Exactly.

He paid his fair share according to the law. If you want him to pay 35% on all of his income then Congress has to pass a law to include his investment income in the calculation. If not, he'll still pay 12-15% BY LAW on that amount. But we all know Congress wont do that since the majority of them make their own money through investments and would never dream of changing how much they pay in taxes.

Good for him. Im happy he made all that money. Funny thing is he paid more in taxes and contributions you will ever gross in your life. So its probably fair.


Oh btw, if you are going to pull statistics of Obama, Newt and Romney from one of the most biased reporting institutions in the world, at least, for the love of God, make sure the stats show an outcome on the same thing not, a percentage of taxe on wages for one person and then an aggregate percentage on wages and invesment income on the next.

Duh.

 

-----signature-----

So many numbskulls missing the whole point. Most people aren't blaming him for his tax rate. And even if people think his exorbitant income highlights the severe issue of wealth disparity in the US, they are not demanding it be taken away.

The relevance is that Romney/Republicans constantly whine about the rich being over-taxed. Yet, you have wealthy people with 300x more income than Middle-class Americans who get a better deal tax-wise.

And Huff post being one of the most biased institutions in the world? lol... so much ignorance of reality. I guess you just gobble up whatever talking points you hear.

Ignoring that Huffington Post is composed of independent bloggers with different approaches, overall it has bias on a similar level to FOX news. Neither of these US news organizations are nearly as biased as thousands of fringe newscasts in the US and all over the world.

The Huffington Post source is irrelevant anyways, as it was a Reuters article which has been re-published all over.


That he garnered so much wealth and therefore gave back millions in taxes is irrelevant, there is no reason to have blind gratitude towards the rich, every bit of wealth is linked and dependent on the effort of lower level workers.
Of course there are rich people who contribute lasting benefits to society, like advancing scientific fields or creating new jobs, but those contributions are measured independent from earnings.

 

-----signature-----

The only Republican candidate even talking about wealth inequality and lack of social mobility (i.e. the death of the American dream) is Rick "anal lube" Santorum. This is the number one issue facing America right now, and none of the "mainstream" Republican candidates are talking about it. In the 1970s, a CEO made about 25 times what an average employee made in salary. Now? Over 200 times. Meanwhile, America has gone from a nation that makes things (i.e. goods) to a nation that trades debt and equity, and the cost is a vanishing middle class, widening wealth inequity, and the kind of risky economic policies that collapsed the system in 2008.

And now Willard shows up to represent the 1%, the guys that are getting fat while everyone else suffers, and pretends nothing is wrong. Good riddance to him, I hope he loses.

 

-----signature-----

Actually, you are missing the point. You see others that have money and want to figure out how to get it for what you want. You want the world to conform to your definition of fairness. I hear more complaints about people paying no federal income tax than that others don't pay enough. Maybe that's just your echo chamber.

The fact that you resent passive income and that people didn't "work" for what they have says more about you. You want to socialize the world's assets and others don't. From each according to their ability, to each according to their need. You reek of that attitude. I don't envy and obsess over others, you do.

 

-----signature-----