Peter Schiff: Majority Doesn't "Have A Right To Steal My Money Just Because They Voted For It"
PETER SCHIFF: First of all, I'm in the top two percent. Right now, I'm paying 45% of my total income in income taxes, both to the state of Connecticut and to the federal government, and if you take the 3% Medicare tax.
What kind of tax adviser does this man have? Romney could get his down to under 10%. The max fed income tax on earned income is 35%. That's only on over $400,000. The max. Connecticut rate is 6.5%. That's only on over $500,000. FICA is 6.2% but he only pays that on 5% of his income so it is a pittance. Capital gains taxes are less than half those on earned income and don't pay FICA.
Then there's deductions, shelters and loopholes.
He's lying.
After the tax hikes go into effect next year, more than half -- more than half of my total income is going to go to the government. You tell me, what's fair about that when medieval serfs pay 25%, I'm paying half?
What "medieval serfs" is he talking about? They're all dead.
I don't care what the majority voted to do, they don't have a right to steal my money just because they vote for it.
It's not stealing. Think of it as your fair share of the money it takes to have a livable country.
But keep paying. Your father didn't and went to jail for it.
If I've said it once I've said it a hundred times - the tax laws need to be changed!
BTW - who told you that Romney paid 10%? It was well reported that he paid 13% and 14% in the two years before campaign.
It was widely reported in the real news. He didn't take a $2 million or so deduction that he could have so he could keep his rate above 13%. That's the number he promised and he had to deliver. He'll file an amended return and get it back next year so he lost nothing.
I'd bet anyone $20 that he paid zero at least one year. During the Bush market crash, he surely found enough losses to offset his gains and get his tax liability down to zero.
To refresh your memories, that crash occurred between Oct. 9, 2007, when the Dow was at 14,164 (or pick Jan. 3, 2008 when it was just over 13,000) and Jan. 20, 2009 (inauguration day) when it was at 7,949. Or if you don't blame Obama during his first 40 days or so, 6,547 on March 8, 2009. Dropped by half in just over a year (during Bush's 8th year in office).
Pretty much all Bush's fault no matter how you slice it.
The burning question is - what do YOU think is a "fair share"? That is the question for everyone. Is it "fair" to take 50 to 60% of some folks income, while others pay none?
It's not all that burning to me, but we did have a 90% bracket during Eisenhower's term and had the money to build the interstates and a lot of other stuff and I don't recall anybody talking about rich people suffering.
Using the rates being kicked around now, everybody pays the same on the first $250,000. It's not like they pay 39% or 60% on all their income. Sounds more than fair. Give me a $250,000 income and they can have it all above that
You continue to harp on Romney's taxes. You do realize that there are different tax rates for different kinds of income - right? Romney's income for 2010 and 2011 was from capital gains and that is a different rate that income from salary, for instance. I keep saying - fix the tax code if you don't like how it works - or don't work. Do you go to the tax man and say I do not want to use any of the deductions that I am eligible for? Of course not. How do you think warren buffett pays less taxes than his secretary? His tax person uses all of the deductions that are available. If the tax person did not that person would not be warren's tax person.
Well gosh, yeah there are a lot of ways to "fix the tax code". Which ways do you support?
Make capital gains tax the same as earned income?
Eliminate deducting business expenses?
Tax interest on government bonds?
Eliminate the home mortgage deduction?
Apply FICA tax to all earned income?
Apply FICA tax to unearned income?
Eliminate the "carry forward" option?
Tax income earned overseas?
Others you like?
