Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Anonymous allegedly hacked Romney tax records

nashvillecitypaper.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–116 of 116 posts

Re: Anonymous allegedly hacked Romney tax records

#111

Post by debacle »

twoodfin wrote: post #76
scarmig wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I misspoke: it's not that Romney pays a lower average income tax rate, but pays a lower average federal tax rate, including payroll. For most people, income taxes make up a negligible part of that total tax burden. I doubt the charitable giving would be a problem, and I'm also skeptical of the "Romney took a tax amnesty in 2009" theory. At this point I think it's mostly bull-headedness: Romney thinks no one has a rig…

For most people, income taxes make up a negligible part of that total tax burden. Ignoring the employer "contribution" sleight-of-hand, payroll taxes in 2012 are 4.2% SS + 1.45% Medicare, or 5.65%. Adding in the income tax burden, and you're still looking at a total Federal tax burden of under 12%.

You're missing the point. If you spend most of what you earn, that's an additiona 10% (in my state) on sales tax.

Most very wealthy don't spend nearly what they earn, so the effect of sales tax is negligible.

Re: Anonymous allegedly hacked Romney tax records

#113

Post by twoodfin »

debacle wrote: post #111
twoodfin wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For most people, income taxes make up a negligible part of that total tax burden. Ignoring the employer "contribution" sleight-of-hand, payroll taxes in 2012 are 4.2% SS + 1.45% Medicare, or 5.65%. Adding in the income tax burden, and you're still looking at a total Federal tax burden of under 12%.

You're missing the point. If you spend most of what you earn, that's an additiona 10% (in my state) on sales tax. Most very wealthy don't spend nearly what they earn, so the effect of sales tax is negligible.

How am I missing the point? First the claim was that Mitt Romney pays a "lower than average income tax rate", which is demonstrably untrue.

Then the claim was that he pays a "lower than average Federal tax burden" and that the income tax as a burden on the average American was "negligible" relative to their payroll tax burden. I didn't even bring up the fact that Bain pays corporate income taxes on its profits before they're disbursed to owners like Romney. Even discounting that, the average person's Federal tax burden is still lower than Romney's, assuming he's being truthful when he says his income rate was never lower than 13%. And the average American's income tax burden is not "negligible" relative to the payroll tax burden: it's about 50/50.

Now you're trying to bring state taxes into it. Guess what: Romney makes most of his money off of capital gains and is a Massachusetts resident, where long term capital gains are taxed at 5.3%.

Yes, Romney could "afford" a much greater tax burden. He could "afford" a tax burden of 95% and still live comfortably. That's not an argument (or at least a good one) for such a thing. It's also not the point under debate (that somehow the rate of taxes he pays is lower than the average American's).

Re: Anonymous allegedly hacked Romney tax records

#114

Post by myko »

Jach wrote: post #103
myko wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it normal to release educational transcripts? I thought taxes were pretty much a given, but not so with college transcripts. Also the OPs assertion of paying 1 million dollars to hide Obama's transcripts is so ridiculous on its face I'm surprised people willingly post things like that online.

Fun fact, we have Romney's 2010 and 2011 tax returns. McCain only provided two years of returns too when he was running. It's not a hard-precedent to provide "everything you have", either tax records or birth certificates or transcripts or letters of recommendation... But looking at it from a politician's perspective: if it can only help you, fine, release it. Otherwise why bother? Unless the damage from not releasin…

I thought we had his 2010 returns and an estimation of his 2011 returns?

Re: Anonymous allegedly hacked Romney tax records

#115

Post by brokentone »

jj00nathan wrote: post #81
brokentone wrote: post #48

Some of us developers have been working on the rehabilitation of the term "hack" and "hacker" (Hacker News anyone). The various Anonymous/LulzSec attacks of the last few years have been amusing and most have not been directly attacked individuals or been extortive (however, they've still been illegal, and I have not agreed with them). Although a politician, Mitt Romney is still a person. No one has rights to his pers…

"No one has rights to his personal information he has not decided to share. This attack is despicable." You realize Mitt Romney is campaigning for the office that is the single worst violator of that philosophy in the world, right? Don't get me wrong, I generally think law enforcement should have privileged access to private data, but you disrespect your philosophical position by pretending to apply it in a manner wh…

Sorry, I should have been more precise. The general public does not have rights to personal information an individual has declined to share. Now, this obviously excludes public information which the individual wishes wasn't available (arrest records, political contributions).

I agree with you that the presidential office has made executive orders and signed bills recently (Obama and Bush both) that have substantially increased governmental reach and reduced privacy. But this doesn't give the public to take what they want willy-nilly. It does give the public the right not to vote for someone they feel has a double standard on privacy issues.

Re: Anonymous allegedly hacked Romney tax records

#116

Post by scarmig »

twoodfin wrote: post #113
debacle wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're missing the point. If you spend most of what you earn, that's an additiona 10% (in my state) on sales tax. Most very wealthy don't spend nearly what they earn, so the effect of sales tax is negligible.

How am I missing the point? First the claim was that Mitt Romney pays a "lower than average income tax rate", which is demonstrably untrue. Then the claim was that he pays a "lower than average Federal tax burden" and that the income tax as a burden on the average American was "negligible" relative to their payroll tax burden. I didn't even bring up the fact that Bain pays corporate income taxes on its profits before…

You're speaking inaccurately. People in the middle 20% paid an effective rate of 15.5 percent. And trying to add in corporate tax rates is a bit-too-clever slight of hand.
Post reply on HN