Skip to main content

Home/ Palin Group/ Group items tagged rich

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Filter: All | Bookmarks | Topics Simple Middle
Sabrina Rosenfield

Romney and his Tax Returns : The New Yorker - 2 views

www.newyorker.com/...omney-and-his-tax-returns.html

romney tax tax returns

shared by Sabrina Rosenfield on 24 Sep 12 - No Cached
  • Sabrina Rosenfield on 24 Sep 12
     
    This is an article about the release of Romney's tax returns for 2011, and whether or not he is being completely honest in saying that he paid 14.1% because he can go back later and get returns for his charitable donations. He argues that not doing so would discourage people from donating. I'm not sure about this quote, "As was widely noted, Romney has also said that he considers claiming every possible legal deduction an ethical test, with rather distinctive terms: if you pay any more than you really, really must, you have failed." I think that for many Americans, this is completely true, but for someone with such a high income, it seems unfair. But isn't fairness the same thing for everyone? What do you guys think?
  • ...7 more comments...
  • Savannah L on 25 Sep 12
     
    Yes, fairness means that everyone pays their fair share, which is a very republican ideal, which is why i am in favor of removing the exorbitant death taxes and in favor of the fair tax, which i feel like would point our country in a less socialistic direction, which, lets face it, since 2008 we have been plummeting rapidly towards socialism with ACA and greater government influence in our economy. Going back to the Romney quote you mentioned, I'm not sure what you really meant by "it seems unfair" Are you really suggesting that those who work harder than others should be punished with a larger tax? And keep in mind that he's talking about income tax, not money already sitting in the bank. So Romney worked for that money, and should not be punished for it. Taxes are punishments, and that sort of backwards tax structure is one exhibited by the USSR before it collapsed, mind you. Taking more from the rich is not "fair" . The term for it is socialism. If you want another historical example, look at Britain's economy when it implemented Adam Smith's lazziez faire economics (their economy grew exponentially, scientific developments were off the charts, relatively peaceful era) and then look at the France's economy shortly after when it implemented a more "fair" system in the 1800s-1900s, they constantly got decimated by economic struggles and went nowhere. And even if you still believe that the rich should pay more, consider this. The government's biggest problem is not a lack of revenue. We're spending 104% of our GDP. If you plan on paying taxes, which, by the way, our current government lets you be exempt if you decide to take a year off of your well-paying job to sit at home and 'discover' yourself, then you will already be 140,000$ in debt thanks to Obama's excessive spending. No, Bush did not "start it", Obama has added more debt than all of the presidents before him combined. Why do you think that it is "fair" for the harder workers in our s
  • Savannah L on 26 Sep 12
     
    ociety to have to pay more when they are the ones working harder? And, if anything, it makes me respect Romney more because he knows how to work the system to his (and America's) advantage. He, unlike Obama, has business experience and is fiscally responsible, so I respect him more for this, not less.
  • Danielle Polevoi on 28 Sep 12
     
    Yeah, I'm going to with Savannah on this one. I think the rules of tax should obviously apply to everyone, rich or not. I also think that getting tax deductions is part of the "taxing" process so why shouldn't everyone take advantage of that? Regardless of how much money someone has...
  • Sabrina Rosenfield on 30 Sep 12
     
    Savannah, I'm not suggesting that people should be punished for working hard. But how much money you make is not always an accurate representation of how hard someone works. And I'm not sure about what I think is "fair". Yes, everyone paying the same taxes would be fair in one way. But some people work extremely hard and still don't have a lot of money and still need help from the government. Some people make exorbitant amounts of money and don't work all that hard. Doesn't it seem fair for people who need help to be able to get it? That's what I'm suggesting. I'm not encouraging laziness or punishing people for hard work. As for what you said, "it makes me respect Romney more because he knows how to work the system to his (and America's) advantage", it seems to me that there are two parts of this. One is that he understand the system. That's a good thing. The other is that he knows how to manipulate it to appear as something that he is not. That's not a good thing.
  • Abby Schantz on 30 Sep 12
     
    In my opinion, I do not believe that taxes are a punishment. Taxes are something we, as American citizens, agree to pay to do our part in making sure that all of our opportunities are made possible (in building roads ect.) Maybe they are not used the best right now, that's opinion but as a generalization I don't think taxes should be considered a punishment. Also agreeing with Sabrina, I believe that someone who works multiple jobs and happens to be doing manual labour that pays minim wage is in many cases working equally as hard if not harder than a wealthy CEO working long days in the office. They are different types of work and the amount of money they make is no reflection of the amount of work they put into that job.
  • Savannah L on 01 Oct 12
     
    Abby, I still don't see how you consider taxes to not be a punishment. If you enjoy forking over your hard earned cash to those who didn't for whatever reason, then I congratulate you for being a socialist. The biggest problem in our government is not a lack of money, but a lack of structure, so why are you so focused on increasing revenue if it won't make a difference under a fiscally irresponsible president with no business experience whatever? I don't enjoy the fact that I will end up paying money to a government that is incapable of spending it and do not think that people should have an increase of taxes just for working hard. And Sabrina, this is federal income tax, not capital gains or inheritance tax, so it doesn't take into account money that one is already sitting on or based on investments. The way income tax works, you can have a mansion and 5 cars but take a year off to work on a painting from your well-paying job and legally file with an income of 0 and get food stamps. And back to your example of the CEO and the blue-collar worker, the CEO probably went to school and got a degree, which would make me consider him to have worked harder than the blue-collar worker who chose not to get a high school degree. Also, let's change the discussion about working "hard" to one about working "smart"? Comparing manual labor efforts to the intellectual efforts of others really isn't comparing apples to apples. We should be discussing productivity rather than effort. If someone studies really hard but fails a test, and someone studies more effectively (but less hard) yet receives a high grade, should the high score student be penalized and the poor performer subsidized? Linking this back to the economy, without CEOs, the minimum wage workers wouldn't even have jobs. There would be no company, therefore, no jobs. CEOs are perhaps burning fewer calories when they work, but that does not mean that they are less productive. Take out a minimum wage worker from a co
  • Sabrina Rosenfield on 01 Oct 12
     
    But about Romney's tax exemptions-that's not what happened. He purposely overpaid to match an earlier estimate that he made. He didn't claim all the exemptions that he could have. Maybe that wasn't clear in the article I posted, but here's a quote from another one: "We know, for instance, that Romney paid a rate of 14.1 percent on $13.7 million in income on his 2011 tax return, which he achieved by purposely overpaying. Though he was entitled to deduct $4 million in charitable contributions, Romney deducted only $2.25 million to keep his tax rate above 13 percent." Here's the link to that article: http://www.propublica.org/article/what-we-still-dont-know-about-mitt-romneys-taxes
  • Savannah L on 02 Oct 12
     
    Sabrina, Let's look at this another way. If Romney made $13.7M in 2011, and donated $4M of that to charity, and also paid 14.1% (or < 13%)... he, in effect, only kept 57% of his income. He gave 13-14% to the government, and another 30% to charities -- hardly reprehensible behavior? He is able to more effectively do "good" with his money by giving it freely to those he feels deserve it can those that can be good stewards of the money. Clearly the President has NOT been a good steward of funds, just look at Solyndra and Beacon Energy. I don't know about you, but I would rather my money go to charities close to my heart rather than sham entities that sit there and waste billions of dollars of taxpayer dollars, like Solyndra and Beacon. The tax system is not perfect at all but it does encourage behaviours that are beneficial to society. Why does it matter so much what Romney paid in taxes? Shouldn't we focus on what he gave away to others than to a fiscally irresponsible government?
  • Sami Perez on 04 Oct 12
     
    I agree that the actual numbers of what Romney paid in taxes is somewhat unimportant, but symbolically it represents an ethical value that I've noticed in Romney's policies and beliefs. The Urban School recently had a visitor, a professor of economy, who informed us that the president him/herself does not actually have that much control over the economy as it is determined mostly by the private sector of the market. The president can, however, influence the economy through tax policy, and if Governor Romney is unwilling to pay his contribution to the system, which, as Abby said, is what we do to insure that "all opportunities are made possible," he seems to be implying something about how much the upper class should be paying. I realize that is just an opinion, but if you don't agree I hope you can at least understand my belief that all individuals/families, rich or poor, deserve to at least get an opportunity to make their lives more successful. Although the government may not have the power to fix the economy and everything themselves, they can at least provide that opportunity for the American citizens. A hard laborer with minimum wage may be working hard not smart, but that does not mean they don't have the potential to work smart. I believe that as Americans we should make sure that they can fulfill that potential.
Abby Schantz

Romney's Two Sides: Donors and Voters - 1 views

www.denverpost.com/...t-sides-at-rallies-fundraisers

voters donors romney campaign money fundraising rich

shared by Abby Schantz on 24 Sep 12 - No Cached
  • Abby Schantz on 24 Sep 12
     
    In this article, the question is raised of if Romney has two different sides, one that appeals to voters and one that appeals to donors. I found two parts of the article very interesting. One, that Romney answers a lot of questions from the donors but avoids them from the voters. And the second, that Romney actually goes in depth with his policies with the donors when tends to be vague with the voters.
  • ...1 more comment...
  • Savannah L on 26 Sep 12
     
    Yes, every politician in history behaves differently around their donors and voters. Even Obama. Just look at how socialist of statements he makes in university speeches, calling directly for "spreading the wealth around" and "those who have more should be expected to give much more" (all excerpts from a speech to Loyola university) are vastly different to those he made at the DNC claiming that he wasn't necessarily for an increase of taxes in the 250,000+ category. All I'm trying to say is that any politician that ever went anywhere did so doing just this.
  • Danielle Polevoi on 28 Sep 12
     
    While I would love to think that a candidate's statements remain solid no matter who the audience is, I know that isn't the truth. I think that it is somewhat inevitable that certain points are highlighted and others are downplayed in someone's platform when trying to win the support of a certain group.
  • Sabrina Rosenfield on 30 Sep 12
     
    A reason I can think of for this is that when you are trying to convince someone to vote for you, it's more about the big picture, "what direction do you want for our country" kind of campaigning. A vote for you means a vote in the right direction. When speaking to donors, it's about what their large donations are going to go towards specifically. It's much more of a commitment than just a vote, so it makes sense that there would be more information. I'm not saying this is the right way to handle it, and I agree that messages should stay consistent, but it might be a reason why.
1 - 2 of 2
Showing 20▼ items per page