Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: what if willard really did pay all of his taxes?

Posted 1 year ago on Aug. 15, 2012, 11:17 p.m. EST by bensdad (8977)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

and used every loophole to knock his adjusted gross income
to $10,000 when his real income in 2009 might have been $20,000,000 AND


the fulfilled his church's dictates to contribute 10% = $1,000 ?


come on, folks, can you really believe ANYTHING he says ?


if you thought shrub's stupidity damaged America's prestige in the world - imagine what willard's lies will do !

42 Comments

42 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by NLake72 (510) 1 year ago

The other fact is, he's one of the guys that lobbied to get the tax loopholes put in place. He's worked very hard to cut down his tax liability, we should admire him for his tenacious, unbending principles.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

the buffet tax of 30% on the top bracket is far below historical income tax standards

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 1 year ago

Romney, like Obama, myself, and probably 99% of the people here do everything legally possible to lower their tax burden. You would have to be an idiot not to. I can't understand why people fault him for this. If anything, fault a system that allows politicians to be bought which makes all of this legal in the first place. Unfortunately, they buy the Dems and the Reps so until we get serious about removing money from politics, it will not change regardless of who gets elected. You have to remember, Obama, while not as rich as Romney, is still pretty rich. He may talk a good game but at the end of the day, I highly doubt he wants to see his own taxes go up. Only a fool would.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

willard stands for lower taxes for the 1%
showing how he and his co-conspirators do that
is TOTALLY contrary to what his koch masters want.


I have heard dozens of discussions about what could really be in there -
but NO ONE could even speculate on how a $6,000 per year IRA
could today be worth $100,000,000. without something illegal.

DO YOU KNOW?

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 1 year ago

Oh I bet there are all kinds of crazy stuff in there, but it is likely all completely legal. I also have no doubt whatsoever that Obama can win, the Democrats can win huge majorities in the House and the Senate for 4 years and at the end of it all, Mitt's tax methods will still be 100% legal. Obama, as well as a good chunk of Democrats in Washington are members of the 1% themselves, or at the very least funded by them. Why would they raise their own taxes? It is one thing to talk, its a completely different thing to actually act.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Anti Obama partisanship. You never fail to attack Pres Obama & the Dems.

Elect progressives, Vote out anti Buffet rule, pro Norquist republicans

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 1 year ago

Romney is an opportunistic politician who will say anything he needs to be elected. Bush was an idiot who let Dick Cheney run the country for the 1%. Sarah Palin...well that is just too easy.

I am not anti-Democrat anymore than I am anti-Republican, I don't like any part of our 2 party system which is bought and paid for by the super wealthy. There just aren't many Republicans around here though for me to spew my anti-Republican attacks. I save that for my local newspaper's forum because they are all GOP-lovers. I can assure you though, I dislike/distrust the Republicans just as much as I dislike/distrust the Democrats.

I am an equal opportunity hater of both parties because they are both for sale to the highest bidder.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

The parties are vastly different. You want to address the "both for sale" problem support "Move to Amend"

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 1 year ago

I support Move to Amend 100% and have gotten numerous people to sign it. I can't imagine any American, Democrat or Republican who would not be on board with it. I think pushing that is the single most effective thing that OWS can do really create change because it is truly something that the entire 99% can get behind.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

We should get every candidate to sign the petition as well.

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 1 year ago

Definitely. It should be political suicide for anyone who declines.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

Oh I bet there are all kinds of crazy stuff in there, but it is likely all completely legal.
probably true - unless he used the FBAR amnesty

I also have no doubt whatsoever that Obama can win,
true

the Democrats can win huge majorities in the House and the Senate for 4 years
very very unlikely - too many lemmings & kochs

Why would they raise their own taxes?
I disagree - Ds CAN act FOR the country - lets see what happens on 1/1/2013 when we go off the cliff
They already tried to raise taxes on the top 2%

[-] 2 points by Mooks (1985) 1 year ago

I don't think they will win the House or Senate, I was just saying they COULD and have complete control of the Federal Government and people like Romney would still be able to pay very little in tax, completely legally. In reality, Obama will likely win re-election but the Republicans will control the House and Senate.

It is one thing to raise the marginal tax rate on the top income earners, which is what they are proposing. It is essentially a meaningless number and both sides just use it politically. The wealthy don't pay actual taxes anywhere near that number so what does it matter if they raise it a few points? The problem lies in the complexity of the tax code. The tax lawyers hired by wealthy people are a lot (and I mean a lot) smarter than the people who write the laws so as long as the laws are complicated, the wealthy will not pay that much in taxes.

And that won't change much this fall regardless of who is elected because no one wants their own taxes to go up, Rep or Dem.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by marvelpym (-184) 1 year ago

Did Harry Reid give his Mormon 10%?

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

my best guess is YES
but although his church REQUIRES it &
it is a kosher tax deduction, I'd like to know
how much he voluntarily contributed to other charities
[ are these the sources for the mormon attacks on gay rights in CA - prop 8 ? ]

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Release the tax returns.! Tax Evading 1% plutocrat

[-] 1 points by shooz (26603) 1 year ago

Does Glenn Beck?

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

my best guess is YES
but although his church REQUIRES it &
it is a kosher tax deduction, I'd like to know
how much he voluntarily contributed to other charities
[ are these the sources for the mormon attacks on gay rights in CA - prop 8 ? ]
FYI- he converted to mormon because his wife would not marry him
if he did not convert - a beckian sign of true faith

[-] 0 points by marvelpym (-184) 1 year ago

Maybe, who knows? I didn't even know he was a Mormon to be honest. I was just curious to see if Reid had released any financial records.

[-] 2 points by shooz (26603) 1 year ago

Why?

Beck is heard by more people and he's well known to be a liar.

[-] 2 points by marvelpym (-184) 1 year ago

I care more about what one of the highest ranking officials in the Democratic Party says and does more than some radio host, but maybe I'm just weird like that.

By your logic, Kim Kardashian's taxes and finances are more important than Pres Obama's.

Hey, that explains a lot about you.

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

The Pres taxes and finances are well known. Only Romney is hiding his taxes. (from the people, he did show McCain)

[-] 3 points by ZenDog (20395) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

I can tell that by your logic, failed economic - read neoliberal - economic policy is the only way to go, and if distractions like Harry Reid's religious beliefs get us there, so much the better.

[-] 0 points by marvelpym (-184) 1 year ago

So you like Harry Reid's distractions, but not Harry Reid as a distraction.

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (20395) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

Not really - I just tend to be a bit more . . . sympathetic

.



.

  • Global Warming
  • It's right out in the parking lot
  • the repelican party is DONE

.



.

z

[-] -1 points by GovTheives (-30) 1 year ago

Accused gunman ripped Family Research Council policies before opening fire, sources say **Liberals "gone wild"*

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/08/16/alleged-gunman-in-family-research-council-shooting-expected-in-court-thursday/?test=latestnews#ixzz23jGIdhx5

[-] 3 points by shooz (26603) 1 year ago

FLAKESnews, makes flakes flakier.

Thanks for proving that once again.........:)

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (20395) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

I am tempted to suggest that if nothing else, then at the very least, we have begun to witness some balance to our . . . . processes of social engineering . . . .

You don't like it, I take it.

You could, perhaps, review:

and then join me in our quest for reason and accountability with regard to the issue of human engineering - but no I have doubt that you will respond with either deliberate, and willful denial, or genuine and out right confusion.

If the former, then consider carefully:

are both viable options.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Harry Reid is a great soldier for the 99%. Mitt Romney is a 1% plutocrat who must be kept from power

[-] 1 points by shooz (26603) 1 year ago

Who's Kim?

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by funkytown (-374) 1 year ago

I don't think it really matters whether he did or didn't - he's an individual in America and he's paid far more than most of us. I'm not too concerned about corruption in China, either, btw. Especially so if its intent is to return some of those American dollars. Imagine: gambling in China! Excellent idea. But that's not what Romney is about; he's about campaign contributions, and that is just a reflection of our political system, which in kind gave birth to the Obama war chest that is also corrupt.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

so many of us [ here ] bitch and moan [ yeah - me too ] about the corruption.
the problem is not the corruption
the problem is the legal corruption


a simple answer - for those who want to take the next step and DO:
videos from Chomsky, Lessig, Warren, Sanders, Reich, Olbermann, Jefferson, Stevens


http://corporationsarenotpeople.webuda.com


[-] -1 points by GovTheives (-30) 1 year ago

Both sides are crooks and we are the only ones getting the shaft

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

We must take back the govt. from the 1% conservative plutocats.

Agitate for money out of politics.

Elect progressives.

[-] 2 points by NLake72 (510) 1 year ago

Agreed.

Agreed.

Agreed (What? Did they seriously think we want to go back and try the same old failed policies? No. Progressive reform, not regressive policies-- This is the 21st century, we don't need pre-failed 20th (or 14th) century policies.)

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

They think I simply want the same old D & R dichotomy. I want real change I wish we had the new direct democracy I keep hearing about.

I want to :

take back the govt. from the 1% conservative plutocats.

Agitate for money out of politics.

Elect progressives.

Who is against that? Maybe anti OWS people. Maybe pro 1%'rs. Maybe republican trolls

[-] -2 points by GovTheives (-30) 1 year ago

Both sides are to blame and they love it now that the Country is more divided. They can now even scam us worse than before

[-] 4 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

So lets:

take back the govt. from the 1% conservative plutocats.

Agitate for money out of politics.

Elect progressives.

Lets create a third side! A progressive side! Whatta ya' think? Ya' with me? It could be a progressive republican, democrat, whatever I don't care.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

VQkag2- you know how much you and I agree, but please consider-
how many serious "progressive republiclans" are there?
oxymoron anyone?

we progressives are part of the "left" political spectrum
that might be considered to include

50%-60% of Democrats plus
maybe 20% of people to the left of "Democrats" and
maybe 50% of "Independents"


I know this is OWS heresy, but I think peeling off half of the above groups into a third party would give david & charlie & grover & sheldon a great big smile.


I would rather bring some of the independents and "far lefties" into reality -
that could then overturn Citizens United & corporate personhood by a constitutional amendment


think of ANY AND ALL OWS GOALS- what would happen after that one amendment?


http://corporationsarenotpeople.webuda.com


[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

You know we do agree. I submit we agree on this as well. I do not believe that the 3rd way I mentioned above (and only once) is not a realistic, nor best way.

I was throwing a bone to some anti dem partisans by suggesting:

1- repubs could be progressive. What? it's laughable! I'd like them to say repub/prog do not exist. (they haven't)

2- We should create a 3rd way. I do not believe that is practical. Just a bone to the anti dem partisans.

I believe as I've said that Dems can be dragged back from the right, and made to serve the 99%.

There are many progressives in the dem caucus. More are elected every election cycle as the country continues to polarize. More progressives must be elected yet still. And we MUST vote out more anti OWS conservatives.

It's the only way!

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

twinkle ☼☼☼ twinkle.. ☼..☼ ..T W I N K L E
☼☼ twinkle.. ☼..☼ ..tWiNkLe TWINKLE
☼☼☼ twinkle.. ☼..☼ ..T-W-I-N-K-L-E