Breaking News - Mitt Romney claims to have paid taxes

[klunderbunker]

Thus, the difference between wealth and income. Mitt Romney is worth about 200 million. But you have no idea how much actually taxable income he earned last year. For all you know, he made a small enough amount of money last year that 13% is entirely reasonable, let alone plausible. Yet, he is a bad guy for following the existing tax laws, but you are a saint for doing the same.

If this is true, let him release the returns and prove it. Every candidate and vice presidential candidate releases multiple years of tax returns, but it's not good enough for Romney. The guy has already been caught lying once in his tax returns released for a political office when he said we should just trust him, but we should just give him the benefit of the doubt? That's absurd. If there's nothing in there, let us see the proof.

 

[Slyfox696]

How is Mitt Romney "abusing" the system?

He may not be doing anything illegal. However, it's what he's doing legally which is so frustrating.

Trying to maximize his legal deductions to reduce his overall tax liability? The total hypocrisy is amusing as hell.

Are you trying to tell me you're okay with Mitt Romney paying a lower income tax rate than teachers, despite making exponentially more amount of money?

And in case you're wondering why it matters how much he makes, it ties back into disposable income.

People blasting Romney for filing his taxes perfectly legally because they don't like the tax laws he is using to reduce his taxes DO THE EXACT SAME FUCKING THING ON THEIRS.

But I'm not worth $200 million. And I'm not running for President. Which means I'm not able to be in a position of power to adjust tax laws.

Romney is.

Anyone who has ever claimed a deduction on their taxes and then bitches about Romney is full of shit. Why should Romney get shit for using tax laws to his advantage by people who use tax laws to their own advantage?

Because Romney could be in a position to change tax laws. We're not. Romney is worth $200 million dollars and doesn't NEED the loopholes he takes advantage of. We're not.

Are you really telling me Romney saving money on his taxes is the same thing as a parent saving money on their taxes so their child can eat? That Romney saving money on his $20 million income in 2010 is the same as my (hypothetical) neighbor saving money on his $30,000 income? If Mitt Romney had paid 50% of his 2010 income into federal taxes, he'd still be left with $10 million earned. It would take me over 250 years at my current salary to make $10 million.

Spare me the hypocrisy speech, Mitt Romney and I are not facing the same financial hardships.

Half of the country pays nothing in taxes.

Completely false. What you mean to say is that nearly half of the country pays nothing in federal income taxes. They still pay payroll taxes, state and local taxes, gas tax, etc.

What the hell is fair about half of the country paying no taxes?

How about the fact that half of those people are too poor to pay taxes? The other half is made up of college students, the elderly and the rich. The rich like Mitt Romney. Just not Mitt Romney, because he paid taxes. Just don't ask for him to prove it. The Romneys have already provided "all you people need to know".

Buffett talks a mighty good talk, but when you look at his actions, they are the complete opposite. I guess with Buffett, it's do as I say, don't do as I do. He says he doesn't pay enough in taxes, yet has an army of accountant-lawyers whose sole purpose is to reduce his tax liability, to hide his money in tax free shelters, and refuses to pay the taxes his firm rightly owes.

I think you're missing the point. The point is Buffett, like Romney, is taking advantage of LEGAL measures to pay lower income tax rate than his secretary. Buffett's point is that it's absurd the tax laws allow this and they should be changed.

What Buffett and Romney have in common is they are both using tax loopholes to their great advantage. Where they differ is that Buffett thinks those loopholes should be closed and Romney thinks they should remain open, if not expanded.

Further, his claimed tax rate of being under those of his secretary is a complete fabrication. Most of his "income" is in capital gains and dividends, which, he pays 15% on. So, where is the fabrication? The money that he collects as capital gains and dividends has already been taxed at the Corporate level, at a rate of about 35%. Birkshire Hathaway pays 35% of their income in taxes. With the money left over, it gets sent to it's shareholders, of which Buffett is by far the largest shareholder. Those profits, which have already been taxed at a 35% rate, now called capital gains, are then taxed at 15%. That money has been taxed twice. That also means that his income from capital gains and stock dividends has effectively been taxed at about 50%, significantly more than his secretary. But, he conveniently leaves that little bit out, because it hurts his message.

Or because you're wrong.

And Buffett this week is at the center of another tax controversy, according to The Wall Street Journal. His recent decision to invest in Bank of America "represents another tax-avoidance triumph for the Berkshire chief executive," the Journal wrote in an editorial Wednesdy.

It turns out that U.S. corporations are subject to a top federal income tax rate of 35 percent, the second highest in the world. But Berkshire won't pay anything close to that on their investment in BofA preferred shares.

"Berkshire will hold the investment in a property-casualty insurance subsidiary. Such corporations can exclude from taxation 59.5% of the dividends they receive from an investment in another corporation," the Journal reported. "This exclusion is intended to prevent double- or even triple-taxation as money is earned by one company, paid to another company and then ultimately paid out to shareholders. The policy makes sense; we only wonder why the exclusion isn't 100%.

"With the exclusion for Mr. Buffett and his fellow shareholders, Berkshire will enjoy an effective tax rate of 14.175% on the $300 million in dividends it will receive each year from Bank of America," the Journal reported.

http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/buffett-irs-back-taxes/2011/09/01/id/409520

Furthermore, that's not even taking into consideration the fact that Warren Buffett is not Berkshire Hathaway, and as such, it wasn't HIS money that was being taxed, it was the money of the company that was taxed.

Finally, you have to consider tactics such as "carried interest" which Romney's camp has already admitted he used to work around having to pay taxes on the initial income he then invested. So when Romney claims to have paid 13%, he's probably rounding up.

I think a lot of people also confuse wealth with income. They are not the same thing. We know approximately how much Mitt Romney is worth. It's somewhere in the range of 200 million. What we do not know is exactly how much money he has actually earned as income in each year. He could be worth 200 million dollars, but his actual taxable income each year could be far, far lower. What you have and what you make are not equivalent terms.

Hypothetically, lets say I just won 500 million from the lotto. I decide to take the lump sum payment, intentionally taking the hefty tax penalty right up front. Tax rate is 35%. So, out of my original 500 million, after taxes, I have 325 million dollars left.

I think we can all agree that the 325 million dollars that remains has already been taxed, right? Okay.

Upon winning the lotto, I quit my job. I no longer earn an income. I have the 325 million dollars, in an interest bearing account, but I do not have any more money coming in, other than the interest being accrued. The top interest rates on savings accounts range between .65% and 1%. Lets assume I get the absolute best available interest rate, the 1%. So, for 325 million dollars in savings, I earn 3.25 million dollars in interest each year.

Now, once profits from interest is calculated in, I now have 328.25 million dollars. Yet, my taxable income is only the 3.25 million, because the original 325 million has already been taxed. It's not new money.

Better still, instead of an interest bearing account, maybe I put it into a non-interest bearing account. There is NO new money coming in. At all. I am completely living off of the original, already taxed 325 million dollars. Further, I didn't purchase any land with my money, I decide I want to continue renting an apartment and keep my wealth extremely quiet by living frugally, as if I made the same income I made before winning the lotto. The only difference being that I don't work anymore. I don't make any extravagant purchases at all, so there are no applicable property taxes. I don't invest any of that 325 million either. It's just sitting there in a non-interest bearing bank account, slowly being depleted as I spend it.

What's my taxable income for the rest of my life, assuming I maintain the same frugal lifestyle and don't purchase anything that is taxable on an annual basis like property?

NOTHING. ZERO. ZILCH. NADA. The United States does not have a "Wealth Tax" beyond already existing capital gains, dividends and income taxes. You aren't penalized simply for having wealth, but for what you do with it.

Thus, the difference between wealth and income. Mitt Romney is worth about 200 million. But you have no idea how much actually taxable income he earned last year. For all you know, he made a small enough amount of money last year that 13% is entirely reasonable, let alone plausible. Yet, he is a bad guy for following the existing tax laws, but you are a saint for doing the same.

That's a great story and all...except we DO know how much money Romney earned.

Democrats again hammered the former Massachusetts governor Friday over his steadfast refusal to release more than one completed and one draft tax return. They also hit him over his disclosures that he and his wife, Ann, paid an average 14.6 percent of their $42.5 million in income to the U.S. Treasury in 2010 and 2011.

More than half of Romney's income during that time came from capital gains, which are taxed at a lower rate than income.

http://www.kansascity.com/2012/08/17/3767387/romney-still-cant-shake-income.html

Mitt Romney may have been “unemployed” the past two years, but he was still able to make $21.7 million in income for 2010 and another $20.9 million in 2011. That stacks up pretty well against the biggest names on Wall Street, beating out the bosses of BofA and Goldman Sachs, for instance.

http://blogs.wsj.com/deals/2012/01/24/how-mitt-romneys-income-stacks-up-against-wall-street/

Mitt Romney earned more than $42 million over the past two years, and paid $6.2 million in taxes at an effective rate averaging 14 percent, according to documents provided by the Romney campaign today.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS...aid-14-percent/story?id=15423615#.UC_evqOFnfE


And that's only counting the money he made on the books, not the money he made in offshore investments, banking, and in other gray areas.

It's also amusing that the left tries to lay the blame entirely on Republicans for all those tax loopholes.

Last I checked the Democrats were trying to close some of those loopholes. Republicans refused.

Are you really stupid enough to believe that the wealthy members in Congress with a D after their name aren't finding and using the exact same tax loopholes to reduce their taxable income as the wealthy members in Congress with an R after their name? Wise up. Members of Congress, those who write the tax laws, regardless of party affiliation, are in it for themselves. They don't give a damn about your tax rate, they only care about THEIR tax rate. If you are going to blast politicians for the indecipherable tax code we have, blame them all.

I am. But only one party is making an effort to close the loopholes.


On a side note, for someone who claims to not be Republican, you sure did work awfully hard defending their Presidential nominee.

 

[Moon Knight]

Yes, but if you take the position it's not right for the multi-millionaire to pay a lower percentage in taxes than a teacher, then you probably want the tax code fixed. Why would you trust Mitt Romney to fix it, when he clearly is benefiting so greatly from it, and his VP's economic plan eliminates the only type of taxes he's paid?

Romney may have done nothing illegal. But that doesn't mean it's right.

Of course I want the tax code fixed, amongst other things like health care, education and immigration. The stance i take with this is Romney is far from the only rich person to benefit from it, so why would I trust any millionaire in fixing the tax code?

My issue is with the Tax code, Romney from what I have seen just paid what he owed; which really isn't something he had much control over. Why single Romney out when others benefit from it too? Like democrats. The thing that would make it more valid is not how much Romney paid, but his tax plan and revisions to it. That's where I don't trust him, not because he is rich and paid a low rate.

 

[Davi323]

My issue is with the Tax code, Romney from what I have seen just paid what he owed; which really isn't something he had much control over. Why single Romney out when others benefit from it too? Like democrats. The thing that would make it more valid is not how much Romney paid, but his tax plan and revisions to it. That's where I don't trust him, not because he is rich and paid a low rate.

Moon Knight gets it. The problem isn't Romney's tax rate. The problem is the laws that determine that tax rate, laws which Romney had nothing to do with. It's the system that is broken.

 

[Slyfox696]

Of course I want the tax code fixed, amongst other things like health care, education and immigration. The stance i take with this is Romney is far from the only rich person to benefit from it, so why would I trust any millionaire in fixing the tax code?

You don't have to trust them, you just have to see which ones are willing to work on it. Right now, there are people who are actively working to close loopholes, and there are people who are actively working to make it so Mitt Romney would not have to pay any income taxes to the government.

You just have to choose which side to take.

My issue is with the Tax code, Romney from what I have seen just paid what he owed; which really isn't something he had much control over. Why single Romney out when others benefit from it too? Like democrats. The thing that would make it more valid is not how much Romney paid, but his tax plan and revisions to it. That's where I don't trust him, not because he is rich and paid a low rate.

So you're telling me you don't trust him to revise the tax code because he benefits too greatly from it now? Perhaps I misunderstood, but that's what I took away from you post.

If so, that's kind of the point Democrats have been harping on.

Moon Knight gets it. The problem isn't Romney's tax rate. The problem is the laws that determine that tax rate, laws which Romney had nothing to do with. It's the system that is broken.

But it IS laws Romney COULD have something to do with if he's elected President. That's kind of the point. Well, actually, that IS the point.

By the way, I couldn't help but notice you dodged my best point in the last post. You know, the part where you're defending the Republican.

 

[Moon Knight]

You don't have to trust them, you just have to see which ones are willing to work on it. Right now, there are people who are actively working to close loopholes, and there are people who are actively working to make it so Mitt Romney would not have to pay any income taxes to the government.

You just have to choose which side to take.

Trust me, I take a more left wing approach to taxation. I don't like the democrats approach because I think they are giving in on the Bush tax cuts too easily.

So you're telling me you don't trust him to revise the tax code because he benefits too greatly from it now? Perhaps I misunderstood, but that's what I took away from your post.

If so, that's kind of the point Democrats have been harping on.

You may have misunderstood. I don't trust him because I don't agree with his tax plan. Now, do you mean how he benefits from it in relation to the code now or under his plan? I want to make sure I understand your comment.

 

[Slyfox696]

Trust me, I take a more left wing approach to taxation. I don't like the democrats approach because I think they are giving in on the Bush tax cuts too easily.

They did before, but I think they are trying to stick to their guns this time, at least on the upper class cuts.

Now, do you mean how he benefits from it in relation to the code now or under his plan? I want to make sure I understand your comment.

Yes.

 

[Moon Knight]

They did before, but I think they are trying to stick to their guns this time, at least on the upper class cuts.

But they are not now. Even Obama is bragging about lower tax rates. The Democrats have gone way too far right on the tax codes in their paranoia over losing votes. I don't mind not raising taxes on the poor or even the middle class right now as the economy is weak, but the rich have zero excuse. Which is why we both detest Romney's tax plan.

Yes.

So you don't trust him on both accounts? I understand not trusting him because of his tax plan, I am not sure why not trusting him over a tax code he didn't create is solid. Don't get me wrong, I am not arguing for him as I don't like the little douchebag and is ignoranus VP.

 

[Slyfox696]

But they are not now. Even Obama is bragging about lower tax rates. The Democrats have gone way too far right on the tax codes in their paranoia over losing votes. I don't mind not raising taxes on the poor or even the middle class right now as the economy is weak, but the rich have zero excuse. Which is why we both detest Romney's tax plan.

I'm not sure what you're saying. The Democrats want the tax cuts to expire for anyone making more than $250,000. That hasn't changed in the last couple of years, even though they relented two years ago.

So you don't trust him on both accounts? I understand not trusting him because of his tax plan, I am not sure why not trusting him over a tax code he didn't create is solid. Don't get me wrong, I am not arguing for him as I don't like the little douchebag and is ignoranus VP.

At best, Romney will keep tax laws the way they are. At worst, he'll relieve tax stress on the upper class and push it onto the lower classes.

So I don't trust him regardless of whether we're talking about current tax code or any tax code he might later implement. Did I make sense there?

 

[Moon Knight]

I'm not sure what you're saying. The Democrats want the tax cuts to expire for anyone making more than $250,000. That hasn't changed in the last couple of years, even though they relented two years ago.

I am saying the Democrats are being too weak on letting the Bush tax cuts expire across the board.

At best, Romney will keep tax laws the way they are. At worst, he'll relieve tax stress on the upper class and push it onto the lower classes.

So I don't trust him regardless of whether we're talking about current tax code or any tax code he might later implement. Did I make sense there?

I asked you if you didn't trust in relation to the way they are now or under his plan...You said yes so I assumed you meant on both accounts. Based on your reply, it seems I understood it perfectly.

 

[ProudFlairMark]

Re: GSB, while I am sure nothing I can say or do will aid you in believing me, you have my word that no part of my story was a fabrication. Samantha is a real person. She really paid no taxes while molesting government assistance. The figures that I volunteered were genuine as well.

To your point, if you go back and read my post again (and it is lengthy, I know), you'll find I did not mention Mitt Romney. I also wasn't trying to illustrate the diametrically opposite ends of the spectrum that Mitt Romney and Samantha sit at as it relates to income or tax liability.

Now what I was saying is that I felt it just a bit unfair that essentially she has made herself a good living not off of hardwork, perseverance, or ingenuity but off of my tax dollar. As Sly and KB picked up on, I made no bones about what I was accountable for in taxes. I understand that in order for our country to be fiscally sound, I have to contribute, and contribute I do! My matter of contention arises when I, as a producer and provider, foot the bill for someone who is capable of paying taxes and elects not to. And as I said in my original post, Samantha's case is not unique. I see it every single day. Employees who pay little to no income tax profiting off of my tax dollars can cause someone to become disillusioned with government tax appropriations. I'd venture that those people who simply "don't care" about what people like Samantha do generally do not earn enough income and therefore pay enough income tax for it to negatively impact them. Apathy comes naturally to this generation, especially in cases when it isn't about "them." See how it feels to have a third of your paycheck siphoned out in tax, only to see a server have a $200 shift, sell her food stamps for $.50 cents on the dollar (a popular one for those in the know) and make another $200 because she couldn't possibly guy all the groceries that her food stamps provided her and then drive away in a brand new Nissan Maxima that she bought - you guessed it - during tax season. Now don't get me wrong, I love my 1995 Cadillac Sedan Deville (white with a rag top - straight hood. LOL), but I had to save every penny to get my vehicle. I earned it. Like I was taught to do since the age of 13, when I got my first job sweeping up my uncle's tattoo shop. My issue comes when we as a nation rely too heavily on those that are willing and not enough on those are able, but reluctant or downright lazy. The answer is not to take from the those who have and give it to those who don't - it is to enable those who don't with the tools necessary to become those who have. You want education reform? See to it that FASFA checks get spent on books and courses, not bongs and grams (another problem that runs rampant).

I don't side with any party or politician. I side with reasoning, common sense and rationality.

P.S. - GSB, she was a bit of a ****. LOL

 

[George Steele's Barber]

Re: GSB, while I am sure nothing I can say or do will aid you in believing me, you have my word that no part of my story was a fabrication. Samantha is a real person. She really paid no taxes while molesting government assistance. The figures that I volunteered were genuine as well.

You're talking to a guy who started a thread dedicated to his own vasectomy. I don't take life too seriously too often and I tend to take people at their word. It is just surprising for someone to know such detail about someone else's private life (and that corporate restaurants are paying 25% bonuses). Sometimes I can't remember my wife's middle name, my own age or something else that I can't remember right now.

I don't doubt that there are people out there that take every advantage possible (especially people in service industries that deal primarily in cash) of the system that is in place. I just don't see why that would make you lean right. Should innocent people in need the most suffer because Samantha abuses the system? Isn't it the right that talks about cutting the departments that are the most likely to enforce and stop the abuse that you are talking about? Isn't the right as much a part of the system and has helped create the system that Samantha abuses?

To your point, if you go back and read my post again (and it is lengthy, I know), you'll find I did not mention Mitt Romney. I also wasn't trying to illustrate the diametrically opposite ends of the spectrum that Mitt Romney and Samantha sit at as it relates to income or tax liability.

Now what I was saying is that I felt it just a bit unfair that essentially she has made herself a good living not off of hardwork, perseverance, or ingenuity but off of my tax dollar.

It is incredibly unfair, have you ever considered turning her in? I imagine pimping your kids for Earned Income Credits is against the law.

As far as hard work goes, I don't give a crap how hard someone works. All I care about is how they produce. Work smart and effective and be lazy for all I care as long as you produce you deserve to be rewarded.

As Sly and KB picked up on, I made no bones about what I was accountable for in taxes. I understand that in order for our country to be fiscally sound, I have to contribute, and contribute I do! My matter of contention arises when I, as a producer and provider, foot the bill for someone who is capable of paying taxes and elects not to.

Like the man who makes $20m but pays a smaller percentage than you?

And as I said in my original post, Samantha's case is not unique. I see it every single day. Employees who pay little to no income tax profiting off of my tax dollars can cause someone to become disillusioned with government tax appropriations.

And businesses that do the same.

I'd venture that those people who simply "don't care" about what people like Samantha do generally do not earn enough income and therefore pay enough income tax for it to negatively impact them. Apathy comes naturally to this generation, especially in cases when it isn't about "them."

The only people who don't care what Samantha does are the ones that do the same or worse.

See how it feels to have a third of your paycheck siphoned out in tax, only to see a server have a $200 shift, sell her food stamps for $.50 cents on the dollar (a popular one for those in the know) and make another $200 because she couldn't possibly guy all the groceries that her food stamps provided her and then drive away in a brand new Nissan Maxima that she bought - you guessed it - during tax season.

If you are paying a third of your paycheck you need to hire a new accountant. You should be claiming more exemptions (it will reduce the return you get every year but you shouldn't be giving the government a 0% loan of your money anyway), contributing to 401K or Traditional IRA that will reduce your taxable base and allow you to earn money tax deferred, take a mortgage on a home so you can build equity and itemize your tax deductions along with the property taxes and state income tax that you pay, and look in to saving in an HSA. With three children I'd recommend to looking in to a 529 college savings plan. Where are you getting you health care insurance?

I am not a certified or qualified tax or financial advisor. GSB's words are not be taken as advice. Past performance is not an indicator of future results.

Now don't get me wrong, I love my 1995 Cadillac Sedan Deville (white with a rag top - straight hood. LOL), but I had to save every penny to get my vehicle. I earned it. Like I was taught to do since the age of 13, when I got my first job sweeping up my uncle's tattoo shop. My issue comes when we as a nation rely too heavily on those that are willing and not enough on those are able, but reluctant or downright lazy. The answer is not to take from the those who have and give it to those who don't - it is to enable those who don't with the tools necessary to become those who have. You want education reform? See to it that FASFA checks get spent on books and courses, not bongs and grams (another problem that runs rampant).

No argument here (and your car sounds kind of cool). I just know that the Republicans (the right) tend to use the stories of people like Samantha as a diversion to push an agenda for the wealthy.

I don't side with any party or politician.

You said you tend to go with the right.

I side with reasoning, common sense and rationality.

Which means you have no side in our current government.

 

[HBK-aholic]

I, being English, find it so funny that he is bragging about paying less income tax than almost everyone in England pays all the time. I need to move to the US, if 13% is a lot.

 

[Moon Knight]

I, being English, find it so funny that he is bragging about paying less income tax than almost everyone in England pays all the time. I need to move to the US, if 13% is a lot.

Unless you are rich, I suggest fly KB out to the UK and live there. The USA kinda sucks right now. BTW, you may or may not need to learn a second language...Could be Spanish or Korean or Chinese...Depends on where you go. French if you want to live in Maine.

 

[Slyfox696]

The answer is not to take from the those who have and give it to those who don't - it is to enable those who don't with the tools necessary to become those who have.

This SOUNDS good, but you're saying the same thing. Wealth is not an infinite thing. To have a system of wealth means some people have to be rich and some have to be poor. Otherwise, there would be no such thing as rich or poor.

The problem is that those who are rich don't want to see those who are poor become rich. The bigger problem is that those who are rich actively lobby Congress to pass laws which favor protecting their wealth, at the expense of those who are poor, making the rich richer and the poor poorer. The biggest problem are lawmakers who continue to allow such policies.

At some point, the economy cannot sustain so much wealth pooled at the very top. The money HAS to be spread across the lower classes. There will always be a rich and a poor, but if I remember correctly, the gap between them is the greatest it has ever been. Everyone talks about the stock market crash of '29 causing the Great Depression, but much like slavery in the Civil War, the crash was only a symptom, not the cause. One of the biggest causes of the depression was the disparity of wealth in the country.

Why has the economy not turned around since 2008? Because in order for an economy to run, you have to have buyers and sellers. With all the money at the top, we don't have buyers. We don't have money for government spending. The rich have taken all the money they made over the last decade, and instead of spending it on American jobs, like we were promised they would, they instead saved it (like most intelligent people would) and instead outsourced jobs to countries where people will work for $0.15 a day and no bathroom breaks.

The tax laws have to be changed, loopholes have to be removed, and we have to force companies to keep jobs in the country. Basically, we cannot continue with the Republican tax plan any longer if we ever want this country to turn around. The mantra of "teaching the do not haves to become haves" is completely impossible as long as we keep our current system in place. We HAVE to take some from the rich and re-distribute it across the other classes. It is a simple economic concept.

To close, I'll say again an example my economics teacher from high school gave to us I'll never forget.

Let's say there is $100 dollars in the economy. A new car costs $10. Now you can give that $10 to 10 different people who can then each buy a new car. So each of the 10 people have 1 car. Or you can give all $100 to one person and he can buy ten cars. Either way, theoretically, all 10 cars are purchased.

The problem is, who needs 10 cars?

 

[Davi323]

Let's say there is $100 dollars in the economy. A new car costs $10. Now you can give that $10 to 10 different people who can then each buy a new car. So each of the 10 people have 1 car. Or you can give all $100 to one person and he can buy ten cars. Either way, theoretically, all 10 cars are purchased.

The problem is, who needs 10 cars?

Give? Give? Thank you for showcasing the liberal mindset once more. Money is not mine to do with as I please, money is solely a gift from our most benevolent government...Who cares if some people work their asses off to get that money, doesn't matter.

Your economics teacher clearly demonstrated left leanings, didn't he?

Question. Once those 10 people buy their 10 cars, what do they do with them? None of them have any money to purchase gasoline with, you gave them 10 dollars, and cars cost 10 dollars, leaving them with absolutely no extra money.

So those cars just sit there in their driveways, unusable as anything other than a lawn decoration. Lets look at the other extreme in your example though...You give ALL 100 dollars to one person. They can buy a car and have 90 dollars left over for gasoline. The car will actually be usable, and serve a purpose. Errands can be run with that car. That person might even volunteer to help out his carless neighbors, by shuttling them to places they need to go. Even if he doesn't, how are the other 9 any worse off than they were before? They would walk everywhere they needed to go, just as they would if they had a car but no money for gasoline. Their situation remains the same. The only difference would be 9 people walking instead of all 10.

Basically, it could be argued that 1 car with money for gasoline > 10 cars without.

Economics lesson fail.

 

[Remix]

Give? Give? Thank you for showcasing the liberal mindset once more. Money is not mine to do with as I please, money is solely a gift from our most benevolent government...Who cares if some people work their asses off to get that money, doesn't matter.

Your economics teacher clearly demonstrated left leanings, didn't he?

Question. Once those 10 people buy their 10 cars, what do they do with them? None of them have any money to purchase gasoline with, you gave them 10 dollars, and cars cost 10 dollars, leaving them with absolutely no extra money.

So those cars just sit there in their driveways, unusable as anything other than a lawn decoration. Lets look at the other extreme in your example though...You give ALL 100 dollars to one person. They can buy a car and have 90 dollars left over for gasoline. The car will actually be usable, and serve a purpose. Errands can be run with that car. That person might even volunteer to help out his carless neighbors, by shuttling them to places they need to go. Even if he doesn't, how are the other 9 any worse off than they were before? They would walk everywhere they needed to go, just as they would if they had a car but no money for gasoline. Their situation remains the same. The only difference would be 9 people walking instead of all 10.

Basically, it could be argued that 1 car with money for gasoline > 10 cars without.

Economics lesson fail.

 

[Slyfox696]

Give? Give? Thank you for showcasing the liberal mindset once more.

Way to completely miss the purpose of the hypothetical. Although I think you're just busting my chops here.

Money is not mine to do with as I please, money is solely a gift from our most benevolent government...Who cares if some people work their asses off to get that money, doesn't matter.

You're right. Mitt Romney, as a self-described unemployed American for the last two years has clearly worked harder than I have.

Your economics teacher clearly demonstrated left leanings, didn't he?

Nope, he was Republican. He was just a very logical and reasonable person.

Question. Once those 10 people buy their 10 cars, what do they do with them? None of them have any money to purchase gasoline with, you gave them 10 dollars, and cars cost 10 dollars, leaving them with absolutely no extra money.

So those cars just sit there in their driveways, unusable as anything other than a lawn decoration. Lets look at the other extreme in your example though...You give ALL 100 dollars to one person. They can buy a car and have 90 dollars left over for gasoline. The car will actually be usable, and serve a purpose. Errands can be run with that car. That person might even volunteer to help out his carless neighbors, by shuttling them to places they need to go. Even if he doesn't, how are the other 9 any worse off than they were before? They would walk everywhere they needed to go, just as they would if they had a car but no money for gasoline. Their situation remains the same. The only difference would be 9 people walking instead of all 10.

Basically, it could be argued that 1 car with money for gasoline > 10 cars without.

Economics lesson fail.

Wow...that is the most desperate attempt to refute a common sense example that I've ever seen.

C'mon, even a Republican like you can do better than that.

 

[Coco]

Give? Give? Thank you for showcasing the liberal mindset once more. Money is not mine to do with as I please, money is solely a gift from our most benevolent government...Who cares if some people work their asses off to get that money, doesn't matter.

Your economics teacher clearly demonstrated left leanings, didn't he?

Question. Once those 10 people buy their 10 cars, what do they do with them? None of them have any money to purchase gasoline with, you gave them 10 dollars, and cars cost 10 dollars, leaving them with absolutely no extra money.

So those cars just sit there in their driveways, unusable as anything other than a lawn decoration. Lets look at the other extreme in your example though...You give ALL 100 dollars to one person. They can buy a car and have 90 dollars left over for gasoline. The car will actually be usable, and serve a purpose. Errands can be run with that car. That person might even volunteer to help out his carless neighbors, by shuttling them to places they need to go. Even if he doesn't, how are the other 9 any worse off than they were before? They would walk everywhere they needed to go, just as they would if they had a car but no money for gasoline. Their situation remains the same. The only difference would be 9 people walking instead of all 10.

Basically, it could be argued that 1 car with money for gasoline > 10 cars without.

Economics lesson fail.

Read in Dwight's voice. Did not disappoint.

 

[justinsayne]

Does anyone else find it a little funny that Republican Davi has this...

Why is it that the people who know the least know it the loudest?

as his sig?

 

[Remix]

Give? Give? Thank you for showcasing the liberal mindset once more. Money is not mine to do with as I please, money is solely a gift from our most benevolent government...Who cares if some people work their asses off to get that money, doesn't matter.

In this context, give is synonymous to earn/get paid. most people in the workforce are given money by your employer on a regular basis. However, that's irrelevant in this hypothetical scenario.

Question. Once those 10 people buy their 10 cars, what do they do with them? None of them have any money to purchase gasoline with, you gave them 10 dollars, and cars cost 10 dollars, leaving them with absolutely no extra money.

In case you didn't notice, cars cost more than $10. The implication here is that the running cost of the cars is irrelevant compared to the cost of the actual car. We can therefore assume that the guys can afford to run and maintain the cars once they own them.

So those cars just sit there in their driveways, unusable as anything other than a lawn decoration. Lets look at the other extreme in your example though...You give ALL 100 dollars to one person. They can buy a car and have 90 dollars left over for gasoline. The car will actually be usable, and serve a purpose. Errands can be run with that car. That person might even volunteer to help out his carless neighbors, by shuttling them to places they need to go. Even if he doesn't, how are the other 9 any worse off than they were before? They would walk everywhere they needed to go, just as they would if they had a car but no money for gasoline. Their situation remains the same. The only difference would be 9 people walking instead of all 10.

Basically, it could be argued that 1 car with money for gasoline > 10 cars without.

Economics lesson fail.

That is one of the the most pathetic arguments I've seen. Kudos for missing the point so impressively though.

 

[Davi323]

Although I think you're just busting my chops here.

of course I was, lol

Wow...that is the most desperate attempt to refute a common sense example that I've ever seen.

I find the idea of buying a car without having any money left over for gas to be rather anti-common sense myself.

In case you didn't notice, cars cost more than $10. The implication here is that the running cost of the cars is irrelevant compared to the cost of the actual car. We can therefore assume that the guys can afford to run and maintain the cars once they own them.

Ahh, but Sly's example did not say that the entire cost of the car was contained within that 10 dollars, just the car itself, with no mention of maintenance, fuel, insurance, or anything like that. So, you can't assume that all of the other costs were rolled into it. Sly's example dealt with the purchase of the automobile itself, and the automobile only. I am only going by what was given in the scenario, you are assuming what wasn't there.

That is one of the the most pathetic arguments I've seen.

Okay, so disprove it. If it's so pathetic, it should be rather easy.

Kudos for missing the point so impressively though.

There is no point to miss. Mitt Romney, through his own intelligence and business sense, earned his money. It wasn't donated to him. It's his money, not yours. Not mine. Sly was offering a red herring argument that is completely irrelevant to the discussion of whether or not Mitt Romney paid his taxes. There is no evidence whatsoever that he hasn't paid them. You have one heavily liberal senator making wild accusations that he claimed to have "heard from someone" that he thought was important enough to bring up on the Senate floor twice, who offered up absolutely no evidence of anything whatsoever, and you have Romney saying "Of course I paid my taxes, don't be stupid."

The entire issue is completely ridiculous. If there was an issue with Mitt Romney not paying taxes for the last decade, as Harry Reid claims, the IRS would certainly know about it. Neither Mitt Romney or Barack Obama are required to release their tax returns. It's not a condition to running for President, nor is it a requirement for anything else. Neither candidate is under any obligation whatsoever to do so. If they voluntarily choose to do so, great, but they do not have to. Why should it be newsworthy if they don't release them then? The fact that this is such a huge deal is pathetic. I know both Mitt Romney and Barack Obama have a personal financial worth that far exceeds mine. You have to have a certain level of wealth to successfully run for President, after all. Candidacies are expensive to run, and most campaigns don't bring in as much money in donations as is spent. Candidates frequently spend millions of their own personal finances during them.

Knowing that, what do I give a shit how much actual money either candidate makes? As long as they are paying their legally required amounts in taxes (and there is no indication either candidate isn't), and not breaking the law, what concern is it of mine? Romney is rich. Fucking get over it. When John Kerry was running against W in 2004, his personal financial worth far exceeded Mitt Romney's, due to his wife's vast fortune as being the heiress to the Heinz Ketchup empire. Didn't give a shit about his taxes either. Still don't. As long as they paid their legally required taxes, I have no further interest in the issue. When it comes to taxes, the only thing I care about is whether they followed the rules or not. It's a very simple logical thought process.

Did they pay the legally required amount of taxes?

Yes = The end of my concern over the subject.

 

[Alastor]

I think the point of the example is if wealth is spread more evenly resources can be better utilized to improve the lives/economy/etc. etc.

Assuming 1 person only can use 1 car at any given time, it is better for the whole economy if 10 people with 10 dollars can each use 1 car rather than 1 person with $100 using 1 car while the rest of the 9 cars rot in his garage.

 

[Davi323]

I think the point of the example is if wealth is spread more evenly resources can be better utilized to improve the lives/economy/etc. etc.

Assuming 1 person only can use 1 car at any given time, it is better for the whole economy if 10 people with 10 dollars can each use 1 car rather than 1 person with $100 using 1 car while the rest of the 9 cars rot in his garage.

That's great if people all contributed equally too. But they don't. Some people work their asses off, some people spend their entire lives living off of others. Why do they deserve an equal share of the wealth when they are unwilling to share equally in the work required to obtain it?

 

[Барбоса]

Knowing that, what do I give a shit how much actual money either candidate makes?

You mean you do not care that maybe that candidate has made through nefarious or unfair means? Not saying that Romney does (even if I do find it reprehensible that the rich pay a lower tax rate) but it is still important.

Romney is rich. Fucking get over it.

Why should people get over it? He is running for President of the United States in a time of the worst depression in history; a position that will give him the power to apply tax reform that benefits him rather than the vast majority of the electorate directly. Sure, there might be a trickle down effect that benefits the Average Joe should the rich get tax breaks but it is equally possible that they will just continue to do what they have done in the recent past and spend it abroad or not spend it at all. Tax cuts for the poorer strata of society cut out the middle man and give a direct benefit to them.

If there is even the slightest chance that Romney will lessen the tax burden on people in his own tax bracket and shift it to lower earners (or keep it there) then that is something that the electorate should know.