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

[strigori]

Ironically, it it the same tax laws and exemptions that allow approx 50% of Americans to pay no taxes. You want to get serious, take away all the exemptions that help lower income, married couples, elderly, those with children etc...

Uhhhh . . . lo country? Romney gets the same tax rates as those lower income people on each comparative dollar. Same goes for marriage, children, etc.

 

The difference is that in the end he pays an effective rate roughly half that of my family.

 

The misinformation out there about taxes is staggering.

 

Here is another link that shows the taxes broken down by each economic group, % of taxes paid and % of income.

http://www.ctj.org/pdf/taxday2010.pdf

 

Perhaps I am reading the above chart wrong, but it shows that wealthy do pay a larger % of their income for taxes (16% total for the lowest earners and 30% total for the top).

 

Again, is he paying taxes on his salary or on his capital gains? Does he even have a salary. Funny Dems paint him as the evil tax evader, but Obama's own Buffet pays the same and Dems appear to give 2 craps about that. Hell Obama has almost run a re-election campaign on the Buffet Rule.

 

Also if you could lawfully avoid taxes, pay less and keep more would you?

Buffet has repeatedly made very public appeals to change the tax code against his favor. Romney wants to change it more into his favor. That is the core of the comparison. Comparing the two is a complete joke.

 

No, no one is going to pay more than required by law, but that does not make the law right.

 

I payed around 30% of my income in taxes, I don't have the exact number on hand. Romney payed 13.9% of his income. Yeah, he paid more but he made more. (made..that's funny, he didn't work at all) Why is his percentage so much lower than mine, other than inequities in the tax codes?

[Ziggy]

Did you know there is no law forcing you to take tax breaks? That Buffet is within his constitutional rights to give more to the IRS than he is required to. Look if Buffet and all the other rich people want to give more money to the government, go right ahead. Buffet knows that he can look like a great guy if he complains about other rich people not paying "their fair share" for the government and his taxes wont change anytime soon. Maybe Buffet should publish his tax records to show how few of the tax breaks he has his army of tax lawyers and accountants put in his tax returns.

 

This whole controversy is a joke. Last I checked Romney complied with all Presidential nomination requirements, and as of last news cycle is in good legal standing with the IRS. If that isn't enough for voters than they need to push for 4 years, or 10 or the candidates lifetime returns. Honestly this tax return conspiracy is almost as bad as BO not being born in the US.

[sd'sker]

Also if you could lawfully avoid taxes, pay less and keep more would you?

that is the point though. the tax code is setup to allow greater tax breaks and loopholes to those who need it the least, forcing the burden to the middle class, those with much less to spare.

[sd'sker]

Did you know there is no law forcing you to take tax breaks? That Buffet is within his constitutional rights to give more to the IRS than he is required to. Look if Buffet and all the other rich people want to give more money to the government, go right ahead. Buffet knows that he can look like a great guy if he complains about other rich people not paying "their fair share" for the government and his taxes wont change anytime soon. Maybe Buffet should publish his tax records to show how few of the tax breaks he has his army of tax lawyers and accountants put in his tax returns.

 

This whole controversy is a joke. Last I checked Romney complied with all Presidential nomination requirements, and as of last news cycle is in good legal standing with the IRS. If that isn't enough for voters than they need to push for 4 years, or 10 or the candidates lifetime returns. Honestly this tax return conspiracy is almost as bad as BO not being born in the US.

buffett has as much of a right to criticize the tax code as anyone else. the issue is larger than just one billionaire (it is two billionaires, him and romney).

[knapplc]

If the wealthy bribed, cajoled, bought or otherwise influenced lawmakers so that they changed the law to say it's legal for them to sleep with your wife once a month, would you have a problem with that?

 

 

That's what's going on here. What they're doing is legal, but it shouldn't be. The fact that some lawmakers have made some really poor choices (choices that benefit them very, very much, by the way) shouldn't be OK with the American people.

 

The problem is, everyone wants bash the Republicans as the party of the rich, but I haven't seen Dems jumping in to solve the tax issues or fraud with medicade/medicare/SS fraud etc.....They are no better, but folks put one group on a pedestal and see the other as having no wrong. The idea of "redistributing the wealth" is a socialist idea. It is straight up BS. Call it like it is, but it is Socialism plain and simple. Cut fraud, cut frigging spending, but quit trying to lay the blame of the economy at the foot of the wealthy.

 

Nor should people who pay no taxes get "earned" income credits. That is the problem. You can't cherry pick the crap that you feel is "wrong". The whole tax code is jacked up. people only want to deal with the parts that do not effect them. I have kids, I do not want to give up the child tax credit. Would it mean more money for the govt, absolutely. Do I want that money for me because I "deserve" it. Absolutely. Same with farmers, the drought has killed the crops and they get tax breaks. Or here, breaks to not plant tobacco. Anyone want to give that back? Of course not. I am not wanting to pay more if the idiots in DC continue to spend more. I do not want to continue to pay into SS if there is no guarantee to get it back.

 

So you're OK with people buying politicians to make it legal for them to sleep with your wife. And we shouldn't focus specifically on that law as being bad, if we want to gripe about laws, we have to gripe about all laws - can't cherry-pick.

 

Whatever the law says, you're in support of. Good to know.

[lo country]

If the wealthy bribed, cajoled, bought or otherwise influenced lawmakers so that they changed the law to say it's legal for them to sleep with your wife once a month, would you have a problem with that?

 

 

That's what's going on here. What they're doing is legal, but it shouldn't be. The fact that some lawmakers have made some really poor choices (choices that benefit them very, very much, by the way) shouldn't be OK with the American people.

 

The problem is, everyone wants bash the Republicans as the party of the rich, but I haven't seen Dems jumping in to solve the tax issues or fraud with medicade/medicare/SS fraud etc.....They are no better, but folks put one group on a pedestal and see the other as having no wrong. The idea of "redistributing the wealth" is a socialist idea. It is straight up BS. Call it like it is, but it is Socialism plain and simple. Cut fraud, cut frigging spending, but quit trying to lay the blame of the economy at the foot of the wealthy.

 

Nor should people who pay no taxes get "earned" income credits. That is the problem. You can't cherry pick the crap that you feel is "wrong". The whole tax code is jacked up. people only want to deal with the parts that do not effect them. I have kids, I do not want to give up the child tax credit. Would it mean more money for the govt, absolutely. Do I want that money for me because I "deserve" it. Absolutely. Same with farmers, the drought has killed the crops and they get tax breaks. Or here, breaks to not plant tobacco. Anyone want to give that back? Of course not. I am not wanting to pay more if the idiots in DC continue to spend more. I do not want to continue to pay into SS if there is no guarantee to get it back.

 

So you're OK with people buying politicians to make it legal for them to sleep with your wife. And we shouldn't focus specifically on that law as being bad, if we want to gripe about laws, we have to gripe about all laws - can't cherry-pick.

 

Whatever the law says, you're in support of. Good to know.

 

I was pointing at that those with great wealth abuse the system as do those who make less. The whole system is broke. The idea that we can continue to spend like we have money is ridiculous. As is the idea that we can tax/spend our way out of this current mess without reigning in the spending, earmarks, pet projects, fraud and other BS.

 

I think we are almost to the point it cannot be fixed. No one wants to cut Medicare (shore it up) and same with SS. Republicans (most) do not want to cut defense. We are now spending, IIRC, about 3% more than we bring in and yet under Obama and even Ryan's budget plans the deficit continues to grow.

 

Like Zoogies stated above, anyone can throw some more money to the issue on their tax returns if they choose. I for one do not. I pay enough and then some (IMO).

[knapplc]

The spending issue has nothing to do with what we're talking about here. It's a deflection of the issue at hand, and that deflection says a lot about the mindset of this discussion.

 

What we're talking about here, and what you refuse to address, is the fact that people with money have bought politicians so that they have changed the laws to benefit the rich. The playing field is not level, and staunch Republicans seem to be saying this is completely OK - but it isn't. What's been done to our tax system should be a crime. People should be up in arms about it. Instead, because the current Republican candidate has benefited from these illicit rules, it's being passed off as "well, it's the law." The law is wrong.

[carlfense]

Again, is he paying taxes on his salary or on his capital gains?

I have what should be a question with an easy answer: Which buys more? A dollar earned through income from capital gains or a dollar earned through salary?

 

Funny Dems paint him as the evil tax evader, but Obama's own Buffet pays the same and Dems appear to give 2 craps about that. Hell Obama has almost run a re-election campaign on the Buffet Rule.

Romney is running for president. Buffet is not. I do believe that Dems do give two craps about it . . . in fact they trumpeted the Buffet Rule . . . as you noted. (Thanks for making my point for me. Much easier.)

 

Also if you could lawfully avoid taxes, pay less and keep more would you?

That's the point isn't it? That Romney is using tax shelters unavailable to the average joe? We should fix that, eh?

[BigRedBuster]

The spending issue has nothing to do with what we're talking about here. It's a deflection of the issue at hand, and that deflection says a lot about the mindset of this discussion.

 

What we're talking about here, and what you refuse to address, is the fact that people with money have bought politicians so that they have changed the laws to benefit the rich. The playing field is not level, and staunch Republicans seem to be saying this is completely OK - but it isn't. What's been done to our tax system should be a crime. People should be up in arms about it. Instead, because the current Republican candidate has benefited from these illicit rules, it's being passed off as "well, it's the law." The law is wrong.

 

 

What you seem to not realize is the other part of the equation. LIberal politicians have bought votes from a HUGE number of Americans through entitlements. So, liberal politicians keep the government tit flowing with milk and they keep getting votes. Meanwhile, at least some of that money has to come from somewhere so....hey....let's soak the rich....yeah.......they can afford it....THEY need to pay for us not paying anything into the system and taking eveyrthing out.

 

That is one of the sickest views of life there is and it is infecting this country faster and faster.

 

So, to me, this really isn't about CAN the rich pay more taxes. Sure they can. The bigger question is, is it fair to go after their money when a huge number of people in this country don't pay anything into the system and at the same time are milking it dry.

 

But...hey....we can just sit back and allow the liberal politicians to play their class warfare games and not say anything.

[carlfense]

The bigger question is, is it fair to go after their money when a huge number of people in this country don't pay anything into the system and at the same time are milking it dry.

You believe that?

[knapplc]

The spending issue has nothing to do with what we're talking about here. It's a deflection of the issue at hand, and that deflection says a lot about the mindset of this discussion.

 

What we're talking about here, and what you refuse to address, is the fact that people with money have bought politicians so that they have changed the laws to benefit the rich. The playing field is not level, and staunch Republicans seem to be saying this is completely OK - but it isn't. What's been done to our tax system should be a crime. People should be up in arms about it. Instead, because the current Republican candidate has benefited from these illicit rules, it's being passed off as "well, it's the law." The law is wrong.

 

 

What you seem to not realize is the other part of the equation. LIberal politicians have bought votes from a HUGE number of Americans through entitlements. So, liberal politicians keep the government tit flowing with milk and they keep getting votes. Meanwhile, at least some of that money has to come from somewhere so....hey....let's soak the rich....yeah.......they can afford it....THEY need to pay for us not paying anything into the system and taking eveyrthing out.

 

That is one of the sickest views of life there is and it is infecting this country faster and faster.

 

So, to me, this really isn't about CAN the rich pay more taxes. Sure they can. The bigger question is, is it fair to go after their money when a huge number of people in this country don't pay anything into the system and at the same time are milking it dry.

 

But...hey....we can just sit back and allow the liberal politicians to play their class warfare games and not say anything.

 

So... because people abuse welfare, inequality in taxation is OK? That makes zero sense. Who thinks like this?

 

And can we please stop regurgitating the Fox/Limbaugh code words "class warfare?" This is exactly the kind of overblown rhetoric that clouds the issues that need fixing in this country. Yeesh.

 

 

So, to your point: Do I realize that people abuse welfare? Yes, I do. And I think it needs to stop, and I advocate that it does. We can all agree on that, I'm sure.

 

However, that does nothing to solve the problem of politicians changing the tax code so that wealthy Americans have access to tax shelters that all Americans don't have access to.

[sd'sker]

That is one of the sickest views of life there is and it is infecting this country faster and faster.

this country is based on a social compact. do you want to live in a country with no social safety net?

 

also, what is milking this country dry is unpaid tax breaks. why is it only class warfare when the rich are the targets?

 

your post is rather extreme and misinformed. it is dripping of propaganda propagated by the opulent minority ruling class.

[BigRedBuster]

Yes, I personally believe there needs to be a social safety net to support people who seriously can not take care of themselves. However, we are becoming a nation of people who count on the government for an unbelievable amount of stuff even though they can do it themselves. The answer???? Make the rich pay for it.

 

Liberals are masters at catering to groups that they can convince they are victems and the culprits are always rich white males. So...let's make them pay.

 

I relate this to a kid I knew in college. He came from a fairly wealthy family and when he got to college, he just expected everything to be paid for and he screwed off and spent HUGE amounts of money. His parents then cut him off and said that until he gets a job and starts paying at least 50% of his way through college, they aren't going to pay a dime.

 

So...he went and got a job. His parents started chipping in a little here and there and he made it through college. He went from a partying idiot about to flunk out of college to graduating with over a 3.5 GPA and ending up with a pretty decent job.

 

This example is EXACTLY what happens in this country. Now, if that college kid had the ability to VOTE for who was going to be his parents, don't you think he would have voted for parents that would have just kept the gravy train coming? Sure he would have. Can the rich pay more? SURE they can. But, if the only answer is to...make the rich pay for it, there is absolutely no motivation to change the mentality that leads to more and more entitlement programs.

 

Right now in this country we have a huge number of people who vote Democratic because the Republicans threaten their gravy train from the government and the answer always is....make the rich pay for it.

 

I'm not part of "the rich". However, EVERYONE in this country would benefit from a change in mentality.

[BigRedBuster]

That is one of the sickest views of life there is and it is infecting this country faster and faster.

this country is based on a social compact. do you want to live in a country with no social safety net?

 

also, what is milking this country dry is unpaid tax breaks. why is it only class warfare when the rich are the targets?

 

your post is rather extreme and misinformed. it is dripping of propaganda propagated by the opulent minority ruling class.

 

This country is based on personal responsability. That is NUMBER ONE.

 

Yes, we have a history of taking care of the people who can't take care of themselves and I am all for that.

 

BUT, with freedom comes an increased importance of personal responsability. When that goes away, so does the freedoms.

[carlfense]

This country is based on personal responsability. That is NUMBER ONE.

According to who? (Note that I'm not saying personal responsibility doesn't matter. Just wondering where you're getting this.)