View Full Version : Romney: 'free stuff from the government'

07-14-2012, 12:32 PM

That tax deduction is about 40% more than the median household income.

How it can be a deduction is quite beyond my understanding, but if that is a legitimate deduction under the law, that law should be changed forthwith.

07-14-2012, 02:10 PM
Got any evidence of this?

Of course you don't.

What's that?

It was spoon fed to you and you never question the spoon?

We all know that.

Back in Realville we also realize ... YOU WERE PIMPED ... AGAIN (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/07/13/Beating-A-Dead-Horse-The-Left-Media-Lies-About-Romney-Taxes) by your handlers.

It is a sad truth that our public education system has raised a generation so totally bereft of logic skills, and too brainwashed to question anything spoon fed to them, that actually believe Comedy Central and SNL are news sources.

07-14-2012, 02:12 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">How it can be a deduction is quite beyond my understanding ...</div></div>

Truer words have seldom been spoken.

Before you go any further you should learn the difference the truth and lie .... followed by learning the difference between a tax credit and a ax deduction.

07-14-2012, 03:42 PM
From the other thread:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">But as Mr. Colbert’s satire suggested, the scrutiny may not be entirely a blessing for Mr. Romney’s image as a man in touch with the concerns of average Americans. As millions tune in to the Olympics in prime time this summer, just before Mr. Romney will be reintroducing himself to the nation at the Republican convention, viewers are likely to see “up close and personal” segments on NBC about the Romneys and dressage, a sport of six-figure horses and $1,000 saddles. The Romneys declared a loss of $77,000 on their 2010 tax returns for the share in the care and feeding of Rafalca, which Mrs. Romney owns with Mr. Ebeling’s wife, Amy, and a family friend, Beth Meyers.</div></div>

NY Times, June 16th or so last month.

So, not SNL, not the Daily Report, but the NY Times, stating the fact of this entry in the Romneys tax return.

Apparently, this only ended up saving the Romneys $50 dollars in the only tax year for which we have their returns so far (2010), but allows the balance to be carried forward as a loss to be taken against future gains on the horse if it were sold or generates fees.

There's no accounting for how this hobby escapes the 'no deductions for hobbies' tax rules, although you can go some years (7?) without any (net) income (profit) from a hobby before it is confirmed as a hobby and not a business pursuit.

Are they also deducting depreciation from the purchase price of the horse, over its expected working life span? True, that again would result in loss carry forwards, credits against gains (that may or may not occur in the future).

I know the difference between a tax credit and a tax deduction. I used the latter term, as you can see above.

From the Breitbart 'expert/nerd' link discussing the tax ramifications:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Now some have noted that the Romneys may still get the deduction because they can carry over the loss to future years. The Code provides that if an asset is fully sold, the loss generated from the activity, if it is an activity engaged in for profit, would not be a passive loss. Thus the Romneys will only get a large tax deduction from Rafalca, if Rafalca is sold at a loss and they actually suffer a loss. This raises the specter that taxpayers may ultimately be subsidizing Romney’s horse activity.</div></div>

In for a penny, in for a pound.

They got $50 so far, and could get ??? in the future.

Still wrong, in my view. And here's the political significance.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

But there's a twist!

[T]he tax code lets you carry disallowed hobby losses forward to offset hobby income in future years. Now that the Romneys' horse is an Olympian, his owners could presumably be paid quite handsomely for his services at the stud farm. Consequently, Mitt and Ann may soon have some income that they actually can use that nearly $78,000 loss to offset--i.e., finally getting the tax deduction that they're taking the heat for today.

I think if Romney's taking heat for anything, it's simply that in his own tax policy documents, he's making big assumptions about the possibility of cutting tax rates and eliminating tax deductions without saying much about which kinds of deductions he wants to eliminate. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>Is something like forward-carrying of horse-related expenses the kind of thing he would want to eliminate, or would that count as a burdensome tax on job-creating investment and capital formation?</span> </div></div>

07-14-2012, 04:29 PM
So you confirm you have no clue what the difference is between a tax deduction and a tax credit.

07-14-2012, 04:42 PM
I know the difference between a tax credit and a tax deduction. I used the latter term, as you can see above.

You confirm you are a dishonest interlocutor, again.

Yes, the POLITICAL CARTOON used the wrong word. Again referring you to what I said, I did not use the wrong word.

Tax deductions come off the top line (reducing stated income), and create a different Adjusted Gross Income figure (when they are allowed). When allowed, they create a lower tax by that amount at the top marginal rate the taxpayer owes.

Tax credits come off the bottom line, of what tax would otherwise be owed, dollar for dollar.

07-15-2012, 04:58 AM
Then you are admitting that you psted what you knew to be a lie?

My advice to you ... the first step in getting out of a hole is to stop digging.

07-15-2012, 12:29 PM
The distortions of a political cartoon are not lies, but a part of that art form.

See the cartoons of the Obama is a joke thread for multiple examples of the same idea.

How could I be lying about it when I directly stated below it in the same post that it was a tax deduction (and was entirely correct)?

You are like a kitten at play, pouncing on a spot where there is nothing. Cute when they're small, cute when they're a cat. A bit ridiculous and pitiful when it's a grown man.

07-15-2012, 07:23 PM
You didn't pst a cartoon ... you posted a photo accompanied with a lie.

Now, instead of manning up and admitting you were payed lie Perlman plays a Strad ... you try to pee on my shoe and ask me to beleve it's raining.

07-16-2012, 09:49 AM
Note, Romney did not scold the NAACP about wanting free stuff from the government, either.

(That was in remarks the next day or whatever, not to the NAACP. Also, there was no scolding, but simply a statement that such people ought to vote for the other candidate.)

Political cartoons exaggerate and/or trim the facts, to make a political point or comparison that some may find apt, and others, inapt.

Perhaps you think the same kind of political cartoons you post are 100% accurate, but they involve similar distortions almost always.

07-16-2012, 10:30 AM
So your defense is that you didn't slavishly repeat a lie because you slavishly repeated two lies?

07-16-2012, 01:01 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So your defense is that you didn't slavishly repeat a lie because you slavishly repeated two lies?

Ha ha! I hope you're amusing yourself with this lame banter.

No, I didn't repeat anything. I posted a picture with a political message, and correctly stated a reference to a tax deduction it got wrong and said was a tax credit.

Then I helpfully showed you, as you had missed it, the error in the setup phrase as well. (Just as I helpfully found the references to the fact, which you appear to have doubted, that Romney got a standing ovation at the NAACP.)

What this shows is that I'm aware of the distortions in such material, whereas you apparently are not in the pieces you post, and so, you falsely accuse me of not knowing (your original claim), and now falsely accuse me of repeating lies.

You must have an old projector in your cache of old-timey things, as you surely project constantly.

07-16-2012, 02:13 PM

Here you have another example of what I was talking about.

Unfair, cheap shot?

Yes, in my opinion-- both.

Accuracy is not the point in such material, as you show you know with most of your media posts.

07-16-2012, 02:16 PM

In other words, jokes that point, inaccurately perhaps, to a larger truth.

It's nonsense to parse a joke for accuracy.

07-16-2012, 02:18 PM
This one is true, I suppose.


07-16-2012, 03:49 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This one is true, I suppose.

http://www.bartcop.com/romney-kolob-2.jpg </div></div>

Unlikely ... but if you are told it's "TRUTH" tat's enough for you I suppose.

07-16-2012, 06:50 PM
Yes, it might be wrong.

I've heard it said that God only lives NEAR Kolob, not on Kolob at all!!!

Completely different! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

07-17-2012, 02:03 AM
You might like this.

flip-flop (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RuQDLvNGM-Q)

Q......free stuff.........in the first 14 seconds, Mitt says this......."<span style='font-size: 14pt'>I'm a big believer in getting money from where the money is, and the money's in Washington....personal associations</span>" !!!!

Nuff said.

07-17-2012, 02:35 AM
And ...

07-17-2012, 04:05 AM
Check out the 1.30 mark.

Mitt says 'I was on the board' and then he says,'[ vote for me, ] 'it helps to have people on the board'????


07-17-2012, 05:13 AM
Spoon feeding your own self again I see.

07-17-2012, 09:25 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Check out the 1.30 mark.

Mitt says 'I was on the board' and then he says,'[ vote for me, ] 'it helps to have people on the board'????

Q...really! </div></div>

Yep. He says, I am on the board, I was on the board.

Meaning, when he was in Utah. Those were probably some of the board meetings he admits he went back to Massachusetts to attend, and/or 'attended' by phone conference.

These board seats were his because of Bain's investment holdings in these companies. He was there to watch over Bain's interests, doing work for Bain. While he was at the Olympics planning going on in Utah.