With all due respect, Mr. Romney, what the HELL?

[Lakhota]

Q: Are Obama’s early records “sealed”?

A: No. Many records that presidential candidates don’t ordinarily release do remain confidential, but they are not “sealed” by a court. The 16 claims in a widely distributed graphic are mostly false or distorted.

FULL ANSWER

This is an example of mostly old baloney in a new casing. It mainly recycles years-old falsehoods and insinuations, most of which we covered long ago, in connection with an earlier viral email.

But with President Barack Obama’s reelection campaign heating up, this new graphic has appeared on countless anti-Obama websites and in viral emails like the one we’ve reprinted here. Very little that it contains is new, and the old falsehoods have not improved with age.

DETAILS: FactCheck.org : Obama’s ‘Sealed’ Records

 

[buckeye45_73]

The rich pay their greatest share of the Federal income tax burden in America ever in our history.

And the poor and middle class pay less, yet continue to gobble up a larger and larger share of the tax dolla, thanks to explosive entitlement growth :

The last thing idiot Liberals want is 'fair' taxation.

Wow, that is a "world class" lie!!!!! Or are you really that stupid?

LOL you calling someone stupid, now THAT is funny

yeah entitlements dont take up much do they? now who doesnt know shit on the budget again?

 

[buckeye45_73]

Hey, some are and some aren't - the point is we can never know as long as we have a tax code that's so complicated that the agency tasked with administering it is confused, confusing and contradictory.

Do I really need a link to an article probing confusion emanating from The IRS?

Can you point to what Obama has done to simplify the tax code?

No. All he's really done tax code wise is to continue playing the favoritism game perfected by the Republicans with tax 'incentives' for 'green' energy companies.

It's all bullshit and favoritism. Just 'cause I rag on Romney doesn't mean I'm happy with Obama.

Well I agree, I HATE the tax code, make it a flat tax no exemptions...lower the rate.....I dont see why people have an issue. We need to stop favoring any group in the tax code.

 

[Vel]

Hey, some are and some aren't - the point is we can never know as long as we have a tax code that's so complicated that the agency tasked with administering it is confused, confusing and contradictory.

Do I really need a link to an article probing confusion emanating from The IRS?

Can you point to what Obama has done to simplify the tax code?

No. All he's really done tax code wise is to continue playing the favoritism game perfected by the Republicans with tax 'incentives' for 'green' energy companies.

It's all bullshit and favoritism. Just 'cause I rag on Romney doesn't mean I'm happy with Obama.

First, I'd like to point out that Romney has never had a chance to write or influence federal tax law while Obama was a U.S. Senator as well as during his tenure as POTUS has had plenty of opportunity to write or influence tax law. Perhaps you should start your ragging with someone that had the ability to fix it.

Second, Romney has consistently called for across the board tax cuts and closing loopholes to make the tax code more simple and fair. Obama, wants to jumble it up a little more with his credits for this and penalties for that. Again, you might start your ragging in another direction.

 

[Erand7899]

1. Federal Income Taxes Are Too High. There are lots of ways to measure how much we pay in taxes. So, when someone says taxes are too high, make sure you understand exactly what measure of taxes they're talking about.

One yardstick is the tax brackets that set the percentage tax rates for various levels of income. In terms of tax rates, the top brackets are clearly low by historic standards. In 1944, there was a 94 percent tax bracket on income above $200,000. The top tax rate dropped to a low in 1988 of 28 percent on income above $29,750 a year. The top bracket then rose to 39.6 percent between 1993 and 2000, before the Bush tax cuts helped reduce it to today's level of 35 percent. Tax rates thus are lower than they've been, not higher.

More: 3 Inconvenient Truths About Taxes - The Best Life (usnews.com)

You are falsely assuming that higher tax rates means more taxes collected. Actually, it just means that those with wealth shift their capital to tax free bonds and other tax shelters. That also means that the same capital is not available to build the economy.

Rich people are smarter than you left wing loons. That is why they are rich and you are envious.

 

[AmyNation]

1. Federal Income Taxes Are Too High. There are lots of ways to measure how much we pay in taxes. So, when someone says taxes are too high, make sure you understand exactly what measure of taxes they're talking about.

One yardstick is the tax brackets that set the percentage tax rates for various levels of income. In terms of tax rates, the top brackets are clearly low by historic standards. In 1944, there was a 94 percent tax bracket on income above $200,000. The top tax rate dropped to a low in 1988 of 28 percent on income above $29,750 a year. The top bracket then rose to 39.6 percent between 1993 and 2000, before the Bush tax cuts helped reduce it to today's level of 35 percent. Tax rates thus are lower than they've been, not higher.

More: 3 Inconvenient Truths About Taxes - The Best Life (usnews.com)

You are falsely assuming that higher tax rates means more taxes collected. Actually, it just means that those with wealth shift their capital to tax free bonds and other tax shelters. That also means that the same capital is not available to build the economy.

Rich people are smarter than you left wing loons. That is why they are rich and you are envious.

I'm hearing the circle of life song in my head right now.

Raise taxes > shift capital to avoid paying taxes > raise taxes

 

[Erand7899]

Can you point to what Obama has done to simplify the tax code?

No. All he's really done tax code wise is to continue playing the favoritism game perfected by the Republicans with tax 'incentives' for 'green' energy companies.

It's all bullshit and favoritism. Just 'cause I rag on Romney doesn't mean I'm happy with Obama.

Well I agree, I HATE the tax code, make it a flat tax no exemptions...lower the rate.....I dont see why people have an issue. We need to stop favoring any group in the tax code.

A flat tax will accomplish little since the problem is in the calculations of taxable income.

The only way to fix the system is to get rid of it, and replace it with a federal sales tax. Quit taxing productiviity and start taxing consumption. The states could easily collect the federal tax right along with their state tax, and remit the federal governments share to the treasury.

One major benefit would be that American manufacturing costs would drop substantually, and that would mean more jobs here and more sales overseas.

 

[Sactowndog]

“I just have to say given the challenges that America faces 23 million people out of work, Iran about to become nuclear, one out of six Americans in poverty, the fascination with taxes I paid I find to be very small minded compared to the broad issues we face,”


Mitt Romney Says He Never Paid Less Than 13 Percent In Taxes - ABC News

The most important issue of our day is fair taxes.

At the risk of redundancy: The most important issue of our day is fair taxes. Fairness through simplicity, especially at the federal level.



Fair and simple taxes, public budgets that are balanced by law, and transparency in all things politics.

The stars await, kids.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOx3uOeXtpM]First look: Nasa releases Mars Curiosity rover colour panoramic pictures - YouTube[/ame]

I think this is fundamentally wrong. I think most people want to get the economy back on track, to have jobs available for their children, for their neighbors to go back to work.

Both sides passionately point to their model with absolute certainty that they are right. The problem is the democratic model was developed in 1940 and the Republican model was developed in 1980. Every major company has shifted their strategy to account for the dramatic changes in intercontinental communications that occurred in the early 2000's and changes in the capital markets.

Neither political party has changed their strategy one iota and both strategies will fail. It is merely a question of which approach will do less damage not what approach will help.

 

[Sactowndog]

No. All he's really done tax code wise is to continue playing the favoritism game perfected by the Republicans with tax 'incentives' for 'green' energy companies.

It's all bullshit and favoritism. Just 'cause I rag on Romney doesn't mean I'm happy with Obama.

Well I agree, I HATE the tax code, make it a flat tax no exemptions...lower the rate.....I dont see why people have an issue. We need to stop favoring any group in the tax code.

A flat tax will accomplish little since the problem is in the calculations of taxable income.

The only way to fix the system is to get rid of it, and replace it with a federal sales tax. Quit taxing productiviity and start taxing consumption. The states could easily collect the federal tax right along with their state tax, and remit the federal governments share to the treasury.

One major benefit would be that American manufacturing costs would drop substantually, and that would mean more jobs here and more sales overseas.

So Europe has a VAT tax and it is doing very little for them. I am not sure this works because it just makes the cost of goods more expensive which drives up costs and people get less value for the same dollar.

Corporate taxes are the mos damaging and the VAT is just a variation of that approach. I think three taxes do the least amount of damage or in fact help the economy in a flat world.

The three taxes I would impose to eliminate corporate income taxes are:

1) eliminate the preferential treatment of capital gains. By eliminating corporate income taxes you eliminate double taxation and I don't think it matters a hoot where the super-wealthy live. They are going to invest where they get the best return regardless of location.

2) impose a 15% capital exportation tax. Since corporate profits are not taxed your money can grow tax free right up to the point you chose to export the capital. At that point you pay a 15% tax. This rate would apply to individuals and corporations. If you export capital you pay the tax. If your are a millionaire living in Bahamas and you export the capital because you chose to live in the Bahamas you pay the tax. If you are a multinational company and your are exporting profits to pay for your overseas manufacturing you pay the tax.

3) increase the estate tax. You are free to enjoy the fruits of your labor but you don't need to pass on billions to your heirs who have done nothing to earn it but be lucky to be born. Since hoarding cash would have little value the rich would find more productive uses of their cash.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Can you point to what Obama has done to simplify the tax code?

No. All he's really done tax code wise is to continue playing the favoritism game perfected by the Republicans with tax 'incentives' for 'green' energy companies.

It's all bullshit and favoritism. Just 'cause I rag on Romney doesn't mean I'm happy with Obama.

First, I'd like to point out that Romney has never had a chance to write or influence federal tax law while Obama was a U.S. Senator as well as during his tenure as POTUS has had plenty of opportunity to write or influence tax law. Perhaps you should start your ragging with someone that had the ability to fix it.

Second, Romney has consistently called for across the board tax cuts and closing loopholes to make the tax code more simple and fair. Obama, wants to jumble it up a little more with his credits for this and penalties for that. Again, you might start your ragging in another direction.

Not gonna happen. I'm going to rag whichever direction I see needs attention.

 

[Sactowndog]

Here, Libtard sheep:

CHART OF THE DAY: Actually, Wealthy Americans Pay A Larger Share of Federal Taxes Than Ever Before

The chart is a little dated, but Obama's payroll tax cuts made it even more imbalanced.

The last thing you Libtards want is fairness in taxation.

And yet those over a million are also paying by historical standards one of the lightest percentages in history. How do you reconcile those two points? Could it be the middle class is getting destroyed at an ever increasing rate and wealth is being accumulated at the top?

 

[wjmacguffin]

Here, Libtard sheep:

CHART OF THE DAY: Actually, Wealthy Americans Pay A Larger Share of Federal Taxes Than Ever Before

The chart is a little dated, but Obama's payroll tax cuts made it even more imbalanced.

The last thing you Libtards want is fairness in taxation.

1) Since the chart uses total taxes paid by the nation as a whole in percentage, the bottom 60% could be paying less taxes because they are earning less, thereby having to pay less. In other words, it's not that the rich are paying more--their percentage is higher because the poor are paying less, making the rich's percentage grow by default. At least, it could be. This chart is misleading because of that ambiguity.

2) Saying the rich pay a greater share of taxes than the poor isn't some shocking revelation. Even if we had a flat tax of 10%, the rich would still pay a greater share because they earn so much more--their 10% would be greater than a poor person's 10%.

• Example: Bob earns $20K/year while Jack earns $200K/year
• With a flat tax of 10%, Bob pays $2K and Jack pays $20K
• Total tax revenue is $22K
• Bob's share is ~9.5% while Jack's share is ~90.5%

3) Liberals want fair taxes, we just disagree on the notion of fairness. Many conservatives say a flat tax would be fair because everyone would pay the same percentage. Fairness = Same Percentage. Many liberals point to the progressive/regressive argument; 10% of $20K/year has a greater impact on the family in question than 10% of $200K/year. Impact = fairness.

 

[AVG-JOE]

“I just have to say given the challenges that America faces 23 million people out of work, Iran about to become nuclear, one out of six Americans in poverty, the fascination with taxes I paid I find to be very small minded compared to the broad issues we face,”


Mitt Romney Says He Never Paid Less Than 13 Percent In Taxes - ABC News

The most important issue of our day is fair taxes.

At the risk of redundancy: The most important issue of our day is fair taxes. Fairness through simplicity, especially at the federal level.



Fair and simple taxes, public budgets that are balanced by law, and transparency in all things politics.

The stars await, kids.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOx3uOeXtpM]First look: Nasa releases Mars Curiosity rover colour panoramic pictures - YouTube[/ame]

I think this is fundamentally wrong. I think most people want to get the economy back on track, to have jobs available for their children, for their neighbors to go back to work.

Both sides passionately point to their model with absolute certainty that they are right. The problem is the democratic model was developed in 1940 and the Republican model was developed in 1980. Every major company has shifted their strategy to account for the dramatic changes in intercontinental communications that occurred in the early 2000's and changes in the capital markets.

Neither political party has changed their strategy one iota and both strategies will fail. It is merely a question of which approach will do less damage not what approach will help.

Ummmm.... both parties have practiced the exact same taxing policy for decades: "Use the tax code to dole out tax favoritism in exchange for campaign money."

The problem isn't the differences between Republican tax policy and Democratic tax policy, it's the similarities.

 

[American Horse]

“I just have to say given the challenges that America faces 23 million people out of work, Iran about to become nuclear, one out of six Americans in poverty, the fascination with taxes I paid I find to be very small minded compared to the broad issues we face,”


Mitt Romney Says He Never Paid Less Than 13 Percent In Taxes - ABC News

The most important issue of our day is fair taxes.

At the risk of redundancy: The most important issue of our day is fair taxes. Fairness through simplicity, especially at the federal level.



Fair and simple taxes, public budgets that are balanced by law, and transparency in all things politics.

The stars await, kids.

At the risk of redundancy: I'll repeat here what I've already said elsewhere: You know what? if Rom put all his money into capital investments, and all his income was capital gains and he paid virtually no or little income taxes I'd be happy with that going forward. The new jobs and the taxpayers which would be created in the process, would make up for any foregone revenue to the treasury many times over.

 

[LoneLaugher]

“I just have to say given the challenges that America faces 23 million people out of work, Iran about to become nuclear, one out of six Americans in poverty, the fascination with taxes I paid I find to be very small minded compared to the broad issues we face,”


Mitt Romney Says He Never Paid Less Than 13 Percent In Taxes - ABC News

The most important issue of our day is fair taxes.

At the risk of redundancy: The most important issue of our day is fair taxes. Fairness through simplicity, especially at the federal level.



Fair and simple taxes, public budgets that are balanced by law, and transparency in all things politics.

The stars await, kids.

At the risk of redundancy: I'll repeat here what I've already said elsewhere: You know what? if Rom put all his money into capital investments, and all his income was capital gains and he paid virtually no or little income taxes I'd be happy with that going forward. The new jobs and the taxpayers which would be created in the process, would make up for any foregone revenue to the treasury many times over.

Can you prove that last sentence?

 

[American Horse]

The most important issue of our day is fair taxes.

At the risk of redundancy: The most important issue of our day is fair taxes. Fairness through simplicity, especially at the federal level.



Fair and simple taxes, public budgets that are balanced by law, and transparency in all things politics.

The stars await, kids.

At the risk of redundancy: I'll repeat here what I've already said elsewhere: You know what? if Rom put all his money into capital investments, and all his income was capital gains and he paid virtually no or little income taxes I'd be happy with that going forward. The new jobs and the taxpayers which would be created in the process, would make up for any foregone revenue to the treasury many times over.

Can you prove that last sentence?

Can you even doubt it? Where does new wealth thus job creating captital come from? Not from customers at the 7-11 buying bread or lotto tickets, that's for sure..

 

[wjmacguffin]

Can you even doubt it? Where does new wealth thus job creating captital come from? Not from customers at the 7-11 buying bread or lotto tickets, that's for sure..

Given the sheer numbers that buy bread or lotto tickets, this activity can create jobs.

Remember, there are gatekeepers to this process: Leadership. The leadership of companies receiving the money (be it investments from the wealthy or purchases from everyone) decide whether to spend the money on new jobs, improving existing jobs, expanding production (which creates/improves jobs), or investing the money with other business leaders in hopes of making even more money. Given that we have the highest corporate profits in history but a sluggish, steady unemployment rate, it appears corporate leadership is keeping the money among themselves.

 

[LoneLaugher]

At the risk of redundancy: I'll repeat here what I've already said elsewhere: You know what? if Rom put all his money into capital investments, and all his income was capital gains and he paid virtually no or little income taxes I'd be happy with that going forward. The new jobs and the taxpayers which would be created in the process, would make up for any foregone revenue to the treasury many times over.

Can you prove that last sentence?

Can you even doubt it? Where does new wealth thus job creating captital come from? Not from customers at the 7-11 buying bread or lotto tickets, that's for sure..

I absolutely doubt it. Can you prove it?

 

[Shelzin]

Here, Libtard sheep:

CHART OF THE DAY: Actually, Wealthy Americans Pay A Larger Share of Federal Taxes Than Ever Before

The chart is a little dated, but Obama's payroll tax cuts made it even more imbalanced.

The last thing you Libtards want is fairness in taxation.

1) Since the chart uses total taxes paid by the nation as a whole in percentage, the bottom 60% could be paying less taxes because they are earning less, thereby having to pay less. In other words, it's not that the rich are paying more--their percentage is higher because the poor are paying less, making the rich's percentage grow by default. At least, it could be. This chart is misleading because of that ambiguity.

Well.. Not only that but also because of Corporate tax. I see all kinds of people saying that the bottom doesn't pay... Well... It's not like the Corporations are just taking a loss on that tax... They just funnel it down into the cost of their product.

It's why I'd love to get rid of the corporate tax and just to go a consumption tax. It's more or less the same thing, only now the common man can actually understand and see it.

2) Saying the rich pay a greater share of taxes than the poor isn't some shocking revelation. Even if we had a flat tax of 10%, the rich would still pay a greater share because they earn so much more--their 10% would be greater than a poor person's 10%.

• Example: Bob earns $20K/year while Jack earns $200K/year
• With a flat tax of 10%, Bob pays $2K and Jack pays $20K
• Total tax revenue is $22K
• Bob's share is ~9.5% while Jack's share is ~90.5%

Yep.

3) Liberals want fair taxes, we just disagree on the notion of fairness. Many conservatives say a flat tax would be fair because everyone would pay the same percentage. Fairness = Same Percentage. Many liberals point to the progressive/regressive argument; 10% of $20K/year has a greater impact on the family in question than 10% of $200K/year. Impact = fairness.

*shrugs* I like a flat tax on income with the first... I don't know... 15-20k non-taxable for everybody. It doesn't get more fair than that. No bullshit brackets, no loopholes. No deductions.

 

[Oldstyle]

Every time that a progressive uses the term "fair" it's an excuse to take something from someone else.

Progressives like Barack Obama would have you believe that the fiscal issues we face can be fixed simply by taxing wealthy people at a higher rate. The truth is even if we taxed the wealthy at a 100% we STILL wouldn't be able to support the entitlements we're obligated to pay. So don't kid yourself into thinking that someone ELSE is going to be picking up the tab for our out of control spending...those entitlements will be paid for by the middle class as well.