Romney only paid a tax rate of 14%!!!!

  1. This post has been removed.

     
  2. This post has been removed.

     
  3. This post has been removed.

     
  4. This post has been removed.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: Romney only paid a tax rate of 14%!!!!

    Double taxation on capital gains is another Republican fallacy.  If you work for 10 years and save up $30,000, you're taxed on the income you made over the years.  If you then buy $30K worth of stock, it doubles over night, and you sell it the next day, you're capital gains tax is on $30K, not $60K.  Essentially, Romney is sitting back and watching his money make him more money, and the right thinks that he deserves to be taxed 40% what he would pay if he worked an honest eight hours every day.

    You include capital gains in a fair tax proposal, and half the Dems would hop on board.

     

     
  6. This post has been removed.

     
  7. This post has been removed.

     
  8. This post has been removed.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from DirtyWaterLover. Show DirtyWaterLover's posts

    Re: Romney only paid a tax rate of 14%!!!!

    In response to 12-Angry-Men's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to slomag's comment:

    Double taxation on capital gains is another Republican fallacy.  If you work for 10 years and save up $30,000, you're taxed on the income you made over the years.  If you then buy $30K worth of stock, it doubles over night, and you sell it the next day, you're capital gains tax is on $30K, not $60K.  Essentially, Romney is sitting back and watching his money make him more money, and the right thinks that he deserves to be taxed 40% what he would pay if he worked an honest eight hours every day. You include capital gains in a fair tax proposal, and half the Dems would hop on board.




    Good point, you only get taxed on profits and if it doesn't pan out, you get to write off the losses.

     

    This doesn't really apply to Mittens though because his income is from the fees and profits Bain generates from OTHER people's money. Not only doesn't he put his money at risk, any fees and profits Bain gets using other people's money is taxed as if Mittens actually had to pony up cash and put it at risk...which he doesn't. Hence the diffrent classification of 'carried interest' vs 'capital gains'.

    [/QUOTE]

    I believe the way it works is that Bain gets paid a commission for investing other people's money. The commission is typically paid in the form of shares in the deal.  This commission is taxed at the capital gains rate and not the rate paid on commissions earned by say a salesman.

    But thats just the beginning of it.  They have so many different ways of minimizing the tax payment.  

    My favorite is his IRA. I think it's valued at a $100 million.  Can you imagine?  granted, he was able to put more into the IRA than most people, but still not that much.

    Bain, which at the time was Romney, funded the IRA.  There was a cap as to how much could be put into the IRA.  So Bain creates a company that they own.  They can value the shares of the company at any price because they own all the shares.  They grossly undervalue the company, use shares of company to fund Mitts IRA.  Say they put $50K of shares into Mitts IRA.  Later they sell the company at 1000 times its value when they set up Mitts IRA.  Suddenly, Mitt's IRA goes from $50K to $500 million and he's paid $0 taxes on it.  This is completely true.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Romney only paid a tax rate of 14%!!!!

    In response to slomag's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Double taxation on capital gains is another Republican fallacy.  If you work for 10 years and save up $30,000, you're taxed on the income you made over the years.  If you then buy $30K worth of stock, it doubles over night, and you sell it the next day, you're capital gains tax is on $30K, not $60K.  Essentially, Romney is sitting back and watching his money make him more money, and the right thinks that he deserves to be taxed 40% what he would pay if he worked an honest eight hours every day.

    You include capital gains in a fair tax proposal, and half the Dems would hop on board.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Your example is off.  that woudl be a short-term capital gain, which is taxed as ordinarly income, i.e. 35% or what ever your final tax bracket settles at.

    Long term gains requires that you not sell that stock for a significant time perios, a year.  During that time, your "gain" may go up, it may go down.  It is called risk.  Risk, combined with the eventual tax rate, causes us to make different decisions about when to sell and collect our gain.

    In Romney's case, these seen to be long term gains, hence the rate.

     

    That aside, Romney paid ten times as many dollars in taxes as Obama.   Dollars, not percents, pays the bills.  But, keep chasing that shiny coin of class warfare the marxists roll in front of you.

     
  11. This post has been removed.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Romney only paid a tax rate of 14%!!!!

    In response to WhichOnesPink2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DirtyWaterLover's comment:
    [QUOTE]

      

    My favorite is his IRA. I think it's valued at a $100 million.  Can you imagine?  granted, he was able to put more into the IRA than most people, but still not that much.

    Bain, which at the time was Romney, funded the IRA.  There was a cap as to how much could be put into the IRA.  So Bain creates a company that they own.  They can value the shares of the company at any price because they own all the shares.  They grossly undervalue the company, use shares of company to fund Mitts IRA.  Say they put $50K of shares into Mitts IRA.  Later they sell the company at 1000 times its value when they set up Mitts IRA.  Suddenly, Mitt's IRA goes from $50K to $500 million and he's paid $0 taxes on it.  This is completely true.

    [/QUOTE]

    Is what they did illegal?

    [/QUOTE]


    Hillary.cattle futures.

    Reid.land deals.

    Obama.books.none.read

    Clinton.chinese. stuff

    The difference between Republicans and Democrats on this is that what the Democrats do is ill-gotten gains.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: Romney only paid a tax rate of 14%!!!!

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to slomag's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Double taxation on capital gains is another Republican fallacy.  If you work for 10 years and save up $30,000, you're taxed on the income you made over the years.  If you then buy $30K worth of stock, it doubles over night, and you sell it the next day, you're capital gains tax is on $30K, not $60K.  Essentially, Romney is sitting back and watching his money make him more money, and the right thinks that he deserves to be taxed 40% what he would pay if he worked an honest eight hours every day.

    You include capital gains in a fair tax proposal, and half the Dems would hop on board.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Your example is off.  that woudl be a short-term capital gain, which is taxed as ordinarly income, i.e. 35% or what ever your final tax bracket settles at.

    Long term gains requires that you not sell that stock for a significant time perios, a year.  During that time, your "gain" may go up, it may go down.  It is called risk.  Risk, combined with the eventual tax rate, causes us to make different decisions about when to sell and collect our gain.

    In Romney's case, these seen to be long term gains, hence the rate.

     

    That aside, Romney paid ten times as many dollars in taxes as Obama.   Dollars, not percents, pays the bills.  But, keep chasing that shiny coin of class warfare the marxists roll in front of you.

    [/QUOTE]


    My example wasn't meant to parallel Romney's scenario - just to illustrate that double taxation is a fallacy.  That $30K did not exist (or did not belong to you) before you sold your stock, and you are not responsible for paying taxes on the original $30K you used to buy your stock.  In Romney's case, we're probably talking about drawing dividends rather than having a salary, but regardless, there's no argument that could credibly suggest it's money he has paid taxes on before. It's money brought into his personal accounts one way or another - the difference between paying 15% and 35% is loop-holes and semantics, and I'm not sure that a guy who stands to pay far more in taxes is the guy I trust to close those loop-holes.

    It's not class warfare to say that dollars should be taxed, rather than people.  If anything, your argument sounds like re-distribution.  If 500 people have $200K, the tax liability should be 3.3M, but if 1 person has $10M, the tax liability should be 1.5M?  Where's the sense in that?

     

     

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from ThatWasMe. Show ThatWasMe's posts

    Re: Romney only paid a tax rate of 14%!!!!

    In response to slomag's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to slomag's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Double taxation on capital gains is another Republican fallacy.  If you work for 10 years and save up $30,000, you're taxed on the income you made over the years.  If you then buy $30K worth of stock, it doubles over night, and you sell it the next day, you're capital gains tax is on $30K, not $60K.  Essentially, Romney is sitting back and watching his money make him more money, and the right thinks that he deserves to be taxed 40% what he would pay if he worked an honest eight hours every day.

    You include capital gains in a fair tax proposal, and half the Dems would hop on board.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Your example is off.  that woudl be a short-term capital gain, which is taxed as ordinarly income, i.e. 35% or what ever your final tax bracket settles at.

    Long term gains requires that you not sell that stock for a significant time perios, a year.  During that time, your "gain" may go up, it may go down.  It is called risk.  Risk, combined with the eventual tax rate, causes us to make different decisions about when to sell and collect our gain.

    In Romney's case, these seen to be long term gains, hence the rate.

     

    That aside, Romney paid ten times as many dollars in taxes as Obama.   Dollars, not percents, pays the bills.  But, keep chasing that shiny coin of class warfare the marxists roll in front of you.

    [/QUOTE]


    My example wasn't meant to parallel Romney's scenario - just to illustrate that double taxation is a fallacy.  That $30K did not exist (or did not belong to you) before you sold your stock, and you are not responsible for paying taxes on the original $30K you used to buy your stock.  In Romney's case, we're probably talking about drawing dividends rather than having a salary, but regardless, there's no argument that could credibly suggest it's money he has paid taxes on before. It's money brought into his personal accounts one way or another - the difference between paying 15% and 35% is loop-holes and semantics, and I'm not sure that a guy who stands to pay far more in taxes is the guy I trust to close those loop-holes.

    It's not class warfare to say that dollars should be taxed, rather than people.  If anything, your argument sounds like re-distribution.  If 500 people have $200K, the tax liability should be 3.3M, but if 1 person has $10M, the tax liability should be 1.5M?  Where's the sense in that?

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Totally legal.

    I don't know of anyone here from either camp who believes the tax code should be left as is, too many loopholes.

    How many Democrats can you name that gave a third of their 2011 income to charity as Romney did?

    Close to 5 million.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from ThatWasMe. Show ThatWasMe's posts

    Re: Romney only paid a tax rate of 14%!!!!

    Stingy blundering Joe gave close to no money to charity EVER!!!

    All he wants to do is give away OUR money.

    This is what the democrats are good for.

    Another gift proposed for the Romney insulted 47 percent.

     



    Biden promotes free colonoscopies to seniors in Florida...

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: Romney only paid a tax rate of 14%!!!!

    In response to ThatWasMe's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to slomag's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to slomag's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Double taxation on capital gains is another Republican fallacy.  If you work for 10 years and save up $30,000, you're taxed on the income you made over the years.  If you then buy $30K worth of stock, it doubles over night, and you sell it the next day, you're capital gains tax is on $30K, not $60K.  Essentially, Romney is sitting back and watching his money make him more money, and the right thinks that he deserves to be taxed 40% what he would pay if he worked an honest eight hours every day.

    You include capital gains in a fair tax proposal, and half the Dems would hop on board.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Your example is off.  that woudl be a short-term capital gain, which is taxed as ordinarly income, i.e. 35% or what ever your final tax bracket settles at.

    Long term gains requires that you not sell that stock for a significant time perios, a year.  During that time, your "gain" may go up, it may go down.  It is called risk.  Risk, combined with the eventual tax rate, causes us to make different decisions about when to sell and collect our gain.

    In Romney's case, these seen to be long term gains, hence the rate.

     

    That aside, Romney paid ten times as many dollars in taxes as Obama.   Dollars, not percents, pays the bills.  But, keep chasing that shiny coin of class warfare the marxists roll in front of you.

    [/QUOTE]


    My example wasn't meant to parallel Romney's scenario - just to illustrate that double taxation is a fallacy.  That $30K did not exist (or did not belong to you) before you sold your stock, and you are not responsible for paying taxes on the original $30K you used to buy your stock.  In Romney's case, we're probably talking about drawing dividends rather than having a salary, but regardless, there's no argument that could credibly suggest it's money he has paid taxes on before. It's money brought into his personal accounts one way or another - the difference between paying 15% and 35% is loop-holes and semantics, and I'm not sure that a guy who stands to pay far more in taxes is the guy I trust to close those loop-holes.

    It's not class warfare to say that dollars should be taxed, rather than people.  If anything, your argument sounds like re-distribution.  If 500 people have $200K, the tax liability should be 3.3M, but if 1 person has $10M, the tax liability should be 1.5M?  Where's the sense in that?

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Totally legal.

    I don't know of anyone here from either camp who believes the tax code should be left as is, too many loopholes.

    How many Democrats can you name that gave a third of their 2011 income to charity as Romney did?

    Close to 5 million.

    [/QUOTE]


    The question is who do expect will address the loop-holes in the tax code - the candidate who is benefitting the most from them?  The candidate who is backed almost exclusively by donors exploiting the loop-holes?

    Romney's charitable contributions were primarily to the Mormon church.  There's nothing wrong with that, but I'm not sure there's anything that noble about it either.  For one thing, if he didn't contribute at least 10% of his income, he would not be welcome, which makes much of that "charity" more like a tax.  And for another, what exactly does the church use that money for?  To build more churches, or convert more people to Mormonism?  Does that really help society in any meaningful way?  It's not like this money is going toward cancer research.  Lastly, Romney may have contributed 30% of his declared income, but that amounted to about 1.2% of his net worth, compared to Obama's giving of about 10% in 2011.

     

     

     

     

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from ThatWasMe. Show ThatWasMe's posts

    Re: Romney only paid a tax rate of 14%!!!!

    In response to slomag's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ThatWasMe's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to slomag's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to slomag's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Double taxation on capital gains is another Republican fallacy.  If you work for 10 years and save up $30,000, you're taxed on the income you made over the years.  If you then buy $30K worth of stock, it doubles over night, and you sell it the next day, you're capital gains tax is on $30K, not $60K.  Essentially, Romney is sitting back and watching his money make him more money, and the right thinks that he deserves to be taxed 40% what he would pay if he worked an honest eight hours every day.

    You include capital gains in a fair tax proposal, and half the Dems would hop on board.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Your example is off.  that woudl be a short-term capital gain, which is taxed as ordinarly income, i.e. 35% or what ever your final tax bracket settles at.

    Long term gains requires that you not sell that stock for a significant time perios, a year.  During that time, your "gain" may go up, it may go down.  It is called risk.  Risk, combined with the eventual tax rate, causes us to make different decisions about when to sell and collect our gain.

    In Romney's case, these seen to be long term gains, hence the rate.

     

    That aside, Romney paid ten times as many dollars in taxes as Obama.   Dollars, not percents, pays the bills.  But, keep chasing that shiny coin of class warfare the marxists roll in front of you.

    [/QUOTE]


    My example wasn't meant to parallel Romney's scenario - just to illustrate that double taxation is a fallacy.  That $30K did not exist (or did not belong to you) before you sold your stock, and you are not responsible for paying taxes on the original $30K you used to buy your stock.  In Romney's case, we're probably talking about drawing dividends rather than having a salary, but regardless, there's no argument that could credibly suggest it's money he has paid taxes on before. It's money brought into his personal accounts one way or another - the difference between paying 15% and 35% is loop-holes and semantics, and I'm not sure that a guy who stands to pay far more in taxes is the guy I trust to close those loop-holes.

    It's not class warfare to say that dollars should be taxed, rather than people.  If anything, your argument sounds like re-distribution.  If 500 people have $200K, the tax liability should be 3.3M, but if 1 person has $10M, the tax liability should be 1.5M?  Where's the sense in that?

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Totally legal.

    I don't know of anyone here from either camp who believes the tax code should be left as is, too many loopholes.

    How many Democrats can you name that gave a third of their 2011 income to charity as Romney did?

    Close to 5 million.

    [/QUOTE]


    The question is who do expect will address the loop-holes in the tax code - the candidate who is benefitting the most from them?  The candidate who is backed almost exclusively by donors exploiting the loop-holes?

    Romney's charitable contributions were primarily to the Mormon church.  There's nothing wrong with that, but I'm not sure there's anything that noble about it either.  For one thing, if he didn't contribute at least 10% of his income, he would not be welcome, which makes much of that "charity" more like a tax.  And for another, what exactly does the church use that money for?  To build more churches, or convert more people to Mormonism?  Does that really help society in any meaningful way?  It's not like this money is going toward cancer research.  Lastly, Romney may have contributed 30% of his declared income, but that amounted to about 1.2% of his net worth, compared to Obama's giving of about 10% in 2011.

     

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Who cares where Romney's charity contributions went to primarily?

    This is election is about how Obama is spending our money not how Romney LEGALLY pays his taxes or where he decides to give a third of his salary to charity (4.7 M).

    Except for all you leftwing gimees.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from ThatWasMe. Show ThatWasMe's posts

    Re: Romney only paid a tax rate of 14%!!!!

    In response to slomag's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ThatWasMe's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to slomag's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to slomag's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Double taxation on capital gains is another Republican fallacy.  If you work for 10 years and save up $30,000, you're taxed on the income you made over the years.  If you then buy $30K worth of stock, it doubles over night, and you sell it the next day, you're capital gains tax is on $30K, not $60K.  Essentially, Romney is sitting back and watching his money make him more money, and the right thinks that he deserves to be taxed 40% what he would pay if he worked an honest eight hours every day.

    You include capital gains in a fair tax proposal, and half the Dems would hop on board.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Your example is off.  that woudl be a short-term capital gain, which is taxed as ordinarly income, i.e. 35% or what ever your final tax bracket settles at.

    Long term gains requires that you not sell that stock for a significant time perios, a year.  During that time, your "gain" may go up, it may go down.  It is called risk.  Risk, combined with the eventual tax rate, causes us to make different decisions about when to sell and collect our gain.

    In Romney's case, these seen to be long term gains, hence the rate.

     

    That aside, Romney paid ten times as many dollars in taxes as Obama.   Dollars, not percents, pays the bills.  But, keep chasing that shiny coin of class warfare the marxists roll in front of you.

    [/QUOTE]


    My example wasn't meant to parallel Romney's scenario - just to illustrate that double taxation is a fallacy.  That $30K did not exist (or did not belong to you) before you sold your stock, and you are not responsible for paying taxes on the original $30K you used to buy your stock.  In Romney's case, we're probably talking about drawing dividends rather than having a salary, but regardless, there's no argument that could credibly suggest it's money he has paid taxes on before. It's money brought into his personal accounts one way or another - the difference between paying 15% and 35% is loop-holes and semantics, and I'm not sure that a guy who stands to pay far more in taxes is the guy I trust to close those loop-holes.

    It's not class warfare to say that dollars should be taxed, rather than people.  If anything, your argument sounds like re-distribution.  If 500 people have $200K, the tax liability should be 3.3M, but if 1 person has $10M, the tax liability should be 1.5M?  Where's the sense in that?

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Totally legal.

    I don't know of anyone here from either camp who believes the tax code should be left as is, too many loopholes.

    How many Democrats can you name that gave a third of their 2011 income to charity as Romney did?

    Close to 5 million.

    [/QUOTE]


    The question is who do expect will address the loop-holes in the tax code - the candidate who is benefitting the most from them?  The candidate who is backed almost exclusively by donors exploiting the loop-holes?

    Romney's charitable contributions were primarily to the Mormon church.  There's nothing wrong with that, but I'm not sure there's anything that noble about it either.  For one thing, if he didn't contribute at least 10% of his income, he would not be welcome, which makes much of that "charity" more like a tax.  And for another, what exactly does the church use that money for?  To build more churches, or convert more people to Mormonism?  Does that really help society in any meaningful way?  It's not like this money is going toward cancer research.  Lastly, Romney may have contributed 30% of his declared income, but that amounted to about 1.2% of his net worth, compared to Obama's giving of about 10% in 2011.

     

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


     

    And this is an example of WHAT the media covers.

    The Kennedys and Kerry faced no such scrutiny.

    Or Pelosi or Corzine.

    Ths is Obama and Axelrod and the politics of division with all the lefties falling in right behind.

    The 47 percent, the gimee crowd.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from ThatWasMe. Show ThatWasMe's posts

    Re: Romney only paid a tax rate of 14%!!!!

    What I want to know from our media is what happened to the 2 Navy Seals and our Ambassador in Benghazi.

    Don't hold your breath.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: Romney only paid a tax rate of 14%!!!!

    In response to ThatWasMe's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to slomag's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ThatWasMe's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to slomag's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to slomag's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Double taxation on capital gains is another Republican fallacy.  If you work for 10 years and save up $30,000, you're taxed on the income you made over the years.  If you then buy $30K worth of stock, it doubles over night, and you sell it the next day, you're capital gains tax is on $30K, not $60K.  Essentially, Romney is sitting back and watching his money make him more money, and the right thinks that he deserves to be taxed 40% what he would pay if he worked an honest eight hours every day.

    You include capital gains in a fair tax proposal, and half the Dems would hop on board.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Your example is off.  that woudl be a short-term capital gain, which is taxed as ordinarly income, i.e. 35% or what ever your final tax bracket settles at.

    Long term gains requires that you not sell that stock for a significant time perios, a year.  During that time, your "gain" may go up, it may go down.  It is called risk.  Risk, combined with the eventual tax rate, causes us to make different decisions about when to sell and collect our gain.

    In Romney's case, these seen to be long term gains, hence the rate.

     

    That aside, Romney paid ten times as many dollars in taxes as Obama.   Dollars, not percents, pays the bills.  But, keep chasing that shiny coin of class warfare the marxists roll in front of you.

    [/QUOTE]


    My example wasn't meant to parallel Romney's scenario - just to illustrate that double taxation is a fallacy.  That $30K did not exist (or did not belong to you) before you sold your stock, and you are not responsible for paying taxes on the original $30K you used to buy your stock.  In Romney's case, we're probably talking about drawing dividends rather than having a salary, but regardless, there's no argument that could credibly suggest it's money he has paid taxes on before. It's money brought into his personal accounts one way or another - the difference between paying 15% and 35% is loop-holes and semantics, and I'm not sure that a guy who stands to pay far more in taxes is the guy I trust to close those loop-holes.

    It's not class warfare to say that dollars should be taxed, rather than people.  If anything, your argument sounds like re-distribution.  If 500 people have $200K, the tax liability should be 3.3M, but if 1 person has $10M, the tax liability should be 1.5M?  Where's the sense in that?

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Totally legal.

    I don't know of anyone here from either camp who believes the tax code should be left as is, too many loopholes.

    How many Democrats can you name that gave a third of their 2011 income to charity as Romney did?

    Close to 5 million.

    [/QUOTE]


    The question is who do expect will address the loop-holes in the tax code - the candidate who is benefitting the most from them?  The candidate who is backed almost exclusively by donors exploiting the loop-holes?

    Romney's charitable contributions were primarily to the Mormon church.  There's nothing wrong with that, but I'm not sure there's anything that noble about it either.  For one thing, if he didn't contribute at least 10% of his income, he would not be welcome, which makes much of that "charity" more like a tax.  And for another, what exactly does the church use that money for?  To build more churches, or convert more people to Mormonism?  Does that really help society in any meaningful way?  It's not like this money is going toward cancer research.  Lastly, Romney may have contributed 30% of his declared income, but that amounted to about 1.2% of his net worth, compared to Obama's giving of about 10% in 2011.

     

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


     

    And this is an example of WHAT the media covers.

    The Kennedys and Kerry faced no such scrutiny.

    Or Pelosi or Corzine.

    Ths is Obama and Axelrod and the politics of division with all the lefties falling in right behind.

    The 47 percent, the gimee crowd.

    [/QUOTE]


     

    Kennedy was another era, but Kerry released 20 years of taxes.  And his Yacht issue did get plenty of media attention.  Much more than Paul Ryan's amended returns during the vetting process ... http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2012-08-15/paul-ryan-finances-reports/57078160/1

    I'd say Kerry's tax issues received more media attention than the fact that the Bush Administration (according to Tom Ridge) artificially elevated the "terror alert level" just prior to the 2004 election.  Now that's something you really can fault the main-stream media for ignoring.

     

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from ThatWasMe. Show ThatWasMe's posts

    Re: Romney only paid a tax rate of 14%!!!!

    In response to slomag's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ThatWasMe's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to slomag's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ThatWasMe's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to slomag's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to slomag's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Double taxation on capital gains is another Republican fallacy.  If you work for 10 years and save up $30,000, you're taxed on the income you made over the years.  If you then buy $30K worth of stock, it doubles over night, and you sell it the next day, you're capital gains tax is on $30K, not $60K.  Essentially, Romney is sitting back and watching his money make him more money, and the right thinks that he deserves to be taxed 40% what he would pay if he worked an honest eight hours every day.

    You include capital gains in a fair tax proposal, and half the Dems would hop on board.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Your example is off.  that woudl be a short-term capital gain, which is taxed as ordinarly income, i.e. 35% or what ever your final tax bracket settles at.

    Long term gains requires that you not sell that stock for a significant time perios, a year.  During that time, your "gain" may go up, it may go down.  It is called risk.  Risk, combined with the eventual tax rate, causes us to make different decisions about when to sell and collect our gain.

    In Romney's case, these seen to be long term gains, hence the rate.

     

    That aside, Romney paid ten times as many dollars in taxes as Obama.   Dollars, not percents, pays the bills.  But, keep chasing that shiny coin of class warfare the marxists roll in front of you.

    [/QUOTE]


    My example wasn't meant to parallel Romney's scenario - just to illustrate that double taxation is a fallacy.  That $30K did not exist (or did not belong to you) before you sold your stock, and you are not responsible for paying taxes on the original $30K you used to buy your stock.  In Romney's case, we're probably talking about drawing dividends rather than having a salary, but regardless, there's no argument that could credibly suggest it's money he has paid taxes on before. It's money brought into his personal accounts one way or another - the difference between paying 15% and 35% is loop-holes and semantics, and I'm not sure that a guy who stands to pay far more in taxes is the guy I trust to close those loop-holes.

    It's not class warfare to say that dollars should be taxed, rather than people.  If anything, your argument sounds like re-distribution.  If 500 people have $200K, the tax liability should be 3.3M, but if 1 person has $10M, the tax liability should be 1.5M?  Where's the sense in that?

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Totally legal.

    I don't know of anyone here from either camp who believes the tax code should be left as is, too many loopholes.

    How many Democrats can you name that gave a third of their 2011 income to charity as Romney did?

    Close to 5 million.

    [/QUOTE]


    The question is who do expect will address the loop-holes in the tax code - the candidate who is benefitting the most from them?  The candidate who is backed almost exclusively by donors exploiting the loop-holes?

    Romney's charitable contributions were primarily to the Mormon church.  There's nothing wrong with that, but I'm not sure there's anything that noble about it either.  For one thing, if he didn't contribute at least 10% of his income, he would not be welcome, which makes much of that "charity" more like a tax.  And for another, what exactly does the church use that money for?  To build more churches, or convert more people to Mormonism?  Does that really help society in any meaningful way?  It's not like this money is going toward cancer research.  Lastly, Romney may have contributed 30% of his declared income, but that amounted to about 1.2% of his net worth, compared to Obama's giving of about 10% in 2011.

     

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


     

    And this is an example of WHAT the media covers.

    The Kennedys and Kerry faced no such scrutiny.

    Or Pelosi or Corzine.

    Ths is Obama and Axelrod and the politics of division with all the lefties falling in right behind.

    The 47 percent, the gimee crowd.

    [/QUOTE]


     

    Kennedy was another era, but Kerry released 20 years of taxes.  And his Yacht issue did get plenty of media attention.  Much more than Paul Ryan's amended returns during the vetting process ... http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2012-08-15/paul-ryan-finances-reports/57078160/1

    I'd say Kerry's tax issues received more media attention than the fact that the Bush Administration (according to Tom Ridge) artificially elevated the "terror alert level" just prior to the 2004 election.  Now that's something you really can fault the main-stream media for ignoring.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Yeah the terror alert the mainstream media mocked repetitively.

    Didn't like the colors, or the patriot act or gitmo but the bottom line was after 9/11 we were pretty much safe from domestic attacks.He deserves some credit for that.

    Kerry's yacht issue raised some hackles because of the hypocrisy mooring it out of the country to escape paying taxes on it if I recall.

    Kerry an extremely wealthy tax and spend liberal deserved the criticism. Do as I say not as I do.Pocket change to him.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: Romney only paid a tax rate of 14%!!!!

    In response to ThatWasMe's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to slomag's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ThatWasMe's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to slomag's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ThatWasMe's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to slomag's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to slomag's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Double taxation on capital gains is another Republican fallacy.  If you work for 10 years and save up $30,000, you're taxed on the income you made over the years.  If you then buy $30K worth of stock, it doubles over night, and you sell it the next day, you're capital gains tax is on $30K, not $60K.  Essentially, Romney is sitting back and watching his money make him more money, and the right thinks that he deserves to be taxed 40% what he would pay if he worked an honest eight hours every day.

    You include capital gains in a fair tax proposal, and half the Dems would hop on board.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Your example is off.  that woudl be a short-term capital gain, which is taxed as ordinarly income, i.e. 35% or what ever your final tax bracket settles at.

    Long term gains requires that you not sell that stock for a significant time perios, a year.  During that time, your "gain" may go up, it may go down.  It is called risk.  Risk, combined with the eventual tax rate, causes us to make different decisions about when to sell and collect our gain.

    In Romney's case, these seen to be long term gains, hence the rate.

     

    That aside, Romney paid ten times as many dollars in taxes as Obama.   Dollars, not percents, pays the bills.  But, keep chasing that shiny coin of class warfare the marxists roll in front of you.

    [/QUOTE]


    My example wasn't meant to parallel Romney's scenario - just to illustrate that double taxation is a fallacy.  That $30K did not exist (or did not belong to you) before you sold your stock, and you are not responsible for paying taxes on the original $30K you used to buy your stock.  In Romney's case, we're probably talking about drawing dividends rather than having a salary, but regardless, there's no argument that could credibly suggest it's money he has paid taxes on before. It's money brought into his personal accounts one way or another - the difference between paying 15% and 35% is loop-holes and semantics, and I'm not sure that a guy who stands to pay far more in taxes is the guy I trust to close those loop-holes.

    It's not class warfare to say that dollars should be taxed, rather than people.  If anything, your argument sounds like re-distribution.  If 500 people have $200K, the tax liability should be 3.3M, but if 1 person has $10M, the tax liability should be 1.5M?  Where's the sense in that?

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Totally legal.

    I don't know of anyone here from either camp who believes the tax code should be left as is, too many loopholes.

    How many Democrats can you name that gave a third of their 2011 income to charity as Romney did?

    Close to 5 million.

    [/QUOTE]


    The question is who do expect will address the loop-holes in the tax code - the candidate who is benefitting the most from them?  The candidate who is backed almost exclusively by donors exploiting the loop-holes?

    Romney's charitable contributions were primarily to the Mormon church.  There's nothing wrong with that, but I'm not sure there's anything that noble about it either.  For one thing, if he didn't contribute at least 10% of his income, he would not be welcome, which makes much of that "charity" more like a tax.  And for another, what exactly does the church use that money for?  To build more churches, or convert more people to Mormonism?  Does that really help society in any meaningful way?  It's not like this money is going toward cancer research.  Lastly, Romney may have contributed 30% of his declared income, but that amounted to about 1.2% of his net worth, compared to Obama's giving of about 10% in 2011.

     

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


     

    And this is an example of WHAT the media covers.

    The Kennedys and Kerry faced no such scrutiny.

    Or Pelosi or Corzine.

    Ths is Obama and Axelrod and the politics of division with all the lefties falling in right behind.

    The 47 percent, the gimee crowd.

    [/QUOTE]


     

    Kennedy was another era, but Kerry released 20 years of taxes.  And his Yacht issue did get plenty of media attention.  Much more than Paul Ryan's amended returns during the vetting process ... http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2012-08-15/paul-ryan-finances-reports/57078160/1

    I'd say Kerry's tax issues received more media attention than the fact that the Bush Administration (according to Tom Ridge) artificially elevated the "terror alert level" just prior to the 2004 election.  Now that's something you really can fault the main-stream media for ignoring.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Yeah the terror alert the mainstream media mocked repetitively.

    Didn't like the colors, or the patriot act or gitmo but the bottom line was after 9/11 we were pretty much safe from domestic attacks.He deserves some credit for that.

    Kerry's yacht issue raised some hackles because of the hypocrisy mooring it out of the country to escape paying taxes on it if I recall.

    Kerry an extremely wealthy tax and spend liberal deserved the criticism. Do as I say not as I do.Pocket change to him.

    [/QUOTE]


    Haven't we been pretty much safe from domestic attacks since 2009?

    Kerry docked his Yacht in Rhode Island - Romney docks his money out of the country.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from ThatWasMe. Show ThatWasMe's posts

    Re: Romney only paid a tax rate of 14%!!!!

    In response to slomag's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ThatWasMe's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to slomag's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ThatWasMe's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to slomag's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ThatWasMe's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to slomag's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to slomag's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Double taxation on capital gains is another Republican fallacy.  If you work for 10 years and save up $30,000, you're taxed on the income you made over the years.  If you then buy $30K worth of stock, it doubles over night, and you sell it the next day, you're capital gains tax is on $30K, not $60K.  Essentially, Romney is sitting back and watching his money make him more money, and the right thinks that he deserves to be taxed 40% what he would pay if he worked an honest eight hours every day.

    You include capital gains in a fair tax proposal, and half the Dems would hop on board.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Your example is off.  that woudl be a short-term capital gain, which is taxed as ordinarly income, i.e. 35% or what ever your final tax bracket settles at.

    Long term gains requires that you not sell that stock for a significant time perios, a year.  During that time, your "gain" may go up, it may go down.  It is called risk.  Risk, combined with the eventual tax rate, causes us to make different decisions about when to sell and collect our gain.

    In Romney's case, these seen to be long term gains, hence the rate.

     

    That aside, Romney paid ten times as many dollars in taxes as Obama.   Dollars, not percents, pays the bills.  But, keep chasing that shiny coin of class warfare the marxists roll in front of you.

    [/QUOTE]


    My example wasn't meant to parallel Romney's scenario - just to illustrate that double taxation is a fallacy.  That $30K did not exist (or did not belong to you) before you sold your stock, and you are not responsible for paying taxes on the original $30K you used to buy your stock.  In Romney's case, we're probably talking about drawing dividends rather than having a salary, but regardless, there's no argument that could credibly suggest it's money he has paid taxes on before. It's money brought into his personal accounts one way or another - the difference between paying 15% and 35% is loop-holes and semantics, and I'm not sure that a guy who stands to pay far more in taxes is the guy I trust to close those loop-holes.

    It's not class warfare to say that dollars should be taxed, rather than people.  If anything, your argument sounds like re-distribution.  If 500 people have $200K, the tax liability should be 3.3M, but if 1 person has $10M, the tax liability should be 1.5M?  Where's the sense in that?

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Totally legal.

    I don't know of anyone here from either camp who believes the tax code should be left as is, too many loopholes.

    How many Democrats can you name that gave a third of their 2011 income to charity as Romney did?

    Close to 5 million.

    [/QUOTE]


    The question is who do expect will address the loop-holes in the tax code - the candidate who is benefitting the most from them?  The candidate who is backed almost exclusively by donors exploiting the loop-holes?

    Romney's charitable contributions were primarily to the Mormon church.  There's nothing wrong with that, but I'm not sure there's anything that noble about it either.  For one thing, if he didn't contribute at least 10% of his income, he would not be welcome, which makes much of that "charity" more like a tax.  And for another, what exactly does the church use that money for?  To build more churches, or convert more people to Mormonism?  Does that really help society in any meaningful way?  It's not like this money is going toward cancer research.  Lastly, Romney may have contributed 30% of his declared income, but that amounted to about 1.2% of his net worth, compared to Obama's giving of about 10% in 2011.

     

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


     

    And this is an example of WHAT the media covers.

    The Kennedys and Kerry faced no such scrutiny.

    Or Pelosi or Corzine.

    Ths is Obama and Axelrod and the politics of division with all the lefties falling in right behind.

    The 47 percent, the gimee crowd.

    [/QUOTE]


     

    Kennedy was another era, but Kerry released 20 years of taxes.  And his Yacht issue did get plenty of media attention.  Much more than Paul Ryan's amended returns during the vetting process ... http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2012-08-15/paul-ryan-finances-reports/57078160/1

    I'd say Kerry's tax issues received more media attention than the fact that the Bush Administration (according to Tom Ridge) artificially elevated the "terror alert level" just prior to the 2004 election.  Now that's something you really can fault the main-stream media for ignoring.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Yeah the terror alert the mainstream media mocked repetitively.

    Didn't like the colors, or the patriot act or gitmo but the bottom line was after 9/11 we were pretty much safe from domestic attacks.He deserves some credit for that.

    Kerry's yacht issue raised some hackles because of the hypocrisy mooring it out of the country to escape paying taxes on it if I recall.

    Kerry an extremely wealthy tax and spend liberal deserved the criticism. Do as I say not as I do.Pocket change to him.

    [/QUOTE]


    Haven't we been pretty much safe from domestic attacks since 2009?

    Kerry docked his Yacht in Rhode Island - Romney docks his money out of the country.

    [/QUOTE]


    I suppose if you ignore the Fort Hood shooting like the OBama administration has.

    Ignoring the behavior of Major Hasan prior to and during the shooting itself.

    Has Kerry ever given give a third of his annual salary to charity?

    Romney paid more taxes then what was due in 2011, what he legally does with his money is his business as what you do with yours is only yours.

     

    Kerry Agrees to Pay Massachusetts Tax on Yacht Docked in Rhode Island

    Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/27/kerry-agrees-pay-massachusetts-tax-yacht-docked-rhode-island/#ixzz27tDvuL2O

     

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: Romney only paid a tax rate of 14%!!!!

    In response to ThatWasMe's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to slomag's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ThatWasMe's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to slomag's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ThatWasMe's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to slomag's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ThatWasMe's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to slomag's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to slomag's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Double taxation on capital gains is another Republican fallacy.  If you work for 10 years and save up $30,000, you're taxed on the income you made over the years.  If you then buy $30K worth of stock, it doubles over night, and you sell it the next day, you're capital gains tax is on $30K, not $60K.  Essentially, Romney is sitting back and watching his money make him more money, and the right thinks that he deserves to be taxed 40% what he would pay if he worked an honest eight hours every day.

    You include capital gains in a fair tax proposal, and half the Dems would hop on board.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Your example is off.  that woudl be a short-term capital gain, which is taxed as ordinarly income, i.e. 35% or what ever your final tax bracket settles at.

    Long term gains requires that you not sell that stock for a significant time perios, a year.  During that time, your "gain" may go up, it may go down.  It is called risk.  Risk, combined with the eventual tax rate, causes us to make different decisions about when to sell and collect our gain.

    In Romney's case, these seen to be long term gains, hence the rate.

     

    That aside, Romney paid ten times as many dollars in taxes as Obama.   Dollars, not percents, pays the bills.  But, keep chasing that shiny coin of class warfare the marxists roll in front of you.

    [/QUOTE]


    My example wasn't meant to parallel Romney's scenario - just to illustrate that double taxation is a fallacy.  That $30K did not exist (or did not belong to you) before you sold your stock, and you are not responsible for paying taxes on the original $30K you used to buy your stock.  In Romney's case, we're probably talking about drawing dividends rather than having a salary, but regardless, there's no argument that could credibly suggest it's money he has paid taxes on before. It's money brought into his personal accounts one way or another - the difference between paying 15% and 35% is loop-holes and semantics, and I'm not sure that a guy who stands to pay far more in taxes is the guy I trust to close those loop-holes.

    It's not class warfare to say that dollars should be taxed, rather than people.  If anything, your argument sounds like re-distribution.  If 500 people have $200K, the tax liability should be 3.3M, but if 1 person has $10M, the tax liability should be 1.5M?  Where's the sense in that?

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Totally legal.

    I don't know of anyone here from either camp who believes the tax code should be left as is, too many loopholes.

    How many Democrats can you name that gave a third of their 2011 income to charity as Romney did?

    Close to 5 million.

    [/QUOTE]


    The question is who do expect will address the loop-holes in the tax code - the candidate who is benefitting the most from them?  The candidate who is backed almost exclusively by donors exploiting the loop-holes?

    Romney's charitable contributions were primarily to the Mormon church.  There's nothing wrong with that, but I'm not sure there's anything that noble about it either.  For one thing, if he didn't contribute at least 10% of his income, he would not be welcome, which makes much of that "charity" more like a tax.  And for another, what exactly does the church use that money for?  To build more churches, or convert more people to Mormonism?  Does that really help society in any meaningful way?  It's not like this money is going toward cancer research.  Lastly, Romney may have contributed 30% of his declared income, but that amounted to about 1.2% of his net worth, compared to Obama's giving of about 10% in 2011.

     

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


     

    And this is an example of WHAT the media covers.

    The Kennedys and Kerry faced no such scrutiny.

    Or Pelosi or Corzine.

    Ths is Obama and Axelrod and the politics of division with all the lefties falling in right behind.

    The 47 percent, the gimee crowd.

    [/QUOTE]


     

    Kennedy was another era, but Kerry released 20 years of taxes.  And his Yacht issue did get plenty of media attention.  Much more than Paul Ryan's amended returns during the vetting process ... http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2012-08-15/paul-ryan-finances-reports/57078160/1

    I'd say Kerry's tax issues received more media attention than the fact that the Bush Administration (according to Tom Ridge) artificially elevated the "terror alert level" just prior to the 2004 election.  Now that's something you really can fault the main-stream media for ignoring.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Yeah the terror alert the mainstream media mocked repetitively.

    Didn't like the colors, or the patriot act or gitmo but the bottom line was after 9/11 we were pretty much safe from domestic attacks.He deserves some credit for that.

    Kerry's yacht issue raised some hackles because of the hypocrisy mooring it out of the country to escape paying taxes on it if I recall.

    Kerry an extremely wealthy tax and spend liberal deserved the criticism. Do as I say not as I do.Pocket change to him.

    [/QUOTE]


    Haven't we been pretty much safe from domestic attacks since 2009?

    Kerry docked his Yacht in Rhode Island - Romney docks his money out of the country.

    [/QUOTE]


    I suppose if you ignore the Fort Hood shooting like the OBama administration has.

    Ignoring the behavior of Major Hasan prior to and during the shooting itself.

    Has Kerry ever given give a third of his annual salary to charity?

    Romney paid more taxes then what was due in 2011, what he legally does with his money is his business as what you do with is yours is only yours.

     

    Kerry Agrees to Pay Massachusetts Tax on Yacht Docked in Rhode Island

    Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/27/kerry-agrees-pay-massachusetts-tax-yacht-docked-rhode-island/#ixzz27tDvuL2O

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Fort Hood occured in November of Obama's first term.  9/11 in September of Bush's.  How do you rationalize blaming Obama while absolving Bush?  The scope and warning signs of 9/11 seem far greater than Fort Hood.

    I don't care what Romney does with his money, but I'm not stupid enough to count on him to close the loop-holes he's exploiting.  

    As soon as Romney loses the election, he'll amend his returns to claim the remainder of his charity deductions.  

     

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from ThatWasMe. Show ThatWasMe's posts

    Re: Romney only paid a tax rate of 14%!!!!

    In response to slomag's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ThatWasMe's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to slomag's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ThatWasMe's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to slomag's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ThatWasMe's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to slomag's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ThatWasMe's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to slomag's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to slomag's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Double taxation on capital gains is another Republican fallacy.  If you work for 10 years and save up $30,000, you're taxed on the income you made over the years.  If you then buy $30K worth of stock, it doubles over night, and you sell it the next day, you're capital gains tax is on $30K, not $60K.  Essentially, Romney is sitting back and watching his money make him more money, and the right thinks that he deserves to be taxed 40% what he would pay if he worked an honest eight hours every day.

    You include capital gains in a fair tax proposal, and half the Dems would hop on board.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Your example is off.  that woudl be a short-term capital gain, which is taxed as ordinarly income, i.e. 35% or what ever your final tax bracket settles at.

    Long term gains requires that you not sell that stock for a significant time perios, a year.  During that time, your "gain" may go up, it may go down.  It is called risk.  Risk, combined with the eventual tax rate, causes us to make different decisions about when to sell and collect our gain.

    In Romney's case, these seen to be long term gains, hence the rate.

     

    That aside, Romney paid ten times as many dollars in taxes as Obama.   Dollars, not percents, pays the bills.  But, keep chasing that shiny coin of class warfare the marxists roll in front of you.

    [/QUOTE]


    My example wasn't meant to parallel Romney's scenario - just to illustrate that double taxation is a fallacy.  That $30K did not exist (or did not belong to you) before you sold your stock, and you are not responsible for paying taxes on the original $30K you used to buy your stock.  In Romney's case, we're probably talking about drawing dividends rather than having a salary, but regardless, there's no argument that could credibly suggest it's money he has paid taxes on before. It's money brought into his personal accounts one way or another - the difference between paying 15% and 35% is loop-holes and semantics, and I'm not sure that a guy who stands to pay far more in taxes is the guy I trust to close those loop-holes.

    It's not class warfare to say that dollars should be taxed, rather than people.  If anything, your argument sounds like re-distribution.  If 500 people have $200K, the tax liability should be 3.3M, but if 1 person has $10M, the tax liability should be 1.5M?  Where's the sense in that?

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Totally legal.

    I don't know of anyone here from either camp who believes the tax code should be left as is, too many loopholes.

    How many Democrats can you name that gave a third of their 2011 income to charity as Romney did?

    Close to 5 million.

    [/QUOTE]


    The question is who do expect will address the loop-holes in the tax code - the candidate who is benefitting the most from them?  The candidate who is backed almost exclusively by donors exploiting the loop-holes?

    Romney's charitable contributions were primarily to the Mormon church.  There's nothing wrong with that, but I'm not sure there's anything that noble about it either.  For one thing, if he didn't contribute at least 10% of his income, he would not be welcome, which makes much of that "charity" more like a tax.  And for another, what exactly does the church use that money for?  To build more churches, or convert more people to Mormonism?  Does that really help society in any meaningful way?  It's not like this money is going toward cancer research.  Lastly, Romney may have contributed 30% of his declared income, but that amounted to about 1.2% of his net worth, compared to Obama's giving of about 10% in 2011.

     

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


     

    And this is an example of WHAT the media covers.

    The Kennedys and Kerry faced no such scrutiny.

    Or Pelosi or Corzine.

    Ths is Obama and Axelrod and the politics of division with all the lefties falling in right behind.

    The 47 percent, the gimee crowd.

    [/QUOTE]


     

    Kennedy was another era, but Kerry released 20 years of taxes.  And his Yacht issue did get plenty of media attention.  Much more than Paul Ryan's amended returns during the vetting process ... http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2012-08-15/paul-ryan-finances-reports/57078160/1

    I'd say Kerry's tax issues received more media attention than the fact that the Bush Administration (according to Tom Ridge) artificially elevated the "terror alert level" just prior to the 2004 election.  Now that's something you really can fault the main-stream media for ignoring.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Yeah the terror alert the mainstream media mocked repetitively.

    Didn't like the colors, or the patriot act or gitmo but the bottom line was after 9/11 we were pretty much safe from domestic attacks.He deserves some credit for that.

    Kerry's yacht issue raised some hackles because of the hypocrisy mooring it out of the country to escape paying taxes on it if I recall.

    Kerry an extremely wealthy tax and spend liberal deserved the criticism. Do as I say not as I do.Pocket change to him.

    [/QUOTE]


    Haven't we been pretty much safe from domestic attacks since 2009?

    Kerry docked his Yacht in Rhode Island - Romney docks his money out of the country.

    [/QUOTE]


    I suppose if you ignore the Fort Hood shooting like the OBama administration has.

    Ignoring the behavior of Major Hasan prior to and during the shooting itself.

    Has Kerry ever given give a third of his annual salary to charity?

    Romney paid more taxes then what was due in 2011, what he legally does with his money is his business as what you do with is yours is only yours.

     

    Kerry Agrees to Pay Massachusetts Tax on Yacht Docked in Rhode Island

    Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/27/kerry-agrees-pay-massachusetts-tax-yacht-docked-rhode-island/#ixzz27tDvuL2O

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Fort Hood occured in November of Obama's first term.  9/11 in September of Bush's.  How do you rationalize blaming Obama while absolving Bush?  The scope and warning signs of 9/11 seem far greater than Fort Hood.

    I don't care what Romney does with his money, but I'm not stupid enough to count on him to close the loop-holes he's exploiting.  

    As soon as Romney loses the election, he'll amend his returns to claim the remainder of his charity deductions.  

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Actually pretty easy for me to distinguish the differences between the two.

    Because of the scope and magnitude of what happened on 9/11, Three different flights, bringing in groups of terrorists, housing, flight training, etc. It was years in planning.

    Major Hassan on the other hand for the lack of a better term lost it in the few months leading up to his attack carried out by one person.

    His comments and behavior prior to the attacks because of the PC cops and the fear of  appearing to be prejudiced toward a moslem went largely unreported ultimatly costing 13 people their lives another 29 were wounded.

    Major Hasan stood up and shouted Allahu Akbar then began shooting for anyone confused about his motives..

    The most disturbing thing to me about the Obama administration is that they are unable/afraid to call the war against Islamic extremists exactly what it is, a global war against islamic extremists.

    Because they don't want to offend those who want to exterminate us?

    I don't recall the Bush administration having the same problem identifying our enemy.

     

Share