Jump to content

Romney, The Inevitable Nominee


Michael Hardner

Recommended Posts

oh, hey now! Is this you walking it back? Is this you now realizing you've bumbled over your earlier claim that, "Obama had his college transcripts sealed". Walking it back, lil' buddy? :lol:

by the by, in your nonsensical distraction mode, do you equate Obama's decades old college transcripts to Romney's most recent 10 years of tax returns?

I think Bonam's assessment was pretty spot on. I don't buy that Romney did not pay taxes for ten years. More likely he got some pretty good tax breaks. Either way, why should people care that much about his taxes? It's not like he walked guns across the border.

Romney's taxes are the issue that won't go away among the echochamber who won't be voting for him anyways.

Edited by jefferiah
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

There are crappy jobs that need to be done, if north americans are too pretentious to take them, that's their problem.

[...]

Would you work for 30 cents on the dollar yes or no?

Um, your post isn't very clear...

So are jobs moving overseas because North Americans are 'too pretentious to take crappy jobs' or are corporations maximising the bottom line by wriggling out of employment standards and paying 30 cents on the dollar?

Edited by BC_chick
Link to comment
Share on other sites

People lose jobs. Bain invested in failing companies, so in any cases where jobs were eventually lost, a lot of them were going to be anyways and at least got extended.

How about some transparency on Fast and Furious? Seems a bit more important than someones taxes.

Edited by jefferiah
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its simple, "we're broke! We can't afford anything and its short term pain for long term gain."

Why are we broke, when GDP per capital continues to climb ? When peoples' salaries are plunging, and they're making more demands on government is it surprising that there is more demand for benefits, especially during a recession ?

People are different some are more talented than others. Why punish those who freely use their talents to benefit others?

Taxes aren't punishment, they're a tithe. There's an amount that needs to be paid to keep a country functioning well. Taxes can't be zero. Even if they were zero, by your argument people would have to pool resources in order to pay to subsidize companies that create jobs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry for the potential thread hijack.

In all honesty, Michael, I have read this several times and I still don't know what you mean. Maybe it's the double negative. "... advantage of the equality that I oppose... " Huh?

You have said that the state shouldn't be trying to equalize outcomes, which is true to a degree. However, at a certain point inequality weighs on the political system as poorer people demand more services than can be provided by the tax base. This has been pointed out as a problem with a political economy that supports too much inequality.

----

Look, when half the voting population pays no taxes then it seems to me that a democracy is open to the tyranny of the majority. The start down this path would begin with buying more on credit: someone else will pay. Then it takes a politician capable of pandering to the majority with claims that "other people should pay". It's an old line and it has impoverished more than one society.

Yes, but you should be looking at why people aren't paying. Some are wealthy people exploiting loopholes, therefore living on government subsidy. Others are too poor to pay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't buy that Romney did not pay taxes for ten years. More likely he got some pretty good tax breaks. Either way, why should people care that much about his taxes? It's not like he walked guns across the border.

oh, really? Romney has created this flap - it's truly of his own making. If he didn't have something to hide, his tax returns would be out there... his refusal to release the returns has allowed, rightly or wrongly, a veritable feeding frenzy concerning the issue. In these modern times, as a presidential candidate, Romney's refusal to release his tax returns is unprecedented.

- of the one single (incomplete) 2010 return Romney did offer, we've learned he’s been hiding millions in overseas tax shelters since the late 90's.

- what effective tax rates did Romney actually pay... how did he realize those rates... and how do they stack up against the continued Republican talking point that, "America has one of the highest effective corporate/personal tax rates in the world".

- are there years where Romney paid no taxes... and how did he manage to realize such event(s). Ya think the American middle class might be interested in just how a presidential candidate pays taxes at a lesser rate than they do?

- there have been concerns raised over Bain Capital's practices during the 3 years Romney claims not to have actually been "running Bain"... what if Romney's tax returns don't support the claim?

- another ongoing talking point hinges around extending the "Bush tax cuts" for the rich... and you don't believe Romney transparency on his taxes offers perspective on his personal position concerning the continued extension of these "Bush tax cuts"?

- the IRS has only limited means/capabilities in confirming claims made by Romney. Independent review/corroboration is needed, most particularly for someone intending to assume the presidency of the U.S. - perhaps Romney owes/owed unpaid back taxes? Speculation abounds that Romney received an IRS amnesty concerning unpaid back taxes. Perhaps Romney is an actual felon! Who knows!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

oh, really? Romney has created this flap - it's truly of his own making. If he didn't have something to hide, his tax returns would be out there... his refusal to release the returns has allowed, rightly or wrongly, a veritable feeding frenzy concerning the issue. In these modern times, as a presidential candidate, Romney's refusal to release his tax returns is unprecedented.

- of the one single (incomplete) 2010 return Romney did offer, we've learned he’s been hiding millions in overseas tax shelters since the late 90's.

- what effective tax rates did Romney actually pay... how did he realize those rates... and how do they stack up against the continued Republican talking point that, "America has one of the highest effective corporate/personal tax rates in the world".

- are there years where Romney paid no taxes... and how did he manage to realize such event(s). Ya think the American middle class might be interested in just how a presidential candidate pays taxes at a lesser rate than they do?

- there have been concerns raised over Bain Capital's practices during the 3 years Romney claims not to have actually been "running Bain"... what if Romney's tax returns don't support the claim?

- another ongoing talking point hinges around extending the "Bush tax cuts" for the rich... and you don't believe Romney transparency on his taxes offers perspective on his personal position concerning the continued extension of these "Bush tax cuts"?

- the IRS has only limited means/capabilities in confirming claims made by Romney. Independent review/corroboration is needed, most particularly for someone intending to assume the presidency of the U.S. - perhaps Romney owes/owed unpaid back taxes? Speculation abounds that Romney received an IRS amnesty concerning unpaid back taxes. Perhaps Romney is an actual felon! Who knows!!!

Well that's a lot of wild, blathering speculation!

That's quite a technique you have....perhaps Romney did this, perhaps he did that, and so on. Who knows? How much did Obama know about Fast and Furious? What is he hiding? Perhaps he is a felon. Who knows?

Edited by jefferiah
Link to comment
Share on other sites

then end the, as you say, "blathering speculation"! What's Romney hiding? As you say, who knows!

Right, so basically we ask a question with a negative implication.

Does Mr. X eat live kittens? He has provided no proof that he doesn't eat kittens. Should we be concerned? Who knows?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right, so basically we ask a question with a negative implication.

Does Mr. X eat live kittens? He has provided no proof that he doesn't eat kittens. Should we be concerned? Who knows?

Here is the thing though it hasn't been a tradition started by Mr. X's father to prove he doesn't eat kittens. Although here Romney's own Father has said if someone doesn't release more then a year or two of tax returns then the public has reason to suspect they have something they are hiding. This has been precedent going all the way back to Mitt's father who made the argument and it suck with the American people. Some polls have it as high as 65% of the American people who want those tax returns released.

You are making a bad argument all we have to do is open the papers and look at the polls to see that. Is it fair? I have no idea but the American people want it, and if they don't get it then Romney may lose. That is how it is like it or not. Fair or not. No amount of whining from the right "that it is Mitts turn and screw all the little plebes who want to see things" is going to change that no matter how many times you repeat it.

Edited by punked
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is the thing though it hasn't been a tradition started by Mr. X's father to prove he doesn't eat kittens. Although here Romney's own Father has said if someone doesn't release more then a year or two of tax returns then the public has reason to suspect they have something they are hiding. This has been precedent going all the way back to Mitt's father who made the argument and it suck with the American people. Some polls have it as high as 65% of the American people who want those tax returns released.

You are making a bad argument all we have to do is open the papers and look at the polls to see that. Is it fair? I have no idea but the American people want it, and if they don't get it then Romney may lose. That is how it is like it or not. Fair or not. No amount of whining from the right "that it is Mitts turn and screw all the little plebes who want to see things" is going to change that no matter how many times you repeat it.

How about some Fast and Furious transparency?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about some Fast and Furious transparency?

How about releasing publicly documents which will disclose the identities of several undercover agents? Well that will either put them at great risk or waste all the time and money which went into years of them worming their way into networks. Obama however did try to compromise so you know these people wouldn't be killed but your team said no deal.

Somehow Romney's tax returns (which Obama has already released) seems like a false equivalent. I know why it seems that way because one has NOTHING to do with the other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Bonam's assessment was pretty spot on. I don't buy that Romney did not pay taxes for ten years. More likely he got some pretty good tax breaks. Either way, why should people care that much about his taxes? It's not like he walked guns across the border.

Romney's taxes are the issue that won't go away among the echochamber who won't be voting for him anyways.

The theory that rich-guys need tax cuts is one of the major features of Mitt's campaign. His tax returns would be very relevant to making that claim. The fact that he won't show us what ought to be a compelling piece of evidence doesn't speak well for his case.

Lost in all the furor about the tax returns Mitt won't release is the tax return that he did release. He paid a 13.9% rate, which doesn't sound too onerous to me. Somebody ran the numbers and concluded that under the Paul Ryan budget, Romney's tax rate would have been 0.82%

Do you guys really think it's a good idea to knock $3 million off Romney's already modest taxes, while cutting food stamps and Medicare?

-k

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman

You're wrong, the 2010 was fully detailed. But it's irrelevant. The IRS sees his tax returns each and every year. :)

Which means nothing. No one is accusing him of cheating. There are many ways to avoid paying taxes and/or to pay a lower percentage - and some Americans would like to have that information. The fact that the IRS has it means squat to them, just as the Hawaii government having access to Obama's birth certificate meant squat to you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rich people already pay their bills. When the top 1 percent pays close to 30 percent of total tax revenue is that not enough.

The question isn't what total percentage of taxes the rich pay (which needs to be compared to what percentage of total wealth they own, btw), but whether rich people are able, through manipulating the tax code, to pay a lower overall percentage of their income to the taxman than I do. This year, for example, I had to pay 38% of my income to the taxman. Romney, a far wealthier man than I, apparently only had to pay 10% of his income. Now while he certainly paid a lot more than me, that isn't the actual question. The question is why did I have to pay a higher percentage?

The IRS, for example, requires my American representatives to deduct 30% of total revenues right up front on the basis that this would likely account for taxes owed at the end of the year. It does so on the presumption that this would be somewhere in the neighborhood of average income taxes forfeited to them. So why does Romney only have to pay 10%? Because rich people have used their access to politicians to get the tax code changed so they pay less.

How about the 46 percent who don't pay anything and take finally start paying up. But no people like you want rich people to build offices and pay people to hang out by the water cooler so that everyone has jobs.

No, what I want is for them to pay at least as high a percentage of their income to the government as I do.

So america is worse off with bain? Take bain away and you tell me if there is more dollars or less dollars.

Bain and its ilk contribute absolutely nothing to the United States economy. They enrich themselves but, like the legal industry, are of no actual use or value..

So you would rather have the chinese and indian people with no jobs and scratching a living off rocks.

This might surprise you but I really don't give a damn what Chinese or Indian people do.

Would you work for 30 cents on the dollar yes or no?

If it was 30% of a hundred million dollars you're damned right I would.

Edited by Argus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

By definition, kimmy, anyone who sets up a business and makes a profit is creating value for society. The money earned through revenues is greater than the cost of operating the business - assuming, of course, that the revenues were obtained voluntarily through market transactions.

Strange definition. If a business does nothing but take in money which is already in circulation, and then redistribute it among the business's owners, how is that helping society? If the business produces nothing. By way of example, let's look at a business I once worked for called Business Data Services. What they did was to approach large organizations which had a lot of lower level employees like data entry people, for example, and promise to do the job easier and slightly cheaper. The companies would no longer have to employee these people, for BDS would do the work for them. BDS made a fine profit in this manner, but of course, the people who used to do data processing at places like Sun Life now worked for 30% less for BDS. The 'savings' were split between BDS owners and Sun Life.

Do tell me how this created value for society, please.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He paid the tax on the money earned before it was invested. Romney took advantage of the equivalent of a TFSA.

How would you feel about paying tax on your RRSP when you put the money in and when you took it out? How would you feel about a 50% income tax rate and a 50% HST - that applied only to you?

Argus, are you suggesting that Romney pay tax twice on the same income?

If I buy a house, I pay tax. If I sell it I pay tax on the gains. Why is this different for Romney? Besides, for the wealthy, your cliche'd view of things really doesn't hold water any more. Most of their income is in the form of investments inherited from their parents. CEO and higher level investment industry compensation is in the order of millions, tens of millions, if not hundreds of millions, and very little of it is in the form of taxable income. Most is in carefully manipulated stock options for which they pay a much smaller percentage of tax.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its simple, "we're broke! We can't afford anything and its short term pain for long term gain."

You're broke? You're poor? You mean the United States can't afford its already miserly 'entitlements' because it's not a rich country like Russia or Cuba or Canada or Germany or Norway or Switzerland or...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're broke? You're poor? You mean the United States can't afford its already miserly 'entitlements' because it's not a rich country like Russia or Cuba or Canada or Germany or Norway or Switzerland or...

Nope he means speaking in catch phrases usually fools the people he talks to with out having to back up his statements.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've noticed that when it comes to American politics, Argus is probably the most ignorant person in the forum.

Shady, I usually ignore you, but just this once I'll point out that when it comes to American politics most people on this news site don't even think you're SANE. You write like a gibbering far, far, far right wing lunatic who's never found anyone in the political arena who quite reaches out as far to the right as he would like. To you, the Tea Party are soft, mushy lefties.

As such, nothing you post is thought-out, nothing is considered. You're as knee jerk supportive of whatever policy is furthest to the right as the most rabid ideologue I've ever encountered. If there was a party further to the right than the Republicans you'd be sneering at Ryan as a socialist and Romney as a communist. I suppose you're the end result of an endless addiction to FOX news and its shrill, venomous political propaganda.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look, when half the voting population pays no taxes then it seems to me that a democracy is open to the tyranny of the majority. The start down this path would begin with buying more on credit: someone else will pay. Then it takes a politician capable of pandering to the majority with claims that "other people should pay". It's an old line and it has impoverished more than one society.

I don't disagree with this. I think taxes should be raised across the board, including on poorer people. Everyone should have to contribute at least something. And if you don't, then you shouldn't get to vote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Bonam's assessment was pretty spot on. I don't buy that Romney did not pay taxes for ten years. More likely he got some pretty good tax breaks.

Tax breaks I don't get. Tax breaks only the richest in society get. So why do the richest in society need all these tax breaks? Their take home pay on $100 million a year wouldn't otherwise be enough?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...