Why Won't Romney Release His Tax Returns?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
361

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[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.
[/quote]

If Reagan was elected this year, do you think he could still accomplish everything he did in the 80s?

362

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

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

I have integrity. I don’t lie to get a job.

You know that extra 2% your cool with being unemployed will end up on welfare right? Because it is more likely to be uneducated (read college degree) to be unemployed.

363

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[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.
[/quote]

If Reagan was elected this year, do you think he could still accomplish everything he did in the 80s?[/quote]

Not without Carter doing the heavy lifting first.

Luckily he is still around and I dont think he would seek reelection.

Come to think of it Volcker is still alive too, I think…

364

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[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
[/quote]

Or, and get this, in a free market someone comes along and steals your customers by offering either a better product or the same product at a lower price. And if you’re making enough money, a capitalist will notice and want to try and make some himself. An Obama supporter will see you making money and demand the government take your profits and give it to him because he helped you build your business.

Imagine that. In a market where the government doesn’t dictate competition, the prices can set themselves.

365

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

Well, it wasn’t “Bush’s fault” since Bush didn’t set borrowing costs at the Fed, [/quote]

Good point.

366

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

Well, it wasn’t “Bush’s fault” since Bush didn’t set borrowing costs at the Fed, [/quote]

Good point.[/quote]

He wanted Greenspan, he wanted Bernanke.

At least with Greenspan he knew what he would get.

367

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[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
[/quote]

Or, and get this, in a free market someone comes along and steals your customers by offering either a better product or the same product at a lower price. And if you’re making enough money, a capitalist will notice and want to try and make some himself. An Obama supporter will see you making money and demand the government take your profits and give it to him because he helped you build your business.

Imagine that. In a market where the government doesn’t dictate competition, the prices can set themselves.
[/quote]

IMO to get a true free market you would have do away with the really big businesses and go to smaller ones big businesses are as organized as cartels. None of them would start a pissing match

368

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

IMO to get a true free market you would have do away with the really big businesses and go to smaller ones big businesses are as organized as cartels. None of them would start a pissing match[/quote]

Doubtful, not only do cartels never work in the long run, they also could not get away with profiting from it that much, because the minute they overdo it, someone else is going to enter the market.

If they make 20%, anyone who is able to put up the money is going in to make 19%, the next one will figure that 18% for him is better than 19% for you and so further and so on.

That is why cartels sooner or later turned to government in order to keep their cartels going, they never managed to pull them off.

Rothbard has a whole lecture on them on Youtube, which is worth it for the fact alone that a walking, talking, cackling encyclopedia is a sight to behold.

In his economic history of the US or some such, also on Youtube, he has a few stories on how Rockefeller tried to build a refining monopoly, someone else a molasses cartel and how Germans tried to keep Bromide producers out of Europe, though the last one could be Woods.

369

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

IMO to get a true free market you would have do away with the really big businesses and go to smaller ones big businesses are as organized as cartels. None of them would start a pissing match[/quote]

Doubtful, not only do cartels never work in the long run, they also could not get away with profiting from it that much, because the minute they overdo it, someone else is going to enter the market.

If they make 20%, anyone who is able to put up the money is going in to make 19%, the next one will figure that 18% for him is better than 19% for you and so further and so on.

That is why cartels sooner or later turned to government in order to keep their cartels going, they never managed to pull them off.

Rothbard has a whole lecture on them on Youtube, which is worth it for the fact alone that a walking, talking, cackling encyclopedia is a sight to behold.

In his economic history of the US or some such, also on Youtube, he has a few stories on how Rockefeller tried to build a refining monopoly, someone else a molasses cartel and how Germans tried to keep Bromide producers out of Europe, though the last one could be Woods. [/quote]

you can post a link but that does not guarantee I will agree with Rothbard. IMO there are many economists with many points of view and one has to be cynical when listening to them . Some have motives that benefit their livelihood and that is all they care about

370
371

Our society was not based on inherited wealth and monarchies. It was based on a right to have certain freedoms in life. Those freedoms may enable some to become very wealthy, but there comes a point where wealth and power restrict other’s freedoms.

This is a virtuous republic that attempts to prevent harmful accumulation of power and wealth. The wealthy can not exercise so much power that they effectively rule our society. We are a democracy - not a plutocracy.

It is also simply not true that financial reward is what has driven innovation in this country. It has always been a desire to create - not money.

When you understand that, then you will understand why progressive taxation is necessary. The goal of taxation is not to destroy or impede others but to restore a natural balance to society.

372

[quote]D Public wrote:
Our society was not based on inherited wealth and monarchies. It was based on a right to have certain freedoms in life. Those freedoms may enable some to become very wealthy, but there comes a point where wealth and power restrict other’s freedoms.

This is a virtuous republic that attempts to prevent harmful accumulation of power and wealth. The wealthy can not exercise so much power that they effectively rule our society. We are a democracy - not a plutocracy.

It is also simply not true that financial reward is what has driven innovation in this country. It has always been a desire to create - not money.

When you understand that, then you will understand why progressive taxation is necessary. The goal of taxation is not to destroy or impede others but to restore a natural balance to society.
[/quote]

I HAVE TO ADIMIT I AN ON THE FENCE …

373

[quote]D Public wrote:
Our society was not based on inherited wealth and monarchies. It was based on a right to have certain freedoms in life. Those freedoms may enable some to become very wealthy, but there comes a point where wealth and power restrict other’s freedoms.

This is a virtuous republic that attempts to prevent harmful accumulation of power and wealth. The wealthy can not exercise so much power that they effectively rule our society. We are a democracy - not a plutocracy.

It is also simply not true that financial reward is what has driven innovation in this country. It has always been a desire to create - not money.

When you understand that, then you will understand why progressive taxation is necessary. The goal of taxation is not to destroy or impede others but to restore a natural balance to society.
[/quote]

Yeah, I know.

Captains of industry create for the joy of creation alone, doctors just wanna be healers…

God forbid anyone had any selfish bone in his body.

But, even if that were true, garbage collectors, truck drivers, brick layers, meaning, 95% or so, kind of do it for the money.

374

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]D Public wrote:
Our society was not based on inherited wealth and monarchies. It was based on a right to have certain freedoms in life. Those freedoms may enable some to become very wealthy, but there comes a point where wealth and power restrict other’s freedoms.

This is a virtuous republic that attempts to prevent harmful accumulation of power and wealth. The wealthy can not exercise so much power that they effectively rule our society. We are a democracy - not a plutocracy.

It is also simply not true that financial reward is what has driven innovation in this country. It has always been a desire to create - not money.

When you understand that, then you will understand why progressive taxation is necessary. The goal of taxation is not to destroy or impede others but to restore a natural balance to society.
[/quote]

Yeah, I know.

Captains of industry create for the joy of creation alone, doctors just wanna be healers…

God forbid anyone had any selfish bone in his body.

But, even if that were true, garbage collectors, truck drivers, brick layers, meaning, 95% or so, kind of do it for the money. [/quote]

Not so much today, but Americans used to have pride in what they do even if it was a ‘lowly’ job.

375

[quote]D Public wrote:

When you understand that, then you will understand why progressive taxation is necessary. The goal of taxation is not to destroy or impede others but to restore a natural balance to society.
[/quote]

No, the goal of taxation is to fund the legitimate functions of government not to restore any ‘natural balance’ that you perceive.

376

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]D Public wrote:
Our society was not based on inherited wealth and monarchies. It was based on a right to have certain freedoms in life. Those freedoms may enable some to become very wealthy, but there comes a point where wealth and power restrict other’s freedoms.

This is a virtuous republic that attempts to prevent harmful accumulation of power and wealth. The wealthy can not exercise so much power that they effectively rule our society. We are a democracy - not a plutocracy.

It is also simply not true that financial reward is what has driven innovation in this country. It has always been a desire to create - not money.

When you understand that, then you will understand why progressive taxation is necessary. The goal of taxation is not to destroy or impede others but to restore a natural balance to society.
[/quote]

Yeah, I know.

Captains of industry create for the joy of creation alone, doctors just wanna be healers…

God forbid anyone had any selfish bone in his body.

But, even if that were true, garbage collectors, truck drivers, brick layers, meaning, 95% or so, kind of do it for the money. [/quote]

Not so much today, but Americans used to have pride in what they do even if it was a ‘lowly’ job.[/quote]

Providing for a family, even though it is a shitty job gives a life meaning.

Take that away and you take away a lot of what makes 90% get up in the morning.

377

The income tax was created to tax the rich.

We didn’t always have an income tax. It is a relatively new tool to collect revenue. We funded the government through tariffs and excises mainly. However, by the early 1900s, our society began to undergo a transition, and there was vast amounts of wealth that were escaping taxation. Tariffs no longer appropriately served as the best form of tax because wealth took new forms. So, in 1913, we passed the 16th amendment which gave the united states the right to collect tax on income.

The income tax was a direct response to rise of accumulation of wealth. Otherwise, we would still be using consumption based taxes.

It was a response to the gilded age. After the great depression, FDR took it a step further by implementing regulation. It took nearly 70 years after FDR, for people to unravel the safeguards that he placed to protect our society. It has only been as of recent that individuals were capable of building mansions as big as some of the mansions that were built in the early 1900s. Executives just didn’t make that much money from 1940-late 1970s. Bond traders at banks like Merill and Goldman were not making major amounts of money until the 1980s.

It was carter that decided to deregulate the banks. It was absolute mistake. Now they exercise too much power. They’ve infiltrated our government, and they block every attempt that is made to curb their influence.

378

[quote]K2000 wrote:
The Romney tax issue isn’t going to go away. Brand new ad:

But this is the first I’ve heard of the “son of BOSS” scandal (I had to look it up… basically, it appears to be a technique for cheating on deductions). Romney could end all the speculation tomorrow, by releasing his taxes (they’re all set to go, since he’s submitted 20 years worth to the McCain campaign.) It’s not like it would take a huge effort. At this point, he’s put more effort into NOT releasing his taxes.

If Romney is going to win, he needs to be gaining ground now. But he’s not, he’s losing ground. The other day, his spokeswoman recommended Romneycare as a solution for people who lost their health insurance (everybody, just move to Massachusetts). So, Obamacare is off the table as a campaign issue now (like I said it would be). When Romney says he’s going to repeal it, now everybody knows he’s just pandering to the Republican base. His handlers don’t believe Romneycare is bad.

But this tax thing will continue to be an issue. It’s certainly going to be a topic of conversation during the debates. Right now, Romney is ducking the media (he only goes on shows where they throw softballs). He’s hiding from the press. You really think the media will just forget all about this?

If Romney was smart, he would have released all his tax info right after he locked up the primary. That way, it would have been old news by election time. Too late now![/quote]

IMO Romney has decided releasing his returns would do more harm than all the flak from not releasing them

379

[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]

I am more in line for nonprofit

380

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

this is a great post , I love it when Reagan refers to evil rich people