Without a job, Romney made $57,000.00 a DAY for last two years.

[M14 Shooter]

$57,000.00 a day without a job. Less than 14% in taxes.
I'm envious.

You, and evry other liberal.
Your envy, along with your lust for partisan politcal power, drives everyting you do.

Of course, when you can't keep up with the Jonses, your preferreed solution, rather than work to impove your economic status, is to have the government bring the Jonses down to you.

 

[Bern80]

Actually the opposite of true. The notion that fair distribution of tax burden has anything to do with a person's ability to pay it is what fits no definition of fair.

It doesn't? Who appointed you master definer?

Who appointed YOU?

If you have a shred of intellectual honesty, you'll have to agree that the idea that rich people should pay a higer tax rate than poor people is only 'fair' by someone's arbitrary made-up definition of what 'fair' is.

Thus far, you have yet to exhibit that honesty.
I for one am not surprised.

You'll noice he didn't actualy respond when I posted the definition of fair.

 

[Dot Com]

The workin' man can really relate to a guy who *cough* "makes" $57K/day right

 

[kwc57]

The workin' man can really relate to a guy who *cough* "makes" $57K/day right

Let's be fair here. Do you think our current office holder who never lived in the continental US until he was 20 years old has the slightest understanding of the average American's experience?

 

[Bern80]

The workin' man can really relate to a guy who *cough* "makes" $57K/day right

Maybe the workin' man should try relating to that. That is maybe they should take it upon themselves to learn how the wealthy accumulate wealth so they use those tools to improve their own position.

 

[M14 Shooter]

It doesn't? Who appointed you master definer?

Who appointed YOU?

If you have a shred of intellectual honesty, you'll have to agree that the idea that rich people should pay a higer tax rate than poor people is only 'fair' by someone's arbitrary made-up definition of what 'fair' is.

Thus far, you have yet to exhibit that honesty.
I for one am not surprised.

You'll noice he didn't actualy respond when I posted the definition of fair.

Of course he didn't.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The workin' man can really relate to a guy who *cough* "makes" $57K/day right

Let's be fair here. Do you think our current office holder who never lived in the continental US until he was 20 years old has the slightest understanding of the average American's experience?

Or, for that matter, the average African-American?

 

[Dot Com]

The workin' man can really relate to a guy who *cough* "makes" $57K/day right

Maybe the workin' man should try relating to that. That is maybe they should take it upon themselves to learn how the wealthy accumulate wealth so they use those tools to improve their own position.

Ummm..... they hire lobbyists Glad to help

 

[Bern80]

The workin' man can really relate to a guy who *cough* "makes" $57K/day right

Maybe the workin' man should try relating to that. That is maybe they should take it upon themselves to learn how the wealthy accumulate wealth so they use those tools to improve their own position.

Ummm..... they hire lobbyists Glad to help

Don't do me any favors, bud. You certainly aren't doing yourself any if you think that's how the wealthy get wealthy. I'm sure it makes for a convenient excuse though to be able to tell yourself the reason you're not rich is because you're such a good person.

 

[Mr Natural]

Not bad!

Imagine how much he could make if he had a job.

 

[frazzledgear]

It doesn't? Who appointed you master definer?

Who appointed YOU?

If you have a shred of intellectual honesty, you'll have to agree that the idea that rich people should pay a higer tax rate than poor people is only 'fair' by someone's arbitrary made-up definition of what 'fair' is.

Thus far, you have yet to exhibit that honesty.
I for one am not surprised.

You'll noice he didn't actualy respond when I posted the definition of fair.

What is NOT fair is for people whose wallets will not feel the negative impact deciding how much THEY want to sock it to people they want to bleed even more -and have the balls to call that "fair" when in reality it is tyranny of whatever group of FELLOW CITIZENS who have been deemed by the liberal extremists to be the newest "enemies of the state". And in this case, they are "enemies" deserving of our scorn, hatred, envy and greed -for the horrible crime of not sucking at life and being successful. Listen to these liberal MORONS who think it isn't enough that nearly HALF of all income earners pay NOTHING! This same scenario has been played out too many times to pretend if it is done one more time, the outcome will be something different.

Do not kid yourself, what liberals want, desire and strive for, ALWAYS HAVE AND ALWAYS WILL -is to develop a strong parasitic class carefully indoctrinated to believe they are ENTITLED to the fruits of labor done by someone else. They are carefully indoctrinated to believe the odds are already stacked against them, so WHY BOTHER -not when they can just lay claim to what someone else did instead. They reward FAILURE, they encourage FAILURE, they discourage hard work, they discourage and punish success as undesirable and SHAMEFUL -they encourage people to despise the successful but to covet what they have without earning it for themselves. Look how many liberal extremists just on this thread think Romney's wealth is shameful -instead of proof the man has sound economic judgment and knows how to increase and grow WEALTH -while Obama only knows how to increase and grow the ranks of the poor. They use code words designed to make the parasites feel more comfortable with this self-destructive mentality -like "fair share", as if someone died and made them dictator to decide what is "fair". And of course they insist parasites should be the ones to decide what is "fair" even while pretending the fact nearly half the population pays nothing is "fair". These are people who will NEVER EVER be satisfied with how much they are bleeding others. They never are in ANY country where they target the successful and it continues until they are destroyed -and in spite of the fact the process will end up devastating and harming those on the bottom the most.

Encouraging a parasitic mentality in this country where half the population believes they are ENTITLED to what others have worked and earned for themselves while exempting themselves from also footing the bills for the government services THEY intend to take and utilize - will lead to the same outcome they got in Greece. Eventually you will even run out of other people's money too. Then you never ending greedy, envious liberals with your leech mentality will react the same way they did by throwing violent temper tantrums like that magically makes money appear again.

When did you ever know parasites to stop their feeding frenzy in the understanding if they bleed their victim dry, THEY die too? Parasites should NEVER be in a position to decide how much THEY will bleed their host because they will never, EVER put the welfare of their hosts before their own naked greed.

FACT: In the industrialized world, the US has THE most progressive tax rate IN THE WORLD. Yet the radical extremists in this country still whine it isn't "fair" they don't get to confiscate even MORE from the other half. It is NEVER enough, it will never be enough for the radical extremists who actually seek to destroy the wealth of this nation. Do NOT kid yourself, destroying the wealth of any nation is done like THIS.

The wealth of the nation does NOT come from government -it comes from WE THE PEOPLE. When people are deprived of the benefit of what they earned, they stop bothering to earn it, it means the wealth of the nation DECREASES which means government gets poorer as well. And that won't bother the liberal extremists whatsoever. They will just target the next economic class for destruction. They always do. The only economic class they want to see grow is the very bottom -which is why the ranks of the poor have SWELLED under Obama and is the only economic class to have grown since Obama took office. Exactly as liberalism intended to see happen -because growing the ranks of the poor is seen as increasing the power of radical extremist liberals. They want more have-nots -not fewer and their agenda is intended to grow their ranks. This IS the radical extremist game plan -destroy the wealth of the nation which means destroying the top economic class which ALWAYS results in increasing the rate of poverty because class warfare causes the most significant economic destruction to those who can afford it the least -those already on the bottom. They increase the ranks of the poor and the entire time they do it, they set themselves up as representing and "defending" and the "savior" of the poor -the poor THEY created! It wildly succeeded under Obama which is why our rate of poverty is the highest seen in nearly FIFTY YEARS! And he wants another term to do a hell of a lot more of it. Obama and his radical extremist lackeys can FUCK OFF -and they can take their "fair share" BULLSHIT with them.

 

[bayoubill]

The average American family makes $50,000.00 a year.

Romney paid 13.9% in taxes.

The average American's taxes are double Romney's.

This is the bottom line.

Romney's tax plan would cut his taxes by half.

Newt's tax plan would taxes for Romney all together.

Both would raise taxes on the average American.

I want to see Republicans run on this.

keep throwing stuff on the wall...

some of it may eventually stick...

 

[MikeK]

I believe that equitable distribution of this Nation's exceptional wealth is the way to maintain its strength and stability. What you believe in is the formula for its ultimate demise. And by equitable I don't mean equal. I mean fair and sensible -- as it was throughout the 40s, 50s, 60s and 70s, the most prosperous decades in our history.

And the simple fact is your belief is 100% false. You can not focus solely on creating outcomes and completely ignore human behavior. What do you suppose would happen when people learn that taking responsibility for generating your own income is no longer necessary? When they learn that when you reach a low enough income level some government beauracrat will deem you poor and will take from someone else to even things out, how well do you suppose society will function then?

Is that what you're doing? Or do you think that everyone but you and two or three other very special folks will be doing it? Your reasoning is comparable to that of the pious Christian soldiers who believe that if drugs are made legal everyone (but them) will run right out and buy some.

What else did you learn from Beck, Limbaugh and Hannity?

 

[MikeK]

Yes... Bush spent heavily... but to think that Obama is not doing worse in spending, is unfathomably ignorant... if taxes raise, it is because of the new spending he has brought about.. as well as any increased spending the congress is bringing about...

The key is electing persons in both the executive and the legislature that will do what is necessary and fucking CUT the spending DRASTICALLY

I have referred specifically to the wasteful and wholly unnecessary nature of Bush's spending, which is what brought our economy down.

This is absurdly idiotic.
The economy fell because a number of things - but to argue that it fell because of Federal spending that you disagree with denotes a indescribeable ignorance of the issue and an overwhelming sense of partisan bigotry.

How about substituting some specifics in place of your usual empty, inane nonsense.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I have referred specifically to the wasteful and wholly unnecessary nature of Bush's spending, which is what brought our economy down.

This is absurdly idiotic.
The economy fell because a number of things - but to argue that it fell because of Federal spending that you disagree with denotes a indescribeable ignorance of the issue and an overwhelming sense of partisan bigotry.

How about substituting some specifics in place of your usual empty, inane nonsense.

Great idea.
Please show how, specifically and exactly, Bush spendng money on things you did not like "brought down the economy."

 

[frazzledgear]

The workin' man can really relate to a guy who *cough* "makes" $57K/day right

You would rather our country be led by a failure because you relate better to failure? Personally I would rather have a President with a proven track record of sound economic judgment and understanding of what it takes to grow wealth over a sitting President who has only grown the ranks of the poor. But that's me. Aim low and you'll still bitch it must be the fault of someone else that you didn't reach that.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I believe that equitable distribution of this Nation's exceptional wealth is the way to maintain its strength and stability. What you believe in is the formula for its ultimate demise. And by equitable I don't mean equal. I mean fair and sensible -- as it was throughout the 40s, 50s, 60s and 70s, the most prosperous decades in our history.

You know, of course, tha the governmnt had little or nothing to do with this "equitable distribution of wealth" across this time period - right?

That whatever equitable distribution there might have been was almost fully a function of the free market - right?

You also know that the poverty rate thru most of that time was around 2x what it is now - right?

Guessing not.

 

[Bern80]

Is that what you're doing? Or do you think that everyone but you and two or three other very special folks will be doing it? Your reasoning is comparable to that of the pious Christian soldiers who believe that if drugs are made legal everyone (but them) will run right out and buy some.

Stop dodging. You claimed income inequality is bad and it needs to be fixed. Assuming for a second income inequality actually is bad. That still leaves the 'why' did it get unequal. The answer to that is what determines how you correct the issue. But again, all you care about is outcomes. You figure if you simply put the scales more in balance that you've fixed the problem. There's only one possible conclusion one can draw about the way libs solve problems. That you believe people are not respsonsible for their own outcomes. And no my reasoning is not comparable to your example at all. People need an incentive to do things. What is the incentive to do drugs? What happens when the incentive for generating income can no longer be realized? What happens to the incentive to improve one's productivity to generate wealth if someone will simply give it to you instead?

What else did you learn from Beck, Limbaugh and Hannity?

LOL. When are you lefties going to figure out you only make yourself look stupid when you attribute behaviors to people you can't possibly confirm?

For the record, the answer is nothing because I don't have the time or desire to listen to any of those guys.

 

[sfcalifornia]

Romney's income is from capital gains.
He already paid the highest tax rate on ALL OF THAT INVESTED $$$ when he earned it as earned income.
He should owe NO tax.
He could have lost ALL of that investment income.
And made liberals happy as that way he would be on government assistance where they want the entire nation.

Capital gains tax isn't applied to the already-taxed income he invests. Capital gains tax is applied to the money earned from investing his already-taxed income.

ALL capital gains are from the $$$ he already paid tax on.
How does one make ANY $$$ unless they invest their capital?

That is correct. Capital gains are the money he makes from investing the money he already paid tax on.

And capital gains TAX is the tax applied to that newly earned money.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Because it's fair. That you lefties don't understand what fair means is not our fault. Fair does NOT mean that which is easier for people or not as burdensome for people or how much you arbitrarily decide someone can do without. You're 100% right on this. If you claim you really want a fair tax code then yes, equitably distributing the tax burden will mean the taxes of the poor go up while the taxes of the rich go down.

What you libs don't get is that 'fair' isn't exactly a positive word. Fair in this case does not care about the burdon it puts on someone that has nothing to do with it. All fair cares about is an equitable distribution of where the money comes from. Whether it burdens some more than others is irrelevent where fair is concerned.

The idea that poor people should pay the same rate of tax as rich people is only 'fair' by someone's arbitrary made-up definition of what 'fair' is.

Really?

If you have a shred of intellectual honesty, you'll then have to agree that the idea that rich people should pay a higer tax rate than poor people is only 'fair' by someone's arbitrary made-up definition of what 'fair' is.

Oh look - no response from NYC