Mitt Romney releases tax returns: Candidate earned $21.7M in 2010 and $20.9M in 2011

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Why should Romney support such nonsense? Just another "feel-good" attempt by liberals

at the silly notion of equality. Which is nothing more than a punish those that make more and

punish success.

Funny how this country did best economically in the decades following WWII when "success was punished" with marginal income tax rates topping 90% and has started declining economically when that "punishment" went away starting in the 1980's.

Edited January 26, 2012 by Mr. Big Dog

[slim 1,530]

Funny how this country did best economically in the decades following WWII when "success was punished" with marginal income tax rates topping 90% and has started declining economically when that "punishment" went away starting in the 1980's.

You don't think that has anything to do with the birth of welfare?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

You don't think that has anything to do with the birth of welfare?

Well, the argument was that higher taxes for higher incomes punishes success. This country did great when success was punished a lot and not so great since success is punished a little. How does that have anything to do with welfare - whatever little welfare, comparatively speaking, there is in this country?

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Funny how this country did best economically in the decades following WWII when "success was punished" with marginal income tax rates topping 90% and has started declining economically when that "punishment" went away starting in the 1980's.

What else went on during that exact period?

Well, the argument was that higher taxes for higher incomes punishes success. This country did great when success was punished a lot and not so great since success is punished a little. How does that have anything to do with welfare - whatever little welfare, comparatively speaking, there is in this country?

What would be wrong with a system that taxes everyone at the same rate?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

What would be wrong with a system that taxes everyone at the same rate?

Nothing. But those with wealth and influence purchased the tax code we have instead. Must be working well for them.

[Leatherneck 693]

No it is not funny at all...we have economic decline for many reasons. Chief among them is out of control government spending...hence the need to suck more wealth out of the economy, which means less wealth creation. Asinine government regulations on everything from the mandates on the mileage cars must get, the choice of lite bulbs available to us, to how much dust can be created during farming.

We had much less 'all knowing government' eating out our souls and stealing the fruits of the American peoples labor after the end of WW2 as compared to the '80's and beyond.

[Leatherneck 693]

Nothing. But those with wealth and influence purchased the tax code we have instead. Must be working well for them.

Lots of "special interest" have their hand in the cookie jar grabbing their share of the loot for those that are not wealthy, can you say

"earned income tax credits?"

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Lots of "special interest" have their hand in the cookie jar grabbing their share of the loot for those that are not wealthy, can you say

"earned income tax credits?"

That's merely opium for the peasants and a re-distribution of the costs of doing business. EITC, SNAP and all these federal pay-outs for the working poor have allowed businesses to pay ever less for the work people do. It fattens their bottom line at the expense of everyone else. It's just another pillar of corporate welfare. Look around you, man. Legislation purchase is an industry in this country. And legislation costs a lot of money. Something average let alone poor people tend not to have.

No it is not funny at all...we have economic decline for many reasons. Chief among them is a declining purchasing power for most American in what has traditionally been a consumer driven economy. No consumption, no economic growth. Quite simple. out of control government spending...hence the need to suck more wealth out of the economy, which means less wealth creation. Asinine government regulations on everything from the mandates on the mileage cars must get, the choice of lite bulbs available to us, to how much dust can be created during farming.

There, fixed.

[mawilson 2,133]

Funny how this country did best economically in the decades following WWII when "success was punished" with marginal income tax rates topping 90% and has started declining economically when that "punishment" went away starting in the 1980's.

What was the effective rate when the top marginal rate was 90%?

[Leatherneck 693]

Well, the argument was that higher taxes for higher incomes punishes success. This country did great when success was punished a lot and not so great since success is punished a little. How does that have anything to do with welfare - whatever little welfare, comparatively speaking, there is in this country?

With that statement, it is safe to say you believe in punishing those that achieve financially?

Then why only punish success through the theft of one's earnings, which are the fruits of his/her labor?

I willing to bet you and your family have more than 2 bedrooms in your residence, why not advocate the federal government punish those with more than 2 bedrooms?

We do have a homeless issue in this country and consider all of those poor families that lost homes through foreclosure. Consider all of those poor kids that have to live in monthly/weekly rented motel rooms.

You've been successful, you advocate punishing success and government theft of the fruits of one's labor, why stop with taking money?

Should the government punish those with more than;

1. Two cars

2. Two houses

3. Houses with more than 2 bedrooms

4. Some people are better dressed than others, should the "spread the wealth" and "punish success" mentality apply to shoes, shirts, and Levi's?

Those items are expressions of wealth.

[Leatherneck 693]

That's merely opium for the peasants and a re-distribution of the costs of doing business. EITC, SNAP and all these federal pay-outs for the working poor have allowed businesses to pay ever less for the work people do. It fattens their bottom line at the expense of everyone else. It's just another pillar of corporate welfare. Look around you, man. Legislation purchase is an industry in this country. And legislation costs a lot of money. Something average let alone poor people tend not to have.

There, fixed.

You see no connection between the purchasing power of consumers- to out of control government spending-excessive government regulations-and high taxation?

[Leatherneck 693]

That's merely opium for the peasants and a re-distribution of the costs of doing business. EITC, SNAP and all these federal pay-outs for the working poor have allowed businesses to pay ever less for the work people do. It fattens their bottom line at the expense of everyone else. It's just another pillar of corporate welfare. Look around you, man. Legislation purchase is an industry in this country. And legislation costs a lot of money. Something average let alone poor people tend not to have.

There, fixed.

If you and other statist were really concerned with "Legislation purchase" by the wealthy, you'd be all for throwing out the current tax code for something much simplier. But of course that will never happen, because the current tax code is used to control and coerce.

Besides, the statist would no longer have a legal means to steal and "spread the wealth around" through progressive taxation on the federal level.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

If you and other statist were really concerned with "Legislation purchase" by the wealthy, you'd be all for throwing out the current tax code for something much simplier.

Funny you should say that because, well, yes I am in favor of a much simpler tax code. Not gonna happen because the tax code we have serves those that purchased it quite well not because the common man would oppose a simplified tax system. I'd have no issue whatsoever with a tax code that taxes every penny of income above the existential minimum at a simple, progressive scale. I'd have no issue with that at all.

[dalegg 143]

I'm really getting sick of this line that Mitt Romney pays a lower tax rate than "average Americans" or "most wage earners" or some such. This keeps getting parroted by the media and nobody seems to be calling them out when it's certifiably factually false. A single person with no deductions but the standard deduction would have to be making almost $100k to be paying 15% in taxes. A married couple with two kids would need to be making about $150k to pay 15%. Add in a mortgage and that number may begin to flirt with $200k. Basically, anyone paying more than 15% is not an "average American" or one of "most wage earners."

Yes, this is the goofy argument that tries to pit the 1% against the 3%. Its crazy because its working.