Under Ryan Plan Romney's effective tax 0.82%

[Deleted]

Mitt Romney Would Pay 0.82 Percent in Taxes Under Paul Ryan's Plan
By Matthew O'Brien





inShare.1Aug 11 2012, 4:52 PM ET13


Paul Ryan's plan is a path to prosperity for Mitt Romney






(Reuters)



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.




Of course, Romney criticized this idea back in January when Newt Gingrich proposed it by pointing out that zeroing out taxes on savings and investment would mean zeroing out his own taxes.









Almost. Romney did earn $593,996 in author and speaking fees in 2010 that still would 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.




It might seem impossible to fund the government when the super-rich pay no taxes. That is accurate. Ryan would actually raise taxes on the bottom 30 percent of earners, according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, but that hardly fills the revenue hole he would create. The solution? All but eliminate all government outside of Social Security and defense -- a point my colleague Derek Thompson has made in incredible chart form.





Maybe Harry Reid's mysterious source that Romney didn't pay taxes for a decade was really a time-traveler from the future. If Romney wins, it could very well be true.

[JLN]

In one year, based on Rmoney's speaking engagement pay alone, he makes five times more than my H and I combined. Yet, we pay 14 times more in taxes. I think that sounds fair, don't you? 8-D

[mominatrix]

but, but, but... Job creators!

...via mobile.

[Deleted]

Yeah, that's ridiculous. There needs to be a middle ground.

[heyjude]

Crickets from the cons on this one, eh?

[basilosaurus]

Honestly, that pretty much disgusts me.

[ladybrettashley]

And this is why the cons are being willfully ignorant when they talk about Paul Ryan reducing deficits, or making the government solvent, or whatever language they use.

If he wants to talk about the tough decisions of reforming Medicare and SS, that's great. I disagree with his proposals, but at least that is a conversation I can respect. But when he couples huge cuts to programs that affect the poor and elderly with huge tax breaks for the wealthy at a time when they are already paying record low taxes, well that just crossed the line into bullshit territory. The fact is, R's claim to be deficit hawks, but even a fifth grader knows that the way to reduce deficits is to decrease spending and increase revenue. The R's only want to talk about decreasing spending. It's clear they don't care about deficits; it is a just a way to scare people into accepting cuts to social programs. Sorry for the rant...this makes me ragey.

[Deleted]

Aug 12, 2012 9:40:46 GMT -5 ladybrettashley said:

And this is why the cons are being willfully ignorant when they talk about Paul Ryan reducing deficits, or making the government solvent, or whatever language they use.

If he wants to talk about the tough decisions of reforming Medicare and SS, that's great. I disagree with his proposals, but at least that is a conversation I can respect. But when he couples huge cuts to programs that affect the poor and elderly with huge tax breaks for the wealthy at a time when they are already paying record low taxes, well that just crossed the line into bullshit territory. The fact is, R's claim to be deficit hawks, but even a fifth grader knows that the way to reduce deficits is to decrease spending and increase revenue. The R's only want to talk about decreasing spending. It's clear they don't care about deficits; it is a just a way to scare people into accepting cuts to social programs. Sorry for the rant...this makes me ragey.

Did I create an alter ego in my sleep and post this? Hear, hear! I want to hear the Ryan lovers defend a .82% tax rate, or cutting social programs while leaving corporate subsidies and defense spending untouched. Democrats get accused of playing the class warfare card, but who's actually engaging in class warfare - the one whose every move would benefit those who are already rich, or the ones who call them out on it?

[ttt]

Aug 12, 2012 9:40:46 GMT -5 ladybrettashley said:

And this is why the cons are being willfully ignorant when they talk about Paul Ryan reducing deficits, or making the government solvent, or whatever language they use.

If he wants to talk about the tough decisions of reforming Medicare and SS, that's great. I disagree with his proposals, but at least that is a conversation I can respect. But when he couples huge cuts to programs that affect the poor and elderly with huge tax breaks for the wealthy at a time when they are already paying record low taxes, well that just crossed the line into bullshit territory. The fact is, R's claim to be deficit hawks, but even a fifth grader knows that the way to reduce deficits is to decrease spending and increase revenue. The R's only want to talk about decreasing spending. It's clear they don't care about deficits; it is a just a way to scare people into accepting cuts to social programs. Sorry for the rant...this makes me ragey.

:Y: :Y: :Y: :Y: :Y:

[jillboston]

There is no reason for the Bush tax cuts to remain in place. NONE. I can remember way back in the summer of 2001 when there was this wonderful surplus and Bush said that we have to give the money back to the tax payers. Ending those idiotic cuts for everyone will go a long, long way to reducing the deficit. And cutting defense spending. There is no need for this boogey man malarkey the GOP is ginning up against SS and Medicare.

[earlgreyhot]

double ditto jillboston

[sweettooth]

Best quote of the day in my opinion:

"Democrats get accused of playing the class warfare card, but who's actually engaging in class warfare - the one whose every move would benefit those who are already rich, or the ones who call them out on it?"

[sweettooth]

Aug 12, 2012 10:17:53 GMT -5 jillboston said:

There is no reason for the Bush tax cuts to remain in place. NONE. I can remember way back in the summer of 2001 when there was this wonderful surplus and Bush said that we have to give the money back to the tax payers. Ending those idiotic cuts for everyone will go a long, long way to reducing the deficit. And cutting defense spending. There is no need for this boogey man malarkey the GOP is ginning up against SS and Medicare.

Why should any Dem agree to cut taxes when Grover Norquist has most of the Rs sign a pledge to NEVER increase taxes or he will run someone against them and fund them? Any tax cut winds up being permanent according to that pledge no matter what circumstances arise, and those votes would be needed. I saw on 60 Minutes that Norquist had that idea at the age of 12. I question any politician that refuses to look at the present needs and act in the manner needed without standing by a rigid idea conceived in the past.

[Deleted]

Why are none of our Cons commenting?

They are usually a smart and well-reasoned bunch even if I don't agree with them :-)

[MrsAxilla]

Aug 12, 2012 17:55:19 GMT -5 sweettooth said:

I saw on 60 Minutes that Norquist had that idea at the age of 12. I question any politician that refuses to look at the present needs and act in the manner needed without standing by a rigid idea conceived in the past.

These Rs are held hostage by the fantasies of a 12 year old? I'm appalled.

[stephiehun]

Aug 12, 2012 18:28:49 GMT -5 MrsAxilla said:

Aug 12, 2012 17:55:19 GMT -5 sweettooth said:

I saw on 60 Minutes that Norquist had that idea at the age of 12. I question any politician that refuses to look at the present needs and act in the manner needed without standing by a rigid idea conceived in the past.

These Rs are held hostage by the fantasies of a 12 year old? I'm appalled.

No money for schools, but lots of money for blowing stuff up? It's a 12 year old boy's dream.

[MrsAxilla]

Aug 12, 2012 18:34:04 GMT -5 stephiehun said:

Aug 12, 2012 18:28:49 GMT -5 MrsAxilla said:

These Rs are held hostage by the fantasies of a 12 year old? I'm appalled.

No money for schools, but lots of money for blowing stuff up? It's a 12 year old boy's dream.

Lol!

[y4m]

I'm dealing with some family issues, as you could see on MM. But I'm also extremely put off by the idea of being summoned to write CEP essay assignments. Like everyone else here, we'll play when we want to and when time permits--this small group of cons does not owe you a response to any thread where you demand it.

[soontobeka]

Aug 12, 2012 18:39:37 GMT -5 y4m said:

I'm dealing with some family issues, as you could see on MM. But I'm also extremely put off by the idea of being summoned to write CEP essay assignments. Like everyone else here, we'll play when we want to and when time permits--this small group of cons does not owe you a response to any thread where you demand it.

Is this directed at anyone in particular? I am sorry for what you are going through at this time, regarding your family.

[KB]

Aug 12, 2012 9:40:46 GMT -5 ladybrettashley said:

And this is why the cons are being willfully ignorant when they talk about Paul Ryan reducing deficits, or making the government solvent, or whatever language they use.

If he wants to talk about the tough decisions of reforming Medicare and SS, that's great. I disagree with his proposals, but at least that is a conversation I can respect. But when he couples huge cuts to programs that affect the poor and elderly with huge tax breaks for the wealthy at a time when they are already paying record low taxes, well that just crossed the line into bullshit territory. The fact is, R's claim to be deficit hawks, but even a fifth grader knows that the way to reduce deficits is to decrease spending and increase revenue. The R's only want to talk about decreasing spending. It's clear they don't care about deficits; it is a just a way to scare people into accepting cuts to social programs. Sorry for the rant...this makes me ragey.

+1

[lys]

Did O'Brien take into account the elimination of the deductions that will be lost under the Ryan plan?
Romney has embraced parts of the Ryan plan, and has not said he would institute the plan, rather that he would be focusing on Medicare, SS reforms, tax restructuring and debt reduction.
O'Brien is talking thru his hat and smoking something.

[ttt]

Aug 12, 2012 20:08:09 GMT -5 lys said:

Did O'Brien take into account the elimination of the deductions that will be lost under the Ryan plan?
Romney has embraced parts of the Ryan plan, and has not said he would institute the plan, rather that he would be focusing on Medicare, SS reforms, tax restructuring and debt reduction.
O'Brien is talking thru his hat and smoking something.

Yes.

So you're against the Ryan plan, then?

[ladybrettashley]

Aug 12, 2012 20:08:09 GMT -5 lys said:

Did O'Brien take into account the elimination of the deductions that will be lost under the Ryan plan?

It is impossible to account for this because Ryan's budget does not specify a single deduction or loophole that he would eliminate. We're just supposed to trust him that he would close some mysterious loopholes to make it budget-neutral.

[Deleted]

Aug 12, 2012 18:24:02 GMT -5 @septimus said:

Why are none of our Cons commenting?

They are usually a smart and well-reasoned bunch even if I don't agree with them :-)

I wondered the same thing...
but they are starting to crawl out of the woodwork!

I mean, I think its gotta be a unity horse that 0.82% is ridiculous.

[Deleted]

Aug 12, 2012 20:44:41 GMT -5 @lauriergirl28 said:

Aug 12, 2012 18:24:02 GMT -5 @septimus said:

Why are none of our Cons commenting?

They are usually a smart and well-reasoned bunch even if I don't agree with them :-)

I wondered the same thing...
but they are starting to crawl out of the woodwork!

Crawl out of the woodwork??

Go fuck yourself, for serious.

[Deleted]

Aug 12, 2012 21:47:26 GMT -5 @habbsies said:

Aug 12, 2012 20:44:41 GMT -5 @lauriergirl28 said:

I wondered the same thing...
but they are starting to crawl out of the woodwork!

Crawl out of the woodwork??

Go fuck yourself, for serious.

What the hell is your problem?

That's a pretty common, non- offensive phrase unless I'm missing something major.

I'm pretty sure telling to go fuck themselves is a bit uncalled for.

[lys]

Romney is not running on Ryan's budget.

[Deleted]

lols...is there any way to get a reasonable R response on this without causing offense? No, no there isn't. One might almost draw the conclusion that there is no reasonable response. I await being told to fuck off and die for my comment.

[y4m]

Even if the math here is correct, and I do think that's a substantial IF, I personally don't support taking capital gains to 0. I can see why people on the right advocate that, since it is one way of making up for our messed up corporate tax, but I'd much rather see a lower corporate tax and capital gains taxed as ordinary income.

There--everyone happy that we danced on command now?

[pvillewife06]

Here's my short response. I don't believe the article's math. But, I feel like I would need to look into Mitt Romney's tax records, through all 203 pages of them, which I'm not about to do, to figure out his taxes under Ryan. I would be looking for the breakdown of his income which the article doesn't explain at all and I think is necessary. Shoddy math basically.