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

[LoneLaugher]

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.

No they don't.

 

[Vel]

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.

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

 

[WillowTree]

“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]

What was your question?

 

[Katzndogz]

The statement that the MOST important issue of the day is fair taxes to be on a par with a 15 year old girl saying that she'd rather DIE than not go to the prom with Jimmy.

Aside from fair taxes not being the most important issue of the day, we all know that it's not fair taxes that the rich pay, but it's how much they get to keep that the left finds objectionable. The wealthy already pay the majority of the taxes. They pay 100% more in taxes than the poor who pay none. That's not fair, but it is the way a progressive tax system works. What the libs want is whatever percentage of tax that the rich have to pay until they get to keep the same amount as say, a janitor gets a year.

 

[WillowTree]

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.

Didn't we have close to a 90% tax rate for the rich at one point?

and you think taking 90% of what someone has earned is fair? why exactly? I'd like to hear how that's fair. go

 

[wjmacguffin]

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.

I'm a liberal (progressive, whatever), so let me address this.

We pay taxes so our government can do good things. Oversimplified? Yes, but still true. It's sort of like a membership fee to belong to the USA. Therefore, it's not an excuse to take something from someone else; it's to pay for what the government should be doing.

How much should we have to pay for the government to do their thing? Liberals say look to the impact taxes have on families. The rich can pay much more than the poor because they can afford it without much significant impact. Of course there's an impact, but $5K from the poor means they will go hungry; $5K from the rich means they can't buy as fancy a car they want. Therefore, taxing the rich higher than the poor is fair because the impact should be similar.

What conservatives often fail to remember is the Laffer Curve is bell-shaped. Tax too much like we did in the 60s and you actually cut into government revenue because there's much less economic activity to collect from. But the opposite is also true; tax too little and you cut into government revenue. Obama's proposal to increase taxes on the top 2% is an attempt to bring more balance to the current Laffer Curve, not to magically save the government forever or what have you.

 

[Katzndogz]

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.

I'm a liberal (progressive, whatever), so let me address this.

We pay taxes so our government can do good things. Oversimplified? Yes, but still true. It's sort of like a membership fee to belong to the USA. Therefore, it's not an excuse to take something from someone else; it's to pay for what the government should be doing.

How much should we have to pay for the government to do their thing? Liberals say look to the impact taxes have on families. The rich can pay much more than the poor because they can afford it without much significant impact. Of course there's an impact, but $5K from the poor means they will go hungry; $5K from the rich means they can't buy as fancy a car they want. Therefore, taxing the rich higher than the poor is fair because the impact should be similar.

What conservatives often fail to remember is the Laffer Curve is bell-shaped. Tax too much like we did in the 60s and you actually cut into government revenue because there's much less economic activity to collect from. But the opposite is also true; tax too little and you cut into government revenue. Obama's proposal to increase taxes on the top 2% is an attempt to bring more balance to the current Laffer Curve, not to magically save the government forever or what have you.

Then you agree, it's not the amount of taxes paid that should be fair, but the impact those taxes have that should be fair. That's what I've said all along.

obama's father thought that taxes should be 100% on everyone, with the government providing benefits to subsidize everyone. Then the impact is equal.

 

[American Horse]

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.

It's not happening and that's because of doubt about how their investments will turn out. Existing businesses like my 7-11 are just holding on, but we need new action.

That's where capital that's going to overseas bonds would produce action right here at home if those with the capital felt there would be a pay-off, which they don't to any large extent presently. People right now, particularly wealthy elderly people, have their wealth in CDs in banks earning less than a percent per annum. If they believed with greater risk they could earn 7 or 10 percent they'd do it, and if they weren't taxed on that 7 or 10 percent, zero, then they'd take the risk.

Right now they pay 15% and Obama wants to almost double that, at least that's what he's running on. With that prospect, why should they risk their base of capital? If they paid zero they'd be all out investing their capital, and there'd be a tsunami of new businesses and jobs being created. Only Romney can bring that change of attitude around. It's not about fairness, it's about opportunity.

 

[wjmacguffin]

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.

I'm a liberal (progressive, whatever), so let me address this.

We pay taxes so our government can do good things. Oversimplified? Yes, but still true. It's sort of like a membership fee to belong to the USA. Therefore, it's not an excuse to take something from someone else; it's to pay for what the government should be doing.

How much should we have to pay for the government to do their thing? Liberals say look to the impact taxes have on families. The rich can pay much more than the poor because they can afford it without much significant impact. Of course there's an impact, but $5K from the poor means they will go hungry; $5K from the rich means they can't buy as fancy a car they want. Therefore, taxing the rich higher than the poor is fair because the impact should be similar.

What conservatives often fail to remember is the Laffer Curve is bell-shaped. Tax too much like we did in the 60s and you actually cut into government revenue because there's much less economic activity to collect from. But the opposite is also true; tax too little and you cut into government revenue. Obama's proposal to increase taxes on the top 2% is an attempt to bring more balance to the current Laffer Curve, not to magically save the government forever or what have you.

Then you agree, it's not the amount of taxes paid that should be fair, but the impact those taxes have that should be fair. That's what I've said all along.

obama's father thought that taxes should be 100% on everyone, with the government providing benefits to subsidize everyone. Then the impact is equal.

Who cares what Obama's father thought? (Even if he did think that.) But I like another of your points--government spending. While I'm not sure if we need a balanced budget ever year (there does seem some logic and math behind deficit spending during a recession), I believe there's plenty to be cut--mostly from defense but across the board, especially pork barrel projects that only impact one congressman's district.

 

[Katzndogz]

The first thing to cut in a world as dangerous as this one, is defense. That makes so much sense, it's a wonder that the Pentagon doesn't have it as policy.

Defense of the nation is one of the few things government really is supposed to do.

 

[hortysir]

It isn't about higher taxes any more than it's about lower taxes.

It's about fair taxes.

On all income in excess of $30,000 a year, acquired by any and all means of acquiring money from wages to contracting, through interest earned, capital investments, hustling pool and lottery winnings, everyone should pay 18%. 'Cept for foreigners. Foreigners should have to pay 18% on everything and Citizens should get to earn their first $30k a year tax free. Citizenship should have perks other than voting.

I don't think you know what fair means.

Fair means EVERYONE puts skin in the game.

I mean ******* 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

 

[wjmacguffin]

The first thing to cut in a world as dangerous as this one, is defense. That makes so much sense, it's a wonder that the Pentagon doesn't have it as policy.

Defense of the nation is one of the few things government really is supposed to do.

I agree! I just think there's a lot of waste. For example, do we really need 21 military bases in Germany? Do we really need 53,000 troops there? Close some bases, send some troops home, and redeploy others in areas where are presence is more important. I don't think the Soviet Union is going to invade Germany any time soon.

 

[American Horse]

The first thing to cut in a world as dangerous as this one, is defense. That makes so much sense, it's a wonder that the Pentagon doesn't have it as policy.

Defense of the nation is one of the few things government really is supposed to do.

I agree! I just think there's a lot of waste. For example, do we really need 21 military bases in Germany? Do we really need 53,000 troops there? Close some bases, send some troops home, and redeploy others in areas where are presence is more important. I don't think the Soviet Union is going to invade Germany any time soon.

You might find it valuable to take a look at what qualifies as a US base anywhere in the world. Naval hospitals can qualify, as can Marine detachments. Twenty one bases in Germany, I suspect, is one or two bases with a number of peripheral units or activities.

Just an example; Camp Lejeune NC usually has a troop occupation of 50,000 of just military service personel - but of course less in periods of overseas activity when they add to the overseas contingencey - compare that with the 53,000 troops in all of Germany.

 

[Katzndogz]

We could cut entitlement programs instead.

 

[peach174]

The first thing to cut in a world as dangerous as this one, is defense. That makes so much sense, it's a wonder that the Pentagon doesn't have it as policy.

Defense of the nation is one of the few things government really is supposed to do.

I agree! I just think there's a lot of waste. For example, do we really need 21 military bases in Germany? Do we really need 53,000 troops there? Close some bases, send some troops home, and redeploy others in areas where are presence is more important. I don't think the Soviet Union is going to invade Germany any time soon.

The reason they are in Germany is so that they can be sent in different areas where they might be needed in that part of the world. Especially in the middle east.
It is cheaper than sending them from America.
The bases are already built there.If you redeploy them to other areas, then we would have to build new bases. It would cost a lot more to build new bases, rather than keeping them at the bases we already have in Germany.
It has nothing to do with the Soviet Union invasion of Germany.

Yes there is waste and it needs to be stopped, but it isn't where our bases are stationed around the world. The waste is in what it costs from items, like gas, hammer's, toilets things like that.

 

[Katzndogz]

What's really strange, is that with all of these issues, Romney's tax returns is THE MOST important eclipsing everything else.

 

[Trajan]

I believe that if Romney believed he paid his fair share, he'd have published his returns going back to the 90's. I also believe that he's embarrassed by his tax returns now that he's running for president, and that he most likely has a valid reason to be embarrassed.

I believe that our tax code is complex, confusing and unfair, especially to folks who can't afford tax attorneys and accountants.

That's it. One point specific to Romney coupled with my standard political banner of fair and simple taxes, public budgets that are balanced by law and transparency in all things politics 'cause it dove-tails in real nice.

its already on record hes paid around 15%...lets assume he paid that every years since he was Governor...so what? thats the tax code. what more do you want? if he paid less it wasn't by much, 13% maybe, there is a floor for anyone especially when they take 'income' via investment vehicles that they will wind up paying no matter how smart your tax attorney is..... McCain provided 2 years worth and there was no big snit over that, so I am at a loss here. So you wish to assume hes hiding something?

I posted a graph here before on what each candidate has made public....*shrugs* its all over the place.

if 15% is to low for you, then I'd say, thats an argument on investment taxes, and if you think thats unfair, I disagree, but that has zip to do with income tax btw.

here:

and-

My two points are that the current tax code is patently unfair, especially towards folks who can't afford accountants and attorneys and that Romney seems to be embarrassed by something in his tax returns.

Connected? Legitimate concern? That's for the voters to decide, I suppose.

translated the current tax code is skewed for the 'rich'. thats what you seem to be saying Joe.

Seems to be embarrassed? if you cannot quantify that I don't know what to tell you. if he had cheated, 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.....


your argument is we need a fairer tax code, well, first, whats fair?

investment income and salaried income are NOT the same, they are not treated the same because they are not the same. Do you disagree with that?

if so then you are saying that investment income should be treated like straight income, is that your argument?

and again whats fair? look at the charts, is it your contention? that now that the Federal gov. spends 24% of gdp on outlays yet ( up from 185) , the only answer is- keep the tax structure for those in that second chart, that 49% the same and raise the taxes on the other 51%?

look at chart 1, how fair is that, they already carry 76% of all taxes paid....


now sure, we can close loopholes, change deductions etc. I am all for that, but thats not what you seem to be saying.....I am upper middle class, but if I lose my mortgage deduction, I am going to pay a bunch more on net taxes, I might consider that if there are other carrots, but just saying tax the rich and letting me keep what deductions I have left which are few btw, but I do have a lot of my oney in and protected by retirement investments etc., so I am now going to get hit both ways? ....thats not fair either.


hey lets do a flat tax, I am behdin that for sure and leave the cap gains and dividends alone.

 

[Full-Auto]

“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]

Noble thought....Now back to reality.......We have the most corrupt admin in the history of our country........Civility is a thing of the past......It will not return until people feel the pain of consequence, in reference to their actions.........


We have two entitlement programs that are bankrupt, but the government will continue to lie to you, they will say its just fine......As they threaten checks going out unless they can borrow more.


Civility.......A thing of the past..............Fair taxes? Is a pipe dream that will never see the light of day.......

 

[emptystep]

“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.

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.

 

[Trajan]

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.

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?