Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Hackers Claim to Have Obtained Romney's Tax Returns

page: 8
17
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 08:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by thepresident

Originally posted by marrasca
reply to post by IsThisThingBugged
 


Taxing the rich is just a another trick that most idiots will welcome. If 97% of the dollar has been devalued since the 30's, what do you think is going to happen when this quantitative easing (money printing) starts affecting inflation? I had the opportunity to live in italy during the eighties, and ten years before the acceptance of the euro, I witnessed the old currency (Lira) inflate to over 400% in just 7 years. My point is that a tax based on a fixed higher income is wrong because we will all be earning a lot of more money, but it will all be inflation. If your making 60K today, don't be surprised if you will be earning 150K in 5 years. You will earn more, but your buying power will be the same or worse.

Quote me on this, the average family income will meet or surpass the 250K threshold in less than 10 years, and will still be struggling to get by.

Open your eyes people, this attack the rich taxation policy is a trick that will blanket us ALL!


America taxed the rich at 90% during the Eisenhower and 70% during JFK

We did not have a structural deficit and the economy was more healthy in both eras

This problem with deficits began in the 80's when the rates were slashed
around 35% - low and behold the rates are still round 35% and the deficits are not reversing.

Can you explain why the tax rich policy will not work again?



I never said not to tax the rich. My point is that creating a monetary ceiling where we would be considered wealthy is wrong because during with the natural course of inflation we will all eventually hit that ceiling. Taxes should be a flat percentage for everyone, no excuses. Taxing ingenuity and success is not correct. I would not like to be held back, would you?

edit on 7-9-2012 by marrasca because: i messed up




posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 08:49 PM
link   
Here's the million dollars if someone can get these two together.

Hustler Magazine Publisher Offers $1 Million Reward For Romney Tax Returns


Originally posted by roadgravel
This might be the reason the hacker wording was used



In an anonymous letter addressed to PricewaterhouseCoopers, an individual or group of individuals claims to have obtained the presidential candidate's unreleased tax returns from a PwC office in Tennessee. The letter claims these documents will be sent in encrypted form to "all major news outlets" and lays down a twisted challenge. Those who want to prevent the alleged tax returns from being decrypted must send $1 million worth of bitcoins to an address provided in the letter by Sept. 28. But if those who do want the purported tax returns to become readable send the same amount of money to a different Bitcoin address first, the blackmailer or blackmailers will release the encryption key anyway. "Who-ever [sic] is the winner does not matter to us," the letter says, chillingly.

Aside from the obvious crimes involved with obtaining these documents (if the letter's claims are genuine), the use of Bitcoin for extortion has legal implications that hold true even if the claims prove bogus.

www.americanbanker.com...



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 01:39 AM
link   
If you guys have read the US Constitution and US Law It is NOT repeat NOT required for ANYONE running for president of the US to release ANY tax returns. This is a distraction because obama cant run on his record.
edit on 8-9-2012 by knightrider078 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 02:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by roadgravel
Here's the million dollars if someone can get these two together.

Hustler Magazine Publisher Offers $1 Million Reward For Romney Tax Returns


Originally posted by roadgravel
This might be the reason the hacker wording was used



In an anonymous letter addressed to PricewaterhouseCoopers, an individual or group of individuals claims to have obtained the presidential candidate's unreleased tax returns from a PwC office in Tennessee. The letter claims these documents will be sent in encrypted form to "all major news outlets" and lays down a twisted challenge. Those who want to prevent the alleged tax returns from being decrypted must send $1 million worth of bitcoins to an address provided in the letter by Sept. 28. But if those who do want the purported tax returns to become readable send the same amount of money to a different Bitcoin address first, the blackmailer or blackmailers will release the encryption key anyway. "Who-ever [sic] is the winner does not matter to us," the letter says, chillingly.

Aside from the obvious crimes involved with obtaining these documents (if the letter's claims are genuine), the use of Bitcoin for extortion has legal implications that hold true even if the claims prove bogus.

www.americanbanker.com...


I suppose that's one guy that can afford the bait. If he does receive anything, would he breaking any laws?



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 02:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by knightrider078
If you guys have read the US Constitution and US Law It is NOT repeat NOT required for ANYONE running for president of the US to release ANY tax returns. This is a distraction because obama cant run on his record.
edit on 8-9-2012 by knightrider078 because: (no reason given)


Romney not divulging his business practices is the distraction.

Does he invest in America or does he purely invest in other economies?



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 07:58 PM
link   
Like Bailing out GM so they can build a new plant in china and new car production in Mexico



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 11:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by knightrider078
Like Bailing out GM so they can build a new plant in china and new car production in Mexico


Or maybe continue to produce the Volt, one of the most innovative and certainly interesting vehicles in the past decade.



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 11:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by knightrider078
If you guys have read the US Constitution and US Law It is NOT repeat NOT required for ANYONE running for president of the US to release ANY tax returns.


The US Constitution does not require that anyone running for President does not visit kinky sex sites on daily basis. If you don't believe me, read the Constitution again.

Now, if (and I repeat if) Romney would be revealed as a heavy user of pornography, how do you think he would fare in the elections?

Your argument is moot. If he had nothing to hide, he would have shown the tax papers already.



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 11:57 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 

I may be drifting off-topic a little, but your most recent two posts made me think.

Or maybe continue to produce the Volt, one of the most innovative and certainly interesting vehicles in the past decade.
But isn't the Volt a real dud on the market? A company that makes a product that nobody wants can't stay in business for very long. Unless, of course, it's being done for political reasons and they don't have much choice.

Your argument is moot. If he had nothing to hide, he would have shown the tax papers already.

I don't think we have the same definition for the word "moot," I'll just take it that you mean the argument is wrong.

May I use a personal example? The Census. I don't have anything to hide by refusing to tell the government how many toilets I have in the house. (It's two, by the way) But I am not going to tell them, and lots of people won't. Kind of a "It's none of your business" philosophy.

I may be misunderstanding you, but if you think that refusing to reveal information is a sign of criminal or moral wrongdoing, I must disagree.



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 08:37 AM
link   
People can call it what they want but there are many of us that want to see his tax returns. Many many people do.



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 09:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by buddhasystem
 

I may be drifting off-topic a little, but your most recent two posts made me think.

Or maybe continue to produce the Volt, one of the most innovative and certainly interesting vehicles in the past decade.
But isn't the Volt a real dud on the market? A company that makes a product that nobody wants can't stay in business for very long. Unless, of course, it's being done for political reasons and they don't have much choice.


The GM needs to break into this market. And yes its tough. It's too early to say whether they'll win or at least break even. The Volt is now where Prius was in 1999-2000 in terms of market penetration.

For me it would be kind of amazing if the US decided to stay out of the electric car technology race. Just doesn't seem natural.



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 04:55 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 



The Volt are you kidding they have to stop production AGAIN on the Volt. The Volt is a Disaster



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 05:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by knightrider078
reply to post by buddhasystem
 



The Volt are you kidding they have to stop production AGAIN on the Volt. The Volt is a Disaster


You complained that GM was moving all of its production overseas. The Volt sold here is produced mostly domestically. This was my point. It doesn't sell well yet but it's a solid and advanced car, and having advanced tech in our country is good. That was my point as well. But there is no keeping you happy.



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 06:37 PM
link   
The Secret Service wont even let the President drive one because its not safe



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 06:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by knightrider078
The Secret Service wont even let the President drive one because its not safe


I love Glenn Beck and his fans, no matter how nonsensical they sound.



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 07:06 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Originally posted by knightrider078
The Secret Service wont even let the President drive one because its not safe


I love Glenn Beck and his fans, no matter how nonsensical they sound.
Actually, that's basically true. They won't let him drive anything, because of security risks. I believe they let him sit behind the wheel of a Volt while it moved about 10 feet, so that GM and the press could get pictures.



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 07:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Originally posted by knightrider078
The Secret Service wont even let the President drive one because its not safe


I love Glenn Beck and his fans, no matter how nonsensical they sound.
Actually, that's basically true. They won't let him drive anything, because of security risks.


Yes, that's the kind of point I was making. Obama is chauffeured in a purpose-built limo which can protect him from a medium size asteroid. I'm sure you saw it. Letting him drive a civilian car kind of defeats the purpose. Be it a Maybach, Nissan Leaf or a Volt.



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 08:51 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


So Alex Jones is ok but not glenn beck



posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 02:01 AM
link   
I'm wondering if this thread has anything to do this hacker story.

I haven't kept up on it -- but perhaps this is the blurry tax information discussed in that thread?





new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join