Forum Post: Romney v. Me
Posted 12 years ago on Jan. 25, 2012, 5:49 p.m. EST by elpinio
(213)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Romney - makes 40 million a year and is taxed at 13%.
Me - my wife and I make $380k a year as doctors and are taxed at 45%.
Question: Why is OWS lumping me along with that guy? Why should I pay more taxes as many of you suggest? I'm not poor, but I'm by no means rich.
The variation in the 1% is enormous and encompasses families like mine, which can get by modestly in a city like New York, to multi-billionaires like Walton family members, who could buy entire countries.
Are you including things like FICA, state and local taxes and property tax? Because the Romney number is strictly federal, I believe.
In the end, I don't think OWS is targeting people in your income group necessarily. I do hear Obama throw out the $250,000 number but I think that is for negotiation purposes. He'd never get that and I don't think he is really targeting that. I, personally am more interested in people like the Walton's (not John Boy.) I do want a more fair tax structure, but I would rather see corporate profits shared with the working people.
I agree, you shouldn't be lumped in with the 1% and I believe that the ratio should be revised to the 0.1% versus the 99.9%. You belong in the 99.9%, because, like the rest of us, you will be targeted by that 0.1% once they have raided entitlements such as Medicare and Social Security.
In defense of OWS however, they have never lumped you in with the 1% that they see as having too much influence over our democracy: That is unless you donate millions of dollars to political candidates. And besides possibly lacking the above exorbitant political donor qualification, you actually contribute to society. You and your wife are doctors, one of the coolest occupations one could ever have and one that has a positive affect on people's lives.
Just as the 99% are not necessarily mad at Apple for the out-sourced jobs that Apple has in China, they are not mad at you. First off, Apple actually made something other than more money. Mitt Romney's only goal at Bain was to make more money with money. And secondly, government policy and bad trade agreements led to Apple having to choose to out-source to stay competitive. Imagine if our government had passed regulation that made it more expensive for companies to build something abroad and then sell it here: Iphones, Ipods, Ipads would all have been built here and I saw a story that said they would have cost only 23% more. In an economy that is thriving 23% (if this number is correct) would have been nothing compared to what we have now.
If our laws were written in a way that demanded loyalty to America, many of those corporations that chase lower wages would have had to stay in America and keep jobs in America. In the case of Apple, the Chinese have between 500 and 800 thousand workers making their products.
Don't believe for one second that OWS is opposed to you. As I said, the ratio is off by one tenth in my opinion, but what it symbolizes is something that you should be behind, equality for all: Equal opportunity for all to succeed, equal opportunity for all to enjoy a happy and secure future. In what way does any message from the republicans state these values?
Do yourself a favor and look into those things that the republicans stand for: Supply-side economics, the Bush Era Tax cuts were a boon for business, but no jobs were created, Climate change that think tanks started by people like the Koch Brothers has claimed that there is no consensus amongst climate scientists: Climate scientists have been in agreement for over a decade and even Bush climate scientists agreed that it was a problem. If you listen closely, some of the republican politicians in D.C. have said that it might be real but we can't do anything about it now. This is dangerous, especially for your kids (if you have any), because mankind will now have to adapt to the weather that is predicted to change drastically in the next 50 years. They attack Social Security and the Post Office, neither of which has cost the government a dime. And as for SS, it is what brought so many of the elderly out of poverty. As for privatization, especially with prisons, it is not good thing when you consider the motivations of corporations that will be in control of these enterprises. . . the bottom dollar.
When you look at the world we live in today, don't you feel that there is something off-putting by it all. Nothing is local anymore. Everything come from giant corporations, including clothes, news and groceries to name a few. What could Americans do against rising costs of food? Complain and these giant Agribusiness farms lessen production.
To see who OWS truly targets watch a movie called "Food, Inc.". It's a documentary, but one of the best horror films I've ever seen (Not joking).
Fact correction: That figure is from a 2 year period. He makes approximately 20 million per year.
You make a good point.
Watch this (See graph at 11:09): http://billmoyers.com/episode/on-winner-take-all-politics/
The top 1/10 of the 1% has gone up much faster. 1 in 8 dollars of our economy went to 1 in 1000 households before the recession.
45%?? Is that before you figure in deductions or is that the final percentage you pay? If the latter, you really need a new accountant.
That's the final percentage. I don't really have any deductions. Even if I did everything possible including semi-legal stuff, I doubt I could get below 40%, so my point remains...
Wow! My wife and I make almost $300k a year. My fed taxes are about 18% after deductions.
Doctor, heal thyself.
WOW,,,, 40%????? Nearly HALF of the money YOU make for YOU and YOUR FAMILY is going to someone else?????? WOW. You are a real sucker.
I think everyone should do the math. Get your calculators out. How much money is Romney paying in taxes and how much are you paying? I see you as the problem for not paying more than you do in taxes. YOU ARE THE PROBLEM not Romney.