Letter: Misinformation on Mitt


Return To Article
  • Rifleman Salt Lake City, Utah
    Oct. 8, 2012 2:14 p.m.

    Re: Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    "Romney is NOT an astute and successful businessman.” He has never been involved in actively running a business."

    Which explains why he was asked to step up to the plate and bail out the 2002 Winter Olympics, leaving $100 million in the bank when the games were over. You can't argue with the facts.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Oct. 5, 2012 5:37 p.m.

    "allow the entrepreneurial spirit to thrive in our free enterprise system." Let's hear an AMEN to that. Another supporter for my idea of a casino in salt lake. Let's keep our gambling revenue at home, create local jobs, have some fun and keep government OUT of my life. If I believed it could be true for even a second I'd vote mitt.

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    Oct. 5, 2012 8:37 a.m.

    Romney did not pay 15% in taxes last year. He paid 13%. Had he taken all deductions, he would have paid 9%. He can still amend his 2011 return, take all the deductions, and have the US write him a humongous check for the taxes he "overpaid."

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    Oct. 5, 2012 8:35 a.m.

    Romney is NOT an astute and successful businessman.” He has never been involved in actively running a business. He is a vulture capitalist – his company purchased businesses, loaded them up with debt, raked in exorbitant management fees, destroyed workers’ jobs and benefits and then, when the vulture capitalist firm had milked the business for all it could get, took the business into bankruptcy. Granted there were a few businesses that produced enough long-term profit that they weren’t treated this way, but they were few and far between.

    Romney made an obscene amount of money. We don’t know the rate at which it was taxed because Romney has been hiding his tax returns from those days. We don’t know how much of it was tax-free because it was run through Romney’s off-shore tax free accounts. Taking his work for it for a moment, he never paid more than 14%-20% on anything he made.

    The so-called blind trust is managed by Romney’s personal attorney. That gives Romney de facto personal control over it. That is NOT a true blind trust.

  • BRM Pleasant Grove, Utah
    Oct. 4, 2012 10:25 p.m.

    This is a great letter. We need to get taxes under control and spending under control.

  • Shaun Sandy, UT
    Oct. 4, 2012 6:18 p.m.

    Mitt Romney has never been taxed at thirty five percent. He is the beneficiary of the carried interest provision of the tax code.

    Also the wealthy pay more in overall dollars but not in percentage of income. The wealthy could pay one percent of their income and still pay more in overall dollars and people on the right would still say they pay seventy percent of taxes but it would be seventy percent of overall dollars.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 4, 2012 3:45 p.m.

    "The facts show that the top 1% earns 16% of all income in the us, yet pays 40% of all income tax. How is that "fair" if they earn 16% yet pay 40% of all income tax revenue?"

    Maybe it'd be more fair if you actually included the other taxes like the regressive payroll taxes that disproportionately affect the poor since any income made over about 125k is not subject to payroll taxes. But then... that'd weaken the point you were trying to make now, wouldn't it?

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 4, 2012 3:41 p.m.

    It's only the new income that was taxed at 15%. So say Romney made 10 million taxed at 35%. He invests that and makes 10 million more. He pays no additional tax on the first 10 million and the new 10 million is taxed at 15%.

    That's why when you report your bank account information on your taxes, it's the interest you made that year that gets taxed, not the amount you had in the bank.

  • 4601 Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 4, 2012 3:07 p.m.

    When you are a Fabian socialist there is animosity toward anyone who is successful as the previous comments document. Our president said, You didn't do that. Marx and Engels based their "religion" on class warfare and Mr. Obama has followed the party line which has now become the Democrat party line. Blame the successful rather help people to succeed: a hand out rather than a hand up.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Oct. 4, 2012 2:59 p.m.

    Focus on Obama's failure to "fix" anything. He has destroyed our economy. He has destroyed the lives of millions of Americans. Focus on him. Make him accountable. He lost the debate last night because his policies do not work. Hold him accountable. He's been in charged for almost four years. He signed the bills. He is responsible.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Oct. 4, 2012 2:42 p.m.

    To "LDS Liberal" unfortunately the 70% figure is wrong. In addition to that, we are not taxed by the federal government on what we own. We are taxed on income. The facts show that the top 1% earns 16% of all income in the us, yet pays 40% of all income tax. How is that "fair" if they earn 16% yet pay 40% of all income tax revenue?

  • wrz Ogden, UT
    Oct. 4, 2012 2:19 p.m.


    "Read my lips, he was not taxed twice on his investments."

    He's taxed twice on stock dividends... Once at the corporate level (US is highest in the world) and the second time as dividend income.

    Capital gains are taxed only once... upon sail of the capital asset. And if held less than one year the tax rate is the ordinary income rate. Interest received is taxed as ordinary income. Partnership income is passed through to the partners to pay the tax. And it comes through the partnership in the same form as earned (dividends, capital gains, interest, etc.)

    "Why you people insist that it is a double taxation is either ignorance or deception."

    Why do people opine about Mitt's taxes when they don't/haven't studied tax law?

    @Mark B:

    "Just how long do you think it will take for all the extra new wealth to 'trickle down'..."

    Each job created, creates approximately 2 1/2 additional jobs, according to economic theory. Those who create jobs are people with money. Did you ever get a job from a poor person? Obama wants to see if 'trickle up' works. It hasn't and won't.

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Oct. 4, 2012 11:30 a.m.

    The message in this letter is about the kind of people supporting Mitt Romney. I don’t want those people controlling our government.

  • Roland Kayser Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Oct. 4, 2012 11:24 a.m.

    According to the Economic Policy Institute, the aggregate wealth of the top 1% of the public exceeds the aggregate wealth of the bottom 90%. The top 1% should be paying 90% of the taxes, they are undertaxed in proportion to their wealth and income.

  • RAB Bountiful, UT
    Oct. 4, 2012 11:11 a.m.

    I Hate to break it to some of you people, but the only thing you are clearing up is that Mitt knows what he is doing financially. If he can arrange his own financial situation to his own maximum benefit, we can rest assured he will do the same for our country.

    I have yet to see the evidence suggesting that Obama did not pay taxes to his own maximum benefit. If that evidence does exist, it would be another reason to not vote for the guy.

    The only thing Romney did that hurt himself financially was donate a huge amount of his own money to help other people. We all know why that does not shut up the fault-finders.

    Romney has a great reason not to detail all his plans publically. He isn't running for dictator. He knows he has to work details out with Democrats in Congress. It makes no sense to commit to details and make promises he might not be able to keep. It's much more sensible to just state major principles and lines that will not be crossed. It's called leadership.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Oct. 4, 2012 10:54 a.m.

    It should also be noted that 2 percent of the wealthy pay 70 percent of the taxes in this country,


    It should also be noted that 2 perscent OWN 70 percent of everything in this country,
    So they SHOULD be paying that much in taxes.

    When will the ultra-Cons figure this simple math out?

  • ugottabkidn Sandy, UT
    Oct. 4, 2012 10:52 a.m.

    Dear Vaughn, "something that comes in as an addition or increase, especially by chance." This is the defintion of Mitt Romney's capital gains income. Read my lips, he was not taxed twice on his investments. He was taxed on money he did not have the year before. That is what income means. Why you people insist that it is a double taxation is either ignorance or deception. Please do continue to advocate the double taxation theory anymore. Mr Romney is living off the interest of his numerous worldwide accounts and because of loopholes of the law he is taxed at a much lower rate than you are with your interest bearing T-Bill but yet his money is not building or creating anything of value in the U.S.

  • Kent C. DeForrest Provo, UT
    Oct. 4, 2012 10:19 a.m.

    Thanks, Joe Blow. You saved me the time of going through the math with Vaughn. The only thing I would add is that you're taxed only on what your investment earns (or gains, hence the term capital gains), not on the whole amount invested, as Vaughn assumes with his bad numbers. So, in essence:

    "Let's clear up some misinformation." With more misinformation? How quaint.

  • Mark B Eureka, CA
    Oct. 4, 2012 9:49 a.m.

    Great plan, Vaughn! Just how long do you think it will take for all the extra new wealth to "trickle down" to regular folks after society's autocrats get through with it? Have we ever tried this before?

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Oct. 4, 2012 9:48 a.m.

    Same old GOP nonsensical propaganda.

    We heard a lot of that last night, too.

    I'm sorry Obama didn't stand up and call Mitt out on his lies.

  • Curmudgeon Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 4, 2012 9:33 a.m.

    Not only does Romney not tell us what he'd cut (except PBS funding, less than a drop in the federal budget bucket), but he won't tell us what loopholes and deductions he would eliminate in order to maintain the same level of revenue while cutting tax rates 20%. I suspect if he were to identify all the programs that would have to be cut, and all the tax deductions and loopholes that would have to be eliminated, in order to balance the budget and reduce the deficit without raising taxes, people would revolt.

  • wrz Ogden, UT
    Oct. 4, 2012 9:30 a.m.

    @CHS 85:

    "Can someone on the right give us ANY specifics on what programs to cut?"

    Mitt reportedly (I didn't watch) said there's some 47 training programs scattered throughout the Federal government, all run by different agencies. Combine then into just a few.

    I would eliminate the Department of Education. Education is a state and local responsibility.

    Simplify the tax code to eliminate the need for a huge cadre of IRS auditors/agents.

    Pull US troops out of the 150 or so countries around the world. Why do we need troops in Japan and Germany, for example? Those enemies have been subdued decades ago. And those nations rebuilt.

    "The last I heard from the candidate last night was that there would be no cuts in Medicare, Social Security..."

    Medicare is solvent through 2036. There's plenty of time to reform til then to stay solvent. And any action after that would be minor... such as raising the retirement age by a year or two.

  • CHS 85 Sandy, UT
    Oct. 4, 2012 8:30 a.m.

    Oh goody. Another "cut spending" letter without one example of what to cut and how much that cut will save.

    Can someone on the right give us ANY specifics on what programs to cut? The last I heard from the candidate last night was that there would be no cuts in Medicare, Social Security, and a huge increase in military spending. So what are these mysterious "cuts?"

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Oct. 4, 2012 7:00 a.m.

    "Mitt has paid 50 percent on his income and ROI in taxes. That's how the system works. "

    Sorry Vaughan, but that is NOT how the system works.

    First of all, you assume that everyone's investment money was initially taxed at 35%. That may or may not be true, but lets assume that Romney's was.

    Here is a scenario.

    Seed money - $1mil - taxed at 35% ($350,000) This takes into account NO deductions.
    Gain (200%) - $2mil - taxed at 15% ($300,000) No deductions taken here either.

    Now you have $3mil and paid a total of $650,000 in taxes. That is a combined rate of about 22%.

    If you then invest that 3 million again, and double your money, you pay an additional $450,000 (15% of $3mil gain = $450,000)

    So, now you have a total of $6 million and paid a total tax of 18%.

    Double that $6mil again and your total tax rate drops even further.

    A far cry from the 50% tax you claim in your post.
    It is simply math. And math does not lie. Can you support your claim with math?