Mitt Romney’s Fair Share

Superfreak said:
1) you certainly have a right to comment
2) What does the banking crisis have to do with Romney's taxes?
Click to expand...

I believe that the carried interest benefit for hedge funds, private equity and casino banks is perverse and has been abused massively. Romney would have paid many millions more if he had been taxed at 35% and not 15%.
 
Last edited:
Superfreak said:
You are the one that stated his article was thought provoking. It was not. It was the same tired old regurgitated warped Keynesian crap that he and Krugman put forth consistently.

Also, stating that I am interested in original ideas does not mean that I am against all past ideas.
Click to expand...

Stiglitz has also been highly critical of rating agencies describing them as the "key culprit" in the financial crisis noting "they were the party that performed the alchemy that converted the securities from F-rated to A-rated. The banks could not have done what they did without the complicity of the rating agencies." Is there anything that you disagree with there?
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
I believe that the carried interest benefit for hedge funds, private equity and casino banks is perverse and has been abused massively. Romney would have paid many millions more if he had been taxed tax at 35% and not 15%.
Click to expand...

I do not think anyone who believes in reducing taxation should be mocked for using the existing tax code to the fullest extent possible. While I personally believe all income should be taxed at the same rate, it is not currently a part of our tax code. Obama would also have paid far more had he not used every legal deduction and loophole he could. The difference between Romney and Obama is that Obama thinks he should pay more and yet, he didn't.

Chirping away that you think Romney should have paid more, while ignoring the fact that Obama did the same damn thing (using the tax code as efficiently as he could) is quite sad. You are pointing to Romney based on the fact that his wealth > Obama's wealth. Which is ridiculous and a part of the class warfare bullshit too many on the left get caught up in.
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
Stiglitz has also been highly critical of rating agencies describing them as the "key culprit" in the financial crisis noting "they were the party that performed the alchemy that converted the securities from F-rated to A-rated. The banks could not have done what they did without the complicity of the rating agencies." Is there anything that you disagree with there?
Click to expand...

No, on that I agree with him. Again, just because I criticize his regurgitation of his warped Keynesian theory does not mean I disagree with everything he has said in the past or will say in the future. I will occasionally agree with points Krugman makes as well. That said, the two tend to be consumed by their warped Keynesian views as they have allowed their politics to trump their economic knowledge.
 
Superfreak said:
amazing how many die hard Keynesian 'economists' win the Nobel. My degrees are in economics and finance. But no, no Nobel.

Stiglitz hasn't had an original thought in years. He, like Krugman, simply regurgitate their warped versions of Keynes. These two 'Nobel prize winners' can't even get Keynes correct. That diminishes the value of the Nobel.
Click to expand...

Keep putting ice on that nasty burn Lovey.
 
Superfreak said:
that is quite amusing. Why is it the left looks at 'percentage' when talking about paying 'their fair share', yet when tax cuts happen they focus on the dollars per capita rather than the percentage of income?
Click to expand...

The man has a net worth of +/- $264 million and if he paid $3 million, that works out to less than 2%. I only wish I had that "problem".

And I got the $264 mil from his financial disclosure statement here.
 
Taxing people at a 15% - 35% rate on their net worth on an annual basis would be a good way to make people economically equal in a short period of time. It would essentially be like paying a death tax each year.
 
christiefan915 said:
The man has a net worth of +/- $264 million and if he paid $3 million, that works out to less than 2%. I only wish I had that "problem".

And I got the $264 mil from his financial disclosure statement here.
Click to expand...

It appears that you want people taxed on what they HAVE every year and not what they EARNED during the year.
 
Lowaicue said:
Oh you mean the Moron church? Isn't that one of the rules?
Click to expand...

Don't know, don't care, it's beside the point isn't it? Romney paid his fair share, then turned around and gave 16% of his wealth away to charity. I think it's a bit disingenuous to claim he hasn't given enough. Especially when Joe Biden has given so little.
 
Dixie said:
Don't know, don't care, it's beside the point isn't it? Romney paid his fair share, then turned around and gave 16% of his wealth away to charity. I think it's a bit disingenuous to claim he hasn't given enough. Especially when Joe Biden has given so little.
Click to expand...

I don't give a shit whether he gave enough or not. Charity is (or should be) given from the heart - not as some prerequisite for joining a cult. Surely even you can see that.
 
Lowaicue said:
I don't give a shit whether he gave enough or not. Charity is (or should be) given from the heart - not as some prerequisite for joining a cult. Surely even you can see that.
Click to expand...

How do you know it wasn't given from the heart? And what difference does that make as long as it's given? I don't see you asking people to give more in taxes from the heart, you seem to be fine with just taking that against their will. Since when did it become important as to why people give? Do charity organizations require you to sign something affirming you are giving from the heart? What percentage of your income have you given from the heart or otherwise?

What I see is, someone who has been schooled and pwned on something and doesn't want to admit it. Now he is running in circles trying to justify himself and explain how he could look so utterly stupid to the rest of us. It's as if the man can't possibly win... he gives 16% of his wealth benevolently, and you want to criticize that it wasn't given from the heart. So are you saying it would have been better if he had kept his money and not given? Well of course it would have been, because that way, you could say he was a greedy selfish bastard... this way, you can merely proclaim he has no heart. But if he gave 16% of his wealth, he must have SOME heart... it's illogical otherwise.
 
Lowaicue said:
I don't give a shit whether he gave enough or not. Charity is (or should be) given from the heart - not as some prerequisite for joining a cult. Surely even you can see that.
Click to expand...

Since you don't agree with it, they you're under no obligation to do so.
But can fuck off though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top