Romney vs. Obama

[A.Nonymous]

I just want to know why it's relevant. Instead all I'm getting is "so and so thinks it is." I'm sorry, but so and so is not a reason why something is relevant. When I go out of town my mother wants me to call when I get there. To her whether I got where I'm going successfully is extremely relevant information. To every other person in the world it's meaningless. Just because Romney's tax returns are relevant to McCain (for whatever reason) doesn't mean it's relevant to anyone else.

So, one more time for anyone who cares to answer, what information could Romney's tax returns possibly contain that would make any difference in whether he's a good Presidential candidate or not?

 

[ElasticNinja]

Not sure what difference that makes?

If Romney uses every possible lane to avoid paying tax, he's not setting a good example for the people. In fact he tells people that the way to be successful is to be as stingy and unhelpful as possible, which is no fit way to run a society.

This is why I hate politics with a passion. The left is beating the crap out of Romney on this issue and he cannot win no matter what he does.

"The Left" LOL

If he releases another 2-5 years of returns, they can (and will) bash him for not releasing them earlier and they'll still claim it's not sufficient. If he releases nothing, they claim he's hiding something.

Typical politics, politicians should generally be fairer on stuff like this but that loses them votes, so I think the ordinary voter bears a fair heft of the responsibility for this culture.

And the entire issue of his tax returns is completely irrelevant in the first place.

If he's paying ridiculously low levels of tax, then no its not.

The left hates Romney for no other reason than because he is the Republican nominee and that's all there is to it.

Yes, thats all there is to it. Not for the environmental, social, or economic damage his plans would cause.

The right is no better. You have right wingers who are still bashing Obama for the birth certificate thing and he's released everything but they are STILL not happy.

I dont get why you try to tiptoe the fine line between both parties consistently. Sometimes one side have more logical positions than the other, you have to actually take a position, not just complain whatever happens.

Meanwhile we ignore the important issues like the fact that we are hemorrhaging money.

Perhaps if the US paid the highly unfair bond yields Spain or Italy pay you would see some focus on this. But alas, people are too comfortable with borrowing when its cheap, the only issue I see being raised is that one side wants to raise taxes and cut spending to help close the gap, the other simply throws "cut more spending instead" as some sort of hopeless retort, without any hope of them cutting spending.

 

[A.Nonymous]

If Romney uses every possible lane to avoid paying tax, he's not setting a good example for the people. In fact he tells people that the way to be successful is to be as stingy and unhelpful as possible, which is no fit way to run a society.

If Romney uses every possible lane to avoid taxes then he is behaving just like every other American. If you think I and every other taxpayer don't claim every exemption we're legally entitled to you are sorely mistaken. Perhaps we disagree on this philosophically and that's fine, but I don't think paying more taxes to the government qualifies as generous or helpful.

Typical politics, politicians should generally be fairer on stuff like this but that loses them votes, so I think the ordinary voter bears a fair heft of the responsibility for this culture.

No question about it.

If he's paying ridiculously low levels of tax, then no its not.

How so? I don't see what his tax rate has to do with anything. If the tax returns revealed that he was paying far more than he should be paying and was passing up obvious deductions in order to pay more would this make him more qualified in your eyes?

Yes, thats all there is to it. Not for the environmental, social, or economic damage his plans would cause.

If you disagree with those plans, then fine. Attack those plans. I've not seen anyone in the mainstream spend any time at all addressing any of Romney's plans. His healthcare plan did get some attention. That was about it. Aside from that, every criticism I hear about Romney is basically, "He likes rich people. We don't want him."

I dont get why you try to tiptoe the fine line between both parties consistently. Sometimes one side have more logical positions than the other, you have to actually take a position, not just complain whatever happens.

Because I thoroughly detest both parties in particular and the entire system in general. I don't want to be accused of being a Republican/Democrat (pick one) shill. Both parties are corrupt and the hypocrisy pisses me off to no end. One party will moan and groan about the evil doings of the other party while the do the exact same thing.

Take all of the griping about the billionaires supporting Romney. Obama raised $70 mil last month. Are we really going to believe that he has no wealthy donors backing him? But no one says anything about that because it doesn't matter. So the Dems blast the Republicans for being backed by wealth constituents when the Dems are also backed by wealthy constituents. To make things worse, it's sometimes the exact same constituents. But no one says a word about this in the mainstream.

Perhaps if the US paid the highly unfair bond yields Spain or Italy pay you would see some focus on this. But alas, people are too comfortable with borrowing when its cheap, the only issue I see being raised is that one side wants to raise taxes and cut spending to help close the gap, the other simply throws "cut more spending instead" as some sort of hopeless retort, without any hope of them cutting spending.

I don't see either side proposing long term solutions. Neither side really wants to cut spending. They say the do, but they've said that for years and how much spending has been cut?

 

[OutofDate1980]

I just ignore what OutofDate1980 says. His ideas don't make sense most of the time.

In the future I will just ignore what Spike15 says, as Spike15 ideas don't make sense any of the time.:ciao:

 

[ylexot]

If Romney uses every possible lane to avoid taxes then he is behaving just like every other American. If you think I and every other taxpayer don't claim every exemption we're legally entitled to you are sorely mistaken.

Well, I think most people don't claim every exemption they are entitled to, but that is due to ignorance of every exemption in the mammoth tax code. It's not out of some moral need to pay more in taxes.

 

[A.Nonymous]

Well, I think most people don't claim every exemption they are entitled to, but that is due to ignorance of every exemption in the mammoth tax code. It's not out of some moral need to pay more in taxes.

That's no doubt true. Perhaps I should've said every exemption they're entitled to that they know about. One thing is for certain, the average tax payer is doing everything in his power to pay as little in taxes as he/she can.

 

[gamblor01]

If he's paying ridiculously low levels of tax, then no its not.

You're not making any argument here, you're just making a statement. I still disagree this is relevant at all. The low level of taxes he is paying stems from the fact that most of his money is made on capital gains. Don't hate the player, hate the game -- if people have a problem with the percentage he pays in taxes then VOTE TO CHANGE THE LAW! It's not Romney's fault that the system allows him to pay a (comparatively) low percentage in taxes.

The only exception to this would be if he severely cheated the tax code and lied about things on his return. But since he is a politician I already know that he is a liar and a cheater so I don't need to see his tax return to find out what I already know to be true.

Seriously though, I am sure he pays good money for a good accountant, and given the amount of money he makes, the IRS is no doubt scrutinizing his return considerably more than the average return (where people might claim a few hundred or thousand in deductions rather than hundreds of thousands or even millions). If he were cheating the system then I would expect (and hope) that the IRS would have discovered that by now.

I do think that the "rich" should pay a little more in taxes than they currently do but the fact that they take advantage of what is legally entitled to them given our current tax code is not something I fault them for personally. I claim all the credits/deductions that I can possibly claim -- why should I expect someone making more (or less) than me to do otherwise? Thus, his tax return and the tax return of any other presidential candidate is completely irrelevant. I want to know where they stand on issues that face our country (the economy, education, foreign policy, etc.). I could not possibly care less about how much money they made last year.

 

[OutofDate1980]

What information is on a tax return that would help someone "judge if someone is fit to be President?"

Also, just because McCain wants something doesn't mean it's relevant. Just saying.

Perhaps by releasing his tax returns Jon Stewart can help him determine when he was no longer the CEO of Bain Capital, as Mitt is confused about the matter.


Jon Stewart Rips Into Mitt Romney's Bain Capital, Tax Return Defense (VIDEO)

 

[Android311]

Business should be tax less not more Obama

 

[gamblor01]

Business should be tax less not more Obama

Right on! Even our own constitution starts out with the three words "We the business". And remember Lincoln's famous Gettysburg address where he ended it by saying the government "of the business, by the business, and for the business, shall not perish from the earth." Clearly businesses like IBM that are making $100 billion/year in revenue can't afford any more taxes but their scum-sucking, bottom-feeding employees, most of whom earn less than $100k/year, need to pay more because they can better afford it.

And Exxon-Mobil with their $400 billion/year in revenue ($40 billion of which is pure profit), they clearly need taxpayer dollars in the form of government subsidies. How could such companies ever survive if they made a mere $38 billion in pure profit each year?


Ok so obviously I'm being a bit sarcastic here and I also realize that businesses pay lots of people's salaries, etc. But the point is I'm not sure that such blanket statements are typically based on very sound logic. Issues we face today aren't generally so black and white, for if they were and such an easy answer existed...why wouldn't it have been implemented already?

 

[Android311]

I look at like this, what plays a huge part in Americas money? Business does, so why tax them more? We need to bring investors not push they away

 

[OutofDate1980]

I look at like this, what plays a huge part in Americas money? Business does, so why tax them more? We need to bring investors not push they away

Lust of money? Economics is not a religious belief, but can be hijack by political/religious/status quo factions. A good starting point to discuss economics is utility curves. A better understanding of the relationship between economics and politics is demographics , which trumps all of the above.

 

[A.Nonymous]

Right on! Even our own constitution starts out with the three words "We the business". And remember Lincoln's famous Gettysburg address where he ended it by saying the government "of the business, by the business, and for the business, shall not perish from the earth." Clearly businesses like IBM that are making $100 billion/year in revenue can't afford any more taxes but their scum-sucking, bottom-feeding employees, most of whom earn less than $100k/year, need to pay more because they can better afford it.

And Exxon-Mobil with their $400 billion/year in revenue ($40 billion of which is pure profit), they clearly need taxpayer dollars in the form of government subsidies. How could such companies ever survive if they made a mere $38 billion in pure profit each year?


Ok so obviously I'm being a bit sarcastic here and I also realize that businesses pay lots of people's salaries, etc. But the point is I'm not sure that such blanket statements are typically based on very sound logic. Issues we face today aren't generally so black and white, for if they were and such an easy answer existed...why wouldn't it have been implemented already?

You realize that a large part of why that is is that businesses have moved away from the US. Why? Because if they do business off shore they avoid taxes. Our tax laws have gotten to the point where it is cheaper to move off shore to Bermuda than it is to operate in the US. These companies are simply using legal means to escape taxation. Same thing that every citizen is doing.

 

[ylexot]

I actually think that businesses should not pay taxes. They simply apply those taxes to their product and we end up paying anyway. I'd rather cut out the (wasteful) middleman.

Simplistically, if a business sells a widget for $1, part of that dollar goes to pay for:
- the actual widget (materials, manufacturing)
- profit
- taxes
- overhead
- other things (i.e. recouping R&D costs or investments in new R&D)

When you raise the taxes on the business:
- the materials/manufacturing cost doesn't go up
- "other things" won't change
- taxes will go up (obviously)
- overhead will go up to deal with paying the new taxes (compliance costs)
- profit might go up (depends on how they determine their profit margin)

So, not only do the consumers pay the tax, we also pay for the increased overhead and possibly profits.

 

[A.Nonymous]

The feds do need the tax dollars for (semi)-legitimate reasons. If you eliminated taxes on businesses you'd have to hike them considerably on individuals and any politician proposing that is going to be tarred and feathered.

 

[Spike15]

You realize that a large part of why that is is that businesses have moved away from the US. Why? Because if they do business off shore they avoid taxes. Our tax laws have gotten to the point where it is cheaper to move off shore to Bermuda than it is to operate in the US. These companies are simply using legal means to escape taxation. Same thing that every citizen is doing.

I think cheap labor without benefits was the driving force. Now, many companies are leaving China in the search of a cheaper pool of labor.

 

[ylexot]

The feds do need the tax dollars for (semi)-legitimate reasons. If you eliminated taxes on businesses you'd have to hike them considerably on individuals and any politician proposing that is going to be tarred and feathered.

I don't consider that to be a legitimate reason. It's just a matter of ignorance on the part of the electorate. It's also simple enough to explain with a "Life of Julia"-like web video.

 

[ylexot]

I think cheap labor without benefits was the driving force. Now, many companies are leaving China in the search of a cheaper pool of labor.

I think that's the main driver for moving manufacturing. I think moving company headquarters is mainly tax driven. Over-regulation is a driver for both.

 

[A.Nonymous]

I don't consider that to be a legitimate reason. It's just a matter of ignorance on the part of the electorate. It's also simple enough to explain with a "Life of Julia"-like web video.

You may be right. You know as well as I do though that someone will just get up and say, "Candidate Jones wants to raise your taxes 40%!!!! Old people will starve and children will die in the streets if that happens!!!!!!" Voters will latch on and demonize Candidate Jones and Candidate Smith will win in a landslide.

 

[OutofDate1980]

Republicans kills debate on Disclosure Act. Let the hidden bribes continue.

GOP Kills DISCLOSE Act and Leaves Voters in the Dark - The Daily Beast

 

[OutofDate1980]

I think that's the main driver for moving manufacturing. I think moving company headquarters is mainly tax driven. Over-regulation is a driver for both.

Yep, we need to deregulate banking. Deregulate the energy market too, Enron will prove that if we remove the cops from the beat the unfettered free market works.

 

[Spike15]

Yep, we need to deregulate banking. Deregulate the energy market too, Enron will prove that if we remove the cops from the beat the unfettered free market works.

He said overregulation is bad, not regulation.

 

[OutofDate1980]

I actually think that businesses should not pay taxes. They simply apply those taxes to their product and we end up paying anyway. I'd rather cut out the (wasteful) middleman.

Simplistically, if a business sells a widget for $1, part of that dollar goes to pay for:
- the actual widget (materials, manufacturing)
- profit
- taxes
- overhead
- other things (i.e. recouping R&D costs or investments in new R&D)

When you raise the taxes on the business:
- the materials/manufacturing cost doesn't go up
- "other things" won't change
- taxes will go up (obviously)
- overhead will go up to deal with paying the new taxes (compliance costs)
- profit might go up (depends on how they determine their profit margin)

So, not only do the consumers pay the tax, we also pay for the increased overhead and possibly profits.

You may want to threw in price elasticity, especially in monopolistic/oligopoly markets.

 

[ylexot]

One of the big things I really dislike about regulation is that much of it is put in place by people who are not elected representatives. Congress has delegated their authority (and their actual job) to people with little to no accountability. I'm actually curious if anyone has fought a regulation on the grounds that only Congress has the authority to enact laws, so regulations enacted by administrators of various agencies are not enforceable.

 

[ElasticNinja]

I actually think that businesses should not pay taxes. They simply apply those taxes to their product and we end up paying anyway. I'd rather cut out the (wasteful) middleman.

Simplistically, if a business sells a widget for $1, part of that dollar goes to pay for:
- the actual widget (materials, manufacturing)
- profit
- taxes
- overhead
- other things (i.e. recouping R&D costs or investments in new R&D)

When you raise the taxes on the business:
- the materials/manufacturing cost doesn't go up
- "other things" won't change
- taxes will go up (obviously)
- overhead will go up to deal with paying the new taxes (compliance costs)
- profit might go up (depends on how they determine their profit margin)

So, not only do the consumers pay the tax, we also pay for the increased overhead and possibly profits.

The idea that corporations wouldnt pay tax on their *profits* or capital gains is... well completely ridiculous. If you dont tax business, how on earth can you argue for the taxation of people's income? Both business and individuals are essential to the economy, but you can have some sort of society without business, but not without workers. Businesses benefit hugely from there being a government, I've addressed this before.
Now, I'm not comfortable with the idea that businesses should be taxed or charged for employment, with regards to social security contributions or health costs.
Anyway, I dont think corporation tax is too high in most parts of the western world, its too low in many states. I think that government should focus on making their states/regions better to business in - infrastructure, law-wise and crime prevention, simplify regulations, better education, healthcare, all that.