Harry Reid calmly responds to Romney’s tax release: “He’s hiding something. He’s hiding something!”

posted at 5:44 pm on September 21, 2012 by Allahpundit

Reid’s original claim, of course, wasn’t that Romney was “hiding something” but that a Bain investor had told him Romney hadn’t paid income tax at all for 10 years. We found out a few hours ago that that’s not true if your 10-year window includes 2011, and if you believe PricewaterhouseCoopers, it’s not true for the period from 1990-2009, when he paid an average annual effective rate of 20.2 percent.

Time for an apology, or time to move the goalposts? Longtime Reid-watchers know the answer. From a Las Vegas Sun reporter:

Still waiting on a full report from the Sun but evidently that’s the crux of Reid’s reponse to the revelations that Romney’s (a) quite generous in his charitable giving and, (b) unlike the vast, vast majority of cheap liberal class-warrior frauds out there, willing to pay even more federal tax than he’s legally obligated to. No word yet on whether he’s angry at that “Bain investor” for lying to him either, but maybe the Sun’s story will have that too.

Meanwhile, speaking of goalpost-moving, the meme du jour on the left as I write this is that, by paying more than he owed, Romney’s disqualified from the presidency by his own standards. He told an ABC reporter in July, “I don’t pay more than are legally due and frankly if I had paid more than are legally due I don’t think I’d be qualified to become president. I’d think people would want me to follow the law and pay only what the tax code requires.” That was a silly overstatement, especially when he knew or should have known that he’d overpaid just this past year, but of course the only reason the left is even pretending to care about it is because they need to salvage something from the wreck of their “he’s hiding something! he’s hiding something!” narrative about the returns. On that note, enjoy this clip via Mediaite from MSNBC this afternoon of S.E. Cupp trying to contain her irritation as the official liberal damage-control talking points are unspooled in front of her. Imagine sitting in that chair every day and having to watch the DNC’s spin-sausage being made. Every day.

Exit question: Why didn’t Romney release the 2011 returns months ago? Someone made the point earlier on Twitter that the lead story on the Sunday shows probably would have been O’s Libya security failure; now, quite possibly, it’ll be this.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

Yes, I’m eager to give a psychopath like you (or the brain damaged NorthDallasThirty) my personal information.

Whatever happened to NorthDallasThirty….I miss his particular brand of crazy.

libfreeordie on September 22, 2012 at 9:53 AM

not doing someone a favor.

urban elitist on September 22, 2012 at 9:54 AM

Early in this thread, someone asked about Chinese submarines being chased near the West Coast.

A couple of days ago, I saw on some veterans’ web site that a guy named Gordon Duff heard from somebody that U.S. and Chinese vessels were dealing with a UFO threat off the West Coast.

Seriously, that’s what he said. Here’s the link:

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/09/17/ufo-war-chinese-and-us-navy-off-san-francisco/

A “highly unfriendly extra-terrestrial threat.”

Yeah, that’s my guess.

KyMouse on September 22, 2012 at 9:55 AM

What I want to discuss is why millionaires should be taxed at lower rates than cops.

urban elitist on September 21, 2012 at 7:09 PM

The top 1% pay 39% of all taxes in the United States.

How much more should they pay?

itsspideyman on September 22, 2012 at 10:31 AM

What I want to discuss is why millionaires should be taxed at lower rates than cops.

urban elitist on September 21, 2012 at 7:09 PM

They aren’t. If you have a million dollars in gross income you’re in the 35% tax bracket.

Most of the “low” tax rates people are talking about a Capital Gains tax rates. That is not income: that is how much the value of what you own has increased since you bought it.

If your house goes up in value between when you bought it, and when you sell it, that increase is Capital Gains, and taxed at capital gains rates. Homes does have a Capital Gains waiver up to gains of 250K for individuals, and 500k for couples, but it is a capital gain.

The difference between a cop and a millionaire is that most of the income a cop has each year is salary, while most of the income the million gets is actually just the change in value of the stuff they already own. (And if it goes down, instead of up, they don’t pay any taxes on it at all, because they’ve lost value.)

Voyager on September 22, 2012 at 11:13 AM

Forgive my ignorance, but hasn’t all of the reported Romney income ALREADY been subject to federal, state and other income taxes; that the dividend tax rate is in addition to the aforenoted taxes?

The Romney surrogates need to better explain this.

matthew8787 on September 22, 2012 at 11:23 AM

The top 1% pay 39% of all taxes in the United States.

How much more should they pay?

itsspideyman on September 22, 2012 at 10:31 AM

The 39% thing is a canard that’s as good as a lie. Your quoting it as “39% of all taxes” [my emphasis] suggests that you are wither sloppy or not up to snuff on this tax policy thing. This illuminating chart shows that the share of total taxes paid by the top 1% is proportional to the share of national income they earn. This is because the progressive income tax rate is offset by regressive social security and medicare taxes, excise taxes and various state taxes. Cherry picking one form of taxation and playing victim is intellectual dishonest.

Of course, if the one percent hadn;t sturctured the economy so that they pocketed 80% of economic growth since the 1970s, they wouldn’t be stuck with such a big share of the tax burden.

Forgive my ignorance, but hasn’t all of the reported Romney income ALREADY been subject to federal, state and other income taxes; that the dividend tax rate is in addition to the aforenoted taxes?

The Romney surrogates need to better explain this.

matthew8787 on September 22, 2012 at 11:23 AM

In Romney’s case, much of his income is actually management fees that are treated — for tax purposes — as capital gains and have never been taxed.

Voyager on September 22, 2012 at 11:13 AM

Thanks, Voyager. But I already knew what capital gains were.

urban elitist on September 22, 2012 at 11:52 AM

Early in this thread, someone asked about Chinese submarines being chased near the West Coast.

A couple of days ago, I saw on some veterans’ web site that a guy named Gordon Duff heard from somebody that U.S. and Chinese vessels were dealing with a UFO threat off the West Coast.

Seriously, that’s what he said. Here’s the link:

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/09/17/ufo-war-chinese-and-us-navy-off-san-francisco/

A “highly unfriendly extra-terrestrial threat.”

Yeah, that’s my guess.

KyMouse on September 22, 2012 at 9:55 AM

Fun story, but that website is full of crazy. There’s actually an article on the front page saying the only way the WTC bombing could of happened is with a nuclear bomb.

bictech on September 22, 2012 at 12:26 PM

urban elitist, it seems as if you aren’t happy taxing income. You would rather seize pieces of individuals’ balance sheets. Is this what you want?

blink on September 22, 2012 at 11:57 AM

Nope. Tax income when realized, regardless of source. So-called “wealth taxes” (as in France) seem punitive.

The top 1% pay 39% of all taxes in the United States.

How much more should they pay?

itsspideyman on September 22, 2012 at 10:31 AM

urban elitist, you should answer the question.

blink on September 22, 2012 at 12:00 PM

There’s no set amount that any particular income group should pay. If the top 1% earn 90% of all taxable income, they should pay at least 90% of all income taxes. If they earn 10% of all income, then less.

As I pointed out, the idea that “The top 1% pay 39% of all taxes” is factually incorrect. Even the idea that they pay 39% of federal income taxes is highly misleading, first, because the 1% control a huge share of all income (and, especially, taxable income since many people’s income is not high enough to be taxed), and secone, because it does not reflect the many other, often regressive, taxes paid by people.

Again, I direct you to this handy chart that reveals that the top 1% earn 21% of all income and pay 21.6% of all taxes.

Generally, it’s the favorable treatment of capital gains and interest income that annoy me. Get rid of that and I’ll be mollified. Oh, and stop whining about the downtrodden rich. They’re doing very well.

urban elitist on September 22, 2012 at 12:43 PM

Generally, it’s the favorable treatment of capital gains and interest income that annoy me. Get rid of that and I’ll be mollified. Oh, and stop whining about the downtrodden rich. They’re doing very well.

urban elitist on September 22, 2012 at 12:43 PM

What part of double taxation don’t you get? I realize that the Left functions on greed, jealousy and emotion, but surely you have a few brain cells left which haven’t been washed to understand why it’s INSANE for a nation to tax investment gains at the same rate as income.

You leftist stick to what you know best, pushing for higher and higher sales tax rates, taxes on cigarettes, soda, alcohol, etc. That’ll teach those rich people!/

mankai on September 22, 2012 at 12:51 PM

A must read: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/08/03/1116175/-Harry-Reid-s-Brilliant-Move

THU AUG 02, 2012 AT 09:42 PM PDT
Harry Reid’s Brilliant Move

Excerpt:

Harry Reid said that someone from Bain Capital had told him that Romney won’t release the returns because he hasn’t payed taxes in a decade. He said that it was an ‘extremely credible source’, but at this moment we don’t know who it is.

I think it is true. It wouldn’t shock me one bit if Romney hasn’t paid taxes in a decade. The rich not paying taxes is not an uncommon thing these days. Reid didn’t slip up or gaff, I think he picked this fight on purpose.

heh

mankai on September 22, 2012 at 12:58 PM

What part of double taxation don’t you get? I realize that the Left functions on greed, jealousy and emotion, but surely you have a few brain cells left which haven’t been washed to understand why it’s INSANE for a nation to tax investment gains at the same rate as income.

You leftist stick to what you know best, pushing for higher and higher sales tax rates, taxes on cigarettes, soda, alcohol, etc. That’ll teach those rich people!/

mankai on September 22, 2012 at 12:51 PM

Stock prices are already discounted to reflect the corporate tax rate: prices reflect earnings after taxes, so you are able to buy more of a stock that you could if it was priced to reflect pre-tax, or untaxed profits. Similarly, stock price gains also price in the tax burden. You, as an investor, have a lower tock price when yhou sell, but you had a lower stock price when you bought, so the percentage gain is the same and your profit is ther same.

Your income has not yet been taxed.

As I have said many times, I have a 401(k) and love capital gains. I have a great deal of respect for the well-off as a class, most of the ones I’ve met have earned their money (mostly) through intelligence and hard work. I just don’t think being rich should earn earn special privileges with the tax man.

urban elitist on September 22, 2012 at 12:59 PM

From a KosKid:

a lady called in and said that she had been a legislative aide to Harry Reid. And she said, “If Harry Reid says something is so, it is so. He takes everything very seriously, and he doesn’t play games.”

Comedy gold!

mankai on September 22, 2012 at 1:00 PM

urban elitist on September 22, 2012 at 12:59 PM

smh… trying to discuss economics with a Leftist. ho hum.

The income used for the investment has already been taxed.

Simplified for Medieval Folklore and Mythology majors:

If I EARN (look up the word) $100 and you leftists steal $40 for your pensions, I am left with $60. If I choose to spend that taxed income, you steal another 7% in sales tax (unless you think the sales tax should be 40% too?), but if I invest it in economic activity, my return (if any) should never be taxed at the same rate at which it has already been taxed because I am RISKING already tax money.

[Note: because of progressive tax rate, no one in the 40% bracket will actually pay 40% as part of their income is taxed at the lower rates in other brackets. But you leftists know your people are ignorant, so you leave out that detail and scream that nobody really pays what his bracket dictates. Again: emotion, jealousy and greed.]

If I invest in three companies at $20/ea and realize a gain of $10 on each in the next year and I am taxed at 10%, I pay an ADDITIONAL $3 on money that has already been taxed.

If you raise the investment tax rates to 40%, why the hell would I RISK the $60 after having already paid 40% on the EARNED $100? I’ll move it off-shore where I can invest and expose my gains to far lower rates. I am risking the taxed income to hopefully see a gain. You already stole your part for your pensions, I should be able to gain from what you’ve left me.

And do want capital gains tax rates to be progressive as well (like income tax rates)?

mankai on September 22, 2012 at 1:13 PM

Hmm… the US has taxed my income at 40%. Should I take from what’s left and risk exposing any investment gain to another 40% tax loss… or should I invest somewhere where the exposure is limited to 10% of the gain?

/

mankai on September 22, 2012 at 1:16 PM

I EARN (look up the word) $100 and you leftists steal $40 for your pensions, I am left with $60. If I choose to spend that taxed income, you steal another 7% in sales tax (unless you think the sales tax should be 40% too?), but if I invest it in economic activity, my return (if any) should never be taxed at the same rate at which it has already been taxed because I am RISKING already tax money.

[Note: because of progressive tax rate, no one in the 40% bracket will actually pay 40% as part of their income is taxed at the lower rates in other brackets. But you leftists know your people are ignorant, so you leave out that detail and scream that nobody really pays what his bracket dictates. Again: emotion, jealousy and greed.]

If I invest in three companies at $20/ea and realize a gain of $10 on each in the next year and I am taxed at 10%, I pay an ADDITIONAL $3 on money that has already been taxed.

If you raise the investment tax rates to 40%, why the hell would I RISK the $60 after having already paid 40% on the EARNED $100? I’ll move it off-shore where I can invest and expose my gains to far lower rates. I am risking the taxed income to hopefully see a gain. You already stole your part for your pensions, I should be able to gain from what you’ve left me.

And do want capital gains tax rates to be progressive as well (like income tax rates)?

mankai on September 22, 2012 at 1:13 PM

The fact that you talk about a non-existant 40% tax bracket tells me all I need to know aout your expertise in this area. You don’t even get the double-taxation argument right.

Hmm… the US has taxed my income at 40%. Should I take from what’s left and risk exposing any investment gain to another 40% tax loss… or should I invest somewhere where the exposure is limited to 10% of the gain?

mankai on September 22, 2012 at 1:16 PM

Why don’t you invest wherever you’ll make the most money? That’s the way we capitalists do it.

I’m no tax law expert, by the way, but I’m pretty sure that investing overseas does not reduce your U.S. tax debt (or all Romney’s assets would be in Swiss banks).

urban elitist on September 22, 2012 at 1:28 PM

If one wants to know what Obama Party members like urban elitist and libfreeordie really think about taxes, you need only see what they do.

Such as this.

A new report just out from the Internal Revenue Service reveals that 36 of President Obama’s executive office staff owe the country $833,970 in back taxes.

And this:

Missouri Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill admitted Monday that she had failed to pay about $287,000 in back taxes and will sell a private plane that has created considerable controversy as she prepares to run for a second term in 2012.

And this:

Sen. John Kerry, who has repeatedly voted to raise taxes while in Congress, dodged a whopping six-figure state tax bill on his new multimillion-dollar yacht by mooring her in Newport, R.I.

Urban elitist and libfreeordie endorse and support every single tax dodge, every single tax cheat, and every single tax maneuver that they scream and cry are “unfair”.

Furthermore, urban elitist and libfreeordie scream and cry that anyone who would engage in this sort of behavior is unfit for public office and should be prosecuted — yet they support, endorse, fund, and elect them.

northdallasthirty on September 22, 2012 at 2:37 PM

But indeed, there are even more examples of what Obama Party members like urban elitist and libfreeordie really think about taxes.

Such as this:

Ohio Democratic U.S. Sen. Sherrod Brown was more than four months delinquent in paying taxes on his Washington, D.C., apartment and had to pay a penalty and interest last week.

This was not the first time, records show.

Brown also was delinquent in 2006 and 2007 and paid penalties and interest, according to tax records from the District of Columbia.

And this:

It was announced on Friday afternoon that NetJets Inc, a private jet-sharing company owned by Berkshire Hathaway Inc , was sued for $366.3 million by the IRS to recover unpaid taxes. Four months earlier the company sued the IRS demanding a return of $642.7 million in taxes already paid.

Back in September NetJets’ parent company Berkshire Hathaway, was revealed to be fighting the IRS over payment of back taxes totaling around $1,000,000,000 (that’s one billion dollars for people who don’t like to count zeros).

And of course, this:

Exhibit A concerns a rental property Mr. Rangel purchased in 1987 at the Punta Cana Yacht Club in the Dominican Republic. The rental income from that property ought to be substantial since it is a luxury beach-front villa and is more often than not rented out. But when the National Legal and Policy Center looked at Mr. Rangel’s House financial disclosure forms in August, it noted that his reported income looked suspiciously low. In 2004 and 2005, he reported no more than $5,000, and in 2006 and 2007 no income at all from the property.

The Congressman initially denied there was any unreported income. But reporters quickly showed that the villa is among the most desirable at Punta Cana and that it rents for $500 a night in the low season, and as much as $1,100 a night in peak season. Last year it was fully booked between December 15 and April 15.

Mr. Rangel soon admitted having failed to report rental income of $75,000 over the years. First he blamed his wife for the oversight because he said she was supposed to be managing the property. Then he blamed the language barrier. “Every time I thought I was getting somewhere, they’d start speaking Spanish,” Mr. Rangel explained.

Mr. Rangel promised last fall to amend his tax returns, pay what is due and correct the information on his annual financial disclosure form. But the deadline for the 2008 filing was May 15 and as of last week he still had not filed. His press spokesman declined to answer questions about anything related to his ethics problems.

Besides not paying those pesky taxes, Mr. Rangel had other reasons for wanting to hide income. As the tenant of four rent-stabilized apartments in Harlem, the Congressman needed to keep his annual reported income below $175,000, lest he be ineligible as a hardship case for rent control. (He also used one of the apartments as an office in violation of rent-control rules, but that’s another story.)

Mr. Rangel said last fall that “I never had any idea that I got any income’’ from the villa. Try using that one the next time the IRS comes after you. Equally interesting is his claim that he didn’t know that the developer of the Dominican Republic villa had converted his $52,000 mortgage to an interest-free loan in 1990. That would seem to violate House rules on gifts, which say Members may only accept loans on “terms that are generally available to the public.” Try getting an interest-free loan from your banker.

The National Legal and Policy Center also says it has confirmed that Mr. Rangel owned a home in Washington from 1971-2000 and during that time claimed a “homestead” exemption that allowed him to save on his District of Columbia property taxes. However, the homestead exemption only applies to a principal residence, and the Washington home could not have qualified as such since Mr. Rangel’s rent-stabilized apartments in New York have the same requirement.

Urban elitist and libfreeordie endorse and support every single tax dodge, every single tax cheat, and every single tax maneuver that they scream and cry are “unfair”.

Furthermore, urban elitist and libfreeordie scream and cry that anyone who would engage in this sort of behavior is unfit for public office and should be prosecuted — yet they support, endorse, fund, and elect them.

urban elitist and libfreeordie claim to want “reform” and for people to pay their “fair share”. Yet they repeatedly, without fail, endorse, support, cheer for, and elect to high leadership people engaging in this sort of behavior.

Neither has any credibility. They are duplicitous and malicious liars and hypocrites who will say and do anything to obtain power, and do not care about laws or who is hurt in the process.

northdallasthirty on September 22, 2012 at 2:43 PM

By the way, nicely done, blink; you cornered the malicious liar urban elitist beautifully.

First the malicious liar and hypocrite stated the following:

There’s no set amount that any particular income group should pay. If the top 1% earn 90% of all taxable income, they should pay at least 90% of all income taxes. If they earn 10% of all income, then less.

Which the malicious liar then tried to follow with this:

Again, I direct you to this handy chart that reveals that the top 1% earn 21% of all income and pay 21.6% of all taxes.

But then stated this:

Generally, it’s the favorable treatment of capital gains and interest income that annoy me. Get rid of that and I’ll be mollified.

urban elitist on September 22, 2012 at 12:43 PM

To summarize:

1) The malicious liar urban elitist insisted that people should pay an amount equal to the percent of all income they earned.

2) The malicious liar urban elitist tried to present a chart that shows “the rich” ARE paying an amount equal to the percent of all income they earned.

3) The malicious liar urban elitist then demanded that taxes on the rich be RAISED — in complete contradiction to the philosophy supposedly held in his first statement and the “facts” presented in his second.

Again, what we have here is a case of a malicious and desperate liar trying to rationalize what is bigoted and irrational hatred of those who have more than he does. As I already pointed out above, the malicious liar urban elitist does not have ANY problem with “the rich” not paying taxes; indeed, the malicious liar praises, supports, endorses, and elects to high office “the rich” who do not pay taxes.

Urban elitist is a thief. We already know that. We already know that Obama supporters are racists who vote based on skin color and the promise of free stuff.

But it’s nice to see it so handily confirmed.

northdallasthirty on September 22, 2012 at 2:54 PM

Generally, it’s the favorable treatment of capital gains and interest income that annoy me. Get rid of that and I’ll be mollified. Oh, and stop whining about the downtrodden rich. They’re doing very well.

urban elitist on September 22, 2012 at 12:43 PM

Why do democrats in Congress that help write the tax-code loopholes hate poor people and cops?

Strike Hornet on September 22, 2012 at 3:06 PM

northdallasthirty on September 22, 2012 at 2:54 PM

I’m sure a scathing rebuttal, chock full-o-fact, is on it’s way.
.
.
*chirp*

mankai on September 22, 2012 at 1:16 PM

Thank you. Well done.

98ZJUSMC on September 22, 2012 at 3:54 PM

Oh, and stop whining about the downtrodden rich. They’re doing very well.

urban elitist on September 22, 2012 at 12:43 PM

You and LiveFreeOffOfPoorPeople are the only ones who use the phrase. Why do hate poor people?

98ZJUSMC on September 22, 2012 at 3:57 PM

“What is Mitt Romney hiding?”

chumpThreads on September 22, 2012 at 8:52 AM

O’bamna got an alltime record 70% of the high school dropout vote in 2008.

Be sure to team up with your friends and give him the other 30% this year. He’ll need them to even make it close.

Del Dolemonte on September 22, 2012 at 4:45 PM

Harry Reid is exactly like one of these villains in the old B black and white movies. He looks like one and sounds like one. You know, the kind that threatens to foreclose on the family farm unless he can marry their beautiful daughter all the while attempting to steal their land anyway because he’s discovered there’s an oil field under the barn or something.

JellyToast on September 22, 2012 at 4:49 PM

This illuminating chart

urbane effetist on September 22, 2012 at 11:52 AM

comes from an organization that refuses to list who runs or funds it on its own website, but whose sister organization (ITEP) lists the following folks on its Masthead

Vice-President:

Robert Kuttner

The American Prospect

Board Members:

Robert Reich
University of California at Berkeley

No Far Leftist Bias there.

B-

Del Dolemonte on September 22, 2012 at 4:51 PM

I’m no tax law expert, by the way, but I play one here on Hot Gas.

urbane effetist on September 22, 2012 at 1:28 PM

Del Dolemonte on September 22, 2012 at 4:53 PM

Even the idea that they pay 39% of federal income taxes is highly misleading, first, because the 1% control a huge share of all income (and, especially, taxable income since many people’s income is not high enough to be taxed), and secone, because it does not reflect the many other, often regressive, taxes paid by people.

urban elitist on September 22, 2012 at 12:43 PM

Strange choice of words, “control.”

Why not:

the 1% earn a huge share of all income

How does “control” make sense?

Axe on September 22, 2012 at 5:31 PM

urban elitist on September 22, 2012 at 12:43 PM

Strange choice of words, “control.”

Why not:

the 1% earn a huge share of all income

How does “control” make sense?

Axe on September 22, 2012 at 5:31 PM

Because they didn’t really “earn” it, of course!

Del Dolemonte on September 22, 2012 at 6:09 PM

Censure, castrate, castigate, disallocate, and then get mad.

Dirty Harry is a crook by the true sense of the word, for anyone who wishes to look up his shady land deals.

This embarrassment to the Senate should be sent home with his head between his knees in shame.

Senator my ass.

hillbillyjim on September 22, 2012 at 7:06 PM

Do you think if the Democrats were not trying they could find all of these criminally insane people to lead their Party.

aposematic on September 22, 2012 at 7:12 PM

Never did get an answer to my two questions.

Now I have a third.

Why should the rich pay a higher tax rate than anyone else, beyond simple punishment for being successful, and beyond the simple ability to afford it?

CurtZHP on September 22, 2012 at 8:31 PM

Harry Reid — Urban Dictionary

A sexual position where you climb on top and then do absolutely nothing. Named for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV). Under his lack of leadership, the Senate failed to pass a budget in 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012. He also blocked votes on numerous jobs bills passed by the House of Representatives.

J_Crater on September 22, 2012 at 8:57 PM

I dedicate this song to Harry Reid. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-lJZiqZaGA

MCGIRV on September 22, 2012 at 10:12 PM

The top 1% pay 39% of all taxes in the United States.

How much more should they pay?

itsspideyman on September 22, 2012 at 10:31 AM

urban elitist, you should answer the question.

blink on September 22, 2012 at 12:00 PM

lol..Why should he?..It’s evident he’s hiding something.

DevilsPrinciple on September 22, 2012 at 10:24 PM

http://www.ctj.org/pdf/taxday2012.pdf

Citizens for Tax Justice is the same old screed that says the rich aren’t paying their fair share.

Try again, your work is old.

itsspideyman on September 22, 2012 at 10:58 PM

The answer for you is that the rich will never pay enough until they give all their money away.

Then that will be tax fairness.

itsspideyman on September 22, 2012 at 10:59 PM

The fact that you talk about a non-existant 40% tax bracket tells me all I need to know aout your expertise in this area. You don’t even get the double-taxation argument right.

Look, a squirrel! Distract ! Distract!

Idiot, I used 40% for the sake of argument. The rate doesn’t matter in the example. The point is that capital gains tax shouldn’t be the same as the income tax rate (unless you want to lower both to 10%). The fact that I have to explain that reveals all we need to know about your ability to digest the argument.

Why don’t you invest wherever you’ll make the most money? That’s the way we capitalists do it.

Like trying to explain economics to a 5-year-old.

They will. But why would they risk their money with the threat of 40% (FOR EXAMPLE) as opposed tp 10% (or in some places 0%). Investment can mean a number of things including starting or expanding a business. Our corporate tax rate (highest in the world and also another double tax) combined with increasing the CGT to equal the top bracket would drive away even more investment and growth. And I ask again, do you want CGT to be progressive like the income tax rates?

I’m no tax law expert, by the way, but I’m pretty sure that investing overseas does not reduce your U.S. tax debt (or all Romney’s assets would be in Swiss banks).

urban elitist on September 22, 2012 at 1:28 PM

Try and follow. The reason money would be invested overseas (investment is more than bank accounts) is because risking ALREADY TAXED money against an assault of ANOTHER 35% tax (or whatever, the number doesn’t matter, the point is that being equal to income tax) is not very enticing when you can risk it against 15%, 10% and even 0% in many places.

When you leftists had the top rate at 70% (1980) would you have suggested capital gains be taxed at 70%? Who the hell would earn $100, have $70 robbed to pay government pensions and then RISK the remaining $30 with a threat of another 70% seizure?

[Aside: in the highest bracket, 70%, there was very little money collected because earners avoided earning the money under that condition. After the top rate was dropped to 28%, revenues skyrocketed because people didn't mind earning with only that threat to deal with. The lowering of the CGT also spured great growth and consequent increases in revenues... so are you interested in revenue to help reduce the deficit and fund programs... or do you just hate rich people because they're more successful than you? The deficits in the 80s were not due to revenues (which almost doubled over the decade), but due to spending... as is always the case]

In my example, the $60 investment only yielded $30 the first year (assuming the $60 retained its value, but was also remained invested). If taxed at the same rate as income (40% in the example), I’d only have $18 to reinvest there or elsewhere. Soon investment dries up. What’s my incentive to risk the money in the first place… money that has ALREADY BEEN TAXED?

mankai on September 23, 2012 at 12:10 AM

Poor Harry, he is hiding your wife under his desk… Oh wait, he’s not Bill Clinton, he is Mitt Romney and your wife is too dirty for him.

kalamari on September 23, 2012 at 3:44 AM

Again, I direct you to this handy chart that reveals that the top 1% earn 21% of all income and pay 21.6% of all taxes.

Generally, it’s the favorable treatment of capital gains and interest income that annoy me. Get rid of that and I’ll be mollified. Oh, and stop whining about the downtrodden rich. They’re doing very well.

urban elitist on September 22, 2012 at 12:43 PM

LOL…well, as usual the a$$clown has it wrong again.The top 10 percent of income earners paid 70 percent of all federal income taxes in 2008, while the bottom 50 percent paid only 3 percent. Remarkably, 49 percent of U.S. households paid no federal income tax at all. This has not changed much since 2008 and definitely not as much as this D-bag is guessing.

Source: Federal Revenue Budget Book~2011

So in addition to being ignorant, UE also had NO rationale to increase taxes on anyone let alone , the “rich”. ( BTW, reducing the deficits do NOT count. That arithmetic doesn’t fly). Now you know what UE was hiding>>>>>facts.

DevilsPrinciple on September 23, 2012 at 9:25 AM

AllahP, stop the kvetching, what’s there to complain about, Romney has pulled the legs out from under the Democrats on this. Lead them on, then drop it on them.
Try and be less critical & whining about this,[ last para.] let the Democrat media stumble all over it, the numbers don’t lie.

arand on September 23, 2012 at 10:40 AM

I think that during Dingy Harry’s short boxing career he took to many punches to the old bean. Listening to him talk, he sounds a lot the Nancy Pelosi and that makes him a certifiable nut case too.

savage24 on September 23, 2012 at 10:43 AM

What I want to discuss is why millionaires should be taxed at lower rates than cops police.

urban elitist on September 21, 2012 at 7:09 PM

If you have a problem go after the people who make the tax laws. It is obvious you have no clue, and no money, as to how different income is taxed. If you want to discuss your issues, break out the bucks and see a tax accountant and let them enlighten you, if that is possible because you look at everything through the “Envy Goggles” supplied to you by the leftists in the government.

What I would like you to discuss is “When is the last time a poor man signed your pay check?” If you have never had a job I would not expect any answer forthcoming.

Wade on September 23, 2012 at 10:48 AM

Three plus pages of tripe from this a$$hat and we finally get down to this:

I’m no tax law expert, by the way, but I’m pretty sure that investing overseas does not reduce your U.S. tax debt (or all Romney’s assets would be in Swiss banks).

urban elitist on September 22, 2012 at 1:28 PM

Stop filling up pages with your “pretty sure’s.

Fail.

Tenwheeler on September 23, 2012 at 11:33 AM

“He’s hiding something. He’s hiding something!”

Mitt Romney is a witch!
He turned Harry Reid into a newt!… Well something Newt would pass after a bad meal, but he’s a witch!
You know that whole scene pretty much plays out like a democratic senator strategy session, doesn’t it?
“Very small rocks?”

onomo on September 23, 2012 at 12:22 PM

Reid, who has become rich through a career in “public service” and managed to secure lucrative jobs and property deals for his family members as well, is the very definition of a corrupt politician. He is a dirty, rotten thief who should die in prison.

Adjoran on September 23, 2012 at 3:42 PM

In the great words of Archie Bunker…. “STIFLE”!!!

ultracon on September 23, 2012 at 3:59 PM

All income should be taxed at the same rate. That’s how you get an efficient, neutral, tax code. I got that from an economics professor who worked in the Reagan Administration and it seemed so freaking obvious I never forgot it.

urban elitist on September 21, 2012 at 7:34 PM

All income is taxed at the same rate. Next time you are in your local dive just have another beer and forget about the drunk next to you who claims she is a economic professor.

Wade on September 23, 2012 at 4:14 PM

As an aside, are you saying that when I put money in 401(k), that I, too am a job creator?

urban elitist on September 22, 2012 at 9:48 AM

could be. It your choice where you invest in a 401k. If you put money in a 401k that invests in places like GM and Solara. You are a destroying jobs.

Wade on September 23, 2012 at 4:21 PM

What I want to discuss is why millionaires should be taxed at lower rates than cops.

urban elitist on September 21, 2012 at 7:09 PM

Guess your economic professor LOL forgot to tell you. Everyone is taxed at the same rate for the same dollars of income. You can get a tax return form from the government and see what one looks like.

Wade on September 23, 2012 at 4:27 PM

onomo on September 23, 2012 at 12:22 PM

I’m tired of this Romney is a witch claim. We can clear this up right now. Fetch me my largest scales and a duck…or something with a brain the size of a duck’s, like urban elitist.

swinia sutki on September 24, 2012 at 10:11 AM

Why should the rich pay a higher tax rate than anyone else, beyond simple punishment for being successful, and beyond the simple ability to afford it?

CurtZHP on September 22, 2012 at 8:31 PM

It’s called extortion.

Wade on September 24, 2012 at 11:16 AM

Why didn’t Romney release the 2011 returns months ago?

Because the Dems have spent 2 months making this the number one issue. Now they look like idiots. Obama did the same with his birth certificate.

SE Cupp tore them up though. She is sitting there with 3 idiots and being forced to argue with them. That would be a rough life.

jeffn21 on September 24, 2012 at 11:54 AM

I’m tired of this Romney is a witch claim. We can clear this up right now. Fetch me my largest scales and a duck…or something with a brain the size of a duck’s, like urban elitist.

swinia sutki on September 24, 2012 at 10:11 AM

Like any speaker at the DNC convention.

“Well we did do the nose…but that’s a 2/3′s majority!”

When is there a legitimate reason to comment on a thread following the words, “Harry Reid said”?

That’s like quoting a telemarketer, “He said everybody was going back to book sets of enyclopedias.”

I mean would anyone not on heavy meds defend an opinion by saying, “That’s not what Harry Reid said”?

onomo on September 24, 2012 at 1:16 PM

Mitt Romney may be considered a comedy of errors, but Obama is a horror movie of errors, because when he misspeaks he is actually telling a lie that turns into misspoke when he is caught. Harry Reid needs to be put out to pasture and out of our nightmares. He is so progressively deranged over the last ten years, he really needs a rest in a rubber room.

old war horse on September 25, 2012 at 4:20 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4