Advertisements
Home

Paul Krugman Says It’s OK for Governments to Steal

Leave a comment

This is from Political Outcast.

 Paul Krugman  is an idiot.

It is not ok for the government to steal.

How ever the government does steal.

We can not steal because the government hates the competition.

 

Paul Krugman, a regular commentator for The New York Times, wants to return to the good old days of high tax rates. He’s trying to make the case that high tax rates on the nation’s wealthiest income earners was good for the economy in the 1950s:

“[I]n the 1950s incomes in the top bracket faced a marginal tax rate of 91, that’s right, 91 percent, while taxes on corporate profits were twice as large, relative to national income, as in recent years. The best estimates suggest that circa 1960 the top 0.01 percent of Americans paid an effective federal tax rate of more than 70 percent, twice what they pay today.”

It’s too bad that conservatives don’t know how to argue their case for lower taxes. Krugman also misses the real reason why all people should be opposed to high or even medium taxes on anybody. By what authority do elected representatives have the right to tax some people at a higher rate than other people? Is it because a majority of people want to (1) punish high income earners because of envy or (2) is it because they want some of what prosperous people earn by way of wealth transfer? Either way, the rationale and practice are immoral.

It’s irrelevant what the tax rate was in the 1950s as compared to today. The more pressing question is the taxing power of the State. A few hundred people and a cadre of judges determine how much money you and I get to keep. This is not the system of government that our elected officials took an oath to uphold.

It’s staggering that anyone can argue, even in theory or for the sake of nostalgia, for taking 91 percent of someone’s income. Why would anyone work hard and long hours, risk capital over a long period of time, pay insurance, hire employees, struggle with competition, hire lawyers and accountants to satisfy increasing government regulations for nine percent of the profits?

In addition to the moral issue that almost no one wants to talk about, there are differences in the way taxes were calculated and expenses indexed for deductions in the 1950s. There were many more write offs for expenses. Coupled with inflation and income-tax bracket creep upward, there has been a steady devaluation and deduction creep downward. Consider the generational differences:

“The high income tax rates in the 1950s were paired with a corporate tax system that allowed companies much more generous deductions for things like business lunches, business-travel-with-spouse, and so forth. . . . Descriptions of 1960′s expense account procedures for even entry-level management are enough to make this journalist rather faint with envy.”

What’s also different is the exponential increase in entitlements that drive the call for higher taxes on the wealthy: school loan programs, subsidized mortgages, expansion of Social Security, Medicare, and Disability payouts, to name just five.

In 1955, there were 8.6 workers paying into Social Security for each beneficiary. Multiply this over all so-called entitlement programs. By 2005 the ratio dropped to about 2 to 1. When Social Security was first proposed, not everybody was in the program. Most government workers, including Congress, were exempt. The worker to beneficiary ratio was around 30 to 1.

There is no way to tax our way out of this fiscal crisis. “According to the figures in the president’s own budget, the debt will jump to a staggering 102 percent of GDP at the end of fiscal 2011. It will grow to 105 percent in the year following and remain at that level as long as the eye can see.”

None of the new revenue raised by taxing the rich at ever higher levels will be used to reduce any debt. It will be spent on more government programs because that’s how Democrats get elected.

Read more: http://politicaloutcast.com/2012/11/paul-krugman-says-its-ok-for-governments-to-steal/#ixzz2CoIVQicm

 

Advertisements

Romney Overpays His Taxes, Reid Charges ‘Manipulation’

Leave a comment

This is from NewsMax.

 People of Nevada are you embarrassed by Harry Reid yet?

I think it is time to send Harry to the loony bin where he belongs.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid charged Mitt Romney with manipulating his 2011 taxes to “conform with his public statements,” after the Republican presidential challenger’s return showed he paid nearly $500,000 more than he should have.

“Governor Romney is showing us what he does when the public is looking,” Reid said. “The true test of his character would be to show what he did when everyone was not looking at his taxes.”

Reid was referring to the Republican presidential candidate’s decision not to take the full write-off on the huge amount he and his wife Ann gave to charity last year. The return, released Friday, show the couple donated some 30 percent of their $13.7 million income — but they did not take the full write-off, making their effective tax rate higher.

One tax expert estimated that decision cost the Romneys a little under half a million dollars.”The information released today reveals that Mitt Romney manipulated one of the only two years of tax returns he’s seen fit to show the American people— and then only to ‘conform’ with his public statements,” the Nevada Democrat said in a statement. “That raises the question: what else in those returns has Romney manipulated?”He then asked when will “the American people see the returns he filed before he was running for president?”The decision not to take the full amount was described by tax experts as unusual.”I was in private practice for 40 years and don’t know that I ever had a client who said, ‘I don’t want to take all my deductions,'” David Kautter of the Kogod Tax Center at American University told Reuters.

Kautter, who spent his career at the accounting giant Ernst & Young, estimated that if Romney had taken the full charitable tax break, his effective tax rate would have been about 10.5 percent. The return showed Romney paid an effective rate of 14.1 percent last year.

Kautter told the Wall Street Journal that Romney overpaid by a little less than $500,000.

The revelation is yet another blow to Romney, ending a week of setbacks. During a Republican presidential primary debate in January, when the question of his taxes was raised, he said, “I don’t think you want someone as the candidate for president who pays more taxes than he owes.”

The Romneys reported about $4 million in charitable donations, including at least $1.1 million given to the Mormon Church to which they belong. Mormons typically “tithe” 10 percent of their income to the church.

Romney attorney Brad Malt said the Romneys took a deduction of only about $2.25 million. The move, he said, was meant to keep their effective tax rate above a 13 percent minimum level that Romney said recently his rate had stayed above for 10 years.

“The Romneys thus limited their deduction of charitable contributions to conform to the governor’s statement in August,” Malt said in a statement to Reuters.

Romney has been under fire to release more than two years of tax returns. He released his 2010 returns in January along with a draft of his 2011 tax record.

For 2010, Romney paid a 14 percent effective income tax rate, paying $3 million in federal taxes on a $21.7 million income. He donated about $3 million to charity.

He estimated his 2011 income at about $20.9 million. He revised that down to $13.7 million in the filing released on Friday — and he paid $1.9 million in taxes on that income.

The return also showed the Romneys earning about $6.8 million in investment income.

Investment income often is subject to tax rates lower than that for wages and salaries, which are taxed at a top rate of 35 percent. The current top rate for capital gains and dividends is 15 percent. That helped the Romneys achieve their relatively low tax rate for 2011 and other years.

Democrats have criticized the Romneys’ tax rate as evidence that the wealthy do not pay their fair share under current rules.

By contrast, President Barack Obama and his wife, Michelle, reported earning about $789,674 in income in 2011 — giving about $172,130 to charity, or about 22 percent — according to filings.

The Obamas’ largest contribution was to the Fisher House Foundation, which provides housing for war veterans.

The Obama campaign responded to the release of the 2011 data by highlighting Romney’s tax rate and by calling for him to release more years of returns.”People like Mitt Romney pay a lower tax rate than many middle-class families because of a set of complex loopholes and tax shelters only available to those at the top,” Stephanie Cutter, Obama’s deputy campaign manager, said in a statement to the Wall Street Journal.The Romney tax data also included a review of the former Massachusetts governor’s taxes for the previous 20 years, ending in 2009. The Romneys’ accountant, PricewaterhouseCoopers, said that the couple had owed an average effective federal tax rate of 20.2 percent over that period. Romney has steadfastly refused to release more than the latest two years of returns.After the 2011 return was released, the Romney campaign circulated a news report commenting that “it appears that Harry Reid’s infamous source alleging that Romney paid nothing in taxes for 10 years was wrong.”In August, Reid said in an interview with the left-leaning Huffington Post that he had heard the information from an investor with Romney’s private-equity company, Bain Capital.

Reid refused to identify the source or to offer any evidence. Romney at the time specifically denied the charge, but eventually released his 2010 return.

In the interview, Reid told the Huffington Post that he had received a phone call “about a month ago,” from a person who had invested with Bain.

“Harry, he didn’t pay any taxes for 10 years,” he claimed the individual said.

Reid admitted at the time that he had no idea about the veracity of the claim.

“Now, do I know that that’s true? Well, I’m not certain,” he said in the interview. “But obviously he can’t release those tax returns. How would it look?”

Reid said that, based on the no-taxes allegation, Romney’s fortune was likely to be far higher than the $250 million that is regularly cited.

“It’s a lot more than that,” he said. “I mean, you do pretty well if you don’t pay taxes for 10 years when you’re making millions and millions of dollars.”

Reid even brought Romney’s father George into the interview. George Romney started the now-common practice of releasing multiple years of returns when he published 12 years’ worth during his 1968 run for the Republican White House nomination.

“His poor father must be so embarrassed about his son,” Reid told the Huffington Post.

Romney’s campaign responded by telling the Huffington Post that he had “gone above and beyond the disclosure requirements by releasing two years of personal tax returns in addition to the hundreds of pages of financial disclosure documents he has provided to the Federal Elections Commission and made public.”

Reid’s accusation immediately rallied the GOP, with former presidential candidate Pat Buchanan being among the first to call him out.

Buchanan told Fox News’ Greta Van Susteren that Reid’s comments were “beneath the dignity of the office of the Senate majority leader.”

Van Susteren pointed out that Reid, an attorney, would know that such an anonymous allegation would never be allowed in court.

“The Democrats are trying to change the subject,” Buchanan responded. “They cannot win on Barack Obama’s record. They know that. And so what you have to do is they have got to get material on Romney to damage him and make him utterly unacceptable.”

“That shows a measure of desperation.”

Republicans soon demanded that Reid release his own returns — something he has refused to do, sparking charges of hypocrisy.

Read more on Newsmax.com: Romney Overpays Income Tax by $500,000: Reid Calls it ‘Manipulation’
Important: Do You Support Pres. Obama’s Re-Election? Vote Here Now!

Romney Taxes: 30% to Charity, 14% to Uncle Sam, 20 yr. summary released

Leave a comment

 

This is from Patriot Update.

How dare that sneaky Mitt Romney give 30% to charity?

How much did Slow Joe and Barack give to charity?

These tax returns prove Dingy Harry Reid is a liar.

Then any one with an IQ above a box of rocks knows Harry is lying.

Can Timmy the tax cheat Geithner say he payed his taxes.

How about Charles Rangel did he pay his taxes?

 

So much for the lies of Harry Reid claiming that Romney paid no taxes. Of course this won’t be enough for liberals, but it certainly shows how generous the Romney’s are and that they should be commended not torn down for their finances.

Here is part of the summary from the Romney release:


This morning, Gov. and Mrs. Romney filed their 2011 tax return with the IRS. At 3:00pm today, the Romney for President campaign will be posting the 2011 return online.

The complete 2011 tax return, with full schedules, statements, and attachments, will be made available with all other previously-disclosed information at www.mittromney.com/disclosure.

Also posted will be a notarized letter from the Romneys’ tax preparer, PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP (PWC), giving a summary of tax rates from the Romneys’ tax returns for the 20-year period of 1990-2009.

In advance of the posting of these new documents, I wanted to provide some top-line details.

Regarding the newly-filed 2011 Tax Return:
•In 2011, the Romneys paid $1,935,708 in taxes on $13,696,951 in mostly investment income.
•The Romneys’ effective tax rate for 2011 was 14.1%.
•The Romneys donated $4,020,772 to charity in 2011, amounting to nearly 30% of their income.
•The Romneys claimed a deduction for $2.25 million of those charitable contributions.
•The Romneys’ generous charitable donations in 2011 would have significantly reduced their tax obligation for the year. The Romneys thus limited their deduction of charitable contributions to conform to the Governor’s statement in August, based upon the January estimate of income, that he paid at least 13% in income taxes in each of the last 10 years.

As with the 2010 tax return, the 2011 tax return will appear as four separate documents. It includes Governor and Mrs. Romney’s Form 1040 as well as three underlying Massachusetts trusts detailing the sources of their income. Those are The W. Mitt Romney Blind Trust, The Ann D. Romney Blind Trust, and The Romney Family Trust.

The investments within the trusts are managed on a blind basis by me, the trustee. I have sole responsibility for making, holding and disposing of the investments.

Regarding the PWC letter covering the Romneys’ tax filings over 20 years, from 1990 – 2009:
•In each year during the entire 20-year period, the Romneys owed both state and federal income taxes.
•Over the entire 20-year period, the average annual effective federal tax rate was 20.20%.
•Over the entire 20-year period, the lowest annual effective federal personal tax rate was 13.66%.
•Over the entire 20-year period, the Romneys gave to charity an average of 13.45% of their adjusted gross income.
•Over the entire 20-year period, the total federal and state taxes owed plus the total charitable donations deducted represented 38.49% of total AGI.

During the 20-year period covered by the PWC letter, Gov. and Mrs. Romney paid 100 percent of the taxes that they owed.

Finally, in addition to new documents related to tax filings, the campaign will also be posting on the same website physician letters for both Gov. Romney and Rep. Ryan, making public their current state of health.

After you have reviewed all of the newly-posted documents, you may have further questions. The campaign asks that you direct them to an e-mail account set up for that purpose.

Posts continues on www.mittromney.com

 

 

%d bloggers like this: