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

[sd'sker]

Did you just quote Rachel Maddow facts & figures?

 

Here we go....

i could not resist. i am a fan and will defend her integrity. she may be biased (in that she focuses on stories that are more appealing to the left), but she is accurate and honest, in-depth and provides the necessary context to her stories.

[carlfense]

Did you just quote Rachel Maddow facts & figures?

 

Here we go....

Looks like it's Steve Benen's graph.

[knapplc]

Did you just quote Rachel Maddow facts & figures?

 

Here we go....

Looks like it's Steve Benen's graph.

 

The link is Maddow. You've unleashed hell now.

[BigRedBuster]

 

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.

 

Just a little note of clarification about "writing off" losses. I am guessing that many of you have heard this term numerous times but have never had the opportunity to "write off" a loss. Let me tell you how that works, because unfortunately I know something about it, my business has experienced losses (no profits) both of the last 2 years. There is no "write off". There is no benefit whatsoever that I can see. The losses in my business come directly out of my business and/or personal monies (savings, retirement, whereever I can find to pull money from to keep the company operating. Sure, I didn't get taxed on the non-existant profit but that is not a benefit anyone else does not enjoy. Think of it like your $75K per year job all of sudden pays you $0 per year. That is the same way it works with my business. There is no "write off" or hidden benefit. It is simply less or no income. The mystical "write off" is just that, it doesn't exist.

 

And, anyone who thinks that situation does not get passed on in the form of fewer jobs for others is fooling themselves. When we are losing money or not profiting, everything gets tightened up. We do not hire (in fact we cut back hours and possibly lay people off) and we cut back on all expenses that we can. Those things take money out of the economy. You aren't thinking too hard if you really think higher income people, who are in control of companies, do not create jobs or grease the wheels of the economy with extra money they have that is not being taxed. The goal for rich people is to make themselves richer. You don't get richer by burying money in the backyard. You have to invest it and get it working for you to make more. It is disengenious and flat out wrong to say that rich people do not use their spare money in a way that benefits the economy. What helps more; 20 low income persons buying a couple hundred dollars more of groceries or a higher income person investing in a $1M dollar building and hiring 20 more workers?

ar addressed your second part pretty well.

as for your first, that was my point though. you are only taxed on what you earn. if you have enough money, you can get big deductions for losses, but still make a lot of money.

 

You really don't know how this works do you? He explained it very well and then you come back and say the same thing.

 

For the record, there are a very large number of small to medium sized companies that aren't owned by extremely wealthy people. They can't just have a loss and it's no big deal. The poster you quoted talks about this how those losses come right out of his own pocket.

 

Sure...if you don't make money, you don't pay taxes. Hey...everyone...all these unemployeed people are getting huge tax breaks. They aren't earning money and so they aren't paying taxes.

[knapplc]

Hey...everyone...all these unemployeed people are getting huge tax breaks. They aren't earning money and so they aren't paying taxes.

 

It makes zero sense to look down on those who cannot pay taxes, and don't - but respect and admire those who could pay taxes... and don't.

[Mavric]

The question I asked is how is the current tax system regressive. I still haven't seen an answer.

And for the record, I didn't mention whether it's regressive. Or regressive enough. I was merely pointing out that your stats were meaningless. So the top 10% pay 75% of the country's taxes. That tells us absolutely nothing about how regressive our taxes are without more data. So here's another attempt at an explanation:

 

<snip>

 

Admittedly I don't know a hell of a lot about this, so I might be looking like an idiot now, but the point stands that you cannot know whether or not our taxes are regressive (or too regressive, or not regressive enough) just because you know that the highest earners are paying 3/4 of the taxes. Therefore the data you provided is useless. You gave us no information that we could actually discuss.

 

I never said that you claimed they are regressive. It was sd'sker that maid that claim:

 

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.

 

I have just asked either of you to show and/or explain how they are regressive, which to date neither of you has.

 

Your example is fine but it's also totally irrelevant in that it's a fictional example, not what is actually happening.

[Mavric]

I remember reading a stat at least a year ago (sorry, no immediate source jumps to mind so discount/ignore it if you want) that there are about 8000 people in the USA with incomes/assetts of 10 million + year that equate to 240 Billion.

 

If we tax/confiscate 100% of ALL of those we have enough to run the government for 18 days. Then what?

 

So while it's satisfying to castigate the wealthy, the truth is that only in the broad based middle class is there enough to even attempt to rectify the problem.

 

(and I'll stipulate, that even if some mathmatical wizard can tweak these numbers somewhat........the underlying truth remains...........even wiping out the wealthy wouldn't begin to alleviate this mess)

 

That isn't really the point though, is it? We're not looking to the wealthy to erase our debt, we just want them to shoulder the same tax burden we shoulder.

 

"United we stand, divided we fall." We learn that in Kindergarten, but for some reason, expecting this today leads to howls of "class warfare."

 

The point is all this arguing about raising taxes on the rich is barely a drop in the bucket. Raising tax rates on the two two tax brackets and raising the tax rate on capital gains per the President's budget would "only" raise a little over $1T in THE NEXT 10 YEARS! Put another way, it wouldn't event raise enough money to balance the budget for ANY of the last four years even though those taxes would be collected over the next 10. Yet that seems to be the main tactic the Democrats can put forward: "Make the rich pay their fair share." That's fine (if anyone would explain exactly what their "fair share" is) but at about $100B per year, it'll be barely noticeable in terms of the deficit.

 

 

Edit - By the way, many are not asking the rich to bare "the same burden". It has been said many times, including by yourself, that they should pay more because they can.

[Mavric]

Why, why, why do you so staunchly support Fox news when you know they are full of it? That's what I don't get. It's not even that they promote another viewpoint - they out and out lie.

 

Fox news is the only "news" source to ever sue to win the right to lie to their audience. How can you possibly trust that?

 

By all means, show me where I'm wrong in any of the posts I make deriding Fox. Point out the mistake. You don't, and you can't, because I'm not. Fox is a propaganda engine. Failing to see that is contributing to the mess this country is in.

Unless I'm finding a different lawsuit than you're referring to, it would seem that your presentation of the case is also a lie.

[sd'sker]

 

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.

 

Just a little note of clarification about "writing off" losses. I am guessing that many of you have heard this term numerous times but have never had the opportunity to "write off" a loss. Let me tell you how that works, because unfortunately I know something about it, my business has experienced losses (no profits) both of the last 2 years. There is no "write off". There is no benefit whatsoever that I can see. The losses in my business come directly out of my business and/or personal monies (savings, retirement, whereever I can find to pull money from to keep the company operating. Sure, I didn't get taxed on the non-existant profit but that is not a benefit anyone else does not enjoy. Think of it like your $75K per year job all of sudden pays you $0 per year. That is the same way it works with my business. There is no "write off" or hidden benefit. It is simply less or no income. The mystical "write off" is just that, it doesn't exist.

 

And, anyone who thinks that situation does not get passed on in the form of fewer jobs for others is fooling themselves. When we are losing money or not profiting, everything gets tightened up. We do not hire (in fact we cut back hours and possibly lay people off) and we cut back on all expenses that we can. Those things take money out of the economy. You aren't thinking too hard if you really think higher income people, who are in control of companies, do not create jobs or grease the wheels of the economy with extra money they have that is not being taxed. The goal for rich people is to make themselves richer. You don't get richer by burying money in the backyard. You have to invest it and get it working for you to make more. It is disengenious and flat out wrong to say that rich people do not use their spare money in a way that benefits the economy. What helps more; 20 low income persons buying a couple hundred dollars more of groceries or a higher income person investing in a $1M dollar building and hiring 20 more workers?

ar addressed your second part pretty well.

as for your first, that was my point though. you are only taxed on what you earn. if you have enough money, you can get big deductions for losses, but still make a lot of money.

 

You really don't know how this works do you? He explained it very well and then you come back and say the same thing.

 

For the record, there are a very large number of small to medium sized companies that aren't owned by extremely wealthy people. They can't just have a loss and it's no big deal. The poster you quoted talks about this how those losses come right out of his own pocket.

 

Sure...if you don't make money, you don't pay taxes. Hey...everyone...all these unemployeed people are getting huge tax breaks. They aren't earning money and so they aren't paying taxes.

please, tell me. what do i not understand? i have not been talking about small businesses, i have been talking about romney and those in his bracket. i thought that is what we were all talking about. but since you put your comment on the record, it is duly noted.

[sd'sker]

The question I asked is how is the current tax system regressive. I still haven't seen an answer.

And for the record, I didn't mention whether it's regressive. Or regressive enough. I was merely pointing out that your stats were meaningless. So the top 10% pay 75% of the country's taxes. That tells us absolutely nothing about how regressive our taxes are without more data. So here's another attempt at an explanation:

 

<snip>

 

Admittedly I don't know a hell of a lot about this, so I might be looking like an idiot now, but the point stands that you cannot know whether or not our taxes are regressive (or too regressive, or not regressive enough) just because you know that the highest earners are paying 3/4 of the taxes. Therefore the data you provided is useless. You gave us no information that we could actually discuss.

 

I never said that you claimed they are regressive. It was sd'sker that maid that claim:

 

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.

 

I have just asked either of you to show and/or explain how they are regressive, which to date neither of you has.

 

Your example is fine but it's also totally irrelevant in that it's a fictional example, not what is actually happening.

my warren buffett example? the one he mentioned is fictional? what are you talking about? honestly, i have explained how in practice we have a regressive tax rate (romney only paid 13%, after all) to the best of my ability. maybe you should explain to me how i am wrong or our tax bracket instead of just continuing to ask me to explain this when you refuse all of my (and other's) explanations.

[Mavric]

my warren buffett example? the one he mentioned is fictional? what are you talking about? honestly, i have explained how in practice we have a regressive tax rate (romney only paid 13%, after all) to the best of my ability. maybe you should explain to me how i am wrong or our tax bracket instead of just continuing to ask me to explain this when you refuse all of my (and other's) explanations.

Which is more than the 47% of wage earners that paid 0%.

[sd'sker]

my warren buffett example? the one he mentioned is fictional? what are you talking about? honestly, i have explained how in practice we have a regressive tax rate (romney only paid 13%, after all) to the best of my ability. maybe you should explain to me how i am wrong or our tax bracket instead of just continuing to ask me to explain this when you refuse all of my (and other's) explanations.

Which is more than the 47% of wage earners that paid 0%.

yeah, because they have no money. what is your point? so, because he is paying more than the absolute least (WHICH, WHO KNOWS HOW MUCH HE HAS BEEN PAYING BEFORE THEN, are we so sure it is not zero?), we should not care?

i think if the bottom 47% had a choice between paying no taxes because they are poor, or paying 30% because they are in the meaty middle-class, i am sure they would choose the latter.

[Moiraine]

The question I asked is how is the current tax system regressive. I still haven't seen an answer.

And for the record, I didn't mention whether it's regressive. Or regressive enough. I was merely pointing out that your stats were meaningless. So the top 10% pay 75% of the country's taxes. That tells us absolutely nothing about how regressive our taxes are without more data. So here's another attempt at an explanation:

 

<snip>

 

Admittedly I don't know a hell of a lot about this, so I might be looking like an idiot now, but the point stands that you cannot know whether or not our taxes are regressive (or too regressive, or not regressive enough) just because you know that the highest earners are paying 3/4 of the taxes. Therefore the data you provided is useless. You gave us no information that we could actually discuss.

 

I never said that you claimed they are regressive. It was sd'sker that maid that claim:

 

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.

 

I have just asked either of you to show and/or explain how they are regressive, which to date neither of you has.

 

Your example is fine but it's also totally irrelevant in that it's a fictional example, not what is actually happening.

 

I thought I explained fairly well that it isn't possible to explain how your list of examples is regressive, due to lack of sufficient data. My fictional data explained clearly that your question is not answerable without more information.

[Mavric]

I thought I explained fairly well that it isn't possible to explain how your list of examples is regressive, due to lack of sufficient data. My fictional data explained clearly that your question is not answerable without more information.

I don't recall every saying that was the only data you could use. Any data you can find would be fine with me. Just prove your argument.

[Mavric]

my warren buffett example? the one he mentioned is fictional? what are you talking about? honestly, i have explained how in practice we have a regressive tax rate (romney only paid 13%, after all) to the best of my ability. maybe you should explain to me how i am wrong or our tax bracket instead of just continuing to ask me to explain this when you refuse all of my (and other's) explanations.

Which is more than the 47% of wage earners that paid 0%.

yeah, because they have no money. what is your point? so, because he is paying more than the absolute least (WHICH, WHO KNOWS HOW MUCH HE HAS BEEN PAYING BEFORE THEN, are we so sure it is not zero?), we should not care?

i think if the bottom 47% had a choice between paying no taxes because they are poor, or paying 30% because they are in the meaty middle-class, i am sure they would choose the latter.

So many generalities in one short post:

 

1) My point is that it is not regressive as you keep claiming.

 

2) In your book, the "absolute least" is nearly half?

 

3) Do you know what the income level is of the top of that 47%?