Liberals and Romney's taxes

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by spence

Not sure what the liberals think but I sure don't have any issue with a $900 shirt. In fact I might even own one

The current to-do is over why Romney won't release his most current returns, which some suspect may show a zero tax burden due to a combination of offshore tax shelters and heavy claimed losses during the recession.

-spence

Inuendo- some,suspect and may.
Maybe he doesn't want to show up Biden with Joe's paltry $350 charity deduction.

[spence]

Originally Posted by justplugit

Inuendo- some,suspect and may.
Maybe he doesn't want to show up Biden with Joe's paltry $350 charity deduction.

Given he's loaded and a Mormon I'm sure his charitable deduction is massive if he's allowed to report his giving to his church.

But showing a zero liability for even a year would be incredibly embarrassing and fit the Dems message perfectly...that the rich get to play by a different set of rules.

-spence

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by spence

Given he's loaded and a Mormon I'm sure his charitable deduction is massive if he's allowed to report his giving to his church.

But showing a zero liability for even a year would be incredibly embarrassing and fit the Dems message perfectly...that the rich get to play by a different set of rules.

-spence

Church is a legitmate deduction open to everyone including Joe.

Joe is a typical Lib, spend other perople's money on the poor and
get his hand stuck in his pocket when it comes to his cash.

It has been shown over and over that conservatives are more charitable
in giving $ than the Libs.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by justplugit

Church is a legitmate deduction open to everyone including Joe.

It has been shown over and over that conservatives are more charitable
in giving $ than the Libs.

He certainly should have given more (esp. being a politician).

I wonder if you took the self serving $ out if the statement would be true? I know a large % of my annual donations are given to my church.

My church just built a new hall and is building a new gym. Why should I be allowed to deduct my $ for a donation that I'm going to benefit from and which no one other than church members are going to use? I might drop my gym membership to go there to work out.


Edit - I'm not refering to all church donations since churches and various religious groups obviously give many $ to various organizations.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

He certainly should have given more (esp. being a politician).

I wonder if you took the self serving $ out if the statement would be true? I know a large % of my annual donations are given to my church.

My church just built a new hall and is building a new gym. Why should I be allowed to deduct my $ for a donation that I'm going to benefit from and which no one other than church members are going to use? I might drop my gym membership to go there to work out.

"I wonder if you took the self serving $ out if the statement would be true? "

Your edit (that not all churches are self-serving) nulifies the entire point of your post. I have never seen any data to suggest that even though conservatives give more $ to charity, a lasrge percentage of that money benefits only the people that made the donations. You are graspiong at straws...

'Why should I be allowed to deduct my $ for a donation that I'm going to benefit from and which no one other than church members are going to use? "

Then don't deduct that donation from your taxable income. You're not forced to do that...

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by PaulS

He certainly should have given more (esp. being a politician).

I wonder if you took the self serving $ out if the statement would be true? I know a large % of my annual donations are given to my church.

My church just built a new hall and is building a new gym. Why should I be allowed to deduct my $ for a donation that I'm going to benefit from and which no one other than church members are going to use? I might drop my gym membership to go there to work out.


Edit - I'm not refering to all church donations since churches and various religious groups obviously give many $ to various organizations.

Paul, you don't have to take the deduction if you feel it's not warranted.

I belong to a small suburban church that feeds over 1000 people in the
inner city/month through our food pantry, provides shelter with member over night chaparoning, a home cooked dinner and a lunch sandwich for the homeless.
In addition our members have a yearly donation walk for Habitat and work building the houses. No gym needed here and I feel those works alone along with the many other things we do is a legitamite deduction.
Having been involved in these programs, working in the inner city, and mentoring kids for over 20 years, I feel that not enough is being done for many and too much
for the freeloaders. I am sure the local church, synagog etc. do a lot more good than
Big G just throwing $$$ into the fan.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by justplugit

Church is a legitmate deduction open to everyone including Joe.

Joe is a typical Lib, spend other perople's money on the poor and
get his hand stuck in his pocket when it comes to his cash.

.

Darn right. I just saw a fundraising speech where Biden claimed that Democrats care about helping the poor, and that Republicans only care about helping the rich.

This, coming from a guy who makes $300k, and gives less than 1% to charity? He gets to wag his finger at me, and instead of getting pelted with tomatoes like he deserves, he gets a standing ovation? If everyone acted like Biden, how much worse off would poor people be?

I don't get it, maybe PaulS an Spence can explain it.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"I wonder if you took the self serving $ out if the statement would be true? "

Your edit (that not all churches are self-serving) that is not what I said. I said that there are aspects of church charity I support - just not my being allowed to take a tax deduction for our gym that you wouldn't be able use.nulifies the entire point of your post. I have never seen any data to suggest that even though conservatives give more $ to charity, a lasrge percentage of that money benefits only the people that made the donations. You are graspiong at straws...Nope, my example proves it.

'Why should I be allowed to deduct my $ for a donation that I'm going to benefit from and which no one other than church members are going to use? "

Then don't deduct that donation from your taxable income. You're not forced to do that..Is that how the country should be run now? What if someone doesn't want to support the war? That is why Romney's % of taxes paid isn't the issue. He should take everything he is allowed to take on his returns..

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Darn right. I just saw a fundraising speech where Biden claimed that Democrats care about helping the poor, and that Republicans only care about helping the rich.

This, coming from a guy who makes $300k, and gives less than 1% to charity? He gets to wag his finger at me, and instead of getting pelted with tomatoesYour a violent person! Remember when I mentioned throwing bricks as someone and you accussed me of some silly thing like promoting violence - isn't your saying throwing tom. showing hypocrisy? like he deserves, he gets a standing ovation? If everyone acted like Biden, how much worse off would poor people be?

I don't get it, maybe PaulS an Spence can explain it.

I already said he should have donated more. What more do you want?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

But showing a zero liability for even a year would be incredibly embarrassing and fit the Dems message perfectly...that the rich get to play by a different set of rules.

-spence

But why is that the Democrat message? Don't rich Democrats play by those same rules? How come it's OK for rich liberals to take advantage of those rules, but it's sinister when rich conservatives do it?

Romney is rich, so he must be out of touch? John Kerry is worth 10 times what Romney is worth, and I don't remember his wealth being a liability for him when he ran?

It's just like the issue of gay marriage. According to you Spence, blacks aren't guilty of hate when they oppose gay marriage. But whites who oppose gay marriage, are a bunch of bigoted hatemongers. That's what you said, and it's indefensible, unbelievably stupid.

I saw Nancy Pelosi recently, criticizing WI governor Scott Brown for busting unions and therefore, hurting the middle class. Mrs Pelosi owns a bunch of hotels, and refuses to allow her employees to unionize. So it's OK for her to recognize that her business is better off without unions, but the people of WI are not allowed to come to the same conclusion? But no one calls her out on it.

[Fly Rod]

Originally Posted by spence

Given he's loaded and a Mormon
-spence

why not pick on Harry Reid....he is a Mormon

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Fly Rod

why not pick on Harry Reid....he is a Mormon

Because it's OK to be Mormon, or fabulously rich, or opposed to gay marriage, or a tax cheat, or to treat women barbarically, as long as you are a Democrat.

Democrats who fall into those categories are no threat to anyone. Republicans who fall into those categories are the enemy...that's why Chick fil-A isn't welcome in Boston, but businesses owned by blacks who oppose gay marriage, are welcome. Because as Spence said, blacks who oppose gay marriage are simply exercising their rights to free speech. But whites who oppose gay marriage are to be feared and shunned from the public square.

[Fly Rod]

Since Reid believes in transparency for Mitt... he and Polosi feel that they R excluded from the same...Pelosi n Reid both have been asked to disclose their finances and they both have refused...it is known that they in congress do not have to...but what R they hiding

[Piscator]

Originally Posted by spence

the rich get to play by a different set of rules.

-spence

Define Rich.........

I agree Romney is rich but where is the rich/not rich line drawn?

[Fly Rod]

If it were not for the rich those of us poor people would not have a job.....

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Fly Rod

If it were not for the rich those of us poor people would not have a job.....

No, those rich bosses are taking advantage of you (unless you are in a union, that is). You're just too feeble-minded to realize that, which is precisely why we need Obama and the Democrats and labor unions, making sure those awful rich people treat you fairly. Because it's not like we have OSHA protecting workers, or minimum wage laws, or laws that dictate hours worked, overtime, family medical leave, etc...

Oh wait, we do already have all those things.

[Fly Rod]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

No, those rich bosses are taking advantage of you (unless you are in a union, that is). You're just too feeble-minded to realize that, which is precisely why we need Obama and the Democrats and labor unions, making sure those awful rich people treat you fairly. Because it's not like we have OSHA protecting workers, or minimum wage laws, or laws that dictate hours worked, overtime, family medical leave, etc...

Oh wait, we do already have all those things.

ILMAO

[Fly Rod]

Harry Reid should come forward with his accusations....anyone of us cn make an accusation of anyone here....who should have to prove it... the attacker or attackee?

Reid is using basically the same tactic that got obama elected to the Illinois senate in 2004