In Obama's newest campaign ad, he goes right after Mitt Romney and his tax rate. First,... why??? What in the world does this have to do with anything? Does Obama really think the American people are that stupid? Let's get some things straight:
- Mitt Romney has done NOTHING illegal. Nothing.
- Mitt Romney has paid every bit of taxes required of him.
- Mitt Romney has paid more in taxes in one year than an average American would pay in 448 years of work.
- Mitt Romney DID pay a higher tax rate than most Americans - I will address this specifically.
- And probably the most important point: President Obama did the EXACT same legal maneuvers Mitt Romney did to reduce his tax liability - Of course, this will be addressed.
So let me see if I understand this: President Obama puts out the ad above. It uses creepy music and words like "probably" to make a claim about a guy who has done nothing wrong, while lying about the tax rates of all Americans and participating in the exact same legal tax liability reduction games Mitt Romney has participated in????
Yes, Obama truly does think Americans are that stupid. Allow me to elaborate.
First, with regards to the "Mitt Romney probably paid a lower tax rate than you" claim, did you notice the most important word? Of course, it's "probably." Why does Team Obama use that specific word? One simple phrase answers this question: plausible deniability. Why didn't Obama just say "Mitt Romney paid a lower tax rate than you?" Because Obama knows this is absolute baloney. They can twist their claim any way they want... IF the American people question it. Team Obama hopes and knows they won't. But using the word "probably" is like an insurance policy, just in case a fire storm does hit.
To understand this overall picture, I submit to you: when you're putting out a claim to the country as a whole (the "you" part), you're implying that > 50% of people fall in to the category. You can't claim "you" if it's one in 100 people. So yes, when Obama claims, "Mitt Romney probably paid a lower tax rate than you," he is implying Mitt Romney paid a lower tax rate than most people. Hmmm. I want to briefly return to Obama's previous claim about the wealthy's tax rates to help us understand this. Back in March, I investigated the ridiculous claim about "millionaires' and billionaires'" tax rates.
What does the data show? It clearly says that yes, IRS data confirmed that "millionaires and billionaires" do not pay lower tax rates than the middle class. For those claiming "well, this doesn't include payroll taxes..." False. It does. This is total tax receipts. When a tax filer submits his/her tax return, the key numbers the IRS takes into account for this data is total income and total taxes paid. It doesn't breakdown or remove payroll taxes.
Now that the first Obama tax lie is debunked, Obama is taking his lie a step further and claiming Mitt Romney pays a lower tax rate than the most Americans (again, this is irrelevant, and the creepy music and negative images in the ad paint a strong image of Mitt Romney being a bad guy though he did nothing wrong). Of course, I wanted to look at some real IRS data again.
I did this using data found on this IRS website: http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/productsandpubs/article/0,,id=130681,00.html - Here is the specific IRS tax data report: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/12inwinbulratesshare.pdf
Let's take a look. First, and this is a quick side note... we constantly hear the claim, 47% of Americans pay no taxes. Well, the opening line of the IRS data says the following:
- "Taxpayers filed 140.5 million individual income tax returns for Tax Year 2009. Of those, 81.9 million (or 58.3 percent) were classified as taxable returns. This represents the lowest percentage of taxable returns in more than 24 years. A taxable return is a return that has total income tax greater than $0."
What?! That means, if we assume the US has about 310,000,000 people, that yes, about 45-47% didn't even file tax returns (this is given as a range because the number could be different due to joint tax returns), but there is an even more important stat here: 81,900,000 of those paid taxes. So out of 310,000,000 people, only 26.4% had income tax to pay? How can this country be sustained when nearly 3 out of ever 4 people doesn't even pay income tax? Perhaps the argument is, "73% of Americans pay no income tax, if you add payroll taxes (Social Security and Medicare taxes) in, 47% still pay nothing? Hmmm.
Anyway, the glaring charts that stand out in the IRS data are Figures B and B1. Take a look:
(Click on image to zoom in)
What do you notice? Ahhh yes... truth and fact. This shows the average tax rates of the 81.9 million who DID pay taxes. Yes, this means that the people who did not pay taxes have had their figures removed, no longer bringing down the average. So out of all remaining taxpayers, for example, the average American making $30,000 - $50,000 per year paid a final tax rate (again, notice total income tax), of 6.4%.
Now lets look at ALL TAX FILERS- including those who actually did file a tax return and didn't pay any tax (about 41.7% of all tax filers). Check it out:
(Click on image to zoom in)
So... what did we find? Factoring in ALL TAX FILERS, the average American making $30,000 - $50,000 per year (this chart shows ALL income earners), paid a final tax rate of 2.9%. Did you notice anything else? Yes, many people get more in a tax refund than they paid in total income tax. These people essentially receive tax payments from the government.
Why did I highlight the $30,000 - $50,000 income range? Well, though this data is slightly outdated, the average American earns about $40,000 each year (it's safe to assume this hasn't changed drastically since): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_income_in_the_United_States. To me, that's the standard. If you claim, "Mitt Romney probably paid a lower tax rate than you," I respond with an question of, "what did the average income earner pay?" Since the average American did not pay anything close to the rate that Mitt Romney did, how can this claim by team Obama be anything but a lie?
The last issue I wanted to address was the 5th point I made above. It read, "And probably the most important point: President Obama did the EXACT same legal maneuvers Mitt Romney did to reduce his tax liability - Of course, this will be addressed."
What am I talking about? Well, in Obama's rhetoric, he hammers home the point of Mitt Romney paying a lower tax rate than most Americans (again, a lie), and that Mitt Romney pays a lower tax rate than he should. But how in the world does Mitt Romney do this? We have often heard from liberal pundits that the wealthy have tons of "loopholes" (they love that word) and "write-offs" and "deductions" not available to many middle class Americans. Yes, they do. But us middle class folks have some of these luxuries, too. I write off my mortgage interest, for example, and yes, that reduces my tax rate substantially. But that's not the point.
The main point is this: the left vilifies Mitt Romney, with an almost "how dare he" approach, for using 100% legal methods and tax rules to reduce his taxable income. I counter to the left: why are you not vilifying President Obama, too? Let me make this clear: Obama does EXACTLY what Mitt Romney does when it comes to reducing taxable income in order to pay a lower overall tax rate. Does the left call this out on Obama? Nope. Do I smell a double standard? Ohhhhhh yes.
If you don't believe me, fine. But don't take my word. As a good conservative blogger, I back what I say. Take a look at President Obama's 2010 tax return: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/POTUS_taxes.pdf
Start by focusing your attention to page 1, line 22 - Total Income: $1,795,694 (and oh yeah, he is in the 1% the left love so much to hate).
Next, look at adjusted gross income (AGI), line 37 at the bottom of the page: $1,726,096. What's that?! He reduced his income by 1.69x the average American yearly income. Don't worry; there's more.
Go to the second page, near the top. Line 40 - Itemized deductions: $373,289. Holy cow! You mean Obama has used the current tax code, just as Mitt Romney has, to reduce his taxable income.
Line 43 shows the "smoking gun" - Taxable income: $1,340,247. Ta-da! President Obama has reduced his taxable income from the original $1,795,694 to $1,340,247, or by 25.4%!!!
But wait... it's gets better. Let's take a look at Mitt Romney's 2010 tax return, and I can make this quick: http://thorndike.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Romney1040-2010.pdf
Page 1, line 22 - Total Income: $21,661,334
Page 2 (it's further in the document) Line 43, Taxable income: $17,120,067
To make sure we are comparing apples to apples, this means Mitt Romney reduced his taxable income by $4,541,267 or only 21%!!!
So when it comes to who is the biggest player of the US tax game... who reduces their income by more, who skirts the system by using these "loopholes," "write-offs," and "deductions," not only is President Obama playing the same game... he plays it MORE.
In conclusion, if this isn't a double standard, I don't know what is. To make the accusation against Romney while playing the same game in a larger way, to me, is truly disgusting. I hope this gets passed on; I firmly believe that Americans need to see this.
One of the best analyses i've ever seen.
ReplyDeleteLong time no talk.
ReplyDeleteIf obama wants to open a legitimate debate about ending loopholes and such, that's fine. So does Romney and Ryan. But for him, and the left to attack Romney for using them as he does himself, that's despicable.
Hey there LME,
ReplyDeleteI think we have to disagree on a few points here. :)
Playing devil's advocate, there are a few statements that are a bit misleading to me.
This statement:
"What?! That means, if we assume the US has about 310,000,000 people, that yes, about 45-47% didn't even file tax returns (this is given as a range because the number could be different due to joint tax returns), but there is an even more important stat here: 81,900,000 of those paid taxes. So out of 310,000,000 people, only 26.4% had income tax to pay? How can this country be sustained when nearly 3 out of ever 4 people doesn't even pay income tax? "
Being the first of which. Our labor participation rate hovers around 63% (http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000/), so of course ~45-47% didn’t file tax returns. Needless to say, if you’re not working/making any money you’re usually not filing a tax return.
The data you highlight from the IRS is only focusing on the federal income tax as well… when these discussions and particularly the Obama ads typically involve referencing someone’s overall, final tax rate (including SS/Medicare). You’re kind of changing the argument battleground here for more favorable numbers; all of the “Mitt only paid ~13-14% in taxes!” trumpeting is using his overall tax rate (w/Med & SS), not just his income taxes.
Which when applied to the statistics here, bumps up the final tax rate by a minimum of about 6% for the $30-50k salary range. Your point still holds that Mitt still paid a higher rate than the ‘average American’, but the difference is not as big as you seem to imply.
Further, when you compare Obama vs Romney in their statements, you seem to not want to mention the fact that Obama’s overall tax rate was much higher than Romney’s. Which again, is the topic you’re picking on Obama’s ad about.
But you switched topics to compare who was entitled to and took the largest numerical amount of deductions. Which, even without looking at any numbers or analysis I could’ve told you would have been Obama, because the typical trend is that the higher your salary is the lower the percent of your income your deductions will be. For you to reference this as a meaningful area of comparison, when Romney makes more than 10 times the money that Obama does, is incredibly misleading.
Tax deductions are typically based on fixed numerical amounts and not percentages… So of course if you take someone with a salary more than 10x higher than someone else’s, they will have less overall tax deductions as a percent of their income in 95% of the scenarios. Again, tax deductions aren’t percentage based, they’re fixed amounts.
This ‘fixed amount’ aspect of tax deductions is why people can also owe no taxes (or even get a refund). It doesn’t take much to practically deduct/credit your way out of a tax bill, but the more money you make the less easy that gets (of course).
And that fact doesn't make this a double standard, because the standard Obama pleaded for was in regards to overall tax rates… not who deducted more, which is the topic you addressed.
And to be completely fair, as far as who plays the system more I have yet to hear anything about Obama having off-shore accounts or any money invested outside of America. In fact, Obama has a fair amount invested directly in treasury notes/bills (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/pf_article_112763.html), where as Mitt does not and even has a fair amount in offshore accounts/invested outside the country (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jul/17/barack-obama/obama-ad-says-romney-stashed-money-cayman-islands/). Not to mention the controversial 'carried interest' form of salary taxed at a capital gains rate that Mitt has made a large portion of his fortune on. There's no question in my mind who is 'the biggest player of the US tax game' with those facts.
RKen - I think you're completely misunderstanding many things here. I will try to address them.
DeleteFirst, you said this, "Being the first of which. Our labor participation rate hovers around 63% (http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000/), so of course ~45-47% didn’t file tax returns. Needless to say, if you’re not working/making any money you’re usually not filing a tax return." On a quick point with that... don't many people counter the claim of 47% not paying taxes with "well, they pay SS/Payroll/Medicare taxes?" How??? If they don't work, how could they even pay these taxes? It actually leads to my next point.
Secondly, you said this: "The data you highlight from the IRS is only focusing on the federal income tax as well… when these discussions and particularly the Obama ads typically involve referencing someone’s overall, final tax rate (including SS/Medicare). You’re kind of changing the argument battleground here for more favorable numbers; all of the “Mitt only paid ~13-14% in taxes!” trumpeting is using his overall tax rate (w/Med & SS), not just his income taxes."
I absolutely addressed this because this is the argument we continually hear. The counter of "what about SS taxes" is completely false. I addressed this: "What does the data show? It clearly says that yes, IRS data confirmed that "millionaires and billionaires" do not pay lower tax rates than the middle class. For those claiming "well, this doesn't include payroll taxes..." False. It does. This is total tax receipts. When a tax filer submits his/her tax return, the key numbers the IRS takes into account for this data is total income and total taxes paid. It doesn't breakdown or remove payroll taxes."
The IRS, in its data tables, does NOT separate taxes out. The data shown is total tax (of course, not including state taxes).
You then said, "Which when applied to the statistics here, bumps up the final tax rate by a minimum of about 6% for the $30-50k salary range. Your point still holds that Mitt still paid a higher rate than the ‘average American’, but the difference is not as big as you seem to imply." - That was the original point of this analysis... so is the case not true that Obama is indeed lying?
Next you said, "Further, when you compare Obama vs Romney in their statements, you seem to not want to mention the fact that Obama’s overall tax rate was much higher than Romney’s. Which again, is the topic you’re picking on Obama’s ad about."
- I never said it wasn't. I never made any claims about Obama's tax rate? Is there something I'm missing here?
(continued)
continued:
DeleteNext you said, "But you switched topics to compare who was entitled to and took the largest numerical amount of deductions. Which, even without looking at any numbers or analysis I could’ve told you would have been Obama, because the typical trend is that the higher your salary is the lower the percent of your income your deductions will be. For you to reference this as a meaningful area of comparison, when Romney makes more than 10 times the money that Obama does, is incredibly misleading. "
This couldn't be more false. Some deductions are limited by a flat number. Most are not. Mortgage interest deductions are not. In fact, with Romney's many houses, this should have boosted him into the lead on this. Regardless, the point still stands true and was never avoided: Obama and the left vilifies Mitt Romney for doing this (quantitatively, it's irrelevant, qualitatively, it is) while he does the exact same thing AND, if you look at it quantitatively, to a larger extent. This is a "people in glass houses argument." How can you go off on Romney when you do it yourself?
Here you said, "And that fact doesn't make this a double standard, because the standard Obama pleaded for was in regards to overall tax rates… not who deducted more, which is the topic you addressed."
I'm not sure where the confusion is here. I addressed two things: Overall tax rates, which, as I've shown, Obama is absolutely lying on, and the double standard in that Obama (and the left) call out Mitt Romney for using legal tax laws to reduce taxable income while doing it himself. I addressed these two things, and I backed them with analysis. I don't know where the confusion is. Additionally, I never said who deducted more... obviously Romney did. I made the case of who was able to use these tax rules to deduct a larger percentage of their income.
(continued)
continued:
DeleteAnd in all honesty, I'm a little surprised by your last paragraph. This is nothing personal at all, but I wouldn't expect you to get into this kind of baseless zone (I didn't take it personal when you called my opinion "heartless" ) :-P
The whole "off shore" accounts thing is absolutely ridiculous. First, ALL money, 100% of it deposited in an "off shore" account (which, I'd be willing to guess, our of 100 people that talk about them, 99 couldn't give accurate info about them) is done so AFTER taxes. There is no way to get around this. No one can take money they earn (no matter how they earn it), and have it deposited pre-tax into an account held in a foreign bank. If that's the case, I'm calling my employer's HR department and changing my direct deposit form. Secondly, Mitt filed ALL appropriate paperwork necessary to become president. This included a FBAF, and the government found him to be in complete compliance. Third, how Obama has his money invested and how Mitt has his money invested is his business. If nothing illegal has occurred, which it hasn't, why is this an issue. Honestly, it sounds like a hollow talking point. I'm young, so my investments are risky. I have a LOT invested in PACRIM, Eastern European, Third World country equities and equity funds. It has nothing to do with anything unpatriotic, illegal, scandalous, immoral or anything of the like. It doesn't for me, and it doesn't for Mitt. Again, in my opinion, this is really a "grab at straws" employment of hollow "gotcha" talking points, that if vetted, look really silly. Finally, with this, "Not to mention the controversial 'carried interest' form of salary taxed at a capital gains rate that Mitt has made a large portion of his fortune on" I'm not sure what the point is. Mitt pays the appropriate tax rate on his income no matter how it is earned. What does your comment mean. In fact, if you want to talk about the econ behind it, earning income via cap gains is actually double taxed: http://www.forbes.com/sites/charleskadlec/2012/08/20/mitt-romney-paid-30-not-13-in-federal-income-taxes/
Trust me... nothing personal at all... when I say I'm a little surprised, usually you have great analysis and fact based points. In my opinion, the comments on the whole "foreign bank accounts" thing wasn't something I expected.
DeleteSorted by topic:
Delete**Labor Participation Rate**
I didn’t make any argument about the ‘how do 47% pay no taxes!?’ debate, I was just pointing out the evidence as to why 1/3rd of Americans didn’t file taxes returns. The former is a different discussion all together, perhaps for another time since we already have quite a few going here. :)
**IRS Tax rates**
That IRS data does not include SS/Medicare taxes in those tables.
This should be fairly obvious by the fact that our federal government takes in far more than $800 bil in revenue, which is what your chart totals as “the total income taxes collected.”
See here for the actual revenue data including Payroll and other sources:
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/background/numbers/revenue.cfm/
http://www.cbo.gov/publication/21938
Where you can see for fact, that the total income tax receipts in your charts is only counting “individual income tax” and is NOT counting “payroll taxes” (which is the category SS/Med fall under). Together, they both represent $1.8 trillion of our revenue stream… not $800 billion.
The data I linked also shows that the total individual income taxes collected represent $800 billion, which again, means that your $800 billion figure in your charts matches perfectly with income taxes collected (once more, not including payroll).
Delete**Obama’s Tax-Rate**
This discussion is about the misleading Obama ad pointing at Mitt’s overall tax rates, is it not?
I think I see where things got unclear, because in your reply to me you more clearly reference this also being about “and the double standard in that Obama (and the left) call out Mitt Romney for using legal tax laws to reduce taxable income while doing it himself.” I didn’t clearly catch this shift in topic change in your post, so to me the whole post looked like you were arguing about overall taxes… despite going into a completely different area of discussion (which I then questioned you about).
Personally though, I think the message is being a bit convoluted there. The main argument from the left here isn’t that “Mitt shouldn’t have taken the deductions legally afforded to him!” That’s a bit ridiculous, and I’d even challenge you to find any quote by a meaningful Democrat that says such. The argument is that people like Mitt and earning similar amounts of money should simply be paying more; not that “they shouldn’t take their mortgage deductions!”
That comes off a bit strawman-esque to me, similar to how people respond to Buffet’s “I should pay more taxes” with a silly argument of “then write a check to the IRS!” The actual message there is that everyone at that income level should be paying more taxes, not that just Buffet personally should.
**American Tax Game**
This turned a bit off-topic here, I think you might’ve misread my point. I made no implication that Mitt violated the tax code or did anything illegal.
You closed your post with an opinion of ‘who is the biggest player of the American tax game’, I simply said that I couldn’t honestly believe that Obama (by what you suggested) is a bigger player of the American tax game and listed my reasons why (Obama actually investing in America directly, while Mitt enjoys a large amount of wealth generated through a salary loophole and actively invests outside of America in known tax havens).
And the legality of it wasn’t my point, nor did it matter in my assessment of that point. It was simply my opinion on who I believe has ‘played the tax system’ more (once more, regardless of legality).
Mr. RKen, we meet again,
DeleteI think LME might be mistaken, but I've seen the argument both ways. In fact, you cite $800B revenue, but that doesn't seem off considering most of the government's revenue comes from other taxes, penalties, and most importantly, corporations. I have to look in to it. Either way, no one is perfect.
But, I do have to say, this piece is very strong, and your attempts to pull away from the two key points presented, while good in effort, don't quite stack up against the strength of the piece. Your points are noted, but, at best, they seem like a pull away from the two points LME made and backed quite well. Sure, he might be off as far as payroll taxes, I don't know yet, but, he made a point that Obama is lying about Romney versus the US with tax rates (which he actually has shown many times), and it still holds true, and he made a point about the chastising by the left for talking about loopholes and such while Obama does it himself (numbers aside). I definitely rate this one of the best analyses on here.
RKen - always a good debate.
DeleteI'm literally about to run out the door to face DC traffic (ugh) so I wanted to get one point out.
With regards to this: "**Obama’s Tax-Rate**
This discussion is about the misleading Obama ad pointing at Mitt’s overall tax rates, is it not?
I think I see where things got unclear, because in your reply to me you more clearly reference this also being about “and the double standard in that Obama (and the left) call out Mitt Romney for using legal tax laws to reduce taxable income while doing it himself.” I didn’t clearly catch this shift in topic change in your post, so to me the whole post looked like you were arguing about overall taxes… despite going into a completely different area of discussion (which I then questioned you about).
Personally though, I think the message is being a bit convoluted there. The main argument from the left here isn’t that “Mitt shouldn’t have taken the deductions legally afforded to him!” That’s a bit ridiculous, and I’d even challenge you to find any quote by a meaningful Democrat that says such. The argument is that people like Mitt and earning similar amounts of money should simply be paying more; not that “they shouldn’t take their mortgage deductions!”
That comes off a bit strawman-esque to me, similar to how people respond to Buffet’s “I should pay more taxes” with a silly argument of “then write a check to the IRS!” The actual message there is that everyone at that income level should be paying more taxes, not that just Buffet personally should."
I never said that the left or Obama said, "“Mitt shouldn’t have taken the deductions legally afforded to him!”
All I'm saying is that they are going after Mitt (and the rich) for this kind of thing, but doing it themselves. That, in itself, is a double standard. Do I expect Obama to NOT use these tax tools and say "ah ha! I'm not using them?" No... but I also think it's not right for anyone to be upset at doing what Mitt does while doing it himself. But yes, I'm definitely seeing a double standard.
And I didn't notice that you didn't catch the shift in conversation lol. So I feel bad about that :-)
Ugh, lots of confusion... sometime it is hard to keep up. Take care, RKen... I hope you don't have the traffic wherever you are like we do here.
MN 4 Rick: Howdy, hope all is well. :)
DeleteI think that this might’ve been lost in the length of this discussion, but I actually did point out in my original post that despite what I said LME is still correct in that it would be false to imply that Romney paid a lower tax rate than the ‘average American’ by current IRS data. Obama’s ad is wrong in that. So, you are right that his overall point still stands true. :)
Which by the way, totally makes me sad because I’m one the suckers that is paying more at a 19.1% overall tax rate (not including state). :(
And I don’t mean to take credit away from the analysis either, as I agree it is very well-done, detailed, and includes credible sources and facts explaining and supporting his points. If every political discussion started with a layout like this, we would live in a much better country. But if I didn’t plug the hard questions/criticisms here, I don’t think many else would!
LME: Hope you made it home safe! Fortunately the traffic usually isn’t too bad for me.
I think the double standard point is a bit tough to make in this argument. I certainly see where you’re coming from, but the idea behind these political ideals is that people want to see a universal policy change. They don’t want to see (ie) sparse examples of rich people willingly giving more out of the good of their hearts; they want the law of the land changed to represent the ideals their pushing.
Calling for this change while still following the laws of the land is tough to label as a double standard to me. I mean, technically you can say it is… but it’s just not a strong point. Technically, Paul Ryan is exercising a double standard too by campaigning against government-ran healthcare while continuing to receive benefits from his public plan as part of Congress, but I’m sure you can see how that would be a rather weak point to attack him with? Right? Him denying it on principle might be nice, but in reality it doesn’t truly mean much. Perhaps not the best comparison, but I think you get my point.
And yeah, my fault on not catching the shift in conversation topic lol.
RKen good afternoon. It has been a while. Hope all is well with you.
ReplyDeleteLME good afternoon to you too.
First, LME, I was surprised that the percentage of taxpayers was 26%. I figured it would be lower because of families (isn't the avg family size like 4.2 people? Working on memory on that one.)people in jail and retired people. I also thought RKen's observation about the participation rate was a good point.
RKen, what is illegal or immoral about having off-shore accounts or investment outside of America? How exactly do we know about these accounts and investments? Would it be because Romney disclosed that information (which wouldn't make them "secret accounts")? Are off-shore accounts and investments bad for everyone or just rich guys that happen to be Republicans and running for President?
The guy has a lot of money. Big deal.
Also, you mentioned about how 0bama is invested in our debt while he continues to rack it (debt) up at over a TRILLION bucks per year. What a selling point. He profits off of the debt he is running up and you are going on about disclosed off-shore accounts. I find that a little on the hilarious side.
Have a good day gentlemen.
Hi Slim, has been a while! Hope all is well with you too.
DeleteI clarified my point a bit more on the off-shore account reference in my response to LME. I wasn't attempting to say much less even imply he did anything illegal, shady, or even secret.
I didn't even imply or say it was a bad thing. I was just making the point that, in debating the question of 'who plays the tax game more', the fact that he has off-shore accounts and investments outside America (and in not just any places, but known tax havens for wealthy Americans) affects my opinion of who truly is playing the system more.
Regarding treasure debt, it's relevant to know that the worse America's financial situation gets the riskier holding mass amounts of treasury notes/bills becomes. I can't see how Obama would stand to profit from crashing America's finances while having the majority of his investments locked up in it. Not to mention, they're also one of the lowest-interest-bearing major investments one can make.
Lots of great facts and figures here, gentlemen, but few points still remain.
Delete1. If it's all legal and above board, it's not playing the system. It's having the knowledge, or being to hire people who possess the knowledge, to take full legal advantage of the system.
As far as the apparent hypocrisy of using a system that you are critical of, if it is legal, then there is nothing wrong with that. We all have to fit into the system, even parts of it we don’t like. We might as well make the best of it. If R&R, and the Congress, change the tax code, I am sure that they will use the new tax code the best they can to keep and shelter their money. I know I will, as should everyone else.
2. The original piece of this discussion centers around an ad that is shifty at best - that Romney 'probably' did 'this,' and possibly did 'that,' regarding his income and the sheltering of it. Underhanded, at best. Many people don't think past what they're told, and take things at face value. The unstated implications of the ad is that Romney makes a lot of money and that people should hate him for that, and that he 'might' be doing something illegal to protect his money, and that should be hated, as well.
So, who makes the determination of what amount of income is high enough to be hated? Obama? Romney makes $21+M, Obama made $1+M? Is Obama vilifying Romney? Should I vilify Obama because I make not quite a tenth of what he makes, never mind Romney? Of course not. God bless anyone who can make as much money as they can legally. That's what this country has always been about.
3. As usual, Democrats are trying to shift focus away from the issues that count: the economy, jobs, taxes, and the debt. Who better than a businessman/politician to begin to do something about this main issue?
I guess what has got so many of us up in arms is not only the terrible job the current administration has done, but the constant avoidance of what they did to keep us here, and at the same time, throw focus away from it by focusing on stuff like this, especially when it is such a non-issue, especially in the overall scheme of what really matters – the economy, jobs, taxes, and the debt.
SR
SR – welcome, and thank you for your opinions. I will do my best to share my opinions of them.
Delete1. I agree with your first sentence. I do think it’s hypocrisy, however. To me, it isn’t hypocritical to use a system you’re critical of, and If my point on that was unclear, I apologize. It is, in my opinion, very hypocritical to criticize Mitt Romney and the wealthy in the way Team Obama and the left have. They have made this almost an issue of “I’m good, the wealthy are evil.” It is used as an attack and as a hit on Mitt’s character. MSM news outlets do this to ridiculous extent.
2. There is one of the best statements I’ve heard on this blog: “Many people don’t think past what they’re told and take things at face value.” BINGO! Yes! I talk about this constantly. You know how I know it’s true? Just look at Facebook in one day. How many posts will you see from Obama supporters claiming “Mitt Romney paid a lower tax rate than America’s middle class?” They do it all the time. The take in that lie at face value and believe it to the point of repeating it on Facebook even though it is 100% false. You couldn’t be more right in your statement.
Additionally, you said, “The unstated implications of the ad is that Romney makes a lot of money and that people should hate him for that, and that he 'might' be doing something illegal to protect his money, and that should be hated, as well.” –Yes, also true… and it’s the simple “throw it at the wall and hope it sticks” implication that matters. In spite of the fact that absolutely NO evidence has come out to back the claim Romney is doing something illegal, the left will continue to spread this false message.
3. Agreed again.
Thank you again for a well-written assessment. I hope you come back soon!
Wait rken
ReplyDeleteYou do realize you're talking out of both sides of your mouth. You are trying to say,
I didn't even imply or say it was a bad thing. I was just making the point that, in debating the question of 'who plays the tax game more', the fact that he has off-shore accounts and investments outside America (and in not just any places, but known tax havens for wealthy Americans) affects my opinion of who truly is playing the system more.
But, as correctly pointed out, his "offshore accounts" you complain about have NOTHING to do with tax evasion or anything of the like. You even said it wasn't illegal. You tried to clear it up by saying
You closed your post with an opinion of ‘who is the biggest player of the American tax game’, I simply said that I couldn’t honestly believe that Obama (by what you suggested) is a bigger player of the American tax game and listed my reasons why (Obama actually investing in America directly, while Mitt enjoys a large amount of wealth generated through a salary loophole and actively invests outside of America in known tax havens).
And the legality of it wasn’t my point, nor did it matter in my assessment of that point. It was simply my opinion on who I believe has ‘played the tax system’ more (once more, regardless of legality).
But, it's completely unrelated and moot. He doesn't have his money in those accounts as you and many Americans accuse him of, so your opinion of "who games the system" should not rest on those points at all. They're thrown out. There as related to who games the system as much as who wears a yellow tie more, or who eats the most cake. I'm surprised you tried to use that.
Hi Anna.
DeleteWhen I say tax evasion, I'm not implying it in the legal sense. I'm saying that he has money in places specifically for the purpose of growing under more tax-favorable scenarios (aka, he’s more effectively playing the tax game… which is the point I faulted him for).
Specifically, a big justification for the Cayman island accounts, even while remaining 100% within the realm of the tax law of the United States, is to benefit from the way worldwide income tax is treated differently from income tax in America.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offshore_bank
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_tax_credit
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_the_United_States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_earned_income_exclusion
Etc.
The fact that it is completely legal doesn't mean that there isn't anything to gain from it. Which again, is why I think he’s playing the tax game far more than Obama. And like I said, that doesn’t necessarily make him bad, as he’s perfectly within his legal rights to do all this; I just believe this evidence supports him going through far more effort than Obama to lower his tax bill.
And, I'm not sure if I understood you correctly, did you say that he doesn't have any money in foreign accounts? That would not be accurate:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jul/17/barack-obama/obama-ad-says-romney-stashed-money-cayman-islands/
Hi LME Great analysis!
ReplyDeleteI was going to comment on how I've linked numbers/graphs/articles such a yours in the comments on other sites - only to get bashed, often colorfully, by the lefties citing left leaning blogs and websites (when they bother to back their words anything but LSM 'talking points').
Your back and forth with RKen pretty much proves my point - except he graciously refrains from 'colorful'-ness... : )
Obama and his 'crew' are out there - demonizing EVERYTHING R in sight, day in and day out. If Romney said 'the sky is blue', Obama would counter with something like... 'Gov. Romney has said the sky is blue, but he's WRONG... it's actually Cerulean, but he wouldn't know that because he a) has offshore bank accounts b) worked for Bain Capital c) killed a man's wife d) wants dirty air and water e)fill in the blank.'
Their MANY LIES are blatant and so easily proven to be UnTrue - but those on the left seem oblivious to ANYTHING but that which issues from the Lib/Dems.
Not to be mean, but Obama's 'rallies' look and sound more like Old Time Southern Holy Roller revival meetings! The people in the audience get glassy eyed and LOOK as though they've been smacked in the forehead with the WORD - only the 'word' for them, is O-Ba-Ma.
Question: HOW do we get the VOTERS to simmer down and LISTEN to the TRUTH?
Or ~ do you think the Liberals are so locked into partisan politics that they're completely deaf to ANY other view point - even when you SHOW them - in clear, simple to understand terms - that they're being LIED TO?
LIBs are simply locked in. No matter what you tell them, no matter if you're 100% right and they are wrong, they will still vote fpr Obama.
DeleteDara - good afternoon!
DeleteRarely do I get to pop on here in the afternoon because my evenings are usually packed. I'm waiting for the wife to get home, so I had a quick second.
I just wanted to say that I think it's really cool that you use this blog's info on other sites... not because it's the blog's work... but because you're a Loudmouth Elephant, standing up for what you believe and backing it with why you believe it.
That has always been my problem. I'm just so tired of people having positions, claims, opinions, etc. without being able to back it. If someone told me something, though I might not agree, I want to see the info behind it so at least I can understand them. I'm definitely happy to say, "thanks... though I don't agree with you, I'm happy to know and understand why you feel what you feel." The "meat and potatoes" to me is what matters, and that's why I started blogging. Unfortunately, I get attacked when I comment on other sites, too. No matter how peaceful I am, no matter how many times I say, "it's fine to disagree, these are just my opinions and my reasons for them" I still get attacked. My favorite is when people don't link back to the blog and say it's a sham or my opinions and facts are a sham. Usually I respond with, "well, my data is cited and linked, and it's from (the IRS's website) so are you calling IT a sham?"
As far as RKen, I like him. No matter how many times we disagree, he is respectful and never takes shots. He cites his sources and engages in civil and respectful debate. Even if we never agreed, I do like his style. In fact, most people here, especially the "regulars" are very respectful and they respect civil debate. It's great because no one owes me anything, but people do respect civility. It's definitely refreshing... Occasionally, we get a troll (yes, from both sides), but I am definitely grateful that so many people can come here, as you do, to express yourself.
Thanks again, Dara! Have a wonderful day.
Hi LME (and @RKen if you're still there : )
DeleteRKen and I seldom agree on anything, but he's smart and always respectful in his manner, (unlike many on the 'other side') As there are always two sides to any issue, it's fun to debate with him - or watch while he debate w/you : )
Have a great day all!
Ha, yeah I can be a bit stubborn sometimes :) but I try to stay grounded and focus on facts/evidence or at least well-explained reasoning. We all have agreed on some occasions too! But, it wouldn't be good debate if we always did!
DeletePleasure to discuss these issues with you all. Thanks for the well words.
You have a good day too lol.