[quote]ZEB wrote:
It’s called class ware fare, dividing America pitting one economic class against another in order to win an election. What a high minded person Obama is. What hope and change he has inspired.
LOL[/quote]
It IS class warfare, but not in the way you pretend it is. Investment income is taxed at less than half the rate that work is. That is simply not fair to working people who don’t enjoy the luxury of investment income. It’s class warfare but it’s coming from the top down, not the bottom up.
Republicans seem to think that the big problem facing America today is how can rich people get even richer. I don’t think that’s a good campaign slogan, but you guys give it a shot.
You had 10 years of Bush tax cuts to show how giving tax breaks to millionaires would create jobs. That theory has been shown to be complete bullshit. Lets try something else now.
But this is a derail, lets get back to Romney’s tax returns. So, you guys think he’s not showing them strictly on principle?
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
TO ME it’s only relevant in that Romney needs to start defining himself and his vision [/quote]
His unemployment (2003-2007) was the most stable in the period shown, and was below the national average for all his years but 2006
Here is a good start man. This is who he is.
The no flip on gay marriage surprises me as I though he was the first American Governor to demand the issuance of licenses after a court case, and not putting it on a ballot…
Romney’s % of income paid in taxes, off-shore accounts, tax-shelters, etc. just are not what could be the bigger “smoking gun” (even if there is one)…all this is just rich-folk stuff that all wealthy people do.
It would be to what extent he and his Company benefitted from outsourcing companies, and the fiascos of companies like ENRON, WorldCom; , etc., etc. in the early 20’s.
This IS fair game because Romney has positioned himself as the “Job-Creating Business Man”.
Does this all deflect from discussions of the current economy?
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
It would be to what extent he and his Company benefitted from outsourcing companies,[/quote]
Assuming Bain works like every other PE firm on Earth, there is a zero % chance of learning this information from his tax returns. Zero % chance.
And Bain would be dumb as hell for releasing that. They start disclosing that type of information and they will lose investors. Investors don’t commit billions to companies that kiss and tell.
Again, while not zero, it is still very unlikely any tax return will tell you this information. Outside of owning and dumping the stock, you’d never know that is where it came from.
But, lets say in those years he has huge AGI’s. People who don’t know what they are talking about are going to start “connecting the dots” and suddenly every facebook meme will be “Mitt got rich tanking Enron and stealing our retirement.” And we both know once someone puts something on an internet meme it must be true.
Jesus, this is the race for POTUS, your penis size is fair game, lol.
I mean I get why people are fired up about it, but they are going to be pissed when all they find out is he pays about 15% in taxes. They will flip out. Then, someone with half a clue will point out he got a 130k foreign tax credit, and they will foam at the mouth and say the government gave him that for outsourcing jobs…
[quote]K2000 wrote:
Seems like the consensus here is this:
You guys think NOT revealing his taxes is a big WIN for Romney’s campaign (I don’t see the logic there, but hey, it’s PWI). Nobody could actually explain the GAIN there, but on the other hand, it’s easy to imagine he’s doing it to hide something. By not releasing, Romney insures that this will be a question that lasts all the way up to election day. Romney is relatively unknown to voters – not releasing keeps him a mystery. I don’t think voters want a mystery president, with looming questions (is he hiding money in offshore bank account? etc.) Just my opinion.
You guys wish this thread was about anything else but Romney’s taxes (ZEB) or wish this thread was about Obama’s school transcripts, and one joker who still thinks the president’s birth certificate is questionable. Way to dodge the question, guys. I wonder if voters will accept a dodge, too?
Most people don’t give a shit what Obama’s grades were. He’s obviously smart. If Obama was campaigning on his great scholarship record, then maybe there would be the same interest in his transcripts. But he’s not. However, Romney’s running SPECIFICALLY on his financial expertise, but he doesn’t want anybody to examine his finances. That’s a huge question mark. Too bad you can’t see it.
Do you think the media likes unanswered questions (like WHY won’t he release his tax forms?) I know one of you guys will bring up the birth certificate… Hawaii did release his birth certificate, they just didn’t release it to every dipshit who demanded it (they got thousand s of requests). Also, withholding that wasn’t Obama’s call, it was a decision by the state of Hawaii.
When Romney releases his tax returns, will that be a flip-flop?
[/quote]
Obama is trying to dodge his four years of total failure by even bringing up Romeny’s tax returns. How foolish, yet it’s his only chance to get the voters attention off of his dismal record as President. And…I bet if fails![/quote]
Not Obama’s four years of failure. The republican legislature’s years of failures.
Romney has something to hide. His father was famous for his desire for transparency, and he was an open book when it came to his taxes… Guess the fruit fell far away from the tree, at least when it comes to transparency and taxes. Why would Romney be so against something his father supported, that was actually quite noble and honest?
Bugs the crap out of a lot of republicans in office, but unsurprisingly none here.
[quote]Severiano wrote:
Romney has something to hide. His father was famous for his desire for transparency, and he was an open book when it came to his taxes… Guess the fruit fell far away from the tree, at least when it comes to transparency and taxes. Why would Romney be so against something his father supported, that was actually quite noble and honest?
Bugs the crap out of a lot of republicans in office, but unsurprisingly none here. [/quote]
Because quite frankly it is a none issue.
Quite apart from that I want to know about every wart on a mans ass when he has the finger of the button of the deadliest arsenal in history, it simply matters not how much taxes he paid.
Also, back in the olden days there were still a lot of people around that thought that it was something to be proud of if you were a success in life.
This no longer seems to be so and I am not looking forward to a rather undignified spectacle and the economic fallacies we will be swamped in for weeks.
Also, back in the olden days there were still a lot of people around that thought that it was something to be proud of if you were a success in life.
This no longer seems to be so and I am not looking forward to a rather undignified spectacle and the economic fallacies we will be swamped in for weeks. [/quote]
Haha, this.
Back then people wanted to achieve and celebrate success.
Now? they want to get $ for nothing. and hate people for having more than them, whether they earned it or not. They want to justify handouts by saying the taxes they paid actually built the businesses this country was founded on.
[quote]Severiano wrote:
Romney has something to hide. His father was famous for his desire for transparency, and he was an open book when it came to his taxes… Guess the fruit fell far away from the tree, at least when it comes to transparency and taxes. Why would Romney be so against something his father supported, that was actually quite noble and honest?
Bugs the crap out of a lot of republicans in office, but unsurprisingly none here. [/quote]
Because quite frankly it is a none issue.
Quite apart from that I want to know about every wart on a mans ass when he has the finger of the button of the deadliest arsenal in history, it simply matters not how much taxes he paid.
Also, back in the olden days there were still a lot of people around that thought that it was something to be proud of if you were a success in life.
This no longer seems to be so and I am not looking forward to a rather undignified spectacle and the economic fallacies we will be swamped in for weeks. [/quote]
Haha, so wrong on so many levels.
You don’t need to avoid or cheat taxes to be successful, lets get that right out of the way. I have no idea why you even bring this up, it is a total non issue and absolutely misleading.
Explain to me then why Romney won’t release his taxes, considering the legacy of his father.
[quote]Severiano wrote:
You don’t need to avoid or cheat taxes to be successful, lets get that right out of the way. I have no idea why you even bring this up, it is a total non issue and absolutely misleading.
[quote]D Public wrote:
i’m more interested in if he participated in the swiss amnesty program…I will probably never get to know…
[/quote]
It wasn’t just Swiss, it was any foreign income.
And I don’t believe you would be able to learn that information from a 1040 either.
It is funny, because it seems like most of the answers people want can’t be gotten from a tax return. And yet people keep calling for them… Makes me feel good about my “most American’s don’t know what they are looking at when it comes to the 1040 anyway” speculation.
[quote]Severiano wrote:
You don’t need to avoid or cheat taxes to be successful, lets get that right out of the way. I have no idea why you even bring this up, it is a total non issue and absolutely misleading.
[/quote]
He didn’t bring it up.
At least not in the post you quoted.[/quote]
It was via implication. He brought up that people used to be happy for those who were successful in life. That is great, the same holds today. But when there is a set of rules for the successful, and a different set of rules for those not in that category, it’s rigged.
[quote]Severiano wrote:
But when there is a set of rules for the successful, and a different set of rules for those not in that category, it’s rigged. [/quote]
Yeah I know. People who don’t make money get:
Free Food
Free College
Free Doctors
Free Cell Phones
Free Housing
Free internet, heat & hot water
Free Schools
Free Roads
Free infrastructure
And the people who make money get to pay for it.
Get this, now a days, the people with the free stuff, don’t feel that they get enough free stuff. They want more free stuff, because the people with money went out and turned their money into more money…
I have a client who made for themselves and investors hundreds of millions of dollars developing a medical imaging device that gives real time 3d feedback to surgeons. How dare those fuckers save lives, and make a buck while they do it. Assholes should give back to the people, and saving lives doesn’t count, they should give people free money.
[quote]Severiano wrote:
But when there is a set of rules for the successful, and a different set of rules for those not in that category, it’s rigged. [/quote]
Yeah I know. People who don’t make money get:
Free Food
Free College
Free Doctors
Free Cell Phones
Free Housing
Free internet, heat & hot water
Free Schools
Free Roads
Free infrastructure
And the people who make money get to pay for it.
Get this, now a days, the people with the free stuff, don’t feel that they get enough free stuff. They want more free stuff, because the people with money went out and turned their money into more money…
I have a client who made for themselves and investors hundreds of millions of dollars developing a medical imaging device that gives real time 3d feedback to surgeons. How dare those fuckers save lives, and make a buck while they do it. Assholes should give back to the people, and saving lives doesn’t count, they should give people free money. [/quote]
Who is against your friends making money? I don’t get where you are even coming from.
As for the people wanting free stuff, nice double standard. It’s okay to cheat on your taxes and get free money, but it isn’t okay to do something like collect unemployment when you get laid off? Or get food aide when you are a single parent? You whine about food, have you ever tried to make a pb and J out of government peanut butter and the super runny jelly? You call that food?
It’s okay to de-regulate and encourage companies to have their manufacturing done overseas, even if it means people losing jobs here. Great idea, just what we need. Our country is a nation full of shopping malls and fast food joints, we produce jack shit because a CEO’s priority is his or her investors. If they can ship labor, or sales overseas (which so many have) that’s extra cash. How dare I get upset about that. I mean, why should I be complaining when someone who makes a business decision as such to increase his and his friends profits, while making those they used to employ jobless. Brilliant ideas, just brilliant. Good and Christian too. Gonna make a whole lot of jobs since the profits trickle down so well, and there are so many brilliant points of light, and compassionate conservatives… Quit being silly, I’m not stupid.
[quote]Severiano wrote:
Who is against your friends making money? I don’t get where you are even coming from. [/quote]
Lets see: Obama, Occupy, should I go on?
Who is for cheating on taxes? I don’t get where you are even coming from.
I have no problem with my tax dollars going to help out those that need it, and use that money to get back on their feet.
Shit, I’m alive because of food stamps. Grew up on that shit. I know what it is like. I don’t have a problem with people getting assistance, none at all. I think you are missing the larger point I am making. Maybe I’m not being clear. IDK.
Look up DPAD, section 199 deduction.
If anyone is too lazy I can explain it, just not now.
Many of the the jobs going overseas have as much to do with the “little guy” and the tax rates in America as they do investor greed.
Yeah, how dare they earn money for pension funds, people’s 401k’s and children’s 529 plans?
Fuckers.
You know, it costs 35% to bring those profits back into America. 35%. Do you think companies might bring some of that back into America if they could keep more than 65% of the money?
Honestly?
What is better 10-15% of a lot, or 35% of nothing?
[quote]
Like I said, two different sets of rules. [/quote]
You can invest in foreign companies too. No one is stopping you. Foreign companies invest in American markets as well you know. They just pay 35% to do so… So seeing as the market here sucks, the President is spouting off about how small businesses aren’t as important as the government and they only keep 65% of their income, while they can invest in a developing nation that actually has growth, better tax rates and a system that isn’t going to take 35% of their money, what do you think they are going to do?
I never claimed or intentionally implied you were stupid, sorry if any of my posts came off that way.
[quote]Severiano wrote:
You don’t need to avoid or cheat taxes to be successful, lets get that right out of the way. I have no idea why you even bring this up, it is a total non issue and absolutely misleading.
[/quote]
He didn’t bring it up.
At least not in the post you quoted.[/quote]
It was via implication. He brought up that people used to be happy for those who were successful in life. That is great, the same holds today. But when there is a set of rules for the successful, and a different set of rules for those not in that category, it’s rigged. [/quote]
It is rigged, always was, always will be.
However, if you think that anyone will find anything about cheating on his taxes in his tax returns I dont know what to say.