Apparently, Romney distributed 42% of his income last year in taxes and charitable giving.
Inequality like this is unsustainable
by slimboyfat 91 Replies latest social current
-
-
james_woods
They did not report 42% on the TV news this morning, BTS.
I believe they said he paid taxes of about 13.5% and charitable contributions of about the same amount - 25 or 26% total.
-
cedars
On our news in the UK it was reported that his charitable contributions were a way of exploiting a loophole that meant paying less tax. i.e. 14% plus $3 million in donations as opposed to the typical 35% (or whatever it is). I'm no expert on American tax laws, so feel free to correct me.
Cedars
-
botchtowersociety
They did not report 42% on the TV news this morning, BTS.
Here is how the author at the above link calculated it:
Another way of looking at it is that in 2011 the Romneys paid out 42 percent of their income in taxes and charity. Here’s how I got there: Total tax (line 60) + foreign taxes (line 47) + state taxes and real-estate taxes + other taxes (Schedule A, line 9) + charitable contributions (Schedule A, line 19) divided by Adjusted Gross Income (1040 line 37).
-
james_woods
OK, I see the point - the 13.5% is just federal income tax, not total taxes paid.
-
slimboyfat
Don't forget Romney's 'charitable giving' includes the obligatory 10% to the Mormon Church. Lucky Mormons Church eh? I bet there are not m/any JWs who donate so much to their church.
I know! Lets take their money away and give it to everyone else!
Sigh. How about simply arranging the rules differently so that these obscene disparities do not arise? I cannot help but marvel at the power of ideology which teaches ordinary people that the gross inequality in our society is for our own good and/or purely the ethical result of hard work.
I am not merely talking about equality of opportunity. I am in favour of greater equality full stop.
-
cedars
How about simply arranging the rules differently so that these obscene disparities do not arise?
slimboyfat - if it's so simple, how might the rules be arranged as an example?
Cedars
-
truth_b_known
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
U.S. citizens have the opportunity to obtain as much wealth and property as they desire. The current entitlement generation would have us all believe that having wealth and owning property is ethically wrong by using such phrases as,"Why does someone need all that wealth? It is economic injustice."
It has nothing to do with "needs". It is just like the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Persons say,"Why do you need that assault rifle?" Last time I checked, the 2nd Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights. It's not called the "Bill of Needs". It is a freedom guarenteed to me by law and I do not need someone else dictating to me how I exercise my rights based on perceived need.
-
slimboyfat
slimboyfat - if it's so simple, how might the rules be arranged as an example?
How about passing a law that all companies must be fully employee owned? That would be a good start. Raising taxes on unearned income and lowering taxes on earned income would be another good step.
-
cedars
How about passing a law that all companies must be fully employee owned?
We do have companies like that in the UK. In fact, Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg (a big proponent of "social mobility") was recently interviewed saying that he wishes more companies could follow the "John Lewis" model. John Lewis is a department store that is owned by its employees.
That said, I'm not sure that splitting a company between its employees would work in every instance. It certainly wouldn't encourage and incentivize entrepeneurship. Would you invest tons of money in starting up a business, knowing that you may end up having to share the proceeds with your staff?
Cedars