Romney Avoids Taxes via following the law

[Woodruff]

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.

Jim's not wrong. Words have meaning, and should be used correctly. "Taxes" is much different than "tax rate".

[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.

Jim's not wrong. Words have meaning, and should be used correctly. "Taxes" is much different than "tax rate".

Of course, but it's not what the debate is about. Lower taxes is precisely about the tax rate.

[jimboston]

That's pretty much exactly what paying lower taxes means-

You're wrong.

he's taxed lower.

Unclear... incomplete statement.

He has lower taxes.

Absolutely wrong... he has higher taxes.

His tax rate is lower.

Bing! Correct answer!

Well he's taxed at a lower rate than SOME Americans... not ALL Americans.

He pays less of his income in taxes

Correct, but vague.

His income is taxed lower.

Correct, but vague.

He pays lower taxes.

Absolutely incorrect.

People earning less than him pay higher taxes.

Absolutely incorrect.

They have higher tax rates.

Bing! Correct answer!
Well again SOME Americans have higher tax rates.
Mine are higher... that's for sure.
That's not true for ALL Americans.

They are taxed higher.

Vague.

[jimboston]

Jim's not wrong. Words have meaning, and should be used correctly. "Taxes" is much different than "tax rate".

Of course, but it's not what the debate is about. Lower taxes is precisely about the tax rate.

NO it's not.

I frankly don't give a flying crap what my tax rate is. I care about what I pay in taxes.
The total expense is important to know.

How many people hear the statement that "Romney pays less in taxes than the average middle income family"... and REALLY think about what he has actually paid??? They just go.. "Oh, he's paying less than me."... and that bugs them. The same person however, if they realized he paid $2 million in 2011, might take a step back and say "Well, he is paying a lower percentage than me... but really, $2 million is probably a fair "cap". I mean how much should one person pay?"

Further... they hear he pays "less than the average middle income family" and they hear the word average... and think he's paying less (or at least a lower percent) than the average family... however the statement is carefully (deceitfully) worded to imply he's paying a lot less than he really is. He's NOT paying less than the Average American.... just less than the "Average Middle Income American". If you factored in ALL Americans his net percent taxes versus income would be above average.

It's deceitful... and the language is intended to create an "us-versus-them" mentality.

[Symmetry]

Jim's not wrong. Words have meaning, and should be used correctly. "Taxes" is much different than "tax rate".

Of course, but it's not what the debate is about. Lower taxes is precisely about the tax rate.

NO it's not.

I frankly don't give a flying crap what my tax rate is.

I think you've made a pretty clear case that you don't care about the counter arguments on this. Unfortunately for you, people do kind of care about their tax rates.

[jimboston]

Jim's not wrong. Words have meaning, and should be used correctly. "Taxes" is much different than "tax rate".

Of course, but it's not what the debate is about. Lower taxes is precisely about the tax rate.

NO it's not.

I think you've made a pretty clear case that you don't care about the counter arguments on this.
Unfortunately for you, people do kind of care about their tax rates.

There are no "counter arguments".

Words have meanings... you can't "debate" the meanings of words.

Math is math... there is no "debate". $2million is more than $20K. That's a simple fact.

It's possible to have a "lower rate" and also pay "higher taxes".

You're whole point is that people care about the rates... fine, then your candidate should use precise language to explain exactly what he means. He should not use imprecise language to confuse the general public into thinking something that is not factually correct.

Nice how you ignore my whole point... and then tell me I don't care about the "counter arguments". Please offer a counter argument to any of the facts I have stated.

[Symmetry]

Jim's not wrong. Words have meaning, and should be used correctly. "Taxes" is much different than "tax rate".

Of course, but it's not what the debate is about. Lower taxes is precisely about the tax rate.

NO it's not.

I think you've made a pretty clear case that you don't care about the counter arguments on this.
Unfortunately for you, people do kind of care about their tax rates.

There are no "counter arguments".

Words have meanings... you can't "debate" the meanings of words.

Math is math... there is no "debate". $2million is more than $20K. That's a simple fact.

It's possible to have a "lower rate" and also pay "higher taxes".

You're whole point is that people care about the rates... fine, then your candidate should use precise language to explain exactly what he means. He should not use imprecise language to confuse the general public into thinking something that is not factually correct.

Nice how you ignore my whole point... and then tell me I don't care about the "counter arguments". Please offer a counter argument to any of the facts I have stated.

I've offered many counter arguments, and your response was "nuh-uh". If your general stance as a troll is to simply post "no" after each point and consider that a worthwhile opinion, consider your job done (congrats on logging on under the correct account this time).

[jimboston]

I've offered many counter arguments, and your response was "nuh-uh". If your general stance as a troll is to simply post "no" after each point and consider that a worthwhile opinion, consider your job done (congrats on logging on under the correct account this time).

Does this actually mean something?

[Symmetry]

(congrats on logging on under the correct account this time).

Does this actually mean something?

What made you think that it might not? Don't get paranoid Jim.

[Phatscotty]

Symmetry, how will you feel if Obama loses? from a Brit's perspective

[Night Strike]

Maybe if people were actually treated equally and paid the same rate, or even only paid a sales tax, these semantics wouldn't be an issue.

By the way, check out the detail this woman went through to deduce exactly how much money she pays in taxes: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/maryland-woman-has-kept-track-of-every-tax-on-her-in-2012-and-youre-not-going-to-believe-how-much-shes-paid-so-far/

[Metsfanmax]

Maybe if people were actually treated equally and paid the same rate, or even only paid a sales tax, these semantics wouldn't be an issue.

By the way, check out the detail this woman went through to deduce exactly how much money she pays in taxes: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/maryland-woman-has-kept-track-of-every-tax-on-her-in-2012-and-youre-not-going-to-believe-how-much-shes-paid-so-far/

That headline is kind of absurd. Anyone who is in the middle class and pays taxes knows that ~30% of your income will go to taxes. In what way is this article documenting anything other than a paranoid woman who likes to use Excel?

[Woodruff]

You're whole point is that people care about the rates... fine, then your candidate should use precise language to explain exactly what he means. He should not use imprecise language to confuse the general public into thinking something that is not factually correct.

Uh...let he whose candidate has not sinned cast the first stone, or something like that.

[Woodruff]

(congrats on logging on under the correct account this time).

Does this actually mean something?

What made you think that it might not? Don't get paranoid Jim.

You do seem to either be accusing or trolling...which is it?

[Woodruff]

Maybe if people were actually treated equally and paid the same rate, or even only paid a sales tax, these semantics wouldn't be an issue.

Equally. Unless they're homosexuals.

[Symmetry]

(congrats on logging on under the correct account this time).

Does this actually mean something?

What made you think that it might not? Don't get paranoid Jim.

You do seem to either be accusing or trolling...which is it?

Oh, Jim is a troll account.

[Symmetry]

(congrats on logging on under the correct account this time).

Does this actually mean something?

What made you think that it might not? Don't get paranoid Jim.

You do seem to either be accusing or trolling...which is it?

Oh, Jim is a troll account.

[Night Strike]

Maybe if people were actually treated equally and paid the same rate, or even only paid a sales tax, these semantics wouldn't be an issue.

Equally. Unless they're homosexuals.

Homosexuality affects tax rates?

[Woodruff]

Maybe if people were actually treated equally and paid the same rate, or even only paid a sales tax, these semantics wouldn't be an issue.

Equally. Unless they're homosexuals.

Homosexuality affects tax rates?

Cognitive dissonance much?

And actually yes, since they are not allowed to marry.

[Night Strike]

Maybe if people were actually treated equally and paid the same rate, or even only paid a sales tax, these semantics wouldn't be an issue.

Equally. Unless they're homosexuals.

Homosexuality affects tax rates?

Cognitive dissonance much?

And actually yes, since they are not allowed to marry.

None at all. Just curiosity at why you randomly interjected homosexuality into a conversation about the difference between taxes and tax rates.

[Woodruff]

(congrats on logging on under the correct account this time).

Does this actually mean something?

What made you think that it might not? Don't get paranoid Jim.

You do seem to either be accusing or trolling...which is it?

Oh, Jim is a troll account.

Eh? I find jimboston considerably more reasonable than many of the conservative posters here (I would even say "most", now that I think about it). So what account do you believe to be his real one?

[Woodruff]

Maybe if people were actually treated equally and paid the same rate, or even only paid a sales tax, these semantics wouldn't be an issue.

Equally. Unless they're homosexuals.

Homosexuality affects tax rates?

Cognitive dissonance much?

And actually yes, since they are not allowed to marry.

None at all. Just curiosity at why you randomly interjected homosexuality into a conversation about the difference between taxes and tax rates.

Because EQUALITY!!!!! and FREEDOM!!!!!

It's not really so random once you apply common sense to it.

[Metsfanmax]

Maybe if people were actually treated equally and paid the same rate, or even only paid a sales tax, these semantics wouldn't be an issue.

Equally. Unless they're homosexuals.

Homosexuality affects tax rates?

question. if gay marriages were made federal law and people were forced to recognize it, how much would it cost the government, and how much would it cost the private sector? all the extended benefits, hospital bills, social security benefits, increased sick days, the whole package. how much?

[Night Strike]

Maybe if people were actually treated equally and paid the same rate, or even only paid a sales tax, these semantics wouldn't be an issue.

Equally. Unless they're homosexuals.

Homosexuality affects tax rates?

Cognitive dissonance much?

And actually yes, since they are not allowed to marry.

None at all. Just curiosity at why you randomly interjected homosexuality into a conversation about the difference between taxes and tax rates.

Because EQUALITY!!!!! and FREEDOM!!!!!

It's not really so random once you apply common sense to it.

Yeah, the current definition of marriage applies equally to everybody. The government's perspective on marriage has absolutely no bearing on who a person loves or even is sexually attracted to.

[Woodruff]

Equally. Unless they're homosexuals.

Homosexuality affects tax rates?

Cognitive dissonance much?

And actually yes, since they are not allowed to marry.

None at all. Just curiosity at why you randomly interjected homosexuality into a conversation about the difference between taxes and tax rates.

Because EQUALITY!!!!! and FREEDOM!!!!!

It's not really so random once you apply common sense to it.

Yeah, the current definition of marriage applies equally to everybody. The government's perspective on marriage has absolutely no bearing on who a person loves or even is sexually attracted to.

I know this has been explained to you before, but the concept of "separate but equal" does not work in the real world. And the situation with homosexuals ISN'T EVEN AS GOOD AS THAT!