welfare sucks

[Colonel Taylor]

Do you think a graduated income tax is thievery? Yes or No.

I don't think we have one do you?
How can it be graduated system when half the folks pay nothing and others get money back. Do you agree we don't have a graduated system?
I think a flat tax would be the fairest with no deductions or loop holes.

First, that crack-addled far-right fantasy world where "half the folks pay nothing", does not exist. Romney's 47% still pays state, county, city, sales, gas, social security, medicare/medicaid, property tax and excise tax on cigarettes and alcohol.

Uh well I do believe everyone here figured we were talking of federal income taxes, all but you of course for the sake of twisting.

Half of them pay payroll taxes (and probably work harder than Romney ever did in his life.) Of the half that don't, most are retirees who have paid taxes all their lives.

Not!

Of the tiny number remaining, you're talking about the disabled, recent graduates who are not paying taxes yet but will, and those recently unemployed but who will resume paying full taxes.

Twist as you may 49% still pay no fed. income tax and the top 20% still pay 67% of the fed. income tax.

When the right-wingnuts complain about "Here's What Really Happened on Nov. 6; 7M Less Whites Voted", you can be sure that a lot of those non-voters were Republicans who paid taxes all their lives only to be declared parasites by Romney.

It was a claim by a moron, for morons.

Second, the graduated system where the rich pay more, has been reversed. The rich pay a lower rate than you do.

The rich were paying taxes on their income over $400,000 at a 70 percent rate when Reagan entered the White House. Now they pay taxes at no more than 35 percent. Obama only wanted to move it back to 39.6 percent.

And that's before loopholes. After exploiting loopholes, the richest pay taxes at about half that rate. In 2005, for instance, the top 400 income-earners in the United States took home an average $214 million. They paid only 18.5 percent of that in federal income tax. Citation

According to a February 2011 analysis of 2007 IRS statistics by a columnist for Tax Notes, the average taxpayer residing in New York City's posh Helmsley Building (owned before her death by Leona Helmsley, who once reportedly said that "only the little people pay taxes") paid only 14.7 percent of his income in federal taxes while New York City janitors and security guards (such as those employed by the Helmsley Building) paid about 24 percent. Helmsley residents were taxed less for Social Security and Medicare, and much of their $1.17 million average income was in capital gains, which are taxed at the same rate as the wages of modestly paid (up to $34,000 a year) workers. [Forbes, 2-22-2011; Tax Notes, 2-21-2011]

And that's without tricks like off-shore tax havens. Mitt Romney paid a 14 percent effective tax rate last year. It's widely believed - with good reason - that Romney is holding back tax returns because he paid far less.

Do you have a citation or first hand knowledge of this or are you just B/S ing as usual?

[rstrong]

Uh well I do believe everyone here figured we were talking of federal income taxes, all but you of course for the sake of twisting.

No, it is your TWIST to ignore the fact that many of the non-federal income taxpayers actually pay a greater percentage of their income in total taxes than the rich that you suck up to do.

...Do you have a citation or first hand knowledge of this or are you just B/S ing as usual?

They're embedded throughout his post, idiot.

...Citation

...[Forbes, 2-22-2011; Tax Notes, 2-21-2011]

...paid...

Get back to us with intelligent commentary ( ) after you've read ( ) through them.

You can lead a wingnut to facts, but you can't make him think.

[Colonel Taylor]

Uh well I do believe everyone here figured we were talking of federal income taxes, all but you of course for the sake of twisting.

No, it is your TWIST to ignore the fact that many of the non-federal income taxpayers actually pay a greater percentage of their income in total taxes than the rich that you suck up to do.

...Do you have a citation or first hand knowledge of this or are you just B/S ing as usual?

They're embedded throughout his post, idiot.

...Citation

...[Forbes, 2-22-2011; Tax Notes, 2-21-2011]

...paid...

Get back to us with intelligent commentary ( ) after you've read ( ) through them.

You can lead a wingnut to facts, but you can't make him think.

We see you have taking up liberal editing when called out you just BS, typical.
So you say Romney paid far less then 14% because of off shore accounts, where's the proof?
Go do some more twisting now.

[O Really]

It's not "liberal editing", you idiot. I just showed you the citations you asked for after you were too stupid to notice them the first time. Stop whining and get back to us with intelligent commentary ( ) after you've read ( ) through them.

"twisting" - a sure sign that Colonel Taylor has screwed up again and doesn't have the stones to admit it.

And one of them was even labeled "Citation."
But if a decent accountant knew Romney's approximate income, knew the laws covering Cayman accounts, etc., and knew the publicly available information about other aspects of his life that might affect tax filings, s/he could come up with a pretty good guess of what he might have paid. We know that at least in the year he provided the return that he actively took steps to pay enough to avoid going under 14%. If everything else was similar and he did nothing but NOT take those steps in previous years, he would have been below. So no, unless he ever gives them up nobody will know for sure - but a professional projection is far from "unsubstantiated" or "rumour."

[Colonel Taylor]

It's not "liberal editing", you idiot. I just showed you the citations you asked for after you were too stupid to notice them the first time. Stop whining and get back to us with intelligent commentary ( ) after you've read ( ) through them.

"twisting" - a sure sign that Colonel Taylor has screwed up again and doesn't have the stones to admit it.

And one of them was even labeled "Citation."
But if a decent accountant knew Romney's approximate income, knew the laws covering Cayman accounts, etc., and knew the publicly available information about other aspects of his life that might affect tax filings, s/he could come up with a pretty good guess of what he might have paid. We know that at least in the year he provided the return that he actively took steps to pay enough to avoid going under 14%. If everything else was similar and he did nothing but NOT take those steps in previous years, he would have been below. So no, unless he ever gives them up nobody will know for sure - but a professional projection is far from "unsubstantiated" or "rumour."

Yup here come the liberal keyboard muscles. Show me where the proof is that Romney pays less then 14% because of his off shore accounts. Other then the liberal BS! We'll wait. Can't answer just ignore and start the name calling.

[O Really]

Nobody said anybody had proof. As far as I know, nobody but Romney and his accountants do. But I'm just saying that a decent tax accountant could make an educated guess. Has nothing to do with whether the accountant is liberal or not, nor whether I - who isn't an accountant - am liberal or not. Has to do with an understanding of the tax code and a reasonable knowledge of Romney's income, available publicly.

[O Really]

Strategically, Romney was probably right not to release them. If it turned out none really were below 14%, everybody would claim something like "those aren't the real ones..." or whatever. He had just gotten himself in a bind that neither releasing them nor refusing to release them was going to make him look good.

[Colonel Taylor]

Yup here come the liberal keyboard muscles. Show me where the proof is that Romney pays less then 14% because of his off shore accounts. Other then the liberal BS! We'll wait. Can't answer just ignore and start the name calling.

Quit whining. rstrong posted:

...It's widely believed - with good reason - that Romney is holding back tax returns because he paid far less (than 14%).

That's a fact, it is "widely believed". Mitten could have proved otherwise if it's untrue by doing what every other POTUS (beginning with his own father!) did - release more returns. If you choose to believe that a politician refusing to do so isn't hiding anything just because he's GOP, go for it. We're more skeptical about pols, all of them, than you are.

He it is a fact as you say show up the proof!

[rstrong]

He it is a fact as you say show up the proof!

Admittedly, I can't argue with that.

(If only because I can't understand it.)

[billy.pilgrim]

the proof is simple - unless you don't want to see it

rmoney paid 14% last year as he was preparing for his run for president but rmoney refused to turn over any more returns and refused to offer a reason, even though he required more from his vp possibles and especially as he knew that refusing to turn over returns would hurt him in the election

therefore, to anyone with half a brain, he considered the damage and loss of votes due to refusing to show his returns was less than the damage from showing the returns

many like him pay no taxes - chances are very good that rmoney paid zero or almost no taxes during the years he hid from the public

[rstrong]

He it is a fact as you say show up the proof!

Admittedly, I can't argue with that.

(If only because I can't understand it.)

I've got a Thornglish dictionary:

Hey, if it is a fact, as you say (no one did), show up (show us or put up) the proof!

There's no way to translate the "logic" since you only asserted a widely held belief, not that it was provable that he paid less than 14%.

Thanks!

[Bungalow Bill]

This article appeared in Bloomberg a little while before election day, but it wasn't given much
further attention in other outlets, not sure why. Maybe this is why Romney was so adamant
about not releasing any further tax returns.




http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-2 ... tions.html

[Supsalemgr]

I've gotten dumber since I joined these WNC forums.

I respectfully decline to comment on this admission.

[rstrong]

I've gotten dumber since I joined these WNC forums.

Yes, he does indeed have that effect on the rest of us.

[Colonel Taylor]

Yup here come the liberal keyboard muscles. Show me where the proof is that Romney pays less then 14% because of his off shore accounts. Other then the liberal BS! We'll wait. Can't answer just ignore and start the name calling.

Quit whining. rstrong posted:

...It's widely believed - with good reason - that Romney is holding back tax returns because he paid far less (than 14%).

That's a fact, it is "widely believed". Mitten could have proved otherwise if it's untrue by doing what every other POTUS (beginning with his own father!) did - release more returns. If you choose to believe that a politician refusing to do so isn't hiding anything just because he's GOP, go for it. We're more skeptical about pols, all of them, than you are.

He it is a fact as you say show up the proof!

Why is it always a remedial English class for you? More importantly, why have you chosen a hobby where basic English skills are so vital?

The fact is that it's "widely believed", no one has said that the lower rate is proven or that it is provable unless Mitten releases the forms. Get it yet? You're arguing against something created in your own mind.

Still haven't figured out the smart phone and most likely never will. So another words it's all B/S. Why did it take so long for ya to admit it?