No one can be guilty of something unless they are in jail for it?
That’s an interesting perspective.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Harry Reid is Australian? Or is it Mitt? I thought they were just [del]morons[/del] Mormons.
I was just stating they pay a high tax rate in Oz.
Ok you’re right, I really resented the amount of taxes we paid in Oz.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.