• 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.

Mitt Romney's mysterious tax returns

hazlnut

hazlnut

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 27, 2009
Messages
11,963
Reaction score
3,543
Location
Naperville, IL
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
[h=1]Mitt Romney's mysterious tax returns[/h]

The pillaging of this nation by investment bankers and their ilk is a national disgrace. The failure of the government to prosecute a large percentage of the offenders is distressing. Even worse is the notion that the tax laws are written in such a way that they allow people like Mitt Romney to pay less in taxes than someone earning $52,000 somewhere in the depths of Mega-Corp Inc.


Romney is part of the 1 percent, and the 1 percent have not shown themselves to be patriots. Subprime mortgages ate this nation alive just a few years ago, and subprimes were just a game played by bankers. We have not recovered from the damage they did.


They wiggled and weaseled and lied their way into immense profits. Enough of their stories have become public that we have some sense of how they went about it - and no confidence at all that they're not going to keep doing it for as long as they can.


How much was Romney a part of that? What was he doing with his money during the previous decade? In a blind trust, he says, but there may be a question about how blind it was. In any event, isn't that a fair question, given how much malfeasance we know existed and still exists? It's certainly suggestive of something.
Click to expand...


Interesting read.

One notion I agree with, "the 1 percent have not shown themselves to be patriots." Hiding money overseas is not patriotic. We come down on people for not buying American; what about not investing American? The 1 percent have formed a tiny de facto nation within our nation. Tiny buy powerful. They have a separate set of tax laws the 99% don't have access to, and they spend/invest gobs of money overseas. Lastly, they mean to buy our next election... if we don't stop them.
 
hazlnut said:
[h=1]Mitt Romney's mysterious tax returns[/h]




Interesting read.

One notion I agree with, "the 1 percent have not shown themselves to be patriots." Hiding money overseas is not patriotic. We come down on people for not buying American; what about not investing American? The 1 percent have formed a tiny de facto nation within our nation. Tiny buy powerful. They have a separate set of tax laws the 99% don't have access to, and they spend/invest gobs of money overseas. Lastly, they mean to buy our next election... if we don't stop them.
Click to expand...

just more evidence that we have the best government money can buy
 
hazlnut said:
[h=1]Mitt Romney's mysterious tax returns[/h]




Interesting read.

One notion I agree with, "the 1 percent have not shown themselves to be patriots." Hiding money overseas is not patriotic. We come down on people for not buying American; what about not investing American? The 1 percent have formed a tiny de facto nation within our nation. Tiny buy powerful. They have a separate set of tax laws the 99% don't have access to, and they spend/invest gobs of money overseas. Lastly, they mean to buy our next election... if we don't stop them.
Click to expand...

Does your disdain for this system stop at Mitt Romney's door step? I have a hunch that you don't have the same disgust for high roller, Obama-voting, Obama-donating colleagues. Am I right? Is there an objective bone in your body?
 
How is this news? There is nothing new.

It is just another jack ass voicing his envy in the paper.
 
I was listening to a local evening-drive talk shown here in Massachusetts last night and the host, a former Mayor of the City of Worcester, former local business owner, and a Democrat had a great thought on all of this. I'm going to have to paraphrase it, but here it goes....

I wouldn't vote for anyone who paid a dollar more in taxes than they had to. If Romney or anyone else found a way to use a loophole to pay as little as possible, good for them. FIX THE LOOPHOLE, don't beat them up for using it.

Seems to make a lot of sense to me.
 
Tigger said:
I was listening to a local evening-drive talk shown here in Massachusetts last night and the host, a former Mayor of the City of Worcester, former local business owner, and a Democrat had a great thought on all of this. I'm going to have to paraphrase it, but here it goes....

I wouldn't vote for anyone who paid a dollar more in taxes than they had to. If Romney or anyone else found a way to use a loophole to pay as little as possible, good for them. FIX THE LOOPHOLE, don't beat them up for using it.

Seems to make a lot of sense to me.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Barack Obama thinks his constituents are stupid. How else you explain his line of attack on the Romney tax issue if in fact he doesn't expect is base to ask themselves this very question? The tax code is the tax code......if Romney complied with the code, including the loopholes, then what's the problem?

There is none. Obama thinks his base is ignorant......and judging by the number of flunkies who parrot his ideology, i'd say he may very well be right.
 
Tigger said:
I was listening to a local evening-drive talk shown here in Massachusetts last night and the host, a former Mayor of the City of Worcester, former local business owner, and a Democrat had a great thought on all of this. I'm going to have to paraphrase it, but here it goes....

I wouldn't vote for anyone who paid a dollar more in taxes than they had to. If Romney or anyone else found a way to use a loophole to pay as little as possible, good for them. FIX THE LOOPHOLE, don't beat them up for using it.

Seems to make a lot of sense to me.
Click to expand...


what doesn't make sense is romney's proposal to allow the rich to pay an even smaller tax obligation

which causes the deficit to increase at a faster rate and/or those who are not rich to have to pay more to offset the tax benefit received by the rich
 
justabubba said:
what doesn't make sense is romney's proposal to allow the rich to pay an even smaller tax obligation

which causes the deficit to increase at a faster rate and/or those who are not rich to have to pay more to offset the tax benefit received by the rich
Click to expand...

Sorry, but that's not how it works. MSNBC told you that didn't they? Well, they lied to you. Giving someone a tax break does not automatically mean that someone else has to pay more. The ignorance is thick around here. I'd recommend a macro-economics class, followed up with a micro-economics class. Please. For the good of the country, turn off your TV and do it.
 
Glideslope said:
Sorry, but that's not how it works. MSNBC told you that didn't they? Well, they lied to you. Giving someone a tax break does not automatically mean that someone else has to pay more. The ignorance is thick around here. I'd recommend a macro-economics class, followed up with a micro-economics class. Please. For the good of the country, turn off your TV and do it.
Click to expand...

ok, use your understanding of economics to answer this: in order to realize a specific tax revenue to be generated, where a portion of the population is going to be obligated to pay a smaller amount, why would the remaining number of tax payers not then be required to pay a larger amount to make up for the difference

... unless that lost tax revenue is going to be borrowed as an addition to the national deficit
 
Glideslope said:
Sorry, but that's not how it works. MSNBC told you that didn't they? Well, they lied to you. Giving someone a tax break does not automatically mean that someone else has to pay more. The ignorance is thick around here. I'd recommend a macro-economics class, followed up with a micro-economics class. Please. For the good of the country, turn off your TV and do it.
Click to expand...

How about checking it out on Politifact. They tell the truth.
 
justabubba said:
what doesn't make sense is romney's proposal to allow the rich to pay an even smaller tax obligation

which causes the deficit to increase at a faster rate and/or those who are not rich to have to pay more to offset the tax benefit received by the rich
Click to expand...

See, I like the plan for one reason and one reason alone..... It took a tax on tea and stamps to get the average citizen pissed off enough to revolt the first time. I'm hoping that maybe if we keep increasing the taxes on the average citizen they'll realize their obligation and do to this government what we did to King George a couple hundred years ago.
 
justabubba said:
just more evidence that we have the best government money can buy
Click to expand...

Agreed.

But how do we changed that? How do we really take back control of our country and our destiny?

The Tea Party 'revolution' was revealed to be a corporate funded way to stack the U.S. House against Obama and the unions. The sad irony is the tea party succeeded in giving away more of our country.

The challenges:

**better inform all citizens about the tax code.
**better inform all citizens about corporate taxes and subsidies.
**better inform all citizens about how lobbying really works. -- If people could better understand the process of 'influence' and how policy is actually written by special interests outside of the government-- industries are writing and rewriting their own rules.


There is a large percentage of our citizenry that will vote contrary to their interest based on social issues -- I have no clue how to solve that problem.
 
Tigger said:
See, I like the plan for one reason and one reason alone..... It took a tax on tea and stamps to get the average citizen pissed off enough to revolt the first time. I'm hoping that maybe if we keep increasing the taxes on the average citizen they'll realize their obligation and do to this government what we did to King George a couple hundred years ago.
Click to expand...

Well, good thing our current President, President Obama does not want to increase taxes on the average citizen.

The other guy who want his job, he WILL do that.
 
hazlnut said:
Well, good thing our current President, President Obama does not want to increase taxes on the average citizen.

The other guy who want his job, he WILL do that.
Click to expand...

That's fine. I won't be voting for either one of them. In fact, they're both part of the problem so far as I'm concerned.
 
justabubba said:
what doesn't make sense is romney's proposal to allow the rich to pay an even smaller tax obligation

which causes the deficit to increase at a faster rate and/or those who are not rich to have to pay more to offset the tax benefit received by the rich
Click to expand...

Or those who are not rich could quit asking for and taking so many benefits.
 
hazlnut said:
Well, good thing our current President, President Obama does not want to increase taxes on the average citizen.

The other guy who want his job, he WILL do that.
Click to expand...

Obama already has. Through PPACA my premiums are going to go up to pay for those getting a subsidy. Oh right thats not a 'tax' :roll:
 
I got about as far as this part of the article...

Romney is part of the 1 percent, and the 1 percent have not shown themselves to be patriots. Subprime mortgages ate this nation alive just a few years ago, and subprimes were just a game played by bankers. We have not recovered from the damage they did.
Click to expand...

...when my suspicions were confirmed...this guy is full of ****...and I knew it would be a waste of time to read the rest.

Y'all carry on with your babbling about this article. It's not worth my time to even read this thread anymore.
 
Glideslope said:
Does your disdain for this system stop at Mitt Romney's door step? I have a hunch that you don't have the same disgust for high roller, Obama-voting, Obama-donating colleagues. Am I right? Is there an objective bone in your body?
Click to expand...

Obama's supporters have largely gone public with their support, as opposed to the many Republican Super PACs that have been obtaining money from secretive sources. Right wing billionaires are exploiting the system in order to buy up the coming election. President Obama's PAC has been, by contrast, quite transparent.
 
This is just another dirty trick in the works.
The dems are good at this.
 
hazlnut said:
Well, good thing our current President, President Obama does not want to increase taxes on the average citizen.

The other guy who want his job, he WILL do that.
Click to expand...

considering that 47% of the "average citizens" pay ZERO income tax, is it really too much to ask for them to pay something to help support the system that is supoorting them?
 
OscarB63 said:
considering that 47% of the "average citizens" pay ZERO income tax, is it really too much to ask for them to pay something to help support the system that is supoorting them?
Click to expand...

FALSE talking point DEBUNKED.

The 51 percent figure is an anomaly that reflects the unique circumstances of 2009, when the recession greatly swelled the number of Americans with low incomes and when temporary tax cuts created by the 2009 Recovery Act — including the “Making Work Pay” tax credit and an exclusion from tax of the first $2,400 in unemployment benefits — were in effect. Together, these developments removed millions of Americans from the federal income tax rolls. Both of these temporary tax measures have since expired.
Click to expand...

It's laughable that you still push that one around like it has some validity.
 
Aberration said:
Obama already has. Through PPACA my premiums are going to go up to pay for those getting a subsidy. Oh right thats not a 'tax' :roll:
Click to expand...

No. What your insurance company decides to charge as part of their profit model is NOT A TAX.

Isn't it great when the ACA fully kicks in that you'll be able to shop around and find a better deal?

I thought you conservatives supported healthy competition -- who can provide the best coverage at the best price?
 
hazlnut said:
FALSE talking point DEBUNKED.



It's laughable that you still push that one around like it has some validity.
Click to expand...

In 2007, before the economy turned down, 40 percent of households did not owe federal income tax. This figure more closely reflects the percentage that do not owe income tax in normal economic times.[4]
Click to expand...

you were saying? what's laughable is your extreme partisan hackery
 
justabubba said:
ok, use your understanding of economics to answer this: in order to realize a specific tax revenue to be generated, where a portion of the population is going to be obligated to pay a smaller amount, why would the remaining number of tax payers not then be required to pay a larger amount to make up for the difference

... unless that lost tax revenue is going to be borrowed as an addition to the national deficit
Click to expand...

There is NO SUCH THING as an OBLIGATION to pay more taxes to offset someone else's tax break. That's merely small-minded theory pushed by talking heads on MSNBC to get you on board with Barack Obama's class warfare schtick. Aside from that, your fallacy is that tax revenue is borne from a finite number of taxpayers. The reality is that there is no finite number of taxpayers, as more people are added to the population every single day. Most of them are not rich. What does this mean? It means that in order for your "we pay more because they pay less" theory to work, there could only be a finite number of taxpayers and therefore a finite number of taxdollars being pushed to federal coffers. Your theory holds that if the rich pay less, then you have to pay more in order for there to be a balanced budget. This theory completely ignores economic growth in the form of more taxpayers. The more people you have working and contributing, the less others will have to pay. Our problem is not rich people not contributng their fair share. The rich already pay the lions share of federal revenus. Our problem is there are not enough people contributing AT ALL. This is about as simple as I can put it without getting into strictly macro theory.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom