Romney tax returns illuminating for policy reasons, not personal reasons

$6.2 million in taxes paid.

Who’ll be the first to say “that’s more than any of you Godless Librulz posting here so shut up with your wealth envy”?

• Link
• Report this comment

Doesn’t you heart just bleed for his having ONLY 38.8 million to live on for a WHOLE year?

• Link
• Report this comment

Yes, this money was not earned through hard work and self-reliance which is one of the supposed tenets of conservatism. It is without a doubt that Romney is a major plastic phony. While I find their politics repulsive, I would rather see Santorum or Paul get the nomination since their at least somewhat true to their core beliefs. I hope that GOP voters in Florida realize this and stop the Romney Machine which is incompetent and bloated. At this stage of the game, Romney is the weakest link. He’s been running with millions of dollars in cash for five years without any fresh innovative ideas. If he gets this nomination and wins the presidency, he will truly be this country’s worst president in history. Mitt Romney is a very dull Stepford Husband who was failed governor and businessman. I think most of this country could care less if he saved the Olympics. Please, a child working as a janitor would make a better president (OK that goes far, but really, Romney?).

• Link
• Report this comment

I’m curious about Mitt and 2008 and the 45 million he loaned his campaign and how it was written off.

Did Romney pay any taxes in 2008?

• Link
• Report this comment

Doesn’t you heart just bleed for his having ONLY 38.8 million to live on for a WHOLE year?

no, but as Jay’s pointing out (and I’ll patiently repeat ad infinitum), it’s not about caring whether someone is just regular-rich or filthy-rich, or not. It’s about economic policy, and about what we the people need to do, collectively.

It’s not, as some will surely try to distract and re-frame in this comments thread, about what people do with their personal wealth. Nations don’t map their destiny by assuming they’ll get people to pitch in a few extra bucks here and their, paying on the freaking honor system.

also, just because it needs to be said pre-emptively–Neal Boortz sucks, and his “Fair Tax” Scientology scheme sucks worse. (I’m sure some bozo will make a pitch for it before we’ve hit 100 comments.)

• Link
• Report this comment

He is certainly a wealthy man, but the thing that will hurt him is that he will look to be out of touch with the average Joe. He will be labeled an elitist…

• Link
• Report this comment

He will be labeled an elitist…

chickens, meet roost.

• Link
• Report this comment

And, if this gentleman lived in Georgia and was 62, he would pay NO Georgia income tax starting in 2012. Thanks Sonny.

• Link
• Report this comment

In recent weeks, the mainstream media has been heavily covering the wealth of the Republican candidates. In the interest of balance, here is an article showing the net worth of President Obama:

http://viableopposition.blogspot.com/2012/01/is-barack-obama-one-percenter.html

As you can see, he is just on the margins of the one percent.

• Link
• Report this comment

From the Reuter’s story:

Romney advisers stressed that the holdings in the Caymans — along with those in a Swiss bank account that was closed in 2010 after an investment adviser decided it could be politically embarrassing to Romney — were reported on tax returns and were not vehicles to avoid taxes.

Romney couldn’t conclude that pushing money offshore was politically embarrassing, so an investment advisor had to tell him?

• Link
• Report this comment

Unearned income, FTW!

• Link
• Report this comment

JAY,

I want to recall that Clinton reduced subject tax from 25 to 20% and the tech sector responded resoundingly. Of course it got overextended similar to mortgage debacle but interesting to note. I do agree that he should pay more, too bad that all this crying about how much is paid by the likes of Romney is moot point. Just a few more millions to go toward waste…heck, BO can assassinate a few more evil threats to our shores at $1 million per drone.

To ROBO and your anger is suspicious. Since Romney’s politics aren’t materially different from other elephant nutjobs, was as unsuccessful as any governor, and quite successful as a business man. Envy may be appropriate allegation in your case.

• Link
• Report this comment

Here we go again…… Buffet is right. Why demonize those who are wealthy in our society and ignore the tax code that allows them to be this way? Doing so is nothing but wealth envy. If you took away everything that the 1%ers have….. every asset…… and used it to pay down our national debt, we could get roughly 5 months out it. Pocket change compared to our national debt. You are demonizing the wrong thing, libs. Government spending and accumulation of debt will not be cured by raising the tax rate to 39% for those who are wealthy….. not by a long shot. It will only be addressed by stopping this insane spending.

• Link
• Report this comment

he is just on the margins of the one percent.

LOL, you have no concept of the amount it takes to be in the 1%, do you? hehehe

• Link
• Report this comment

I want to recall that Clinton reduced subject tax from 25 to 20% and the tech sector responded resoundingly.

Poor recall. The tech sector took off because of the internet and Y2K.

Reagan raised taxes numerous times and the economy took off. So what?

Causation not shown.

• Link
• Report this comment

” But, with that experience as a businessman, he is one of many who have the ability to become a real job creator. ”

No matter how often something like this is said, it’ NOT the rich who create jobs. It’s their CUSTOMERS who create them.

• Link
• Report this comment

stands for decibels

January 24th, 2012
7:53 am
$6.2 million in taxes paid.

Who’ll be the first to say “that’s more than any of you Godless Librulz posting here so shut up with your wealth envy”?

I would say it but you beat me to the punch this morning. I would have used the word socialist instead of “Librulz” but the rest of the statement is true enough.

• Link
• Report this comment

We should lower Mitt’s tax rate so he can create more jobs in China.

• Link
• Report this comment

“$6.2 million in taxes paid”

That is $6.2 million more then the bottom 47% paid combined.

• Link
• Report this comment

Just a few more millions to go toward waste…

gotta love that can-do attitude!

• Link
• Report this comment

Mitt should be asked to show how many more jobs he created
than Newt with the lower tax rate.

• Link
• Report this comment

“It’s their CUSTOMERS who create them.”

Who creates a customer or how are they created?

• Link
• Report this comment

Say what?????????????????? Asia is moving ahead in science NOT because Asian countries are spending on R&D in Asia but because AMERICAN companies are spending on R&D in Asia???????

The National Science Foundation has just released its biennial report on global investment in science, engineering and technology. The NSF warns that the United States is quickly losing ground to Asia, especially to China. America’s share of global R&D spending is tumbling. In the decade to 2009, it dropped from 38 percent to 31 percent, while Asia’s share rose from 24 to 35 percent.

One big reason: According to the NSF, American firms nearly doubled their R&D investment in Asia over these years, to over $7.5 billion.

http://www.salon.com/2012/01/23/the_secret_to_making_american_workers_competitive/

Thanks American companies!!

• Link
• Report this comment

Everyone should pay their fair share and 15% on unearned income isn’t fair. There shouldn’t even be a distinction between incomes – it is ALL income regardless of the source. Tax them all the same.

And – NO – it will not give more money to the government to waste. It will give us the funds necessary to upgrade our infrastructure so we can actually move into the 21st century and complete with the rest of the world that has already done that.

• Link
• Report this comment

from the same link:
GE recently announced a $500 million expansion of its R&D facilities in China. The firm has already invested $2 billion.

GE’s CEO Jeffrey Immelt chairs Obama’s council on work and competitiveness.

We are sooooooooo screwed…..

• Link
• Report this comment

Blame it all on the non existent welfare queens-
http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/23/politics/weflare-queen/index.html?hpt=hp_c1

• Link
• Report this comment

How many jobs has he created with such wealth in the last 5yrs ????

• Link
• Report this comment

Everyone believes all the talking points about how government can affect job creation but no definite correlation can be concluded.

There’s definitely correlation between the types of government programs and the velocity of money, which is a major component of GDP. Taxes for wealthy people doesn’t increase velocity of money; unemployment payments do (since the unemployed spend it immediately on items like food).

• Link
• Report this comment

Keep Up the Good Fight!

January 24th, 2012
8:19 am
td: $6.2 million in taxes paid” That is $6.2 million more then the bottom 47% paid combined

Ahh more of the no taxes paid crowd have shown up to spout foolishness proven inaccurate time and time again. Okay td, time to show your work. Don’t forget sales taxes and all the other taxes paid by those 47% and while we are at it, how about the 1400 or more taxpayers who paid nothing on their millions.

Or just admit that you post foolishness. Bet you can’t tell the truth

I thought we were discussing Federal income taxes paid? My statement is totally accuate to that point. The $6.2 million Romney paid is just in Federal income taxes. We do not know how much he paid in sales tax, property taxes, state taxes or any other. Have to compare apples to apples here.

• Link
• Report this comment

I think it is important to remember that there is a difference between your marginal tax rate and your effective tax rate. 13.9 percent may seem low, but it is still higher than a large majority of tax payers, including most of us. Using 2008, the top 1% pay on average 23.27%, the next 4% pay 17.21%, the next 5% pay 12.44%, the next 15% pay 9.29%, the next 25% pay 6.75%, and the last 50% pay only 2.59%. While Romney and Buffets rates may seem low, there are less than 10% of taxpayers that pay a lower effective rate. There is of course variability from one individual to another, but Newt and Obama are more the exception than the rule. I think it is important to remember the distinction between marginal and effective tax rate and that point is being muddled in the discussion. I pay income tax at the 25% rate on a portion of my income, but my effective tax rate is under 10%.

• Link
• Report this comment

It’s no supprise whatsover that our bought and paid for Congress will benefit their wealthy patrons any way they can, including making tax laws that benefit the rich while sticking it to the poor. And naturally, the simple tool Republicans here will accuse me of spreading “wealth envy”. One can only wonder how much longer the electorate will put up with this.

• Link
• Report this comment

BYTEME,

Find me an economist who supports your position and I will find you one who doesn’t. Since we waste and pay debt with so much of our tax dollars plus change policies every 6-8 years, who really knows. Surely you can’t point to the stimulus crap as an example…

• Link
• Report this comment

STEVE,

Stop making sense! Jays column supports your point. Too bad most of the posters here only offer talking points from their favorite pundits who supply their opinions…

Agreed

• Link
• Report this comment

You don’t recon that ol’ Newt thought his Tiffany’s account was a tax write off do you?

• Link
• Report this comment

Think Newt will attach to your argument, Jay? Unlikely, but he has flirted with it already. The GOP establishment has a vein popping out in their collective temple.

• Link
• Report this comment

I though a tithe was 10%. Romney only gave $1.5 to the Mormon Church- isn’t that less than a tithe?

• Link
• Report this comment

So change the tax laws and either force the wealthy to pay at least 50% on all earnings, or if under 50% allow the wealthy to either pay the difference in taxes OR donate it to meaningful charities?

• Link
• Report this comment

The Republican Party constituency must be thoroughly confused by the exchange between Mitt and Newt. Should the wealthy pay more taxes as Newt suggests now and how does he reconcile this position with the well-established Republican mantra that job creators must pay no taxes or else they will take away the jobs. The party constituency’s heads must be essploding all around us. Watch out! They make such a mess when they go off.

• Link
• Report this comment

Yet another reason why investment income is taxed at a lower rate… We all know that money was already earned by the individual who invest it. When they invest the money they also stand a chance to lose it, correct? When you go to work for someone, you take no risk, you are definitely getting a paycheck. This is not the case in investing.

• Link
• Report this comment

When they invest the money they also stand a chance to lose it, correct?

Yes, and they get a deduction against future (or concurrent) gains.

• Link
• Report this comment

Romney only gave $1.5 to the Mormon Church- isn’t that less than a tithe?

Maybe the LDS considers capital gains to be tithed differently.

I did a bit of googling–the official church website didn’t reveal anything immediately, but if someone feels like drilling down, here it is.

http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?locale=0&sourceId=e141f73c28d98010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=bbd508f54922d010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD

• Link
• Report this comment

Here’s a funny thought: had Romney run as a Democrat, I might have voted for him, because he wouldn’t have had to change so many of his positions.

• Link
• Report this comment

Byte,

Absolutely they get to deduct it, just like they pay taxes if they make money on it.

• Link
• Report this comment

Okay, gotta do the on-topic thing.

So…. should the equalizing earned and unearned income tax rates apply only to people? Should retirement savings be tax exempt? If we want to tax everyone’s income the same, are savings off limits? Retirement savings? So what happens to pension funds for teachers, cops, firefighters, union members? We going to tax those contributions before they go into the fund? Or do we slice off 39% from pension funds? And if it’s an employer-provided contribution, so what? It’s designed to end up as income for an individual, so shouldn’t we tax it?

________________________________________

There are public support pitfalls in taxing investment income at earned income rates in states like Florida with a high retiree population, which is likely one reason Romney advocates eliminating any tax on investments for taxpayers with AGIs below $200k.

• Link
• Report this comment

You’re getting pretty good at predicting probable outcomes, you know that?

Fish in a barrel, Paul. Fish in a barrel.

• Link
• Report this comment

“You don’t get a paycheck if you’re fired as well”

and you don’t get a paycheck if the company goes under

• Link
• Report this comment

Taxpayer,

Turning up the drama a little high for 9 am, huh?They are not taking monetary risk. Yes, accidents do happen on the job. This country is extremely safe to work in. Everybody chooses their job know that things could go wrong. They go to work and get a paycheck. Do companies go out of business? Yep!

• Link
• Report this comment

I want a deduction against future income in case I’m fired, too.

• Link
• Report this comment

Brosephus,

You get taxed for taking money out of a specifically alotted retirement fund early because that money was either not taxed initially, or taxed at a lower rate. Depending on the tyoe of retirement fund.

• Link
• Report this comment

Stevie Ray

This why misformed news channels like fox, rush, sara can take you idiots anything, you can not even compare this man to Obama, this man was born with a siliver spoon his mouth look at his family history.
Obama is the American dream comes from single parent house hold worked his way to law school and become President, oh I forgot blacks do not suppose to have the America dream, please turn off fox and idiot”””’

• Link
• Report this comment

@ByteMe – then buy an insurance policy protecting against such risk.

• Link
• Report this comment

Making money through capital gains is work. Why do you exalt physical labor like bricklaying over an intellectual activity like allocating capital? An investor makes decisions on how to allocate capital, and that capital is then used to fund market activities. It is taxed at a lower rate than physical labor because–sit down, lefties, this will shock you–it is a valuable activity and ought to be encouraged. Since investors are rarely motivated by immediate survival needs, you need some other way of encouraging them to perform their valuable function. Lower taxes work nicely in that regard.
Now, Jay, this constant looking into someone else’s wallet and stoking envy based on comparative tax rates would just go away if we ended the income tax system. Income taxes lead to attempts by the government to control behavior and implement social policy through tax policy. That situation leads, as you and many others have demonstrated, to a focus on aspects of the tax policy itself (such as rates for different activities) instead of a focus on first cases, which is whether the income tax should exist at all. You have to turn to Fair Tax supporters to hear a reasoned discussion not based on envy, and a focus on the issue of freedom from government supervision of our incomes.

• Link
• Report this comment

Tomorrow’s headline from the president’s state of the union: “President attacks the American Dream!” So his election campaign will focus on”Fairness”. What happened to the American dream that you can take an idea or something your good at and turn that into a successful business, make a bunch of money, retire early and grow old watching your grand children grow up? Life isn’t fair! If you want something, you better be prepared to get off your butt and fight for it every day! That is the type of attitude we’ll need to overcome this mess our politicians have burdened us with and once again retake our place as the best country in the world!

• Link
• Report this comment

@ Paul 8:58..Kudos!..Sounds like you are only one of a few posters on this blog that even has a clue. Also people need understand that we want investment, investments create business’s and provide the necessary capital for existing businesses to expand. I would love to see the reaction of some on this blog when their retired Grandmother just learned that her dividends on which she is dependent to live on just jumped to 28%.

• Link
• Report this comment

the fact that many americans want to eliminate taxes on
the wealthy and allow the poor to starve while they park
their cadillacs in front of their cathedrals and punish
women for not using just say no birth control is the
disgusting thing about the newt campaign.

• Link
• Report this comment

@ByteMe … While we’re at it, lets take away every incentive for people to save and invest in this country. The capital gains rates are an enticement to put money back into the country.

Also, if the law changes and capital gains are taxed at ordinary rates, I am sure there will be outrage when someone suffers an investment loss and is able to offset it against ordinary income.

• Link
• Report this comment

Greed is good?

Huh, I thought greed was one of the seven deadly sins of the Christians. Imagine that…

• Link
• Report this comment

“the fact that many americans want to eliminate taxes on
the wealthy and allow the poor to starve”……

BULL@##@ – plain and simple

• Link
• Report this comment

Why do you exalt physical labor like bricklaying over an intellectual activity like allocating capital?

because bricklayers produce something of tangible value. Investors don’t.

• Link
• Report this comment

If you really want to start talking about being fair, why are we not questioning why a majority of the people do not pay anything at all.

Ask GWB and his GOP Congress. They increased the numbers with their tax sale. As much as they increased it, however, the “majority” pays taxes. The last time I checked 53% is greater than 47%.

JOEL

Is that retirement fund not an investment vehicle? Why is my investment vehicle subject to different tax rules as opposed to others?

• Link
• Report this comment

I am baffled by Warren Buffet’s insistence on raising the 15% long-term capital gains tax rate, and by people calling that income “unearned.” Yes, techinically the income earned off of the investments was not earned in the traditional sense… but at some point (and yes, it may have been a loooong time ago) the original outlay of money that funded the account was. Prior to that original investment being made, it had been earned in the traditional sense, and it was taxed at the higher tax rate. Raising the capital gains tax rates is a MAJOR disincentive to invest, and truth be told, we NEED as many people investing in their own personal accounts as possible, because there will be no safety net (i.e. social security in its current form) to sustain the masses in the future. The government needs to find ways to meaningfully cut their wasteful spending, not just keep raising taxes on the “rich” (there are a lot of investors that are NOT rich -myself included – that would be affected by raising the 15% cap gains rate).

• Link
• Report this comment

Brosephus,

Its not, simply pay tax on it initially, invest it, then pay capital gains tax.

• Link
• Report this comment

“because bricklayers produce something of tangible value. Investors don’t.”

Wouldn’t it be funny if nobody made the investment to start the brick making company. Then we have no wall and no laborers…

• Link
• Report this comment

I don’t envy anyone what’s for me it is for me. I have done soul searching read many articles; however, I can’t come to grips why anyone with that much money would want to be POTUS. I am mean how could you not be an elitist the average Joe or Josephine will never relate to this type of wealth.

• Link
• Report this comment

“Wouldn’t it be funny if nobody made the investment to start the brick making company. Then we have no wall and no laborers”

And wouldn’t it be funny if nobody wanted to work for that company. Then we have no income, no profit…and investors who lost their money.

Invested money produces NOTHING without the bedrock of the workers in the company. Everything is dependent on labor.

• Link
• Report this comment

Well cry me a river Jay Bookman and all the rest of you class envy whiners. You all remind me of the screwed up followers of Islam who have no problem with killing non-believers, but have a problem with the use of charging interest in business dealings.

I will remind you all that 50% of this country does not pay income taxes, but the remaining percentage carries the water for the rest. And as personal income rises so does the burden of taxation for the upper brackets. You want equity? How about EVERBODY paying into the system?

You Occupy types want everything for nothing and disregard the entitlements that fund your miserable lives. Where do you think such funding comes from?

Mitt Romney has nothing to be ashamed of in his release of his tax records. He is entitled to everything under the law that permits him to do so. However, he is obliging to appease those who feel the need to see confidential information. Kind of like being unnecessarily strip seached at the airport. Using Warren Buffet as your spokesman is a convenient joke. The man is in the twilight of his life and doesn’t care about the ramifications of a sudden new change in tax laws. You can damn well believe he cared about the progressive tax system when he first started building his fortune.

It always boils down to the haves-and-the-have-nots in life. An age old complaint rooted in pure jealousy.

It is the Democrat Party that takes the Robin Hood argument to a new level and in an election year it is taken to ridiculous levels of sheer distasteful vitriol. A cheap form of trying to win a contest.

What you people should be doing is applying your elite circumspection to your leadership that has screwed up this country with irresponsible spending, borrowing, and government growing. Rather then tearing apart people who have plans to rectify the problems facing us you should know that your obstinate rejection is nothing more than throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

• Link
• Report this comment

In today’s world economy, I can see this type animosity biting folks in the butt……there are other options around the globe for investinf one’s money…….be careful what you wish for.

Folks that have money have it for a reason……they don’t make a habit of giving it away. Even the great Warren only pays what the law tells him to pay. Ever wonder why he employs an army to NOT pay taxes?

As for the belief system and ideologies…….since roughly half of those making millions want to pay more, I’d say they should go for it……50% of that money would certainly be better than 0%…..it that is what they truly believe. Bite the bullet for their convictions……….or not.

• Link
• Report this comment

Please don’t quote Warren Buffet unless you plan to point out he owes back taxes of over $1 Billion. It’s quite easy for Buffet to say he doesn’t mind a higher tax rate, the problem is he isn’t paying anything while disputing taxes back as far as 2004. Put up or SHUT UP!!!

As for Romney, because he didn’t physically earn the money is not a factor. His wealth was earned by risk taking and investing. He could have lost millions. While the jealousy and envy of Liberals runs rampant, hopefully their desire to inflict revenge via the tax code won’t come to fruition. After all this is Mitt Romney’s money NOT Jay Bookman, Barack Obama, nor Nancy Pelosi. Note Romney did make generous charitable donations, how much do your Liberal politicians donate? Let’s call on all those wealthy Liberals to release their tax returns, Pelosi, Feinstein, Rockfeller, Kerry, Kohl.

Obama’s class warfare and socialist agenda are dragging the country down. Instead of celebrating success he demeans it, attempts to demonize achievers. The country’s problem isntblacknof taxes, it’s too much spending.

• Link
• Report this comment

Cary Gershon

He likely has a good accounting firm doing his taxes. Fact is, there are very, very few vehicles left by which earned income, particularly if it’s not tied to an individuals’ business, can be diverted and escape taxation.

Which leads to another point. Much is made of the ’small businessman.’ I’ll put out (and don’t ask for a cite, it’s all based on what I’ve seen) that many of those folks cheat the system on a regular business. Taking the family out to dinner several times a week and writing it off as a business expense. Leasing cars for the spouse and kids and charging it to the business. That sort of stuff.

And I’d wager many of the tax cheats are sitting in the audience grumbling at Romney’s effective rate.

Which was arrived at without cheating.

• Link
• Report this comment

Anyway, speaking of goods and services of tangible value, I gotta go produce some without the distractions here. Later, kids.

• Link
• Report this comment

I wonder which generation of conservatives whites are the most dumbest and hateful? I think think this generation wins out

Exhibit A: td
Exhibit B: Recon
Exhibit C: Scout
Exhibit D: Kayaker

• Link
• Report this comment

Paul 9:29 as a small business owner I must say that you
have now quit preachin’ and and gone to meddlin’…

• Link
• Report this comment

Donovan

“Mitt Romney has nothing to be ashamed of in his release of his tax records. He is entitled to everything under the law that permits him to do so.”

I believe Jay said that. The issue is, is current tax policy what we should retain, especially as it facilitates the growing gap between very wealthy and average households?

• Link
• Report this comment

Barking, I comprehend enough to recognize ludicrous stupidity when I see it in print.

• Link
• Report this comment

“To say everything is dependent on labor is pretty ignorant.”

To deny it is even more ignorant. How much would invested money earn if the business is so poorly run that it loses it’s employees and can’t hire more? Invested money is invested in the LABOR done by the employees. No labor, no company…because no labor means no customers. And no customers means no company too.

• Link
• Report this comment

http://www.snopes.com/quotes/lincoln/prosperity.asp

• Link
• Report this comment

td
January 24th, 2012
9:09 am
If he spends all his money then he only has to pay sales tax on the money (7 or 8%) and if he saves the money and invest it then he should pay 35% on the money earned? Now with you logic why should a person invest their money in a capital invest company that creates jobs?

Would you still be making money on your investments? The argument that someone won’t invest in a moneymaking opportunity because of a few percentage points tax rate is bunk. If you can make money, there will be investors.

• Link
• Report this comment

I leave to eat breakfast and a whole host of interesting responses….

The capital gains rates are an enticement to put money back into the country.

Actually, that would be true if the rate were ONLY for investments made in this country. It’s not.

Let’s see… td does his usual personal attack that I tuned out. Okee-dokee….

scott yells: YOU don’t understand. It was taxed at the higher rate when he first EARNED it

And any profits he makes on that money — just the same as the profits he would make if he were to start his own business with it — should be taxed at personal tax rates. Why should the rate paid for starting your own business be less than the rate paid for investing in someone else’s business? Turns out I DO understand

• Link
• Report this comment

Bruno,

Thank you, I tried to state the same thing as you earlier, just not as eloquent. You have a better way with words.

• Link
• Report this comment

“Kerry’s wealth when he ran for POTUS which I am sure far surpasses Romney’s.”

Scott, you mean the wealth that Kerry earned when he married Teresa Heinz.

• Link
• Report this comment

I see the Republicans are back to defending Mitt’s tax rate. So that must mean they oppose Newt. But they just voted for him in South Carolina and the polls in Florida say they support him. Those poor Republican heads must really be straining. Essplosions imminent. Watch out!

• Link
• Report this comment

Recon

“you mean the wealth that Kerry earned when he married Teresa Heinz.”

In that case, he really did earn it!

• Link
• Report this comment

“To deny it is even more ignorant. How much would invested money earn if the business is so poorly run that it loses it’s employees and can’t hire more? Invested money is invested in the LABOR done by the employees. No labor, no company…because no labor means no customers. And no customers means no company too.”

and vice versa, thats why I said both investment and labor are necessary. Obviously you don’t understand that its a two way street.

• Link
• Report this comment

We have three men running for President. One has a billion dollar warchest to seek re-election. One makes over 40 million dollars in two years. Lastly, one has a credit limit of 500 thousand at Tiffany’s. The only thing they have in common is they know the suffering of the average American. This is like a reverse of Robin Hood. Take from the poor and give to the rich. I have a question for the three candidates. Why do they think Americans are mad as hell?

• Link
• Report this comment

“No labor, no company…because no labor means no customers.”

Might want to take the elevator down a few floors to the China discussion……there is no shortage of labor on this planet. And I wouldn’t hang my hat on the service industries either….not with the exponential explosion of technology.

• Link
• Report this comment

January 24th, 2012
9:31 am
“That is $6.2 million more then the bottom 47% paid combined.”

I smell poverty envy.

No, it is not poverty envy at all but rather being sick and tired of being punished by the government for playing the game of the life the correct way.

The top 50% of wage earners completed HS, knew when it was time to not party and instead go study and we knew that having children young and out of wedlock was a recipe for not becoming successful. We understood that you must get to work before you boss, go home after your boss. We understand that until you have worked on a job and proved your worth to an organization then it is better to keep your mouth shut and not piss your boss up. We know that you suck it up and work until you find a better situation and not just walk out the door.

Then when we start to get rewarded for all these many years of hard work, the government comes in and tells us that we must now pay for the people that chose not to make the same decisions because they were not as lucky as you or not given the best opportunities to succeed. We are told we must take care of the people that were the trouble makers in our classrooms in HS, we must take care of the people that slept during class all day because they were out all night partying. We must take care of the people that chose to go to a friends house or out at night instead of reading their text book. We must now take care of the person that decided to have unprotected sex and a baby or three without being married and without an education.

Now go ahead libs and tell us how you want your government to confiscate more of the money of the achievers to take care of the people that refuse to make the correct choices in life and refuse to work hard.

• Link
• Report this comment

“and vice versa, thats why I said both investment and labor are necessary. Obviously you don’t understand that its a two way street”

Certainly I understand it. But I can start a business and if I have enough customers so that I can live decently, there’s no need for me to seek an investor. I can do the work I’m hired to do, my customers are happy and I’m happy. I can have a labor based business and not require investment.

Investment would only be neccessary if I decided I wanted more customers than I can handle alone. I could, if I chose, seek an investor to help me HIRE MORE LABORERS to do the work for my customers.

It’s all based on labor and customers, investment is a sideline…not a neccessity. Because if my business is growing steadily, and I have enough demand for my company’s services, I could use my own money to slowly grow my company and not need outside investors at all. They are only needed if I want to grow my company faster than I can do it alone. But it’s STILL all labor based.

• Link
• Report this comment

Scott, you mean the wealth that Kerry earned when he married Teresa Heinz.

Would he be taxed at capital gains rates for that increase?

• Link
• Report this comment

So the natural conclusion to be drawn from your point, Jay, is that Romney’s tax records point up not so much what a Romney president would look like, but a Gingrich presidency.

It’s all an ink-blot test anyway. We see in our candidates what we want to see.

• Link
• Report this comment

“That is $6.2 million more then the bottom 47% paid combined.”

The top 50% of wage earners completed HS, knew when it was time to not party and instead go study and we knew that having children young and out of wedlock was a recipe for not becoming successful.

You do realize that there are people high up in that top 50% of wage earners who also belong to the 47% who end up with no fed income tax liability, right?

• Link
• Report this comment

For those who have the time to read, andrew sullivan lays it all out brilliantly-
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/01/15/andrew-sullivan-how-obama-s-long-game-will-outsmart-his-critics.html

• Link
• Report this comment

We live some 230 years after the French Revolution and yet there are people working day and night to reintroduce royal privilege back into modern society, namely through the worship of wealth.

This effort is a frontal assault on modern society and an attempt to roll it back wholesale.

• Link
• Report this comment

“most of Romney’s income was generated by doing nothing”

Running companies and making capital investment decisions is not “doing nothing”

Good grief

• Link
• Report this comment

@stands for decibels

January 24th, 2012
7:53 am
$6.2 million in taxes paid.

Who’ll be the first to say “that’s more than any of you Godless Librulz posting here so shut up with your wealth envy”?
**********************************************

You sound like a self righteous idiot.

No one evies your bourgesois morality or conscience.

Mitt Romney is in a highly privileged class of modern Capitalists. Typically composed of businessmen and others who derive their income from the labor of others. Known to take pride in affluence, spending heavily on luxuries.

Usually conservative and/or opposed to government taxation or other policies that are unfavorable to their profit flow.

• Link
• Report this comment

ByteMe: “It’s all an ink-blot test anyway. We see in our candidates what we want to see.”

Ink blot, really? A difference between a 13% tax on capital gains and nothing?

I don’t think so, ByteMe!

• Link
• Report this comment

“It’s all based on labor and customers, investment is a sideline…not a neccessity.”

Incorrect…….just opening the doors requires some form of “investment”……a business license for starters. Depending on the company, I don’t know very many where some form of investment is not necessary……

Can you name a few?

• Link
• Report this comment

Get rid of the corporate tax rate and raising capital gains tax rates is perfectly fine

• Link
• Report this comment

Tax Cheat: “Mitt Romney is in a highly privileged class of modern Capitalists. Typically composed of businessmen and others who derive their income from the labor of others.”

Forget deriving his income from the labor of others, that’s the work of pikers compared to what Romney does. He’s way past that. His income is derived purely from itself.

It’s like asexual reproduction in biology.

• Link
• Report this comment

md @ 10:05

I think she talking about outside investors and not the investment from the owner.

• Link
• Report this comment

“He didn’t. Was a passive income gain.”

Passive gain?? You mean there was no risk involved?

It can hardly be passive if one also stands to lose the entire investment…….

• Link
• Report this comment

Get rid of the corporate tax rate and raising capital gains tax rates is perfectly fine

Why aren’t corporate profits not paid to investors ok to avoid taxation? If I become a corporation, does that mean I can stash my wealth in the corporation until I repurpose it for my own use and then it gets taxed at a low rate (because I’ll figure out a way not to use very much of it all at once)?

• Link
• Report this comment

I watched an interesting piece on public television last night (I know… it’s a sure sign I’m getting old) about British “manor houses” during the Edwardian era. It highlighted the extreme discrepancy between the extravagant wealth of the aristocracy and the lives of their lowly servants, how this system was enforced and perpetuated, and how it eventually came crashing down on those who turned a blind eye to the consequences. (Example: a home’s ballroom drapes: equivalent of $3.5 million, kitchen maid’s salary for working 364 17-hour days: $28 a year.) No such thing as upward mobility, no matter how hard a peasant worked. The sinking of the Titanic became a glaring billboard for the inequities when only the privileged were privileged enough to get lifeboats, and then WWI resulted in such horrific casualties that the imperative to adhere to the established social structure quickly disintegrated.

It was easy to watch and think, “Gee, if they’d only treated their serfs a little more humanely, paid them a little more, and spent just a fraction less on their own jewelry and horses, things would have been so much better!” But they held to their “greed is our right” principles to their own eventual demise. They screwed the people they depended on in order to BE who they were, and they lost their empire. (Many had to marry rich Americans to keep their estates afloat. OH, the horror!)

Can we learn from history? Or will the rise of the American aristocracy at the expense of everyone else require widespread nastiness to rectify? Is a man with eight houses really BETTER than a man with no roof over his head? Does it have to be this way?

• Link
• Report this comment

Passive gain?? You mean there was no risk involved?

Since when does the word “passive” imply no risk? If you’re passive with your job, is there not a risk?

• Link
• Report this comment

So just out of curiosity. What happens to the economy if people like Romney and Buffett and other investors like that were to take their money out of the economy to avoid taxes? I mean, with no income you pay no taxes. So what happens then? I’m pretty sure they would be fine, but what about the economy? Do they serve a purpose in the economy too? Or do they just serve a purpose in that they’re good “cannon fodder” for political rhetoric?

• Link
• Report this comment

@Mick

January 24th, 2012
8:23 am
Blame it all on the non existent welfare queens-
******************************************************************

Blame it on the:

56% of WHITES get food stamps

24% of BLACKS get food stamps

14% of HISPANICS get food stamps

YEAH……………Put the blame where it belongs.

• Link
• Report this comment

It’s like asexual reproduction in biology.

only in this case, hundreds of millions still get screwed.

/drive-by

• Link
• Report this comment

“Can you name a few?”

I can name at least 2 family owned companies that are not publically traded. Since they are private, I have no way of knowing of, or if they have, an institutional investors:

S C Johnson
Cox Enterprises

• Link
• Report this comment

What happens to the economy if people like Romney and Buffett and other investors like that were to take their money out of the economy to avoid taxes? I mean, with no income you pay no taxes. So what happens then? I’m pretty sure they would be fine, but what about the economy? Do they serve a purpose in the economy too?

It means they would have no “income”, not no money. And they would have to spend some of their assets to live, so that money goes into the economy. 70% of the economy is consumer spending, NOT investment money. Eventually no income and their assets depleating, they would have to get a job (or not, if you’re as rich as they are). But that’s pretty much true of everyone.

As an aside: This is why a flat tax that takes more tax money from poor people is a really stupid idea… because it’ll cut into consumption from the very people whose consumption drives the economy.

• Link
• Report this comment

retired early@10:11

A. I didn’t know everyone who owned a home and claimed the Mortgage Interest deduction was rich.

B. I thought there was a $250,000 limit before you had to pay capital gains on your primary residence.

Perhaps St. Simons could help with this because this seems to be his area of expertise.

• Link
• Report this comment

Romney is “not going to pay more than the law requires, and I don’t fault him for that in the least. But I do fault a law that allows him and me earning enormous sums to pay overall federal taxes at a rate that’s about half what the average person in my office pays.”

You can’t fault Romney for the current law. But he’s running on proposals that would exacerbate the problem. He wants to make the Bush tax cuts permanent, including cuts to tax rates on unearned income.

Adding insult to injury, Romney wants to eliminate the inheritance tax. The argument that applies to taxing investments at the same rates as labor also applies to taxing inheritances at the same rates as labor. No source of income should receive special tax treatment, including income you lucked into by being born into a wealthy family.

• Link
• Report this comment

Joseph: “You failed to mention the $7 million of charitable giving that the Romneys donated”

Charity is voluntary, Joseph, and as they say, therein lies all the difference.

So from the standpoint of society as a whole, charity is essentially irrelevant.

I love this latest right wing meme to collapse the distinction between compulsory taxation and charity.

• Link
• Report this comment

@Matti

January 24th, 2012
10:09 am
I watched an interesting piece on public television last night (I know… it’s a sure sign I’m getting old) about British “manor houses” during the Edwardian era. It highlighted the extreme discrepancy between the extravagant wealth of the aristocracy and the lives of their lowly servants.

Can we learn from history? Or will the rise of the American aristocracy at the expense of everyone else require widespread nastiness to rectify? Is a man with eight houses really BETTER than a man with no roof over his head? Does it have to be this way?
******************************************************************************

This country suffers from SELF-RIGHTEOUS HEDONISM and social inequality.

Until we stop the class warfare between the haves and have nots it will always be that way.

• Link
• Report this comment

Fine. If you want a corporate tax rate, then you have to have a lower cap gains tax to be fair

No, that’s not where I’m going with it.

What I think is that there needs to be a corporate rate, but exclude money returned to investors… as long as investors are taxed at the nominal personal income tax rate on that money. THAT seems fair to me. Profits retained by the corporation still needs to be taxed, just so that they have an incentive to either return it to their investors or put it to work by purchasing capital equipment or additional labor.

• Link
• Report this comment

Steve

I am not suggesting that everyone that gets a mortgage deduction is “rich”. I am pointing out that there is “no cap” on the amount you can deduct. Kobe Bryant’s ex wife just got 3 mansions via their divorce totaling $18.8 million. These are all “tax shelters”.

• Link
• Report this comment

And all he can say for himself is that he paid all that was legally required. He doesn’t think that law can be changed, but does think that laws providing health insurance for millions who couldn’t get it before, should be “repealed.”

• Link
• Report this comment

All relative to scale………doesn’t change the need for “investment”.

True, but the owner’s investment could be “labor” as opposed to finances. Not necessarily the same for an outsider.

• Link
• Report this comment

Byteme

That’s not all crazy (although corporations should decide for themselves whether to invest, duh)

But the corporate tax code is a riddled mess. Better to scrap it and just raise cap gains taxes and dividends taxes

Money not taken out isn’t actual realized cash profit

So just taxing dividends and gains is perfectly rational

And eliminates a crapload of lobbying, waste, and stupidity

• Link
• Report this comment

Dog,

Not all companies use their investors money soley on labor.

• Link
• Report this comment

Warren Buffet sings to the Chinese people.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QBKwTSBBn7U

• Link
• Report this comment

And eliminates a crapload of lobbying, waste, and stupidity

You really think it’ll eliminate that much lobbying? If it’s not the tax code, it’s regulations or even foreign intervention. Lobbying is with us whether we like it or not. Best we can do is to shine a spotlight on it every time it happens by making every lobbyist contact with a politician public within 24 hours via the Internet. Heck, there could even be a new service for it, like Twitter. I’m sure the gang here could come up with a good web 2.0 name for it. All you need is a way from their phones for politicians to report every contact with a lobbyist and how much that lobbyist spent on them. 140 chars or less

• Link
• Report this comment

Byte :”That’s why it’s all an ink-blot test. We project on our candidates that which we want to see in them..”

It’s just another step down the road towards a purely cynical going-through-the-motion-ism as a substitute for anything resembling true participatory democracy, a euthanasia of the system if you will, carried out by technocrats. We’ve already seen this creep into the developed world from the Southern European periphery as Italy now effectively has a leader appointed by bankers in Brussels and Frankfurt.

I would suggest that we may not be as far away from having a presidency effectively decided at the Manhattan headquarters of Goldman Sachs as some might like to think. If you peel away all the pomp and pageantry of this political horse race, which the media plays up every 4 years, you can see that we’ve already gone a long way in that direction.

• Link
• Report this comment

Just think of all the extra “Obama phones” we could give to the poor if he paid more taxes! It’s just not RIGHT!!!

• Link
• Report this comment

do you kids “stomp” your feet when you go on these “its not fair” rants.. lol

• Link
• Report this comment

stands for decibels

January 24th, 2012
7:53 am
$6.2 million in taxes paid.

Who’ll be the first to say “that’s more than any of you Godless Librulz posting here so shut up with your wealth envy”?
_______________________________________________________________________________

Obviously, YOU are the first to say that.

Simple answers to simple questions and all that…

• Link
• Report this comment

For my love, PB:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5djkVhLjw18

• Link
• Report this comment

“most of Romney’s income was generated by doing nothing and allowing money to make money.”
Yes, that is true, but consider that money invested that earns dividends has ALREADY been taxed. If I earn a dollar, it is taxed, then AFTER tax, I can invest the remains of that dollar that will earn dividend income which is also taxed (though at 15% and not the higher rate).

“the tax code is making that gap worse.” True. Instituting a flat tax with no deductions would fix that.

Tonight’s state of the union address will be about income inequality. It is the wrong message. For a better explaination, and a better op-ed, read the following from David Brooks. This guy gets it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/24/opinion/brooks-free-market-socialism-.html?_r=2&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha212

It isn’t about beating down the rich, it should be about lifting up the non-rich.

• Link
• Report this comment

Somewhere here I thought I read Romney contributed a mil and a half or so to charity.

“Jan. 24 (Bloomberg) — Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney donated $7 million to charity in the past two years, more than the $6.2 million the candidate and his wife paid in federal taxes in that period, documents the campaign released show.

Romney and his wife, Ann, who jointly file taxes, gave $1.5 million cash in 2010 and $2.6 million cash in 2011 to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, the tax documents show.

In total, the Romneys donated about 16.4 percent of their adjusted gross income of $42.5 million in the two-year period, according to their 2010 tax returns and an estimate for 2011 taxes. The 2010 return shows $3 million in charitable contributions, and the 2011 estimate shows $4 million.”

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2012/01/24/bloomberg_articlesLYA8ZY6K50XT01-LYADC.DTL

I find that pretty amazing, especially with what we’ve read of his peers.

• Link
• Report this comment

Romney’s Tax Returns and Effective Tax Rates of the Rich

by Scott A. Hodge

Mitt Romney’s statement that he pays an effective tax rate of around 15 percent has generated a great deal of confusion over how much wealthy taxpayers actually pay in taxes and at what their “effective,” or average, tax rates are after credits and deductions. So it is helpful to review the latest data from the IRS for 2009. [Much of this is a reposting of a blog I wrote last September 21st.]

The table below shows that of the more than 140 million tax returns filed in 2009, roughly 237,000 reported adjusted gross incomes above $1 million. Those 237,000 returns had a combined income of $727 billion, about 10 percent of all the income earned that year.

After taking their credits and deductions, there were roughly 235,000 taxable returns that paid a total of $177.5 billion in income taxes that year. They had an average tax liability of $754,000. (There were 1,470 “millionaires” that had no U.S. income tax liability after credits and deductions.) Combined, these high-income taxpayers paid 20 percent of all the income taxes paid in 2009. That’s a greater share of the tax burden than what is paid by everyone earning under $75,000 combined.

The table also shows the average, or effective, tax rate that taxpayers in each income group pay. For the entire universe of American taxpayers, the average tax rate is 11 percent of our AGI. The highest average tax rate paid by anyone earning under $100,000 is 8 percent. That shows the power of the sundry tax credits available to the “middle-class.”

By contrast, millionaires pay an average rate of 25 percent. Although taxpayers earning between $2 million and $5 million pay an average tax rate of 26 percent, while those earning more than $10 million pay an average of 22 percent. We can speculate that one of the reasons for this is that much of their overall income comes from capital gains, which is taxed at 15 percent (only 20 percent of the total AGI for these $10 million-plus taxpayers is from salaries). However, even with this “preferential” tax rate on capital gains, the data clearly shows that their overall average tax rate is at least twice that of the nation as a whole.

Link
http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/27899.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TaxPolicyBlog+%28Tax+Foundation+-+Tax+Foundation%27s+%22Tax+Policy+Blog%22%29

• Link
• Report this comment

“I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.” Thomas Jefferson

“Corporations are people.” Mitt Romney

“Have you met my newest staffer, Marie?” Newt Gingrich

• Link
• Report this comment

Byteme

Yes, there would still be lobbying related to regulations

But the corporate tax causes tons and tons of lobbying

• Link
• Report this comment

@robo I disagree with your premise that tax policy ought to encourage/discourage individual activities. I do agree that the income tax has become a tool for doing just that, and I want it to stop. I do agree that the government should act as referee. But the rules need to consist of laws for preserving our freedoms and outlawing abuse, not cash incentives or disincentives for this or that economic behavior. And certainly not a tool for implementing rewards or punishments based on resentment, envy, or a desire to redistribute the rewards of effort from one person to another. P.S. nice to hear from you:-)

• Link
• Report this comment

Romney – $4.1 million to his church. I guess we know who paid for the “I am Mormon” commercials.

• Link
• Report this comment

Welcome to the Occupation:

So its much better that the gubmint forces you to give them money? Wow you freaks on the left make so much sense…..

• Link
• Report this comment

Jay has wealth envy…I am sure you make ten times more than some people in rural Georgia and south Atlanta…maybe you should donate what “you don’t need” to them. Lead by example Jay.

Hypocrite…

• Link
• Report this comment

Jm: “But the corporate tax causes tons and tons of lobbying”

Sheer nonsense, Jm. If that were true, then lobbying would have exploded into the stratosphere under the Republican Dwight Eisenhower, a time where top tax rates were in the 90+% range.

When Ronald Reagan came to Washington, lobbying was a fairly small-scale operation, with the total number of lobbyists in Washington numbering in the hundreds. But now, as tax rates have continued plummeting across the board in historical terms, we’ve seen an explosion of lobbying, with tens of thousands of lobbyists, armies of lobbyists proliferating in our political system.

So, want to try again?

• Link
• Report this comment

Steve – retired early – i get back to the screen when i can

a) silly, subjective question, rich – i get 1000/hr for subjective questions

b) true, only if you own 1 home, AND you’ve owned it more than 1 year.
(how many “rich” people fit that description? yeah)

all other items, “retired early” is pretty much on the money

with no addl information, that’s my first take

the accounting knowledge, i’ve said before, is astoundingly good
on this blog, except for one poster, who i believe is being
deliberately buffoonish. I’ll call BS if it warrants it.
Good show, both Steve & retired early.

• Link
• Report this comment

Donations to religious organizations should not be deductible on personal income tax and would have been ruled unconstitutional were it not the fact that 70% of Americans are “religious”. It is, in effect, a government subsidy.
Mitt was able to support his Mormon faith to the tune of 4 million dollars in one year alone. How the hell can that not be wrong.

• Link
• Report this comment

That’s the solution by those on the left, “just throw enough money into the system” and everything will improve by leaps and bounds.” How’s that been working? Believe it or not, money is not the solution to life’s(America’s) problems. Constantly being told it is, only distorts reality and creates class envy. “We just need more of the rich man’s dough.” It aint fair he’s rich and we’re poor! So we’ll just take it from him. Now with that attitude, try to sell staying in school and making something of yourself to a young gang member.

• Link
• Report this comment

All I hear is whining because Romney only pays 14% in taxes but no whining that the dems won’t pass legislation to fix it….

So you listened to Newt too. It’s just terrible the way he went on about Mitt’s low tax rate. Mitt’s a job creator after all.

• Link
• Report this comment

retired early: Mitt was able to support his Mormon faith to the tune of 4 million dollars in one year alone.

The Mormons in Utah took millions of dollars to California for the sole purpose of overturning the law the people had already voted on, allowing same-sex couples the same marriage rights as (the monogamous) Mormons enjoy. While it was very thoughtful of them to support the slanderous advertising industry with their donations, it does not seem right that such blatant political manipulations should be tax deductions for them as well.

• Link
• Report this comment

I have additional income, not remotely close to millions, generated as was the reported income of Mr. Romney. I earned the funds which were invested with its associated risk rather than spending it and paid taxes according to IRS directives. These monies were then available to others as loans to pursue legitimate objectives. Just because Mr.Romney invested a greater amount than I is not a logical acceptable reason to “confiscate”, a greater amount, note that he placed a much greater amount at risk. The same opportunity is and should be available to all and it is IF you are willing to place your money which has previously been taxed at risk. Vote all incumbent elected office holders OUT in the November, 2012, elections.

• Link
• Report this comment

Obama’s address tonight will be painful to watch/hear. He will no doubt talk about what direction he wants the country to go in and enforce his point will the “Buffett Rule” and other class warfare themes, while at no time actually promoting anything that is actually going to get our economy in the right direction.

• Link
• Report this comment

I agree with Jm (& most cons) on only two things – surfing – and
lower the Corp tax rate (only if you raise the other rates)
If you tax hoaded/hidden money harrrd, and lower the corp rate,
then you motivate money towards “activity.”
When it is more advantageous to activate money than to hoard it,
jobs (through company activity) will happen.

• Link
• Report this comment

Retired Early- “Mitt was able to support his Mormon faith to the tune of 4 million dollars in one year alone. How the hell can that not be wrong.”

Wow! Every church I know of practices benevolence to the poor. Can’t believe someone whould actually believe that is wrong to give “alot.” But I’m guessing if he gave that to the government you wouldn’t have a problem with it.Right? So it’s really just about the “freedom’ to give where you desire.Guess you would have been on England’s side in the revolution.

• Link
• Report this comment

Dog,

In the interest of discussion, what if I decide that I want to purchase an existing item to resell, let’s say a classic car. I don’t have enough money to purchase it, but I cajole an investor to help. We sell that classic car and make a profit. Where is the Labor? Let’s say I had a buyer, before I even purchased said vehicle and I didn’t even move the car (the goods) from the original owner’s property? We just flipped an asset – we didn’t produce anything.

• Link
• Report this comment

Talking Head: “Obama’s address tonight will be painful to watch/hear. He will no doubt talk about what direction he wants the country to go in and enforce his point will the “Buffett Rule” and other class warfare themes,”

As has been pointed out here endlessly, the only “class war” that there has been has been the one waged by the bankers and other big money interests against workers starting in the late 1970s. And that war is over – it was effectively won without a shot being fired. All that people like Obama are now doing is fighting over a few scraps in the mop-up operation. But the battle is over, as Warren Buffett has said.

Besides, I don’t understand your statement “while at no time actually promoting anything that is actually going to get our economy in the right direction”.

Have you not been following the economic figures of late? They’re moving “in the right direction”. Not fast enough. But they’re moving.

• Link
• Report this comment

Brosephus@11:13 “I’m guessing it’s for the very same reason that some here enjoy calling Obama by his middle name Hussein, even though he doesn’t use it.”

OK, Thanks. That’s what I suspected, their just being idiots.

• Link
• Report this comment

Matti

The Mormons are the same as all other religious fundamentalists:

1. They are the only ones going to heaven, they think
2. If you are not one of them, you’re going to hell
3. They love money
4 More than anything else, they excel at hypocricy.

• Link
• Report this comment

retired early – churches

yes, but I for one want to keep churches separate from state.
This comes from 1780’s, when it was common practice among the
villagers to donate wood, labor, wagons, etc toward the effort of
building a community church for the village. The leaders of the day
saw that as a public service for the good, and wanted to rightly
recognize those citizens for their contribution to the collective
good of the community. No one in that day envisioned gold-plated
jewelry, limousines, PACs, and 10 bil religious cable networks
that tried to influence elections.

Every year the cons allow that to stand, they are saying, “oh well
so much for my “righteous” stand, showw me da money, and we’ll
keep em separate” What principled cons we have.

• Link
• Report this comment

your side

• Link
• Report this comment

“Have you not been following the economic figures of late? They’re moving “in the right direction”. Not fast enough. But they’re moving”

Yes, I have. I see a lot of temp/seasonal job growth, low paying/minimum wage job growth. I also see more and more people taking themselves out of job market by essentially quitting looking for jobs, and roughly 50% of those who are unemployed have been for more than 40 weeks. We are still not done with this recession/depression, we are still waiting to bottom out.

• Link
• Report this comment

willard is willard’s real first name.

newton is the newt’s real first name.

.

• Link
• Report this comment

Talking Head: “Yes, I have. I see a lot of temp/seasonal job growth, low paying/minimum wage job growth. ”

That’s of course correct. But that’s systemic, not cyclical, and there is nothing – absolutely nothing — anywhere on the horizon of policy offerings by these two parties to address that structural fact.

We are still not done with this recession/depression, we are still waiting to bottom out

Ultimately, I share your pessimism. The post-Fordist, consumerist model of world capitalism will not work with immiserated workers who can only finance their spending through debt, if debt is only forgiven for the big bankers. It won’t work.

• Link
• Report this comment

“Have you not been following the economic figures of late? They’re moving “in the right direction”. Not fast enough. But they’re moving”

Yes, I have. I see a lot of temp/seasonal job growth, low paying/minimum wage job growth. I also see more and more people taking themselves out of job market by essentially quitting looking for jobs, and roughly 50% of those who are unemployed have been for more than 40 weeks. We are still not done with this recession/depression, we are still waiting to bottom out.

A case of one seeing the glass half full while another sees the glass half empty. Nevermind the fact that they are both looking at the same glass.

• Link
• Report this comment

@philosopher: You drew your own conclusion from what I said about encouraging capital investment. My real conclusion is that some incentive is required in return for risking capital in an economic endeavor; I prefer pure profit as the incentive, while the current system requires the addition of tax incentives to even make a profit in many cases because profit margins for many endeavors are so low–and that is bad. Your conclusion reveals an absurd, cartoonish understanding of economics, plus which it does not flow at all from my argument. Your hysterical nonsense reveals exactly why I don’t want a tax on income that suits the preferences of non-reasoning, very likely unproductive persons like yourself. See how easy (and therefore pointless) it is to take someone else’s statement to some absurd conclusion? I assume (hope with all my heart) that your screen name is not the same as your profession.

• Link
• Report this comment

“And willard had a Swiss bank account and offshore funds.

He is a tax cheat.”

No matter where he puts his money in the world, The US makes him pay taxes.

• Link
• Report this comment

“We sell that classic car and make a profit. Where is the Labor?”

Who produced that car that you we able to buy and sell? Labor produced it. No labor, no product.

• Link
• Report this comment

If freedom is the default of your gov’t philosophy the question should be “Why should wealth be taxed so much?” Other than Marxist policies against the bourgeois, I’d like to hear a reason.

• Link
• Report this comment

Jay,

I began reading that article you posted for me from the CRS and 10 minutes in I noted the article making a couple of broad based statements that were in direct conflict with general economic assumptions. Someone with a cursory knowledge of economics would realize after a few pages that this piece was written with an intended bias.

So I looked up the CRS to see what kind of work they do. Similar to the CBO they have to work with the parameters and assumptions given to them by Congress- which is why the CBO often ends up wrong. And as the article below points out it looks like this piece was written to bolster a congressman’s point of view.

If Twain were alive today he might be sorely tempted to change it to “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and Congressional Research Service reports.”

It would be overkill to condemn all Congressional Research Service reports because many contain unbiased and useful research. Indeed, since its founding in 1916, the Library of Congress’ Congressional Research Service has carefully nurtured its reputation as nonpartisan, independent and “above the fray.”
But far too often, the CRS and its staff members are at the mercy of lawmakers who request reports merely to buttress their own ideology. The reports are requested by members of Congress, who pretty much tell the CRS the parameters of the research being conducted and the specific questions to answer. If they want to engineer a report that strongly backs their viewpoint, it’s fairly easy to do.

When the CRS report is completed, it goes directly to the lawmaker, who then brandishes it at a press conference and cites it authoritatively.

It’s one of the most-loved ruses in Congress because it allows a politician with few facts on his side to enhance his arguments by citing a Congressional Research Service report that – voila! – is in complete agreement. Periodic efforts to reform this process have failed.

http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA276.html

• Link
• Report this comment

@Brosephus

January 24th, 2012
11:13 am
Why do do some people here love calling Romney Willard when he uses Mitt?

I’m guessing it’s for the very same reason that some here enjoy calling Obama by his middle name Hussein, even though he doesn’t use it.
**********************************************************

TOUCHE’

Kapow!

• Link
• Report this comment

I might have to become a Mormom . Maybe I can get a piece of the action.

• Link
• Report this comment

“why shouldn’t more affluent Americans also sacrifice in some way as well?” What the heck are you talking about Jay? Man you are ignorant and apparently envious with a hint of greed. You want more of what someone else earned, but you want the govt to do your dirty work for you. Pretty sad.

How much do you give to charity? What is your sacrifice for the common good? Shouldn’t you do more?

Typical Prog filled with envy and ignorance.

• Link
• Report this comment

gee….where’s my outrage…only $6.2 million

How is taxing him and the 1% more gonna fix the debt and deficit?

• Link
• Report this comment

md

That was the one I had in mind that doesn’t necessarily require the owner to invest any upfront capital.

• Link
• Report this comment

Welcom — “The attempt by some leftists to get back at the right by ridiculing Romney as “Willard” is a belated effort to strike at an enemy that has a big head start in that game.”

Oh, I don’t know. Seems like hitting hopeful Senator George Allen with that “Felix Macacawitz Allen” handle back a few years ago not only knocked him out of the race, it knocked him right out of politics.

FWIW, I think it’s juvenile and silly to use names like that (on any side of the political fence) but there’s not much I can do about it. I just think the political discourse is improved when we say things like “Speaker Boehner” and “President Obama” instead of ‘Orangeface Crybaby’ or ‘Jug-Eared Pretender.’ But that’s just me.

• Link
• Report this comment

matti — “You were misinformed on that. Many of us were disappointed that Kerry was the best the Dems could put up that year. This is not a new feeling, special to this year’s Repubs.”

Completely agree. I keep saying that this is 2004 all over again, but with the parties reversed.

• Link
• Report this comment

@AT

January 24th, 2012
11:37 am
If freedom is the default of your gov’t philosophy the question should be “Why should wealth be taxed so much?” Other than Marxist policies against the bourgeois, I’d like to hear a reason.

***********************************************************************************

You answered your own question.

Because they are bourgeois who are:

A wealthy, highly privileged class of modern Capitalists.

Typically composed of businessmen and others who derive their income from the labor of others. Known to take pride in affluence, spending heavily on luxuries.

Usually conservative and/or opposed to government taxation or other policies that are unfavorable to their profit flow.

• Link
• Report this comment

“No matter where he puts his money in the world, The US makes him pay taxes.”

False.

• Link
• Report this comment

Whats amazing is how these low, middle class poor whites rep are sticking up for Mitt, this man would not let these southern idiots come to his house, yet they are running around boosting about his millions he made off capitalism.

Could any conservative Georgian tell me what Newt has done for the state of Georgia? how many jobs has he brought to Georgia with his influence? yet these country poor middle class whites are bragging this wife cheater is one of their own, this approved behavior by the georgia conservatives hypocrites is the reason why other regions think Georgia southerners sleep with their cousins and a bumch of bible thumping hypocrites. wake up hypocrites conservatives you are not in this state along”””””

• Link
• Report this comment

“If the gap between the rich and the rest is growing larger — and it is — the tax code is making that gap worse.”

To answer your question first, Jay, wealth is taxed at a lower rate (1) to encourage investment, and (2) because in theory the wealth has already been taxed as income at the prevailing rate of income tax.

And, the tax code isn’t making the gap wider, it just isn’t destroying wealth at a rate to suit the tastes of the wealth-envious among us. High capital gains tax rates don’t just penalize the wealthy – they penalize or impact the vast majority of citizens directly or indirectly.

For the wealth-envious, wealthy people are destined to die just like all of us and the ownership interests in their fortunes will be distributed over time. In the meantime, there are far better tax, spending, and debt policy options than raising capital gains tax rates; the left is unwilling to cut Federal spending in meaningful ways, unwilling to embrace consumption tax policy options, unwilling to undo the tangle of tax incentives and Federal subsidies, and bent on hurtling us into oblivion and subjucation with debt and monetary policy. Add in their unholy alliance with big bankers and Wall Street and international corporations operating far outside of the interests of the American taxpayers and there is nothing at all compelling about the arguments of the left.

• Link
• Report this comment

get,

““87% of Americans pay less than what Romney pays in taxable income.”

False,you are batting .000.”

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2012/01/19/media-myth-debunked-97-percent-americans-pay-less-romneys-15-percent

• Link
• Report this comment

Mama says

How is it you don’t know what the word “hyprocisy” means?

• Link
• Report this comment

And, the tax code isn’t making the gap wider…

Then I respectfully submit the obvious question, what is?

• Link
• Report this comment

Dawgdad

Unfortunately neither of those are really true

Investing time or money should be taxed equally

Instead, it is all over the damn board depending on a huge number of things

The tax code needs a huge rewrite

• Link
• Report this comment

Willard’s money CAME FROM NOT WORKING.

It came from Bain profits.

Why shoud anyone be envious of ill gotten gains.

• Link
• Report this comment

Well, I’m late getting on here on account they made me work this morning. It’s awful when you almost don’t have time to blog and they make you work. One day I’m going to ask the people on this blog how it feels to just be able to fire away at somebody without having somebody standing over you.

Anyhow, while I was hauling and lugging I was thinking how nice it would be to finish your taxes and realize you got $38 million to spend in the next two years. I think after I got the new double-wide and moved into a gated community, I’d hire Bruno and Doom to peel and seed grapes for me and keep them so busy they wouldn’t have the runs at the keyboard and other people could get some words in edgewise.

Anyhow, the debate last night was kinda interesting. I never seen people smile like that while they were taking a knife to the other fellow. Now I just wish this Ron Paul would go back to the asylum and Sanitorium would get a honest job and stop boring us. Then we could see some real fireworks.

It’s lunchtime so I’ll munch on some beenie weenies and try and catch up with what everybody here has said so far. Have a good lunch everybody.

• Link
• Report this comment

“Typically composed of businessmen and others who derive their income from the labor of others. Known to take pride in affluence, spending heavily on luxuries. ”

And this fuels the economy to provide the luxury products and services. Consumption taxes fund State and Local governments.

• Link
• Report this comment

“th,

99% don’t hide their millions in offshore accounts.”

get,

ok, the money that is deposited in offshore accounts is subject to US tax.

• Link
• Report this comment

“The tax code needs a huge rewrite”

Your party fights for lower taxes but the loop holes are failure for them doing their jobs to close them.

It is corporate welfare and your party will never fix it.

• Link
• Report this comment

#Erwin’s cat

January 24th, 2012
11:44 am
gee….where’s my outrage…only $6.2 million

How is taxing him and the 1% more gonna fix the debt and deficit?

****************************************************************************************

Income. DUH

This is income that the government will receive from taxpayers that will help fix debt and deficit..

• Link
• Report this comment

Here’s your “Middle Class” Candidate (snarc) http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/assets/money%20shot.jpg

• Link
• Report this comment

$45 Million and has the nerve to tell yall “I’m Also Unemployed”…LOL

CONs are so gullible.

Both parties push candiates that claim to understand the problems of the everyday people. When was the last time you saw an “everyday” person running for a major office?

• Link
• Report this comment

Jay, I agree with you completely here.
But I can’t help but wonder: Why is this such a big deal with Romney, and yet nobody ever said a damn thing about Ted Kennedy and his family’s enormous capital gains income every year? And when John Kerry only released information about HIS income, without any information about his wife’s enormous capital gains income, nobody said a peep.

• Link
• Report this comment

And, the tax code isn’t making the gap wider…

DawgDad second request:

Then I respectfully submit the obvious question, what is?

Also, I would be interested in answers from Talking Head, Mysty, 62, Mama, Doom adn any others with thoughts. (presuming that they agree with DD…)

• Link
• Report this comment

willard connects well with the establishment and the 1 %. He is a elitist and tax cheat like the rest of the 1 %

Out of touch with the rest of the American people.

The newt is seizing on this fact but he lobbied for bailed out freddie.

So, the gop fight is a 1 % elitist and his lobbyist.

The gop deserve to lose.

• Link
• Report this comment

Mitt:” I feel the American worker pain” of course you do $45 million will make you fell anything.
The previous generation did not vote for his dad, yet this generation of rep has him as the favorite, like I said earlier this generation of rep conservative are much more dumber then the previous generation of rep.

• Link
• Report this comment

Jay – “why would it be such a terrible idea to end the Bush tax cuts”

You know the tax rates enacted by Bush expired already, Jay. Stop lying to the people about that.

And be honest, you don’t really want anything to do with Bush’s tax decisions, you want the Obama tax increase on rich people and you’ve selected the 39% rate because it sells well with your “blame Bush” rhetoric and gets your base of sheep all riled up. If Obama wants to raise taxes on wealthy people, he needs to grow a pair, propose it, defend it, sell it, own it, and leave Bush out of it. He did leave office 3 years ago, you know…

• Link
• Report this comment

Poor rb,

He cries about attacking his hero w.

He was a disaster.

Admit it.

Man up son.

• Link
• Report this comment

stands for decibels

January 24th, 2012
12:18 p

lol

• Link
• Report this comment

GM – I challenge you to make a post that doesn’t wreak of bigotry

• Link
• Report this comment

Jay, not one mention that he gave away 16% of his income to charities of his choice. Libs are overlooking this every way they can. Did you or anyone on here give away 16%? That plus his taxes sums up to around 30% (I know you could figure that one out), half of which to the useless, wasteful government pockets.

• Link
• Report this comment

Brosephus,

“When was the last time you saw an “everyday” person running for a major office?”

I was actually reminded of that yesterday when I heard about Rand Paul and his run in with TSA. Then Ron Paul jumping on it and condemning the TSA.

Well guess what, that is what millions of Americans go through…but feathers get ruffled when it is a Congress-critter. The Marquise de Pompadour would be proud.

• Link
• Report this comment

GM,
Really? You think Obama earned his money the honest way? Didn’t you see that his tax returns were released, too? He and Michelle earned a paltry 1.8 million–poor Obabma? The annual pay for a president of the U..S is not quite a half million, so what are you thinking…..he has a second job to earn that extra million-plus the honest way? He’s a millionaire just like all those other “capitalists” that the left loves to hate.

• Link
• Report this comment

“When was the last time you saw an “everyday” person running for a major office?”

How about “the rent is too damn high” candidate?

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=the+rent+is+too+damn+high+candidate&qpvt=the+rent+is+too+damn+high+candidate&FORM=VDRE#

• Link
• Report this comment

So if I am to use the side of some of these bloggers that investment income should be taxed at a lower rate or no rate at all because the money used in that has already been taxed, why do I have to pay a high tax rate on my gambling profits? Aren’t the risk the same? And why should I pay sales tax on anything, the money I spent has already been taxed? You can’t have your cake and eat it too!

• Link
• Report this comment

Jay:
It’s hilarious to watch middle and lower economic class Republicans supporting, and fawning over, the likes of Romney, many out of their bigotry and racist tendencies. Blinded by their bigoted hatred of the President, they vote against their own self-interest. I picture these pathetic people kneeling aroung the supper table of the 1% waiting for crumbs and scraps to be tossed to them.

• Link
• Report this comment

Gator: That’s a very bigoted (elitist?) view of middle and lower class Republicans.

• Link
• Report this comment

Here’s a guy that gave over 7 million dollars to charity and you have these sick liberals bashing him for it. These liberals don’t give back a dime and sit here and bash somebody like Romney. How pathetic.

• Link
• Report this comment

Dog,

The labor to build that car is irelevant to me, because number one, it was 50 years ago and two, our business didn’t provide the labor to build it. It was already existing.

• Link
• Report this comment

Obama gave 1% to charity and Romney gave 15%. Who is more giving?

• Link
• Report this comment

So raise the capital gains tax and kill overall investment: did Romney not pay 35-37% on the original money before he invested it to risk losing money but instead made money….and then paid capital gains tax again….I think your comparisons are grossly misleading Jay

• Link
• Report this comment

JB, typical lib position. How much was Romney (or any other person) taxed on the original “earned income”? Then they get taxed AGAIN on the returns on their investment = double taxation! Great idea you have there, tax investment income at the same rate as earned income and let’s just see what happens to the investments in this country. By the way, there are millions of “investors” not in the 1% that would get double taxed at a higher rate – typical liberal bs without the facts – just emotion!

• Link
• Report this comment

GR – when you really dig deap down, you absolutely know the reason anybody invest in anything, is purely for the profit they can make. If the money made from investing, after paying taxes (no matter what the taxes are) outweigh any other investment, people will still make the investment. The only way investors would not invest in companies is if there is another way to make a higher profit. If you could make more money with the same risk buying property, you would. We all know that isn’t happening though don’t we. If all the investors REALLY cared about this country and not the pure profit they can make, they would only invest in companies that are in this country, made in this country and sold in this country. So let’s all be realistic. To say companies won’t hire anybody if their taxes go up is BS. A compnay will hire as many people they have to if it makes their bottom dollar go up. Same with investors. If they can make a buck they will and I’m not saying there is anythign wrong with it. I am saying the argument that people will not invest or hire if they pay more in taxes is BS. The carrot at the other end is profit, and that is what drives investing and jobs.

• Link
• Report this comment

@philosopher: I took great care with what I wrote. Your response created a straw man conclusion then held it up for ridicule. That’s the classic technique of someone who can’t refute the actual argument. I’m very comfortable taking the “heat” from my fact-based assertion that a) capital allocation is valid and worthy work; and b) as with any other work, it requires an incentive; and c) that incentive can be either pure profit or (sadly, in the income redistribution environment in which we live) profit plus tax incentives.
Now, without recourse to fantasies about rich people or investors getting into a snit and taking their ball home and/or becoming firefighters (your straw men), do you care to refute the facts about capital formation and allocation? I won’t hold my breathe…

• Link
• Report this comment

A Tax Cheat or A Wife Cheat (Is this the Best Republicans Have To Offer?)
January 24th, 2012
11:45 am
If you are black you better think twice about it.

Mormons believed that blacks were cursed.
_____________________________________________________________________________

And democrats believed it was ok to lynch blacks.

Using YOUR logic, they still do because NOTHING EVER EVER changes.

• Link
• Report this comment

@robo: Could you possibly separate your concerns on the expense/environment side of things (health care, global warming, etc.) from the income side? That is, would it be possible for you to advocate government intervention in all those areas without requiring that that intervention be funded with an income tax? Just curious, because it is very common for a discussion of funding mechanisms to turn into a discussion of spending policies and “caring” (which you also brought up). This makes it seem as if you are justifying confiscating someone’s income for the sake of the common good. But you do know, don’t you, that whatever is agreed to be the common good, by enough people, can be funded without an income tax?

I should also point out that this whole discussion reveals the sickness engendered by the income tax. The existence of the income tax has led to the public and political opponents clamoring to see every candidates’ tax return–what ought to be his private information about his personal life. Then, when the information is freely given, the candidate is bashed about the head with the same information. Not even a 1-day pause to gently thank him for releasing the information, but instead a full-throated roar of resentment and envy of his means of earning the money, and of the tax rate he was subjected to.

• Link
• Report this comment

@Erwin’s cat

January 24th, 2012
12:16 pm
Tax Cheat – Duh??….try again, take all of the 1%’ers wealth and you have effectively fixed nothing.
************************************************************

DUH. Every little bit helps.

• Link
• Report this comment

and what you misleading lefties keep on failing to mention is that the 15% dividend tax rate needs to be computed AFTER the corporate tax rate has been allocated. In other words, for most companies (other than Obama pal GE), when they make profits they pay taxes on those profits. after those taxes are taken out, and after taxes paid for income tax and other taxes and costs, THEN the money can be distributed as dividends. so for every dollar that romney made, it was taxed several times before.

• Link
• Report this comment

@AT

January 24th, 2012
1:49 pm
Tax Cheat @ 12:50:

I said “other than Marxist policies”. I understand that capital is an evil under Marxism. I was asking for any other reason. (I didn’t really think I’d get an endorsement for Marxism.)
*****************************************************

12:50???????????????? Huh?

• Link
• Report this comment

From the USA today, CEOs raking in 50M and up on the rise.
Boy that Obama with his socialist ways and regulations on big business for hiring is really hurting America.
This is why conservatives rep voters are a bunch of puppet idiots, do they read or reseach before backing these millionaires””””’

• Link
• Report this comment

GM,
Seriously? So, the CEOs that brought their companies through one of the worst recessions EVER should not be rewarded? The investors that kept their money in those companies while the economy tanked (where it was safer to put in savings accounts) should not be rewarded? Why not take a look at all the Fortune 1000 companies and see what their CEOs did to keep those companies afloat and in business. Prior to the Great Depression, a lot of people with money, including the owners of business, simply quit, shuttered the companies, and declared corporate bankruptcy. All the while, they put their money in places that didnt keep companies afloat and people employed. Now, when companies battle through these past several years, trying to maintain some corporate profit to keep their stocks afloat (which keeps peoples IRAs and investment accounts afloat), you want to chide them for their effort.

you are truly pathetic and small. no wonder you are a liberal. Congratulations, you must have figured out long ago that you have neither the smarts nor the work ethic to become wealthy. Just dont ruin it for the rest of us who are either smart or not afraid of taking risks.

• Link
• Report this comment

@yepper

January 24th, 2012
2:59 pm
A recent ABC news report shows that conservatives are more likely to give money to charity and blood to the local Red Cross. In other news, liberals are more likely to give away other people’s money.
***************************************************

That sounds like another REPUBLICAN lie which Republicans are notorious for.

When Republicans don’t have anything rational to say they just make up LIES.

That’s one problem you won’t have to worry about someone giving away your money.

I doubt that you have any to give away.

• Link
• Report this comment

@yepper

January 24th, 2012
3:46 pm
if i make it, it will be because i did it. if i dont, it will be because i dont. i dont try to blame others for what i think my life should be.
*********************************************************

Who do you know that wake up everyday saying I BLAME others for what I think my life should be?

NAME ONE.

You sound like an idiot.

• Link
• Report this comment

@yepper

January 24th, 2012
3:17 pm
you are truly pathetic and small. no wonder you are a liberal. Congratulations, you must have figured out long ago that you have neither the smarts nor the work ethic to become wealthy. Just dont ruin it for the rest of us who are either smart or not afraid of taking risks.
*******************************************************************

Idiot ALERT @3:17 p.m.

• Link
• Report this comment

@yepper

January 24th, 2012
4:08 pm
A tax cheat – yep, another lie from the bastion of conservative thought, ABC!! insert sarcasm at your own risk.
***********************************************************************************

A bastion of conservative rhetoric and gobbledygook.

• Link
• Report this comment

Jay, you must have slept through your economics classes, if you took any to begin with. If you discourage capital formation, things do not happen (like Cuba, for instance). This has been proven with increases and decreases to the capital gains tax through the years. If the equation goes bad, the taxable event never happens, and the geniuses in government (Obama and his minions) collect zero. Remember, the Supreme Leader has increased our deficit so much that you can not collect enough to fix it anyway. That is what the Fed is for (monetize the debt). Anyone can drive their tax rate to zero if they buy enough tax credits (government sponsored program to subsidize low income housing, etc.) I hope this has been helpful.

• Link
• Report this comment