24 Sep

Libs and Taxes

                                       

Before I get into all the gobbledy-gook of this post, I need to first say that I don’t think Romney (or Obama) should have to release even ONE year of tax returns. It’s not a requirement to hold the nation’s highest elected office and, therefore, shouldn’t even be a debate. With that said…

Libs are finding themselves in a precarious situation – how to attack Romney for being part of “the 1%”d while donating to programs that help “the 99%.”

On Friday, Romney released his taxes from last year just as he had promised. The Obama campaign – and liberals in general – chomped at the bit to dig into it and find some dirt. The dirt they found is that Romney paid MORE taxes than he really had to. In fact, in only claimed about $2.25 million instead of the $4 million he donated. By not claiming all his donations, Romney ended up paying a slightly higher tax rate. For the record, only about 35% of donations to charity are really deductible on taxes.

I think the problem that liberals have with Romney’s taxes is that he gave away good money that could have gone to government! How dare he contribute to charity when the biggest (forced) charity on the planet – the federal government – can’t make ends meet!!

What I found really funny is this story by Ben Adler at The Nation:

So Romney gives $1,000 per year for a cancer center, while his church gets at least 600 times as much and he keeps millions more? He gave virtually nothing to any program that focuses directly on feeding the hungry, housing the homeless or educating the disadvantaged.

Adler is obviously an ignorant moron. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is perhaps one of the largest charitable organizations on the planet. Its many programs contribute directly to the poor and needy. Deseret Industries is similar to the Salvation Army in feeding, clothing, and providing for those in need. The Bishop’s Storehouse provides nutritious food to families that can’t afford to purchase their own groceries.

By contributing so substantially to his church, Mitt Romney IS directly “feeding the hungry, housing the homeless or educating the disadvantaged.” The church was in New Orleans before the Red Cross after Hurricane Katrina. The church was Oklahoma and Colorado to help after the wildfires.

All that aside, liberals think that ever dollar an American earns is government’s first and they decide what you can keep after they take what they need. Liberals feel that if you can afford to just give money away, you can afford to pay more in taxes.

At some point in our history, we got away from relying on communities – charities and churches – to provide for the needs of its citizens. Government began taking over more and more of society’s responsibilities around the 1930’s with FDR’s “New Deal.”

The Great Depression had taken root and FDR was staring down the barrel of 30%+ unemployment. When republicans took back the White House in the 50’s, they largely left the New Deal provisions alone. Then, along came Lyndon B. Johnson with his Great Society and Dick Nixon left it alone when he got in office. Because the liberals had successfully created a dependency class, republicans felt neutered to mess with the programs that they knew were unsustainable for fear of losing voters.

Fast forward to today and we have TARP and three QE3 programs geared towards the same ends. The “QE” means quantitative easing and the “3” means it’s the third such effort. If you really want to know what the media isn’t telling you about QE3 – thanks to their focus on the protests in Arab nations – watch this video:

YouTube Preview Image

But, I digress…

The fact is that Mitt’s money is put to more use and more directly affects ALL poor people and those in need than giving it to the government. If liberals had their way and Romney was forced to pay that $4 million in taxes, that would be $4 million that would not get into the hands of charities. Perhaps that is what liberals WANT. After all, if there are organizations out there doing what the government could be doing, there wouldn’t be any need for government and liberals LOVE government.

The Obama campaign wants to make this out to be about Romney not paying is “fair share.” Never mind that the Romney’s paid nearly $2 million for the federal government to squander on their cronies and failed companies. If he can afford to just GIVE AWAY $4 million, he can certainly afford to pay more taxes.

What the media and liberals also won’t tell you is that Romney had to pay millions more in capital gains taxes. The tax rate for those is between 15% and 28%. More than likely, Romney probably paid around 15% on $5.5 million in capital gains reported, which is almost another $1 million in taxes. So, conservatively, Romney really paid about $3 million in taxes last year. But, shhh, don’t talk about that.

In summary: if you’re rich, liberals want all your money. If you’re poor, liberals want you dependent on government. If you’re the government, you can’t have enough. You know the world is coming to an end when liberals are complaining about someone paying TOO MUCH in taxes.

This entry was posted in Conservatism, Politics. Bookmark the permalink. Monday, September 24th, 2012 at 1:25 pm
| 399 views

21 Responses to Libs and Taxes

  1. mathman says: 1

    You got all that right.
    Liberals want SLAVES. If you pay taxes, you are a slave. Your gains are taken from you by force. You have no say in the matter. If you do not pay taxes, you are a slave. You are dependent on a federal check, and you have no control in the matter.
    The only privileged class is the Czars, who do not have to account to anyone, do not have to pay taxes, and owe nothing to anybody. Oh, yes, and the public-service Union employees. Their way is paid by taxpayers, since their pension funds are bankrupt.
    If you rob Peter to pay Paul, Paul is your friend.
    We need a Jeffersonian revolution to throw out all the 20+ year carbuncles in public office. And we need term limits. Let us return to a Citizen government.
    And one governed by the Constitution. What a radical idea!

    ReplyReply
  2. Dc says: 2

    Who would think that people should be able to decide how to spend their own money? Why the nerve!! I saw some clown on TV when this came out…(ie., how much he had given to charity) suggest….that’s great…if you happen to be one of those people who received his donations. ..then snickered and laughed. The newscaster asked…what does that mean? The guest liberal…oh, I don’t know. I’ve heard other comments as well…look at the car he drives. etc. Look at my car. You don’t deserve what you have. What’s in your wallet? This whole line of thinking makes me ill.

    They want to take your money, and then decide what to spend it on….because YOU can’t be trusted to spend your money wisely (ie., read: for Liberal programs). I could go on for paragraphs but I’ll end that here.

    Lastly, I’m a bit confused by the DNC/Liberal’s arguments here. First, they claimed he was being dishonest and paid “no” taxes. As wealthy person with most of his income coming from investments…they claim he hasn’t done his “fair share”. Now, they are upset claiming he is being dishonest for paying “more” taxes than he actually could have??? So, which is it? ??? I have no idea why Romney campaign isn’t all over that. But, they seem to have a completely different read on things than I do. Romney on 60 mins handled all these questions quickly, and with straight answers that were clear and would give anyone who didn’t understand the issues a point to educate themselves as to the truth …should they choose to.

    When asked about the capital gains tax rate being so low….(ie., favoring rich people) Romney quickly pointed out that by the time the money used for those investments comes out the other end…it’s already been taxed…..twice! So, the fact that’s only 14% the “last” time…doesn’t mean it wasn’t taxed fully. It completely negates the charge that such investment money is not doing it’s share of taxes, etc.

    ReplyReply
  3. Greg says: 3

    Consider the history of the top federal tax rates over the past 75 years. What are those with the highest income and the greatest accumulation of wealth in the history of the nation complaining about?

    And why shouldn’t any right-thinking voter insist upon knowing whether a candidate has complied with the law of the land or not? The assertion that it’s nobody’s business is ridiculous. It’s nobody’s business only so long as you remain a private citizen. When you seek high public office, different and stricter standards apply.

    ReplyReply
  4. Dc says: 4

    They are complaining about the notion that their wealth/money somehow doesn’t belong to them, that you didn’t earn it, or that someone else is entitled to it and that they do not have a right to decide what to support or not with their own money. This is primarily because most liberals/progressives today wrongly believe that wealth is a finite “pie” that everybody should get their fair share of. When they see someone with a lot of wealth…that means they stole it, or took it from someone else or that someone else was denied a job or benefits because of it and they want to stick their hand in their pocket to get it back.

    Don’t believe wealth can be created? How much is a blank canvas worth? Then have a famous artist paint on it and sign it. Now how much is it worth? Where did the difference in value come from? The ipod, iphone, etc..all examples of wealth being created from an idea that is FAR beyond the value/sum of it’s original parts that make it up. It happens everyday in this country and around the world.

    The conversation I witnessed with a liberal hack who was dissing Romney ..he expressed dismay that Romney was allowed to choose who he gives his wealth to. That is the role for gov…ie., How dare Romney spend so much money on silly things he believes in like religion, etc. Giving his money to his friends, etc? He didn’t build that! It should be up to gov to redistribute his wealth…out of “fairness”. You might as well just mug well dressed people in the streets. I’ve never been rich. Wasn’t born with a spoon in my mouth, much less a silver one. But, I find all the griping about people having wealth, or spending their money on whatever they want, etc…petty and juvenile.

    As to Romney’s tax returns….. He’s complied with requirements for the position he seeks..that just wasn’t good enough for Harry Reid. Not to mention completely unfounded allegations of wrongdoing that there is no evidence of. I dont’ recall “He’s rich..so he must be hiding something” being part of the process. We can’t find anything wrong…that “must” mean he’s hiding something. Now…he’s released MORE information than was required and liberals are still complaining that it somehow isn’t enough. As a right minded voter….I find the info he released MORE than enough.

    ReplyReply
  5. Dc says: 5

    As a separate thought/post..I want to discuss the difference between “taxation” and “Robin Hood”. We all pay tax. And we have always had a progressive tax code. Congress has over the years…shifted numbers around as needed to acquire the revenue(s) needed. The duty of any citizen in that..is contracted through the tax code. Congress has the power to tax and change this code as it needs.

    We use taxes for everything…roads, bridges, even entitlements that have lasted far longer than they were originally intended or thought that they would be needed. We all do what is required of us under the law…or risk the IRS coming to your door (sometimes they do anyway). The problem/disconnect comes from people who believe that our taxation system/power should be used not for the purpose of taxation for revenue to fund the business of gov….but for the purpose of “income equality”….ie., to confiscate wealth from those we decide have more than they need (subjective based on who’s opinion?) and give a portion of it to others who don’t have as much. They believe “this” is the role of a gov in a free nation of people. This is the inherent disconnect/problem.

    The role of taxation in this country is NOT to confiscate and redistribute wealth. It is to fund the Gov’s business. Whether that’s building a road, or providing health care for all citizens…the revenue needed for that would come through taxation. Whatever you have left after you pay your conscripted taxes is yours to do with as you please.
    It seems liberals and progressives today…have a different view. Your money is not really yours. And one can accumulate too much wealth out of a finite pie that requires corrective actions from gov. I think anybody who believes that should spend some time with some different books. If gov can pick winners and losers in markets, confiscate wealth based on subjective criteria for the purpose of redistributing it at their own discretion instead of having people/citizens decide how and where to spend their wealth and on what…….how is that different from where we started? Isn’t that part of what we fought and died to be free “from”?

    ReplyReply
  6. liberal1(objectivity) says: 6

    But just think how many more people could be helped if tithe were voluntary taxes, and the bulk for of the revenue didn’t go towards building and maintaining churches, and missionary work spreading the word of God. Similarly, think of how much the cost of products would be decreased if the need for advertising were eliminated, as an element of competition—which is supposed to keep the price down, but, in effect, often drives it up as an industry standard.

    ReplyReply
  7. Dc says: 7

    Just think of how many more people we could help if we confiscated all the wealth of liberals and progressives in the country and we didn’t have to pay their salaries and their rent, for their homes and their education. When you give up your individual liberty to gov, you have lost everything. I think the problem is, most liberals don’t see that it’s a 2 sided blade. Careful you don’t cut yourself playing with it.

    Competition is necessary in a free market. Yes…if you want to become a socialist dictatorship….we can give up advertising as there would technically be only “one” brand.

    ReplyReply
  8. mathman says: 8

    Lib1:
    You need to check in with Iowahawk (or perhaps Iowahawk as channeled by Chris Whittle [PJTV]).
    What would it take to cover the bloated Federal Government for ONE YEAR?
    Simple. Confiscate all of the assets of…oh…just about everybody.
    And then there will be no more business to tax, and no revenue.
    Do not believe me.
    Look at the numbers.
    We are on a course which cannot be paid for, spending money which we do not have and cannot borrow.
    Oh, well.
    Weimar Republic, and then our own Adolf Hitler, here we come.

    ReplyReply
  9. Skookum says: 9

    This idea of being able to give your money away to those charities you respect relates back to Obama and Ayers gutting the Annenberg Trust to give the money to radical Marxists. Why don’t we hear Liberals pissing and moaning about that misappropriation of funds. Oh but wait, Obama and Ayers ( a guy Obama barely knew who wrote Dreams, kicked off Obama’s political career from his living room, and was a neighbor) were on the board, so they have a right to eviscerate the legacy of a well intentioned man. How thoughtless to think they might have had a responsibility to the man who set up the fund. Better to let Liberals have control of all charity money so they can give it to corrupt groups like ACORN.

    ReplyReply
  10. Greg says: 10

    @Dc, #4:

    They are complaining about the notion that their wealth/money somehow doesn’t belong to them, that you didn’t earn it, or that someone else is entitled to it and that they do not have a right to decide what to support or not with their own money.

    Long ago, in earliest adulthood, I realized that the money I earn isn’t truly my own until the taxes have been paid on it.

    I’m not sure how it is that other adults have failed to receive and process this basic information. It usually arrives with your first paycheck, when you notice that there’s a significant difference between your gross wages and your take-home pay.

    Surely we remember Benjamin Franklin’s quip about the only two certain things in life. Maybe that observation is the reason he’s the only non-president whose face appears on our folding currency.

    ReplyReply
  11. Aye says: 11

    @Greg:

    Surely we remember Benjamin Franklin’s quip about the only two certain things in life. Maybe that observation is the reason he’s the only non-president whose face appears on our folding currency.

    Alexander Hamilton was president?

    Interesting.

    ReplyReply
  12. Greg says: 12

    Ah, Alexander Hamilton. Good point. Hmm. . .

    Maybe getting his picture on a bill was the consolation prize for being shot and killed in a duel?

    ReplyReply
  13. johngalt says: 13

    @Greg:

    Long ago, in earliest adulthood, I realized that the money I earn isn’t truly my own until the taxes have been paid on it.

    No surprise to anyone you would think that way, Greg.

    That is the kind of thinking that allows someone to believe that a person’s labor isn’t their own.

    Who does that labor belong to, Greg? The government? Your neighbor? Sandra Fluke?

    It’s a good thing that everyone doesn’t think that way. Otherwise, even more people would be expectant of others to provide for them, and our country would have already gone belly up, and swept away into the dustbin of history.

    ReplyReply
  14. Greg says: 14

    Conservatives seem to need a refresher in social contract theory. We inherit certain obligations, simply by virtue of being born into a family, tribe, or society, and there are certain obligations that our family, tribe, or society feel toward us. The principle of reciprocity is involved.

    Unions are also groups whose members believe very strongly that their labor is their own, and that they should be able to set the price for it. Who should be setting a price on that? People like Mitt Romney?

    ReplyReply
  15. Dc says: 15

    Seems most liberals need a refresher course in the Constitution and Bill of Rights and the purpose of our Constitutional Republic. Your social contracts are yours to choose to participate in (or not) freely, not to be decided for you and forced by the gov.

    http://hotair.com/archives/2012/09/25/study-america-falls-to-18th-in-economic-freedom/

    ReplyReply
  16. Hard Right says: 16

    @Greg:

    Grege again resorts to trolling. He throws out a wild accusation and rather than prove it, demands his victim disprove it. Guilty until innocent. That’s how the left works when it comes to their opponents.

    ReplyReply
  17. Greg says: 17

    @Hard Right, #16:

    A guy is applying for the single most responsible and powerful position in the nation, at a time when debt and taxation are central issues to the future of the country, and you’re not the least bit curious about whether or not he’s a tax evader?

    Add to that the fact that he has seldom remained consistent on much of anything, and has put forward detailed specifics about nothing.

    ReplyReply
  18. MataHarley says: 18

    Greg: Conservatives seem to need a refresher in social contract theory. We inherit certain obligations, simply by virtue of being born into a family, tribe, or society, and there are certain obligations that our family, tribe, or society feel toward us.

    Maybe you need a refresher course in American History and the Founding Fathers, Greg. They took much of John Locke’s writings on the Social Contract Theory – stressing the role of the individuals, and revolution as not just a right but an obligation in the face of abusive power of the State – to heart when penning our founding documents. The result is a “social contract” that is the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

    Your problem is you subscribe to an interpretation of that theory that bears no resemblance to the Framers, the Founders and strict Constitutionalists.

    ReplyReply
  19. Dc says: 19

    @Greg:

    Long ago, in earliest adulthood, I realized that the money I earn isn’t truly my own until the taxes have been paid on it.

    See post #5

    Perhaps you missed it

    ReplyReply
  20. MataHarley says: 20

    Greg: A guy is applying for the single most responsible and powerful position in the nation, at a time when debt and taxation are central issues to the future of the country, and you’re not the least bit curious about whether or not he’s a tax evader?

    I guess then, by your criteria, Romney should be applying for Treasury Secretary in Obama’s admin, Greg?

    ReplyReply
  21. Nan G says: 21

    Obama sure is generous with OUR tax dollars.
    I just heard the other day that his DOG WALKER is paid (by US taxpayers) a bit over $100,000/year!
    OK.
    Davis/Bacon act demands people get the ”prevailing wage.”
    So, what about where Obama’s OWN money is concerned?
    How generous is Obama with his own money?
    In 2010 the national average wage was roughly $42,000 a year.
    That’s the ”prevailing wage.”
    Yet Obama is only paying his campaign workers $36,886 a year.
    Romney is paying his campaign workers $51,500 a year.

    And the rest of the political employees of the two Parties?
    DNC pays it’s people $35,394 a year.
    RNC pays its people $40,184 a year.

    I’m sorry……which is the ”party of the worker,” again?

    ReplyReply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>