At least one presidential candidate pays a lower tax rate than the average American

[question everything]

Bernie Sanders is a pauper compared with the other presidential candidates. But he’s got one thing going for him: A very low effective tax rate.

With a family income of roughly $205,000 in 2014, Sanders and his wife Jane, who file their taxes jointly, are in the 28% tax bracket. But they claim deductions that lower their tax rate as a percentage of their adjusted gross income to 13.5%. The average filer, with an income of $65,021, pays an effective rate of 14.7%, according to the IRS.

(snip)

Many taxpayers lower their payments to Uncle Sam through a variety of deductions, which is why almost everybody pays a lower effective tax rate than the tax bracket they fall into based on their gross income. The most popular deductions are the ones for mortgage interest, real-estate taxes, state and local income taxes and charitable donations. Those are listed on Schedule A of the candidates' tax returns as itemized deductions.

(snip)

On the Sanders return, virtually all of the $56,000 in itemized deductions comes from the traditional writedowns on Schedule A. But the total amount of deductions is a relatively large 27% of their adjusted gross income. The average amount of deductions for the typical taxpayer is $7,766, or 12% of AGI. The Sanders deductions do appear to be legit, however. The couple deducted $9,666 in state and local income taxes and another $14,843 in real-estate taxes, presumably on their residence in Burlington, Vt. They also claimed $22,946 in mortgage interest paid in 2014, along with charitable gifts of $8,350. While the amounts are larger than for most Americans, those types of deductions are typical for middle-income families that own a home.

Mortgage interest payments of $22,946, or $1,912 per month, might correspond to a mortgage of $500,000 or so, under typical terms such as a 4.5% interest rate on a 30-year loan.

more..

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/income-tax-sanders-clinton-trump-cruz-kasich-181125187.html

[hobbit709]

1. And one gets more for one hour of yakking than most Americans see in many years.

[SFnomad]

2. You have a problem with the Free Market? n/t

[beedle]

5. the free market where politicians can be bought and sold

based on supply & demand?

Yeah, matter of fact lots of people do have a problem with that:

[SFnomad]

9. Secretary Clinton wasn't a politician when she was paid for "yakking", but nice try.

She was a private citizen who had every right to make as much money as should could get with her talents.

[FailureToCommunicate]

40. Clinton "wasn't a politician when she was paid" for Wall Street speeches?

She never ceased being a politician. Ever hear of the 'revolving door' for former (and future) pols?

And being paid huge sums for "her talents"? Please. It was for access, and her connections as former Sec. of State more likely.

Private citizen my left foot.

[SFnomad]

41. Glad to see you're consistent ... denial of reality. No matter how much you want to ((((spin)))) it

she was a Private Citizen at the time. She held no office, she wasn't a lobbyist. And she had a right to be able to earn a living.

[dchill]

6. It's what they offered.

In fact, I hate the Free Market. It's anything but.

[virtualobserver]

7. when pricing corruption in the free market, it is what ever the market will bear, eh?

If not corruption, what exactly were they getting for their $200,000 plus?

[SFnomad]

14. Being that she was a private citizen when they paid her ...

and they didn't know if she would be anything other than a private citizen for the rest of her life ... what do you think they were expecting to get from her? ... other then her speech?

[virtualobserver]

17. but why is a 20 min speech worth $225,000 dollars to them? What do they get from it?

Why do they pay her that multiple times?

[SFnomad]

18. Your question has been answered many times in many threads ...

It's clear you don't like the answer, so you'll just ask the question again and again.

I notice you won't answer my question, so I'll ask it again.

Being that she was a private citizen when they paid her and they didn't know if she would be anything other than a private citizen for the rest of her life ... what do you think they were expecting to get from her, other then her speech?

[virtualobserver]

20. They give her money because she agrees with them. That is what corporations do.

She won't release the transcripts because they will show that she agrees with them.

They are expecting her to do little or nothing to regulate their behavior.

Everyone in the universe knew that she was running in 2016. My cat knew.

[SFnomad]

21. As a private citizen, she can't regulate their behavior, so that's a good bet

And even if "everyone in the universe" knew she was running, nobody knew if she was going to win and they still don't today.

A company spending that much money on such a flimsy bet? Yeah, ok, whatever you say. But that's not likely the reason they had Secretary Clinton as speaker anyway, which many other posts have explained.

[virtualobserver]

23. it is the only reason, and it was a good investment

[SFnomad]

24. It's clear you need to visit reality more often n/t

[virtualobserver]

25. you would have to be completely disconnected from reality to see it as anything but corruption

when you combined legalized bribery with the secrecy concerning what she said, it is impossible to conclude anything else.

[SFnomad]

26. When all you see are conspiracy theories ... everything looks like a conspiracy n/t

[virtualobserver]

27. it isn't a conspiracy....it is open bribery....before money corrupted politics...

no one defended this kind of behavior.

[SFnomad]

28. Secretary Clinton was a PRIVATE CITIZEN when she made that money

there is NO BRIBERY THERE. I'm sorry you hate the Free Market so much.

[virtualobserver]

29. free market for what? what was she selling?

[SFnomad]

30. Are you being purposely obtuse? Your trolling game has getten old .... buh bye n/t

[virtualobserver]

31. sorry, but you can't explain it as a free market unless she is selling something

[SFnomad]

34. Yep, willfully obtuse n/t

[virtualobserver]

35. You are the one who expressed her behavior in terms of the free market....

you simply refuse to acknowledge what she is selling.

[SFnomad]

37. As a private citizen, she could not sell what you're implying

but hey, lets not let facts get in the way of your fantasy world.

[virtualobserver]

38. it has been an open secret that she would be running in 2016

she denied it before running in 2008, and she did the same in 2016.

Within the circles of power, you would have had to be brain dead to believe otherwise.

[SFnomad]

39. The special rules just for Hillary ... strikes again.

No matter what you believe ... no matter what you think everyone knew ... no matter how clear you felt it was going to happen, there is one indisputable fact.

Until Secretary Clinton formed her exploratory committee, she was a private citizen, period. And when it comes to making money, she can do whatever she wants to, as long as it is legal. No matter what partisan hackery you want to continue with, you can't change those facts.

[lumberjack_jeff]

33. Yeah, I do have a problem with a "free" marketplace in public policy and government influence. n/t

[SFnomad]

36. Clinton was a private citizen ...

you have a problem with a private citizen making money in the free market?

[NurseJackie]

3. How does he do it? What's his secret?

[virtualobserver]

8. he has a mortgage or two. He can't pay cash for his houses from bankster money like Hillary does.

[IamMab]

4. Based on their mortgage deduction, they're hiding a spare house or 3, apparently.

First Mittens, now Panders? Maybe trying to hide the multiple properties you own is just a New Englander thing?

[1StrongBlackMan]

10. LOL ...

a spare house or 3

[TheCowsCameHome]

13. What's your basis for thinking that?

H&R Block one-size-fits-all tax service ain't so sharp down your way?

[IamMab]

15. I have a degree in Accounting, actually.

Rutgers School of Business. That's how I know their deduction is abnormally large for the two properties they acknowledge, their VT home and his DC townhouse.

[question everything]

32. One would think that their house in Vermont is paid off by now

Unless, like many Americans, they have been using it as an ATM machine..

[jmg257]

22. I didn't get that either - though I heard her say she did just sell "her mom's condo".

Maybe that is the "rental house" in VT?

3 mortgages would make more sense.

[still_one]

11. Probably the result of a home equity loan. Regardless, those are

legitimate deductions

While Senator Sander's may be the "poorest" member in Congress, according to what he has implied, my understanding is he owns several properties, and areas like Vermont and other places in the northeast, real estate can be worth quite a lot, and contribute to someone's net worth

[TheCowsCameHome]

12. Well, good for him. Stop whining.

Get yourself a good tax accountant and find out what you're missing.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

19. You don't need an accountant to do those taxes. They are simple.

Heck, you don't even need turbotax.

His tax returns are boring.

I've done some mortgage loans for moderately wealthy people. Incomes over one million. It's been a few years. They all seemed to own oil wells. Or they take all the profit out of their companies to avoid corporate taxes and then loan it back to the business. Those are complicated returns.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

16. Silly article. Silly issue.

They spell out the average deduction and then spell out why his deductions are higher. What's the issue agin???

His real estate taxes alone are almost double the average total deduction cited. The local income taxes alone are higher than the average total deduction cited. The gifts to charity are more than the total average deduction cited. And the mortgage interest paid is about three times the average total deduction cited.


Why are they comparing someone in the $200k income bracket with a $65k per year person?

Let's see what other $200k people are doing. People in that income bracket get to spend more of their income on tax deductible stuff like real estate, 401ks, kids and charity.

This is why I roll my eyes every time I hear some Joe the plumber type whine about higher taxes over $250k. Old Joe and his imaginary plumbing empire would probably need to be closer to $350k to see any significant increase in taxes.

[passiveporcupine]

42. I've already debunked this a couple of times.

Do I really have to do it again?