Liberals and Romney's taxes

[Jim in CT]

I just want to make sure I understand this correctly, make sure I haven't missed anything, so if I'm wrong, I want the liberals here to correct me.

Liberals are upset about Romney's low effective tax rate for the 2 years' of returns he released. And they are really upset about what his tax rate may have been in prior years, because the thought it that if he won't release those records, he must therefore be hiding something, correct?

OK...

So, when did liberals establish this conviction over taxes? I don't remember liberals being this concerned when Obama nominated Tim Geithner to be Treasury Secretary. The guy who now runs the Treasury, didn't want to pay "his fair share", and wouldn't pay "his fair share" until he was forced to do so by the IRS. I never heard liberals express any concern over this.

So, from where do liberals get the nerve to hold Romney's feet to the fire? Is the IRS saying they had tax disputes with Romney, like they did with Geithner? Is there one shred of evidence to suggest that Romney broke any laws?

This is what liberals do. Instead of debating the merits of Romney's ideas (which liberals will do almost anything to avoid), they must demonize him. Instead of trying to convice us why we shouldn't be concerned that every liberal state in the nation is on the verge of bankruptcy, liberals are more concerned that Romney is "out of touch" because his wife wears a $900 shirt. (Yet, for some reason, those same liberals don't care that Michelle Obama wore a $6800 jacket recently.)

Once again, liberals show that they have zero shame, and that their hypocrisy knows no bounds...

[spence]

Not sure what the liberals think but I sure don't have any issue with a $900 shirt. In fact I might even own one

The current to-do is over why Romney won't release his most current returns, which some suspect may show a zero tax burden due to a combination of offshore tax shelters and heavy claimed losses during the recession.

-spence

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by spence

Not sure what the liberals think but I sure don't have any issue with a $900 shirt. In fact I might even own one

The current to-do is over why Romney won't release his most current returns, which some suspect may show a zero tax burden due to a combination of offshore tax shelters and heavy claimed losses during the recession.

-spence

Inuendo- some,suspect and may.
Maybe he doesn't want to show up Biden with Joe's paltry $350 charity deduction.

[spence]

Originally Posted by justplugit

Inuendo- some,suspect and may.
Maybe he doesn't want to show up Biden with Joe's paltry $350 charity deduction.

Given he's loaded and a Mormon I'm sure his charitable deduction is massive if he's allowed to report his giving to his church.

But showing a zero liability for even a year would be incredibly embarrassing and fit the Dems message perfectly...that the rich get to play by a different set of rules.

-spence

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by spence

Given he's loaded and a Mormon I'm sure his charitable deduction is massive if he's allowed to report his giving to his church.

But showing a zero liability for even a year would be incredibly embarrassing and fit the Dems message perfectly...that the rich get to play by a different set of rules.

-spence

Church is a legitmate deduction open to everyone including Joe.

Joe is a typical Lib, spend other perople's money on the poor and
get his hand stuck in his pocket when it comes to his cash.

It has been shown over and over that conservatives are more charitable
in giving $ than the Libs.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by justplugit

Church is a legitmate deduction open to everyone including Joe.

It has been shown over and over that conservatives are more charitable
in giving $ than the Libs.

He certainly should have given more (esp. being a politician).

I wonder if you took the self serving $ out if the statement would be true? I know a large % of my annual donations are given to my church.

My church just built a new hall and is building a new gym. Why should I be allowed to deduct my $ for a donation that I'm going to benefit from and which no one other than church members are going to use? I might drop my gym membership to go there to work out.


Edit - I'm not refering to all church donations since churches and various religious groups obviously give many $ to various organizations.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by justplugit

Church is a legitmate deduction open to everyone including Joe.

Joe is a typical Lib, spend other perople's money on the poor and
get his hand stuck in his pocket when it comes to his cash.

.

Darn right. I just saw a fundraising speech where Biden claimed that Democrats care about helping the poor, and that Republicans only care about helping the rich.

This, coming from a guy who makes $300k, and gives less than 1% to charity? He gets to wag his finger at me, and instead of getting pelted with tomatoes like he deserves, he gets a standing ovation? If everyone acted like Biden, how much worse off would poor people be?

I don't get it, maybe PaulS an Spence can explain it.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

But showing a zero liability for even a year would be incredibly embarrassing and fit the Dems message perfectly...that the rich get to play by a different set of rules.

-spence

But why is that the Democrat message? Don't rich Democrats play by those same rules? How come it's OK for rich liberals to take advantage of those rules, but it's sinister when rich conservatives do it?

Romney is rich, so he must be out of touch? John Kerry is worth 10 times what Romney is worth, and I don't remember his wealth being a liability for him when he ran?

It's just like the issue of gay marriage. According to you Spence, blacks aren't guilty of hate when they oppose gay marriage. But whites who oppose gay marriage, are a bunch of bigoted hatemongers. That's what you said, and it's indefensible, unbelievably stupid.

I saw Nancy Pelosi recently, criticizing WI governor Scott Brown for busting unions and therefore, hurting the middle class. Mrs Pelosi owns a bunch of hotels, and refuses to allow her employees to unionize. So it's OK for her to recognize that her business is better off without unions, but the people of WI are not allowed to come to the same conclusion? But no one calls her out on it.

[Fly Rod]

Originally Posted by spence

Given he's loaded and a Mormon
-spence

why not pick on Harry Reid....he is a Mormon

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Fly Rod

why not pick on Harry Reid....he is a Mormon

Because it's OK to be Mormon, or fabulously rich, or opposed to gay marriage, or a tax cheat, or to treat women barbarically, as long as you are a Democrat.

Democrats who fall into those categories are no threat to anyone. Republicans who fall into those categories are the enemy...that's why Chick fil-A isn't welcome in Boston, but businesses owned by blacks who oppose gay marriage, are welcome. Because as Spence said, blacks who oppose gay marriage are simply exercising their rights to free speech. But whites who oppose gay marriage are to be feared and shunned from the public square.

[Fly Rod]

Since Reid believes in transparency for Mitt... he and Polosi feel that they R excluded from the same...Pelosi n Reid both have been asked to disclose their finances and they both have refused...it is known that they in congress do not have to...but what R they hiding

[Piscator]

Originally Posted by spence

the rich get to play by a different set of rules.

-spence

Define Rich.........

I agree Romney is rich but where is the rich/not rich line drawn?

[Fly Rod]

If it were not for the rich those of us poor people would not have a job.....

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Not sure what the liberals think but I sure don't have any issue with a $900 shirt. In fact I might even own one

The current to-do is over why Romney won't release his most current returns, which some suspect may show a zero tax burden due to a combination of offshore tax shelters and heavy claimed losses during the recession.

-spence

"Not sure what the liberals think..."

I bet you're "not sure", because you always claim ignorance about situations where liberals put their feet in their mouths...so since you are not sure, allow me to enlighten you...the media (especially MSNBC) made a big deal over Ann Romney's $900 shirt, suggesting it was evidence that the Romneys have nothing in common with the middle class.

I recall that Palin was similarly criticized. So it's OK, I guess, for liberal women to wear expensive clothes, but conservative women, I guess, should shop where they belong, at Goodwill.

"The current to-do is over why Romney won't release his most current returns, which some suspect may show a zero tax burden "

OK. There was a previous to-do which was similar. I'll use your words, and change them to reflect the previous to-do...

"The current previous to-do is over why Romney Obama won't release his most current returns, long form birth certificate which some suspect may show a zero tax burden that he wasn't born here. "

Spence, how was the birthers' suspicion of Obama, any less valid than Harry Reid's suspicion of Romney?

Romney is flatly denying the charge. So there is no evidence, none whatsoever, that he paid zero taxes.

And if he did pay zero taxes, it was obviously within the law, since the IRS isn't after him. If liberals don';t like those laws that provide tax shelters, why the hell didn't they change those laws when they controlled the executive and legislative branches for two years? What was stopping them from changing those laws? Nothing. SO the only conclusion is that Democrats don't want those laws changed, which means they have no right to attack those who abide by those laws.

Game. Set. Match.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I bet you're "not sure", because you always claim ignorance about situations where liberals put their feet in their mouths...so since you are not sure, allow me to enlighten you...the media (especially MSNBC) made a big deal over Ann Romney's $900 shirt, suggesting it was evidence that the Romneys have nothing in common with the middle class.

I read a lot of news so to have not seen something isn't claiming ignorance, it means the story might not have had much of a life. Looking online it looks like a remark made months ago, by a single person and not carried elsewhere aside from the manufactured outrage.

Really? Like who cares...

I recall that Palin was similarly criticized. So it's OK, I guess, for liberal women to wear expensive clothes, but conservative women, I guess, should shop where they belong, at Goodwill.

Palin was criticized because the RNC spend $150,000.00 in CAMPAIGN MONEY on clothing for her. Big difference.

Spence, how was the birthers' suspicion of Obama, any less valid than Harry Reid's suspicion of Romney?

Completely different situations.

Obama produced a perfectly legal birth certificate long ago, although I'm not sure he was even required to unless Congress was to challenge his citizenship.

Romney has produced nothing although he's not required by law either. It's certainly fair to question what he's hiding.

Ultimately these issues both come down to simple politics. What's good for the goose apparently is good for the gander

Game. Set. Match.

I think you meant to yell "Fore!" to the adjacent fairway.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

I read a lot of news so to have not seen something isn't claiming ignorance, it means the story might not have had much of a life. Looking online it looks like a remark made months ago, by a single person and not carried elsewhere aside from the manufactured outrage.

Really? Like who cares...


Palin was criticized because the RNC spend $150,000.00 in CAMPAIGN MONEY on clothing for her. Big difference.


Completely different situations.

Obama produced a perfectly legal birth certificate long ago, although I'm not sure he was even required to unless Congress was to challenge his citizenship.

Romney has produced nothing although he's not required by law either. It's certainly fair to question what he's hiding.

Ultimately these issues both come down to simple politics. What's good for the goose apparently is good for the gander



I think you meant to yell "Fore!" to the adjacent fairway.

"Really? Like who cares..."

Spence, you already know this, but you're pretending you don't...it's not just the dress. Throughout the campaign, the liberals have desperately tried to paint Romney as out of touch with regular Americans, because of his wealth. Do you deny that? If you admit it's happening, where was this concern when John Kerry ran?

"Obama produced a perfectly legal birth certificate long ago"

True, but not the long form, which put the issue to rest. Why did he wait so long, why did it take the idiot Trump to finally get Obama to disclose it?

I also notice you chose not to address the fact that Obama chose as Treasury Secretary, a guy who irrefutably tried to dodge his taxes. So if someone who actively tried to avoid his taxes can be Treasury Secretary, why can't someone who seemingly obeyed all laws, and never ran afoul of the IRS, run for President?

There's way more evidence to suggest that Geithner is a tax cheat, yet libs didn't utter a peep. All of a sudden, it's imperitive to show that everyone is paying "his fair share", which in the deranged world of liberalism, somehow means paying more than the law requires you to pay.

Those laws setting up tax shelters survived two years of liberal control of the legislative and executive branch. If your party didn't feel those laws were worth changing, by what logic can you fault Romney for obeying those laws? Your party had absolute authority to change those laws, and chose not to. Why is that, exactly?

That's what I meant when I said game-set-match, and you know that, yet you dodged that entire issue

I admit the comparison to the birthers is a bit of a stretch...however, my other point is irrefutable, and that is this...if Romney paid taxes according to laws that Obama and team chose to leave in place, how do you blame Romney for that? Do you really expect people to pay more than what the IRS says they owe?

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"Really? Like who cares..."

Spence, you already know this, but you're pretending you don't...it's not just the dress. Throughout the campaign, the liberals have desperately tried to paint Romney as out of touch with regular Americans, because of his wealth. Do you deny that? If you admit it's happening, where was this concern when John Kerry ran

Or Kennedy and Roosevelt and so on.

Did having money interfere with their election or Presidency? I don't think so as
we were united as Americans.
This $$ thing is just another perpetrated divider between rich and poor.
This administration has highly perfected the game of division.
They are dividers not uniters and imho we need to bring this country together
if we will ever be able to solve our mega problems.

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Throughout the campaign, the liberals have desperately tried to paint Romney as out of touch with regular Americans, because of his wealth. Do you deny that? If you admit it's happening, where was this concern when John Kerry ran?

Again, the hypocrisy. Kennedy had mega bucks from his father who got them
from questionable sources.
In addition Jacquelin set the style for the day with her expensive clothes
and was an avid horeswoman that owned many horses.

While there was talk of Joe Kennedy's $ sources, I never remember any class
warfare over John's money or criticism about his wife's expensive clothes
or horses.

[Mr. Sandman]

Found this laying round my hard drive...


The Top 50% pay 96.54% of All Income Taxes
(The top 1% pay more than a third: 34.27%)


This is the data for calendar year 2003 just released in October 2005 by the Internal Revenue Service. The share of total income taxes paid by the top 1% of wage earners rose to 34.27% from 33.71% in 2002. Their income share (not just wages) rose from 16.12% to 16.77%. However, their average tax rate actually dropped from 27.25% down to 24.31%



*Data covers calendar year 2003, not fiscal year 2003
- and includes all income, not just wages, excluding Social Security

Think of it this way: less than 3-1/2 dollars out of every $100 paid in income taxes in the United States is paid by someone in the bottom 50% of wage earners. Are the top half millionaires? Noooo, more like "thousandaires." The top 50% were those individuals or couples filing jointly who earned $29,019 and up in 2003. (The top 1% earned $295,495-plus.) Americans who want to are continuing to improve their lives, and those who don't want to, aren't. Here are the wage earners in each category and the percentages they pay:
The top 1% pay over a third, 34.27% of all income taxes. (Up from 2003: 33.71%) The top 5% pay 54.36% of all income taxes (Up from 2002: 53.80%). The top 10% pay 65.84% (Up from 2002: 65.73%). The top 25% pay 83.88% (Down from 2002: 83.90%). The top 50% pay 96.54% (Up from 2002: 96.50%). The bottom 50%? They pay a paltry 3.46% of all income taxes (Down from 2002: 3.50%). The top 1% is paying nearly ten times the federal income taxes than the bottom 50%! And who earns what? The top 1% earns 16.77% of all income (2002: 16.12%). The top 5% earns 31.18% of all the income (2002: 30.55%). The top 10% earns 42.36% of all the income (2002: 41.77%); the top 25% earns 64.86% of all the income (2002: 64.37%) , and the top 50% earns 86.01% (2002: 85.77%) of all the income.



The bottom 50% is paying a tiny bit of the taxes, so you can't give them much of a tax cut by definition. Yet these are the people to whom the Democrats claim to want to give tax cuts. Remember this the next time you hear the "tax cuts for the rich" business. Understand that the so-called rich are about the only ones paying taxes anymore.



As far as Romney sheltering any income, that is his right. He didn't lie about it. You can do it too, and you WOULD do it if you earned that kind of money. For example, the US government has triple tax free bonds you can buy, you can even by them in a fund so even regular people can play the game.


The fact is Obama has pissed away more money and done less with what he spent than just about all the presidents combined. Frankly I think Romney is far more fiscally responsible that obama, but don't expect free hand outs and checks just sent to people to stimulate the economy. Who in turn run to Walmart and buy something made in china. What an idiot he was with that program.

[PaulS]

You should stay off those radical cons. sites b/c the issue hasn't been with the low % of taxes (which is no differant from Buffets), it is what is in the tax returns he refuses to release.

Hypocrisy is complaining about the Dems walking out of a vote while refusing to admit that the Repubs. have done the same thing.

Once again you have demonstrated that your hypocrisy no bounds.

[The Dad Fisherman]

Well they very well couldn't make it about his birth certificate now, could they?

[spence]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

Well they very well couldn't make it about his birth certificate now, could they?

Romney's father is Mexican. Rumor has it Mitt (aka Mittcarlos) was carried across the border after a gun fight in a Tijuana brothel.

No seriously, I really read that.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

Well they very well couldn't make it about his birth certificate now, could they?

That's a good point. If I may respond...

The "birthers" were constantly insulted and denigrated by liberals (not without reason, IMHO). So how is this (assuming Romney is hiding something) any different?

For a while, Obama refused to release his long-form birth certificate. That led some (not me) to believe that he was hiding something. Those who thought he was hiding something, were attacked non-stop as being conspiracy kooks, and liars.

I dobn't see how the Romney tax thing is any different. Do you, Dad?

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I don't see how the Romney tax thing is any different. Do you, Dad?

No, I don't....hence my comment.

Just the sad state of Politics as usual....

[PaulS]

At least his horrible overseas trip overshadowed the tax issue for a while and we didn't have to hear about them.

[PaulS]

It is differnt b/c he claims he didn't work for Bain for a # of years yet his name was on forms filed w/the SEC. Did he earn and/or report income for those years?

This issue is going to be around until the election or until he releases the returns. He prob. thought about running for pres. say 4 -6 years ago, he should have fixed any potential issues then and could have released returns for those years.

[PaulS]

Justplugit - those are all great acts of charity. My church also does some things I'm proud off to support the sick and less fortunate in my community.

My statement just refers to the fact that my donation to fufill my building fund pledge is treated no different that a donation I might make to the church to help fund our monthly meal at the local shelter. The only difference is that Lhea the church sec. applies the money to my building fund pledge - the IRS doesn't treat it differently. You and Jim aren't going to be able to use the gym or weight room while to some degree you helped build it.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Justplugit - those are all great acts of charity. My church also does some things I'm proud off to support the sick and less fortunate in my community.

My statement just refers to the fact that my donation to fufill my building fund pledge is treated no different that a donation I might make to the church to help fund our monthly meal at the local shelter. The only difference is that Lhea the church sec. applies the money to my building fund pledge - the IRS doesn't treat it differently. You and Jim aren't going to be able to use the gym or weight room while to some degree you helped build it.

I hear you, and I don't disagree that there is a difference between donations used to feed the hungry, and donations used to build a sauna in your church's gym. But I don't think it's a huge deal, and I'd bet everything I have, that what yuo describe is not the reason consrevatives donate more than liberals. You implied that "self-serving" donations might be the reason that conservatives seem to give more, yet you offered no evidence other than to say that there is such a thing as a self-serving donation. That doesn't negate the studies that show that conservatives dobnate more.

It has also been shown that a larger percentage of charity dollars get to those that need it, rather than gubmint dollars. Governemnt programs are almost always inefficient, and often corrupt. That's a big reason why conservatives want to emphasize more charitable giving, and less government spending. For that, we get accused of not caring about poor people. It's ridiculous.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

That doesn't negate the studies that show that conservatives dobnate more.

Have those studies been adjusted for the vastly different demographics (age, race, income level, etc.)?

[spence]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Have those studies been adjusted for the vastly different demographics (age, race, income level, etc.)?

Studies I've read indicate the % of people who donate is similar regardless of politics and that conservatives may contribute more per person on average.

A big factor could be church contributions (I'm assuming more conservatives go to church) which may not really all be charitable if the primary intent is to fund the church you attend. And yes, I'm aware churches do other good things for the community.

Another problem could be how the data is really analyzed. The Brooks report that's widely cited looked at taxes by voting at the state level. There's a huge amount of potential variation here and if population concentrations aren't taken into consideration could be terribly flawed.

But Jim thinks it's settled science so I guess we should just move on.

-spence