On Romney...

Quote:  " Mitt Romney doesn't pay an income tax, period. Mainly because he's not earning an income."

I paraphrased, I admit that.  My point stands, however.  The man is wealthy enough to not need to "work" to generate any additional income outside of the returns on investments made on past earnings.  Kudos and high-fives for him... he worked hard early and is reaping the rewards now.

I do contend that the earnings made on investments IS, in fact, income... and should be taxed.  I'm not convinced that it should be taxed at the same rate as traditional labor income, though.  To do so will reduce the amount of private investment to almost nothing below the top 10% of wage earners in the country, and to ignore the risks inherent in investments, be they stocks, real estate, or commodity and business futures.  To not tax it at all is removing a burden of responsibility from a fraction of the tax paying population that could only be seen as unfair, since I do feel it is income.

Somewhere in the middle is the perfect medium... and somewhere between 9% and 13% seems just right to me (given past historical examples).  Even given the current capital gains rate, Romney paid less than 15%... undoubtedly utilizing legal, legitimate breaks and shelters... something I have no problem with.

As we both agreed, Romney is in no higher a tax bracket than Obama... and Obama utilized the same tax code to pay only what was owed that Romney used... and anyone else paying their taxes in this country. Furthermore, Romney's tax burden (the amount he actually paid in) will prove to be far greater than Obama's... meaning he PAID MORE in taxes than Obama did, because he EARNED MORE.  That is the basis of our progressive tax code, and as long as that progressive tax is kept at the absolute LOWEST percentages that it can be at, I don't have an issue with allowing it to remain in place.

The area where I feel "discord" is most agitated is when the difference between labor income and return income is ignored.  Romney has no labor income to declare, thus he does not fall into the top tax bracket of 27%.  At least 29% of Obama's income stems from his $400,000 yearly salary, and the proceeds from his book sales, meaning he has a greater percentage of his total income being taxed at 27%.  Obama's returns will show that he paid a larger percentage of his entire income than Romney did... but, as is clearly seen, this is an unfair comparison.  "Apples and tangerines" as Ryan always says.  This misrepresentation of an individual tax return is the basis upon which Warren Buffett makes his claim that ALL wage earners who make more than one million dollars need to pay 40% in taxes... and I think it is the wrong approach to take, unless Mr. Buffett is advocating a 40% flat tax across the board.

The upside to this debate is that it can go no further than it already has (in the mainstream media, I mean... not here), because pointing too fine a finger at Romney will only lead to a closer inspection of such liberal Democrats that ALSO file the same sort of returns as Romney.  That isn't going to help their case one bit, is it?