|
|
On July 15 2012 05:05 forgottendreams wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2012 03:04 smarty pants wrote:On July 15 2012 02:47 Lightwip wrote:On July 15 2012 02:35 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 15 2012 02:03 Lightwip wrote:
Of course what Romney is doing is technically legal. It certainly doesn't make it moral though. What is he doing that you consider to be "immoral"? Foreign assets to avoid taxation? There is nothing immoral about not wanting to pay taxes... This is not entirely surprising, most of the freeloaders I've encountered in life are blind to the immorality of many things. You avail yourself to the City, State and the Fed, and in turn they avail themselves to you with protection and services (although you may disagree to the type and extent of services provided which can be executed by electing officials who share your dislike).
Morality is subjective. Some would argue (although I doubt Romney would) by paying taxes to the US government you're supporting an entity that murders thousands of people around the world, and thus being immoral, when you could be spending that money in a much more helpful way.
Not that I necessarily agree with the above statement, but there's nothing morally intrinsic about paying or not paying taxes.
|
On July 15 2012 05:05 forgottendreams wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2012 03:04 smarty pants wrote:On July 15 2012 02:47 Lightwip wrote:On July 15 2012 02:35 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 15 2012 02:03 Lightwip wrote:
Of course what Romney is doing is technically legal. It certainly doesn't make it moral though. What is he doing that you consider to be "immoral"? Foreign assets to avoid taxation? There is nothing immoral about not wanting to pay taxes... This is not entirely surprising, most of the freeloaders I've encountered in life are blind to the immorality of many things. You avail yourself to the City, State and the Fed, and in turn they avail themselves to you with protection and services (although you may disagree to the type and extent of services provided which can be executed by electing officials who share your dislike).
100% of taxpayers take advantage of credits, deductions and deferrals. Are they all freeloaders for only paying what they are legally required to pay?
|
It's a time honored American tradition to evade and/or not pay taxes.
|
On July 15 2012 05:05 forgottendreams wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2012 03:04 smarty pants wrote:On July 15 2012 02:47 Lightwip wrote:On July 15 2012 02:35 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 15 2012 02:03 Lightwip wrote:
Of course what Romney is doing is technically legal. It certainly doesn't make it moral though. What is he doing that you consider to be "immoral"? Foreign assets to avoid taxation? There is nothing immoral about not wanting to pay taxes... This is not entirely surprising, most of the freeloaders I've encountered in life are blind to the immorality of many things. You avail yourself to the City, State and the Fed, and in turn they avail themselves to you with protection and services (although you may disagree to the type and extent of services provided which can be executed by electing officials who share your dislike).
He's paying taxes, he's just using what he is legally allowed to in terms of deferrals and loopholes. If anything, it's the government's fault for having such rules. Of course, republicans would never allow them to close those rules because for some reason that's considered a "raise in taxes."
|
On July 15 2012 05:19 DannyJ wrote:
It's a time honored American tradition to evade and/or not pay taxes.
Maybe because trying to save money is COMMON SENSE lol...
This whole issue is completely pointless. All it does is make the people who hate him have another excuse to hate him. The people who like him won't really give a fuck. It would take a very simple-minded person to be swayed into voting for Obama over something like this.
|
I'm not talking about Romney, I'm talking about the blanket assertion it's not immoral to not want to pay taxes.... whether you actually do or not is a second clause of analysis.
If you don't want to pay taxes whatsoever, you disgrace the police, the web of government that has propelled you into civilization and the military. If you don't believe in any of them go live somewhere else.
|
On July 15 2012 05:24 jdseemoreglass wrote:
This whole issue is completely pointless. All it does is make the people who hate him have another excuse to hate him. The people who like him won't really give a fuck. It would take a very simple-minded person to be swayed into voting for Obama over something like this.
If the question is whether Romney's tax returns say anything about what kind of president he'll be, this answer is probably no.
But I don't think that's what we're talking about here. Romney is hiding his tax returns because releasing them would be a political nightmare. He never released them last time he ran, and also didn't release them when running for senate or governor (though that's less common anyway). The only information we have is form 2010, when he knew he'd be running for president. Even then, he only paid 13.9%. People are understadably upset about that number, and the fact that Romney wants to make it even lower (through policy, not just by taking exemptions and using tax shelters) doesn't help.
I only see a few options here. Either Romney is a political moron (which seems unlikely) or he paid even less in the past. He's already paying a political price for refusing to release his returns. The best bet is that he has made a policical calculation that the price for keeping his returns secret is lower than the price for revealing them.
|
On July 15 2012 05:14 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2012 04:54 biology]major wrote:On July 15 2012 04:48 Mohdoo wrote:On July 15 2012 03:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 15 2012 02:52 Mohdoo wrote:On July 15 2012 02:35 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 15 2012 02:03 Lightwip wrote:
Of course what Romney is doing is technically legal. It certainly doesn't make it moral though. What is he doing that you consider to be "immoral"? All we know is what what he's doing would ruin his credibility. He's only releasing 2 years of tax returns, but many before him have given much more. Its basically him saying "I know I'm hiding something, but there's no fucking way I'm letting that change!" He has a right to privacy and his tax return releases are comparable with other presidents. Some release more than others. http://www.taxhistory.org/www/website.nsf/Web/PresidentialTaxReturns/Opponents are just mad that they can't use extra years of tax returns to find more irrelevant mud to sling. A right to privacy does not mean his tax returns aren't relevant. Right to privacy can be used to argue against almost any type of dirt to dig up on someone. Fact is, tax returns can tell us a lot and its relevant information going into an election. combined with the fact that he is going against the norm + he has a shady buisness history, it only puts more eyes on the issue. This will be a decisive issue, and imo ruined his chances of winning the independent vote. It was a terrible political decision, unless ofcourse he had no choice in the matter because his buisness ethics would only create more of a disconnect between him and the middle class. He is fucked either way What's the "norm"? Isn't two years the norm which is what he'll have released once his 2011 is done? And I'd argue that Romney's business history is far less "shady" than Obama's use of public money.
http://www.taxhistory.org/www/website.nsf/Web/PresidentialTaxReturns/
most presidents release many years of tax returns, and since Romney is accused of going through tax loopholes, hiding money in different bank accounts all over the world, and outsourcing american jobs to various other countries for his own personal profits, it will starkly contrast with his current image. Frankly, none of his supporters know the real mittens, and they don't want to know who he is. The opposition however does want to know and it's going to be the end of him once they find out.
|
On July 15 2012 05:35 Omnipresent wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2012 05:24 jdseemoreglass wrote:
This whole issue is completely pointless. All it does is make the people who hate him have another excuse to hate him. The people who like him won't really give a fuck. It would take a very simple-minded person to be swayed into voting for Obama over something like this. If the question is whether Romney's tax returns say anything about what kind of president he'll be, this answer is probably no. But I don't think that's what we're talking about here. Romney is hiding his tax returns because releasing them would be a political nightmare. He never released them last time he ran, and also didn't release them when running for senate or governor (though that's less common anyway). The only information we have is form 2010, when he knew he'd be running for president. Even then, he only paid 13.9%. People are understadably upset about that number, and the fact that Romney wants to make it even lower (through policy, not just by taking exemptions and using tax shelters) doesn't help. I only see a few options here. Either Romney is a political moron (which seems unlikely) or he paid even less in the past. He's already paying a political price for refusing to release his returns. The best bet is that he has made a policical calculation that the price for keeping his returns secret is lower than the price for revealing them.
There have been accusations against him that he literally paid no taxes for 12 years. The claim being true or not is completely irrelevant, because it casts doubt against him, and this doubt is enlarged by the fact that he is "hiding" his tax returns during that time.
|
On July 15 2012 05:39 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2012 05:14 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 15 2012 04:54 biology]major wrote:On July 15 2012 04:48 Mohdoo wrote:On July 15 2012 03:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 15 2012 02:52 Mohdoo wrote:On July 15 2012 02:35 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 15 2012 02:03 Lightwip wrote:
Of course what Romney is doing is technically legal. It certainly doesn't make it moral though. What is he doing that you consider to be "immoral"? All we know is what what he's doing would ruin his credibility. He's only releasing 2 years of tax returns, but many before him have given much more. Its basically him saying "I know I'm hiding something, but there's no fucking way I'm letting that change!" He has a right to privacy and his tax return releases are comparable with other presidents. Some release more than others. http://www.taxhistory.org/www/website.nsf/Web/PresidentialTaxReturns/Opponents are just mad that they can't use extra years of tax returns to find more irrelevant mud to sling. A right to privacy does not mean his tax returns aren't relevant. Right to privacy can be used to argue against almost any type of dirt to dig up on someone. Fact is, tax returns can tell us a lot and its relevant information going into an election. combined with the fact that he is going against the norm + he has a shady buisness history, it only puts more eyes on the issue. This will be a decisive issue, and imo ruined his chances of winning the independent vote. It was a terrible political decision, unless ofcourse he had no choice in the matter because his buisness ethics would only create more of a disconnect between him and the middle class. He is fucked either way What's the "norm"? Isn't two years the norm which is what he'll have released once his 2011 is done? And I'd argue that Romney's business history is far less "shady" than Obama's use of public money. http://www.taxhistory.org/www/website.nsf/Web/PresidentialTaxReturns/most presidents release many years of tax returns, and since Romney is accused of going through tax loopholes, hiding money in different bank accounts all over the world, and outsourcing american jobs to various other countries for his own personal profits, it will starkly contrast with his current image. Frankly, none of his supporters know the real mittens, and they don't want to know who he is. The opposition however does want to know and it's going to be the end of him once they find out.
I think everyone pretty much knows who Romney is, but there's a massive differen't between "knowing" about Romney's business and financial history and having hard documentation. In other words, saying "Romney pays less in taxes than most middle class people," is nowhere near as powerful as saying "Romney paid 11% (or whatever it ends up being) in x year." People know about how much they're paying in taxes, and it's nowhere near any of those numbers.
|
On July 15 2012 05:39 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2012 05:14 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 15 2012 04:54 biology]major wrote:On July 15 2012 04:48 Mohdoo wrote:On July 15 2012 03:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 15 2012 02:52 Mohdoo wrote:On July 15 2012 02:35 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 15 2012 02:03 Lightwip wrote:
Of course what Romney is doing is technically legal. It certainly doesn't make it moral though. What is he doing that you consider to be "immoral"? All we know is what what he's doing would ruin his credibility. He's only releasing 2 years of tax returns, but many before him have given much more. Its basically him saying "I know I'm hiding something, but there's no fucking way I'm letting that change!" He has a right to privacy and his tax return releases are comparable with other presidents. Some release more than others. http://www.taxhistory.org/www/website.nsf/Web/PresidentialTaxReturns/Opponents are just mad that they can't use extra years of tax returns to find more irrelevant mud to sling. A right to privacy does not mean his tax returns aren't relevant. Right to privacy can be used to argue against almost any type of dirt to dig up on someone. Fact is, tax returns can tell us a lot and its relevant information going into an election. combined with the fact that he is going against the norm + he has a shady buisness history, it only puts more eyes on the issue. This will be a decisive issue, and imo ruined his chances of winning the independent vote. It was a terrible political decision, unless ofcourse he had no choice in the matter because his buisness ethics would only create more of a disconnect between him and the middle class. He is fucked either way What's the "norm"? Isn't two years the norm which is what he'll have released once his 2011 is done? And I'd argue that Romney's business history is far less "shady" than Obama's use of public money. http://www.taxhistory.org/www/website.nsf/Web/PresidentialTaxReturns/most presidents release many years of tax returns, and since Romney is accused of going through tax loopholes, hiding money in different bank accounts all over the world, and outsourcing american jobs to various other countries for his own personal profits, it will starkly contrast with his current image. Frankly, none of his supporters know the real mittens, and they don't want to know who he is. The opposition however does want to know and it's going to be the end of him once they find out.
Oh no, Democrats have accused Romney of legally paying as few taxes as possible like everyone else would do and operating based on free trade principles that make us better off. The horror! Yes, nobody who supports Romney actually know anything about him and none of them care; love 'dem generalizations. There aren't any informed or interested Republicans in the world.
So all we have to do is bring up accusations: Obama is a socialist, Obama wasn't born in America, Romney "dodged" taxes whatever that means, so we can force them to release personal information as a massive distraction from real issues.
|
On July 15 2012 05:39 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2012 05:14 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 15 2012 04:54 biology]major wrote:On July 15 2012 04:48 Mohdoo wrote:On July 15 2012 03:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 15 2012 02:52 Mohdoo wrote:On July 15 2012 02:35 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 15 2012 02:03 Lightwip wrote:
Of course what Romney is doing is technically legal. It certainly doesn't make it moral though. What is he doing that you consider to be "immoral"? All we know is what what he's doing would ruin his credibility. He's only releasing 2 years of tax returns, but many before him have given much more. Its basically him saying "I know I'm hiding something, but there's no fucking way I'm letting that change!" He has a right to privacy and his tax return releases are comparable with other presidents. Some release more than others. http://www.taxhistory.org/www/website.nsf/Web/PresidentialTaxReturns/Opponents are just mad that they can't use extra years of tax returns to find more irrelevant mud to sling. A right to privacy does not mean his tax returns aren't relevant. Right to privacy can be used to argue against almost any type of dirt to dig up on someone. Fact is, tax returns can tell us a lot and its relevant information going into an election. combined with the fact that he is going against the norm + he has a shady buisness history, it only puts more eyes on the issue. This will be a decisive issue, and imo ruined his chances of winning the independent vote. It was a terrible political decision, unless ofcourse he had no choice in the matter because his buisness ethics would only create more of a disconnect between him and the middle class. He is fucked either way What's the "norm"? Isn't two years the norm which is what he'll have released once his 2011 is done? And I'd argue that Romney's business history is far less "shady" than Obama's use of public money. http://www.taxhistory.org/www/website.nsf/Web/PresidentialTaxReturns/most presidents release many years of tax returns, and since Romney is accused of going through tax loopholes, hiding money in different bank accounts all over the world, and outsourcing american jobs to various other countries for his own personal profits, it will starkly contrast with his current image. Frankly, none of his supporters know the real mittens, and they don't want to know who he is. The opposition however does want to know and it's going to be the end of him once they find out.
I just posted that same link! He's releasing the same tax returns as most presidents. Most do 2 years prior to taking office then all during their term.
|
On July 15 2012 05:53 Romantic wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2012 05:39 biology]major wrote:On July 15 2012 05:14 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 15 2012 04:54 biology]major wrote:On July 15 2012 04:48 Mohdoo wrote:On July 15 2012 03:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 15 2012 02:52 Mohdoo wrote:On July 15 2012 02:35 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 15 2012 02:03 Lightwip wrote:
Of course what Romney is doing is technically legal. It certainly doesn't make it moral though. What is he doing that you consider to be "immoral"? All we know is what what he's doing would ruin his credibility. He's only releasing 2 years of tax returns, but many before him have given much more. Its basically him saying "I know I'm hiding something, but there's no fucking way I'm letting that change!" He has a right to privacy and his tax return releases are comparable with other presidents. Some release more than others. http://www.taxhistory.org/www/website.nsf/Web/PresidentialTaxReturns/Opponents are just mad that they can't use extra years of tax returns to find more irrelevant mud to sling. A right to privacy does not mean his tax returns aren't relevant. Right to privacy can be used to argue against almost any type of dirt to dig up on someone. Fact is, tax returns can tell us a lot and its relevant information going into an election. combined with the fact that he is going against the norm + he has a shady buisness history, it only puts more eyes on the issue. This will be a decisive issue, and imo ruined his chances of winning the independent vote. It was a terrible political decision, unless ofcourse he had no choice in the matter because his buisness ethics would only create more of a disconnect between him and the middle class. He is fucked either way What's the "norm"? Isn't two years the norm which is what he'll have released once his 2011 is done? And I'd argue that Romney's business history is far less "shady" than Obama's use of public money. http://www.taxhistory.org/www/website.nsf/Web/PresidentialTaxReturns/most presidents release many years of tax returns, and since Romney is accused of going through tax loopholes, hiding money in different bank accounts all over the world, and outsourcing american jobs to various other countries for his own personal profits, it will starkly contrast with his current image. Frankly, none of his supporters know the real mittens, and they don't want to know who he is. The opposition however does want to know and it's going to be the end of him once they find out. Oh no, Democrats have accused Romney of legally paying as few taxes as possible like everyone else would do and operating based on free trade principles that make us better off. The horror! Yes, nobody who supports Romney actually know anything about him and none of them care; love 'dem generalizations. There aren't any informed or interested Republicans in the world. So all we have to do is bring up accusations: Obama is a socialist, Obama wasn't born in America, Romney "dodged" taxes whatever that means, so we can force them to release personal information as a massive distraction from real issues.
At this point its getting kinda sad with the Obama attacks though you can see it in many races where the opponent is losing the one who is falling behind starts throwing everything out there with a shotgun approach hoping you hit something. Can't wait to see Mormon attacks wonder what Harry Reid will say bout those lol.
|
On July 15 2012 05:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2012 05:39 biology]major wrote:On July 15 2012 05:14 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 15 2012 04:54 biology]major wrote:On July 15 2012 04:48 Mohdoo wrote:On July 15 2012 03:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 15 2012 02:52 Mohdoo wrote:On July 15 2012 02:35 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 15 2012 02:03 Lightwip wrote:
Of course what Romney is doing is technically legal. It certainly doesn't make it moral though. What is he doing that you consider to be "immoral"? All we know is what what he's doing would ruin his credibility. He's only releasing 2 years of tax returns, but many before him have given much more. Its basically him saying "I know I'm hiding something, but there's no fucking way I'm letting that change!" He has a right to privacy and his tax return releases are comparable with other presidents. Some release more than others. http://www.taxhistory.org/www/website.nsf/Web/PresidentialTaxReturns/Opponents are just mad that they can't use extra years of tax returns to find more irrelevant mud to sling. A right to privacy does not mean his tax returns aren't relevant. Right to privacy can be used to argue against almost any type of dirt to dig up on someone. Fact is, tax returns can tell us a lot and its relevant information going into an election. combined with the fact that he is going against the norm + he has a shady buisness history, it only puts more eyes on the issue. This will be a decisive issue, and imo ruined his chances of winning the independent vote. It was a terrible political decision, unless ofcourse he had no choice in the matter because his buisness ethics would only create more of a disconnect between him and the middle class. He is fucked either way What's the "norm"? Isn't two years the norm which is what he'll have released once his 2011 is done? And I'd argue that Romney's business history is far less "shady" than Obama's use of public money. http://www.taxhistory.org/www/website.nsf/Web/PresidentialTaxReturns/most presidents release many years of tax returns, and since Romney is accused of going through tax loopholes, hiding money in different bank accounts all over the world, and outsourcing american jobs to various other countries for his own personal profits, it will starkly contrast with his current image. Frankly, none of his supporters know the real mittens, and they don't want to know who he is. The opposition however does want to know and it's going to be the end of him once they find out. I just posted that same link! He's releasing the same tax returns as most presidents. Most do 2 years prior to taking office then all during their term.
He's running for the most influential and important position in (arguably) the entire world. Asking for tax returns is not exactly asking a lot. And on the basis of "privacy", it really makes no sense. Giving up privacy is so insanely appropriate that I don't understand how anyone can be against it. People should know what he ate for breakfast when he was 8 years old. Its extremely important that people know every single possible thing going into deciding who becomes the president of the united states.
|
On July 15 2012 05:21 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2012 05:05 forgottendreams wrote:On July 15 2012 03:04 smarty pants wrote:On July 15 2012 02:47 Lightwip wrote:On July 15 2012 02:35 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 15 2012 02:03 Lightwip wrote:
Of course what Romney is doing is technically legal. It certainly doesn't make it moral though. What is he doing that you consider to be "immoral"? Foreign assets to avoid taxation? There is nothing immoral about not wanting to pay taxes... This is not entirely surprising, most of the freeloaders I've encountered in life are blind to the immorality of many things. You avail yourself to the City, State and the Fed, and in turn they avail themselves to you with protection and services (although you may disagree to the type and extent of services provided which can be executed by electing officials who share your dislike). He's paying taxes, he's just using what he is legally allowed to in terms of deferrals and loopholes. If anything, it's the government's fault for having such rules. Of course, republicans would never allow them to close those rules because for some reason that's considered a "raise in taxes."
Completely agree, it is the government's responsibility not to have a loophole-ridden tax code, not the citizen's responsibility to decide not to take full advantage of them.
Now a lot of people may not like the Cayman Islands stuff, so from a tactical perspective the Obama campaign may be smart in pressing the issue. But I don't personally care how much Romney has or hasn't taken advantage of our stupid rules to hide his income from taxation. I care that our tax code is inefficient enough to allow such behavior.
|
On July 15 2012 06:14 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2012 05:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 15 2012 05:39 biology]major wrote:On July 15 2012 05:14 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 15 2012 04:54 biology]major wrote:On July 15 2012 04:48 Mohdoo wrote:On July 15 2012 03:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 15 2012 02:52 Mohdoo wrote:On July 15 2012 02:35 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 15 2012 02:03 Lightwip wrote:
Of course what Romney is doing is technically legal. It certainly doesn't make it moral though. What is he doing that you consider to be "immoral"? All we know is what what he's doing would ruin his credibility. He's only releasing 2 years of tax returns, but many before him have given much more. Its basically him saying "I know I'm hiding something, but there's no fucking way I'm letting that change!" He has a right to privacy and his tax return releases are comparable with other presidents. Some release more than others. http://www.taxhistory.org/www/website.nsf/Web/PresidentialTaxReturns/Opponents are just mad that they can't use extra years of tax returns to find more irrelevant mud to sling. A right to privacy does not mean his tax returns aren't relevant. Right to privacy can be used to argue against almost any type of dirt to dig up on someone. Fact is, tax returns can tell us a lot and its relevant information going into an election. combined with the fact that he is going against the norm + he has a shady buisness history, it only puts more eyes on the issue. This will be a decisive issue, and imo ruined his chances of winning the independent vote. It was a terrible political decision, unless ofcourse he had no choice in the matter because his buisness ethics would only create more of a disconnect between him and the middle class. He is fucked either way What's the "norm"? Isn't two years the norm which is what he'll have released once his 2011 is done? And I'd argue that Romney's business history is far less "shady" than Obama's use of public money. http://www.taxhistory.org/www/website.nsf/Web/PresidentialTaxReturns/most presidents release many years of tax returns, and since Romney is accused of going through tax loopholes, hiding money in different bank accounts all over the world, and outsourcing american jobs to various other countries for his own personal profits, it will starkly contrast with his current image. Frankly, none of his supporters know the real mittens, and they don't want to know who he is. The opposition however does want to know and it's going to be the end of him once they find out. I just posted that same link! He's releasing the same tax returns as most presidents. Most do 2 years prior to taking office then all during their term. He's running for the most influential and important position in (arguably) the entire world. Asking for tax returns is not exactly asking a lot. And on the basis of "privacy", it really makes no sense. Giving up privacy is so insanely appropriate that I don't understand how anyone can be against it. People should know what he ate for breakfast when he was 8 years old. Its extremely important that people know every single possible thing going into deciding who becomes the president of the united states.
I agree with the tax returns but really disagree with the second part. There's no reason to go into such detail; no one is perfect, and if we keep this intense scrutinizing up it's just going to deter people from running for the office. Yeah, if Romney or Obama killed someone twenty years ago or something like that then by all means talk about it, but this relentless dirt-digging is ridiculous. Oh god, Romney bullied a gay kid when he was in high school, oh dear, Obama ate a dog as a child ...it's crazy and stupid and just detracts from what's important.
|
On July 15 2012 05:19 DannyJ wrote:
It's a time honored American tradition to evade and/or not pay taxes.
Tax avoidance is legal, tax evasion is illegal. There is difference, and I know two of my tax professors who both said it is your duty to avoid as much tax as you can.
|
On July 15 2012 06:25 1Eris1 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2012 06:14 Mohdoo wrote:On July 15 2012 05:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 15 2012 05:39 biology]major wrote:On July 15 2012 05:14 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 15 2012 04:54 biology]major wrote:On July 15 2012 04:48 Mohdoo wrote:On July 15 2012 03:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 15 2012 02:52 Mohdoo wrote:On July 15 2012 02:35 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
What is he doing that you consider to be "immoral"? All we know is what what he's doing would ruin his credibility. He's only releasing 2 years of tax returns, but many before him have given much more. Its basically him saying "I know I'm hiding something, but there's no fucking way I'm letting that change!" He has a right to privacy and his tax return releases are comparable with other presidents. Some release more than others. http://www.taxhistory.org/www/website.nsf/Web/PresidentialTaxReturns/Opponents are just mad that they can't use extra years of tax returns to find more irrelevant mud to sling. A right to privacy does not mean his tax returns aren't relevant. Right to privacy can be used to argue against almost any type of dirt to dig up on someone. Fact is, tax returns can tell us a lot and its relevant information going into an election. combined with the fact that he is going against the norm + he has a shady buisness history, it only puts more eyes on the issue. This will be a decisive issue, and imo ruined his chances of winning the independent vote. It was a terrible political decision, unless ofcourse he had no choice in the matter because his buisness ethics would only create more of a disconnect between him and the middle class. He is fucked either way What's the "norm"? Isn't two years the norm which is what he'll have released once his 2011 is done? And I'd argue that Romney's business history is far less "shady" than Obama's use of public money. http://www.taxhistory.org/www/website.nsf/Web/PresidentialTaxReturns/most presidents release many years of tax returns, and since Romney is accused of going through tax loopholes, hiding money in different bank accounts all over the world, and outsourcing american jobs to various other countries for his own personal profits, it will starkly contrast with his current image. Frankly, none of his supporters know the real mittens, and they don't want to know who he is. The opposition however does want to know and it's going to be the end of him once they find out. I just posted that same link! He's releasing the same tax returns as most presidents. Most do 2 years prior to taking office then all during their term. He's running for the most influential and important position in (arguably) the entire world. Asking for tax returns is not exactly asking a lot. And on the basis of "privacy", it really makes no sense. Giving up privacy is so insanely appropriate that I don't understand how anyone can be against it. People should know what he ate for breakfast when he was 8 years old. Its extremely important that people know every single possible thing going into deciding who becomes the president of the united states. I agree with the tax returns but really disagree with the second part. There's no reason to go into such detail; no one is perfect, and if we keep this intense scrutinizing up it's just going to deter people from running for the office. Yeah, if Romney or Obama killed someone twenty years ago or something like that then by all means talk about it, but this relentless dirt-digging is ridiculous. Oh god, Romney bullied a gay kid when he was in high school, oh dear, Obama ate a dog as a child ...it's crazy and stupid and just detracts from what's important.
Forgive my exaggeration. I take back what I said about his breakfast :p I believe that any single thing that can reasonably be related to his ability to run the country should be fair game. I believe that taxes from any amount of time can be extremely easily argued to be relevant. He isn't running as a politician, he's running as a businessman. If anything that makes it even MORE appropriate. Even if he was running as an engineer or scientist, taxes would be relevant. I don't need a list of the women he's had sex with, as that doesn't relate, but anything financially related or professionally related is relevant information. This position is too important to say "Sorry, that's too much information" for something so obviously relevant.
|
People should be pissed off at the government for not closing loopholes that allow people to get away with paying a lot fewer taxes. Don't be angry with the people who utilize everything they can within the boundaries of the law.
|
On July 15 2012 06:36 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2012 06:25 1Eris1 wrote:On July 15 2012 06:14 Mohdoo wrote:On July 15 2012 05:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 15 2012 05:39 biology]major wrote:On July 15 2012 05:14 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 15 2012 04:54 biology]major wrote:On July 15 2012 04:48 Mohdoo wrote:On July 15 2012 03:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 15 2012 02:52 Mohdoo wrote:
[quote]
All we know is what what he's doing would ruin his credibility. He's only releasing 2 years of tax returns, but many before him have given much more. Its basically him saying "I know I'm hiding something, but there's no fucking way I'm letting that change!" He has a right to privacy and his tax return releases are comparable with other presidents. Some release more than others. http://www.taxhistory.org/www/website.nsf/Web/PresidentialTaxReturns/Opponents are just mad that they can't use extra years of tax returns to find more irrelevant mud to sling. A right to privacy does not mean his tax returns aren't relevant. Right to privacy can be used to argue against almost any type of dirt to dig up on someone. Fact is, tax returns can tell us a lot and its relevant information going into an election. combined with the fact that he is going against the norm + he has a shady buisness history, it only puts more eyes on the issue. This will be a decisive issue, and imo ruined his chances of winning the independent vote. It was a terrible political decision, unless ofcourse he had no choice in the matter because his buisness ethics would only create more of a disconnect between him and the middle class. He is fucked either way What's the "norm"? Isn't two years the norm which is what he'll have released once his 2011 is done? And I'd argue that Romney's business history is far less "shady" than Obama's use of public money. http://www.taxhistory.org/www/website.nsf/Web/PresidentialTaxReturns/most presidents release many years of tax returns, and since Romney is accused of going through tax loopholes, hiding money in different bank accounts all over the world, and outsourcing american jobs to various other countries for his own personal profits, it will starkly contrast with his current image. Frankly, none of his supporters know the real mittens, and they don't want to know who he is. The opposition however does want to know and it's going to be the end of him once they find out. I just posted that same link! He's releasing the same tax returns as most presidents. Most do 2 years prior to taking office then all during their term. He's running for the most influential and important position in (arguably) the entire world. Asking for tax returns is not exactly asking a lot. And on the basis of "privacy", it really makes no sense. Giving up privacy is so insanely appropriate that I don't understand how anyone can be against it. People should know what he ate for breakfast when he was 8 years old. Its extremely important that people know every single possible thing going into deciding who becomes the president of the united states. I agree with the tax returns but really disagree with the second part. There's no reason to go into such detail; no one is perfect, and if we keep this intense scrutinizing up it's just going to deter people from running for the office. Yeah, if Romney or Obama killed someone twenty years ago or something like that then by all means talk about it, but this relentless dirt-digging is ridiculous. Oh god, Romney bullied a gay kid when he was in high school, oh dear, Obama ate a dog as a child ...it's crazy and stupid and just detracts from what's important. Forgive my exaggeration. I take back what I said about his breakfast :p I believe that any single thing that can reasonably be related to his ability to run the country should be fair game. I believe that taxes from any amount of time can be extremely easily argued to be relevant. He isn't running as a politician, he's running as a businessman. If anything that makes it even MORE appropriate. Even if he was running as an engineer or scientist, taxes would be relevant. I don't need a list of the women he's had sex with, as that doesn't relate, but anything financially related or professionally related is relevant information. This position is too important to say "Sorry, that's too much information" for something so obviously relevant.
What is so relevant about it though? What critical information are you going to divine from his Schedule D? If it is so 'obviously important' why was it such a non issue until this election?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
