The AWOL Romney Tax Returns - what's the holdup?

[sd'sker]

Where does Person Bs money go? Do they never spend money in the US, do they pay any taxes? If not I wanna figure out that loop hole. Look everyone tries to minimize their tax burden, even the rich people who say rich people should pay more taxes try to pay less taxes or no taxes. Beside the amount of taxes the rich pay in one year is likely more than you or I will pay in a lifetime.

that is the point. the rich are privy to this special club where they get write-offs and loopholes that no one else can afford. rich people continue to get richer just because they are rich; that money is not going to help us because, for them, it is no longer about the money but about the power afforded to them with that money.

[carlfense]

(for the record, I also wasn’t comparing Geitner’s situation as an equivalent except to point out the obvious that his WAS illegal and how convienient that we are supposed to accept his explanation at face value but question Romney and others).

 

You have pivoted the argument from a legal standpoint into a moral one, and on that we are far more in agreement.

The problem is that people want to see Romney's taxes for both legal and moral reasons. It's not a pivot in the argument . . . they're both relevant. You brought in Geitners legal troubles . . . but that doesn't mean that the whole discussion hinges on legality. That means that you were eager to make a point about a politician with a different letter after his name than the politician that you will be voting for in November.

 

Honestly, I doubt that Romney's accountants are stupid enough to cheat on his taxes but that doesn't mean that his tax returns aren't relevant to his job application with the American people.

Were you this eager to find out how Hillary made $100,000 overnight on cattle futures? Opps, silly question.........she had the correct letter after her name....

No. I wasn't born at the time of that controversy so it was difficult for me to investigate the subject. Now? You bet. Start a thread and we'll talk about it. I'm not sure how you're connecting this to Romney hiding his tax returns from the American people. (Side note: how do you know that Romney hasn't made $100,000 overnight on cattle futures? I'll answer for you: you don't know that Romney hasn't made $100,000 overnight on cattle futures because he has hidden his tax returns.)

 

You're trying to use a "but your side does it too!" argument (first Geitner, now Hillary). Taxes either matter or they don't. You can't (and I don't!) condition your reality on your party preference. If they matter . . . they matter for both sides. If you say that they don't matter for Romney . . . you're going to look awfully hypocritical for saying that they matter for Hillary or Geitner.

 

You seem to be having trouble understanding that point. I don't know how I can express it more clearly.

[sd'sker]

Were you this eager to find out how Hillary made $100,000 overnight on cattle futures? Opps, silly question.........she had the correct letter after her name....

 

I was. And I don't give a damn what letter was after her name.

who has not made $100,000 overnight on cattle futures?

[Mavric]

krill. excellent point. the worst thing about these tax havens is that they are only available to the rich, those who need them the least. it says a lot about how people with money live under different rules than those who do not have as much.

 

as to your hypothetical, i argue person a is less wrong because by giving them money we all benefit; person b just gets more money to save and earn interest on. person a helps everyone because, at worst, they are going to spend that money and help the economy. at best, they will use that money to help stabilize their life and improve their situation becoming a more productive member of society.

I would definitely like to hear more of this argument. By taking money away from everyone and giving it to someone, how are we all benefiting?

[Mavric]

Where does Person Bs money go? Do they never spend money in the US, do they pay any taxes? If not I wanna figure out that loop hole. Look everyone tries to minimize their tax burden, even the rich people who say rich people should pay more taxes try to pay less taxes or no taxes. Beside the amount of taxes the rich pay in one year is likely more than you or I will pay in a lifetime.

that is the point. the rich are privy to this special club where they get write-offs and loopholes that no one else can afford. rich people continue to get richer just because they are rich; that money is not going to help us because, for them, it is no longer about the money but about the power afforded to them with that money.

The bottom 47% or so of wage earners are privy to an income tax shelter. It's called the US Tax Code.

[sd'sker]

Where does Person Bs money go? Do they never spend money in the US, do they pay any taxes? If not I wanna figure out that loop hole. Look everyone tries to minimize their tax burden, even the rich people who say rich people should pay more taxes try to pay less taxes or no taxes. Beside the amount of taxes the rich pay in one year is likely more than you or I will pay in a lifetime.

that is the point. the rich are privy to this special club where they get write-offs and loopholes that no one else can afford. rich people continue to get richer just because they are rich; that money is not going to help us because, for them, it is no longer about the money but about the power afforded to them with that money.

The bottom 47% or so of wage earners are privy to an income tax shelter. It's called the US Tax Code.

my concern is this:

Investor and multi-billionaire Warren Buffett has criticized the US tax code as highly regressive, citing himself as anecdotal evidence: Buffett stated that with an income of over $46 million, he pays a tax rate of 17.7%, whereas his receptionist pays a tax rate of 30%.

 

as for my prior argument, you sort of contradict yourself. the bottom 47% are protected from taxes yet we are taking away money from "everyone and giving it to someone". i explained it fairly well, but it is better to give money to spenders (consumers) than do nothing at all or tighten the government purse-strings when it comes to recovering from a recession. by allowing mitt and other millionaire's huge tax breaks, all you are doing is giving money to people who will spend no more and export the money out of the country to protect it from taxes. we lose the benefit of tax revenue and consumer spending. recessions are so bad because they are cyclical: people lose jobs, have less money, spend less, more people lose jobs who have less money, spend less... to reverse this, people have to have money to spend.

 

so my point is that it is better to give money to someone who needs it and will definitely spend it rather than someone who has so much money they have to find creative ways to hide it.

also, the bigger issue is the inherent unfairness of a tax code that is based on raw percentages rather than purchasing power. as i have said before, if romney and i were taxed at the same rate (lets us say 30%, even though that is what i paid, while he has paid between 0-13.9%) he may pay way more in taxes, but 30% of my household income affects my spending and security much more than his.

[Malth]

also, the bigger issue is the inherent unfairness of a tax code that is based on raw percentages rather than purchasing power. as i have said before, if romney and i were taxed at the same rate (lets us say 30%, even though that is what i paid, while he has paid between 0-13.9%) he may pay way more in taxes, but 30% of my household income affects my spending and security much more than his.

 

This is exactly what makes a flat tax regressive, and a bad idea.

 

 

The rest of your post is spot on. Giving rich people more money doesn't accomplish a whole lot. There aren't going to suddenly be more jobs because of it, and they likely won't go spend that money like a poorer person would. Trickle down economics is 100% bullsh#t. The reality is that it trickles up. All of it. When the middle and lower class have more money to spend, they do so. It drives economic activity. And where does the money they spend eventually end up? At the top, of course. It seems so incredibly obvious that I have no idea why anyone would ever think otherwise, and start claiming that the problem is actually that the rich don't have enough money and the poor have too much.

[sd'sker]

This is exactly what makes a flat tax regressive, and a bad idea.

just to be clear, i agree with this. that is what i was getting at; that our tax system is effectively not progressive and in practice is regressive. as well, i am not in favor of a flat tax.

[carlfense]

also, the bigger issue is the inherent unfairness of a tax code that is based on raw percentages rather than purchasing power. as i have said before, if romney and i were taxed at the same rate (lets us say 30%, even though that is what i paid, while he has paid between 0-13.9%) he may pay way more in taxes, but 30% of my household income affects my spending and security much more than his.

 

This is exactly what makes a flat tax regressive, and a bad idea.

 

 

The rest of your post is spot on. Giving rich people more money doesn't accomplish a whole lot. There aren't going to suddenly be more jobs because of it, and they likely won't go spend that money like a poorer person would. Trickle down economics is 100% bullsh#t. The reality is that it trickles up. All of it. When the middle and lower class have more money to spend, they do so. It drives economic activity. And where does the money they spend eventually end up? At the top, of course. It seems so incredibly obvious that I have no idea why anyone would ever think otherwise, and start claiming that the problem is actually that the rich don't have enough money and the poor have too much.

+1

 

"job creators"

[knapplc]

Giving rich people more money doesn't accomplish a whole lot. There aren't going to suddenly be more jobs because of it, and they likely won't go spend that money like a poorer person would. Trickle down economics is 100% bullsh#t. The reality is that it trickles up. All of it. When the middle and lower class have more money to spend, they do so. It drives economic activity. And where does the money they spend eventually end up? At the top, of course. It seems so incredibly obvious that I have no idea why anyone would ever think otherwise, and start claiming that the problem is actually that the rich don't have enough money and the poor have too much.

 

Because someone on TV or the radio told them so. They use words like "class warfare" that rile everyone up without really explaining what that is. The talking heads on TV/radio get excited and offended and put on a good show, and the watcher spends no time worrying about the truth of what's being because they are being entertained by the delivery.

 

"Trickle-down" economics were debunked in the 1980s, but history, sadly, teaches us nothing. It's all about fervor and righteous anger and there's very little reason applied to these situations.

[Ziggy]

The reason the rich are given tax breaks, because they risk capital to build companies. Do you know how much it costs to finance a new wing for a private Hospital? Or the cost of expanding drilling operations into new fields and the sea floor? Rich people get a tax break for putting their money into companies with the possibility of getting a ROI, and also there is a possibility they wont get anything back. That investment helps build our economy, it does create jobs, and it does it efficiently. If Warren buffet paid the same tax rate as his secretary it would increase his tax payment by a little more than 6 million dollars for a total of 14+ million a year in taxes. That more than probably this whole board will pay in taxes in their lifetimes combined. But if he wants to put more money into the government I don't think the IRS will care.

[sd'sker]

The reason the rich are given tax breaks, because they risk capital to build companies. Do you know how much it costs to finance a new wing for a private Hospital? Or the cost of expanding drilling operations into new fields and the sea floor? Rich people get a tax break for putting their money into companies with the possibility of getting a ROI, and also there is a possibility they wont get anything back. That investment helps build our economy, it does create jobs, and it does it efficiently. If Warren buffet paid the same tax rate as his secretary it would increase his tax payment by a little more than 6 million dollars for a total of 14+ million a year in taxes. That more than probably this whole board will pay in taxes in their lifetimes combined. But if he wants to put more money into the government I don't think the IRS will care.

how do hedge funds, the stock market, or selling short help the economy or anyone other than the investor? why should we subsidize their risk when they refuse to subsidize the infrastructure and means to take such risks? and you are switching back and forth between people and corporations. also, that is why you can write of losses, but why should we subsidize oil companies making record profits? their record profits are not enough for the r&d? finally, i am not sure hospitals really belong in this conversation.

[Ziggy]

Not to be a jerk, but I shouldn't need to explain how investing in stocks is good for our economy. Regardless, I said Private hospitals so they do belong in this conversation, US oil companies haven't always made record profits, for a while they even had losses. The only way they made profits is due to investors risking their own money to help pay for oil rigs, pipelines, and other improvements that set them up to make profits. That creates jobs for people who make oil rigs, who built pipelines, and who run those sites.

[sd'sker]

Not to be a jerk, but I shouldn't need to explain how investing in stocks is good for our economy. Regardless, I said Private hospitals so they do belong in this conversation, US oil companies haven't always made record profits, for a while they even had losses. The only way they made profits is due to investors risking their own money to help pay for oil rigs, pipelines, and other improvements that set them up to make profits. That creates jobs for people who make oil rigs, who built pipelines, and who run those sites.

why should you not have to explain how investing in stocks is good for our economy?

the stock market is a scam. it is not based on the value of a company or its production. it is based on speculation and artificial forces.

 

when oil companies do operate at a loss, they get to write that off. that is the incentive. you either profit or write-off your loses.

 

are most hospitals not public or non-profit? and if it is private, usually it is insanely profitable.

[Mavric]

This is exactly what makes a flat tax regressive, and a bad idea.

just to be clear, i agree with this. that is what i was getting at; that our tax system is effectively not progressive and in practice is regressive. as well, i am not in favor of a flat tax.

Taxes Paid by Earning Percentiles (2009):

 

Top 1% - 36.7%

Top 5% - 58.7%

Top 10% - 70.5%

Bottom 50% - 2.25%

 

How can that possibly be considered regressive? How much more progressive would you like it to be?