Mitt Romney

[Bill of Rights]

Why would anyone pay more taxes than they are legally obligated to pay?

No one except tax experts knows enough about taxes to manage that part of your expenses.

You hire accountants and tax attornies to tell you what you have to pay to stay legal. They look at the laws and come up with strategies so you pay the least amount possible. Just like your accountant does if you use an accountant, or just like you do when you do your own taxes.

No one ever gets mad at someone else for taking the personal deduction. It doesn't make any more sense to get mad at someone for a tax strategy that attempts to pay the least amount that is legal.

And to answer Rambone's issue, are you saying that if you support a larger military and you're for a particular war that you disagree with, you're somehow obligated to pay more taxes than you're required to pay?

I don't understand the problem with this at all.

If I understand him, what he's saying is, "Romney, if you want these things, YOU pony up the cash to make them happen and stop spending MY money to do it."

“A liberal is someone who feels a great debt to his fellow man, which debt he proposes to pay off with your money.” –G Gordon Liddy

Rambone, if I've misstated your position, please correct and accept my apologies.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[dross]

If I understand him, what he's saying is, "Romney, if you want these things, YOU pony up the cash to make them happen and stop spending MY money to do it."



Rambone, if I've misstated your position, please correct and accept my apologies.

Blessings,
Bill

If that's what he's saying then it's a dishonest argument, kind of like Ron Paul's "I never voted for an earmark," argument.

Saying that we shouldn't spend money on X is an fair argument. Saying, if you think money should be spent on X, then you and others should pay for it voluntarily is a fair argument.

When others are attacking someone for paying the taxes they owe as if there's something wrong with not paying more than the law says, and you chime in with your argument about paying for X, you're cheating.

The reason it's cheating is because it seems to support the argument that Romney did something wrong about this taxes, but it's really a separate argument entirely. This allows you to attack the candidate on things that normally you might defend about that candidate and serves the purpose of making the candidate look worse than he is, and adding your voice to unfair attacks while also allowing yourself an exit strategy when called to the carpet.

I call BS.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

And I call BS at a different level.

The Constitution starts off "We the People". Not "I the Individual". It establishes a representative government where you elect other to speaks in your stead. The Congress is empowered to raise taxes and an army and navy. The President is the Commander in Chief within the confines of their constitutional authority.

"Your" tax money is no longer "yours" as soon as it it collected by the government. Your representatives in government are not required to pay for things they want and you don't. If you don't like the programs they support, vote them out.

Here's where I'm called a statist pig.

 

[LionWeight]

Call me what you will, I could care less. In my opinion, and yes it's just my opinion I don't mind paying taxes and having them used for what needs to be used for. What I do have a problem with is me paying 28% taxes and I make far less than 100k a year, and anyone whether it's Romney or anyone else making millions and paying 7 % due to loopholes, the ability to move it overseas or whatever. You are free to feel what you like, I would just as soon see a fair tax that is even across the board. A flat % that has no loop holes. How is this unfair? I understand that I will be paying a higher tax than those that make less than I. I also understand that I have more ability to pay those taxes.

Before you start, I'm not a democrat, and I'm not a republican. Again in my opinion we need to break the "2 party rule" that exists in this country. Politicians are only concerned with what is best for the party's chance to get elected and not what is best for the people. I will vote for the person I think is going to do the best job. Obviously some feel different than I do. That's fine. I'm not trying to change your opinion. You do what you feel is best for you. On the same hand I hope you can agree that I'm entitled to my opinion even if it disagrees with yours. I'm not going to flame anyone for theirs and I would hope again that others are mature enough to not flame me for mine.

Have a good day.

 

[Johnny C]

And I call BS at a different level.

The Constitution starts off "We the People". Not "I the Individual". It establishes a representative government where you elect other to speaks in your stead. The Congress is empowered to raise taxes and an army and navy. The President is the Commander in Chief within the confines of their constitutional authority.

"Your" tax money is no longer "yours" as soon as it it collected by the government. Your representatives in government are not required to pay for things they want and you don't. If you don't like the programs they support, vote them out.

AMEN!

 

[melensdad]

In my opinion, and yes it's just my opinion I don't mind paying taxes and having them used for what needs to be used for. What I do have a problem with is me paying 28% taxes and I make far less than 100k a year, and anyone whether it's Romney or anyone else making millions and paying 7 % due to loopholes, the ability to move it overseas or whatever. You are free to feel what you like, I would just as soon see a fair tax that is even across the board. A flat % that has no loop holes. How is this unfair? I understand that I will be paying a higher tax than those that make less than I. I also understand that I have more ability to pay those taxes.

There is NO tax rate that brings taxes down to 7%.

The tax rate is graduated and tops out at 35% for ordinary income.
The capital gains and dividends tax rate tops out at 15%.

The reason that some high income earners pay less than 35% is because their tax rate is blended with multiple sources of income, including 'ordinary' income and 'capital gains' or 'dividends' to get their total income.

For example, if someone makes $500,000 in ordinary income, they pay (in simple terms) the 35% tax rate on the ordinary income.

But if someone makes $250,000 in ordinary income PLUS another $250,000 in "dividends" then they pay 35% on the ordinary income and 15% on the "dividends" income. So their 'blended' tax rate is actually 25% (again in very simple terms).

Now if someone who is older has effectively stopped working, but lives off their investments, they may be taxed at only the 15% rate but they have paid high taxes and reinvested their money for retirement.

But realize that "capital gains" and "dividends" are both taxes that are SECONDARY taxes, meaning that dividends are taxed AFTER the corporate tax has already been paid, so its taxes paid on after-tax payments. Capital gains works in a similar fashion, you make money on an investment, but you paid taxes on your income before you invested, so it is a tax on return of your after-tax investment. Some would say its double-taxation.

 

[Bill of Rights]

If that's what he's saying then it's a dishonest argument, kind of like Ron Paul's "I never voted for an earmark," argument.

Saying that we shouldn't spend money on X is an fair argument. Saying, if you think money should be spent on X, then you and others should pay for it voluntarily is a fair argument.

When others are attacking someone for paying the taxes they owe as if there's something wrong with not paying more than the law says, and you chime in with your argument about paying for X, you're cheating.

The reason it's cheating is because it seems to support the argument that Romney did something wrong about this taxes, but it's really a separate argument entirely. This allows you to attack the candidate on things that normally you might defend about that candidate and serves the purpose of making the candidate look worse than he is, and adding your voice to unfair attacks while also allowing yourself an exit strategy when called to the carpet.

I call BS.

The problem here is that the tax laws have been written to benefit those who already "have" and prevent the "have-nots" from having. The classic example of Warren Buffett paying less in taxes than his secretary comes to mind. I understand the reasoning that the secretary is earning a wage/salary that goes on a W-2 and Buffett shows his income on a 1099; that is, he's not earning anything, he's collecting dividends on money he's already made. That's beside the point, though. The point is that Romney embraces the idea that spending on X, Y, and Z are good, but in the process, exempts himself from paying for them. It reminds me of the (probably false) story told about Col. David Crockett wherein he and several other legislators voted for monies from the public treasury to go to the relief of families who lost their homes in a fire. Col. Crockett was reportedly admonished that to vote for such a use of those monies was unConstitutional and thus, improper. Even if the story is false, the lesson is not, and Col. Crockett supposedly challenged his fellow Representatives in the Congress that another such use could be funded from their own wallets without impropriety and not a one was willing to do so, though they were all too willing to do so from other peoples' money. It seems to me that Rambone is similarly challenging Romney.

And I call BS at a different level.

The Constitution starts off "We the People". Not "I the Individual". It establishes a representative government where you elect other to speaks in your stead. The Congress is empowered to raise taxes and an army and navy. The President is the Commander in Chief within the confines of their constitutional authority.

"Your" tax money is no longer "yours" as soon as it it collected by the government. Your representatives in government are not required to pay for things they want and you don't. If you don't like the programs they support, vote them out.

Here's where I'm called a statist pig.

Not by me, you're not. That said, though, taxation is still theft. It's a theft with the color of legitimacy due to the 16A and IRS code and such, but it is the taking of money from people by force and that is theft by any definition I know. To say otherwise is to say that an embezzler at your bank who cleans out your account(s) didn't take "your" money.... it was no longer "yours" as soon as he collected it.

I don't know how many employees you have, Semper, but if you were to decide that Huntertown Arms was going to offer health insurance to all employees, but that you, the owner, would not have to pay a premium, instead increasing your employees' contributions to cover that expense for you, I'm not aware of any law forbidding that (there may be one, but I don't know it if so.) Legal or not, it's not right.

I'm with you on the whole "if you don't like it, vote them out." thing; This is the same idea with different timing: Let's not vote Romney out... let's avoid voting him in in the first place.

$0.012 (that's my after taxes.)

Blessings,
Bill

 

[dross]

The problem here is that the tax laws have been written to benefit those who already "have" and prevent the "have-nots" from having. The classic example of Warren Buffett paying less in taxes than his secretary comes to mind. I understand the reasoning that the secretary is earning a wage/salary that goes on a W-2 and Buffett shows his income on a 1099; that is, he's not earning anything, he's collecting dividends on money he's already made. That's beside the point, though. The point is that Romney embraces the idea that spending on X, Y, and Z are good, but in the process, exempts himself from paying for them. It reminds me of the (probably false) story told about Col. David Crockett wherein he and several other legislators voted for monies from the public treasury to go to the relief of families who lost their homes in a fire. Col. Crockett was reportedly admonished that to vote for such a use of those monies was unConstitutional and thus, improper. Even if the story is false, the lesson is not, and Col. Crockett supposedly challenged his fellow Representatives in the Congress that another such use could be funded from their own wallets without impropriety and not a one was willing to do so, though they were all too willing to do so from other peoples' money. It seems to me that Rambone is similarly challenging Romney.


Blessings,
Bill

A couple of things:

The tax code is written for the haves? That blows my mind that you think so, based on what I've seen you write here in the past. To believe that, you must first start off with the assumption that a progressive income tax is fair, then you must believe that the amount of taxes you pay is less important than the percentage, and then you have to ignore double taxation. You also have to ignore that fully half the people in the country don't pay income tax, and then half of those who do pay very little. When the top 1% pays forty percent of all income taxes collected, and the bottom fifty pays none, it takes an odd view of the world to say the tax code is constructed on behalf of the haves.

Now, as to voting for people to pay for things they shouldn't have to pay for, I'm in full agreement. In that case, however, Romney is no different than almost every politician that has ever held office. Not an excuse, but certainly nothing to differentiate him from anyone else except Ron Paul.

But then why wouldn't that apply to anyone who votes for anything and claims any reduction, thereby reducing their taxes? The argument doens't make any sense. Everyone who has ever voted for anything that uses others money for things it shouldn't be used for and also taken a tax deduction themselves is in the same boat, in which case, why single out Romney?

I really don't get it.