If only we could get Mitt and the rest of the 1% to be more in touch with their inner patriot...
monday quote: While some people might find it distasteful to pay taxes, I don't. I find it patriotic. (Mark Cuban, Am. Businessman 1958- )
Showing posts with label taxes. Show all posts
Showing posts with label taxes. Show all posts
Monday, August 6, 2012
Sunday, July 22, 2012
Mitt's Tax Return Tap Dance
Mitt Romney has released one complete tax return, (2010), and one estimated return, (2011). He is adamant about not releasing additional tax returns. When his father ran for president in 1968, he released twelve years of his tax returns. At that time, George Romney explained “One year could be a fluke, perhaps done for show.”
what eye thynk: “…perhaps done for show.“ How prophetic. Can there be any question that, prior to this run for president, George’s son kept a substantial portion of his money in tax protected foreign accounts? Can there be any question that, in 2010, when Mitt decided on another try for the White House, some of that money was moved to U.S. accounts in order to make his tax return “show” ready?
His campaign keeps saying that prior to 2010 Mitt paid all the taxes that were legally required. What he and his campaign fail to grasp, but what is painfully obvious to the average American, is that there is a vast difference between legally required and morally just. The average American doesn’t get to choose how much of his income will be taxed.
When Lindsey Graham, Republican Senator from South Carolina, attempted to explain that shielding money from the I.R.S. was praise worthy, (“It’s really American to avoid paying taxes legally”), his explanation only served to highlight the “other-liness” of Mitt Romney and his ilk.
It is possible that we’re wrong in chasing this issue. It is possible that Mr. Romney's older tax returns would show a higher tax rate, fewer off shore accounts and millions of dollars invested in American companies; but, if so, why keep them hidden? This is not an issue that is going to die, not while Mitt’s recalcitrance is keeping it fed and watered.
As for myself, I believe the 13.9% tax rate he paid in 2010 was probably a high watermark rate for him and Mitt is refusing to release more tax returns because they would expose a man who, while he wants to run the country, does not want to have to pay for its maintenance.
what eye thynk: “…perhaps done for show.“ How prophetic. Can there be any question that, prior to this run for president, George’s son kept a substantial portion of his money in tax protected foreign accounts? Can there be any question that, in 2010, when Mitt decided on another try for the White House, some of that money was moved to U.S. accounts in order to make his tax return “show” ready?
His campaign keeps saying that prior to 2010 Mitt paid all the taxes that were legally required. What he and his campaign fail to grasp, but what is painfully obvious to the average American, is that there is a vast difference between legally required and morally just. The average American doesn’t get to choose how much of his income will be taxed.
When Lindsey Graham, Republican Senator from South Carolina, attempted to explain that shielding money from the I.R.S. was praise worthy, (“It’s really American to avoid paying taxes legally”), his explanation only served to highlight the “other-liness” of Mitt Romney and his ilk.
It is possible that we’re wrong in chasing this issue. It is possible that Mr. Romney's older tax returns would show a higher tax rate, fewer off shore accounts and millions of dollars invested in American companies; but, if so, why keep them hidden? This is not an issue that is going to die, not while Mitt’s recalcitrance is keeping it fed and watered.
As for myself, I believe the 13.9% tax rate he paid in 2010 was probably a high watermark rate for him and Mitt is refusing to release more tax returns because they would expose a man who, while he wants to run the country, does not want to have to pay for its maintenance.
Friday, July 20, 2012
Norquist vs. the Citizens of the U.S.?
If Congress cannot get past their present income tax stalemate, the Bush tax cuts will expire on January 1, 2013 raising income taxes for everyone. The Democrats would like to extend the cuts for middle and lower income Americans for one year while ending the cuts for the wealthy. Republicans, who signed the Norquist I-will-never-raise-taxes pledge want to make the tax cuts permanent. This week, Democrats offered a new solution to this conundrum. They offered to allow all the tax cuts to expire on January 1 and would then immediately vote to re-instate the tax cuts for those in the lower and middle income brackets.
Republican Senate Minority Leader, Mitch O’Connell said “This isn’t an economic agenda. It’s an ideological crusade”
what eye thynk: I would call the Democratic plan a convoluted last ditch effort, but an “ideological crusade”? No.
Mr. O'Connell's comment is even more absurd when you remember that it is coming from the man who, in 2008, said that his party’s main objective would be to defeat President Obama. Not to improve the economy, not to seek an end to a baseless war, not to protect the health of American citizens nor safeguard the environment, not to do anything constructive -- simply to defeat President Obama.
Also consider that this is the party that boasts that over one thousand Republicans, (including Mitt Romney), have signed Grover Norquist’s I-will-never-raise-taxes pledge and have bull-headedly stuck with it even though economists on both sides of the aisle have said we need to generate more tax revenue if we are to have any hope of reducing our national debt. Now, that is what I would call an "ideological crusade".
Recently some Republicans have voiced their regret at having signed up to be one of Norquist’s groupies. Taking a cue from ex-Florida governor Jeb Bush, (“I don’t believe you outsource your principles and convictions…”), Lindsey Graham, Republican Senator from South Carolina, has said he intends to attempt to convince his fellow Republicans that the time for compromise on tax issues is here. Unfortunately, many of the congressional Republicans whose names are on Norquist’s list fear reprisals from their own party members if they go back on their pledge.
What really angers me about this pledge business is that the same Republicans who are so intent on remaining loyal to Mr. Norquist seem to have forgotten that they also swore an oath of office when they became a member of Congress; and nowhere in that oath does it mention swearing allegiance to one man’s dogma. The United States is supposed to be a country governed by the people, for the people---not by the people, for Grover Norquist.
The Democratic plan, (which, frankly, makes me a little nervous; I mean who is to say that those middle and lower income tax cuts will be reinstated as promised?), gives the Republicans a way to avoid actually voting to raise taxes on the wealthy, allotting them some cover from those who would take to the media to renounce them as pledge breakers. It is sad that governing has come to this -- that in order to accomplish anything, we have to find a way around a self-engendered roadblock.
Mitch O’Connell, who seems to have appointed himself Grover Norquist’s lieutenant/enforcer, needs to look at his own party when he begins throwing around words like “ideological crusade”. Democrats have bent themselves into pretzel-like contortions to assist the Republicans in avoiding any Norquist blowback. Now it is up to the Republicans to decide where their allegiance should rest-- with Norquist or with the country they promised to serve.
Republican Senate Minority Leader, Mitch O’Connell said “This isn’t an economic agenda. It’s an ideological crusade”
what eye thynk: I would call the Democratic plan a convoluted last ditch effort, but an “ideological crusade”? No.
Mr. O'Connell's comment is even more absurd when you remember that it is coming from the man who, in 2008, said that his party’s main objective would be to defeat President Obama. Not to improve the economy, not to seek an end to a baseless war, not to protect the health of American citizens nor safeguard the environment, not to do anything constructive -- simply to defeat President Obama.
Also consider that this is the party that boasts that over one thousand Republicans, (including Mitt Romney), have signed Grover Norquist’s I-will-never-raise-taxes pledge and have bull-headedly stuck with it even though economists on both sides of the aisle have said we need to generate more tax revenue if we are to have any hope of reducing our national debt. Now, that is what I would call an "ideological crusade".
Recently some Republicans have voiced their regret at having signed up to be one of Norquist’s groupies. Taking a cue from ex-Florida governor Jeb Bush, (“I don’t believe you outsource your principles and convictions…”), Lindsey Graham, Republican Senator from South Carolina, has said he intends to attempt to convince his fellow Republicans that the time for compromise on tax issues is here. Unfortunately, many of the congressional Republicans whose names are on Norquist’s list fear reprisals from their own party members if they go back on their pledge.
What really angers me about this pledge business is that the same Republicans who are so intent on remaining loyal to Mr. Norquist seem to have forgotten that they also swore an oath of office when they became a member of Congress; and nowhere in that oath does it mention swearing allegiance to one man’s dogma. The United States is supposed to be a country governed by the people, for the people---not by the people, for Grover Norquist.
The Democratic plan, (which, frankly, makes me a little nervous; I mean who is to say that those middle and lower income tax cuts will be reinstated as promised?), gives the Republicans a way to avoid actually voting to raise taxes on the wealthy, allotting them some cover from those who would take to the media to renounce them as pledge breakers. It is sad that governing has come to this -- that in order to accomplish anything, we have to find a way around a self-engendered roadblock.
Mitch O’Connell, who seems to have appointed himself Grover Norquist’s lieutenant/enforcer, needs to look at his own party when he begins throwing around words like “ideological crusade”. Democrats have bent themselves into pretzel-like contortions to assist the Republicans in avoiding any Norquist blowback. Now it is up to the Republicans to decide where their allegiance should rest-- with Norquist or with the country they promised to serve.
Monday, April 16, 2012
April 16 - Monday Quote
Today is Tax Day Eve!
monday quote: I wouldn't mind paying taxes if I knew they were going to a friendly country. (Dick Gregory, comedian, 1932- )
monday quote: I wouldn't mind paying taxes if I knew they were going to a friendly country. (Dick Gregory, comedian, 1932- )
Saturday, April 14, 2012
Pay Your Full Share -- Protect a Millionaire!
This past week I balanced the books for my small, (very small), business, yesterday I drove to Indianapolis for an audition, today I'm tackling our tax forms.
what eye thynk: Yes, I know they're due on Tuesday. I always promise myself I'm going to get them done early and then suddenly it's April and...well, there's always next year.
When I'm finished filing, I'm betting that my husband and I will end up paying a higher percentage than Romney's 14.9% and probably even President Obama's 20%. *sigh*
So I've decided to attempt to get in touch with my "inner-philanthrope". This should help me to feel good knowing that by paying our full share, we are helping a millionaire out there somewhere--one who, because of our generosity, will be able to keep more of his for himself and so won't have to settle for cloth seats instead of hand-rubbed distressed leather on his new private jet. I mean, really, how could I expect him to fly to Aruba for dinner on cloth seats? It would be too demoralizing.
Aw, crap. It's not working. Screw philanthropy. I'm just pissed! And I hope that millionaire has to eat his jet, right down to the buttons on his distressed leather seats.
what eye thynk: Yes, I know they're due on Tuesday. I always promise myself I'm going to get them done early and then suddenly it's April and...well, there's always next year.
When I'm finished filing, I'm betting that my husband and I will end up paying a higher percentage than Romney's 14.9% and probably even President Obama's 20%. *sigh*
So I've decided to attempt to get in touch with my "inner-philanthrope". This should help me to feel good knowing that by paying our full share, we are helping a millionaire out there somewhere--one who, because of our generosity, will be able to keep more of his for himself and so won't have to settle for cloth seats instead of hand-rubbed distressed leather on his new private jet. I mean, really, how could I expect him to fly to Aruba for dinner on cloth seats? It would be too demoralizing.
Aw, crap. It's not working. Screw philanthropy. I'm just pissed! And I hope that millionaire has to eat his jet, right down to the buttons on his distressed leather seats.
Monday, April 9, 2012
April 9 - Monday Quote
This week's quote is dedicated to Rep. Paul D. Ryan and the House Budget Committee.
Monday Quote: Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle. (Franklin D. Roosevelt, 1882-1945)
Monday Quote: Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle. (Franklin D. Roosevelt, 1882-1945)
Saturday, April 7, 2012
Tax Cuts for the Wealthy - Sure Glad They Cleared That Up
Last week the House of Representatives passed the new Ryan budget and tax plan. Romney has called it "marvelous". President Obama said that the new tax plan will reduce taxes for those making $1M by $150,000 a year. The House Budget Committee says this is not true. The new tax plan will reduce a millionaire's taxes by only $46,000--the additional $105,000 comes from another extension of the Bush tax cuts.
what eye thynk: This is supposed to make me feel better?
what eye thynk: This is supposed to make me feel better?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)