World HOt toPPIX

Romney's 2010 tax returns show the former Massachusetts governor and wife Ann earned $27 million and paid a tax rate of 13.9 percent. Advertise | AdChoices. "I felt very successful in making money. Also, I was very ...

document.write('

')

if (typeof(DeferView) != 'undefined') { DeferView.registerCallback('pgNBCPOB1308892982', function() { dapMgr.enableACB('pgNBCPOB1308892982', false); dapMgr.renderAd('pgNBCPOB1308892982', '&PG=NBCPOB&AP=1089&ONECLICK=1', 300, 250); }); } else { dapMgr.enableACB('pgNBCPOB1308892982', false); dapMgr.renderAd('pgNBCPOB1308892982', '&PG=NBCPOB&AP=1089&ONECLICK=1', 300, 250)

var params = new Array() params.siteName = "newsvine"; params.section = "politics"; params.subSection = "firstread"; params.subSubSection = ""; params.subSubSubSection = ""; params.typeName = "StoryBlog"; params.eventType = "pageload"; params.eventName = "load"; params.byline = "First Read"; params.elem = "document"; params.featureName = "newsvinepage"; params.sitePageId = "a10422484"; params.headline = "Santorum paid double Romney's tax rate in 2010, records show"; params.source = ""; params.zipCode = ""; params.pageSource = "First Read"; params.deviceType = "desktop"; EventTracker().track(params); function getSpecs(project, section, subsection, pageType) { return project + "&" + jQuery.param({ "sec": section, "ct" : pageType, "ss" : subsection }); }; var specs = getSpecs("msnbc", "politics", "firstread", "storyblog");jQuery.ajax({ type: "GET", url: "http://beacon.jump-time.net/jt.js", dataType: "script", cache: true, success: function() { jt("http://msnbc.jump-time.net/msnbc", specs, true); } })

var addthis_config = { pubid:'ra-4e2091fe36adea29', data_track_clickback: true, services_compact: 'email, newsvine, linkedin, print, stumbleupon, delicious, digg, reddit, tumblr, more', ui_click:true, ui_use_addressbook:

GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum is riding his momentum from a trio of caucus wins to the top of the latest national polls. NBC's Peter Alexander reports.

Presidential hopeful Rick Santorum sought to draw another sharp contrast between himself and Republican rival Mitt Romney when his campaign released four years of tax returns Wednesday night.

The documents, reported by Politico, show Santorum and his wife, Karen, earned more than $3.5 million from 2007 through 2010, but paid more than one-quarter of their earnings back in taxes. The most they paid in taxes was in 2010, when they earned $923,411 and paid an effective tax rate of over 28 percent.

Romney's 2010 tax returns show the former Massachusetts governor and wife Ann earned $27 million and paid a tax rate of 13.9 percent.

if (typeof(DeferView) != 'undefined') { DeferView.registerCallback('pgNBCPOB1461185246', function() { dapMgr.enableACB('pgNBCPOB1461185246', false); dapMgr.renderAd('pgNBCPOB1461185246', '&PG=NBCPOB&AP=1089&ONECLICK=1', 300, 250); }); } else { dapMgr.enableACB('pgNBCPOB1461185246', false); dapMgr.renderAd('pgNBCPOB1461185246', '&PG=NBCPOB&AP=1089&ONECLICK=1', 300, 250)

if (typeof(DeferView) == 'undefined') { document.write('')

if (typeof(DeferView) != 'undefined') { DeferView.registerCallback('pulse360_674974330', function() { $('').appendTo('#pulse360_674974330');}); } else { document.write('')

if (typeof(DeferView) == 'undefined') { document.write('')

if (typeof(DeferView) != 'undefined') { DeferView.registerCallback('pulse360_2085436951', function() { $('').appendTo('#pulse360_2085436951');}); } else { document.write('')

"I felt very successful in making money. Also, I was very successful in paying taxes," Santorum told CNN on Wednesday. "I think our tax rates were ... between 25 percent and 28 percent. You know, I do my own taxes and maybe I didn't have all the deductions and exclusions that I could have. But I was trying to be as straightforward as I could and paying the taxes I thought I owed."

New Gingrich's 2010 tax records, however, show he paid even more than Santorum in taxes, earning $3.1 million that year and paying back 31.5 percent.

The Santorums filed an adjusted gross income of $659,637 in 2007, that rose to $945,100 in 2008, $1.1 million in 2009 and $923,411 in 2010.

While the candidate acknowledged his success, Santorum was quick to point out that he has two children in college, a special needs child and a home that has lost 40 percent of its value.

"I took a lot of that money and actually paid down a rather significant mortgage to the point where ... my mortgage was still below the value of my house," he said. "And that's been a bit of a hit for us. And I have two kids in college and a child with a disability and needing care, so, you know, we've had some expenses and we've been very blessed to have the opportunity to be able to handle those and still be in the black.

The release does show the former Pennsylvania senator's wealth grew since he lost his re-election bid in 2006. The latest Republican to surge in the polls has disputed the notion he has cashed in from his time on Capitol Hill.

But shortly after the information was made public, Santorum sought to use it to play up the blue-collar background he speaks about so frequently on the campaign trail.

Santorum took a break from stumping in Florida last month before the Sunshine State's primary to return home to ready the documents that he himself files each year, never relying on an accountant.

He also points to his re-election loss as an opportunity for him to gain private-sector experience, something Romney has critiqued Santorum for not having.

"In many respects, I have to say the people of Pennsylvania didn't always give me what I wanted, but they gave me what I needed. And in retrospect, Piers, it was probably the best thing that ever happened to get away from Washington to give me a perspective on things," he told CNN's Piers Morgan.

"It was a really great opportunity to get a whole bunch of different life experiences in the private sector and I think it's made me a better candidate coming forward here for president," Santorum added.

Four years worth of tax returns is the most any GOP presidential hopeful has released. Ron Paul now becomes the only candidate who has yet to make his returns public.

He still only paid 28% on an income of over $900,000.....if the highest tax rate is supposed to be 35%, who is paying that, I wonder???? And why did it take so long to get his tax report "ready" to release? This is his 2010 tax return, it should have been finished by April 15, 2010, right?

if (typeof(DeferView) != 'undefined') { DeferView.registerCallback('pgNBCPOB1527015172', function() { dapMgr.enableACB('pgNBCPOB1527015172', false); dapMgr.renderAd('pgNBCPOB1527015172', '&PG=NBCPOB&AP=1089&ONECLICK=1', 300, 250); }); } else { dapMgr.enableACB('pgNBCPOB1527015172', false); dapMgr.renderAd('pgNBCPOB1527015172', '&PG=NBCPOB&AP=1089&ONECLICK=1', 300, 250)

if (typeof(DeferView) == 'undefined') { document.write('')

if (typeof(DeferView) != 'undefined') { DeferView.registerCallback('pulse360_220286036', function() { $('').appendTo('#pulse360_220286036');}); } else { document.write('')

if (typeof(DeferView) == 'undefined') { document.write('')

if (typeof(DeferView) != 'undefined') { DeferView.registerCallback('pulse360_114897830', function() { $('').appendTo('#pulse360_114897830');}); } else { document.write('')

He still only paid 28% on an income of over $900,000.....if the highest tax rate is supposed to be 35%, who is paying that, I wonder????

And why did it take so long to get his tax report "ready" to release? This is his 2010 tax return, it should have been finished by April 15, 2010, right?

Mr. Romney will just say of Mr. Santorum, "See, hes poor and stupid". I could make sure America is still the land of the overt cheat. If you cant hide your money you cant run a country. ; ] And for some reason to a crook thats a badge of honor.

I'm in the wrong business! Hell, I've paid 28% myself over the last 5 years on a hell of a lot less than $900K, so Santorum can't cry at all. Every dog and his mama knows that Mitt Romney is crooked with all of those off-shore accounts and all. The only people that shelter their money in off-shore accounts are people that want to hide money from the government and not pay what they owe!!!! PERIOD.

The Dept of Justice is after the last private Swiss bank holdout on hiding overseas American accounts. Here's hoping that all the crooks get caught and punished whether Romney is among them or not including the holdout bank.

I really don't like the guy either but I don't see where you can call him out on this. Stick to his social policies. Plenty of fodder there.

Can anyone here tell me how the rich don't pay their fair share when fully half of America pays absolutely nothing? The rich pay more than their share... something is wrong when 10% of income earners pay something like 70% of the Fed's income. (I am NOT one of them BTW; I pay about $18,000 a year to the federal government and my effective rate is about 16%). I don't want to hear that "They can afford it"... who the HELL are you or anyone else to decide what anyone can afford??

What the argument should be here instead of all the economic jealousy and class warfare (a gift from our hope and change socialist president)... is why one person pays 15% and another 20% and another 28%. Period. This has been a problem for a long time.

Yank, Mr. Santorum paid 28% instead of 35% in actual federal income tax because he received the same deductions as are available to, and commonly used by, most other Americans.

Among the deductions almost certainly taken are personal deductions (he and his wife Karen have 8 children), a disability deduction (their youngest child has Edwards syndrome), mortgage interest (he has a fairly large underwater mortgage), college tuition (he has two children in college), deductions for state and local taxes paid, and charitable giving. Deductions for charitable giving were likely very limited, however - certainly mine are, and I make rather less that Mr. Santorum in a given year. I joke that the feds don't like the competition. ;-)

Mr. Santorum's income places him in the top 1% of Americans (those making above $343,927 per year in 2009). According to ?? the average actual federal tax rate for the top 1% of Americans is about 24%, so Mr. Santorum apparently paid significantly more than average. This is likely because he avoids tax shelters common at that income level, and files his own taxes using straightforward reporting.

I've answered your question in some detail, so please answer one of mine. How much would Mr. Santorum have to pay in taxes before you would consider it "fair"? Is 35% fair? 50%? 90%? Just curious.

Thought everybody could figure this out, but obviously I was wrong. People are complaining about the rich paying less percentage of their income then those that do pay. What did I win?

I'll go even further just for you. If Companies would start paying their employees more instead of giving out 50 million dollar bonuses to rich CEO's then guess who will be paying more in taxes :)

What the argument should be here instead of all the economic jealousy and class warfare (a gift from our hope and change socialist president)... is why one person pays 15% and another 20% and another 28%. Period. This has been a problem for a long time.

I am yet baffled as to what mechanism of our IRS system allows an individual who has paid NO federal taxes in the year while collecting a welfare check issued from their state can file a federal tax return at the end of the year and receive a REFUND from the US Treasury ... just how does that work?

Wait a minute here, Rick the Mr. Pork himself knocks Mitt for not showing his taxes and yet this idiot didnt even show his until now. I dont like Rick at all, he is no true conservative. Mr. Pork (Rick) is a hypocrite on certain issue and I read his record. SO WHAT! about who pays more in taxes. As long as they pay. What about those who dont pay ZERO taxes and freeloads on those who do pay? Obama calls for fare share garbage which is a crock of crap. Flat tax all the way so everyone pays equally. That to me is FARE SHARE.!!!!

moth lady: Like who? I honestly, or maybe fortunately, don't know how welfare works. I don't even know if "welfare" and "food stamps" are the same thing?

What I do know is that there are people that need them. J.k. Rowlings and Whoopi Goldburg are two I can think of off the top of my head. Both have mentioned how they were saved by welfare and both are doing rather well for themselves now.

If you are a typical republican saying something like, "People should just die instead of getting help from the government," then you are not really worth this reply. If you are asking how they have found a way to cheat the system you may want to ask Mr. Romney himself.

Other then that, all I can say is that I'm sure it would come down to a case-by-case review and I would need some type of reference to go off of.

Liberals are all agog at what the Republican candidates pay in taxes, yet their heroes the Kennedy's HAVE NEVER paid ANY taxes!!! They have their income held in a trust based in Fiji!

KILL the IRS and institute the Fair Tax. The "rich" spend more than everyone else, so they would pay more than everyone else. Plus with the prebate, the "poor" will be better off.

So we continue the downward spiral, bickering over who paid what, all the while whatever it was is not enough to cover the spending.

I can't fault anyone for paying less while the system allows them to pay less. I mean seriously, who WANTS to pay more money into taxes than they have to? The problem isn't Mitt being a "cheater" and it doesn't make Santorum better that he paid a higher percentage. The problem is the system that's broken and allows people to pay less. There's a very simple solution, however. Whether you stay with the graduated tax or move to a flat tax, simply get rid of all deductions and allowances. Why is there a deduction for children? Do we need to subsidize that? Because I'm pretty sure people are going to procreate whether the government gives them some of my money or not. Why is there a deduction for charitable donations? When he was Governor of Arkansas, Bill Clinton claimed $6/ea. on his used underwear donated to Goodwill. That sort of thing is just ripe for abuse. Seriously, who's going to pay $6 for a pair of Slick Willie's used skivvies? Actually, don't answer that, I don't want to know. Point is, if the system were set up so that everyone ACTUALLY paid what they were supposed to, we'd be flush with money and we wouldn't be arguing about who's morally right or wrong. It'd be simple. Right would be paying your taxes, wrong would be not paying them. No shades of gray for what deductions and shelters you use. Additionally, filing taxes would be a hell of a lot simpler!

When you can successfully raise a family on $25K or less while paying 35% income tax, let us know. I make three times that, and every time I leave the grocery store with a few days' worth of food that cost me $100 or more, I wonder how people with kids and no jobs manage. Oh, and don't forget, whether or not you pay income tax, you STILL pay things like sales tax, so saying half of Americans pay nothing is BS.

You only need to file a return and have a child under the age of 17 in order to get a Child Tax Credit. NO EARNED INCOME is necessary. And which administration implemented this credit? That would be the Bush administration. Is that a "socialist" credit? Just wondering? There are quite a few credits that need to be rolled back to pre-Bush era. Funny how our so-called "Socialist President" Obama has been trying to do just that in order to lower the deficit!

This manipulator throws you people a misleading fact and you jump on it like dogs on red meat. Shows how uninformed you all are and how the Republican candidates take advantage of that election after election. Santorum and Romney are paid differently. That explains the tax difference. Believe me, if Santorum didn't have to pay the extra tax he would not have. Wake up people. What do you think. He simply just mailed in an extra check?

I am all for a flat tax. Everyone would be paying their fair share. If you make 10k per year, pay 15%. If you make 5 million per year, pay 15%. The more effort you make to earn more, the more you should have a right to keep your earned income. Maybe then the slackers that don't pay would actually be more motivated to do for themselves. Anyone that wants to live in this society has to pay your their fair share. A tax form should be no bigger than the size of a post card. Income K10k, pay $15k. No need for all these deductions. As for business taxes, that may have to apply strictly to business. It all seems so simple to me. In any case, I would be happy to pay the taxes that both Romney and Santorum paid if i made the money they made. (I just shoved the soap box aside)

I guess we could elect presidents based on how much percentage tax they pay. Obviously, a higher percentage tax candidate would be far more worthy of being president.

This information would have been helpful back in 2008, so we could tell who would have been the better president, Obama or Hillary, via what their percentage tax rates were.

This manipulator throws you people a misleading fact and you jump on it like dogs on red meat. Shows how uninformed you all are and how the Republican candidates take advantage of that election after election. Santorum and Romney are paid differently. That explains the tax difference. Believe me, if Santorum didn't have to pay the extra tax he would not have. Wake up people. What do you think. He simply just mailed in an extra check?

you guys seem to be hating on the players and not the game. It wouldn't have been hard to guess their's, or most people rates if you have a semi clue of their situation.

I see some young people paying in 500 in federal taxes and getting refunds of over a grand. People actually MAKE MONEY on federal taxes. There are probably 75 million tax payers now that pay ZERO into our system. I hear little if anything on that.

I think most people would like a flat tax. Returns would be really easy too. If you don't like the system be proactive to change instead of hating on fellow americans that have been successful.

Please stop attacking the people in this country who don't pay ANY taxes. The vast majority don't pay because they either make nothing or next to nothing or are on SS/welfare. In other words, POOR.

The administrative overhead of adding all those millions of poor working Americans to the roster of tax payers would most likely cost more then what could be gained in taxes from them. Many of them already pay state and local taxes.

Also The 'fair' tax really isn't all that fair. It takes money out of the hands of people who already don't make enough to pay for the most basic necessities. It puts more money in the hands of those who have all of their NEEDS payed for, and are 'struggling' to pay for that next Jacuzzi.

Wonder what John Kerry, Harry reid, And Tim Geitner paid! Anything to trash Romney. How about posting a list of all of the politicians and compare. This headline is pure BS. How about a story about cutting funding to countries that want to war with each other! Now that would be progress.Israel take note!

Also The 'fair' tax really isn't all that fair. It takes money out of the hands of people who already don't make enough to pay for the most basic necessities. It puts more money in the hands of those who have all of their NEEDS payed for, and are 'struggling' to pay for that next Jacuzzi.

homesickyank You obviously don't know how our tax system works! If you are in the 35% bracket, you pay 35% only on the amount in excess of the next lower tax bracket! He paid 35% on the income over about $379,000. Nobody in the 35% bracket pays 35% just as nobody in the 15% bracket pays 15%!!! You need to look at your income and your bracket. You will see that you don't come close too paying that amount. If you look at the IRS tables you will find that the top 1% pays ON AVERAGE 24+% and as income drops so does the average tax rate!!! That doesn't fit with what the left tells you but it is true!!

Hey stupid people, romney already paid his 35% when he made his money. Hes paying another 15% on his capital gains So hes being taxed twice for earnings he was already taxed on. He paid over 3.3 million to charity 16% of his earnings thats triple of any canidate running for President.

"The [idea] that the rich are getting ever richer while everyone else suffers - was confirmed by a recent report from the Social Security Administration showing that while total employment and average wages remained stagnant, the number of people earning $1 million or more grew by 18% from 2009 to 2010. yet Republicans continue to insist, despite all evidence to the contrary, that if anything those "job creators" deserve an even greater share of our national income."

"The one group rarely heard from in this rancorous debate is the 1%, whose incomes and taxes are its focus. I am one of them, and here is my perspective, which may surprise you."

"imagine my amazement this summer when I watched the Republicans in Congress push the United States to the brink of default - and the world to the brink of ruin - over whether to repeal a portion of the Bush tax cuts and raise my taxes by 3.5%."

"Here is a secret about rich people: we wouldn't have noticed a 3.5% tax increase. That is not only because there isn't a material difference between having $1 million and $965,000, which is obvious, but also because most of us don't actually know how much money we are going to make in a given year. Most income at that level is the result of profits rather than salary, whether it comes in the form of bonuses, stock options, partnership distributions, dividends or capital gains. Profits are unpredictable and they tend to vary wildly. At my own firm, the general rule of thumb is that if we are within 5% of our budget for the year, everyone is happy and no one complains. A variation of 3.5% is merely a random blip."

"I was not amazed but disgusted when John Boehner and his crew tried to justify the extremity of their position by rebranding the wealthy as "job creators." While true in a very basic sense, it obscures the fact that jobs are a cost that is voluntarily incurred only as a result of demand. Hiring has no correlation at all to profits or to income - none. Let me keep more of my money without increasing customer demand and I will do just that - keep it. Perhaps I will spend a little more of it, though probably not, but even if I do it won't help the economy very much. Here is another secret of the well-to-do: we don't really buy much more stuff than everyone else. It may be more expensive stuff, sure, but I don't buy cars, or appliances, or furniture, or anything else more frequently than the average consumer. The things I do spend more money on are services such as travel, entertainment, restaurants and landscaping, none of which generate well-paying middle class jobs. There, in a nutshell, is the sad explanation of what has happened to the American economy over the last 25 years of "trickle down" economics."

"there is no question that the increasing income inequality in our society is a bad thing, in the short-term and the long-term, for both workers and for business. It is bad in every way and for everyone, with the sole exception of Wall Street itself."

"My family is from one of the poorest counties in the country, in rural Appalachia. My grandfather was a coal miner who left school after 5th grade to help support his impoverished family. My grandmother wasn't allowed to attend high school because according to her parents women didn't need an education. I never knew my father. My mother and I subsisted on food stamps for several years. I got my first job at 13, working as a bus boy for $2 an hour, and I have never been unemployed in the 37 years since. I worked my way through college, which I paid for myself. When I started my career I worked 60+ hour weeks every week for nearly 15 years before that effort began to pay off. I employ nearly 20 people, I have no debts, and I have no doubt that I have earned every penny I have."

"And yet, I am living proof of Elizabeth Warren's maxim that no one gets rich on their own. If not for the UMWA helping to secure a living wage for my grandfather, I would probably have had to leave school to help support my family, as he had done. If not for my grandmother's passionate belief in the value of the education she was denied I would never have aspired to go to college at all, and if not for my mother teaching me to love books, I would never have been able to succeed there. If not for my wife I would never have been inspired to work as hard as I did to see what I could become in life. How many smart, talented children don't have those positive influences? How many have exactly the opposite?"

"I understand too that but for food stamps, I would have gone hungry as a child, that but for public subsidies and federally guaranteed loans I could never have afforded college. I know that without the internet and airports, both of which were developed with federal taxes, I could not earn an income even close to what I make today. That all seems so obvious to me that I don't understand how anyone could question it, and those are just a few of the many reasons I am happy to pay my fair share of taxes, whatever that share maybe. Paying a lot of taxes just means you make a lot of money, and it is hard, frankly, to complain about that."

"Many of the [Tea Party] crowd seem quite proud of their Christian faith. I am not religious myself, but I am reasonably certain that Jesus would not respond to the poor and unemployed with shouts of "Get a job!""

I stopped reading after the" republicans pushed the world to the brink of ruin" over a debate on the debt ceiling. People actually believe that?

Yea, that's the real chuckler - he paid twice what Romney paid, and still far less than the average American. Am I supposed to give Santorum a medal for being slightly less shady than Romney?

Yea, that's the real chuckler - he paid twice what Romney paid, and still far less than the average American. Am I supposed to give Santorum a medal for being slightly less shady than Romney?

Ded, if you look at the irs site after all EFFECTIVE rates, not only Santorum but Romney also pays more than the average american. AFTER deductions most americans pay less than Romney as a percentage.

here's a solution Move!!!! Oh and dont forget to leave a forwarding address so the welfare check can follow. This country was built by people who came here to change their situation, if you really wanted to you could.... but that would require work, obviously something you avoid.

Just to bring some sanity to this discussion. The President just submitted his budget for 2012/13, where he proposes all the increases in taxes on the upper income levels he has been talking about for months, plus increases taxes on investment income (capital gains) to 30% -- and that budget will add over 10 years another $9Trillion in Federal Debt -- oh, and this budget he assumes a 4% increase in GDP -- a very rosy scenario. So he puts everything he wants in this budget and it increases our Federal Debt by 60%!

We should refine and simplify the tax code and truly eliminate many deductions, as it creates too much fraud where people game the system. However, that alone, nor will the proposed tax increases this President wants will fix our problem. In 20 years, the interest payments we must make on this debt will be $1Trillion per year. The budget he proposes for this year spends $3.8Trillion -- interest will kill our country.

We must fix and reign in entitlements -- Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid -- all of those programs assumed the person using them would only use them for a few years. With added life expectancy and expanding the number of people eligible for these programs (all well intentioned perhaps, but not affordable) oh, and much lower birth rates in America.......there are not enough people working to cover all these out of control entitlements -- all projected to almost double in spending in the next ten years.

By the way, last years budget submitted by this President was voted down 97-0 in the Senate....because it too added close to $9Trillion in debt over ten years.....one year later, with all the increased assumptions of higher taxes, this President submits another $9Trillion debt creating budget.

Tess, take into consideration that we all pay way more in additional taxes to the federal tax rate that applies to us. We pay taxes on anything we do or buy. Ever look at your phone bill and notice the various taxes on there? We are being taxed to death. Everybody wants a piece of the pie.

Maybe one day we'll hear about your multi-million dollar house in Great Falls, Virginia where your neighbors are Newt Blingrich and the other lobbying heavyweights.

We hear people say 50% or 45% or 67% or -- pick a number -- of the people pay NO taxes. Please, please, PLEASE --- somebody tell me how to do that. How do you NOT pay sales taxes, gasoline taxes, property taxes, hidden taxes -- how do you avoid all of that?? And -- that 50% or whatever number it is -- who is included in that? Is my 2 year old granddaughter part of that 50%? How about her 4 year old brother -- is he part of that 50% who pay NO taxes??

Hint, just because your income puts you in the 28% tax bracket doesn't mean you're paying 28% in income taxes. I usually end up paying around 11% in income taxes on my gross income even though I'm in the 28% bracket - and I pay more than most.

Getty, not only does his budget assume 4% GDP growth (we're at about 1.8) he also assumes over 20% revenue compared to GDP. We hit that one year out of the last thirty i believe. Historical average is 18% so i don't know why he uses that. Oh, wait yes i do.

So if you use a more realistic 3% and 18% revenue/GDP his budget probably adds more like 11 or 12 trillion to the debt. So around 2022 we would owe 26 or 27 trillion. Not possible to repay.

Even in his rosie outlook that won't happen his budget projects over 700 billion in spending deficits 10 years out in 2022. I can't imagine why anyone could get behind someone proposing something like this for our country.

It is curious that the American Right, which waxes nostalgic for the happier days of the 1950s when the United States was supposedly more moral and more united, ignores one of the central reasons behind that middle-class era: very high taxes on the rich.

Granted, some on the Right may love the Fifties because it was a time of racial segregation and second-class status for women. But what arguably made the era work was the fact that the US tax structure "disincentivized" greed by ensuring that excess wealth was mostly recycled back into the Treasury for use building the nation and supporting research and development.

During Dwight Eisenhower's presidency the top marginal tax rate - what the richest Americans paid on their top tranche of income - was around 90 percent. In the 1960s, under John F. Kennedy, that was lowered to around 70 percent, but that rate still meant the rich had a limited incentive to be greedy since they wouldn't get to keep most of their extra money.

All that changed with Ronald Reagan's presidency and his slashing of the top marginal tax rate by more than half (before it was adjusted upward slightly late in Reagan's years and then during Bill Clinton's presidency before being reduced again to 35 percent under George W. Bush).

Various tax loopholes and lower rates for capital gains also have let many of the richest Americans enjoy tax rates about only half of even those lower marginal income tax rates. Billionaire Warren Buffett has famously described paying a lower tax rate than his secretary, meaning that he and others in his category get to keep about 80 percent of what they make.

In other words, the American tax structure has been roughly turned on its head. From the rich paying between 70 and 90 percent on their top income, some now pay 20 percent or less, which means there is a much bigger incentive to be greedy.

Arguably, it was that incentivized greed - more than any of the social movements like civil rights for blacks and equal rights for women - that eradicated the rhapsodized Fifties and the middle-class culture that it represented in the nostalgic view of many Americans.

So, it's ironic that the defense of lower tax rates for the rich is at the heart of the Right's current political agenda. Some leading Republicans have even suggested that "tax reform" should impose at least some income tax on the poor and working class so the tax rates on the rich can be lowered even more.

It's ironic, too, that the core of today's economic crisis is that American bankers became so excessively greedy - spurred on by the prospects of "earning" bonuses in the tens of millions of dollars and keeping nearly all that money - that they blinded themselves to the risks from exotic financial products built on an unsustainable housing bubble.

If the tax rates had been kept at Eisenhower or Kennedy levels, not only would there have been plenty of money to keep the United States modern and strong but there likely would not have been the kind of financial crisis that, since 2008, has cost millions of jobs and required massive government borrowing to bail out the greedy bankers.

Thus, in a variety of ways, the Right's orthodoxy of low taxes on the rich (or the "job creators," as Republican wordsmiths prefer) has been a major driver in creating today's massive federal debt and in savaging the middle class.

All I can say is, "He has to be a better candidate for the Republican Party than that rich guy, Mitt Romney." At least he is closer to being able to identify with regualar Americans. Newt is a nonstarter. Ron Paul is a Libertarian, not a Republican. So, Republican Party, wake up! Santorum is the only real Republican in the race worth nominating. That doesn't mean he will win, but at least he will reflect the majority of genuine Republican ideals.

Sure is funny when you libs talk about people paying MILLIONS in federal taxes not paying their fair share when 48% of people pay NO federal taxed. How about you bums step up and start paying YOUR fair share...

P.S. If you don't think there were deductions in the 50's and 60's you are even more naive than your posts show. NOBODY paid 80-90% taxes! Did you know that credit card interest was once a deduction? Probably not....

"Many of the [Tea Party] crowd seem quite proud of their Christian faith. I am not religious myself, but I am reasonably certain that Jesus would not respond to the poor and unemployed with shouts of "Get a job!""

So how much did the rich guy pay in all Federal taxes? - Income tax is but one federal tax. Rich Guy has no freaking clue as to how much he paid in all federal taxes/Fees last year.

So how much did the middle class guy pay in all Federal taxes? - Income tax is but one federal tax. Middle class Guy has no freaking clue as to how much he paid in all federal taxes/Fees last year.

So how much did the poor guy pay in all Federal taxes? - Income tax is but one federal tax. Poor Guy has no freaking clue as to how much he paid in all federal taxes/Fees last year.

How much of the price of a product or service you buy is to cover the cost of taxes incurred by all those involved to produce it, ship it and sell it? No one knows!

No one can accurately account for their own wealth . That includes everyone here and all running the gooberments. Blind leading the blind is and has been the problem.

The Buffett compairson is wrong on 2 accounts. 1. you are comparing 2 different taxes, marginal rates vs. cap gains rates. 2. The numbers thrown out for the secretary are the top GRADUATED PRETAX RATE. After deductions if secretary makes 80k the EFFECTIVE rate is probably gonna be 10 - 12%.

Im also holding out for a definition of the quote "fair share". Im thinking its this years "hope and change" Im betting we are going to see campagian posters and bumper stickers saying "Fair Share" on them any day. By the way a "fair Share" changes depending on how radical left you are. Ive had a few left people I know (I live in Detroit) that anyone over $250k should pay 50% 1 mil 90% is that fair? I suspect this is the way it is in more cases than not.

It is curious that the American Right, which waxes nostalgic for the happier days of the 1950s when the United States was supposedly more moral and more united, ignores one of the central reasons behind that middle-class era: very high taxes on the rich.

Granted, some on the Right may love the Fifties because it was a time of racial segregation and second-class status for women. But what arguably made the era work was the fact that the US tax structure "disincentivized" greed by ensuring that excess wealth was mostly recycled back into the Treasury for use building the nation and supporting research and development.

During Dwight Eisenhower's presidency the top marginal tax rate - what the richest Americans paid on their top tranche of income - was around 90 percent. In the 1960s, under John F. Kennedy, that was lowered to around 70 percent, but that rate still meant the rich had a limited incentive to be greedy since they wouldn't get to keep most of their extra money.

All that changed with Ronald Reagan's presidency and his slashing of the top marginal tax rate by more than half (before it was adjusted upward slightly late in Reagan's years and then during Bill Clinton's presidency before being reduced again to 35 percent under George W. Bush).

Various tax loopholes and lower rates for capital gains also have let many of the richest Americans enjoy tax rates about only half of even those lower marginal income tax rates. Billionaire Warren Buffett has famously described paying a lower tax rate than his secretary, meaning that he and others in his category get to keep about 80 percent of what they make.

In other words, the American tax structure has been roughly turned on its head. From the rich paying between 70 and 90 percent on their top income, some now pay 20 percent or less, which means there is a much bigger incentive to be greedy.

Arguably, it was that incentivized greed - more than any of the social movements like civil rights for blacks and equal rights for women - that eradicated the rhapsodized Fifties and the middle-class culture that it represented in the nostalgic view of many Americans.

So, it's ironic that the defense of lower tax rates for the rich is at the heart of the Right's current political agenda. Some leading Republicans have even suggested that "tax reform" should impose at least some income tax on the poor and working class so the tax rates on the rich can be lowered even more.

It's ironic, too, that the core of today's economic crisis is that American bankers became so excessively greedy - spurred on by the prospects of "earning" bonuses in the tens of millions of dollars and keeping nearly all that money - that they blinded themselves to the risks from exotic financial products built on an unsustainable housing bubble.

If the tax rates had been kept at Eisenhower or Kennedy levels, not only would there have been plenty of money to keep the United States modern and strong but there likely would not have been the kind of financial crisis that, since 2008, has cost millions of jobs and required massive government borrowing to bail out the greedy bankers.

Thus, in a variety of ways, the Right's orthodoxy of low taxes on the rich (or the "job creators," as Republican wordsmiths prefer) has been a major driver in creating today's massive federal debt and in savaging the middle class.

This guy cracks me up! He throws up a diatribe from someone else that is so erroneous it looks like a bad joke and thinks others will just fall in line.

Does he actually believe that in 1958 millionaires actually paid 80-90% in taxes? That there were no deductions then? Actually there were far MORE deductions then than now! So I guess all those people were criminals too in his eyes.

TES-264... From what I've seen, very few people who talk about politics ad nauseum actually know much about how these systems, like taxes, work. You are exactly right. No one pays the top rate on every dollar they earn. The shortcoming is evident among supporters of both major parties, though (I noticed your jab against lefties). If that particular progressive tax rate aspect was better understood, more people would understand how we sustained a top rate over 90 percent at times.

I wish we were still there, as those higher rates forced people to act more conservatively in their business and financial dealings. With the JFK and then the Reagan massive drops in taxation rates, we've created a financial wild west, and we've got the bubble scars to prove it.

It's also funny to hear people defend to the death (rhetorically, of course) the varying proposals between today's major parties. A top rate change of 4 percentage points? Um, okay, that's significant. JFK dropped the top tax rate 30 points, and then Reagan dropped it another almost 30 points. Those were significant changes (and as I said, not for the better, in my view). Today's morons squabble over peanuts - a full throated, vein popping debate over insignificant shades of gray.

He's a hard core divisive social culture warrior, who also happens to be a profligate fiscal liberal... and panders at the very least towards that divisive class war junk too. He's one of the GOP big government moralists that want to meddle in all of your affairs and increase the size and scope of the governments ability to micro manage you.

Simplicity not sure why you had to repost the same thing. I like the next to the last paragraph that states tax policy caused, or could have prevented, the mortgage blowup of 2007-2008. How would a 70% tax rate kept underwriters from approving massive amounts of stated income loans, no documentation loans that defaulted at up to a 50% rate????

By doing his own taxes Santorum knows first hand what a mess the tax code is and when elected president I expect him to do something about it. I too like Rick Santorum don?t mind paying my fair of taxes but I did mind paying someone $700 to tell me what my fair share was.

Seymour61 and Really?-1739510 you two make very valid points and yet the Liberals won't answer your question what is enough. I am a Republican and I guess I'm one of those poor ones. Oh yeah I am not rich. I use to earn over 120k per year just before the recession. Then in 2009 I lost my job due to the Auto Industry taking a dive along with the Mortgage Industry. The two industries that truly are the two legs of this country's economy. More jobs are created through the Mortgage Industry and Auto Industry. I paid when I was earning 120k over 35% in taxes. I did pitch a fit that I was paying too much. Yet even after my deductions I was still paying 24% in taxes.

Now after two and half years of unemployment. I am now making a whopping 13k and actually qualify for Food Stamps. Was I better off three years ago. Yes I was and I am sick and tired of the whiners who claim to be these 99% poor people who keep on getting screwed by the rich. This is nothing more than a Failed President's attempt to take the heat off of his failed policies and don't go off that the Republicans in the House are stiff ling his attempts to pass a budget.

His budget was shot down by a then Democratic controlled Congress. Anyone with enough common sense can see all that occurred was a bunch of Political posturing. So Obama can keep on placing the blame on everyone else out there except himself.

Then he launches these so called "Truth Teams" which represent nothing more than WWII Germany's SS. Even Adolph Hitler had to determine what was truth and not. What makes me laugh each and every time. Is this very simple statement that my father always said to me as a boy growing up when I first lied and he gave me my one and only spanking. Always tell the truth. If you lie then you are liar, cheat and thief. The last words he left me with to ponder and I never forgot. The truth never has to be defended, only a lie has to be defended. Interesting that Obama has to launch "Truth Teams " to defend his version of the "Truth" which by my dad's words of wisdom must be lies if they need defending.

Paul M it is funny how people are so fired up over what they think tax policy changes will do. And it will cure all our ills, when in fact it would probably have little effect. Average revenue historically is 18% of GDP and rarely goes far from it no matter what the rates are.

A few people actually blame a 4.6% marginal rate drop for our mess. Reagan's drop was at one point 42 points, from 70% to 28% then back up. If that argument held up the 42 point drop would have decimated our economy.

Comes here telling everybody, "I'm an independent, " then pulls down his pants to show everybody his, "I love you Ronald Reagan" heart tattooed on his butt!

But no, that's not enough, then we get to watch him detail his thoughts on very expressive posts and replies. Thoughts that are as wise as they are insightful. Such as:

Then he goes around in an attempt, I guess, to flame threads except for one thing, he doesn't really flame nor does he add anything. Pretty much a commercial break I guess.

I just wish I could see his little victory dance when he does get the last post in a forum. I'm sure pizza and nipple clamps will be involved..yuck!

So you came on here to reply to a thread that have people obviously upset about how much Romney paid in taxes, and then offer-up some other people's tax returns to look up, which I may add is easy to do, as in some type of proof or evidence to your cause.

How about you go find out how much they paid and then you'll know why I look at your post as evidence that you are a complete idiot :)

1. Romney, whether or not he is a good presidential candidate, payed less taxes because of how he made his money and not because he keeps money in an off-shore account.

2. The 47% of wage earners not paying income taxes are not ALL poor and unable to afford paying. It's like the myth that Obama has laid out that everyone earning over $250,000 owns a private jet. He lumps those earning $250,000 in with the super weathy for convenience sake. Historically, the percentage of people not earning enough to pay taxes is around 28%. Far less than 47%. How did the extra 19% fall into this category? You might be tempted to say that it is because of the economy. However, they weren't paying income tax before the poo hit the fan. It's because of the Bush Tax cuts which were meant to increase consumer spending to prop up the economy. However, they were not repealed when the time came by our current encumbent and make up a considerable amount of current and projected future budget shortfalls.

So, Romney isn't a bad guy. We need to change the tax code on Capital Gains. We need the little guy to pay his fair share as much as we need the rich guy to pay his fair share. FYI, just did my taxes and local taxes are deductible from federal income tax - that and they don't contribute to Federal Funding - so they shouldn't be a part of the argument anyway. And no, payroll taxes don't count either since it's basically a Nationally Mandated Savings/Insurance program. In other words, those same 19% who don't pay taxes and can SHOULD (minus some bright ideas to raid the piggy bank) get paid back at least, if not more, than they put in over their lifetime.

Benjamin Franklin, who helped establish the tax system, said that no man should pay more taxes than he has to and that everyone should work diligently to pay the least amount possible.

Having said that, no one in his right mind pays the full tax rate. You always take full benefit of all possible deductions available to you. If not then you are stupid and deserve to pay the maximum.

My hats off to the politicans. They are finally getting it. The sore spot in this country is taxes. Oh yes, taxes. What's fair and whats not fair! Santorum chants: I paid more, I paid more, I paid more, I paid more and so on, what we need to do in this country is have it simple and straight forward. IF YOU EARN YOU PAY. If you make 3,000 dollars a year you should pay, at a minimum, 200.00 on that money. All income either recieved as wages earned or capital gains should be taxed the SAME. I would eliminate deductions alltogether. No deductions for anyone. No more loopholes and fancy tricks to lower your rate. If a politican earns a million a year then he should pay at least 350,000 on that money NOT 150,000 on that money.. ALL of those who earned at least a million a year OWE the government an estimated 200,000 to our government. And it's time our government COLLECTS.

Asimplicity: unfortunately you were OWNED by Really. Sorry dude and I am an independant and lean left. When you come on here to spout your beliefs you have to be able to respond with fact and reason, not retoric you heard on a radio show. You cant answer his question because the left basically believe this:

This by definition unifies the country. I believe in this theory as it is the utopian model. Why should I have a mansion when the poor starve? Conservatives do by definition agree with this but unfortuntately they dont believe the government can help by just throwing money at the problem. This is a factor of human intuition...give money to a human and he will take it.... not necessarily to better himself. I believe, and this is my independant and where i fall away from left, that you need to teach a man to fish rather than give him fish. Answer: We need to justify our taxes and where they go rather than simply TAX the RICH MORE! All that does is single out an individual class... a minority btw which moneys will not do from a dollar value. Question is how do we get the goverment to spend better ont he poor with better programs.

Remember when Clinton raised the tax on gas and said that money will pay down the debt. THey polled Americans who overwelmingly agreed to this tax! Conservs and Liberals! Point is, we need to both work out a plan to do both what we want.

Liberals are all agog at what the Republican candidates pay in taxes, yet their heroes the Kennedy's HAVE NEVER paid ANY taxes!!! They have their income held in a trust based in Fiji!

KILL the IRS and institute the Fair Tax. The "rich" spend more than everyone else, so they would pay more than everyone else. Plus with the prebate, the "poor" will be better off.

So we continue the downward spiral, bickering over who paid what, all the while whatever it was is not enough to cover the spending.

I will tell you why liberals care. We care because people like me, who made about $50,000 last year paid a total of about $14,500 last year, which is about 29% of my income, yet rich people like Mr. Romney pays about half of my percentage. I really don't get why republicans drool over the flat tax. Most rich people would get a hugh tax break, which is even more unfair. You said the Kennedys have never paid any taxes. I am 100% percent sure that is not true, and I'm not about to waste my time researching such an outrageous statement.

Buy a house, marry and have two kids. You too could be paying zero in income tax. If you're incensed about Romney, then you don't want to read a WSJ article last year where a Investment Broker was bragging that he made a little over $600k last year and only paid $6,000 in income tax.I agree, the flat tax is not the solution.

OH and I just have to say something about Newt Gingriches tax plan. As of now we are talking about the tax percentage that people pay. In Newt's plan, he would get rid of the capital gains tax. Now I don't know what percentage of Mitt Romneys income came from capital gains, but I know that a large percentage of it did. Could you imagine if people like mitt romney, who made 47 million dollars, were paying just a few dollars more than you. The conversation wouldn't even be about him paying a lower tax rate, it would be about him paying just a few more dollars in taxes than you, despite you make just the smallest fraction of what he makes. I don't know if Newt's plan has some remedy for this, but I don't want to live in a country where that is true.

Genius, I can't remember exact numbers; however, I believe, after deducting losses and tax credits, Romney's taxable wages were somewhere around $300k.

Flushing more money down the tax toilet is nothing to brag about. We already have a pres that doesnt know how to maximize bang-for-the-buck.

Sure is funny when you libs talk about people paying MILLIONS in federal taxes not paying their fair share when 48% of people pay NO federal taxed. How about you bums step up and start paying YOUR fair share...

What type of heartless deamon child are you. You want the poorest, and most disadvanted among us to pay taxes on their meager wages, while the top 10 percent, who control more than half of all money in the country continue to get lower taxes. You republicans are trully soulless.

I will tell you why liberals care. We care because people like me, who made about $50,000 last year paid a total of about $14,500 last year, which is about 29% of my income, yet rich people like Mr. Romney pays about half of my percentage. I really don't get why republicans drool over the flat tax. Most rich people would get a hugh tax break, which is even more unfair. You said the Kennedys have never paid any taxes. I am 100% percent sure that is not true, and I'm not about to waste my time researching such an outrageous statement.

Liberals always care about what somebody else has or doesn't have. Why not? They also believe they know better than us that which is best for us.

Do you think Mr. Obama paid more than he was legally required to? Or any other Liberal politician? Why are their tax rates not blasted across the news screens?

No Mr. Liberal, it is not about anything more than your perceived notion of "fairness." Liberals always want to guarantee success for some reason. Equal opportunity is never enough, equal results are also required.

Guess what Mr. Liberal. I made a little less than you did last year, but you know what, I did not pay ANY Federal income taxes. I took advantage of the available tax deductions and they were greater than my income, so I paid zero Federal taxes.

Is that "fair" to you? I don't care if it is or isn't. It is my business, not yours, but just to show you that everyone has different deductions and incomes. Mine is based on being self employed while I would guess that yours is based on a traditional paycheck. You get a W-2 and I get a 1099 at the end of the year.

As for the Kennedy Trust in Fiji? It exists. It was set up by Joe Kennedy in the 30's and there is estimated to be $600 million held there. Ted Kennedy was once asked if he felt guilty for not paying income taxes and his reply was "I give in other ways."

The part that I find most interesting is that Senator Santorum is not investing too much. If he was investing more his effective tax rate would be even lower (and that would put him on the path from being just a 1%er to a 0.1%er (or even a 0.01%er like Governor Romney).

If he's not investing, he may be putting money into savings (and getting a really low return) or he's spending everything he's taking in. Either way, niether of these show a real understanding of money. And yet some people expect him to tackle our national finances.

Sorry dude and I am an independant and lean left. When you come on here to spout your beliefs you have to be able to respond with fact and reason, not retoric you heard on a radio show. You cant answer his question because the left basically believe this: The fortunate need to give back from what they were able to achieve in this country.

Spoken like a true idiot. You do realize how stupid you look by saying you lean left and then finishing it off with that sentence don't you? I mean really. Do you not know how stupid you look and I'm doing you a big favor by pointing it out, or you do realize it and your fingers went ahead and typed it anyways?

The rest is the typical hub-bub about how, even though you are not rich, you speak for them and you can personally justify their actions with your personal stamp of approval. You do know they aren't going to pay you for this right? Poor guy...

A simpleton I will just go ahead and make you happy here and suggest a tax rate you will be happy with. From now on all people making over 1 million will pay 1000% and anyone under 1 million will pay 500% and Businesses will pay 1000000% this will insure that we can afford to pay everything that is in Obamas budget without the government going broke.

If you are a typical republican saying something like, "People should just die instead of getting help from the government," then you are not really worth this reply.

This is exactly what Obama wants you to believe about republicans. And because liberals are incapable of independent thought, they just believe it.

I've never met a republican that was opposed to using tax payer money to help someone who has done their best, but still needed help. What republicans are opposed to is this current system that has no oversite, and is abused by nearly everyone that uses it. There is no need to do your best. There's no need to do anything. Just sit back, and collect your Obama check.

The current welfare system does not work. There is no motivation to get off it. It is unsustainable. People on welfare just stay there, and when more people see that you don't have to work to get a check, more people go onto welfare. If we don't get Obama out of office this country will collapse.

Now the real comment. I'm so sick of these stupid people pointing out who paid a higher effective tax rate than who, as if it means something about the person paying the taxes. Everyone pays the taxes they are required to pay, and no more. Taxes on income from investments is about half the rate for typical pay roll taxes. Lots of rich people make their money from investments, so they pay a lower rate. There is no super secret special low tax rate for rich people.

The rest is the typical hub-bub about how, even though you are not rich, you speak for them and you can personally justify their actions with your personal stamp of approval. You do know they aren't going to pay you for this right? Poor guy...

Liberals always care about what somebody else has or doesn't have. Why not? They also believe they know better than us that which is best for us.

Let me change what is said. I will tell you why liberals care about making the tax code fairer. I realize that Mr. Romney paid what he was legally required to. You can't argue with Romney about that. However, we can use Mr. Romneys taxes as a testament as to why the tax code needs to be fairer.

Guess what Mr. Liberal. I made a little less than you did last year, but you know what, I did not pay ANY Federal income taxes. I took advantage of the available tax deductions and they were greater than my income, so I paid zero Federal taxes.

We can also use you as a testament to why the tax code needs to be fairer. Doesn't that mean that you are one of the lazy bastards not paying any taxes that republicans hate. Before you turn around and shout that the poor people not paying any taxes need to pony up some money for the government, how about you evalutate your own circumstances, and practice what you preach.

We can also use you as a testament to why the tax code needs to be fairer. Doesn't that mean that you are one of the lazy bastards not paying any taxes that republicans hate. Before you turn around and shout that the poor people not paying any taxes need to pony up some money for the government, how about you evalutate your own circumstances, and practice what you preach.

Worrying about what someone else pays or does not pay in taxes is the realm of the Liberal, for the rest of us we just don't care as long as no laws were broken. To us, that is "fair."

As for "lazy," I work for myself, not for anyone else. When I feel that I have worked enough for one day, I stop. I am independent by choice and am beholden to no man. More of us should be that way.

Both of these guys ( Romney and Santorum) paid what they owed to the fed. The question remains is the tax code fair (whatever that means). I have a solution both the poor and the wealthy pay the same tax rate and the middle class pays the lowest rate. This is good because our President wants everyone to have "skin in the game". A minimum federal tax that is a specific dollar amount is due to the fed from the poor, there are NO deductions of any kind and each income group has a specific amount to pay. Everybody is in and no one is left out. The reasoning is this the poor use the most social services provided and we want to incentivize their movement to higher income levels.

Try this out for size. I am a Republican, one of the right-wing Christians the left hate so much. I am also a lawyer. I am NOT a rich lawyer, I barely get by, I only made $8,000 in 2011. I paid $950 approximately in self-employment tax, and got a EIC refund from the IRS for $1500. Therefore, my tax rate is less than zero, because I got money back. As a married man with two dependents (two children are grown, will soon lose this last little tax deduction as well) I get to deduct $11,600 from my income before I pay any taxes, plus an additional $3,700 for each of us, that means that before I owe a penny on wages, I would have to earn more than $22,700. If I earn even into the $30,000 range, I can get a refund or deduction from my taxes out of the Earned Income Table. At what point then, do I begin paying taxes? Somewhere around the $35,000 range. The most I ever earned in wages was $25,000 my last year in the military, but I had another $15,000 or so in untaxable benefits (housing, medical care, etc).

Personal income taxes have only been around for 100 years. We actually could eliminate them entirely, and go back to the taxation formulation that paid for this nation during its first 140 years of existence. Of course, we would have to eliminate the welfare state that has developed through Democratic policies, and from which I, myself, have benefitted.

I do not believe our federal government should be involved in the welfare aspect, I believe that belongs at the charitable level of the local church and individuals. Would I be worse off? Probably. I do receive food stamps at the moment, and they are a real help. My brother, who is a minister, and has a very low income also, refuses food stamps and other government assistance, because he feels it is morally wrong. I do too, but I admit I am not as morally upright as my brother.

I suspect it will be several years more before I actually pay any income tax again, my self-employment tax is social security tax, which I pay at the rate of about 15%, and a wage earner pays about the rate of 6.7%, with his employer paying the rest of it. Yes, your high paid employer is paying half of your social security tax, on top of any corporate taxes.

So, go ahead and dump on me. Include me in your rants against Republicans and Christians, because I am both. And I am poor, and on food stamps, my wife is chronically and permanently disabled, and I don't have health insurance, and I had to file bankruptcy a year ago, and I still believe the government is meddling where it should not meddle, and folks earning more than $1 million do pay more than their fair share in taxes. Oh, yeah. I am also a gun owner and carry concealed, even into my favorite Walmart store. And my newest vehicle is 12 years old. And, I believe the Occupy people are idiots.

Hey Genius do yourself a favor and Google " Do The Kennedy's Pay Taxes?". Guess what Genius? They don't pay taxes at all bright guy. In fact even upon Ted Kennedy's death he was given special dispensation on his estate taxes. Guess what? He paid zero on his estate upon his death, just like his family members before him. His mother before her death even changed her residence from the State of MA. to the state of FL where there are zero estate taxes. So it looks like even the Lions and Lioness's of Liberalism didn't believe in paying taxes either. Let's just agree on this one point. No One Likes paying taxes. So get over it already. It's interesting the Royal Family of Mass. elected to tax its citizens more and more. Yet elected to not pay themselves.

Got sick of everyone saying how high their tax rate is so I've got some numbers. Please keep in mind, you may be in a certain income tax bracket, but likely pay a lower tax % due to deductions and rebates.

For 2008 (as reported by the IRS and calculated by Forbes) are the average EFFECTIVE individual income tax rates, as a percentage of adjusted gross income, for various income groups.

The top earners I'm guessing have mostly investment income which is currently taxed at 15% Please keep in mind that this investment monies goes to funding business processes. Without this money many business couldn't grow or employ people. If that 15% tax rate is raised then some of those investments could mean a negative or 0 return so people WILL (not might) take those investments out.

If you seriously are paying a higher percentage than what's above then you either need to see a tax expert for some advice or you don't have any kids or other deductions. Tax advice may cost $50 -$200, find someone local and if they save you $1000 on your taxes then it was worth it.

Both of these guys paid exactly what the law required; how many of you crowing libs paid extra taxes because the government needs your money so badly for all of those poor struggling Americans?

He still only paid 28% on an income of over $900,000.....if the highest tax rate is supposed to be 35%, who is paying that, I wonder????

You only pay the higher tax rate on that income that gets you into that bracket... so averaging down to 28% makes sense. Check out your own taxes and see if it doesn't work out.

I am surprised that Santorum doesn't have more investment income. That would drive his tax rate lower and with an income of$900,000, why isn't he in the stock market?

I am with you all the way, the freeloaders and the liberals all want the rest of us to "pay more". But how much? The fair tax is a great plan and there has already been $20Million in research invested. The argument also goes back to the dept ceiling, how much should that be $30T? $50T? $100Trillion? I think the country deserves straight talk and not name calling and other slander.

These are called "facts". There isn't one ounce of red meat in this article. Now I'm sure you've watched FOX news or been to their website, right? Their site is full of the "sh!t stirring" you reference.

I have a general question for all the Fox news haters out there. Do you hate Fox news because it is the only network not bought and paid for by the liberal Democrat agenda? (Yes/No)

Be intellectually honest for one second! MSNBC, CNN, NBC, CBS, HLN, ESPN, all have a liberal bias. You cannot argue with the fact that sports media has a liberal bias.

Stop your whining about so-called liberals wanting you to pay more taxes. The FACTS are that all anyone wants is to try to make up SOME of the $500 Billion in lost tax revenue your economy has provided us by "restoring" a tax rate on the rich that is 3.6% higher.

What that means to the rich is that they would have to pay a whopping $360 more on a $100,000 project that has a 10% ROI. It's nothing to them. It gets lost in the mix. It's a cheap lunch. It's bull@!$%#.

And the discussion about raising the 15% investment income rate back up to some reasonable number has been with us for years, has been suggested by Republicans, and has been much higher in the past.

So the Government actually got more money to piss away when the tax was lowered. Or maybe you will like this better, the Government got more money to help the poor.

So what the libs are saying is they don't really give a flying "F" about the poor they only want to punish the people that make more than them.

When PBO was asked on the campaign trail in 2008 about raising the Capital Gains tax even though it had been proven that the Government collected more when it was lower he said it was more about fairness than Revenues!

While the candidate acknowledged his success, Santorum was quick to point out that he has two children in college, a special needs child and a home that has lost 40 percent of its value.

I get a laugh when the right-wingers all say Democrats are using class warfare, and in the same sentence say, there are 47% who need to pay taxes. The fact is that those people make so little (or live entirely on Social Security) that they don't owe any income tax, but they still pay social security and medicare tax (7.65%) - if they have wages, property taxes, and sales tax. Also, since Social Security tax is only charged on wages up to $106,800, those making wages above that start to pay a lower and lower percentage of their wages as the wages go up.

The 51 percent figure is an anomaly that reflects the unique circumstances of 2009, when the recession greatly swelled the number of Americans with low incomes and when temporary tax cuts created by the 2009 Recovery Act ? including the ?Making Work Pay? tax credit and an exclusion from tax of the first $2,400 in unemployment benefits ? were in effect. Together, these developments removed millions of Americans from the federal income tax rolls. Both of these temporary tax measures have since expired.

If you're referring to my comment about raising the 15% investment income tax rate, I didn't say whether I was for or against it. I was just stating that raising that rate will mean less money for investing in businesses.

Sure the government gets more taxes and everyone feels cozy cuz we stuck it to the rich by make them paying higher taxes, but that means less money for entrepreneurs to grow their businesses in the private industry. It has good and bad to it.

Also if you have a job anybody with some intelligence knows you paid in 2011 and will pay in 2012 5.2 in SSI and Medicare, and whatever you state tax happens to be.

Nate, i looked back 30 years at 4 cap gains changes. The one time it went up, in 1987 from 20 to 28%, tax revenues were LOWER for the next decade than the amount collected in 1986. So when i see people say "revenue" (tax increase) it doesn't always mean more revenue to the govt to raise taxes. One doesn't have to theorize, its there in history to see. And all 3 lowered of rates INCREASED revenue. From the bureau of labor statistics numbers.

He raises cap gains to 30% and there won't be a dime of my money in the market. Watch what the market does. All my extra money goes into rentals and real estate principal until it changes back.

It's pretty clear that there's no chance of ever getting people to understand the difference between a marginal tax rate and an effective tax rate. At that income level both Romney's and Santorum's marginal rate would be the same. Their effective rate is different due to the screwiness of the tax laws. There is no way that the average American comes anywhere close to a 28% effective tax rate. I made over 90K this year and my effective tax rate is actually -1.0%. Why? Those screwy tax laws an the Bush tax cuts (and my 5 kids.) Yes the federal government is going to send me a refund check that is bigger than the sum I paid in withholdings last year.

I'm getting tired of correcting the spin on this issue. That 47% of people not paying income tax is the percentage of wage earners - so, yes they do have wages. And, no, those aren't people living soley on Social Security as they wouldn't have wages. There are roughly 19% of them that are single and make over $32,000 or are married with kids and make around $50,000. I have nothing against the roughly 28% of the population that has historically not paid income tax. And, would people please quit with the Social Security/Medi-care payroll arguement? These are, as I've pointed out earlier, Federally mandated Savings/Insurance programs which SHOULD pay back most, if not more, money to these very same people as they put into it. That money shouldn't be going to fund the Operations of our Federal Government. Which, is really what we are talking about here.

Really "Does he actually believe that in 1958 millionaires actually paid 80-90% in taxes? That there were no deductions then? Actually there were far MORE deductions then than now! So I guess all those people were criminals too in his eyes.

back when top tier taxes were above 70%-90% (prior to reagan) - millionaires were taxed at the higher rate AFTER THEIR FIRST MILLION. no deductions on the 2nd million and up...

the first million followed the standard tax code of the time (including deductions)...once you hit $1,000,0001 every DOLLAR AFTER THAT FIRST MILLION gets taxed at 90%.

Im curious, from the 40's through the 70's...were we not interested in working, building our nation up and investing in our businesses and people? Did everyone just get lazy and sit on their butts because they couldnt keep every dollar their earned after their first million?

It is true that some people, after earning their first million would just do anymore work...but that doesnt mean the work they were doing to make that money, went undone. Nope, someone just stepped into their spot, and made that money themselves. Ironically, there werent CEO's making 300x what their lowest employee made...and we actually had a robust middle class, with awesome spending power.

Now, todays million doesnt compare to 1950's million...so as such, I would say adjust for inflation and whatever that number is (say 10 million)

to me, thats a fair share...that means our govt can take that money and put people to work...if the JOB CREATORS refuse to do so - as they currently are refusing to do so, otherwise people would have jobs and would be paying more in taxes, so the rich didnt have to pay it all.

The reason the rich are currently paying MORE than the rest of us is simple math - they have 93% of the wealth...it's pretty damn hard for 90% of us to pay MORE when we have collectively 7% of this nations wealth.

Because the tax code is skewed to the favor of the wealthy, I know of no one who actually pays the full 35% of their total income. They find, generally, honest ways around it. I have a niece who has a good "office cleaning business" She allowed me to look at her 2010 tax returns. She ended up paying just over 29% of her adjusted income in federal taxes, and a relatively small amount of state taxes. Those who work for relatively good wages are the ones who really get it socked to them. They have no wiggle room with which to avoid getting hit much harder than those more wealthy. The code needs to be changed and people of wealth, especially earning 250,000.00 or more, net per annum should progressively be assessed at higher rates. Nothing wrong with someone earning 25 million paying 40% in taxes. Additionally, this would make for a much better and healthier wealthy class, and in fact, a positive for the country and all classes. This can be done with reasonable people, and to their satisfaction. Can't do anything though, with rabid hogs.

Getty, You hit it on the head! It's these ridiculous so called budgets that are breaking us, not that the rich are paying to little! We all need to pay less, the amount of money that is brought in is unbelievable, and the amount wasted makes Me want to vomit! If We don't get the spending under control, We are done, finished, through, over and out!

Good point. Although, I don't think it's one for one; since, those Capital Gains are being taxed because someone cashed in an investment or made money from their business. Now, they may or may not turn that around into another investment or invest it right back into their business. Or, they could buy something with it. An additional thought is that a higher Capital Gains won't stop investment in companies, it will just reduce the amount of Capital available to those small businesses, corporations, and start ups. I say this because even at 20%, you'd still invest your money because the return would be significantly higher than putting your money into something less risky like a savings account, money market, or bond. I think when you look at the marginal effect of increasing Captial Gains tax and the marginal effect of the growing National Debt, I'd be willing to take the risk of slowing down the development of new business to get this Nation squared away. However, only if there is an equal focus on cutting back on Government inefficiencies.

Really? the poor basically pay no federal income tax and the people working pay the rest, how is that skewed to the favor the wealthy?

How Taxes Work . . . the story of ten men going out to dinner representing how our tax system in the U.S. works... and why its not smart to continually overtax the rich?

Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand. Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner. The bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men ? the poorest ? would pay nothing; the fifth would pay $1, the sixth would pay $3, the seventh $7, the eighth $12, the ninth $18, and the tenth man ? the richest ? would pay $59.

That's what they decided to do. The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement ? until one day, the owner threw them a curve (in tax language a tax cut).

"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20." So now dinner for the ten only cost $80.00.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But what about the other six ? the paying customers? How could they divvy up the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his "fair share?"

The six men realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, Then the fifth man and the sixth man would end up being PAID to eat their meal. So the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so the fifth man paid nothing, the sixth pitched in $2, the seventh paid $5, the eighth paid $9, the ninth paid $12, leaving the tenth man with a bill of $52 instead of his earlier $59. Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free.

But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man who pointed to the tenth. "But he got $7!"

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man, "I only saved a dollar, too . . . It's unfair that he got seven times more than me!".

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night he didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered, a little late what was very important. They were FIFTY-TWO DOLLARS short of paying the bill! Imagine that!

The American public has an issue with Romney because of his tax rate, and the fact that Romney himself sent an army of lobbyists to ensure he gets the rate he wants.

You, however, are a different story. The American public does not like you because: (1) You are actively trying to restrict the rights of women, take away their freedoms, and force them to do what YOU think they should do. (2) You actively try to limit and restrict the freedoms of homosexuals, heterosexuals who do not want children, and anyone who does not follow YOUR religion. (3) You brought a dead baby carcass home for your children to play with... in other words, you are a psycho. That type of behavior is one step away from saying, "it puts the lotion on the skin or else it gets the hose again." Seriously, you are a psychopath... the definition on Google does not even begin to describe what you truly are.

Romney's tax rate is based on Capital Gains Taxes, as all his income is made through investments, not working a regular job. Capital Gains taxes top out at 15%. So 13.9% is pretty close to the top of that tax bracket.

Santorum's money came from actually earning income through jobs and other means. Not just from investments. Therefore his income tax rate should be higher.

It is not that these people don't pay enough, it is the fact that there are too many loopholes and deductions in the tax code. It needs to be simplier.

As for Genius--dude, if you paid $14K in taxes on $50K, you need to go to turbotax and get them to do your taxes. Because dawg--you are not doing them correctly.

And Simple--When are you going to answer the question--What is their "fair share"? Heck, I would like any of you that think that someone doesn't pay their "fair share" to answer--not with media matters or politico cut and paste--but a real number or percentage. Because we want everyone to pay their "FAIR SHARE"

joel, you are correct deficits are much more spending driven than tax driven. there is a finite amount of funds we can collect. There isn't a chance in hades we could collect the amount BO proposes to spend in his budget.

Assuming his ROSIE 4% growth and 20%revenue/GDP (won't happen) and he gets his extra 150 billion/year we have a 1.15 Trillion deficit instead of a 1.3Trillion deficit. Then what?

"a higher Capital Gains won't stop investment in companies, it will just reduce the amount of Capital available to those small businesses, corporations, and start ups."

And I haven't looked at the numbers, but others are saying that the higher rate brings in less tax revenue than the lower rate. I need to research the numbers...one day...to verify that.

Rick Scumtorum is a man of family values "When Pigs Fly" Rick took his wife's dead fetus home from the hospital to pass around for eight hours dancing and singing so everybody could say their goodbyes. The hospital staff was very upset over this and called law enforcement on rick. The police went to his home and removed the dead fetus and took it back to the hospital. The hospital staff got very nervous and said this was a weird act. The police dept., said the guy looked like a looney and he was acting like a nut, you know crazy like. Its scary this guy is running for President of the United States of America. What is happening to our Country ? God help America.

First, only the income tax is progressive, meaning the the wealthy pay more. The payroll and sales tax are regressive, meaning the poor pay less. Second, your example ONLY focuses on income tax because you know that payroll and sales tax rates do not support your stance, so you hope no one notices that you left them out.

Example: A rich man is supposed to pay 35% of his income in tax (although they all pay much less). While a poor man pays around 15%. Thus... the rich pay more. Insert Republican chants to kill the poor here.

However, you leave out one very important detail. In your $100 dinner example, you pay a SALES tax... NOT INCOME. So let's make this easy, there is a 10% sales tax on the dinner, so you pay $10.

So... as you can clearly see, a rich man is supposed to pay more in progressive income taxes (although Romney proves that is not what happens), but a poor man pays much MUCH more of a percentage in regressive taxes, like sales tax.

Your pathetic little story leaves out the very important TRUTH that there is more than one type of tax paid in our country. Of course, the truth would just prove you are incorrect in your belief, so like a good little Republican you are just going to ignore that.

Big ATC "Nate, i looked back 30 years at 4 cap gains changes. The one time it went up, in 1987 from 20 to 28%, tax revenues were LOWER for the next decade than the amount collected in 1986."

What source are you using? Because your facts are flat out wrong - just on the cap gains changes, and how many times it went up (versus down) you are wrong.

if you go to that link, you'll find corresponding taxes paid (in millions) to the years the rates went up or down...you'll note...it doesnt follow your pattern. Some years it goes up (money paid) and some years it goes down...and the rate, doesnt really seem to have much to do it with.

you'll also see how much revenue was captured RIGHT BEFORE THE DOTCOM BUBBLE heading out of the 90's into the 2000's...and how the years following that, despite rates going down...revenues kept going down.

Rick's wife had a six and a half year affair with a abortion doctor and they have the balls to call birth control a evil act. Rick Scumtorum is a religious extremists and most think his wife is scared of him when it comes birth control, in a way l feed bad for her. Its sad we have nuts like rick in this Country.

Really? The tax tables are geared so that if you don't invest or are not generous, you pay through the nose in taxes. Sounds pretty fair to me.

Actually I was merely commenting on the absolutely HORRIBLE examples that the GOP constantly uses to try and explain taxes. I swear, it's like watching retarded monkeys.

If they are not comparing national spending to personal household spending, which is completely different for a myriad or reasons... then they are focusing on federal taxes to demonize the poor, while ignoring the blatantly obvious TRUTH that the poor pay MORE in other taxes.

Basically, your debate strategy is to focus on ONLY the aspects that support your stance, instead of looking at the whole. So you focus on federal taxes and demonize the poor... well let's follow your lead and start focusing on SALES TAX ONLY, then let's see who pays more. But, of course, if someone brings that up you suddenly shift and don't want to talk about those.

Jessica the revenue numbers you last put up are INDIVIDUAL INCOME revenue, not cap gains. Go back up to your first link and look under TOTAL REALIZED CAP GAINS.

Indie - "Your pathetic little story leaves out the very important TRUTH that there is more than one type of tax paid in our country. Of course, the truth would just prove you are incorrect in your belief, so like a good little Republican you are just going to ignore that."

I personally would get rid of all income tax (not sure how anybody thinks its fair for the Government to take any of the money I EARNED and piss it away and then have the balls to say I owe more because they overspent what they already took from me) and replace it with some sort of consumption tax, this gives the people to choice how much tax they want to pay.

But of course you don't mean that, you mean they pay a higher percentage of their income, but that is by choice, you don't have to own property, you don't have to buy goods with taxes.

See, there you go... you first complain that the rich pay a higher PERCENTAGE in income tax. Then you turn around and ignore the percentage for sales tax, gas tax, whatever... and focus on the dollar amount, saying everyone pays the same.

If all taxes were only based on the dollar amount, not a percentage of income, then the rich would pay almost nothing... probably 0.00001% of their income. While the poor would pay 10%, 20%, maybe 30% of their income... leaving them with much less for food, shelter, and necessities. And then you call that fair.

Consumption tax is regressive, meaning the poor pay MUCH MORE of their income in taxes. Income is progressive, meaning the rich are supposed to pay more (even though they don't).

So you don't think it's "fair" that the government takes a higher percentage of the money that you earn, but you do think it's "fair" for the government to take a high percentage of the money the poor earn? So in your world, "fair" means that you get a break while you get to f*** over the little guy. Let me guess, I bet you claim to be a "Christian" too. How very moral of your.

Indie, i have never demonized poor people and never will. I don't demonize the rich either. I don't demonize anyone as i wasn't raised that way.

Would be difficult to be progressive sales tax wise. How does the clerk you hand a 20 to for gas know your bracket. Or you put a credit card in and the pump computes your coming up bracket?

We paid almost No sales tax in 2011, excluding gas, we bought just about everything used, either at Garage sales or Craigs list, we canceled our cable dropped our data plan on our phones, dropped our home phone and internet (we live blocks away from the library).

So the "Poor" not sure what that means, aren't paying 30% of there income in taxes unless they choose to. Anything after State and Federal tax is a choice (SSI and medicare are basically savings plan for their future and really can't be counted as a tax unless they plan on never taking any of the money out)

You want to keep all of your money and not pay any taxes. Okay. Do you use the roads, highways, freeways and bridges in this country? Ah, I see that you own your own business that relies quite heavily on these roads, etc. Just how successful would your business be without them?

What about the military who fight for this country? I guess they are suppose to sacrafice their lives just out of the goodness of their hearts, starve on the battlefield or where-ever, and leave their loved ones to struggle financially without them. And, how are you going to pay for the ships, planes and wepons they use? I guess you expect the companies who provide them to do so out of the goodness of their hearts.

I won't ask about public schools because you would probably home school. Or if you have a lot of money you can pay for private schooling. Well, most of the people in this country can't afford that and many of them have both parents working when they can get jobs. So you would rather have millions of uneducated children. One way to get cheaper labor I suppose.

FYI - if you make 20,000 and file single with only the standard deduction, you would be taxed approx $1672, take out SSI and Medicare approx $900, and state tax of 5.35%, you would have around $16,500 left, if you spend the the rest of that money on completely taxable items at 10% you couldn't possibly be taxed at 30% of your income.

"I won't ask about public schools because you would probably home school. Or if you have a lot of money you can pay for private schooling. Well, most of the people in this country can't afford that and many of them have both parents working when they can get jobs."

Are you saying that as a country that continues to spend a trillion more than we take in, that we can continue to fund schools at the rate we are?

Ok fine... you are the index finger. I am going to draw an angry face on the index finger because you are Republican and you hate the poor, we will also draw a gun because... well, obvious reasons. "Grrrrr... f*** those poor pieces of s***."

Now on the middle finger we are going to draw a sad face, because he is a poor man that can barely feed his family. We will also draw food because that's all he focuses on.

Ok, we have our puppets. Both fingers go down to the store (walk, walk, walk). Both fingers buy the same pants, because regardless of income you can not walk around naked. Both fingers pay for pants (cha-ching), and both pay sales tax of $5.

Both paid the same for a necessity, both paid the same sales tax. However, product price is static... non-progressive or regressive. So let's look at how much of their income was paid in sales tax.

The rich finger makes a million each year, so his sales tax was only 0.0005% of his total income. Well that's basically nothing, he won't even notice it. Rich finger goes away happy, knowing that as a PERCENTAGE he paid almost nothing.

The poor finger makes a thousand each year, so his sales tax was 0.5% of his total income. Well that is significantly MORE than the percentage the rich man paid. Now the poor finger finds it more difficult to pay for other necessities, like food and shelter. Because there is a set "cost of living" threshold, the poor man paid more taxes... as a percentage... to maintain the basic cost of living.

The poor finger then goes home, and see's BigATC and the rest of the Republicans blaming him for their problems, yelling at him, demonizing him, and demanding that he pay more... even though he just paid a higher percentage than the people who hate him. This makes the poor middle finger sad... can you see how sad he is? Here, look at my middle finger... do you see the sad face?

I hope this finger puppet example has helped you understand the tax problem, and the way each class is taxed for different taxes. Tune-in next week for finger puppet theater, where we discuss the GOP definition of "freedom"... spoiler alert: The GOP thinks freedom means that they get full control over women's reproduction and health choices.

Why does that poor person think he deserves the same pants as the Rich person? Maybe what that poor person should do is ask the Rick person if he can buy his old pants, and ask the Rich person what he did to get Rich?

Those numbers were a general example of moving to a fixed dollar amount tax (consumption tax), not based on income. So if everyone paid the same dollar amount, the percentage would change for everyone's income. They were examples, because I can't go through and calculate it for everyone in the country.

If you wanted everyone to pay the same dollar amount, the "fair" amount, then you would obviously see a different percentage between poor and rich. So let's say you wanted to be "fair" and make everyone pay $200 annually, based on necessities like clothing (so you don't get arrested for being naked, food, maybe water, etc.)... that would be in the ten-digit % (ex: 20%) for a poor person and 0.000whatever % (ex: 0.00001%) for a rich person, depending on income.

It was a statement regarding your "consumption tax" which would end up being a fixed tax based on product price. So product A at $X would have a fixed tax price for EVERYBODY... thus leading to the example above. They were EXAMPLES to make a point.

Why do you assume the "rich" are buying more expensive pants? I'm considered upper-call, income wise, and I don't. No one thinks the "deserve" it... Jesus Christ, turn off Fox News for one God Damn minute.

I buy the same damn milk as poor people, the same bread. In fact, I pay less than poor people for clothes because of certain business connections that get me deals.

What is with this stupid assumption that the "rich" lead extravagant, expensive lives? Not every rich person is Kim f***ing Kardashian.

your 2.132 post said NOTHING about percentages, which i was referring to. I knew what you meant which is why i said it was a mis statement. But i do appreciate you trying to slow things down for me with finger puppets.

That baloney about half of all Americans not paying federal taxes doesn't take into account payroll deductions for Social Security and Medicare. If you add that to federal inco0me tax, here's what you get, using the effective tax rates posted by a Viner above:

For some reason you keep saying the rich and poor will spend the same amount. But if a poor person only has a few thousand or even hundreds of dollars of disposable income, they are only going to pay taxes on the money they spend and they get to KEEP ALL the money earn.

Now if a Rich person (which I really don't even know what that means) has tens of thousands of dollars or move of disposable income they will spend more, save more or invest more. Thus paying more in taxes.

Plus you keep bringing up food and clothes and at least in MN nobody pays taxes on either of those two things. (If the food is prepared for you, you do pay taxes but nobody requires you to those places to get food)

I suppose you think your response to Tom's little story was brilliant. Sorry, it was pathetic. We don't have federal sales taxes. We do, however (as you correctly noted) have other taxes, like payroll taxes, at the federal level. These are not, however, regressive. They are proportional. But you miss the much larger point as well...In the income tax allegory the other people paying less than their $10 bill--and some pay nothing--they are getting the use of the wealthier friends' money. But in the case of FICA, they are paying into a system which ostensibly will pay them back with their own money.

You could have an argument regarding excise taxes, like fuel taxes, or maybe even communications related taxes. The former could be costly for the average American, but the latter isn't likely that big of a hit, and for most people they don't think about it much. There are solutions to our problem, and on this I don't agree with Tom that we should have a consumption based taxed.

All taxes are taxes on income whether we pay when the income is earned or when it is spent. To me the simplest tax of all would be a flat income tax. I would even allow you liberals to pick the rate. So say we did away with all federal taxes, even FICA, and replaced everything with a single flat tax on income. One return per wage earner, one deduction per wage earner so as to keep some form of progressivity so you don't wet your panties, and simply allow capital gains taxes to be indexed for inflation. End all federal business taxes too--see, you pay those taxes anyhow, so why don't we just cut out the middleman.

At whatever rate you pick to tax income, whether it's 20% or 40% or more, or anything in between or even lower, most Americans would be shocked to see their actual tax bill for the government they elected and supported. Genius, above (who is anything but) says that on $50k he paid a tax rate of 29%. It's a lie, of course, but if he is truly upset about what he thinks his rate was, just wait until he sees his actual tax rate if things were simplified. In order to balance the budget Mr. Obama has submitted we would have to take from personal income in this country right about 40% just at the federal level. And since many people, due to a deduction like I mentioned so that your panties don't get in a knot, won't be paying anything, for many people the rate would exceed 50%.

Just one question...Do you think most Americans would continue to vote for more government, for more liberals who promise more government, if they had any inkling that their actual effective aggregate rate when all taxation costs at the federal level are combined would be at or above 40%?

And this is why the left will never agree to simplicity. The people cannot be allowed to know with certainty their actual tax bite. There aren't enough lanterns and pitchforks to go around.

Someone long ago showed if all grocery items were taxed we would balance the budget within 5 years.I can't remember when and who showed this idea...anyone else remember this guy and the charts he used to prove his idea?

Using those numbers it looks to me like the big breaks to the upper middle class and the ultra-wealthy, and Social Security and Medicare can EASILY be saved if the rich just start paying their fair share. They wouldn't BE rich without the talents of the rest of America.

Seeing as how the poor spend the majority, if not all, of their income on "cost of living" expenses, all of their non-taxed income is applied to regressive taxes... so they pay.

Seeing as how the rich spend very little of their total income on "cost of living" expenses, very little of their income taxed money is applied to regressive taxes.

BOTH are paying taxes on their total income, just in different ways. That is what bugs me about Republicans stating that the poor do not pay taxes... they do, just in different buckets. But don't fool yourself, the poor spend ALL of their money on "cost of living" expenses, and that is all taxed.

Rich, I prefer you idea to a consumption tax (because I don't trust the Government from raising it every time they want to buy an election) but as you pointed out it would never pass, imagine how the left would freak if people went from paying no federal income tax to if 15% even if at the end of the year they took home more money than then the current system.

As long as close to 50% don't pay FEDERAL INCOME taxes you can get elected by promising to take more from the other group of people.

Just one question...Do you think most Americans would continue to vote for more government, for more liberals who promise more government if they had any inkling that their actual effective aggregate rate when all taxation costs at the federal level are combined would be at or above 40%?

As opposed to Republicans who promise more government in our bedrooms, in our marriage, in our bodies, in our sex lives, in our religious lives?

If paying slightly more in taxes means that I can keep my freedom... my freedom from some piece of s*** telling me I can't buy a f***ing condom... my freedom from some piece of s*** telling me what I am allowed to do in my own God Damn bedroom... my freedom from some self-righteous a-hole telling my gf what she can do with her own God Damn body... my freedom from some Christian taliban f*** telling me what religion I need to follow... my freedom from some hollier-than-though douche bag telling me who I am allowed to marry... my freedom from some "family values" group telling me what I am allowed to see on TV... my freedom to live my personal life without some right-wing fascist telling me what to do.

Is that what you are asking me? Are you asking if I am willing to vote for someone who will raise my taxes, if that means these f***ing religious pieces of s*** will stay out of my life and mind their own God Damn business? Is that your question? Because if it is, the answer is YES... a million times YES.

You want to know how to get me, and millions of other people to vote Republican again? Huh... do you, champ? Tell the piece of s***, religious f***s in your party to MIND THEIR OWN GOD DAMN BUSINESS. Stay the f*** out of our lives. Do that, and maybe we can talk about "small government". Hell, if you do that, I might even vote Republican again.

Since it's far too easy to bash the liberal outrage on this issue, I will address the conservative.... "inaccuracies" about this. First off, even though effectively half the nation pays very little to no income tax that is very different from saying people owe that much. That 50%, plus or minus 3-4% based on what article you actually read, probably don't work, or have huge deductions for their status, or they have someone who showed them the loopholes, or they are tax dodgers. In any case, those people are the ones that have existed since the formation of a tax code. Then you want to talk about how the top 10% of income earners pay 70% of the GDP, but again paying is different from owing and I guarantee you these "statistics" are based on what the top 10% owe, but how many of them actually pay is a very different story. So go tout the statistic when you can actually prove that these people paid that amount.

In the meantime, liberals you seem to be all about having the big earners "pay their fair share" but you don't look at your "heroic" president or his associations when you talk about them because you know that their income is in that top bracket and the majority of them do the exact same as all the "evil" CEOs in terms of taxes (in other words, they don't pay and the IRS is hounding them on back taxes). So while that's running around in your head consider this: if everyone would actually pay their taxes, even if tax rates ended up being higher on the lower class versus the upper echelon, do a little bit of math and see the difference. If you make, say $30,000 and your effective tax rate (after deductions) is 30%, you pay $9,000. If those "evil" CEOs make upwards probably of $10,000,000 (that's ten million for those who are too lazy to count) and their effective tax rate (again after deductions) is even .1% that's still $10,000. That was $1,000 more than you just paid off 30%. Oh I know the argument, "But it was .1% versus us paying 30%." Well, if you're investing money into businesses and employees and maintenance for your businesses, as well as going on business trips and then also trying to have some kind of lifestyle outside of work, don't you think you'll need some of that originally earned amount to do some of that stuff? So if you get hit with an effective tax rate of 30% (meaning three million owed to the government), what's gonna end up suffering? Sure you might have to live a more mediocre lifestyle, but that is a drop in the bucket compared to the money invested in business and employees and maintenance for your businesses. Which means you can't employ as many people, which means people are left without jobs, which means people start complaining that the wealthy are not paying their fair share.

To sum this up, conservatives need to get their s--t together and make sure that everyone is actually paying their taxes and liberals need to shut the f--k up and make sure that they understand what is actually happening before complaining.

That 47-48% statistic is for income tax filing wage earners. Don't remember which percentage is for 2009 and which is for 2010. However, if they are wage earners than they work (or at least are paid like they do). They aren't tax dodgers since they had to have filed a tax return to be included in the statistic. Not sure what that 70% of GDP comment is about, but, could you mean that they account for 70% Federal tax revenue? Thank you for clearing up the inaccuracies. ; )

If I can I'd like to point out the craziness of your post, and it isn't that you didn't answer my simple question. The real problem with your post is that neither Santorum, or Romney, or Gingrich, and certainly not Paul, want to do anything of the kind you pretend. No one wants to stop you from buying a condom, and in fact, given your posts here today, I think most people would happily help you not procreate. No one wants to get into your religious life...hell, I'm an atheist and no one in the republican party tells me I have to think their way or else. No one wants to be in your bedroom either, at least not in the way you imagine--maybe you think too much of your prowess in any case.

Saying that homosexuals should not be able to marry is a state issue, though it could become federal. But last I checked none of the four remaining republican candidates is running for governor, and the one who was a governor did none of the garbage you claim he wanted to do. So how about less of your partisan hackery and delusional rants, and more of a seriousness that can add credibility to you, and credit to our system of government?

Just so you know, what I think democrats in the USA long ago abandoned, and republicans are following too closely behind along the same path, is economic liberty. That is why we should oppose Obamacare. That is why we should oppose GM and Chrysler and Wall Street bailouts. That is why we should simplify the tax code so that you aren't encouraged to behave the proper way, or punished for not. This debate over taxes is illuminating in that context--the liberals demand to make other people pay so that they can continue to get, or pretend to give out, free stuff. And the conservatives are looking for a solution to the problem so that we can end this class warfare crap. Which makes you immoral and counter-productive. So join the debate without being a twit.

In some states it might still be illegal to have sex with the same sex, but the Federal Government doesn't say you can't and there has been no talk of that.

Again nobody is telling her what she can or can't not do, I mean beside the stuff that is already illegal, but we do have this little law called Murder and if everybody (both sides) would put their big boy pants on and decide the definition of "life" we could get on with this discussion (I am pro-life myself, but up to a point I am OK with a person having an abortion, but at the same time if somebody gets in a car accident and the baby inside the woman dies, you shouldn't be charged with murder since the lady could have killed it herself if wanted to)

I have no idea why the Government is involved with marriage at all, we have contract law that should be enough. If I want to sign a contract with one or more people that should be fine. But why do people need to Government to validate them?

My problems with the Fair Tax are many. Like any tax plan the rates could be adjusted by a Congress that wants to tweak the system, so that to me isn't a worry regardless of the tax system we would employ. No, my problem with the FT is organic to it--in a self-governing republic the people should not be able to opt out of the system, and the FT, at least according to its proponents, does this and is one reason why we should adopt it.

With the FT there would be a great incentive, at least as much as today, for tax fraud at the commercial level--the idea we would rid ourselves of the IRS is a fantasy. I don't think, also, that we should reward spending OR savings, or that we should encourage any particular economic activity, whether by rewarding it or punishing the alternatives. To me it's all about economic liberty, and our current tax code invites constant tweaking of it by congress, or the president, or the bureaucrats at the IRS, or even by a manipulative Fed, in order to try to maximize revenues to the government. We shouldn't argue about how reducing the capital gains rate increases revenues, even though it often does, if the reason to increase them is to get more money to the government. It's a fine point, but fundamental to me--the outcome of the tax code should be to simply raise the amount of money our representatives claim is needed in order to fund the government they legislate.

Imagine that...our representatives would have to explain to us why our taxes must be increased, not why your neighbor's taxes must be increased, or some guy you never met must have his taxes increased, but why your own taxes must go up. I can't imagine, even in our current economically ignorant situation in the USA, that most voters will continue to support more government rather than less. The FT doesn't connect voters to the consequence of governmental spending as closely since everything that is taxed has the tax embedded in the bill you pay, and the total amount paid in any given year will remain a mystery for the vast majority of people. Who, really, will keep all their receipts and total up their taxes paid if there is no purpose other than simply informing themselves of their own tax bite?

I guess it all boils down to something fairly simple. I like the idea that voters know with precision and clarity exactly how much they pay. I think this knowledge alone will help produce a voting public that favors more liberty and less government. The fact most posters on this particular thread are arguing about how much is paid by them or someone else, or in total, or just as income tax, or as all taxes in the aggregate, or whatever, has to mean that politicians like Mr. Obama are more easily able to pursue policies we don't want because he can use this confusion to his benefit.

Rich, I guess what I meant to say was with just a consumption tax they would figure out how to add income tax back in, starting with the rich of course and slowly moving down the ladder.

genius If you paid $14,500 in federal income taxes last year on $50,000, you need a new accountant! I suspect that $14,500 includes SS, Medicare and other taxes! The 15% bracket covers incomes from 17,000 to 69,000 if filing jointly. You need to check facts!

Santorum stating he will make a FEDERAL LAW outlawing ALL same sex marriage... and you interpret that as saying "it's up to the states"? Got it. BTW... that IS telling people who they are allowed to marry. Just because you happen to be on the side that they agree with does not mean the government is not involved.

Santorum, Gingrich and Romney all saying they will re-implement DADT despite the head General stating that there have been no issues, and he was wrong in his initial thought that it would be detrimental. Basically, they just don't like "those gays" and want to put them back in their place.

Santorum being anti-birth control, and you don't think he will push that more? No... you're right. He is a logical guy. Sure he brought a baby carcass home for his kids to play with... that's normal. Everyone does that. I'm sure someone THAT crazy would not try to push crazy laws.

The GOP taking the House and the very first thing they do is attack Planned Parenthood in a blatant anti-abortion campaign. So much for focusing on the economy. Don't even get me started on GOP morons who are against entitlement spending but also against abortion... so they want to increase the number of people who need the entitlements they are against. What a f***ing brilliant way to save our economy... make the welfare population explode so we have to spend MORE on them. That is genius, we should just make it so we have to spend more.

Santorum stating that women should raise rape babies, and that rape is not a valid excuse for abortion. Yup, let's elect the guy who thinks a group of cells feeding off the nutrients of a woman (which makes it a parasite) has more rights than the woman herself. Awesome. But hey, it's her fault she got raped... right Fox News? Yup, according to the right-wing propaganda machine, these women who get "raped, too much" (direct quote) are causing us to spend too much money on counselors and medical care. They just need to get raped less... Thanks, Fox News. What would we do without your excellent insight?

Both Gingrich and Santorum wanting to restrict the roles women are allowed to have in the military, despite statistics, proof, and the God Damn head general stating they are more than qualified. F*** it, why do we even let women make any choices? They are just women, with a brain half the size of man... it's science.

All three candidates saying the BobDole-RepublicanCare (Obamacare) should be repealed because the government should have no place in healthcare... yet they all want the government to support their "Christian" healthcare laws, even if you are not "Christian". BTW... that would be Mitch McConnel trying to sign a law that lets anyone restrict any medical care based on their moral and religious beliefs. I hope neither of you work for a Christian Science believer... NO HEALTHCARE FOR YOU, they don't believe in it. Good job, Mitch... I'm sure that won't cause any problems.

Republican candidates cheering for the supreme court decision that allows religious institutions to discriminate against employees... because they are religious and we can't touch them. Three cheers for legal discrimination based on a disability, or anything else the religious right are against. Who needs laws when you can just be religious and get around them?

The constant bombardment of "family values" right-wing organizations telling me what words or images I am allowed to see on television. What happened to "personal responsibility"? I guess people can not be expected to be "responsible" and change the channel.

Santorum, Palin, the Tea Party, every Fox News show stating that we need to make this a "Christian nation, based on Christian laws". Being raised Christian with an in depth understanding of "Christian laws"... the mere thought of that is frightening.

No... you are right, I am wrong. Just because the entire right-wing party SAYS ALL OF THESE THINGS, doesn't mean they really want to do them. I should just assume they are just filling air space, and not serious about any of that. Unfortunately, I have my very own moral code that says I can not support psycho, religious, nut-jobs. And, because you Republicans are so intent on following "morals", you can understand why I can not go against my own.

Indie, you might could implement your progressive sales tax now that i think of it. You would have to save every receipt for the year, compute all your tax then compare that to whatever rate you come out to with the rest of your return. Then have a sales tax scale to fit in. But what a pain in the @ss that would be.

What is the ever-discussed "fair share" of combined local, state, and federal taxation that folks who keep repeating that phrase would sign on to ???

In 2006 in the state of Connecticut, the "AVERAGE" taxpayer spent 38.3% of income in combined tax levies...that is a verifiable fact...and please no requests for links. If you don't believe the number, Google it yourself ! Average household income in this state has dropped over the past few years, to about $67,000 or so.

So that family making the "average" pay...was 38.3% a "fair share" for them to pay. We've not had a tax cut since '06 and in 2011 our new Democrat governor handed us the largest combined tax increase in the history of our state, so I'd guess that 38.3% is now getting close to 40%...and again, I don't supply links for verifiable facts.

Indie, like I said before am not a christian, and if it makes you feel better there is ZERO change I would for Santorum, Gingrich or Romney! I repeat ZERO chance.

And while I said above that up to a point I am OK with abortion, I am completely against paying for somebody else's and on that I am against paying for somebody's else birth control unless needed for health reason (the pill for example).

I am half with you on gay marriage, I stated above I would like the Feds out of marriage completely. Then it would be a states right to allow it or not.

The constant bombardment of the crazy environmental left-wing telling me how to life my life, what i can drive and what my children are taught, what happened to freedom and personal responsibility?

and finally while I am not religious I do understand that our country was founded on Christian values, and if you can't agree with that you are crazy.

Tony, what is "fair" is relative to each person and different to everyone. Ask 100 different people and you will get 100 different answers. I have no idea what the magic number is, of taxing until we get deminishing returns from stiffling business.

What kills me is people that think tweaking the tax policy (up or down take your pick) by itself will fix all that ails us. If 40% is that magic number and gets us another 100 Billion, then we spend another 200 billion it is irrelevant.

Look at where the money is going .... to the most inneficient running organization by far i have ever seen in my life. I know first hand because in addition to running a few businesses i have worked for the federal govt now for over 20 years. Three different agencies and i can tell you it is pathetic the way our tax dollars are spent. You should see departments all across the country go on "spend-a-thons" every september. It's because if they don't spend all that years budget (they start oct 1)they don't get that much again next year. Large flat screens, new furniture, computers, etc .....95% which are not needed. And thats a small example to things i see almost daily.

That's why i cringe when i hear people WANT to feed it more money. It's like asking an alchoholic to watch over your wine and beer for the weekend.

if (typeof(DeferView) != 'undefined') { DeferView.registerCallback('pgNBCPOB541763112', function() { dapMgr.enableACB('pgNBCPOB541763112', false); dapMgr.renderAd('pgNBCPOB541763112', '&PG=NBCPOB&AP=1089&ONECLICK=1', 300, 250); }); } else { dapMgr.enableACB('pgNBCPOB541763112', false); dapMgr.renderAd('pgNBCPOB541763112', '&PG=NBCPOB&AP=1089&ONECLICK=1', 300, 250)

if (typeof(DeferView) == 'undefined') { document.write('')

if (typeof(DeferView) != 'undefined') { DeferView.registerCallback('pulse360_568124237', function() { $('').appendTo('#pulse360_568124237');}); } else { document.write('')

if (typeof(DeferView) == 'undefined') { document.write('')

if (typeof(DeferView) != 'undefined') { DeferView.registerCallback('pulse360_74581685', function() { $('').appendTo('#pulse360_74581685');}); } else { document.write('')

He makes close to 1 million a year and he expects us to believe that he is having a hard time making ends meet with an "underwater" mortgage and kids in college??? Oh Please! Try making ends meet on a yearly sallary of less than 40,000 and then I'll start to sympathize.

The dumbing down of Americans continue. The shameful totally biased reporting by MSNBC is in full glory today. Let's have this editorial piece so full of half truths so that we can rouse the ire of the intellectually challenged, and throw gas on the have versus have not trash that we are fed daily.

Once again, buffoons, Mitt like me is retired, and neither of us has a salary. I'm not old enough for social security, so my income is derived by my bond holdings and my stock gains, or in some case losses. I pay 15% on these gains, as does Romney. Rick and his wife have salary based income, which is taxed as "income", not as "gains". Of course intellectual honesty would include the millions that Romney pays in property tax, in state tax, but who ever said MSNBC had a shred of honesty or non-bias in it's coverage. Most Americans think Jon Stewart is a news reporter. We are the ignorant masses when it comes to understanding how the tax laws and how they are written, because the government does not want us to understand it, it would put people out of work.

I am really sick of this crap. Romney did not write the tax code and he does not hide money in foreign accounts. He pays what the tax code says he is supposed to pay, nothing more, nothing less. If you have a problem with that, than start pushing your representatives in congress to fix the tax code. The main issue is the low tax rate on long term capital gains. Since this is the bulk of Romney's income, he pays a lower percentage than someone who's income comes primarily from wages and short term gains like dividends. It is not because Romney is doing anything underhanded or illegal, it is because of the tax code. Of course those gains are on money he already paid taxes on when he earned it at the higher rate and is now paying taxes on the investment returns on the net he had left that he invested in businesses for the long term. I do think that the long term capital gains rate should be graduated just like the regular income tax rate so that people with larger incomes of his type pay a higher percentage. I do not think that the capital gains rate should be raised for everyone because this will hurt the small investor who does not make a lot just as much as the millionaires. Let the capital gains rate graduate up to the same 35% as the regular income tax rate.

Now for those who question who pays the to tax rate, it is anyone who makes over the amount that would put them in that bracket. However, even those people will not have an effective tax rate equal to that rate because part of their income is taxed at the lower rates in accordance with the tax brackets. You only pay the higher rate on the amount of income over the bracket minimum, not on all your income. You also have deductions that reduce the effective tax rate. No one pay 35% of their income in taxes, although some people will come close because the majority of their very high income is taxed at the higher rate and they have few deductions.

Paying more than Romney? This very well could backfire on Santorum. Paying higher taxes than the other republicans is like a slap in their faces. The republicans are looking for constituents that pay less taxes than Romney, not more.

Why would you elect someone like Santorum. One He is a radical. I watched his speech at the CPAC convention. I was shouting at the TV the whole time because they were telling so many lies. Also, since I'm a political junkie, I've been following all the candidates. Santorum said why would the general public vote for someone that that person's own party isn't excited about. I couldn't help but to ask myself, why would the general public vote for a radical right winger, who advocates the prohibition of all abortions and contraception. One, why would you outlaw contraception. That's stupid for obvious reasons. And I thought that Republicans were trying to outlaw abortions for someone who just had a wild night out, and didn't want to have a baby. That would be an argument along party lines. However, to outlaw abortion even if the pregnancy would cause serious harm to the mother, or pose serious health risks, or even outlaw it if the woman has been raped. Thats just radical and ridiculous.

Santorum followed the tax laws, therefore he has done nothing illegal. Same with Romney, neither illegally evaded taxes, such as Tim Geithner and Charlie Rangel did. I guess Santorum is a radical because he has the audacity to think a baby is a human life, and is due protection in the womb and after?

I agree. We should not make the wealthy pay a rate of 25 or 35 percent. We should make 15% the going rate for everybody! There ya go. Problem solved.

If it's good enough for the rich then how dare they tell us we have to pay more because we don't have the same kind of income as they do.

Got sick of everyone saying how the less wealthy pay a higher tax rate than the rich, so I've got some numbers. Please keep in mind, you may be in a certain income tax bracket, but likely pay a lower tax % due to deductions and rebates.

For 2008 (as reported by the IRS and calculated by Forbes) are the average EFFECTIVE individual income tax rates, as a percentage of adjusted gross income, for various income groups.

Santorum wrote more bills, and co-sponsored more bills than his successor has BEFORE Santorum bought a house in Virginia and moved there. After moving his productive increased by 50%.

I am from western Pa, but Santorum's house district was south of where I lived. What got him unelected was the moving to Virginia. Pennsylvania Residents really hate that and typically toss out polliticians that don't visit the district or state frequently.

if (typeof(DeferView) != 'undefined') { DeferView.registerCallback('pgNBCPOB551883751', function() { dapMgr.enableACB('pgNBCPOB551883751', false); dapMgr.renderAd('pgNBCPOB551883751', '&PG=NBCPOB&AP=1089&ONECLICK=1', 300, 250); }); } else { dapMgr.enableACB('pgNBCPOB551883751', false); dapMgr.renderAd('pgNBCPOB551883751', '&PG=NBCPOB&AP=1089&ONECLICK=1', 300, 250)

if (typeof(DeferView) == 'undefined') { document.write('')

if (typeof(DeferView) != 'undefined') { DeferView.registerCallback('pulse360_922919658', function() { $('').appendTo('#pulse360_922919658');}); } else { document.write('')

if (typeof(DeferView) == 'undefined') { document.write('')

if (typeof(DeferView) != 'undefined') { DeferView.registerCallback('pulse360_2104413524', function() { $('').appendTo('#pulse360_2104413524');}); } else { document.write('')

Santorum bilked the Penn Hills school district out of at least $67,000 (possibly $100K) by improperly claiming Pennsylvania residency when he was actually living in Virginia. By cheating on his taxes he was able to have the state of Pennsylvania pay 80% of the costs to send five of his kids to a private school in Virginia.

Gee, I'm so surprised a republican politician would take advantage of a [ublic school district, I thought Republicans were supportive of local school districts.

Santorum was illegally claiming a homestead tax credit on a home he owned in Pennsylvania even though his primary residence was in Virginia, and he was also cheating the PA taxpayers by having them pay to send his kids to an out-of-state charter school.......even though he didn't reside in PA. He's a tax cheat, plain and simple.

This issue is one of the reasons the Pennsylvania voters kicked his butt out of office by a landslide. In the November 7, 2006 election, Santorum lost by over 700,000 votes, receiving 41% of the vote to Casey's 59%, the largest margin of defeat for an incumbent senator since 1980 and the largest losing margin for an incumbent Republican senator ever.

Should I have paid Illinois state tax like a civilian would? Maybe, but I was not required to because of special exemptions for the military.

You might want to check what the outcome was, and why Santorum couldn't legally take the credit - it was both the fact that he didn't qualify for residency, and the fact that his kids didn't qualify for a charter school.

1."Mr. Romney, explain to everybody how placing your money into shelters overseas so you can get away with paying less then 14 percent in annual taxes is helping Americans?"

2."Mr. Romney, do you send the bulk of your money overseas because you value the trade of other countries over America's, or did you send your money over there so you didn't have to pay as much in taxes as everybody else does?"

3."Mr. Romney, you like to say that you pay what you owe in taxes and not a dollar more. What if the vast majority of America thinks you should pay a lot more? Do you agree with the majority of American people and pay more taxes or tell them you don't care and don't want their votes anyways?"

4. "Mr. Romney, do you think all Americans should pay less then 14 percent of their annual incomes to taxes, like you do, even though that would plunge this great nation into third-world status almost immediately?

5. "Mr. Romney only the rich could take advantage of loopholes you have used to insure you pay less in taxes then almost all Americans who pay taxes. Should that be how America's tax code works? Should rich people, like yourself, pay smaller percent of your income to taxes when people like our military, cops, social workers, firefighters have to pay a great deal more?

Asimplicity, he's not getting away with anything, he is compliant with current law, don't like the laws?, then change them, until then SU. your quote " What if the vast majority of America thinks you should pay a lot more?" The vast majority of Americans are dumb as dirt, so you want other people basing what they do based on an opinion poll? How about a poll that says we should deport people based on their intellectual prowess or in your case, the lack thereof?

And for the millionathe time Mitt does not have "income" because he is retired and does not have a job like Governor or CEO anymore, and if you can not see that difference your hopeless. He has "gains or losses" from investments in bonds and stocks which he pays taxes on, which is by law 15%, just like I pay 15% on mine. In your world of envy, everyone who has anything owes it to their country to empty there pockets. It's not going to happen, ever.

if (typeof(DeferView) != 'undefined') { DeferView.registerCallback('pgNBCPOB1891801046', function() { dapMgr.enableACB('pgNBCPOB1891801046', false); dapMgr.renderAd('pgNBCPOB1891801046', '&PG=NBCPOB&AP=1089&ONECLICK=1', 300, 250); }); } else { dapMgr.enableACB('pgNBCPOB1891801046', false); dapMgr.renderAd('pgNBCPOB1891801046', '&PG=NBCPOB&AP=1089&ONECLICK=1', 300, 250)

if (typeof(DeferView) == 'undefined') { document.write('')

if (typeof(DeferView) != 'undefined') { DeferView.registerCallback('pulse360_1232614096', function() { $('').appendTo('#pulse360_1232614096');}); } else { document.write('')

if (typeof(DeferView) == 'undefined') { document.write('')

if (typeof(DeferView) != 'undefined') { DeferView.registerCallback('pulse360_1701713961', function() { $('').appendTo('#pulse360_1701713961');}); } else { document.write('')

1."Mr. Romney, explain to everybody how placing your money into shelters overseas so you can get away with paying less then 14 percent in annual taxes is helping Americans?"

2."Mr. Romney, do you send the bulk of your money overseas because you value the trade of other countries over America's, or did you send your money over there so you didn't have to pay as much in taxes as everybody else does?"

3."Mr. Romney, you like to say that you pay what you owe in taxes and not a dollar more. What if the vast majority of America thinks you should pay a lot more? Do you agree with the majority of American people and pay more taxes or tell them you don't care and don't want their votes anyways?"

4. "Mr. Romney, do you think all Americans should pay less then 14 percent of their annual incomes to taxes, like you do, even though that would plunge this great nation into third-world status almost immediately?

5. "Mr. Romney only the rich could take advantage of loopholes you have used to insure you pay less in taxes then almost all Americans who pay taxes. Should that be how America's tax code works? Should rich people, like yourself, pay smaller percent of your income to taxes when people like our military, cops, social workers, firefighters have to pay a great deal more?

And the middle class actually has to work for it, while Mittens is still getting paid for past adventures with Bain Capital that bankrupted Companies and layed off American workers, in turn sending those jobs oversees. A person with that kind of reputation has no business being anywhere near the White House.

Does this mean that MSNBC endorses Rick Santorum for President? If not, then why in the world is MSNBC giving this creep the time of day?

3 Gold Bars, if I can pay my rent and monthly with 80% of $12,000 -- my income for last year, and STILL have enough left over to have some fun, then you and all the Right-wing Tea Party Conservatives should be able to pay rent and monthly bills on 80% of what YOU earn.

You have a wonderful idea there. Let's all throw our money oversees so we can keep it from the governement! Who needs cops, firefighters, schools, post offices, construction workers, military etc. Hell I vote Rich here for president. You go guy.

Now if only we were all rich so we actually could send all our money to oversea's trusts that was initially set-up for charities just like our good friend Mitt.

I swear, I don't know how some people can work-up enough brain power to even make it to a computer, but to type something too! Doesn't really matter if it is the dumbest thing on the planet, he still managed to do it! Amazing!

asimplicity - There is only one question that matters. Did either Romney or Santorum break the law when paying their taxes? If the tax "loopholes" they took advantage of were legal then, so what, good for them. My goal is to pay every penny of taxes that I am legally obligated to pay and not one penny more. If you want to pay more taxes than you are legally obligated to pay, then please do so. Recognize however, that there is no legal obligation to pay more than the tax code requires and I don't think any moral obligation either. The federal government sucks at its stewardship of our tax dollars. I think I can probably find better uses for those dollars than throwing them down the rathole of government waste and corruption.

If we want everyone to "pay their fair share" as the president is so fond of saying then we need to decide what that "share" is and change the tax code so that everyone pays it and stop hating on people who take advantage of perfectly legal tax shelters.

1."Mr. Romney, explain to everybody how placing your money into shelters overseas so you can get away with paying less then 14 percent in annual taxes is helping Americans?"

2."Mr. Romney, do you send the bulk of your money overseas because you value the trade of other countries over America's, or did you send your money over there so you didn't have to pay as much in taxes as everybody else does?"

3."Mr. Romney, you like to say that you pay what you owe in taxes and not a dollar more. What if the vast majority of America thinks you should pay a lot more? Do you agree with the majority of American people and pay more taxes or tell them you don't care and don't want their votes anyways?"

4. "Mr. Romney, do you think all Americans should pay less then 14 percent of their annual incomes to taxes, like you do, even though that would plunge this great nation into third-world status almost immediately?

5. "Mr. Romney only the rich could take advantage of loopholes you have used to insure you pay less in taxes then almost all Americans who pay taxes. Should that be how America's tax code works?

I'll even help you out there. Want to see a "fair share" then how about we go back to when American prospered the most. Take it back to the 50's.

The federal government sucks at its stewardship of our tax dollars. I think I can probably find better uses for those dollars than throwing them down the rathole of government waste and corruption.

Either way, your tirades about "their fair share" are nothing but talking points and prove to me that you have income envy. Cause I am SURE that you pay more than YOU are required don't you?

It is curious that the American Right, which waxes nostalgic for the happier days of the 1950s when the United States was supposedly more moral and more united, ignores one of the central reasons behind that middle-class era: very high taxes on the rich.

Granted, some on the Right may love the Fifties because it was a time of racial segregation and second-class status for women. But what arguably made the era work was the fact that the US tax structure "disincentivized" greed by ensuring that excess wealth was mostly recycled back into the Treasury for use building the nation and supporting research and development.

During Dwight Eisenhower's presidency the top marginal tax rate - what the richest Americans paid on their top tranche of income - was around 90 percent. In the 1960s, under John F. Kennedy, that was lowered to around 70 percent, but that rate still meant the rich had a limited incentive to be greedy since they wouldn't get to keep most of their extra money.

All that changed with Ronald Reagan's presidency and his slashing of the top marginal tax rate by more than half (before it was adjusted upward slightly late in Reagan's years and then during Bill Clinton's presidency before being reduced again to 35 percent under George W. Bush).

Various tax loopholes and lower rates for capital gains also have let many of the richest Americans enjoy tax rates about only half of even those lower marginal income tax rates. Billionaire Warren Buffett has famously described paying a lower tax rate than his secretary, meaning that he and others in his category get to keep about 80 percent of what they make.

In other words, the American tax structure has been roughly turned on its head. From the rich paying between 70 and 90 percent on their top income, some now pay 20 percent or less, which means there is a much bigger incentive to be greedy.

Arguably, it was that incentivized greed - more than any of the social movements like civil rights for blacks and equal rights for women - that eradicated the rhapsodized Fifties and the middle-class culture that it represented in the nostalgic view of many Americans.

So, it's ironic that the defense of lower tax rates for the rich is at the heart of the Right's current political agenda. Some leading Republicans have even suggested that "tax reform" should impose at least some income tax on the poor and working class so the tax rates on the rich can be lowered even more.

It's ironic, too, that the core of today's economic crisis is that American bankers became so excessively greedy - spurred on by the prospects of "earning" bonuses in the tens of millions of dollars and keeping nearly all that money - that they blinded themselves to the risks from exotic financial products built on an unsustainable housing bubble.

If the tax rates had been kept at Eisenhower or Kennedy levels, not only would there have been plenty of money to keep the United States modern and strong but there likely would not have been the kind of financial crisis that, since 2008, has cost millions of jobs and required massive government borrowing to bail out the greedy bankers.

Thus, in a variety of ways, the Right's orthodoxy of low taxes on the rich (or the "job creators," as Republican wordsmiths prefer) has been a major driver in creating today's massive federal debt and in savaging the middle class.

P.S. If you don't think there were deductions in the 50's and 60's you are even more naive than your posts show. NOBODY paid 80-90% taxes! Did you know that credit card interest was once a deduction? Probably not....

One day you might realize that throwing out aspersions without anything backing them up just makes you look like a crazy cat lady tossing cats.

Again whats a "fair share"! The one thing I can see the Left has in common is if your not with them, your a "teabagger" Doesnt matter if you voted for Mr Carter or Mr. Clinton..... if you dont care for this administration your a "teabagger" I personally dont care if Mr Obama is re-elected as long as Ms Pelosi and Mr Reid have the word minority in front of their names.

Hot air??? I guess it was okay when it was the republicons screaming about Kerry docking his boat in Rhode Island instead of Massachusetts as a way of avoiding the higher tax rate paid in Mass.

While not illegal, it's a little unseemly when a presidential candidate is trying to avoid taxes. Romney is doing the same by hiding millions in offshore accounts.

Hot air??? I guess it was okay when it was the republicons screaming about Kerry docking his boat in Rhode Island instead of Massachusetts as a way of avoiding the higher tax rate paid in Mass.

While not illegal, it's a little unseemly when a presidential candidate is trying to avoid taxes. Romney is doing the same by hiding millions in offshore accounts.

In some states, registering a car for the first time costs about $600. It does here in Florida, so a lot of people don't get Florida tags, they keep their out of state tags on their car.

Ok, I see that he did write a check, but only because he got caught. He NEVER would have otherwise. I bet he is one of those out there yelling about "their fair share" too.

Comes here telling everybody, "I'm an independent, " then pulls down his pants to show everybody his, "I love you Ronald Reagan" heart tattooed on his butt!

But no, that's not enough, then we get to watch him detail his thoughts on very expressive posts and replies. Thoughts that are as wise as they are insightful. Such as:

Then he goes around in an attempt, I guess, to flame threads except for one thing, he doesn't really flame nor does he add anything. Pretty much a commercial break I guess.

I just wish I could see his little victory dance when he does get the last post in a forum. I'm sure pizza and nipple clamps will be involved..yuck!

The post office does not receive any taxpayers money. SO, INFORM YOURSELF BEFORE YOU SPOUT OFF. You are not as informed as you want people to think.

I remember the laws talking about equal treatment but nothing about fair treatment. Its not the govt's job to pick winners and losers and that's all the tax code is doing. Flat rates, no deductions to get the social engineering out of paying for common services.

if (typeof(DeferView) != 'undefined') { DeferView.registerCallback('pgNBCPOB1305021020', function() { dapMgr.enableACB('pgNBCPOB1305021020', false); dapMgr.renderAd('pgNBCPOB1305021020', '&PG=NBCPOB&AP=1089&ONECLICK=1', 300, 250); }); } else { dapMgr.enableACB('pgNBCPOB1305021020', false); dapMgr.renderAd('pgNBCPOB1305021020', '&PG=NBCPOB&AP=1089&ONECLICK=1', 300, 250)

if (typeof(DeferView) == 'undefined') { document.write('')

if (typeof(DeferView) != 'undefined') { DeferView.registerCallback('pulse360_198078527', function() { $('').appendTo('#pulse360_198078527');}); } else { document.write('')

if (typeof(DeferView) == 'undefined') { document.write('')

if (typeof(DeferView) != 'undefined') { DeferView.registerCallback('pulse360_3781537', function() { $('').appendTo('#pulse360_3781537');}); } else { document.write('')

he needs to tell the truth about taxes romney paid 37% on his business and then paid alsmost 14% on capital gains. he needs to know more about business and not run down someone that know's how to start a business.

this is an argument coming straight from fox but let me explain some thing; Anyone could says the same thing. An employee could say that his/her company's already paid some taxes why should he/she pay more??

Hey James schlater, Prove it! Can you prove that Mitt Romney paid 37% in business taxes? Let's see it or are you a lying piece of crap? Would you like me to answer that for you, or are you man enough to admit it yourself?

He was co-founder and head of the spin-off company Bain Capital, a private equity investment firm that became highly profitable and one of the largest such firms in the nation.

Nothing is simpler that proving what a bunch of bald faced liars right wingers and conservatives are. They repeat over and over that 50% of Americans don't pay ANY taxes. So...here's how you prove what liars they are. If the US has a population of 200 million plus, that means 50% of 200 million plus pay ZERO taxes right? Or else, 100 million plus have never had jobs, never earned a living and never paid a dime of any kind of taxes, state, federal or otherwise.

Of course now liar righties and conservatives don't include themselves in THAT 50%...they want you to believe that with their higher than necessary incomes, they pay ALL the taxes...Do they? Not even close.

I'd love for any tighty righty or neocons to show us how you get away with working for a living wage and your employer and you don't get a dime deducted from your paycheck for FICA-SS, FICA-MEdicare, Federal W/H or the end run of state W/H, SUI and SDI...Come off the BS stories.

The average salary in the US is well under 6 figures. The IRS and GAO both put it at around $65,000 annually. According to all government records, payroll tax deductions for this average income is at 28%.

Another GAO fact is that 0.01% (a paltry few hundred Americans) hold 66% of US wealth. Do the math. Should the other 99.9% pay higher taxes than the 0.01%?

Is anyone else fed up with right wing neoconservative liars who push that tired out old agenda that they pay all the taxes? How much of our taxes are wasted paying tax subsidies to the industries that make that 0.01% 66% richer? How much of our taxes have to be stretched threadbare to cover the taxes that 0.01% aren't paying?

If 50% of the population doesn't pay taxes, either they are too young to hold down jobs, too ill or too dead. These right wing idiots can't even do the math. There are less than 9 million now unemployed, some since 2004. There are 2 million in prisons at a cost of $26,000 per prisoner mostly in the prison industry states who also collect a nice windfall for housing prisons. Total so far? 11 million likely candidates who aren't paying taxes. With one caveat. Those 9 million out of work and on unemployment will end up owing taxes for the unemployment they paid for and collected.

Can right wing neocon liars please take a course in math? Because 50% of the population who can earn a living in this narcissistic coroporate greedhead society do. Just try and avoid those payroll tax deductions and see how fast you end in the Graybar Hotel.

Bingo and let us NOT forget that many are deliberately remaining unemployed by the "job creators" as a lovely racket called the "private prison industry" has products made by prison labour for less then a dolar an hour by inmates who a being incarcerated for petty crimes like drug possesion-(Joe Arpaio anyone) as private prisons are BIG business in The South.

if (typeof(DeferView) != 'undefined') { DeferView.registerCallback('pgNBCPOB1280654980', function() { dapMgr.enableACB('pgNBCPOB1280654980', false); dapMgr.renderAd('pgNBCPOB1280654980', '&PG=NBCPOB&AP=1089&ONECLICK=1', 300, 250); }); } else { dapMgr.enableACB('pgNBCPOB1280654980', false); dapMgr.renderAd('pgNBCPOB1280654980', '&PG=NBCPOB&AP=1089&ONECLICK=1', 300, 250)

if (typeof(DeferView) == 'undefined') { document.write('')

if (typeof(DeferView) != 'undefined') { DeferView.registerCallback('pulse360_2094472231', function() { $('').appendTo('#pulse360_2094472231');}); } else { document.write('')

if (typeof(DeferView) == 'undefined') { document.write('')

if (typeof(DeferView) != 'undefined') { DeferView.registerCallback('pulse360_326500071', function() { $('').appendTo('#pulse360_326500071');}); } else { document.write('')

If you pay more than you legally had too because you didn't take advantage of deductions you were entitled too then your just filing your taxes stupid.

See there is a difference from paying ones taxes to the country they supposedly love and, apparently, made fortunes from and hiding it in overseas trusts just so you don't have to pay as much as everybody else does. I noticed none of the other canidates, including Obama, sent their money overseas just so they could hoard millions instead of paying their fair share.

Do we really want a president who pays more for anything than he has to? Santiarium should pay as little as possible and if he then wishes to be generous he can always give money to the federal government. The only reason he paid more than he had to is he wasnt smart enough to figure out the US Income Tax Code--and high school seniors can figure out the US Income Tax code, I help multiple classes each year to do so..

otherBob: Are you freakin' kidding me? No seriously. Did you read anything I typed out before replying? Anything at all? How about, do you know what forum this is? Do you know what country you are in?

See there is a difference from paying ones taxes to the country they supposedly love and, apparently, made fortunes from and hiding it in overseas trusts just so you don't have to pay as much as everybody else does. I noticed none of the other canidates, including Obama, sent their money overseas just so they could hoard millions instead of paying their fair share.

You know, IF you read this, think real hard here. I have a question to ask you and you may have to actually put your thinking cap on for this one.

The "soak the rich" policy is never, ever, going to work. You libs (I suspect you think you are one) whine about "fair share" and it's really getting old. The more you make the more you should pay, I agree. But the percentage should be the same. And that's what a flat tax would accomplish. But we will never have a flat tax because that would mean half of the working population would have to pay something. And no politician has the stones to make that happen.

And as for your questions above, I don't know how many of the people making between 50K and 100K are responsible for the national debt...probably some...but more than likely there are a big chunk of people making less than that who bear some responsibility. People getting homes they couldn't afford are a big chunk of the debt since it took a bailout to keep the banks from failing because of all those people who couldn't keep paying their mortgage. Oh yeah, that was the millionaire Clinton who caused that by forcing banks to give mortgages to people who couldn't afford them!

And then entitlements... something that could possibly go to some folks making more than 100k... but I'm thinking probably not. But again, you're right on that one too...millionaires in Congress are the ones who keep spending that money.

And your bottom line...proves that you are probably some pimple faced college freshman getting a liberal arts degree, (certainly not English) and really don't have a damn clue about how the world even works!

It is curious that the American Right, which waxes nostalgic for the happier days of the 1950s when the United States was supposedly more moral and more united, ignores one of the central reasons behind that middle-class era: very high taxes on the rich.

Granted, some on the Right may love the Fifties because it was a time of racial segregation and second-class status for women. But what arguably made the era work was the fact that the US tax structure "disincentivized" greed by ensuring that excess wealth was mostly recycled back into the Treasury for use building the nation and supporting research and development.

During Dwight Eisenhower's presidency the top marginal tax rate - what the richest Americans paid on their top tranche of income - was around 90 percent. In the 1960s, under John F. Kennedy, that was lowered to around 70 percent, but that rate still meant the rich had a limited incentive to be greedy since they wouldn't get to keep most of their extra money.

All that changed with Ronald Reagan's presidency and his slashing of the top marginal tax rate by more than half (before it was adjusted upward slightly late in Reagan's years and then during Bill Clinton's presidency before being reduced again to 35 percent under George W. Bush).

Various tax loopholes and lower rates for capital gains also have let many of the richest Americans enjoy tax rates about only half of even those lower marginal income tax rates. Billionaire Warren Buffett has famously described paying a lower tax rate than his secretary, meaning that he and others in his category get to keep about 80 percent of what they make.

In other words, the American tax structure has been roughly turned on its head. From the rich paying between 70 and 90 percent on their top income, some now pay 20 percent or less, which means there is a much bigger incentive to be greedy.

Arguably, it was that incentivized greed - more than any of the social movements like civil rights for blacks and equal rights for women - that eradicated the rhapsodized Fifties and the middle-class culture that it represented in the nostalgic view of many Americans.

So, it's ironic that the defense of lower tax rates for the rich is at the heart of the Right's current political agenda. Some leading Republicans have even suggested that "tax reform" should impose at least some income tax on the poor and working class so the tax rates on the rich can be lowered even more.

It's ironic, too, that the core of today's economic crisis is that American bankers became so excessively greedy - spurred on by the prospects of "earning" bonuses in the tens of millions of dollars and keeping nearly all that money - that they blinded themselves to the risks from exotic financial products built on an unsustainable housing bubble.

If the tax rates had been kept at Eisenhower or Kennedy levels, not only would there have been plenty of money to keep the United States modern and strong but there likely would not have been the kind of financial crisis that, since 2008, has cost millions of jobs and required massive government borrowing to bail out the greedy bankers.

Thus, in a variety of ways, the Right's orthodoxy of low taxes on the rich (or the "job creators," as Republican wordsmiths prefer) has been a major driver in creating today's massive federal debt and in savaging the middle class.

Really?-1739510 How can say you don't pay any Fed taxes? Deductions are not credits. Big difference. If you work for a living federal taxes are taken out of your paycheck.

I see two problems. 1 Rich are not paying fair share. 2. Not sure how this can be but read almost half of US households are not paying federal taxes. What is up with that @#%$.

The IRS allowed 51.5 cents per mile deduction on my vehicles for the first 6 months of 2011, 55.5 cents per mile the second six months.

Operating a business at a (loss) is perfectly legal and (losses) carry forward. I may never have to pay taxes again even if I take a traditional job that comes with a regular paycheck.

Also, since I operate at a (loss) I am not responsible for SS, Medicare or Medicaid taxes either, but I get credit as if I had paid them.

It's a crazy system, but I did not create it. I would much prefer the Fair Tax, but the powers that be want to keep the convoluted, bloated system we have now. Go figure. As long as they do, I will adjust my prices to stay just below the deduction.

That is correct. Doesn't all of Romney's income come from capitol gains? That's why Santorum pays more! Don't slurp up the liberal drivel, people. Look to Buffett for guidance, if you prefer. That's how Buffett pays a lower tax rate than his impoverished secretary.

You can, because the tax code is set up that way. When your business deductions are less than your income, there is no money to tax.

While the mileage deduction is more than enough to cover my income, there are other deductions, insurance, maintenance, registration fees, etc.

I am never going to be one of the "rich," but my house and vehicles are paid for and I also have a military pension. So I have lots of free time to do as I please and worrying about taxes is never an issue.

I don't blame you but we can't continue to operate this way. Good example is Greece. Everyone there from rich to poor make it as a challenge to avoid taxes.

So you are avoiding paying for your own pension and near free healthcare? I know, you earned a lifetime from the rest of us for your 20 years sor so...

if (typeof(DeferView) != 'undefined') { DeferView.registerCallback('pgNBCPOB1596311182', function() { dapMgr.enableACB('pgNBCPOB1596311182', false); dapMgr.renderAd('pgNBCPOB1596311182', '&PG=NBCPOB&AP=1089&ONECLICK=1', 300, 250); }); } else { dapMgr.enableACB('pgNBCPOB1596311182', false); dapMgr.renderAd('pgNBCPOB1596311182', '&PG=NBCPOB&AP=1089&ONECLICK=1', 300, 250)

if (typeof(DeferView) == 'undefined') { document.write('')

if (typeof(DeferView) != 'undefined') { DeferView.registerCallback('pulse360_1052898116', function() { $('').appendTo('#pulse360_1052898116');}); } else { document.write('')

if (typeof(DeferView) == 'undefined') { document.write('')

if (typeof(DeferView) != 'undefined') { DeferView.registerCallback('pulse360_1489786656', function() { $('').appendTo('#pulse360_1489786656');}); } else { document.write('')

So what's the point here? Did anybody cheat on their taxes (except Santorum maybe see message above)?? I assume Andy understands the difference in tax code treatment of ordinary income and cap. gains. But this seems to be the implication here with respect to Romney. What is John Kerry's tax rate?? Say, who at Media Matters wrote this story anyway?

Rick Scumtorum said the GOP contest is now a two person race, hes got that right - Romney & Paul. The American people are getting sick & tired of phonies like Rick, hes dumber than a box of rocks.

How are they not like us? Because they have been financially successful? As far as I am concerned, they have families they love, friends they care for, dreams for their children, a respect for their community, etc. Except for the size of their bank accounts, I think they are exactly like us. And remember, they only get sent to DC if WE send them.

Having lots of resources gives them the time to address the issues the rest of us wouldn't have time to work on because we're so busy supporting ourselves. I'd rather be represented by someone who's NOT too busy with their own problems to think about solving everyone else's.

Scumtorum wants to make birth control illegal, Rick and his wife are two face phonies, when rick's wife had a six and a half year affair with a abortion doctor. They are beyond Phonies.

Whether his wife did or did not have an affair has nothing at all to do with the fact that babies in the womb are less a person than you or I. The child in the womb is not a potential person, but rather a person with potential. You should thank God that you were not aborted and you have the right as a PERSON to voice your opinion, flawed though it may be.

I have heard on fox that that romney pays more taxes cos bain already paid some taxes is BS ; Anyone could say the same thing. An employee could say that his/her company's already paid some taxes why should he/she pay more??

When you invest in a company you own part of it. That means that you own part of its profits as well. So when a company pays taxes on profits it is in fact paying taxes on your profits.

Wages are business expenses so corporate taxes are not paid on wages. If they can grasp this at Fox then surely you should be able to understand it as well.

Though Santorum's earnings are far and above mine, he's still more real and acceptable than Romney - who I just can't identify with at all. Knowing Santorum is paying about the same tax rate as me is gratifying.

Posturing! And in the background both Santorum and Newtered are thinking "Who's his accountant?" I would be willing to bet that the majority of people who complain about how much those with money have to pay in taxes would be complaining a lot less if the shoe was on the other foot.

Santorum made his money as a lobbyist. He is not a blue collar worker, and never has been. He was a lawyer and then a politician. Now he is a paid influence peddler the same as Newt. He flip flopped on abortion in 1990, and is affiliated with the group Opus Dei. He only gave 1.6 percent of his income to charity.

Does anyone think the rest of the lackeys on The Hill will show their last 4 years of tax returns. Hell would freeze over first and honesty would be policy on The Hill. Throw them all out or in prison.

Tad - All of Congress shows their income - it is a requirement - you can even see Michelle Bachman's income from farm subsidies and her husband's income from the Federal Government for his "pray away the gay"

Why not?? Why should having kids mean you pay less in taxes? You're probably using more of the nations resource such as schools, highways, all manner of services. Having kids is a choice. Why should I pay for your choices?

Charlie, you're an idiot. Children are needed for the continuation and advancement of society, and since the beginning of time societies have recognized the importance of education in helping society as a whole advance. The world would be SO screwed if we stopped educating people just because their parents couldn't afford to send them to get one. Poverty rises as education levels drop.

if (typeof(DeferView) != 'undefined') { DeferView.registerCallback('pgNBCPOB2144815072', function() { dapMgr.enableACB('pgNBCPOB2144815072', false); dapMgr.renderAd('pgNBCPOB2144815072', '&PG=NBCPOB&AP=1089&ONECLICK=1', 300, 250); }); } else { dapMgr.enableACB('pgNBCPOB2144815072', false); dapMgr.renderAd('pgNBCPOB2144815072', '&PG=NBCPOB&AP=1089&ONECLICK=1', 300, 250)

if (typeof(DeferView) == 'undefined') { document.write('')

if (typeof(DeferView) != 'undefined') { DeferView.registerCallback('pulse360_1204156329', function() { $('').appendTo('#pulse360_1204156329');}); } else { document.write('')

if (typeof(DeferView) == 'undefined') { document.write('')

if (typeof(DeferView) != 'undefined') { DeferView.registerCallback('pulse360_2130373585', function() { $('').appendTo('#pulse360_2130373585');}); } else { document.write('')

Lol....i like how the article almost implies that romney did something wrong...no if you weren't so biased in your reporting you have noted that the financial situation was different and the way the financial laws were allowed romney to pay less and in no way violated any ethics or law...thats how you be a "neautral" reporter instead of a o'bama leg sniffer and propaganda machine.

It's not that either Rick or Mitt did anything wrong. It's the system that needs changed. Why should somebody making $75,000 per year pay a higher rate than either of them when you include everything?

When people say close to 50% of taxpayers who file rax returns do not pay any federal income tax, they are pointing out that to pay for the $3.8 Trillion Obama budget, it is federal income tax revenues which are supposed to be the primary funding of the federal government and all of its spending. Payroll taxes (Social Security and Medicare) that is slighly taxed on peoples wages (about 7.7% of first $107k) yes covers only part of the federal spending.....the balance is paid from general income taxes. Real Estate Taxes, Sales Taxes all go to fund your local community/government/county...for government services including police/fire, etc and in many cases local levys for schools, etc.

So when Obama continues to increase federal spending, since 50% never pay any federal income taxes, those others raise a concern about how can this get funded. With a Federal government expanding ( example, TSA was originally authorized to be 16,000 people and it now exceeds 65,000), there are not enough people paying Federal Income tax to afford this --- hence the Presidents just presented budget which will increase taxes on those making more that $250k.....still projects $9Trillion in additional debt over the next ten years!

You all should realize there is a huge reason why Mr. Santorum did not win his senator's seat again in Pa. Cause we plain out can not stand him. He is a cheat and a liar. While he was in DC whenever you heard about anything from the senator from Pa it was never good news. It was not even a close loss it was a tremendous loss for him. You wait till we hit Pa if he is still in the running Pa will show you how much we trust Mr. Santorum.

Some of us in PA did like Santorum, Tina. Please tell me how he was a cheat and liar. Of course many in this liberal state wouldn't like someone with some morals, they would just vote in a Philadelphia Mafia crook like Fast Eddy for governor. How did that work out for you?

Barbara Adams Jackson: OK, I looked up on the internet this charge of corruption and found that it comes from a liberal organization named CREW. On wikipedia it says "CREW has been described by major media organizations, including the Washington Post and New York Times, as a liberal watchdog group and by others as Democratic-leaning, left-leaning and progressive."

I have been reading the report by this "citizensforethics.org" on Santorum and so far, it is length, what I have read appears to be really reaching.

Every single member of the house and senate can be scrutinized this way. The insider trading that has gone on has made all of them wealthy, just look at the queen, Nancy Pelosi, she has become filthy rich on insider trading.

Steve - Not altogether true CREW has gone after Democrats also - Charlie Rangel - Maxine Waters - so where you get liberal leaning from I don't know - maybe Fox?

For example, Santorum bragged in 2006 that he had steered millions of dollars in earmarks to clients of American Continental Group, a lobbying firm. They gave him $14,000 that year in donations, and after he left office paid him $65,000 for "legislative policy consulting services." Another firm he helped, Consol Energy, paid him $142,500 just in 2010 and 2011.

But that's nothing compared to what he got from Universal Health Service, a medical company with facilities in Puerto Rico that has been sued for Medicare fraud. You see, while in Congress, Santorum kept pushing very specific laws increasing Medicare payments in Puerto Rico; one would have cost the government $400 million. (The eventual bill gave them more money, but not that much.)

That seems like an odd cause for a small-government Senator from Pennsylvania to work so hard on -- until you find out Universal Health Service paid Santorum $395,000 for his "insights" after he left the Senate, and appointed him to their Board of Directors. During his time on the Board, UHS was sued for Medicare fraud (and settled out of court), and several of their facilities had their certifications suspended or cancelled.

Santorum, who entered the Senate as one of the least wealthy congresspeople, bought a $2 million, 5,000 SF house in Great Falls, VA in 2007. It has 4 bedrooms and 5 baths, and sits on 5 acres, and goes well with the 5 rental houses he has accumulated since entering Congress.

While in the Senate, Santorum held weekly meetings supporting Tom Delay's "K-Street Project," an effort to fill lobbying groups with Republican loyalists. And they rewarded him handsomely, even back then. In 2006, he received $500,000 from lobbyists, far more than any other federal candidate -- 40% more than the #2 recipient, George Allen.

It's true that CREW -- the group that named him one of the 3 most corrupt senators, out of 100 -- is a liberal-leaning group. Only five of their 25 corrupt congresscritters in 2006 were Democrats -- but they have pretty good credibility on the people they include. (Who they leave out may be a different story.) Their reports, which come out every year, are meticulously documented with solid media sources, ethics investigation reports and required government filings by the congresspeople themselves. They only picked 3 Senators out of 100, and Santorum was one of them. Most of the Congresspeople convicted of bribery or other ethical crimes since then -- such as Democrat William Jefferson, and Republicans Bob Ney and Duke Cunningham - were listed first in these reports. They're pretty solid.

Now, unlike Jefferson and Cunningham, no one is accusing Santorum of direct bribery -- no one found bundles of cash in his freezer -- but he had a remarkably consistent pattern of collecting money from big special interests right at the time he did them big, highly specific favors. We're not talking about generic actions like voting to keep taxes low. These are very detailed provisions, added to bills by Santorum, that put millions of dollars in the coffers of these companies.

One dramatic example was Santorum introducing a bill that required the National Weather Service to keep collecting weather data, but said they couldn't release it to the public! They had to hand it to private weather companies who then would make the profit off of it. Guess what? Accuweather, a private weather company in Santorum's state, gave him tens of thousands of dollars right during the time he promoted this absurd bill.

There are many more examples -- $25,000 from execs at Waste Management & Processes, Inc. after Santorum proposed a $100 million subsidy for their coal-to-diesel plant; $6,000 from Miller and Annheuser-Busch right before Santorum introduced a bill cutting the beer barrel excise tax in half; $20,000 from tobacco interests around the time he blocked a law allowing the FDA to regulate tobacco, etc. etc. It's pretty shameless even by Congressional standards.

They're kind of out of fashion now, but when earmarks were all the rage in Congress, Rick Santorum was the master of doling them out. He wasn't required to report or list them at the time, but during his years in Congress, Santorum passed out over a BILLION dollars in earmarks -- chunks of money directed to one specific recipient -- according to Taxpayers for Common Sense. He even voted for the infamous "Bridge to Nowhere" in Alaska.

In one bill alone -- the 2006 Defense appropriations bill -- he personally inserted 54 earmarks that delivered $154 million of your tax money to special interests. And hey, guess what? Those special interests donated over $200,000 to his campaigns just that year.

Normally I would not even talk about the personal pain or experience someone has gone through with an issue like this. Rick Santorum, however, has missed no opportunity to tell the tale of his wife's lost pregnancy, over and over, as a mark of their personal commitment to the pro-life cause, and the reality is much stranger and more disturbing than that.

In 1996, Santorum's wife Karen was pregnant, and doctors told her that the fetus had a fatal defect and would, at best, survive only a short time outside the womb. Many couples would choose to end that pregnancy, to terminate it, to abort it, depending on your perspective. They chose to soldier on, and that's great.

Then Karen developed a life-threatening intrauterine infection and a fever of 105 degrees. The vast majority of couples would have ended the pregnancy to save the mother's life. But that would have been political suicide in pro-life circles, and the Santorums did everything possible deliver the baby. Finally, they induced labor using pitocin, even though the fetus was 20 weeks old. No baby has ever survived birth at 20 weeks. Ever. So doing so is very close to an abortion using indirect means. Still, 2 or three babies (in history) have survived at 21 weeks and a few days, so why not give it a chance? Again, fair enough.

The baby was delivered and died very quickly. A terrible tragedy. Still fine. It's what the Santorums did next that is strange. They would not let the body go to the morgue. Instead, they slept that night in the hospital with the corpse between them, then took it home and had their children hold and cuddle the cold, dead, day-old body of their sibling, who they named Gabriel. Next, Karen wrote a best-selling book, "Letters to Gabriel," and the couple has missed no chance since then to brag about this as their commitment to the pro-life cause.

I know, you're thinking "But they're just very committed, pro-life people, maybe you can't understand their tragedy but how can you criticize them for it?" Aside from the ickiness of using this sad event for political gain, there is this: Karen dated, and lived with Tom Allen, an ob-gyn who preformed abortions, for six years until right before she hooked up with Rick Santorum. She travelled the world with him, on his dime. The weirdest thing of all? Not that he was 40 years older than her. (He's still alive, in fact, at 92.) No, the weirdest thing is that her 6-year live-in lover was the doctor who delivered her as a baby.

Santorum was involved in the coverup of fellow Senator (and friend) John Ensign's adultery scandal. After losing his reelection to the Senate, Santorum went to work for Fox News. He was there when Doug Hampton -- the Ensign aide whose wife Senator Ensign was sleeping with -- decided to go public. Hampton emailed Santorum and Megyn Kelly (who also worked for Fox), seeking a meeting to plan how to go public.

Instead of reporting on the case or referring it to Fox reporters, Santorum called Ensign to warn him that the scandal was about to break. Ensign called a meeting that night to tell his staff about the affair and plan a response. Ensign eventually had to resign anyway, and the Senate Ethics Committee concluded that Ensign violated federal law in attempting to cover up the scandal, including offering Hampton a job and seeking clients for his consulting business.

Santorum loves to talk about cutting government expenditures, and relying on yourself. But while homeschooling his kids, he collected $73,000 in unwarranted tuition reimbursements from the Penn Hills Pennsylvania School District for an online charter cyber-school -- even though, by his own admission, they lived in Virginia 11 months of the year, and he was making $165,200 a year as a U.S. Senator at the time. (Virginia does not pay for students to attend online schools if a local real-world school is available, as it was to Santorum's family.)

Santorum claimed he was a valid resident of the Pennsylvania school district because he owned a house there -- which cost $88,000, compared to the $690,000 he paid for the house they actually live in. The only problem with that story is, he rented the Pennsylvania house out during the time he was supposedly a resident.

After this was discovered and publicized, Santorum pulled his kids out of the cyber-school, but refused to repay the $73,000. As a result, the State of Pennsylvania had to pay another $55,000 to settle a lawsuit by the local school district demanding repayment.

Philadelphia Trust is a boutique bank that caters to "affluent investors and institutions," and offers special low mortgage rates to investors in the bank who have a quarter million dollars or more in liquid assets. Santorum's financial disclosure filings prove that he did not meet either requirement at the time (though he has gotten rich since leaving Congress), but the bank still gave him a $500,000 five-year loan at the low rates.

Steve - Not altogether true CREW has gone after Democrats also - Charlie Rangel - Maxine Waters - so where you get liberal leaning from I don't know - maybe Fox?

My response: I got that description of CREW from wikipedia, as I put in the post. Also, Nancy Pelosi gained most of her wealth since becoming a member of the house and she has widely been accused of benefiting from her position and using inside info. Also, yes I said people should not be demonized for their success, but honest success. Making money in business, following the law, paying taxes, and being successful, more power to you. Demonize those that cheat, lie, do illegal activity, not those that make an honest living.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-house-financial-services-committee-chairman-bachus-being-investigated-for-insider-trading-20120209,0,2486311.

I think the part about there baby and the events surrounding that episode in their lives is reprehensible on the part of the author. Lots of accusations about what they intended or what they did in their home with their family and what their motives were, really over the line.

if (typeof(DeferView) != 'undefined') { DeferView.registerCallback('pgNBCPOB877911848', function() { dapMgr.enableACB('pgNBCPOB877911848', false); dapMgr.renderAd('pgNBCPOB877911848', '&PG=NBCPOB&AP=1089&ONECLICK=1', 300, 250); }); } else { dapMgr.enableACB('pgNBCPOB877911848', false); dapMgr.renderAd('pgNBCPOB877911848', '&PG=NBCPOB&AP=1089&ONECLICK=1', 300, 250)

if (typeof(DeferView) == 'undefined') { document.write('')

if (typeof(DeferView) != 'undefined') { DeferView.registerCallback('pulse360_2083145804', function() { $('').appendTo('#pulse360_2083145804');}); } else { document.write('')

if (typeof(DeferView) == 'undefined') { document.write('')

if (typeof(DeferView) != 'undefined') { DeferView.registerCallback('pulse360_808962495', function() { $('').appendTo('#pulse360_808962495');}); } else { document.write('')

This guy is bragging about paying 25%. Every year I pay 37% and I don't make over $900,000.00 a year. Mitt will just be more of a hero to the top %1 by showing he has better accountants. What a race to the bottom will produce is quiet evident.

this discussion about Santorum vs Romney's tax percentage is a lot of hooey. Both people paid what the government said they owed. They are honest people, both of them. Tax rates are different depending upon the source of the income (so says the US Government). To demonize someone because YOU are jealous about their success is un-American and reprehensible. So all you liberals out there I'm sure you will jump all over this. And shame on republicans that criticize anyone for being successful. Striving for personal success in life is what America is all about.

Exactly! They're both just paying what they're supposed to pay according to our current US tax system. If people are upset about percentages, it's a problem with the system and not the candidates.

Who would pay more taxes than they are legally required to pay? All the media noise about who pays what percentage is just a media trying to make something negative out of nothing.

I am,however, tired of any of these candidates claiming to be middle class or understanding blue collar people. Anyone that makes the kind of money they do (whether it be 1 million or 20 million) are not middle class. I actually don't want a president that is still middle class. The President needs to be able to understand the economy and how business works. If you want a middle class candidate...find a teacher that is raising 5 kids on their $40,000 salary like my husband. He is a smart man, but I don't think he is in any way prepared to be president of the US. Although now that I think about it the constant week to week worry about puttong food on the table and not bouncing checks seems to be just what our Federal government is doing right now! Maybe he WOULD be perfect for the job!

The real story that MSDNC will not put out is that Santorum and Romney BOTH put in a thousand more times in donations then joe bite me and the prophet hussain oBAMA! No socialist lib mooching democrats and oBAMA in 2012!!!!

Thundernumbers: You see, people like you are actually the problem in this country. You are poor or lower middle-class and simply don't understand what happens when your republican friends cut taxes for the rich, call it "trickle down" and then pass you the bill. You see, the government doesn't magically need less money when they give the rich tax breaks, it still needs that money. And guess where it comes from genius :)

Contrary to your stupidity, there really is a reason that the gap between the rich and the poor keeps growing. The answer is: Republicans.

Asimpleidiot,,,,You are the problem that you and your socialist lib democratic moochers want to take away the hard working taxpaying American workers money and give it to the lazy mooching low class as yourself to not work and what you cannot take, you break out the credit card and put the burden on all our children/grandchildren! Your methods have failed time after time,( look at the euro countries even today), yet all your solutions are tax and spend, tax and spend! Get a real job moocher!!!

Wow, so I'm a lazy mooching low class who doesn't work and I use credit cards too much so my children and grandchildren will have to pay my debt. And you got all that from my post? haha..

Ok smarty, and I'm using that very sarcastically, how tall am I? How old? What do I do? How much do I make? Funny how you can't seem to answer any real questions huh? Go ahead, surprise me :)

Is there anything you actually do know beyond, "Duh, I republican and me have job so anybody complaining about the rich getting richer must not have job. me know these things because me republican just like my papa and my mama. Me go to work now. you get job!"

Talk about a republican's wet dream! Stupid, works for peanuts, and loves to stick-up for the wealthy. Who could ask for anything more?

You are nothing but a lying troll(however tall they are) that as your prophet hussain oBAMA is sucking the life blood out of this country and as he does ,do nothing but use class warfare and character assaination instead of facts or records to run campaigns!

Wow, so I'm a lazy mooching low class who doesn't work and I use credit cards too much so my children and grandchildren will have to pay my debt. And you got all that from my post? haha..

Ok smarty, and I'm using that very sarcastically, how tall am I? How old? What do I do? How much do I make? Funny how you can't seem to answer any real questions huh? Go ahead, surprise me :)

Is there anything you actually do know beyond, "Duh, I republican and me have job so anybody complaining about the rich getting richer must not have job. me know these things because me republican just like my papa and my mama. Me go to work now. you get job!"

Talk about a republican's wet dream! Stupid, works for peanuts, and loves to stick-up for the wealthy. Who could ask for anything more?

What does "put in a thousand more times in donations" mean? It sounds like you want to compare chartible contributations but I'm not sure.

If you want to post about ideas, past performances, of even discuss relative tax matters then OK but stop with 'my daddy can beat up your daddy' playground crap.

if (typeof(DeferView) != 'undefined') { DeferView.registerCallback('pgNBCPOB598523400', function() { dapMgr.enableACB('pgNBCPOB598523400', false); dapMgr.renderAd('pgNBCPOB598523400', '&PG=NBCPOB&AP=1089&ONECLICK=1', 300, 250); }); } else { dapMgr.enableACB('pgNBCPOB598523400', false); dapMgr.renderAd('pgNBCPOB598523400', '&PG=NBCPOB&AP=1089&ONECLICK=1', 300, 250)

if (typeof(DeferView) == 'undefined') { document.write('')

if (typeof(DeferView) != 'undefined') { DeferView.registerCallback('pulse360_486536562', function() { $('').appendTo('#pulse360_486536562');}); } else { document.write('')

if (typeof(DeferView) == 'undefined') { document.write('')

if (typeof(DeferView) != 'undefined') { DeferView.registerCallback('pulse360_1368809100', function() { $('').appendTo('#pulse360_1368809100');}); } else { document.write('')

And while the rest of the GOP is attempting to put together arguments to get rid of the free birth control options based upon Catholics freedom of religion. I believe the GOP should also attempt to figure out a compromise in case they change their mind. I hope my proposal offers some guidelines to GOP on how to compromise to offer solutions and promote GOP at same time without trying to take away birth control freedoms at a Supreme Court level.

no one is trying to take away birth control freedoms at the supreme court level or any other level. The latest controversary over religious freedom goes deeper than that. It is about the government having/ or not having authority to mandate to the citizens that they purchase something, and also with the presidents latest change does the government have the right to force a business to sell something, or force a business to provide a product to customers for free? I don't think so. If the government does, then you have a dictatorship in the making.

Birth control is not a right. You are free to use it - but it is not a right - and nothing is ever free - nothing - someone is paying for it and I am offended at the thought that it might be me whose flippin the bill.

What will be next? Democratic moocher big brother will want us to pay for their legal pot! Or we have to buy their books and videos on healthcare! This is nothing but another democratic step (thanks to fraud oBAMAcare), that puts big democratic mooching brother in charge of everything in our daily lives!!!

Wow, so I'm a lazy mooching low class who doesn't work and I use credit cards too much so my children and grandchildren will have to pay my debt. And you got all that from my post? haha..

Ok smarty, and I'm using that very sarcastically, how tall am I? How old? What do I do? How much do I make? Funny how you can't seem to answer any real questions huh? Go ahead, surprise me :)

Is there anything you actually do know beyond, "Duh, I republican and me have job so anybody complaining about the rich getting richer must not have job. me know these things because me republican just like my papa and my mama. Me go to work now. you get job!"

Talk about a republican's wet dream! Stupid, works for peanuts, and loves to stick-up for the wealthy. Who could ask for anything more?

The 'mandate' simply said that any business that offers health insurance coverage must include birth control in that coverage. As for who pays, well, I dont like paying for Viagra but that's included, or prostrate exams that I will never use. There are many things covered by insurance that most of us won't use. That's how insurance works.

having things covered by insurance (what is in the policy) is not the issue. The issue is the government determining that this or that must be in or must be out. The government should have ZERO say in what is in an insurance policy or any other business transaction for that matter. This is an agreement between the policy holder and the insurance company. It is not the federal governments business to dictate that an insurance company must cover something and certainly not to dictate that they must cover something for free. Businesses were providing health insurance to employees as part of their overall pay package, as incentives to hire the best employees. The government is overreaching the constitution to mandate that employers must provide this benefit.

Hey all you Republicans -- you keep running on the idea that birth control is not a right. Make that the focus of your campaign. See how far that gets you.

if (typeof(DeferView) != 'undefined') { DeferView.registerCallback('pgNBCPOB1644990306', function() { dapMgr.enableACB('pgNBCPOB1644990306', false); dapMgr.renderAd('pgNBCPOB1644990306', '&PG=NBCPOB&AP=1089&ONECLICK=1', 300, 250); }); } else { dapMgr.enableACB('pgNBCPOB1644990306', false); dapMgr.renderAd('pgNBCPOB1644990306', '&PG=NBCPOB&AP=1089&ONECLICK=1', 300, 250)

if (typeof(DeferView) == 'undefined') { document.write('')

if (typeof(DeferView) != 'undefined') { DeferView.registerCallback('pulse360_577435240', function() { $('').appendTo('#pulse360_577435240');}); } else { document.write('')

if (typeof(DeferView) == 'undefined') { document.write('')

if (typeof(DeferView) != 'undefined') { DeferView.registerCallback('pulse360_1175631914', function() { $('').appendTo('#pulse360_1175631914');}); } else { document.write('')

I find it gratifying that Obama uses my tax money to bail out private companies and people who refuse to work. Democrat-Republican - it doesn't matter, this country has lost it's moral compass and Taxation in this country is nothing more than legalized theft. I don"t want to hear about what other countries pay either - that is irrelevant. No hard working person should ever have to pay nearly a third of their hard earned income to any government. It's amazing to me that our forefathers (well, at least mine) went to war over a tax that was less than 1/2 of 1% of their income. If they were only here to see this debacle! Let's have a moment of silence for America and ask God to deliver us from ourselves.

So which are you - a rugged individual who doesn't need all those government services like roads, clean water, clean air (the list goes on and on), or just selfish because you want the services but don't want to pay for them?

I guess there's the third choice 'small government', you know the kind we had back in the early 20 th century. Those good old days of the robber barons and soup lines.

So were you all wound up back in the 80s when Reagan bailed out an auto company? And -- I don't suppose you know that the latest auto bailout originated under Bush do you??

So we can expect you not to use any highways, airports, public hospitals, schools or anything like that? You will provide for your own police and fire protection. You will turn down Social Security? You will NEVER use any service that is in any way related to any government be it federal, state, local -- none at all? Can we count on that from you??

You do realize that the tax rates on the rich are the lowest they've been wince 1952? If taxation today is legalized theft, what was it 60 years ago when the tax rate for money over $250k, was 91%?

if (typeof(DeferView) != 'undefined') { DeferView.registerCallback('pgNBCPOB36349529', function() { dapMgr.enableACB('pgNBCPOB36349529', false); dapMgr.renderAd('pgNBCPOB36349529', '&PG=NBCPOB&AP=1089&ONECLICK=1', 300, 250); }); } else { dapMgr.enableACB('pgNBCPOB36349529', false); dapMgr.renderAd('pgNBCPOB36349529', '&PG=NBCPOB&AP=1089&ONECLICK=1', 300, 250)

if (typeof(DeferView) == 'undefined') { document.write('')

if (typeof(DeferView) != 'undefined') { DeferView.registerCallback('pulse360_1475503898', function() { $('').appendTo('#pulse360_1475503898');}); } else { document.write('')

if (typeof(DeferView) == 'undefined') { document.write('')

if (typeof(DeferView) != 'undefined') { DeferView.registerCallback('pulse360_648426936', function() { $('').appendTo('#pulse360_648426936');}); } else { document.write('')

Chuck Todd became NBC News? political director in March 2007. He also serves as NBC News' on-air political analyst for "NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams," "Today," "Meet the Press and MSNBC, including "Hardball with Chris Matthews."

Mark Murray is NBC News' Deputy Political Director. Since joining the network in 2003, he has reported on and written about political races, trends, and issues -- including the 2003 California recall, the 2004 Bush-Kerry presidential race, the 2006 midterm elections, the 2008 presidential contest, the 2010 midterms, and the upcoming 2012 presidential race.

Domenico Montanaro is an off-air Political Reporter for NBC News. He writes, reports and edits for First Read, the network's political blog. He occasionally appears on-air, writes feature-length pieces for msnbc.com, reports from Capitol Hill, field produces and provides editorial guidance for correspondents and producers working on Nightly News, the Today show, Meet the Press, MSNBC and affiliates.