Doesn't sound greedy until you realize that 3 million is but a drop in the bucket for him (he made $21 million last year). Why does he keep his money in offshore accounts instead of keeping them here and paying taxes on the interest like a good American?

A drop in the bucket or not, it was 14% of his entire income, not including tax. So despite him paying around 15% in taxes, he donated roughly the same amount to charitable causes. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't be able to donate 14% of my salary to charity and still pay the bills.

Rich? Yes. Under-taxed? Possibly. Greedy? Not by any definition.

You should also note that his main source of income is investments. Investments only work as a source of income if you re-invest. Who knows how much of the 70% he paid into companies and projects that helped create jobs, and ultimately feed families? You can't just take one look at the income figures of a rich man and assume every single cent was used on himself and his family.

On the news here last night,,it was reported that Mitt has released his tax returns for the last 2 years.In 2011, the guy paid 13% tax. He also gave a total of $12 million to charity (7 to the LDS church). I can see he will make an outstanding president.

It's far easier for someone who makes $21 million a year to give 14% of his income away than it is for someone making $20,000 a year. It's far easier for someone to afford gas, groceries, and paying the utilities when those bills take up a far smaller part of your paycheck. I personally am not able to give away that much. But if I made $21 million, I'd definitely give away a lot of that. I could only use so much money before I felt like I didn't need any more. If I made $4 million and gave away $3 million to charity, then that would be far more generous than a multimillionaire giving away the same amount.

In 2010, Mitt Romney made $50000 in 20 hours 13 minutes and 13 seconds.

It would take you 433 years 2 months 21 days 23 hours 28 minutes and 7 seconds to make what Mitt made in 2010.

Thats how much I get on a good year...here lately the years have been shitty.

---

(January 25, 2012 at 5:41 pm)Tiberius Wrote: I read somewhere that he donated 3 million to charity that year. That doesn't sound like a "greedy" person to me.

3 mill is probably the maximum charity allowance for the income he makes

---

(January 25, 2012 at 5:51 pm)Tiberius Wrote: A drop in the bucket or not, it was 14% of his entire income, not including tax. So despite him paying around 15% in taxes, he donated roughly the same amount to charitable causes. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't be able to donate 14% of my salary to charity and still pay the bills.

Rich? Yes. Under-taxed? Possibly. Greedy? Not by any definition.

You should also note that his main source of income is investments. Investments only work as a source of income if you re-invest. Who knows how much of the 70% he paid into companies and projects that helped create jobs, and ultimately feed families? You can't just take one look at the income figures of a rich man and assume every single cent was used on himself and his family.

Sure...and if milk was $5,000 dollars a gallon I would say he was generous as well.

...that isnt the case.

That's my point, Rev. It's a hell of a lot easier for someone making $21 million a year to give away $3 million than it is for someone making $21,000 a year to give away $3,000.

Quote:Greedy? Not by any definition.

From Dictionary.com

Quote:greedy
[gree-dee]   Origin
greed·y
   [gree-dee] Show IPA
adjective, greed·i·er, greed·i·est.
1.
excessively or inordinately desirous of wealth, profit, etc.; avaricious: the greedy owners of the company.

I submit that "greedy" is exactly the correct word. Turning around and giving money to charity is self-aggrandizing also. I'm sure he thinks his fucking phony god loves him for pissing away a fortune on the mormon church.

In any case, it has nothing whatsoever to do with the acquisition of such wealth.

(January 26, 2012 at 2:32 pm)Doubting Thomas Wrote: That's my point, Rev. It's a hell of a lot easier for someone making $21 million a year to give away $3 million than it is for someone making $21,000 a year to give away $3,000.

Its one of my biggest arguments against rich and poor. I use it quite often and you are wise to bring it up as well.

Fucking Fox says if you own a microwave and a fridge then you arent really poor.

I can barely buy milk for my family right now. romney can buy milk for every family in California easily.

But, according to Fox, me and Romeny are the same, since we both own a fridge.

Strangely, romney is also considered "successful" on Fox, as if that gives him some type of immunity... it doesnt in my mind. motherfucker is a greddy bastard, and he has made it apparent that he wants to drop taxes (read as "drop taxes for him and his 400 most richest friends) because taxes are obviously a horrible thing in the system we have now.

By that definition Min, almost everyone is "greedy". What is the point of the word if you can apply it to almost everyone at the same time? Romney being greedy shouldn't be news if you can apply that word to 99% of the population, so I say that most people are using a different definition of "greedy"; one which applies only to people who make a large amount of money and keep 70% of it (which is a lot less than most other people).

(January 26, 2012 at 2:32 pm)Doubting Thomas Wrote: That's my point, Rev. It's a hell of a lot easier for someone making $21 million a year to give away $3 million than it is for someone making $21,000 a year to give away $3,000.

The fact is he gave $3 million and the person making $21,000 didn't give $3,000.

I can never understand why people want the rich to be forced to give away their money. It's a choice, just like getting an education or working hard. As was said earlier, much of his money is invested which provides jobs and upfront capital to growing businesses.

Giving away money isn't intelligent, investing money in something is. On a forum which celebrates intellectual conversation, I'm amazed at how many people have the socialist mindset.

Being rich isn't bad, and you have no right whatsoever to demean the rich for not giving you their money - which they made. How would you like if the rich demeaned you for not giving $3,000 to charity? They could have easily gone on a vacation with their family, but instead they donated. You could easily give up internet and eat rice instead of luxury foods, but instead you keep it to increase your living conditions.

The end goal of society should not be to live off each other, but rather to provide for one's self.