Anonymous wrote:Whether investment income should be taxed at a higher or lower rate than 15% and whether it should be taxed at a higher or lower rate than non-investment income should not turn on the small percentage of extremely wealthy people in the country. He's rich and now makes most of his money by investment. I already know that. I can guess that a lot of his income is taxed at 15% now. He follows the tax laws, I have no doubt, he's smart enough to do that.

So, again, I don't care one whit if his personal rate is at or slightly below 15%. Good policy for the country on these questions doesn't turn on what he makes.

And guess how much he paid when he was earning his money? Do you think he paid top rates? No no no. Because since he was running a LBO firm, he got paid in carried interest. This means that his income - not for his investments but for his labor - was taxed at capital gains rates too.

If you or I work, we pay income taxes. If we get stock or stock options, we pay income tax rates on that. Can you think of one good reason why the manager of an LBO firm, hedge fund, or VC firm should get to pay capital gains rates for their work?

First, there are studies about tax rates and incentives. They show movement.

Second, the largest effect is about investment versus consumption. Should I invest this money or got to Europe for two weeks, staying in fine hotels? If I lose half my investment gains to taxes, I consume more. Those effects become very complicated for the creation of social wealth but they are very real.

Then, on the fairness side, stop obsessing over the super rich for one minute and think about the rest of us. I was taxed on each dollar when I made it. Now I'm going to be taxed on it when I invest it. Do I really have to pay 35% each time?

Anonymous wrote:If you don't consider the incentives for wealth creation of tax rates and only care about whether taxes hit the rich more, I can't help you.

Romney isn't running for office for the purpose of keeping the investment tax rate at 15%, I hope we can at least agree on that.

Until they become punitively high, eg. 50% and up, tax rates don't make an iota of difference to the wealthy's desire to work. Are you suggesting that a trust-fund baby is suddenly going to start working because he's paying 5% less, or that an executive is going to slack off because he might be paying a few k more in taxes each year? That's simply ridiculous.

Anonymous wrote:If you don't consider the incentives for wealth creation of tax rates and only care about whether taxes hit the rich more, I can't help you.

Romney isn't running for office for the purpose of keeping the investment tax rate at 15%, I hope we can at least agree on that.

no. he wants to lower it

If you don't consider the incentives for wealth creation of tax rates and only care about whether taxes hit the rich more, I can't help you.

Romney isn't running for office for the purpose of keeping the investment tax rate at 15%, I hope we can at least agree on that.

Anonymous wrote:Whether investment income should be taxed at a higher or lower rate than 15% and whether it should be taxed at a higher or lower rate than non-investment income should not turn on the small percentage of extremely wealthy people in the country. He's rich and now makes most of his money by investment. I already know that. I can guess that a lot of his income is taxed at 15% now. He follows the tax laws, I have no doubt, he's smart enough to do that.

So, again, I don't care one whit if his personal rate is at or slightly below 15%. Good policy for the country on these questions doesn't turn on what he makes.

Hmm, how do you know he is following the tax laws. He has not released his taxes.

I guess it is okay for a working schmuck to pay 30-40% of their earnings to the tax man. But, woe, if you had the good fortune of inheriting money to make lots and lots of money, you should be awarded with a 15% or less tax bill. Yes, that is good policy for the country. Let them eat cake mentality.

Whether investment income should be taxed at a higher or lower rate than 15% and whether it should be taxed at a higher or lower rate than non-investment income should not turn on the small percentage of extremely wealthy people in the country. He's rich and now makes most of his money by investment. I already know that. I can guess that a lot of his income is taxed at 15% now. He follows the tax laws, I have no doubt, he's smart enough to do that.

So, again, I don't care one whit if his personal rate is at or slightly below 15%. Good policy for the country on these questions doesn't turn on what he makes.

Yes it matters. He wants to lower his own taxes and raise mine. Most of his money is out of the country. We should keep the capital gains taxes a 15% or reduce it, so "the job creators" can ship their money offshore? It just shows how pathetic and false the conservative's rhetoric is. Mitt got his wealth b/c of his father wealth and influence. So, lets give him a lower tax rate. He pays 15% and everyone else pays 42-46%(fed, med, ss, state)

Anonymous wrote:Is he taxed on the money he keeps in the Cayman Islands?

Doubt It

Anonymous wrote:Does it matter to you? It doesn't to me.

Republicsns seem to bring up the idsue of tax fairness constantly. But point out how rich people are taxed, and they slink away.

Less than 15%.

And if you really don't care about that, I don't want to hear word one about your taxes.

Anonymous wrote:Does it matter to you? It doesn't to me.

It matters to the media, so it MATTERS.

Does it matter to you? It doesn't to me.

Is he taxed on the money he keeps in the Cayman Islands?

Do you think Romney's estimate of his tax rate will be high or low when it is actually calculated?