Mitt’s taxes

Taxes

Taxes (Photo credit: Tax Credits)

Mitt has filed for an extension in filing his 2011 taxes. His campaign estimates that he will pay $6.2 million on an estimated $45 million income for the two years 2010 and 2011. That is an effective tax rate of 13.7%. Campaigning for president certainly beats working for a living. Many of us don’t have jobs and wish that we could earn a living wage and pay taxes at the same time s that we can keep our homes and feed our families. Mitt is  going to say that campaigning for president is work.

Bill O’Reilly and taxes

The O'Reilly Factor for Kids

Image via Wikipedia

Last night on the O’Reilly Factor, Bill was complaining again about how government spends his taxes. He must pay a great deal of money in taxes because he complains a great deal. This time the complaint was about paying for a woman’s contraception medication. Bill should realize that government is there for all us of, not just a few of us. Different people have different needs and concerns. Government is not an à la carte service. One could think of government as an insurance provider, to be there when and if it is needed. The principal difference between government and an insurance provider is that government is non-profit. An insurance provider makes money by cutting services, paying employees less and laying people off, and uses its profits to pay CEOs lavish salaries. That is the difference between government and the private sector. They are different and don’t confuse the two. Electing a man like Mitt Romney solely because of his business experience would be a mistake.

Taxing job creators

David Jack (1822-1909), American businessman, ...

Image via Wikipedia

“Job creators” almost always say that increasing taxes or regulations will cost jobs. Sometimes that may be correct, but the real question should be whether or not increased taxes and/or regulation will result in greater or lesser benefits than their cost. Listening to those who oppose any tax increase is like giving in to the spoiled child who wants to play by his rules or he will take his ball or other sporting goods and refuse to play. My answer to that ploy is to say, let him. The spoiled child will eventually miss being left out of childhood games and the remaining children will find other things to do. They may even combine funds and buy substitute sporting equipment or make their own.

That is also true in the world of adults or those who pretend to be adults. If a job creator wants to avoid his/her responsibilities to society in the US, let him sell out his/her interests here and move abroad. I think that American job creators will find that they miss their homes, friends and relatives, and businesses here in the US. They may be able to recreate their businesses abroad, or then again they may find difficulties there that do not exist here. I think many true job creators are in business for the fun and joy of it, not the money. Monetary success follows success in business and is not the central reason that job creators create businesses. It is the professional business managers that job creators hire later who are in the business for the money, not to create jobs.

Americans are creative people who welcome the brightest and best from around the world as immigrants. If some of the 1% refuse their responsibilities to the rest of us and prefer to withdraw to their earned retirement elsewhere, so be it. I’m willing to bet that other Americans will step up to the challenge. And if the retiring 1%-ers get bored or have a change of heart, we will welcome them back.

Please see Job creators | Where have all the good jobs gone? | Mitt and Bain | Bain pain | Federal taxes

Mitt and taxes

Mitt Romney

Image via Wikipedia

Mitt Romney contends that he pays a higher rate of income tax if you add in what Bain pays in taxes before Mitt receives his $20 million annually. That argument applies to all taxpayers who do not work for a non-profit organization. If Mitt can argue in favor of going back one step in the income producing chain, why stop there?

Let’s construct a hypothetical example and test Mitt’s logic.

X Co pays 30% on its profits and buys products from
Y Corp which pays 25% on its profits and then is purchased and restructured by Bain
Bain pays 35% on its profits (untrue because 35% is a nominal rate, not a true rate after tax loopholes)
Mitt pays 14% plus the percentage paid by Bain and its acquired companies and their suppliers. In this example, a total of 104%. Therefore, in Mitt’s version of reality, he has paid 104% of his income in taxes. Then why is he not on food stamps and collecting unemployment insurance like so many of us?

Please see Death and taxes | Mitt and Bain | Bain pain | Money talks | Carlyle Group

Death and taxes

Paying taxes is required for both citizens and...

Image via Wikipedia

Death and taxes are inevitable, so let’s link them more closely. I favor a steeply progressive inheritance tax (death tax) because we Americans believe in a level playing field, or we give the idea lip service. This is my suggestion: on estates of $5 million or less the tax rate would be 0%. Between $5 and $15 million, the tax rate should be 50%. Above $15 million, the tax rate would be 100%. Thus the most any person could inherit would be a net of $10 million. Not quite a level playing field, but not an overwhelming head-start either.

Started calculating my income taxes today. Last year when I worked nearly full-time, I paid a higher rate than Mitt Romney. Now that I am living on Social security and a small pension, I expect tp pay a lower rate than Mitt. I would gladly pay 50% or even 70% if I had his gross income of $20 million. Even a tax rate of 95% would leave me with a net income of $1 million per year. I could live on that.

Late breaking news: Mitt’s at it again, adding apples and pineapples. He claims to be paying a higher tax rate because Bain pays taxes on the $20 million or so that he receives and then he pays 13.9% on it. Sorry, Mitt, that does not compute. Do not pass “Go” and do not collect $200 million over the next ten years.