Hello again,

I can't find the thread where we were discussing Romney and his taxes, so I thought I'd start another one...

He's FOOLING you, and you're BUYING it... He SAYS capital gains taxes should be eliminated because the capital was ALREADY taxed at the 35% corporate rate. He said that on 60 minutes. I heard him. He's said it before... Right wingers help SPREAD the lie.

Here's the deal. It AIN'T difficult... IF Romney had NOTHING in his account at the beginning of the year, and he EARNED, let's say $50,000, it would have been taxed WHEN he earned it. Now, lets say he put that $50 K into a CD that pays 10% a year... That means he's going to have $5,000 MORE dollars at the end of the year than he STARTED with, and THAT $5,000 has NOT been taxed AT All, no matter HOW many times Romney says it was.

It's simple ARITHMETIC. As we learned during the DNC, the Republicans are mathematically deficient. Fortunately, I'm here to SAVE the world from Romney, so I thought you should know...

You're WELCOME.

excon

So you're buying into Harry Reid's denial, eh? I don't know all that much about financial bean counting but I do believe capital gains are a whole different banana than "interest income" from a CD. No?

I don't know all that much about financial bean counting but I do believe capital gains are a whole different banana than "interest income" from a CD. No?Hello again, Steve:

Interest income CAN be capital gains, but I should have used a better example... Let's say he took the $50,000 and bought stock, and the stock increased in value by 10%, and he sells the stock, THAT is the capital gain, and THAT gain has NOT been taxed, as Romney would have you believe.

Look... If he wants to lower the capital gains taxes because he believes they stymie investment, then let him SAY so. But, I'm not keen on him LYING about it. Are you?

excon

Yeah let's disuade people from investing by taxing them more ! Good plan

yeah let's disuade people from investing by taxing them more ! good planHello tom:

So, you don't want to talk about the lie. I don't blame you. If my guy LIED like that, I'd try to change the subject too.

excon

I think all taxes are double taxed since the income tax became the law of the land . Sales tax is double tax etc. The problem is not the Cap gains rate or the sales tax rates ;it's income taxes that are the problem. But that's just me and my 19th century thinking again.

I have to agree with tom, shocker I know, but I think you'd be hard pressed to find a dollar that hasn't already been taxed to death. I bet you're going to jump on the Hillary global tax on the wealthy (http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/hillary-clinton-pushes-global-tax-elites_653011.html) bandwagon, aren't you?

Wait until the Obots introduce a VAT if we are unfortunate to have them around a 2nd term.

what is it you don't understand about income, profits and gains. If you buy property and you later sell it at a profit you have a capital gain, if you invest your money in interest bearing securities and earn interest you have earned income, if you sell those securities at a profit you have a capital gain, if you are paid salary, wages or bonuses you have income.

Someone thought it was a good idea these situations should attract a different rate of tax, some silly argument about personal exertion which is really a way of saying if there is sweat attached then we will tax it more, Along the way someone got the idea there was income that isn't being taxed and so you have sales tax. If it moves tax it, if it stands still tax it, if it dies tax it. What part of this equation don't you understand

what is it you don't understand about income, profits and gains. If you buy property and you later sell it at a profit you have a capital gain, if you invest your money in interest bearing securities and earn interest you have earned income, if you sell those securities at a profit you have a capital gain, if you are paid salary, wages or bonuses you have income.

Someone thought it was a good idea these situations should attract a different rate of tax, some silly argument about personal exertion which is really a way of saying if there is sweat attached then we will tax it more, Along the way someone got the idea there was income that isn't being taxed and so you have sales tax. If it moves tax it, if it stands still tax it, if it dies tax it. What part of this equation don't you understand

The part where you don't think it needs to change.

wait until the Obots introduce a VAT if we are unfortunate to have them around a 2nd term.Hello again, tom:

Is that before, or after he rounds up all the guns?

Bwa, ha ha ha.

excon

It isn't me that floated the balloon.
Obama: Value-added tax a 'novel' idea for the U.S. - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room (http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/93599-obama-value-added-tax-a-novel-idea-for-the-us)
Obama: VAT May Be A Revenue Option, Spending Cuts First (VIDEO) (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/21/obama-vat-may-be-a-revenu_n_547237.html)

What's wrong with this picture?

A rich guy who hides money, and doesn't take all his deductions because it would look bad for a guy making 13 million to to be paying 10% in taxes and is planning on getting even a bigger cut and want to be president and set tax policy the whole country?

And you claim your NOT loony??

What's wrong with this picture, criticizing a guy for being successful and not taking all the deductions available while paying nearly 40 percent of his AGI over 20 years in taxes and charitable contributions? Not to mention all those times he sacrificed personally for friends, neighbors, veterans...

Sounds good on paper, but why not answer questions and explain a few things like UBS?

2011 UBS rogue trader scandal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_UBS_rogue_trader_scandal)

UBS Tax Scandal: Romney?s tax dodging exposed? // Current TV (http://current.com/community/93873333_ubs-tax-scandal-romney-s-tax-dodging-exposed.htm)

Come on man, hiding money in the Caymans and Switzerland is a classic dope dealer move, and wouldn't you want to know all about his money before you elected him? About his dealings with Cnooc?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_National_Offshore_Oil_Corporation

I mean you tell me how you get a hundred million in an IRA that has a max contribution limit of $5000?

IRA Contribution Limits 2011 (http://www.ira.com/contribution-limits-2011)

I fail to see how the Wikipedia article has any relevance and crap manufactured in the Current community is hardly a source of reliable info. A better question is why no one is the least bit curious about digging into Obama bundler Jon Corzine's role in the missing $1.2 BILLION in investor funds.

Fine with me, but grab Anne too!

Romney's Wife Had $3 Million in Secret Swiss Bank Account Through 2010; Not Reported in Federal Disclosure Forms naked capitalism (http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/02/romneys-wife-had-3-million-in-ubs-unit-closed-for-helping-us-citizens-evade-taxes.html)

Fine with me, but grab Anne too!!

Romney’s Wife Had $3 Million in Secret Swiss Bank Account Through 2010; Not Reported in Federal Disclosure Forms naked capitalism (http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/02/romneys-wife-had-3-million-in-ubs-unit-closed-for-helping-us-citizens-evade-taxes.html)

"A campaign spokeswoman said Thursday that Romney will file amendments to both his 2007 and 2011 financial disclosures to correctly identify the bank account."

Well there you go. Happy?

You do remember how many Obama nominees and other Democrats like good ol' Charlie Rangel had tax issues. Just like Ron Kirk, Hilda Solis, Tom Daschle, Nancy Killefer and of course the guy running the Treasury of all things, Timothy Geithner.

Eric Cantor said it best a few years back, "It’s easier for the other side to advocate for higher taxes because you know what? They don’t pay ‘em.”

Your side just doesn't like successful Republicans, you're just fine with your own über-wealthy, greedy, tax dodging sleaze bags.

Tax Topics - Topic 409 Capital Gains and Losses (http://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc409.html)

Considering that Romney doesn't have close to the combines wealth of the Kerry /Heinz fortune ;I find the hypocrisy here amazing . The Heinz fortune alone was over a half billion dollars . Kerry's returns revealed that he paid a slightly lower effective rate than the Romneys .I never heard the left accuse him of being a greedy bass turd . I guess that's because he was so willing to contribute other peoples money to charity . He certainly didn't pay charity himself. 2 of the 5 years he released had zero charitible contributions . Kerry's 1991–1995 charitable contributions were ($0, $820, $175, $2039, $0), less than one-half of one percent of his
Income for the period. In contrast, George W. Bush gave($28,236, $31,914, $31,292) in 1991–1993. The President's effective tax rate is slightly over 20 % .But he gave less that 1% is charity .

Tom you have missed the debate, the question isn't whether Romney pays a lesser tax rate than any other candidate, but whether he pays a fair share of tax relative to others. You see Tom he is proposing tax cuts from which he will benefit so he is fair game. Romney might benefit from charitable donations, but he might also benefit from offshore accounts, where as those whose support he seeks cannot do what he does.

We have seen your views Tom you would impose a tax on lower income people they are not subject to now, not a good look

Ryan to Ohio Woman Re Welfare: "Teach a man to fish & you feed him for a lifetime. Don't feed fish." - Democratic Underground (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021421247)

Great advice!!

Tom you have missed the debate, the question isn't whether Romney pays a lesser tax rate than any other candidate, but whether he pays a fair share of tax relative to others. You see Tom he is proposing tax cuts from which he will benefit so he is fair game. Romney might benefit from charitable donations, but he might also benefit from offshore accounts, where as those whose support he seeks cannot do what he does.

We have seen your views Tom you would impose a tax on lower income people they are not subject to now, not a good look

He has less than 1 % of his assets in foreign accounts. I bring up the comparison because the Dems didn't get their panties in a wad over Kerry's effective tax rate ;or the fact that the Kennedy family had most of their money in foreign accounts.

Hey Tom I know how to fish, do you, I know what a spade is for, what an axe is for, do you?You want to argue whether various candidates have a tax bill what I say is show me whether they can get their hands dirty. Someone wants to say I pay tax, I support charities, what I say is how much did it hurt, did it stop you eating?

You want to say he only has a small percentage in offshore accounts and I say why does he have any, and how much did he have over time? The issue isn't the degree but the question of substance over form. Why should the Dems question their own candidates, that is your job. But you didn't think of it, did you?

I see nothing particularly wrong with having money overseas. It's his property . If he or anyone else can get a better deal then why not ? Did he violate any laws ? No . Therefore he paid his share under our system. Want to change it ? Fine... a flat tax is the trick .

Hello again, tom:

I agree with you... I see nothing particularly wrong about having money in the Caymans. But, the average American taxpayer DOES. It's NOT a matter of whether he cheated or not.. It's a matter of whether it LOOKS like he cheated, and it does. Personally, I think avoiding taxes is a very patriotic thing to do... Evidently Romney thinks so too.

But, again, tom, it's the PERCEPTION that counts - NOT the reality...

For me, it's deeper than that, though. If he DIDN'T know how the average American taxpayer views tax havens, then he SHOULD have. That's a fatal error.. It shows that he's out of touch with the common man... He had PLENTY of time to rectify it. He didn't... It doesn't matter HOW much money he made or how many jobs he created/shipped off. It LOOKS like he cheated on his taxes, and people don't like that.

excon

Ryan to Ohio Woman Re Welfare: "Teach a man to fish & you feed him for a lifetime. Don't feed fish." - Democratic Underground (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021421247)

Great advice!!!!

"the zombie-eyed granny-starver from space?"

Yeah, your side is all about peace, love and bringing Americans together. At least Ryan knows how many states are in the republic.

What does don't feed the fish mean to a person who works two jobs and still needs welfare?

How can it be in the land of opportunity that you could work two jobs and still need welfare.
A in this time when jobs are scarse, how do you get two jobs?
B. if you have an income why do you need welfare?

This statement, as Tal implies, means there is something wrong with the system

Good tag team action ! Tal constucts the strawman and Clete knocks it down

Hey, I just quoted the your guy and wanted a translation as to what the hell he was talking about. You don't know either huh?

good tag team action ! Tal constucts the strawman and Clete knocks it down


Tom, you obviously believe in not feeding the fish. I think it is code.

Tut

Even Jesse Jackson understood it . He often quoted this famous proverb . "Give a man a fish, you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime."
What progressives believe is that if a man won't fish for himself ;give him food stamps for fish.

What progressives believe is that if a man won't fish for himself ;give him food stamps for fish.Yes, that's EXACTLY what progressives (whatever they are) think. You nailed it!!

What progressives believe is that if a man won't fish for himself ;give him food stamps for fish.Hello again, tom:

It IS true... The 47% are moochers. It's ALSO true, that THAT idea will be discarded into the dustbin of history when your party is PURGED of that kind of out of step thinking... That'll happen AFTER being defeated in the LANDSLIDE that awaits you.

excon

Hey, I just quoted the your guy and wanted a translation as to what the hell he was talking about. You don't know either huh?

At least he can speak without a teleprompter.

At least he can speak without a teleprompter.Hello again, Steve:

And he'll be welcome on the has been circuit after he's defeated in the landslide that awaits him.

Bwa, ha ha ha.

excon

At least he can speak without a teleprompter.Romney uses teleprompters.. a lot.

romney teleprompter - Google Search (http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&sugexp=les%3B&cp=10&gs_id=t&xhr=t&q=romney+teleprompter&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&biw=1024&bih=615&wrapid=tljp1348839069120018&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=oaZlUK_zJuaB0AGPu4EI&safe=active)

Romney uses teleprompters.. a lot.

romney teleprompter - Google Search (http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&sugexp=les%3B&cp=10&gs_id=t&xhr=t&q=romney+teleprompter&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&biw=1024&bih=615&wrapid=tljp1348839069120018&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=oaZlUK_zJuaB0AGPu4EI&safe=active)

I'm sure they all do, but I was referring to Ryan. Try to keep up.

I'm sure they all do, but I was referring to Ryan. Try to keep up.
Oh, so your comment is really irrelevant if they all do.

At least he can speak without a teleprompter.

So could Sarah Palin, but the question is what the hell did he say? Why can't I get an answer to that?

Oh, so your comment is really irrelevant if they all do.

Not at all. Some use it as a tool, others a crutch... because there is no POTUS without TOTUS.

Again try to keep up.

but the question is what the hell did he say? Why can't I get an answer to that?Hello tal:

I heard him say that he LOVES the 47% because he made sure the poor in his state were covered by health insurance... The base loved that. I also heard him say that he's going to KEEP the parts of Obamacare that everybody LIKES, but the mandate (how the law is PAID for) has got to go...

Hmmm... Sounds familiar... He wants the GOOD STUFF, but let the future generation PAY for it... Haven't we been here before?

excon

Not at all. Some use it as a tool, others a crutch...I see, you get to decide if it's a tool or a crutch, right?
I'm keeping up with you, it's hard but I'm trying!

So could Sarah Palin, but the question is what the hell did he say? Why can't I get an answer to that?

Ah, now that I've seen the actual video instead of the 'transcript' you provided it's quite simple.

"Teach a man how to fish he can feed himself for a life, don't simply feed fish."

There was no gaffe and it's easily understood - don't just (simply, the word omitted from your quote) give a man a fish, help him to help himself for life.

France is really working to solve the problem of greedy rich people not paying their fair share. They're going to tax their wealthiest at 75 percent. Of course all the rich people are going to leave (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/08/business/global/frances-les-riches-vow-to-leave-if-75-tax-rate-is-passed.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0) France but hey, problem solved - no more rich people.

They're going to tax their wealthiest at 75 percent.... but hey, problem solved - no more rich people.Hello again, Steve:

Whewwwweee... Then it's a good thing that we're only going to raise their taxes from 32% to 35%.. Our rich can unpack, and start creating those jobs they promised us..

excon

Maybe some of those french will create jobs for you because you own aren't, but then you can't create what isn't there, your rich are busy creating jobs in China

your rich are busy creating jobs in China like State owned GM . But it's a good campaign slogan to shout out "Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive." Doesn't matter a lick that the taxpayers got hosed in the arrangement .

Have you flipped your lid or have you taken to wearing foil hats

? Since the bailout GM sells nearly as many cars in China as in the U.S. and has continued expanding operations there while simultaneously shrinking its U.S. operations.GM outsources almost two thirds of its jobs overseas. Less than one in five GM vehicles are manufactured in the United States.

This while the US taxpayer still holds a sizeable stake in the company (about a third of the shares are government owned ) . This is what Obama touts as his signature success. He assails Romney as being an outsourcer while at the same time praises a company that owes it's entire life to US government subsidizing it's foreign investments .

Tom I don't see a problem of establishing an industry overseas that is competing overseas, but there is a problem if it replaces local industry, and The US subsidises exports in various ways so BO found a new way, very enterprising, far more so than Romney who would have cut and run.

I think it is good that the US is playing a major role in the Chinese car industry, competing with european interests, but it should be producing its own vehicles, as far as shrinking local production goes we are seeing this too, local manufacturers need to retool, learn from asian success and become innovative.

Government ownership of industry is a novel experience for the US but your market is big enough for the investment to be privatised again even if you lose a little money on the float

Government ownership of industry is a novel experience for the US but your market is big enough for the investment to be privatised again even if you lose a little money on the float a little ? We will never recoup our losses. It would've been better had GM gone through bankruptcy reorganization. This was just another classic example of government picking winners and losers in the market place.. . something the libs here claim to oppose.

Not really Tom they didn't want the industry to collapse as it was a major employer so they sort restructure, a common method of dealing with a struggling industry. It is always difficult for a government to know whether to intervene and to what extent, but such industries are strategic

Ah, now that I've seen the actual video instead of the 'transcript' you provided it's quite simple.

"Teach a man how to fish he can feed himself for a life, don't simply feed fish."

There was no gaffe and it's easily understood - don't just (simply, the word omitted from your quote) give a man a fish, help him to help himself for life.

Thanks for clearing that up, so how does that answer the question of the woman who wants off welfare but has TWO jobs?

I guess that Tom doesn't mind those millions of auto workers and the companies that feeds them having no job and going on the public dole. And all those lost tax revenues.

I guess that Tom doesn't mind those millions of auto workers and the companies that feeds them having no job and going on the public dole. And all those lost tax revenues.

“Let’s give tax breaks to companies that are investing here. It’s the right thing to do.” By his own standards ,Obama needs to revoke GM’s free pass on taxes and make sure all its bailout money is repaid immediately .

I guess that Tom doesn't mind those millions of auto workers and the companies that feeds them having no job and going on the public dole. And all those lost tax revenues.

I guess they didn't mind that so much when they threw Saturn under the bus and put them on the public dole. Oh wait. The stupid Saturn people were non union that's right.

Also subverting current laws to make a deal and to ignore the constitution is quite a record to go by.

Obama didn't have anything to do with the demise of Saturn.They were selling the brand and discontinuing others that GM was producing and that started in 2007.

Saturn Corporation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_Corporation)


In 2004, GM and the United Auto Workers dissolved their unique labor contract for the Spring Hill manufacturing plant, allowing Saturn operations to be integrated with the rest of GM.[9]

[edit] 2008–09: attempt to sell brand, market changes

In US Congressional hearings on December 2, 2008, General Motors announced its intentions to focus on four core brands (Chevrolet, Cadillac, Buick, GMC), with the sale, consolidation, or closure of Saturn and the remaining brands (Pontiac, Hummer, and Saab).[10] General Motors Chairman and former CEO Rick Wagoner announced during a news conference on February 17, 2009 that Saturn will remain in operation through the end of the planned lifecycle for all Saturn products (2010–11).

In February 2009, GM declared its intent to part with this brand by closing or selling the division, either to investors or to dealers, as part of restructuring plans dependent upon the receipt of a second round of government loans ("bailout" funding).[11] It is the third such action for GM in the 21st century, following those of Oldsmobile, which ceased production in 2004, and Pontiac, which ended production of the 2010 model year by the end of 2009.[12]

General Motors announced in June 2009 that it was selling the brand to Penske Automotive Group.[13] The arrangement was similar to the deal under which Penske distributes Daimler AG's Smart Car in the United States.[14] Penske was not planning to buy the factories and would eventually have to contract other car companies to build cars sold as Saturns. GM would have built the Aura, Vue, and Outlook for Penske for two years. To replace GM as the brand's manufacturer, Penske was in discussions with several global automakers, including Renault Samsung Motors of Korea.[15]