To "Furry1993" did Romney do anything illegal?Is it against
the law to have your personal attorney also handle your blind trust in the state
of Massachussetts?If he has done nothing illegal, why attack him on
something that you don't like?It is like you are following
behind somebody driving in the right hand lane on the freeway and yelling at
them for driving the speed limit.
To "Furry1993" has Romney or Bain Capital done anything illegal?If they have not done anything illegal, then why complain about Romeny
obeying the law? Do you also whine about people going to the corner to cross in
the crosswalk rather than cross wherever they want?
I've done a bit of research. The partnerships in which Romney/Bain is
involved in the Cayman Islands contain the following provision (See Gawker page
concerning Romney/Bain documents):The Partnership is a qualified
intermediary and intends to conduct it operations so that it will not be engaged
in a United States trade or business and, therefore, will not be subject to
United States federal income or withholding tax on its income from United States
sources.... Under the current laws of the Cayman Islands, there are no income,
estate, transfer, sales, or other Cayman Islands taxes payable by the
Partnership.In other words, nothing these Cayman Island partnerships
do is taxable either by the United States or the Cayman Islands. Romney/Bain has
paid $0.00 taxes -- has evaded taxes -- on income from these investments since
the inception of his/their involvement with them.BTW -- Brad Malt,
the trustee on the so-called "blind trust" in which he Romney assets hav
bee "placed" -- is Romney's personal attorney. That makes it a
not-so-blind trust I wonder how many more shenanigns Romney is pulling.Lovely [end sarcasm].
@ LDS LiberalYou see no connection between my wallet and my
rights?I use my life and my liberty to pursue my happiness. I
exercise my rights to learn skills, to work in a variety of capacities, to
acquire certain possessions that I value, and to enjoy certain leisures that
please me. In all of these I exchange value that I create for values that
others create. How do I create the value I trade? I act using my life and my
liberty. Wonderfully, I am able to store the value I create in the form of
money, in my wallet. What's in my wallet is directly connected to my life
and liberty. It's a store of my life and liberty.This is what
you won't protect. This is what you would combine with others to seize
from me by force and call it taxation. You cannot take my money and then tell
me that you will defend my rights. In taking my money, you are severing me from
the product of my own life and liberty. You have cancelled out my rights. So,
what's to defend then?
I am still absolutely flummoxed that at least 10 people who post to this board
think that no one should have to pay taxes. Absolutely jaw dropping. (Pippin
plus 9 people who have "liked" his/her first comment.) PLEASE, please,
responsible Republicans, please return this crazy party of yours to sanity.
Chris B... you could not afford to pay for what you use. Have you looked at the
real cost of college? Have you looked at the average cost of educating an a
child? Lets run with that. The average number of children in
Utah is 3.57 kids. The average fully loaded ost to educate a child in Utah is
just over $8,000. In your methodology of you pay for only what you use, the
average household with kids in Utah would need to pay a minimum in state taxes
of $28,500 a year just to cover the education expense. That
doesn't cover fire protection services, the cost of personal security,
etc,,, The average cost for a fire department to respond to a home fire... over
$52,000. Right now that is a shared community expense. Under your plan, you
alone pick up that bill. Yes, perhaps your insurance company might pick that up
- but they will simply make that a shared expense across policy holders... and
increase insurance cost for all... if you have insurance.So be
really careful what you ask for.
Obama spent more for one vacation, then Romney made in a year.Hmm?
How much taxes did he pay on that?
To "LDS Liberal" lets look at the stats on the top 1%. According to the
NY Times and various other sources the top 1% own 40% of the wealth in the US.
However, we do not tax people based on their wealth, but their income. If we
look at their income, they take home 16% of all income in the US.Ok,
now we know how much they own, and how much they earn. Lets look at what
percent they pay of all federal income taxes. According to the the IRS, those
same top 1% pay 40.4% of all income taxes in 2011. So, according to your
reasoning, the rich pay their fair share.Since they pay their fair
share according to your standards, does this mean that you will no longer
complain about the taxes that the wealthy pay?Can you please pass
that along to Obama.
He would have been better off not even releasing them. This is going to hurt...
Lds lib.Sounds like 59k a year isn't cutting it.Is that mitts
How pathetic when people mock someone who pays in the millions. Especially
those who pay no income taxes at all.Obama is the leader of envy,
@Liberal TedWow, are you running for president? Congress? Either
way I would vote for your plan in a heart beat! Are you sure you're
liberal? That is about the most perfect, fiscally conservative, solution I have
ever heard.(OK, there are some problems that would have to be addressed,
but the basic framework is excellent)
The intllectually vacant Liberals never can get enough of what is not theirs.
Look at France, they are literally proposing a 75% tax!!They are
just at an advanced state of the socialistic disease than us. The other
interesting part to Frances proposal is that they openly admit the rich are
literally fleeing and moving elsewhere which has decreased their overall tax
revenue. They also admit that increasing the tax is largely political and to
simply buy votes for the incoming prime minister and they know that what they
gain will not begin to pay for the social spending issues.Great
solution.It is no different here in America. oblamo could literally
confiscate every dime from every rich person and it would not pay for the govt
debt beyond a year. Then they would have eliminated 60% of the tax base
entirely.Liberals have a disease and it causes them to spend 90% of
the time talking about a solution for 10% of the problem.Current
government spending can not be sustained regardless how much money you take from
the rich. Have you even bothered to think about that?Stop regurgitating liberal talking points and attempt to think at least.
He says he never paid less than 13% and this year when he was set to pay less
than 13%, he deliberately avoided taking the deductions available to him (he can
file an amended return next year to recoup that gift to the treasury) just so he
wouldn't fall below 13% this year.
Why do I pay more than someone else for the exact same thing?
Having someone who is successful and highly competent as president makes me
uncomfortable. No one should be able to run for president who has made over
$25,000 a year.
Why do we even attack Romney on taxes... Frankly, if we keep digging, we will
find that he has just been doing what he is legally required to do and some...
And the deductions he gets for donating to charity are not nearly as much the
charity he donated. He EARNED his money, and we say, "How dare he make
more money than me!" He worked for it... Its frankly none of our business
how much he made or how much he paid in taxes... We should be looking at his
policy... And obviously Obama hasn't done much to help the economy.
What a terribly run campain. Here we are with less than 50 days to go before
the election and the discussion is once again on Romney's tax returns. The
fact that he and so many of his supporters have to spend time defending the
amount of taxes he pays instead of discussing what he'll do for the country
is proof enough Obama is controlling the debate. Another day of getting Romney
and the liberal media chasing their tails over this story is just another day
wasted. Mitt has to be running the worst presidental campaing since George
I have the "Liberal Ted" taxation plan. It's fair and addresses
everyone's concerns.If you're a democrat or one that
believes you should pay your fair share. Then you will be taxed at a 50% rate.
If you wish to pay more that is also fine.If you're a democrat
and can't figure out how to either create a job or get one. Then you pay
100% of your income to the government. In turn you are given government housing,
government food and healthcare. But, you only receive services to the amount
that you earn. You still pay for everything you consume, but big brother will
make sure you spend it wisely.For everyone else you will pay a 10%
flat tax on the money you earn. If you invest your money, you are taxed on only
new money that you generate. No more double taxation. Also when you die, since
your money has been taxed, you can give it to whomever you want without the
governmetn stealing half of it.The Federal government will be
required to balance it's budget every year without raising taxes.
@Pippin -- Do I want the government to tax citizens? Yes, of course. Otherwise
we would have anarchy. I don't think there has ever in the history of the
world been a civilized society where there were no taxes. How much would you
voluntarily contribute just out of curiosity? In other words, what do you think
a fair amount of tax is? Right now taxes are at historically low rates. If
that's not good enough for you, then how low should they go? (Or how much
should someone voluntarily pay under your scenario?)
romney required ryan to release 10 years of tax returns.romney has
released two years of tax returns.Why would romney ask his VP to do
something romney won't do?
When mitt earned his income as a wage he paid the higher income taxes. He made
investments with that taxed income and the investments make income. If he earns
dividends on his investments, then the corporations paying those dividends pay
taxes up to the 40 percent level and then mitt has to pay taxes on the amounts
he gets from the corporation as dividends at about the 10 to 15 percent rate.
The effective rate for dividends paid out is about 55 percent. Interest paid
out is taxed at the lower rate. Larry were do you come up with the idea Mitt is
even getting money from Baine?
Chris B.Love your comments. Keep em coming. You make too much
PippinKaysville, UTI assure you, I was not joking; I was quite
serious. I always am when defending my rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit
of happiness.1:59 p.m. Sept. 21, 2012=========== Tell me Pippin, Are you a Veteran?I assure you, I am
not joking; I am quite serious. I always have been when defending your rights to
life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.I will always protect
your rights, but not your wallet.There's always a price
for freedom.Ask God.
That's a good start. BUT this return was clearly prepared with the
knowledge that it would have to pass the "sniff" test because of his run
for the presidency. It doesn't say anything about how he really handles
his finances. As George Romney said, when he was asked for just his latest tax
return, "Release of the document, while it might serve a political purpose,
would not prove very much. One year could be a fluke, perhaps done for show, and
what mattered in personal finance was how a man conducted himself over the long
haul."Now it's time for Willard to release ALL his tax
returns going back 15+ years (back to his Bain days) so we can see what he
really did with his finances and how he conducted himself over the long haul.
He paid 43.5% of his income in either taxes or Federal income taxes. That is not
even counting state income taxes or property taxes. After these taxes he easily
paid more than 50% of his income to either charity or one government or another.
And people seriously think he pays too LITTLE? The whole issue with
Romney's tax returns does illustrate what is wrong with this country, but
Romney is not the problem.
Billy Bob said: "Romney paid all that he is legally liable to pay. Anyone
who has a problem with that needs to ask themselves what they would do in that
position. By law he is entitled to that deduction. If you don't like it
than try to get the law changed, but don't fault Romney for using it as it
is intended.Romney paid nearly $2 million in taxes while 47% pay nothing and
people have the ignorant audacity to say ROMNEY doesn't pay his fair
share???"Your right Bob and the 47% who paid no taxes also paid
all that they are legally liable to pay. By law they are entitled to those
deductions.I can't believe the ignorant audacity to claim that the
47% are any different from you or mitt. If you don't like it than try
to get the law changed, but don't fault the 47% for using it as it is
intended.Does the hypocrisy still elude you?
In the end, Romney pays more taxes in one year than Obama does in his entire
lifetime, (regardless of their earnings, which are each man's own doing).
So Obama, now you have more money to REDISTRIBUTE! Stop attacking success!
@Wonder,Let me reverse your question to you:Are YOU
joking?You want the government to have power to go to your neighbor and
take what's theirs for your benefit?You want government to come and
take what's yours for your neighbor's benefit?You want the
government to take what's yours and give it back to you in a form that they
deem most important and useful?In the absence of taxation, you would not
voluntarily contribute funds, if you were able, to finance the military and the
police and the courts that ensure your rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit
of happiness are not infringed by thugs, goons, and terrorists?I
assure you, I was not joking; I was quite serious. I always am when defending
my rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Question Libs:If Mitt hadn't worked hard, sacrificed, and made
the good decisions that caused him to be rich, who should pay for the $2 million
in taxes he otherwise hadn't paid?Are you suggesting the govt
would have spent $2 million less if Mitt hadn't been rich?Wrong.The govt would have spent the same, even if Mitt only made
$50k.Who should these costs go to if Mitt wasn't rich?The next richest guy around? Pay forwhatyou USE
Dear Mitt,I apologize there are so many unresponsible and lazy
people that insist you pay for what they use.Most people who are
upset with you are probably paying no more than a few thousand in taxes.You pay several MILLION. Several million is much larger
than several thousand.Yet we all use the same police, same military,
LDS lib,What does ownership have anything to do with it?Do you teach your kids to pay for what they use? Or only pay for what they
want to pay and force others to make up the difference?When you go
to the grocery store, why doesn't the cashier ring up all the purchases of
everyone in the store at the same time, and then make everyone pay according to
how much money they EARN?So if you buy $100 worth of goods and I buy
$200$ worth of goods but you make twice as much as me you'd be fine with
the cashier saying you have to pay $200 and I only pay $100Pay for
what you use.I'll pay for what I use.Mitt being
rich doesn't mean he's using 1,000 times the resources(defense,
police, road repair) as anyone else, so why are people saying he should be
paying ten thousand times what they pay?
I don't know whether to laugh or cry at all of the factual representations
or fallacies of logic here:@Pippin: If the government were to cease
and desist from "taking" money from member of our Citizenry, then the
opposite should be true for the tax rules that allows Bain Capital (and
subsidiaries) to benefit from accounting tricks such as 1.) weighing down
newly-acquired companies with collateralized debt, 2.) "carried
interest" distributions derived from "sweat equity" at a taxed rate
of 15%, 3.) and other perverse tax incentives that compel private Equity
Companies like Bain to consolidate assets and homogenize markets.@Joey D: Your calculations are off: The $4,020,572 must be added back into
Romney's AGI to get the percentage donated. The Schedule A Subtracts this
amount from his Income, not adds it. So, $4,020,572 / (20,901,075 + 4,020,572)
= 16% not 30%@Chris B: Its not the amount of money that is taxed,
but rather the percentage of ones income and the method of producing that income
which determines the tax treatment that is importantListen Guys, I
know you love you some Romney, but let's debate with reasoned intellect,
No fit in SG, yes, as a matter of fact, it does make me feel better about
Romney paid all that he is legally liable to pay. Anyone who has a problem with
that needs to ask themselves what they would do in that position. Anyone who
knowingly pays more taxes than they are legally liable to pay is fooling
themselves. It is a shame that Romney had to not claim all of his charitable
contributions because of how the liberal main stream media would spin it if
(heaven forbid!) Romney paid less than 14% in taxes. By law he is entitled to
that deduction. If you don't like it than try to get the law changed, but
don't fault Romney for using it as it is intended. Romney paid nearly $2
million in taxes while 47% pay nothing and people have the ignorant audacity to
say ROMNEY doesn't pay his fair share???As for capital gains
tax being lower, it only makes sense since that income was already taxed. Also
we want to give people incentive to invest, because this helps the economy. The ignorance of liberals amazes me sometimes.Romney/Ryan
2012! Get rid of the economy-killing, country-destroying, constitution-ignoring
Pippin,I guess you never heard of the Constitution?It
gives the Taxation power to Congress...And most LDS leaders have
said it was inspired!You appear to have a problem with that?
Double taxation.... say what Truth? First, start by learning the facts. Romney
takes no Salary. So he couldn't be being double taxed. A lot of executive
take little to no actual "income" because it lowers their tax
liabilities. Rather, they get paid in options, which when converted, then sold,
become long term capital gains not subject to payroll taxes. Double
taxation.... good grief, learn how executive compensation really works.The other important thing to remember is the payroll taxes the average
American pays, about 8 percent before income taxes even come even into
consideration. Lets say that the average person were able to get the same
nominal income tax rate Romney does... 13 percent. The difference would be that
Middle Class Mike would pay that 13 percent, plus the 8 percent in Payroll taxes
- coming to 21 % of income. Romney doesn't pay payroll taxes so his rate
of 13% is just what it is - a minimum of 8 percent less in total tax terms than
MCMike.Chris B.... so your are saying that if you make less than 2
million, you can't cast a stone here? You have no right to complain ?
@Pippin, you're joking, right? You want to run the government on voluntary
contributions? And the people who agree with you, are you all serious, too?
Unbelievable. Unless you are just joking. Then I like your comment, too.
When the 1% own 80% of everything, the 1% SHOULD being paying 80% of the
taxes.For a middle income person like myself, who earns 1/235
th as much has poor Mitt, to be required to pay at 2x's the % -- The
system is not fair, and is desperately broken!I also get so angry
with the envying working class poor, who worship the wealthy and sit there and
defend this disparity thinking it can somehow benefit them.FYI -
this is why the uber-wealthy are against a flat tax.No more gaming the
system in their favor.But they'll keep telling the poor to win their
support its gonna hurt you, more than it's gonna hurt me.
This revelation making anyone feel better about the man who hopes to be crowned
Liberal Larry? Really???? Its called double taxation! Something you
Occupy-Libs wouldn't understand...
Let him that paid more than $2 million cast the first stone
In addition to their taxes paid they donated $4,020,772 to charity in 2011,
amounting to nearly 30% of their income.
I'd sure like to see someone explain how Mitt manages to convert his Bain
management fee income into capital gains. I would love to magically transform
my rental income into capital gains. Maybe all of us moochers would work a
little harder if we didn't have to see the wealthy skate by on questionable
I for one am outraged by this revelation. America took $1.9 million from the
Romneys in a single year? That is disgraceful!When did this become
acceptable? This is not the motive that emboldened those patriots to part with
England. Theirs was a motive of liberty, a motive to be left alone by the
government, not pillaged by it. It was a motive to pursue one's own
happiness in free trade with his neighbors, not for his neighbors to combine
against him to take what's his when he got more than they.I am
tired of being looted and I get taxed at a higher percentage than the R omneys.
The solution is NOT to loot my neighbor, the Romneys, to a higher percentage.The solution is this:Don't take what's mine. And
don't take what's the Romneys'. Make a budget to run the
military, the police, and the courts. Tell us what that budget it is. And make
a recommendation for what I might contribute. And I'll contribute...
happily. I'll bet the Romneys will too. But leave them and me free to
make that decision.