# Romney and taxes: Morally unfit to be President **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [January 24, 2012, 11:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/romney-and-taxes-morally-unfit-to-be-president/610492 "2012-01-24T11:49:13Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![spifflog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c5a1d2/32.png) [@spifflog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/spifflog)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2012, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/romney-and-taxes-morally-unfit-to-be-president/610492/41 "2012-01-24T15:08:29Z")
I agree that on first look, it doesn’t seem right that he’s only paying 15%. But that’s the law. What do you think he should do to be “more” moral? Should he just write a bigger check to the treasury with his income taxes? I’m sure that we’ve all been in a situation where we are paying less for something than is normal, or that others or paying, or we are getting a break on something. When is the last time a store gave you a crazy reduction on an appliance or TV, or a car repair and you said “I can’t only pay that, it’s much too low, I’ll add on 50%!” When is the last time you said “You pulled me over because I was speeding Officer, you can’t let me go with a warning, I demand you give me a ticket!!” I know it’s not the exact same thing, but if he’s following the law, it’s difficult to say he’s immoral, especially when no one here would do any different. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2012, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/romney-and-taxes-morally-unfit-to-be-president/610492/42 "2012-01-24T15:12:12Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > So, to your mind, if you can find one example of a good tax rate, that must mean that all tax rates are good. Obviously not. The idea is, any rich person who does not support a tax policy that increases his tax burden, is morally unfit to be President. Unfortunately, since Obama (who is very rich) supports this tax credit, which does not increase his tax burden, it follows that Obama is morally unfit to be President. QED. Actually we all know IOKIADDI, but moral consistency is not the strong suit of the SDMB. > [@SenorBeef](#): > > Yes, it is morally wrong to donate money to charity, you are as astute as always. Well, that’s what you apparently believe - I didn’t claim it makes any sense. That is, you believe (or at least the OP believes) tax deductions are wrong. I think that is pretty silly, but I am arguing with liberals… Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2012, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/romney-and-taxes-morally-unfit-to-be-president/610492/43 "2012-01-24T15:14:37Z")
[QUOTE=Jas09] I’m curious. What did Mitt Romney do to earn the $42 million in income he received over the last two years? He gave the money to somebody else and they used it to generate wealth. [/QUOTE] There seems to be a tad more to it than that, unless you want to break things down to ridiculous levels (‘What did that doctor guy do to make his money? He just looked at sick people and played golf!’). From Wiki: > [@](#): > > Business career > > Romney was heavily recruited and, after graduation, chose to remain in Massachusetts to work for Boston Consulting Group (BCG), thinking that working as a management consultant to a variety of companies would prepare him for a future job as a chief executive.[15][40][44][nb 7] Romney was part of a 1970s wave of top graduates who chose to go into consulting rather than join a major company directly.[46] Romney’s legal and business education proved useful in his job, and he became a rising star[40] while applying BCG principles such as the growth-share matrix.[4] > > In 1977, he was hired away by Bain & Company, a management consulting firm in Boston that had been formed a few years earlier by Bill Bain and other former BCG employees.[4][40][47] Bain would later say of the thirty-year-old Romney, “He had the appearance of confidence of a guy who was maybe ten years older.”[48] With Bain & Company, Romney learned the “Bain way”, which consisted of immersing the firm in each client’s business,[40][48] and not simply to issue recommendations, but to stay with the company until they were changed for the better.[4][47][49] With a record of helping clients such as the Monsanto Company, Outboard Marine Corporation, Burlington Industries, and Corning Incorporated, Romney became a vice president of the firm in 1978 and within a few years one of its best consultants and one sought after by clients over more senior partners.[9][40][44][50] Romney became a believer in Bain’s methods; he later said, “The idea that consultancies should not measure themselves by the thickness of their reports, or even the elegance of their writing, but rather by whether or not the report was effectively implemented was an inflection point in the history of consulting.”[47] > Logo of company that Romney co-founded > > Romney was restless for a company of his own to run, and in 1983, Bill Bain offered him the chance to head a new venture that would buy into companies, have them benefit from Bain techniques, and then reap higher rewards than just consulting fees.[4][40] Romney initially refrained from accepting the offer, and Bain re-arranged the terms in a complicated partnership structure so that there was no financial or professional risk to Romney.[40][48][51] Thus, in 1984, Romney left Bain & Company to co-found the spin-off private equity investment firm, Bain Capital.[49] In the face of skepticism from potential investors, Bain and Romney spent a year raising the $37 million in funds needed to start the new operation, which had fewer than ten employees.[44][48][52][53] As general partner of the new firm, Romney spent little money on costs such as office appearance, and saw weak spots in so many potential deals that by 1986, very few had been done.[40] At first, Bain Capital focused on venture capital opportunities.[40] Their first big success came with a 1986 investment to help start Staples Inc., after founder Thomas G. Stemberg convinced Romney of the market size for office supplies and Romney convinced others; Bain Capital eventually reaped a nearly sevenfold return on its investment, and Romney sat on the Staples board of directors for over a decade.[40][52][53] > > Romney soon switched Bain Capital’s focus from startups to the relatively new business of leveraged buyouts: buying existing firms with money mostly borrowed against their assets, partnering with existing management to apply the “Bain way” to their operations (rather than the hostile takeovers practiced in other leverage buyout scenarios), and then selling them off in a few years.[40][48] Existing CEOs were offered large equity stakes in the process, as part of Bain Capital’s belief in the emerging agency theory notion that CEOs should be bound to maximizing shareholder value rather than other goals.[53] Bain Capital lost most of its money in many of its early leveraged buyouts, but then started finding deals that made large returns.[40] Some of the highest were a 34-fold return on Calumet Coach and a 16-fold return on the Gartner Group.[54] The firm invested in or acquired many well-known companies such as Accuride, Brookstone, Domino’s Pizza, Sealy Corporation, Sports Authority, and Artisan Entertainment, as well as lesser-known companies in the industrial and medical sectors.[40][48][55] During the 14 years Romney headed the company, Bain Capital’s average annual internal rate of return on realized investments was 113 percent.[44] Much of this profit was earned from a relatively small number of deals, with Bain Capital’s overall success and failure rate being about even.[nb 8] > > Less an entrepreneur than an executive running an investment operation,[50][56] Romney excelled at presenting and selling the deals the company made.[51] The firm initially gave a cut of its profits to Bain & Company, but Romney later persuaded Bain to give that up.[51] Within Bain Capital, Romney spread profits from deals widely within the firm to keep people motivated, often keeping less than ten percent for himself.[57] He was viewed as a very fair manager and received considerable loyalty from the firm’s members.[53] Romney’s wary instincts were still in force at times, and he was generally data-driven and averse to risk.[40][53] He wanted to drop a Bain Capital hedge fund that initially lost money, but other partners prevailed and it eventually gained billions.[40] He also personally opted out of the Artisan Entertainment deal, not wanting to profit from a studio that produced R-rated films.[40] Romney was on the board of directors of Damon Corporation, a medical testing company later found guilty of defrauding the government; Bain Capital tripled its investment before selling off the company, and the fraud was discovered by the new owners (Romney was never implicated).[40] In some cases Romney had little involvement with a company once acquired.[52] > > Bain Capital’s leveraged buyouts sometimes led to layoffs, either soon after acquisition or later after the firm had left.[4][40][51][52] How jobs added compared to those lost due to these investments and buyouts is unknown, due to a lack of records and Bain Capital’s penchant for privacy on behalf of itself and its investors.[54][58][59] In any case, maximizing the value of acquired companies and the return to Bain’s investors, not job creation, was the firm’s fundamental goal, as it was for most private equity operations.[52][60] Regarding job losses, Romney later said, “Sometimes the medicine is a little bitter but it is necessary to save the life of the patient. My job was to try and make the enterprise successful, and in my view the best security a family can have is that the business they work for is strong.”[51] Bain Capital’s acquisition of Ampad exemplified a deal where it profited handsomely from early payments and management fees, even though the subject company itself ended up going into bankruptcy.[40][53][60] Dade Behring was another case where Bain Capital received an eightfold return on its investment, but the company itself was saddled with debt and laid off over a thousand employees before Bain Capital exited (the company subsequently went into bankruptcy, with more layoffs, before recovering and prospering).[54] Bain was among the private equity firms that took the most fees in such cases.[48][53] Romney said in retrospect: “It is one thing that if I had a chance to go back I would be more sensitive to. It is always a balance. Great care has got to be taken not to take a dividend or a distribution from a company that puts that company at risk. [Having taken a big payment from a company that later failed] would make me sick, sick at heart.”[48] > > In 1990, Romney was asked to return to Bain & Company, which was facing financial collapse.[49] He was announced as its new CEO in January 1991[61][62] (but drew only a symbolic salary of one dollar).[49] Romney managed an effort to restructure the firm’s employee stock-ownership plan, real-estate deals and bank loans, while rallying the firm’s thousand employees, imposing a new governing structure that included Bain and the other founding partners giving up control, and increasing fiscal transparency.[40][44][49] Within about a year, he had led Bain & Company through a turnaround and returned the firm to profitability without further layoffs or partner defections.[44] He turned Bain & Company over to new leadership and returned to Bain Capital in December 1992.[40][62][63] > > Romney left Bain Capital in February 1999 to serve as the President and CEO of the 2002 Salt Lake City Olympic Games Organizing Committee.[40] By that time, Bain Capital was on its way to being one of the top private equity firms in the nation,[51] having increased its number of partners from 5 to 18, having 115 employees overall, and having $4 billion under its management.[48][52] It had made between 100 and 150 deals where it acquired and then sold a company.[50][54][56] Bain Capital’s approach of applying consulting expertise to the companies it invested in became widely copied within the private equity industry.[18][52] University of Chicago Booth School of Business economist Steven Kaplan would later say, “[Romney] came up with a model that was very successful and very innovative and that now everybody uses.”[53] > > His experience at Bain & Company and Bain Capital gave Romney a business-oriented world view – centering on a hate of waste and inefficiency, a love for data and charts and analysis and presentation, and a belief in keeping an open mind and seeking opposing points of view – that he would take with him to the public sector.[15][49] At the time of his departure, Romney negotiated an agreement with Bain Capital that allowed him to receive a passive profit share as a retired partner in some Bain Capital entities, including buyout and investment funds.[57][64] Because the private equity business continued to thrive, this deal brought him millions of dollars in income each year.[57] As a result of his business career, by 2007, Romney and his wife had a net worth of between $190 and $250 million, most of it held in blind trusts.[64] An additional blind trust existed in the name of the Romneys’ children and grandchildren that was valued at between $70 and $100 million as of 2007.[65] The couple’s net worth remained in the same range as of 2011, and was still held in blind trusts.[66] A substantial portion of these assets – between $20.7 million and $101.6 million, as of 2011 – are held in an individual retirement account (IRA).[67] In January 2012 Romney revealed that he received $42.5 million in income during 2010 and 2011 and paid $6.2 million in taxes.[68] I’m no Romney fan, but I’d have to say that the money didn’t just fall in his lap from out of the blue. > [@](#): > > Mitt should be worried about getting right-wing votes in Florida right about now. This information will not help him there. And the GOP should worry about how this feeds directly into Obama’s re-election message in the fall. Mitt should be worried about both of the extreme wings out there, since neither like him at all. Why do you think the 'Pubs (especially the right wing types) have been going through this circus of contenders? They are scrambling to find ANYONE except Romney. And the left wing is focused on Romney now because they pretty much have guessed that he’s the only one of the clown parade with any shot at taking down Obama, and they want to make sure they poison the well for any centrist Dems that might be looking for some of that change stuff, but in a direction that wouldn’t be good for Obama. Left wingers types such as most of you posting in this thread would NEVER vote for Romney regardless, so you aren’t exactly his target audience. I don’t believe the right wing crazies he is pandering to during the run up are his target either. He is going to do an Obama, and as soon as he has the nomination locked up he’s going to run towards the center. Certainly if he GETS elected he’s going to run towards the center. One has only to look at how he ACTUALLY governed, instead of what he says in speeches and debates to figure out the sorts of things he’s bound to do if he becomes president. He’s a lot less of an unknown than Obama was, since there is more of a record on him…and, assuming you are bright enough to look at his record and realize that if his lips are moving he’s probably lying, considering he is a politician. > [@](#): > > Mitt gave away something like 10% or so of his income the last two years. Warren has given away about half of his wealth so far, and pledged to give away 99% of it before he dies. So you’re right, they aren’t in the same league. > > My point was merely to knock down the ad hominem that Rune posted - that Romney’s detractors aren’t as generous to charity as he is. But giving away millions when you have millions isn’t on par with giving away billions when you have billions. Buffet ‘gives away’ billions to charity for the same basic reason that Romney gives away millions…because it’s in their best interest to do so. And it allows them to more focus where their money goes into charities that they believe in. But really, it’s because tax wise it’s a smart thing to do. -XT ---
**Author:** ![Simplicio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c37758/32.png) [@Simplicio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Simplicio)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2012, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/romney-and-taxes-morally-unfit-to-be-president/610492/44 "2012-01-24T15:15:18Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > That’s not true, I don’t think. His plan is to keep the 15% rate, but not for people in his tax bracket. I’ll check for a cite, but I’m pretty certain that is the case. Here’s [an analysis](http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/numbers/displayatab.cfm?Docid=3254) of the effect on income cohorts of Romney’s plan. People in the top cohort (presumably including Romney) would pay substantially less then they do under current law. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2012, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/romney-and-taxes-morally-unfit-to-be-president/610492/45 "2012-01-24T15:21:47Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > That’s not true, I don’t think. His plan is to keep the 15% rate, but not for people in his tax bracket. I’ll check for a cite, but I’m pretty certain that is the case. OK, we’re both wrong. Romney’s plan lowers the capital gains rate but only for people making less than $200k. It would stay at 15% for those above that income level, like him: [Link.](http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/18/us-usa-campaign-romney-tax-idUSTRE80H2DG20120118) > [@](#): > > The tax plan that Romney is proposing as he campaigns for the Republican nomination eliminates the capital gains tax for individuals earning less than $200,000 per year and keeps the same 15 percent rate for individuals earning over that level. Romney could pay more under his own proposal. ---
**Author:** ![Jas09](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d07c76/32.png) [@Jas09](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jas09)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2012, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/romney-and-taxes-morally-unfit-to-be-president/610492/46 "2012-01-24T15:24:22Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > There seems to be a tad more to it than that, unless you want to break things down to ridiculous levels (‘What did that doctor guy do to make his money? He just looked at sick people and played golf!’). From Wiki: > > I’m no Romney fan, but I’d have to say that the money didn’t just fall in his lap from out of the blue. Oh, I agree completely that he earned every dime while he worked at Bain. And a doctor works to earn their money too (including all the time spent training). But we can, and should, make a distinction between earned income and unearned income. There is a reason it’s called “unearned”. I understand the arguments for lower rates on unearned income, but am very receptive to counter-arguments that point out that for those with very high levels of unearned income this lower tax rate is perhaps not the best policy. > [@](#): > > But giving away millions when you have millions isn’t on par with giving away billions when you have billions. Buffet ‘gives away’ billions to charity for the same basic reason that Romney gives away millions…because it’s in their best interest to do so. And it allows them to more focus where their money goes into charities that they believe in. But really, it’s because tax wise it’s a smart thing to do. I don’t really agree with this, sorry. Giving 10% is very different than giving 99%. And I don’t believe that tax policy has much effect on charitable giving (a point that has been briefly discussed in another thread here recently). Most people (even rich people) give to charities because they believe in the cause, not to save a little money on their taxes. ---
**Author:** ![Jas09](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d07c76/32.png) [@Jas09](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jas09)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2012, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/romney-and-taxes-morally-unfit-to-be-president/610492/47 "2012-01-24T15:25:48Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > OK, we’re both wrong. Romney’s plan lowers the capital gains rate but only for people making less than $200k. It would stay at 15% for those above that income level, like him: Yeah, it’s really Newt’s plan that would be a huge boon to Romney, cutting the capital gains rate to zero. Mitt’s would be somewhat neutral to himself but a great benefit to those with large earned incomes. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2012, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/romney-and-taxes-morally-unfit-to-be-president/610492/48 "2012-01-24T15:26:55Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Well, that’s what you apparently believe - I didn’t claim it makes any sense. That is, you believe (or at least the OP believes) tax deductions are wrong. I think that is pretty silly, but I am arguing with liberals… > > Regards, > Shodan You know, if I were to make some sort of Poe’s law double blind test, I don’t think anyone would be able to pick your recent posts as the real ones with greater than chance accuracy. So you sincerely believe that the OP, as well as myself, and all other communist types, believe that charitable contributions are morally wrong, and that having a tax system that has deductions is morally wrong? Could you walk us through, step by step, how you came to this conclusion? ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2012, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/romney-and-taxes-morally-unfit-to-be-president/610492/49 "2012-01-24T15:33:26Z")
[QUOTE=Jas09] I don’t really agree with this, sorry. Giving 10% is very different than giving 99%. And I don’t believe that tax policy has much effect on charitable giving (a point that has been briefly discussed in another thread here recently). Most people (even rich people) give to charities because they believe in the cause, not to save a little money on their taxes. [/QUOTE] So, if I have $10000 and I give away 10% that’s not as good as if I have $50 billion and give away 99%? By usual liberal logic that seems counter intuitive to me. As to the last part of your assertion, I have to ask…how many ‘rich people’ do you know? Certainly they give to charities they believe in, but their tax people encourage them to give away certain percentages for tax reasons. When you get to the Buffet/Gates level there really is too much of a good thing, and cutting out a couple billion here or there is actually a help. Plus, it makes you look good. And really, what’s the difference between $50 billion and $30 billion…or even $50 billion and $1 billion? At that level it’s hard to lose it all to hookers and blow, even if you aren’t old and decrepit like Buffet is. 😛 -XT ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2012, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/romney-and-taxes-morally-unfit-to-be-president/610492/50 "2012-01-24T15:41:40Z")
> [@Jas09](#): > > Yeah, it’s really Newt’s plan that would be a huge boon to Romney, cutting the capital gains rate to zero. Mitt’s would be somewhat neutral to himself but a great benefit to those with large earned incomes. Romney himself pointed this out the other day. ---
**Author:** ![Jas09](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d07c76/32.png) [@Jas09](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jas09)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2012, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/romney-and-taxes-morally-unfit-to-be-president/610492/51 "2012-01-24T15:45:44Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > So, if I have $10000 and I give away 10% that’s not as good as if I have $50 billion and give away 99%? By usual liberal logic that seems counter intuitive to me. I don’t recall ever talking about the “goodness” of either level. If we wanted to do a detailed moral analysis we would probably come to the conclusion that the marginal value of the dollar for the person with $10k makes their donation more meaningful. Of course if we’re measuring only impact then the $50 billion does more “good”. Either way it’s a digression. I only mentioned Buffett’s generosity wrt charitable giving to knock down an ad hominem. > [@](#): > > As to the last part of your assertion, I have to ask…how many ‘rich people’ do you know? Certainly they give to charities they believe in, but their tax people encourage them to give away certain percentages for tax reasons. Well, I know my fair share. Depending on how you define it, I probably count myself. And most of them would give the same amounts regardless of the tax ramifications. Most studies seem to find the same result. > [@](#): > > When you get to the Buffet/Gates level there really is too much of a good thing, and cutting out a couple billion here or there is actually a help. Plus, it makes you look good. I don’t really understand this. In what way can it be a financial positive (on the bottom line, either income or wealth) to give away a few billion to a charity? It doesn’t work that way - you don’t get to deduct the full amount from your tax bill or anything like that. At most you save 35% of the amount you donate. Gifts to minors or family members or trusts I can see, but not charitable donations. > [@](#): > > And really, what’s the difference between $50 billion and $30 billion…or even $50 billion and $1 billion? At that level it’s hard to lose it all to hookers and blow, even if you aren’t old and decrepit like Buffet is. 😛 This I agree with fully. Of course, that makes a rather direct argument that to fund social programs we might prefer to get the revenue from those whom it will impact the least… like, say, Mitt Romney and Warren Buffett. ---
**Author:** ![Jas09](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d07c76/32.png) [@Jas09](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jas09)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2012, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/romney-and-taxes-morally-unfit-to-be-president/610492/52 "2012-01-24T15:46:51Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > Romney himself pointed this out the other day. Yeah, he said it at the debate last night. And in usual Mitt fashion he managed to come of like the asshole. I’m not sure he does it - even when he’s right he makes you want to smack the smirk off his face… maybe it’s just me. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Chessic\_Sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/7c8e57/32.png) [@Chessic\_Sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chessic_Sense)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2012, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/romney-and-taxes-morally-unfit-to-be-president/610492/53 "2012-01-24T15:47:45Z")
> [@Jas09](#): > > Some of us really do want to have a discussion about the most effective way to raise the revenues required to run the government. Yes, and the rest of you start threads about being morally unfit for President because you only carried 1,000 poor people on your back instead of the requisite 2,000. > [@SenorBeef](#): > > Really? So do you think the average liberal would be in favor of taking away half the wealth of the super rich and then burning it all in a ditch? If it’s just about punishing those who are successful… That’s not how jealousy works. Jealous people want to take things for themselves, not burn them in ditches. You don’t want to burn half the wealth, you want to give it to other people. See **Der Trihs** ’s post. See anyone that posts about how the X% own Y% of the wealth and that’s not right, which implies that it would be right to give some of the Y to non-Xs. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2012, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/romney-and-taxes-morally-unfit-to-be-president/610492/54 "2012-01-24T15:48:57Z")
> [@Chessic\_Sense](#): > > Yes, and the rest of you start threads about being morally unfit for President because you only carried 1,000 poor people on your back instead of the requisite 2,000. Oh, please; it’s the poor and middle class that are carrying him and his fellow wealthy. ---
**Author:** ![Ca3799](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/9f8e36/32.png) [@Ca3799](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ca3799)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2012, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/romney-and-taxes-morally-unfit-to-be-president/610492/55 "2012-01-24T15:49:49Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > So it is morally wrong to donate your money to charity, instead of hanging onto it until the government takes it by force? When do they do this- take you money by force? ---
**Author:** ![Simplicio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c37758/32.png) [@Simplicio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Simplicio)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2012, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/romney-and-taxes-morally-unfit-to-be-president/610492/56 "2012-01-24T15:52:18Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > OK, we’re both wrong. Romney’s plan lowers the capital gains rate but only for people making less than $200k. It would stay at 15% for those above that income level, like him: > > [Link.](http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/18/us-usa-campaign-romney-tax-idUSTRE80H2DG20120118) Actually, I think your right. The cite I quoted compares his tax plan to current law in 2015. The current law kicks the Capital Gains tax up to pre-Bush levels in 2013, so Romney pays less under his plan then what he would otherwise pay in 2015, but he pays the same under his plan as he does now. So I should’ve said “he feels he should continue to pay the same low rate” or something similar. ---
**Author:** ![FixMyIgnorance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/7feea3/32.png) [@FixMyIgnorance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FixMyIgnorance)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2012, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/romney-and-taxes-morally-unfit-to-be-president/610492/57 "2012-01-24T15:55:09Z")
> [@Chessic\_Sense](#): > > That’s not how jealousy works. Jealous people want to take things for themselves, not burn them in ditches. You don’t want to burn half the wealth, you want to give it to other people. See **Der Trihs** ’s post. See anyone that posts about how the X% own Y% of the wealth and that’s not right, which implies that it would be right to give some of the Y to non-Xs. Again, I bring up the fact that much of the wealth shifted to the upper classes was purely enabled as a result of favorable legislation. This is an example of “wealth being given to other people” that has already happened. However, it seems pretty clear that the shift of wealth was in the wrong direction because of how many people are now struggling, while the rich have been experiencing some of the greatest highs yet. And yet it somehow doesn’t make sense to say that some of that wealth needs to be funneled back in the other direction? ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2012, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/romney-and-taxes-morally-unfit-to-be-president/610492/58 "2012-01-24T16:19:21Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > As opposed to all of the Democrats that willingly pay more in taxes than they need to because it’s the right thing to do? Why should they? Many Republicans favor spending cuts, yet their states still belly up to the trough to get as much federal spending as possible. Why don’t they refuse federal spending if they think spending cuts are so important? ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2012, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/romney-and-taxes-morally-unfit-to-be-president/610492/59 "2012-01-24T16:21:42Z")
> [@Rune](#): > > He paid more in tax for that one year than I’m going to do for my whole working life. And in addition $3 million in charity. I wonder how that compares to his detractors in this thread. But anyway, you should all vote Ron Paul. That’s a no brainer. Flat taxes are regressive. Anyone who is for a flat tax system isn’t exactly demonstrating superior economic understanding. Are you of the opinion that everyone should pay the same tax rate? Are you okay with the fact that this would raise taxes on the middle class, the same class that has had wages stagnate for decades? Also, voting for Ron Paul is a no-brainer in that brains often help someone make rational decisions. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2012, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/romney-and-taxes-morally-unfit-to-be-president/610492/60 "2012-01-24T16:32:49Z")
> [@Chessic\_Sense](#): > > What makes you think 15% is lower than most people pay? Most households pay 0%. We’ve been over this many, many times. Looks like he’s in the [fourth quintile](http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collections/collections.cfm?collect=13). > > I’m glad we can finally get a liberal to come out and admit what this is really about- jealousy. They don’t care what the rate is, they just want to stick it to the rich, who they falsely perceive as not having done anything to earn their money. > > ETA: They also want to handwave [this chart](http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collections/tax/2010/figure2.png), which is really the important one when “fairness” is discussed. Do you think we should have a flat tax system? Because we, as a culture have decided that we should have a progressive tax system. This is because a thousand dollars to a person who makes 50k is a greater burden than a thousand dollars to a person who makes 50m. Don’t you think that the \*burden \*of taxation should be equal? Pretend you are part of a tribe living in the jungle. You need a bridge. The chief taxes everyone to a day of labor to get it built. Do you think that young, powerful men should have to lift as much as old, weak women? Doesn’t it make more sense to have the end result be that everyone is tired at the end of the day? That everyone suffers the same burden for the bridge? If you require the strong men to do as much work as the old women, you’re gonna either kill the old women or give the men a free ride. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/romney-and-taxes-morally-unfit-to-be-president/610492.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/romney-and-taxes-morally-unfit-to-be-president/610492.md?page=4)