Mitt Romney releases two years of tax records from 2010to 2011

[Patranus]

LOL It doesn't surprise me seeing this come from you. I take it you e no clue what a progressive Tax rate is?

"Progressive" tax rates are by definition unfair and are by definition driven by envy.

 

[DrPizza]

I'm not a fan of Romney, but why should I begrudge him for following current laws? So the guy makes a fortune from capital gains. It's not HIS fault. But, it does highlight where some tax rules may need to be changed in the future.

 

[WackyDan]

Isn't that tax deductible...


/me whistles innocently....

At his level of income it doesn't make a difference. Yes, it lowers his taxable income, but he still gave away $7 million dollars.

I gave away about $2000 last year... That has a bigger impact on my taxes as it might push me below into a lower tax bracket overall....The impact isn't huge, but I gain more by it at my income level... He pretty much gains nothing.

 

[nageov3t]

The truth would have been either I made 13.9% or less then 15%. Not "I made somewhere close to the 15% rate". Misleading at best. Saying that with the intent to mislead knowing people would focus on the "15" is closer to lying.

his 2011 tax rate was 15%

 

[soulcougher73]

It has everything to do with envy and the entitlement culture that "progressives" foster.
They want to LEECH off the productive members of America and get something for nothing.
They are envious of what others have and feel entitled to it regardless if they worked for it or not.

You are so full of shit it's pathetic. The people you say pay nothing would be more then happy to trade places with the 1% and pay easily 50% of their income as federal tax. Dont think for one minute they wouldnt trade places with them. It has nothing to do with envy. It has to do with fairness.

 

[Patranus]

his 2011 tax rate was 15%

And what rate was the money taxes when it was earned as direct income before begin taxed?

 

[Paul98]

"Progressive" tax rates are by definition unfair and are by definition driven by envy.

This has nothing to do with envy, it's not that people wish they were making more money so that the person making more should pay more to punish them. That is NOT why taxes are progressive.

 

[Patranus]

This has nothing to do with envy, it's not that people wish they were making more money so that the person making more should pay more to punish them. That is NOT why taxes are progressive.

It is exactly why taxes are 'progressive', to redistribute wealth from those that have to those that want.

 

[spacejamz]

You are so full of shit it's pathetic. The people you say pay nothing would be more then happy to trade places with the 1% and pay easily 50% of their income as federal tax. Dont think for one minute they wouldnt trade places with them. It has nothing to do with envy. It has to do with fairness.

So what is fair? Tax the rich until they have the same amount of money as everyone else?

 

[Paul98]

It is exactly why taxes are 'progressive', to redistribute wealth from those that have to those that want.

you seem to not know what envy means? Do you understand where most of your taxes go?

 

[fskimospy]

"Progressive" tax rates are by definition unfair and are by definition driven by envy.

lol. I eagerly await your explanation of how progressive tax rates are by definition driven by envy.

 

[Patranus]

lol. I eagerly await your explanation of how progressive tax rates are by definition driven by envy.

Because the entire concept of 'progressive' tax rates are to take from those who have and redistribute the wealth to those who don't.

 

[JS80]

He should stop with the charitable contributions so he can get his effective tax rate up.

 

[fskimospy]

Because the entire concept of 'progressive' tax rates are to take from those who have and redistribute the wealth to those who don't.

Yeap.

There are dozens, hundreds, if not thousands of reasons why you could wish to redistribute gains in a society that have nothing to do with envy. Therefore progressive taxation is most certainly not envy by definition.

You really need to start thinking your posts through better, you just embarrass yourself.

 

[Ninjahedge]

Yep...gave $7mm to charities in order to cheat the government out of their 15% piece of the action. What a crook! /s

If you think he just gave $7m out of the kindness of his heart, you must be joking.

Do you have records of which "charities" he donated to?

You know that, right?

Also, if you donate enough, you can lower the tax rate you have to pay on the remainder of your non capital gains earnings.

I will not give him full pardon/credit/praise for donations until I know what those donations were for.

 

[Craig234]

I, for one, surely blame Romney for paying a capital gains tax rate he had nothing to do with implementing.

Correct.

And HIS tax plan he is responsible for would LOWER HIS TAXES FURTHER.

 

[Ninjahedge]

It has everything to do with envy and the entitlement culture that "progressives" foster.
They want to LEECH off the productive members of America and get something for nothing.
They are envious of what others have and feel entitled to it regardless if they worked for it or not.

So people who do nothing but lend a company money for a period of time and then get a percentage of their earnings are NOT leeches?

You have such a weird definition there, people who collect money w/o working for it are leeches, but not ones that had money to start with.....

 

[Ninjahedge]

"Progressive" tax rates are by definition unfair and are by definition driven by envy.

No, they aren't.

They are there because of the concept of available income.

Somehow you shy away from reality. Try this:

http://ntu.org/tax-basics/history-of-federal-individual-1.html

Look at the rates for the top bracket during the depression and WWII/infrastructure creation. Things that got us out of the dark ages and aided in our development as a nation.

Just as a curiosity... I would like to see how much money it takes us to collect, account, process and (in many cases) return tax monies to the bottom 50% of earners in the country.

Are we spending MORE MONEY trying to milk a dry cow than just leaving it alone?

 

[cybrsage]

He is also eleventybillion times the wealth of ALL of us. So i think 1.5 times is nothing to make note of.

I think your math is off. I did not cruch the numbers, but it seems you used a few too many zeros in your first sentence.

 

[Patranus]

So people who do nothing but lend a company money for a period of time and then get a percentage of their earnings are NOT leeches?

You have such a weird definition there, people who collect money w/o working for it are leeches, but not ones that had money to start with.....

Huh?

I don't get the question or I am missing something.

If a company needs money to stay in business and I lend them money I am getting a percentage back for taking that risk AND for providing value (instant cash) to a company.

 

[Ninjahedge]

It is exactly why taxes are 'progressive', to redistribute wealth from those that have to those that want.

Not really. It is more like the ones WITH money try to invest back in the country in order to make the country a more viable economic engine.

Just think of what the US would have been like if we did not have the railroads built. You think they were funded by the bottom 50%?

People have lost sight of what indirect benefits they get from investment in the country they live and work in.

 

[cybrsage]

So people who do nothing but lend a company money for a period of time and then get a percentage of their earnings are NOT leeches?

No, because they are risking their money...imagine if someone had invested in Solyndra...if someone would have given $535 million (as an example, no one would have been stupid enough to do that in reality, right?), they would have lost their money. Investing in a company is a gamble that you do not take with regular income earnings.

Also, without this investment, companies would not be able to expand nearly as easily as they do not. This would be bad for the new workers they cannot hire without said expansion.

So basically, investors take a risk in the company so that it can expand and hire more people. They then get the benefit of a lower tax rate, since the government wants companies to expand and hire more people. More people employed means more regular income taxed.

It really is a win-win.

 

[Ninjahedge]

Huh?

I don't get the question or I am missing something.

If a company needs money to stay in business and I lend them money I am getting a percentage back for taking that risk AND for providing value (instant cash) to a company.

Very simple.

You are not working. You are getting money for not working.

You can give a company money that you had absolutely no hand in earning. AAMOF, most of finance is a matter of borrowing money you do not have and putting it on something you hope will earn you more than the interest you are being charged.

The only thing you need is some proof that you would be able to pay it back.... which may actually come from OTHER loans that you took to establish OTHER income.

So, the people who earn the most in this country are, on average, not really producing anything. They just look better on paper, making them secure loans more readily and "support" other businesses.



But back to the original. You said that people who get money they do not "work" for are leeches. Therefore, any investor is a leech... by your own definition.

 

[Ninjahedge]

No, because they are risking their money...imagine if someone had invested in Solyndra...if someone would have given $535 million (as an example, no one would have been stupid enough to do that in reality, right?), they would have lost their money. Investing in a company is a gamble that you do not take with regular income earnings.

I understand perfectly what it is, but you are still earning something from nothing.

Also, without this investment, companies would not be able to expand nearly as easily as they do not. This would be bad for the new workers they cannot hire without said expansion.

Again, irrelevant. You can go to my previous post and see how convoluted our system has become. One in which a leveraged company can work on outrageous P/E ratios based on expected risk rather than ACTUAL WORTH.

Our system has made it so number juggling makes more cash than anything besides "insurance".

So basically, investors take a risk in the company so that it can expand and hire more people. They then get the benefit of a lower tax rate, since the government wants companies to expand and hire more people. More people employed means more regular income taxed.

It really is a win-win.

Not really.

 

[dank69]

No, because they are risking their money...imagine if someone had invested in Solyndra...if someone would have given $535 million (as an example, no one would have been stupid enough to do that in reality, right?), they would have lost their money. Investing in a company is a gamble that you do not take with regular income earnings.

Also, without this investment, companies would not be able to expand nearly as easily as they do not. This would be bad for the new workers they cannot hire without said expansion.

So basically, investors take a risk in the company so that it can expand and hire more people. They then get the benefit of a lower tax rate, since the government wants companies to expand and hire more people. More people employed means more regular income taxed.

It really is a win-win.

What happens to the USA when those companies expand to India and China instead of expanding here in the USA?