manutdsaol
Member
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2012-general-election-romney-vs-obama
Obama is only losing in one and tied in 2
Obama is only losing in one and tied in 2
When he doesn't know a camera's rolling, Mitt Romney shows his disdain for half of America.
- Thread starter Tree60
- Start date
geteducated
Active member
don't know why you're saying sorry. its not like those who can't vote in this thread are exclusively voting for obama. i can say the same about underage romney supporters as well.
TijmenDal
Active member
As one of the greatest American presidents, politicians, state legislatures and political thinkers James Madison once said: Every shilling the poor have to pay extra, is a shilling saved out of their own pockets.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with making a lot of money and being ambitious. The problem lies with the taxation on income from rents, dividends and interest. The case Pollock v. Farmers Loan & Trust is the problem here. The ratification from that case by the 16th Amendment partially solved the problem, but not entirely.
It's ok to make 13 million a year, but not if you pay 13% taxed over it. Tax him 35% like is normal for having an income over 350.000$. Paying 13% is bullshit.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with making a lot of money and being ambitious. The problem lies with the taxation on income from rents, dividends and interest. The case Pollock v. Farmers Loan & Trust is the problem here. The ratification from that case by the 16th Amendment partially solved the problem, but not entirely.
It's ok to make 13 million a year, but not if you pay 13% taxed over it. Tax him 35% like is normal for having an income over 350.000$. Paying 13% is bullshit.
I agree completely that he shouldnt be paying just 13% im not saying that our tax system is anywhere close to ideal, with or without the ability for these people like romney to find loopholes and pay less.
i dont blame them for trying to pay less though, there are obviously loopholes that allow them to at least somewhat legally pay less and get a way with it extremely easily, and who wouldnt want to when they are taxed as badly as they are? we have one of if not the most progressive tax systems in the world, no other country in the world leans on the upper class as much as the US.
so while yes, i do agree that he SHOULD be paying what he is "supposed" to, he is simply finding a solution for a problem, if that problem didnt exist in the first place, there wouldnt be the need to find a solution.
Romney made around 13.5 million, and paid around 2 million in taxes. it would take 400 people paying 5,000 in taxes to make that up. so he may be skimping on his taxes, but its hard for me to say he's not paying his fair share. shit i probably wont pay 2 million in taxes over my entire lifetime, sorry to say, but i think we have other people to worry about not paying their fair share before we can bitch at the rich not paying enough millions in taxes per year.
i dont blame them for trying to pay less though, there are obviously loopholes that allow them to at least somewhat legally pay less and get a way with it extremely easily, and who wouldnt want to when they are taxed as badly as they are? we have one of if not the most progressive tax systems in the world, no other country in the world leans on the upper class as much as the US.
so while yes, i do agree that he SHOULD be paying what he is "supposed" to, he is simply finding a solution for a problem, if that problem didnt exist in the first place, there wouldnt be the need to find a solution.
Romney made around 13.5 million, and paid around 2 million in taxes. it would take 400 people paying 5,000 in taxes to make that up. so he may be skimping on his taxes, but its hard for me to say he's not paying his fair share. shit i probably wont pay 2 million in taxes over my entire lifetime, sorry to say, but i think we have other people to worry about not paying their fair share before we can bitch at the rich not paying enough millions in taxes per year.
i agree with you about the tax system being broken, im betting we differ on how the tax system should ideally be, but im definitely not saying that there isnt an issue.
as far as my source goes, i posted it because JenniferGarner said the rich only become rich by inheriting their wealth, which is false.
now when it comes to wealth inequality, whats worse? wealth inequality or wealth equality? personally i think too far to one direction is a bad thing, I do think we are too far on the side of inequality, there are a lot of factors that contribute to this, greedy businessmen wanting to make money is not near the top of that list. i dont think anyone would argue that the Bill Gates, Sam waltons, Henry Fords, etc.. have done anything but great things for this country.
at the same time its supply and demand.. while we need the Bill Gates and Steve Jobs and Henry Fords to supply us with what we want, there would be no steve jobs if the majority of the nation were too poor to afford an ipod. there is most definitely a balance.
but id much rather have too much wealth inequality than too much wealth equality. this quote pretty much describes my stance..
"Freedom and equality are sworn and everlasting enemies, when one prevails the other dies. to check the growth of inequality, liberty must be sacrificed"
id rather have the freedom to be rich than be guaranteed equal wealth.
as far as my source goes, i posted it because JenniferGarner said the rich only become rich by inheriting their wealth, which is false.
now when it comes to wealth inequality, whats worse? wealth inequality or wealth equality? personally i think too far to one direction is a bad thing, I do think we are too far on the side of inequality, there are a lot of factors that contribute to this, greedy businessmen wanting to make money is not near the top of that list. i dont think anyone would argue that the Bill Gates, Sam waltons, Henry Fords, etc.. have done anything but great things for this country.
at the same time its supply and demand.. while we need the Bill Gates and Steve Jobs and Henry Fords to supply us with what we want, there would be no steve jobs if the majority of the nation were too poor to afford an ipod. there is most definitely a balance.
but id much rather have too much wealth inequality than too much wealth equality. this quote pretty much describes my stance..
"Freedom and equality are sworn and everlasting enemies, when one prevails the other dies. to check the growth of inequality, liberty must be sacrificed"
id rather have the freedom to be rich than be guaranteed equal wealth.
I have a friend who's dad works for Wall Street and he basically gave me a huge lesson in this. Bottom line though even after double taxation if you make your money off investments you get taxed less than if you physically work. there are ways to get through it and loopholes To exploit. I don't understand it 100% but it is cheeper.
volvotom
Active member
Oh, hey the double taxation myth returned!
Double taxation doesn't exactly work as simple as combining the rates.
For a (VERY) economics/finance explanation:
http://rajivsethi.blogspot.com/2012/01/double-taxation.html
But (put more) simply:
"(i) the adding-up approach to effective tax rates does not work for
short sales and related derivative positions, and (ii) elimination of
the corporate tax would result in a sharp rise in the price of equities
and a windfall gain for existing long investors, while the gains to
future investors are more modest and uncertain"
Double taxation doesn't exactly work as simple as combining the rates.
For a (VERY) economics/finance explanation:
http://rajivsethi.blogspot.com/2012/01/double-taxation.html
But (put more) simply:
"(i) the adding-up approach to effective tax rates does not work for
short sales and related derivative positions, and (ii) elimination of
the corporate tax would result in a sharp rise in the price of equities
and a windfall gain for existing long investors, while the gains to
future investors are more modest and uncertain"