Atom Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why is Romney's requirement lower than mine.
>
> Because his ilk has bought the privilege at the
> middle classes expense.
>
> Wealth disparity causes unstable societies.
> Somthing has to change, maybe some blood
> (figuratively) needs to be spilled.
One thing that could change is for dumb fucks exactly like you to learn what the fuck is really going on with this issue. Your ignorance and others like you are threatening to ruin our country. So I'll do you a favor here if you can pull your head out of your ass just long enough to learn a few things.
One reason investment income is taxed at a lower rate than wage and salary income is because it is a double tax—profits are taxed once under the statutory 35% corporate tax rate and then again when they are paid out to individuals as dividends. Romney's campaign was asked if it had tried to estimate Mr. Romney's effective tax rate including the corporate and shareholder levies. Brad Malt, Mr. Romney's trustee, called it "a tempting exercise" but impossible because it would require the tax returns of all the underlying companies Mr. Romney holds.
Democrats are dropping pianos on Mr. Romney because his Bain earnings under his retirement agreement are taxed at 15% as "carried interest" rather than next year's 39.6% on ordinary salary. Carried interest is the accounting term for revenue in general partnerships—private equity and hedge funds, yes, but also certain real-estate and oil-and-gas outfits and others.
Congress has held since the 1970s that carried interest deserves to be taxed at a lower rate because it is at-risk capital that only materializes if a fund invests wisely, and because when you tax something—such as risk taking—you get less of it. Mr. Romney didn't write this "loophole." He is merely following the law that Senate Democrats like Chuck Schumer have spent years protecting.
Mr. Romney could begin by pointing out that the rich aren't nearly rich enough to pay for Mr. Obama's agenda, let alone the government we have. According to IRS data, only 8,273 taxpayers other than Mr. Romney made more than $10 million in 2009. Since the U.S. already has one of the most progressive tax codes in the world, Mr. Obama will need to target middle-income earners of far less means than Mr. Romney. And as ObamaCare's bills come due, he will.
But more to the election point, Mr. Romney should put his own returns in the trophy case as evidence of the need for a major tax reform: Lower, flatter rates and a broader base will generate more jobs and economic growth. It might be reasonable, for instance, to treat carried interest as regular income in the context of lowering the corporate rate to something that is remotely competitive world-wide.
The problem isn't that Mr. Romney is paying too little, but that Mr. Obama wants everyone but his voters and green business cronies to pay too much.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203718504577180932481728706.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop