Nice. Presidential Hopeful Mitt Romney Paid Less in Federal Income tax (11 percent) than A man making 60,000 a year.
He earned $27,283,915. So just the taxes he avoided paying alone could support your family for a few generations.
He has a lot to gain by not closing tax loopholes. How could you expect him to support any bill that would do so. I'm not even suggesting adding new taxes, simply enforcing current taxes.
So your choices are now a "Family Values" candidate that is an adulterer and swinger.... Or a man that uses charitable donations (around 3 mil to the Mormon Church) to lower his tax rate.
Before anyone makes the fox argument that "You would pay less taxes if there were a loophole", remember that I AM NOT RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT!
He already paid taxes on that money. He took his money and invested it again and paid taxes, again, on the profits from that investment (at a huge risk too, had he lost his investment he could only have deducted 3000 dollars from his taxes). He also donated about 7 million to charities. You know the economy isn't a zero sum game. People like Romney investing their money allows for the creation of new income and it is a very good thing. He isn't taking anything from anyone he is more accurately creating wealth for others (in addition to himself) through his investments. Just how high do you imagine you could raise capital gains before people would stop investing? You might get it to 20% but anymore than that offset the reward to risk ratio and would discourage investments. How much in taxes do you think Mitt would pay on his money that he already paid taxes on in the first place if he didn't invest it? Didn't consider that did you? The net loss to the overall economy, if investors stopped investing (and thus removing your silly capital gains rates arguments from the equation) would be devastating.
What you say about taxes would apply to every single politician so it is a bit fallacious to apply it specially to Mitt Romney. Basically that issue is entirely moot. I see you mentioned some of his charitable donations and you tried to put it in a bad light at that. You cannot say that he used his donations to lower his tax rate, you can only speculate as to the reasons and even so this is fully legal and encouraged so why try to make it out as a bad thing?
I don't like loopholes either, but I don't recall you arguing once that Obama or the democrats fix the issue. For some reason you seem to put the responsibility on people not in power. You even go so far as to suggest that by electing them, the conditions that are such as they are now, will stand. You suggest this as if there is an alternative in keeping Obama as president when you tacitly reveal that he has done nothing regarding it either.