Romney and the tax thing

S

speedracer

Banned
I can't come to a reasonable conclusion here. Help a brother out. The facts:

1. Romney has been running for president for going on 6 years now.
2. Romney had to know that his tax returns would be an issue (right?).
3. Romney is not a slobbering idiot.
4. Every single person in Romney's political employ is not a slobbering idiot.

Given these four facts, why did Romney and his ongoing campaign come to the conclusion that he should unabashedly lower his tax exposure to the lowest possible point? This is what I've got:

1. He thought showing low tax exposure would be a strength. It would show what is possible for an American to achieve.
2. He's a greedy idiot.

So yea, the only reasonable conclusion I can come to is that he thought it would be a strength. Then the OWS thing happened and the 1%ers got the spotlight and Romney goes from the poster child for America's greatness and possibility to the poster child for being a rich douche nozzle that doesn't pay taxes.

And it's not like it's the drippy hippies that are full bore bashing Romney. It's the fucking Republican primary for fuck's sake. Even they're freaking out about it. Is it because they're afraid of how it looks or because they're seeing what it looks like in reality (ie rich shitbags being rich shitbags that don't pay taxes) instead of an idealized reality (where captains of industry use the lower tax exposure to create jerbs fer murkins)?

I don't get it.
 
I think you're right that it's both.

He's clearly a greedy business man that cares about little else than money given he made his career as a corporate raider.

And he thinks he can use the attacks on his wealth, tax rate etc. to strengthen his support among the right wing base that wants small government (low taxes) and still believes in the American Dream--if not for themselves, they think their kids are grand kids can end up making it big like Mitt.

What I think he didn't anticipate was that his republican opponents would try to hammer him on it. He probably figured it wouldn't be an issue until the general election, where he could just use the attacks from the left to fire up his base with cries of "class warfare!" and "socialism!".

It's tougher to combat when it's coming from someone like Gingrich who is also on the right, also rich, but paying a much higher tax rate.
 
I'm not seeing what the issue is. The money he makes is on his investments, as he has been running for President and holding no real job for the past six years. His capital gains tax rate is 15% on his investments, which he pays. My capital gains tax rate would be 15% (unless I was in a low tax income bracket) and so would yours. He should be ashamed of being sucessful and making cash. How does not wanting to pay higher taxes equal greed?
 
Because all income should be treated the same. Shouldn't matter if it's a paycheck or profit from investments or whatever. Any income/profit you bring in should get taxed according to the regular income tax brackets.

It's in no way fair that the wealthiest people are playing lower effective tax rates than the working class and middle class. People that are struggling to get buy are paying 15-25% of their income in taxes and the wealthiest are paying around 15% since they get most of their income in stock options etc. to avoid paying higher percentages?

Bunch of BS.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Because all income should be treated the same. Shouldn't matter if it's a paycheck or profit from investments or whatever. Any income/profit you bring in should get taxed according to the regular income tax brackets.

It's in no way fair that the wealthiest people are playing lower effective tax rates than the working class and middle class. People that are struggling to get buy are paying 15-25% of their income in taxes and the wealthiest are paying around 15% since they get most of their income in stock options etc. to avoid paying higher percentages?

Bunch of BS.[/QUOTE]

Agreed. The system is there for anyone to use (or abuse) but it clearly favors the rich. They can minimize their regular income and rely on capital gains as their main source of wealth. So, Romney is not doing anything illegal however his alleged association with Cayman banks in the past doesn't look so good.
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']I'm not seeing what the issue is. The money he makes is on his investments, as he has been running for President and holding no real job for the past six years. His capital gains tax rate is 15% on his investments, which he pays. My capital gains tax rate would be 15% (unless I was in a low tax income bracket) and so would yours. He should be ashamed of being sucessful and making cash. How does not wanting to pay higher taxes equal greed?[/QUOTE]
To be clear, Mitt Romney has not "invested" in anything. Or to be more clear, the primary source of Mitt Romney's income is carried interest. He did not "invest" in an equity for the long term.

More clarity from NPR:
In what would be the final deal of his private equity career, he negotiated a retirement agreement with his former partners that has paid him a share of Bain's profits ever since ...

... since Mr. Romney's payouts from Bain have come partly from the firm's share of profits on its customers' investments, that income probably qualifies for the 15 percent tax rate reserved for capital gains, rather than the 35 percent that wealthy taxpayers pay on ordinary income.
Click to expand...
So Mitt Romney doesn't invest, but makes money on the money his firm makes when it invests OTHER PEOPLES MONEY. So he is now twice removed from the actual investment, yet he gets taxed the same as that investment on income generated from a service that qualifies.

Is that fair?

Business Insider:
This loophole, which some think is one reason GOP front-runner Mitt Romney is scared to release his tax returns, is absurd.

To be clear:

There is no theoretical justification for it.

None.

The fact that the loophole exists is merely a function of the enormous power the financial industry has over Washington.

The argument that some hedge-fund moguls and their defenders make for the tax break is that, because they are paid based on the performance of their funds, their compensation somehow represents a "capital gain."

That is just ridiculous.

Anyone paid any form of performance-based bonus could make this argument.

Most hedge-fund and private-equity managers, including venture capitalists, are paid with a combination of a management fee (1%-3% of assets under management) and a performance-based fee (generally 20%-50% of the "gains" on their funds). The managers are generally paid these fees regardless of whether the gains are due to their own performance or simply the market going up. (Most hedge funds are a horrible deal for hedge-fund investors, but since investors are still dumb enough to line up around the block to put their money in, that's their problem).

In both cases, however, the fees the managers receive are compensation for service, not "capital gains."

The justification for lower taxes on capital gains is to encourage people to invest capital for the long term. Capital investments generally help the economy, by funding new companies and projects. The capital that is invested, moreover, has already been "earned" (and, thereby, taxed). So there are reasonable arguments for having lower taxes on long-term capital gains than on ordinary income.

But the management and performance-based fees paid to hedge-fund and private equity managers are NOT capital gains. They're ordinary income. Just because they don't arrive in a monthly paycheck and are based on performance doesn't change that.

Now, there are some instances in which hedge-fund and private-equity managers have their own capital invested in their funds. And there are other instances in which the managers take their management fees and reinvest them in their funds.

In these cases, when the managers actually have their capital at risk, they should be entitled to capital-gains tax treatment.

(Mitt Romney's income may well fall under this category. As long as he paid taxes on his management fees when he received them, and then reinvested what was left in the funds, his income should be treated as capital gains. But if he simply deferred his fees and is receiving them now at a 15% tax rate, it's no wonder that he's terrified about releasing his returns.)
Click to expand...
Again, he'd have to be pants on head retarded to not release if his income is based on an honest, straight up capital gain, so we can safely assume he's decided to go carried interest. That was a conscious decision that he had to know would become public knowledge. Because shit man, why else would you fight so hard when you can be all captain of industry creating jobs and saving America?

Rupert Murdoch via CNN Money:
"Romney tax uses long-term legal loophole. 'carried interest' makes all fund managers rich. Time both parties stopped selling out to Wall S," Murdoch wrote Wednesday on his official Twitter account.

...

"Carried interest tax racket. Billions over many years. Why and where has Obama been?" he wrote.
Click to expand...
FYI: Obama has twice proposed changing carried interest to regular income in budgets and it died both times, so Obama probably isn't the guy to be angry with.

Not his investments. That's the problem. It's a classic tax loophole designed to benefit a very specific type of income, one that only the ultra-rich can take advantage of.
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']How is it a tax loophole if it is how the tax code is written. Don't you take all of your deductions and try to minimize your tax burden every year?[/QUOTE]
Sure. And yet I think, and I think you'll agree, that every once in awhile something comes to the forefront of the American psyche where we all collectively realize that "holy fuck that's completely fucking insane".

Romney is right square in the middle of that.

Carried interest tax rates being fucking insane is nothing new. Everybody knows it. It's like ethanol subsidies. People that look into it realize it's crazy but it just doesn't come to the forefront often. How many people do you know that live off that insane subsidy? You'd have to have a guy run for president with huge ties to ethanol to really illustrate how stupid the ethanol subsidy is.

Which is my point. How did Romney's team not know this was going to happen? Your candidate is up to his fucking eyeballs in THE. MOST. CONTROVERSIAL. (and by controversial, I mean utter lunacy type bullshit. When Wall St'ers are shitting on you for being out control, you're positively insane) loophole that exists. How? Why? WTF?

Just noticed Romney is going to release his 2010 return the morning of the state of the union. Jesus H. How badly does he want this to go away?

Ergo, is he stupid or just greedy?

edit: When this all started, I thought he was riding the capital gains tax rate. I was wondering why that was a big deal. I mean, I disagree with it but a reasonable case can be made for long term capital gains as a benefit to our economic being (it's horse shit, but hey whatever). Carried interest is the skeleton in the closet, man. It's the fucking boogeyman. I can't believe a presidential candidate thought they could get by with it. You'd be better off divorcing a wife with a terminal disease. Literally.
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']How is it a tax loophole if it is how the tax code is written. Don't you take all of your deductions and try to minimize your tax burden every year?[/QUOTE]

It's not a loophole really. It's just a flaw in the tax code and needs to be changed.

And I personally don't take all my deductions. I never deduct charitable donations, I donate because I want to help out, not to lower my tax burden.

I don't bother tracking things I buy for working at home etc. that I could write of it I itemize etc. Not worth the hassle. I'm not obsessed with lowering my tax burden. The government needs more revenue and I'm fine paying more than I could. Only thing I deduct is my student loan interest.
 
Assuming he's a practicing Mormon, he is required to give away a minimum of 10%. Greedy? Quite possibly, but his tithe of 10% is much larger than Joe Mormon and his 6 wives' 10% tithes. But what voters need to realize is that Newt Gingrich is more charitable than any other candidate. Just think of the incredible amount of alimony and child support he's had to pay over the years!
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']How is it a tax loophole if it is how the tax code is written. Don't you take all of your deductions and try to minimize your tax burden every year?[/QUOTE]

Agreed. As the parent of 2.8 kids, my standard deduction is greater than itemizing, but if itemizing saved me $.10 that didn't go to the government, I'd have a box of receipts and itemize every year.
 
[quote name='berzirk']assuming he's a practicing mormon, he is required to give away a minimum of 10%. Greedy? Quite possibly, but his tithe of 10% is much larger than joe mormon and his 6 wives' 10% tithes. But what voters need to realize is that newt gingrich is more charitable than any other candidate. Just think of the incredible amount of alimony and child support he's had to pay over the years![/quote]
qft
 
I honestly can't figure it out either. The most reasonable assumption is one of complete hubris on Romney (and by extension his "team's") in that he thinks it's justified and reasonable.

Also, I don't know that a hedge fund consumer is necessarily dumb. In fact at times like these they're more important. Mutual funds are a bit of a disaster since most of those capital gains get eaten by transaction fees.
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']I'm not seeing what the issue is. The money he makes is on his investments, as he has been running for President and holding no real job for the past six years. His capital gains tax rate is 15% on his investments, which he pays. My capital gains tax rate would be 15% (unless I was in a low tax income bracket) and so would yours. He should be ashamed of being sucessful and making cash. How does not wanting to pay higher taxes equal greed?[/QUOTE]

You're arguing as if it's an apriori truth that the current law is moral and just.

That just isn't true.
 
[quote name='camoor']You're arguing as if it's an apriori truth that the current law is moral and just.

That just isn't true.[/QUOTE]

What's immoral or unjust about following the tax code and paying 15%? Assuming it is immoral and is unjust, what would fix it? Not trying to be argumentative, but I don't see why 15% for capital gains is outrageous. Is it because he's already rich, so all of his earnings should be taxed more than you or I? If so, then we definitely have a philisophical difference of opinion on that one.
 
[quote name='berzirk']What's immoral or unjust about following the tax code and paying 15%? Assuming it is immoral and is unjust, what would fix it? Not trying to be argumentative, but I don't see why 15% for capital gains is outrageous. Is it because he's already rich, so all of his earnings should be taxed more than you or I? If so, then we definitely have a philisophical difference of opinion on that one.[/QUOTE]

We probably do, I don't agree with flat tax rates.

Progressive tax rate across all forms of income without loopholes.
 
[quote name='berzirk']What's immoral or unjust about following the tax code and paying 15%? Assuming it is immoral and is unjust, what would fix it? Not trying to be argumentative, but I don't see why 15% for capital gains is outrageous. Is it because he's already rich, so all of his earnings should be taxed more than you or I? If so, then we definitely have a philisophical difference of opinion on that one.[/QUOTE]
Let's not go overboard here. 15% is less than what a vast majority of income tax payers pay and it's not like he's working for like a vast majority of tax payers because capital gains isn't tied to earned income, but interest and dividends etc.
 
[quote name='dohdough']Let's not go overboard here. 15% is less than what a vast majority of income tax payers pay and it's not like he's working for like a vast majority of tax payers because capital gains isn't tied to earned income, but interest and dividends etc.[/QUOTE]

Like I said, philisophical difference ;)

I am in favor of a flat(er) tax, but I thought it was true that darn near half of the country effectively pays little or no tax. That's not a vast majority!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3622644...finance/t/half-us-pays-no-federal-income-tax/

I personally pay very little tax thanks to my kids.
 
He should take advantage of all of the advantages that the federal tax code affords him. This is what most tax payers do.

If your issue is taxes, you would fix the tax code instead of expecting Romney to pretend that these tax advantages don't exist. Don't blame Mitt Romney, blame federal law.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-mo-buffett-romney-20120123,0,1875317.story

My position is that if we are going to have high spending, we should have high taxes. If we want low spending, we should have low taxes. I'm fine with either approach.

We cannot, however, have high spending and low taxes.
 
[quote name='berzirk']Like I said, philisophical difference ;)

I am in favor of a flat(er) tax, but I thought it was true that darn near half of the country effectively pays little or no tax. That's not a vast majority!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3622644...finance/t/half-us-pays-no-federal-income-tax/

I personally pay very little tax thanks to my kids.[/QUOTE]

I think we should get tax money from those who can afford to pay it, and for whom this land of opportunity has been a godsend.

You want to squeeze the stone for more blood... out of principle.
 
Warren Buffett agrees strongly with you guys: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/buffett-blames-congress-romneys-15-155000898.html

I just feel that if people (above a certain income level) at least pay some tax, then they have an investment in the country. Getting money back, or paying nothing doesn't seem fair to me. Others think it's unfair that the top earners don't pay a lot more.

Heh, we're not going to agree on one method over the other, not trying to say we should.
 
[quote name='berzirk']Warren Buffett agrees strongly with you guys: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/buffett-blames-congress-romneys-15-155000898.html

I just feel that if people (above a certain income level) at least pay some tax, then they have an investment in the country. Getting money back, or paying nothing doesn't seem fair to me. Others think it's unfair that the top earners don't pay a lot more.

Heh, we're not going to agree on one method over the other, not trying to say we should.[/QUOTE]

Why is it an emotional thing for you.

Sure your way seems fair if you don't think about it. It's somewhat intuitive - I'll give you that, but if you look at what that policy actually does you see it's destructive.
 
[quote name='camoor']Why is it an emotional thing for you.

Sure your way seems fair if you don't think about it. It's somewhat intuitive - I'll give you that, but if you look at what that policy actually does you see it's destructive.[/QUOTE]

If by emotional, you mean I'm saying what I think is fair, then aren't you doing exactly the same thing? I'm not that "emotional" about it to be honest. It doesn't impact me much at all, in fact. Like I said, under the current system, I barely pay anything.

We're effectively arguing over what each person thinks is fair. If the damn country quit spending so much, that would go a long way towards working the budget down and the current tax rates wouldn't be as polarizing. I don't know if it's a conservative, or liberal stance anymore these days, but I think spending needs to drastically be reduced. Reduce military spending, DRASTICALLY reduce foreign aid. If anything, spend more on Americans. That's where I become emotional. It drives me crazy to think we spend so much overseas, and have real-life welfare queens like Israel, Egypt, Pakistan, and many others.
 
[quote name='Msut77']How much do you think the federal budget is spent on foreign aid as a percentage?[/QUOTE]

Don't know actually. I'd guess around 5% or so. I'll bet military is another 15%.

I'm sure you've got a graph to post soon, and I'm looking forward to it, cause I don't know what the exact numbers are.

Edit: If this is true...18% is spent on government pensions?! Holy WTF of ballshit!! I wonder what is covered when they say "government healthcare".

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/current_spending
 
[quote name='berzirk']Don't know actually. I'd guess around 5% or so.[/quote]

It is closer to .05%


I'll bet military is another 15%.
Click to expand...

Closer to 20%.

It depends on if you take past military expenses into account.

Your link appears to be taking into account all government into account i.e. the village,country,state, etc.
 
[quote name='Msut77']It is closer to .05%


Closer to 20%.

It depends on if you take past military expenses into account.

Your link appears to be taking into account all government into account i.e. the village,country,state, etc.[/QUOTE]

Aha. If you have a graph or a good source, I'd actually love to see it. Hey, cutting .05% out of the budget is great to me. If I can save a couple bucks on my monthly heat bill by dropping the thermostat one degree, I'm saving money. Same principal here.

Military is outrageous though. I don't think anyone rational feels like that much money is justified or necessary.
 
[quote name='berzirk']Like I said, philisophical difference ;)

I am in favor of a flat(er) tax, but I thought it was true that darn near half of the country effectively pays little or no tax. That's not a vast majority!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3622644...finance/t/half-us-pays-no-federal-income-tax/

I personally pay very little tax thanks to my kids.[/QUOTE]
That's why I specifically said income tax payers. When a third of the country is either too old or too young to work, half the country not paying any income tax due to not making enough money to need to pay said taxes shouldn't be surprising. Either way, your argument of half the people not paying taxes is just conservative herp-derping because anyone that makes a purchase pays a tax and those with the least amount of money are better for the economy because they spend all their money instead of hoarding it. Marginal utility and multipliers are funny like that.

[quote name='berzirk']Don't know actually. I'd guess around 5% or so. I'll bet military is another 15%.

I'm sure you've got a graph to post soon, and I'm looking forward to it, cause I don't know what the exact numbers are.

Edit: If this is true...18% is spent on government pensions?! Holy WTF of ballshit!! I wonder what is covered when they say "government healthcare".

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/current_spending[/QUOTE]
Your source is tainted. There's a bit of dog-whistling.

edit: We also spend close to 7 times the amount that China spends on their military. They have twice the land and 3 times the population. LOLLERZ
 
[quote name='dohdough']That's why I specifically said income tax payers. When a third of the country is either too old or too young to work, half the country not paying any income tax due to not making enough money to need to pay said taxes shouldn't be surprising. Either way, your argument of half the people not paying taxes is just conservative herp-derping because anyone that makes a purchase pays a tax and those with the least amount of money are better for the economy because they spend all their money instead of hoarding it. Marginal utility and multipliers are funny like that.


Your source is tainted. There's a bit of dog-whistling.

edit: We also spend close to 7 times the amount that China spends on their military. They have twice the land and 3 times the population. LOLLERZ[/QUOTE]

I live in Oregon. There's no sales tax here, so the spenders aren't being taxed on that here. I still believe that if you make over a certain amount, you should at the very least have a minimum payment of $X dollars, heck, probably more like $XX or $XXX, but you should at least have to pay something into the system.

Also, when you start saying a third of the country is too old or young to pay tax, I'll bet the richest 1% are made up mostly of old, maybe very old, white men. So they are being taxed. Maybe only 15% like Mitt, but it would seem saying age is a reason for lack of tax population wouldn't be correct. A teenager working part time would be well under the amount that I think a person should have to pay, and in fact, if it was anything like when I was working HS jobs (back when minimum wage was REEEALY low), then they aren't even making enough to have to file anyway.

Regarding the source, that was just the first thing I found on Google. Not trying to say it's a great source, just citing it as the first I found. Seriously, if you guys have good, accurate links, by all means send them on. I'd like to read up on it. My comments on Federal spending are out of ignorance (although my military spending guess was damn good), not out of deceit or political ideology.

Edit: But out of curiosity, are you happy with our current foreign aid spending to countries like Afghanistan, Israel, Egypt, and others? I gather you too think we overspend on military, so my suggestion of cutting heavily from those two sources seem to be things we would agree on...no?
 
Remember the topic before where John Kerry was cheating working the tax system to his advantage and everyone came out in favor of him doing whatever he legally could to limit his tax liability?
 
Foreign aid spending is in the billions; military spending is in the HUNDREDS of billions...as in several of hundreds. You're comparing a slingshot to an F-22.

Age might not be the best metric, but it's far better than saying "THEY AREN'T PAYING TAXES SO LETS TAX THOSE LAZY fuckS!!!111one!" Not to mention that a lot of prices already have taxes/fees built into the price. You'd be surprised at how much you're paying even in a state that has no sales tax.

Also, those old white men are like the top .05% and represent .00000001% of the population. False equivalence is not very becoming of you.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Remember the topic before where John Kerry was cheating working the tax system to his advantage and everyone came out in favor of him doing whatever he legally could to limit his tax liability?[/QUOTE]
Hahaha...yeah, but that's because it's something that conservatives rally behind and this time, they decided to slam him for it...kinda like the swiftboating!
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Remember the topic before where John Kerry was cheating working the tax system to his advantage and everyone came out in favor of him doing whatever he legally could to limit his tax liability?[/QUOTE]
I don't blame Rommney for doing whatever he can to limit his tax burden. I still think it's wrong, and that the law needs changing, but if he (or rather his accountants) can work the system, more power to them. We just need to get the laws changed so they can't anymore.
 
Agreed. I have no problem with Romney trying to limit his tax burden. The system is there, he's just using it.

The system is the problem, not that people take advantage of legal ways to lower their tax burden. The system just needs changed so all forms of income are taxed at a person's relevant tax bracket.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Agreed. I have no problem with Romney trying to limit his tax burden. The system is there, he's just using it.

The system is the problem, not that people take advantage of legal ways to lower their tax burden. The system just needs changed so all forms of income are taxed at a person's relevant tax bracket.[/QUOTE]

I have an issue with it.

A leader should be more then a rich prick taking advantage of the system - a leader should set an example. We can all see the example he set. fuck Romney.
 
[quote name='berzirk']If by emotional, you mean I'm saying what I think is fair, then aren't you doing exactly the same thing? I'm not that "emotional" about it to be honest. It doesn't impact me much at all, in fact. Like I said, under the current system, I barely pay anything.[/QUOTE]

You're not using facts or your brain. I just picked the only thing left.

We could split the difference and call it truthiness if that makes you feel better.
 
[quote name='camoor']I have an issue with it.

A leader should be more then a rich prick taking advantage of the system - a leader should set an example. We can all see the example he set. fuck Romney.[/QUOTE]
I have an issue with it too. He didn't release it because he knew it "was bad". His own shame about it was all the condemnation you need.

I appreciate the whole "take everything that's not nailed down" angle, but that's the fucking problem with our country and I don't think I'm gonna poo poo it and pretend it's ok.
Romney advisers stressed that the holdings in the Caymans — along with those in a Swiss bank account that was closed in 2010 after an investment adviser decided it could be politically embarrassing to Romney — were reported on tax returns and were not vehicles to avoid taxes.
Click to expand...
For those keeping score at home, there is no other reason to have money in a Swiss account if not to avoid tax. That he reported it that year doesn't mean he's been reporting it all along. The feds cracked down hardcore on the Swiss and a bunch of taxpayers came in from the cold because they were scared they were gonna get named. Maybe that's why Romney doesn't want to release more than a year.

Also, thanks Msut. That answered my question. They did have someone look at it. He was greedy. Of course. How pants on head retarded of me to try to give him any kind of a benefit of a doubt.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You've got a point camoor, about holding our leaders to a higher standard. Think about who he appeals to as a leader though. It isn't you or me.

I hadn't heard about any swiss bank accounts, that's shady as hell. Like you said speed, has that account always been reported or was it just last time? I'd laugh my ass off if Rommney was a late comer to being swept up in the swiss bank account roundup.
 
It looks bad for Romney because he is campaigning to keep all sorts of goodies and perks for himself. Also he was born a well connected millionaire, yet he is the smuggest little fuck when it comes to lecturing the rest of us about hard work.

What is really fucked up is that you are talking about people who would starve children and deny healthcare for the sick because they care soooo much about the deficit/debt. When it comes to taxing hundreds-of-millionaires all the sudden it becomes not such a big deal.

If I didn't know better I would say they just lie about everything.
 
Regardless, the emerging picture was of a man of great means who contributes mightily to charity. The documents showed he and his wife contributed $7 million in charity over the two years, much of it going to his Mormon church.
Click to expand...

"Charity"
 
It was $4.x million to the Church of Latter Day Saints, $3.x to other charities--but the article I read didn't mention which ones.


As for the whether it's ok for Romney to use this tax system--I wasn't in anyway saying that I like it or condone it. But capital gains are taxed at 15% and he and others have found ways to make millions on investments, so I view it as more as a flaw in the system than anything else. The Cayman and Swiss bank accounts are different story altogether though.

TBut for the capital gains issue, the tax code is just outdated and has changed to adapt to the fact that many of the wealthy are now getting all, or most, of their income from investments and stock options. It was lower as before it was looked at as a "double tax" since people paid tax on their income and then invested it. But that's not the case when people are being given stock options in lieu of big salaries etc., so the tax code needs changed.

Again, I don't like that Romney and others specifically go after investment income rather than regular income to lower their tax burdens. But I didn't knock Kerry for it in 2004, so I'd be a hypocrite to be up in arms about Romney doing it.

The system just sucks and needs changed so all forms income is taxed the same, be it regular salary, capital gains, inheritance etc.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']As for the whether it's ok for Romney to use this tax system--I wasn't in anyway saying that I like it or condone it. But capital gains are taxed at 15% and he and others have found ways to make millions on investments, so I view it as more as a flaw in the system than anything else. The Cayman and Swiss bank accounts are different story altogether though.

TBut for the capital gains issue, the tax code is just outdated and has changed to adapt to the fact that many of the wealthy are now getting all, or most, of their income from investments and stock options. It was lower as before it was looked at as a "double tax" since people paid tax on their income and then invested it. But that's not the case when people are being given stock options in lieu of big salaries etc., so the tax code needs changed.

Again, I don't like that Romney and others specifically go after investment income rather than regular income to lower their tax burdens. But I didn't knock Kerry for it in 2004, so I'd be a hypocrite to be up in arms about Romney doing it.

The system just sucks and needs changed so all forms income is taxed the same, be it regular salary, capital gains, inheritance etc.[/QUOTE]
I want to point this out again because I think the distinction is important and I'm using your post as an example. The majority of Romney's tax liability is not from capital gains. It is from a fee that his firm charges customers in order to invest the customer's money. There is "house" money involved, but it is not primarily house money (not by a long shot).

By that logic, the people that mop the floors at a hedge fund office should be taxed at 15% because they provide a service to those whose primary income is from capital gains.

Just sayin.
 
That's a point too, I don't see how that should be considered a capital gain because he didn't have to invest anything to earn it. But he's working a system that apparently allows him to get away with that, and we need to change that system to prevent the possibility.

We can argue the morality of it, but lets be honest here, how often do people do the morally right thing if they can get away with not doing it? People will do just about anything if they can get away with it.
 
[quote name='speedracer']I want to point this out again because I think the distinction is important and I'm using your post as an example. The majority of Romney's tax liability is not from capital gains. It is from a fee that his firm charges customers in order to invest the customer's money. There is "house" money involved, but it is not primarily house money (not by a long shot).

By that logic, the people that mop the floors at a hedge fund office should be taxed at 15% because they provide a service to those whose primary income is from capital gains.

Just sayin.[/QUOTE]
In other words, he's been playing a shell game with his income...this is even better than I thought it would be! Looks like it isn't as simple as rich fuck makes shit load of money.
 
[quote name='dohdough']Foreign aid spending is in the billions; military spending is in the HUNDREDS of billions...as in several of hundreds. You're comparing a slingshot to an F-22.

Age might not be the best metric, but it's far better than saying "THEY AREN'T PAYING TAXES SO LETS TAX THOSE LAZY fuckS!!!111one!" Not to mention that a lot of prices already have taxes/fees built into the price. You'd be surprised at how much you're paying even in a state that has no sales tax.

Also, those old white men are like the top .05% and represent .00000001% of the population. False equivalence is not very becoming of you.[/QUOTE]

Well, I tried. I figured if I could blame old, white guys I'd win you over as an ally. Haa haa.

I did truly assume that most of the richest of the rich are old, white guys. Is that incorrect? Apparently not. 8 of the top 10 are old white guys. 2/10 are old white ladies (Walmart money)

http://www.forbes.com/forbes-400/

And I didn't say lazy people are paying no tax. I'll bet Kim Kardashian pays lots of tax :p I think of myself as a very hard worker, and I pay almost nothing. But to say that we need to tax the rich more, when they're already a lion's share of the tax revenue, and criticize a guy for trying to pay less in tax to keep more of his income (legally) seems like bad policy to me. Like I said to Camoor, I don't foresee any argument that is going to change our respective positions on that though.

And I don't see a false equivalency, or any equivalency for that matter.

But you ignored my question. Are you happy with the amount of money we pay out in foreign aid, and happy with the targets of that aid? I'm definitely not.
 
[quote name='camoor']You're not using facts or your brain. I just picked the only thing left.

We could split the difference and call it truthiness if that makes you feel better.[/QUOTE]

Your position was the the current tax system was immoral and unjust. What facts or brainpower drive that position?

I'm sure you're much smarter than me, so any thought you have is superior to mine, so I'll defer on brainpower, but where are those facts about morality and justice that I appear to not be capable of thinking of or reading?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top