• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

“Makes You Wonder”

AdamT said:
Yeah, I don't think it's any huge deal either. I think he should release a couple more years' returns because there are definitely some oddities in what he has released, but if I had been inclined to vote for him I doubt this would have changed my mind. From his perspective, even if he has nothing to hide he doesn't want people dwelling on his giant bankroll and super-low tax rate.
Click to expand...

I grant your point as far as it goes. The "super-low tax rate" bit has been addressed in other threads, but I feel I should specify disagreeing with that when I agree with the rest.
 
pbrauer said:
I doubt the voting public gives a crap whether Obama pees in a cup, but I'll bet they care about Romney not being transparent and want to know why he is being so secretive about his taxes. The choice is his.
Click to expand...

Since when do Obama supporters care about tax cheats anyway? I mean, if I cheated on my taxes like the current Secretary of Treasury...to the tune of $35K...I'd spend the next decade in prison. I would not be nominated for a cabinet position. Still, I agree, Romney should release his tax records (contingent on Obama releasing Fast n' Furious docs. I also want a stool sample from Mooch, lets see if she is a hypocrite relative to her food policing).
 
We all know what is in those tax reports and we all know why he doesn't want them released.

What is in there is all kinds of legal, but absurd, exploitation of tax loopholes combined with already extraordinarily low tax rates for superrich investors, yielding an total tax rate for him that is a fraction of what working people pay.

The reasons he doesn't want it released are because tax evasion, even if technically legal, is profoundly unpatriotic and probably even immoral and voters will not take kindly to that, and because it cuts against his "oh noes we need to give even more money to the sad longsuffering megamillionaire class" message.
 
AdamT said:
So that's how it is, now? Any time someone refuses to disclose anything, relevant or not, about his qualifications for office it's exactly the same as birtherism? :roll:
Click to expand...

Why are this labels and code words necessary?

The Constitution sets requirements for who can be president, including citizenship requirements.

What is so wrong about making sure that candidates meet those requirements?
 
teamosil said:
We all know what is in those tax reports and we all know why he doesn't want them released.

What is in there is all kinds of legal, but absurd, exploitation of tax loopholes combined with already extraordinarily low tax rates for superrich investors, yielding an total tax rate for him that is a fraction of what working people pay.

The reasons he doesn't want it released are because tax evasion, even if technically legal, is profoundly unpatriotic and probably even immoral and voters will not take kindly to that, and because it cuts against his "oh noes we need to give even more money to the sad longsuffering megamillionaire class" message.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's it. In bold.

I wonder though, when you fill out your taxes do you take any deductions or exemptions? Mmm.. yeah.
 
Arbo said:
Yeah, that's it. In bold.

I wonder though, when you fill out your taxes do you take any deductions or exemptions? Mmm.. yeah.
Click to expand...

To try to compare deductions normal people take to the kind of hijinx megamillionaires go through to evade their taxes is absurd and you know it.
 
teamosil said:
To try to compare deductions normal people take to the kind of hijinx megamillionaires go through to evade their taxes is absurd and you know it.
Click to expand...

So you do take deductions and exemptions. All of them legal. Thanks.
 
Arbo said:
So you do take deductions and exemptions. All of them legal. Thanks.
Click to expand...

Let me give you two examples of what we're talking about. A while back the government created a tax credit for selling a historical building in a foreign country to the government of that country. The idea was that there were a number of historical sites in third world countries that were owned by rich Americans and we wanted to give a break to folks who were willing to return sites like that to the governments that represented the people to whom they really should belong. But guess how the super rich used that provision? The Swiss government had a particular historical church that it would sell to rich Americans and then immediately buy back for a fee. Hundreds of superrich Americans did this little transaction in order to get the credit. Some of them did it dozens or even hundreds of times to completely eliminate their entire tax burden. Just buying and selling the same church over and over and over until they didn't owe any taxes. Was that technically legal? Yep. Was it moral or honest? No. Was it the kind of behavior that you would like to see in a president? I don't think so.

What Romney, at a minimum, appears to have done is to contribute money to his IRA not in cash, but by depositing shares of privately held companies. When you contribute shares of a privately held company, the IRS has no way to determine their value. So it has to rely on the person contributing it to tell them what it is worth. You're only allowed to put a few thousand into your IRA each year because gains made on it are tax free. It is designed to help out people who are struggling to save enough for retirement. But Romney's financial declaration shows that he has $100 million in his. The only technically legal way he could have gotten that much in there is by contributing shares in privately held companies that were worth many millions, but claiming they were only worth a few thousand. Despite being legal, what he was doing was lying in order to avoid paying the government millions of dollars that he owed. Is that moral? Is that the kind of behavior you think warrants somebody becoming the president of the country they were dishonestly ripping off so they could get their car elevator installed without having to give up their eight house?
 
teamosil said:
Let me give you two examples of what we're talking about.
Click to expand...

Let's not drive the attention off of you taking legal deductions and exemptions while complaining about others doing the same. So which ways do you reduce your tax bill?
 
Arbo said:
Let's not drive the attention off of you taking legal deductions and exemptions while complaining about others doing the same. So which ways do you reduce your tax bill?
Click to expand...

Ok, so you have no argument? You concede?
 
Taking advantage of legal tax shelters are absolutely moral.
 
teamosil said:
To try to compare deductions normal people take to the kind of hijinx megamillionaires go through to evade their taxes is absurd and you know it.
Click to expand...


There are two monopoly boards we play on. Mitt doesn't want people to see his.
 
Zyphlin said:
Wonderful to see Democrats embracing the birther playbook
Click to expand...

How exactly...do you equate a request for information that someone will not produce...to a request that has not only been made, provided, and verified many times, but is an trumpism in the first place?

I am unaware of any presidential candidate EVER refusing to be vetted.
 
Romulus said:
Taking advantage of legal tax shelters are absolutely moral.
Click to expand...

Even in the cases like I gave? Buying the historical building from a foreign government and immediately selling it back over and over to accumulate tax credits, for example? Do you believe that is moral?
 
Romulus said:
Taking advantage of legal tax shelters are absolutely moral.
Click to expand...

So is educating the American people about how wealthy people take advantage of these shelters to pay a lower percentage of their income then the rest of us.

Education and information is moral.

And a Presidential candidate should be candid about his finances and how he pays taxes (or defers paying). Educate us Mitt.
 
teamosil said:
Even in the cases like I gave? Buying the historical building from a foreign government and immediately selling it back over and over to accumulate tax credits, for example? Do you believe that is moral?
Click to expand...

Absolutely, the immoral behavior in your examples come from those who base tax law on a polylogism, rather than the bases of equality of law and proportionality for which Western Civilization is based. Two words: Flat Tax.
 
teamosil said:
Ok, so you have no argument? You concede?
Click to expand...

Concede what? Can you stop avoiding explaining your hypocrisy and tell us about what legal deductions and such you take to reduce your tax bill?
 
Arbo said:
Concede what? Can you stop avoiding explaining your hypocrisy and tell us about what legal deductions and such you take to reduce your tax bill?
Click to expand...

No kiddo, I explained why it isn't hypocrisy. Remember:

teamosil said:
To try to compare deductions normal people take to the kind of hijinx megamillionaires go through to evade their taxes is absurd and you know it.
Click to expand...

teamosil said:
Let me give you two examples of what we're talking about. A while back the government created a tax credit for selling a historical building in a foreign country to the government of that country. The idea was that there were a number of historical sites in third world countries that were owned by rich Americans and we wanted to give a break to folks who were willing to return sites like that to the governments that represented the people to whom they really should belong. But guess how the super rich used that provision? The Swiss government had a particular historical church that it would sell to rich Americans and then immediately buy back for a fee. Hundreds of superrich Americans did this little transaction in order to get the credit. Some of them did it dozens or even hundreds of times to completely eliminate their entire tax burden. Just buying and selling the same church over and over and over until they didn't owe any taxes. Was that technically legal? Yep. Was it moral or honest? No. Was it the kind of behavior that you would like to see in a president? I don't think so.

What Romney, at a minimum, appears to have done is to contribute money to his IRA not in cash, but by depositing shares of privately held companies. When you contribute shares of a privately held company, the IRS has no way to determine their value. So it has to rely on the person contributing it to tell them what it is worth. You're only allowed to put a few thousand into your IRA each year because gains made on it are tax free. It is designed to help out people who are struggling to save enough for retirement. But Romney's financial declaration shows that he has $100 million in his. The only technically legal way he could have gotten that much in there is by contributing shares in privately held companies that were worth many millions, but claiming they were only worth a few thousand. Despite being legal, what he was doing was lying in order to avoid paying the government millions of dollars that he owed. Is that moral? Is that the kind of behavior you think warrants somebody becoming the president of the country they were dishonestly ripping off so they could get their car elevator installed without having to give up their eight house?
Click to expand...

I'm explaining the difference. Do you have any counter argument? Or do you concede?
 
johnny_rebson said:
A flat tax would be better than what we have, but a national sales tax would be even better.
Click to expand...

A national sales tax just amounts to a fancy sounding way to shift the tax burden the rich carry now to the middle class. You would still have to carry the same tax burden you do now, plus your share of the bulk of the taxes the rich pay today.
 
teamosil said:
No kiddo, I explained why it isn't hypocrisy.
Click to expand...

You tried to excuse yourself out of it. A load of babel and such. Legal is legal. Don't like it, get the rules changed. Morality has nothing to do with it.
 
Romulus said:
Two words: Flat Tax.
Click to expand...

When you advocate a flat tax, do you mean to replace ALL existing taxes- state and federal- with a flat tax that applies to ALL sources of income- including investment income and inheritance?

If so, what you're actually saying is that income taxes should be lower across the board, sales taxes on middle class people are too high, and taxes on investors and those who inherit large sums of money are too low.

Those are things I agree with, although I would go further in that direction to try to achieve a tax system that is actually progressive overall. Diminishing marginal utility of wealth and all.
 
Arbo said:
You tried to excuse yourself out of it. A load of babel and such. Legal is legal. Don't like it, get the rules changed. Morality has nothing to do with it.
Click to expand...

How can morality have nothing to do with it? Superrich people lying or playing tricks to take money from people who need it more doesn't seem like a moral issue to you?

Well, regardless, certainly you would agree it is unpatriotic, right? A person who is inclined to lie in order to scam money out of the federal coffers isn't somebody we want to put in charge of the executive branch, is it?
 
teamosil said:
How can morality have nothing to do with it? Superrich people lying or playing tricks to take money from people who need it more doesn't seem like a moral issue to you?

Well, regardless, certainly you would agree it is unpatriotic, right? A person who is inclined to lie in order to scam money out of the federal coffers isn't somebody we want to put in charge of the executive branch, is it?
Click to expand...

The bold is where your liberal dogma fails. That you think the needs of one justify taking from another, and that you consider an individuals money to actually belong to the government before it belongs to the person that made/earned it, explains all one needs to know about your flawed philosophy. You too, need to come to grips with the reality of your dreams and desires collapsing because there is not enough 'other peoples money' to take away to make the dreams happen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom