DAILY BEAST TUMBLRS

5:15 PM, September 18th, 2012

theatlantic:

The Most Misleading Part of ‘The 47%’: Total U.S. Taxes Are Barely Progressive

Mitt Romney is worried that half of make the wealth and half of us take the wealth. So is his running mate Paul Ryan. If this sounds like something out of a dystopian novel, that’s because it is. The world we live in is far different from the world Ayn Rand imagined. Just take a look at total taxes.

The chart above, from the Citizens for Tax Justice, looks at how much households earn and how much they pay in all taxes. In other words, it compares what percent of overall income they make and what percent of overall taxes the government takes from them. It’s not exactly a picture of moochers waging war on heroic entrepreneurs.

Read more. [Image: Citizens for Tax Justice]

Reblogged from The Atlantic
3:37 PM, July 25th, 2012
sunfoundation:

Putting Romney’s tax returns in presidential context

The controversy over what’s hiding in Mitt Romney’s unreleased tax returns continues.  But even without the missing filings, putting his 2010 and 2011 tax numbers in context is strikingly informative. It dramatically shows what an outlier Romney is on a few basic tax and income dimensions.


One of these (OK, two) is not like the others…

sunfoundation:

Putting Romney’s tax returns in presidential context

The controversy over what’s hiding in Mitt Romney’s unreleased tax returns continues.  But even without the missing filings, putting his 2010 and 2011 tax numbers in context is strikingly informative. It dramatically shows what an outlier Romney is on a few basic tax and income dimensions.

One of these (OK, two) is not like the others…

Reblogged from Nick Turse
11:36 AM, April 30th, 2012
What some of us want—those who aren’t blinded by a lot of bullshit persiflage thrown up to mask the idea that rich folks want to keep their damn money—is for you to acknowledge that you couldn’t have made it in America without America. That you were fortunate enough to be born in a country where upward mobility is possible (a subject upon which Barack Obama can speak with the authority of experience), but where the channels making such upward mobility possible are being increasingly clogged. That it’s not fair to ask the middle class to assume a disproportionate amount of the tax burden. Not fair? It’s un-f—king-American, is what it is. I don’t want you to apologize for being rich; I want you to acknowledge that in America, we all should have to pay our fair share. That our civics classes never taught us that being American means that—sorry, kiddies—you’re on your own. That those who have received much must be obligated to pay—not to give, not to “cut a check and shut up,” in Gov. Christie’s words, but to pay—in the same proportion.
Stephen King scolds the superrich (including himself—and Mitt Romney) for not giving back, and warns of a Kingsian apocalyptic scenario if inequality is not addressed in America. Stephen King FTW!

(Source: thedailybeast.com)

5:47 PM, April 17th, 2012

Romney’s announcement that he could well end the deduction of state taxes is the real bombshell.

And because of the red state/blue state divide, there is a compelling political argument for the big policy idea: it would mostly punish blue-state voters who aren’t going to back Romney anyway.

That’s because blue states generally have higher state and local taxes. For example, many Californians and New Yorkers—nearly 50 million Americans—would see their taxes go up significantly.

3:33 PM, April 13th, 2012

I’m thinking the explanation is that the Wall Street Journal leans right while the New York Times leans left

inothernews:

but please note that the Times reported the Obamas’ effective tax rate on their adjusted gross income ($789,674), which works out to 20.5% — while the Wall Street Journal I guess used their unadjusted gross income ($845,000) to get an effective tax rate of 19%.

Which puts it closer to the Romneys’ effective tax rate of 14% on their 2010 income.

Clever Wall Street Journal-ers, thinking we wouldn’t notice.

12:01 PM, April 13th, 2012

theatlantic:

Here Is President Obama’s Tax Return

The president and vice-president released their 2011 tax returns this morning. The Obama’s reported total income of $844,000 and adjusted gross income of $789,674, placing the president’s family well inside the top 1% — even the top 0.5% — of households, which is no surprise considering the president’s salary alone puts somebody near the top percentile. About half of Obama’s income came from the president’s salary. The other half came from book sales.

The Obama’s paid $162,074 in total taxes, for an effective tax rate of about 20%, which is typical for an upper-middle class family but a tad lower than the average tax rate for the richest tenth of earners, since half of their money came from non-earned income and they reported a $3,000 investment loss. The couple donated a nearly identical amount, $172,130, or 22% of their adjusted gross income, to charities.

See the rest of Obama’s tax return.

Reblogged from National Journal
6:15 PM, February 13th, 2012

shortformblog:

Obama vs. Romney on tax rates: As you can see, rates are largely the same—except for the nation’s richest and poorest. The poor would pay almost twice as much in taxes under Romney’s plan; meanwhile, the very richest in the country would be forced to cough up about 10% more of their income under Obama. The net effect? In short, Romney’s plan would reduce federal revenues to about 17% of GDP—down .9% from where they are now. Obama’s budget would raise revenues 19.2%, with most of that money coming from those making over $250,000 a year (Graphic and data courtesy of The Washington Post / Tax Policy Center).

Reblogged from The New Republic
3:26 PM, February 2nd, 2012

Thanks to commenter “kognyc” for pointing us to the above chart, which provides a perfect visual complement to Gary Rivlin’s story about how the poor people’s safety net is largely a myth. Here’s what Mitt’s Romney’s tax plan would really do: further increase income inequality in America by providing massive tax cuts to those at the top of the income scale and add to the tax burden of the poor and working poor. Just follow the logic: jobless benefits and health insurance are limited, housing assistance has been reduced, and ‘welfare’ has been devastated by budget cuts.

11:55 AM, January 25th, 2012

thedailyfeed:

Mitt Romney earned $21.6 million in 2010 — and paid just 14% in taxes, far less than Newt Gingrich’s 31.7% or Obama’s 26.3%.

In fact, the Romneys paid a higher tax rate to foreign countries, handing over 18 percent on the almost $375,000 that they garnered abroad. The former Massachusetts governor also shelled out almost $3 million to charity, roughly 16 percent of his post-tax haul.

Reblogged from The Daily
6:16 PM, January 24th, 2012
The president and the Democrats should not be piling on Romney because he’s rich. They should be piling on the tax code because it is so insane. This issue is populist and good economics. With a full-scale Bowles-Simpson attack on deductions, reform could keep taxation simple and low and easier to understand. And that restrains lobbyists, who suddenly have far less to lobby for; and it restrains taxation. If you have three simple rates - say, 10, 20, 30 - then any increase in them is very, very visible. You want a government that can be monitored and controlled by the people? Simplify the tax code!
4:16 PM, January 6th, 2012

Rick Santorum’s one actually good idea: eliminating the corporate income tax on manufacturing companies

(Chris Carlson / AP Photo)

5:38 PM, October 10th, 2011

It doesn’t make any sense to me to pursue what the president is talking about in the economy we’ve got. Why would you do something that makes it less attractive to give to charities when so many people are in need?

Eric Cantor speaking about President Obama’s proposal to cap itemized deductions (including charitable donations) at the 35 percent tax bracket.

10:56 AM, August 15th, 2011
A speedy, smart summary of news and must-reads from across the web and around the Tumblrverse, brought to you by The Daily Beast.


Networks