Carolina have remained persistent in picking on Romney for his unwillingness to disclose his tax records. From the debate stage in Myrtle Beach, SC on Monday, Romney danced around questions about his income tax records, saying only that he would “probably” disclose them in the coming months but refusing to straight up insist that they would be published for the public.

Quizzed by reporters a day after the debate, Romney acted uncertain about how much he has been paying in taxes, but told members of the media that the figure was roughly 15 percent. In the top tax bracket, where Romney presumably belongs as a multi-millionaire, others are expected to pay 35 percent.

Who does pay 15 percent? That federal tax bracket is reserved for those making under $34,000.

"What's the effective rate I've been paying?" asked Romney on Tuesday. "It's probably closer to the 15 percent rate than anything because my last 10 years, my income comes overwhelmingly from some investments made in the past, whether ordinary income or earned annually.”

While Romney could certainly find loopholes to keep his carried interest made off of his share of Bain Capital’s profits subjected to only such a rate, the rest of his income — which annually accounts for hundreds of thousands of dollars— should be expected to be a bit higher. The tax rate for those that rake in more than $379,150 in taxable income was at 35 percent in 2011.
The candidate said on Tuesday that that wasn’t all of his income, either. "I get speaker's fees from time to time, but not very much," said Romney.

What constitutes “not very much”? Less than a year ago in February 2011, Romney made around $375,000 for delivering only nine speeches, roughly equating to around $41,000 per address. Per 2010 statistics obtained by the US Census Bureau, Romney was earning only around $8,000 less for each speech than what the median household income was for every wage-earner in America.

Romney’s actual worth is unconfirmed, but for his role at Bain Capital he is thought to have collected a fortune to the tune of around 250 million dollars. In 2010 alone, USA Today estimated that he made upwards of $38.8 million, with half of that being taxed well below the 35 percent reserved for his class.

The only thing it would seem that Mitt Romney has with the average American is that they are, somehow, paying nearly the same tax rate. Somehow, however, Romney seems to be paying even less than Middle America.

Tax expert Martin Press tells USA Today, "It's dividends, capital gains and maybe a little tax sheltering" that allow Romney to get away with landing in such a low bracket. If Romney wins the race to the White House, it could be even lower.




I have been working the past week on my pesonal income taxes and recognized that I have been paying 25%!!!!!!!!

F Mitt Romney!!

Mitt Romney is a crook, fraud, flip flopper and general *** clown, but someone on here is quite smitten with him.

I think he is totally "Plastic". Everytime I see him on TV he seems so diamned fake. Why can't others see that?

Better a plastic man than the nutcases. Not that I would vote for him or any others of them.

It's funny that everyone can see the same problem and come to wildly different solutions.

I see the tax rate disparity and think "Flat tax", but some think "soak the rich". It's funny to me that some people feel the rich paying a lower tax rate than them is unfair, but the rich paying a far higher tax rate is fair. Wouldn't fair be everyone paying the same tax rate? That way someone who makes 10x more than me pays 10x more taxes?

Money is power. Tax policies have always been about equalizing power as well as collecting money. So today we have a country where the rich are SO much richer than the average person that their power is almost out of control, and it's shooting up higher every year. A democracy can only really function where there is a vibrant middle class, and we're in some danger of losing that. I haven't yet heard of a flat tax plan that would actually fund the government at a realistic level without raising taxes for the lower and middle income groups--thus making the situation worse. The attraction of a flat tax is its simplicity, but our economy is not simple. Gradations are needed to deal with the reality.

I expect you may not like Robert Reich much, but he discusses the problems with a flat tax at this link: http://www.nationofchange.org/flat-tax-fraud-and-necessity-truly-progressive-tax-1319289260.
Yes, some of his wording isn't entirely unbiased, but I believe his logic is correct. He points out, for example, that a flat tax would still have deductions, etc., and that the real problem is with the rates at the very top. I'm no economist so I'm going to stop here.

Here's the bottom line:

I consider myself a "middle class" American.

I pay 25% in income taxes.

That SOB Mitt Romney is worth what, half a biilion? and pays a lower tax rate than me?

25% me
15% Romney

F That !!!

Rather than concentrating on capital gains taxes it would probably be more beneficial to the government to eliminate all credits for capital gain losses...problem solved

Screw all the BS about capital gains...
How does that relate to the middle class???
It's these rich SOB's that know all about capital gains and how to game the system.

F them all

Robert Reich is a far left Keynesian, I would hope that you would look for someone who is equally far to the right or at the very least someone who is middle of the road before making up your mind.

For example, Robert Reich ignores the fact that Cain's 999 plan would be 990 for people at or below the poverty level. Which means it would be a direct reduction for the poor.

World famous Art Laffer (inventor of the Laffer curve) said the following of the 999 plan: Those below the poverty line will be better off—period

Here is another proposal that would also result in a net increase in income for the poor, while forcing Billionaires and other very wealthy people to pay more in taxes: Fair Tax

I've got a flat tax for ya....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjCq6woC_hg&feature=player_embedded%23!

We are in agreement here. I agree that the very rich should pay the same rate as the middle class. The problem is that our current tax code allows politicians build in tax reductions for their rich friends. GE helped Obama get elected and they paid 0 dollars in tax on their billions of dollars profit in 2009. What has to happen is an unforgiving tax code with deductions for only dependents. This can happen and will not only help people, but will help the economy. Every year, the Government spends 260 billion + trying to enforce the current tax code and by their own estimates, they still come up 360 billion short. That's $620 billion savings a year, just for switching to a flat tax. Then count in the reduction in the size of the IRS, the billions of dollars Americans spend a year to get their taxes done, the burden that would be lifted off the shoulders of small business...it's staggering how much money would be saved with a flat tax.

Absolutely, we could do that. We would have to use a sales tax like the Fair Tax uses, but I would be fine with that. Cain's 999 plan was always presented as a stepping stone to a real flat tax.

I'm all for a flat tax, I have been for years. As 1956deluxe said earlier, he pays 25% tax. (That's not actually true, he pays more than that because of FICA, sales taxes, social security, etc, but let's go with that number) The Fair Tax would give him a 2% decrease in his out of pocket tax liability if he changed nothing about his lifestyle and it would give him a prebate every month. With careful choices, it would be entirely possible to reduce your tax rate to 0% under the fair tax.

Why not give this System a try?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_Switzerland