PDA

View Full Version : Mitt Romney Tax Returns Released



Qtec
01-26-2012, 05:01 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Paid Just<span style='font-size: 14pt'> 13.9%</span> Rate In 2010, Had Swiss Bank Account </div></div>

What a surprise. link (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/24/mitt-romney-tax-returns-released_n_1225247.html)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">AMPA, Fla./WASHINGTON, Jan 24 (Reuters) - Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney released tax records on Tuesday indicating he will pay $6.2 million in taxes on a total of $42.5 million in income over the years 2010 and 2011.

Bowing to increasing political pressure to provide more detail about his vast wealth, the former private equity executive released tax returns indicating he and his wife, Ann, paid an effective tax rate of 13.9 percent in 2010. They expect to pay a 15.4 percent rate when they file their returns for 2011.

Romney's tax rate is below that of most wage-earning Americans because most of his income, as outlined in more than 500 pages of tax documents, flows from capital gains on investments.

Under the U.S. tax code, capital gains are taxed at 15 percent, compared with a top tax rate of 35 percent for wage earners.

Romney released the tax returns after a week in which his chief rival for the Republican presidential nomination, former House of Representatives Speaker Newt Gingrich, questioned whether Romney was hiding information about his finances and cast him as being out of touch with most Americans </div></div>

Not bad for someone who is unemployed!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">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 <span style='font-size: 14pt'>it could be politically embarrassing to Romney</span> - were reported on tax returns and were not vehicles to avoid taxes. </div></div>

LOL. No kidding!!!!!!!!

It might even be the case that in 2009 he paid no taxes at all, due to writing off losses.

But wait, Willard has the spin on it.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Watch Mitt Spin: Romney Claims His Real Tax Rate Is ‘Closer To 45 Or 50 Percent’

RAMOS: You just released your tax returns. In 2010 you only paid 13 percent of taxes while most Americans paid much more than that. Is that fair?

ROMNEY: Well, actually, I released two years of taxes and I think the average is almost 15 percent. And then also, on top of that, I gave another more 15 percent to charity. When you add it together with all of the taxes and the charity, particularly in the last year, I think it reaches almost 40 percent that I gave back to the community. One of the reasons why we have a lower tax rate on capital gains is because capital gains are also being taxed at the corporate level. So as businesses earn profits, that’s taxed at 35 percent, then as they distribute those profits as dividends, that’s taxed at 15 percent more. So, all total, the tax rate is really closer to 45 or 50 percent.

RAMOS: But is it fair what you pay, 13 percent, while most pay much more than that?

ROMNEY: Well, again, I go back to the point that the, that the funds are being taxed twice at two different levels. </div></div> spin (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/01/25/411746/romney-tax-rate-spin-50-percent/)

I believe Krugman has a reply to this, see if I can find it. Otherwise, I'll leave it to Sofla to take this bizzaro concept apart.

Q

Qtec
01-26-2012, 05:04 AM
Found it.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Paul Krugman - New York Times Blog
January 24, 2012, 9:30 am
Romney’s Taxes

Just about what we expected. He really needs to provide earlier years, if only to clear up suspicions that he began sanitizing his portfolio in preparation for his presidential run.

The right-wing apologetics now focus on the claim that Romney’s taxes aren’t really low, because we should impute the taxes that corporations effectively paid on his behalf. But there are at least two things wrong with this argument.

First, $13 million of the total was carried interest, which gets taxed like capital gains but is really just commissions that receive special treatment for no good reason. No profits taxes were paid on that income; right there, a minimally defensible tax code would have levied $2.6 million more in taxes on Romney.

Second, just the other day the usual suspects were calling for big cuts in corporate taxes, arguing that these taxes don’t really fall on stockholders, they fall mainly on workers and consumers. Now, suddenly, the taxes fall on stockholders after all. Interesting.

Meanwhile, the Romney campaign is signalling that it’s going to try to spin this as “he pays lots of taxes”! How stupid do they think we are? Actually, don’t answer that.

<u>Again, the point here is not that Romney did something wrong by paying the low rates current tax law lavishes on people like him.</u> <span style='font-size: 14pt'>It is, instead, <span style="color: #3333FF">that in an election campaign that will be in part about issues of inequality, the likely GOP candidate is a living, breathing, coupon-clipping example of how favorable our system is to the very rich; and he also happens to be advocating policies that would greatly benefit people like him, while hurting the poor and the middle class.</span></span>

PS: Yes, my tax rate is a lot higher than Romney’s. And I support policies that would raise it further. </div></div>

The guy makes $57,000 a day! Nobody can convince me that he wants to be President to help the 99%, him being in the 0.006% and all.

Q

LWW
01-26-2012, 05:14 AM
And?

Qtec
01-26-2012, 06:02 AM
...and what?

Q

cushioncrawler
01-26-2012, 06:14 AM
Hav i got this right.
If they pay Mitt a commission then they dont pay any tax on that commission if they call it a commission.
But Mitt duznt call it a commission -- Mitt calls it a capital gain and pays only 15% tax, ie instead of say 35% tax.

Thats not tax minimization -- thats tax avoidance, an offence.
mac.

cushioncrawler
01-26-2012, 06:18 AM
In Ozz we dont pay double tax.
mac.

What is the dividend imputation system?
The dividend imputation system was introduced by the Hawke/Keating government in 1987. Generally when a company earns profit, they will pay this out to their shareholders in the form of a dividend. Just like you or I, companies are required to pay tax on money earned, unlike the individual though, the company corporate tax rate is a flat 30%.

Before the dividend imputation system was introduced, the tax office would tax both the companies and the investor, even though this money has already been taxed, so it was a form of double taxing. With the introduction of the dividend imputation system, investors who receive dividends will now only be taxed the difference between 30% and their own marginal tax rate since the company has already paid the 30% tax. So if your individual tax rate is 30% then you will not have to pay tax on the dividends, i.e. the dividend is tax free. If your marginal tax rate is above 30%, say 46.5%, then you will pay the difference, 16.5%.

*Since 2000, franking credits became fully refundable, for example let's assume you didn't earn any taxable income for a particular year, if you received a dividend of $700, then not only is the money tax free, you will also receive a refund of $300 from the ATO.

LWW
01-26-2012, 06:20 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cushioncrawler</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Hav i got this right.
If they pay Mitt a commission then they dont pay any tax on that commission if they call it a commission.
But Mitt duznt call it a commission -- Mitt calls it a capital gain and pays only 15% tax, ie instead of say 35% tax.

Thats not tax minimization -- thats tax avoidance, an offence.
mac. </div></div>

In the US capital gains means that if you buy $100K in stock/precious metals/investment real estate and sell it for $200K you made a "CAPITAL GAIN" of $100K and the tax rate is 15%. If you lose money ... you deduct nothing.

This entire scam is Trojan horse by the demokrooks to raise the CG rate ... which will generate tens of billions in revenue from the middle class as the baby boomers when they sell their assets in retirement.

LWW
01-26-2012, 06:21 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">...and what?

Q </div></div>

That's what I asked you.

Qtec
01-26-2012, 07:25 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If you lose money ... you deduct nothing. </div></div>

That's not what I read.

Q

Qtec
01-26-2012, 07:29 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Romney’s Taxes Show Ridiculousness of Carried Interest Loophole
</div></div>

link to facts, not hot air (http://news.firedoglake.com/2012/01/24/romneys-taxes-show-ridiculousness-of-carried-interest-loophole/)

Q

LWW
01-26-2012, 08:14 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If you lose money ... you deduct nothing. </div></div>

That's not what I read.

Q </div></div>

If only that you could/would read.

Now ... your point is what?

LWW
01-26-2012, 08:19 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cushioncrawler</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In Ozz we dont pay double tax.
mac.</div></div>

In America we tax successful people at 35%.

Then we tax them for SSI/MEDICARE about another 12%.

Then we tax them at the state level up to about 7%.

Then we tax what they purchase, from the remaining 46%, at a statewide average of about 7%.

Then we tax their homes and their vehicles.

Then, if they invest any of the remaining 39%, and actually make a buck from helping to grow the economy ... we tax that at 15%.

Then we listen to moonbat crazy leftists complain that these <span style='font-size: 14pt'>EEEVILLL</span> rich don't pay enough.

Then we wonder why they flee high tax states, and sometimes the entire nation, with their money and or their persons.

The masses in this nation is nearly totally illiterate when it comes to business, and the poverty pimps on the moonbat crazy left are completely daft.

llotter
01-26-2012, 08:42 AM
97% of taxpayers pay less than a 12% rate. Still too high in my opinion but heaven knows that federal spending is about 200% higher than it should be so starting a class war misses the point entirely.

eg8r
01-26-2012, 09:00 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Romney's tax rate is below that of most wage-earning Americans because most of his income, as outlined in more than 500 pages of tax documents, flows from capital gains on investments.
</div></div>Wow look at that. It didn't say most of his income came from booze, cigarettes and birth control. Hmm, interesting. Do you think the poor will ever learn the real lesson?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It might even be the case that in 2009 he paid no taxes at all, due to writing off losses.
</div></div>Why chastise one American for doing what every single American does when encountering losses?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Well, actually, I released two years of taxes and I think the average is almost 15 percent. And then also, on top of that, I gave another more 15 percent to charity. When you add it together with all of the taxes and the charity, particularly in the last year, I think it reaches almost 40 percent that I gave back to the community. One of the reasons why we have a lower tax rate on capital gains is because capital gains are also being taxed at the corporate level. So as businesses earn profits, that’s taxed at 35 percent, then as they distribute those profits as dividends, that’s taxed at 15 percent more. So, all total, the tax rate is really closer to 45 or 50 percent.
</div></div>Hmm, sorry qtip but I don't think you will ever understand this.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I believe Krugman has a reply to this, see if I can find it. Otherwise, I'll leave it to Sofla to take this bizzaro concept apart.
</div></div>LOL, now you finally show some independant thought. You recognize you don't know what you are talking about so you defer to others whom you hope will find fault in what Romney has said. LOL, the worst part about it is that they can say whatever they want, true or not, and you wouldn't know the difference. You just hope the truth or fallacy disproves what Romney is saying.

eg8r

LWW
01-26-2012, 09:35 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It might even be the case that in 2009 he paid no taxes at all, due to writing off losses.
</div></div>Why chastise one American for doing what every single American does when encountering losses?

eg8r </div></div>

I'm embarrassed to say that I missed that pearl from snoopy.

Isn't it amazing that someone can convince their own self that they are knowledgeable, when in reality they can't comprehend why someone pays no capital gains tax when they have no capital gains?

Soflasnapper
01-26-2012, 12:42 PM
Isn't it amazing that someone can convince their own self that they are knowledgeable, when in reality they can't comprehend why someone pays no capital gains tax when they have no capital gains?

Well of course you must mean 'no NET capital gains (considering loss carry forwards).'

Taking capital losses as a current tax year matter REQUIRES THAT YOU DO HAVE CAPITAL GAINS THAT YEAR (other than a $3,000 deduction if you don't have capital gains that year, and then carrying the balance of the capital loss forward).

So what Q is describing is perhaps income in what is TREATED FOR TAX PURPOSES as a capital gain (when it is not, it is deferred compensation which should be considered earned income carrying the tax brackets for ordinary income), evidently in the approximate amount of $20 million a year, upon which no taxes were paid.

Not 'no capital gains' but likely $20 million in gross 'capital gains,' for which zero in tax was paid.

Legal, of course. Politically damaging anyway? You bet. Or at least, so Mitt & Co. bet, and probably because they know it will be from focus group questions. You can't make people think differently from their gut reaction to such revelations, and Mitt's gambit now is to somehow make sure those revelations don't occur.

We've already seen his Forbidden City wall breached to this extent, and he'd provided an endless number of strings to pull to unravel his knit sweater, so to speak. When it's done, he'll be wearing the emperor's new clothes, if you catch my drift.

LWW
01-26-2012, 03:14 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Well of course you must mean 'no NET capital gains (considering loss carry forwards). </div></div>

It's just impossible to dumb it down enough for a leftist to follow.

Soflasnapper
01-26-2012, 05:29 PM
It's entirely possible to have capital gains realized in the same year as capital losses, or the same year capital loss carry forwards are realized.

Even if they net out to zero, that does not mean there were no capital gains that year. No net taxable capital gains, perhaps.

The claim (by Sen. Levin and others) is that apparently, by what can be divined from the 2010 return, Romney may well have had capital gains of these same $20 million a year size figures he now shows, and have still paid nothing on them, using the loss carry forward.

Which didn't mean he didn't get $20 million that year he owed no taxes on. He would have gotten that income. Which is the opposite of what you were saying.

Qtec
01-27-2012, 01:17 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Romney May Have Paid Zero Taxes In 2009!

I spent some time yesterday going through Willard's 2010 return and 2011 estimates of his taxes, and I agree with David Shuster in this segment. There's every possibility that the Romneys paid no income taxes at all in 2009 and possibly also in 2008. Here's why, starting at about 1:08 in the video above:

SHUSTER: Actually, Governor, if you think a limited release is going to put this issue behind you, you're politically tone-deaf. First, your 2010 return indicates you paid a rate of 13.9 percent. Furthermore, it suggests you paid far lower than that in 2009. You see, the 2010 return reveals you carried over $4.9 million dollars in losses from the previous year. That means you paid no taxes on capital gains in 2009, including no taxes on your carried interest.

So how much did you pay in 2009? Zero? How close to zero was it, Governor? Or how about the 2008 year, where the investment market first crashed?

Taxpayers are limited on the amount of capital losses they can use to offset income. In a year with low capital gains, high capital losses can offset the amount of those gains for a net-zero result. Any losses not used are carried forward to the following year, where they can be used there. The bottom line on Romney's tax return is that he likely paid minimal taxes in 2009, since his charitable deductions probably offset any speaker's fees, dividends and interest he was paid. I'm guessing he paid payroll tax on the speaker's fees up to the cap, and that is about it. Must be pretty nice, eh? Perhaps that's why Ann Romney thinks it's unfortunate that he had to release even 2010, since she's concerned about people knowing how successful he is.

Willard's financial disclosures also indicate he profited greatly from foreclosures in Florida, which would certainly explain his desire to let the housing market fall into the tank while he reaped the benefits, both tax-wise and personally.

Continue reading »</div></div> link (http://crooksandliars.com/karoli/romney-may-have-paid-zero-taxes-2009)

Its not over.

Q

Qtec
01-27-2012, 02:01 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So as businesses earn profits, that’s taxed at 35 percent, </div></div>

We all know this is total BS but you swallow it. You can't even comprehend what's written.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">One of the driving forces behind the ongoing Occupy Wall Street protests is the fact that corporations have not been paying their fair share in taxes. A new report from Citizens for Tax Justice will no nothing to alleviate the protesters’ frustration. </div></div>

Missed that Occupy thing, did you?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">CTJ looked at 280 companies, all of them members of the Fortune 500, and found that “while the federal corporate tax code ostensibly requires big corporations to pay a 35 percent corporate income tax rate, <u>on average, the 280 corporations in our study paid only about half that amount.” And those who paid even half the statutory corporate tax rate paid far more than many of their competitors.</u>

In fact, in the last three years, 78 corporations had at least one year where they paid no federal income tax at all, while 30 corporations paid not a dime over the entire three years. Those 30 corporations paid nothing, even though they made $160 billion in profits over that period:

– Seventy-eight of the 280 companies paid zero or less in federal income taxes in at least one year from 2008 to 2010…In the years they paid no income tax, these companies earned $156 billion in pretax U.S. profits. But instead of paying $55 billion in income taxes as the 35 percent corporate tax rate seems to require, these companies generated so many excess tax breaks that they reported negative taxes (often receiving outright tax rebate checks from the U.S. Treasury), totaling $21.8 billion. These companies’ “negative tax rates” mean that they made more after taxes than before taxes in those no-tax years.

– Thirty corporations paid less than nothing in aggregate federal income taxes over the entire 2008-10 period. These companies, whose pretax U.S. profits totaled $160 billion over the three years, included: Pepco Holdings (–57.6% tax rate), General Electric (–45.3%), DuPont (–3.4%), Verizon (–2.9%), Boeing (–1.8%), Wells Fargo (–1.4%) and Honeywell (–0.7%). </div></div>

link (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/11/03/360185/30-corporations-no-taxes/)

Mitt was BSing you.

Q

Qtec
01-27-2012, 02:45 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">LOL, now you finally show some independant thought. </div></div>

Look who's talking! All your views are someone else's and they are mostly wrong.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You recognize you don't know what you are talking about so you defer to others whom you hope will find fault in what Romney has said. </div></div>

I'm not an accountant. I'm not an expert in the USA Tax code.

What I do know is that Mitt is making $57,000 a day and pays a far lower tax rate than they guy making $57,000 a year.
To do this he has a myriad of companies, holdings, trusts etc and bank accounts in the Cayman Islands, Luxembourg, Switzerland and the Rep of Ireland in order to pay as little tax as possible!
It may be legal but is it right? Is it fair?

Is this the guy that says he wants to represent the 99%?

In case you missed it. link (http://billiardsdigest.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=376603#Post376603)


Q

LWW
01-27-2012, 05:20 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What I do know is that Mitt is making $57,000 a day and pays a far lower tax rate than they guy making $57,000 a year.


Q


</div></div>

To quote you from the past:


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <span style='font-size: 14pt'>NOW you should provide a link moron</span>!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Q </div></div>

eg8r
01-27-2012, 08:34 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Look who's talking! All your views are someone else's and they are mostly wrong.
</div></div>Unlike yourself, I am quite capable of my own view. I don't scour the net looking for stories that agree with my point of view and ignore all the rest. That is for you, the one who needs others to talk for him.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">To do this he has a myriad of companies, holdings, trusts etc and bank accounts in the Cayman Islands, Luxembourg, Switzerland and the Rep of Ireland in order to pay as little tax as possible!

</div></div>Why aren't you calling out the Dems that do the same thing? Why don't you say anything about Kerry? He is doing the same thing. Why don't you say anything about Buffett. He is doing the same thing.

You are quite transparent. This has nothing to do with his tax rate and it never has. This has everything to do with the (R) after his name.

eg8r

eg8r
01-27-2012, 08:36 AM
He isn't a tax accountant or an expert at math. He already said so. LOL, on top of that, he never even qualified which guy making 57,000. He did not mention any deductions this person might have or if the guy actually just had quadruplets and probably won't pay a single penny in income taxes this year.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
01-27-2012, 01:58 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What I do know is that Mitt is making $57,000 a day and pays a far lower tax rate than they guy making $57,000 a year.


Q


</div></div>

To quote you from the past:


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <span style='font-size: 14pt'>NOW you should provide a link moron</span>!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Q </div></div>
</div></div>

It's a very complicated division problem, so I understand that you may not know how to set it up, or how to calculate it once set up.

Goes a little something like this:

Earnings per day = Earnings per year/365

So we'll get earnings per day by calculating $20 million/365.

That equals $54,794.52 per day, so the $57k claim is about 4% too high, unless the annual earnings are a bit higher than $20 M.
$57k a day is $20.805 million a year.

LWW
01-27-2012, 04:48 PM
Thank you for not making snoopy's point.

A married couple with zero children and zero deductions would pay 8.5% to the IRS.

Next ridiculous assertion you will swear simply MUST be true?

WHAT IN THE NAME OF HIGH SCHOOL FOOTBALL IS GOING ON HERE? (http://www.bankrate.com/calculators/tax-planning/1040-form-tax-calculator.aspx)

Soflasnapper
01-27-2012, 05:46 PM
Q didn't say a married guy, nor did he specify income taxes only. (The majority of taxpayers pay more in SS/MC payroll taxes than they do in federal income taxes.)

If you use the tax calculator for a single person, no deductions or dependents, he/she would pay $8,825 in taxes for a 15.66% effective rate on all of it, and a 25% income tax rate on any next dollar.

Total federal taxes would include an extra 5.65% tax from dollar one through the total, or a 21.31% total effective federal tax rate, and an effective marginal rate of 30.65% on any next dollar. That's only because of the payroll tax rollback extension of the 2% off the otherwise 7.65% in payroll taxes.

Qtec
01-28-2012, 12:46 AM
Romney also didn't specify. He said in total he paid a total of 13.9% in taxes. Its not the point.

Willard wants to abolished capital gains tax but thinks Govt workers earn too much.
Willard made $40 million but tells voters he is unemployed.etc

Willard is a guy on a mission and its all about him. He will say anything and do anything to achieve his goal. He couldn't care less about the 99% or the workers he fired or the foreclosures his business interests carried out for profit.
Q

BTW, Newt paid 30% taxes.

Qtec
01-28-2012, 12:55 AM
link (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/01/26/412328/gringrich-blasts-romney-florida-foreclosures/)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> The ThinkProgress report revealed that Romney and his wife Ann own millions in Goldman Sachs Strategic Income Fund. That fund holds mortgage backed securities from many of the nation’s most prominent subprime lenders, including Countrywide and Washington Mutual. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>In 2010, the fund was connected to more than<u> 5,000</u> foreclosure actions in Miami-Dade county <u>alone</u>.</span>

<span style="color: #3333FF">In October, Romney said that the United States should not “try and stop the foreclosure process. <u>Let it run its course and hit the bottom,</u>” a proposition that may have benefited his bottom line.</span> </div></div>

Mr 99% man.

Q

Qtec
01-28-2012, 01:26 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Earnings per day = Earnings per year/365 </div></div>

Who works 365 days a year?

If the average guy works all year with only weekends off he works 261 days. If he earns in a year that Mitt does in a day, he would be on $76,628 a year...still with a higher tax burden.



Q

LWW
01-28-2012, 03:18 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> link (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/01/26/412328/gringrich-blasts-romney-florida-foreclosures/)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> The ThinkProgress report revealed that Romney and his wife Ann own millions in Goldman Sachs Strategic Income Fund. That fund holds mortgage backed securities from many of the nation’s most prominent subprime lenders, including Countrywide and Washington Mutual. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>In 2010, the fund was connected to more than<u> 5,000</u> foreclosure actions in Miami-Dade county <u>alone</u>.</span>

<span style="color: #3333FF">In October, Romney said that the United States should not “try and stop the foreclosure process. <u>Let it run its course and hit the bottom,</u>” a proposition that may have benefited his bottom line.</span> </div></div>

Mr 99% man.

Q </div></div>

So you are invoking G-S doublethink again.

LWW
01-28-2012, 03:22 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> link (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/01/26/412328/gringrich-blasts-romney-florida-foreclosures/)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> The ThinkProgress report revealed that Romney and his wife Ann own millions in Goldman Sachs Strategic Income Fund. That fund holds mortgage backed securities from many of the nation’s most prominent subprime lenders, including Countrywide and Washington Mutual. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>In 2010, the fund was connected to more than<u> 5,000</u> foreclosure actions in Miami-Dade county <u>alone</u>.</span>

<span style="color: #3333FF">In October, Romney said that the United States should not “try and stop the foreclosure process. <u>Let it run its course and hit the bottom,</u>” a proposition that may have benefited his bottom line.</span> </div></div>

Mr 99% man.

Q </div></div>

Did you ever bother to see how that fund has performed?
Of course you didn't. (http://www2.goldmansachs.com/gsam/docs/fundsinst/performance/monthly_performance/fp_inst_strategicincomefund_690326_20111130.pdf)

He would have done better to stuff his cash in a mattress on that one.

LWW
01-28-2012, 03:24 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Q didn't say a married guy, nor did he specify income taxes only.</div></div>

Romney is a married man, so any comparison should be done on a level field.

Surely even a hyper partisan tool such as yourself would agree with that.

As to other taxes, keep this on topic ... the entire discussion has been on income tax.

Qtec
01-28-2012, 03:32 AM
Am I? Explain that to me using facts.

Q..what is <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> G-S doublethink</div></div>

George Soros.?????? LOL


Q

LWW
01-28-2012, 03:46 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Am I? Explain that to me using facts.

Q..what is <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> G-S doublethink</div></div>

George Soros.?????? LOL


Q </div></div>

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/happy/516.gifhttp://www.websmileys.com/sm/happy/516.gifhttp://www.websmileys.com/sm/happy/516.gifhttp://www.websmileys.com/sm/happy/516.gifhttp://www.websmileys.com/sm/happy/516.gifhttp://www.websmileys.com/sm/happy/516.gifhttp://www.websmileys.com/sm/happy/516.gifhttp://www.websmileys.com/sm/happy/516.gifhttp://www.websmileys.com/sm/happy/516.gifhttp://www.websmileys.com/sm/happy/516.gif

Goldman-Sachs.

It's in your own link.

Today they are bad ... because the regime tells you they are bad. When it's pointed out that the current regime is full G-S (Hint: That doesn't mean Gordie Slovkovski.) former employees you believe that G-S is saintly, because the regime demands that you believe this.

OOC ... did you even read your own link?

Of course you didn't.

eg8r
01-28-2012, 12:42 PM
LOL, I find it quite funny that the two threads here about Mitt Romney, the law abiding taxpayer, have been started by our resident self-declared tax cheat. What a jealous hypocrite.

eg8r

eg8r
01-28-2012, 12:44 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If the average guy works all year with only weekends off he works 261 days. If he earns in a year that Mitt does in a day, he would be on $76,628 a year...still with a higher tax burden.
</div></div>So you still refuse to post any proof of this lie. You refuse to define this taxpayer. First it was just a man but now you are saying an average guy. How long will it take before you stumble across someone that could actually meet the lie you continue to refer to?

eg8r

LWW
01-29-2012, 04:15 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Who works 365 days a year?

Q </div></div>

Those who amass large fortunes often work that, or very close to it.

I would bet that while at BAIN, Romney's average work week was in excess of 56 hours per week.

Qtec
01-29-2012, 04:28 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If the average guy works all year with only weekends off he works 261 days. If he earns in a year that Mitt does in a day, he would be on $76,628 a year...still with a higher tax burden.
</div></div>So you still refuse to post any proof of this lie. You refuse to define this taxpayer. First it was just a man but now you are saying an average guy. How long will it take before you stumble across someone that could actually meet the lie you continue to refer to?

eg8r </div></div>

Federal Tax Brackets (http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This next calculator lets you try it out with your own numbers: </div></div>

Year............ 2011.
Filing Status...Single.
Taxable Income..$50,000 [ after deductions and exemptions ]
Tax:............$8,530
...as a percentage of income....17.06%.


Still way more than Willard,s 13.9% on $43 million.

Q




<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> After finding out Romney’s combined income came out to $56,986 a day, Stewart exploded in an incredulous rage.

“That’s almost–that’s almost $57,000 a day!” Stewart exclaimed. “Here is the most amazing part: the guy doesn’t even have a job! That is f*cking interest! That is the kind of money that might lead a man to make stupidly extravagant out-of-touch impulse bets!”

Stewart then aired Romney’s infamous $10,000 bet to Rick Perry.

“How in the world do you — Mitt Romney justify making more in one day than the median American family makes in a year while paying an effective tax rate of the guy who scans your shoes at the airport!” Stewart asked.</div></div> watch it. (http://www.mediaite.com/tv/pain-capital-jon-stewart-destroys-mitt-romney-over-his-tax-returns/)

LWW
01-29-2012, 07:06 AM
So you feel the need to make an inaccurate comparison in order to make your point?

Imagine that.

Sadly ... even with such deceit, your point requires additional deceit to stand up.

GIVING YOUR LAMENESS EVERY BENEFIT OF A DOUBT (http://www.bankrate.com/calculators/tax-planning/1040-form-tax-calculator.aspx), other than ignoring your dishonesty of course, we must also realize that said single individual making $50K per year has $9.5K in deductions simply for being alive ... and that reduces their tax rate to 12.5%.

And, that assumes they are paying zero into a health care plan ... zero on a home mortgage ... zero into a conventional IRA ... zero into a 401K ... made zero charitable deductions (Possible if they are a demokrook.) and had zero other deductions of any kind.

IOW ... your best case for your ridiculous assumption probably doesn't even exist on a single return for 2011 in the entire nation. If it does exist, it is in a percentage so small that it would be measured in zeroes to the right of the decimal point.

Next foolish assertion you would like knocked out by the heavy leather of truth?

eg8r
01-29-2012, 01:19 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Still way more than Willard,s 13.9% on $43 million.
</div></div>So, when you get done running your mouth and actually try to back up your BS, you find out that it is actually just that, BS.

So, now who is actually paying in more real money...Romney at 15% or your guy (of which you never did actually identify which deductions you used) at 17%

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">“That’s almost–that’s almost $57,000 a day!” Stewart exclaimed. “Here is the most amazing part: the guy doesn’t even have a job! That is f*cking interest! That is the kind of money that might lead a man to make stupidly extravagant out-of-touch impulse bets!”
</div></div>This is a great example of why Stewart doesn't know what he is talking about, or is using humor to mask the fact that you don't know what he is talking about. My guess is on the latter considering what you have posted in past. Moving forward, people who make $57,000/day are not prone to making "stupidly extravagant out-of-touch impulse bets". It just doesn't happen. People who make this type of money without a job have made seriously define, calculated bets that were designed to make more money than they cost.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">“How in the world do you — Mitt Romney justify making more in one day than the median American family makes in a year while paying an effective tax rate of the guy who scans your shoes at the airport!” Stewart asked.</div></div>LOL, I love it when you quote someone and that person completely shoots a hole in your point. Besides that why does he need to justify what he is doing. He merely needs to point out that he is abiding by the law and living off his hard work.

How does the guy scanning shoes justify making $40,000/year sitting on his butt watching shoes get scanned? How does that guy scanning shoes justify driving a 3 series BMW, flat panels in every room in his house, smoking 3 packs of cigs a day when he can only afford to pay the minimum on his credit cards and refuses to go out and get a second job to pay for his recently knocked up girlfriend's soon to arrive baby?

eg8r

Qtec
01-30-2012, 02:04 AM
I said AFTER deductions and exemptions.

Q

LWW
01-30-2012, 04:19 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I said AFTER deductions and exemptions.

Q </div></div>

And Romney's tax rate was 15.4% of his income ... before deductions.

His deductions consisted of $1,549,596.00 in state and local income and property taxes and $4,020,572.00 in charitable deductions.

If you use the after deductions method you propose, Romney paid 21.1%

But, thanks for confessing that you made a completely dishonest comparison ... even though I already knew that.

BTW ... did you ever even look at the returns online?

Of course you didn't.

I did. (http://info.publicintelligence.net/Romney-2011-1040.pdf)

Qtec
01-30-2012, 05:09 AM
Yeah right. A charitable contribution is a choice, its not compulsory.
It doesn't go into the public purse. Its a loss that means the Govt has to borrow money to make up the difference, ie increasing the Debt.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If you use the after deductions method you propose, Romney paid 21.1% </div></div>

[Which is still a lower rate than the guy who works without deductions and earns 1% of Willard's income.]

Again, Willard didn't pay 21.1% tax.

Q




If Mitt wants to donate money to his own Church, he should pay for that, not the Govt. [That's my opinion.]
Q

LWW
01-30-2012, 04:48 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Yeah right. A charitable contribution is a choice, its not compulsory.
It doesn't go into the public purse.

Q </div></div>

And there you have it ... snoop believes that only with the cold bayonet of the state at one's back forcing someone to do the state's bidding does it count as "FOR THE COMMON GOOD."

LWW
01-30-2012, 04:51 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If you use the after deductions method you propose, Romney paid 21.1% </div></div>

[Which is still a lower rate than the guy who works without deductions and earns 1% of Willard's income.

Q </div></div>

Actually ... it isn't, even by your warped POV.

LWW
01-30-2012, 04:52 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Again, Willard didn't pay 21.1% tax.

Q</div></div>

Actually, on a level field with your example, he did.

Don't hate me because you stepped in your dung.

LWW
01-30-2012, 04:53 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If Mitt wants to donate money to his own Church, he should pay for that, not the Govt. [That's my opinion.]

Q </div></div>

So you don't actually believe the COTUS should be followed ... except when it meets the left's approval?

Soflasnapper
02-02-2012, 02:53 PM
You are trippin' again!

The COTUS is mute on the subject of tax deductibility of charitable donations. (For good reason, including that no income tax was Constitutional at the time.)

Tax laws could be changed to eliminate any and all charitable deductions, including to churches, without violating any part of the COTUS.

LWW
02-03-2012, 05:24 AM
If this were true ... it would have happened long ago.

I love how the left creates a constitutional "SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE" with smoke and mirrors ... and then denies it's own creation when it advances the statist agenda ... and then goes back to believing it's own mythology without missing a beat.

Soflasnapper
02-03-2012, 11:32 AM
Jeebus! It IS true.

Just as there is no Constitutional bar to eliminating the mortgage interest tax deduction.

Neither have been eliminated from the tax code, because they are POPULAR deductions for millions of people who are accustomed to getting this deduction, and who would complain and lobby against any announced effort to eliminate them.

It's true that if one were to eliminate the charitable deduction for churches, it would have to be a uniform elimination across the board of all churches and/or charities, and it couldn't be discriminatory to let Protestants still get the deduction but take it away from Catholics, etc.

As a matter of fact, on some flat tax proposals, ALL deductions (including the mortgage deduction and charitable deductions) would be eliminated. This is one of the reasons such proposals are unpopular, and a reason that some advocates of some kind of flat or fair tax amend the idea to allow either one or both deductions to remain. Not because it would be unConstitutional to eliminate them, but that it would help sell the idea to the public better if they keep these prized deductions.