Is Harry Reid a pederast? It seems the burden of proof is on him.

[jsgoddess]

Originally Posted by Clothahump

It's very simple. Is he currently in jail for not paying his taxes? No, he is not. Therefore, he paid them to the satisfaction of the IRS, America's own version of the Gestapo. If they aren't after him, nobody else should be.

No one can be guilty of something unless they are in jail for it?

That's an interesting perspective.

[grayhairedmomma]

Originally Posted by Robot Arm

I wonder what information Romney discovered, two years after the fact, that made him realize he actually lived in a state two time zones away from where he thought he did.

I think he "discovered" that he had a chance at winning the governship of MA.

There is a series of interesting articles in the New York Times surrounding this issue. IF you take Mitt Romney's word for it, some clerk in the tax assessor's office just randomly decided that Romney's Utah home was his primary residence, which just happened to save him $54,000 in taxes. You would also have to believe that the tax bill was sent to Romney's wife and he never looked at it, and you would need to believe Romney when he says that he never looked at the IRS tax returns when he signed them under penalty of perjury.

I think that's bullshit and he just thought he could change it retroactively and not get caught.

[Leaper]

Originally Posted by Clothahump

It's very simple. Is he currently in jail for not paying his taxes? No, he is not. Therefore, he paid them to the satisfaction of the IRS, America's own version of the Gestapo. If they aren't after him, nobody else should be.

Perhaps, but that standard doesn't seem to satisfy many conservatives (see Obama's birth certificate and Huma Abedin), so why should liberals be satisfied by it?

The IRS thing is off-topic for this thread, so I'm not gonna ask questions about it.

[Oldeb]

Originally Posted by Clothahump

It's very simple. Is he currently in jail for not paying his taxes? No, he is not. Therefore, he paid them to the satisfaction of the IRS, America's own version of the Gestapo. If they aren't after him, nobody else should be.

And if he paid them to the satisfaction of the IRS only because he took part in the 2009 amnesty program? Are you still comfortable with that?

[Alonzo John Blitz]

Originally Posted by Manda JO

I wasn't the poster, but it seems painfully obvious to me that what he meant was that if Romney can legally pay zero or no federal income taxes while contending that taxes in this country are too high and signing an oath to never ever ever raise them even a little bit for anyone under any circumstances, that suggests a fundamentally broken system. For me, at least, the idea that people who have annual incomes in the tens of millions of dollars ought not pay any federal income taxes is more disturbing than the idea that some schmuck might get away with breaking the law.

I am not a political guru like many here, but I think this, and other posts by Manda Jo, get very close to the heart of the matter.

I doubt Romney has done anything illegal - as others have stated, he's been after the job for a long time and it is unlikely in the extreme that he has left any felonius skeletons dangling.

But, if, through the legal manipulations of the tax system, he has been able to minimize his payments to such a degree (say, 5 - 10% of net) - this could play against his claim to the 'everyman' persona he seems to be trying to cultivate, and estrange him from that demographic. A not inconsiderable number of which, I seem to remember, are the much-valued 'undecideds'.

His legal and financial contortions to arrive at 'net' may also raise an eyebrow or two.

Nothing illegal, likely nothing unethical either - just a 'wtf' moment from those of us who do not enjoy the counsel of high-priced tax attorneys and accountants.

Or, woe is me, need it.

[eenerms]

I have been following this thread, and I still want to know , what is a "fair share"? Living in NV now every other political ad for Pres. Obama is stating that.

(Fwiw in Australia we paid 48% of our income and we received no social benefits being expats)

[YogSosoth]

Originally Posted by Clothahump

It's very simple. Is he currently in jail for not paying his taxes? No, he is not. Therefore, he paid them to the satisfaction of the IRS, America's own version of the Gestapo. If they aren't after him, nobody else should be.

So the fact that people like Pelosi aren't in jail for profiteering makes it just dandy and legal and not worthy of being looked into? Clinton never perjured cause that's a jailable offense, and Obama's born in Hawaii because a Kenyan obviously can't be president. I'm glad you agree with me that no current Democrat in office has acted illegally and that Eric Holder should continue to be AG since he's doing such a remarkable job.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Originally Posted by eenerms

I have been following this thread, and I still want to know , what is a "fair share"? Living in NV now every other political ad for Pres. Obama is stating that.

(Fwiw in Australia we paid 48% of our income and we received no social benefits being expats)

Well, right now the top marginal rate is 35%... so nobody in the US is paying an effective rate of even half what you say you did.

[mhendo]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

Well, right now the top marginal rate is 35%... so nobody in the US is paying an effective rate of even half what you say you did.

Nor did eenerms ever pay 48% of his/her whole income.

The top rate in Australia is currently 45%. Up until a few years ago, it was 47%. These rates don't include a 1.5% Medicare levy.

But, like in the US, these are marginal rates, and are NOT applied to a person's whole income.

[gamerunknown]

Originally Posted by magellan01

Easy. Whatever the employer and employee agree upon. Tell me, what is unfair about that?

Absolutely nothing. Tell me a company where the employers and employees decide on their wages and salaries in a joint decision with equal veto power and I'll do everything in my power to work there in future.

For clarity, when I said, roughly "Romney was unwilling to put money in the government coffers", I should have been more precise. He was unwilling to pay the same fraction of his income in tax to the government as Obama was and he seems reluctant to pay even the rates of tax that he currently does, given his support for the Ryan plan and Norquist pledge.

[eenerms]

Originally Posted by mhendo

Nor did eenerms ever pay 48% of his/her whole income.

The top rate in Australia is currently 45%. Up until a few years ago, it was 47%. These rates don't include a 1.5% Medicare levy.

But, like in the US, these are marginal rates, and are NOT applied to a person's whole income.

I beg to differ. It was on the whole income, the tax rates in Austraila is progressive, increases on how much one makes. We were also obliged to pay into the Super savings, which was taxed at the highest rate when we left. It had already been taxed at the original income.

[mhendo]

Originally Posted by eenerms

I beg to differ. It was on the whole income, the tax rates in Austraila is progressive, increases on how much one makes.

You are wrong, wrong, wrong.

The tax rate IS progressive. It DOES increase as you make more money. But the increasing rates are NOT retrospective to all of your income; it ONLY applies to the income above each threshold. You did not pay 48% on your whole income.

Even if you were taxed as a non-resident, which substantially increases the tax burden, the first $80,000 attracts a tax rate of 32.5%, the bracket from $$80K-$180K is taxed at 37%, and over $180K is taxed at 45%.

Tax rates from the Australian Taxation Office.

[TriPolar]

Harry Reid is Australian? Or is it Mitt? I thought they were just morons Mormons.

[eenerms]

Originally Posted by TriPolar

Harry Reid is Australian? Or is it Mitt? I thought they were just morons Mormons.

I was just stating they pay a high tax rate in Oz.

[eenerms]

Originally Posted by mhendo

You are wrong, wrong, wrong.

The tax rate IS progressive. It DOES increase as you make more money. But the increasing rates are NOT retrospective to all of your income; it ONLY applies to the income above each threshold. You did not pay 48% on your whole income.

Even if you were taxed as a non-resident, which substantially increases the tax burden, the first $80,000 attracts a tax rate of 32.5%, the bracket from $$80K-$180K is taxed at 37%, and over $180K is taxed at 45%.

Tax rates from the Australian Taxation Office.

Ok you're right, I really resented the amount of taxes we paid in Oz.

[magellan01]

Originally Posted by gamerunknown

Absolutely nothing. Tell me a company where the employers and employees decide on their wages and salaries in a joint decision with equal veto power and I'll do everything in my power to work there in future.

Any company in who seeks to hire someone. Whatever the deal, you each have one vote. They can't force you to work there. and you have every right to negotiate. Though if it's a job tied to a union, that will get in your way. Barring that, you can negotiated for any and every job. Now, if the job is at the grill at a burger joint and you have no experience, you're not going to have much bargaining power. I take it that you don't agree with this, and I really don't get that. It really seems to me that every job has the conditions you want (save union ones). You both certainly have equal veto power. You either want the job for a salary of $X, or not. They either want to hire you to do the job for $X or they do not. I really do think it's as simple as that. If one wants more power at the table, one has to bring something unique.

Originally Posted by gamerunknown

For clarity, when I said, roughly "Romney was unwilling to put money in the government coffers", I should have been more precise. He was unwilling to pay the same fraction of his income in tax to the government as Obama was and he seems reluctant to pay even the rates of tax that he currently does, given his support for the Ryan plan and Norquist pledge.

Evidently, Obama paid 20.5% in 2011. I don't think Romney's 2011 # is out yet. In 2010, Romney's rate was 13.7%, Obama's was just over 26%. The main difference is due to Obama's income coming mainly from salary and book sales, while Romney has a lot of investment income. Both of them, as the saying goes, paid a lower overall rate than their secretaries. It's my guess that the oBama's also had some investment income, and if so, they paid the same lower rate on that as Romney did. Next year, if Romney writes a best-selling book and it accounts for the majority of his income his rate would approach that of Obama. Conversely, if Obama made some investments that start to do really well and bring him in a bunch of investment income, his rate will approach that of Romney. I'm not sure where the problem is. It seems that is simply a function of the tax code. If we taxed investment income the same as ordinary income, most of the disparity would disappear. Whether that's a smart thing to do or not is another question. But blaming Romney because of how the tax code is structured hardly seems logical. Now, if the debate is about what the tax code should be, that's terrific. But what Romney paid in the past, unless illegal, is a moot point. I'm sure that there are plenty of people wealthier than Romney who advocate for raising the capital gains rate, but had their accountants take every deduction they could.

[LavenderBlue]

I almost feel sorry for you Republicans. You have to a defend a shitty candidate. He has no speaking skills, paid a lower tax rate than many Americans and has shifted positions a lot even for politician. But then again if I had a choice between Crazy Fucking Sexist Religious Theocrat and Smarmy Vacilating Selfish Rich Prick, I might have gone with the prick myself.



It is great watching Romney on the defensive, though. Romney's fundamental problem is that Reid's allegations are plausible. Really rich people have gamed the tax system constantly over the years. On a good day we're lucky if we get them to cough up a lousy fifteen percent. On most days they expect us to grateful they bother to live here. When questioned about their bad behavior they act like Mrs. Romney and tell us to mind our own business and leave them alone while they take tax deductions for a dancing horse.

[BigT]

Hey, conservatives: if you ever want to convince us that we're wrong, you might want to, you know, understand what it is we're saying before going all gung ho against it.

This is basic morality. If Romney did this legally, the system is fucked up. And this means that MORE THAN JUST HIM are doing the same thing. More people doing an immoral act == worse act.

I know you personally don't think not paying any taxes is a bad thing, since taxes are stealing. But you know we do. It shouldn't be that hard for an intelligent person to hold in their head an idea they disagree with for the duration of considering a proposition.

I mean, it's as bad as Christians who can't fathom the idea that someone might believe that God may not exist.

[Drunky Smurf]

Originally Posted by BigT

This is basic morality. If Romney did this legally, the system is fucked up. And this means that MORE THAN JUST HIM are doing the same thing. More people doing an immoral act == worse act.

So following the tax code law is immoral. Gotch ya.

[gamerunknown]

Originally Posted by Drunky Smurf

So following the tax code law is immoral. Gotch ya.

Not even a gotcha ya. If one holds the proposition to be true that exploiting perfectly legal loopholes is immoral due to it leading to less federal revenue for social programs, then doing so on a wide scale is immoral. Just as advocating a regressive tax scheme is immoral.

[HookerChemical]

Originally Posted by gamerunknown

Not even a gotcha ya. If one holds the proposition to be true that exploiting perfectly legal loopholes is immoral due to it leading to less federal revenue for social programs, then doing so on a wide scale is immoral. Just as advocating a regressive tax scheme is immoral.

I'm voting for Obama, but I simply don't buy the argument that paying the lowest amount of taxes the law allows is immoral. I'll bring up my mortgage deduction again. It's a deduction I get because I own a house and others don't get because they don't. Millions of people take the deduction. If I make an investment, I'd only be taxed on the profits at 15%. Is there some moral line that's crossed by simply following the tax code?

Yes, we need to reduce the available deductions and bring investment taxation in line with earned income taxation, but there's nothing immoral about taking the available deductions. Look at Warren Buffet, who's taking the deductions but using it as an example of how the system is broken. He's also a very big philanthropist, so it's not that he's taking money from social programs to support his Faberge Egg habit or harm society.

[ElvisL1ves]

Originally Posted by Drunky Smurf

So following the tax code law is immoral. Gotch ya.

No, the structure of the tax code itself is immoral. Following it is not.

Clear now?

[Sinaptics]

Originally Posted by HookerChemical

I'm voting for Obama, but I simply don't buy the argument that paying the lowest amount of taxes the law allows is immoral. I'll bring up my mortgage deduction again. It's a deduction I get because I own a house and others don't get because they don't. Millions of people take the deduction. If I make an investment, I'd only be taxed on the profits at 15%. Is there some moral line that's crossed by simply following the tax code?

Yes, we need to reduce the available deductions and bring investment taxation in line with earned income taxation, but there's nothing immoral about taking the available deductions. Look at Warren Buffet, who's taking the deductions but using it as an example of how the system is broken. He's also a very big philanthropist, so it's not that he's taking money from social programs to support his Faberge Egg habit or harm society.

IMO, it's ploys like moving assets from one subsidiary to another or undervaluing assets (I'm not a tax professional; I'm sure this is wrong in one way or another) that is immoral. What they're doing is legal, but wasn't the intent of the law, rather they're using loopholes of various degrees of legality to lower their tax burden.

[Gagundathar]

Perception is everything in this.

If the Democratic Party can continue to focus the debate (such as it is) on plutocratic millionaire behavior instead of something more complex (like how do we actually deal with the deficit and the crumbling infrastructure), then the race will be won. The GOP has suffered greatly by embracing the least intelligent subset of its demographic, the ultraconservative religious fanatics.

Sometimes, I genuinely fear for the future of the republic.

[magellan01]

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves

No, the structure of the tax code itself is immoral. Following it is not.

Clear now?

Great. So, the problem is with those in congress that have crafted the tax code. I couldn't agree more. And as far as we know (Reid's sleaziness aside) Romney did nothing legally or ethically wrong concerning his taxes.

[ElvisL1ves]

Legal and ethical are the same to you?

Bricker, how did you get magellan01's sign-on info?

[LavenderBlue]

Originally Posted by magellan01

Great. So, the problem is with those in congress that have crafted the tax code. I couldn't agree more. And as far as we know (Reid's sleaziness aside) Romney did nothing legally or ethically wrong concerning his taxes.

They craft the tax code that way because really rich people like Romney tell them to. They hire lobbyists and the lobbyists get the ear of congress. Ordinary people like me don't have the same access or influence because we don't have the Koch's brother's money. So I wind up paying a higher tax rate than he does. Then I get told by the Reps to STFU and stop whining about it. The ludicrous pretense that innocent rich people have no choice in how much taxes they pay nor any imput in how the tax code gets written is bullshit.

We don't know what Romney did legally or morally. He won't tell us. That's the problem. Other candidates have told us. Romney has essentially said fuck you, Americans. He's decided we have no right to know what he's done with his money for most of his life. There's the real sleaze. He could rebut Reid's allegations in five seconds if he chose. He hasn't.

[Damuri Ajashi]

Originally Posted by HookerChemical

I'm not going to vote for Romney. No way in hell. I hate the Republicans with a deep passion. I'm not a huge fan of the Democrats, but they're far more in line with my politics that I frequently vote for them.

But Reid needs to put up or shut up. I'm leaning towards shut up. If he has evidence that Romney hasn't paid taxes, he needs to present it rather that spouting off.

Even if Romney didn't pay taxes, I don't care unless he did it illegally. He'd be a fool to pay more than needed to. (This applies to the "If Warren Buffet thinks he should be taxed more, he should just pay more," argument as well.) If he did commit tax fraud, the IRS should really get on that.

I think Reid is this whole thing up and effectively daring Romney to prove him wrong.

Originally Posted by John Mace

He released his 2010 tax return. That's what it showed. We'll see his 2011 return in the fall.

If he released 5 more years, people on the other side would be asking for 10.

They're asking for ten right now and with good reason. His IRA balances are improbably high without some sort of shenanigans, his transfers to his children seem larger than could be justified under the Unified Gift and Estate Tax without some significant undervaluation, and politically speaking, it would cement the narrative that the Republicans are primarily interested in reducing the tax burden on the rich if Romney paid close to or below 15% effective tax rate over the last 10 years.

Originally Posted by mhendo

Option (1) is incredibly unlikely. Romney has been pursuing the presidency, in one way or another, for over a decade, and he and his advisers would have made damn sure that they took no deductions or other tax minimizations that might be legally questionable and jeopardize his political career even with people who agree with his politics.

I wouldn't be so quick to jump to this conclusion. We already know that corporations where he served on the board of directors engaged in very shady tax shelters. We see evidence of improbably high IRA values and very high welath transfers to his children. Many people suspect that he took advantage of the 2009 amnesty for a swiss bank account, which might be covering FBAR violations. There are legitimate concerns that rise above the level of birtherism.

Originally Posted by magellan01

This would be brilliant if it were written by someone on the opposite side of the political spectrum form you. It brings sunshine to the morally bankrupt chant of "pay their fair share" (). You don't want the wealthy to pay a fair share, you want them to pay more. And then more again. Because they can.

Once again, you're bankrupt positions and your monumental stupidity jump out of the mirror and put a clown nose and big floppy jackass on you. Smile!

I think you are suffering a failure of reading comprehension. They don't want the rich to pay more THAN their fair share,they want the rich to pay more OF their fair share.

Originally Posted by magellan01

Excellent post. I think the real answer is that they just want to keep him on the defensive. Just think to all the things they could point to over 12 years. "...Then in 2006, Mr. Romney gave $5,000 to Organization X. Organization is now defunct and we can't find out about it. Can Mr. Romney explain what he gave $5,000 to Organization X and assure us that there business practices were above board and in line with American values? And then there's this tax he paid on investment made in Switzerland..." That's Reid's game plan.

The problem with the taxes paid on investments in switzerland is that many people suspect that those swiss bank accounts didn't appear on his tax returns until the 2009 amnesty program. IOW he had been hiding those assets that he was legally required to disclose under FBAR.

Originally Posted by Clothahump

It's very simple. Is he currently in jail for not paying his taxes? No, he is not. Therefore, he paid them to the satisfaction of the IRS, America's own version of the Gestapo. If they aren't after him, nobody else should be.

Yeah, cuz the IRS catches every tax cheat.

Originally Posted by HookerChemical

I'm voting for Obama, but I simply don't buy the argument that paying the lowest amount of taxes the law allows is immoral. I'll bring up my mortgage deduction again. It's a deduction I get because I own a house and others don't get because they don't. Millions of people take the deduction. If I make an investment, I'd only be taxed on the profits at 15%. Is there some moral line that's crossed by simply following the tax code?

Yes, we need to reduce the available deductions and bring investment taxation in line with earned income taxation, but there's nothing immoral about taking the available deductions. Look at Warren Buffet, who's taking the deductions but using it as an example of how the system is broken. He's also a very big philanthropist, so it's not that he's taking money from social programs to support his Faberge Egg habit or harm society.

I think some people are saying the way thet ax code distributes the tax burden is immoral and that Romney is a good showcase for this inequity.

Of course others are doing the equivalent of condemning Romeny for driving at the speed limit because they think the speed limit is too high.

[Kearsen]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

I feel the opposite way. I'd be more concerned if he paid no taxes and was able to do it legally.

There's something wrong with a tax law system that lets somebody with as much money as Mitt Romney has pay no taxes while people like me do pay those taxes. I don't want people who are part of that system to be running the government and that obviously includes being President.

You mean like all those other nasty politicians who place those loopholes in the tax structure so they can take advantage of them, yet when the "other white meat" (rich folks) use the same loopholes it pisses them off?
I think rich people should pay more in tax, but that includes all rich and by rich I mean rich.
250k a year aint rich

[Frostillicus]

Originally Posted by Kearsen

You mean like all those other nasty politicians who place those loopholes in the tax structure so they can take advantage of them, yet when the "other white meat" (rich folks) use the same loopholes it pisses them off?
I think rich people should pay more in tax, but that includes all rich and by rich I mean rich.
250k a year aint rich

If you are in the 98th percentile of all Americans, guess what? You are rich. Congrats!

[Euphonious Polemic]

Originally Posted by Frostillicus

If you are in the 98th percentile of all Americans, guess what? You are rich. Congrats!

If all my friends own their personal Learjet and I must lease mine, I am not rich.

If all my friends own 150 foot mega-yachts with helicopters, and I can only afford a 100 foot yacht, I am not rich.

[Kimstu]

Originally Posted by Euphonious Polemic

If all my friends own their personal Learjet and I must lease mine, I am not rich.

If all my friends own 150 foot mega-yachts with helicopters, and I can only afford a 100 foot yacht, I am not rich.

Well, you may not feel rich, but that doesn't mean that you aren't rich. Yes, "rich" is a relative term, but it doesn't depend only on who's got the most and biggest toys within your personal circle of friends.

[mhendo]

Originally Posted by Kimstu

Well, you may not feel rich, but that doesn't mean that you aren't rich.

I think EP was being sarcastic. I hope he was, anyway.

[Euphonious Polemic]

Originally Posted by mhendo

I think EP was being sarcastic. I hope he was, anyway.

Just a tad. My jet unavailable (new paint job) so I'm feeling a little testy.

[Kimstu]

Well yeah, I didn't imagine he was describing his own personal financial situation. (I figure EP is too cool for a Learjet; he's a Piper or Beechcraft kind of guy.)

[Robot Arm]

Originally Posted by Kimstu

Well yeah, I didn't imagine he was describing his own personal financial situation. (I figure EP is too cool for a Learjet; he's a Piper or Beechcraft kind of guy.)

Learjets have attained a certain retro cachet. All the new money bought Gulfstreams.