Supporters of Tax Increase on Rich

[MattM]

Forget about Romney's tax returns, Matt, much less the race being over before the elections. It's a dead issue because Dem congresspeople are now scared shitless at the prospect of having their tax returns called into question. Because you know that many of them used insider trading to make good money that is taxed at capital gains rates.

 

But you'd never see that in a tax return, even were it true. It would just show capital gains. It's not like there's a box labeled "illicit proceeds of crime" on one's tax form. Don't kid yourself that Mitt's taxes are a dead issue==that's not going away any time soon.

 

As noted above, it's a loser for Romney no matter what at this point. Let's assume that it's crystal clear that there's absolutely nothing wrong at all with his returns when he releases them--no tax haven accounts, no "carried interest" (we know that there will be some of that), no confusing artifices used to lower his taxes, etc. In that case, he just looks dumb for not releasing them earlier to quiet all this down. He gains little to nothing by that. Obama may look dumb for pressing the issue, but not in a way that will cost him many votes or swing many to Mitt.

 

If, on the other hand, as many suspect (me included), his returns show either any or all of the above problems or even without them, show instead a ridiculously low rate (as noted above, that's my theory) for reasons that aren't easily explainable to the average American, then he's a big loser in all of this, as is the Republican brand both on the substance of the debate we'll then all have on tax fairness and progressivity in the tax code and how that's gamed by them's that's gots and also for nominating someone who wasn't really fully vetted. As noted above, were that to break badly that could really damage other Republicans, too, and have "negative coattails" so to speak.

 

DC Tom, thanks for the appreciation, but I do think his tax returns are relevant, particularly as his claim to competence is mainly resting on his business acumen and background, and he should show them going back a reasonable amount of time. To my mind, that's to some point before he knew he was going into politics if you want to see what kind of a man he really is. I'm a believer in the old chestnut that doing the right thing means doing the right thing even when you think no one's looking. That would give Mitt the chance to show what his taxes were like before he knew he'd be sharing them with the world by going into political office. I'm certainly not alone in this, as many prominent Republicans have said the same thing that he should release his returns, for political or ethical reasons.

Edited July 23, 2012 by MattM

[Park]

You need to see his taxes to know how much he should pay in taxes?

 

 

 

Let's say...around 20%. For the years in question. Care to guess why?

No, just tell me. Love to read this crap

[Chef Jim]

No, just tell me. Love to read this crap

 

The question was raised to you first. What tax rate should "rich" people pay and why?

[Park]

The question was raised to you first. What tax rate should "rich" people pay and why?

I'm not exactly sure, can you tell me what you think it should be and why? Where do you want the tax rate and why? If you ask, you should be able to answer, right?

[WorldTraveller]

I'll be waiting for it. What's to refute? What I posted are all facts--percentages paid or highest marginal rates. As you can see, our tax code is actually not all that progressive when the folks at the very top pay a much lower percentage than, for ex., Bain capital's cleaning lady when you count it all up (in normal years, for ex., she and her employer pay about 12.5% into SSI alone, I believe). And I understand, Rob, about capital gains vs. ordinary income, believe me. And while I understand some of the policy reasons behind that difference, and agree with it to some extent, I don't think it would kill the rich to pay closer to 20%, as would happen should we hit the fiscal cliff. That's why I posted the capital gains rate chart, too.

 

PS to WT--I pay in taxes multiples of what the average family makes in a year (and that's after starting out a blue collar kid who grew up in a 1400 square foot house without a shower), so please don't lecture me on hypocrisy, 0K? Some of us simply don't forget where we came from even if it's to our benefit or convenience. I'll discuss this like adults and treat you with respect when you do the same instead of going all wingnut, ok?

 

PSS This tax policy, particularly over the last 30 years or so might also explain things like this, the recent Pew study on economic mobility across generations:

 

http://www.pewstates.org/uploadedFiles/PCS_Assets/2012/Pursuing_American_Dream.pdf

 

Notice how both income and wealth have skewed towards the upper income quintile over that period? Personally, I found Figure 7 on page 11 particularly sad, since when you do the math you realize that a kid growing up in the bottom quintile (like lots of the folks I grew up with) have about 1/11th the chance of making it into the top quintile as adults as compared to the kids born there. Basically upper middle class kids are 11 times (that's TIMES, not percent) more likely to stay that way than a poor kid is to make it up the income scale. I'd wager personally that it's even worse the more granular you go up the scale (for ex., I'd say that the folks who start in the top 1% and make it back there as adults is higher than 11% of the top 1%--that's based on anecdotal evidence gleaned from knowing the class/social backgrounds of the folks my wife and I went to school with and the people I've worked with). Is that the America we want to have? I say no and a fairer tax policy is a way to help prevent this kind of "permanent inequality." We are at the stage/tipping point of turning into a society with a permanent, immutable underclass and that is good for no one, rich or poor, even if some of the rich are too short-sighted to see that.

 

 

 

 

I'll take the bait. Why? Personally, my best guess is that he paid 10% or less in at least some of the years we haven't seen and that's why we won't see them unless they're leaked. While he may have done nothing illegal (or even too aggressive), the simple fact of the rate itself would lead to a discussion that Republicans will not want to have on taxes and fairness. This is really a no win situation for Mitt and them. If they get leaked/release and I'm correct on the rate prediction (which I base on the fact that he paid 14% in years he knew he'd need to release when he knew he was running for President) and it breaks the wrong way with the public, despite all of Obama's problems, the race could be over by August....

"Bain capitals cleaning lady"

 

Holy parroted dnc talking point

 

LoL

[Chef Jim]

I'm not exactly sure, can you tell me what you think it should be and why? Where do you want the tax rate and why? If you ask, you should be able to answer, right?

 

Sorry, you're the one questioning what the "rich" should be paying. If you think they're not paying their fair share I'l love to know what you feel that should be. Quit dodging the question.

[Park]

Sorry, you're the one questioning what the "rich" should be paying. If you think they're not paying their fair share I'l love to know what you feel that should be. Quit dodging the question.

I'd return them to Clinton era tax levels, maybe somewhat higher.

 

Now I answered, you explain to us what you think they should be and stop dodging the question, just answer for once. And why???

[WorldTraveller]

But you'd never see that in a tax return, even were it true. It would just show capital gains. It's not like there's a box labeled "illicit proceeds of crime" on one's tax form. Don't kid yourself that Mitt's taxes are a dead issue==that's not going away any time soon.

 

As noted above, it's a loser for Romney no matter what at this point. Let's assume that it's crystal clear that there's absolutely nothing wrong at all with his returns when he releases them--no tax haven accounts, no "carried interest" (we know that there will be some of that), no confusing artifices used to lower his taxes, etc. In that case, he just looks dumb for not releasing them earlier to quiet all this down. He gains little to nothing by that. Obama may look dumb for pressing the issue, but not in a way that will cost him many votes or swing many to Mitt.

 

If, on the other hand, as many suspect (me included), his returns show either any or all of the above problems or even without them, show instead a ridiculously low rate (as noted above, that's my theory) for reasons that aren't easily explainable to the average American, then he's a big loser in all of this, as is the Republican brand both on the substance of the debate we'll then all have on tax fairness and progressivity in the tax code and how that's gamed by them's that's gots and also for nominating someone who wasn't really fully vetted. As noted above, were that to break badly that could really damage other Republicans, too, and have "negative coattails" so to speak.

 

DC Tom, thanks for the appreciation, but I do think his tax returns are relevant, particularly as his claim to competence is mainly resting on his business acumen and background, and he should show them going back a reasonable amount of time. To my mind, that's to some point before he knew he was going into politics if you want to see what kind of a man he really is. I'm a believer in the old chestnut that doing the right thing means doing the right thing even when you think no one's looking. That would give Mitt the chance to show what his taxes were like before he knew he'd be sharing them with the world by going into political office. I'm certainly not alone in this, as many prominent Republicans have said the same thing that he should release his returns, for political or ethical reasons.

Well too bad Matt. He's not gonna release them, and he's just gonna continue to let you loony leftists obsess over his tax returns while he talks about the economy.

[Park]

Well too bad Matt. He's not gonna release them, and he's just gonna continue to let you loony leftists obsess over his tax returns while he talks about the economy.

He will release them, but he has already hurt himself by being stupid and cowardly by not doing it sooner. Obama can certaintly have them leaked to the press through the IRS

[Chef Jim]

I'd return them to Clinton era tax levels, maybe somewhat higher.

 

Now I answered, you explain to us what you think they should be and stop dodging the question, just answer for once. And why???

 

You only answered half the question.

[meazza]

He will release them, but he has already hurt himself by being stupid and cowardly by not doing it sooner. Obama can certaintly have them leaked to the press through the IRS

 

Which is an abuse of the presidency. If that doesn't bother you, then you clearly have no morals.

[/dev/null]

Which is an abuse of the presidency.

Wouldn't be a first for Obama

 

If that doesn't bother you, then you clearly have no morals.

Yeah but it's OK when Obama does it cuz it's different

[Doc]

If Barry releases Romney tax returns, the race will be over by August...for Barry.

Edited July 23, 2012 by Doc

[Rob's House]

I'm a believer in the old chestnut that doing the right thing means doing the right thing even when you think no one's looking. .

"The right thing" is a very curious concept.

[Doc]

"The right thing" is a very curious concept.

Even more interesting considering Barry promised "the most transparent presidency in history" and did most of his dealings behind closed doors.

[MattM]

Well too bad Matt. He's not gonna release them, and he's just gonna continue to let you loony leftists obsess over his tax returns while he talks about the economy.

 

Then he'll suffer the consequences at the polls--his call. If he doesn't release them people will suspect the worst (and probably be right.). Despite your true believer's view here, this is not a winner for him.

 

PS Still waiting for my education on tax principles from your learned hands that you promised above.

[jjamie12]

DC Tom, thanks for the appreciation, but I do think his tax returns are relevant, particularly as his claim to competence is mainly resting on his business acumen and background, and he should show them going back a reasonable amount of time. To my mind, that's to some point before he knew he was going into politics if you want to see what kind of a man he really is. I'm a believer in the old chestnut that doing the right thing means doing the right thing even when you think no one's looking. That would give Mitt the chance to show what his taxes were like before he knew he'd be sharing them with the world by going into political office. I'm certainly not alone in this, as many prominent Republicans have said the same thing that he should release his returns, for political or ethical reasons.

How is it remotely possible that you think his tax returns have anything to do with his ability to be President? Am I to presume that you think that, in order to be President, you should pay MORE in taxes than you're legally required to? Because that is certainly what it seems like you're saying. Is that your argument about the "while no one is looking"?

 

Let's ask it a second way, too -- What does filling out a tax form have to do with running the country?

 

And from the political perspective: No one who will use tax returns as their defining reason to vote for or against someone is going to vote for Romney anyway. The reason for this is simple: If you *care* about him releasing his tax returns, what you're really asking for is for embarrassment for the Republican. There's obviously nothing illegal there, just more fodder for the "The rich don't pay their fair share!" crowd.

[MattM]

How is it remotely possible that you think his tax returns have anything to do with his ability to be President? Am I to presume that you think that, in order to be President, you should pay MORE in taxes than you're legally required to? Because that is certainly what it seems like you're saying. Is that your argument about the "while no one is looking"?

 

Let's ask it a second way, too -- What does filling out a tax form have to do with running the country?

 

And from the political perspective: No one who will use tax returns as their defining reason to vote for or against someone is going to vote for Romney anyway. The reason for this is simple: If you *care* about him releasing his tax returns, what you're really asking for is for embarrassment for the Republican. There's obviously nothing illegal there, just more fodder for the "The rich don't pay their fair share!" crowd.

 

Ask Mitt's father, who released 12 years' worth when he ran and made a big point of doing so. This has to be killing his son, who apparently idolized his dad, like many sons do.

 

Candidates for high office typically release their tax returns as part of the public vetting process. It shows (a) whether they're being honest about their financial matters and their reporting of same and (b) what their business interests are for things like conflicts of interest. Mitt doesn't want to for some reason, which we can only guess at. There could be any number of embarrassing things there, from aggressive, complex tax positions (or outright "over the line" positions, but I personally doubt that), to using legal tricks to pay a much lower rate than most Americans who don't have such tricks (such as using carried interest to convert ordinary wage income into capital gains that get taxed at only 15%) at their disposal, to investing in companies that engage in business practices that go against Mitt's public campaign persona (like outsourcing firms). As noted above, all of this is even more important when the candidate makes his campaign bones on his business experience. Well, alright then, let's see what he's got under his own hood seems mighty reasonable to me and most reasonably objective independents in that case.

 

How is it remotely possible that you think his tax returns have anything to do with his ability to be President? Am I to presume that you think that, in order to be President, you should pay MORE in taxes than you're legally required to? Because that is certainly what it seems like you're saying. Is that your argument about the "while no one is looking"?

 

Let's ask it a second way, too -- What does filling out a tax form have to do with running the country?

 

And from the political perspective: No one who will use tax returns as their defining reason to vote for or against someone is going to vote for Romney anyway. The reason for this is simple: If you *care* about him releasing his tax returns, what you're really asking for is for embarrassment for the Republican. There's obviously nothing illegal there, just more fodder for the "The rich don't pay their fair share!" crowd.

My argument on the when no one is looking point has to do with how aggressive he was in his taxes before he knew he was running for President. If they're full of problems or aggressive positions, well then, you have a pretty good window into how civic or patriotic the guy really is, that is unless you somehow think it's patriotic to cheat on your taxes....

[TakeYouToTasker]

So, love of country is now to be defined by how blindly nationalistic one is, and that nationalism is to be narrowly defined as "paying the highest amount of taxes possible, despite what actual tax law says you have to pay"???

 

Jesus that's a dangerously ignorant position to take.

Edited July 23, 2012 by TakeYouToTasker

[meazza]

So, love of country is now to be defined by how blindly nationalistic one is, and that nationalism is to be narrowly defined as "paying the highest amount of taxes possible, despite what actual tax law says you have to pay"???

 

Jesus that's a dangerously ignorant position to take.

 

Yes and couple that with the other nut job who wants Obama to leak Romney's tax records and the saying, "people deserve who leads them" certainly is true.