All I’m saying, is that I wouldn’t divorce you for $27,000… a million maybe, but not 27K.
My husband, in regards to a couple who divorced to save $27K a year due to the new tax laws. (via thakate)
I believe I said “I wouldn’t divorce you to save $27,000.” This was in regards to a couple in the news last evening who each make $400k (so, $800k joint income) and they are getting divorced (but staying together) to file as individuals to save themselves $27k on their joint tax bill.
Sorry, but that’s fucking ridiculous.
As I said, I’d consider the move if we could actually save a million dollars on our taxes. This was an obviously easy promise to make, since we’re about a million miles away from being able to save a million dollars in taxes.
But, yes… xo.
Ben Stein goes on Fox News, and in 2 minutes eviscerates the entire GOP platform regarding taxation and spending. Every single talking point the hosts bring up is immediately shot down and then the segment is abruptly ended.
- Romney’s tax plan would personally save Sheldon Adelson a total $2.3 billion in taxes.
- It saves Adelson approximately $1.5 million in tax cuts on his CEO salary.
- In one year, Adelson could more than earn back his $100 million in political donations, since Romney will save him $120 million on dividend taxes.
- His casino company would get $1.2 billion in tax cuts.
- By eliminating the estate tax, Adelson would get a $8.9 billion windfall for his heirs.
I’m not really into the whole classwarfare-richpeoplesuck game that lots of people seem to enjoy playing every four years… but, um, wow.
Can we stand back and pause a short minute to take in the spectacle of a man who wants to be President of The United States, who wants us to seriously regard him as a paragon of the American civic ideal, declaiming proudly and in public that he has paid his taxes at a third of the rate normally associated with gentlemen of his economic benefit.
David Simon - creator, The Wire
The Romney tax returns are a prime example of our increasingly two-tiered bureaucratic system, in which there is one set of rules for poor and middle-class people, and another set of rules for people like Mitt Romney. The most common method of giving preferential treatment to the rich is through semantics. The old classic was that you called a rich kid blowing coke in his dorm room one thing, and you called a black street kid smoking crack something else, and the two got different penalties for the same crime – cocaine use. Or, and this one is still true in some states, the rich white kid who uses a fake ID to get into a club gets hit with a misdemeanor and a fine, while an immigrant who uses a fake ID to get a job at a chicken plant gets dragged in for a felony and can get up to 15 years in jail. Both offenses are simple forgery, but one is also called felony fraud and you get real prison time for it. In Mitt’s case, the money you and I make to support ourselves is called income and is taxed up to 35 percent, but the money Mitt makes raiding companies with borrowed money and extracting draconian management fees from captive companies that have no choice but to pay them is called “Carried Interest,” and taxed at a top rate of 15%.
If you are a so-called job creator in the country, even if the jobs you create are in India or China, you are legally entitled to wonderful things like offshore tax havens…or $77,000 in business deductions for dressage horse competition expenses. Yeah $77,000 tax break to send your horse to the fucking prom. Here’s what Romney doesn’t get. Nobody cares that Mitt Romney is rich. It’s Romney’s inability to understand the institutional advantage that he gains from the government’s tax code largesse, that’s a little offensive to people, especially considering Romney’s view on anyone else who looks to the government for things like, I don’t know, food and medicine.
At the beginning of the last decade, the wealthiest Americans received a huge tax cut in 2001 and another huge tax cut in 2003. We were promised that these tax cuts would lead to faster job growth. They did not. The wealthy got wealthier. We would expect that. The income of the top 1 percent has grown by more than 275 percent over the last few decades to an average of $1.3 million a year. But prosperity sure didn’t trickle down. Instead, during the last decade we had the slowest job growth in half a century. And the typical American family actually saw their incomes fall by about 6 percent even as the economy was growing. It was a period when insurance companies and mortgage lenders and financial institutions didn’t have to abide by strong enough regulations, or they found their ways around them. And what was the result? Profits for many of these companies soared, but so did people’s health insurance premiums. Patients were routinely denied care, often when they needed it most. Families were enticed and sometimes just plain tricked into buying homes they couldn’t afford. Huge, reckless bets were made with other people’s money on the line. And our entire financial system was nearly destroyed.