Liberals and Romney's taxes

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Studies I've read indicate the % of people who donate is similar regardless of politics.

A big factor could be church contributions (I'm assuming more conservatives go to church) which may not really all be charitable if the primary intent is to fund the church you attend. And yes, I'm aware churches do other good things for the community.

Another problem could be how the data is really analyzed. The Brooks report that's widely cited looked at taxes by voting at the state level. There's a huge amount of potential variation here and if population concentrations aren't taken into consideration could be terribly flawed.

-spence

"Studies I've read indicate the % of people who donate is similar regardless of politics."

(1) I'm sure that's true, given the liberal slant of your worldview, and your inability to accept that which makes conservatives look decent. When you get your data from The Daily Worker and The Huffington Post, you won't see articles suggesting that conservatives donate more...

(2) even if the same percentages donate, who donates more? Isn't that relevent?

(3) given that liberals are constantly suggesting that they care more about the poor than conservatives do, how is it that your studies do not show that a higher percentage of liberals donate to charity?

"A big factor could be church contributions...which may not really all be charitable"

Spence, I am shocked, yes shocked to hear you speculate (with no supporting data whatsoever) a theory which makes the conservatives look less generous.

"if population concentrations aren't taken into consideration could be terribly flawed."

Could be, could be, could be, could be...It "could be" that all conservatives are devil-worshipping cannibals. After all, I can't prove otherwise...

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

But Jim thinks it's settled science so I guess we should just move on.

-spence

Spence, I never said "let's move on". What I have said is this...given the available data, it is preposterous for liberals to claim they care more about poor people than conservatives do. Liberals only make such rhetorical, inflammatory statements, when they know thay cannot debate the merits of whatever conversation is taking place. It's a conversation-stopper, like accusing someone of racism...

COnservatives could just as easily (more easily, given the data) claim that liberals don't care about poor people. But that's not one of the pillars of conservatism, whereas you can't watch MSNBC for 3 minutes without some liberal jerk claiming that liberals have a monopoly on caring about the poor.

I'm sorry your side keeps behaving so horribly, but don't make up for it by putting stupid words in my mouth.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Have those studies been adjusted for the vastly different demographics (age, race, income level, etc.)?

The data has not been "adjusted" for those things, but the definitive study on the subject (called "Who Really Cares") indicates that liberals give less, despite the fact thet liberals earn more. And that makes sense, if you consider that liberalism is huge on both coasts, and the conservative strongholds include middle America and some rural places.

Why would you adjust the data for race? Are you saying skin color is correlated with generosity? Boy, that'll go over well in liberal circles...

[RIROCKHOUND]

Just release the frigging things....
Seriously, it has to be more than 'he paid 14%'... if thats all it is, it will blow over.... As mentioned, it is not that he is rich. As far as my income, Obama is rich... it has to do with the system benefiting those that can afford to move money offshore and take 'losses' to avoid paying... is it illegal? Nope...

if he really did pay close to nothing b/c of shelters, losses and such, then it must be a calculated risk to take this heat vs what he would take....

[spence]

[RIROCKHOUND]

This is such a tangent to the original thread....

Jim:
So, you have NO problem with Romney not releasing his taxes at all? You don't care in the least bit?

If nothing else, I'm curious what it costs to maintain and train a Dressage horse....

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

If nothing else, I'm curious what it costs to maintain and train a Dressage horse....

Jim, your right, I shouldn't have included race.

RI - Good thing it wasn't Theresa Heinz w/the horse.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

This is such a tangent to the original thread....

Jim:
So, you have NO problem with Romney not releasing his taxes at all? You don't care in the least bit?

It hadn't occured to me till I was told by Obama's team that I should care. Since there has been no claim by IRS that he owes money that hasn't been paid, there was no reason for me to be curious. I, generally, don't find tax returns to be entertaining or even interesting, unless they reveal skullduggery. That's between Romney and the IRS. If the IRS has no problem with his returns, I have no interest in them. I understand that Romney is rich. I don't need to pore through boring tax returns to find that out. I don't mind that he is rich. He has returned and given more to our society in so many ways including taxes and charities than I, or the vast majority of Americans. He has earned his wealth, he didn't inherit it, not that inheriting it would be a bad thing. For whatever reason, I don't get worked up over what rich people pay in taxes. I realize, as Fitzgerald said, the rich are different than you or I. Just doesn't bother me. I get pissed at what the government takes from me, and even more pissed at how it spends, or redistributes it.

If nothing else, I'm curious what it costs to maintain and train a Dressage horse....

Probably less than the cost to treat Anne Romney's MS for which the horse is used to help with the disease. The Romney's donated about $20,000 to the U.S. Equestrian Team Foundation.

Do you need to see Romney's tax return to find out how much it costs to maintain and train a dressage horse?

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Probably less than the cost to treat Anne Romney's MS for which the horse is used to help with the disease.

I am very familiar with MS in my family... no one was prescribed 'Dressage' as a treatment.....

Originally Posted by detbuch

He has earned his wealth, he didn't inherit it, not that inheriting it would be a bad thing. For whatever reason, I don't get worked up over what rich people pay in taxes. I realize, as Fitzgerald said, the rich are different than you or I. Just doesn't bother me. I get pissed at what the government takes from me, and even more pissed at how it spends, or redistributes it.

So you get pissed at what the gov't take from you, but not if the top 1% get to skirt the same taxes by moving money offshore, or taking 'losses'?

Are you sure he didn't inherit his wealth? He certainly made a lot more for himself, no denying that.... but he didn't start out dirt poor, or even middle class.....
To paraphrase that awful Trump Roast on Comedy central... "after college he put his nose to the grindstone, worked hard, and borrowed (inherited) X Millions from his father...."

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

I am very familiar with MS in my family... no one was prescribed 'Dressage' as a treatment.....


Are you saying that it doesn't help Mrs. Romney with her MS? Rich folks can afford more costly treatments for their ailments than the rest of us. Isn't that one of the reasons to be rich? Is your solution to this supposed "problem" that we should by government fiat remove the advantages of being rich? What overall effect do you think that would have on our society? Rather than being jealous of and punitive against the rich, I prefer to focus on my own well being and what I can do to improve it, if necessary.

So you get pissed at what the gov't take from you, but not if the top 1% get to skirt the same taxes by moving money offshore, or taking 'losses'?

That's correct. I like the idea of loopholes to evade taxes. I wish I had more myself. Kudos to those who take advantage of them. I admire what Romney has done with his life. There are those who come from better circumstances that waste what was given to them, and those who come from lesser circumstances that have climbed to better. I admire the character not the wealth or poverty. It is that character, in my opinion, not taxes, that make a nation, or society, "great." I understand that government needs money to operate. But it should operate with the consent of the governed, not in opposition to it. It should govern within the pasrameters prescribed, in our case, of the Constitution, not in any which way it chooses. And it should function with the minimum amount of taxation required to do so, not by taking the lion's share of the nation's wealth.

Are you sure he didn't inherit his wealth? He certainly made a lot more for himself, no denying that.... but he didn't start out dirt poor, or even middle class.....

I didn't say that he didn't inherit something. I said he didn't inherit his wealth. He was already wealthy before his father died. And what he was given as an advantage of birth was not the great wealth that he earned, but what was given he took advantage of, as do all of us who start with whatever our family gives us, to become who he is and acquire what wealth he has. He didn't waste whatever advantages he had from birth, he used them to productive ends that have been a plus to our economy, and his character are a plus to the moral fiber, as it is, of our society.

To paraphrase that awful Trump Roast on Comedy central... "after college he put his nose to the grindstone, worked hard, and borrowed (inherited) X Millions from his father...."

Of what money he actually borrowed, which was not millions, did he pay it back? What he actually inherited from his father's will he donated to Brigham Young U. He was already rich by then, and didn't need the money. But he did put that inheritance to a good use to help others. His father helped with college expenses and buying his first house. I have helped my son with a great deal of his college expenses as well as catholic school expenses including a select high school, which were not cheap. So do most middle class, and even some poorer, families.

I notice you like to take some of your political opinions from comedy shows. I guess that's OK, for entertainment. Just sayin.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Of what money he actually borrowed, which was not millions, did he pay it back? What he actually inherited from his father's will he donated to Brigham Young U. He was already rich by then, and didn't need the money. But he did put that inheritance to a good use to help others. His father helped with college expenses and buying his first house. I have helped my son with a great deal of his college expenses as well as catholic school expenses including a select high school, which were not cheap. So do most middle class, and even some poorer, families.

I notice you like to take you political opinions from comedy shows. I guess that's OK, for entertainment. Just sayin.

Spence isn't saying that horseback riding doesn't help her MS...what Spence is saying, because Obama has told him to say it, is that the horseback riding makes Romney one of "them".

The rich.

The enemy.

The one that has caused all of our problems.

The one who isn't paying his fair share (as if the millions he pays in taxes, and the millions he gives to charity, and the jobs he creates, are not enough!)

This, from the Obama who said he, and only he, could descend from the heavens and unite us all. Now it's "us" versus "them".

The irony is that the folks that Obama is attacking (rich businessmen, for the most part), are the ones who do so much for the rest of us. They lower the tax burden for the rest of us, they pay taxes for things like public schools that they will never use, they give big $$ to charity, and they create jobs. Those bastards!

To believe Obama, one must be willing to believe that if we could just tweak! tax rates, just a bit, on the billionaires, that all of our problems would be solved. That's ridiculous, just like just about everything else on the liberal ideological platform.

I saw Obama last night talking about CEO pay compared to the middle class. Waah, waah, waah. Does Obama think that Steven Spielberg's butler makes as much money as Spielberg does? How about Barbara Streisand's gardener, how much does he make?

So if the CEO of Goldman Sachs pays entry-level bankers less than he makes, that's exploitative. When Will Smith pays his nanny less than he makes, that's something else I guess, maybe Spence can explain the difference...

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

This is such a tangent to the original thread....

Jim:
So, you have NO problem with Romney not releasing his taxes at all? You don't care in the least bit?

If nothing else, I'm curious what it costs to maintain and train a Dressage horse....

A fair question...I would not release any additional tax returns, because even if they show he paid taxes, liberals will use his income as a club against him. They did it to McCain, and they've been doing it to Romney all along.

It's OK for Brad Pitt to be rich, but not Mitt Romney. Try telling me liberals don't feel that way...

Romney cannot win in this arena, so he should just say "the IRS has never come aftre me, unlike Tim Geithner, so I'm clean. My income is no one's business, all you nee dto know is I obeyed all laws, and I donated a hell of a lot more to charity than that cheapskate Joe Biden".

[The Dad Fisherman]

I'd be curious if they ever did a study on Money Donated versus Time Donated....some people don't donate funds but put many hours in on Charities.

Just curious if that gets taken into consideration.

[spence]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

I'd be curious if they ever did a study on Money Donated versus Time Donated....some people don't donate funds but put many hours in on Charities.

Just curious if that gets taken into consideration.

Or like my wife who earned 3-4X less than she easily could because she was dedicated to helping families with autistic kids most of whom were dirt poor?

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

I'd be curious if they ever did a study on Money Donated versus Time Donated....some people don't donate funds but put many hours in on Charities.

Just curious if that gets taken into consideration.

That's a great point, but let me say 2things...

(1) liberals had more money than conservatives, which makes perfect sense, when you consider the liberal strongholds like Hollywood and Manhattan...

(2) the "who really cares" study did not, I don't think, look at time donated. But they did look at who donates more blood, and it was conservatives.

But you raise a valid point, not everyone has extra cash...

[mosholu]

There was certainly a fair amount of critical comments regarding Geithner's taxes when it came up from people from both sides of the fence. The issue with Mitt is that people would like to know what tax advantages, especially off shore tax havens, he took advantage of. If he is legit it is not a problem being wealthy
Ike Kerry. It is ironic to me that Mitt"s father was the candidate who initiated multiple year tax disclosure and he is turning this into a bigger issue than it should be.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by mosholu

The issue with Mitt is that people would like to know what tax advantages, especially off shore tax havens, he took advantage of.

Why is that an issue and who's making it an issue? Mitt isn't making it an issue. He's filed his returns, and the IRS has accepted them, with, apparently, no accusations of wrongdoing. That "people would like to know" (really, which people and how did they come to be interested?) is no reason for him, or you, or I to disclose our returns in order to satisfy their curiosity. Oh, because he's running for President? OK, somehow, you think that finding out what tax advantages he's taken advantage of will impact how he will fulfill his responsibilities as President. My opinion, if he is adept at following IRS rules, that might be some small indication that he would be adept as President, especially with tax issues. Maybe that will enable him to relate to the rest of us not liking to be overburdened with taxes. I would be more suspicious of someone who sees no problem with high tax rates to sustain an irresponsible, and profligate government which spends more that it gets and won't even pass a budget.

If he is legit it is not a problem being wealthy
Ike Kerry.

Apparently, the IRS has not questioned his legitimacy.

It is ironic to me that Mitt"s father was the candidate who initiated multiple year tax disclosure and he is turning this into a bigger issue than it should be.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Why am I getting the vibe that the Obama team is turning this into an issue, not Romney?

[RIROCKHOUND]

It's a shame he's been such a pussy with Al Queda.....

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

It's a shame he's been such a pussy with Al Queda.....

I have always given him high marks in that area. It's also worth noting that in this area, most of what he has done us continue the policies of the previous administration (Gitmo is open, war tribunals still happen, drone attack sstill happen, the Patriot Act is still in place). These are all things Bush got attacked for, now Obama is happily using them to score political points with folks like you. Ironic, isn't it?

[Mr. Sandman]

The more you impose taxes on those that earn big money, the more they will seek ways to shelter it.

The government should be creating incentives for investments in this country but they want the rich to risk it all then tax them when it works out. Well, if they risk it in areas that need investment, they need to be allowed to KEEP the earnings tax free for a significant period.


The government just creates roadblocks for business, they believe profits are a sin and anyone who makes profits are bad people and should be punished (taxed)

As sited abouve, taxing the so called rich will not solve anything, in fact it will not help anything. I do agree however that many wall street types are in a position to move all earned income to unearned income or take it as stock or some other form and pay a lot less tax and defer paying on most of it. This is within the law but if they had a very simple tax plan (ie a flat tax) no one could escape paying their fair share and there would be no deductions or shelters.