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

[carlfense]

I'm talking physicians I personally know: socially and professionally.......some talking about getting out and some talking about limiting new patients on medicare because of government reimbursement rates.

If the bold is true then they can't be too happy about Paul Ryan being the pick for Romney's VP.

[Comish]

I'm talking physicians I personally know: socially and professionally.......some talking about getting out and some talking about limiting new patients on medicare because of government reimbursement rates.

If the bold is true then they can't be too happy about Paul Ryan being the pick for Romney's VP.

While I haven't had any conversations with any of them since the pick...................why would you suggest that? I would venture that most believe in a free market system rather than a controlled nanny-state.

[carlfense]

I'm talking physicians I personally know: socially and professionally.......some talking about getting out and some talking about limiting new patients on medicare because of government reimbursement rates.

If the bold is true then they can't be too happy about Paul Ryan being the pick for Romney's VP.

While I haven't had any conversations with any of them since the pick...................why would you suggest that? I would venture that most believe in a free market system rather than a controlled nanny-state.

Basically . . . Ryan wants to get rid of all of Obamacare except for those government reimbursement reductions that your doctor friends oppose. He'd like to keep those in place. So if their main problem with the ACA is reductions in Medicare payments . . . well . . . they'll want to vote for someone other than Romney/Ryan.

 

 

Under the 2011 Ryan plan bill approved by nearly every House Republican, ObamaCare would have been repealed almost entirely – except when it came to the Medicare reductions in future reimbursement rates to hospitals and drug and insurance companies.

http://miamiherald.t...r-a-shield.html

 

I'm hoping that they vote based on actual policies rather than "nanny state" type sound bytes. (Also, I always get a kick out of my physician buddies who rant about out of control government spending . . . and then in the next breath complain about cuts to Medicare reimbursement rates. Government spending is bad unless that government spending is going into their own pockets. )

[lo country]

Never mind

[krill]

Interesting take.

Words do mean something and when you say Romney is “gaming” the system, that seems to indicate a personal bias, unless you believe that anyone taking advantage of the tax code is also “gaming” the system. Most would say, I believe, that using the tax code to your advantage is being smart. (I know that if I can find a legal advantage on my taxes, I don’t prejudge it as “gaming”)

On the surface, your “fairness” argument is also interesting. Fairness is certainly a nebulous enough word that it can be applied in multiple instances in either a favorable or unfavorable light. (some would argue strenuously that it is a fairness issue when some choose to work while others “game” the system). One’s position on fairness will vary greatly based on one’s current circumstances.

It is very gracious of you to accept Geitner’s explanation of his tax “problem” on the face of his own explanation. I wonder if you would extend such courtesy to Romney and others based solely on their explanations?

Finally, I emphatically agree with your concern about those incurring debt while entering the medical profession. (although, a bit ironic since data seems to indicate Obamacare will drive many out of the profession). Regardless, as soon as Doctors become fully engaged in the system and start pulling in healthy salaries, they will immediately be transformed into the evil “rich” who are not paying their “fair” share.

That's the inherent flaw in any "fairness" argument.

 

We could go back and forth for pages without either of us giving an inch, so I have a more basic question.

 

Is it more wrong person A who is able to work to take $25,000 in welfare / unemployment benefits, or for person B to avoid paying $25,000 in taxes by using a offshore shelter? Or, if neither action is illegal, is neither wrong? Or are they both wrong and equally wrong?

 

In my view both actions are wrong and equally wrong, because the government is deprived of $25,000 to do something that can benefit everyone, lower the deficit, or lower everyone's tax burden. I can see the obvious argument that the $25,000 belongs person B, and the $25,000 in social services does not belong person A. However, there is also an argument that the $25,000 does not belong to person B, because we have all agreed, by virtue of existing in this country to the system of taxation. That of course can be modified with legislation, but in lieu of modification, I do absolutely believe it is morally wrong for people to use complicated tax shelters that are not available to everyone.

 

The "you would do it too argument" is an extremely weak defense, and one that should greatly irritate people who are paying a lot of taxes. Namely the upper middle class and modestly wealthy that used to be solidly Republican. Again, I suspect that is the main reason Romney will not release his returns, because the pats on the back for doing so well at tax avoidance would be few and far between from his own party.

[sd'sker]

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.

[Ziggy]

The fact that anyone would choose Person A scares me. I am honestly at a loss for words.

[sd'sker]

The fact that anyone would choose Person A scares me. I am honestly at a loss for words.

i did misread it. someone who is able to work should not be offered such benefits if jobs are available. i misunderstood. i was referring to people who could not find work because of the local job market or lack of training.

 

i agree with krill, both are bad.

 

edit: although i stand by the premise of my argument. many economist believe it would be better to pay people to dig holes and refill them than have them just stay unemployed.

[knapplc]

The fact that anyone would choose Person A scares me. I am honestly at a loss for words.

Did you read sd'sker's explanation? Be scared all you want - Person A's money stays in America. Person B's money leaves. That makes the choice far harder.

 

(but of course, the answer is they are both wrong)

[sd'sker]

The fact that anyone would choose Person A scares me. I am honestly at a loss for words.

Did you read sd'sker's explanation? Be scared all you want - Person A's money stays in America. Person B's money leaves. That makes the choice far harder.

 

(but of course, the answer is they are both wrong)

i added an addendum to my response right before you posted this.

[Comish]

Interesting take.

Words do mean something and when you say Romney is “gaming” the system, that seems to indicate a personal bias, unless you believe that anyone taking advantage of the tax code is also “gaming” the system. Most would say, I believe, that using the tax code to your advantage is being smart. (I know that if I can find a legal advantage on my taxes, I don’t prejudge it as “gaming”)

On the surface, your “fairness” argument is also interesting. Fairness is certainly a nebulous enough word that it can be applied in multiple instances in either a favorable or unfavorable light. (some would argue strenuously that it is a fairness issue when some choose to work while others “game” the system). One’s position on fairness will vary greatly based on one’s current circumstances.

It is very gracious of you to accept Geitner’s explanation of his tax “problem” on the face of his own explanation. I wonder if you would extend such courtesy to Romney and others based solely on their explanations?

Finally, I emphatically agree with your concern about those incurring debt while entering the medical profession. (although, a bit ironic since data seems to indicate Obamacare will drive many out of the profession). Regardless, as soon as Doctors become fully engaged in the system and start pulling in healthy salaries, they will immediately be transformed into the evil “rich” who are not paying their “fair” share.

That's the inherent flaw in any "fairness" argument.

 

We could go back and forth for pages without either of us giving an inch, so I have a more basic question.

 

Is it more wrong person A who is able to work to take $25,000 in welfare / unemployment benefits, or for person B to avoid paying $25,000 in taxes by using a offshore shelter? Or, if neither action is illegal, is neither wrong? Or are they both wrong and equally wrong?

 

In my view both actions are wrong and equally wrong, because the government is deprived of $25,000 to do something that can benefit everyone, lower the deficit, or lower everyone's tax burden. I can see the obvious argument that the $25,000 belongs person B, and the $25,000 in social services does not belong person A. However, there is also an argument that the $25,000 does not belong to person B, because we have all agreed, by virtue of existing in this country to the system of taxation. That of course can be modified with legislation, but in lieu of modification, I do absolutely believe it is morally wrong for people to use complicated tax shelters that are not available to everyone.

 

The "you would do it too argument" is an extremely weak defense, and one that should greatly irritate people who are paying a lot of taxes. Namely the upper middle class and modestly wealthy that used to be solidly Republican. Again, I suspect that is the main reason Romney will not release his returns, because the pats on the back for doing so well at tax avoidance would be few and far between from his own party.

 

 

I hope I am not so obtuse (although some of my frequent adversaries on this board may disagree) that I cannot appreciate a well-crafted response. And you have done that.

 

As for your assertion that neither side will give an inch, well……..Here you go……..I am

”giving an inch….and more”

 

You make some salient points and for the most part, I agree with you. In your examples of A and B, they are both wrong.

 

Where this thread got a bit derailed, imo, is the extent of the outrage over something that is not illegal.

 

(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 irony is this entire argument is rendered moot if we had a simple, transparent, and easily applicable tax code to begin with.

[Ziggy]

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.

[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.

[Comish]

(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....

[knapplc]

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.