Romney Avoids Taxes via following the law

[notyou2]

please change your threads name to "Romney follows the law"

wait, unless an American citizen got drone attacked and killed by this loophole?

I don't know how you got "American citizen got drone attacked and killed" from Romney Avoids Taxes via loophole, but if it makes it easier for you to understand then fine I'll change the title for you

Scotty was referring to Obama ordering a drone attack on an American citizen terrorist living in Yemen and the individual was killed.

If it was a Republican that ordered that attack you know his tune would change.

[MegaProphet]

please change your threads name to "Romney follows the law"

wait, unless an American citizen got drone attacked and killed by this loophole?

I don't know how you got "American citizen got drone attacked and killed" from Romney Avoids Taxes via loophole, but if it makes it easier for you to understand then fine I'll change the title for you

Scotty was referring to Obama ordering a drone attack on an American citizen terrorist living in Yemen and the individual was killed.

If it was a Republican that ordered that attack you know his tune would change.

I know what he was referring to. I just didn't see the relevance to this topic

[Woodruff]

please change your threads name to "Romney follows the law"

wait, unless an American citizen got drone attacked and killed by this loophole?

Billionaire uses tax loopholes to bring his taxes down to zero = "He's being smart."
Homeless mother uses food stamps to buy dinner so her kids don't starve = "OMG WELFARE QUEEN!!!!"

You're equating a person who wants to keep more of their own money to someone who is getting handouts from others?

I am equating ethics. I realize that ethics aren't particularly important to you Christians, but try to put yourself in someone else's shoes for a change.

I don't know where you get your hatred for Christianity (and randomly inserting it here), but whatever.

I don't at all hate Christianity. In fact, I greatly respect real Christians (being those that follow the words of Christ). I don't have much respect for beliefs of the typical Christian such as yourself, that's true.

You still haven't addressed the issue. Why are those things equal in your mind?

I didn't say they were equal. I was pointing out the juxtaposition regarding ethics. I've mentioned this already.

Look, it's certainly true that he didn't break the law and I don't think he should be
villified for this, honestly. It's not an unusual situation (unfortunately). That being said, I
think it does call into question the personal ethics of the man, which is something that
I personally think should be considered in an election (of pretty much any nature).

So it's now unethical to take deductions to lower the amount of taxes one has to pay and to raise the amount of money one gets to keep?

I think it says quite a lot about an individual who wants to be President, yes.

So it's unethical for people running for office to take deductions in their taxes? Then why are you voting?

I know you're trying desperately to support "your guy" instead of just admitting that he did something that most people probably would but that doesn't come across as necessarily the right thing for someone who wants to be President, but you could pick better battles than this. I tend to expect that a prospective President would put his selfish interests and personal greed aside in the best interests of the nation.

[Woodruff]

NS- do you believe that Romney's avoidance of taxes is ethically right, and also morally right for a president? Do you make a distinction between ethics and morals?

you would have a point if Romney's opponent had never written anything off or taken any deductions.....

If your personal ethics only relate to what other people do, then you're a more despicable person that I had previously thought.

Of course, you were one who has historically cried about the "he did it too" defense...funny how your story changes.

[thegreekdog]

There is no law requiring that people pay the taxes as calculated pursuant to the Internal Revenue Code. If Mitt Romney or Barack Obama or Warren Buffett wish to pay more taxes, they could pay more taxes. I don't find it relevant to political races how much a politician pays in taxes unless and until his or her opponent voluntarily pays more taxes than the Internal Revenue Code says his or her owes.

That you think it shouldn't be relevant doesn't mean it isn't relevant. It's considerably more meaningful than "who would you rather get a drink with?"

Perhaps you would find it relevant, but there is no candidate for president who pays more taxes than he is required to pay. Thus, the relevance doesn't matter in determining for whom to vote.

[HapSmo19]

I see that R-dog paid 14%(about $2 million) in federal for 2011.

That's about 10,000 months worth of food stamps for cunts. Who's being unethical?

[Night Strike]

NS- do you believe that Romney's avoidance of taxes is ethically right, and also morally right for a president? Do you make a distinction between ethics and morals?

Avoiding taxes = not paying the amount you are legally obligated to pay.

Avoiding taxes =/= taking deductions that are written in the tax code and available to any person who qualifies for the deduction and chooses to take it.

If any person here takes deductions on their tax returns, then they have no right to declare that their deductions are okay but Romney's deductions are morally reprehensible.

I know that you have a pre-disposition to despise Romney and anything he does, but there is absolutely nothing morally, ethically, or legally wrong with what he has done. If you don't like certain deductions, then campaign to remove them from the tax code. Heck, that's why people like me support having either a flat tax or a national sales tax in place of the monstrosity of a tax code we have today.

I know you're trying desperately to support "your guy" instead of just admitting that he did something that most people probably would but that doesn't come across as necessarily the right thing for someone who wants to be President, but you could pick better battles than this. I tend to expect that a prospective President would put his selfish interests and personal greed aside in the best interests of the nation.

So unless a person pays the exact tax rate of their gross income bracket without any deductions and preferably pays even more to the government, that person is not fit to be president? Amazing the absurd lengths people will go to try to discredit Romney from being president when the thing he's doing is the exact same thing that 300 million other US citizens are doing.

[Ace Rimmer]

I know that you have a pre-disposition to despise Romney and anything he does, but there is absolutely nothing morally, ethically, or legally wrong with what he has done. If you don't like certain deductions, then campaign to remove them from the tax code.

I disagree here. What he did is legal and is not a loophole in the law, you are correct. However, I do not consider it moral/ethical (not quite sure which one to use here so I'm using them interchangeably) to use that kind of tax shelter. I had no prior knowledge of this shelter, so I read the OP's linked article.

These tax shelters are used to allow people to donate money to a charity and use the charity's tax-free status to defer capital gains tax, while there is an annuity paid back to the creator from the money in the tax shelter. In many cases, the annuity outpaces the capital gains of the tax shelter, and the charity ends up getting less money than was put in, while the creator gets tax-free money.

Does that sound like something that is morally right? Do you think it's right to promise to give a certain amount to charity, then slowly siphon that money off for your own use?

As a Christian, you should be familiar with the following passage, which I think describes people that use this type of shelter.

1 Timothy 6:10 (NIV): For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs.

Yes I have an issue with anyone who does things like this - Romney, Obama, etc. I think it's morally wrong to use this kind of shelter.

[Woodruff]

I see that R-dog paid 14%(about $2 million) in federal for 2011.

That's about 10,000 months worth of food stamps for cunts. Who's being unethical?

You, with your derogatory attitude toward women.

[Woodruff]

I know that you have a pre-disposition to despise Romney and anything he does, but there is absolutely nothing morally, ethically, or legally wrong with what he has done. If you don't like certain deductions, then campaign to remove them from the tax code.

I disagree here. What he did is legal and is not a loophole in the law, you are correct. However, I do not consider it moral/ethical (not quite sure which one to use here so I'm using them interchangeably) to use that kind of tax shelter. I had no prior knowledge of this shelter, so I read the OP's linked article.

These tax shelters are used to allow people to donate money to a charity and use the charity's tax-free status to defer capital gains tax, while there is an annuity paid back to the creator from the money in the tax shelter. In many cases, the annuity outpaces the capital gains of the tax shelter, and the charity ends up getting less money than was put in, while the creator gets tax-free money.

Does that sound like something that is morally right? Do you think it's right to promise to give a certain amount to charity, then slowly siphon that money off for your own use?

As a Christian, you should be familiar with the following passage, which I think describes people that use this type of shelter.

1 Timothy 6:10 (NIV): For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs.

Yes I have an issue with anyone who does things like this - Romney, Obama, etc. I think it's morally wrong to use this kind of shelter.

Precisely the point I was making (though I didn't articulate it nearly as well).

[HapSmo19]

I see that R-dog paid 14%(about $2 million) in federal for 2011.

That's about 10,000 months worth of food stamps for cunts. Who's being unethical?

You, with your derogatory attitude toward women.

I use the word in a general sense. YOU make in synonymous with women.

[Borderdawg]

I see that R-dog paid 14%(about $2 million) in federal for 2011.

That's about 10,000 months worth of food stamps for cunts. Who's being unethical?

You, with your derogatory attitude toward women.

I use the word in a general sense. YOU make in synonymous with women.

He's got a point, woody. Most people I know use the word "cunt" to describe someone they find despicable/offensive. Not as descriptive of women only.
Kinda makes you seem a sexist prick, doesn't it?

And as far as the the ethics/morality of anyfookingbodies taxes, if it is in accordance with the laws of the nation, then condemn the system, not the people that legally and lawfully employ it. You going to say you don't take every tax deduction legally available to you? Because if you were to make such a statement, I would feel morally/ethically obligated to call you a lying ....... (now, would you please go back to the woody of years gone by, instead of the ps obsessed, strident male version of player that you've become?)

[Symmetry]

I know that you have a pre-disposition to despise Romney and anything he does, but there is absolutely nothing morally, ethically, or legally wrong with what he has done. If you don't like certain deductions, then campaign to remove them from the tax code.

I disagree here. What he did is legal and is not a loophole in the law, you are correct. However, I do not consider it moral/ethical (not quite sure which one to use here so I'm using them interchangeably) to use that kind of tax shelter. I had no prior knowledge of this shelter, so I read the OP's linked article.

These tax shelters are used to allow people to donate money to a charity and use the charity's tax-free status to defer capital gains tax, while there is an annuity paid back to the creator from the money in the tax shelter. In many cases, the annuity outpaces the capital gains of the tax shelter, and the charity ends up getting less money than was put in, while the creator gets tax-free money.

Does that sound like something that is morally right? Do you think it's right to promise to give a certain amount to charity, then slowly siphon that money off for your own use?

As a Christian, you should be familiar with the following passage, which I think describes people that use this type of shelter.

1 Timothy 6:10 (NIV): For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs.

Yes I have an issue with anyone who does things like this - Romney, Obama, etc. I think it's morally wrong to use this kind of shelter.

Well put, and I think you've grasped the difference between moral and ethical behaviour pretty well. NS's argument is that Romney did nothing ethically wrong, and therefore did nothing morally wrong. Advocating a change in the law as a solution might make Romney's position unethical in the future, but laws are the realm of ethics. It would not change whether his actions were moral or not.

I'm arguing in broad strokes here, obviously, but it's dissapointing to see NS argue that Romney's actions are morally right as long as he does nothing illegal.

[Woodruff]

I see that R-dog paid 14%(about $2 million) in federal for 2011.

That's about 10,000 months worth of food stamps for cunts. Who's being unethical?

You, with your derogatory attitude toward women.

I use the word in a general sense. YOU make in synonymous with women.

Considering the context to which you were replying, there is no question at all that you were referring to women and not in a general sense. So not only are you a misogynist buffoon, but you can add "lying" to your ethical chart. Color me impressed.

[Woodruff]

I see that R-dog paid 14%(about $2 million) in federal for 2011.

That's about 10,000 months worth of food stamps for cunts. Who's being unethical?

You, with your derogatory attitude toward women.

I use the word in a general sense. YOU make in synonymous with women.

He's got a point, woody. Most people I know use the word "cunt" to describe someone they find despicable/offensive. Not as descriptive of women only. Kinda makes you seem a sexist prick, doesn't it?

Do you guys even read for context? He was specifically replying to a thread regarding Romney's money and women on welfare? Your willingness to be an apologist for misogyny only makes you look bad. Be willing to stand up TO assholes, Borderdawg, don't stand up FOR them.

(now, would you please go back to the woody of years gone by, instead of the ps obsessed, strident male version of player that you've become?)

All this shows is that you haven't at all been paying attention to PLAYER's nor my posts. You should try that.

[Borderdawg]

I see that R-dog paid 14%(about $2 million) in federal for 2011.

That's about 10,000 months worth of food stamps for cunts. Who's being unethical?

You, with your derogatory attitude toward women.

I use the word in a general sense. YOU make in synonymous with women.

He's got a point, woody. Most people I know use the word "cunt" to describe someone they find despicable/offensive. Not as descriptive of women only. Kinda makes you seem a sexist prick, doesn't it?

Do you guys even read for context? He was specifically replying to a thread regarding Romney's money and women on welfare? Your willingness to be an apologist for misogyny only makes you look bad. Be willing to stand up TO assholes, Borderdawg, don't stand up FOR them.

(now, would you please go back to the woody of years gone by, instead of the ps obsessed, strident male version of player that you've become?)

All this shows is that you haven't at all been paying attention to PLAYER's nor my posts. You should try that.

Oh, I still read and pay attention to your posts, and if ps isn't in that particular thread, your post is often insightful, usually well thought out, and normally worth consideration. I often disagree with you, but I still can appreciate your positions. But if ps is around, you seem to lose your focus, shall we say? As for player, I foed the b**ch some months back, and I have no interest in anything she says. She is a goddamn idiot, and a waste of space and oxygen, IMO.

[HapSmo19]

There's a word for people like that...

[Woodruff]

I see that R-dog paid 14%(about $2 million) in federal for 2011.

That's about 10,000 months worth of food stamps for cunts. Who's being unethical?

You, with your derogatory attitude toward women.

I use the word in a general sense. YOU make in synonymous with women.

He's got a point, woody. Most people I know use the word "cunt" to describe someone they find despicable/offensive. Not as descriptive of women only. Kinda makes you seem a sexist prick, doesn't it?

Do you guys even read for context? He was specifically replying to a thread regarding Romney's money and women on welfare? Your willingness to be an apologist for misogyny only makes you look bad. Be willing to stand up TO assholes, Borderdawg, don't stand up FOR them.

(now, would you please go back to the woody of years gone by, instead of the ps obsessed, strident male version of player that you've become?)

All this shows is that you haven't at all been paying attention to PLAYER's nor my posts. You should try that.

Oh, I still read and pay attention to your posts, and if ps isn't in that particular thread, your post is often insightful, usually well thought out, and normally worth consideration. I often disagree with you, but I still can appreciate your positions. But if ps is around, you seem to lose your focus, shall we say? As for player, I foed the b**ch some months back, and I have no interest in anything she says. She is a goddamn idiot, and a waste of space and oxygen, IMO.

Then you've missed that PLAYER and I are actually in disagreement on a fair number of things.

[Symmetry]

As for player, I foed the b**ch some months back, and I have no interest in anything she says. She is a goddamn idiot, and a waste of space and oxygen, IMO.

How could anyone possibly think you're misogynistic?

[jimboston]

1) Romney easily gives at least 10% of his income to the Mormon church each year,

2) I hate quote likes this... purportedly this is an Obama quote from on of the debates, where he criticized Romney for paying “lower tax rates than somebody who makes a lot less.”

Let's please get our facts straight here... Romney does not pay "lower taxes" than somebody making a lot less. In fact he's paying a hell of a lot more taxes in terms of actual dollars. His percentage of taxes-to-income may be lower... but this is NOT the same as "paying lower taxes".

The actual dollars are higher... I hate it when people say "the rich pay lower taxes"... it's hogwash!

[Woodruff]

1) Romney easily gives at least 10% of his income to the Mormon church each year

Which he is essentially REQUIRED to do, due to his religion. Do you know what the penalty is if he doesn't?

2) I hate quote likes this... purportedly this is an Obama quote from on of the debates, where he criticized Romney for paying “lower tax rates than somebody who makes a lot less.”

Let's please get our facts straight here... Romney does not pay "lower taxes" than somebody making a lot less. In fact he's paying a hell of a lot more taxes in terms of actual dollars. His percentage of taxes-to-income may be lower... but this is NOT the same as "paying lower taxes".

The actual dollars are higher... I hate it when people say "the rich pay lower taxes"... it's hogwash!

Sure, that's true. I think it's mostly laziness and the presumption that everyone understands the reference is to tax rates (which I think almost everyone does). You're not wrong, though.

[jimboston]

1) Romney easily gives at least 10% of his income to the Mormon church each year

Which he is essentially REQUIRED to do, due to his religion. Do you know what the penalty is if he doesn't?

2) I hate quote likes this... purportedly this is an Obama quote from on of the debates, where he criticized Romney for paying “lower tax rates than somebody who makes a lot less.”

Let's please get our facts straight here... Romney does not pay "lower taxes" than somebody making a lot less. In fact he's paying a hell of a lot more taxes in terms of actual dollars. His percentage of taxes-to-income may be lower... but this is NOT the same as "paying lower taxes".

The actual dollars are higher... I hate it when people say "the rich pay lower taxes"... it's hogwash!

Sure, that's true. I think it's mostly laziness and the presumption that everyone understands the reference is to tax rates (which I think almost everyone does). You're not wrong, though.

1) I assume the "punishment" for not paying his tithe to the Mormon Church would be excommunication.

2) Perhaps most of the people who participate in this forum understand the difference between actual dollars versus percentage. I don't assume (or believe) the same is true for the general public at large. I feel/fear people are stupid.

Also, I don't think it's laziness... I think it's deliberate. I don't think it would sound as good for Obama if he stated the actual truth...

Obama: "Although Gov. Romney paid nearly $2million in taxes in 2011... since his effective tax rate was only 14.1% we think that's not fair. That percentage is a much lower percent than your typical American.... well actually it's not. It's a lower percent than your typical middle-income American... but when you actually factor in all adults, 14.1% is above average. So umm... well let's see.... Romney paid a higher percent in taxes than your average American.... and a MUCH HIGHER actual dollar amount than the vast majority of Americans. So um... well I guess I have no point."

See... the truth is not headline grabbing. However, it's still the truth.

[Woodruff]

1) Romney easily gives at least 10% of his income to the Mormon church each year

Which he is essentially REQUIRED to do, due to his religion. Do you know what the penalty is if he doesn't?

2) I hate quote likes this... purportedly this is an Obama quote from on of the debates, where he criticized Romney for paying “lower tax rates than somebody who makes a lot less.”

Let's please get our facts straight here... Romney does not pay "lower taxes" than somebody making a lot less. In fact he's paying a hell of a lot more taxes in terms of actual dollars. His percentage of taxes-to-income may be lower... but this is NOT the same as "paying lower taxes".

The actual dollars are higher... I hate it when people say "the rich pay lower taxes"... it's hogwash!

Sure, that's true. I think it's mostly laziness and the presumption that everyone understands the reference is to tax rates (which I think almost everyone does). You're not wrong, though.

1) I assume the "punishment" for not paying his tithe to the Mormon Church would be excommunication.

Much worse, actually. They can never enter the Celestial Kingdom (until, of course, they have paid those back-tithings, in which case they are suddenly accepted). Essentially, heaven is off-limits. There is nothing "voluntary" about these tithings:

Mormons are commanded that tithing must come first before anything else. Utah has the highest rate of bankruptcies in the United States. Mormons often say "I cannot pay my bills until I've paid my tithing." Mormons will even pay their tithing rather than give the money to a relative who is on the verge of eviction. Mormon published magazines (Ensign, New Era) constantly stress that tithing must always be paid.

Recently, Mormon Senator Orrin Hatch passed legislation that allowed members to pay a full tithe even while they were in bankruptcy court.

Mormons are told: "if a destitute family is faced with the decision of paying their tithing or eating, they should pay their tithing." (Lynn Robbins, General Conference, April 2005).

Also, I don't think it's laziness... I think it's deliberate. I don't think it would sound as good for Obama if he stated the actual truth...

In Obama's specific case, I would tend to agree with you...it was almost certainly deliberate. I was thinking in more of a general sense of the usage (for instance, if I used it).

[jimboston]

1) I assume the "punishment" for not paying his tithe to the Mormon Church would be excommunication.

Much worse, actually. They can never enter the Celestial Kingdom (until, of course, they have paid those back-tithings, in which case they are suddenly accepted). Essentially, heaven is off-limits. There is nothing "voluntary" about these tithings:

Mormons are commanded that tithing must come first before anything else. Utah has the highest rate of bankruptcies in the United States. Mormons often say "I cannot pay my bills until I've paid my tithing." Mormons will even pay their tithing rather than give the money to a relative who is on the verge of eviction. Mormon published magazines (Ensign, New Era) constantly stress that tithing must always be paid.

Excommunication = Not Getting Into the Celestial Kingdom

Same Thing.

Also, I don't think it's laziness... I think it's deliberate. I don't think it would sound as good for Obama if he stated the actual truth...

In Obama's specific case, I would tend to agree with you...it was almost certainly deliberate. I was thinking in more of a general sense of the usage (for instance, if I used it).

How do you like my faux Obama quote???

[Symmetry]

1) Romney easily gives at least 10% of his income to the Mormon church each year,

2) I hate quote likes this... purportedly this is an Obama quote from on of the debates, where he criticized Romney for paying “lower tax rates than somebody who makes a lot less.”

Let's please get our facts straight here... Romney does not pay "lower taxes" than somebody making a lot less. In fact he's paying a hell of a lot more taxes in terms of actual dollars. His percentage of taxes-to-income may be lower... but this is NOT the same as "paying lower taxes".

The actual dollars are higher... I hate it when people say "the rich pay lower taxes"... it's hogwash!

That's pretty much exactly what paying lower taxes means- he's taxed lower. He has lower taxes. His tax rate is lower. He pays less of his income in taxes. His income is taxed lower. He pays lower taxes.

People earning less than him pay higher taxes. They have higher tax rates. They are taxed higher.

This ain't genius level thinking.