Romney/Bain

[Sargon]

 

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

 

Disagree with your conclusion but agree 100% with your advice. He should hire them for sure. To me Mitt was the easy to win primary candidate in 08 but he lost to the too old too dumb moderate because Mitt was not politically savvy enough to understand how to win it. Really I expected a lot more for him in 08 as I did with Newt this time (and he failed to produce also).

[lo country]

 

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

 

Disagree with your conclusion but agree 100% with your advice. He should hire them for sure. To me Mitt was the easy to win primary candidate in 08 but he lost to the too old too dumb moderate because Mitt was not politically savvy enough to understand how to win it. Really I expected a lot more for him in 08 as I did with Newt this time (and he failed to produce also).

Newt was a real surprise to me as well. Thought he would have had his act together a lot more.

[KJ.]

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?

There's a lot of answers to this, and I would say the main one is probably "to incentivize investing", but here's another that I think is important.

 

Technically, the only safe "investment" is putting your money in a bank. Actually, that's not completely safe either without the FDIC. But, FDIC insured banks do give you a safe place to keep your money, but only up to a certain limit. I'm not sure what that limit is, but I'll just call it 250k since that's what I last thought it was.

 

So, if you have >250k you need to put somewhere then you are going to have to assume some level of risk that your money might not be there in the future. Because of the basic risk-reward relationship found throughout all of finance, it makes sense that you should get rewarded for assuming additional risk (same reason that market yields will always be greater than treasuries). So, we arrive at a tax break for investing in the market.

[Sargon]

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

 

Romney has deflected criticism of some of Bain's more controversial (in a political sense) buyouts that resulted in bankruptcies and / or large layoffs by saying he left in 1999, before the more high profile cases like KB Toys.

 

I don't think Romney should really have to defend his record at Bain, since he did nothing illegal and Democrats invest in such firms as much as Republicans. What bothers me a lot is that for 10 years (circa 1999-2009) Romney continued to draw a sizable income from Bain investments, which he paid very little taxes on. That's why he has refused to release his tax information before 2010. Someone brought up the topic of fairness. so what's fair here: A middle class worker paying 25/28% on the bulk of their income + payroll taxes, a poor single mother paying no income taxes after credits/deductions, Romney paying well under 15% on millions of dollars in investments he's not even managing.

 

Romney defending himself in interviews from his lakeside estate in NH was also great thinking by his campaign.

 

So it bothers you that people obey the law? How much unlawful taxes do you pay? Or .... how much does Soros or Buffett or Gates or whoever your favorite rich guys are....how much extra do they pay and how much does it bother you that they don't do it (hint...none of them do it so you don't need to google it to find out.)? Ben and Jerry's ended their "don't pay the CEO too much rule" like 15 years ago. Are you mad at them for it? Did you know they stopped it? Don't be a sucker no one pays extra taxes so give up with your consternation that Romney didn't do it. Gore doesn't Clinton doesn't and Barrack never will (and it seems Biden basically never gives a penny the charity )

[Sargon]

 

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

 

Disagree with your conclusion but agree 100% with your advice. He should hire them for sure. To me Mitt was the easy to win primary candidate in 08 but he lost to the too old too dumb moderate because Mitt was not politically savvy enough to understand how to win it. Really I expected a lot more for him in 08 as I did with Newt this time (and he failed to produce also).

Newt was a real surprise to me as well. Thought he would have had his act together a lot more.

Me too. Obviously. Anyway I still appreciate what he's done. He's helped, on the whole, IMO.

[krill]

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

 

Romney has deflected criticism of some of Bain's more controversial (in a political sense) buyouts that resulted in bankruptcies and / or large layoffs by saying he left in 1999, before the more high profile cases like KB Toys.

 

I don't think Romney should really have to defend his record at Bain, since he did nothing illegal and Democrats invest in such firms as much as Republicans. What bothers me a lot is that for 10 years (circa 1999-2009) Romney continued to draw a sizable income from Bain investments, which he paid very little taxes on. That's why he has refused to release his tax information before 2010. Someone brought up the topic of fairness. so what's fair here: A middle class worker paying 25/28% on the bulk of their income + payroll taxes, a poor single mother paying no income taxes after credits/deductions, Romney paying well under 15% on millions of dollars in investments he's not even managing.

 

Romney defending himself in interviews from his lakeside estate in NH was also great thinking by his campaign.

 

So it bothers you that people obey the law? How much unlawful taxes do you pay? Or .... how much does Soros or Buffett or Gates or whoever your favorite rich guys are....how much extra do they pay and how much does it bother you that they don't do it (hint...none of them do it so you don't need to google it to find out.)? Ben and Jerry's ended their "don't pay the CEO too much rule" like 15 years ago. Are you mad at them for it? Did you know they stopped it? Don't be a sucker no one pays extra taxes so give up with your consternation that Romney didn't do it. Gore doesn't Clinton doesn't and Barrack never will (and it seems Biden basically never gives a penny the charity )

 

I really don't understand your point here. No, I don't volunteer taxation beyond what I am obligated to pay, but I am also not drawing millions of dollars a year from a trust fund that shelters income oversees like Romney's did. There's no evidence that Obama ever sheltered income, and last I checked, Soros, Buffet, and Gates are not candidates for public office.

[lo country]

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

 

Romney has deflected criticism of some of Bain's more controversial (in a political sense) buyouts that resulted in bankruptcies and / or large layoffs by saying he left in 1999, before the more high profile cases like KB Toys.

 

I don't think Romney should really have to defend his record at Bain, since he did nothing illegal and Democrats invest in such firms as much as Republicans. What bothers me a lot is that for 10 years (circa 1999-2009) Romney continued to draw a sizable income from Bain investments, which he paid very little taxes on. That's why he has refused to release his tax information before 2010. Someone brought up the topic of fairness. so what's fair here: A middle class worker paying 25/28% on the bulk of their income + payroll taxes, a poor single mother paying no income taxes after credits/deductions, Romney paying well under 15% on millions of dollars in investments he's not even managing.

 

Romney defending himself in interviews from his lakeside estate in NH was also great thinking by his campaign.

 

So it bothers you that people obey the law? How much unlawful taxes do you pay? Or .... how much does Soros or Buffett or Gates or whoever your favorite rich guys are....how much extra do they pay and how much does it bother you that they don't do it (hint...none of them do it so you don't need to google it to find out.)? Ben and Jerry's ended their "don't pay the CEO too much rule" like 15 years ago. Are you mad at them for it? Did you know they stopped it? Don't be a sucker no one pays extra taxes so give up with your consternation that Romney didn't do it. Gore doesn't Clinton doesn't and Barrack never will (and it seems Biden basically never gives a penny the charity )

 

I really don't understand your point here. No, I don't volunteer taxation beyond what I am obligated to pay, but I am also not drawing millions of dollars a year from a trust fund that shelters income oversees like Romney's did. There's no evidence that Obama ever sheltered income, and last I checked, Soros, Buffet, and Gates are not candidates for public office.

 

To be fair, if anyone on this board was in a position to diversify income overseas, or take stock options, or capital gains to avoid taxes they would do it. People do not become that wealthy by taking a salary, keeping the monies in taxable accounts or avoiding tax shelters. They are rich because they a) obviously have money and b) no what to do with it.

 

What saddens me, is how it is now considered wrong to be wealthy. Wrong to be responsible with your money. Wrong to attempt to be self supportive. You know, all the things that every person on this board would try to teach their children or learned from their parents.

 

If I was Romney, I would tell everyone what I did with MY money. I would hit back with the fact GM would be belly up if not for the government owned stocks, the 837 billion dollar spendulus package that created little if any jobs etc..... That is our money. Black, white, R, D, Con or Liberal. WE should collectively be mad as hell.

 

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/04/moveonorg_and_the_auto_bailout.html

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/05/bank-of-america-outsourcing-call-center-philippines

http://projects.propublica.org/bailout/list

http://money.cnn.com/2012/02/14/news/economy/romney_gm/index.htm

 

Some of these come from "conservative" sources, but it does not change the facts, simply the targeted audience. The last is from a "liberal" source and still shows that we are losing our a$$ over the bailouts.

[strigori]

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

 

Romney has deflected criticism of some of Bain's more controversial (in a political sense) buyouts that resulted in bankruptcies and / or large layoffs by saying he left in 1999, before the more high profile cases like KB Toys.

 

I don't think Romney should really have to defend his record at Bain, since he did nothing illegal and Democrats invest in such firms as much as Republicans. What bothers me a lot is that for 10 years (circa 1999-2009) Romney continued to draw a sizable income from Bain investments, which he paid very little taxes on. That's why he has refused to release his tax information before 2010. Someone brought up the topic of fairness. so what's fair here: A middle class worker paying 25/28% on the bulk of their income + payroll taxes, a poor single mother paying no income taxes after credits/deductions, Romney paying well under 15% on millions of dollars in investments he's not even managing.

 

Romney defending himself in interviews from his lakeside estate in NH was also great thinking by his campaign.

 

So it bothers you that people obey the law? How much unlawful taxes do you pay? Or .... how much does Soros or Buffett or Gates or whoever your favorite rich guys are....how much extra do they pay and how much does it bother you that they don't do it (hint...none of them do it so you don't need to google it to find out.)? Ben and Jerry's ended their "don't pay the CEO too much rule" like 15 years ago. Are you mad at them for it? Did you know they stopped it? Don't be a sucker no one pays extra taxes so give up with your consternation that Romney didn't do it. Gore doesn't Clinton doesn't and Barrack never will (and it seems Biden basically never gives a penny the charity )

 

I really don't understand your point here. No, I don't volunteer taxation beyond what I am obligated to pay, but I am also not drawing millions of dollars a year from a trust fund that shelters income oversees like Romney's did. There's no evidence that Obama ever sheltered income, and last I checked, Soros, Buffet, and Gates are not candidates for public office.

 

To be fair, if anyone on this board was in a position to diversify income overseas, or take stock options, or capital gains to avoid taxes they would do it. People do not become that wealthy by taking a salary, keeping the monies in taxable accounts or avoiding tax shelters. They are rich because they a) obviously have money and b) no what to do with it.

 

What saddens me, is how it is now considered wrong to be wealthy. Wrong to be responsible with your money. Wrong to attempt to be self supportive. You know, all the things that every person on this board would try to teach their children or learned from their parents.

 

If I was Romney, I would tell everyone what I did with MY money. I would hit back with the fact GM would be belly up if not for the government owned stocks, the 837 billion dollar spendulus package that created little if any jobs etc..... That is our money. Black, white, R, D, Con or Liberal. WE should collectively be mad as hell.

 

http://www.americant...to_bailout.html

http://www.motherjon...ter-philippines

http://projects.prop...rg/bailout/list

http://money.cnn.com...ey_gm/index.htm

 

Some of these come from "conservative" sources, but it does not change the facts, simply the targeted audience. The last is from a "liberal" source and still shows that we are losing our a$$ over the bailouts.

Step out of fantasy land for a few.

 

No one is saying its 'wrong to be wealthy' The problem people are having is people are getting wealthy(er) by screwing other people over, buying lawmakers (or in Romney's case becoming lawmakers) to further their wealth. The fact is its only the last 20 years or so investment income is taxed at even the same level as other income. Through most of history it has been taxed at a significantly higher rate. You think there is a coincidence that the income inequality has become such a gulf over the same period?

 

What people are mad about is Millionaires and Billionaires paying less effective taxes rates than they are. They are watching their own retirements shrink watching their pensions get sold off or rolled into 401ks. Many to most people have not had a raise in years. The mean household income is back to 1993 levels. And the people who are making gains, at the expense of everyone else is what there is anger about.

[lo country]

Stig,

I can't figure out the multi quote thing, my apologies. CarlD, if something is off, it is in response to Stigs comments:)

 

Here you go. Some facts about our current tax issues

 

 

 

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/incometaxandtheirs/a/whopaysmost.htm

http://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/2012/01/31/the-facts-on-tax-rates-who-pays-what/

 

Here is another good one form today. You didn't earn it, someone helped you. ie you can't earn anything on your own, hard work is stupid etc..... (my opinion)

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2012/jul/15/picketvideo-obama-if-youve-got-business-you-didnt-/

 

The above statistics are facts. I din't make them up, the wealthy pay their fair share and then some. Keep on taxing them and see how many more pull up stakes and renounce their citizenship.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/09/entertainment-us-usa-immigration-deniser-idUSBRE8680MN20120709

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/us-news-blog/2012/may/11/facebook-eduardo-saverin-us-cirizenship

 

I am pissed that I am on of the 50.3 percent of Americans that pays taxes. That is the problem. Half this country gets a free ride and the Pres simply wants to tax more. The health care bill 75% to be paid by people making less than 120k.

 

http://blog.heritage.org/2012/02/19/chart-of-the-week-nearly-half-of-all-americans-dont-pay-income-taxes/

http://www.humanevents.com/2012/06/30/wsj-chief-economist-75-of-obamacare-costs-will-fall-on-backs-of-those-making-less-than-120k-a-year/

 

It is not going to change your mind, but it is at least factual as opposed to opinion.

[krill]

How about we dispense with the diversions of the auto bailout and the health care bill and just talk about the real issue. Here's another fact, taxes are at a 30 year low and over 1/3 of the stimulus was tax cuts.

 

http://www.chicagotr...0,2551832.story

 

Is it fair that that the bottom 1/5th of earners saw their tax burden drop from 5% to 1% of their income? Many Republicans, citing the increasing number of people with no income tax burden seem to think not. Personally I couldn't care less if someone making minimum wage who care barely afford to exist pays $500 in income tax or $0 . But, I concede there is an issue of fairness, even if all the new wealth created in the past 10 years or so has gone to the top. Many Democrats seem to believe that it's better they keep the $500, or whatever it may be, and spend it on goods or a roof over their head.

 

If you want to talk serisously about deficits then start talking about Social Security, defense, Medicare, and Medicaid, in that order. Oh, but the first three are wildly unpopular cuts with Republicans who don't seem to use the Internet. So we end up arguing basically over the same thing since cutting Social Security and Medicare is as popular as AIDS; Democrats generally want to cut defense and raise taxes, while Republicans want to cut health care and programs for poor people...which by the way won't even come close to closing the deficit.

[carlfense]

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.

 

Here's your problem:

 

Hell 2007 Obama won by promising to bring home troops.

No. That's not even close to being accurate. He promised to bring the troops home from Iraq and redirect attention and forces in Afghanistan. He did exactly that.

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/07/obama_afghanist.html

 

2012 we are still in Iraq, Afghanistan, in Yemen, Africa, was in Libya etc.....

The bold is where you lost your foreign policy credibility. You clearly haven't paid attention. That's particularly damning when you seem to think that you're so well versed in our military affairs.

[carlfense]

we have not shut down Gitmo, we do continue the military tribunals,

And who blocked that? Who screamed bloody murder about holding trials in the US?

 

He did a troop surge in Afghanistan similar to Bush in Iraq

Exactly as he promised to do. Were you not paying attention then? Perhaps you started following foreign policy after the election and not before.

 

He ran on a platform to remove troops

He ran on a platform to remove troops from Iraq and he was successful. Promise kept. He said we would increase our troop commitment in Afghanistan.

 

 

 

Seriously . . . you might want to leave the specifics out of your posts. When you get the facts as wrong as you have . . . well . . . it looks bad.

['SkersRule]

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

 

Not to be indolent, but I really don't give a sh**. To get to the office of President you're going to have some skeletons in your proverbial closet.

[carlfense]

Step out of fantasy land for a few.

 

No one is saying its 'wrong to be wealthy'

[carlfense]

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

Not to be indolent, but I really don't give a sh**. To get to the office of President you're going to have some skeletons in your proverbial closet.

Interesting.