Posted on **10/21/2012 10:30:16 AM PDT** by **NaturalBornConservative**

**Content of Character ::**

According to a report released by the __Tax Foundation__, an effective federal tax rate of 14.0% is higher than what 97 percent of Americans pay.

- By: Larry Walker, Jr. -

And according to __The Tax Policy Center__, the average effective federal tax rate for all Americans, as a percentage of __cash income__, was only 9.3% in 2011. Those in the Top 20 Percent (with incomes over $103,465) paid an average of 14.9%, while those in the Bottom 20 Percent (with incomes below $16,812) received back refundable tax credits averaging 5.8% of their incomes.

Within the Top Quintile, the Top 1 Percent paid an average rate of 20.3%, while the Top 0.1 Percent paid an average of 19.8%. It’s important to note that these are averages, which means that within each quintile some pay more than the average and others less. But overall, since the average effective federal tax rate for all of America is 9.3%, this represents a kind of minimum benchmark. What’s your effective federal tax rate?

Under the **traditional model**, in 2011, Mitt and Ann Romney paid an **effective federal tax rate** of around 14.0% (see definitions at the end), while Barack and Michelle Obama paid 17.8% (see table below). So does that mean the Obamas are more patriotic? Before you answer that, consider that the Romneys paid a total of $1,912,529 in federal income taxes, versus the Obamas $150,253. So does this give the Romneys the upper hand?

Digging a little deeper, it turns out that the Romneys paid an **effective state and local tax rate** of 11.3%, compared to the Obamas 7.0%. The Romneys also paid $1,541,905 in state and local taxes, compared to the Obamas $59,804. Shouldn’t state and local taxes be counted as well, since they are, after all, taxes? Yes, of course.

So when all taxes are on the table, the Romneys **overall effective tax rate** was 25.2%, compared to the Obamas 24.8%. And, the Romneys paid a total of $3,454,434 in federal, state and local taxes, versus the Obamas $209,057. So in light of these facts, is one of the two presidential candidates better suited for the Oval Office than the other? Is one a tax deadbeat and the other a saint? If a presidential candidate’s effective tax rate matters, then this election should be a toss up. But if it doesn’t, then Barack Obama’s entire – *fair share monologue* – is nothing but rubbish. The question is – what really matters?

**Real Effective Tax Rates**

Perhaps a more suitable measure of patriotism may be found in one’s ** real effective tax rate**. One way of lowering U.S. tax liabilities is through charitable giving. When gifts are given to charity, the taxpayer no longer controls the assets, and so is granted a deduction against his (or her) taxable income of as much as 50% of adjusted gross income. Depending upon one’s marginal tax bracket, the tax savings may be as high as 35% of the amount given.

What happens to the money once it has been gifted? It gets spent by recipient organizations on salaries and wages, goods and services, real property, or is otherwise invested toward its charitable endeavors. Thus, charity is wealth redistribution, or if you will, a type of *voluntary taxation*. I would add that charitable giving is a much more efficient means of *spreading the wealth *than the U.S. government’s wasteful method, which after a certain limit may be summed up as little more than __legalized robbery__.

In 2011, the Romneys gave away $4,000,000, or about 29.0% of their income, although they only __chose__ to claim a tax deduction of $2,250,772. The Obamas donated $172,130 or about 20.0% of their income. When we add this *voluntary taxation* to the total amount of taxes paid, we find that the Romneys paid a *real effective tax rate* of 54.4%, compared to the Obamas 45.1% (see table below).

Just to add some perspective I included data from the Roosevelts and the Carters tax returns (above). It’s interesting to note that in 1937, Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt donated $3,024, or only about 3.2% of their income, while in 1978, Jimmy and Roselynn Carter gave away $18,637, or about 7.0%. When we add the amount of the couples voluntary taxation through charitable gifts, to the total amount of taxes paid, we find that the Roosevelts paid a *real effective tax rate* of 33.3%, compared to the Carters 45.6%. So was FDR a slacker? Was Jimmy Carter slightly more patriotic than Obama? And isn’t Mitt Romney a better man than them all?

Note: The Roosevelts income of $93,602 in 1937 is __equivalent__ to $1,504,178 today, while the Carters income of $267,195 in 1978 is equivalent to $948,325. A study of historical __Presidential tax returns__ is interesting, informative, and highly recommended for anyone serious about tax reform, as is a study of __historical income tax rates__.

**Tax Return Analysis: Romneys versus Obamas**

Following are some other key statistics from the Romneys and Obamas tax returns:

It’s notable that 94.8% of the Romneys income came from investments – interest, dividends and capital gains, versus -12.8% for the Obamas. The Obamas tax return includes a capital loss carryover of $116,151, a consequence of failed investments from the past. That’s interesting, since Barack Obama is the one always harping on the idea of government investment, yet all the while it turns out that *successful* investing is a trait beyond the scope of his expertise. Small wonder his taxpayer-funded green energy investments have turned out to be __dismal failures__.

What’s even more notable is the fact that roughly 62.4% of the Romneys income came from capital gains and qualified dividends which, based on current law, are taxed at a maximum rate of 15.0%. In contrast, around 99.0% of the Obamas income came from wages and net book sales which are taxed at ordinary rates of as high as 35.0%. Thus the Romneys effective tax rate should be considerably lower than the Obamas; but it turns out that both couples effectively paid about the same *overall effective tax rate*, 25.2% versus 24.8%, as explained earlier. So in spite of favorable capital gains rates, overall effective tax rates tend to balance out. One reason for this phenomenon is that most of the States don’t reciprocate (i.e. there is no favorable capital gains rate at the state level).

Next, we find that the Romneys paid $102,790, or 0.8% of their income, in foreign taxes, while the Obamas paid $5,841, or 0.7%. Thus, on a percentage basis, both families earned about an equal amount of their income from foreign sources. So is either candidate more likely to outsource American jobs than the other? I guess Obama could limit sales of his books to the USA, and cut-off the rest of the world, as if that would make any sense. I’ll let you figure that one out.

Next, we discover that the Obamas claimed a retirement contribution deduction of $49,000, or 5.8% of their income, while the Romneys claimed none. Foul! The question is that since Barack Obama now qualifies for a $191,000 a year presidential pension, why is he continuing to maximize the simplified employee pension account (SEP) deduction? In the private sector, the most anyone can exclude from income for retirement purposes, including employer matching contributions, is $49,000 per year. Yet Barack Obama gets to claim this maximum deduction, while at the same time deferring taxes on the annual contributions the U.S. Treasury makes to his pension account. Does that sound fair to you? Is Obama paying his *fair share*?

Is a guaranteed $191,000 a year for life, on top of a virtually __unlimited__ presidential expense account, insufficient for Mr. Obama? In stark contrast, Mitt Romney refused to take a salary while he served as Governor of Massachusetts. So has anyone bothered to ask if he would waive his presidential salary? Would he also consider waiving the presidential pension and lush lifetime expense account? Somebody needs to ask that question. By the way, Mitt Romney could have claimed exactly the same SEP-IRA deduction that the Obamas did, based on his net business income, which would have further reduced his tax liability, but chose not to. So what does this say about character?

Next, the Obamas also claimed a $47,564 home mortgage deduction amounting to 5.6% of their income, while the Romneys claimed none. Wow! So since the Obamas claimed both a $47,564 home mortgage deduction, and the $49,000 maximum retirement contribution exclusion, while the Romneys claimed neither, this gave the Obama’s an 11.4% handicap. Note: According to the __Internal Revenue Service__, in tax year 2010, only 25.8% of tax filers claimed the home mortgage deduction, which kind of makes the case for placing limits on this deduction.

Now when it comes to charitable contributions, as stated earlier, the Romneys gave $4,000,000, or around 29.2% of their income, while the Obamas gave $172,130, or 20.4%. But since the Romneys only chose to write-off $2,250,772, their actual deduction amounted to just 16.4% of their income. So once again the Obamas had a slight advantage, yet when their total itemized deductions are compared, we find that the Romneys amounted to 34.2% of their income, while the Obamas amounted to 33.0%, or about the same.

Finally, the Romneys federal taxes included an Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) of $674,512, representing 4.9% of their income, while the Obamas incurred a liability was $12,491, or 1.5%. The AMT limits certain deductions and tax preferences to ensure that high income earners pay at least a minimum amount of tax. So what will happen when the AMT is eliminated? Will the rich pay less in taxes? Not necessarily, because if the same deductions and tax preferences for high income earners were eliminated from the get go, then the AMT wouldn’t be necessary. Isn’t this the objective of tax reform, to eliminate deductions and preferences, lower tax rates, and thus simplify the tax code? So when tax rates are cut by 20% in the next year or two, and that’s where we’re headed, the first place to look for deductions and preferences to eliminate is within current AMT regulations.

**Content of Character**

So what’s the point? First of all, we learned that in 2011, the Romneys paid a total of $3,454,434 in federal, state and local taxes, while the Obamas paid $209,057. When state and local taxes were added to the mix, we found that the Romneys paid an *overall effective tax rate* of 25.2%, versus the Obamas 24.8%. But when charitable contributions were figured in, we discovered that the Romneys paid a *real effective tax rate* of 54.4% compared to the Carters 45.6%, the Obamas 45.1%, and the Roosevelts 33.3%.

What should be clear is that measuring a person by the size of their effective tax rate reveals nothing about their character. If those who pay the largest share of taxes are the most patriotic among us, then that all but eliminates everyone except for the Top 1 Percent. If effective tax rates are so important, then why not simply convert to a flat tax (i.e. the __FairTax__)? That way the concept of effective tax rates becomes meaningless. In a perfect world it seems this would be the goal.

Is paying more taxes than absolutely necessary savvy? No, but anyone who voluntarily pays more must really love this country. Mitt and Ann Romney didn’t claim all of the charitable contributions they could have, and thus paid a higher amount in taxes than legally required. When it comes down to it, no one that I know cares anything about increasing their own personal effective tax rate; most are like the Obamas, preoccupied with finding ways to reduce it.

The main point of this post has been to prove that measuring any American by the size of their effective tax rate reveals next to nothing about the content of their character. Thus, Barack Obama’s entire *fair share mantra* turns out to be nothing but rubbish. The rich already pay more than their fair share sir. It’s time to bring on a business guy, someone who really understands what’s going on in this country. It’s time to lower income tax rates, limit deductions and preferences, broaden the tax base, and reduce the size of government. It’s time to lower the federal deficit and move towards a balanced budget. It’s time to purge Barack Obama’s jaded philosophy of – *do as I think, not as I do*.

**Definitions:**

(a) **The Traditional Model** – Under the traditional model, the effective tax rate is calculated by dividing total income taxes (before tax credits and other taxes), by total income (before exclusions and deductions).

(b) **Effective Federal Tax Rate** – The effective federal tax rate is determined by dividing total federal income taxes (before tax credits and other taxes), by total income (before exclusions and deductions).

(c) **Effective State and Local Tax Rate** – The effective state and local tax rate is determined by dividing total state income taxes, real estate taxes, and personal property taxes claimed on federal Schedule A, by total income (before exclusions and deductions).

(d) **Overall Effective Tax Rate** – The overall effective tax rate is calculated by dividing total federal income taxes (before tax credits and other taxes), plus total state and local taxes as in (c), by total income (before exclusions and deductions).

(e) **Real Effective Tax Rate** – The real effective tax rate is calculated by dividing total federal income taxes (before tax credits and other taxes), plus state and local taxes as in (c), plus charitable contributions, by total income (before exclusions and deductions).

**References:**

__The Roosevelts 1937 Tax Return__

__Romney’s Taxes: A Window Into Charitable Giving__

__Even at 14%, Romney Pays a Higher Rate than 97% of His Fellow Americans__

__Ex-presidents have huge expense accounts__

__President Obama’s Taxpayer-Backed Green Energy Failures__

To: **NaturalBornConservative**

So a 10% flat tax would be a effective 0.7% nationwide tax hike? Sweet.

If you added in a single $30k deduction it would probably end up being the same as today, and with a half-page form for everyone in the US.

2
posted on **10/21/2012 10:40:41 AM PDT**
by gura
(If Allah is so great, why does he need fat sexually confused fanboys to do his dirty work? -iowahawk)

To: **gura**

Yep, 10% would probably knock it out. And yeah, a higher standard deduction could be used to hit the 10% target. Check out FDR’s 1937 tax return (link at the bottom of the post), it’s basically a one pager with total income, itemized deductions, and total taxes shown on the front page of the return.

3
posted on **10/21/2012 11:03:12 AM PDT**
by NaturalBornConservative
("Something that everyone knows isn't worth knowing" ~ Bernard Baruch)

To: **NaturalBornConservative**

With all due respect to every FR who cares about the effective tax rate, the more important rate is the rate on each additional dollar. This is often called the marginal tax rate.

We far more dependent for making major economic progress on super-productive people than the rest of the population. What if the marginal tax rate on Steve Job’s income had been so high that he decided he would rather spend time at the beach than designing the iPhone? We all would be much poorer. The same could be said for every person on his team of innovators down the line. If anyone who contributed a key bit of insight had not been at work when the opportunity came, the iPhone would not have been the success it is.

The same could be said for George Lucas, whose Star Wars franchise has created billions of dollars in wealth downstream of that first flash if insight.

The hard truth is that government cannot create wealth, it can only consume it and make it possible for the private sector to create wealth. We can only afford so much government. Both the Laffer and the Rahn Curves prove that beyond a doubt. Yet socialists cannot tax enough or spend enough. Beyond a certain point that appears to be about 20% of private income, government destroys far more wealth than it takes in taxes.

Socialists will never acknowledge this, but the road to our national prosperity is only made possible by the smallest possible government. Government today is clearly several times larger than we can afford. But if we do not restrain its spending, it will consume us, both in debt and in regulations. It is only a matter of time before Wesley Mouch shows up to impose Directive 10-289. [1]

[1] http://conservapedia.com/Directive_10-289

To: **NaturalBornConservative**

I like this graphic best. It shows all in perspective.

To: **marktwain**

Nice chart. But it only proves my point, that measuring a man by the size of his effective tax rate is meaningless. If it included state and local taxes and gifts to charity, like mine does, the right-hand side would be off the charts.

6
posted on **10/28/2012 8:18:11 PM PDT**
by NaturalBornConservative
("Something that everyone knows isn't worth knowing" ~ Bernard Baruch)

**Disclaimer:**
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson