Romney says he pays about 15 percent in income tax
 

1 2

I don't have a problem with this.
The guy is a 64 years old, had a successful career which he left to pursue politics in the mid 90's.

Yes he did well back when he was working in the private sector and built up some wealth. Now his %'s are comparable to other retiree's in that age group.

If he gets preferential tax treatment for income generated from investments vs playing baseball or making movies...fuck it. I'm all for it.

Agreed.

I would be much more interested in the tax code loop holes afforded to Mitt, that made it possible to bank 150 mil in the first place. The offshore accounts he likely had back in the 80's, would be much more telling when it comes to his stance on what is "fair".

JC

I do have a problem with this. In fact I would like to see the last few years worth of his tax returns, because my bet is that this year, when he is pressured to post his tax returns he will utilize a lot less loopholes and other ways of not paying taxes. The reason he is only going to pay15% and not 6% is because his people made a business decision as to how much taxes he should pay and not look bad, but also not go broke (ha!).

The reason McCain released 2 years is that he did the same thing, thats all he planned for. Obama was able to release a number of years because he wasnt super rich and his tax deductions didn't make him look bad.

Really what it comes down to, is that if you are gonna be accountable stop trying to hide stuff and actually be accountable

Be accountable for what? I don't care if he used legal "loopholes" to lower his tax liability. In fact I would judge him as pretty damn stupid if he didn't use the options available to lower his liability under the law. At the same time I'm OK with limiting those "loopholes" and simplifying the tax code. The problem is that won't be happening any time soon. I would guess there are somewhere north of 1 million people in this country who depend on the complexity of the tax code for their careers. Very few politicians are willing to piss off a voting block that size.

I wouldnt judge him for using any loopholes, I use as many loopholes as I can. The only people who he needs to be accountable to is the voting public, and if his statements are that this tax return is just like all the previous ones and thats not true then yeh I have a problem with that. I also deeply detest is that they try and present themselfs as something that they are not.

Yeah, only agreeing to release 1 year raises questions.

Accountable for the shit he's spewing on the campaign trail. His standard GOP talking points are just rehashed Reagonomics. "Give the Corporations (they're people, my friends) what they want'', and we'll all be happy.

Ninja Mormon please.

His Kung Fu is weak. Partly because Ninjas are Japanese and Kung Fu comes from China, but mostly because the idea that unfettered business is the key to prosperity for what used to be the "middle class'', is complete and utter bullshit.

There are certainly things that still roll down hill. Shit, crumbs, fat girls, and blame. I like fat girls. Until they roll down a hill, covered in shit and crumbs, and then blame me for building the hill. That's Mitt,( in a slightly hard to sleep tonight due to disturbing metaphors kind of way) nutshell.

JC

How many years of tax returns does he have to release to be accountable for this babble?

Nobody is forcing him to release anything. He is free to do as little as he needs in order to land the nomination.

Unfortunately that won't be much, considering people's solitary focus on nominating someone "who can beat Obama" rather than someone with real ideas.

Im not even sure if thats one of the GOPs criteria.

:lol

I want to see his long form birth certificate.


.... and his dog's license.

I want to see all of his marriage licenses.

Good point. He might have married furriners.

I want to see the tax returns of the people who prepared his birth certificate and marriage license.

fixed

I want him to prove hes not a secret Mormon.

I thought he WAS a Mormon.

I want him to prove he's not a FLDS though.

Can't remember ever seeing him with any sister-wives. Just a dog on the car roof, which is why I want to see his license.

There is also word on the street that if he releases his taxes it will show that he has only been reporting income off some of his estimated wealth, and that there is still much much more that is hidden in offshore tax havens. Then the year before last when he decided to run, he started to move his money back to less illegal places. Supposedly he did it when he ran in 2007 and it looks like he is doing it again this year.

Republicans are fucking idiots to elect this moron

I certainly hope people with offshore accounts are using them to invest in stock or real estate rather than just parking it in a savings account, because the weak-ass returns wouldn't be worth it the risk.

Every dollar not paid in income tax is a dollar earned.

But if the investment is just a CD only paying 2% APR, it isn't worth it.

What is the top tax braket, 38% or something? So a 2% CD here in America would net you about 1.2% instead of 2%. Not something worth crying about, unless you are talking about several million dollars in that CD. And parking that much in a CD is dumb, IMO. It should be in stocks, bonds, or real estate. Hell, you could easily average 2-5% a year in tax-free municipal bond funds here in the US.

You miss my point. By being held offshore, it's already yielding 38%.

On the return. Not the principal.

If the offshore account earns 2%, he's earning 2% instead of the 2% - (2% * 0.38) he'd earn in the US.

Which means 2% instead of 1.2%.

Whats with all this fucking math bullshit?
I don't visit this forum for fucking math.

phag

I have one question for Romney.
"Hey brah...do you support the right of the people to teabag?"

If it's offshore and he isn't declaring, which is kinda the point of housing funds offshore, then his principle isn't being reduced by 38%. Whatever it earns, after that, is a tiny fraction of the real benefit.

That's the point.

If you put $1,000,000.00 in an offshore account, then it's immediately worth $380,000.00 more than a million dollars that you kept in the US.

Not sure how you're coming up with that.

Unless his employer paid him under the table, that $1,000,000 is after-tax money. It isn't going to be taxed again. Only the return he makes on it will be taxed.

Because I'm talking about $1,000,000.00 gross income, before taxes. If your money isn't being taxed, you have more.

I doubt he has tax withheld from his speaking fees before he gets the check.

Sure, as long as he gets that income from sources that don't automatically deduct taxes. Not sure how it was handled at Bain Capital.

Paid from offshore income sources?

Wouldn't doubt it

What? You don't pay income tax on your wealth, you pay it on your income. Uninvested funds don't earn income, so you're not "making" 38% on anything.

Frankly, I'd be less inclined to vote for him if he was paying 40% on his investment portfolio, because it would show a lack of understanding of the tax system.

And how do you get that $1,000,000.00 in the first place?

That he's (theoretically) already paid taxes on? Do we have that data or are you speculating with no information?

Speculating, with as much information as you have.

Give it a rest, Sean.

According to TWFix...

Anybody making over $375k or worth over $1 million:

Made their money without paying taxes.
Hide their wealth in offshore accounts.
Have been known to renounce citizenship to avoid taxation.
They also rape babies and infected your Grandmother with AIDS.

If he fails to disclose, then I can make any reasonable assumptions about those funds that I like.

There is no magic $ cutoff, but people who make more money have more access to tax-cheating techniques.

Someone who is single, doesn't own property, and works a simple 9-to-5 office job, has access to virtually none of those techniques.

So the whole idea that we should cry a river for wealthy people because they shoulder the majority of the tax burden is BS imo. Yeah, we get it, you paid most of the country's taxes......But you also have more access to creative tax-reducing tools than most people.

Vacations to Tahoe written off as so-called "business expenses" simply because one of your clients happened to be there? Check.

Your new F250 written off because you "need" it to "service" your rental properties? Check.

Your speaking fees collected without being reported to the IRS? Check. (OK, I'm speculating there :lol: )

What if they had elected the other moron, John Huntsman? Or do you hate all morons?

If so you should probably stay away from Utah...

I'm not wealthy, but I play a wealthy person on TV.

Now that I have proven myself as a credentialed source on the subject down with those things of the sort and all that business.

tap.. tap.. tap..

Um, that's "Mormon."

If you spent a couple of hours glued to the blackberry and covered the clients dinner and entertainment expense in order build a relationship, cement or work out a complex deal why the fuck wouldn't you write those expenses off?

For many, there are no such thing as "vacations".
You may be on a golf course or a ski resort, but 95% of your time is dedicated to working out a multi million\billion dollar deal.

Screw all these assumptions about tax cheating.
the bigger issue is spouses cheating since you are not dedicating as much time to your family as you should.


Pauldun170 -
Standing up for rich people when no one else will.

tap.. tap.. tap..

Um, that's "Hue-mon."

Right... I'm on the cusp of having to deal with shit like that and I'm nowhere CLOSE to being rich. Once you start getting to the executive level, your off time is still dedicated to work... You don't clock out, when you clock out... You just spend time away from the office.

Oh yeah, sure it is :lol:

Apparently, I'm also wealthy, as are many Americans. At least according to the AMT exemption amount of 48.5k for a single person, since the AMT was created to reduce the amount of exemptions for a "wealthy person". Rolling eyes.

How Much the Rich Pay
Mitt Romney, the 1% and taxes.

Mitt Romney's disclosure this week that his effective federal tax rate is "probably closer to the 15% rate than anything" has created the predictable political uproar. The White House and its media allies figure they've now got their stereotype of the Monopoly man, albeit without his cane and top hat, who they can crush in their planned class-warfare campaign.

We're not sure if facts will matter in this cacophony, but someone should at least try to introduce a little reality into the debate, especially since Mr. Romney seems so unprepared to make the case.

Start with the fact that, like Warren Buffett, Mr. Romney said he makes most of his money from investments, not wages or salary. Thus his income is really taxed twice: once at the corporate tax rate of 35%, then again at a 15% tax rate when it is passed through to him as dividends or via capital gains from the sale of stock.

All income from businesses is eventually passed through to the owners, so to ignore business taxes creates a statistical illusion that makes it appear that the rich pay less than they really do. By this logic, if the corporate tax rate were raised to, say, 60% from today's 35% and the dividend and capital gains tax were cut to zero, it would appear that business owners were getting away with paying no federal tax at all.

This all-too-conveniently confuses the incidence of a tax with the burden of a tax. The marginal tax rate on every additional dollar of capital gains and dividend income from corporate profits can reach as high as 44.75% at the federal level (assuming a company pays the 35% top corporate rate), not 15%.

The Congressional Budget Office recently examined the distribution of federal taxes on various income groups. The report was ballyhooed by liberals as proof of rising income inequality, but that argument is for another day. What everyone has ignored is what CBO found about the relative taxes paid by different groups. And, lo, the rich pay more, which is probably why the press didn't report it.

The nearby table from the CBO report shows that in 2007 the average income tax rate paid by the 1% was 18.8%, compared to 4.2% for Americans in a broadly defined middle class from the 21st to 80th income percentiles. The poorest 20% on average paid a net negative income-tax rate of 5.6% because of the checks they receive for tax credits that are "refundable." These are essentially transfer payments redistributing income from the rich and middle class to the poor.

As for all federal taxes, CBO found that in 2007 the top 1% paid an average rate of a little under 30%, compared to 15.1% for middle-income earners. In calculating this overall tax burden, CBO takes account of payroll taxes, which moves the rate of the lowest 20% of earners into positive territory at 4.7%. CBO also apportions to individuals who are shareholders the tax that corporations pay on corporate profits.

The main point is that the average effective tax rate on the richest 1% is already twice as high as that of the middle class. No matter how many times Mr. Buffett asserts it, secretaries and plumbers do not on average pay a higher tax rate or less in taxes than do CEOs. Here is what the CBO concludes: "Taken as a whole, the federal tax system is progressive."

In any event, raising tax rates has not over time succeeded in increasing tax shares from the rich. When the top income-tax rate was as high as 70% in the 1970s, the top 1% paid about 19% of all federal income taxes. At the current rate of 35% the top 1% pay just under 40% of all income taxes. Liberals say this is because the rich earn a larger share of income. But when tax rates are lower, the rich have less incentive to seek tax shelters and more incentive to put their money to work in income-earning, revenue-producing ventures.

Mr. Romney said at Monday's Republican presidential debate that he would like to see a top income-tax rate of about 25%. Mr. Obama is seeking a rate closer to 42%, for starters. Mr. Romney's challenge is to persuade Americans that lower rates will mean more jobs and growth, and more revenues for the government. One certainty is that if he stays on his current path of playing defense, Mr. Romney won't deserve to be the GOP nominee because he's likely to lose the fall election.

First off, I just want to say that the number of these fucking things---> %
in this thread, is bumming me out. If you look closely, or from far away, they sorta look like 96. 96 is the seriously fucked up version of 69.

Anyway, here's how it works; Let's say you're a nice Mormon guy with a few bucks in his pocket, and you want to open a Dildo company. You set up shop in Maryland, where anybody be a corporation, and leave a very faint paper trail. You are now Dildos Inc. Since corporations are people, you're now also twins!

Next, you open an office in the Caymans, for your new subsidiary company, Dildos International. They in turn, open Expanding Universe of Children, in Lichtenstein, who then opens Consolidated Douche-bag Industries, in Liberia.

Ok, now what? Turns out, Mormons suck at making dildos. Who knew? So, Dildos Inc., "loans" it's funds to Dildos International, the Zen Dildo Masters (TM) These guys are good. Investors line up. They've come up with a dildo that looks just like toaster. Actually, it is a toaster, but the good folks at Dildos International, are not here to judge you.

Expanding Universe of Children gets the contract for the new Dil-doasters, and subs the work out to China.

Meanwhile, back at Consolidated Douche-bag Industries, a crack team of douchebags has created a 9,056 page quarterly report, for Dildos Inc.

Apparently, we owe them money.

JC

Who wrote this article? That statement is flat-out wrong and misleading.

Correct. The money isn't taxed again; just the additional income it makes via capital gains/dividends. Income is income, though different types are taxed in different ways.

In Romney's case, much of it wasn't taxed at the corporate rate in the first place.

If you invest in a company you own, and then take out fees for your trouble, that money is taxed as capital gains, not income.

JC

Correct, If I earn through wages $100,000/year, I'm taxed right? Let's say 25% just for fun. Now I invest $20,000 in Dildos Inc and they turn a profit and I get a $5,000 dividend. I then pay 15% on that dividend. It's not double taxation.

The point is that I paid taxes on the money when I earned it, I pay taxes on the interest if I save it, I pay taxes on the money that I spend and I pay taxes on the gain if I invest. Why is that okay with everyone and why do you think that Romney or anyone else should pay more?:idk: The stupid thing with Romney is that he "only" pays 15% because he's earning money solely from investments for the most part. He is not doing anything shady or illegal and it is evil and blatantly irresponsible for the media to portray it any other way.

OK, look at it this way;

Romney bought and sold companies that were vulnerable. High debt, over leveraged, etc. Let's say he invests a million in Dildos Inc., and then sells off all the Dildo making machines for two million. He pays 15% on the million he just made. Illegal? No. Shady? Kinda.

Why? Because in addition to selling off all the Dildo machines, he also fired all the Dildo helpers.

Romney claims he knows how to help the middle class. He wants to deregulate business to the point where people like him have less hoops to jump through, when it comes to firing people, moving jobs offshore, and paying benefits. That doesn't help anyone in the middle class. It only helps douchebags like Mitt Romney.

JC

But if Romney was just a partner of Bain Capital, then he wasn't using HIS money to invest in Dildos, he was using the collective's (Bain's) money. Same with the profits, they wouldn't go straight to him, they'd go through Bain first.

Hell, even if he was the sole proprieter at Bain, I doubt he could hide all those profits from the IRS.

If it's income, why shouldn't it be taxed? I don't see the problem here.

So what should happen to those companies? Should they get a govt bailout for running their businesses into the ground? Instead of having "douchebags" buy and strip them, I guess that we taxpayers should support them..... Otherwise, they just go out of business anyway....:idk: I'm sorry but when in doubt, I go capitalism every time. No one forces those companies to go out of business or sell. If no one wants dildos, manufacture something else. Diversify. Is it the shark's fault that you swam out to the deep water and couldn't swim?

As I understand it he would pay 15% on the million he made only if it is a long term capital gain. If selling off the machines qualifies as a capital gain (I'm not sure it would, but lets assume so for simplicity) the money would have had to be invested for more than a year before realizing the gain, otherwise it is a short term capital and taxed as regular income.

Where you really seem to have an issue is with Dildos Inc. helpers being fired. I don't like people losing their jobs either, but the reality is Dildos Inc. is failing. Those employees are losing their jobs, its just a matter of whether it is through liquidation or bankruptcy. At least with liquidation those who Dildos Inc. owes money to don't get screwed as well.

It doesn't matter whose money it is, Bain was likely paying capital gains rates, since most of their income came from returns on investment. The whole fucking thing is rigged.

Romney didn't have to worry about the IRS. Between all the lawyers and tax accounts on staff, and a convenient office in Luxembourg (a country with extremely secretive banking laws), all Bain had to do was bury the IRS in paperwork. Not even the mighty IRS has enough people to track down all the details of multiple shell companies in multiple countries.

These guys essentially build giant moats of quicksand around themselves, and dare you to walk through.

JC

That's the beauty of the system Romney wants to expand. He takes the money he made from Dildos Inc, and re-invests it in Dildos International, and short term gains become long term gains. The dude ain't living from paycheck to paycheck. He has time to work the system to full advantage.

Well, they don't get screwed as much. They're offered a percentage of the debt, and they take it, because the only other option is the left over crumbs after bankruptcy is filed, and Mitt has already sucked the capital out of the company anyway.

Yes, I have a problem with the workers being fired, but not because I'm an anti-capitalist. Far from it. I have a problem with the way Mitt does things, because he's running on a platform of restoring the middle class, when he's gone out of his way to make that status unavailable for thousands of people.

I don't need a President that wallows in corporate greed like fat girls at an all you can eat KFC buffet. I just want to show up, and find a couple of pieces of chicken left. Maybe some corn and a roll too.

I ain't asking for much.

JC

"He" can certainly do that and it is completely legal. How does Romney want to expand it?

How in your previous hypothetical does Romney go "out of his way to make that status unavailable for thousands of people"?

Why do all conversations about Romney evolve into conversations about plastic dicks?
Oh...wait
Nevermind

Speaking of offshore accounts...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/busine...TEQ_story.html

Glad they said this at the end, as I was thinking it the entire time I was reading the article. Somebody who doesn't need to money to live on could just leave the money there, then eventually buy a place in the Cayman's to retire and just pull the money out while living in the Cayman's.

Oh lord, no wonder we are 15+ trillion in the hole. Romney has 32 million in offshore investments....:lol:

Romney didn't write the damn tax code. I guess that none of the rich democrats in the world have ever taken advantage of tax loop holes. Of course not. You are all being lead astray of the real issues here. Where anyone chooses to invest their money is not what's fundamentally wrong with this country. Quite frankly, I'm more concerned with all of the welfare rats that pull EIC credits every year when they don't pay ANYTHING in taxes in the first place. How about the fact that half the country doesn't even pay federal income tax? What do you expect people to do? Do you pay taxes on your 401k? Don't you take every deduction that you can? Oh don't tell me, you guys pay in more than you have to to the federal govt just to be nice, right? Class envy, entitlement mentality, etc is what is fundamentally wrong with this country. Most have nots are also work nots in my experience. I don't fault rich guys trying to hold on to their money, that's what I do as well. Shit, all the feds are going to do is give it to some welfare rat, a foreign country or blow it on some bullshit project/study.... I may as well take 30% of my pay and light it on fire.:panic:

I didn't understand half of that article.

But then, the tax code was written by wealthy people (Congress) trying to create more advantages for themselves.

That isn't the issue though, is it? Generally speaking it's Republicans, who are complaining about tax rates on the wealthy, that they don't seem to pay anyway. Start talking about things like inheritance taxes, that really are taxes on money that has already been taxed, and I'll be right there with you. Not on this.

While inheritance tax is somewhat taxes on money that has already been taxed, it's not completely that way. The biggest example is unrealized capital gains. If someone bought, or built, a good sized house in the right area and stayed in it most of their lives (a lot of older people have been in the same home for YEARS), that house would have greatly appreciated in value. The gain isn't recognized until the house is sold. If the house is left to someone in an estate, that property doesn't get taxed without an inheritance tax. Granted, there is a 500k exemption for married couples on the gain of a house, but there is also a threshold for inheritance tax.

So lets talk about stocks/bonds. Same situation. If someone holds onto them for years upon years, they've greatly appreciated in value. When they're left to someone in an estate, the new owner gets the basis on date of death. So those stocks could have dramatically appreciated, but that gain is never taxed since they were left in an estate, if there's no inheritance tax. This is where an inheritance tax makes SOME sense.

However, the inheritance tax RATE is what is insane. Also, if someone simply had boatloads of cash/liquid securities where the interest has been taxed over the years, then I don't think that money should be taxed upon death either.

If it was taxed as income, for the recipient, then there might at least be some logic to it. Instead it's taxed at a ridiculous rate, over and above the taxes what the original holder was taxed. The most reasonable thing would be to tax it as income, but at a special reduced rate.

Things like real estate shouldn't be taxed at all, unless the receiver divests himself of it. If it stays in the family, then it should be inviolate. If it gets sold, then it's treated the same way that a monetary asset would be. If it's rented out, then the rental income is just that; income. This would be fair right across the board, from people scratching to get by right up through billionaires with major holdings.

Tax gains and at time of divestiture not upon receipt, for stocks, capital funds, etc..

The inheritance tax doesn't begin until a certain level, around 3 million I think.

Ah HA! Two of the biggest figures in the Mormon faith are named "Moroni," only one is named "Mormon." Personally, I think we were just a couple verses off from having ads for "the Book of Moron, a companion to the Bible."

It was started by a guy reading golden plates, in a hat. Probably just a spelling error. They didn't have auto-correct in the 1820s.

His taxes are low because he pays taxes mostly on capital gains and dividends.

Raising those significantly will never fly because it will screw everyone that's living on retirement savings.

Who there buddy, only the uber-rich benefit from a lower capital gains tax. Where have you been?:lol:

My biggest tax problem is tax on savings/interest. I don't think there should be one, period.

Exactly. Why is someone's measly earnings from their savings acct or CD (which at MOST is giving them only 1% APR these days) taxed as regular income, but dividends & capital gains are only taxed 15%?

"Yeah, let's discourage the poor & middle class from saving anything"

Stocks are for somoene who already has a 6-12 month emergency savings stashed away into an FDIC-insured account. If you don't have that, you shouldn't be buying stocks. And since most people DON'T, their money is in regular bank accounts, and the interest is taxed as regular income. What kind of sense does that make?

Either tax all interest/dividends/gains at 15%, or nothing.

One other thing, I can't say that they have never done what you are describing but Bain doesn't focus on buying out companies to liquidate them. They focus on venture capital (providing money to start-up companies for continued operation and expansion in exchange for equity in the company, they profit when the company is acquired or goes public) and acquisitions for reorganization (Burger King and Dunkin' Doughnuts to name a few). The goal of both activities is to end up with a stronger company, not a company out of business.

So you think Romney should be required to pay American taxes on money he has made from offshore investments that has never touched America?

When most Americans invest overseas, they are doing it by buying shares through US brokerages. Thus, their tax info is collected, and they pay taxes on those dividends & gains. Take me, I own shares of Vodafone, a British company. I also own shares of an ETF whose stocks are all Vietnamese. Yet I have to pay US taxes on any earnings or sale.

If someone like Romney is getting around that by using a Cayman or Swiss account to buy those shares, then that's BS imo.

He should get benefits, that other citizens don't?

Who is stopping them? Again, investing in the Caymans is LEGAL!!! My God people, he is doing absolutely nothing wrong. People are trying top criminalize his actions when there is no crime. It's the same with Bain capital, perfectly legal. Get yourselves some money and invest it yourselves if you want. Nothing is stopping you except the fact that you all are a bunch of underachieving losers!!!:lol: J/K but seriously, what about the thousands that some of us have invested in bikes...well how dare we spend money on such frivolous things when Shamika can barely feed her kids and maintain her crack addiction....:lol: The thing that a lot of you forget is that most of us would be considered rich in the hood where I grew up or in other countries. I live alone and have three TVs, maybe the govt should bust in my door and take two of them and give them to people who don't have one. I live in a 3 bedroom house by myself, I guess the govt should move me into a studio apt and move a more DESERVING family in.... This is all about redistribution of wealth. The federal govt is supposed to provide for the country's defense, represent our common interests abroad, establish a currency, protect our rights...not take money from half of the citizens and give it to the other half. If the federal govt stuck to it's original mandate, my taxes would be 1/3 of what they are now!:panic:

It must have sucked to have the person with the gun to your head making you purchase those shares through US brokers rather than overseas.

As AL already said, what is stopping Homeslice or anyone else from doing so? Romney chooses to get benefits while others have chosen not to. Romney also has expenses associated with that choice in order to have those earnings be free from American tax, at least until he would want to bring the money back here. Others choose to avoid that expense and pay American taxes instead.

Can an ordinary citizen with under a million bucks to invest obtain the same priviledges in the Caymans that Romney has? Somehow I doubt they'll even bother talking to you for that kind of chump change. If it was so easy, everyone would be doing it, including you, goof.

While I agree with the sentiment of what you posted, I will say the thing that is stopping the average joe from investing in funds housed in the Cayman's is likely two things:

1. Knowing someone who knows how to get the money to the right people or personally doing the research to even discover the loophole and locating the "best" investments.

2. Most likely there is some insane minimum investment amount for those funds even if you DO find them. There are a LOT of funds that have minimum investments for the simple reason that brokers don't want to be bothered with the paperwork for "small" amounts. Even if the minimum is as low as 25 or 50k (which I'd be surprised if it's anywhere near that low), most people can't make even that size of investment because then they'd have too much of their money tied up in just one investment that likely has huge swings the average joe can't stomach.

But yes, I agree that the government has more than overstepped it's bounds in our country. We should be able to spend our money how we see fit, rather than handing a large chunk of it over to the government to spend for us.

There's a bit of a difference between not being able to afford to buy something and being able to do something, that would be illegal for the majority of citizens, simply because you've got more money. As stated by others, most have to declare those investments.

It's the mind set of the ORWG, (Old Rich White Guys). Their legislative focus is on tax cuts for "job creators", which is code for people who would hire lichen if it had thumbs. Romney never met a loop hole he didn't like. Bain had 138 corporate entities registered in the Caymans. We don't know how many they had in Luxembourg, cause they ain't telling.

With a record like that, what would make you think he's had a sudden change of feeling where his heart used to be, and now wants to do right by the little guy?

I'll admit, that was a rather broad stroke. In truth, he could go either way. I'll get to the bottom of that at the bottom. Vis-a-vis, post wise, as it were.

138 companies in the Caymans. One Hundred and Thirty Eight.

How many do you have?


So to sum up, you're OK with rich people taking advantage of the tax code code, but if welfare fats do it, it's wrong.


The goal may be a stronger company, but from whose perspective, the share holders or the workers?

JC

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2...y-tax-returns/

Thats a pretty nice big loophole right there.

Quotable

It is not illegal. He did it absolutely on the up and up. If the tax laws are "unfair", don't blame those that take advantage of it. Change them!!! We have that power people, vote for a flat tax. What could be more fair than that? Everyone pays the same percentage. Why do people think that it's "fair" for people to pay a higher percentage because they make more money? Why do people believe that it is "fair" for people to pay more taxes if they choose to not have children?

Investment is what built this country and yours for that matter. People invested their life savings, their time, their sweat, their blood and even their lives to make a better life for themselves. They drilled for oil, they dug for gold, they worked the land, they put in the work, they made the sacrifices, they had the ideas, they took the risks and now they have to be demonized when they become rich. It's ridiculous. AGAIN Romney has committed absolutely no crimes and isn't doing anything that any American citizen with the means can do. If you do not have the means, it is YOUR fault, not Romney's. SOUR GRAPES!!!!:lol:

When they're the ones who make the laws, directly or by influence peddling, then I feel free to blame them.

Why do you feel it's fair that they pay LESS?

*EDIT* Oh, and by the way, both of our countries were built when such people were paying orders of magnitude higher taxes ;)

Um isn't that Bain Capital.....does Romney own that company?:idk:

What I am saying is that the millions of welfare rats that get EICs is a hell of a lot more than the taxes we are "losing" because Romney has some money stashed away overseas.

Direct question, do you think that it's "right" for people that already pay nothing in federal taxes and that sponge off the system already, to receive thousands of dollars every year from the federal govt?

"Less"? Romney paid over $3,000,000 last year in taxes. How in the fuck is that less?:lol:

Oh and please with the "less" crap, the average american pays under 10% in federal taxes. I would like to know who comes up with this bullshit....

June 2010
The accompanying tables update annual estimates by the Congressional Budget Office
(CBO) of average tax rates—that is, households’ tax liability divided by their income—
and compare those estimates for 2007 with estimates from 2006. This report’s tables
show average tax rates for various income categories for the four largest sources of
federal revenue—individual income taxes, social insurance (payroll) taxes, corporate
income taxes, and excise taxes—and for the four taxes combined. The tables also present
average before-tax and after-tax household income; the number of households in each
income category; and shares of taxes, income, and households for each fifth (quintile) of
the income distribution and for the top 10 percent, 5 percent, and 1 percent of households.
A page on CBO’s Web site, “Federal Taxes by Income Group,” includes publications on
this topic, CBO’s estimates of average federal tax rates for the years 1979 to 2007, and
other information on household income and taxes.
Estimates for 2007
In 2007, the overall average federal tax rate was 20.4 percent (see Table 1). Individual
income taxes, the largest component, were 9.3 percent of household income. Social
insurance taxes (also called payroll taxes) were the next-largest source, with an average
rate of 7.4 percent. Corporate income taxes and excise taxes were smaller, with average
tax rates of 3.0 percent and 0.6 percent, respectively.
The federal tax system is progressive—that is, average tax rates generally rise with
income. Households in the bottom fifth of the income distribution paid 4.0 percent of
their income in federal taxes, the middle quintile paid 14.3 percent, and the highest
quintile paid 25.1 percent. Average rates continued to rise within the top quintile: The top
1 percent faced an average rate of 29.5 percent.
Higher-income groups earn a disproportionate share of pretax income and pay a
disproportionate share of federal taxes. In 2007, the highest quintile earned 55.9 percent
of pretax income and paid 68.9 percent of federal taxes; the top 1 percent of households
earned 19.4 percent of income and paid 28.1 percent of taxes. The share of taxes paid by
high-income groups exceeded their share of income because average tax rates rise with
income. In all other quintiles, the share of federal taxes was less than the income share.
The bottom quintile earned 4.0 percent of income and paid 0.8 percent of taxes, and the
middle quintile earned 13.1 percent of income and paid 9.2 percent of taxes.

No comment on the tax rates, when the country was being built? Kinda blows a hole in the whole extreme right wing premise.

From the little I have read about it the barriers to entry aren't horrendous. The most common figure is $100k, but some countries require less. The real issue is unless you know you won't need to access that money the costs will outweigh the benefit. I wouldn't do it because my investments are minimal and taxes on them aren't much of a concern. With my normal investment "success" I'd miss out on the chance to deduct my losses.:lol:

You don't have to go offshore to find barriers like that. If you want a single share of that hero of the proletariat Warren Buffett's good stuff, BRK-A, you better have brought six figures.

Bain has 138 corporate entities in the Caymans now, Romney hasn't run Bain since 1999. Whose record is it?

I'll answer it in the same place

As the former employees of Circuit City or Lehman Bros. how great it is to work for a weaker company. If it weren't for government largesse you could throw the majority of the financial and automotive industries in America in to that mix. Weak companies eventually fail. There are no complaints from employees of failed companies because there are no employees.