Should Mitt release his tax returns?
- Thread starter northeast
- Start date
Of course there are .. I'm just not for penalizing the guy that finds success in his business..
margodydek
Well-Known Member
Once again, prodding to find something to argue about. Obviously when we're talking about "fair share" and tax cuts and tax breaks we're talking about income tax numbnuts.
margodydek
Well-Known Member
So do you think the rich are getting off easy with the amount they pay in gasoline tax? Or should the amount you pay to fill up be based on how much you make? Mayor Bloomberg wants to start taxing people on how many miles they are driving, which is the stupidest thing I've ever heard because people are already being taxed based on how many miles they drive.
I agree with you on your Bloomberg example.
I don't think that most of the people arguing with me are really so far apart from me in philosophy , so much as differing in perception of the facts. That is why seeing 20 years of Romney and Bain tax returns would be so useful in moving the discussion from myths to reality.
However, yes, if someone is worth a billion dollars, and manages to pay no taxes except for a few thousand dollars in gasoline taxes, I would say that person is getting off easy. Super easy.
You all have exhausted me, so I give up.
but I am still right.
exhaust, get it? har har...
I don't think that most of the people arguing with me are really so far apart from me in philosophy , so much as differing in perception of the facts. That is why seeing 20 years of Romney and Bain tax returns would be so useful in moving the discussion from myths to reality.
However, yes, if someone is worth a billion dollars, and manages to pay no taxes except for a few thousand dollars in gasoline taxes, I would say that person is getting off easy. Super easy.
You all have exhausted me, so I give up.
but I am still right.
exhaust, get it? har har...
To be clear, I am not for the wealthy paying less than the middle class .. just not more, as a %.
I didn't hear a single person say that about the mosque. So I think "most" might be an exaggeration.
SaltyDawg
Well-Known Member
You didn't hear a single person say that about that mosque? Are you being serious or just trying to argue? Because I saw lots of protests with people saying they didn't want that mosque to be allowed. And I can assure you that most of them were people who are now planning to vote Romney.
The left was generally in the "allow the mosque" camp.
https://articles.cnn.com/2010-06-06..._american-muslims-ground-zero-mosque?_s=PM:US
Protest organizer Pamela Geller, a conservative blogger, and her group, "Stop the Islamicization of America," planned the event because, according to the group's website, "Building the Ground Zero mosque is not an issue of religious freedom, but of resisting an effort to insult the victims of 9/11 and to establish a beachhead for political Islam and Islamic supremacism in New York... Ground Zero is a war memorial, a burial ground. Respect it."
So, in other words, some right wing nutjob group agreed that the mosque is legal, but still did not want to allow it.
candrew said:
colton said:
Wow, this thread has taken off. 78 posts since I wrote that last night. I just browsed them and really don't have time to reply to many, so my apologies.
Unless I'm mistaken, though, it looks like candrew himself didn't respond to my request for quotes where Romney has said that the rich are overtaxed.
Of the people who did, The Thriller had the most complete response, in post 634 of the thread. If I read it correctly, his lengthy response boils down to:
1. Romney didn't actually ever say that the rich are overtaxed.
2. Romney's current tax plan, however, will likely result in slightly lower taxes for the rich and slightly higher taxes for poor/middle class. As evidence, he provided this link: https://factcheck.org/2012/08/romneys-impossible-tax-promise/
That's a very good article, by the way. I love factcheck.org.
My response is: I completely agree with you that Romney's plan as currently stated would likely have that effect. But that's completely beside the point, because (a) it still doesn't demonstrate that Romney has said the rich are overtaxed (like candrew claimed), or even (b) that Romney necessarily wants to lower taxes for the wealthy and raise them on the poor/middle class. Yes, the Tax Policy Center's analysis shows that his plan would likely have that effect--but if it were so obvious that that would be the effect, the analysis by the TPC wouldn't have even been necessary. We'll have to wait and see if/how Romney modifies his plan in light of the TPC report--which by the way only came out 5 days ago according to the factcheck.org article.
Moreover, I'm not even sure that Romney's current plan is terribly important right now because (c) tax rates are set by Congress, not by the president (afaik; please correct me if I'm wrong), and (d) there's no chance that such a tax plan would get passed in its current form--there's a heck of a lot more poor/middle class people than there are rich people, so there's no possible way (in my opinion) the lawmakers would actually increase the tax rate for the former over the latter.
Plus, and perhaps most importantly, NONE of that is even remotely relevant to whether Romney should be compelled (by media, etc.) to release more of his own tax records. I still completely reject candrew's (and others') arguments to that effect. The tax code is completely open and known, so how does looking at the specific application to one person's finances tell us anything? It's doesn't. Unless there is evidence that Mitt CHEATED on his taxes, which there isn't, I don't see how his taxes are even remotely useful/interesting... except for the people trying to embarrass him. And in that sense the demands for Mitt's taxes are just like the demands for Obama's birth certificate (as I've said before). What this DOES show, however, is that a detailed analysis of any proposed tax changes needs to be done very carefully and completely in the open, in a non-partisan way--but afaik that's already done as a matter of procedure by the CBO.
From your link: "Geller recently told CNN's Joy Behar that no one's telling the mosque's planners they can't build it, but "We're asking them not to.""
That's what I heard people say...which is very different than not wanting to allow it. Or maybe I'm just interpreting "allow" differently than you are. "Not wanting to allow it", to me, would mean trying to get the city leaders to make building the mosque illegal, which is what I didn't hear anyone try to do.
Anyway, it seems from your fourth sentence above you're changing your statement from "Most Romney supporters didn't want the mosque to be built" to "Most people who didn't want the mosque to be build are Romney supporters". The second one I can readily agree with; the first one is what I sincerely doubt is accurate.
NAOS
Well-Known Member
Please point to one instance in the history of capitalism where 100% of willing workers were employed. Please. There is a reason that "full employment" is declared when there is still 4-5% of the population unemployed... that's because capitalism doesn't/can't care for all. And yet, there are thousands of people that are displaced and injured by its mechanisms.
^Until quite recently this wasn't considered an ideological or controversial thing to say. People just bickered about what to do about it... and, even still, the vast majority of people understood that the State (the largest benefactor and protector of capitalism) certainly had a huge responsibility.
The bolded part of your quote represents the most conservative/neoliberal position possible given where we currently are. It represents the most castrated perspective on the importance and naturalness of collective action. The democratic State should be the locus of such action, not the site where all this bloated stuff must happen. When you see the State, you see inept action, not potential.
And, since you're cool with the lowest of the personal digs, try this on: I personally guarantee that I dedicate more of my time to reading, understanding, and going out into the field to research these dynamics. If you want to make bold comments that distinguish yourself from me in uncertain terms, then have fun being that ignorant dude who thinks that some parsimonious Mormonism is going to solve the worlds problems.... if only those sinners would obey. Hack.
Colton, I would say that reducing taxes on the rich has been the number one goal* of the Republican party for the last 30 years, and Romney is in alliance with his base on this point.
More important than words is to look at the actual actions that Republicans have taken, not what they say they care about, but what they actually accomplish.
(* well, aside from being elected or re-elected)
More important than words is to look at the actual actions that Republicans have taken, not what they say they care about, but what they actually accomplish.
(* well, aside from being elected or re-elected)
Damn the rich for not wanting to pay a higher % than those that earn less. Right?
If the tax rate were, say, 10%. I have no problem with the following;
Earn $20,000 per year, pay $2,000 in taxes
Earn $100,000 per year, pay $10,000 in taxes
Earn $100,000,000 per year, pay $10,000,000 in taxes
I just don't get the concept that the guy that fought, clawed, and risked everything to become a $100,0000,000 earner should be penalized for doing so by paying a higher percentage. Never have .. even when I earned only a little.
Even if I grant you that, which I don't, candrew's exact words were: "He has said on many occasions that the rich are over-taxed." That's what I was specifically asking for evidence for.
And my other points about why does that have any bearing on whether Romney should release more of his tax returns still stand.
Edit: And as I think I've stated elsewhere in the thread, I myself favor Obama's tax proposals much more than Romney's.
SaltyDawg
Well-Known Member
It was a poor choice of words on my part. What I was trying to say was "most of the people who were against building that mosque agreed that it was totally legal to build, and most of those same people are Romney supporters right now."
So it's pretty funny to me that so many Romney supporters are playing the "he shouldn't release his tax returns because they were all totally legal and he isn't legally obligated to release them" card.
NAOS
Well-Known Member
The reason people who earn more should pay more comes back to the very fundamental principle that you DON'T EARN SIMPLY BY FIGHTING, WILLING, AND CLAWING YOUR WAY TO THE TOP. You earn more by extracting more, by mobilizing more of the common area/goods. By doing that you NECESSARILY create more expenses and debts than less extractive or "productive" people.... so you pay more back.
Look up the history of "enclosure" for some perspective. Capitalism started by fencing off common grounds (where people could be productive without going to "the market") and forcing people into factories. Meanwhile, those common grounds were completely altered in order to be PRODUCTIVE FOR the capitalist regime of labor, and, therefore, those areas were no longer producing for the common good (and in many instances, they have become exhausted of value for human use).
This is only a debate if you don't know history.