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.
"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.
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
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.
This is a great letter. We need to get taxes under control and spending under
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.
@Redshirt"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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
@ugottabkidn:"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.
The message in this letter is about the kind of people supporting Mitt Romney.
I don’t want those people controlling our government.
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
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
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?
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
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.
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?
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.
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.
@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.
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
"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?