Wealthy Mitt Romney admits he's taxed...

Wealthy Mitt Romney admits he's taxed at an average middle-class rate, not like a multimillionaire

There are 164 comments on the www.nydailynews.com story from Jan 18, 2012, titled Wealthy Mitt Romney admits he's taxed at an average middle-class rate, not like a multimillionaire. In it, www.nydailynews.com reports that:

Political experts say the income tax issue raised by Mitt Romney, seen in Florence, S.C. Tuesday, may come back to haunt him in a campaign against President Obama, who could make income inequality a key issue.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at www.nydailynews.com.

barry

Henagar, AL

#149 Jan 27, 2012
Chicago Guy wrote:
<quoted text>
I think you missed his point. Alabama has taken millions in stimulus funds. That's a fact: http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/docume...
The real question should be: can you prove any Alabama TeaBaggers tried to refuse the money?
no, you missed the point. the stimulus money is only a red herring. to distractffrom the original discussion about the benifit of giving tax breaks to major manufacturers inorder to draw them to our state and employ peopel here that would then produce an increase in tax revenues. the accusation was made by a florida resident even though florida took more than twice the ammount of stimulus money. the accuser has no real issue with stimulus money in fact he liked it. however he is calling alabama a bunch of hypocrites because they took some money. what he has failed to do is show that there are any teaparty politicians in alabama that actually voted for it. in fact i doubt that he can even name a teaparty politician in alabama. so his charge is unfounded, not very honest and only meant to distract from the real issue that gov offered tax incentives that are used to draw major manufactures to our state ultimately benifit everyone and certainly produce more taxes for our state than if we had let them go elsewhere.
barry

Henagar, AL

#150 Jan 27, 2012
Chicago Guy wrote:
<quoted text>
I think you missed his point. Alabama has taken millions in stimulus funds. That's a fact: http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/docume...
The real question should be: can you prove any Alabama TeaBaggers tried to refuse the money?
i don't know of any teaparty politicians here in al. so the real question is can you name even one teaparty politician so that we can see how they voted?
barry

Henagar, AL

#151 Jan 27, 2012
Mykro wrote:
<quoted text>Hey numbnuts, did Alabama accept $4 billion in stimulous money or not? Did the teabaggers vote against it? Name all your teabag politicians that voted against it.
name me one or two teaparty politicians here in al and we will see if they voted for it. otherwise keep your vulgar accusations to your self.
Chicago Guy

Evanston, IL

#152 Jan 27, 2012
barry wrote:
<quoted text>no, you missed the point. the stimulus money is only a red herring. to distractffrom the original discussion about the benifit of giving tax breaks to major manufacturers inorder to draw them to our state and employ peopel here that would then produce an increase in tax revenues. the accusation was made by a florida resident even though florida took more than twice the ammount of stimulus money. the accuser has no real issue with stimulus money in fact he liked it. however he is calling alabama a bunch of hypocrites because they took some money. what he has failed to do is show that there are any teaparty politicians in alabama that actually voted for it. in fact i doubt that he can even name a teaparty politician in alabama. so his charge is unfounded, not very honest and only meant to distract from the real issue that gov offered tax incentives that are used to draw major manufactures to our state ultimately benifit everyone and certainly produce more taxes for our state than if we had let them go elsewhere.
So he's right--- you DO support corporate welfare. If a business needs a subsidy (paid for by taxpayers) to operate successfully... maybe that business shouldn't be there?

Isn't that the prevailing conservative logic?

You argument is equally effective for defending tax cuts for the working class, or earned income tax credits, or welfare for that matter.

If you put more $ into poor people's hands, they will spend it. And by spending it, they will support local businesses, allowing them to grow and flourish.

Funny it's only "socialism" to a conservative when PEOPLE, not corporations, benefit.
barry

Henagar, AL

#153 Jan 27, 2012
Mykro wrote:
<quoted text>Yep, your taxes went to bribe RICH auto companies to move to Alabama. That's corporate welfare. They get a huge tax break you pay for. Did you give them some of that abhorent federal stimulous money too? And if you really believe you and your state politicians bullshit, why did they need federal stimulous funds to bail out your broke state? Man up teabagger, pay your own way.
now the definition of a bribe involves psying something to someone. allowing someone to not pay you as much as someone else is charging them, is not a bribe, it is a discount, a technique that every major retailer uses to attract customers. we "gave" them nothing that we didn't already not have that we might recieve because of them something that we did not have. we increased our tax revenues and it cost us nothing. that is good/great business.
i suppose that you have never managed a business let alone a large business.
barry

Henagar, AL

#154 Jan 27, 2012
Chicago Guy wrote:
<quoted text>
So he's right--- you DO support corporate welfare. If a business needs a subsidy (paid for by taxpayers) to operate successfully... maybe that business shouldn't be there?
Isn't that the prevailing conservative logic?
You argument is equally effective for defending tax cuts for the working class, or earned income tax credits, or welfare for that matter.
If you put more $ into poor people's hands, they will spend it. And by spending it, they will support local businesses, allowing them to grow and flourish.
Funny it's only "socialism" to a conservative when PEOPLE, not corporations, benefit.
no, don't twist the arguement. who was talking about subsidies? i am talking about tax breaks.

you are talking about a gov putting other people's money into the hands of individuals. that will not make them contributers but only consumers in our communities. i am talking about the gov not collecting money that they didn't have in the first place in order to draw a business in that will by hiring people put their money in the individuals hands and make them tax paying contributers to our communities.
Chicago Guy

Evanston, IL

#155 Jan 27, 2012
barry wrote:
<quoted text>no, don't twist the arguement. who was talking about subsidies? i am talking about tax breaks.
you are talking about a gov putting other people's money into the hands of individuals. that will not make them contributers but only consumers in our communities. i am talking about the gov not collecting money that they didn't have in the first place in order to draw a business in that will by hiring people put their money in the individuals hands and make them tax paying contributers to our communities.
What about the payroll tax cut? Is that a viable stimulative tax cut, or a subsidy?

And BTW-- unless a government is running a surplus, which very few if any are these days-- EVERY tax cut is a subsidy.
barry

Henagar, AL

#156 Jan 27, 2012
Chicago Guy wrote:
<quoted text>
What about the payroll tax cut? Is that a viable stimulative tax cut, or a subsidy?
And BTW-- unless a government is running a surplus, which very few if any are these days-- EVERY tax cut is a subsidy.
again you are deflecting. what does the payroll tax have to do with giving tax breaks to manufactures in order to draw them into your community?

now let me answer your question with a question. how is not taking from someone money that they earned even compared with giving money that was taken to someone that didn't earn it?

Since: Feb 08

Hypoluxo Fl

#157 Jan 27, 2012
barry wrote:
<quoted text>now the definition of a bribe involves psying something to someone. allowing someone to not pay you as much as someone else is charging them, is not a bribe, it is a discount, a technique that every major retailer uses to attract customers. we "gave" them nothing that we didn't already not have that we might recieve because of them something that we did not have. we increased our tax revenues and it cost us nothing. that is good/great business.
i suppose that you have never managed a business let alone a large business.
I'm sure you used this convoluted off the wall reasoning to get your Harvard MBA and immediately got hired to be the Enron CEO.
Chicago Guy

Evanston, IL

#158 Jan 27, 2012
barry wrote:
<quoted text>again you are deflecting. what does the payroll tax have to do with giving tax breaks to manufactures in order to draw them into your community?
now let me answer your question with a question. how is not taking from someone money that they earned even compared with giving money that was taken to someone that didn't earn it?
Tax cuts for individuals OR corporations have to be paid for.

Either you cut spending to accomodate the tax cut, or you compensate for it with new revenue.

Deficit spending, which Reagan pioneered and Dubya perfected, is when you give out tax cuts without allowing for them in the budget. When that happens, actual money has to be borrowed from actual lenders (usually China) to make up that difference. Which gets tacked onto our debt. Which means we ALL end up paying for it-- with interest.

It is the same for local and state governments. If they are running surpluses, and cut taxes accordingly, then great.

However-- if they are running any sort of deficit, but they give corporations tax cuts to "encourage jobs", then that money must be borrowed, or taken from other, funded programs.

Which means that it's REAL money. And a real handout to corporations. Real corporate welfare.

You may ideologically believe that we should spend less than we take in. But until that happens, tax cuts are REAL expenses, and cost taxpayers real dollars.

Since: Feb 08

Hypoluxo Fl

#159 Jan 27, 2012
barry wrote:
<quoted text>no, don't twist the arguement. who was talking about subsidies? i am talking about tax breaks.
you are talking about a gov putting other people's money into the hands of individuals. that will not make them contributers but only consumers in our communities. i am talking about the gov not collecting money that they didn't have in the first place in order to draw a business in that will by hiring people put their money in the individuals hands and make them tax paying contributers to our communities.
Are you for real? "i am talking about the gov not collecting money that they didn't have in the first place in order to draw a business in that will by hiring people put their money in the individuals hands and make them tax paying contributers to our communities." Is this what passes for education in Alabama?
Chicago Guy

Evanston, IL

#160 Jan 27, 2012
barry wrote:
<quoted text>again you are deflecting. what does the payroll tax have to do with giving tax breaks to manufactures in order to draw them into your community?
now let me answer your question with a question. how is not taking from someone money that they earned even compared with giving money that was taken to someone that didn't earn it?
And I brought up the payroll tax because it is NOT a handout, or a re-allocation of funds.

It is a tax break, which will have to be compensated for elsewhere.

It is stimulative in a 'trickle-up' fashion, but only benefits people. Not corporations.
Chicago Guy

Evanston, IL

#161 Jan 27, 2012
BTW I don't know what specific businesses you're talking about, but there's a fantastic documentary about how Walmart uses local tax breaks to get an unfair advantage in local communities, then runs their local businesses into the ground, then moves on to a new location once the "tax hiatus" is over. So communities get NOTHING but a decimated local economy, and a few dozen minimum-wage, mostly part-time jobs.

It's called: "Walmart: The High Cost of Low Price" and I recommend it highly to ANYONE, regardless of political affiliation.
http://www.walmartmovie.com/
barry

Henagar, AL

#162 Jan 27, 2012
Mykro wrote:
<quoted text>I'm sure you used this convoluted off the wall reasoning to get your Harvard MBA and immediately got hired to be the Enron CEO.
nah, harvard gave us pbo. and the people i work for are good honest people who help their neighbors andpay their own bills.

Since: Feb 08

Hypoluxo Fl

#163 Jan 27, 2012
barry wrote:
<quoted text>nah, harvard gave us pbo. and the people i work for are good honest people who help their neighbors andpay their own bills.
Yeah right. If your state payed it's own bills, Alabama would have turned that $4 billion in stimulous money.
barry

Henagar, AL

#164 Jan 27, 2012
Chicago Guy wrote:
<quoted text>
Tax cuts for individuals OR corporations have to be paid for.
Either you cut spending to accomodate the tax cut, or you compensate for it with new revenue.
Deficit spending, which Reagan pioneered and Dubya perfected, is when you give out tax cuts without allowing for them in the budget. When that happens, actual money has to be borrowed from actual lenders (usually China) to make up that difference. Which gets tacked onto our debt. Which means we ALL end up paying for it-- with interest.
It is the same for local and state governments. If they are running surpluses, and cut taxes accordingly, then great.
However-- if they are running any sort of deficit, but they give corporations tax cuts to "encourage jobs", then that money must be borrowed, or taken from other, funded programs.
Which means that it's REAL money. And a real handout to corporations. Real corporate welfare.
You may ideologically believe that we should spend less than we take in. But until that happens, tax cuts are REAL expenses, and cost taxpayers real dollars.
no, you're confused or deliberately confussing the arguement. i agree that there might be some value to your "tax cuts...have to be paid for" theaory although it is not always as simple as a zero sum situation.
i am talking about a community that has vacant land [no tax production] unemployed people [no tax production] aloowing a corporation/manufacturer to come in and build a plant on that land with an agreement to allow that land to be tax free or very discounted for a period of years. the land never produced taxes and it remains much the same but the several hundred employees that the manufacturer hires will now be paying local and state income taxes which they probably weren't paying before. houses will be bought and built to accomodate them. stores will see an increase in sales. all generating sales taxes which were not produced before [9% here in al] and those same businesses will higher a few more people as well as new support businesses will open in the community. all generating new tax revenue that did not exist befor the manufacturer came to town. no taxes were lost so no tax cuts had to be paid for. but there is an increase in revenues to the tax funds and services can be better funded to the community.
or you can just import your new nissan from mexico and let your community stay stagnat while you watch other manufacturers move out of your community for greener pastures.

ē Nissan recently announced it would build a $2 billion factory in Aguascalientes, Mexico, to support production of compact cars in North America. Scheduled to open in late 2013, the plant would have capacity to build 175,000 cars a year and would supplement Nissanís two other plants in the country. Earlier this year, the automaker was rumored to be jointly building a plant in Mexico with Daimler, its strategic partner, but Daimler was not mentioned in Nissanís media materials and has not publicly commented on Nissanís announcement.(Nissan)

http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/27/wh...

those companies hire people to build there plants improve the value of the land and the surrounding community. you apparently would turn down a $2billion shot in the arm.
barry

Henagar, AL

#165 Jan 27, 2012
Mykro wrote:
<quoted text>Yeah right. If your state payed it's own bills, Alabama would have turned that $4 billion in stimulous money.
but it's ok with you that your state fl accepted twice as much? who's the hipocrite here?
barry

Henagar, AL

#166 Jan 27, 2012
Chicago Guy wrote:
<quoted text>
And I brought up the payroll tax because it is NOT a handout, or a re-allocation of funds.
It is a tax break, which will have to be compensated for elsewhere.
It is stimulative in a 'trickle-up' fashion, but only benefits people. Not corporations.
i can agree with you on this and personally feel that perhaps the payout should be reduced. but i think that that does happen as your payout is directly related to what you actually paid in. so i'm not sure if it really is an issue. the greater issue on that account is that that money should have never been allowed to be "borrowed" into the general fund. again it is off topic.
barry

Henagar, AL

#167 Jan 27, 2012
Chicago Guy wrote:
BTW I don't know what specific businesses you're talking about, but there's a fantastic documentary about how Walmart uses local tax breaks to get an unfair advantage in local communities, then runs their local businesses into the ground, then moves on to a new location once the "tax hiatus" is over. So communities get NOTHING but a decimated local economy, and a few dozen minimum-wage, mostly part-time jobs.
It's called: "Walmart: The High Cost of Low Price" and I recommend it highly to ANYONE, regardless of political affiliation.
http://www.walmartmovie.com/
i was specifically talking about the manufacturing companies and more specifically the car companies as an example. al has been successfull in luring companies who hire a lot of people and generate a lot of support related businesses. it was just simpler to narrow my premise to cars but there are mabny other types of manufacturers that have come to al. and unfortunately no effort was made to preserve some of the smaller ones that we had had for a long time and now many of our smaller industrial communities are turning into ghost towns.
revenues lost.

Since: Feb 08

Hypoluxo Fl

#168 Jan 27, 2012
barry wrote:
<quoted text>but it's ok with you that your state fl accepted twice as much? who's the hipocrite here?
Nope. I didn't say it was OK. Our criminal teabag governor said he would turn it down and then quietly accepted it. That's what teabaggers are all about, hypocrisy. He got publicity for turning down the money for the bullet train no body but Disney wanted anyway.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

City University of New York Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Sex education doesn't reflect real-life realiti... Jan 15 Wondering 31
News Anti-Racist': - I Will Always Call on My Black ... Dec '17 el rey de los cam... 57
News 10 African Americans named Rhodes scholars, mos... Dec '17 mr gleeble 59
News Brooklyn College doesn't want police using camp... Nov '17 The Last Warrior ... 29
News Racism tied to worse asthma symptoms for black ... (Jun '17) Nov '17 Shinamoto 3
News Malliotakis campaign 'energized' after de Blasi... Nov '17 Baptist ism by Proxy 1
News New Assessment Model Links Emotions to Mental H... Oct '17 keramatzade 2
More from around the web