Romney and taxes: Morally unfit to be President

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

Here’s an analysis 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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. :stuck_out_tongue:

-XT

Romney himself pointed this out the other day.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. :slight_smile:

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.

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.

Oh, please; it’s the poor and middle class that are carrying him and his fellow wealthy.

When do they do this- take you money by force?

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.

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?

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?

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. :smiley:

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.