O/T: BLOG POST OF THE DAY

[Just Wondering]

Nobody has challenged the government's role in building roads and bridges. Tell me, how much of the $3.8 trillion federal budget is spent on roads and bridges?

[Lew Hodgett]

------------------------------------------------------------------- Hope it's not too much.

After all, those unwed mothers need their welfare checks.

Lew

[ChairMan]

Ain't that the truth!

[Dave]

On Tue, 21 Aug 2012 11:29:41 -0600, Just Wondering

Maybe. But, how and what he does with his money is often a good indicator of what type of man he is. Ethics, integrity and even honesty all come into play and should come under close scrutiny when you're running for the office of the president of the United States.

At least that's the type of leader I'd want for my country. Maybe others prefer a different type of leader and that's their choice.

[dadiOH]

Bain is private but it must have investors. One wonders if those investors realized gains as large as Romney's.

Matching funds (contributions?)? I don't seem to recall any venue for matching funds in an IRA.

[Tim Daneliuk]

It's entirely possible, legal, and ethical.

I'm not sure I know what that means. EVERYONE (who is sane) looks out for themselves and the ones they love first. The virtue of capitalism is that, in doing so, they incidentally create opportunity for others.

Please cite a single demonstrable example of something being unethical. You cannot. You may not *like* what he's done, but it's HIS money and therefore, no one else's business.

[Tim Daneliuk]

A left wing talking point that borders on a lie. Try this instead:

- EVERYONE wants to minimize their tax burden.

- What is increasing taxes on the middle class is not the lack of what the rich contribute but the *profligate spending of a government out of control*.

If you think the rich don't pay enough, here's the math:

go do a teensy amount of homework. Pretend that Obama (PBUH) gets what he wants and additional taxes are levied on the rich. Assume Obama (PBUH) gets everything he's asking for. Total up the imaginary increase in revenue and see how long it would run the government. HINT: Last I checked less than half a year and that's at TODAY's interest rates. When rates go back up, the Federal government is going to be underwater servicing the debt that Obama (and Bush) created. We cannot tax our way out of Obamanomics. We have to *grow* our way out and that cannot happen as long as he remains in office.

[-MIKE-]

Couldn't agree more. Those who usually bark the loudest taking money earned by some and giving it to others, often give very little of their own money away to charity. The current president has given virtually nothing to charity and only started to increase his giving when he came under public scrutiny.

Financial records of republican politicians, who are evil and hate the poor, consistently show charitable giving many, many times greater than their counterparts.

Again, couldn't agree more.

[Tim Daneliuk]

Um ... you need to examine how Private Equity firms work. They take the money in from very rich people that want above market return rates with hopefully somewhat lower than market risk. They pool this money from many sources - not just rich individuals, but also institutional investors and even their own money - and create syndicates to invest the money across many projects. They are WILDLY profitable when they are run properly because very few companies of the expertise to do what they do. Investors would not keep going back to people like Blackstone and Bain if they were bad at what they do.

Why can't you do it? Because you (probably) don't have the $100M ante to get into that scale of game. These guys are the F1 racing teams of finance. It's interesting to me to listen to people complain about them when they make money, but no sympathy is extended when they lose their butts on a bad bet like the Facebook IPO (which was just stupid).

IRAs do not, but 401Ks an similar instruments do. I have no idea of the particulars of Romney's financial life - it is, as I said, none of my business. But a company like Bain is certain to have people smart enough to make use of every possible legal tax deferral mechanism. This is important because HOW LONG you leave an investment to grow is often far more important than how much you put in originally.

Again, I fail to understand this visceral hatred of wealth. That is precisely what free markets create. They also create losers ... or did until Obama decided to bail out the losers with your- and my money. And THAT's what should be outraging people, not the fact that Romney made a lot of dough. Good for him.

[Tim Daneliuk]

How about no deductions for anyone for any reason period?

How about a flat tax at time of *consumption* with a "prebate" to make sure the first $XX,XXX dollars are effectively untaxed so as to not put an undue burden on the poor?

This is called the "Fair Tax" and it would work swimmingly. But the left, especially, hates this. Why? There's getting the money and there's spending the money. Getting it should be simple. The problem is that not everyone agrees on how to spend it. So the left, especially, has used all manner of tax monkeybusiness to change how we get it, who pays, and who does. The right, seeing what was going on, joined the party. Fair Tax would make the getting part of it simple. Then the only argument would be the spending part which is FAR more evident and transparent to the taxpaying public.

[Just Wondering]

All indication are that (1) he paid every penny in taxes that the law requires, (3) he gave 15% of all he received to charitable contributions, (3) he provided for his family, and (4) he gave a lot of thought and effort to obtaining the greatest benefit he could from the surplus remaining after (1), (2), and (3). And he did all of this ethically and honestly. To the extent it has any bearing on the question, it sounds like Romney is the kind of decision-maker we'd want in our chief executive.

But the important question, again, is what Romney and Obama each propose to do with OUR money.

[dadiOH]

Here's one citation. A Google search will give you many more.

's part of what it says. Note especially the reduction or elimination of taxation on investment income, estates, corporate and alternative minimum tax. Not to mention permanently extending previous tax cuts, said cuts benefiting the richer folks among us.

"In his campaign for the Republican presidential nomination, Mitt Romney has proposed permanently extending the 2001-03 tax cuts, further cutting individual income tax rates, broadening the tax base by reducing tax preferences, eliminating taxation of investment income of most individual taxpayers, reducing the corporate income tax, eliminating the estate tax, and repealing the alternative minimum tax (AMT) and the taxes enacted in

2010's health reform legislation." _______________________

If you think that - decrease government spending - is ever going to happen - consistently - you live in a different plane of consciousness than I.

Here is a chart showing "tax freedom day". Note especially the "Deficit-Inclusive Tax Freedom Day". See a pattern? You might want to look up historical tax rates too.

Year Tax Freedom Day Deficit-Inclusive Tax Freedom Day

1900 1/22 1/22 1901 1/21 1/20 1902 1/21 1/20 1903 1/20 1/19 1904 1/21 1/22 1905 1/20 1/21 1906 1/19 1/19 1907 1/19 1/18 1908 1/21 1/22 1909 1/19 1/20 1910 1/19 1/19 1911 1/20 1/20 1912 1/19 1/19 1913 1/19 1/19 1914 1/23 1/23 1915 1/25 1/26 1916 1/24 1/24 1917 1/24 1/29 1918 2/8 3/27 1919 2/7 4/11 1920 2/13 2/12 1921 2/22 2/20 1922 2/11 2/7 1923 2/4 2/1 1924 2/7 2/3 1925 2/4 2/1 1926 2/6 2/2 1927 2/8 2/4 1928 2/9 2/5 1929 2/8 2/5 1930 2/12 2/11 1931 2/15 2/26 1932 2/25 3/6 1933 3/6 3/13 1934 3/1 3/15 1935 2/27 3/10 1936 2/27 3/15 1937 3/4 3/3 1938 3/6 3/12 1939 3/4 3/13 1940 3/7 3/8 1941 3/16 3/9 1942 3/18 4/9 1943 4/5 5/3 1944 3/29 5/17 1945 3/30 5/21 1946 3/30 4/8 1947 4/1 3/24 1948 3/27 3/21 1949 3/22 3/30 1950 3/31 3/24 1951 4/7 3/26 1952 4/7 4/3 1953 4/6 4/4 1954 4/1 4/3 1955 4/4 3/29 1956 4/7 3/31 1957 4/7 4/4 1958 4/5 4/9 1959 4/8 4/6 1960 4/12 4/6 1961 4/11 4/9 1962 4/12 4/10 1963 4/13 4/10 1964 4/9 4/8 1965 4/8 4/6 1966 4/11 4/10 1967 4/12 4/17 1968 4/18 4/19 1969 4/23 4/19 1970 4/19 4/25 1971 4/16 4/26 1972 4/20 4/28 1973 4/20 4/24 1974 4/23 4/27 1975 4/17 5/4 1976 4/19 5/1 1977 4/20 4/29 1978 4/20 4/25 1979 4/20 4/22 1980 4/21 4/29 1981 4/24 5/1 1982 4/21 5/9 ________________________

Oh, government can create jobs. Lots of them. Consider the redundant bureaucracy. Consider public works. ____________________

Neither of them are going to do much about the deficit. Nor will anyone else. What *will* happen is that the dollar - which is now worth a dime - will become worth a penny or less and the deficit/debt will then be manageable. _____________________

Depends on where they are. Banks in Canada are "offshore". Romney's are in offshore tax havens. The main reasons to have money in them are..

1. A deep distrust of our banks, particularly their solvency.
2. To defer taxes or even to create corporations under a nominee and avoid taxes.

[dadiOH]

Be sure to let the IRS know.

[Han]

Tim Daneliuk wrote in news:5033DAE5.5040404 @tundraware.com:

That's a feel good statement if I ever saw one. I hope it is a consideration for every capitalist, see whether what they do is creating opportunity for others. Have you asked Steve Gass what opportunities he is creating?

Didn't I say that I find it less than "right" that Mitt stores his money in offshore tax havens?

[Han]

"Lew Hodgett" wrote in news:5033cc3a$0$11840 $c3e8da3$ [e-mail]:

If the unwed mothers are your concern Leon, do something about them. I am NOT accusing you of being the cause of unwed mothers, but would like your support in providing any potential unwed mothers with birth control or abortion facilities, to be used as they see fit. No coercion, no withholding.

[Han]

Just Wondering wrote in news:5033c59d$0$6289$882e7ee2 @usenet-news.net:

I admit to picking and choosing. The independent agencies looking at the candidates plans say that Romney's is far worse in reducing the deficit than Obama's.

[Han]

Tim Daneliuk wrote in news: [e-mail]:

Totally agree with this part of your statements.

[Han]

Just Wondering wrote in news:5033c27c$0$23912$ [e-mail]:

What about this link?

It starts out:

For 2011 and 2012, the maximum you can contribute to all of your traditional and Roth IRAs is the smaller of:

$5,000 ($6,000 if you?re age 50 or older), or your taxable compensation for the year.

The IRA contribution limit does not apply to:

Rollover contributions Qualified reservist repayments

[Han]

Tim Daneliuk wrote in news: [e-mail]:

Sounds indeed simple and very worthwhile. I could be persuaded. It would certainly eliminate a bunch of IRS employees, accountants and lawyers who don't really contribute to GDP. There is only 1 disadvantage I can see right off. It leaves us without a tax mechanism to promote things like home ownership, charity, etc. But perhaps we can do without, just like other countries (I think).

[dadiOH]

I know how they work. I just wondered if the investors % returns aproached those of Romney. ____________

I don't hare it, I'm quite fond of it.