Romney would pay less than 1% under Ryan's plan

[Yarn]

Under Paul Ryan's plan, Mitt Romney wouldn't pay any taxes for the next ten years -- or any of the years after that. Now, do I know that that's true. Yes, I'm certain.

Well, maybe not quite nothing. In 2010 -- the only year we have seen a full return from him -- Romney would have paid an effective tax rate of around 0.82 percent under the Ryan plan, rather than the 13.9 percent he actually did. How would someone with more than $21 million in taxable income pay so little? Well, the vast majority of Romney's income came from capital gains, interest, and dividends. And Ryan wants to eliminate all taxes on capital gains, interest and dividends...

Almost. Romney did earn $593,996 in author and speaking fees in 2010 that would still be taxed under the Ryan plan. Just not much. Ryan would cut the top marginal tax rate from 35 to 25 percent and get rid of the Alternative Minimum Tax -- saving Romney another $292,389 or so on his 2010 tax bill. Now, Romney would still owe self-employment taxes on his author and speaking fees, but that only amounts to $29,151. Add it all up, and Romney would have paid $177,650 out of a taxable income of $21,661,344, for a cool effective rate of 0.82 percent.

But what about corporate taxes? Aren't they a double tax on savings and investment, so Romney's "real" rate is higher than his headline rate? No. As Jared Bernstein of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has pointed out, Romney has structured his investments as "pass-throughs" that avoid corporate tax. In other words, the 0.82 percent tax rate is really a 0.82 percent tax rate.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/...s-plan/261027/

More insanity from the horribly over-reaching Republican party. Let the excuses commence.

This isn't greed, its, uh, you know, "job creation". In fact, we should start taxing the middle class to give the rich even more money because no amount is too much for our "job creators". Nevermind the fact that the real job creators are customers, without which any and all investments are futile and doomed to fail.

[Angry Citizen]

To be fair, Ryan claims he would eliminate some deductions. We just don't know which ones.

[Yarn]

I don't see how getting rid of deductions has any significant bearing on Romney's taxes if capital gains and dividend tax are 0%. Removing deductions from 0% gives you 0%.

It would only plausibly effect the taxes on his speaking fees and books, but taxes on those are already less than 1% of his income.

To be fair, we are talking about federal taxes and them only.

[Ender]

This way more jobs will be created . . . in China.

[Trojan_Ripper]

This isn't greed, its, uh, you know, "job creation". In fact, we should start taxing the middle class to give the rich even more money because no amount is too much for our "job creators". Nevermind the fact that the real job creators are customers, without which any and all investments are futile and doomed to fail.

What happens when the "customer" loses his job? Can they collect unemployment while they're waiting to "create more jobs"?

[Yarn]

What happens when the "customer" loses his job? Can they collect unemployment while they're waiting to "create more jobs"?

No, they get unemployment benefits for a limited duration, thus maintaining consumer spending inbetween jobs and preventing the ripple effect the lay off would otherwise have on the economy.

[Darklordabc]

More insanity from the horribly over-reaching Republican party. Let the excuses commence.

This isn't greed, its, uh, you know, "job creation". In fact, we should start taxing the middle class to give the rich even more money because no amount is too much for our "job creators". Nevermind the fact that the real job creators are customers, without which any and all investments are futile and doomed to fail.

Why are you against Mitt Romney. If your highest goal is to avoid a nuclear holocaust, then your biggest political aim should be stopping Iran from getting nuclear weapons, right? And since you already admit that stopping Iran is a very important task, why are you supporting Obama? Mitt Romney is clearly the anti-iran choice. Shouldn't avoiding nuclear holocaust make you a single-issue voter?
Even if Obama is a better candidate for all those other issues, but before you were talking about how important it is stop Iran, but your squandering your vote (your most effective tool) on Obama. Seems like your not as committed to stopping Iran as you say.

[Dodds]

Why are you against Mitt Romney. If your highest goal is to avoid a nuclear holocaust, then your biggest political aim should be stopping Iran from getting nuclear weapons, right? And since you already admit that stopping Iran is a very important task, why are you supporting Obama? Mitt Romney is clearly the anti-iran choice. Shouldn't avoiding nuclear holocaust make you a single-issue voter?
Even if Obama is a better candidate for all those other issues, but before you were talking about how important it is stop Iran, but your squandering your vote (your most effective tool) on Obama. Seems like your not as committed to stopping Iran as you say.

The highest goal of everyone is to fix the economy. No way Mittens would do that.

[gallo]

Romney has stated that he has "looked at" his tax returns for the last 10 years and that he never paid less than 13%. Of course, he won't show us.

Is that supposed to make me believe that he is doing his fair share? When I was working I never paid less than 21% to 25%.

[Dodds]

Romney has stated that he has "looked at" his tax returns for the last 10 years and that he never paid less than 13%. Of course, he won't show us.

Is that supposed to make me believe that he is doing his fair share? When I was working I never paid less than 21% to 25%.

This article was very interesting I think.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19299676

Also how can anyone get away with 13% tax and feel it was enough?

[The Decider]

Also how can anyone get away with 13% tax and feel it was enough?

Paul Ryan should ask Rmoney the same question: "Why did you pay 13% tax when I paid 15.9 percent in 2010 and 20 percent in 2011? Hmmm?"

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/poli...#ixzz241Jdtv00

[The Decider]

Why are you against Mitt Romney. If your highest goal is to avoid a nuclear holocaust, then your biggest political aim should be stopping Iran from getting nuclear weapons, right? And since you already admit that stopping Iran is a very important task, why are you supporting Obama? Mitt Romney is clearly the anti-iran choice. Shouldn't avoiding nuclear holocaust make you a single-issue voter?
Even if Obama is a better candidate for all those other issues, but before you were talking about how important it is stop Iran, but your squandering your vote (your most effective tool) on Obama. Seems like your not as committed to stopping Iran as you say.

You're absolutely right. If bombing Iran back to the stone age is a desired goal, then Mittens is your man; with one caveat--he's got to admit it to the American people before the election. The American people should decide if another unfunded war in the Middle East is a good thing to do. It can't remain a secret between Darklordabc and Republican hawks. Encourage the hawks to come out from the shadows and stand by their convictions.