Millionaire Leaves Fox Host Speechless

All these people that say they should pay more don't.

They can write a check anytime they want and pay more.

Not sure why that is.

Can anyone decipher this? What the hell is AssupLiar talking about? He must have missed his Ovaltine. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

It translate to: "his ass is up and he wants another re-fill"

Just a couple of observations ...

First of all, the top tax bracket on earned income, to be precise, is 39.6%. Occasionally people ask why it's not 39%, or simply rounded to 40%. The reason is that during the debate leading to the budget reconciliation act of 1993, policymakers selected a 36% rate, but then added a 10% surtax atop that, arriving at a 39.6% rate. As I recall, it was meant to apply to any income above about $250K.

A couple of populous, high-tax states have state and local income tax rates that push the marginal tax rate on high-income earners north of 50%. California, for instance, imposes a 13.3% state income tax rate on top-bracket income. Although I'm too lazy to look up the exact rates, I do recall reading recently that the combined New York State/New York City income tax rate is close to the same.

Most TV hosts can't simply move to a lower-tax state, as their income is generally earned in NYC, so they're subject to state and local tax as well as federal tax.

And they can't get their effective tax rates down to anything remotely close to Mitt Romney's level, either. It's simply a matter of the classification of income, and has very little to do with whether the taxpayer has good advisors.

According to published reports, Romney paid an effective tax rate of just under 15% during a few years prior to his presidential run. Although he refused to release any tax returns, I think it's fair to assume the following: He took little or no salary income from any entity, since it would obviously be subject to a tax rate of 39.6%. Instead, his income was comprised of some combination of carried interest, capital gains, and qualified dividends, all of which were taxed at a 15% rate prior to 2013.

However, the tax rate on all three of those categories was increased to 23.8% last year, so it's likely that Romney's effective tax rate is currently something close to that number. Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

I'm not sure why you pick out Romney to try to make a point when you have someone like admitted tax cheat Warren Buffet who makes a better example. Remember, he is taxed at a lower rate than his secretary. Buffet owes back taxes and fighting like hell NOT to pay them and like some other rich people he spreads his wealth around in ways to minimize his tax burden. According to Teddy Roosevelt, it is patriotic to legally avoid paying taxes.

Looks like Deb is becoming more of a tease than anything else.

I'm not sure why you pick out Romney to try to make a point when you have someone like admitted tax cheat Warren Buffet who makes a better example. Remember, he is taxed at a lower rate than his secretary. Buffet owes back taxes and fighting like hell NOT to pay them and like some other rich people he spreads his wealth around in ways to minimize his tax burden. According to Teddy Roosevelt, it is patriotic to legally avoid paying taxes. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

I didn't "pick out" Romney for any reason other than that flghter65 mentioned his name in connection with an incorrect assumption that Romney paid a lower effective tax rate only because he has "better advisers." The simple fact is that there's a fundamentally different way in which various types of "income" are taxed.

But let's try to be accurate here (and I don't mean just with respect to spelling his name correctly).

Buffett is not an "admitted tax cheat" -- or, for that matter, any type of tax cheat, at least according to publicly available information. What you're almost undoubtedly referring to is the dispute involving Berkshire Hathaway's NetJets operation. The argument centers around monthly maintenance fees and what's referred to as the "ticket tax" on operations conducted for the benefit of aircraft fractional owners. The IRS rules are so mind-numbingly complex that there's no clear answer to the question of who's right. But some prominent tax lawyers with no dog in the hunt have opined that those advocating for Buffett's entities make some pretty good points.

This whole clusterfuck just points up one more reason that comprehensive tax reform should be an urgent priority. But since the tax code can be so easily gamed by crony capitalists seeking to place themselves in an advantageous position relative to others, nothing happens.