Mitt Admits Companies are Dodging Taxes

1. 0

   Sooner28posted 12 years ago

   "I'm going to champion small business. We've got to make it easier for small businesses. Big business is doing fine in many places -– they get the loans they need, they can deal with all the regulation. They know how to find ways to get through the tax code, save money by putting various things in the places where there are low tax havens around the world for their businesses. But small business is getting crushed."
   
   http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/2 … 26597.html

   replyreport
   1. 75

      Mighty Momposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Essentially he's suggesting the government should make it easier for small businesses to outsource jobs and hide money in offshore tax shelters, too.
      
      I can see the campaign slogan now:
      "Build your business while we rebuild America.
      Ship your jobs and your assets to a foreign country."
      
      

      replyreport
      1. 0

         Sooner28posted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Yeah when he is actually honest, you see what kind of statements he makes.  He's absurd.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            shea duaneposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            30 years ago when I was in college, I had an econ professor who said that outsourcing jobs would kill the US economy, and that businesses who tried it should face huge fees that supported job creation aka FDR. He said that Americans should think: pay an american worker, pay american taxes, act like you love america. At the time, reagan had just cut my work study program and made getting student loans more difficult. I thought, 'loving america is getting tougher.' but we are a work in progress. i do love america and i think we should all be out there trying to make american live up to her potential... like paying taxes, not outsourcing, protecting the land and air, employing americans and offering living wages, and we need to stop 'othering' people the way some politicians do for votes. also, medicare needs to continue... do we want old people dying in pain in charity homes? romney doesn't see the big picture. he associates dollar signs and votes. what about people, romney?

            replyreport
            1. 0

               Sooner28posted 12 years agoin reply to this

               People are only good if they can help turn a profit in eyes of people like Romney.  His pick of Ryan shows he has very little regard for people who are not wealthy.  The feigned outrage over the Democratic strategist that said Ann Romney hadn't worked a day in her life was completely without credibility due to the fact that Mitt Romney wants to cut welfare programs for single mothers who need them.  Again, absurd.
               
               It's morally unacceptable to be against universal health care.  It's morally unacceptable to be against regulations THAT WILL PREVENT people from being poisoned.  It's not a question anymore. 
               
               The Republican party has gone mad.  The Democrats are the moderate Republicans of the past, and the Republicans are now something else.  They aren't libertarians, because they want theocracy, corporate subsides, and endless imperialism.  I'm not sure what they are anymore.

               replyreport
            2. 82

               GA Andersonposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               @shea duane - If I asked if you had ever owned a business, I suspect the answer would be no. But if you did own  a small business - would you think it fair that the government could tell you how to run it? Who to hire? Where you could make your product?
               
               So if you made your widget in USA and it cost you  $20 to put it on a retail shelf, and Samsung could put it on the retail shelf for  $15, you would be out of business, but... if you had you widget made in the Philippines you could put it on the retail shelf for $12 ----- what do you do? Go out of business because Samsung can sell cheaper - or cut your expenses and use the Philippines product?
               
               Another - you are a small business looking to hire an employee to work weekends so you can be off with your family. The accountant and your P&L says you can afford to pay a minimum wage worker at $9 p/hr. But.... a living minimum wage is $12 p/hr - which your business just cannot afford. Do you forgo hiring a worker at $9 and keep working weekends, or do you hire one at $12, (which you can't afford), and lay them off 6 weeks later to keep from going bankrupt?
               
               "... old people dying in charity homes..." I need $20 to feed my family, the "charity home" needs $20 to house an elderly person, does my family go hungry in order to give the $20 to the "charity home?" Remember - government does not have any money that it does not take from a taxpayer first!
               
               "Kum ba ya" is a nice sentiment - but it does not put food on the table - or fix a problem, and should you care to research what you appear to preach - FDR was well outside legal and constitutional bounds. He even tried to "pack the court", (increasing judge seats from 9 to 13 to get his "people" on the bench),  to circumvent constitutional requirements. Be careful what you wish for.
               
               GA

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  Sooner28posted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  Your answer highlights the incentives in Capitalism to destroy the dignity of human beings by devaluing their humanity and paying them slave wages (remember, slavery covers ALL basic necessities, such as water, food, and shelter, and minimum wage does not even cover that). 
                  
                  This analysis is very well thought out, and it perfectly shows everything that is wrong with the incentive structure of our current economic organization.

                  replyreport
                  1. 82

                     GA Andersonposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     Is that the "official" definition of "slavery" or your definition? Or did you just misread my response? YOU are the small business owner, AND you have a finite amount of money you can spend on labor.
                     
                     So since YOU can't afford to pay the defined "living wage," do you continue to work 7 days a week AND deprive someone who WANTS to work for ANY wage a job?
                     
                     If I were qualified, and capable of running a restaurant, but no jobs were available - is my dignity destroyed if I am willing to take a dish washing job at $8 p/hr in order to buy food? Or do I let my kids go hungry because they aren't paying a "living" wage to wash dishes.
                     
                     Gesh... get real. Life is tough, then you die. What you do in-between is the measure of your character. Where do you think YOU would be without our system of capitalism?
                     
                     GA

                     replyreport
                     1. 0

                        Sooner28posted 12 years agoin reply to this

                        You are begging the question (logical fallacy, not the way the media misuses it)  http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacie … stion.html 
                        
                        You are describing what I must do WITHIN Capitalism to be successful, rather than FIRST defending the validity of Capitalism.  Do you understand what I'm saying?  It would be like saying, you must do x, y, and z to survive as a serf, and when someone asks whether being a serf is even acceptable, you continue to explain what a serf must do under feudalism.
                        
                        I agree with a lot of what you are saying, and that is the problem.
                        
                        As to your point about slavery, it would be like saying, "the definition of marriage in the dictionary is between one man and one woman."  What happens when the dictionary changes?  That's already happening.  Dictionaries give you what the rough popular usage is of a term.  It doesn't necessarily capture the full essence.

                        replyreport
                        1. 82

                           GA Andersonposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                           @Sooner - thanks for the link, it was very astute of you to know that I would not have a clue as to what "begging the question" would mean. Perhaps you could also help with "strawman argument" and "red herring?"
                           
                           Your response seems to be an instance of "apples and oranges" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apples_and_oranges
                           
                           the thread appears to be about certain aspects of capitalism, ie. taxes and labor - not a comparison of capitalism vs something else. It is the system we currently have, and my response was a realistic one given that parameter, there was no "begging the question..." That would be an entirely different question.
                           
                           So, back to my illustration - hypothetically, you are earning your living and supporting your family as a small businessman; so, to recap; minimum wage is $7.65 p/hr, a "living" wage is deemed to be about $15 p/hr. The truth of your business income dictates you can pay as much as $9 p/hr, but would go out of business at $15 - so what would you do? Continue to work 7 days a week and hire no one? And deprive someone of the opportunity to at least earn $9 p/hr (which is better than being unemployed at $0 p/hr)?
                           
                           Some government regulation of business practices is very much needed, but unrealistic dictates based on idealism instead of reality are very much counter-productive and harmful to everyone's ability to earn a living - from the dishwasher to the ceo
                           
                           ps. I would be more than happy to defend capitalism - history provides centuries of examples of failed alternatives. It is not the system that is the problem, it is the character failure of some people that is the problem, ie. human nature, greed, avarice, envy, etc. etc. etc.  Would not those same people and characteristics be in whatever "other" system you propose? I am sure you don't need me to point out the vividly clear examples of that, in just recent history.
                           
                           GA

                           replyreport
                           1. 0

                              Sooner28posted 12 years agoin reply to this

                              Apparently I wasn't clear enough.   I wasn't insulting your intelligence with the begging the question link.  I was using it because I have seen numerous mistakes of confusing it with "raising the question"  by intelligent people, and unless someone is familiar with the logical fallacies, I assume they are going to make that mistake.  It happens that often. 
                              
                              I laid out specifically where your logic was missing.  You gave a decent response within a Capitalism framework, and then DEFENDED IT as legitimate, without ever defending the legitimacy of Capitalism itself.  I'm not sure where I am being unclear.  Your hypotheticals also just defend the idea that Capitalism must have wage slavery to function.
                              
                              You then deny you are begging the question.  I feel like I am talking to a robot.  You did at least respond to two arguments though.  The first is my accusation that you were begging the question, and then you just denied you did, without giving any basis as to why.  You would need to show why I was wrong in my charge, and you didn't even come close.  It's like explaining what you must do within a Christian belief system to attain eternal life, and when someone asks you to JUSTIFY THE CHRISTIANITY ITSELF, you continue repeating what must be done WITHIN Christianity.
                              
                              Your last paragraph does not beg the question though.
                              
                              Three points.  First of all, "failed alternatives" does not mean we have EXHAUSTED ALL ALTERNATIVES (the caps are being used for emphasis, since I can't bold or italicize in the forums, they are not meant to be yelling, and I apologize if they come across as such).  Second of all, if you are referring to Russia as communist, that is completely inaccurate.  Russia was state Capitalism, or State Socialism, and it was inequality based on the massive bureaucracy.  A plutocracy, autocracy, or dictatorship are not Communism or Socialism.
                              
                              Third point.  Capitalism is BASED ON GREED.  This comes from the founder of Capitalism, Adam Smith.  In the Wealth of Nations, Chapter 2, "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, from from their regard to their own interest.  We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their SELF-LOVE (my emphasis), and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages."  Greed, avarice are INHERENT and the entire BASIS of Capitalism.

                              replyreport
                              1. 82

                                 GA Andersonposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                 Sooner - I responded to Shea regarding...
                                 
                                 "...pay an american worker, pay american taxes, act like you love america. At the time, reagan had just cut my work study program and made getting student loans more difficult. I thought, 'loving america is getting tougher.' but we are a work in progress. i do love america and i think we should all be out there trying to make american live up to her potential... like paying taxes, not outsourcing, protecting the land and air, employing americans and offering living wages,..."
                                 
                                 My response was primarily directed at the "living wages" aspect
                                 
                                 Your response to me veered to slavery, and then serfdom
                                 
                                 It is obvious you see capitalism as evil - but that was not the content of the thread prior. It was you that changed the direction and then tried to explain that I did not understand.
                                 
                                 Since I did not mention Russia or communism - that you would jump in with those as "failed" pro-capitalism arguments shows that you are anxious to discuss a broader issue than the one I was initially responding too. So I still think our exchange is an "apples and oranges comparison."
                                 
                                 And, to this point, none of this addresses your third point - that is a much larger discussion that I have participated in too many times. It will have to be left at... "You to yours, and me to mine"
                                 
                                 You feel like you are talking to a robot, and I'm wondering when I stepped through the looking glass.
                                 
                                 GA

                                 replyreport
      2. 60

         tirelesstravelerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Apparently you and I don't know the same kind of small business owners.  The ones I know work their fingers to the bone.  I worked for a small business where the owners worked from 9am to 11pm 362 days a year.They took Thanksgiving, Christmas and New Years Day off.  They owned the business for 10 years.  A small business, a small toy store supplements  income by the wife teaching music lessons in the store.   Who outsources the catering done at weddings etc..  Those caterers are small businesses who probably make around $250,000 a year if they work hard and are efficient.  If you own a small business you pay a 14%  self employment tax before you pay your own salary. Then you pay income tax. If you have an employee you pay social security, and workers comp, and medical  before you pay your own salary, If you go into homes you put up a security bond. You have to buy your business license before you pay your own salary.  Most small business fail within five years, because they don't have a good business plan, they were unprepared for the year or two it takes where all you do is pay out without profit, or they quit because the red tape is not worth the bother,
         Small businesses employ one or two people if they can, but that is optimistic,
         What makes you believe small businesses outsource?

         replyreport
         1. 75

            Mighty Momposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Perhaps you misunderstood my attempt at humor.
            The very idea that small businesses, which you rightly point out are very time and labor-intensive COULD outsource, is absurd.
            My point was (or was intended to be) that to help small businesses you can't simply apply what's worked for big business on a mass scale and expect it to work for small businesses.
            Federal tax loopholes are several layers removed from the primary financial hurdles these business owners must scale.
            
            Clearer now? Or did I make it worse?

            replyreport
            1. 60

               tirelesstravelerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               Sorry, my humor has been lost this week.  You are right.

               replyreport
               1. 75

                  Mighty Momposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  Maybe our humors have gone off somewhere to regenerate.
                  Getting spa treatments. Hot stone massage, seaweed wraps. Sipping green tea.
                  They will return refreshed on Monday.
                  

                  replyreport
   2. 80

      Credence2posted 12 years agoin reply to this

      There is such a thing as tax avoidance and I don't slight anyone for that as we all do that. Dodging has to be within legal parameters provided within the tax code. Is Mitt part of the big corps, that are sheltering income illegally?  I want to know, MITT WHERE ARE THOSE TAX RETURNS!? This is not going to go away. I am certainly not going to allow these people to have a party on my dime.

      replyreport
      1. 75

         Mighty Momposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Not that they aren't already and haven't been for years!

         replyreport
   3. 58

      atheistchickposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      not shit Sherlock (to Romney) small businesses are dying out because of big corporate companies are taking over. People rather go to a Taco Bell than a truly authentic Mexican restaurant...that's why opening a small business is very tricky. Open at your own risk basically

      replyreport
      1. 0

         Sooner28posted 11 years agoin reply to this

         I had to go back and read what I was even talking about in this forum.
         
         Romney  has only gotten worse since I started it .

         replyreport
2. 75

   Mighty Momposted 12 years ago

   Stumbled upon this Feb 2012 article "The Dark Side of Mitt Romney" and thought some of y'all would be interested.
   It's long but really shows how Romney thinks, what he values, how he approaches "people" issues (the stories about him as a Mormon leader in Boston area chilled me to the bone). And then there's the Bain years.
   Essentially, if we want a president who will apply leveraged buyout tactics as economic policies to the US, if we want a president who categorically sees women as second-class citizens (except, of course, for his saintly but apparently none too rational wife, Ann), then Romney is the guy.
   It's not blue blood running through his veins. It's ice.
   *shudder.*
   
   http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/2012 … ney-201202

   replyreport
   1. 80

      Credence2posted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Thanks for the link and a look into the soul of Mitt Romney.  Just 12 months ago, if you have spoken about a Mormon as their standard bearer, any rightwinger would cringe. But hatred of Barack Obama is at such a fever ptich that Satan himself would now be a viable candidate for them, too bad. The article revealed the aristocratic as well of the autocratic nature of Mitt Romney. How long can he shroud those aspects of his character from the general public will be the challenge of the next 70 days....

      replyreport
      1. 75

         Mighty Momposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         When they say ANYBODY but Obama, they do mean ANYBODY.
         To be fair, though. It was a mere 12 years ago, 8 years ago and 4 years ago that some of us were screaming Anybody but Bush!
         

         replyreport
3. 71

   Reality Bytesposted 12 years ago

   
   
   Something to consider!

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Sooner28posted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Taking a patient infected with gangrene, diabetic, and suffers from heavy migraines and blaming the doctor for not "fixing" them immediately is equivalent to how most people blame Obama for the economy.
      
      Or, perhaps my analogy is off.  I would say it is, because the President has very little impact on the economy.  Unless they do something DRASTIC, changing marginal tax rates, or reducing a few regulations, is not going to "goose" anything.
      
      Demand is the key.  When there is high demand, businesses have confidence that their coffers will stay full, and that they can expand.  If people's incomes are sinking, and they don't have the disposable income they once did, which is what the recent PEW analysis found, it's not even close to surprising that the economy isn't doing very well.
      
      Add on to this the insidious effect of outsourcing, and increasing technological productivity (which does more with machines, which by implication uses less workers), and the future doesn't look bright.

      replyreport
4. 0

   JaxsonRaineposted 11 years ago

   Funny, because this is exactly what Mitt wants to fix, yet somehow he gets blasted on it for knowing about it and taking advantage of it, as well as trying to fix it...
   
   ATTACK FROM BOTH SIDES!!!

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Sooner28posted 11 years agoin reply to this

      You know, I don't disagree with the idea of reducing rates and eliminating deductions.
      
      I'd just want to make sure it helps lower the deficit, I also want to make sure middle class taxes are not raised.
      
      Romney doesn't seem trustworthy on either front.

      replyreport