Mitts Income V Yours Calculator

[Guest FourAces]

I found this nifty online calculator. Basically you put in your income and it will give you the time it takes Mitt to earn what you do in a year. It also will let you know how many years it will take for you to earn what Mitt does in one year

http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2012/01/romney_income_calculator_how_much_does_mitt_make_how_long_would_it_take_him_to_earn_your_salary_.html

[seattlebottom]

Just did my taxes today and found out that I pay a higher percentage of taxes than Mitt does.

[KYTOP]

I found this nifty online calculator. Basically you put in your income and it will give you the time it takes Mitt to earn what you do in a year. It also will let you know how many years it will take for you to earn what Mitt does in one year

http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2012/01/romney_income_calculator_how_much_does_mitt_make_how_long_would_it_take_him_to_earn_your_salary_.html

I voted for Kerry for President and he was rich and his wealth did not include his wife's money. If you remember they file taxes seperately and she refused to release her returns, she is heir to the Heinz ketchup fortune from her previous late husband. If you added Kerry's income to his wife's then their household income far exceeds Romney from what I understand. Yet Slate did not have a Kerry online calculator. Hypocrisy much I think.

Most Americans want to be rich, that is why so many play the lottery every week. As for Romney's money, I say good for him. Having money doesn't mean anything to me when deciding who to vote for.

[KYTOP]

Just did my taxes today and found out that I pay a higher percentage of taxes than Mitt does.

Like comparing apples and oranges. In this country you are taxed at approximately 35% on a working salary. But you are only taxed at 15% if you make your money from investments, Capital Gains. This is the way our tax laws are written. So if you have a salary you pay 35%,minus deductions on that amount but then would only pay 15% on any interest income, stocks, Bonds, etc... Romney had NO salary income, all his money comes from investments. He followed the tax laws.

[TampaYankee]

I voted for Kerry for President and he was rich and his wealth did not include his wife's money. If you remember they file taxes seperately and she refused to release her returns, she is heir to the Heinz ketchup fortune from her previous late husband. If you added Kerry's income to his wife's then their household income far exceeds Romney from what I understand. Yet Slate did not have a Kerry online calculator. Hypocrisy much I think.

Most Americans want to be rich, that is why so many play the lottery every week. As for Romney's money, I say good for him. Having money doesn't mean anything to me when deciding who to vote for.

I have no problem with rich people per se but I can have a problem with how they acquired their vast sums and what they do with it. I don't think much of those characterized as 'Robber Barons' of the 19th Century. Some did great good, maybe all, but some did very bad things, maybe all -- price fixing, anti-competitive practices, bribes, abhorrent labor practices -- all to acquire as much treasure as they could accumulate with no need or even way to spend it all. Just look at the palaces built in Newport RI for summer vacations homes.

I do not know enough about Romney's history to have an informed opinion. But on the face, I see potentially a big difference between him and, say, Warren Buffet. Buffet made his money the old-fashioned way. He shrewdly invested in businesses made them even more profitable and stonger. The investors made out, the owners he bought from made out, and their employees made out.

I do not know Romney's entire Bain history but it has been said there are examples where Bain bought out, or into, a company, took it over, restructured, downsized, borrowed tens of millions on the company books while draining pension funds and other company resources to Bain for Bain's Management and stockholders. All this to have the company fail under the new debt, close its doors and layoff all remaining employess.

Now I do not personally know of that is all true, but if it is then there is no better word for it than vulture capitalism. I have no problem taking a company over as a potential turnaround to make money -- big money. Success warrants that. Buffet has proven that. If it fails, I have no problem with the takeover company making the attempt, getting its money out and even taking some for its time and effort. But when they take out tens of millions leaving the original owner/employees bankrupt, jobless, penniless and pensionless while Bain walks away with pockets stuffed, then I smell a rat.

Not all rich people deserve to be respected equally.

As for Romney's taxes, he did nothing wrong, he followed the law. I do not fault him for that. The fault I ascribe to him, based on my view, is that he sees nothing unfair that he pays that rate while his secretary or gardener pays twice that. To add insult to injury he argues that the 15% rate should even be lowered.

Now it is true that the government takes money to provide services like a military, federal courts and marshals, border control, Communicable Diseases Center, meat inspection, and drug testing and approval, just to name a few. Someone has to pay for it. Ideally, everyone should be able to chip in. However, it doesn't work out that everyone can afford it.

For those who can afford to contribute, if we reduce the contributions for one income sector then the difference has to be made up by another income sector. To reduce the burden on those who most easily can contribute without impact on their lives to another sector which has significant impact on their lives seems unfair at best and unvarnished greed and avarice at worst.

Keep in mind that the present day Federal tax burden is the lowest in 50-60 years. To say we presently pay too much in taxes is, as historical fact, a downright lie. It is simply a principle of Republican Party doctrine, nothing more. As such it is a statement that the GOP disapproves of the way both parties have executed government policy since WWII. The implication is that the GOP longs for the leadership of Coolidge and Hoover, which seem to be the last administrations they approve of by implication.

Which gets to the real goal of the GOP. They want to get rid of the New Deal. If that is what the people want then they should vote for it. But they should understand that is what is at stake.