What???

[rdubnpk]

rdubnpk
So, they sign pledges to not raise taxes on them, risk alienating an entire group of Americans (see 99%ers) to defend their inalienable low tax rights, all the time denying they are in their hip pockets with a straight face and then the Poster Child for the 1%ers, the leading candidate for the Republican presidential nod gets booed during the debate??? Just because he pays less in taxes as percentage of income than a lunch lady??? He is doing everything you guys are contantly saying is noble and good and the American way and he gets booed??? Balderdash!!!

[Canadian Dos Equis fan]

Yup can't hate on Romney for being smart with his money.

[twinimini]

Originally Posted by rdubnpk

rdubnpk
So, they sign pledges to not raise taxes on them, risk alienating an entire group of Americans (see 99%ers) to defend their inalienable low tax rights, all the time denying they are in their hip pockets with a straight face and then the Poster Child for the 1%ers, the leading candidate for the Republican presidential nod gets booed during the debate??? Just because he pays less in taxes as percentage of income than a lunch lady??? He is doing everything you guys are contantly saying is noble and good and the American way and he gets booed??? Balderdash!!!

Whoever says that Romney or anyone else in the "1%" doesn't pay as much in taxes as the lunch lady, doesn't know much about taxes. In the best case scenario Romney would be paying 15% on this capital gains. The 15% bracket ends at $34,500 for single lunch ladies and all other singles. When you add back the standard deduction and the exemption for one person, you get a gross income of $45,000. I guess Lunch Ladies make out pretty well in some areas.

I don't understand how the media gets so hung up on Romney's taxes and doesn't say a word about where Obama's almost $100 million in campaign contributions are coming from. If you think Romney is the puppet of the 1% then what is Obama? Is he the puppet of the .05%? Or maybe his money is coming from overseas. I'm sorry, but the American media is so out of touch with reality that they don't even make sense anymore. I know many think Fox is biased and it is, but what about CNN, MSNBC, and the most left wing of them all, the NY Times?

[Canadian Dos Equis fan]

Originally Posted by twinimini

Whoever says that Romney or anyone else in the "1%" doesn't pay as much in taxes as the lunch lady, doesn't know much about taxes. In the best case scenario Romney would be paying 15% on this capital gains. The 15% bracket ends at $34,500 for single lunch ladies and all other singles. When you add back the standard deduction and the exemption for one person, you get a gross income of $45,000. I guess Lunch Ladies make out pretty well in some areas.

I don't understand how the media gets so hung up on Romney's taxes and doesn't say a word about where Obama's almost $100 million in campaign contributions are coming from. If you think Romney is the puppet of the 1% then what is Obama? Is he the puppet of the .05%? Or maybe his money is coming from overseas. I'm sorry, but the American media is so out of touch with reality that they don't even make sense anymore. I know many think Fox is biased and it is, but what about CNN, MSNBC, and the most left wing of them all, the NY Times?

I wouldn't even think about campaign contributions, if there is one thing I have learned in recent weeks, it's that rules for contributions are at best weak. Watching the Daily Show and Colbert Report with Stephen Colbert's Super Pac, it's pretty obvious that there really are no rules for politicians. Obama is no worse than Romney, Gingrich etc. in that regard.

I don't feel bad that Romney only pays 15%, his money is managed well. But even if that lunch lady gets a lower effective rate because she makes so little I am pretty sure she would trade places with Mitt in a heartbeat.

[rdubnpk]

Originally Posted by Canadian Dos Equis fan

I wouldn't even think about campaign contributions, if there is one thing I have learned in recent weeks, it's that rules for contributions are at best weak. Watching the Daily Show and Colbert Report with Stephen Colbert's Super Pac, it's pretty obvious that there really are no rules for politicians. Obama is no worse than Romney, Gingrich etc. in that regard.

I don't feel bad that Romney only pays 15%, his money is managed well. But even if that lunch lady gets a lower effective rate because she makes so little I am pretty sure she would trade places with Mitt in a heartbeat.

rdubnpk
Apparently, someone out there is feeling bad about it! His lead in South Carolina is tanking and a melandering blow hard is creeping up big time!! And he's getting booed by those die hards (who undoubtedly have a great source for speed to keep them awake) interested enough to actually attend the debate????

[Ben & Lisa]

Originally Posted by twinimini

Whoever says that Romney or anyone else in the "1%" doesn't pay as much in taxes as the lunch lady, doesn't know much about taxes. In the best case scenario Romney would be paying 15% on this capital gains. The 15% bracket ends at $34,500 for single lunch ladies and all other singles. When you add back the standard deduction and the exemption for one person, you get a gross income of $45,000. I guess Lunch Ladies make out pretty well in some areas.

I don't understand how the media gets so hung up on Romney's taxes and doesn't say a word about where Obama's almost $100 million in campaign contributions are coming from. If you think Romney is the puppet of the 1% then what is Obama? Is he the puppet of the .05%? Or maybe his money is coming from overseas. I'm sorry, but the American media is so out of touch with reality that they don't even make sense anymore. I know many think Fox is biased and it is, but what about CNN, MSNBC, and the most left wing of them all, the NY Times?

At least Romney earned his money. Obama on the other hand is some how a multi millionaire despite never having any long term career besides a stint as a "Community Organizer" and a College Professor. Where do you figure his 10.5 million dollar net worth came from?

[rdubnpk]

rdubnpk
There is a song in 'the Best Little Whorehouse in Texas" sung by a politician who is trying to avoid addressing the continued existence of the whorehouse. The lyrics go something like " I like to dance a little side-step". If you read the replies to my original premise by my right wing brethren, I think that lyric describes those replies perfectly.

[Ben & Lisa]

Originally Posted by rdubnpk

rdubnpk
There is a song in 'the Best Little Whorehouse in Texas" sung by a politician who is trying to avoid addressing the continued existence of the whorehouse. The lyrics go something like " I like to dance a little side-step". If you read the replies to my original premise by my right wing brethren, I think that lyric describes those replies perfectly.

Do you really want me to pick aprt the incoherent crap you posted? It isn't going to be hard...

[V]

There's plenty of good reasons why Romney doesn't want to release his tax returns, one of which is it would reveal how much of his wealth he has stashed off shore.

Whoever says that Romney or anyone else in the "1%" doesn't pay as much in taxes as the lunch lady, doesn't know much about taxes.

I suspect he's paying far less than the 15% he's spoken of, if some of his capital gains are sheltered. The hypothetical single lunch lady, on the otherhand, having only "earned" wages, has also been cumbered with social security taxes, in addition to her 15%, boosting her upfront tax burden to something over 22%, after which she's hit with state sales tax on many of her purchases.There are reasons why Warren Buffett says his secretary pays a larger percentage of her earnings in taxes than he does, and those reasons have been calculatedly written into the tax code.

At least Romney earned his money.

He may have "made" it, but he sure didn't "earn" it, and the tax code recognizes that with a beneficial tax rate on the money he's made, while it penalizes those who labor for wages.

Rick Santorum may yet take the Rep nomination, just because the moral sliminess of Newt will start to weigh, and the financial sliminess of Romney will dull his sheen.
____________________

[Brewster]

Too bad that guy in New Jersey didn't feel ready to run. He struck me as the most impressive of the lot.

[twinimini]

Originally Posted by V

There's plenty of good reasons why Romney doesn't want to release his tax returns, one of which is it would reveal how much of his wealth he has stashed off shore.

I suspect he's paying far less than the 15% he's spoken of, if some of his capital gains are sheltered. The hypothetical single lunch lady, on the otherhand, having only "earned" wages, has also been cumbered with social security taxes, in addition to her 15%, boosting her upfront tax burden to something over 22%, after which she's hit with state sales tax on many of her purchases.There are reasons why Warren Buffett says his secretary pays a larger percentage of her earnings in taxes than he does, and those reasons have been calculatedly written into the tax code.

He may have "made" it, but he sure didn't "earn" it, and the tax code recognizes that with a beneficial tax rate on the money he's made, while it penalizes those who labor for wages.

Rick Santorum may yet take the Rep nomination, just because the moral sliminess of Newt will start to weigh, and the financial sliminess of Romney will dull his sheen.
____________________

V, I hate to burst your bubble on "offshore income" for Romney, but as you know all US citizens are taxed on their worldwide income which means that if there are funds offshore they are still taxed as regular US income. Apparently you also think that anyone who invests money doesn't "earn" it as our good friend Mr. Obama "earned" his millions as a community organizer and those same poor people that he helped have now contributed close to $100 million for his campaign. And before you get all weepy eyed about our poor lunch lady, be aware that if she is a single person with dependent kids even though she may be shacked up with some guy in his mansion, she will receive the earned income credit, child care credit, child credit, and savers credit resulting in her getting much more back on her taxes than she paid in. Oh yes, that includes the social security taxes that she paid in, which by the way, she will receive a greater proportion of her social security taxes she paid in that the so called 1% will receive.

Mr. Buffets comments appear to be based on what his investments have earned and which he has not sold. That means that he has paper profits that aren't taxed until he sells those stocks. As Paul Harvey would say, "And that's the rest of the story!"

[rawkus]

Im glad Sweden doesnt have the same political circus as the US has.

Im amazed at the "Hollywoodism" thats displayed at each and every campaign, regardless if its Democrats or Republicans. The money spent on these campaigns are ridiculous, but what entertains me the most is that you spend more time, money and effort to throw feces at the "other side", than to promote your own.

Like chimpanzees, except way more expensive, hehe

[V]

Twini, this article introduces the subject of how Romney may have parked millions of untaxed income, off shore: producing his tax returns would allow the calculation of the dollar amounts of taxes he's avoided this way, to this point in time.

The burden of Romney’s tax returns | David Cay Johnston

Apparently you also think that anyone who invests money doesn't "earn" [the income from] it....

Well, yes, but it's not my original idea, the U.S. tax code also refers to it as "unearned" income.
_____________________

[Ben & Lisa]

Originally Posted by V

Twini, this article introduces the subject of how Romney may have parked millions of untaxed income, off shore: producing his tax returns would allow the calculation of the dollar amounts of taxes he's avoided this way, to this point in time.

The burden of Romney’s tax returns | David Cay Johnston


Well, yes, but it's not my original idea, the U.S. tax code also refers to it as "unearned" income.
_____________________

So what if he parked money in off shore accounts. And I dont think anyone is accusing him of breaking the law, so whats the big deal?

[V]

So what if he parked money in off shore accounts.

It offends the notion that there needs to be fairness in distributing the burden of supporting our country, financially.

If the very wealthy manage to get laws passed which create categories of income that favor them over working people, as they have, it diminishes the sense that we have a shared burden, and the sense of being, "one nation, under God, with liberty and justice for all".

[Ben & Lisa]

Originally Posted by V

It offends the notion that there needs to be fairness in distributing the burden of supporting our country, financially.

If the very wealthy manage to get laws passed which create categories of income that favor them over working people, as they have, it diminishes the sense that we have a shared burden, and the sense of being, "one nation, under God, with liberty and justice for all".

There is no fareness in the tax code at all or else you wouldnt have 50% of the taxpayers paying nothing and a good percentage getting money given to them via the earned income tax credit.

[V]

...50% of the taxpayers paying nothing and a good percentage getting money given to them via the earned income tax credit.

Things will start to improve when people start getting equally indignant about giveaways to the super rich.

[Ben & Lisa]

Originally Posted by V

Things will start to improve when people start getting equally indignant about giveaways to the super rich.

What giveaways might you be referring to?
Taking one mans earnings to give to another strikes me as inherently unfair.

[twinimini]

Originally Posted by V

Twini, this article introduces the subject of how Romney may have parked millions of untaxed income, off shore: producing his tax returns would allow the calculation of the dollar amounts of taxes he's avoided this way, to this point in time.

The burden of Romney’s tax returns | David Cay Johnston


Well, yes, but it's not my original idea, the U.S. tax code also refers to it as "unearned" income.
_____________________

Wow, that article that you cited V is a truly fine example of distortion in journalism. What the writer was so bent out of shape about is what is called a carried interest. It is also referred to as a profits interest. A profits interest is a right to receive income in the future. So if we put it into perspective for all of us, it would be like taxing any of us on what we MAY make in the future. This guy make it sound like some evil plot when all it amounts to is that Romney has the right to receive income in the future.

As for earned income, the definition of it is earnings from wages or self employment and the definition applies to what is subject to social security taxes. It should be noted that beginning in 2013 some "unearned income" will now be subjected to a level of Medicare tax.

Investors do create jobs. The old expression that you have to have money to make money has a huge element of truth to it.

[twinimini]

Originally Posted by V

Things will start to improve when people start getting equally indignant about giveaways to the super rich.

Yep, I'd like to know that one also. Somehow getting 40% of your income taken from you doesn't exactly qualify as a giveaway. Seems to me it is more like rape!

[V]

What the writer was so bent out of shape about is what is called a carried interest.

Yes, this, and his use of Cayman Islands for banking, are what the writer calls to our attention.

Who wouldn't like to have the choice of being taxed, after all allowable deductions, either at the rates that would be normally be applied to wages, or 15% of their total compensation, whichever is less? This is what the law relating to "carried interest", conceived by a few for the benefit of a few, allows.

[twinimini]

Originally Posted by V

Yes, this, and his use of Cayman Islands for banking, are what the writer calls to our attention.

Who wouldn't like to have the choice of being taxed, after all allowable deductions, either at the rates that would be normally be applied to wages, or 15% of their total compensation, whichever is less? This is what the law relating to "carried interest", conceived by a few for the benefit of a few, allows.

Okay V, then let me ask you this question, do think you should be paying taxes today on money you MIGHT make in the future? Really, does that make even a smidgen of sense?

[V]

I don't believe you're characterizing the issue, correctly.

Here's an example of an effort made in Congress, a few years ago, to amend the law to prevent those who manage funds for a living having the option of choosing how their compensation would be taxed.

A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to treat income received by partners for performing investment management services as ordinary income received for the performance of services.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-1...10hr2834ih.pdf

In light of Romney's poor performance in S.C., this issue may have already begun to weigh on him, as it strikes those who are not given that option as a manifestly unfair way to distribute the burden of supporting our country, financially.

[V]

What giveaways might you be referring to?

Ben and Lisa, the tax treatment of "carried interest" is an example of what I'm talking about. When those in the most privileged positions get favored tax treatment, it amounts to the government giving away resources to those who need it the least.

Romney being in the race has brought attention to this issue, and legislation is being introduced in an attempt to deal with it, once again.

Carried interest sparks bipartisan tax debate - InvestmentNews

[rdubnpk]

rdubnpk
Well, I actually UNDERESTIMATED how voters might react when the nuts and bolts of how a 1%er became a 1%er was revealed for all to see. I am still baffled by the apparent failing of the mantra that unregulated capitalism is the goal sought by all Republicans when, again, the candidate who would be the Poster Child for that mantra comes in a weak second place........Could it be that there may be a crack in the wall of invincibility that the super rich have enjoyed?? Is average Joe Republican seeing though the propaganda?
Next, if eye of Newt was an adviser to Freddie Mac, why did he not advise them to stay away from the high risk mortgages? Was he just a salaried figurehead?

[twinimini]

V, the issue of carried interest being earned income or not is pretty technical. There are a number of items that are not considered to be "earned income" that are sketchy to say the least. For example, rental income is not earned income and the same with investment income. Why? Probably because some politician didn't want to pay social security taxes on part of their own income.

Should Romney be critiicized for using the tax law to his advantage? If you would like to criticize Romney for using the tax law to his advantage then you might want to not take the foreign income exclusion on your own return this year. Using the tax laws to someone's own benefit is real easy to criticize on someone else's return while taking benefits on our own returns.

[twinimini]

Originally Posted by rdubnpk

rdubnpk
Well, I actually UNDERESTIMATED how voters might react when the nuts and bolts of how a 1%er became a 1%er was revealed for all to see. I am still baffled by the apparent failing of the mantra that unregulated capitalism is the goal sought by all Republicans when, again, the candidate who would be the Poster Child for that mantra comes in a weak second place........Could it be that there may be a crack in the wall of invincibility that the super rich have enjoyed?? Is average Joe Republican seeing though the propaganda?
Next, if eye of Newt was an adviser to Freddie Mac, why did he not advise them to stay away from the high risk mortgages? Was he just a salaried figurehead?

I don't think I would use SC as a gauge of the rest of the US. Romney's religion would be a much bigger issue in SC than in other states. I think the media has made an issue of the perceived 1% when what the voters there were more concerned about was his religious views than his political views.

[rdubnpk]

Originally Posted by twinimini

I don't think I would use SC as a gauge of the rest of the US. Romney's religion would be a much bigger issue in SC than in other states. I think the media has made an issue of the perceived 1% when what the voters there were more concerned about was his religious views than his political views.

rdubnpk
He was (reportedly) leading, according to the polls, until the quasi-details were made public up until the final days before the vote. He made the problem worse by wavering about releasing his tax statements. Religion was not an issue, as far as I could see.

[rdubnpk]

Originally Posted by V

Ben and Lisa, the tax treatment of "carried interest" is an example of what I'm talking about. When those in the most privileged positions get favored tax treatment, it amounts to the government giving away resources to those who need it the least.

Romney being in the race has brought attention to this issue, and legislation is being introduced in an attempt to deal with it, once again.

Carried interest sparks bipartisan tax debate - InvestmentNews

rdubnpk
V, you seem so.................well, calm. did they change your medication???

[twinimini]

Originally Posted by rdubnpk

rdubnpk
He was (reportedly) leading, according to the polls, until the quasi-details were made public up until the final days before the vote. He made the problem worse by wavering about releasing his tax statements. Religion was not an issue, as far as I could see.

You may be right because he did tank after the tax return issue. My mother was from rural SC and my sister lives there now and I know folks there can be a little bit provincial when it comes to religion. It's a place where if you say God often enough you can pull in some votes. Hey, they had Strom Thurmond for a Senator for something like two centuries or so. I think he may still be there!