Here’s the breakdown in dollars, not percentages. Per statistics in the USA Today, Monday, August 20, Romney paid $3,226,623 in Federal income tax on his last reported return. Obama paid $184,631. So, Romney paid 17 Obama’s in taxes. Romney received $11,515850 in income from dividends and capital gains. Romney, if we just use dividends, has $78,000,000 in income from dividends before tax. Since dividends are normally paid at a low rate, Romney has most of his assets tied up in dividend-paying corporations. Millions of dollars that can be used for capital expenditures to create jobs. Obama, on the other hand, according to the same USA Today breakdown, has no separate line for capital gains/dividends. His income comes from salary and revenues from books he and Michelle wrote. No surprise here. One man is heavily invested in corporate America putting his cash in the hands of business to grow and create jobs. The other must not trust business to grow and provide capital gains and dividends. Guess he realizes what his policies do to business growth.
USA says the average American family pays $11,680 in taxes. This is a married couple with two dependent children, making $69,700 a year. Romney’s taxes add up to over 1,000 of those families. If a Romney earner moves out of a state like California or even out of the USA because his taxes are raised, who pays the difference? Taxes have to go up on those 1,000 plus families or we just increase the deficit.
This isn’t about percentages, it’s about dollars. And, where do those income dollars originate. If successful people like Romney pull their money out of corporations, those corporations have less to invest in growth. Since Obama doesn’t invest in corporations, it makes no difference in his case. The only real way to raise Romney’s taxes is to raise the rates on capital gains and dividends. This creates a disincentive to invest in US business. Is that what we want with 9% unemployment?
When you look at percentages fairness can seem one thing, when you look at dollars, it may be entirely different.
It wasn’t those who invest in US business who raised food stamps 45% since 2009. It was the guy who lives on our tax dollars and selling books for a living who did that. The same one who would spend every dime you took from every America who pays taxes and still run a deficit.
Who do you want running the country? A man who invests in the country or a man who lives off the country and the books he sells?
