Letter: Why percentages used in taxes?

So let me get this straight. Presidential candidate “R” paid 12 times as much in taxes as presidential candidate “O,” and 13 times as much in charitable contributions. Between taxes and charity, “R” paid more than $4 million. And the notion is that he hasn’t paid his “fair share” because his tax rate, as a percentage, is lower?

Let’s put aside for a minute that “R” earned his money from investments — meaning he put it out there with risk of loss — and that his invested money contributed to our overall economy, likely creating and supporting jobs.

Forget all that. What I want to know is why is the percentage you pay in taxes considered to be the standard for “fair share”?

Michael O’Rourke

industrial manager

Port Allen

Comments

1) Comment by Tea_Slayer - 29/09/2012

The question remains, lying Christian: what percentage of the funds that the Mormon church receives actually goes to charity? No one knows because they don't release their financials. I do learn. Doling out money in the thousands when a "church" receives BILLIONS is just paying lip service to charity. You know it but wont open your christian blinders to see the world ouside of religion. It is beautiful. You just need to shed the shackles of religion to find out.

2) Comment by Tea_Slayer - 29/09/2012

Ah, the lying christian joins the conversation. What happened to never responding to posts? Another lie from you. Good thing Sunday is tomorrow so you can go get your forgiveness from your god. It must be tiring to always beg for forgiveness.

3) Comment by Whatnow - 29/09/2012

@Tea_Slayer, If no one knows, that means you don't either. Why don't you try learning instead of spewing garbage. http://www.ldsphilanthropies.org/

4) Comment by Attila - 29/09/2012

DMJ, I completely agree. We do have a debt problem. The reason for that debt is because we spent and continue to spend money that we do not have. We cannot tax ourselves out of the hole we have dug. Both sides of the aisle are responsible; although I still feel the left has more of a spending problem than the right. So, given the fact that it is impossible to tax ourselves out of debt, what is you and your supporter's solution? By the way, it was reported this week that a study concluded that confiscating 100% of the wealth of all people making over 1M$ would run the country for less than 10 weeks. BHO keeps whining that he inherited this mess from Bush. I wonder if he will continue to make that claim if he wins another term, God forbid, since he will have inherited the mess from himself.

5) Comment by Tea_Slayer - 29/09/2012

My point is the Mormon church isn't a charity, it is a business, especially when they spend $3 billion on a mall in Salt Lake City. The Mormon church is just trying to stockpile money. What charitable works do they participate in (outside of their own congregation). Heck, they haven't even released their financials since the 1950s so no one really knows, do they?

6) Comment by Sandy - 28/09/2012

Hey, Teaslayer, when you give over $2MM to charity, then you can criticize him for not giving enough of his money away. Besides, I didn't realize that giving to your church did not count as charity. I guess under that logic, I am not nearly as generous as I thought since most of my charitable giving is to my church.

7) Comment by DMJ - 28/09/2012

The responsible thing? Goldman Sachs, J.P. Morgan...all those investment banks and hedge funds...all those people in the financial sector (40% of our economy now) that wrecked the economy are the ones doing the right thing?? And we're to reward them with a tax rate that's half what a cleaning lady pays? And the regular guy who only works for wages or salary, he's what....irresponsible? He's doing the wrong thing because he doesn't make his money by investing?? I'm not buying that. I'm actually a little offended by it, to be honest with you. It sickens me to see how so many people bestow such praise (and money) on the financial sector, as if they're all in it to help create jobs. Ha! They don't care about creating jobs. They care about making (not earning) money. I don't believe in the 10 Commandments, but if I did, I'd say the Republican Party is guiltry of violating the one about false idols or having no other gods but god or whatever it is. We worship money now. We let the money changers run our government and we let them pay half the rate as the rest of us. They've convinced roughly half the people that what they've done is right, just and necessary. And I'm the rube for suggesting they pay the same rate (or god forbid, a higher rate) as me? Wow. By the way, Bill Gates and Warren Buffet both favor raising the capital gains rate to equal the rate of regular income.

8) Comment by foldgers - 28/09/2012

DMJ, it is my guess and a few others that if raising the rate of gains and dividends happens, then the very wealthy, banks and mutual funds will take some money out and that could affect the stock market/economy. NOW, granted, I am with you sort of. I have been known to hit up a casino here and there. I have won on slots before where you are given a W-2 right there before you get the money. I know uncle Sam will take 30% of that and I am OK with it because I chose to risk my money on something stupid. BUT, we are all told from day one that the market is the best place for money to grow and the smartest option over time. Wealthy or not, why make people pay more who are doing the right/responsible thing. The government feels that higher taxes on cigs will lower the number of people who smoke... what do they think will happen raising the taxes on investments? NOW, day traders, yes, they should be taxed like gambling. But, taxing people more, who invest their money all their lives, so they can send their kids to a good school, good college, can enjoy the last decade or two of their lives and have some left over to leave behind... doesn't make sense. Look at Bill Gates and Warren Buffet and the many other million and billionaires they have gotten to join them in leaving 90% or so of their money to charity. Wealthy does not equal evil, just like living in a "ghetto" does not make one a violent drug dealer. There are bad rich people and there are bad poor people. And it is still funny how this elections has become about Mitt's tax returns. I have not heard one word this entire week on the terrorist attack on OUR embassy... does anyone remember that? Tax returns get more coverage than a terrorist attack. This is a sad election. I wish Buddy Roemer was still in.

9) Comment by Tea_Slayer - 28/09/2012

generous? Ha! His entire (monetary) charitable contribution went to the Mormon Church ( $1.115 million) and to Tyler Charitable Foundation, a charity RUN BY HIS FAMILY ($214,516) that give all of its money to the church. In addition, the Romneys “claimed a deduction of $920,573 for noncash contributions that were not spelled out in a statement accompanying the return." Hmmm, thats means they dropped off alot of clothing at the goodwill

10) Comment by agagent - 28/09/2012

I am more interested in what Obama has been doing with taxpayer money than what Romney does with his own money. If you wish to draw any conclusions from the information it is that Romney is more successful than Obama or Biden; he has paid much more taxes than both; and Romney is, by far, the most generous of any of the candidates. I know will not satisfy Obama supporters who wish to distract us from the failures of Obama Presidency.

11) Comment by DMJ - 28/09/2012

If you make a bad investment and make no profits, then you're not taxed at all. The capital gains rate would be a moot point in this situation. If you made a good investment and made money, then you still made money...just less and the rest goes to the government (what they do with it- pay down the debt, provide services- is a different converstation). And if you're the type of guy who's investing millions, then a few percentage points won't matter. I'm sorry, but I just don't see how raising the capital gains rate to the same as income tax rate would discourage rich people from wanting to make more money. Sure, if the rate was 90% like under Eisenhower, you'd have a point, but no one is suggesting we raise the rate to anywhere near that. Lastly, it seems a logical leap to assume that if someone's investing, they're also creating jobs. Sometimes, profits come from laying people off. Is it not obscene that someone could buy a company, lay everyone off, liquidate their pensions and then pay half the rate as everyone he just fired? Trickle Down doesn't work. Originally, it was supposed to raise MORE revenue for the government by encouraging investment which would grow the economy; instead, it just starved the government of revenue, which, as it turns out, was the whole point all along. Trickle Down isn't about creating jobs. It's not about paying down the debt. It's about allowing a certain small group of people, who already have most of the money, to make even more money while the poor schmuck who cleans his toilets pays a higher tax rate. It's everything that's wrong with Capitalism. If we're going to preserve Capitalism (and yes, I am a Capitalist), there has to be checks on it. One such check is taxing capital gains as income and doing so progressively.

12) Comment by CountryAttorney - 28/09/2012

I was referring to your earlier comment about a new way to tax capital gains. You want me to risk losing money (which is necessary for economic growth), and when I reap a reward for my risk, pay the income tax rate. The difference is that for wages, you've taken no risk, you go to work and you're guaranteed a return on your time. By taking no risk, the worker does not grow the economy at nearly the rate that the investor can. So to encourage investment, we tax the gains that it produces at a lower rate. Now back to your plan where the first $100K of capital gains is tax free and above that it is taxed at the income rate. I do not believe that that is enough incentive to invest the millions and billions of dollars needed to rebuild our economy. However, if the government (you and every other taxpayer) were to guarantee a repayment of the first $100K lost in addition to not taxing the first $100K gained, that might be incentive enough to invest large sums of money. Individuals wouldn't invest nearly as much, but far more individuals would invest at least $100K. So I guess the bottom line is this, encouraging investment is a necessity in a down economy. When you raise taxes on the risk takers, investment will slow to an idle. When investment slows, people lose jobs. When people lose jobs, the government (you and every other taxpayer) must support more and more people. So the choice is this: support risk takers to grow the economy, or support massive numbers of jobless...either way you must support someone; I personally think it is much more efficient to support the former than the latter.

13) Comment by 1ryben - 28/09/2012

We've strayed so far off topic, but since when has that ever stopped the dialog? I find it hard to fathom that if income of any type were all taxed the same that there would be no more investing. So people with money to invest would just begin hiding their money under the mattress? Really? Tax breaks to the rich to spur investment leading to jobs is a falsehood. Tax breaks for the rich leads to more money for the rich, it's that simple. Investments of our because there is something of value to invest in. That value is driven by demand. The consumer class (middle class...whatever) is what drives the need for investment. The more they can consume, the more money is then invested to meet that demand. As for jobs, the last thing any company wants to do is add jobs. It's usually the largest expense. Therefore government and "investors" should do EVERYTHING possible to help the middle class, not the upper class. Invest in higher salaries. Invest in better benefits. Invest in education.

14) Comment by DMJ - 28/09/2012

Which investments carry zero risk? Other people's investments, for one, like how hedge fund managers are taxed at capital gains rate for managing other people's money. How about investments where you bet against your own financial products? How about investments where the risk is public but the profits are private? How about buying a company, liquidating its assets, throwing its employees out of work, renegging on their pensions and then selling it all off at a giant profit? And no, I wouldn't be in favor of repaying you if you made a bad investment. What are you talking about? You lost me there...

15) Comment by Old Man Kensey - 28/09/2012

The flip side to discussing a fair tax burden is the discussion of what is a "fair income distribution." For the last 30 years, the top has been growing in their share of income while the middle class has not. Yet, we want to give them the tax cuts? http://www.people.hbs.edu/mnorton/norton%20ariely.pdf

16) Comment by CountryAttorney - 27/09/2012

@DMJ: can you please tell me which investments carry zero risk? I'd really like to get on board with something like that! And I'll get on board with the zero tax on capital gains for the first 100K, then same tax as income thereafter IF the government will repay me the first 100K I might happen to lose. That of course means that you'd be willing to help me out with your tax dollars. You'd be willing to help me out if I lost my investment, wouldn't you?

17) Comment by 8point6 - 27/09/2012

53 comments and counting. I'll add this: 'If you are not a liberal at 20, you have no heart. If you are not Conservative by 40, you have no brain'.

18) Comment by DMJ - 27/09/2012

Not all capital gains comes from investment. Not all investment relies on risk. Not everyone who makes money by capital gains has their own money at risk. Methinks we bestow too much undeserved praise (and money) on to the investor class. And now we might give the White House to them as well? Ugh...

19) Comment by nimby? - 27/09/2012

with any investment there will be risks , some more than others . there are gains , and loses . as a self employed small business with no full time employees my rate has been 23/24 percent . this past year it was 28 percent . I don't see it getting lower . what is my fair share ? farm analogy ; should a person who plants no seeds reap the benefit of the harvest ?

20) Comment by Protean - 27/09/2012

Two guys put in a full day's work at a local shop. Let''s say they're paid reasonably well, maybe $30/hr. Eight hour shift grosses $240. One guy takes $100 and spend an evening at the casino. Lucky guy walk away with $10,000 ... less 25% witholding. Another guy puts $100 into risky shares. The company he invests in does extraordinarily well, and by the end of the year, the investor cashes in $10K. Both guys report the same level of income at the end of the year. So, question is who has "earned" more, and why? Who paid more taxes and why?

21) Comment by FreeThinker01 - 27/09/2012

Asking if "Are you really that obtuse?" Means are you really having that much difficulty understanding, I'd hardly call that name calling. We could argue ridiculous semantics and minutia all day long at the end of the day the person that bought the bonds earned himself a nice return.

22) Comment by Tea_Slayer - 27/09/2012

oh FreeThinker, letting your emoptions rule you? Your third example "To yield as return or profit. As in a savings account that earns interest on deposited funds" proves my point nicely. The money earned interest. The person who put it there did not.. Thanks for your help. Tata...

23) Comment by FreeThinker01 - 27/09/2012

Here's one from www.freedictionary.com/earn I especially like Definition No 2. To acquire as a result of effort or action. As in-She earned a reputation of being a beligerant obnoxious democrat masquerading as a socialist. And No. 3-To yield as return or profit. As in a savings account that earns interest on deposited funds.

24) Comment by DMJ - 27/09/2012

There's a difference between earning money and making it. And if there's not....let capital gains be taxed the same as wages and labor. Tell you what...I'm even willing to compromise with the Mitt on this one... the first $100K of of everyone's capital gains are tax exempt each year. After that, they're taxed at the same rate as regular income. What do you say?

25) Comment by Tea_Slayer - 27/09/2012

Again, you incorrectly assume I took a definition from Wikipedia instead of debating the actual merits of my argument. THAT is obtuse (or should calling someone obtuse be considered bullying?) Merriam Webster: to receive as return for effort and especially for work done or services rendered/// Macmillan: to receive money for work that you do///Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English: to receive a particular amount of money for the work that you do/// So i ask again, how does one EARN money from investing?

26) Comment by FreeThinker01 - 27/09/2012

Where'd you get that definition wikipedia? Your inability to have people disagree with you without being hostile and resorting to childish name calling is really humerous. Not to mention quite bullyish. It just indicates how irrational and controlled by your emotions you really are.

27) Comment by Tea_Slayer - 27/09/2012

Wow, it's like trying to reason with 3 year olds. FreeThinker, you may want to change your moniker. How does one EARN money from investing? earn: 1.Obtain (money) in return for labor or services. Don't hurt your brain thinking too hard.

28) Comment by Tea_Slayer - 27/09/2012

My and my husband's effective tax rate last year was just over 20%, but I do love your "just give that money straight to me" or " just donate extra to the government" stawmen which make me laugh. If taxes were voluntary, do you think any of you would pay a cent? Not in a million years, so get off that ridiculous argument. It just shows you are a just a parrot and incapable of critical thinking. Get back with me when you have something intelligent to say. And by the way, care to guess what “charity” Mitt gave that largest chunk of his cash to?

29) Comment by FreeThinker01 - 27/09/2012

@Tea_Slayer-Are you really that obtuse? If nothing was earned then what was it? Stolen?

30) Comment by gman70726 - 27/09/2012

Slayer, thanks for making my point-Blathering. I still don't see where you admitted to doing anything different than Mitt Romney and donated more to your tax returns. Which is worse the person that doesn't donate more or the Blathering person that demonizes them and does the same hypocritical thing?

31) Comment by Tea_Slayer - 27/09/2012

falsehood - "And, YES, I did earn that money!!!!!!!!!!!"

32) Comment by foldgers - 27/09/2012

What I find so funny is that is all the Dems have to make Romney look evil... tax rates. And all of their sheep follow along with it. I mean, even Hillary Clinton admitted the recent 9-11 attack was a terrorist attack before Obama FINALLY did. TWO WEEKS it took him. Even when other white house people and the Libyan PRESIDENT were saying terrorist, Obama was still saying it was about the movie. Question, why on earth do you and other socialists like you focus on tax returns and NOT a terrorist attack against the USA?!?!? Obama is not doing ANYTHING about it except tell you and others.... Mean old rich Romney only gave the government $2 million last year. Or whatever it was. I believe he gave more than that to charity. I would rather charities have the money than the government.

33) Comment by FreeThinker01 - 27/09/2012

Question: Is it better to work hard or work smart. Answer: Under Obama it's better not to work at all. @Tea_Slayer-Making money by investing in the stock market means "you did not earn" anything??? I know plenty of people that do this as there only source of income. By your reasoning they should go on unemployment. Seeing as you shared your salary info with us all and since I don't make as much money as you-would you care to just donate directly to me and cut out the governmental middle man? If so I'll send you a paypal request.

34) Comment by foldgers - 27/09/2012

gman, I am so with you! People like slayer who scream "fair share" and what not... I would love to see their tax returns. I assume their definition of "fair share" equals about 35% of income. Slayer, I bet your tax rate was no where near that and also I bet that you did not donate the difference to the IRS, which is completely allowed. You keep every bit you can I bet. And you actually believe that someone who worked hard their whole life, someone who was smart with their money and did what all financial advisers say to do, should be punished? I spent my whole life working and saving and if investing my money smartly, yes somewhat gambling, means that down the road I get to enjoy it by being able to retire just a little bit earlier, then I am in. And I do not feel that those dividends, which i only have with money I EARNED AFTER PAYING taxes on that earned money, should be taxed at the same rate. Those who tried and busted their butt all their lives should not be punished. Those who dropped out of school, had 6 kids and never worked a day in their life and pay NO taxes but get free stuff on MY dime, they don't deserve anything MORE than they already get. My favorite thing though, is since I was 19 I have had ROTH IRA donating the max every year. I can't wait to pull every penny out of there down the road and uncle Sam can not touch ONE PENNY of the capital gains. Slayer, do you have a Roth IRA or traditional? Either one you either will pay no taxes when you pull it out or you use your contributions each year as a tax deduction...so, you can pay less taxes. I hope you have some sort of IRA making twice as much as me. But if you believe in fair shares, you wouldn't invest in one, just the market straight up.

35) Comment by gman70726 - 27/09/2012

DMJ, the question of lower capital gains brings this thought to mind: If people with money are left to invest that money, companies are started or expanded. This generally means positions of employment are made available. These jobs can be from menial (minimum wage) to professional (management). If this money is not available and these companies are not started or expanded, then there are no jobs for any of those people. No matter how you look at it, a person with a job, no matter the level, has the opportunity to better their life moreso than a person that is unemployed.

36) Comment by gman70726 - 27/09/2012

I will ask the same question of all of those that think a higher tax rate is the way to bring the budget in balance. How much did any of you voluntarily add to your tax return to help pay your "fair share" or did you take the maximum deductions allowed? I would estimate that a lrage number of those that have computers to psot on here are not destitute and could have added to help balance the budget if they really wanted to. I also know that when I send $1 to Washington only 25cents comes back to the community, anywhere. No matter how that is sliced, it is bad management on both sides. Until they can show a better return to the community, I am not volunteering more to them. How much did any of add to your returns for the less fortunate?

37) Comment by DMJ - 27/09/2012

Another question....do you guys really think advocating a lower rate for capital gains is a political winner, regardless of the merits of the policy? Just curious... Personally, I don't think it is. It creates and fosters restentment among those who don't make their money by investing, a group also known as the vast majority of Americans.

38) Comment by DMJ - 27/09/2012

In reading the posts, I've come to realize that, apparently, it's become Republican dogma to value investing over working. This is a new development. I remember a time, not that long ago, that taxing wages/salary and capital gains rate wasn't a controversial thing to advocate. And what about the carried interest loophole, where one's entire earnings come from capital gains (ahem...like Romney)? This money doesn't come from investing your own money; it comes from managing other people's money. Should this be taxed at 15% (or lower) as well?

39) Comment by nimby? - 27/09/2012

throughout history there has always been the rich and the poor . difference now is that there re so many opportunities that can be taken advantage of for a better life . there will always be someone with more . people with money have the advantage of mobility . pss them off they'll leave the city ,the parish , the state , the country , taking their money , businesses , jobs with them . no tax base . no mention of hollywoods' liberal elite stashing funds in Caribbean , Swiss banks to avoid taxes , hmmm ....

40) Comment by DMJ - 27/09/2012

Obama paid less (total) but a higher percentage than Romney. He made a lot less....about 20 million less in 2010 and 2011. And let's not equate charity with one's church. There's no guarantee that the church will use that money for actual charity. Churches are notoriously innefficient charities, with overhead that far surpasses regular charities.

41) Comment by gman70726 - 27/09/2012

First, identify any falsehoods in the posts. Yor blanket, unsubstantiated statements are common. Second, Slayer, so, from your previous posts we can expect that you have voluntatily paid the maximum taxes on the money you receive from your HIGH pay and returns on any of your investments since you did not work for that money. Or, do you take ALL of the tax deductions you can (like a Republican or dare say it Romney) and cheat those less fortunate from their "fair share". Do you just talk or do you truely believe your own posts? Did you or didn't you take deductions on your previous tax returns? How much extra did you offer to pay for your "fair share"? I surmise you did not add one penny. I expect a blathering of indignation instead of an amount. This will reflect your stance of "the rich guy has to pay his part, I'm not rich." How much did you voluntarily donate for additional taxes?

42) Comment by GoldenSage - 27/09/2012

Great little article. And, quite true. Wonder how much Obama paid in taxes and charity??? Sure, not as much as Romney. The only thing I don't like about commenting online, is that, "How do you talk with PUPPETS? that can't think for themselves. That keep following talking points and do not know how to use any COMMON SENSE." It is such a waste of time, but We The "Thinking" People keep trying. Guess, we can only wake up that maybe one day these PUPPETS will magically become "real" people. Maybe Disney can make a movie about that." I think that Teddy Roosevelt was a Progressive, but the thing about him, HE could do the talk and do the walk. He was a bright man who "actually" could do the work and, I believe, cared about the people, though he, I am sure, enjoyed being King. Obama can't and never did the walk. Obama can do the talk (with a teleprompter), but can't do the walk. When did Obama ever do any "real" work??? Obama is but another Chicago politician, but the PUPPETS drunk the Kool-Aid and will follow Obama anywhere. Maybe the Wizard of Oz will give them their "thinking" brains back. But, I doubt it.

43) Comment by Tea_Slayer - 27/09/2012

gman, what a failure of a post. So many faslehoods, so little time. Unless you actually worked for the company, you havent earned any money from that company. You show YOUR ignarance of what actual earnings are. And you make some bold and erroneous assumtions about my income level. just turned 36 and make twice what folders makes, invest about 30% of my earnings. And if that investment pays off, i expect to be taxed appropriately on those dividends. So where is my thank you? So NO you didn earn that money!!!!!!!!!!!!!! So go back to wherever teapartiers dwell, maybe under a bridge (that the big bad goverment built)

44) Comment by gman70726 - 27/09/2012

WOW! What jealous hostility toward someone working to do the right thing with their life. Slayer, should we all just quit and not put what savings we can in these companies so they will not have capital and then they can shut down and have more unemployment? Or, should those who can save and try to better their family's lives be rewarded for working their tails off and cutting back on expenses so that they can invest and keep those companies open and hourly/salaried men and women able to provide for their families. The original money, salary/wage, was taxed at the income rate. Why should it be heavily taxed again to keep peolpe working? This illustrates ignorance as to how the actual financial world works. And, YES, I did earn that money!!!!!!!!!!! Slayer, go back to the government teat and say thanks to people like Foldgers.

45) Comment by Tea_Slayer - 27/09/2012

"Not to mention, those dividends have ALREADY BEEN TAXED before I get them. The corporations pay taxes on the income and what is left over, SOME of that becomes dividends. As a stock holder, I OWN part of that company, therefore, the company's income is also mine. So, I am being DOUBLE taxed" ---What an asinine and FALSE arguement. Did you work for each company that you invested in? Just because you own stock doens't mean you EARNED a penny from that company. You gambled that those copmpanies would make a profit, you shared in THEIR profit, and made money off of it. You didnt EARN a thing.

46) Comment by gman70726 - 27/09/2012

One of the common misconceptions is that those that have these capital gains never paid their "fair share". At one time for most of of us that have put some money away in to accounts that can be determined to have this tax rate, we paid our "fair share" when we first earned the original money: that is hourly or salary wages. I hope to ahve some money to pass to my children if I save wisely. Do you think it is fair that they pay taxes on that money because they did not earn"it. This is the same type of situation. Just because I put $50 dollars a month in to a savings account and it earns interest/dividends does not mean I did not earn that money. This is what those families have done for years. My ancestry is of a poor farm family that has slowly forwarded themselves. When my mother passes, she will not leave me anything and we don't blame anyone with money for that situation. I am not responsible for my father's successes/failures and I do not blame others for my situation. My choices lead me to my life today. By the way, financial succes is determined by money. That is the accepted scorecard. You want to penalize those that can play the game. Try being a better checker player and having to arbitrarily surrender 5 pieces at the start of the game because you know how to play.

47) Comment by foldgers - 27/09/2012

Wow. I make $75k a year, single and debt free besides my house. All my extra money goes to the stock market, mostly stocks that pay dividends. I am mid 30's and I am doing that instead of partying with all the extra money (No kids or wife or exes), so when I retire I have a steady income from dividends, because I can not rely on SOCIAL security. Not to mention, those dividends have ALREADY BEEN TAXED before I get them. The corporations pay taxes on the income and what is left over, SOME of that becomes dividends. As a stock holder, I OWN part of that company, therefore, the company's income is also mine. So, I am being DOUBLE taxed. I am being smart and because of that I need to pay MORE? I have busted my butt my whole life. I NEVER felt that millionaires should give me some. They made me strive harder! Not sit back and say, gimme some. You really think Obama wants to pay more in taxes? Heck no! I guarantee you he did not volunteer to pay the difference from his tax rate and 35%. Not ONE democrat who screams fair share does. You have the option, but I guarantee you they do NOT!

48) Comment by DMJ - 27/09/2012

I don't like it. It equates success with money....another serious problem with today's GOP. Besides, even socialism doesn't guarantee equal outcomes. Still...neat story.

49) Comment by Chucky - 27/09/2012

Whatnow- I like that.

50) Comment by DMJ - 27/09/2012

Host, at least we're in agreement about one thing: Republicans value investment over wages/salary. At least you don't dance around this belief. Sure, your justification for it is convoluted and not convincing, but at least you own it. And last I checked, there are two ways to be in debt- spending too much and not raising enough money. Both have contributed to our current situation. Arguing this simple fact is what keeps making the problem worse.

51) Comment by nimby? - 27/09/2012

if you , by choice , decide you don't need an education , thereby making yourself unemployable , you shouldn't have to pay taxes , nor should you be the beneficiary of such ....

52) Comment by phil - 27/09/2012

This is what I call a non issue. If both candidates have followed the law as it is then who cares? If the tax laws actually need to be changed then that is an entirely different subject for another day.

53) Comment by Art Vandelay - 27/09/2012

"A debt problem" eh? Talk about not thinking that one through.

54) Comment by The_Host - 27/09/2012

Who said anything about not helping people truly and justly in need? What does that have to do with the math of the tax situation or the spending and resulting debt. Do I think we should help others of course I do. Do I think the government is the vehicle to do that, NO I do not! How long will this whole house of cards stand when the number of people that take outnumber the people that make and pay for everything? Lets say I decide to forgo having kids but I really would like a Bay Boat to go fishing in. Since I didn't have kids can I get my government supplement in the form of a bay boat with a gas card each month and a nice allowance to keep it housed at the marina? Why should it be the burden of other families with kids of their own to pay for to then be called on to pay for people with kids they can't afford? I need a license to drive, to hunt, to fish, you name it you need a license and sometimes even proof that you are capable of handling things by way of a test. If I went to finance a bay boat I would have to prove I had the means to pay for it. Yet somehow any two people can have as many kids as they want and no one ever makes them show ability to provide or competency for handling the task of raising them. We just give them more and more because of their free breeding habits. Just because your poor decisions gave you 5 kids doesn't mean I should suffer to pay for them. Even families that have decent incomes know they can't afford 5 kids. So why then do so many poor people that can't even feed themselves feel like they should be "entitled" to having as many kids as they want? Once those families with one or two kids are paying for another family how are they also not going to end up needing help to pay for their own family? Basically how do I pay for mine and yours at the same time if all I accounted for was my own? Why should I even be held to account for yours. Oh and where is my BAY BOAT! I have a right to go fishing and I want you to pay for it!

55) Comment by Whatnow - 27/09/2012

A College economics professor said he had never failed a single student before but had, once, failed an entire class. The class had insisted that socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer. The professor then said OK, we will have an experiment in this class on socialism. All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A. After the first test the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. But, as the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too; so they studied little... The second test average was a D! No one was happy. When the third test rolled around the average was an F. The scores never increased as bickering, blame, name calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else. All failed, to their great surprise, and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great; but when government takes all the reward away; no one will try or want to succeed.

56) Comment by The_Host - 27/09/2012

HA.. DMJ you say it is a debt problem and I say it is a spending problem. Please tell me how one gets oneself into debt if not for having OVERSPENT to begin with. You see you can't be in debt if you live within your means by spending what you can afford to spend. The debt problem is the result of having had a spending problem. In your mind the spending is a direct result of the debt but this can not be true as debt is not accrued by those that aren't overspending. If I make 50k a year and spend 75K a year do I have a debt problem or spending problem? Which created the debt in first place? And yes it is simple math I agree. The problem is when the math hits the negative balance the spending just keeps right on going and the math goes out the window.

57) Comment by Whatchange - 27/09/2012

All I want to know is, where's my kool-aid

58) Comment by lovemykids - 27/09/2012

The_Host, you are right. Some people take advantage of the public assistance programs. Because of this we should not help to take care of our fellow man. Maybe we should sterilize those making $1 a day so they should not have children or just let their children starve to death.

59) Comment by Tea_Slayer - 27/09/2012

The_Host's mentality is that all poor people are in that situation due to poor decisions. And of that half that don't pay federal income tax, a large chuck are elderly living off of SS, some are deployed troops, some are upper middle class who itemize. that leaves the working poor. People trying to make a better life for themselves and their families, but Mitt and The_Host want to penalize them for trying.

60) Comment by The_Host - 27/09/2012

DMJ- You are already taxed on income at the same rate as everyone else. It is when you risk that income to then invest it that you pay less. You are saying to be fair we need to tax their income off their investment income at the same rate all the time. Why should the government get to double dip on people that are investing their money at their own risk when they see a return on that investment? 15% of something is always going to be more than 35% of nothing if the money is never invested because the risk and reward at that rate don't make sense to even take a chance investing. Lets say we taxed investments at the same rate as income. Do you honestly think this will somehow pay for the bloated pigs spend in government? What number is the magic number that government can use to do all the wonderful things it thinks it is capable of doing? Do you honestly think they will stick to that number and be happy with it for long and not continue to run up more debt?

61) Comment by DMJ - 27/09/2012

Host, we have a debt problem. We'll need to raise taxes to pay it down. This isn't ideology; it's math. And if we're raising taxes, shouldn't we raise them on the people who are most able to pay them? People will still be job creators, if it'll make them money. They'll hire as many people as it will take for them to make money. No amount of taxes will ever dissuade someone from wanting to make as much money as possible. I've never understood why some people can't grasp the concept of a progressive tax system.

62) Comment by The_Host - 27/09/2012

To think we actually have people that don't think we are taxed enough already. Leaves all the taxes as they are now. Just change the way we pay for them. Make every purchase be a separately paid bill for the item and then the tax. Make every paycheck be a payment to EACH of the funds that now just automatically deducts it for you. One check to SS, another to Medicare, another to the Feds and another to the State. You get the picture. But do this with any and every TAX or whatever they call it besides a tax. Nothing should be combined or simply added on, we should all be forced to pay every tax every time in a separate payment. Then we will see how many people think we need to pay more in taxes. Like I said just leave it all like it is and do this. We would have a tax revolt in no time once people actually SEE and account for all the taxes they are paying now that they don't even have a clue about. Oh and make Tax returns due as you go to vote. Go vote, turn in your taxes. Not this separating of the two by as many months as possible so that the sheep forget they got fleeced a few months back. Let everyone walking into that voting booth have it fresh in their head what they just paid in taxes. Oh and make them cut a check for anything they owe in taxes right then too! Now you are FREE to vote.

63) Comment by The_Host - 27/09/2012

Lovemykids- I guess the 2 cars and the large house don't need to be paid for in your scenario. But yes they should both pay 10% and while the guy making $100 a day has more money left over he also paid 100 times more in total than the amount the guy making $1 pays. Is it the guy that makes $100 a day fault that the other guy only makes $1 a day? Did the guy making $1 a day THINK before having children and family, gee how am I going to PAY for them making a mere $1 a day? No he didn't evidently but now that HE made that decision he has placed not only himself but his family in the position they are in. It is not the concern of 1/2 the country to pay for and fix all the mistakes the other 1/2 makes because of poor decisions. You see the freedom that comes with making your own choices in life also comes with consequences for making poor ones. The whole liberal mentality is that no matter how or why someone is poor someone else needs to fix the situation for them. Explain to your kids that if the cute little dog gets covered in parasites odds are it will eventually get disease and die or just be bled dry.

64) Comment by DMJ - 27/09/2012

This letter perfectly exhibits everything (well...not everything) that's wrong with Mitt Romney and the Republican Party in general: catering to the investor class at the expense of the working class. Republicans think investment income is worth more than wages and salary, right? Or did I miss something? And Mr. O'Rourke, a "fair" tax code would mean the more you make, the more you pay....because you can afford it. A "fair" tax code would tax capital gains the same as income. We use percentages because that's how you calculate rates. Still confused?

65) Comment by [e-mail] - 27/09/2012

What about the people who don't pay income tax at all? They get the same services as everyone else; that's "fair" they say, but what if they're on welfare, getting a free debit card, cell phone, housing subsidy, free medical and dental, and help from local churches, outreach charities, food banks, and have a lucrative outside source of income that's not reported? They have cars, flat screen TV's, etc. They say that their "fair share" is sales tax, but they get that back with their "child credit" payback lump sum from the taxpayer. What's "fair" about that?

66) Comment by lovemykids - 27/09/2012

This is the way I explain it to my kids. There are two families that use the same water supply, trash pickup, police offficers, firefighters, hospitals and highways. If someone with a small house and a bike makes $1 a day and pays 10% in taxes he has only $0.90 to feed his family. If someone with a large house and 2 cars makes $100 dollars a day he has $90 to feed his family. Should both people pay the 10%?

67) Comment by Chucky - 27/09/2012

So in the village a man had a goat and lorded that fact over his neighbor who did not. One day a jinni appeared and ask the man with out the goat what would you like ( thinking he is going to ask for a goat or maybe two ) the man said “ I want my neighbors goat to die.

68) Comment by Bighug - 27/09/2012

The percentage that Romney or anyone else pays on the first $50,000 they earn should be the same. The amount over $1,000,000 that either earns should also be taxed at the same rate.

69) Comment by chem - 26/09/2012

if this guy has to even ask why % is used in taxes then there is no use to explain it to him. Besides, he sounds like some right-wing hack that wants to make it look like poor romney paid too much. Ask the typical middle-class person how his 20+% leaves his family income. The people like romney are ruining this country with there ever increasing greed. We should go back to the 90% taxes on the wealthy that were in place in the 50s.

70) Comment by Whatnow - 26/09/2012

Mr. O’Rourke, it's really never been about fair share. It's been about who has more and how it's not fair that they do and spreading that wealth to those who don't even try. It's called theft in the name of the Democratic Party. It is pure class division.The only difference between socialism and communism … is time.