PDA

View Full Version : Mitt: 'Active' Role At Bain Capital



Qtec
08-26-2012, 01:29 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Mitt Romney Reaped Huge Tax Benefits Based On 'Active' Role At Bain Capital

WASHINGTON -- Mitt Romney has repeatedly insisted during the presidential campaign that layoffs and other controversy surrounding Bain Capital companies for the past decade are not his responsibility, because he retired in 1999. When tax experts charged that he benefited from legally dubious tax avoidance strategies employed by Bain, his campaign noted that the investments are kept in a blind trust completely out of his control.

"As we have said many times before, Governor and Mrs. Romney's assets are managed on a blind basis. They do not control the investment of these assets. The investment decisions are made by a trustee," spokeswoman Michele Davis said.

<u>But according to his 2010 tax return,</u> when the Internal Revenue Service comes calling in April, Romney has a different answer: The presumptive GOP nominee reaps lucrative tax breaks for "active" participation in the private equity firm he founded, as well as a host of other investments.

As David Kautter, a tax expert at American University, explains, the concept of active investment has different meanings for the IRS and for regular people. "When you say you're actively involved in all these businesses, people do think, OK, you're actively involved. But the tax law has its own definition," he said.

That still leaves Romney in a rhetorical jam: For tax purposes, he claims an active status; for political purposes, he claims to have zero to do with the investments.

The distinction is valuable, for the IRS treats passive and active income and losses differently. If a passive investment loses money, the taxpayer can only write off that loss if passive gains have also been made and only at a 15 percent rate. But active losses can be written off at a 35 percent rate and deducted from the taxpayer's ordinary income. In other words, a taxpayer wants active losses, not passive losses. So by describing many of his investments as active, Romney saves himself millions of dollars in taxes.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>With those active investments, he is also securing a tax break few Americans enjoy: When he wins, he's paying a 15 percent rate on the gain. When he loses, he's writing it off at 35 percent, meaning that tax policy is subsidizing Romney's risk in his Bain investments.

In other words, Romney didn't build that, at least not without taxpayer backing.</span>


<span style="color: #3333FF">"Governor Romney appears to be saying one thing to the American people and one thing to the Internal Revenue Service,"</span> Rep. Brad Miller (D-N.C.) said to The Huffington Post. "Right now we are just seeing inconsistent statements. The American people are entitled to know more than that. If there's a legalistic distinction, we are entitled to know what that is. ... Has he played too close to the line or over the line? </div></div>

link (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/26/romney-bain-taxes_n_1828816.html)


What a guy!

Q

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> According to the Washington Post, 50 percent of all capital gains in the United States flow to the top 0.1 percent of taxpayers</div></div>

Gayle in MD
08-26-2012, 06:51 AM
Economic genocide. And if they win, with one in six hungry, their platform is to lower taxes even more, for the wealthy, and cut out food stamps, remove Planned Parenthood, and wipe out public education.

Remove regulations and poison the earth. Continue the corruption on Wall St. Destroy regulatory oversight no the food and phramaceuticl industry. "The love of money is the root of all evil!" We surely see plenty of evidence of that, in the Republican policies.

They have vowed to throw millions of Americans back at the mercy of the profit based health and insuranc industries, the old, the poor, the ill, bbscially all butn the wealthy fascists.

Their stated goal is to deny women, especially poor women, and middle Class women, the right to save their own lives when having a baby would kill them, or otherwise destroy their lives.

Their platform is NOT small government, it is surely economic genocide.

G.

LWW
08-26-2012, 07:37 AM
If your source is correct ... then 0.1% of te population pays 50% of the apital gains tax, and you believe that isn't fair?

Now ... what happens if the rate is raised?

History shows us that the results would be the rich moving their assets from taxation ... meaning less capital ain, meaning less capital investment in productive capacity ... and the apial ains ax burdenshifted to the middle class who cannot hide their gain so easiy.

The bottom lie is less tax revenue and less economic growth.

How could you possibly support such madness?

The answer is that you don't comrehend the issue because you don't even know what a capital gain is.

Soflasnapper
08-26-2012, 10:13 AM
MANAGEMENT FEES are not capital gains and they are not returns on investment of capital in that sense.

Changing this particular loophole will not impact investment decisions or capital gains from investments. Just mischaracterized regular income.

So eliminating this loophole wouldn't increase the capital gains rate at all, necessarily, although that's a fine idea as well.

Where did Reagan put the capital gains rate in the '86 tax reform? 28% as a top rate. Because in that tax reform plan he signed, cap gains were given no preferential treatment, and simply taxed at the top bracket rate for ordinary income.

Qtec
08-26-2012, 06:46 PM
He doesn't get it. He doesn't want to.

When Mitt says he pays as less tax as possible, he means it big time. The tax system that he says is broken is one he exploits to the fullest, and then some.

This is the guy that says that's going to close all the loopholes that he has so immensely benefited from?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Specifically what tax loopholes would you close and what exemptions would you eliminate to make the revenue-neutral equation work?

Simpson-Bowles laid out a formula that shows that you can do just as I described. That you can bring down the rates, limit deductions and exemptions for people at the high end, and with additional growth that comes by virtue of the stimulative action you can reach a balanced budget. I will follow a model similar to Simpson-Bowles and work with Congress to identify which of the alternative methods we should apply to reduce deductions, benefits, and exemptions </div></div>

Eh, sorry Mitt, just have to ask this Q again because I did say SPECIFIC.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Specifically what tax loopholes would you close and what exemptions would you eliminate to make the revenue-neutral equation work?

Mitt.

" Simpson-Bowles laid out a formula that shows that you can do just as I described. That you can bring down the rates, limit deductions and exemptions for people at the high end, and with additional growth that comes by virtue of the stimulative action you can reach a balanced budget. I will follow a model similar to Simpson-Bowles and work with Congress to identify which of the alternative methods we should apply to reduce deductions, benefits, and exemptions" </div></div>

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

Q