Source: www.msnbc.com
Article: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/16/10422484-rick-santorum-paid-double-mitt-romneys-tax-rate-in-2010-records-show
Article: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/16/10422484-rick-santorum-paid-double-mitt-romneys-tax-rate-in-2010-records-show
Ugh.
I've asked this before: what does this have to do with anything? See this post from January 18th: http://loudmouthelephant.blogspot.com/2012/01/what-do-mitt-romneys-tax-returns-have.html
The facts (I'm not going to go terribly deep here): In 2010, Rick Santorum had an income of $930,230 and paid $263,440 in taxes. This is an effective rate of 28.3%.
See Rick Santorum's tax return in PDF here: http://images.politico.com/global/2012/02/rjs_2010_taxes_redacted.pdf
See Rick Santorum's tax return in PDF here: http://images.politico.com/global/2012/02/rjs_2010_taxes_redacted.pdf
Rick, you jerk! ONLY $263,440 in taxes? Come on, buddy, let's see you pay your fair share! </sarcasm>
Let's take a quick stroll back to Part 2 the write-up titled "What do Mitt Romney's Tax Returns Have to do With Anything?" http://loudmouthelephant.blogspot.com/2012/01/part-2-what-do-mitt-romneys-tax-returns.html
In this write-up, I posted my tax information. For some reason, MSNBC didn't put this in their headlines. Darn :-/ I did, however, write:
"Nominally, Mitt pays a LOT in taxes. He averaged $3.1 MILLION in taxes paid over the last 2 years... $6.2 MILLION total. Hmmm... he pays $3.1 MILLION while I pay $6,916. Sadly, he has the same military protections, the same roads, infrastructure, government structure and protections as I do, yet he paid 448 times more than me! "
I continued:
"Thank you, Mitt, for paying so much so that I don't have to. Instead of vilifying the rich, I think us middle-classers should be very, very thankful."
Moving on... Using the same analysis as above, Rick Santorum paid 38 times more in taxes than I did. Well, that's certainly a lot less than the 448 times Mitt Romney beat me by. At least I know if I work until I'm 67 years old, I will probably pay the same amount of taxes in my life as Rick Santorum did in one year. I don't plan on living 448 years, so I guess I'll never catch up to Romney's year's worth of tax outflows. Just as I said to Mitt, "thank you Rick Santorum."
What do I take away from this? Well, it seems the left (yes, MSNBC is about as left as they get; they don't deny it) is still afraid of Mitt Romney. They will do whatever they can to shoot him down. What else? They are making a complete non-issue a front-and-center topic. I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me how the rate or nominal amount someone pays in taxes has anything to do with their ability to be president. To me, it does not matter one bit. I don't care if Romney paid 14%. I don't care if Santorum paid 28%, or if Newt paid 31%. If people want to check to ensure that a candidate for public office isn't a criminal and is paying what he is required to pay (well, I guess there is a double standard in that, too, huh Timmy G), fine... everyone should be background checked. But to put someone's effective tax rate against someone else's, and to broadcast how much they made, how much they paid, their donations, etc. is ridiculous. It's a non issue. Period
Moving on... Using the same analysis as above, Rick Santorum paid 38 times more in taxes than I did. Well, that's certainly a lot less than the 448 times Mitt Romney beat me by. At least I know if I work until I'm 67 years old, I will probably pay the same amount of taxes in my life as Rick Santorum did in one year. I don't plan on living 448 years, so I guess I'll never catch up to Romney's year's worth of tax outflows. Just as I said to Mitt, "thank you Rick Santorum."
What do I take away from this? Well, it seems the left (yes, MSNBC is about as left as they get; they don't deny it) is still afraid of Mitt Romney. They will do whatever they can to shoot him down. What else? They are making a complete non-issue a front-and-center topic. I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me how the rate or nominal amount someone pays in taxes has anything to do with their ability to be president. To me, it does not matter one bit. I don't care if Romney paid 14%. I don't care if Santorum paid 28%, or if Newt paid 31%. If people want to check to ensure that a candidate for public office isn't a criminal and is paying what he is required to pay (well, I guess there is a double standard in that, too, huh Timmy G), fine... everyone should be background checked. But to put someone's effective tax rate against someone else's, and to broadcast how much they made, how much they paid, their donations, etc. is ridiculous. It's a non issue. Period
And finally, the is the issue that bugs me with the most: misinformation. Take a look at the first comment I saw when I looked through the comment boards on MSNBC's article:
Double ugh! Can anyone tell me what is wrong with Homesick Yank's comment? Ding ding ding! You guessed it; he knows nothing about how marginal tax rates work. I don't need to go in to it. What is sad is that this voter (as well as many, many other voters) will have this incorrect information in their head as they elect the leaders of our nation. To me, that's scary. This reminds me of something I said on an online political message board recently:
"After reading through these comments, one thing has become strikingly clear: most people do not know the difference between deficit and debt.
One last thing (yes, this is directed to all the homesick yanks out there)... you're outraged at Rick Santorum's 28% rate, right? If that's the case, what do you say about Obama's 26% rate???? Or Joe Biden's 23% rate???? Where is the outrage?!?!?!?!
Obama's tax return: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/POTUS_taxes.pdf
Joe Biden's tax return: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/VPOTUStaxes.pdf
Post your comments below. Thank you.
"After reading through these comments, one thing has become strikingly clear: most people do not know the difference between deficit and debt.
A law should
be passed: he who knows not the difference between deficit and debt should not
utter such inaccuracies."
The same concept can be applied here. It's sad, homesick yank... it's just sad.
One last thing (yes, this is directed to all the homesick yanks out there)... you're outraged at Rick Santorum's 28% rate, right? If that's the case, what do you say about Obama's 26% rate???? Or Joe Biden's 23% rate???? Where is the outrage?!?!?!?!
Obama's tax return: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/POTUS_taxes.pdf
Joe Biden's tax return: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/VPOTUStaxes.pdf
Post your comments below. Thank you.
Told!
ReplyDeleteYup. Don't need to say much else.
DeleteFor the most part, the left has been focusing almost all of its resources on anti-Romney advertising/campaigning. Which is no surprise to me, because Dems view him as the biggest threat to Obama (and I honestly have to agree). I don’t see Santorum, Gingrich, or Paul fairing well against Obama as it will take more than just the conservative vote to beat him, especially with the economy looking up; and Romney has most support in appealing to Independents and Dems.
ReplyDeleteBit busier today than yesterday so I don’t quite have time to open the progressive tax can of worms again. :)
But I do agree that so long as people followed the laws of our tax code it shouldn’t really matter what their effective rate is.
If I can provide perspective from the other side though, I think that this effective tax rate issue is commonly starting to be viewed as a level of judging support for your country (aside from the obvious of also rallying up more people in support for tax reform). But as a millionaire that can afford to spare more in taxes and claims to have undying support/love for America, taking all the right-offs/deductions you possibly can as a wealthy citizen seems to be viewed by a growing number of people to be more like exploiting the system (or even hypocritical) than merely exercising your rights within the law.
For the record, I don’t necessarily agree with or support that assessment by any means, but that seems to be part of the reasoning I’m seeing. I’m not sure how I feel about that quite yet.
Regardless of the justification though, I could never see it ever being as important as other qualifications; such as proposed policies/plans, responsibility, history, etc.
RKen - Good morning!
DeleteWait, what is this? We actually agree (a little) on some things?!
In all honesty, I don't think anyone is beating Obama in November. I think the media is wayyyyyy too powerful and no matter what Obama does, he will be painted in a much better light. I was thinking of doing a count of negative headlines on CNN about Romney (I'm routinely emailing them to another blogger) vs. positive ones about Obama. It's not scientific, but it's definitely a trend I noticed. I don't think the do-no-research-for-yourself sheeple of this country will blindly follow the media and vote Obama in. I wish it wasn't true, but I'm not optimistic.
I'm busy too today... It sucks lol
But this is what we agree on the most: 'But I do agree that so long as people followed the laws of our tax code it shouldn’t really matter what their effective rate is. "
And this, "Regardless of the justification though, I could never see it ever being as important as other qualifications; such as proposed policies/plans, responsibility, history, etc."
Bingo!
I do agree with what you said about the level of taxes being viewed as support for this country,.. I hate to sound so demeaning, but, I do think that is a view held by simple-minded people (not attacking anyone personally), and I do agree with you that it shouldn't be that way. True, I don't have time for a tax debate :-P but, you know me... I don't agree with write-offs, deductions, etc. Flat rate, same rate for all is what I want! There, I got it out. That's my quota for the day.
I'm really disappointed with the homesick yank's comment. I just wish people knew about things before they talked about them. Oh well.
It's neat to have the avenue to agree once in a while. Glad you stopped by. Hopefully, I won't be that busy today, but I doubt it. I never got to write back after work yesterday (on the previous LME LLC post) and I don't know how much I can do today.
Hope you have a great day, RKen!
I wish homesick yank would come to this discussion. Factless ignorance tends to get ripped up at The Elephant in the Room. Love it!
ReplyDeleteRick Santorum 2012!
Reading the article, it doesn't seem to be critical of Santorum's tax rate, or of Santorum. I don't understand outrage at someone based on their effective tax rate. It seems like the old adage 'don't hat the player, hate the game' applies here.
ReplyDeleteWhat seems to be lost in most of the coverage of Romney's effective tax rate (and also the reason Warren Buffett pays a lower rate than his secretary) is that capital gains are taxed at a lower rate than regular income. In the interest of find some sort of controversy, it seems like the most 'fair' thing to do would be to treat capital gains as regular income for taxes. There are probably instances where this wouldn't be reasonable, I'm not going to pretend to know everything that would qualify as capital gains. Perhaps there should be an option to spread the taxation of capital gains over a 5 year period to account for individuals who receive an irregular windfall, but that makes more sense to me than any 'Buffett rule' that I've heard of.
Tater - Thank you for stopping by and sharing your opinion.
DeleteFirst, to me... any candidate's effective tax rate shouldn't be an issue at all. I believe this was a smart play by MSNBC. It gave them a chance to do a few things:
1. Shoot at Mitt Romney
2. Point out how Rick Santorum is rich (that seems to be such a bad word)
3. Get peoples' head spinning over nothing
You are 100% correct when you say "don't hate the player, hate the game." In fact, in the article linked above titled "What do Mitt Romney's Tax Returns Have to do With Anything" that's the exact phrase I used to describe it.
Part of the thing I can't stand and will do anything to show the truth in is the left's myth about millionaires vs. middle class tax rates. The left (and yes, MSNBC talking points do this a lot) say the right is just making up this class warfare argument, and in reality, the rich don't pay their fair share. The truth is, based on IRS, CBO, CRS data: this is 100% false. When looking at final effective tax rates, the wealthy still pay a greater rate on average. We have written about this extensively: http://loudmouthelephant.blogspot.com/2012/01/stopping-lefts-propaganda-with-truth.html
I will do anything I can to dispel the myth. Turning the larger poorer population against the smaller rich population, in my opinion, is absolutely class warfare.
As far as cap gains taxes, I don't think they should be taxed at all. I don't want to get into a side debate about it now, (it's for another day)... but as someone with a background econ and finance, I firmly believe we should not tax capital gains at all.
As far as taxes overall... I'm personally a HUGE believer in flat rate, non-discriminatory, no deduction, no loophole, no write-off tax rates. Same percentage for all people. Again, a debate for another day.
If this is your first time here... welcome! I hope to see you back soon. Please check out more of our posts. Have a great day!
Hey there LME,
ReplyDeleteOne topic that comes up pretty often I’d like to address that you just mentioned, is the use of the term ‘class warfare.’
I feel like there’s almost a double standard here when it comes to what is called class warfare.
I say this because for decades now, it has been commonplace in politics and media to paint a horrible picture of anyone in poverty. If you’re poor or struggling, then you’re often stereotyped as the lazy American that is freeloading off of society, or a ‘welfare queen’, or someone didn’t work hard enough, or is uneducated, or deserves their circumstances, or even are better off dead, etc.
All of which are horrible, baseless assumptions to make about an entire group of people. Does it exist? Certainly, there are plenty of people that abuse the system and match certain aspects of that stereotype. But to try to rally against and/or even imply that a majority of the people in poverty fall under those stereotypes is just as much class warfare as it is for the poor/middle class to wrongly rally against and/or imply that a majority of the rich people are greedy, tax-evading, corrupt scumbags laughing their way to the banks on the backs of the poor/middle class.
Both situations certainly exist, but I really don’t think stereotyping or even punishing/discriminating should be acceptable in either direction; especially in politics or media. It is just as much class warfare one way as it is the other way.
But, that in large part is ignored completely.
I’ve never seen one accusation of class warfare when it comes to targeting the poor; for the most part they’re incredibly easy to beat up and pick-on no matter how biased, crass, or inconsiderate of a remark. But now when it comes to targeting the rich? Class warfare!
I very much disagree with that.
Not accusing you particularly of doing that LME, as this is the first time I’ve even seen the term mentioned here, but it is something I frequently see elsewhere.
Hope your day went well!
RKen - Good evening sir! My day was very busy, and I'm quite tied up now. I will try to answer as quickly as I can.
DeleteFor the most part, I agree with your sentiment (especially the part that we should not be personally demeaning to anyone), but I disagree with the notion of what "class warfare" is, and because of that, I think this is somewhat an apples to oranges thing.
I think class warfare does exist. I think it's more of a movement and an idea than an insult. To me, what you described, (yes, it does exist), is a hatred-based insult against the poor on a personal level. I don't condone it at all. But, to me, class warfare is different.
What do I think it is? I think it's a way to get people to believe in you. The way I see it is that the left recognizes that the poor vastly outnumber the rich. Recognizing this, they can create this argument that points to the rich as bad, sleazy, slimy people (to me, this isn't as personal as the attacks on the poor). If the left can get enough people to believe (naturally, they will) the plan works. They have swayed the minds to turn a large group of people against a small group. The large group believes propaganda like "the rich pay lower tax rates" and "the rich control everything" and "the rich keep us as slaves" all of which aren't true which is why it's propaganda.
To me, it's not as personally demeaning, but it's just as bad and as dangerous. When people demean the poor, the don't do it with the intent of gathering votes. They know this because the poor are wayyyyy too big. But I think the concept of class warfare certainly exists for a very real intent. Heck MSNBC has commercials calling the right's claim of their actions class warfare. I certainly think it is true. I think the left is trying to turn people against the rich... and I don't like what it is becoming. The rich to me are not bad. I don't believe the propaganda. Yes, there are some bad, just as you said. But, just as it is bad to paint with such a broad brush and claim all poor are bad, it is bad to do it against the rich. I just disagree with you in the intent, but yes, the concept is still there.
I have been thinking about writing about this. It's difficult to put what I feel into words for this. I've even talked to PP about it. Hopefully we can get something out.
I hope this explains my view. I'll admit, I'm rushing, and it might not make sense. If it doesn't, please let me know. Hope you're having a great night!
Makes sense to me, and for the most part I agree, but I do think that both sides are just about equally guilty in attempting to win votes by villianizing, stereotyping, and/or using propaganda on both extremes (whether the greedy freeloading rich or the lazy freeloading poor).
DeleteI'd even argue that up until very recently it was far more common to attempt to win votes by disparaging the poor. Heck, Reagan's presidential campaign had a major focus on the 'welfare queen', and since then has continued to be a significant part of the argument for the 'personal responsibility' theme.