Politics

[GoIrish41]

You're an idiot. Romney released his, paid everything he was supposed to pay. Done deal. Still awaiting dirty Harry...

Again original poster, back to my original point: do you only despise conservatives' money or do you have that same hatred for wealthy liberals too? Just a question...

He released his tax returns for a single year in which he paid 13 percent on 2 million in earnings. He refused to release any more because he didn't want the scrutiny. The return that he did release showed that he hid money in the Cayman Islands and in Swiss banks to avoid taxes. If that sounds right to you, then you are the f**king idiot.

 

[irishpat183]

He released his tax returns for a single year in which he paid 13 percent on 2 million in earnings. He refused to release any more because he didn't want the scrutiny. The return that he did release showed that he hid money in the Cayman Islands and in Swiss banks to avoid taxes. If that sounds right to you, then you are the f**king idiot.

This business about % vs actually dollars paid has got to stop. Dollars paid is what its about.

"First, as a successful businessman, Governor Romney has not only added value to our economy through his investment and business activity, but he has paid millions in taxes every year to the U.S. government.

Second, the Romneys take to heart "to whom much is given, of him shall much be required." Accordingly, they have been generous in their charitable giving, donating over $7 million between 2010-2011 – donating more to charity than they paid in federal income taxes.

Third, Mitt Romney has scrupulously complied with the U.S. tax code, and his income is reported and taxed at the applicable rates, and he has paid 100 percent of what he has owed."

Silence the critics.


How much have you donated to charity? How much has Obama or Harry Reid?

 

[Rhode Irish]

What are we even talking about at this point?

Four days to go and then all of this bickering and arguing will be rendered meaningless (as if it is meaningful right now). Can't wait for it to be over, win or lose.

 

[GoIrish41]

This business about % vs actually dollars paid has got to stop. Dollars paid is what its about.

Actually, it is about tax rates and the income level. That's what a progressive taxation system is based upon. When you make amount X, then you pay percentage Y. He's avoided paying more in taxes than he has paid. That's what it is about. it is about his character. If he thought what he paid vs. what he made was acceptable to the American public, he would have released his tax returns.

 

[irishpat183]

Actually, it is about tax rates and the income level. That's what a progressive taxation system is based upon. When you make amount X, then you pay percentage Y. He's avoided paying more in taxes than he has paid. That's what it is about. it is about his character. If he thought what he paid vs. what he made was acceptable to the American public, he would have released his tax returns.

He hasn't avoided anything. He's paid what he is requred to pay. Just like you. How much more will you pay this year in taxes, my friend? Will you not use the write offs that you are allowed? Maybe you're just a better person than all of us and you'll just pay more? And anyone who doesn't pay anything doesn't have the right to question someone that actually pays something, IMO.

Dude, get outta here with that garbage. EVERYONE wants to pay less and WILL if given the chance (or a great CPA).

Also, you attack a guy's character who's donated over 7 million in charity? (who I trust more with my money than our federal government)

What say you of Obama? What say you of those that contribute nothing to the system?

 

[Irish Houstonian]

He released his tax returns for a single year in which he paid 13 percent on 2 million in earnings. He refused to release any more because he didn't want the scrutiny. The return that he did release showed that he hid money in the Cayman Islands and in Swiss banks to avoid taxes. If that sounds right to you, then you are the f**king idiot.

u mad bro?

 

[irishpat183]

Oh god...another one of those "rich people don't pay taxes"....


When in fact, they pay the overwhelming majority of them already.

But hey! Gotta keep the people that pay nothing into the system happy and voting, right?????

 

[RallySonsOfND]

Actually, it is about tax rates and the income level. That's what a progressive taxation system is based upon. When you make amount X, then you pay percentage Y. He's avoided paying more in taxes than he has paid. That's what it is about. it is about his character. If he thought what he paid vs. what he made was acceptable to the American public, he would have released his tax returns.

Cool story bro.

I honestly wouldn't give 2 $hits if he had paid less than 10%. His 10% goes a whole lot farther than even you 100%.



Quit saying the rich don't pay enough when there are people out there that don't pay anything, and I don't care how 'poor' they are. Because that is what this whole thing is about, rich people never pay enough and poor people always pay too much. Rich people are terrible for our society aren't they? Guess what, I've never worked for a poor man! I'm thankful for the 3 rich guys who had their own companies that gave me employment during high school and college.


And finally, his income wasn't 'earned', it was off investments, not wages. Let's raise the capital gains tax to 30+ percent and see what happens.

 

[irishpat183]

If they truly cared about "fairness"...then there would be a flat rate for everyone.

But they don't want "fairness"...they want redistrubution.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

u mad bro?

Yes, he is easily angered by conservatives and all their money. Jay Z, Bruce Springsteen, liberal Democrats in the Senate, Madonna, they're all OK because they stick up for the "little guy."

All it takes and the dude melts down. Wouldn't want to be within a 30 mile radius of him if Lord Obama loses on Tuesday. Not my prediction...just sayin

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

"The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money." --- Margaret Thatcher

Working taxpayers be damned. All hail the recipient class.

 

[GoIrish41]

He hasn't avoided anything. He's paid what he is requred to pay. Just like you. How much more will you pay this year in taxes, my friend? Will you not use the write offs that you are allowed? Maybe you're just a better person than all of us and you'll just pay more? And anyone who doesn't pay anything doesn't have the right to question someone that actually pays something, IMO.

Dude, get outta here with that garbage. EVERYONE wants to pay less and WILL if given the chance (or a great CPA).

Also, you attack a guy's character who's donated over 7 million in charity? (who I trust more with my money than our federal government)

What say you of Obama? What say you of those that contribute nothing to the system?

I'm not saying he broke any laws, so lets get that out of the way. Of course everyone wants to pay less. But, everyone is not running for president. Everyone will not be in a position to affect tax rates for the next four years. If he's in office, he has explicity said that he would give everyone a "20% across-the-board tax cut." That means much more for the rich than the middle class. It means noting for the poor. He hired the best accountants who used every loophole he could to avoid paying taxes. Yes, that's what lots of folks do. But, again, they aren't running for president. They aren't hiding. It was an issue, and continues to be an issue for many, because his tax returns might reveal something about how he has conducted himself with regard to personal taxation. There is a long tradition of candidates releasing their returns and he absolutely refused, even when he was getting killed because of it. Why? I suspect that if people would see how much he makes and how little he pays as a percentage of his earnings, they would be outraged. It would speak to his integrity and to the depth of his convictions about "paying down the debt" or "borrowing too much from China." It would reveal his character. He wasn't willing to take that political risk.

It means nothing to those who are poor. Him giving 7 million to charity is like me giving $50. I don't know what he's worth, but I'd be willing to bet that I gave more as a percentage to charity than he gave.

 

[Buster Bluth]

He released his tax returns for a single year in which he paid 13 percent on 2 million in earnings.

I'm pretty sure it was two years and that he made ~$20mil annually.

He refused to release any more because he didn't want the scrutiny.

Correct. Why should he feed the "I'm too rich to know anything about people" story?

The return that he did release showed that he hid money in the Cayman Islands and in Swiss banks to avoid taxes.

10000% false.

If that sounds right to you, then you are the f**king idiot.

lol'd

 

[RDU Irish]

Trust me...he knows all of the things you've just outlined. They are accounted for in his model.

Incidentally, this isn't the question you raised. The so-called sampling bias is also explained. Pollsters sample by demographic and people identify their party affiliation. Affiliation is much more fluid than, say, whether you're black or not.

Another excellent column this morning.
Nov. 1: The Simple Case for Saying Obama Is the Favorite - NYTimes.com

So it is impossible that Silver was lucky rather than good in 2008? Nate Silver was born in 1978 and has done proactive analysis of exactly ONE election, calling 49 of 50 states correctly to the winner. The one he missed, Indiana, was won by .9% by Obama who was not favored in the state. Missouri (.1% margin) and North Carolina (.4% margin) can largely be considered luck since they were so close. Better to be lucky than good though.

Wikipedia does note that he had somewhat exclusive access to Obama's internal polling in2008, so he was dealing with inside info from the party with momentum. Does he have similar access on either side this time around?

But just keep picking the top performing mutual fund in your 401k every year and let me know how that works for you.

So where does it say what is assumptions are right now for turnout? To me that would be the highest value variable in the entire equation. Fiddling with that would fun and interesting.

He is dead on that national polls are pretty useless, but that isn't exactly revolutionary either.

 

[GoIrish41]

Cool story bro.

I honestly wouldn't give 2 $hits if he had paid less than 10%. His 10% goes a whole lot farther than even you 100%.



Quit saying the rich don't pay enough when there are people out there that don't pay anything, and I don't care how 'poor' they are. Because that is what this whole thing is about, rich people never pay enough and poor people always pay too much. Rich people are terrible for our society aren't they? Guess what, I've never worked for a poor man! I'm thankful for the 3 rich guys who had their own companies that gave me employment during high school and college.


And finally, his income wasn't 'earned', it was off investments, not wages. Let's raise the capital gains tax to 30+ percent and see what happens.

nuff said

 

[Irish Houstonian]

"The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money." --- Margaret Thatcher

Working taxpayers be damned. All hail the recipient class.

"The vice of capitalism is the unequitable distribution of wealth.

The virtue of socialism is the equitable distribution of misery."


-Winston Churchill (whose mom was American, by the way).

 

[GoIrish41]

I'm pretty sure it was two years and that he made ~$20mil annually.



10000% false.

He released 1 year and his summary of a 2nd year. Sorry for the typo, I meant $20 mil.

10000% false.

Actually, it is not false at all.

 

[irishpat183]

"The vice of capitalism is the unequitable distribution of wealth.

The virtue of socialism is the equitable distribution of misery."


-Winston Churchill (whose mom was American, by the way).

I'll take the former...because it actually breeds competition and REAL hope. One day, you could be rich.

Or would you rather be equally poor?

 

[Ndaccountant]

I liken Silver to the bracketologists. In reality, there are only about 4 or 5 states that are accurately classified as a toss-up. Some years you get it right, some years you don't. But when I read 49 out of 50 I recall Joe Lunardi touting 64 of 66. Thats great, but what were you on the final five? My hunch is that 2008 was much easier to call and he will not be as accurate in 2012.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

I'll take the former...because it actually breeds competition and REAL hope. One day, you could be rich.

Or would you rather be equally poor?

Yes please

 

[Buster Bluth]

I'm not saying he broke any laws, so lets get that out of the way. Of course everyone wants to pay less. But, everyone is not running for president. Everyone will not be in a position to affect tax rates for the next four years.

Presidents =! dictators. Congress sets the tax rates.

If he's in office, he has explicity said that he would give everyone a "20% across-the-board tax cut."

Which has been proven to be basically impossible. 20% is the "broad principle." Their words, not mine. "20% cut" is easier to sell than a more honest "We want to get the tax rates as low as possible and eliminate as many nonsensical/unfair deductions so that small businesses are on a better playing field and produce more jobs in America." So, yeah.

Huge corporations build in tax loopholes and insane regulations that increase their profits and increase the cost of entering the marketplace. Someone needs to change that. GE paid like 0% in taxes, small family-owned businesses are paying 35%+.

Eliminate the loopholes, lower the rates. That is basically the Romney plan.

That means much more for the rich than the middle class. It means noting for the poor. He hired the best accountants who used every loophole he could to avoid paying taxes. Yes, that's what lots of folks do. But, again, they aren't running for president. They aren't hiding. It was an issue, and continues to be an issue for many, because his tax returns might reveal something about how he has conducted himself with regard to personal taxation.

There is a long tradition of candidates releasing their returns and he absolutely refused, even when he was getting killed because of it. Why? I suspect that if people would see how much he makes and how little he pays as a percentage of his earnings, they would be outraged. It would speak to his integrity and to the depth of his convictions about "paying down the debt" or "borrowing too much from China." It would reveal his character. He wasn't willing to take that political risk.

Him giving 7 million to charity is like me giving $50. I don't know what he's worth, but I'd be willing to bet that I gave more as a percentage to charity than he gave.

He made $14mil last year. He paid $2mil in taxes. He donated $4mil to charity.

So if you gave $50 last year, your income was $175? Niiice.

It's worth noting that the Romneys left off $1.8mil in deductions just so that they'd pay the 14%, otherwise it would have been even lower. On one hand it fits the "if you're running for President" bullshit. It's such a pathetically weak argument. By and large I don't care what the President does with his money. I don't care that the Bidens have given an average o $369/yr to charity. I care about what they do with MY MONEY.

 

[irishpat183]

I'm not saying he broke any laws, so lets get that out of the way. Of course everyone wants to pay less. But, everyone is not running for president. Everyone will not be in a position to affect tax rates for the next four years. If he's in office, he has explicity said that he would give everyone a "20% across-the-board tax cut." That means much more for the rich than the middle class. It means noting for the poor. He hired the best accountants who used every loophole he could to avoid paying taxes. Yes, that's what lots of folks do. But, again, they aren't running for president. They aren't hiding. It was an issue, and continues to be an issue for many, because his tax returns might reveal something about how he has conducted himself with regard to personal taxation. There is a long tradition of candidates releasing their returns and he absolutely refused, even when he was getting killed because of it. Why? I suspect that if people would see how much he makes and how little he pays as a percentage of his earnings, they would be outraged. It would speak to his integrity and to the depth of his convictions about "paying down the debt" or "borrowing too much from China." It would reveal his character. He wasn't willing to take that political risk.

It means nothing to those who are poor. Him giving 7 million to charity is like me giving $50. I don't know what he's worth, but I'd be willing to bet that I gave more as a percentage to charity than he gave.

This post is just....garbage.

So because he's running for POTUS, his money is somehow worth less than say, anyother rich guy? And him giving 7million...is like him giving 7 MILLION. WTF are you talking about? Our tax system isn't about how much my money is worth to you or the media. I pay the % that they tell me too and that I can get away with under the laws. Guess what!?!?!?! EVERYONE CAN DO THE SAME!


And again, he didn't break any laws...paid millions.....Sooo I'm failing to see how this makes him a bad guy and hurts his integrity.


Just say it. You're pissed because he makes money and you think he doesn't deserve it. Get it outta the way. Otherwise, you got nothing.

I don't understand the logic here...oh yeah....because it's not based in logic, but in emotion

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

The choice has never been more clear and has never been more important:

Obummer: bayonets, big bird, free birth control, roads and bridges

Romney: balanced budget, bring down tax rates, private sector growth, free market capitalism

 

[PraetorianND]

I don't think Romney should be persecuted for taking advantage of tax loopholes. I also don't think he should be persecuted for being a successful businessman.

That being said I think he has very little integrity. He straight up lied to win the primary. He changes his mind wherever convenient. I know this is part of the "game" and Obama has done some of the same (to a far lesser extent). The level of Romney's "flip flopping" is unprecedented in modern politics and in my opinion it makes him completely untrustworthy. I'm surprised when people defend his actions. It's just slimy.

 

[GoIrish41]

Presidents =! dictators. Congress sets the tax rates.



Which has been proven to be basically impossible. 20% is the "broad principle." Their words, not mine. "20% cut" is easier to sell than a more honest "We want to get the tax rates as low as possible and eliminate as many nonsensical/unfair deductions so that small businesses are on a better playing field and produce more jobs in America." So, yeah.

Huge corporations build in tax loopholes and insane regulations that increase their profits and increase the cost of entering the marketplace. Someone needs to change that. GE paid like 0% in taxes, small family-owned businesses are paying 35%+.

Eliminate the loopholes, lower the rates. That is basically the Romney plan.

He made $14mil last year. He paid $2mil in taxes. He donated $4mil to charity.

So if you gave $50 last year, your income was $175? Niiice.

It's worth noting that the Romneys left off $1.8mil in deductions just so that they'd pay the 14%, otherwise it would have been even lower. On one hand it fits the "if you're running for President" bullshit. It's such a pathetically weak argument. By and large I don't care what the President does with his money. I don't care that the Bidens have given an average o $369/yr to charity. I care about what they do with MY MONEY.

Buster, you are intelligent enough to know that presidents influence tax rates. There is a reason the tax cuts of the previous administration are called the Bush tax cuts.

I completely agree with eliminating loopholes, but if we are going to pay off this huge debt, shouldn't we do that before tax cuts? I mean, if that is the immorality of the current system -- borrowing more money from China to pass off the debt to our children -- shouldn't we take care of that first?

I didn't say I only gave $50 to charity and I was talking about total worth, not annual income.

Romney left off deductions because he made the mis-step of telling a reporter that he paid at least 13 percent every year.

 

[irishpat183]

Presidents =! dictators. Congress sets the tax rates.



Which has been proven to be basically impossible. 20% is the "broad principle." Their words, not mine. "20% cut" is easier to sell than a more honest "We want to get the tax rates as low as possible and eliminate as many nonsensical/unfair deductions so that small businesses are on a better playing field and produce more jobs in America." So, yeah.

Huge corporations build in tax loopholes and insane regulations that increase their profits and increase the cost of entering the marketplace. Someone needs to change that. GE paid like 0% in taxes, small family-owned businesses are paying 35%+.

Eliminate the loopholes, lower the rates. That is basically the Romney plan.

He made $14mil last year. He paid $2mil in taxes. He donated $4mil to charity.

So if you gave $50 last year, your income was $175? Niiice.

It's worth noting that the Romneys left off $1.8mil in deductions just so that they'd pay the 14%, otherwise it would have been even lower. On one hand it fits the "if you're running for President" bullshit. It's such a pathetically weak argument. By and large I don't care what the President does with his money. I don't care that the Bidens have given an average o $369/yr to charity. I care about what they do with MY MONEY.

Not as much as liberals care about YOUR money.....LOL

 

[GoIrish41]

The choice has never been more clear and has never been more important:

Obummer: bayonets, big bird, free birth control, roads and bridges

Romney: balanced budget, bring down tax rates, private sector growth, free market capitalism

Obama: Universal access to health care, saving the auto industry, slow (perhaps too slow) but steady economic growth, fair pay for women, doubling of the stock market, protecting a woman's right to make her own healthcare decisions

Romney: Balanced budget by spending an extra $8 trillion and not paying for it, lowering the tax rates and thereby reducing revenues that could be used to pay down the debt, gutting government programs and agencies that stablize American lives, getting rid of FEMA and letting the states fend for themselves when a national disaster happens.

 

[irishpat183]

Buster, you are intelligent enough to know that presidents influence tax rates. There is a reason the tax cuts of the previous administration are called the Bush tax cuts.
I completely agree with eliminating loopholes, but if we are going to pay off this huge debt, shouldn't we do that before tax cuts? I mean, if that is the immorality of the current system -- borrowing more money from China to pass off the debt to our children -- shouldn't we take care of that first?

I didn't say I only gave $50 to charity and I was talking about total worth, not annual income.

Romney left off deductions because he made the mis-step of telling a reporter that he paid at least 13 percent every year.

The Bush tax cuts? Which Obama continued.....and which is why Obama stays away from that topic.


And I think we all agree with elimnating loop holes....but you want to ask someone to stop using them until then or they "have no integrity"? LOL Come on. Again, they're available for all!

And you can eliminate debt a helluva lot faster if you curb spending first and teach our government that we're not just an ATM and that they need to work with less. Than just overtaxing those that are successful. And raising taxes DOES NOTHING if you keep adding more spending to the books, does it?

There is a happy medium.....But we need to cut spending first

 

[irishpat183]

Obama: Universal access to health care, saving the auto industry, slow (perhaps too slow) but steady economic growth, fair pay for women, doubling of the stock market, protecting a woman's right to make her own healthcare decisions
Romney: Balanced budget by spending an extra $8 trillion and not paying for it, lowering the tax rates and thereby reducing revenues that could be used to pay down the debt, gutting government programs and agencies that stablize American lives, getting rid of FEMA and letting the states fend for themselves when a national disaster happens.

I'm thinking of a name....who's that pres before him that actually signed on those
bailouts....hmmmmmmm


And you're "women's rights" thing is garbage. I could easily turn that the other way.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

So it is impossible that Silver was lucky rather than good in 2008? Nate Silver was born in 1978 and has done proactive analysis of exactly ONE election, calling 49 of 50 states correctly to the winner. The one he missed, Indiana, was won by .9% by Obama who was not favored in the state. Missouri (.1% margin) and North Carolina (.4% margin) can largely be considered luck since they were so close. Better to be lucky than good though.

Wikipedia does note that he had somewhat exclusive access to Obama's internal polling in2008, so he was dealing with inside info from the party with momentum. Does he have similar access on either side this time around?

But just keep picking the top performing mutual fund in your 401k every year and let me know how that works for you.

So where does it say what is assumptions are right now for turnout? To me that would be the highest value variable in the entire equation. Fiddling with that would fun and interesting.

He is dead on that national polls are pretty useless, but that isn't exactly revolutionary either.

He had a very good run in 2010 as well, but yes...only one presidential election. If he was lucky, we'll know soon enough. I think his analysis is the most thoughtful and careful analysis out there. I hope he's right, but I also really appreciate his writing.

But, again, there would need to be systematic polling bias right now in order for Romney to win.

Intrade also has Obama as a 66.9% to 33.2% (doesn't add up to 100...liberal bias?) fav.