RkFast Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 Do you think I give a **** about what they think about me? Why the hell would I even worry? And I LIKE my capital gains tax rate, numbskull. Not just "the rich" have capital gains. Thats always my favorite part of the argument. They loove to get on the wealthy for taking advantage of tax loopholes and deductions.....as if they are not running full speed to a tax accountant every Spring, themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary M Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 Do you think I give a **** about what they think about me? Why the hell would I even worry? And I LIKE my capital gains tax rate, numbskull. Not just "the rich" have capital gains. Mitt, is that you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaJoe Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 But the birthers are idiots. Many birthers are idiots. But in a rare display of bipartisanship, they share something in common with BiggieScooby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 still doesn't answer whether he got amnesty for the ubs scandal. may be all smoke and no fire but i've got a sinking suspicion that's what the other side is looking to out...this doesn't address it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 still doesn't answer whether he got amnesty for the ubs scandal. may be all smoke and no fire but i've got a sinking suspicion that's what the other side is looking to out...this doesn't address it. The other side probably has more than a few involved in the same scandal. They took a facial on this one. If they're smart (which they aren't) they'll put their tails between their legs and slink away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 Mitt Romney's dirty tax secret is out. He paid MORE than he had to For months now the Democrats have been hounding Romney, demanding that he release his most recent tax returns. Mitt refused, fuelling suspicions that he had something to hide. Turns out he did. The Romney camp finally released his tax returns on Friday afternoon and they reveal that rather than paying less that he had to, he's actually been paying more. The cat’s out of the bag: Mitt Romney is a good citizen. Here are the stats. In 2011, the Romneys paid roughly $1.9 million in tax out of a $13.7 million income; their effective tax rate was 14.1 per cent. On top of that, they donated over $4 million to charity – as astonishing 30 per cent of their income. Here’s the kicker: the Romneys limited the charity tax deductions that they were entitled to, which pushed up their effective rate. They voluntarily paid more in tax than they had to. A cynic might say that anyone sitting on $13.7 million can afford to be generous, but the point is that all the innuendoes about tax avoidance were likely groundless ’ll say one thing for these bloodsucking, poor-hating, conservative Republicans – they’re very generous with their money. Mitt Romney gave more than twice as much of his adjusted gross income to charity than President Obama did, although – to be fair – plunging book sales mean that the Obamas have less to give away. Joe Biden donated only 1.5 per cent of his salary in 2011. If the tax returns prove that the Romneys are nice people, why did they take so long to release them? {snip} But another explanation goes to the nature of Mitt Romney the man. Romney doesn’t like talking about himself or his charitable works, so it’s possible that his sense of modesty and privacy got the better of him. The point is illustrated by a fascinating story about Romney that dates back to 1994. That year, in the middle of his failed Massachusetts senate race, Romney went on a tour of a veterans’ hospital. The director, Ken Smith, told Mitt that the hospital was having trouble providing milk for all its patients. Romney said, “Well Ken, maybe you can teach the vets to milk cows.” It was another "47 per cent" moment and the press went wild. Romney sheepishly called Smith to apologise, and Smith put the phone down convinced that he was dealing with another phoney. The next day, the milkman turned up with all the milk that the hospital could possibly need at half the usual price. He said he wasn't allowed to give the name of the donor. The milkman made the same delivery at the same price the next day, the day after that, and so on. It was only two years later, on the day of his retirement, that the milkman finally told Smith that it was Mitt Romney who had donated the milk. Maybe there’s a dark, sordid story behind Mitt Romney’s tax affairs. Maybe he’s just a decent human being. Here’s hoping it’s the latter. http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100182233/mitt-romneys-dirty-tax-secret-is-out-he-paid-more-than-he-had-to/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
In-A-Gadda-Levitre Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 (edited) Mitt Romney's dirty tax secret is out, he paid MORE than he had to so he would match the statement he made in August that he paid at least 13%, his trustee said yesterday. I also remember a while back he said if he paid more than he was legally supposed to, that he (referring to himself) wasn't fit to be running for president. edit: actually what he said was “I pay all the taxes that are legally required and not a dollar more,” he said. “I don’t think you want someone as the candidate for president who pays more taxes than he owes.” Edited September 22, 2012 by In-A-Gadda-Levitre Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARCELL DAREUS POWER Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 (edited) http://blogs.telegra...than-he-had-to/ the govt should not be subsidizing a !@#$ing religion... christ... thats not the point of taxation... im also not so sure this money is being spent wisely from my experience with any church along with personal experience of the lds church, but thats mitt's choice. i will concede, he did give way more than others do, and im sure hes a good person outside of all the media " rich guy out of touch stuff". but i dont agree with charity supplementing regular taxation because its probably going to things that will not really help our more practical needs... jmo Edited September 22, 2012 by MARCELL DAREUS POWER Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 so he would match the statement he made in August that he paid at least 13%, his trustee said yesterday. I also remember a while back he said if he paid more than he was legally supposed to, that he (referring to himself) wasn't fit to be running for president. Link? And Barry said that if the economy wasn't better in 3 years, he'd be a one-term president. the govt should not be subsidizing a !@#$ing religion... christ... thats not the point of taxation... im also not so sure this money is being spent wisely from my experience with any church along with personal experience of the lds church, but thats mitt's choice. i will concede, he did give way more than others do, and im sure hes a good person outside of all the media " rich guy out of touch stuff". but i dont agree with charity supplementing regular taxation because its probably going to things that will not really help our more practical needs... jmo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nIhOJQyiJYU But tax dollars are? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 the govt should not be subsidizing a !@#$ing religion... christ... thats not the point of taxation... Unbelievable conclusion drawn from this article Really stunning. It reveals a out of mainstream mindset Religious donations, long exempt from taxation in our history........................is government subsidizing religion....wow . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
In-A-Gadda-Levitre Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 (edited) Link? And Barry said that if the economy wasn't better in 3 years, he'd be a one-term president. for the 'paid more to match his statement' They could have claimed more in deductions, said Brad Malt, the trustee of Romney's blind trust, but the couple "limited their deductions of charitable contributions to conform to the governor's statement in August, based on the January estimate of income, that he paid at least 13 percent in income taxes in each of the last 10 years." if he paid more than he legally had to... That decision contradicts a pledge Romney made during an interview in July, when he told ABC News he would not pay more in taxes "than are legally due. And, frankly, if I had paid more than are legally due I don't think I'd be qualified to become president. I'd think people would want me to follow the law and pay only what the tax code requires." Romney made a similar remark in January during a GOP primary debate, when he said, "I pay all the taxes that are legally required and not a dollar more. I don't think you want someone as the candidate for president who pays more taxes than he owes." yes he did, and if the American people/electoral college think he's had long enough, they'll vote him out, unless they prescribe to that devil you know idiom. Edited September 22, 2012 by In-A-Gadda-Levitre Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 the carried interest deduction is a real boon. Racist! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 for the 'paid more to match his statement' if he paid more than he legally had to... yes he did, and if the American people/electoral college think he's had long enough, they'll vote him out, unless they prescribe to that devil you know idiom. Well then, it looks like he's "evolved." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 edit: actually what he said was “I pay all the taxes that are legally required and not a dollar more,” he said. “I don’t think you want someone as the candidate for president who pays more taxes than he owes.” And he is 100% correct. It is up to him to declare how much of his charitable contribution he wants to include. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
In-A-Gadda-Levitre Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 And he is 100% correct. It is up to him to declare how much of his charitable contribution he wants to include. of course it's up to him to declare how much he wants, but that's not what he said. He basically framed the legally required and not a dollar more as a condition of fitness to run for the office. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 of course it's up to him to declare how much he wants, but that's not what he said. He basically framed the legally required and not a dollar more as a condition of fitness to run for the office. And again, Barry said that if he didn't have the economy fixed in 3 years, he would be a one-term president. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
In-A-Gadda-Levitre Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 And again, Barry said that if he didn't have the economy fixed in 3 years, he would be a one-term president. yep, we'll find out in November if America agrees Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 The other side probably has more than a few involved in the same scandal. They took a facial on this one. If they're smart (which they aren't) they'll put their tails between their legs and slink away. maybe (and if so, that's a real indictment of our system) , but this is the superbowl of elections and romney's drop pulls all other repubs down with him. a calculated risk but i'll bet it comes out before nov. if there's any truth to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CosmicBills Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 The other side probably has more than a few involved in the same scandal. They took a facial on this one. If they're smart (which they aren't) they'll put their tails between their legs and slink away. Look at you. Your guy gets an endorsement from Jenna Jameson and now you're just throwing porno terms around willy-nilly! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts