On July 15 2012 06:39 SnipedSoul wrote: 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.
You probably don't understand how hard it is to make something actually happen here, as far as laws are concerned.
On July 15 2012 06:39 SnipedSoul wrote: 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.
You probably don't understand how hard it is to make something actually happen here, as far as laws are concerned.
No, I do. The deadlock in congress last summer over the debt ceiling was ridiculous (almost funny). I just don't see the point in getting mad at Romney for doing the same thing that everyone would do if they had the opportunity. Clever accounting isn't against the law, so if people don't like it they should be trying to get the laws changed. It's the only way to fix the problem.
On July 15 2012 06:39 SnipedSoul wrote: 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.
You probably don't understand how hard it is to make something actually happen here, as far as laws are concerned.
No, I do. The deadlock in congress last summer over the debt ceiling was ridiculous (almost funny). I just don't see the point in getting mad at Romney for doing the same thing that everyone would do if they had the opportunity. Clever accounting isn't against the law, so if people don't like it they should be trying to get the laws changed. It's the only way to fix the problem.
I think Lightwhip had it right. You don't appear to understand.
It's a self-reinforcing system. The rich pay less in taxes, and get more rich. They then use their money to influence elections, in part, so that tax policy either never changes or becomes more favorable to them. There's not a realistic chance for the public to influence the policy.
And lets not forget. It's not like we picked Romney out of a random group of super rich people and started interrogating him for not telling us about his financial history. Romney is running for president. To make matters worse, he's running (partially) on the platform that he and others in his bracket should pay less in taxes than they already do. In this situation, the amount he pays and has paid seems pretty relevant.
I see how it makes sense to try to prevent Romney from getting elected so the problem doesn't get worse. Where do you go after, that? To use a medical analogy, you've stopped the infection from spreading, but the patient is still dying. What's the cure?
On July 15 2012 07:22 SnipedSoul wrote: I see how it makes sense to try to prevent Romney from getting elected so the problem doesn't get worse. Where do you go after, that? To use a medical analogy, you've stopped the infection from spreading, but the patient is still dying. What's the cure?
I'll let you know when I figure that one out. Don't get your hopes up, though.
On July 15 2012 07:22 SnipedSoul wrote: I see how it makes sense to try to prevent Romney from getting elected so the problem doesn't get worse. Where do you go after, that? To use a medical analogy, you've stopped the infection from spreading, but the patient is still dying. What's the cure?
When it comes to a death of an empire there is no cure, you can stop gap or prolong the death like Aurelius, Diocletion or Constantine the Great did but in the end the empire is still dying.
The U.S. is dying as an empire but like many European nations will be reborn into a non aggressor, service side economy lacking in vigor, but will rise in competence in culture, arts and specialist trades. Instead of both the sword and shield of the West, we will evolve (in my opinion at least) into merely the shield of the West.
On July 15 2012 06:39 SnipedSoul wrote: 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.
You probably don't understand how hard it is to make something actually happen here, as far as laws are concerned.
No, I do. The deadlock in congress last summer over the debt ceiling was ridiculous (almost funny). I just don't see the point in getting mad at Romney for doing the same thing that everyone would do if they had the opportunity. Clever accounting isn't against the law, so if people don't like it they should be trying to get the laws changed. It's the only way to fix the problem.
I think Lightwhip had it right. You don't appear to understand.
It's a self-reinforcing system. The rich pay less in taxes, and get more rich. They then use their money to influence elections, in part, so that tax policy either never changes or becomes more favorable to them. There's not a realistic chance for the public to influence the policy.
And lets not forget. It's not like we picked Romney out of a random group of super rich people and started interrogating him for not telling us about his financial history. Romney is running for president. To make matters worse, he's running (partially) on the platform that he and others in his bracket should pay less in taxes than they already do. In this situation, the amount he pays and has paid seems pretty relevant.
There's no monolithic "the rich" advocating a singular tax policy. Some advocate lower taxes while others advocate higher taxes. Buffett and Tilson both are very rich and both are advocating higher taxes on the rich.
There's also room to debate exactly what tax rates are due to double taxation and income being split between multiple tax jurisdictions. Let's also not forget about income that is foregone in lieu of taxes - as is the case with muni bonds. Nor should we ignore what is effectively government spending that hides as tax credits. These issues also become more important as you move towards the super rich. Generally the higher the income the higher the effective tax rate until you get to about $10mm+. Thereafter more income comes from sources such as dividends and capital gains which are taxed at a lower rate (assuming you ignore the double taxation) which is largely where the low effective rates come from.
Taxes are complicated. All you'll really get from more of Romney's tax returns are a few more bits of anecdotal evidence that can possibly be used for emotional pandering yet will offer little insight into deciding effective tax policy.
George Romney, Biden said, "released 12 years of tax returns because, he said, and I quote, ’One year could be a fluke, perhaps done for show.’ End of quote.
At least to me it seems that pointing out that Romney's own father stated that doing what Romney is doing is something that looks deceitful....well that could hit home for some people.
Surplus or Deficit (−) 2001: 128,236 Bush 2002: -157,758 Bush 2003: -377,585 Bush 2004: -412,727 Bush 2005: -318,346 Bush 2006: -248,181 Bush 2007: -160,701 Bush 2008: -458,553 Bush 2009: -1,412,688 Obama 2010: -1,293,489 Obama 2011: -1,645,119 Obama 2012: -1,101,237 Obama www.whitehouse.gov <---goes all the way back for over 100 years if you want to compare. And I don't believe it's adjusted for inflation.
Well look at these deficit numbers from the Whitehouse. Romney is good at making money, maybe he won't make the same mistake that Obama is making to run such a high deficit?
Epocalypse, why copy/paste what you already posted exactly two days ago? So you can add such a brilliantly profound analysis as "Romney is good at making money, maybe he won't make the same mistake that Obama is making to run such a high deficit"? tbh, if you're going to discuss the debt and deficits, pick up on the discussion that has been going on in this very thread instead of going back to level zero with a comment like that.
So the latest excuse for Romney and his tenure at Bain is he retired "retroactively" in 1999. Still trying to figure out how that makes any kind of sense.
On July 16 2012 02:13 Adila wrote: So the latest excuse for Romney and his tenure at Bain is he retired "retroactively" in 1999. Still trying to figure out how that makes any kind of sense.
Here's the video on this:
Seriously hilarious. This is turning into such a train wreck. I think Romney is really under-estimating how much this is going to be hammered.
EPT
