Romney/Bain

[Mavric]

america essential has a regressive tax rate: "Investor and multi-billionaire Warren Buffett has criticized the US tax code as highly regressive, citing himself as anecdotal evidence: Buffett stated that with an income of over $46 million, he pays a tax rate of 17.7%, whereas his receptionist pays a tax rate of 30%. Buffett's critique focuses on significantly lower tax rates applied to certain forms of investment income including capital gains. However, progressive or regressive taxation often must be considered as part of an overall system since tax codes have many interdependent variables."

Income is income . . . unless you have the money to lobby Congress to treat your $100 in income differently from another's $100 in income.

But the question that I rarely see discussed is WHY is investment income taxed at a lower rate than other income?

[carlfense]

Just to clarify, what are the ramifications if Mitt did indeed stay on longer than 1999?

 

Association with Bain failings 1999-2002?

 

Embarrassment over various misrepresentations in how he has characterized this part of his departure?

 

Something more sinister/inappropriate about having been at Bain while he was not supposed to be?

The actual underlying reason for the questions would be that he would be linked to Bain's actions between 1999-2002.

 

The bigger picture item is that he would either have to admit that he lied to the American people to hide his outsourcing and bankrupting . . . or he would have to admit that he committed a couple felonies when he lied to the SEC and when he lied under oath.

[carlfense]

It's crazy how someone can be a mere community organizer, then serve briefly in the Senate and somehow be "qualified" to be elected President.

 

Apparently, leftists think that the American people lack common sense....well they're half right.

What?

 

So is Romney lying now or did he commit a couple felonies?

[carlfense]

america essential has a regressive tax rate: "Investor and multi-billionaire Warren Buffett has criticized the US tax code as highly regressive, citing himself as anecdotal evidence: Buffett stated that with an income of over $46 million, he pays a tax rate of 17.7%, whereas his receptionist pays a tax rate of 30%. Buffett's critique focuses on significantly lower tax rates applied to certain forms of investment income including capital gains. However, progressive or regressive taxation often must be considered as part of an overall system since tax codes have many interdependent variables."

Income is income . . . unless you have the money to lobby Congress to treat your $100 in income differently from another's $100 in income.

But the question that I rarely see discussed is WHY is investment income taxed at a lower rate than other income?

The idea is to encourage investment. My question would be . . . what else are you going to do with your $10 million in the bank? Put it in a savings account that earns 1%? Ha.

 

Not to mention that the carried interest loophole absolutely reeks of pandering to Wall St.

[knapplc]

 

Ooh, clever. So, when or if Mitt Romney becomes president, whose money exactly do you suppose he is going to be working with?

 

I rarely LOL at something I read online anymore, but zoogies, you got me on that one. +1

[carlfense]

I don't think Romney should really have to defend his record at Bain . . .

Romney chose to make his business experience the centerpiece of his campaign.

 

Now he is whining that his business experience is being scrutinized but he can't have it both ways. He's the one who wanted to talk about it.

 

I think his best bet is to embrace it. Release his records and explain his actions. Will that happen? Absolutely not. Romney (and the GOP apparently) are terrified of the implications of having a conversation about how he earned his wealth . . . and the methods employed to shield that income from taxation. Methods completely unavailable to the average joe.

[strigori]

america essential has a regressive tax rate: "Investor and multi-billionaire Warren Buffett has criticized the US tax code as highly regressive, citing himself as anecdotal evidence: Buffett stated that with an income of over $46 million, he pays a tax rate of 17.7%, whereas his receptionist pays a tax rate of 30%. Buffett's critique focuses on significantly lower tax rates applied to certain forms of investment income including capital gains. However, progressive or regressive taxation often must be considered as part of an overall system since tax codes have many interdependent variables."

Income is income . . . unless you have the money to lobby Congress to treat your $100 in income differently from another's $100 in income.

But the question that I rarely see discussed is WHY is investment income taxed at a lower rate than other income?

Because most congressmen and senators have a lot of money invested. Ever see a poor congressman or senator? Ever see one spend a decade in office and leave worse off financially than when he started? Same reason why members of Congress could use inside information from committees they sat on for investment purposes and in anyone else did it, it was a crime.

[krill]

I don't think Romney should really have to defend his record at Bain . . .

Romney chose to make his business experience the centerpiece of his campaign. Now he is whining that his business experience is being scrutinized but he can't have it both ways. He's the one who wanted to talk about it. I think his best bet is to embrace it. Release his records and explain his actions. Will that happen? Absolutely not. Romney (and the GOP apparently) are terrified of the implications of having a conversation about how he earned his wealth . . . and the methods employed to shield that income from taxation. Methods completely unavailable to the average joe.

 

I agree with you that he's obviously hiding financial records, and it was he who made this an issue. However, the business of Bain was return on investment and it was extremely successful in that regard. I feel empathy for anyone who has lost a job in a failing business or been part of a takeover with incompetent new management that drove a business into the ground, but it's my opinion that the goal of functional capitalism should be enabling workers to take their skills elsewhere without the terror of losing benefits (i.e. universal health care, making sure social security and medicare are sound). It just seems like the attacks on investment in general are too broad when it should almost be exclusively be an issue of fair taxation of the very wealthy.

[carlfense]

krill-

Good post and I agree.

[AR Husker Fan]

I don't think Romney should really have to defend his record at Bain . . .

Romney chose to make his business experience the centerpiece of his campaign. Now he is whining that his business experience is being scrutinized but he can't have it both ways. He's the one who wanted to talk about it. I think his best bet is to embrace it. Release his records and explain his actions. Will that happen? Absolutely not. Romney (and the GOP apparently) are terrified of the implications of having a conversation about how he earned his wealth . . . and the methods employed to shield that income from taxation. Methods completely unavailable to the average joe.

 

I agree with you that he's obviously hiding financial records, and it was he who made this an issue. However, the business of Bain was return on investment and it was extremely successful in that regard. I feel empathy for anyone who has lost a job in a failing business or been part of a takeover with incompetent new management that drove a business into the ground, but it's my opinion that the goal of functional capitalism should be enabling workers to take their skills elsewhere without the terror of losing benefits (i.e. universal health care, making sure social security and medicare are sound). It just seems like the attacks on investment in general are too broad when it should almost be exclusively be an issue of fair taxation of the very wealthy.

Those are excellent points - but they have a caveat. Those are points that will resonate with discerning, informed voters. The problem for Romney with this issue is actually the so-called independent voters. For the Republican base, Romney should and could tout his actions with Bain as an example of how the free market works.

 

But independent voters won't "hear" that. What they WILL hear is that Romney sent a lot of jobs overseas. They will fear that he will support bills and programs that will assist companies like Bain. For that reason, Romney can't sing the praises of his Bain relationship as capitalism at it's finest.

 

In fact, that's the case for every issue in this election. Both candidates have their base. Both can tout many of their accomplishments to their base. The issue is how those accomplishments play to the independent voters. Since those voters tend to look for "sound bite" qualifications, the issue won't be whether a particular action was in line with the base - it'll be how it can be spun by the other side to the independent voter. Image over substance every time.

 

That's why Romney can't ignore the issue, and why he can't claim it was representative of basic capitalism.

[lo country]

I don't think Romney should really have to defend his record at Bain . . .

Romney chose to make his business experience the centerpiece of his campaign. Now he is whining that his business experience is being scrutinized but he can't have it both ways. He's the one who wanted to talk about it. I think his best bet is to embrace it. Release his records and explain his actions. Will that happen? Absolutely not. Romney (and the GOP apparently) are terrified of the implications of having a conversation about how he earned his wealth . . . and the methods employed to shield that income from taxation. Methods completely unavailable to the average joe.

 

I agree with you that he's obviously hiding financial records, and it was he who made this an issue. However, the business of Bain was return on investment and it was extremely successful in that regard. I feel empathy for anyone who has lost a job in a failing business or been part of a takeover with incompetent new management that drove a business into the ground, but it's my opinion that the goal of functional capitalism should be enabling workers to take their skills elsewhere without the terror of losing benefits (i.e. universal health care, making sure social security and medicare are sound). It just seems like the attacks on investment in general are too broad when it should almost be exclusively be an issue of fair taxation of the very wealthy.

Those are excellent points - but they have a caveat. Those are points that will resonate with discerning, informed voters. The problem for Romney with this issue is actually the so-called independent voters. For the Republican base, Romney should and could tout his actions with Bain as an example of how the free market works.

 

But independent voters won't "hear" that. What they WILL hear is that Romney sent a lot of jobs overseas. They will fear that he will support bills and programs that will assist companies like Bain. For that reason, Romney can't sing the praises of his Bain relationship as capitalism at it's finest.

 

In fact, that's the case for every issue in this election. Both candidates have their base. Both can tout many of their accomplishments to their base. The issue is how those accomplishments play to the independent voters. Since those voters tend to look for "sound bite" qualifications, the issue won't be whether a particular action was in line with the base - it'll be how it can be spun by the other side to the independent voter. Image over substance every time.

 

That's why Romney can't ignore the issue, and why he can't claim it was representative of basic capitalism.

 

Great point AR. Just like commenting on this board, folks who identify themselves as Rep or Dem, Cons or Lib etc will not be swayed by these arguments. Obama has political machine like no other. Straight up Chicago mob style. Romney asks for apologies and the Obama camp makes him look like a pu$$55.

 

Prior to this, Romney had an easy message. It's the economy stupid and are you better off now than four years ago. Now he is busy spending money to convince people that he did not violate any SEC laws. Whether he did or not is not the issue. It is what voters will think who do not care to learn more (ie read and research). They here a sound bite and determine Romney is a crooked financier who ran with those who crippled the economy (per Obama).

 

As mentioned above, his record of being a true capitalist is flawless. He made money, even if folks lost jobs. His job was to make money, not create jobs. That was a positive result, but not the main reason for his actions.

 

Obama has shifted this from him being the guy who has financially bankrupted the country to one who again is the only hope. A phenomenal early campaign coup. The key for Romney, explain in plain english and move on. The American memory is short. Hell 2007 Obama won by promising to bring home troops. 2012 we are still in Iraq, Afghanistan, in Yemen, Africa, was in Libya etc..... If anything our kinetic footprint has increased, but America forgot this was the guy who voted against action as a Senator as well as against the troop surge. Also promised to close Gitmo. Still open. Not saying this to get into a discussion of policies, but to show Americans remember about the last 30 sec sound bite prior to driving to the polls. Very much like losing the first few weeks in the season of CFB. By the time the pollsters and BCS kick in, no one remembers the early weeks. In politics, like football it is better to lose early. no one remembers. Obama may very well be shooting to early.

 

Romney also needs to hire Carl Rove and Dick Morris for his campaign. Currently, he is (campaign staff) "politically" naive and outgunned.

[carlfense]

Hell 2007 Obama won by promising to bring home troops. 2012 we are still in Iraq, Afghanistan, in Yemen, Africa, was in Libya etc.....

Didn't you say in another thread that you closely follow our foreign policy?

 

Follow up question: do you really believe this? Crazy stuff.

[Yossarian]

The strange part is this - Barack Obama didn't have to lie to win the election. Well, maybe he actually didn't lie. Maybe he was so inexperienced that he believed he could do the things he promised. We do not need another four years of Amateur Hour.

[lo country]

Hell 2007 Obama won by promising to bring home troops. 2012 we are still in Iraq, Afghanistan, in Yemen, Africa, was in Libya etc.....

Didn't you say in another thread that you closely follow our foreign policy?

 

Follow up question: do you really believe this? Crazy stuff.

 

Yes. He ran on that platform. Look it up. Let's see, we enforced a no fly zone in Libya, SOF troops in the hunt for Koni, SOF in Yemen etc....

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/world_now/2012/05/washington-escalation-american-clandestine-war-yemen-us-troops-.html

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/167578.html

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/04/05/the-top-five-campaign-promises-obama-left-behind/

 

Obviously you do not. I get it, you like Obama. No worries. Before you blindly follow the guy, at least look at his record. we have increased troops around the world in foreign countries. we have not shut down Gitmo, we do continue the military tribunals, He did a troop surge in Afghanistan similar to Bush in Iraq, we have lost more troops in Afghanistan since Obama took over. These are facts. He ran on a platform to remove troops, Close Gitmo etc.... SAre you asking if I believed this, hell no. Enough of the country did to get him elected.

[Yossarian]

Hell 2007 Obama won by promising to bring home troops. 2012 we are still in Iraq, Afghanistan, in Yemen, Africa, was in Libya etc.....

Didn't you say in another thread that you closely follow our foreign policy?

 

Follow up question: do you really believe this? Crazy stuff.

 

Yes. He ran on that platform. Look it up. Let's see, we enforced a no fly zone in Libya, SOF troops in the hunt for Koni, SOF in Yemen etc....

http://latimesblogs....us-troops-.html

http://www.presstv.i...ail/167578.html

http://www.rawstory....ma-left-behind/

 

Obviously you do not. I get it, you like Obama. No worries. Before you blindly follow the guy, at least look at his record. we have increased troops around the world in foreign countries. we have not shut down Gitmo, we do continue the military tribunals, He did a troop surge in Afghanistan similar to Bush in Iraq, we have lost more troops in Afghanistan since Obama took over. These are facts. He ran on a platform to remove troops, Close Gitmo etc.... SAre you asking if I believed this, hell no. Enough of the country did to get him elected.

 

 

But...but....he's trying as hard as he can. That counts for something, doesn't it? So what if his best is not nearly good enough? He's trying and, like t-ball, that's what counts.