Romney Paid 13.9% Tax Rate on $21.6 Million in Income.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

takoma wrote:On the issue of blaming the game or the player:

The difference between Romney and someone like Buffett is that although both follow the laws to save their money, Buffett publicly opposes those laws while Romney tries to make them even more favorable to himself.

I think I have asked this before, but missed the answer, if anyone has given one: Can any of you explain why income earned by workers deserves to be treated more unfavorably than capital gains? I understand that capital gain is tied to investment, which helps the economy, but earned income tends to be spent on consumption, which is the principal driver of the economy,

Economists would tell you that capital gains deserve a lower tax rate (some would say zero) because it is effectively money that has been double-taxed (i.e., you made your investment with after-tax dollars and then you are taxed again when you realize a gain).

Personally, I disagree with the notion, but that's the policy rationale.

We tax lottery "gains". Lotto "investors" paid tax on the $1 that they earned and then used to buy the lotto ticket. We have no problem taxing the poor man's gambling, but the wealthy have created a system where their gambling is not taxed as much and can be legally sheltered.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:The "Buffet Rule" is the idea that billionaires should not pay a lower tax rate than their secretaries. The "Romney Rule" apparently is that billionaires who pay a tax rate of 13.9% on $21.6 million in income should maintain Swiss and Cayman Island bank accounts and run for president on a platform that would lower taxes on people like himself while raising them on lower income earners.

Remember earlier discussions on DCUM when several posters assured us that the Buffet Rule was unnecessary because the wealthy actually do pay their fair share? Mitt Romney is a walking contradiction to that suggestion. An added bonus of Romney's tax release is that we have learned that this year he closed his Swiss and Cayman Island accounts because he is "running for President for Pete's sake".

Why d'you wanna start a class war? Job creators, etc...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
This is more important to me. I would rather vote for someone who has some sort of faith than none at all like out current President.

Obama is:

a) a person who lacks any sort of faith;
b) a Muslim; or
c) a member of a racist anti-white church.

Please pick one and stick with it. It's tiring trying to keep up with your contradictions.

Mr. Steele, a. and c. are not mutually inconsistent.

Sure, just like he's an empty suit moron who "needs a teleprompter" (i.e. "them darkies: they stupid, but they crafty!"), while at the same time, he's a master manipulator and leader of the global communo-Islamo-socialist revolution.

American "conservatives" have been intellectually bankrupt since the 70s, but they're quite good at loading a bunch of pig shit into a blunderbuss, firing it at the wall, and seeing what will stick.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

takoma wrote:On the issue of blaming the game or the player:

The difference between Romney and someone like Buffett is that although both follow the laws to save their money, Buffett publicly opposes those laws while Romney tries to make them even more favorable to himself.

I think I have asked this before, but missed the answer, if anyone has given one: Can any of you explain why income earned by workers deserves to be treated more unfavorably than capital gains? I understand that capital gain is tied to investment, which helps the economy, but earned income tends to be spent on consumption, which is the principal driver of the economy,

Economists would tell you that capital gains deserve a lower tax rate (some would say zero) because it is effectively money that has been double-taxed (i.e., you made your investment with after-tax dollars and then you are taxed again when you realize a gain).

Personally, I disagree with the notion, but that's the policy rationale.

We tax lottery "gains". Lotto "investors" paid tax on the $1 that they earned and then used to buy the lotto ticket. We have no problem taxing the poor man's gambling, but the wealthy have created a system where their gambling is not taxed as much and can be legally sheltered.

I'm curious: why do I have to pay "double-tax" on my income, given that my employer already pays corporate income tax on the money they earn which they then use a portion of to pay me? Furthermore, it's unfair that I'm double-taxed on my income, but also when the money I use to buy things with go to a company or individual who is then forced to pay tax as well.

Look, there is no double-taxation here. The corporation is supposed to be paying tax (though it probably isn't given the massive range of loopholes and tax-shelters available). That corporation then pays Romney. The money he is paid is compensation. He pays a tax on this money. The whole "double-tax" thing is a fairy tale for the gullible.

[Anonymous]

I thought this was interesting:

"Mr. Romney’s own tax proposals would cut his federal income taxes by about 40 percent — but Mr. Gingrich’s proposal, which would abolish capital gains taxes, would almost entirely eliminate them."

[TheManWithAUsername]

Anonymous wrote:Economists would tell you that capital gains deserve a lower tax rate (some would say zero) because it is effectively money that has been double-taxed (i.e., you made your investment with after-tax dollars and then you are taxed again when you realize a gain).

Personally, I disagree with the notion, but that's the policy rationale.

Economists would say that? I thought that was just something conservative propagandists say. Since only the return on the investment is getting taxed, that idea is simply wrong. Plus, economists usually avoid statements about justice, and focus on incentives.

I thought that the economists' rational was that we should encourage investment b/c of the multiplicative effect of investment in production capacity. (I'm open to correction, though - I'm no economist.) The problem with that rational is that only a portion of investments have that effect.

Here's a short article on that, by a writer otherwise unknown to me:
http://nontrivialpursuits.org/investment_incentives.htm

[Anonymous]

Why are you using the tools of the left to spread hatred of our free enterprise system? Don't you know that the Republican Party celebrates success?! Low taxes incentivize the job creators to create more jobs - just like all the jobs they've created since the Bush tax cuts became effective. Believe in America! (unless you're an apologist for America).

[Anonymous]

Economists would tell you that capital gains deserve a lower tax rate (some would say zero) because it is effectively money that has been double-taxed (i.e., you made your investment with after-tax dollars and then you are taxed again when you realize a gain).

Personally, I disagree with the notion, but that's the policy rationale.

I don't think an economist woudl say this, if only because it's demonstrably horseshit. If you invest $1 million of capital (after tax dollars), and realize a gain of $300,000, you are NOT taxed on $1.3 million. You're taxed on $300,000 - the amount you gained, the amount you never had before.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Economists would tell you that capital gains deserve a lower tax rate (some would say zero) because it is effectively money that has been double-taxed (i.e., you made your investment with after-tax dollars and then you are taxed again when you realize a gain).

Personally, I disagree with the notion, but that's the policy rationale.

I think the argument in favor of lower taxes for capital gains has usually been centered on the benefits of increasing capital accumulation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Economists would tell you that capital gains deserve a lower tax rate (some would say zero) because it is effectively money that has been double-taxed (i.e., you made your investment with after-tax dollars and then you are taxed again when you realize a gain).

Personally, I disagree with the notion, but that's the policy rationale.

I don't think an economist woudl say this, if only because it's demonstrably horseshit. If you invest $1 million of capital (after tax dollars), and realize a gain of $300,000, you are NOT taxed on $1.3 million. You're taxed on $300,000 - the amount you gained, the amount you never had before.

Sure, but somewhere, someone has paid taxes on that $300,000. Say...$5.00 of that $300k was used by someone to buy a cheeseburger. That $5.00 would have been subject to sales tax. It's unfair to put those dollars through that traumatic experience again. At least, that's what most economists would argue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:the most interesting thing to me about Romney's tax returns are the number of offshore accounts. Switzerland, Bermuda, Caymans, Luxembourg. How much money, exactly, does this man have offshore?

This is the real issue no the low effective tax rate - afterall he did not write the tax code. I have to say that I am shocked that his people admitted that they closed these accounts bc it would be "embarrassing for him as a presidential candidate". Really? The guy ran in 2008 and waited until 2010 to close the accounts - who the hell is advising him. I too would love to see the 2009 return.

[Anonymous]

http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2007/moneymag/0712/gallery.candidates.moneymag/index.html
Millionaires-in-Chief

[Anonymous]

http://money.cnn.com/pf/taxes/storysupplement/candidates-tax-returns/?iid=SF_PF_LN
Rich, Gingrich and crazy rich
Which presidential candidate paid the most in taxes? Who is the most charitable?
Here's an inside look at the top candidates' 2010 income tax returns.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Liberal hate of successful people. The food stamp president.

What a stupid statement! In fact, Democratics tend to win the rich vote. The criticism of Rommey is not that he is successful, but that he is paying taxes at a lower rate that those who do real work. Remember, Reagan eliminates the capital gains tax, and many Republicans support a flat tax of 1-2 marginal rates (all above what Rommey paid).

Democrats don't win the rich vote. What the fuck are you talking about.

Democrats already get a fair share of the rich vote. Republicans call them limousine liberals. Remember, the Clinton Admin included more than a few former Goldman partners. You are implying that the rich vote only what is in their personal best interest, rather than what might be in the best interest of the country.

[Anonymous]

Is it legal what he did?

Fair?? maybe not but legal

Move along folks nothing to see here move along