Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Legal obligation, yes. Moral obligation, no. I'm not here to give tax advice. You'll need to consult your accountant or tax attorney for that. That's what they're there for.
So, you have no moral problem with people receiving services without paying for them, thus placing the burden on other taxpayers? I though cons hated that?
So, you have no moral problem with people receiving services without paying for them, thus placing the burden on other taxpayers? I though cons hated that?
government has a monopoly on services so there is no choice.
I see you have no problem taking my money to pay for your needs, sounds like a criminal mindset.
So basically this was just a troll thread. The OP didn't really want to discuss either the duty to pay taxes or the federal government's duty to use that tax money wisely. Got it!
It was just a lame opportunity to bash Romney and exhibit a sickening need to pry into his financials.
If the Dems hurt so badly to have Romeny expose his records - which for this purpose would only be to have 'detail' over which to raise more stinky poo - WHY, for the precious gawdz sake doesn't Obama exercise/abuse his non-existent Executive Privilege and just seize the info from the IRS? Apparently His Imminence has no need of either Congress or law, so what's the hold up?
That would depend. If I was a wealthy person who had already used extensive loopholes, perhaps hidden some money overseas, yes, there is a point at which I would feel a duty to not use deduction after deduction, loophole after loophole to lower my tax burden to an absurdly low level compared to my income and thus place that tax burden on other Americans in the future. I know that position can be perplexing to some.
What about the scenario I posed in the other post? Would you use those substances, even though they are not banned? You can probably guess what my choice would be.
No, I wouldn't. But, unless deductions are disallowed, I doubt you'll have folks voluntarily avoid taking them. And I mean both people at the top end and those who pay no federal tax at all.
I really am interested in hearing what reasonable (all two of you) people here think is an acceptable use of deductions and loopholes. Is there not a point at which it constitutes abuse of the system and a shirking of your duties as an American?
No.
What you call "loopholes" are perfectly legal. Apparently - you want to criticize a candidate for acting lawfully. If you don't like those actions being done - then change the law.
People realize that the real issue in this election is the economy - and that Barack Obama's policies have been disastrous. The only reason liberals harp on Mitt Romney's taxes is to distract from the pitiful record of their candidate - Barack Hussein Obama.
If I were one of the president's supporters - I'd be doing everything to keep the focus off of his record too - who wants to be associated with an embarrasment?
So, you have no moral problem with people receiving services without paying for them, thus placing the burden on other taxpayers? I though cons hated that?
If they are legally eligible to receive a service without paying for it, then no, I wouldn't have a problem with someone who chooses to take the opportunity. If I felt that they shouldn't be receiving the service for free, then my problem would be with the service provider, not the client. They should be managing their operation more effectively. This goes back to this post:
Quote:
Originally Posted by VTHokieFan
And how about the government's duty to spend those taxes wisely?
[quote=Frank DeForrest;25578197]government has a monopoly on services so there is no choice.
So...
Military/National Guard
Police/Emergency Services/Firefighters
Roads
Medicare for old people/some safety net for destitute people
You think these things would actually occur if left to the private sector? Or you think that none of them are at all needed?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank DeForrest
I see you have no problem taking my money to pay for your needs, sounds like a criminal mindset.
They pay for your needs, too. Also, I pay taxes as well for my needs - and yours. Given where I sit in the tax brackets, there's a good chance I pay more than you do, in which case I am actually ultimately paying for both of our needs on a net basis.
Obviously, I don't like government waste, and I don't like limitless taxes. But I think some level of taxation in principle is kind of essential if you want to live in a civilization as opposed to swinging from tree branches in the jungle.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
