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

Caine said:

Why? What do those forms have to do with his ability to be a leader of this nation?

What possible information could be contained within that would cause him to withdraw?

Click to expand...

If he's done nothing wrong, then what's the harm in releasing them?

waas said:

If he's done nothing wrong, then what's the harm in releasing them?

Click to expand...

The "Harm" is that a complicated tax return like his can be twisted to make all kinds of political arguements that take away from the important things in this ellection, like our $16,000,000,000,000 in debt ... or the fact that the unemployment rate hasnt been below 8% since the stimulus... or the 13% unemployment rate for blacks...

or our $96,000,000,000,000 in unfunded liabilities

David Walker former Comptroller of the US said:

$50 trillion in off-balance sheet obligations, $37 trillion for Medicare, $9 trillion for Social Security and those numbers grow faster than inflation and faster than the economy when the economy grows,"

Click to expand...

Yaknow little things like that

Former Comptroller David Walker: Unfunded Liabilities Could Ultimately Sink US

waas said:

If he's done nothing wrong, then what's the harm in releasing them?

Click to expand...

What is there to gain in releasing them?

Once they are released, a new conspiracy will be made up.... that happened to Obama, and its gonna happen to Romney too.

waas said:

If he's done nothing wrong, then what's the harm in releasing them?

Click to expand...

and if he filed proper tax returns, why do you need the details?

Isn't your beef really with the tax code?. Admit it, you want the rich to pay more. Blame Congress for the tax code. Not for someone who filed a proper return.

So lets say Romney releases 10 years worth of records and it shows what he has said. Would you then vote for him?

TurtleDude said:

the tax system is NOT SUPPOSED TO BE PROGRESSIVE-some TYPES OF TAXES are some are not so stop the lies.

Click to expand...

You are the liar. Here is my proof that you don't know what you are talking about.

As tax time approaches, many are debating whether high-income taxpayers should pay more or whether their tax rates are already too high. This debate is particularly relevant today because of the economic struggles many Americans are experiencing, and because of the longer-term trend of rising inequality. A host of economic forces, like changes in technology, increases in international competition, and other changes in the labor market, such as the decline of unions and a falling real minimum wage, have reduced job opportunities and wages for some American workers, but expanded opportunities and incomes for others. In fact, the earnings and market incomes of many middle-class and lower-income households have stagnated and even declined over time, while incomes at the top of the income distribution have risen dramatically. The United States has traditionally boasted a progressive tax code—one in which the tax rate increases as income increases. A key question for policymakers, then, is how the tax system should respond to the current challenges—how progressive should the tax code be?

The purpose of any tax system is to raise revenues to fund government programs. But the challenge to designing a good tax system is raising revenues in a way that minimizes economic harm. That means being concerned not just with economic incentives in the tax code, but also the ability to pay of hard-hit middle- and lower-income households, whose incomes and employment prospects have been hurt by economic forces beyond their control. By basing tax rates on income and one’s ability to pay, a progressive tax system prevents these households from suffering the double burden of hard economic times and higher taxes.

Click to expand...

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

TurtleDude said:

The only people being given privileges are people like you who pay far less and still get the same citizenship benefits.

Click to expand...

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.

TurtleDude said:

Many rich people have mainly salary income yet they pay far more of that in taxes than you do

Click to expand...

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.

your post is a rare combination of idiocy and class warfare. Your effective tax rate is not higher than Romney's on like income

why

1) he pays the highest possible rate on EARNED INCOME

2) he pays the highest possible rate on investment income

on other forms of taxes everyone pays the same rate-such as gasoline or sales tax (in a jurisdiction)

he lives in a state with a state income tax

he also will face the death tax.

You get the same vote I do yet I pay over 300K a year in federal income tax alone and near another 100 in state income taxes.

romney pays 10X what I do and you are whining about us?

Μολὼν λαβέ;1060809646 said:

Like his transcripts?

Click to expand...

Check in with us once you understand the concepts of equivalence and relevance.

TurtleDude said:

your post is a rare combination of idiocy and class warfare. Your effective tax rate is not higher than Romney's on like income

Click to expand...

you are the idiot who can't support his position with any facts, like I supported my position with facts, invited you to do, and you show back up with NOTHING.

Then I will show your ignorance on tax matters, because when you speak of "effective tax rate", there is NO DISTINCTION ON TYPE OF INCOME. NONE, NADA.

Here is the definition of "effective tax rate":

Which is why you'll want to take a peek at your effective tax rate. Your effective tax rate reveals the average rate of taxation for all your dollars. It's your total tax obligation (including your income tax and any other additional taxes and/or credits), divided by your total taxable income.

Click to expand...

Fool.com: Tax Rates: Marginal vs. Effective [Ask the Fool] December 19, 2001

That means there is no concept of "like income" in the effective tax rate, it only uses "total taxable income" as the divisor. In this calculation, the income is NOT BROKEN OUT BY TYPE, rendering the point you were trying to make an invalid point.

TurtleDude said:

1) he pays the highest possible rate on EARNED INCOME

2) he pays the highest possible rate on investment income

Click to expand...

Which is irrelevant to the discussion. We are supposed to have a progressive tax system, where the richest people pay the highest tax rate because they have the ability to pay it. The repubs have put loopholes in the system so the rich can avoid paying the high marginal rates they should pay, by making investment income "tax advantaged", and they have gone so far that the very rich pay tax at a lower rate than middle income people. Warren Buffet says he pays at an effective rate that is lower than his secretary, and Buffet says its wrong, and Buffet is correct. And I have said that Romney pays a lower effective rate on his $20 million annual income than I pay on my considerably lower income. So, we're supposed to have a progressive tax system, but it is rigged so it has lost its "progressiveness".

This is not about class warfare, its about fairness in the tax code, and not letting the republicans rig the tax code and give advantageous treatment to investment income that it does not deserve.

finebead said:

This is not about class warfare, its about fairness in the tax code, and not letting the republicans rig the tax code and give advantageous treatment to investment income that it does not deserve.

Click to expand...

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?

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.

What I don't get is why people werent screaming for John "I got a purple heart fragging myself" Kerrys tax returns he has a greater net worth than Mitt... And I am sure Theresa has some of her ketchup money offshore...

Caine said:

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?

Click to expand...

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.

mike2810 said:

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?

Click to expand...

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.

mike2810 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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).

The Brookings Institute is well known as being leftist.

TurtleDude said:

The Brookings Institute is well known as being leftist.

Click to expand...

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.[SUP][23][/SUP][SUP][24][/SUP][SUP][25][/SUP][SUP][26][/SUP][SUP][27][/SUP][SUP][28][/SUP][SUP][29][/SUP] The Washington Post has described Brookings as centrist and liberal.[SUP][30][/SUP][SUP][31][/SUP][SUP][32][/SUP][SUP][33][/SUP] The Los Angeles Times described Brookings as liberal-leaning and centrist before concluding these labels made no sense.[SUP][34][/SUP][SUP][35][/SUP][SUP][36][/SUP][SUP][37][/SUP] In 1977, Time Magazine described it as the "nation's pre-eminent liberal think tank".[SUP][38][/SUP] Newsweek has described Brookings as centrist[SUP][39][/SUP]while Politico has used the term "center-left".[SUP][40][/SUP] In addition, the organization is described as conservative by the media watchdog group Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting.[SUP][20][/SUP][SUP][41][/SUP][SUP][42][/SUP][SUP][43][/SUP]
Some liberals argue that despite its left-of-center reputation, Brookings foreign policy scholars were overly supportive of Bush administration policies abroad.[SUP][44][/SUP][SUP][45][/SUP] 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.[SUP][44][/SUP] Similarly, Brookings fellow and research director Benjamin Wittes is a member of the conservative Hoover Institution's Task Force on National Security and Law.[SUP][46][/SUP] A number of Brookings scholars have served in Republican and Democratic administrations, including Mark McClellan, Ron Haskins and Martin Indyk.[SUP][47][/SUP]
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.[SUP][48][/SUP]

Click to expand...

Brookings Institution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

They appear fairly balanced to me.

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

mike2810 said:

So lets say Romney releases 10 years worth of records and it shows what he has said. Would you then vote for him?

Click to expand...

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.

waas said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

waas said:

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.

Click to expand...

If you already have your mind made up, then what does it matter to you?

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. :lol:

finebead said:

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.

Click to expand...

It is a left leaning organization but what were you whining bout?

finebead said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

TurtleDude said:

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

Click to expand...

You say I lied, I posted documentation showing support for my side. You have posted no such proof, nothing. Prove your assertion. What idiocy saying I have lied when I am the only one with documented support of my position.

TurtleDude said:

It is a left leaning organization but what were you whining bout?

Click to expand...

Prove it. I have documented backup for my position that it is a balanced organization (above). Your saying it does not make it true, does not stand up to my documentation. Prove it, or you got nothing. blah blah blah.

waas said:

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.

Click to expand...

He won't and there's a good reason.

The longer Romney refuses to release the more people will think he's hiding something. That casts him not only as secretive, but dishonest. Why would a candidate break a transparency tradition that every candidate in the modern era has freely done?

Because there's something really bad in there. Romney's refusal is actively helping Obama's campaign cast suspicion on Romney's finances and honesty. You don't help your opponent label you as being out of touch, secretive and dishonest unless proving them wrong releases something far worse then not paying much legally.

How many campaigns have you seen where candidate A helped candidate B spread a nasty rumor about candidate A?

Romney's making it worse for him. That alone tells me there's something much worse then not paying much legally.

Caine said:

There is no point in releasing records because people have their minds made up already, and the issue isn't about Romney specifically...... If you want to have a discussion about taxes then have one, you don't need Romney's personal tax records to talk about taxes.

This is nothing more than a way to get votes by using the "class warfare" tactic.

Click to expand...

I guess you Libertarians aren't big on "open government" and honesty and all that stuff.

obvious Child said:

He won't and there's a good reason.

The longer Romney refuses to release the more people will think he's hiding something. That casts him not only as secretive, but dishonest. Why would a candidate break a transparency tradition that every candidate in the modern era has freely done?

Because there's something really bad in there. Romney's refusal is actively helping Obama's campaign cast suspicion on Romney's finances and honesty. You don't help your opponent label you as being out of touch, secretive and dishonest unless proving them wrong releases something far worse then not paying much legally.

How many campaigns have you seen where candidate A helped candidate B spread a nasty rumor about candidate A?

Romney's making it worse for him. That alone tells me there's something much worse then not paying much legally.

Click to expand...

Or... maybe.... the only people who care aren't going to vote for him anyways.

This is birther all over again.