Member of the Month

je_t.aime_canard
January, 2025

Online

Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post. Register to become a member today!

Mitt Romney...

profile picture
MACAQUE
Posts: 2811 - Karma: 696
He paid a 14% tax rate and made $42 million last year. The dude won't pay his taxes but he will donate $7 million to his church. Not a guy I want serving as the head of this country.


I don't even know how it's possible that his rate was so low.
Jan 26 2012 8:13PM
0 0
profile picture
gnarnia.
Posts: 1346 - Karma: 55
i hate him more than any current political figure.
Jan 26 2012 8:15PM
0 0
profile picture
eheath
Posts: 61780 - Karma: 124,904
repost
Jan 26 2012 8:15PM
0 0
profile picture
GayWolf420
Posts: 37817 - Karma: 125,775
Rather mild temperatures today but a strong system rolling in very quickly with a 90% of a shit storm with severe to extreme conditions.
Jan 26 2012 8:16PM
0 0
profile picture
sherwood4099
Posts: 1173 - Karma: 22
Mitt Romney hasn't evaded or failed to pay any taxes... He made that money through personal investments and was taxed under capital gains which is a 15% tax rate. Had he made as a salary at a job he would have been subject to the federal income rate. I have no idea what's wrong with this... The capital gains tax is already a double tax anyway. You already pay taxes on the money you risk in your investments when you originally make it. Why should you be taxed again for investing it and happening to profit?
Jan 26 2012 8:16PM
0 0
profile picture
MACAQUE
Posts: 2811 - Karma: 696
I don't "hate" him but I definitely don't think he should be president. I get the impression that he's dishonest and believes that he's better than others because of his wealth.
Jan 26 2012 8:17PM
0 0
profile picture
gnarnia.
Posts: 1346 - Karma: 55
its because hes "unemployed" aka his money makes him his money, im simpler terms. just because its "legal" doesnt make it okay.
Jan 26 2012 8:18PM
0 0
profile picture
MACAQUE
Posts: 2811 - Karma: 696
Probably true, but his tax rate was under 15%. How does that happen? He doesn't seem to have done anything illegal, but it seems shady and dishonest.
Jan 26 2012 8:19PM
0 0
profile picture
sherwood4099
Posts: 1173 - Karma: 22
Because its not an income tax if he was making that much a year working somewhere in his/my home state MA he would be paying a combined federal/state rate of over 42%. That's .42 cents of every dollar he makes. If you've already been taxed on the money your investing with, why should you be taxed again just for spending it on an investment? I think it's just a convenient source of revenue. The top 10% of earners in this country cover about 75% of the total tax burden of the country all ready... I think it's obvious taking more from them isn't going to fix the problem. Why don't we worry about the 40+% of citzens not paying a dime in fed. Income tax?
Jan 26 2012 8:27PM
0 0
profile picture
gnarnia.
Posts: 1346 - Karma: 55
because theyre not taxed for a reason, are you kidding? The 40% that dont pay it are because they don't make enough income to be taxed, or they are senior citizens. youd rather take money from these people? this is whats fucked up with america. people like you forget that they still pay taxes, whether it be state, property, excise, sales, payroll, etc. they arent just these magical people that we declare as a country are too cool and dont need to pay it. brackets were set up for a reason.
Jan 26 2012 8:32PM
0 0
profile picture
jayo.
Posts: 5015 - Karma: 34
Yeah and he fought (lobbied) hard to make sure it was 15%
Jan 26 2012 8:32PM
0 0
profile picture
dom_daq
Posts: 371 - Karma: 440
Its not that he doesnt pay his taxes. Its actually that our tax system is fucked and Neut Gangrich wants to keep it the way it is. Obama actually wants to fix it. So I would rather have Obama or Romney for president than Gingrich.
Jan 26 2012 8:33PM
0 0
profile picture
Heart
Posts: 6156 - Karma: 3,464

mitt pulling a dick move
Jan 26 2012 8:35PM
0 0
profile picture
las.
Posts: 1959 - Karma: 1,455
Click for larger image
Jan 26 2012 8:39PM
0 0
profile picture
plaplapla
Posts: 435 - Karma: 70
whudda douche
Jan 26 2012 8:41PM
0 0
profile picture
An10a_Eng
Posts: 2505 - Karma: 26
he paid every penny that was asked of him and then donated another 15% of his income. im not sure what anyone sees as being wrong with this? sounds like some of you are just jealous of his success.
Jan 26 2012 8:42PM
0 0
profile picture
las.
Posts: 1959 - Karma: 1,455
Click for larger image
Jan 26 2012 8:42PM
0 0
profile picture
gnarnia.
Posts: 1346 - Karma: 55
making 57,000 dollars a day while having no job? who wouldnt want that. in 2007 there was a bipartisan bill trying to raise the taxes on private equity investors to over 30%, i think it was 35%. Mitt was in the group lobbying to shoot the bill down. surprised? Jealous of his success? He was born with a silver spoon in his mouth, a lifestyle that a shitload of the country cant relate to. apparently you can if you support a douche like him.
Jan 26 2012 8:47PM
0 0
profile picture
Thadius.Castle
Posts: 1436 - Karma: 250
In my opinion, Ron Paul is the best choice. A businessman and not a politician. None of the candidates are good, every single one of them is full of shit though.
Jan 26 2012 8:49PM
0 0
profile picture
MACAQUE
Posts: 2811 - Karma: 696
Right, but even if all of his money was made with investments his tax rate was still only 13.9% which is 1.1% below 15%. He is paying less than the investment tax rate which shouldn't be possible.

We shouldn't worry about the people who pay little or no taxes because they have nothing to give. If they paid taxes they wouldn't be able to survive. Simple. We tax the rich because they can afford to pay it. The top 10% is actually UNDERREPRESENTED in the taxes. They pay 75% of the taxes but control 80-85% of the wealth of the country. There is no significant amount of money that can be collected from the poor people. It would be a drop in the bucket. The cost of supporting the people who couldn't afford to live if they paid significant federal income tax would be greater than the amount of money collected. Taxing the poor would cause the country to LOSE money.
Jan 26 2012 8:51PM
0 0
profile picture
sherwood4099
Posts: 1173 - Karma: 22
I think everyone should pay the same effective rate. That would in effect make it fair and the percentage rate would make sure the rich payed more $ wise than the poor. It would mean if you made almost nothing you would pay almost nothing but you would have the same percentage stake in our nation. And yes I think everyone should pay something.. And don't fear monger by saying it would hurt seniors. I'm suggesting (as are most GOP candidates) to simplify and equalize the tax code. That wouldn't hurt retires.
Jan 26 2012 8:52PM
0 0
profile picture
sherwood4099
Posts: 1173 - Karma: 22
They don't control "the" wealth they are wealthy and anyone can be... There is no finite amount of wealth. You can't hoard wealth...
Jan 26 2012 8:53PM
0 0
profile picture
MACAQUE
Posts: 2811 - Karma: 696
Ok point made. I don't know enough to decide if your argument is valid and takes into account other factors that may be present. If your argument is true it seems like we could make the most money by having our investment tax rates slightly below the rates of other developed countries. But that still doesn't change the fact that our country needs money. That money must come from the rich one way or another.
Jan 26 2012 8:58PM
0 0
profile picture
gnarnia.
Posts: 1346 - Karma: 55
okay so lets say this rate we decide for the entire country to pay is a nice round 10% just for the sake of math. so you think the woman who makes 25k a year with a family should be taxed 2,500 bucks which is a SHITLOAD of money? anyone who has ever lived below the poverty line know how far that money can actually go. versus the 20 million dollar a year CEO who pays in 2 mil? 18 million dollars a year isnt gonna hinder that dude from buying a new house or boat, but 2,500 dollars to a woman or man well below the poverty line could be the difference to their kids getting christmas presents that year, which to me, is completely wrong. on paper, sure good idea. but think logically man. if youre okay with the scenario i just put forth then somethings wrong.
Jan 26 2012 8:59PM
0 0
profile picture
sherwood4099
Posts: 1173 - Karma: 22
That's exactly what I mean... Minus your hypothetical sob story
Jan 26 2012 9:03PM
0 0
profile picture
sherwood4099
Posts: 1173 - Karma: 22
I think that the difference between 2500 and 2 million dollars is completely fair (in your example) and on top of that it's not about what the rich can afford its about what's fair. I don't believe I. Punishing success
Jan 26 2012 9:05PM
0 0
profile picture
PhaedeD
Posts: 11499 - Karma: 342
Kids on Newschoolers have no idea what capital gains are and that you are taxed twice through capital gains. you are arguing with a bunch of fucking idiots.

when it comes to shooting someone we all have our opinions. when it comes to something like this I 100% agree with you.
Jan 26 2012 9:06PM
0 0
profile picture
wasatch_rat
Posts: 1772 - Karma: 2,952
eliminating the capital gains tax would cut an enormous amount of revenue. pretty sure theres been a net average 7% yearly profit in stocks in the last 100ish years if i'm not mistaken, so don't act like people who invest aren't coming out on top for doing it. those that do lose money, whether because their portfolios weren't diverse or they just got unlucky, do have some benefits given back to them depending on how hard they fall (bankruptcy, social security in retirement, etc) and thats not even considering the expense o bank bailouts

and these mega-millionares and billionaires love a turbulent market, because they have the resources and insider information to make it work for them. like how bain capital used to invest huge amounts right when a company went public, making their shares look good so other investors would jump on the bandwagon, then pull the floor out by cashing those now valuable shares and leaving the other investors and the company fucked.

your logic about being double taxed while risking not getting reimbursed for losing money in stocks holds some water for the average individual investor, but it wouldn't make sense for so many people to be making so much money without the government getting some of that revenue. think about it, people (like Romney) who every year make millions without actually working, paying smaller tax percentages than those who WORK to make 60,000$ year, is that a symptom of a healthy society?

Romney didn't break the law, but its pretty clear how the law works in his favor. what bothers so many people is that he is fighting tooth and nail to keep it that way.
Jan 26 2012 9:09PM
0 0
profile picture
PhaedeD
Posts: 11499 - Karma: 342
Jesus Christ... the money has to come from the rich??

Our government needs to stop spending the money we dont have and stop regulating everything so we can make our own fucking money.

honestly how dumb are you kids.

and yes Woozy as always I agree with you since you know your shit. Lowering capital gains taxes would in fact help our economy.


Do you guys think that if you tax a wealth person a lot that owns a company it will help the people working for him that have lower wages and dont live in as nice of a house as him? WRRONNNNGGGG.
Jan 26 2012 9:18PM
0 0
profile picture
MACAQUE
Posts: 2811 - Karma: 696
Once again, agreed. But where is the money that we need going to come from? It won't come from the poor or middle class because they don't have enough to give to make a difference. The rich are the only people who can support the country. It seems like the only way we're going to get the money we need is from people investing directly in the government or government companies. I guess you could consider taxes an "investment" in government but it's really not a profitable one. I have no idea if it's legal or possible but it sounds like if the government started companies and got private investors to invest it could be profitable. The government AND the investors would make money. Win-win situation for everyone, right? Although I'm sure there has to be something wrong with this idea if it doesn't already happen.
Jan 26 2012 9:21PM
0 0
profile picture
PhaedeD
Posts: 11499 - Karma: 342
Once again we are paying taxes that are covering a debt that has been building up for years. The amount of taxes paid each year by everyone and everything equal half of what we spend... do you see the problem?? I do.

you cant collect 2 trillion in taxes and then spend almost 5 and expect to come out on top can you?

Ya lets have the government start companies with our money, giving money to the government has always worked out really well hasnt it?
Jan 26 2012 9:26PM
0 0
profile picture
wasatch_rat
Posts: 1772 - Karma: 2,952
i've heard this argument before and it is a convincing one, but i don't think all that increase in revenue can be causally explained by lower taxes. also i have a question, will people really stop investing (long term) if the capital gains tax is increased again?

so it makes sense that lower tax on investment = more investment immediately after legislation, but stocks and the number of people who invest generally grows over long periods of time, so i have a hard time imagining that a 5% increase would really stop that trend.
Jan 26 2012 9:27PM
0 0
profile picture
PhaedeD
Posts: 11499 - Karma: 342
A country profits when it has strong industries, we are forcing those industries everywhere around the world but here.

Overspending and regulations are fucking killing us and that = the government.
Jan 26 2012 9:28PM
0 0
profile picture
sherwood4099
Posts: 1173 - Karma: 22
We don't need more money we need to spend less. We need to eliminate government agencies and reduce the size of the annual budget. Not take in more so that we can cover our overspending. Less government= less debt and spending. Less taxes spur business, investment , and hiring.
Jan 26 2012 9:30PM
0 0
profile picture
MACAQUE
Posts: 2811 - Karma: 696
We need to export more and import less then, right? Cutting expenses is inevitable I guess.

And touche. Why doesn't the government try investing in private companies then? (It might already I have no idea)
Jan 26 2012 9:31PM
0 0
profile picture
PhaedeD
Posts: 11499 - Karma: 342
It would slow it down and for us right now thats a problem. We need speeding up not slowing down.

Lower taxes = more money in your pocket = you buy more stuff = more people need to sell you stuff = more people need to sell them stuff = more people need to make stuff then sell it to them ============= WE NEED LESS FUCKING REGULATIONS SO WE CAN MAKE THIS FUCKING STUFFFFFF IN OUR OWN FUCKING COUNTRY!
Jan 26 2012 9:31PM
0 0
profile picture
sherwood4099
Posts: 1173 - Karma: 22
Absolutly this
Jan 26 2012 9:31PM
0 0
profile picture
stickerz
Posts: 241 - Karma: 51
Woozy knows his shit. ++++k
Jan 26 2012 9:33PM
0 0
profile picture
PhaedeD
Posts: 11499 - Karma: 342
Because the government is to busy fighting trillion dollar wars and running US military bases all over the globe.

oh ya we have no money to invest in private companies. we already took all the tax payers money and bailed out a bunch of companies and that really didnt work. so then we started printing more money and well we all know what that does... drives the dollar down the fuckin toilet.
Jan 26 2012 9:34PM
0 0
profile picture
Deluge
Posts: 4401 - Karma: 805
shut up fatman.
Jan 26 2012 9:36PM
0 0
profile picture
wasatch_rat
Posts: 1772 - Karma: 2,952
what part of my statement made you think i didn't understand that? believe it or not i go to the same school as you and have taken some economics courses. capital gains taxes made up (in 2007, according to you) 4.9% of the federal governments revenue. cutting that entirely would be a lot of money.

i'll take some time to consider your argument about corporate tax revenue making up for the lost revenue, but for real dude if you want to convince me of something starting off with an insult is not gonna help.

Jan 26 2012 9:36PM
0 0
profile picture
sherwood4099
Posts: 1173 - Karma: 22
Because that isn't the governments place or job unless they need a product or service the private company (such as military contracts) The government should be able to pick winners and losers in a free market and neither should they be aloud to spend tax payer money on their friends. See Solyndra.
Jan 26 2012 9:37PM
0 0
profile picture
PhaedeD
Posts: 11499 - Karma: 342
If we got rid of half the regulations that are making it impossible for industry to start we might start seeing some cash flow. We also might hurt the environment which I am not for but fuck we dont have much choice. Lets make some money while hurting the environment a little bit but pledge to put a percentage of money made towards finding away to make whatever industry you choose more environmentally friendly.

thats an idea I just thought of seems a little strange and maybe crazy. like I said though, I am all about a safe and healthy environment but if can start bringing in some serious cash we will have some money to spend on research for cleaner ways to build things.
Jan 26 2012 9:38PM
0 0
profile picture
sherwood4099
Posts: 1173 - Karma: 22
It would be a chunk of revenue but it could be easily accounted for in spending cuts and downsizing of the federal government. And the benefits for the private economy would be enormous
Jan 26 2012 9:39PM
0 0
profile picture
PhaedeD
Posts: 11499 - Karma: 342
The sad thing about this is you can see how true it is with your own eyes... Amtrak is something that should be making a ton of money right now.... and welll they arent.
Jan 26 2012 9:40PM
0 0
profile picture
sherwood4099
Posts: 1173 - Karma: 22
Jesus Christ... *should not be able to pick winners and losers
Jan 26 2012 9:40PM
0 0
profile picture
PhaedeD
Posts: 11499 - Karma: 342
the 4.9% would be generated from other taxes...... more money in pocket = more spending. more spending = more money in more peoples pockets = more revenue from taxes across the board.

you seem somewhat smart, its not a tough concept to grasp.
Jan 26 2012 9:43PM
0 0
profile picture
MACAQUE
Posts: 2811 - Karma: 696
That sounds like a huge problem to me. If the government invested in private business then they would make money and stimulate economic growth/manufacturing in the US instead of just losing money by importing stuff. Do you agree?
Jan 26 2012 9:43PM
0 0
profile picture
PhaedeD
Posts: 11499 - Karma: 342
Speaking of the government getting to pick contractors hahaha why we are building more military planes right now I dont know but recently a company in south america won a big to build one of our next military aircrafts, the bid right behind them was an american company based right here on our own soil....


how stupid of a move was that by our government. we could have put our money right back into our pockets and employed a few thousand people on this project.
Jan 26 2012 9:45PM
0 0
profile picture
PhaedeD
Posts: 11499 - Karma: 342
They did this already with Obamas buddies that ran that Solar Panal plant in Cali, we saw how well that worked out. Money gone and down the drain.
Jan 26 2012 9:46PM
0 0
profile picture
MACAQUE
Posts: 2811 - Karma: 696
But it sounds like the government invested because the guys who ran the plant were Obama's buddies, not because it was a good investment. If the government could make good investments like millionaires and billionaires are able to do I don't see how it couldn't make money.


Jan 26 2012 9:51PM
0 0
All times are Eastern (-5)