David Bader

David Bader
Contributor since: 2012
You clearly didn't understand what I was saying. I said that it was ok for Romney to only pay what he had to. I also said that the same applies for Apple. They followed the tax laws just as Romney did. For that matter, yes I should only have to pay what is required... and not a penny more either. The center of my argument is not anti Romney. Rather, it is the disparity between the senate treatment of those like Romney (who was not questioned at all by the senate despite paying such a low rate) vs. the senate treatment of Apple, who faces questions and scrutiny. Neither did anything but follow the law. So, why. in the eyes of the senate, is one a villain and the other not?
As CEO of Bain Capital, Mitt Romney claimed to have rescued companies and saved/created jobs. As we all know, these claims came under considerable question when we heard from those whose jobs were quickly eliminated because of Bain Capital's involvement. What was never questioned or disputed was the vast wealth made by Romney and others at Bain. But, when It was shown that Romney paid a much lower tax rate than the average American has to pay, that fact was explained away by the fact that he followed the tax laws and paid all of the taxes that he was required to pay...not a penny more. Fair enough...he followed the law. He didn't have to answer any questions before congress regarding his ducking of income tax.
That brings us to tomorrow. No one disputes that Apple has created new industries or even Apple's claim to have been involved in creating hundreds of thousands of jobs. (Unlike the claim made by Romney and Bain Capital). Additionally, no one...not Levin, McCain, or anyone else claims that Apple has done anything less that the law requires with regard to the taxes that they paid. But, when Apple acts in the best interests of shareholders and pays only what they required to pay, the are not treated in the same way that Mitt Romney is when he acted in the best interest of Mitt Romney. Unlike Romney, Apple must answer questions asked by Senators who are held in very low esteem by the majority of 300 million Americans...go figure.
I appreciate your comments. I believe you misunderstand what I wrote. My article does not and should not indicate whether I am in favor of or in opposition to the cuts. It is simply a statement of common sense that proposes that any individual or family has less to spend towards contributing to a healthy economy (and, therefore, stock market) in the short term if they are contemplating having less money to spend. I do not suggest any right or wrong..Simply what is.
I do agree that we have to put an end to "IF IT'S FREE, IT'S FOR MEEEE". Of course, one of the major culprits is the overspending of both parties. So, some of the "IF IT'S FREE, IT'S FOR MEEEE" mentality stems directly from copying the behavior of congress just as a child learns behavior (good or bad) from parents. Lets give credit for our fiscal dilemma to ALL who are involved.
This $2000 minimum reference does, in fact, refer to the administration's "fair share" or call to action to try to get Americans to contact their representatives. I refer to this figure as the minimum because, as I am sure you are aware, there are many more references to $3500 as the amount that the average American household will see as a tax increase on a yearly basis if no action is taken on averting the fiscal cliff.