Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Romney avoided $100 million in taxes
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="beentheredonethat" data-source="post: 1050874" data-attributes="member: 4886"><p>OK, you quote the Huffington Post, which we all know is an unbiased publication...NOT.</p><p>I agree with your basic point that Mitt did use tax shelters. My point is they are legal tax shelters. Do I like them? No. Do I want the tax laws changed? Yes. Did Obama with the first two years of his administration and democrats in control of both the house and Senate put any effort into changing the tax laws? NO!!!</p><p></p><p>What I disagree with more though is folks like Charlie Rangel and Tim Geitner etc who did not pay the taxes owed. They are the tax cheats. Why don't both sides just do the right thing and simplify the tax code? It's because both sides get money from special interests groups where it is to their advantage to have complicated tax laws. I disagree with both parties. </p><p></p><p>Like it or not, currently Mitt is making the vast bulk of his money on investment income. I realize many, like you, want this taxed at regular tax rates. I disagree. There is a risk in investing, you can lose money easily you can also make money, however if the investment income is taxed at ordinary tax rate, then it takes away the motivation to risk your money and invest it. Also, keep in mind, many many older folks who are living off of their retirement savings would be hurt greatly if their interest and dividend and long term capitol gains were taxed at ordinary income. I don't want to see those folks hurt either. </p><p></p><p>Our biggest problem overall is that the government spends way too much money. Politicians from both sides don't want to cut spending.</p><p></p><p>When it comes to Social Security, when it started avg life expectency was no where near what it is today. The retirement age should be closer to 69 for full retirement and no increases for delaying. Also, there should be exremely limited early retirement and that number should be closer to 66 years old. I also disagree with some of the laws built in. I get it if a wife who was a homemaker continues to get the Social security when her spouse dies. However, why should a spouse get 1/2 her husbands SS when she put no money in? That makes no sense. </p><p></p><p>Democrats make fun of Mitt for saying he would cut the 300+ million the US spends each year on Public broadcasting. I agree with him, there isn't the need now as there was years ago. People say it's only 300 million and the deficit is over 1 trillion a year and why bother? Well, there is not one place you are going to save 1 trillion, but finding a lot of 300 million dollar savings will get help us get to that number. </p><p></p><p>I'm sure you can find thousands of stories about the "LEGAL" tax shelters Mitt has used. You also will see how Mitt did not serve in the armed forces. But, neither did Joe Biden, neither did President Obama. Why is it that it is a big deal about the Republican who didn't serve, when the Democrat didn't either? Why didn't you refute the claim about Rangel or Geitner? Oh yeah, because it's true....</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="beentheredonethat, post: 1050874, member: 4886"] OK, you quote the Huffington Post, which we all know is an unbiased publication...NOT. I agree with your basic point that Mitt did use tax shelters. My point is they are legal tax shelters. Do I like them? No. Do I want the tax laws changed? Yes. Did Obama with the first two years of his administration and democrats in control of both the house and Senate put any effort into changing the tax laws? NO!!! What I disagree with more though is folks like Charlie Rangel and Tim Geitner etc who did not pay the taxes owed. They are the tax cheats. Why don't both sides just do the right thing and simplify the tax code? It's because both sides get money from special interests groups where it is to their advantage to have complicated tax laws. I disagree with both parties. Like it or not, currently Mitt is making the vast bulk of his money on investment income. I realize many, like you, want this taxed at regular tax rates. I disagree. There is a risk in investing, you can lose money easily you can also make money, however if the investment income is taxed at ordinary tax rate, then it takes away the motivation to risk your money and invest it. Also, keep in mind, many many older folks who are living off of their retirement savings would be hurt greatly if their interest and dividend and long term capitol gains were taxed at ordinary income. I don't want to see those folks hurt either. Our biggest problem overall is that the government spends way too much money. Politicians from both sides don't want to cut spending. When it comes to Social Security, when it started avg life expectency was no where near what it is today. The retirement age should be closer to 69 for full retirement and no increases for delaying. Also, there should be exremely limited early retirement and that number should be closer to 66 years old. I also disagree with some of the laws built in. I get it if a wife who was a homemaker continues to get the Social security when her spouse dies. However, why should a spouse get 1/2 her husbands SS when she put no money in? That makes no sense. Democrats make fun of Mitt for saying he would cut the 300+ million the US spends each year on Public broadcasting. I agree with him, there isn't the need now as there was years ago. People say it's only 300 million and the deficit is over 1 trillion a year and why bother? Well, there is not one place you are going to save 1 trillion, but finding a lot of 300 million dollar savings will get help us get to that number. I'm sure you can find thousands of stories about the "LEGAL" tax shelters Mitt has used. You also will see how Mitt did not serve in the armed forces. But, neither did Joe Biden, neither did President Obama. Why is it that it is a big deal about the Republican who didn't serve, when the Democrat didn't either? Why didn't you refute the claim about Rangel or Geitner? Oh yeah, because it's true.... [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Romney avoided $100 million in taxes
Top