Romney Parks Millions In Cayman Islands

[PorkChopSandwiches]

Although it is not apparent on his financial disclosure form, Mitt Romney has millions of dollars of his personal wealth in investment funds set up in the Cayman Islands, a notorious Caribbean tax haven.

A spokesperson for the Romney campaign says Romney follows all tax laws and he would pay the same in taxes regardless of where the funds are based.

As the race for the Republican nomination heats up, Mitt Romney is finding it increasingly difficult to maintain a shroud of secrecy around the details about his vast personal wealth, including, as ABC News has discovered, his investment in funds located offshore and his ability to pay a lower tax rate.

"His personal finances are a poster child of what's wrong with the American tax system," said Jack Blum, a Washington lawyer who is an authority on tax enforcement and offshore banking.

On Tuesday, Romney disclosed that he has been paying a far lower percentage in taxes than most Americans, around 15 percent of his annual earnings. It has been Romney's Republican rivals who have driven the tax issue onto center stage. For weeks, Romney has cited a desire for privacy as his reason for not sharing his tax returns -- a gesture of transparency that is now expected from presidential contenders.

"I can tell you we follow the tax laws," he said recently while on the campaign trail in New Hampshire. "And if there's an opportunity to save taxes, we like anybody else in this country will follow that opportunity."

But tax experts tell ABC News there are other reasons Romney may not want the public viewing his returns. As one of the wealthiest candidates to run for president in recent times, Romney has used a variety of techniques to help minimize the taxes on his estimated $250 million fortune. In addition to paying the lower tax rate on his investment income, Romney has as much as $8 million invested in at least 12 funds listed on a Cayman Islands registry. Another investment, which Romney reports as being worth between $5 million and $25 million, shows up on securities records as having been domiciled in the Caymans.

Official documents reviewed by ABC News show that Bain Capital, the private equity partnership Romney once ran, has set up some 138 secretive offshore funds in the Caymans.

Romney campaign officials and those at Bain Capital tell ABC News that the purpose of setting up those accounts in the Cayman Islands is to help attract money from foreign investors, and that the accounts provide no tax advantage to American investors like Romney. Romney, the campaign said, has paid all U.S. taxes on income derived from those investments.

"The tax consequences to the Romneys are the very same whether the fund is domiciled here or another country," a campaign official said in response to questions. "Gov. and Mrs. Romney have money invested in funds that the trustee has determined to be attractive investment opportunities, and those funds are domiciled wherever the fund sponsors happen to organize the funds."

Bain officials called the decision to locate some funds offshore routine, and a benefit only to foreign investors who do not want to be subjected to U.S. taxes.

Tax experts agree that Romney remains subject to American taxes. But they say the offshore accounts have provided him -- and Bain -- with other potential financial benefits, such as higher management fees and greater foreign interest, all at the expense of the U.S. Treasury. Rebecca J. Wilkins, a tax policy expert with Citizens for Tax Justice, said the federal government loses an estimated $100 billion a year because of tax havens.

Blum, the D.C. tax lawyer, said working through an offshore investment vehicle allows the investor to "avoid a whole series of small traps in the tax code that ordinary people would face if they paid tax on an onshore basis."

Wilkins agreed, saying the "primary advantage to setting those funds up in an offshore jurisdiction like the Cayman Islands or Bermuda is it helps the investors avoid tax."

"It helps U.S. investors avoid U.S. tax," said Wilkins, "it helps foreign investors avoid taxes in their home country, so it's not illegal or improper to set those funds up in a foreign jurisdiction, but it makes it more attractive to investors because it helps them avoid paying taxes on that income."

Bain's presence in the Cayman Islands is not something the firm advertises. The Los Angeles Times first disclosed Romney's offshore accounts in 2007, during his initial run for the presidency. ABC News found references to the firm's accounts in the Caymans in the footnotes of securities filings. When ABC News went to the office address listed for Romney's Bain funds, lawyers in the Caymans were not eager to answer questions.

Asked if he could confirm the existence of the Bain accounts, David Byrne, the chief marketing officer for the law firm Walkers, listed on documents as Bain's Caymans' representative, said he could not. "No, I can't at all," said Byrne. "Unfortunately, I can't comment at all on that."

There is now less secrecy than there was even two weeks ago surrounding Romney's tax rate. The money he made through Bain investments was taxed as capital gains at a 15 percent rate, instead of the higher tax rates borne by most Americans. Newt Gingrich told reporters Wednesday that his income was taxed at 31 percent.

The so-called "carried interest" rule has been the source of extensive debate in Washington, with opponents criticizing the allowance to tax those earnings at 15 percent a glaring loophole that benefits only the wealthiest Americans. Under the carried interest rule, income that is determined to be capital gains – like the profit reaped by hedge fund managers -- is subject to the lower 15 percent rate.

Wilkins said Romney's arrangements reminded her of the now famous remarks by billionaire financier Warren Buffet, who revealed in 2007 that he was paying taxes at a lower rate than his receptionist.

"Well, I think it's the issue that is sort of on the front page every day, when we look at the Occupy Wall Street movement and that people are really losing patience with the idea that a lot of multinational corporations have and a lot of wealthy people have that while they benefit from everything this country has to offer … they don't seem to be willing to pay their fair share," she said.

[Muddy]

Republicans = Manipulating the laws for their personal benefit on a monetary scale none us us can fathom. Not even you Mr. Big shot... You know who you are.. punk.

[Teh One Who Knocks]

Republicans = Manipulating the laws for their personal benefit on a monetary scale none us us can fathom. Not even you Mr. Big shot... You know who you are.. punk.

Exactly! That's why that dirty republican John Kerry was registering his yacht in Rhode Island instead of Massachusetts, where he lives, so he could get out of paying the higher tax that they have in his home state! :x


Oh, wait :doh:

[Muddy]

Small potatoes, Lance..

[Teh One Who Knocks]

Whatever dude, spin everything any way you want....you are 100% right, all republicans are bad and all democrats are fucking angels.

[MrsM]

Republicans = Manipulating the laws for their personal benefit on a monetary scale none us us can fathom. Not even you Mr. Big shot... You know who you are.. punk.

I don't think that's a party trait - I would bet that anyone rich enough that hires a firm to do their taxes are "offered" these types of shelters

[Muddy]

Whatever dude, spin everything any way you want....you are 100% right, all republicans are bad and all democrats are fucking angels.

I call it like I see it.. And Yes there are definitely bad Democrats... But in general the Republicans change law to serve their own bank accounts where as Dems change it to serve the better good of man.. It's not always the case but in general It appears to me that is how it is...

[RBP]

MG - that's a rich people trait, not a political party trait.

[PorkChopSandwiches]

so it seems fair to you that he hid his money (because he can) and not pay his fair share, while the rest of us do?

[RBP]

so it seems fair to you that he hid his money (because he can) and not pay his fair share, while the rest of us do?

Who are you asking?

[PorkChopSandwiches]

Lance ;) Or anyone who wants to comment

[Teh One Who Knocks]

MG - that's a rich people trait, not a political party trait.

No, no, it's only republicans that are evil. I am 100% sure that all those democrats whining that Ronmey is only paying the 15% capital gains tax on his earning all make sure to send extra money above and beyond the 15% they are all paying on their capital gains. :thumbsup:


:sarcasm:


so it seems fair to you that he hid his money (because he can) and not pay his fair share, while the rest of us do?

Is he breaking the law?

I'm sure if you were wealthy, you would just gladly fork over your money so the people in Washington could waste it :thumbsup:

[PorkChopSandwiches]

Is he breaking the law?

I'm sure if you were wealthy, you would just gladly fork over your money so the people in Washington could waste it :thumbsup:

Regardless of the law, do you think this is fair?

[RBP]

Lance ;) Or anyone who wants to comment

Well it's a simple function of taxes that investments are going to be taxed at a lower rate. You'd have to be a pretty naive leftist to think that doubling the capital gains rate is a good idea. Income rates and capital gains rates are not comparable. Now if you want to say everyone, I mean everyone, pays 15% flat on all income, I might be interested in that.

Having said that, if it is advantageous to move money off shore then people will do it. I can't answer whether it would be good for us economically to change the tax code on that.

[Muddy]

No, no, it's only republicans that are evil. I am 100% sure that all those democrats whining that Ronmey is only paying the 15% capital gains tax on his earning all make sure to send extra money above and beyond the 15% they are all paying on their capital gains. :thumbsup:


:sarcasm:



Is he breaking the law?

I'm sure if you were wealthy, you would just gladly fork over your money so the people in Washington could waste it :thumbsup:

It'd be nice if you could post the sarcasm gif first, so I don't have to waste my time reading that condescending drivel..

Really dude, you dance for the man if that works for you.. Those crooks don't have me fooled.. :lol:

[RBP]

I don't like Romney because he's an annoying empty suit, not because he's rich.

[Teh One Who Knocks]

It'd be nice if you could post the sarcasm gif first, so I don't have to waste my time reading that condescending drivel..

Really dude, you dance for the man if that works for you.. Those crooks don't have me fooled.. :lol:

Drivel? It's the fucking truth....you go ahead and post a list of democrats that are paying above and beyond their share of the 15% capital gains tax on their investments. Go ahead....I'll wait.

[Teh One Who Knocks]

Well it's a simple function of taxes that investments are going to be taxed at a lower rate. You'd have to be a pretty naive leftist to think that doubling the capital gains rate is a good idea. Income rates and capital gains rates are not comparable. Now if you want to say everyone, I mean everyone, pays 15% flat on all income, I might be interested in that.

Having said that, if it is advantageous to move money off shore then people will do it. I can't answer whether it would be good for us economically to change the tax code on that.

Don't bring facts into the discussion, this is a class warfare bashing thread :hand:

[Muddy]

I don't like Romney because he's an annoying empty suit, not because he's rich.

I have no problem with him being rich.. If he he pays his equal percentage and follows the rules like the rest of us... really... I'd love to be rich... And Im working on it... But Im not gonna have laws re written so I can squeak out another 1/2 mill. of tax savings for myself... When is enough, enough? It's not about being rich.. It's about being far beyond driven greedy...

[Teh One Who Knocks]

Regardless of the law, do you think this is fair?

What do you mean 'regardless of the law'? It has everything to do with the law. If it's legal, it's fair.

You want to live where everything is 'fair', I hear that North Korea is nice and spiffy now that they have a new fearless leader.

[PorkChopSandwiches]

Well it's a simple function of taxes that investments are going to be taxed at a lower rate. You'd have to be a pretty naive leftist to think that doubling the capital gains rate is a good idea. Income rates and capital gains rates are not comparable. Now if you want to say everyone, I mean everyone, pays 15% flat on all income, I might be interested in that.

Having said that, if it is advantageous to move money off shore then people will do it. I can't answer whether it would be good for us economically to change the tax code on that.

I understand capital gains tax and it seems a fair percentage, but being able to hid your money and make untaxed profit on it outside the US, when any US citizen is required to pay taxes on any income no matter where they earned it seems unfair to me.

As for him being an empty suit, I have to agree. He is the milk toast choice

[RBP]

I have no problem with him being rich.. If he he pays his equal percentage and follows the rules like the rest of us... really... I'd love to be rich... And Im working on it... But Im not gonna have laws re written so I can squeak out another 1/2 mill. of tax savings for myself... When is enough, enough? It's not about being rich.. It's about being far beyond driven greedy...

Leave FBD out of this. :lol:

[Muddy]

Leave FBD out of this. :lol:

:dance:

[Teh One Who Knocks]

I understand capital gains tax and it seems a fair percentage, but being able to hid your money and make untaxed profit on it outside the US, when any US citizen is required to pay taxes on any income no matter where they earned it seems unfair to me.

As for him being an empty suit, I have to agree. He is the milk toast choice

Then get the law changed....oh wait, that will never happen because almost everyone in Congress is rich.

How is what Romney is doing any less 'fair' than the people in Congress being allowed to profit on insider trading when that is illegal for anyone else?

[Muddy]

What do you mean 'regardless of the law'? It has everything to do with the law. If it's legal, it's fair.

You want to live where everything is 'fair', I hear that North Korea is nice and spiffy now that they have a new fearless leader.

http://i.imgur.com/qqofe.jpg


:lol:

[PorkChopSandwiches]

Then get the law changed....oh wait, that will never happen because almost everyone in Congress is rich.

How is what Romney is doing any less 'fair' than the people in Congress being allowed to profit on insider trading when that is illegal for anyone else?

I dont think thats fair either, especially since they throw other people in jail for it.

[perrhaps]

I understand capital gains tax and it seems a fair percentage, but being able to hid your money and make untaxed profit on it outside the US, when any US citizen is required to pay taxes on any income no matter where they earned it seems unfair to me.

As for him being an empty suit, I have to agree. He is the milk toast choice

Please take a look at line 8b on your Federal Income Tax Return, and you'll see that you don't have to pay taxes on any income. This is a popular fallacy.

I have @$45,000.00 in a mutual fund that paid me over $2,000.00 last year in dividends that were totally tax-free.

[PorkChopSandwiches]

So why pay any taxes

[Acid Trip]

Anyone can take money out of the country and park in the Caymans, Bahamas, Barbados, etc. There is nothing illegal about that. That said, Caribbean banks can be risky because if the bank goes belly up there is no FDIC to bail you out and recover your funds. You end up losing every penny.

ALL politicians are full of shit and ALL politicians look out for themselves above anyone else. Both parties are fucking you, end of story.

[Muddy]

http://a57.foxnews.com/static/managed/img/Scitech/396/223/contentblocked.JPG

[JoeyB]

Republicans = Manipulating the laws for their personal benefit on a monetary scale none us us can fathom. Not even you Mr. Big shot... You know who you are.. punk.

Agreed. The argument in this thread about how all rich people do this is unimportant. Of course they do. The difference is that the republican party now basically exists to serve the needs of billionaires. Billionaires get them elected, and billionaires get rewarded. Today's GOP has nothing to do with the GOP of forty years ago, nothing. They might as well be different parties altogether. The modern GOP is nothing but the tool by which corporations tip the balance in their favor. I know that bothers the republicans on this forum when I say it, but you know what should really be bothering them? That it's true and their chosen party has abandoned what it stands for to do the bidding of a the ultra elite in this country.

[RBP]

Agreed. The argument in this thread about how all rich people do this is unimportant. Of course they do. The difference is that the republican party now basically exists to serve the needs of billionaires. Billionaires get them elected, and billionaires get rewarded. Today's GOP has nothing to do with the GOP of forty years ago, nothing. They might as well be different parties altogether. The modern GOP is nothing but the tool by which corporations tip the balance in their favor. I know that bothers the republicans on this forum when I say it, but you know what should really be bothering them? That it's true and their chosen party has abandoned what it stands for to do the bidding of a the ultra elite in this country.

:stfu:

[FBD]

Agreed. The argument in this thread about how all rich people do this is unimportant. Of course they do. The difference is that the republican party now basically exists to serve the needs of billionaires. Billionaires get them elected, and billionaires get rewarded. Today's GOP has nothing to do with the GOP of forty years ago, nothing. They might as well be different parties altogether. The modern GOP is nothing but the tool by which corporations tip the balance in their favor. I know that bothers the republicans on this forum when I say it, but you know what should really be bothering them? That it's true and their chosen party has abandoned what it stands for to do the bidding of a the ultra elite in this country.
Too bad you feel you can just spew whatever you feel might be the truth and consider it such - sane people dont accept such bullshit premises, we require facts to back up allegations, allegations dont mean shit to people that are willing to look behind them and see what measuring stick is being used here. I'd love to see you attempt to back it up with data - the only thing I'm really curious about is if you'd be honest about your findings - and the thing I'm not curious about, is whether you'd simply ignore it and keep your fantasy ideology, because we know you better than that.
Romney paid his taxes on his Cayman investments - but obviously that doesnt mean shit to you - just the mere fact that he has money means he's bad.
In the next breath, let's hear you dismiss the fact that its Democrats who are getting the majority of Wall Street's money, and this aint your dad's D party either - they've gone straight back to that fuckwad Wilson and taken a page or two from that dipshit FDR.

[JoeyB]

Too bad you feel you can just spew whatever you feel might be the truth and consider it such - sane people dont accept such bullshit premises, we require facts to back up allegations, allegations dont mean shit to people that are willing to look behind them and see what measuring stick is being used here. I'd love to see you attempt to back it up with data - the only thing I'm really curious about is if you'd be honest about your findings - and the thing I'm not curious about, is whether you'd simply ignore it and keep your fantasy ideology, because we know you better than that.
Romney paid his taxes on his Cayman investments - but obviously that doesnt mean shit to you - just the mere fact that he has money means he's bad.
In the next breath, let's hear you dismiss the fact that its Democrats who are getting the majority of Wall Street's money, and this aint your dad's D party either - they've gone straight back to that fuckwad Wilson and taken a page or two from that dipshit FDR.

I present as evidence every republican leader since (but NOT including) Nixon. I will defend Nixon, as I have in the past, if necessary. And obviously, Ford doesn't actually factor in because he was never elected and remains completely irrelevant. From Reagan on, corrupt. History speaks for itself.

Also, FDR was the greatest president this country ever produced. 'Too bad you feel you can just spew whatever you feel might be the truth and consider it such' when you call him dipshit.

Meanwhile, you keep worshiping your false corporate gods and supporting their party.

[FBD]

hahaha ok what evidence is that again? unfortunately I dont just eat shit that's shoveled towards my face - you'll have to be specific, otherwise you're simply telling us all that you havent got jack shit but rumor and hearsay, half empty allegations half or more of the timespans you're referring to. then you have the gall to act as if democrat presidents, nevermind democratic congressmen, have been among the most egregious violators. call balls & strikes, dude. refs dont play for one team or another for a reason - because when you ump for your own team, that strike zone's gonna be huge for your pitcher - and you're passing some major league charlie sheen wild thing before glasses off shit as strikes.

yes, I was taught FDR was the greatest president ever in high school also - that doesnt mean its true. case in point, let me ask you - there was a rather worldwide depression back then - but why only in america did it last an entire decade, a big huge deep trench - whereas everywhere else the depression was rather V shaped? why is it? what was done over here (a veritable alphabet soup of government programs, a program to fix every tiny last bit of ill afflicting the nation, dig a hole, fill a hole for many of them;) versus what was done over in europe? hint: ask the austrians.

its sad that you cant be honest with yourself and admit that while the approach was compassionate, it produced shitty results that merely prolonged all of the suffering that happened. you can credit FDR for having a great heart, but you sure as hell cant credit him for producing good results.

that was the response to crisis - go back to non crisis in Wilson and you see a whole slew of other shit done that...produced a depression greater than the great depression - only the government response was exactly the opposite - and it produced exactly the opposite results! the roaring 20s. and since the progressive garbage mindset was still as pervasive as it was, it didnt go away overnight, they basically managed to mess it up by the time a decade had passed by, and there we have FDR, back with the government morphine drip.

sorry man - hahahaha - its just laughable. you have to be willfully fking ignorant. hahahaha rofl. :thumbsup:

[Acid Trip]

I present as evidence every republican leader since (but NOT including) Nixon. I will defend Nixon, as I have in the past, if necessary. And obviously, Ford doesn't actually factor in because he was never elected and remains completely irrelevant. From Reagan on, corrupt. History speaks for itself.

Also, FDR was the greatest president this country ever produced. 'Too bad you feel you can just spew whatever you feel might be the truth and consider it such' when you call him dipshit.

Meanwhile, you keep worshiping your false corporate gods and supporting their party.

So Joey, what exactly do you do for a living?

I'm wondering if you work for one of the "false corporate gods" that you are so against. Or do you take the high road (aka practicing what you preach) and work for a non-profit or perhaps some form of self employment?

[JoeyB]

So Joey, what exactly do you do for a living?

I'm wondering if you work for one of the "false corporate gods" that you are so against. Or do you take the high road (aka practicing what you preach) and work for a non-profit or perhaps some form of self employment?

I'm a professional assassin and I dabble in serial killing as an unpaid hobby as well.

[FBD]

Here you go Joey:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/japans-final-resolution-has-yet-come

[KevinD]

Agreed. The argument in this thread about how all rich people do this is unimportant. Of course they do. The difference is that the republican party now basically exists to serve the needs of billionaires. Billionaires get them elected, and billionaires get rewarded. Today's GOP has nothing to do with the GOP of forty years ago, nothing. They might as well be different parties altogether. The modern GOP is nothing but the tool by which corporations tip the balance in their favor. I know that bothers the republicans on this forum when I say it, but you know what should really be bothering them? That it's true and their chosen party has abandoned what it stands for to do the bidding of a the ultra elite in this country.



Seriously? Who do you think got oh, I don't know, Obama, Clinton, etc, etc elected?
Here's my take:
What exactly is Romney (whom I loathe) guilty of here?
Tax evasion?
Nope, he's seems to have followed the laws as they exist.
Being rich?
Yep, he is. Get over it. Until you can prove he got rich illegally, let it go. Don't fall into the "Class warfare" that is being promoted by certain people.
If I was worth 250 million, bet your ass I would do everything in my power to legally keep the fed's grubby little hands off of MY money. Hell, I'm worth less than $500,000, and I do it anyway.

[Muddy]

Seriously? Who do you think got oh, I don't know, Obama, Clinton, etc, etc elected?
Here's my take:
What exactly is Romney (whom I loathe) guilty of here?
Tax evasion?
Nope, he's seems to have followed the laws as they exist.
Being rich?
Yep, he is. Get over it. Until you can prove he got rich illegally, let it go. Don't fall into the "Class warfare" that is being promoted by certain people.
If I was worth 250 million, bet your ass I would do everything in my power to legally keep the fed's grubby little hands off of MY money. Hell, I'm worth less than $500,000, and I do it anyway.

Yeah but you don't get any protection because of your income level, dude. You don't have shelters to hide what little bit you get to keep.. :lol:

[KevinD]

Protection from what exactly? Not arguing, just not sure what you mean.

[Muddy]

Protection from taxation...

[FBD]

man, there's just some people that simply dont understand how things work. I dont say that to insult, but there is simply no other explanation for some of the responses.

[Muddy]

man, there's just some people that simply dont understand how things work. I dont say that to insult, but there is simply no other explanation for some of the responses.

There's also some people that refuse to admit that greed is rampant in this country... And the greedy will stop at nothing to quench their insatiable thirst..


Also man, have you not heard Warren Buffet say that his secretary is taxed at a higher rate than himself?

[FBD]

MG, please explain your differentiation to me between greed and self interest.


blah blah, we all know that income is taxed higher than capital gains - because anything taxed at capital gains rate has already been taxed at the income rate. what's your point other than trying to really push a square peg in a round hole?

I like Picken's response: I've paid X millions in taxes since I was 70 - what the hell else do you want from me?

[Muddy]

MG, please explain your differentiation to me between greed and self interest.


blah blah, we all know that income is taxed higher than capital gains - because anything taxed at capital gains rate has already been taxed at the income rate. what's your point other than trying to really push a square peg in a round hole?

I like Picken's response: I've paid X millions in taxes since I was 70 - what the hell else do you want from me?

The "mega-rich" pay about 15 percent in taxes, while the middle class "fall into the 15 percent and 25 percent income tax brackets, and then are hit with heavy payroll taxes to boot."

Warren Buffett on Sunday, August 14th, 2011 in a "New York Times" op-ed

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/aug/18/warren-buffett/warren-buffett-says-super-rich-pay-lower-taxes-oth/

[FBD]

the mega rich category is also the most volatile income category - next? poor! income mobility, my man. you have to cling to an oldass misrepresented story to make your point? you can do better.

also, you avoided my question.


ok, I'll phrase it a little easier: do you see any different between one trying to achieve and one trying to compete?

[Muddy]

the mega rich category is also the most volatile income category - next? poor! income mobility, my man. you have to cling to an oldass misrepresented story to make your point? you can do better.

also, you avoided my question.


ok, I'll phrase it a little easier: do you see any different between one trying to achieve and one trying to compete?

Im not here to answer your questions, Homie... Also whilst I'm not a professional internets debator, I live life and see things and make judgments with my own eyes. And what I SEE is all our jobs being moved overseas by the rich to protect their margins, The rich further protecting those margins through law manipulations and tax shelter creations, and guys like you that reverently support it.

[Teh One Who Knocks]

The "mega-rich" pay about 15 percent in taxes, while the middle class "fall into the 15 percent and 25 percent income tax brackets, and then are hit with heavy payroll taxes to boot."

Warren Buffett on Sunday, August 14th, 2011 in a "New York Times" op-ed

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/aug/18/warren-buffett/warren-buffett-says-super-rich-pay-lower-taxes-oth/

Dude, that a red herring argument....Buffet is taxed on his capital gains, he doesn't draw a real salary from his company (I think he pays himself something like $1/year in salary). He could easily pay himself a salary if he wanted and then pay payroll tax and income tax at the highest level. He chooses not to do that. He is a hypocrite of the biggest degree.

[FBD]

Im not here to answer your questions, Homie... Also whilst I'm not a professional internets debator, I live life and see things and make judgments with my own eyes. And what I SEE is all our jobs being moved overseas by the rich to protect their margins, The rich further protecting those margins through law manipulations and tax shelter creations, and guys like you that reverently support it.

No, you just miss that "guys like me" actually turn over stones and look at the processes beneath phenomena and seek to understand root causes and how they match up with outcomes. Do you think I'm a fiscal conservative just because I like the idea of letting people keep money? No, because empirical results are so plainly obvious its not even funny.

Whereas you'll bitch about jobs being moved overseas, I see that and ask "what happened that it wound up making sense for a company to move jobs overseas, why has that become profitable whereas previously it had not?" And if one is honest with himself he finds that it is the laws in the localities having been carved out to help this constituent or that constituent, to the detriment of the whole. Case in point California - a ridiculous amount of companies have moved away - not necessarily even overseas - WHY? It is little different intrastate. The localities, be they town, city, state, federal - have become such a cumulative burden that people rightly feel that they're being raped so that people can obtain an associate's degree of the dole!

Breaking the law is breaking the law - when you see an investment made somewhere and it is investigated and shown to have been legal, the taxes were paid - what's your problem? That somebody made enough money to have some extra to decide where to invest it? Your logic is just not adding up.

[Muddy]

No, you just miss that "guys like me" actually turn over stones and look at the processes beneath phenomena and seek to understand root causes and how they match up with outcomes.

No dude.. I well notice that "guys like you" make some valid points sometimes... But I also notice than in your mind right is right and left is wrong.. Regardless of the subject.. It's just not the case in the real world..

[KevinD]

Romney and other rich folks, at least the law abiding ones, are no more "protected" from paying taxes than anyone else. They paid whatever rate they had to when the "x" amount of money was earned, parked the money in solid investments, and now pat 15% on the GAINS, not the capitol. You can do the same.
If you chose to not save money, or spend more than you make, that is not the IRS's problem, nor anyone else's. I'm personally against all forms of "bail outs" including bankruptcy as a shelter.
Actually, the "poor" are protected more. EIC and all that. If you make less than the max EIC credit, and have a kid or two, it's possible to "get back" more than you paid in. Now, how is that fair? Hmm?

Here's the thing, I've been stocking away 15-20% of my gross income for over 20 years now. The lump sum amount doesn't really matter as market fluctuations can vary wildly.
Let's just suppose that I have 1 mill accrued over a lifetime of savings, and the accounts are matured. If I retire, so no other income, don't cash out my investments, but instead live off the interest and gains, I will be taxed at 15%. How is that unfair?

[Muddy]

I'd be happy if everyone just paid a 15% tax on all income... Bad thing though is like Lance posted you can fudge what you actually make and avoid paying any taxes..

[FBD]

No dude.. I well notice that "guys like you" make some valid points sometimes... But I also notice than in your mind right is right and left is wrong.. Regardless of the subject.. It's just not the case in the real world..

you may notice, but very seldom acknowledge - its in your mind that in my mind right is right and left is wrong, its abuses of law that I usually center on, i.e. the federal government vastly overstepping its bounds on many a different thing.

so in your making sure its plunged into a right/left thing, there's never any indication you understand the points. you say you understand some things but then the way you reply to some things betrays some fundamental misunderstandings. what do you think I'm supposed to say about that?



very good points Kev.

[KevinD]

Well, I happen to agree with you there (flat tax for the win) and yes you can fudge your taxes, both legally and illegally. This I blame more on the Tax code, not so much on the individual. Want to get it fixed? Let's get the code/laws changed. (Yeah, like that's gonna happen. The rich would fight it, and so would the poor, and guess who votes the most?)

[Muddy]

so in your making sure its plunged into a right/left thing, there's never any indication you understand the points. you say you understand some things but then the way you reply to some things betrays some fundamental misunderstandings.

Well, I never claimed to know it all.. I'm not a lawyer, and even they interpret law differently from one another. I reply sometimes a certain way because you blame the entire country's shortcomings on Obummer and FDR.. I try to have a polarizing effect on your far beyond driven views.

[FBD]

just making relevant comparisons. you can trace all this bullshit back to having too much government action on something. FDR and Obama just happen to be among the most egregious violators, and since we're talking about egregious violations, their names come up. here's what works....and here's what doesnt.

but yeah, let's punish rich people. its a great idea to set up a profit control advisory board that can tax too much profit at up to 100%. its a great idea to funnel resources all around upon whim and then complain that the system's running wobbly. :roll:

[JoeyB]

Im not here to answer your questions, Homie... Also whilst I'm not a professional internets debator, I live life and see things and make judgments with my own eyes. And what I SEE is all our jobs being moved overseas by the rich to protect their margins, The rich further protecting those margins through law manipulations and tax shelter creations, and guys like you that reverently support it.

The Tea Party...hundreds of thousands of middle class people fighting hard to lower taxes for the rich.


Well, I happen to agree with you there (flat tax for the win) and yes you can fudge your taxes, both legally and illegally. This I blame more on the Tax code, not so much on the individual. Want to get it fixed? Let's get the code/laws changed. (Yeah, like that's gonna happen. The rich would fight it, and so would the poor, and guess who votes the most?)

A flat tax is a bad idea, it penalizes the poor. People with 10k in income just cannot afford to dump 15%. I know that bashing the poor is the rule on this forum, but it's not a Christian thing to do, nor is it just in this case.

[KevinD]

The Tea Party...hundreds of thousands of middle class people fighting hard to lower taxes for the rich.

Umm, totally wrong. Tea Party is not about taxes.


A flat tax is a bad idea, it penalizes the poor. People with 10k in income just cannot afford to dump 15%. I know that bashing the poor is the rule on this forum, but it's not a Christian thing to do, nor is it just in this case.

So, because someone won't/can't get a job making at least federal min wage ($7.25/hr= $15,000/yr) that means I should have to pay their taxes?
Now, if you are a student, single working parent (that actually got married..NO support for welfare moms) who is single or the only one able to work, mentally or physically disabled such that you can't really work, then I am all for a full tax refund. However, you should still have to pay tax on all monies earned.
Basically, my point is that I'm sick and tired of paying more than my fair share for those who abuse the system.

[JoeyB]

Umm, totally wrong. Tea Party is not about taxes.



So, because someone won't/can't get a job making at least federal min wage ($7.25/hr= $15,000/yr) that means I should have to pay their taxes?
Now, if you are a student, single working parent (that actually got married..NO support for welfare moms) who is single or the only one able to work, mentally or physically disabled such that you can't really work, then I am all for a full tax refund. However, you should still have to pay tax on all monies earned.
Basically, my point is that I'm sick and tired of paying more than my fair share for those who abuse the system.

I won't go into this in detail, but this continuing (and growing) image of the poor as system abusers is one of the reasons I left the republican party. Let's say someone is making 16k a year...ask yourself this honestly, could you support your family on that? Could you? Now imagine making 16k and suddenly being asked to pay even more of it in taxes. It would break you. How is that just?

[Muddy]

The Tea Party...hundreds of thousands of middle class people fighting hard to lower taxes for the rich.


:lol: Exactly




Umm, totally wrong. Tea Party is not about taxes.




I thought "TEA" was an acronym for "Taxed Enough Already"...?

[KevinD]

You are right, you can't really support a family on that amount of money currently. That's one of the reasons I waited until I could afford a family. Not my fault if others make bad decisions. A rubber doesn't cost much.
Oh, and it's not a new, growing thing. Taking care of the infirm, poor, etc has been a burden on society since society came along. I don't have a problem helping those who can't help themselves. I do have a problem when there are multiple generations who have never been productive members of society, and I'm required to support them, and called nasty name when I bitch about it.

[KevinD]

Nope, that's incorrect. That has only come along recently with "supporters" who just want to make a name for themselves, and get media exposure at any cost. The generation of the Tea Party movement was a deep dissatisfaction with the federal government as a whole, republicans and democrats, people wanting a more streamlined, constitutionalist government.

[KevinD]

Most of the things you can currently find out about the Tea party point to it's origins as being in 2009. This is in fact quite false. I first became aware of the movement in 2007 on a different forum. Here's a quote and link:


ATTENTION!!!

ON THIS SUNDAY DECEMBER 16TH, 2007 - BOSTON TEA PARTY DAY
http://www.teaparty07.com/


As it was then, it was basically a bunch of folks with a few headliners (Ron Paul, etc) who were tired of the federal government going more and more socialist, non-constitutionalist.
The "Taxed Enough Already" was coined by some news type personality, I don't remember who, but several have claimed it. Unfair taxation is a part of it, but by no means is that the primary focus, irregardless how CNN/MSNBC try to spin it.

[PorkChopSandwiches]

but it's not a Christian thing to do, nor is it just in this case.

this is not a religious issue, lets not get into big business religion, which is exactly what it is unless you want to be self spiritual

[JoeyB]

this is not a religious issue, lets not get into big business religion, which is exactly what it is unless you want to be self spiritual

I am definitely not big business religion. And I could make some serious allegations towards the Southern Baptists and a large number of other religious groups who seem to offer nothing in the way of genuine faith.


and called nasty name when I bitch about it.

I didn't call you a nasty name dude.

[KevinD]

I am definitely not big business religion. And I could make some serious allegations towards the Southern Baptists and a large number of other religious groups who seem to offer nothing in the way of genuine faith.



I didn't call you a nasty name dude.


I was raised Southern Baptist, (though not the dancing with serpents/speaking in tongue variety) lol

An no Joey, you didn't call me any names, (thanks for that btw) but on other sites while trying to have serious political discourse, name calling has reared it's head. I'm just blowing off steam here, because though we don't all agree (thank god, otherwise life would be pretty boring) we all generally are capable of haveing discussions about anything under the sun. Granted, they might get a tad heated now and then. lol
I respect all the regulars on here.

[FBD]

The Tea Party...hundreds of thousands of middle class people fighting hard to lower taxes for the rich.

:lol: right in line with "bush's tax cuts for the wealthy" yes? :lol: and of course fail to mention that the cuts were flat! dishonest a bit?

people who support the tea party who are not rich merely understand fundamentals and what will make the country prosperous. yall fools that keep playing the class warfare card, the race card....

http://iowntheworld.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/RACE-CARD.jpg

simply have ulterior motives and are too fackin greedy & jealous to let people work for something and keep a decent percentage of it.

[Acid Trip]

It is my firm conclusion that half the people in this thread have no idea how taxes work.

When you earn a paycheck you pay income tax. If you decide to invest what is left (aka capital) you must pay 15% on the money your invested capital earns (aka capital gains).

Let's say we raise the capital gains tax because "it's not fair they (the rich) only pay 15% and I pay more!". You realize that you benefit from that 15% too right? All the interest you earn on CDs, bonds, savings accounts, stock dividends, etc is taxed at 15%. If you invested more than you do now you would be paying only 15% on what your capital makes. It's an option available to everyone.

Would you prefer that what money you do save (in the aforementioned capital gains) gets taxed at a higher rate simply to "punish the rich"? If you thought saving for retirement was hard now you have NO IDEA how much harder it would get.