Quantcast

Comments about ‘Mitt Romney to attend anniversary celebration of 2002 Winter Olympics’

Return to article »

Published: Thursday, Jan. 26 2012 9:44 a.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Canuk
SALT LAKE CITY, UT

Conner Johnson | 10:04 a.m. Jan. 26, 2012
Deseret News
I guess I don't understand your question. My heck, he was brought into the Olympics because of the huge scandal that was the Salt Lake Olympics. What are you suggesting? He wasn't involved when all the corruption was there. He was brought in to clean it up and he did. You might not like him, but there is not a wiff of scandal associated with his name.
I don't know why your name has Deseret News underneath it. Is this a comment from someone who works for the DN?

MoJules
Florissant, MO

One of the reasons that I have been leaning towards Romney is because of what he did for the 2002 Olympics. This information is from Wikipedia "The games were also financially successful raising more money with fewer sponsors than any prior Olympic Games, which left SLOC with a surplus of $40 million at the conclusion of the games."

Found a wiki site that has a lot of information about him, this was on that site about the Olympics. "Before Romney came on, the event was running $379 million short of its revenue benchmarks. Despite the initial fiscal shortfall, the Games ended up clearing a profit of $100 million"

I just remember how most Olympics end up in the red and Utah ended up in the black, thanks to Romneys help. There were a lot of anti-Olympic people and I do think that their attitudes did change when it ended up not costing the people money.

Pagan
Salt Lake City, UT

Romney dosen't work for MONEY...

**Romney paid $3M in federal income tax in 2010 By Stephen Braun AP Published by DSNews 01/24/12

At the same time, Romney gave nearly $3 million to charity about half of that amount to the Mormon Church which helped LOWER his effective tax rate to a modest 14 percent

He works for 'carried interest'....

ute alumni
Tengoku, UT

conner,
romney was not even involved with the olympics when the scandal took place. knowing facts before commenting might serve you well.

no fit in SG
St.George, Utah

Mitt's gotta come to a place where he can get some love.
Perhaps he is not getting that in other states?

Canuk
SALT LAKE CITY, UT

I would still like an answer from the DN about their logo next to the first commenters name.
And I would like to know what he is suggesting.

Pagan
Salt Lake City, UT

Facts, are important:

**'Romney paid $3M in federal income tax in 2010' - By Stephen Braun - AP - Published by DSNews - 01/24/12

'At the same time, Romney gave nearly $3 million to charity about half of that amount to the Mormon Church which helped LOWER his effective tax rate to a modest 14 percent...' - article

Romney pays LESS taxes than...

**'Stop coddling the Super-Rich' - By Warren E. Buffett - NY Times - 08/14/2011

'But what I paid was only 17.4 percent of my taxable income and thats actually a lower percentage than was paid by any of the other 20 people in our office. Their tax burdens ranged from 33 percent to 41 percent and averaged 36 percent.'

Warrent Buffett, his 20 person staff.

Or, myself.

Coincides with:

**'Study: Rich get a lot richer, outpace middle class' - By Andrew Taylor - AP - 10/26/11

'It finds that after-tax income for the top 1 percent of U.S. households almost tripled, up 275 percent, from 1979 to 2007.'

CottageCheese
SALT LAKE CITY, UT

Pagan.

Do you know what an effective tax rate is? What that means? How it is calculated?

Do you know why people like yourself choose the effective tax rate as opposed to the actual tax rate in their attempt to vilify Romney and other wealthy people as they obey the law of the land?

I know how you feel about assumptions, so I am not going to make one. But, just curious if you understand basic tax law and terminology. It would be just an awful thing if you were to make accusations and statements based upon things you don't understand... wouldnt it?

Anti Bush-Obama
Washington, DC

I will be going to protest him.

Pagan
Salt Lake City, UT

'Do you know why people like yourself choose the effective tax rate as opposed to the actual tax rate in their attempt to vilify Romney and other wealthy people as they obey the law of the land?' - CottageCheese | 12:28 p.m. Jan. 26, 2012

And I am glad you did not make the attempt...

to tell ME, why I chose something. :)

When trying to make a point...?

Use more than x3 questions.

That is why I use:

Dates,
Authors,
Title and quotes.

DEW
Sandy, UT

If I remembered coming from Mitt that he would not earn any pay for this 2002 Olympic when he took over. The scandle was already been done before he came to clean up the mess. Was it true that he didn't accept any pay? But of course he may got in to see some events for free or did he pay his way (doesn't matter)?

ute alumni
Tengoku, UT

dew
yes and he has said that he will take $1 as president, far cry from those in the office now and greedy little LeRoy

Be Practical
Sandy, UT

A couple of points about Mitt's investment income. First, most all of his principle that he has invested came from after-tax dollars, meaning he already paid income tax on that at a much higher marginal tax rate. Second, his dividend income, which everyone seems to be so bothered about, is subject to double taxation. Since dividends are not tax deductible to the corporation like salaries and wages, the corporation, in effect, pays tax on them at 35%. But then, the recipient, also has to pick dividends up as income in his/her personal return and pay another 15%. So yes, the individual rate is less than the tax rate on other forms of taxable income but that's because the corporations have already paid out the majority of the tax. So in effect, close to 50% of the dividend has now gone to the government and that's just at the federal level. Add roughly another 10% for corporate and individual state taxes and closer to 60% of the dividend has been paid in taxes. Nothing unfair about that!

Rifleman
Salt Lake City, Utah

Re: Conner Johnson | 10:04 a.m. Jan. 26, 2012
"Does anyone think that Romney's corporate money had anything to do with the olympic bribery scandal?"

No. What the vast majority of knowledgeable Utahns think is that Romney saved the Olympics from almost certain disaster and left money in the bank when the Games were over.

CottageCheese
SALT LAKE CITY, UT

Pagan...

You didn't answer any of my questions.

Read my post again and answer my questions please.

Thanks!

Pagan
Salt Lake City, UT

CottageCheese | 4:50 p.m. Jan. 26, 2012,

I never CLAIMED to know everything.

Who DOES that?

I have family members who do my taxes.

Like 99% of the country.

Not:

**'Romney paid $3M in federal income tax in 2010' - By Stephen Braun - AP - Published by DSNews - 01/24/12

'At the same time, Romney gave nearly $3 million to charity about half of that amount to the Mormon Church which helped LOWER his effective tax rate to a modest 14 percent...' article

Legal? Yes.

Ehtical to pay LESS THAN majority of America, only to try and garner sympathy because you are 'unemployed'?

**'Stumping, Mitt Romney pegged as both charming and awkward on campaign trail' - By Jamshid Ghazi Askar - DSNews - 07/17/11

"I should tell my story I'm also unemployed," Romney said according to the New York Times." - article

Not so much.

A pity vote, is not much of one.

RanchHand
Huntsville, UT

@Be Practical;

The fact that a corporation pays taxes on its revenues BEFORE they pay out dividends to investors does not make it any more "double taxation" to the investor than the fact that I pay taxes on my income and then when I pay my mechanic he ALSO pays taxes on it as HIS income would be "double taxation" to him.

The revenues, BEFORE dividends are revenue to the corporation. Once paid to the investor it becomes revenue to the investor. I know that investors don't look at it like that, but to the rest of us lowly peons, that is how it is.

Be Practical
Sandy, UT

@RanchHand

I think you may have missed my point. Income tax paid by businesses is the tax on the net profit of a business BEFORE paying out dividends. To carry out your analogy, the income you received was probably in the form of wages. Those wages were deducted by your employer from his net profit and, therefore, were not taxed to him. You, of course, have to pick that up as income on your individual return and pay tax on that income after reducing it for allowable deductions, credits and exemptions. When you pay your mechanic he gets to reduce that income by his reasonable and necessary business expenses and only pays tax on the net profit. So in this situation, all the way along the line, only the "net profit" or increase is taxable.

The same cannot be said about dividends. Dividends are cash outlays to corporations which do not reduce taxable income. Let's say a corporation has cash and net profit before dividends of $100,000 and then let's say they pay out of that $100,000 out in dividends. They would still have to pay income tax on $100,000 and the recipient would also pay tax on the dividends. Now let's say they have the same $100,000 but this time they spend it on salary and the recipient again picks that salary up as income. The corporation's cash situation in the end is the same but in the latter example, they pay no tax. So indeed, dividends are doubly taxes.

If you still have doubts, I suggest you Google "What is the double taxation of dividends?" for perhaps a more complete response.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments