My thoughts on the Romney’s Income Tax Returns and other points. Any rebuke

[Reverend Rick]

Careful, Alceste! You are on the verge of being called a socialist! (But not by me.)

I've called her a socialist many times and I have been right. I bet she agrees with me.

 

[Revoltingest]

I've called her a socialist many times and I have been right. I bet she agrees with me.

Wait til The People take control of her fledgling video game company.
She'll put on a tie, take up golf, kick a small dog, & join the Republican Party.
(Perhaps some day she might even become a Libertarian.)

 

[Reverend Rick]

Wait til The People take control of her fledgling video game company.
She'll put on a tie, take up golf, kick a small dog, & join the Republican Party.
(Perhaps some day she might even become a Libertarian.)

You mean wait till she stokes a very large check to the government and is not so proud of her bank balance anymore.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

In Canada, everything is free, except for your visits to the dentist and optometrist, your ambulance rides and your prescription medications.

That's not quite true.

At least here in Ontario, dental visits and prescriptions aren't normally covered by public health insurance. Many people get supplementary private insurance to cover these items.

 

[idea]

The main reason Mitt Romney has paid a lower tax rate than normal for high income earners is because of his donations to charity. Another factor is that his income is taxed twice; first at the corporate level, then as an individual.

Some more about Mitt:
Mitt Romney received no salary as an intern in the governor’s office for eight years, as state president of his church for ten years, as president of the Salt Lake City Olympics, and he only took a ceremonial salary of $1 as governor of Massachusetts.

Mitt Romney refused to take his father’s trust fund money, he financed his way through college, and he donated his father’s inheritance to charity.

Mitt Romney’s investment firm Bain Capital has helped the following businesses succeed in the market, among others: Burger King, Sealy, Sports Authority, Staples, Brookstone, Burlington Coat Factory, Clear Channel, Domino’s Pizza, Houghton Mifflin, Dunkin’ Donuts, The Weather Channel, Guitar Center, and the Hospital Corporation of America.

Mitt Romney recently stated in unequivocal terms that the Federal Reserve should be audited. As he responded to a questioner at a campaign stop, “The Federal Reserve should be accountable. We should see what they’re doing.”

 

[Reverend Richard]

That's not quite true.

At least here in Ontario, dental visits and prescriptions aren't normally covered by public health insurance. Many people get supplementary private insurance to cover these items.

That's interesting! I'm generally a very healthy individual, so the Canadian health care system would (currently) be of little benefit to me. Looking back on my expenses for for the last several years, most of my health care costs are related to my (preventative) perscription medications and my dental visits (mainly checkups, with a filling or a crown here and there). Even though I'm in my 60s, I rarely go to the doctor with a real health problem.

 

[no-body]

Have some concrete allegations?


Have support for that figure?

We can't know for sure until he releases his tax returns.

He creates more jobs than those who only dole out money forcibly taken from others, eg, Obama.

That would be a matter of opinion.

 

[Revoltingest]

We can't know for sure until he releases his tax returns.

But allegations based upon speculations aren't fair to Willard.
It's like saying Obama was disciplined for cheating since his records are secret.
Sure, we're curious about such records, but specious speculation, while fun, is wrong.

That would be a matter of opinion.

Of course. But it's clear that entrepreneurs & companies create jobs. But how would government do that? Any money they spend,
is money taken (even fiat currency) from the private sector, which results in job losses. I doubt that the net effect is job creation.
Instead, I see government spending as necessary to provide basic functions for survival of a peaceful society....spend enuf to achieve
that, & then no more, because it's a drag on the economy.

What constitutes a "peaceful society"? Now that's a matter of opinion to really argue over.

 

[esmith]

Actually, you're wrong about that, as well. Preventive maintenance is cheaper than the alternative of trying to cure what was preventable. That's why public health care plans are more cost-effective than those that encourage people not to get regular checkups. So it ultimately lowers the "indirect" cost, which, in our case, will be in the form of lower premiums paid to private insurance companies. Not in my case, though, because I am going on Medicare in a couple of months. So my overall costs (with supplemental "medigap" insurance and all the copays and Plan B premiums and other gotchas) will be several thousand dollars per year out of pocket.

Romney made the same arguments and supported a public mandate when he was governor of Massachusetts. Obama, a former Massachusetts resident, seems to have modeled his approach after Romney's. The only reason that Romney threatens to repeal "Obamacare" is that he would never have gotten the nomination by supporting what he originally promoted. Is he going to sincerely try to repeal the ACA? I really doubt he is sincere about it, but most people who will vote for him aren't duped either. They will support him primarily because he is not Obama.

The directly vs indirectly was in reference to paying for health care. The poster said that health care was"free". I said no...nothing is free, they responded that they meant free at point of service. I then said that it might be free "directly" but "indirectly" it is not free. There is tax revenues that pay for the "free" health care, therefore it is not "free".

So enough said about health care lets get back to the original subject line.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Of course. But it's clear that entrepreneurs & companies create jobs. But how would government do that? Any money they spend,
is money taken (even fiat currency) from the private sector, which results in job losses. I doubt that the net effect is job creation.
Instead, I see government spending as necessary to provide basic functions for survival of a peaceful society....spend enuf to achieve
that, & then no more, because it's a drag on the economy.

I take it you're not a Keynesian.

 

[Revoltingest]

Al Capone went to jail for tax evasion, not murder or anything else associated with being a gangster. Do you think he never committed murder and wasn't a gangster?
Just because someone isn't charged with something doesn't mean they didn't do it. Right now, there isn't evidence either way.

There isn't evidence either way that Obama cheated in school, was disciplined,
& received poor grades.....& has a nude Groundskeeper Willie screensaver.
Just because Obama has escaped detection so far, doesn't make him innocent.
(Hey...this is fun! Anything you can do, I can do stupidinger.)

I'm not sure of how the law works in the US (American tax rules scare me), but here, actions that are taken solely to reduce income tax payable are considered tax evasion.

No. "Evasion" refers to illegally done "avoidance".
It's perfectly legal & proper to do things solely to avoid taxes.
But somethings, eg, operating a business at a loss, will be tolerated only to a certain extent.

 

[Revoltingest]

I take it you're not a Keynesian.

Funny you should mention that. I am a Keynesian in the limited sense which he proffered the approach. But I
don't trust government to wield the kind of power which Keynes would grant. Lack of wisdom & the political temptation
to make such spending permanent makes his method too risky to employ. Put me in charge, & we could give it a try.

 

[Alceste]

Careful, Alceste! You are on the verge of being called a socialist! (But not by me.)

We in Canuckistan lack the Pavlovian conditioning imposed on or neighbours to the south to fly into histrionic fits and foam at the mouth at the mere mention of leftist political thought. You can call me a socialist, and it would be mostly right. Social democrat would be more accurate, or libertarian socialist.

I've called her a socialist many times and I have been right. I bet she agrees with me.

Yup.

That's not quite true..
At least here in Ontario, dental visits and prescriptions aren't normally covered by public health insurance. Many people get supplementary private insurance to cover these items.

That's why I said "except". I haven't been to the dentist in almost ten years - since the last time I had a job with dental benefits.

That's interesting! I'm generally a very healthy individual, so the Canadian health care system would (currently) be of little benefit to me. Looking back on my expenses for for the last several years, most of my health care costs are related to my (preventative) perscription medications and my dental visits (mainly checkups, with a filling or a crown here and there). Even though I'm in my 60s, I rarely go to the doctor with a real health problem.

Even if you're not sick yourself, it's nice knowing that everyone you know and care about is getting properly looked after, and their health problems are unlikely to cause them any financial problems.

You mean wait till she stokes a very large check to the government and is not so proud of her bank balance anymore.

If we were making enough dough to pay more tax, Rick, I certainly would not be complaining. Because we would have more money. In case that wasn't clear.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That's why I said "except". I haven't been to the dentist in almost ten years - since the last time I had a job with dental benefits.

Bah - I misread your post. I didn't see the "except for".

My fault for posting before coffee. Sorry.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

There isn't evidence either way that Obama cheated in school, was disciplined,
& received poor grades.....& has a nude Groundskeeper Willie screensaver.
Just because Obama has escaped detection so far, doesn't make him innocent.
(Hey...this is fun! Anything you can do, I can do stupidinger.)

And that's why you won't me asserting that Obama never cheated in school.

I'm not saying that Romney did cheat on his taxes (I have no idea); I'm saying that esmith is using bad logic when he argues that just because the IRS didn't have him charged for tax evasion, we can be sure he never cheated.

Edit: and as has been pointed out, the IRS' amnesty program means we can't even say that the lack of tax evasion charges means that the IRS never became aware of anything. We still have three possibilities, none of which can be excluded based on the evidence at hand:

- he never did anything wrong on his taxes
- he fudged his taxes, but the IRS never found out
- he fudged his taxes, he disclosed it to the IRS, and they settled it out-of-court under their amnesty program

(note: I recognize that "he never did anything wrong on his taxes" is still one of the possible explanations)

 

[Reverend Richard]

Originally Posted by Reverend Richard
That's interesting! I'm generally a very healthy individual, so the Canadian health care system would (currently) be of little benefit to me. Looking back on my expenses for for the last several years, most of my health care costs are related to my (preventative) perscription medications and my dental visits (mainly checkups, with a filling or a crown here and there). Even though I'm in my 60s, I rarely go to the doctor with a real health problem.

Even if you're not sick yourself, it's nice knowing that everyone you know and care about is getting properly looked after, and their health problems are unlikely to cause them any financial problems.

This is true. And, although I don't make a lot of money, I would be willing to pay a few more taxes if it meant that more of my family had better medical coverage. Quite frankly I am my brothers' and sisters' keeper - yes, even the lazy bums who don't deserve it - but especially their kids, who had no choice in the matter.

 

[Alceste]

Bah - I misread your post. I didn't see the "except for".

My fault for posting before coffee. Sorry.

No problem. Ooooh, coffee! What a fine idea!

 

[Alceste]

Originally Posted by Reverend Richard
That's interesting! I'm generally a very healthy individual, so the Canadian health care system would (currently) be of little benefit to me. Looking back on my expenses for for the last several years, most of my health care costs are related to my (preventative) perscription medications and my dental visits (mainly checkups, with a filling or a crown here and there). Even though I'm in my 60s, I rarely go to the doctor with a real health problem.



This is true. And, although I don't make a lot of money, I would be willing to pay a few more taxes if it meant that more of my family had better medical coverage. Quite frankly I am my brothers' and sisters' keeper - yes, even the lazy bums who don't deserve it - but especially their kids, who had no choice in the matter.

You would actually be paying less, if you recognize that your private insurance and copays world be eliminated. It's a win-win scenario for everyone but private insurance companies. We pay a little over half what you guys pay for health care. All the other countries with universal care are closer to us than to the US, and we're on the high aside.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

You can't properly use the word "universal" unless your entire health care system is... well, universal. What the US has with medicare, medicaid, and for members of the military and congress, is perhaps a "viable, effective framework for publicly funded health care", but certainly not "universal health care". Even Romneycare in Mass. is not "universal". It only expands medicare to cover "most" of the people in Mass. who can't afford private insurance.

I feel like I can never really explain how different "universal health care" is to what Americans have, except to say that no Canadian citizen directly pays for any medically necessary health care cost, ever.

Nobody.

Ever.

You can't get there by a little bit of tweaking here and there. You have to elect people who will decisively say to your insurance companies "You know what? Feck off. We value our own health more than we value your profits". Then it's done.

I think you've explained it quite well.

 

[s2a]

Of all the people I know, not one has ever lost health care insurance upon getting really sick.
How common is what you claim?

Yet again just another glaring example why anecdotal evidences and testimonials only make for pleasant campfire storytelling...

Tell you what. Might I challenge you to actually answer your own question with a little added effort on your part, and perhaps report back to us with those numbers?

Just ho common is/was the phenomena of people being dropped from any/all insurance coverage after paying into their premiums for years?

How many shafted people is an acceptable number to chalk up to support "for-profit" health care? (that second inquiry does not request facts or data, just your own personalized opinion.)