Mitt Romney pays 13.9 % Tax rate. I pay 26%.

[bigmescan]

%50 is just a number. but you are missing the point. we cant keep taxing the people who are trying to increase the tax base. id rather have more people paying in then less people paying more, if you cant grasp that concept then theres no point.

I think you are the one who can't grasp the concept....You would rather have more people paying in than less? You do know that when I say everyone, that is EVERYONE. You can't get any more than "everyone".

but everyone is not working at the moment. and in order to have everyone pay a flat rate and make it equal then that means they need jobs. and in order to have jobs the economy has to keep moving forward. but it cant sustain a population of only %50 of the population working. so how are we gonna tax the people who arent working. if its gonna be fair then everyone has to pay. thats the concept most poeple dont grasp. so yes i would rather have more people working to pay a less tax rate then have less people working paying more. it wont sustain itself. the government doesnt create jobs. people do

[bigmescan]

and if we use a flat tax what would be a good % for everyone to pay to make it equal. and do you believe if someone has more money we should just take it from them.

[snafu]

Guys,

You are having a discussion about this topic because those in power (at the time, the extreme left) would prefer it that way. What exactly do I mean? Let me explain.

Let's say that I was a really good basketball player. My free throw percentage was 80%, my field goal percentage over 60%, I got 35 rebounds a game, scored 30+ points a game, was deadly accurate on my 3 point shots, etc. I'd be someone to reckon with. Now, since the other guys can't beat me, they find something about me that will stir the pot. For example, let's say that I got caught smoking pot in high school. They dig this up, tell the world, and now the focus is not on my skills but on something in my past. No matter how good I play the game, every reporter I speak to afterwards asks about the pot incident. This is called a diversionary technique.

The more you focus on what Romney is / isn't paying on taxes, the less you're focused on the real problem. This is but one example. Today it's being practiced by the left, but the right certainly is not above these tactics. Although I would classify myself as a conservative, I'm beginning to realize that all politicians are somewhat "dirty" in this regards.

I would encourage you to each weigh the pros / cons of what you think each Romney and Obama's ability to lead our country back into prosperity and forget about the diversions.

[bcpballer64]

This is some fucked up shit and always has been but think about this, if we did a one year 10% extra tax on the top 6.6% (people over $100,000) income earning people (13,970,000), that is $10,000 * 13970000 people = $139,700,000,000.

That is a whole lot of money we could put back into the system. And mind you that is a minimum because that is people OVER 100,000 per year not AT 100,000 per year, and the same goes for the next figure.

Plus for people who make over 1 million we could do a one year extra 20% of which there are 321,294 people (IRS 2008 figure) so if you did the math $200,000 * 321,294 = $64,258,800,000 minimum

So all in all we are talking about a minimum of an extra $203,258,800,000 coming back into the government and we would on be affecting roughly 7% of the population. But again the last figure is OVER 1 million not AT 1 million, because Bill Gates alone (this is a rough estimate) makes approximately $2 billion per year and 20% of that added to our figure is $203,958,800,000 + $2 billion * .2 = 204,358,800,000. Gates alone is an extra $400 million!

Tax the rich one time and boom our govt has a bunch extra they didnt have before.

[bigmescan]

i have snafu and will not let the government take away more then they already have. and i consider myself as well a fiscal conservative. and Obama is far from that. and do i believe Romney will be any better. im praying that he is given the chance for people to find out. and are all politicians crooked probably so. but i will stick by what i believe first and foremost and respect everyone elses opinion as well. because at the end of the day quote from 10 bears. "governments dont live together people do"

[Miguels]

Guys,

You are having a discussion about this topic because those in power (at the time, the extreme left) would prefer it that way. What exactly do I mean? Let me explain.

Let's say that I was a really good basketball player. My free throw percentage was 80%, my field goal percentage over 60%, I got 35 rebounds a game, scored 30+ points a game, was deadly accurate on my 3 point shots, etc. I'd be someone to reckon with. Now, since the other guys can't beat me, they find something about me that will stir the pot. For example, let's say that I got caught smoking pot in high school. They dig this up, tell the world, and now the focus is not on my skills but on something in my past. No matter how good I play the game, every reporter I speak to afterwards asks about the pot incident. This is called a diversionary technique.

The more you focus on what Romney is / isn't paying on taxes, the less you're focused on the real problem. This is but one example. Today it's being practiced by the left, but the right certainly is not above these tactics. Although I would classify myself as a conservative, I'm beginning to realize that all politicians are somewhat "dirty" in this regards.

I would encourage you to each weigh the pros / cons of what you think each Romney and Obama's ability to lead our country back into prosperity and forget about the diversions.

snafu,

i understand what youre saying but do you consider this to be correct? we do know there is broken flaws in our Laws, like a teacher raping a girl/boy and still get money/pension while in jail. its not fair and tax payers shouldnt pay for that

look at this here.im not going for what Romney pays or make but going over for this

The outraged citizens of Bell, California, scored a partial victory today with the resignations of three grossly overpaid city officials. The city manager, assistant manager, and police chief had drawn furious criticism for receiving some of the highest salaries in the nation for local government officials. How high is that, you ask?

In addition to the $787,637 salary of Chief Administrative Officer Robert Rizzo, Bell pays Police Chief Randy Adams $457,000 a year, about 50% more than Los Angeles Police Chief Charlie Beck or Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca and more than double New York City's police commissioner. Assistant City Manager Angela Spaccia makes $376,288 annually, more than most city managers.

Too bad they still get their pensions:

Rizzo would be entitled to a state pension of more than $650,000 per year for life, the Times said. That would make him the highest-paid retiree in the state pension system.

At age 62, when Rizzo could also begin receiving Social Security payments, his annual pension would rise to $976,771, topping $1 million two years later.

If he lives to age 83, his annual payout would rise to $1.48 million.

Adams could get more than $411,000 per year, and Spaccia, who is 51-year-old, could get as much as $250,000 a year when she reaches 55.

dont know why the cat is there lol

[bigmescan]

This is some fucked up shit and always has been but think about this, if we did a one year 10% extra tax on the top 6.6% (people over $100,000) income earning people (13,970,000), that is $10,000 * 13970000 people = $139,700,000,000.

That is a whole lot of money we could put back into the system. And mind you that is a minimum because that is people OVER 100,000 per year not AT 100,000 per year, and the same goes for the next figure.

Plus for people who make over 1 million we could do a one year extra 20% of which there are 321,294 people (IRS 2008 figure) so if you did the math $200,000 * 321,294 = $64,258,800,000 minimum

So all in all we are talking about a minimum of an extra $203,258,800,000 coming back into the government and we would on be affecting roughly 7% of the population. But again the last figure is OVER 1 million not AT 1 million, because Bill Gates alone (this is a rough estimate) makes approximately $2 billion per year and 20% of that added to our figure is $203,958,800,000 + $2 billion * .2 = 204,358,800,000. Gates alone is an extra $400 million!

Tax the rich one time and boom our govt has a bunch extra they didnt have before.

do you really want your govevernment to have that much power?

[TeamHT]

I'm not going to point fingers, but how many of or crooked politicians have us all under their thumbs? You think this is bad? This is just the tip. From throwing or national debt through the window, signing NDAA, rigging the taxes more than 10 years ago (yes, look into it...mitt was there at the center), to the lies that feed their greed, our government has been compromised.

But here's the thing that gets me...someone comes along that could actually invoke a movement of POSITIVE change...and we their him in the corner. The lesser of two evils and we complain shit never changes. How do you expect for shit to change when our vote stays the same.

[snafu]

Well, at least I got you guys thinking a bit. Let's see if I can turn up the wick . . .

Let's say that you owned a small business that sold widgets (Economics 101). In December, you found your company sitting on $5,000 in the bank and all the bills were paid. Decisions decisions . . . if you let the $5,000 sit, it's counted as an asset and is taxable. On the other hand, if you bought a machine that cost you $5,000 this is an investment in the business that can be depreciated. So, do you let the government take a big chunk of your $5k, or do you buy that new machine. Gee, that's a no-brainer.

This is exactly what every business in the US of A does every time they can. They have an intimate understanding of the tax code and they exploit any and all opportunities to keep as many of the dollars they earn as possible. This is just good business.

Now, depending on how Mitt is on the books for his businesses, and depending on how he pays himself from his businesses, the tax code varies. A guy like that likely takes as few dollars as possible from the business and goes out of his way to put as many dollars as he can back into each business. Again, good business.

[bigmescan]

Well, at least I got you guys thinking a bit. Let's see if I can turn up the wick . . .

Let's say that you owned a small business that sold widgets (Economics 101). In December, you found your company sitting on $5,000 in the bank and all the bills were paid. Decisions decisions . . . if you let the $5,000 sit, it's counted as an asset and is taxable. On the other hand, if you bought a machine that cost you $5,000 this is an investment in the business that can be depreciated. So, do you let the government take a big chunk of your $5k, or do you buy that new machine. Gee, that's a no-brainer.

This is exactly what every business in the US of A does every time they can. They have an intimate understanding of the tax code and they exploit any and all opportunities to keep as many of the dollars they earn as possible. This is just good business.

Now, depending on how Mitt is on the books for his businesses, and depending on how he pays himself from his businesses, the tax code varies. A guy like that likely takes as few dollars as possible from the business and goes out of his way to put as many dollars as he can back into each business. Again, good business.

i deal with this every year with my owner operator.