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

[emptystep]

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.

To add my voice to LoneLaugher and wjmacguffin this sound like a very niave statement that the rich getting richer is by default good for everyone. The counter examples are the history of men. Responsible government, responsible business, a great America. As I have stated elsewhere the Republicans are not helping in either case.

the rich getting richer is by default good for everyone.

the populist spin doesn't help you.

put all his money into capital investments,

why ot look at it that way?

see?

With a little look-sie into those tax returns we could see if Romney walks the walk.

 

[Misty]

Well, jeesh Mitten, if your taxes were unimportant we'd sure as fuck know about them.

Romney's 100% correct. You dems are using it to distract from the fucked up mess Obama has made of this country.

 

[Full-Auto]

Well, jeesh Mitten, if your taxes were unimportant we'd sure as fuck know about them.

Romney's 100% correct. You dems are using it to distract from the fucked up mess Obama has made of this country.

Empty head is your STANDARD TWO FACED DEMOCRAT.

 

[Katzndogz]

Romney's taxes are more important than Iran getting a nuclear bomb. More important than an 8.3% unemployment rate. Certainly more important than inflation and the engineered shortages obama came up with.

 

[AmyNation]

Even if you believe the desire to see Romneys taxes is nothing but a distraction, its one that Romney is causing. If he wanted to change the conversation all he had to do was release what was asked for. He's perpetuating the issue by hiding and he's either doing that so he can make Obama look foolish later or because he has something to hide.

 

[Darkwind]

Even if you believe the desire to see Romneys taxes is nothing but a distraction, its one that Romney is causing. If he wanted to change the conversation all he had to do was release what was asked for. He's perpetuating the issue by hiding and he's either doing that so he can make Obama look foolish later or because he has something to hide.

One Romney is causing?

So, you think that you should be able to just come up with some issue, and demand that Romney (or any GOP candidate) should bow down to those demands; because if they don't, they are the ones creating the controversy?

Just how desperately do you need to keep the focus off of the failure of Obama?

 

[American Horse]

[...]I am sure by now the irs etc. would have been on it, but if you think hes embarrassed becasue he paid 13 or 15% on his investment income, well ok, maybe but, again- so what? Here I just told you- he admitted to paying as low as 13% on moneys he declared on his tax return. there it is... [...]
hey lets do a flat tax, I am behdin that for sure and leave the cap gains and dividends alone.

The first comment is right on; and if there was something in any of those tax returns that could be narrowly focused on someone in Obama's IRS would find a way to leak it, so it's nothing other than a way to show that he earns too much, and pays too little, not in dollars but in percentages.

And as a comment on a flat tax, thats too idealistic to ever come about. What, everybody including the very poor are going to pay the same rate? That horse is already out of the barn.

And one more thing; the case against about 47 percent of the earners not paying any federal income tax at all - the good thing about that is that at that level they don't realize they aren't as long as they pay what's commonly called "Payroll taxes" (FICA). That alone is a 15+% burden, and those people feel like they're overtaxed, so they actually are in the game.

But try to raise their effective taxes to 30% + by adding a flat tax and it's Armageddon.


.

 

[Oldstyle]

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

"Perhaps, but it's the very FIRST thing us intelligent Liberals want addressed. Followed closely by public budgets that are balanced by law and transparency in all things politics."



Now THAT made me laugh out loud! What liberal is calling for public budgets that are "balanced by law"?

As for "transparency in all things"? Gee, the whole "transparency" thing made for a wonderful stump speech when Barry promised to be the most transparent administration in history but I think even the most ardent Obama supporter would have to admit that when it came time to implement transparency on the tough things like what happened with Fast & Furious that this administration has stonewalled things in a way that would have made Richard Nixon proud!

 

[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.

To add my voice to LoneLaugher and wjmacguffin this sound like a very niave statement that the rich getting richer is by default good for everyone. The counter examples are the history of men. Responsible government, responsible business, a great America. As I have stated elsewhere the Republicans are not helping in either case.

It sounds naive to you, emptystep, because you don't understand it. You have to know what capital gains are, but more to the point what they can do. Capital gains taxes are taxes on earnings on risked capital. Ordinary interest bearing investments like interest bearing CD's used to have some of that power to create capital for those who could make use of it, but their rates are too low now to incentivize and the money is misdirected.

But when capital finds itself in the hands of those with an idea, and the desire to create a business around that idea, then with the opportunity to do that they will build something that wasn't there before and create jobs that didn't exist before, including taxpayers paying both federal income taxes ... but also social security and medicare "taxes."

People with money have to put it somewhere; and they do not put it under the mattress, bury it in the back-yard, or store it in a money-room where they can go to count it like Scrooge McDuck. They try to grow it not just preserve it if they can, and they measure risk against potential return.

When things are sour and stagnant like they are here, they'll put it anywhere other than low CD rates or low Bond rates if they can. There are some very high bond rates outside the US they can put their money in. Even New Zealand's present bond rate is double the US rate. (3.66 % vs 1.65%).

A very low cap gains tax (or zero) under a republican president, with the assurance it would remain in place for a while would spur new business growth and new jobs far in excess of what low interest rates can do. None of those people believe anything thats coming out of the present adminstration, so we are stuck for the time being.

If crooks weren't supported by government policies, like "too big to fail, (as created in Dodd Frank)" moral hazards" (like Government Sponsored Entities), "croney capitalism" (like General Electric which paid no taxes in 2011), "picking winner and losers" (like Solyndra and a hundred others), then we might approach your ideal of a "great America" as stated in your last paragraph. But those things I just itemized and a score of others are dampening the economy and creation of wealth for ordinary folks, not for the very rich which can always make do, or leave and go elsewhere taking their vital support with them.

 

[Trajan]

To add my voice to LoneLaugher and wjmacguffin this sound like a very niave statement that the rich getting richer is by default good for everyone. The counter examples are the history of men. Responsible government, responsible business, a great America. As I have stated elsewhere the Republicans are not helping in either case.

the populist spin doesn't help you.

put all his money into capital investments,

why ot look at it that way?

see?

With a little look-sie into those tax returns we could see if Romney walks the walk.

oh, so you don't care if he paid a certain amount of taxes, you are concerned with WHAT he has done with his money?.....still sounds populist to me.

 

[Chris]

Both Ronald Reagan and Teddy Roosevelt thought Capital Gains and Dividends should be taxed at the same rate as a working man's paycheck.

They thought being able to make money WITHOUT ACTUALLY WORKING was benefit enough....

 

[Chris]

There was, in fact, only one time that capital gains were taxed at the same rates that were paid by people who earned their money by working. That was during the years 1988 to 1990, as a result of the Tax Reform Act of 1986 — a law championed by President Ronald Reagan.

 

[Trajan]

Both Ronald Reagan and Teddy Roosevelt thought Capital Gains and Dividends should be taxed at the same rate as a working man's paycheck.

They thought being able to make money WITHOUT ACTUALLY WORKING was benefit enough....

where did you get that? obama or the daily kos?

thats such a muck of mis- characterization only you could post it....

 

[hortysir]

Even if you believe the desire to see Romneys taxes is nothing but a distraction, its one that Romney is causing. If he wanted to change the conversation all he had to do was release what was asked for. He's perpetuating the issue by hiding and he's either doing that so he can make Obama look foolish later or because he has something to hide.

Because it's like paying a blackmailer.
Next time they'll just ask for something else.

JOBS

BUDGET

DEBT

DEFICIT

AFGHANISTAN

DRONES

GTMO

 

[Darkwind]

Even if you believe the desire to see Romneys taxes is nothing but a distraction, its one that Romney is causing. If he wanted to change the conversation all he had to do was release what was asked for. He's perpetuating the issue by hiding and he's either doing that so he can make Obama look foolish later or because he has something to hide.

Because it's like paying a blackmailer.
Next time they'll just ask for something else.

JOBS

BUDGET

DEBT

DEFICIT

AFGHANISTAN

DRONES

GTMO

In addition, there are reasons why we have laws, and limits on intrusion into the lives of a private citizen. It may be that Romney, as a candidate, is open to more scrutiny than the average citizen, but the law about the release of tax information was written for a specific purpose. To keep from happening, what is being attempted right now.

It is like the left demanding that names of donors be released. They claim it is for transparency, but in reality, it is so that they can go directly after people putting money into campaigns in the hopes that the money will dry up, and they can win by outspending the opponent.

Laws exist for a reason. The BS of this tax return is just the lefts way of trying to skirt the law.

 

[buckeye45_73]

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.

Oh I do agree with this, I'd love a consumption tax, but with liberals they would never go for it, it makes waaaay too much sense

 

[buckeye45_73]

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.

Well the problem with the liberal arguement is they want to make money mean nothing, why not charge the poor less for stuff. They can buy a ferrari for $10k, for example...the point is, if you want a better life, make more money.....

 

[AVG-JOE]

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.

Guilty until proven innocent? Nice sense of fairness there don't you think?

I don't have to be fair when I editorialize on the internet and neither do you... welcome to America.

 

[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.

What was your question?

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

Try to keep up, Willow.

 

[AVG-JOE]

I don't think you know what fair means.

Fair means EVERYONE puts skin in the game.

I mean fucking everyone.

What's not fair about letting everyone get their first 30k in the bank tax free? What part of 'applies to everyone' isn't fair?

$30k might be alot for Bubba in Arkansas, but it ain't shit for Debbie in Manhattan

Good point. Solutions? What would be a fair method of taxation?