FC Community
Discussion Boards => Off-Topic => Debate & Discuss => Topic started by: sigmapi1501 on January 25, 2012, 09:24:00 pm
-
Nice. Presidential Hopeful Mitt Romney Paid Less in Federal Income tax (11 percent) than A man making 60,000 a year.
He earned $27,283,915. So just the taxes he avoided paying alone could support your family for a few generations.
He has a lot to gain by not closing tax loopholes. How could you expect him to support any bill that would do so. I'm not even suggesting adding new taxes, simply enforcing current taxes.
So your choices are now a "Family Values" candidate that is an adulterer and swinger.... Or a man that uses charitable donations (around 3 mil to the Mormon Church) to lower his tax rate.
Before anyone makes the fox argument that "You would pay less taxes if there were a loophole", remember that I AM NOT RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT!
-
Ah, if only I made enough to make tax-loopholes worthwhile, (I still wouldn't run for prez - they seem to grey-out early on).
-
Saw this on another forum I visit.
(http://27.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_luxw5t8xo91qcw1txo1_500.jpg)
-
:wave: flat tax no deductios the more u make the more u pay period. i dont care if u buy a house have 20 kids, investment income earned income no matter what u pay the % tax rate on what ur income is. no more tax codes. no more i.r.s. no more bull. just pat ur taxes period.
-
Nice. Presidential Hopeful Mitt Romney Paid Less in Federal Income tax (11 percent) than A man making 60,000 a year.
He earned $27,283,915. So just the taxes he avoided paying alone could support your family for a few generations.
He has a lot to gain by not closing tax loopholes. How could you expect him to support any bill that would do so. I'm not even suggesting adding new taxes, simply enforcing current taxes.
So your choices are now a "Family Values" candidate that is an adulterer and swinger.... Or a man that uses charitable donations (around 3 mil to the Mormon Church) to lower his tax rate.
Before anyone makes the fox argument that "You would pay less taxes if there were a loophole", remember that I AM NOT RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT!
He already paid taxes on that money. He took his money and invested it again and paid taxes, again, on the profits from that investment (at a huge risk too, had he lost his investment he could only have deducted 3000 dollars from his taxes). He also donated about 7 million to charities. You know the economy isn't a zero sum game. People like Romney investing their money allows for the creation of new income and it is a very good thing. He isn't taking anything from anyone he is more accurately creating wealth for others (in addition to himself) through his investments. Just how high do you imagine you could raise capital gains before people would stop investing? You might get it to 20% but anymore than that offset the reward to risk ratio and would discourage investments. How much in taxes do you think Mitt would pay on his money that he already paid taxes on in the first place if he didn't invest it? Didn't consider that did you? The net loss to the overall economy, if investors stopped investing (and thus removing your silly capital gains rates arguments from the equation) would be devastating.
What you say about taxes would apply to every single politician so it is a bit fallacious to apply it specially to Mitt Romney. Basically that issue is entirely moot. I see you mentioned some of his charitable donations and you tried to put it in a bad light at that. You cannot say that he used his donations to lower his tax rate, you can only speculate as to the reasons and even so this is fully legal and encouraged so why try to make it out as a bad thing?
I don't like loopholes either, but I don't recall you arguing once that Obama or the democrats fix the issue. For some reason you seem to put the responsibility on people not in power. You even go so far as to suggest that by electing them, the conditions that are such as they are now, will stand. You suggest this as if there is an alternative in keeping Obama as president when you tacitly reveal that he has done nothing regarding it either.
-
Nice. Presidential Hopeful Mitt Romney Paid Less in Federal Income tax (11 percent) than A man making 60,000 a year.
He earned $27,283,915. So just the taxes he avoided paying alone could support your family for a few generations.
He has a lot to gain by not closing tax loopholes. How could you expect him to support any bill that would do so. I'm not even suggesting adding new taxes, simply enforcing current taxes.
So your choices are now a "Family Values" candidate that is an adulterer and swinger.... Or a man that uses charitable donations (around 3 mil to the Mormon Church) to lower his tax rate.
Before anyone makes the fox argument that "You would pay less taxes if there were a loophole", remember that I AM NOT RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT!
So Romney paid $3,000,000 to Mormon Church just so he could save ~$330,000?? That makes a lot of sense. Sounds like a great loophole.
-
So Romney paid $3,000,000 to Mormon Church just so he could save ~$330,000?? That makes a lot of sense. Sounds like a great loophole.
It might make more sense if the objective was to induce mormons to vote for a mormon.
-
So Romney paid $3,000,000 to Mormon Church just so he could save ~$330,000?? That makes a lot of sense. Sounds like a great loophole.
It might make more sense if the objective was to induce mormons to vote for a mormon.
Giving 10 percent of your income back to the church is common practice in the Mormon faith. That's all Romney did.
-
:wave: flat tax no deductios the more u make the more u pay period. i dont care if u buy a house have 20 kids, investment income earned income no matter what u pay the % tax rate on what ur income is. no more tax codes. no more i.r.s. no more bull. just pat ur taxes period.
I just philosophically disagree with you here. I don't feel like a person working a minimum wage job shoulder the same tax burden as a millionaire.
-
I don't feel like a person working a minimum wage job shoulder the same tax burden as a millionaire.
Why not? If it's, say, a 10% flat-tax rate then someone with a taxable income of $30,000 would pay $3,000 and someone else with a taxable income of $3,000,000 would pay $30,000 in taxes. Of course, the devil in the details would rest in any wiggle-room as to what constitutes 'taxable income', (just as it does now).
-
I don't feel like a person working a minimum wage job shoulder the same tax burden as a millionaire.
Why not? If it's, say, a 10% flat-tax rate then someone with a taxable income of $30,000 would pay $3,000 and someone else with a taxable income of $3,000,000 would pay $30,000 in taxes. Of course, the devil in the details would rest in any wiggle-room as to what constitutes 'taxable income', (just as it does now).
True, but right now almost half (about 47%) of people don't pay any federal income tax because they make too little. I don't equate "fair" share to "equal" share. Adding taxes as an expense to someone barely getting by so Donald Trump can build another skyscraper doesn't seem fair to me.
-
I don't feel like a person working a minimum wage job shoulder the same tax burden as a millionaire.
Why not? If it's, say, a 10% flat-tax rate then someone with a taxable income of $30,000 would pay $3,000 and someone else with a taxable income of $3,000,000 would pay $30,000 in taxes. Of course, the devil in the details would rest in any wiggle-room as to what constitutes 'taxable income', (just as it does now).
True, but right now almost half (about 47%) of people don't pay any federal income tax because they make too little. I don't equate "fair" share to "equal" share. Adding taxes as an expense to someone barely getting by so Donald Trump can build another skyscraper doesn't seem fair to me.
While I understand what you mean with this you must consider the damage that can result from treating some citizens differently than others. Votes are easily leveraged this way and "class" (more aptly income/economic) warfare is than waged by the political factions. If 51% of people pay no taxes then you end up with severe damage to any democratic decisions (granted we are a republic but we elect democratically and vote on some issues democratically). Once that critical mass 51% is reached there is no longer any form of democracy left in our Republic and it becomes an animal of control where they simple majority dictate to the rest. If everyone has skin in the game (for instance those paying no taxes incur a penalty to the government assistance at an equal percent to those who pay taxes incurring a taxation) then votes cannot be leveraged by candidates/parties in such a manner as everyone is effected at the same ratio. These are the types of issues that we as citizens must watch for closely. Regardless of how well they may benefit us immediately, or punish those we deem guilty of something, we must actively work to prevent such things from occurring so that we can protect the very mechanism that was designed to provide us with our freedoms. Even if it benefits us now there will come a time when a new simple majority emerges within the remaining that exacts such dictatorship over us over issues we hold dear.
-
I don't feel like a person working a minimum wage job shoulder the same tax burden as a millionaire.
Why not? If it's, say, a 10% flat-tax rate then someone with a taxable income of $30,000 would pay $3,000 and someone else with a taxable income of $3,000,000 would pay $30,000 in taxes. Of course, the devil in the details would rest in any wiggle-room as to what constitutes 'taxable income', (just as it does now).
True, but right now almost half (about 47%) of people don't pay any federal income tax because they make too little. I don't equate "fair" share to "equal" share. Adding taxes as an expense to someone barely getting by so Donald Trump can build another skyscraper doesn't seem fair to me.
While I understand what you mean with this you must consider the damage that can result from treating some citizens differently than others. Votes are easily leveraged this way and "class" (more aptly income/economic) warfare is than waged by the political factions. If 51% of people pay no taxes then you end up with severe damage to any democratic decisions (granted we are a republic but we elect democratically and vote on some issues democratically). Once that critical mass 51% is reached there is no longer any form of democracy left in our Republic and it becomes an animal of control where they simple majority dictate to the rest. If everyone has skin in the game (for instance those paying no taxes incur a penalty to the government assistance at an equal percent to those who pay taxes incurring a taxation) then votes cannot be leveraged by candidates/parties in such a manner as everyone is effected at the same ratio. These are the types of issues that we as citizens must watch for closely. Regardless of how well they may benefit us immediately, or punish those we deem guilty of something, we must actively work to prevent such things from occurring so that we can protect the very mechanism that was designed to provide us with our freedoms. Even if it benefits us now there will come a time when a new simple majority emerges within the remaining that exacts such dictatorship over us over issues we hold dear.
I don't completely disagree with this. However, with this logic only 1% of the population right now should be voting republican.
-
Tax consumption rather than income. Check out a little bill that's been making its way around, HR 25, S 13; or even Steve Forbes's suggestions on the matter.
-
it always seem that in the end, the middle class takes the biggest hit; too "rich" for government aid, and not rich enough to get tax exemptions. The rich should pay the most, but not in America.
-
The income tax is the biggest every perpetrated on the American people. As Reagan discovered in the Grace commission, all the tax revenue goes toward paying the interest on the money that the US borrows from the private Federal Reserve bank. Up until 1913 America didn't have an income tax. How is it fair that you work the hours at your job week in and week out, but before you see a penny of it, the gov't decides how much you get to keep of your hard earned labor? There's a really good documentary "Freedom to Facsism" just google it that goes into the history of the income tax. There are people who ask "Well, without the income tax how would X gov't program be funded?" Look at your cell phone/cable and other bills and see how much taxes you pay with those. You pay so many more taxes in other places that it's insane.
This whole business about Romney's taxes is just a bunch of nonsense. The idea that you can be villified in America for making money is strange to me. As long as Romney came by it honestly and not in the form of gov't bailouts and such, it's a non-issue. I have more concerns about Romney's views on Foreign policy than what he does in his own life.
-
I am not rich,but do belive in a flat tax with no loopholes. Having been in business for ourselves , if we had to pay taxes each time we bought and sold an item and everyone else had to do the same we wouldn't be in this situation. (Well that is if the govt. kept theirsicky fingers out) They have robbed ss so much and owe so much in i.o.u.s. If it was paid back ss wouldn't be in trouble.