Mitt Romney's tax returns hacked & selling for 1 Mil Bitcoin

[Friendly]

Maybe he took umbrage at that extraneous apostrophe in your reply

And yes, lol at English. When we use words like "statist" and "classist" the Bard and George Orwell turn in their graves.

@Ed Oscuro
You got me. But I didn't want to be so petty to point out the apostrophe after I thought he agreed with me.

[ncp]

Seriously, just for starters, would one of the conservative faithful out there give me an example or two of an instance wherein the cutting taxes for rich people will increase government revenue fairy tale has actually, you know, happened? Or even come close to happening? If you'll recall, Saint Reagan slashed taxes deeply right after being elected, but before long the coffers were (gasp!) pretty much empty, so he was forced to (gasp!) raise them back up (though not enough to repair the fiscal damage he'd done, which we still deal with to this day).

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts ... orical.gif
Pretty interesting table. Doesn't strictly contradict what you've said, but revenues didn't really do as poorly as you make it sound.

Check out that atomic deficitbomb in the Dubya (and continuing into Obama) years though, lol.

[Ed Oscuro]

doop de doo

http://i.imgur.com/6oZVa.jpg

Dat's a big chunk of change. None of the news organizations have picked up on this yet.

Drives me nuts it's just the first page. 22M is a large chunka change. Not much here to suggest that there's something wrong though.

[neorichieb1971]

What about honesty? Surely his tax returns should reflect he is honest if he wants to be president. Nobody wants to vote for a liar, but its almost impossible not to.

[xbl0x180]

A quick check from the IRS would do just that. I really do think he's honest... in finding ways to legally pay the least amount of taxes. These rules skewed towards favouring the rich go way back

[Ex-Cyber]

A quick check from the IRS would do just that. I really do think he's honest... in finding ways to legally pay the least amount of taxes. These rules skewed towards favouring the rich go way back

I think that's exactly what the campaign is afraid of. A lot of the methods to take advantage of those rules can come off as shady even when they're perfectly legal.

[BulletMagnet]

Doesn't strictly contradict what you've said, but revenues didn't really do as poorly as you make it sound.

Still pretty bad, though, especially for a figure so constantly held up as a "fiscal hawk" (despite the infamous Cheneyism of "Reagan proved deficits don't matter"), and as you say there's still zero hard-and-fast justification for the ever-popular "tax cuts increase revenue" garbage...if the media was actually doing its job any public figure who'd ever dare say such a thing would be mercilessly laughed out of town.

[BryanM]

The #1 issue facing the country is the productivity to compensation gap. The implications that we can not continue as usual with our system are obvious to anyone with eyes.

The obvious causes:

Crony Capitalism
Politicians that are hired and expected to be a return on investment. Clamping down on the minimum wage, slashing make-work welfare jobs like the "Air Force" and the "Marines".

Demand Saturation
This would be the sunsetting of the Luddite Fallacy. It does follow that when you get off the farm you'd like a couch to rest your ass on. It does not follow that after you have soap and a refrigerator, that you'll then want hookers and cocaine.

Technology
Automation turns capital into labor. A larger labor pool is a cheaper labor pool.


The memory hole muddies things I suppose. With lying memes like manufacturing is somehow lagging.



I guess if you use a chart with manufacturing as % of GDP it looks scary, but by the same logic our agriculture racket must be in a catastrophuck then.

but I do not agree "absent governments" caused the recession. That was primarily a financial crisis.

Repealing the laws implemented after the great depression to prevent it from happening again was a lulzy idea.

~One decade after Clinton melts Glass–Steagall, and there it was again. If anything, it's a wonder it didn't happen sooner.

cutting taxes for rich people will increase government revenue

Or the "job creators" canard. If it were true, we'd be up to our asses with jobs.

People dissing California

Hey, some morons kicked Jerry out and got what was coming to them. But knock it off with all the badmouthing; they're an asset to the federal budget. Try crapping on one of those deadbeat states instead for a change eh.

#8 supporter of the United States. True american hero dudes.

[Ed Oscuro]

The #1 issue facing the country is the productivity to compensation gap.

I agree, although it's hard to see how to change this.

The jobs that seem to pay the best have some features like these:

1.) Proximity to big money: Somebody working in finance or who has some financial responsibilities has more opportunities and more training in the area of soaking up money.
2.) Sense of irreplaceability: Many investors probably never think about it this way, because the idea is that you need to be as smart as Buffett, and surely he's worth a lot! But essentially everybody else who invests is just another member of the herd, and they are therefore not unique in terms of determining the direction of the herd. Somebody working in investment, or in a warehouse, does work that is as essential, in its part, to the economy as any other work; if we started taking away their input then the economy would shrink. However that person likely lends comparatively little that is unique to their practice. On the other hand, our sense of "worth" is based on skewed or hard-to-explain values sometimes. It would be hard to explain why singers or professional athletes need to be compensated millions of dollars, but many people who don't like that will still feel that somebody is worth lots of money - maybe a favorite painter or something. So this is why many people refer to markets, because "the magic of the market" allows us to sidestep making any impolitic or controversial moral or value statements.

It's worth noting that the amount of money and economic output that the best-compensated soak up is a controversial point of entry. Some worry that attempts to shift the tax burden might have unforeseen effects on people outside those groups (although this is mainly the "trickle down" theory which I am not a great fan of) while others state (this has been a common argument lately) that it really is not that big a problem through the whole economy, and attempts to shift the burden towards the better-compensated (or the merely wealthy) would provide a disincentive to seek wealth (although I hear somebody in the room saying "yeah, keep your hands off my money!")

I don't know exactly what to say on this point - I think it is important to sustain a freedom to seek the best in the world, including the freedom to seek wealth. At the same time there clearly are some problems that can arise by mis-appropriation of resources; the landfills and lopsided national usage of global resources are evidence enough of that. Merely being very successful in one's field of endeavor does not mean a person is proven to be a worthy steward of the Earth, and that is something very few really grasp, especially if there is a question about whether our eco-goals (or whatever) are attainable. Of course some people will flatly deny wealth and resource accumulation and use is a problem, in part or in whole.

[BulletMagnet]

The #1 issue facing the country is the productivity to compensation gap.

I agree, although it's hard to see how to change this.

Step 1: Crush once and for all the Gordon Gekko masturbatory fantasy that any rich person deserves by default to be treated like a demigod and doesn't owe society at large a single thing...and by extension its conjoined twin, the assumption that anyone who's not a millionaire is a lazy, incompetent handout-seeker who needs to be mercilessly crushed under the heel of his "betters". Until the pushers of this tripe are all well-deserved pariahs nothing meaningful will change (easy start: shove the LIBOR scandal down the throats of the free-market faithful until they choke).

I think it is important to sustain a freedom to seek the best in the world, including the freedom to seek wealth.

The accumulation of wealth is not in and of itself the problem, and never has been, for we've always had rich people and always will: the prevailing attitude behind the act is what has changed, and what must be the focus of any efforts to resist the plutocrats' ongoing efforts to bring slavery back in grander fashion than ever.

[xbl0x180]

Larry Flint is offering 1 million bucks for copies of mint rmoney's tax returns

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/larr ... ction.html

[Drum]

I think it is important to sustain a freedom to seek the best in the world, including the freedom to seek wealth.

By all means, seek away - the problem comes when people get it.

[xbl0x180]

I think it is important to sustain a freedom to seek the best in the world, including the freedom to seek wealth.

By all means, seek away - the problem comes when people get it and prevent others from seeking wealth by buying influence to make laws skewed in their favour.

[BryanM]

the plutocrats' ongoing efforts to bring slavery back in grander fashion than ever.

The purest, most reductive explanation for the Civil War was "employers didn't want to have to pay their employees".

I don't know if that's better or worse or equal to slavery, but it removes race identity from the struggle and explicitly reminds everyone that the average white folk suffered under the system terribly as well. Shit, it might be a reason why their states take in more than they pay out still; it's only been around 60-70 years of recovery for them after all.

Well if history is any indication, we'll have broke truck drivers standing in soup lines in a couple decades..

[Ed Oscuro]

I think it is important to sustain a freedom to seek the best in the world, including the freedom to seek wealth.

By all means, seek away - the problem comes when people get it.

Is it really the result of people getting rich, or abusing wealth to either interfere with others getting wealth (not that corporations do this in routine competition, or that even patents provide a roadblock to somebody else's success, based solely on your getting to the office first, in some cases)? Two different things (at least).

[Mischief Maker]

Well if history is any indication, we'll have broke truck drivers standing in soup lines in a couple decades..

...and each of those truck drivers will be picturing in their mind the amazing plantation they'll build once THEY get their hands on some slaves.

[Ed Oscuro]

Well if history is any indication, we'll have broke truck drivers standing in soup lines in a couple decades..

...and each of those truck drivers will be picturing in their mind the amazing plantation they'll build once THEY get their hands on some slaves.

I picture them looking like the guy in your avatar at the moment the thought hits them!

[lena09]

Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney has finally released his tax return for 2011. However, there has been much speculation on his timing of the release. In fact, a CNN post implied that the timing may be part of a “Friday news dump.” That is a practice sometimes used to bury a story on the weekend, when it will get less attention. Or, the same CNN post speculates, it may be an attempt to steer the political conversation away from some recent stumbles on the candidate’s part.

Related article: Mitt Romney releases 2011 tax return.

[brokenhalo]

2 more days until the deadline.

[Ed Oscuro]

In fact, a CNN post implied that the timing may be part of a “Friday news dump.”

It happens all the time. I'm no Romney partisan but I think that if there really is something to this story, it'll blow up regardless of when it's broken. Journalists have been chomping at the bit to cover his tax returns for months, and editorialists haven't been shy in calling for him to release it to emulate his father's example.

@ me earlier

I actually wanted to say something further here about the relationship between big capitalists and the balance of power (spending or purchasing power especially) between workers and ownership.

[Ex-Cyber]

The recently released 2011 return is reportedly inflated, by not claiming deductions to which he is clearly entitled, to keep his rate above 13% (which he said was the minimum rate he paid over the last decade). But he also said this: "I pay all the taxes that are legally required and not a dollar more. I don't think you want someone as the candidate for president who pays more taxes than he owes."

Lulz.

[Ed Oscuro]

He's right, Warren Buffet would obviously make a terrible President.

And it certainly wouldn't hurt his cause that Democratic states are actually paying more in taxes than they get back, while all those people in the red states whining about taxes get the better deal. Obviously he knows a good thing when he sees it!

Isn't Romney supposed to be paying a tithe though? What's tithing but a tax from God (supposedly), anyway?

[BulletMagnet]

Isn't Romney supposed to be paying a tithe though?

If memory serves a sizable chunk of the "charitable donations" listed in his return were to the LDS.

What's tithing but a tax from God (supposedly), anyway?

Hey, a write-off's a write-off!

[Moniker]

What's tithing but a tax from God (supposedly), anyway?

Hey, a write-off's a write-off!

If Jesus told me to pay a tax I'd get right on the bitch and skip TurboTax.

It is interesting though, the uncomfortable interplay b/w money & religion (the topic always brings to mind the deep southern woman on those evangelical infomercials with the giant hair and endlessly running mascara). Suddenly vows of poverty seem less fanatical and more like sincere expressions of faith. Although a mental health professional recently told me that my vestigial tendencies towards asceticism were mentally and bodily unhealthy. But who doesn't love a good honest fast?

[Ed Oscuro]

Isn't Romney supposed to be paying a tithe though?

If memory serves a sizable chunk of the "charitable donations" listed in his return were to the LDS.

What's tithing but a tax from God (supposedly), anyway?

Hey, a write-off's a write-off!

Well, but I've had a conservative economist tell me that taxes are immoral, so...

Although a mental health professional recently told me that my vestigial tendencies towards asceticism were mentally and bodily unhealthy.

Was this followed by an invitation to an orgy inside a whirlpool filled with chocolate syrup? Because, if not, I think that mental health professional thinks they're* a doctor!

*I realize this would be somewhat awkward if said mental health pro was a man...or not...I guess it all depends, doesn't it?

[BulletMagnet]

If Jesus told me to pay a tax I'd get right on the bitch and skip TurboTax.

Ol' JC was actually quite clear when it came to his viewpoint on paying taxes, at least here in the mortal realm: the "pay Caesar's things to Caesar" bit is the best-known. My personal favorite for the current situation, however, is this one:

After they arrived in Capernaum the men collecting the two drachmas [tax] approached Peter and said: "Does your teacher not pay the two drachmas?" He said: "Yes". However, when he entered the house Jesus got ahead of him by saying: "What do you think, Simon? From whom do the kings of the earth receive duties or head tax? From their sons or from the strangers?" When he said: "From the strangers", Jesus said to him: "Really, then, the sons are tax-free. But that we do not cause them to stumble, you go to the sea, cast a fishhook, and take the first fish coming up and, when you open its mouth, you will find a stater [four drachmas] coin. Take that and give it to them for me and you."

In otherwords, Jesus decided to pay the temple tax even though he didn't really have to, being the Son of God and all: which, of course, totally disqualified him from any conceivable run at the Presidency. And naturally that's before we get into his nasty habit of repeatedly telling people to give freely to the unmotivated parasitic freeloaders that drag down the rest of us, that many of his self-proclaimed strictest adherents have done an absolutely top-notch job of pretending never existed.

[GaijinPunch]

There's not much else less Christ-like than modern day, organized Christianity. For shame, as it has the potential to do good. I wonder at what year the oxymoron Conservative Christian became a reality.

[Ed Oscuro]

If Jesus told me to pay a tax I'd get right on the bitch and skip TurboTax.

Ol' JC was actually quite clear when it came to his viewpoint on paying taxes, at least here in the mortal realm: the "pay Caesar's things to Caesar" bit is the best-known.

The same guy I mentioned earlier, Robert Murphy, disagrees, and if you wanted to find out why, you can read his response here.

I think he's actually on the right track with this one - insofar as laws may not be truly based in the apparent sources of power that rulers or the law seek to leverage, one can ignore (some of) Caesar's laws without contradicting Jesus' advice here. Now, he has a lot more to say than that and my memory is that it was a bit shaky at points. But clearly I think the larger point actually holds.

One of the blog commentators also pointed this out:

If you’re interested in the Catholic interpretation: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/a ... s1c2a2.htm

Notably, “1903 Authority is exercised legitimately only when it seeks the common good of the group concerned and if it employs morally licit means to attain it. If rulers were to enact unjust laws or take measures contrary to the moral order, such arrangements would not be binding in conscience.”

The Catholics' use of the phrase "binding in conscience" [i.e., as overriding a person's own conscience, or at least providing pangs of guilt] appears odd here, but if you want to interpret this from a secular standpoint, you might say that your own conscience may be a more trustworthy guide than Caesar's laws.

The elephant in the room is tiptoeing around the assumption that Caesar's laws are actually unjust - I don't recall enough of the history to say if the people talking to Jesus had some particular grievance with the Roman use of tax money (i.e. was it being used to fund an unjust war? - this was Rome, after all...) - that seems unlikely to me. Especially when you consider some of the big ticket government expenses that people are getting worked up over - funding for the military, funding for schools (hello Chicagoan teachers!), Medicare and Medicaid, Social Security. None of those things looks particularly like something that we should call evil. Murphy's insistence on calling taxes immoral seems something of a non sequitur to me.