Without a job, Romney made $57,000.00 a DAY for last two years.

[thereisnospoon]

I could have worked 70 hours a week every week and wouldnt have made that much more and it isnt anything to do with my choices. So shut up.

Oh yes it most certainly is a matter of individual choice.
Who said or wrote that it wasn't?

 

[freedombecki]

This simply denotes that the left isn't at all interested in 'fairness' - only in how much money they can bring in to the government so they can spend it on buying votes.

Funny how they can't define "fair". I have 10 acres and you have 4. Is that fair or unfair? Should I have to give up 3 of my acres so we are equal? Is that fair? Fair and fair share are class warfare buzzwords that have yet to be defined. I guess its like pornography. You can't define it, but you know it when you see it.

Managment begs labor to concede wages and benefits. The resulting profit is then applied to the bottom line and the stock price shoots up. A few investors make as staggering amount of money, the labor force has to scrape by on less. Is that fair?

If you want to argue by anecdote, use one that applies.

NosmoKing, with all due respect to an amazing man that you are, management indeed begs. Do you know how many businesses fail in a year? 24% Two years? half. 10 years? 90%, more and less.

Yes, management begs to stay in business. I'm sorry the labor force has it hard as well. Research on small Businesses. America has always been about helping each other out. Don't forget that the stats you are reading do not include the also-rans. It ONLY includes those who made it through the gauntlet. That's not many. "Fairness"--there's little of that in determining who "should" gain from others when success is so hard to come by.

Life may not be a fair place, but when we base it on tricky information we are fed by people with vested interests to share all it-takes-a-village wise, we are on a slippery slope all the way down to the bottom of human despair, and that type of government requires murdering the society's upper crust. Communism fails every time. In the 20th century, Russia lost 50 million to it, and China twice that. Both are morphing into enterprise-run governments as we speak. We seem headed for their old fate, and it troubles me.

Please peruse the "Research on Small Businesses" link I placed above. That tells the side of business statistics generally conceal in a push to prove something by one group to another. It's not easy to get a business going that excites people into supporting it. You have a better chance of getting a 4.0 GPA at Harvard than you have of making a million dollars, considering you first have to get in the door at Harvard, and then you have to work your butt off for people who do not take any attitude in the stead of grueling work.

I hope that you know I do take your well-being most seriously.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Because its not yours?

Two wrongs make a right?

You're just bitter over people having things you don't.
Welcome to reality - and it sounds like you need a helmet.

Ah..so you are in favor of a line item tax return..right?

Like you can check off that you don't want your taxes going to SSI..and I check check off that I don't want my taxes going to invade foreign countries.

I like that idea.

You?

I've actually spoken to that on another forum. My suggestion was that a check list be included with your ballot when you vote. Each expenditure using tax dollars would be listed any each voter would be able to designate a percentage amount to those items they preferred. A lot of single people I know would prefer their taxes be spent on roads or cops than on public school funding, for instance. Putting such an option on a tax return might be interesting, too. How do you envision such an option?

Imagine that. The ability to direct one's tax dollars.
Not a bad idea. However the entire manner in which government operates makes this impractical. Plus the political ramifications would be unimaginable.
There have been proposals in state legislatures to change the way for example, schools are funded. Texas legislators frustrated by what they viewed as unjust the disparity i funding for schools as it relates to home values, decided to tale on the system.
These lawmakers wanted to remove property taxes as the base for school funding. Now I do not know what they had for an alternative funding plan.
Suffice to say the idea failed and that was that.
I have a friend that lives in Ft Worth. 70% of his property taxes are called "school taxes".
Public schools are over funded for a few reasons. One to pay the cost of teacher's unions. The over staffing of school administrations. The notion that students MUST have extra curricular activities and athletics. School districts spend millions on football stadiums and gymnasiums. Why?
Our taxes go to pay for these frills.

 

[Cecilie1200]

President Obama and, hopefully Charlie Wilson over Bill Johnson as my congressman.

And which of your two stated objectives will Obama be achieving? Oh, that's right, he'll be acheiving neither. He'll just be achieving your REAL objective: being a Democrat.

A lot of people vote against their own best interests without even knowing it.

Nosmo is telling us that he knows he's voting against his own best interests, I dunno if that's better or worse.

Worse. Ignorant can be fixed. Stupid is forever.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Are workers over paid? Are union workers earning their living? Should a person have a right to join a labor union?

Let's see how class warfare is fought from the Right.

You don't deserve anything. You're not entitled to fellow Citizens' income. You don't have the right to steal from others. I realize you'll never grasp that concept though. You're too far gone now. You've been 'Community Organized' by Democrat assholes for too long. Now you're just bitter & envious. And that's very sad. Good luck.

Pedophiles are naturally inclined to believe all adults are sexually attracted to children. Their orientation impedes conceiving of any other perception. The same kind of reflective projection operates in the right-wing mentality which is inclined to believe anyone who criticizes the inequitable accumulation of excessive wealth is jealous or maliciously envious rather than simply and justifiably resentful. As if there is not ample cause to resent the devious and corruptly destructive ways some of today's fortunes were built.

Paranoid schizophrenics are naturally inclined to believe that their perceptions are reality. Their mental illness impedes conceiving of anything else. The same kind of reflective perception operates in the left-wing mentality which is inclined to believe anyone is going to buy the idea that resenting others for having acquired more money than they have and wanting to take it away and punish them is "justifiable".

 

[Cecilie1200]

Yes, that is the scary Republican soundbite. Care to explain to us how Romney was taxed twice on his income?

Because dividends are dispersed after profits are taxed. Simple I know, but I won't be shocked if this requires further explanation.

The company pays a corporate tax rate on it's profits. The dividend the company pays is new income and is taxed at a capital gains rate because it is going to another person. The fact is, every time money changes hands, it is taxed.

If I earn $100 dollars and I pay tax on that, then I buy something from someone for $50, that person has to pay tax on that $50. It is erroneous to claim that other person is exempt from paying tax on the $50 I give him because I already paid tax on my $100.

It's NOT going to a new person. The stockholders are the owners of the company. You leftists just can't wrap your brain around the idea that not everything is like working the Fryolator at Burger King.

Look at it this way. Say I'm the sole owner of a small business. Rather than paying myself a salary, I choose to take my money out of MY business as a share of profits. The government taxed my company - which is to say, me, because I own the business - when it made the profits. Then, when I shifted a portion of those profits from my business's bank account to my own, it taxed me AGAIN on that shift.

The only way you're going to be able to consider that "new income because it's going to another person" is if you consider the business I own to be a separate person from me. And we all know how the left SCREAMS about the idea of businesses being viewed as people.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Is there something about the sentence I am not envious that is too tough for you?

Speaking of juvenile...
You believe that you are entitled to more than what you have, and you believe that you deserve to have the wealthy give it to you.

What do you base this inane presumption on?

Do you actually believe the taxes you pay are routinely distributed to some mysterious category of people whom those who think like you never specify? Or are you simply parroting the brainwash which is pumped into your brain on a daily basis by the likes of Limbaugh, Beck and Hannity?

Do you believe a tax increase on the rich will result in party time for the less fortunate? If so, can you back that up with some supportive facts?

We specify who the money's being redistributed to all the time . . . not that it matters, because the objectionable point is that it's being redistributed at all. NOT the government's job to decide who should have what.

Do you believe the goal is to create "party time for the less fortunate"? OUR goal is to allow Americans to keep as much of what they make as possible.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Because dividends are dispersed after profits are taxed. Simple I know, but I won't be shocked if this requires further explanation.

My monthly pension check comes to me minus a certain amount of withheld Income Tax. When I take some of that taxed money to the gas station and fill up my car that taxed money is taxed again. So how is this essentially different from your lament about Romney's situation?

You don't own the gas station, that's how. My God, it amazes me how stupid about financial matters the left truly is. No wonder they insist on electing fools.

Taxing someone once when the company they own makes money and then again when they take some of the profits out of the business they own is more akin to taxing you once when your pension check is direct-deposited in your checking account, and then taxing you again when you move some of it over to your savings account. (No, it's not a perfect analogy, but it's closer than talking about giving the money to the gas station owner, a totally different person.)

Is it something like this: Let's say I invest some of my taxed pension money in bonds. When I redeem those bonds the interest (on my already taxed money) is taxed, than I go to the gas station with the taxed interest from my taxed pension money and it's taxed again. And so on. Is that what you mean?

You get dumber every time you talk. You might want to stop talking before your IQ starts registering in negative numbers.

 

[Cecilie1200]

He made some good investments....

What's your point....

How much does Bill Gates make a day.
Warren Buffet....

Oh that's right it's only evil and wrong when republicans make money off investments

They should pay their fair share.

I bet you pay more than 13.9%.

Not unless he's making $500,000 a year or more, he doesn't. And neither do you.

 

[Bern80]

This simply denotes that the left isn't at all interested in 'fairness' - only in how much money they can bring in to the government so they can spend it on buying votes.

Funny how they can't define "fair". I have 10 acres and you have 4. Is that fair or unfair? Should I have to give up 3 of my acres so we are equal? Is that fair? Fair and fair share are class warfare buzzwords that have yet to be defined. I guess its like pornography. You can't define it, but you know it when you see it.

Managment begs labor to concede wages and benefits. The resulting profit is then applied to the bottom line and the stock price shoots up. A few investors make as staggering amount of money, the labor force has to scrape by on less. Is that fair?

If you want to argue by anecdote, use one that applies.

If YOU want to argue by anecdote make sure it actually happens. First you presume that businesses are constantly cutting employee pay which is not true neither as much as you think it is and almost never for why you think it is. Employers don't cut pay simply to improve profitability. More often than not it is done as a survival mechanism. If the market changes like it has in the last few years, businesses have to adjust to that as well. They can't increase pay while taking in less money. Sometimes the market is indeed going to dictate that wages need to fall some if sales are falling.

 

[Cecilie1200]

President Obama and, hopefully Charlie Wilson over Bill Johnson as my congressman.

And which of your two stated objectives will Obama be achieving? Oh, that's right, he'll be acheiving neither. He'll just be achieving your REAL objective: being a Democrat.

But, but, but....he's black!

They would have to invent new technology to allow me to care less than I currently do about that.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I'm for the janitor. More honest. Harder working. More worthy. Stick your big successful businessmen.

Seriously, were you hit in the head at some point, or have you always been brain-damaged?

 

[Cecilie1200]

So, what have we learned from this thread?

I learned that I hold values that were inculcated by trusted moral leaders like parents, teachers and clergy. Those values are study hard, work hard, obey the laws, respect others.


Well, if I grew into a Conservative in 2012, seems those values are dated and obsolete. I should have been much much more self centered. I should not have worked hard as hard work does not serve one well to earn a living.

What I should have done, according to the modern Conservatives posting here was get my foot somehow into the executive suite, skimmed as much profit from the company for my personal gain as possible and invest that gain in companies who outsource their production to countries not so concerned about creating a vibrant middle class. Countries where slave wages for workers is just fine. Countries where care for the environment isn't even on the national read. In other words: countries that aren't America.

Then I would be regarded as smarter than the hordes who did pursue hard work and an honest living. I would be lauded as a true American who assuages teamwork and champions self interest over all other virtues.

I guess as I was born twenty years before the first Reagan regime, it was far too late to be taught the new virtues of selfishness and greed. I was born in a gentler time. And mores the pity now.

Basically, what I've learned is that you're incapable of hearing anything but the echo chamber inside your head, saying, "You are better and more moral than everyone else. You're SUCH a good person", and it is therefore pointless to talk to you like a sane, intelligent person.

They have meds for that, loser. Investigate.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Sad part is he doesnt know what the definition of work is. I say he deserves every penny. SO does the janitor who is more credible than he is.

Romney's tax plan will cut his own taxes and raise taxes on that janitor, based on what the average janitor/cleaner around here makes.

Why is that good? Why can't anyone here who is defending his wealth and his tax rates defend his plan?

 

[gallantwarrior]

Are you among the One Percent? If so, you should be paying more than twice your present rate of taxation. If you're not among the One Percent you have been misled by those who serve the One Percent into believing you will be targeted by a tax increase.

Regarding those whom you've been led to believe will be given money which will be "stolen" from the rich through some sort of Robin Hood taxation -- who, specifically, will be these prospective recipients of the "stolen" money? Tell us who they are. And tell us what form this redistribution will take.

Your an Idiot. Obama's Spending, and Polices Guarantee we will all have to pay more Taxes. You can not pay for it all even by taking all the 1% income, let alone a few % more. Even if they don't Raise Federal Taxes. They keep Heaping Mandates and Obligations on the States who will have to Raise their Taxes.

Were not falling for the old game of "no new taxes" when all they mean is our Withholding Rates wont go up on Federal, but everything else will. State, Local, Gas Taxes, Etc Etc.

Sooner or later someone is going to have to pay the piper on all this debt, and spending. No matter how many times the Left says it will be the Rich. It wont change the Math. It will be us all.

So your response is to issue a personal insult and totally ignore my question, which is not at all surprising. In fact it is typical of those who serve the interests of the One Percent by parroting the nonsense pumped into their one-dimensional minds by propagandists like Rush Limbaugh.

I don't know if your taxes will be raised or not because I don't know what your income bracket is. But if your tax rate is increased the cause is not Obama's spending but Bush's spending. Obama didn't commence two ruinously costly military operations without budgeting for either one. Obama didn't patronize the pharmaceutical industry by attaching Part D, an enormous expense, to Medicare. Nor did Obama reduce taxes on the One Percent after having punched those two massive holes in the revenue base.

So if you think Obama's spending is responsible for our economic troubles you need to give some more thought to who the idiot is in this discussion.

Really, your boy has been in office for over three years now. It's time to grow up and drop the "blame Bush" bullshit.
Obama has begun his very own special "static military actions" overseas. He's begun sending more troops to Australia. Most importantly, he's been waging a splendidly orchestrated campaign against the United States and its citizens and their Constitutionally guaranteed rights.
You messiah not only patronizes the evil bankers and drug producers, he uses those connections, as well as his connections to big labor, to launder tax dollars back into his campaign coffers. You are so stodgily stuck on the "1%" mantra that you continue to ignore the fact that almost 50% of your 99% pay NO taxes at all. As a matter of fact, many of them are cashing tax "refunds" they have no right to receive since they have not paid on red cent in taxes.
Most entertaining of all, you accuse everyone who does not see things through the narrow prism you use of all the things you are most guilty of.

 

[Bern80]

Because dividends are dispersed after profits are taxed. Simple I know, but I won't be shocked if this requires further explanation.

My monthly pension check comes to me minus a certain amount of withheld Income Tax. When I take some of that taxed money to the gas station and fill up my car that taxed money is taxed again. So how is this essentially different from your lament about Romney's situation?

Is it something like this: Let's say I invest some of my taxed pension money in bonds. When I redeem those bonds the interest (on my already taxed money) is taxed, than I go to the gas station with the taxed interest from my taxed pension money and it's taxed again. And so on. Is that what you mean?

No. We're talking about only the money that is considered your income. A companies profits, if you own stock, is part of your income which is taxed at the corp. lvl. When you actually realize that income it is taxed once again. If you spend that money somewhere else we're now talking about someone elses income.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Keep in mind, every nickel that a guy like Romney doesn't pay, because his rate is around 14% instead of higher,

is either a nickel someone else has to pay, or a nickel that gets added to the debt, or a nickel that has to come out of the budget.

If you want Romney's rate lower, which is what he wants, according to his own plan...

...who do you want to pay the difference?

1. Do you want to pay it?

2. Do want to just add it to the debt?

3. Do you want to cut your grandma's Medicare to pay for it?

4. Cut some poor family's food stamps to pay for it?

5. Cut some student's tuition assistance to pay for it?

Who do you want to pay for the tax cut Mitt Romney thinks HE deserves???

 

[gallantwarrior]

Ah..so you are in favor of a line item tax return..right?

Like you can check off that you don't want your taxes going to SSI..and I check check off that I don't want my taxes going to invade foreign countries.

I like that idea.

You?

I've actually spoken to that on another forum. My suggestion was that a check list be included with your ballot when you vote. Each expenditure using tax dollars would be listed any each voter would be able to designate a percentage amount to those items they preferred. A lot of single people I know would prefer their taxes be spent on roads or cops than on public school funding, for instance. Putting such an option on a tax return might be interesting, too. How do you envision such an option?

Imagine that. The ability to direct one's tax dollars.
Not a bad idea. However the entire manner in which government operates makes this impractical. Plus the political ramifications would be unimaginable.
There have been proposals in state legislatures to change the way for example, schools are funded. Texas legislators frustrated by what they viewed as unjust the disparity i funding for schools as it relates to home values, decided to tale on the system.
These lawmakers wanted to remove property taxes as the base for school funding. Now I do not know what they had for an alternative funding plan.
Suffice to say the idea failed and that was that.
I have a friend that lives in Ft Worth. 70% of his property taxes are called "school taxes".
Public schools are over funded for a few reasons. One to pay the cost of teacher's unions. The over staffing of school administrations. The notion that students MUST have extra curricular activities and athletics. School districts spend millions on football stadiums and gymnasiums. Why?
Our taxes go to pay for these frills.

Fully agree. In Anchorage, almost 65% of the property taxes go to support schools, for the same reasons you cited above. In addition to funding frills, too many course subjects are included in a curriculum that fundamentally ignores the importance of including academic subjects. They have also cut most of the career-type training, like various shop classes, home-ed, and PE. At least in the villages, the schools also serve as community centers where most of the community activities take place.
Given a choice, I would rather fund road services than schools. We've had the worst road service in memory this year. It's been degrading for years now. The reason our politicians give us is, we keep refusing to raise the mil rate. Now we must be punished.

 

[Bern80]

Sad part is he doesnt know what the definition of work is. I say he deserves every penny. SO does the janitor who is more credible than he is.

Romney's tax plan will cut his own taxes and raise taxes on that janitor, based on what the average janitor/cleaner around here makes.

Why is that good? Why can't anyone here who is defending his wealth and his tax rates defend his plan?

Because it's fair. That you lefties don't understand what fair means is not our fault. Fair does NOT mean that which is easier for people or not as burdensome for people or how much you arbitrarily decide someone can do without. You're 100% right on this. If you claim you really want a fair tax code then yes, equitably distributing the tax burden will mean the taxes of the poor go up while the taxes of the rich go down.

What you libs don't get is that 'fair' isn't exactly a positive word. Fair in this case does not care about the burdon it puts on someone that has nothing to do with it. All fair cares about is an equitable distribution of where the money comes from. Whether it burdens some more than others is irrelevent where fair is concerned.

 

[kwc57]

He made some good investments....

What's your point....

How much does Bill Gates make a day.
Warren Buffet....

Oh that's right it's only evil and wrong when republicans make money off investments

They should pay their fair share.

I bet you pay more than 13.9%.

You are aware that any American can simply write a check and send it to the government aren't you? Why do these rich liberal champions that argue for increasing taxes never do that? Gates and Buffet could easily chip in a billion a year and start a trend.