Page 17 of 18 FirstFirst ... 715161718 LastLast
Results 161 to 170 of 179

Thread: Mitt Romney: 'I Never Paid Less Than 13 Percent' In Taxes

  1. #161
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: Mitt Romney: 'I Never Paid Less Than 13 Percent' In Taxes

    Quote Originally Posted by Caine View Post
    How would his tax records from the IRS prove he did anything illegal.......

    If it does..... wouldn't the IRS have already found that out by now?
    Easy. There would be a large penalty and an assessment due on amounts he didn't pay in the past not to mention a likely a special form.

    And in the case of the UBS scandal, voluntary disclosure and payment of tax would go on your tax return as a special item. So tax records would show that he either got caught or voluntary came forth and paid the taxes he would have owed had he paid them on time plus interest and penalties. Penalties/interest generally come with some form of form showing what they were related to. Same deal for the KPMG but he might be able to sue KPMG for restitution if he could prove he didn't know they were illegal.

    Merely because the IRS knows doesn't mean we know. Tax records for the most part are private information for everyone but non-profits who are legally required to release them.

    You can check guidestar for free to see many nonprofits. This year will be especially interesting as many of the Superpacs will file and release their returns to the general public.

    Romney's got to be hiding one of those if he's willing to actively add fuel to the rumor he paid little taxes legally. You don't add fuel to a rumor that hurts your image unless disproving that rumor results in an even bigger dent to how voters view you. I've never heard of a campaign anywhere where the subject of the bad image rumor actively helped his opponent in propagating the rumor against him. If Romney has one or both, it makes perfect sense to let the Democrats go hog wild on him. The alternative of letting them know he got caught is soooo much worse.

    I've brought this issue up with hard core partisans and they just stop critically thinking about it. Apparently HELPING your opponent tear you down is a NORMAL activity in a campaign. It seems a great many people have simply just stopped thinking.
    Last edited by obvious Child; 08-23-12 at 04:45 AM.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  2. #162
    Professor
    finebead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston
    Last Seen
    12-14-17 @ 12:29 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    1,558

    Re: Mitt Romney: 'I Never Paid Less Than 13 Percent' In Taxes

    Quote Originally Posted by mike2810 View Post
    So is it your contention that only Republicans have followed the approved tax laws on investment income? For example, has Pelosi written a check to the Tres. for the difference?
    For the umteenth time folks, my problem is not with Romney or Pelosi or any who pays what they are supposed to pay. My problem is with the tax code itself, which is supposed to be progressive (even Brookings Institute agrees with me and I posted it earlier, post 155 above), but it allows Romney who reported 22 million of income one year to pay a lower effective tax rate than me and millions of americans who earn much less. That's wrong. Obama wants to improve that situation, the republicans beginning under Reagan made big changes to give advantages to the rich by easing taxes on LTCG and dividends, and Bush II took it farther in 2001 and 2003. That's wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by mike2810
    While I won't disagree with you that the tax code needs overhauled. I will disagree that it is one parties fault over another. I would bet that all "rich" politicians who have investment income use the current tax laws. There are many long term politicans from both parties. Our tax code mess is not just one parties fault.

    I have said it before. Congress and the President need to show they can get the fiscal house in order first. Then lets talk about having more tax dollars. Until then, how confident are you that if Congress changes the tax code to receive more revenue from the "rich", that Congress won't just spend it away? I have seen no effort by either party to really put forth a deficit reduction plan, produce a balanced budget, and work towards retiring the national debt.
    I generally agree with this.

    However, in the middle of a great recession is NOT the time to do big spending cuts, you'll kill the economy. Look at Greece, Germany (through the ECB) has imposed tough austerity on the Greeks (balance your budget NOW) and Greece is deeper in recession (probably depression), and now even Germany is moving to ease the tight spending restrictions. Greece needs to fix their deficit problem but they can't do it too quickly without killing the economy (cure worse than the disease).

    The govt. borrowed $1 trillion in Bush II's last year in office, fiscal 2008. Clinton gave Bush II a balanced budget to start from, Bush II took it up to $1 trillion a year borrowing, he cratered the housing market, the financial system, started one disastrous war in Iraq, and started the great recession that took DOWN IRS tax receipts by 400 billion a year. Now 4 years later, the deficit is back to $1 trillion a year or so, which is not a bad performance given the terrible situation the republicans put the country in.

    This is what Bush II did to the budget to produce the huge deficit:
    2 tax cuts = increased the deficit 100 billion per year for 10 years (extended by Obama for 2 more years due to great recession)
    Increased defense spending from 350 billion a year to 650 billion a year = added another 300 billion to the annual deficit.
    Passed Medicare part D (prescription drug coverage) with no tax to pay for it = add 70 billion a year to the deficit
    induce Great Recession = reduce tax receipts by 400 billion a year because people lost jobs, people lost money in the stock market so no capital gains, and Sr. earn no interest income due to low interest rates.

    That's pretty much where we are now.

    Obama spent 300 billion a year on the stimulus, but it is spent and no longer contributes to the deficit.
    Obama's other spending measure will be heath care, and it has not kicked in yet.

    In recent times, most of the problem has been the republican "borrow and spend" mentality.

    I also want to see us move in the direction of a balanced budget, I support Simpson Bowles. I am guessing Obama did not pursue it because the spending cuts and tax increases would not have worked out well in the sick economy we have been in (see Greece and how austerity worked out there, and Spain was given much more lenient terms by the ECB than Greece so they don't pull all of Europe into recession/depression).

  3. #163
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,766

    Re: Mitt Romney: 'I Never Paid Less Than 13 Percent' In Taxes

    The Brookings Institute is well known as being leftist.

  4. #164
    Professor
    finebead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston
    Last Seen
    12-14-17 @ 12:29 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    1,558

    Re: Mitt Romney: 'I Never Paid Less Than 13 Percent' In Taxes

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    The Brookings Institute is well known as being leftist.
    It's a long fall from arguing policy to simply attacking a source. Do you intend to present any FACTS to support your position?

    The opinions on Brookings leaning vary quite a lot.

    As a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization, Brookings describes itself as independent and non-partisan. The New York Times has referred to the organization as liberal, liberal-centrist, centrist, and conservative.[23][24][25][26][27][28][29] The Washington Post has described Brookings as centrist and liberal.[30][31][32][33] The Los Angeles Times described Brookings as liberal-leaning and centrist before concluding these labels made no sense.[34][35][36][37] In 1977, Time Magazine described it as the "nation's pre-eminent liberal think tank".[38] Newsweek has described Brookings as centrist[39]while Politico has used the term "center-left".[40] In addition, the organization is described as conservative by the media watchdog group Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting.[20][41][42][43]
    Some liberals argue that despite its left-of-center reputation, Brookings foreign policy scholars were overly supportive of Bush administration policies abroad.[44][45] Matthew Yglesias, for example, has pointed out that Brookings's Michael O'Hanlon frequently agrees with—and appears on stage with—scholars from conservative organizations such as the American Enterprise Institute, The Weekly Standard, and the Project for a New American Century.[44] Similarly, Brookings fellow and research director Benjamin Wittes is a member of the conservative Hoover Institution's Task Force on National Security and Law.[46] A number of Brookings scholars have served in Republican and Democratic administrations, including Mark McClellan, Ron Haskins and Martin Indyk.[47]
    The Brookings Board of Trustees include prominent Republicans such as Kenneth Duberstein, a former chief of staff to Ronald Reagan, and prominent Democrats, such as Laura Tyson, former chair of the Council of Economic Advisers under Bill Clinton. Its scholars include former government officials hailing from both Democratic and Republican administrations, as well as many who have not served in government and do not advertise a party affiliation.[48]
    Brookings Institution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    They appear fairly balanced to me.

    But, perhaps you can refute their position with some FACTS.

  5. #165
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Riding a tapir
    Last Seen
    01-27-13 @ 10:21 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,432
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Mitt Romney: 'I Never Paid Less Than 13 Percent' In Taxes

    Quote Originally Posted by mike2810 View Post
    So lets say Romney releases 10 years worth of records and it shows what he has said. Would you then vote for him?
    Take a gander at my political leaning right there on the left, hun. I'm sure you know the answer to that question.

    Also, I think Romeny'll be better off if he just clears up this whole controversy by releasing those clean tax forms.

  6. #166
    Sage
    mike2810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    arizona
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    15,032

    Re: Mitt Romney: 'I Never Paid Less Than 13 Percent' In Taxes

    Quote Originally Posted by waas View Post
    Take a gander at my political leaning right there on the left, hun. I'm sure you know the answer to that question.

    Also, I think Romeny'll be better off if he just clears up this whole controversy by releasing those clean tax forms.
    so basically, it would not make a difference to you.
    It is politics. One year it is someones military experience, one year its tax records. For me, there is more important issues for the Romney and Obama to address (economy, military, debt, financial reform, illegal immigratiion), than how much tax they paid or didn't.

  7. #167
    Sage
    Caine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Last Seen
    10-05-17 @ 01:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    23,336

    Re: Mitt Romney: 'I Never Paid Less Than 13 Percent' In Taxes

    Quote Originally Posted by waas View Post
    Take a gander at my political leaning right there on the left, hun. I'm sure you know the answer to that question.

    Also, I think Romeny'll be better off if he just clears up this whole controversy by releasing those clean tax forms.
    If you already have your mind made up, then what does it matter to you?
    "I condemn the ideology of White Supremacy and Nazism. They are thugs, criminals, and repugnant, and are against what I believe to be "The American Way" "
    Thus my obligatory condemnation of White supremacy will now be in every post, lest I be accused of supporting it because I didn't mention it specifically every time I post.

  8. #168
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Mitt Romney: 'I Never Paid Less Than 13 Percent' In Taxes

    I've been thinking about this all day. You know why I actually do want to see Romney's tax returns?

    Pointers. I guarantee that mother ****er has a better accountant than I do.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  9. #169
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,766

    Re: Mitt Romney: 'I Never Paid Less Than 13 Percent' In Taxes

    Quote Originally Posted by finebead View Post
    It's a long fall from arguing policy to simply attacking a source. Do you intend to present any FACTS to support your position?

    The opinions on Brookings leaning vary quite a lot.


    Brookings Institution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    They appear fairly balanced to me.

    But, perhaps you can refute their position with some FACTS.
    It is a left leaning organization but what were you whining bout?

  10. #170
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,766

    Re: Mitt Romney: 'I Never Paid Less Than 13 Percent' In Taxes

    Quote Originally Posted by finebead View Post
    You are the liar. Here is my proof that you don't know what you are talking about.

    Just How Progressive Is the U.S. Tax Code? | Brookings Institution


    Again you lie. You know nothing about me except I have stated my effective tax rate is higher than Romney's 14%, and I make less than Romney. What exact privilege do you think I am being "given" that you don't think I have earned? Please specify, or just stop your lying.


    You don't know what I pay, and you don't know what they pay. Stop making thing up, or show up with some facts and support the statement, like I have shown above.
    What idiocy saying I lied the Income tax code has been progressive-not all the other taxes.

    the united states for a majority of its history did not have a progressive income tax.

    a progressive tax scheme was designed to allow congress to buy the most votes possible

Page 17 of 18 FirstFirst ... 715161718 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •