I read that Romney didn't take a salary as governor of Massachusetts. How well received do you all think that gesture would be, if he said that he would not take a salary as POTUS? He certainly doesn't need it, and IMO, it would be a great springboard for bringing "public service" back to actually meaning something.

The POTUS makes 400,000$/year. I would rather rmoney not hide his money offshore and
pay taxes on it at 30%. That would be in the millions and a much better form of public service.

The POTUS makes 400,000$/year. I would rather rmoney not hide his money offshore and
pay taxes on it at 30%. That would be in the millions and a much better form of public service.

I'm pretty sure all he has done is legal; if it wasn't, he would not be running for POTUS.
Paying taxes on that money, so that the gov't can waste it in the myriad ways it sees fit, does not strike me as a "better form of public service".

The POTUS makes 400,000$/year. I would rather rmoney not hide his money offshore and
pay taxes on it at 30%. That would be in the millions and a much better form of public service.
Do you pay your taxes at the 30% rate? If not, why don't you?

I was guestimating his tax bracket, I pay 28%, thats my tax bracket.

I was guestimating his tax bracket, I pay 28%, thats my tax bracket.
Why don't you pay at the 33% or 35% bracket?

I was guestimating his tax bracket, I pay 28%, thats my tax bracket.

wow..you must earn a lot more than 250 grand and then some. My effective tax rate is 23%..and I thought I had it bad.

Frankly..Romney should be hovering around 15%; I thought most of his income these days was from capital gains. ??

I read that Romney didn't take a salary as governor of Massachusetts. How well received do you all think that gesture would be, if he said that he would not take a salary as POTUS? He certainly doesn't need it, and IMO, it would be a great springboard for bringing "public service" back to actually meaning something.

I know that he donated his salary from the Olympic games to charity.

The POTUS makes 400,000$/year. I would rather rmoney not hide his money offshore and
pay taxes on it at 30%. That would be in the millions and a much better form of public service.

I'm sure a lot of rich folks would like that too :lol:

Obama want to increase it to 50%

FYI - -once you've earned and accumulated wealth, it's not income

Too bad rmoney didn't follow the example his father set.

I'm pretty sure all he has done is legal; if it wasn't, he would not be running for POTUS.




You don't know ,noone knows since he won't let anyone see .

wow..you must earn a lot more than 250 grand and then some. My effective tax rate is 23%..and I thought I had it bad.

Frankly..Romney should be hovering around 15%; I thought most of his income these days was from capital gains. ??


Over $83,000 a year, a single person begins to pay 28%. The effective rate is lower because the income below $83,000 is taxed at a lower rate. The 28% is why I don't even bother working O/T when offered it. It's just not worth it (Laffer curve in action).

I read that Romney didn't take a salary as governor of Massachusetts. How well received do you all think that gesture would be, if he said that he would not take a salary as POTUS? He certainly doesn't need it, and IMO, it would be a great springboard for bringing "public service" back to actually meaning something.

I'd be happier if he said he and congress and everyone in government will take bonuses equal to 10% of what they all cut out of government spending next year.

The POTUS makes 400,000$/year. I would rather rmoney not hide his money offshore and
pay taxes on it at 30%. That would be in the millions and a much better form of public service.Man you're jealous. You want Romney to pay 30% yet your wonder boy only pays 20%. Less than his secretary. Another liberal foiled by facts.

President Obama's tax rate was 20.5%, lower than his secretary's
The White House says it underscores the argument for his 'Buffett rule' on taxing wealthier people.
April 13, 2012|By Kathleen Hennessey and Michael A. Memoli, Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON — As President Obama mounts an aggressive campaign on what he calls tax fairness, his own tax burden has fallen to the lowest of his time in the White House, lower than many who make far less — including his secretary.

The president and first lady reported a joint adjusted gross income of $789,674 last year and paid $162,074 in federal taxes, or about 20.5%, according to the tax return released Friday by the White House. That income keeps the Obamas in the top 1% of taxpayers. President Obama's tax rate was 20.5%, lower than his secretary's - Los Angeles Times (http://articles.latimes.com/2012/apr/13/nation/la-na-obama-taxes-20120414)

I'd be happier if he said he and congress and everyone in government will take bonuses equal to 10% of what they all cut out of government spending next year.

Personally, I'm only looking at this from a strategic perspective. The money is a pittance to MR, but it would speak volumes, IMO, to many, many independents. Of course, I could be wrong on this point.
I see Obama as a taker, someone who has used the office for his ego, his place in history, and to see the world, perhaps(?) on my dime.
Romney could issue a challenge, certainly to the independently wealthy lawmakers (Pelosi, etc...maybe those who earn over $250,000/year??) to give up their salaries as well.
I'd love to see who rises to that challenge and who makes up excuses why they won't.

You don't know ,noone knows since he won't let anyone see .
Same could be said for a lot of the things about 0bama.

You don't know ,noone knows since he won't let anyone see .

He let the IRS see them, dipwad..and they are the ones that determine the legality of his filings. As they do mine. As they would yours if you ever start working for a living.

Personally, I'm only looking at this from a strategic perspective. The money is a pittance to MR, but it would speak volumes, IMO, to many, many independents. Of course, I could be wrong on this point.
I see Obama as a taker, someone who has used the office for his ego, his place in history, and to see the world, perhaps(?) on my dime.
Romney could issue a challenge, certainly to the independently wealthy lawmakers (Pelosi, etc...maybe those who earn over $250,000/year??) to give up their salaries as well.
I'd love to see who rises to that challenge and who makes up excuses why they won't.

Well, given I am not an independent, I can't speak to what appeals to them. Obama, I suppose, has done terrible in their eyes and Mitt ain't offering much at this point so, maybe that would interest them?

All I can say is if it does, it's futile anyway. That is sooo not the problem, what politicians make. If anything, raising the HELL out of their pay would pave the way for them to be a whole lot less interested in being bought off by the people who ARE the problem.

If I am Mitt, I'd do that; "As your president, I will lead the charge to get your elected leaders salaries up to levels that will strongly discourage subservience to special interests."


I mean, think about it; Politicians want to be re-elected. That's their job. Some people work to live. Some people live to work. I think we can agree that most pols would be all to happy to go away if we give them enough dough. So, 535 people, offer them each $100 million to retire at the end of their next term. That's $53 billion dollars. They spent over a trillion, 1,000 billions, in borrowed money last year alone.

Cheap!

Wonder how that would play with indie's? :lol:

I wonder why John Kerry's wealth wasn't questioned as much as Romney's?

Romney is a pauper compared to Kerry and his wife.

Liberals have double standards on wealth - Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/opinion/letters/liberals-have-double-standards-on-wealth-645191/)

I wonder why John Kerry's wealth wasn't questioned as much as Romney's?

Romney is a pauper compared to Kerry and his wife.
]

Ms. Pelosi isn't exactly poor either....:whistle:


http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2011/06/nancy_pelosis_wealth.php

The POTUS makes 400,000$/year. I would rather rmoney not hide his money offshore and
pay taxes on it at 30%. That would be in the millions and a much better form of public service.

So how'd you feel about John F. Kerry's (BTW, he served im Vietnam) money? OH yeah! That wasn't really even his money. It was his wife Teraaaayza's dead husband, John Heinz' fortune he was spending. At least Romney knows HOW to earn & keep money.

Ps: I should have read ahead!

So how'd you feel about John F. Kerry's (BTW, he served im Vietnam) money? OH yeah! That wasn't really even his money. It was his wife Teraaaayza's dead husband, John Heinz' fortune he was spending. At least Romney knows HOW to earn & keep money.

Ps: I should have read ahead!

That is why a politician should, instead of being reflexively defensive or pop off a bunch of canned responses designed to get you to commercial, someone seeking high office should be able and willing to say "Well, Judy, you ask a good question. Is it a bad thing for a rich person to be president? Let's think about this..."

Politicians give journalists a free pass the moment they sit down because the reporter knows they are going to get pabulum designed and practiced to avoid conversation and/or direct answers so, the entire interview is set up by the hack to come up with some new and clever way to imply their subject hates kids/puppies/old people/workers.

The instant you engage in conversation, yeah, YOU might be vulnerable to saying something dumb but, if you can simply hold intelligent conversation, a seeming prerequisite for higher office, you should be able to handle accusatory stuff and simply talk about it and right then and there, the reporter has suddenly got to be very careful with what THEY say and ask because now they might say something dumb they're gonna have to deal with later.

You don't know ,noone knows since he won't let anyone see .

sounds similar to Obama & his fake assed BC

Oh, that's right...we're allowed to see the fake assed one

The POTUS makes 400,000$/year. I would rather rmoney not hide his money offshore and
pay taxes on it at 30%. That would be in the millions and a much better form of public service.

Hiding his money implies he DIDN'T pay taxes on it, but the only error they have found to date is $1700 dollars of income he failed to report on an account at UBS.. that equates to what in tax dollars... $600 maybe?

I would think if HIDING his money was the issue they would have him nailed to the cross for tax evasion, but that's not what anyone is saying..

In fact he's earned every penny he has, and has paid taxes on it and then invested it or put it into foreign banks, where he continues to pay taxes on the interest income from those accounts.

With Obama in office, and what the economy has done, how do you think he would have done investing or depositing money into US banks?? Would you suggest he would have done better in a JP Morgan, or UBS? I believe this points back to prior to our economy going boobs up, so I would think that Romney was smart enough to see it coming, and was smart enough to DO something about it with HIS money.

Would you be more willing to vote for somebody that WAS a billionaire that lost all of his riches when the economy went sour, or a billionaire that actually was smart enough to continue to turn a profit and MAKE money when the economy went sour?

Mitt just shows you again how smart, and business savvy he is, and the liberal leaders make you believe he's a crook..

But I think what is more telling, is Romney doesn't NEED to be president, but I think Obama does. The only thing Obama has EVER accomplished is running for and winning elections.. He's never really accomplished anything after getting elected, and he never accomplished anything PRIOR to getting elected..

Romney has already accomplished more than Obama EVER will, and whether he wins or loses this election, he'll still be rich and successful, and make more money.. If Obama loses he will never be more than "the Former President".. He'll never be a billionaire entrepeuner, or a successful corporate entity, or a great leader of industry.. he'll just be introduced at the Rotary Club speaking engagments as "the former President"..

He's already at his Level of "Peterness" by several levels, and losing this election he really loses any meaning, merit or value..