Board index › General Discussion › News and Current Events

Romney releases tax returns

Page 1 of 4 [ 57 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Tim_Tex
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Jul 2004
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 46,350
Location: Houston, Texas

21 Sep 2012, 1:50 pm

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/romn ... ction.html


_________________
Who’s better at math than a robot? They’re made of math!


visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

21 Sep 2012, 2:52 pm

And here's another Obama sound bite for the campaign: We paid 20% of our income in federal tax last year--you paid only 14%.

It strikes me as perverse that a couple who have an 8 figure income pay lower effective taxes than a couple with a high six figure income.

And what happens to everyone's effective tax rate when social security premiums are factored into the mix? What's the effective tax rate of a family earning, say, $100,000 once social security taxes are included, and how does that compare with the taxes paid by the Obamas or the Romney's.

This is the fundamental imbalance of American fiscal policy.


_________________
--James


Mack27
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 382
Location: near Boston Massachusetts USA

21 Sep 2012, 4:18 pm

visagrunt wrote:
And here's another Obama sound bite for the campaign: We paid 20% of our income in federal tax last year--you paid only 14%.

It strikes me as perverse that a couple who have an 8 figure income pay lower effective taxes than a couple with a high six figure income.

And what happens to everyone's effective tax rate when social security premiums are factored into the mix? What's the effective tax rate of a family earning, say, $100,000 once social security taxes are included, and how does that compare with the taxes paid by the Obamas or the Romney's.

This is the fundamental imbalance of American fiscal policy.


This is the fundamental imbalance of capitalism. Capital gains taxes are lower than regular income taxes throughout the industrialized world. Why? Because capitalism requires growth to work and low capital gains taxes encourage growth. A higher capital gains tax actually results in less capital gains tax income for the government, the only reason to raise it is to make it more "fair."



visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

21 Sep 2012, 4:54 pm

Mack27 wrote:
This is the fundamental imbalance of capitalism. Capital gains taxes are lower than regular income taxes throughout the industrialized world. Why? Because capitalism requires growth to work and low capital gains taxes encourage growth. A higher capital gains tax actually results in less capital gains tax income for the government, the only reason to raise it is to make it more "fair."


I disagree that preferential treatment of capital gains encourages growth.

What is does do is mean that managers of publicly traded companies must be more concerned about share price than about profitability. A fund manager doesn't want dividends--those will attract tax. No, the fund manager wants a quick turnaround where he can dump shares (or better yet, shortsell them) to earn a fast buck.

Preferential treatment of capital gains encourages market manipulation. It encourages off-balance sheet reporting. It rewards short sellers and speculators and punishes investors--particularly investors who are looking for income, rather than growth. And most of all, it rewards people who take compensation in the form of unvested stock options.

Meanwhile, small businesses--supposedly the type of business that both parties want to encourage--derive no benefit, because they cannot offer gains to their investors because their shares are generally not traded (and subject to restrictions on trade in any event). They pay their investors in dividends and in interest--both of which attract tax as income.

Until capital gains exemptions are restricted to investments held for a period longer than a single business cycle, I will view them as fundamentally distorting to the investment marketplace.


_________________
--James


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,151
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

21 Sep 2012, 5:49 pm

For shame! Making Mitt release his tax returns is class warfare!

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



PM
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Oct 2010
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,466
Location: Southeastern United States

21 Sep 2012, 7:27 pm

Politicians, paying less than half than someone at their income level is supposed to pay.

A Regressive tax system under the guise of a Progressive tax system at it's finest.

Proportional tax ladies and gentlemen, problem solved.


_________________
Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men?


Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

21 Sep 2012, 7:33 pm

visagrunt wrote:
And here's another Obama sound bite for the campaign: We paid 20% of our income in federal tax last year--you paid only 14%.

It strikes me as perverse that a couple who have an 8 figure income pay lower effective taxes than a couple with a high six figure income.

And what happens to everyone's effective tax rate when social security premiums are factored into the mix? What's the effective tax rate of a family earning, say, $100,000 once social security taxes are included, and how does that compare with the taxes paid by the Obamas or the Romney's.

This is the fundamental imbalance of American fiscal policy.


You conveinently ignore the fact that Romney gives about 1/3 of his income to charity, not only that, he only reported half his charitable giving when he did his taxes...

Romney's taxes aren't an important issue at this point (aside from the fact that unlike the lies the liberals spewed about Romney not paying taxes), other than the fact he paid his taxes.

We have a dead US Ambassador (we hadn't lost a US Ambassador since 1979 when Jimmy Carter was in office), and all you guys can think of is how to smear Romney...



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

21 Sep 2012, 9:41 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
For shame! Making Mitt release his tax returns is class warfare!

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Actually it is. Making a candidates income (which is really a private matter) public is a result of the usually liberal canard that a rich person becomes rich only by screwing a poor person. Now this is sometimes true, but it is also sometimes false. As long as people are making their money legally, it should be no one's business but theirs and the tax-collector's.

The public has no right to know how much a candidate earns. As long as the candidate is living within the law he should not have to answer or account his private doings to the public.

ruveyn



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,151
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

21 Sep 2012, 10:46 pm

ruveyn wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
For shame! Making Mitt release his tax returns is class warfare!

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Actually it is. Making a candidates income (which is really a private matter) public is a result of the usually liberal canard that a rich person becomes rich only by screwing a poor person. Now this is sometimes true, but it is also sometimes false. As long as people are making their money legally, it should be no one's business but theirs and the tax-collector's.

The public has no right to know how much a candidate earns. As long as the candidate is living within the law he should not have to answer or account his private doings to the public.

ruveyn


Take that up with Romney's old man, who had started the whole precedent.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

21 Sep 2012, 10:56 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
For shame! Making Mitt release his tax returns is class warfare!

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Actually it is. Making a candidates income (which is really a private matter) public is a result of the usually liberal canard that a rich person becomes rich only by screwing a poor person. Now this is sometimes true, but it is also sometimes false. As long as people are making their money legally, it should be no one's business but theirs and the tax-collector's.

The public has no right to know how much a candidate earns. As long as the candidate is living within the law he should not have to answer or account his private doings to the public.

ruveyn


Take that up with Romney's old man, who had started the whole precedent.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


That was to show that they actually paid their taxes...



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,151
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

22 Sep 2012, 12:08 am

Inuyasha wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
For shame! Making Mitt release his tax returns is class warfare!

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Actually it is. Making a candidates income (which is really a private matter) public is a result of the usually liberal canard that a rich person becomes rich only by screwing a poor person. Now this is sometimes true, but it is also sometimes false. As long as people are making their money legally, it should be no one's business but theirs and the tax-collector's.

The public has no right to know how much a candidate earns. As long as the candidate is living within the law he should not have to answer or account his private doings to the public.

ruveyn


Take that up with Romney's old man, who had started the whole precedent.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


That was to show that they actually paid their taxes...


That is my point exactly. Why must Romney hide his back taxes from public scrutiny if he has nothing to hide. And by the way, I'm not saying he is hiding anything - it just makes things look suspicious that he isn't. It would probably help his poll numbers if he were to release more years.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

22 Sep 2012, 6:35 am

Kraichgauer wrote:
[

That is my point exactly. Why must Romney hide his back taxes from public scrutiny if he has nothing to hide. And by the way, I'm not saying he is hiding anything - it just makes things look suspicious that he isn't. It would probably help his poll numbers if he were to release more years.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Oh Sister Kate bar the door! Kraichgauer's suspicions have been aroused!

ruveyn



jdbob
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2006
Age: 68
Gender: Male
Posts: 263
Location: Oregon

22 Sep 2012, 4:41 pm

The return people want to see is for 2009, the year there was a tax amnesty for cheats.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,151
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

22 Sep 2012, 4:44 pm

ruveyn wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
[

That is my point exactly. Why must Romney hide his back taxes from public scrutiny if he has nothing to hide. And by the way, I'm not saying he is hiding anything - it just makes things look suspicious that he isn't. It would probably help his poll numbers if he were to release more years.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Oh Sister Kate bar the door! Kraichgauer's suspicions have been aroused!

ruveyn


You better! :lol:

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

22 Sep 2012, 6:00 pm

visagrunt wrote:
And here's another Obama sound bite for the campaign: We paid 20% of our income in federal tax last year--you paid only 14%.

It strikes me as perverse that a couple who have an 8 figure income pay lower effective taxes than a couple with a high six figure income.

And what happens to everyone's effective tax rate when social security premiums are factored into the mix? What's the effective tax rate of a family earning, say, $100,000 once social security taxes are included, and how does that compare with the taxes paid by the Obamas or the Romney's.

This is the fundamental imbalance of American fiscal policy.


It seems the republicans want to argue that the rich and poor should pay the same absolute amount of taxes. For people like Romney to have to pay the same percentage, well that's too much progressiveness! Or they will bring up the stupid canard that capital gains tax is a "double tax" on "income already earned" and thus should be zero. Everyone must bow down and kiss the feet of the almighty money changers!



Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

22 Sep 2012, 8:18 pm

marshall wrote:
visagrunt wrote:
And here's another Obama sound bite for the campaign: We paid 20% of our income in federal tax last year--you paid only 14%.

It strikes me as perverse that a couple who have an 8 figure income pay lower effective taxes than a couple with a high six figure income.

And what happens to everyone's effective tax rate when social security premiums are factored into the mix? What's the effective tax rate of a family earning, say, $100,000 once social security taxes are included, and how does that compare with the taxes paid by the Obamas or the Romney's.

This is the fundamental imbalance of American fiscal policy.


It seems the republicans want to argue that the rich and poor should pay the same absolute amount of taxes. For people like Romney to have to pay the same percentage, well that's too much progressiveness! Or they will bring up the stupid canard that capital gains tax is a "double tax" on "income already earned" and thus should be zero. Everyone must bow down and kiss the feet of the almighty money changers!


Again you both leave out some key bits of information (as usual).

If you’ve been reading my columns for the past couple of years, you know I’m perfectly capable of being critical of Romney. I did so the other day, and radio host Mark Levin called me a “trash-mouther” who was “giving aid and comfort to Obama.”

But the release of these tax records leaves no doubt about one thing: Mitt Romney is an extraordinarily, remarkably, astonishingly generous man. A good man. Maybe even a great man.

That is all. There is no “but.” Anyone who says otherwise is ignorant, stupid or a liar.

It’s important to talk about how charitable deductions work, because there is great confusion about them and their effect on the amount people pay in tax as a result. . . .

. . .It’s likely, given these numbers, that over the past 20 years the Romneys have donated more than $50 million to charity. Do the math: Under current tax law, if he’d kept the money, he’d have $30 million more than he has now. (That’s extremely inexact, but you get the idea.)

As a member of the Mormon church, Romney is instructed to tithe 10 percent of his income. That’s in keeping with most charitable giving: Religious institutions get about one-third of all contributions, according to The American magazine.
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/op ... q1LmrNInjN

If you had the kind of money Romney has, I doubt either one of you would give a quarter of what Romney does.