• 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!

Let's assume Romney paid 0% income tax

Should we fault Romney if he paid 0% taxes? Is the fair tax better than current?

  • Yes fault him. Yes Fair tax is better

    Votes: 2 13.3%

  • Yes fault him. No Fair tax is worse

    Votes: 3 20.0%

  • Don't fault him. Yes Fair tax is better

    Votes: 8 53.3%

  • Don't fault him. No Fair tax is worse

    Votes: 2 13.3%
  • Total voters
    15
F

fredmertzz

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 28, 2012
Messages
481
Reaction score
194
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Let's assume Romney releases his returns willingly and shows that he paid 0% income tax.

There are two scenarios that this happened: legally or illegally. If done illegally, then obviously his run is over, so there is no debate to be had there.

But if it was done legally, which is the point the democrats are REALLY trying to imply (or flat out accuse), is this a negative on Romney?

He followed the law and managed the laws in the most efficient and cost-effective manner. These seem like positive character traits to me. It also seems like a TERRIBLY broken system. But I wouldn't fault Romney for the system being broken.

Which leads to a second question - Wouldn't a fair tax be preferable over this so-easily broken system that we have? The rich would pay much more in taxes and you guarantee their tax rate won't be less than that of the middle-class. Even if you think they ought to pay more percentage (which is debatable) - the system becomes corrupt far too easily under the current IRS-Based structure - how is THIS better?

So the question is (not if it would hurt him politically), if Romney paid 0% in taxes, should we fault him for it? Is the 'fair tax' a better system?
 
There are a few different questions which need to be addressed here.

The first order of business would be to address the Romney Campaign's response to the whole issue, which has been basically to claim that it's irrelevant and the more important issue is the economy--jobs, deficit spending, debt, etc. They're right that the economy is one of the most important issues that we ought to be discussing, but both Romney's and Ryan's income taxes are relevant to this question (as are Obama's and Biden's). The reason candidates release these records is so that the public can have some information about their micro-economic behavior, from which to divine what their real beliefs about the overall economy are, and what their pursuant actions are likely to be. If it is true that Romney paid 0% taxes (or even if, as he claims, he only paid 13%), that's indicative of someone who is unlikely to take the necessary steps to revive our economy. It's indicative of a person who believes that the very wealthy should pay as little as possible and exploit as many loopholes as possible.

I would say the same of Obama's tax returns, or Biden's, or Paul's, etc. These are people who seek to become public servants, and as such, I want to figure out who is most likely to actually serve our society as a whole, rather than try to figure out how much advantage they can personally gain. If Romney paid 0% tax (or even 13%), that tells me that he isn't interested in becoming a public servant. He's interested in becoming a public master. If I want to find out what he will do as public master, I have not only these data points, but his stated intentions and policies, and a variety of other data points as well.

So, yes, I think he would clearly be at fault for paying 0%. He's at fault for paying 13%, and doubly so for seeming to believe it's OK for someone like him to pay 13%.

The next question would be to talk about the "fair" tax. If by that you mean a flat tax proposal, it would clearly not be fair. The rich benefit disproportionately from the laws, rules, and conventions of our society, and should repay a larger part of that prosperity back to that society.

With that said, I think that the tax system is very broken in terms of what it pays for. I have put my money where my mouth is and paid more in taxes each year since the financial crisis hit than I should have. But I detest, partially, having to do so, because I know part of that money goes to perpetuate ridiculous and even harmful programs. One suggestion I have (this may have been suggested elsewhere by someone else; I'm sure I'm not the first person to have thought of this) is to let the IRS set tax percentages as they will. But then let citizens allocate how much of their contribution goes to which programs, and hold congress to the result.
 
1. the likelihood Romney paid zero percent approaches zero.

2. a thirty percent sales tax isn't a solution to anything, and is a non-starter.
 
fredmertzz said:
But if it was done legally, which is the point the democrats are REALLY trying to imply (or flat out accuse), is this a negative on Romney?
Click to expand...

Yes. The contention is taxing the rich less will lead to more jobs here through some form of magic that's never actually explained. But all our jobs are going off shore because our rules and taxes and blah blah blah. IF he paid zero percent legally, then there is a method to do so, and he would not be the only rich person doing so. And in such a case we can look to see where the hell our jobs are at. If the rich aren't getting taxed, then why would our jobs be going overseas? It blows a hole in the contention that lower tax rate for the rich benefits us all and would highlight these arguments for what they are; the establishment of the aristocracy.
 
It's a negative to perception, yes. However, the chances of it being zero are, as mentioned, zero. You really can't effectively weasel out of capital gains taxes, which is what many of these rich folks get their wages taxed at.

You can close loopholes if you want, but others will open up, and there will be dry periods of non-investment in those down times.
 
Helix said:
1. the likelihood Romney paid zero percent approaches zero.

2. a thirty percent sales tax isn't a solution to anything, and is a non-starter.
Click to expand...

For a year or two it is quite realistic

Given the size of his investments, his deductions on his investment loss's in 2008 and 2009 could have been large enough in those two years to ensure he paid 0% income tax (and possibly carry some foward)
 
Ikari said:
Yes. The contention is taxing the rich less will lead to more jobs here through some form of magic that's never actually explained. But all our jobs are going off shore because our rules and taxes and blah blah blah. IF he paid zero percent legally, then there is a method to do so, and he would not be the only rich person doing so. And in such a case we can look to see where the hell our jobs are at. If the rich aren't getting taxed, then why would our jobs be going overseas? It blows a hole in the contention that lower tax rate for the rich benefits us all and would highlight these arguments for what they are; the establishment of the aristocracy.
Click to expand...

Please don't confuse corporate taxes on foreign profits with personal income taxes. If I were a corporation making a profit internationally, I would not pull it back into the US to be double-taxed either. I would keep it international, and in order to expand, that also means expansion costs are spent internationally. This is a completely separate issue.
 
fredmertzz said:
Let's assume Romney releases his returns willingly and shows that he paid 0% income tax.

There are two scenarios that this happened: legally or illegally. If done illegally, then obviously his run is over, so there is no debate to be had there.

But if it was done legally, which is the point the democrats are REALLY trying to imply (or flat out accuse), is this a negative on Romney?

He followed the law and managed the laws in the most efficient and cost-effective manner. These seem like positive character traits to me. It also seems like a TERRIBLY broken system. But I wouldn't fault Romney for the system being broken.

Which leads to a second question - Wouldn't a fair tax be preferable over this so-easily broken system that we have? The rich would pay much more in taxes and you guarantee their tax rate won't be less than that of the middle-class. Even if you think they ought to pay more percentage (which is debatable) - the system becomes corrupt far too easily under the current IRS-Based structure - how is THIS better?

So the question is (not if it would hurt him politically), if Romney paid 0% in taxes, should we fault him for it? Is the 'fair tax' a better system?
Click to expand...
Can't fault the man for working the loopholes. His only crime was pissing off liberals. We'll just hope he only loses the presidency if the Left gets its way.
 
fredmertzz said:
Please don't confuse corporate taxes on foreign profits with personal income taxes. If I were a corporation making a profit internationally, I would not pull it back into the US to be double-taxed either. I would keep it international, and in order to expand, that also means expansion costs are spent internationally. This is a completely separate issue.
Click to expand...

The argument advanced is that if we tax the rich less, it will come back to us. Is that a "completely separate issue" than Romney, a rich person, paying zero tax legally? No, it is not. Please don't obfuscate the issue.
 
ashurbanipal said:
There are a few different questions which need to be addressed here.

The first order of business would be to address the Romney Campaign's response to the whole issue, which has been basically to claim that it's irrelevant and the more important issue is the economy--jobs, deficit spending, debt, etc. They're right that the economy is one of the most important issues that we ought to be discussing, but both Romney's and Ryan's income taxes are relevant to this question (as are Obama's and Biden's). The reason candidates release these records is so that the public can have some information about their micro-economic behavior, from which to divine what their real beliefs about the overall economy are, and what their pursuant actions are likely to be. If it is true that Romney paid 0% taxes (or even if, as he claims, he only paid 13%), that's indicative of someone who is unlikely to take the necessary steps to revive our economy. It's indicative of a person who believes that the very wealthy should pay as little as possible and exploit as many loopholes as possible.

I would say the same of Obama's tax returns, or Biden's, or Paul's, etc. These are people who seek to become public servants, and as such, I want to figure out who is most likely to actually serve our society as a whole, rather than try to figure out how much advantage they can personally gain. If Romney paid 0% tax (or even 13%), that tells me that he isn't interested in becoming a public servant. He's interested in becoming a public master. If I want to find out what he will do as public master, I have not only these data points, but his stated intentions and policies, and a variety of other data points as well.

So, yes, I think he would clearly be at fault for paying 0%. He's at fault for paying 13%, and doubly so for seeming to believe it's OK for someone like him to pay 13%.

The next question would be to talk about the "fair" tax. If by that you mean a flat tax proposal, it would clearly not be fair. The rich benefit disproportionately from the laws, rules, and conventions of our society, and should repay a larger part of that prosperity back to that society.

With that said, I think that the tax system is very broken in terms of what it pays for. I have put my money where my mouth is and paid more in taxes each year since the financial crisis hit than I should have. But I detest, partially, having to do so, because I know part of that money goes to perpetuate ridiculous and even harmful programs. One suggestion I have (this may have been suggested elsewhere by someone else; I'm sure I'm not the first person to have thought of this) is to let the IRS set tax percentages as they will. But then let citizens allocate how much of their contribution goes to which programs, and hold congress to the result.
Click to expand...


Those are some HIGH standards you hold Romney to. Usually I criticize people for holding such unrealistic standards, but seeing as you hold yourself to similar standards, there is no hypocrisy in your disapproval. I personally take EVERY single cent I can afford to back from the taxes that I've paid in. I'm consistently disgusted that I'm able to do so, but I certainly won't be in the minority helping to pay for others who won't pay for themselves. As such a person, I would find it hypocritical to think negatively of Romney for doing the same thing I do. You, however, have that right, IMO. Kudos to you.
 
Ikari said:
The argument advanced is that if we tax the rich less, it will come back to us. Is that a "completely separate issue" than Romney, a rich person, paying zero tax legally? No, it is not. Please don't obfuscate the issue.
Click to expand...

Regardless it is a separate issue. The issue I am discussing is whether or not we should fault Romney for taking advantage of the corrupt system to pay 0% income tax. Not how paying 0% would (or wouldn't) hypothetically affect unemployment. Yes, you're right that that point could be made, if he did actually pay 0%. But is disproving the GOP's argument that "lower taxes creates lower unemployment" a reason to fault Romney for having paying 0% taxes? I'm not sure what your point has to do with this topic yet.
 
fredmertzz said:
Regardless it is a separate issue. The issue I am discussing is whether or not we should fault Romney for taking advantage of the corrupt system to pay 0% income tax. Not how paying 0% would (or wouldn't) hypothetically affect unemployment. Yes, you're right that that point could be made, if he did actually pay 0%. But is disproving the GOP's argument that "lower taxes creates lower unemployment" a reason to fault Romney for having paying 0% taxes? I'm not sure what your point has to do with this topic yet.
Click to expand...

Yes, because that is their line. This is what they spout off. "Make us pay less, you'll get more jobs and blah!". But if we allowed them a way to pay less, nothing even, and that were not true then they had just stolen a bunch of money from us and lied all the way to the bank. It'd be like Scientology at that point. I blame scamers for the scams.
 
Ikari said:
Yes, because that is their line. This is what they spout off. "Make us pay less, you'll get more jobs and blah!". But if we allowed them a way to pay less, nothing even, and that were not true then they had just stolen a bunch of money from us and lied all the way to the bank. It'd be like Scientology at that point. I blame scamers for the scams.
Click to expand...

ahhh, I see - I was so engrossed in the thought-track of whether or not he was 'morally' wrong if he did legally pay 0%... I see what you are saying now. Thank you for taking time to clarify. You would fault him, not for paying 0% taxes then, but for claiming to hold political ideals that would be 'best for all' that he knows to be false.

I hadn't considered that at all - thanks!
 
Last edited:
Ikari said:
Yes, because that is their line. This is what they spout off. "Make us pay less, you'll get more jobs and blah!". But if we allowed them a way to pay less, nothing even, and that were not true then they had just stolen a bunch of money from us and lied all the way to the bank. It'd be like Scientology at that point. I blame scamers for the scams.
Click to expand...

trickle down economics explained in one easy graphic :

cap125.jpg
 
I'd love to see a tax code more akin to Sweden. Take a look:

Sweden Tax Rates


An individual's income is divided into 3 categories: business income, employment income and capital income. The average municipal tax rate is approximately 31.56% and is levied on total taxable employment income less a personal allowance. A basic national income tax of 20% is levied on taxable income exceeding SEK 372,100 (for 2010). A higher national tax of 25% is levied on taxable income in excess of SEK 532,700 (for 2010). In total, a maximum rate of approximately 57.77% is levied on average. Business income is taxed at the same rate as employment income. Dividend and interest income are taxed at a flat rate of 30%.
 
Last edited:
My opinion:

While Romney would obviously be at fault (he did choose to pay such low taxes), it shouldn't (directly) harm his chances of being elected, which is (I assumed when I answered the poll) what you meant by "fault".

Votes should be cast based on what voters think each candidate will do (or not do) in office. This doesn't mean we should take what they say at face value (Romney's flip-flopping on issues probably should hurt him, because it means he likely won't be sincere to his present day promises), but his refusal to pay higher taxes than are demanded of him? No (though if it turned out he evaded taxes, that should harm his ethos).

The capability of the wealthy to pay lower taxes is an issue of political debate that should be separate from Romney's personal taxes. Making Romney (sample size = 1) your poll for the wealthy's tax returns is idiotic, as is trying to attach such a statistic to Romney for personal reasons (though Romney's tax proposal should have to answer to such arguments). Of course, Romney's separation from his own statistic is based on the assumption that he legally paid low rates (as mentioned above).
 
Last edited:
fredmertzz said:
Let's assume Romney releases his returns willingly and shows that he paid 0% income tax.

There are two scenarios that this happened: legally or illegally. If done illegally, then obviously his run is over, so there is no debate to be had there.

But if it was done legally, which is the point the democrats are REALLY trying to imply (or flat out accuse), is this a negative on Romney?

He followed the law and managed the laws in the most efficient and cost-effective manner. These seem like positive character traits to me. It also seems like a TERRIBLY broken system. But I wouldn't fault Romney for the system being broken.

Which leads to a second question - Wouldn't a fair tax be preferable over this so-easily broken system that we have? The rich would pay much more in taxes and you guarantee their tax rate won't be less than that of the middle-class. Even if you think they ought to pay more percentage (which is debatable) - the system becomes corrupt far too easily under the current IRS-Based structure - how is THIS better?

So the question is (not if it would hurt him politically), if Romney paid 0% in taxes, should we fault him for it? Is the 'fair tax' a better system?
Click to expand...

Romney cannot be faulted no matter WHAT percentage he paid...as long as he followed the law.

But, you see, none of that matters. The Democrats don't care what percentage he paid...except insofar as they can spin such percentage into the impression that "he's rich...he paid less taxes than you did". But I don't even think they are counting on being able to do that. They'd rather see HOW he earned his money. THAT would give them more opportunities to spin things in their favor.

Oh, and sorry...I won't comment on your flat tax question. It doesn't conform to the topic of this post as expressed by your thread title.
 
If he legally paid no taxes, it is a symptom of a broken system. We should fault him for campaigning to break it further.

**** the flat tax and regressive tax pushing assholes that want to further break the economy by funneling money away from those with the greatest propensity to consumer spending to those with the least.
 
Helix said:
2. a thirty percent sales tax isn't a solution to anything, and is a non-starter.
Click to expand...

15% consumption tax. 10% to the state, 5% to the fed-gov. Exempt food. Make it illegal for government to spend more than it receives in revenue.
 
Mordent said:
15% consumption tax. 10% to the state, 5% to the fed-gov. Exempt food. Make it illegal for government to spend more than it receives in revenue.
Click to expand...

Sounds good...except for the highlighted part. That would require an amendment which I don't think will ever happen. At least not in my lifetime.
 
fredmertzz said:
Let's assume Romney releases his returns willingly and shows that he paid 0% income tax.

There are two scenarios that this happened: legally or illegally. If done illegally, then obviously his run is over, so there is no debate to be had there.

But if it was done legally, which is the point the democrats are REALLY trying to imply (or flat out accuse), is this a negative on Romney?

He followed the law and managed the laws in the most efficient and cost-effective manner. These seem like positive character traits to me. It also seems like a TERRIBLY broken system. But I wouldn't fault Romney for the system being broken.

Which leads to a second question - Wouldn't a fair tax be preferable over this so-easily broken system that we have? The rich would pay much more in taxes and you guarantee their tax rate won't be less than that of the middle-class. Even if you think they ought to pay more percentage (which is debatable) - the system becomes corrupt far too easily under the current IRS-Based structure - how is THIS better?

So the question is (not if it would hurt him politically), if Romney paid 0% in taxes, should we fault him for it? Is the 'fair tax' a better system?
Click to expand...

You are forgetting the most important part.

The key issue is FOREIGN banks and countries that he pays ZERO (legal) taxes in but the USA poor and middle class cant also
use.
Or that he has special stock that is exempt from inheritance taxes that agian, the rest of USA cant get.

You have to have a world picture to understand the Romney tax issue. its not about the IRS at all. he has no money in USA.

ie
Tax haven - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Gipper said:
It's a negative to perception, yes. However, the chances of it being zero are, as mentioned, zero. You really can't effectively weasel out of capital gains taxes, which is what many of these rich folks get their wages taxed at.

You can close loopholes if you want, but others will open up, and there will be dry periods of non-investment in those down times.
Click to expand...

yes you can pay ZERO cap gains taxes.

Keep your money in the Caymans. Simple.
 
Mordent said:
15% consumption tax. 10% to the state, 5% to the fed-gov. Exempt food. Make it illegal for government to spend more than it receives in revenue.
Click to expand...

This is a terrible idea.

Why you say? In a recession as revenue decrease, expenditures decrease resulting in reducing total demand. Reducing aggregate total demand in a recession leads to an even stronger recession resulting in even less revenue. Hypothetically, you could run the government down to paying nothing but debt servicing and eventually forcing a default. An annual balanced budget amendment during a deep recession could reasonably cause a government wide bankruptcy. Why backers of this don't understand this is beyond me. It's basic economics and accounting. Anyone who has even the slightest understanding of how demand works in an economy should realize an annual balanced budget is a ticking timebomb.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom