freeman2 wrote:Five years would suffice. No one is going to make anything of these tax returns if there is nothing there. That is Romney's justification for not releasing his returns--ridiculous on its face.

He might have earned a lot of foreign income, in China, or in Iran before the embargo. He might have not paid the correct amount to the Mormon church. He might have donated to a charity that ended up on a terrorist list in 2012. He might not have paid employment taxes for his domestic help (well that one is actually a problem), or he ended up paying taxes for his domestic help and it was in well into seven figures and included 8 people who only took care of horses.

For the ultra wealthy there are many easy ways to seem that they're not regular people (because they're not) and how they earn and spend their money is one of them. There are 1000's of ways info in his tax return could be taken and twisted so that he looks completely out of touch. I completely get it.

Still like to seem 'em however, but I admit my interest is largely prurient.

Blame Obama, Pelosi and Reid.

They had the power to change it and do not.

Btw, nice smear of Romney by freeman2. People "like" Romney lobbied for exemptions and so it's his fault!

Neither of you are raving about his generosity?

Oh, any evidence that Obama, Biden, or Buffett pay more than they owe?

He gave 3mil to the Mormon church in one year. Good for him. Charity begins with things you believe in. How's that?

bbauska wrote:What percentage is acceptabe Geo? Freeman?

I think we've already covered my thoughts on this. I don't know what the rate should be but it should be related to how much the gov't spends. Perhaps it could even be tied to spending bills. If you pass this bill the income tax rate goes up by X tenths of a percent. I like that. Maybe people would pay more attention to crap like agricultural subsidies.

But I do know that the very wealthiest should be paying at least as much, as a percentage, as working people, and I would argue a graduated rate is even better.

Main thing is to get rid of capital gains tax and just tax it as ordinary income I also would want to discourage too much concentration of wealth by raising rates to 50 percent after someone hits 5 million in income in a year(50 percent only applies after 5 million is hit). Also reinstate the estate tax Otherwise I am ok with current tax rates as long they generate enough revenue.

I am not that impressed with his generosity First, his religion is important to him and he is required to give if he wants to remain
In good standing Also what does he do to generate that income?
I would think that he did not do much When you separate someone's income from actual work then I cant see that giving money that you have done little to earn (whatever work he did originally he didnt do much in 2011) is that big of a deal His vulture capitalism says far more about who he is than his contributions to charity.

There is, of course, charity and 'charity'. If you give a lot to a church/organisation, which uses it to build an opulent building or pay lucrative wages to employees, is that equivalent to giving to a church which uses the money to assist the needy?

Freeman2 and Danivon: bad form. Romney also gives huge bucks to non-Mormon charities. There's plenty enough to fault him for; criticizing his giving is petty, unjust, and downright silly. To my mind, and I could certainly be wrong, it also betrays a hate-the-rich sort of class warfare mentality.

In other news - back to the thread's topic - the Obama campaign has released a new online ad responding to Mitt's latest release of his 2011 tax return. WATCH

Fair? Unfair? Factual? False?

If I invest in a global energy mutual fund, should I be criticized if it places 4% of its assets in Gazprom (which is controlled primarily by the Russian government, who Romney says is our #1 strategic enemy)?

Purple wrote:Freeman2 and Danivon: bad form. Romney also gives huge bucks to non-Mormon charities. There's plenty enough to fault him for; criticizing his giving is petty, unjust, and downright silly. To my mind, and I could certainly be wrong, it also betrays a hate-the-rich sort of class warfare mentality.

I was not specific about Romney, and not about the Mormons either. Do you deny that there is a lot of variation between 'charities', whether religious or secular in establishment?

I also don't think that it's 'good form' to play holier-than-thou games about who donates most to charity. Are you guys electing a benefactor or an Executive?

Geojanes,
I think your mentality about spending is problematic. Are you saying that it is OK to increase spending and cover it with taxes? What point does that end? I know it has been covered before. But are you saying that spending should be covered by people's taxes without curbing spending? There are over 1 trillion in deficits per year. What do the tax rates on the people need to be cover a deficit like that?

It is my belief that a deficit like that will take exorbitant tax rates that will sink down to the middle class and even low classes.

To speak to Danivon's last post, considering who is telling everyone from students to welfare recipients what can be given by the government, who is being the benefactor?

Well I only responded to dr fate saying that us liberals have to give credit to Romney for being so generous. Obviously giving to charity is a good thing, but with regard to Romney the only relevant consideration is does it provide insight into his character? I would say no for the reasons I expressed. Do you really think Romney cares that much about the poor, certainly as a candidate he has not expressed real concern. And I dont think my comments are indicative of a hate the rich mentality. Our country since about 1980 has engaged in policies that have allowed great accumulation of wealth for the top 1$ with a huge drop in their tax rates while at the same the average worker has struggled to maintain the status quo. The rich weren't smarter than prio generations, they didn't work harder, they weren't better--they simply changed the rules. And that fact has profound implications for our democracy (see citizens united and the wave of superpacs), our ability to maintain our safety net, educational system, and infrastructure. Romney is the symbol of that change. He is Gordon Gekko as far as I am concerned and I am not about to let some charitable giving make up for his vulture capitalism

bbauska wrote:What percentage is acceptabe Geo? Freeman?

Agree!!!!!

Seriously, while I respect Geo for his financial knowledge and an understanding of economics, I can't take him seriously because he only ever says it's unfair. What is fair and describe why it is fair. That is the problem with arguing something is fair. Such a determination is extremely subjective. What is fair to one person will not be fair to another.

I was just having this conversation with a friend the other day. My local school district is in the middle of a very contentious contract negotiation that has just entered it's 5th school year. He supports the teachers and said the local School Board should just give teachers what they asked for because it was fair. My wife and I support the Board because I just spent 18 months unemployed and I am sorry but anybody making an average of $70,000 a year asking for an 8% raise and only paying 8% of health benefits is not a fair contract.

bbauska wrote:Geojanes,
I think your mentality about spending is problematic. Are you saying that it is OK to increase spending and cover it with taxes? What point does that end? I know it has been covered before. But are you saying that spending should be covered by people's taxes without curbing spending? There are over 1 trillion in deficits per year. What do the tax rates on the people need to be cover a deficit like that?

At some point, the debt would need to be paid back, right? That is what a debt is. So taxes will have to be used to pay off past deficits as well as any that accrue

It is my belief that a deficit like that will take exorbitant tax rates that will sink down to the middle class and even low classes.

It's pretty clear that the other end of the spectrum is also untenable - no tax increases but reducing spending.

Geojanes was saying that spending should be paid for, which is a major part of the 'fiscal conservative' position. He wasn't saying the spending has to be maintained at current levels, but that any extra should also be marked with how it will be covered in taxes. I think that's a reasonable argument to make. A shame that when he does, the response is to twist it into something else to attack.

To speak to Danivon's last post, considering who is telling everyone from students to welfare recipients what can be given by the government, who is being the benefactor?

Don't forget the rest of the '47%' - seniors, veterans, soldiers, the disabled, children and the working poor. Not that it's at all what I was talking about, unless you see it as being a contest between who is the best at giving money to the needy, of course.

Archduke Russell John wrote:

bbauska wrote:What percentage is acceptabe Geo? Freeman?

Seriously, while I respect Geo for his financial knowledge and an understanding of economics, I can't take him seriously because he only ever says it's unfair. What is fair and describe why it is fair. That is the problem with arguing something is fair. Such a determination is extremely subjective. What is fair to one person will not be fair to another.

Actually, when it comes to taxation, 'fairness' may seem subjective, but there is clearly an issue when someone with an income in the millions pays about 15% and someone getting much less pays over 30%. That's what Geojanes was addressing, and what Bbauska's question was in response to.

Additionally, it does seem less than equitable that unearned income (capital gains) is taxed at a lower rate than earned income (wages). Someone makes an effort to work or build up a business and has to pay 33%, but someone making little actual effort pays half that? Not to mention that it's easy to squirrel away money in foreign tax-havens and come up with clever tax avoiding offsets, but considerably easier for those with high incomes than those with low incomes.

I was just having this conversation with a friend the other day. My local school district is in the middle of a very contentious contract negotiation that has just entered it's 5th school year. He supports the teachers and said the local School Board should just give teachers what they asked for because it was fair. My wife and I support the Board because I just spent 18 months unemployed and I am sorry but anybody making an average of $70,000 a year asking for an 8% raise and only paying 8% of health benefits is not a fair contract.

It's always a tough one. Each of such disputes has various merits and demerits to both sides.

Of course, let's see what Romney has to say to the unemployed, shall we?

fate

Right. So, Pricewaterhouse Coopers is on par with Billy's Bar, Grille, and Accounting?
In other words, a top-flight accounting firm would lie?
If that's what you believe, you're crazy.

Historical Fact:

In July 2007, PwC agreed to pay US$229 million to settle a class-action lawsuit brought by shareholders of Tyco International Ltd. over a multibillion-dollar accounting fraud. The chief executive and chief financial officer of Tyco were found guilty of looting $600 million from the company.[40]

More here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pricewater ... troversies

This is really like Obamas birth certificate. Until he actually released it, twice, there was doubt. But appealing to the veracity and stirling reputation of a firm that was responsible for lots of scandal including one of the greatest accounting frauds of the last decade is naive.

The fact that Romney released information to support his claim that he paid less tax as a percentage of his income than most Americans who paid payroll taxes .... (72%) does open up the discussion of whether tax payers will perceive this as "fair". Not legal. Fair. And fair is a subjective term.
That this information was released after his comments about the 47% who don't pay Federal income tax, (19 percentile points who still paid more tax then Romney) isn't going to help perceptions that Romney supports a system that many see as "unfair". So he's right, Romney, when he thinks those people are predisposed to NOT vote for him. Being right about that won't get him elected.