Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Liberal hate of successful people. The food stamp president.

What a stupid statement! In fact, Democratics tend to win the rich vote. The criticism of Rommey is not that he is successful, but that he is paying taxes at a lower rate that those who do real work. Remember, Reagan eliminates the capital gains tax, and many Republicans support a flat tax of 1-2 marginal rates (all above what Rommey paid).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Liberal hate of successful people. The food stamp president.

What a stupid statement! In fact, Democratics tend to win the rich vote. The criticism of Rommey is not that he is successful, but that he is paying taxes at a lower rate that those who do real work. Remember, Reagan eliminates the capital gains tax, and many Republicans support a flat tax of 1-2 marginal rates (all above what Rommey paid).

There's a big difference between Romney as the poster boy for tax unfairness, as Jeff pointed out, and criticism of Romney that he is not paying more taxes. The first is a legitimate issue, and could turn into a very helpful storyline for democrats. The second is, in my view, misplaced. I've not read anything to suggest that Romney has broken any laws (and I'd be shocked if that was the case). Why should Romney the man, or candidate, be criticized for complying with the tax laws currently in effect?

Anonymous wrote:The funny thing about this is that Democrats wants to now raise the capital gains rate but they've shown that the government is incapable of allocating those resources in an efficient manner. ROmney was, but if you give all that money to the people living in squalor in Potomac Gardens I bet they'll end up in the same situation. You can try and try but you can't tax your way to some sense of equality. But hey you can try, and you can be envious of the wealthy and the successful. Stupid government workers.

Wow! So you are in favor of the government allocating resources. You are a socialist.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:The "Buffet Rule" is the idea that billionaires should not pay a lower tax rate than their secretaries. The "Romney Rule" apparently is that billionaires who pay a tax rate of 13.9% on $21.6 million in income should maintain Swiss and Cayman Island bank accounts and run for president on a platform that would lower taxes on people like himself while raising them on lower income earners.

Remember earlier discussions on DCUM when several posters assured us that the Buffet Rule was unnecessary because the wealthy actually do pay their fair share? Mitt Romney is a walking contradiction to that suggestion. An added bonus of Romney's tax release is that we have learned that this year he closed his Swiss and Cayman Island accounts because he is "running for President for Pete's sake".

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/20/business/questioning-the-dogma-of-lower-taxes-on-capital-gains.html?pagewanted=all

Favorable low capital gains on primary residence only plus 1 second home would make sense to me. Add to that a higher cap.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who cares, really?

I think you are going to find out that a lot of people care. Romney just became the poster child for tax unfairness.

Anonymous wrote:His people are saying that he is not getting any tax benefit from his investments in all of his off shore accounts in tax havens like Luxenburg and the Caymans, but then why is he investing in those places? He must be getting some benefit. I was surprised to see that he gave more money to his church than he paid in taxes. I've never met someone who was able to donate more than they pay in taxes.

Anonymous wrote:
This is more important to me. I would rather vote for someone who has some sort of faith than none at all like out current President.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
This is more important to me. I would rather vote for someone who has some sort of faith than none at all like out current President.

Obama is:

a) a person who lacks any sort of faith;
b) a Muslim; or
c) a member of a racist anti-white church.

Please pick one and stick with it. It's tiring trying to keep up with your contradictions.

takoma wrote:On the issue of blaming the game or the player:

The difference between Romney and someone like Buffett is that although both follow the laws to save their money, Buffett publicly opposes those laws while Romney tries to make them even more favorable to himself.

I think I have asked this before, but missed the answer, if anyone has given one: Can any of you explain why income earned by workers deserves to be treated more unfavorably than capital gains? I understand that capital gain is tied to investment, which helps the economy, but earned income tends to be spent on consumption, which is the principal driver of the economy,