Why Won't Romney Release His Tax Returns?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
341

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Hey beans have you noticed that most on this board are cluelss as to how much the wealthy actually pay in taxes?

It would be funny if it were not so dangerous. [/quote]

I would say most in the country.

But if you think about it, so many people can’t figure out they should spend less than they earn, we’d be fooling our-self to expect them to understand the beginnings of tax.

The government has proven, time and time again they don’t know how to handle money, and people want other people to give them more? That is like going out and buying your brother, who is a recovering alcoholic, a fucking pint and a six pack, but asking someone else at the store to pay for it.

But irrelevant. People that pay more in tax in one year, than 48% of the population will pay in a lifetime, are okay to hate and demand they give up what they earned, because we gotta spread this wealth around.

342

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I don’t think the president has a whole lot to do with it. [/quote]

Yes and no…

business owners have to make decisions based on risk, the president, his policies and the conflicts between him and congress effect the landscape in which owners predict the future risk of an economic action.

If the government wasn’t so involved in our day to day life, the above would be a much less significant portion of the equation.

Now expand this beyond mom & pop to place like GM & Wall St, where the government hands them your money, for free, rewarding them for bad behavior. Do you think someone that knows the government is going to catch them when they fall is going to stop walking the tight rope? Nope.

343

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

Employment changes don’t happen overnight. The month Obama took office you could not blame the current employment status of the country on him. How long into his term do you think the unemployment rate was still a result of bush?[/quote]

The problem is, and you can say this until you are blue in the face, there is not a single employer on the face of this planet that is going to give you 3.5 years to fix the mess they hired you specifically to fix.

None of those employers will expect it in 3 months no, but you best believe they will want to see some fucking progress somewhere by the time 3.5 years rolled around, particularly given you promised you would change things in your interviews.

You have to look at this critically, and stop being so forgiving. Because as of December 31st, 2011, the government can detain you forever, without a lawyer. Thanks to this guy, but I suppose NDAA is bush’s fault too? But anyway, the government is no longer going to be forgiving of you, you need to stop giving people free passes for lying to your face.

No, 4-6% is doable though.

344

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

Employment changes don’t happen overnight. The month Obama took office you could not blame the current employment status of the country on him. How long into his term do you think the unemployment rate was still a result of bush?

Also what do you think the unemployment rate SHOULD be? 0%, so even lazy unemployable people should still be able to get a job?[/quote]

I’m a little confused by your statement. Shouldn’t 3.5 years be enough time to say, “Hey President Obama umm have you seen the unemployment rate??”

I’d say a reasonable unemployment rate is around 7% and I don’t think the president has a whole lot to do with it. [/quote]

Yes 3.5 years is plenty. If you look at the Obama graph though it peaks in the middle and has been declining to almost the point where he started. There are several ways to look at this but only 1 way if you siding with a political party.

  • 0 to 1 month: Obama made unemployment worse when starting but was able to recover from some of those mistakes, overall still responsible for a 0.5% or less increase

  • 6 to 12 months: Increased unemployment was mostly Bush’s fault, overall Obama is responsible for a 1.5% or more decline in unemployment

345

[quote]K2000 wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

-Why did government just take over 1/6th of the US economy with the national health care bill? When a free market solution was never even tried.

Ha.[/quote]

we have tried the free market solution since the Medical Insurance Industry swayed from Nonprofit in the 80s
[/quote]

You think there is a free health insurance market in the US?

Cool beans.

[/quote]

There’s no such thing as a “Free Market”. Every market has some controls and is subject to manipulation. That’s one of the reasons that Libertarianism is a joke. It’s a bunch of hypothetical utopian bullshit with no practical application. That’s why nobody takes it seriously.

But if you want to name one economy in the history of the world that had a true “Free Market” I’d be glad to check it out. How did it turn out?
[/quote]

Na, I am sorry, you might just have learned it but that rhetorical trick is simply to old.

Ooooohhhh, ooooohhhh, we will never achieve the Platonic ideal, lets all hang ourselves then.

346

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Do you think someone that knows the government is going to catch them when they fall is going to stop walking the tight rope? Nope.[/quote]

Especially not if he just needs 2 or 3 good years to be able to retire on his own private island.

347

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

Employment changes don’t happen overnight. The month Obama took office you could not blame the current employment status of the country on him. How long into his term do you think the unemployment rate was still a result of bush?[/quote]

The problem is, and you can say this until you are blue in the face, there is not a single employer on the face of this planet that is going to give you 3.5 years to fix the mess they hired you specifically to fix.

None of those employers will expect it in 3 months no, but you best believe they will want to see some fucking progress somewhere by the time 3.5 years rolled around, particularly given you promised you would change things in your interviews.

You have to look at this critically, and stop being so forgiving. Because as of December 31st, 2011, the government can detain you forever, without a lawyer. Thanks to this guy, but I suppose NDAA is bush’s fault too? But anyway, the government is no longer going to be forgiving of you, you need to stop giving people free passes for lying to your face.

No, 4-6% is doable though.[/quote]

Is anything you say during an interview considered a promise? You say what will get you the job and worry about the rest later.

I guess my follow up to 4-6% is where are those numbers coming from? Is it just historical data? You would think after 50+ years of innovative ideas employers could find ways to accomplish the same thing with 1%+ less people, then 5-7% or more is the new norm.

348

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

You have to look at this critically, and stop being so forgiving. Because as of December 31st, 2011, the government can detain you forever, without a lawyer.[/quote]

Kill you, torture you, detain you indefinitely even if you get your day in court and even if they find you no guilty…

I wonder how SWAT teams who shoot your dog for 2 plants that are not even there will behave if the shit really hits the fan.

349

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
@ZEB
http://thinkprogress.org/media/2008/07/13/26124/george-will-gramm/

we were in full blown recession when Bush left[/quote]

I’m aware of that. And four years later after your hero has done his best we are actually worse off!

Now what?

Give him another four years?

ha ha

350

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

I guess my follow up to 4-6% is where are those numbers coming from? Is it just historical data? You would think after 50+ years of innovative ideas employers could find ways to accomplish the same thing with 1%+ less people, then 5-7% or more is the new norm.[/quote]

That assumes that human wants are unlimited which they are not.

We always want more stuff.

That lament was old the day factories came into existence.

351

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
@ZEB
http://thinkprogress.org/media/2008/07/13/26124/george-will-gramm/

we were in full blown recession when Bush left[/quote]

I’m aware of that. And four years later after your hero has done his best we are actually worse off!

Now what?

Give him another four years?

ha ha[/quote]

You would have been worse off either way, but he prolongates the pain unnecessarily and thus guarantees that it will really, really hurt when the band aid finally must come off.

352

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I can not speak what is fair for you ,.
[/quote]

You want to know what I think is unfair?

110 million people on welfare, out of 314 million in the US…

That means I have to labor 50% harder to carry my “fair share” of these 110. Are you going to tell me that every single one is beyond the point of improving their life? 30% of Americans honestly can’t provide for themselves?

If that is true, more tax a) isn’t going to come anywhere near to solving our problem, b) everyone focused on Obama’s attack ads and not this graphic are morons that shouldn’t be allowed to vote.

Think about this:

A 12% increase in AGI will bring in more tax revenue for the treasury than a 5% increase in tax. A 12% increase is AGI is 4 years worth of cost of living raises. 4 Years of 3% raises, ignoring compounding interest for sake of brevity.

So, if we focus on increasing everyone’s earnings, we get more tax revenue, more economic activity, growth, less welfare, happy people that aren’t starting another fucking war that will never end, and the government doesn’t have to steal from tax payer to give it to his buddies.

You know how we start to raise wages? Take away government’s power. Once government has power, businesses will have fear of the market, and have to stop taking so many risks. If they know the Fed isn’t there printing money and the government won’t steal from us to prop up their bad choices, they will have to operate better. And once government loses it’s power they won’t bother trying to influence them, they can’t do shit but pave a road or two.

[/quote]

Commenting on your picture , It is after that great Republican George Bush ran the economy into the ditch that all those people became poor enough to qualify for welfare . I know and the Democratic house EYE ROLL . Zeb you just rehash the rhetoric faux news starts
[/quote]

Bush created about 4 million jobs when he cut taxes by 5% for every working person in America. What has your hero done in four years?

-Unemployment over 8% for something like 44 straight months

-16 trillion dollar debt of which he is responsible for 5 trillion. Of which he said that Bush was unpatriotic for allowing the debt to climb. And Obama raised it by more in less time!

-43 million people on food stamps and a total of 100 million reliant on some sort of government hand out.

What a failure Obama has been!

Now try really hard to refute the facts without your usual tendency to speak in general terms.[/quote]

Employment changes don’t happen overnight. The month Obama took office you could not blame the current employment status of the country on him. How long into his term do you think the unemployment rate was still a result of bush?

Also what do you think the unemployment rate SHOULD be? 0%, so even lazy unemployable people should still be able to get a job?[/quote]

You are essentially saying that four years is not long enough to make a positive difference. But under Obama the economy has grown worse in almost every way. If we were on our way out of it you may have a point. But …I repeat…Obama made things worse!

On the other hand a good President like Ronald Reagan took over a horrible economy, (given to us by another democrat Jimmy Carter), and created 20 million new jobs, dropped inflation and created the most prosperous economy in 100 years.

But then again he was pro capitalism and Obama hates capitalists with every fiber of his being.

353

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

Yes 3.5 years is plenty. If you look at the Obama graph though it peaks in the middle and has been declining to almost the point where he started. There are several ways to look at this but only 1 way if you siding with a political party.

  • 0 to 1 month: Obama made unemployment worse when starting but was able to recover from some of those mistakes, overall still responsible for a 0.5% or less increase

  • 6 to 12 months: Increased unemployment was mostly Bush’s fault, overall Obama is responsible for a 1.5% or more decline in unemployment[/quote]

Well, it wasn’t “Bush’s fault” since Bush didn’t set borrowing costs at the Fed, but in any event, I am gald you brought Bush up - in 2004, left-liberals insisted that Bush be thrown out of office because he presided over a “jobless recovery” - i.e., the recession had ended, but employment wasn’t picking up.

Fast forward to now - the recession ended several years ago, but employment has not picked up. So, left-liberals should be ready to throw Obama out for the same sin, right?

354

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

Yes 3.5 years is plenty. If you look at the Obama graph though it peaks in the middle and has been declining to almost the point where he started. There are several ways to look at this but only 1 way if you siding with a political party.

  • 0 to 1 month: Obama made unemployment worse when starting but was able to recover from some of those mistakes, overall still responsible for a 0.5% or less increase

  • 6 to 12 months: Increased unemployment was mostly Bush’s fault, overall Obama is responsible for a 1.5% or more decline in unemployment[/quote]

Well, it wasn’t “Bush’s fault” since Bush didn’t set borrowing costs at the Fed, but in any event, I am gald you brought Bush up - in 2004, left-liberals insisted that Bush be thrown out of office because he presided over a “jobless recovery” - i.e., the recession had ended, but employment wasn’t picking up.

Fast forward to now - the recession ended several years ago, but employment has not picked up. So, left-liberals should be ready to throw Obama out for the same sin, right?[/quote]

Stop trying to use logic to smarten up a liberal, you know that never works.

355

[quote]ZEB wrote:

On the other hand a good President like Ronald Reagan took over a horrible economy, (given to us by another democrat Jimmy Carter), and created 20 million new jobs, dropped inflation and created the most prosperous economy in 100 years.

But then again he was pro capitalism and Obama hates capitalists with every fiber of his being.
[/quote]

Blatant lies, Carter inherited a cluster fuck from previous administrations and did what needed to be done, he let Volcker hit the brakes hard.

He also deregulated aplenty and Reagan reaped the rewards, though he admittedly stayed the course.

James Earl Carter, great president or greatest president?

356

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]D Public wrote:
A lot of small businesses operate as pass through entities, meaning their earnings are not tax at the entity level but rather at the individual level. So, if the corporate rate is 25%, why would you continue to operate as a pass through entity which would pay 39.6%?

[/quote]

Because taking your profits out of a C-Corp ends up taxing you twice. You will pay 25% when you earn the profit, and the 40% when you claim the dividend received.

But, if it is a closely held business you could just bonus it out to yourself every year, but you still pay 13% payroll tax on it, and then 40% as OI on your individual return. Plus, in the case of litigation, this starts giving people an in to pierce the veil.

Both those situations have you paying more than just staying a pass through and paying the 40% with free flow of capital in and out of your business.

[/quote]

while I agree with you , you do know that the extra profit will go in their pocket and not in lower prices until a recession forces lower prices

357

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

while I agree with you , you do know that the extra profit will go in their pocket and not in lower prices until a recession forces lower prices
[/quote]

A recession forces nothing, stiff competition and raised productivity do.

Or why do you think the price of computing power keeps falling like a stone for decades, no matter what the economic circumstances.

358

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
@ZEB
http://thinkprogress.org/media/2008/07/13/26124/george-will-gramm/

we were in full blown recession when Bush left[/quote]

I’m aware of that. And four years later after your hero has done his best we are actually worse off!

Now what?

Give him another four years?

ha ha[/quote]

Zeb you still do not have me figured out , Obama is not my hero. You know if I were to post the REDICKULESS posts like you post for the Great Republican party (EYE roll )for the democrats I would be flamed to the ninth degree. Your posts not only lack imagination they are weak. It got to be like shooting fish in a barrell

359

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I don’t think the president has a whole lot to do with it. [/quote]

Yes and no…

business owners have to make decisions based on risk, the president, his policies and the conflicts between him and congress effect the landscape in which owners predict the future risk of an economic action.

If the government wasn’t so involved in our day to day life, the above would be a much less significant portion of the equation.

Now expand this beyond mom & pop to place like GM & Wall St, where the government hands them your money, for free, rewarding them for bad behavior. Do you think someone that knows the government is going to catch them when they fall is going to stop walking the tight rope? Nope.[/quote]

I was more or less insinuating that the legislative branch has much more to do with unemployment as far as government involvement goes than the POTUS. Otherwise I agree with you. I didn’t mean for it to sound like the gov didn’t influence unemployment at all.

360

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

On the other hand a good President like Ronald Reagan took over a horrible economy, (given to us by another democrat Jimmy Carter), and created 20 million new jobs, dropped inflation and created the most prosperous economy in 100 years.

But then again he was pro capitalism and Obama hates capitalists with every fiber of his being.
[/quote]

Blatant lies, Carter inherited a cluster fuck from previous administrations and did what needed to be done, he let Volcker hit the brakes hard.

He also deregulated aplenty and Reagan reaped the rewards, though he admittedly stayed the course.

James Earl Carter, great president or greatest president?[/quote]

Carefull Orion we have no room for fact when discussing the Republican party