Enjoy
Lew
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Can we stand back and pause a short minute to take in the spectacle of a man who wants to be President of The United States, who wants us to seriously regard him as a paragon of the American civic ideal, declaiming proudly and in public that he has paid his taxes at a third of the rate normally associated with gentlemen of his economic benefit.
Stunning.
Yes, it is. I don't blame the tax payer as long as he followed the law. I blame the people that write the tax codes and then Congress for passing it. Most of the complainers are jealous.
Why am I supposed to worry about what Romney does with his money more that what Obama does with MY money?
So we live in a dictatorship?
Another Proof By Repeated Assertion from the left. Let's see the evidence of this and further see any evidence of illegality.
Tim Daneliuk wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@ozzie.tundraware.com:
We have to go by what is legal if we want to live in a system ruled by law. But there may be a difference between what is legal and what is right. As you know I am just a bit left of center ...
Two for instances. Romney has amassed over 100 million in an IRA. Supposedly IRAs are limited to something like $6000/year in contributions. Not sure when the IRA system was started, but let's say for argument's sake 45 years ago. That would mean (if I am correct) that Romney's 45x$6000 or $270,000 had a phenomenal yield. But then, he could have transferred more than $6000/year?
Romney has large amounts of capital off-shore. Theoretically that money could be in use to support the US economy. Is it?
In other words, if this is legal, is it right?
Finally people are seeing the real Obama.
That Romney paid a lesser rate implies that he took advantage of tax breaks, deductions, etc., built into the tax code.
Now these exemptions and so forth were placed in the tax code by our betters to further various social goals such as contributions to charity, home mortgage interest, and the like. To the degree that Romney sought out and participated in those social goals, he should be commended!
Ross Perot, as an exemplar, paid NO taxes on his millions in income because his income was solely in the form of tax-exempt mutual bonds.
Because Romney evidently helped fund various social goals, cities are improved, children don't go to bed hungry, the homeless find succor, alcoholics have access to treatment programs, and, for all I know, stray dogs and cats get three hots and a cot.
This was settled in the late 18th century by the Englishman Adam Smith in his book "An Inquiry into the Wealth of Nations." In that work, he postulated the theory of "The Invisible Hand."
You really should keep up.
"HeyBub" wrote in news:6YCdnSdRUIb_E67NnZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@earthlink.com:
Sorry (contrite). Not familiar with the nitty gritty of invisible hands. Doesn't seem to answer my question. Hints?
This is trivial to explain: He used a self-directed IRA - probably set up by Bain - wherein his contributions were invested in Bain deals. This is common among investment banks wherein the employees want to share in the risk/reward. If the deals were successful (as we know they were) there was probably huge returns associated with these contributions, not to mention company matching funds. No only is this not illegal it is perfectly ethical.
So what? It is HIS money and where he chooses to keep it is HIS business.
Nothing you've suggested even rises slightly to any level of being unethical.
"HeyBub" wrote in news:GMGdnaHNdc2vEK7NnZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@earthlink.com:
Yes, and I take "advantage" of the breaks too, specifically the huge loophole that transfer of appreciated stock to charity offers (a total charitable deduction for FMV, without regard to basis or cap gains).
Perhaps we should have an automatic sunset to those social goals. Equally to depletion allowances and subsidies to green technologies. (I have no idea what the law says on these at the moment, just that they have supporters and detractors on the left and the right).
"Mike Marlow" wrote in news:e161d$50339329$4b75eb81$ snipped-for-privacy@ALLTEL.NET:
That is the question whether total amount or percentage is more important. IOW, is progressive taxation good or not? A question of ideology, perhaps?
cf "The Wealth Of Nations" by Adam Smith - considered the beginning of modern economics. Everyone quotes him, very few people have actually read him. I recommend this as a painless intro:
Tim Daneliuk wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@ozzie.tundraware.com:
So that's where you can get a 370 fold (37,000%) yield?
Great job creators always look out for themselves first.
That's your opinion. I disagree.
"Mike Marlow" wrote in news:4cffe$50339d3f $4b75eb81$ snipped-for-privacy@ALLTEL.NET:
What's a flat tax in your opinion? Everyone should pay 9% here and 9% there? Without regard of minimum living costs?
Tim Daneliuk wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com:
Thanks!!
"Mike Marlow" wrote in news:86eac$5033a30f$4b75eb81$ snipped-for-privacy@ALLTEL.NET:
I'm speaking on this because as I see it, Romney and his "friends" (ilk has a bad connotation, and I don't mean that) want to have taxes on their incomes reduced, while in effect increasing the burdens on middle and lower incomes. Moreover, the original intent of generating jobs and lowering the deficit has disappeared. In effect, the hail Mary proposals that presume job creation and increased wealth for the many, would only happen under very optimistic conditions, far in the future, and after major job losses had been inflicted. That is why I question the ethics of off-shore moneys etc. If the candidate (is this the best the Republicans could come up with?) appears (emphasis) this hypocritical, he eclipses any qualms about Obama. IMO, of course. I do want to stay respectful of others' opinions!!
"Mike Marlow" wrote in news:6f9c3$5033a7de$4b75eb81$ snipped-for-privacy@ALLTEL.NET:
That was indeed what I wanted to "say that rich folks want to reduce their tax burden and let others pick it up". I do the same when I donate
15K to charity and use the tax deduction. I am not averse to using the law to my advantage.So the discussion then becomes: Is donating to charity (and other "loopholes") better than paying taxes? I would posit that at times it is better to do so, in order to stroke your ego and enahnce your goals, while at other times it may be better to let gvmnt build roads and bridges.
Wrong. Any IRA cap is only on tax-free contributions. You can put as much over that into an IRA as you please, it's just that only the amount up to the cap is untaxed.
Who sez? Where's the hard evidence for this? All I've seen is that he opposes tax increases. For ANYONE.
Bullcrap. Romney wants to decrease federal spending. Which reduces the tax burden on everyone.
Which is done by the private sector, largely by small business, which can best be done by reducing the burden the federal government puts on them. Romney would reduce that burden, Obama would not.
Another bullcrap statement. It is Romney, not Obama, who is serious about reducing the federal deficit.
Romney's proposals are realistic and workable.
Now you're describing Obama's bullcrap "blame Bush for current economy" excuses for his own dismal failures.
What's unethical about it?
You haven't described anything hypocritical about Romney.
Rational people should be much more concerned about what Romney and Obama each propose to do with OUR money than about what Romney quite lawfully does with his own money.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.