Does it bother you republicans that Mitt Romney has stashed millions of dollars into offshore banks to avoid paying taxes? While it is legal for a private citizen to do so, what does it say about a man who wants to be president of America?
I would think that most people would expect the president to set a higher standard for behavior than that.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2012-01-20/romney-offshore-accounts/52700400/1
Excerpts...
"If you have a foreign investor who is making income largely abroad and doesn't want to be subject to U.S. regulations and reporting, it's a plus," said C. Eugene Steuerle, co-founder of the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center and former deputy assistant treasury secretary for tax analysis.
A wealthy investor who has no immediate need for the money would be able to keep the investment offshore indefinitely, never paying U.S. taxes on it.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on May 24, 2012, 04:04:48 PM
Does it bother you republicans that Mitt Romney has stashed millions of dollars into offshore banks to avoid paying taxes? While it is legal for a private citizen to do so, what does it say about a man who wants to be president of America?
I would think that most people would expect the president to set a higher standard for behavior than that.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2012-01-20/romney-offshore-accounts/52700400/1
Excerpts...
"If you have a foreign investor who is making income largely abroad and doesn't want to be subject to U.S. regulations and reporting, it's a plus," said C. Eugene Steuerle, co-founder of the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center and former deputy assistant treasury secretary for tax analysis.
A wealthy investor who has no immediate need for the money would be able to keep the investment offshore indefinitely, never paying U.S. taxes on it.
He's a private citizen and is engaging in perfectly legal activity. I believe the Clintons engage in such activity and I suspect the Obamas will as well to help protect their wealth once they are out of office and no longer subject to such scrutiny.
Secondly, if profits were earned in 100% off-shore operations, why should the U.S. Government have a claim for taxes on that profit? Let's say you operated a business in the UK. You were taxed in the UK on those operations. Why should you be taxed on that money if you never bring it to the U.S.?
Next straw man, please....
Not really.
Of his quarter of a billion dollar fortune, 6 funds are off shore, and those are a trust and an IRA. Neither of which are currently taxable. All of the funds are subject to taxation upon disbursement just like everyone else's. I own two foreign funds, not because I am trying to dodge anything, but because that is where the fund sponsorship was set up. Probably for the same reasons.
Five of the Cayman-based funds are included within a blind trust for Romney's wife, Ann, and worth between $2.8 million and $7.6 million.
A sixth fund, called Bain Capital Investment Partners Trust Associates lll, is part of Romney's IRA retirement account and worth between $5 million and $25 million.
I actually kind of like the idea that we may be electing a president that understands the ridiculous burden imposed by our 6,000 page tax system. Instead of adding complexity and additional layers of redistribution to support additional layers of entitlement, he is more likely to adopt drastic simplification. I am sad that he probably will not go so far as to embrace a FAIR tax system, but anything is better than Tax & Spend.
As far as "fair share," I would be willing to bet that the amount of taxes paid by Romney every year is beyond significant. Of course he is rich, so there is no amount that a liberal would feel is fair unless it rendered him no longer wealthy. ;) We will know soon enough when he releases his Taxes.
He already released two years of tax records. He made $45 million and paid a tax rate of 13.9%.
What percent did you pay?
Quote from: Conan71 on May 24, 2012, 04:15:47 PM
Secondly, if profits were earned in 100% off-shore operations, why should the U.S. Government have a claim for taxes on that profit? Let's say you operated a business in the UK. You were taxed in the UK on those operations. Why should you be taxed on that money if you never bring it to the U.S.?
Apple has a business in Ireland, I believe. It just so happens that it gets most of the iTunes revenue worldwide. Should US companies be able to avoid taxation so easily?
Quote from: Conan71 on May 24, 2012, 04:15:47 PM
Why should you be taxed on that money if you never bring it to the U.S.?
It's an asset and you should be required to give it to the less fortunate.
;D
Quote from: RecycleMichael on May 24, 2012, 05:14:16 PM
He already released two years of tax records. He made $45 million and paid a tax rate of 13.9%.
What percent did you pay?
Turbo Tax says 16.15% based on my AGI which does not include my 401K contributions. The same tax on my AGI plus my 401K contributions is 13.46%. That's less than Romney paid. I also consider that 13.9% of $45 million is $6,255,000. That's more in tax for one year than I will make in my lifetime unless something good happens really soon.
I don't think the legal technicalities of hiding income off shore matter all that much. We have a man running for President who doesn't pay taxes on his income, plain and simple. We've never had a President who shirked that responsibility.
Quote from: Ed W on May 24, 2012, 09:08:03 PM
I don't think the legal technicalities of hiding income off shore matter all that much. We have a man running for President who doesn't pay taxes on his income, plain and simple. We've never had a President who shirked that responsibility.
That's complete BS. He pays taxes on his income. He doesn't pay tax on assets which are sitting in what are essentially trust accounts, neither to you, neither do I. When that money becomes income, he will be taxed on it. Are you saying he should pay taxes on it simply because he wants to be president? I'm not catching the logic there. Take a look at the Bush family or Clintons and I think you could re-state your last sentence. Romney isn't shirking, he's doing what is perfectly legal under the tax code. If you don't like it, lobby for a different tax collection method which doesn't require 6000 pages and doesn't give special treatment to one person over another. That's what true fairness is in the first place isn't it?
Nathan- Apple is a global company. Why should they pay tax on operations which don't involve U.S. customers or parts of the company which don't operate or generate revenue within the U.S., especially if they are under other taxing authorities? Drop the corporate income tax rate and I would assume places like Ireland would become less attractive havens.
It's funny, when I bring up the issue of Warren Buffet using every single crack in the tax code to his benefit, it's shirked off as his duty to share-holders to do so. When it's a GOP supporter or candidate, he's a tax cheat.
You guys practice some serious hypocrisy.
There is a difference from a rich guy and his taxes and a rich guy running for president and his taxes.
You get that, right?
Quote from: RecycleMichael on May 24, 2012, 10:16:02 PM
There is a difference from a rich guy and his taxes and a rich guy running for president and his taxes.
You get that, right?
Yeah I get it. It's called weak tea, RM. Either that or the local DNC is telling you to keep throwing smile against the wall to take the focus off the lousy job Obama has done the last 3.5 years.
And to answer your question, there is no difference. Romney is a citizen of the U.S. He's subject to the same tax codes that George Kaiser and Warren Buffet are party to. It matters not that he's running for office. He's not an out and out tax cheat like our secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner.
Why was this not an issue with either of the Bushes? You guys don't think they didn't have offshore assets or low rates on cap gains? If it's such an issue, why not hang Obama for not raising the cap gains rate and making people like Romney pay more taxes? He had as close a mandate as he could have in Congress for two years. Everyone still blames Bush for his tax cuts, but no one wants to assign any responsibility for Obama continuing those cuts.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on May 24, 2012, 10:16:02 PM
There is a difference from a rich guy and his taxes and a rich guy running for president and his taxes.
You get that, right?
Yep, I get it. Romney is a rich Republican. He needs to pay his fair share as determined by Democratic Party dogma, not the laws of the land.
Does anyone remember John Kerry (Heinz Ketchup) or was that Algore? They all blur together to me. I seem to remember that most of his income/wealth was in his wife's name. That must be the Democratic Party's equivalent of an off-shore account.
That was her money from before they were married.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on May 24, 2012, 10:34:19 PM
That was her money from before they were married.
They stopped making money after they got married?
Quote from: Conan71 on May 24, 2012, 10:13:41 PM
Nathan- Apple is a global company. Why should they pay tax on operations which don't involve U.S. customers or parts of the company which don't operate or generate revenue within the U.S., especially if they are under other taxing authorities? Drop the corporate income tax rate and I would assume places like Ireland would become less attractive havens.
Apple Ireland is something like 5 people and a couple of servers. You really think companies should be allowed to open offices in other countries for accounting purposes and through legal trickery transmute US income into foreign income to escape taxation? We aren't Greece, for crying out loud.
RA, you seem not to understand that the laws of the land have been riddled with loopholes that not only give special dispensation to the (very) rich to help them avoid taxes, but they are riddled with loopholes specifically designed for certain individuals or companies. The corruption is endemic. Why is this OK with you?
You really don't see the difference?
He is running for president. I expect a higher standard. I guess you guys don't.
Yes. I am sure that John Kerry and his wife made money together after they were married. Show me an example of him putting a single penny offshore.
Quote from: nathanm on May 24, 2012, 10:36:09 PM
Apple Ireland is something like 5 people and a couple of servers. You really think companies should be allowed to open offices in other countries for accounting purposes and through legal trickery transmute US income into foreign income to escape taxation? We aren't Greece, for crying out loud.
RA, you seem not to understand that the laws of the land have been riddled with loopholes that not only give special dispensation to the (very) rich to help them avoid taxes, but they are riddled with loopholes specifically designed for certain individuals or companies. The corruption is endemic. Why is this OK with you?
Simplify the tax codes and lower the corporate tax rate. Simple proof of why companies choose to relocate jobs overseas. Taxes are a drag on the bottom line and they cost Americans jobs. I have no idea how many people Apple employs in Ireland, I would think your guess of five is absurd. Cisco apparently found Ireland to be a nice tax haven- moving many jobs there. How many do they employ in China due to the lower cost of operating there?
Or better yet, let's start reducing our thirst for tax revenue by getting a handle on spending which requires so much revenue in the first place.
As to your note to RA, you don't think Warren Buffet and other ardent Obama supporters don't spend a ton of cash lobbying for reduced tax rates?
Quote from: RecycleMichael on May 24, 2012, 10:38:14 PM
You really don't see the difference?
He is running for president. I expect a higher standard. I guess you guys don't.
Yes. I am sure that John Kerry and his wife made money together after they were married. Show me an example of him putting a single penny offshore.
Other than Daily Koz' obsession with his wealth, is there a reason he should suddenly be punished and forced to pay millions upon millions in taxation that no other American is required to if he doesn't need to bring this cash on shore as income? He's not engaged in illegal activity. Why should I despise someone due to legally-gained wealth? Where was your outrage in 2000 or 2004 with Bush?
You are being incredibly petty. I didn't realize until now just how fearful you are that Obama might really have to stand on his own record.
Quote from: Conan71 on May 24, 2012, 10:48:43 PM
Other than Daily Koz' obsession with his wealth, is there a reason he should suddenly be punished and forced to pay millions upon millions in taxation that no other American is required to if he doesn't need to bring this cash on shore as income? He's not engaged in illegal activity. Why should I despise someone due to legally-gained wealth? Where was your outrage in 2000 or 2004 with Bush?
You are being incredibly petty. I didn't realize until now just how fearful you are that Obama might really have to stand on his own record.
If Romney has to stand on his, however, which one will he stand on? He has so many iterations now that it's confusing.
Quote from: nathanm on May 24, 2012, 10:36:09 PM
Apple Ireland is something like 5 people and a couple of servers. You really think companies should be allowed to open offices in other countries for accounting purposes and through legal trickery transmute US income into foreign income to escape taxation? We aren't Greece, for crying out loud.
RA, you seem not to understand that the laws of the land have been riddled with loopholes that not only give special dispensation to the (very) rich to help them avoid taxes, but they are riddled with loopholes specifically designed for certain individuals or companies. The corruption is endemic. Why is this OK with you?
Why is it that you don't understand that there are loopholes for the little guy too? The exemption for yourself and dependents, standard or itemized deduction, deferred tax savings for retirement (401K) are mostly significant loopholes for regular people and don't amount to a hill of beans for the very rich. For a single taxpayer: Standard deduction $5800, one exemption $3700, 401K max about $15,000 totals about $24,500 that immediately comes off your taxable income. That makes a big difference to me but not so much to someone making $45 million per year and paying over $6.2 million in income tax. The tax code is full of special benefits in order to steer society. Buy a home, have all the taxpayers help pay the interest on your mortgage. Have everyone else help pay for your kids via extra deductions and more earned income credit than if you are single or even married with no kids. Give a lot of money to tax deductible charities? If you itemize, you aren't really giving that much since you get to deduct it and I help subsidize your gift through higher tax rates to make up for your choice of charities.
Income tax would be a lot more fair without loopholes for anyone but be careful what you wish for, you may get it.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on May 24, 2012, 10:38:14 PM
You really don't see the difference?
He is running for president. I expect a higher standard. I guess you guys don't.
Yes. I am sure that John Kerry and his wife made money together after they were married. Show me an example of him putting a single penny offshore.
I expect Warren Buffet to pay more tax voluntarily because he complains about not paying enough. Most liberals don't see it that way. I expect a higher standard. I guess you guys don't.
There are ways for the wealthy to "hide" income from taxes right here on-shore. I would be extremely surprised if JK and wife do not take advantage of them. Show me they haven't. I believe that if no one had said anything about his tax bill on his yacht, he would have conveniently neglected to mention it to MA. You may fall into line that he always intended to pay the tax but I don't.
Quote from: Conan71 on May 24, 2012, 10:44:48 PM
As to your note to RA, you don't think Warren Buffet and other ardent Obama supporters don't spend a ton of cash lobbying for reduced tax rates?
There's a reason I regularly note that the Democrats are complicit in much of what is wrong with our country.
RA, the loopholes for the little guy hardly add up to a hill of beans for the country as a whole, but you might note that they mostly apply equally to those with higher incomes as well. They get more benefit by virtue of having more money. (The mortgage interest deduction applies up to a million dollars of loan per home, for example) Moreover, they underwent significant debate in Congress, unlike the nifty little provisions that get slipped in quietly at the behest of lobbyists.
Conan, Apple does have around 3300 employees in Ireland at this point. iTunes is still not an Irish business. It's an obvious tax dodge. I'm not quite sure why you think that should be any more legal than me setting up an Irish shell company to receive my paychecks. The vast majority of the business is done in the US. The ultimate decision maker is in the US. Google and others do the same thing.
The worst cases are when it's a purely accounting dodge. A foreign subsidiary "buys" product from a US factory essentially at cost and then "sells" it to the subsidiary distributor in the US at very near the selling price to retailers and by dint of some journal entries that have no relation to the real world all the profit is made overseas. This is not at all uncommon. At one time tax shelters were thought of as sleazy even when they were legal. What changed?
Quote from: nathanm on May 24, 2012, 11:34:18 PM
RA, the loopholes for the little guy hardly add up to a hill of beans for the country as a whole, but you might note that they mostly apply equally to those with higher incomes as well. They get more benefit by virtue of having more money. (The mortgage interest deduction applies up to a million dollars of loan per home, for example) Moreover, they underwent significant debate in Congress, unlike the nifty little provisions that get slipped in quietly at the behest of lobbyists.
I have no problem with the standard deduction etc applying equally to rich and famous as the poor and obscure. I also have no problem with the concept that the first/bottom dollars the rich earn go toward their living expenses just the same as yours or my dollars. Proportionately the rich benefit a lot less from the bottom end loopholes than you or I do. It used to be that a Million dollar home was a really big deal. It's still way out of my range. To think that the mortgage interest deduction with a $1 million loan limit is a major benefit to the really rich is not realistic. The $1 million loan limit actually looks like an un-loophole for the rich compared to the rest of us.
Nifty provisions sponsored by lobbyists happen when you have to pass the bill to find out what's in it.
Quote from: Red Arrow on May 24, 2012, 11:55:31 PM
Nifty provisions sponsored by lobbyists happen when you have to pass the bill to find out what's in it.
If only. It happens because the vast majority of those in our ruling class are corrupt.
Quote
To think that the mortgage interest deduction with a $1 million loan limit is a major benefit to the really rich is not realistic.
Don't forget, they get two of them. ;)
Quote from: nathanm on May 25, 2012, 12:09:40 AM
If only. It happens because the vast majority of those in our ruling class are corrupt.
Don't forget, they get two of them. ;)
One, two, it doesn't really matter. If you have $1000. in your pocket the chances of you worrying about something that costs $2.00 are pretty small.
Quote from: nathanm on May 24, 2012, 11:34:18 PM
Conan, Apple does have around 3300 employees in Ireland at this point. iTunes is still not an Irish business. It's an obvious tax dodge. I'm not quite sure why you think that should be any more legal than me setting up an Irish shell company to receive my paychecks. The vast majority of the business is done in the US. The ultimate decision maker is in the US. Google and others do the same thing.
So our tax code has cost 3300 American jobs in this
single instance. How many more have been lost?
Apple is engaging in a perfectly legal activity. If they were not, they would be hauled into court or fined heavily. Our tax code apparently permits this.
Secondly, how do you know iTunes is not chartered in Ireland? The federal government cannot compel a multi-national company to run all operations from the U.S.
Quote from: Conan71 on May 25, 2012, 11:02:58 AM
Secondly, how do you know iTunes is not chartered in Ireland? The federal government cannot compel a multi-national company to run all operations from the U.S.
The company that earns the profit is "Irish". The business is run from the US. It's pretty much the same scam as companies like TransOcean having a mail drop in Bermuda as their headquarters even though they not only don't, but legally can't under Bermudan law, run their business from Bermuda.
Oh, I think I understand this better now. Those ordinary Americans who go to work every day and pay their taxes every year are mere chumps, you know, the people that Willard so famously likes to fire. Yet our would-be plutocrats like Romney and Trump are better suited to be presidential candidates because they know how to avoid paying taxes both at home and abroad.
Glad we cleared that up.
That's pretty much the size of it, Ed. Unfortunately, we are all chumps because we keep letting these exit holes get away with it. Well, at least those of us who don't have millions of dollars to spend on tax shelters and the political connections to keep the IRS from looking too closely at them.
Quote from: Ed W on May 25, 2012, 06:21:44 PM
Oh, I think I understand this better now. Those ordinary Americans who go to work every day and pay their taxes every year are mere chumps, you know, the people that Willard so famously likes to fire. Yet our would-be plutocrats like Romney and Trump are better suited to be presidential candidates because they know how to avoid paying taxes both at home and abroad.
Glad we cleared that up.
Wow! What favors has Obama done for you and your union the last four years, other than sound bites? Might be interesting if someone like Bain ends up saving AA and possibly your job.
Quote from: Conan71 on May 25, 2012, 09:41:30 PM
Might be interesting if someone like Bain ends up saving AA and possibly your job.
Won't happen. The "union" would rather make a point and have AA go bankrupt.