Here's the view from the one-percenters:
A New York City donor a few cars back, who also would not give her name, said Romney needed to do a better job connecting. "I don't think the common person is getting it,"...
"We've got the message," she added. "But my college kid, the baby sitters, the nails ladies -- everybody who's got the right to vote -- they don't understand what's going on. I just think if you're lower income -- one, you're not as educated, two, they don't understand how it works, they don't understand how the systems work, they don't understand the impact."
...At the evening fundraiser at the estate of Julia and David Koch on Meadow Lane in Southampton, the suggested contribution was $75,000 per couple — with funds going to Romney's campaign, the Republican National Committee, the National Republican Senatorial Committee and the National Republican Congressional Committee.
There you have it. They think the rest of us are uneducated and too dense to understand what's going on. That's why we need smart, wealthy people to look after us. I imagine that southern plantation owners prior to the Civil War mouthed the same BS.
(Oops. Forgot the link!)
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-romney-hamptons-fundraiser-20120708,0,4909639.story (http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-romney-hamptons-fundraiser-20120708,0,4909639.story)
Quote from: Ed W on July 08, 2012, 08:53:35 PM
Here's the view from the one-percenters:
A New York City donor a few cars back, who also would not give her name, said Romney needed to do a better job connecting. "I don't think the common person is getting it,"...
"We've got the message," she added. "But my college kid, the baby sitters, the nails ladies -- everybody who's got the right to vote -- they don't understand what's going on. I just think if you're lower income -- one, you're not as educated, two, they don't understand how it works, they don't understand how the systems work, they don't understand the impact."
...At the evening fundraiser at the estate of Julia and David Koch on Meadow Lane in Southampton, the suggested contribution was $75,000 per couple — with funds going to Romney's campaign, the Republican National Committee, the National Republican Senatorial Committee and the National Republican Congressional Committee.
There you have it. They think the rest of us are uneducated and too dense to understand what's going on. That's why we need smart, wealthy people to look after us. I imagine that southern plantation owners prior to the Civil War mouthed the same BS.
Hmmm....wonder why Gas didn't notify us of this...oh, wait....what?
Quote from: Ed W on July 08, 2012, 08:53:35 PM
There you have it. They think the rest of us are uneducated and too dense to understand what's going on. That's why we need smart, wealthy people to look after us. I imagine that southern plantation owners prior to the Civil War mouthed the same BS.
Do you think Prez Obama is broke, stupid, and doesn't know how to play to an audience?
Quote from: Ed W on July 08, 2012, 08:53:35 PM
Here's the view from the one-percenters:
A New York City donor a few cars back, who also would not give her name, said Romney needed to do a better job connecting. "I don't think the common person is getting it,"...
"We've got the message," she added. "But my college kid, the baby sitters, the nails ladies -- everybody who's got the right to vote -- they don't understand what's going on. I just think if you're lower income -- one, you're not as educated, two, they don't understand how it works, they don't understand how the systems work, they don't understand the impact."
...At the evening fundraiser at the estate of Julia and David Koch on Meadow Lane in Southampton, the suggested contribution was $75,000 per couple — with funds going to Romney's campaign, the Republican National Committee, the National Republican Senatorial Committee and the National Republican Congressional Committee.
There you have it. They think the rest of us are uneducated and too dense to understand what's going on. That's why we need smart, wealthy people to look after us. I imagine that southern plantation owners prior to the Civil War mouthed the same BS.
(Oops. Forgot the link!)
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-romney-hamptons-fundraiser-20120708,0,4909639.story (http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-romney-hamptons-fundraiser-20120708,0,4909639.story)
$75K my butt!
I'll gladly treat every member on this forum to a far better BBQ throw down for a paltry $50,000 per couple. Even better is I won't even invite a politician to muck up the event. I'll simply keep the proceeds as profit.
Far more honest dealing, eh?
Quote from: Ed W on July 08, 2012, 08:53:35 PM
Here's the view from the one-percenters:
A New York City donor a few cars back, who also would not give her name, said Romney needed to do a better job connecting. "I don't think the common person is getting it,"...
"We've got the message," she added. "But my college kid, the baby sitters, the nails ladies -- everybody who's got the right to vote -- they don't understand what's going on. I just think if you're lower income -- one, you're not as educated, two, they don't understand how it works, they don't understand how the systems work, they don't understand the impact."
...At the evening fundraiser at the estate of Julia and David Koch on Meadow Lane in Southampton, the suggested contribution was $75,000 per couple — with funds going to Romney's campaign, the Republican National Committee, the National Republican Senatorial Committee and the National Republican Congressional Committee.
There you have it. They think the rest of us are uneducated and too dense to understand what's going on. That's why we need smart, wealthy people to look after us. I imagine that southern plantation owners prior to the Civil War mouthed the same BS.
(Oops. Forgot the link!)
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-romney-hamptons-fundraiser-20120708,0,4909639.story (http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-romney-hamptons-fundraiser-20120708,0,4909639.story)
I think you have done it, Ed! We're talking post of the year here!
That female pointed out what the real problem is - and it is exactly the opposite of what she said - the rest of us ARE starting to understand, and DO know how the systems work. And are finally, at long, long last, getting sick of it. Remains to be seen whether it is a lasting phenomenon. The 1% have a multi-generational view that leads to institutionalized protection of status and entrenched interests - they also have direct access to, and own the people who make the laws. In the past, they knew they just had to wait it out, and the spasm-du-jour would fizzle out soon. History may repeat itself....
I agree with you H. At the strata I work in now, I am surprised at just how much the lower socio-economic group does understand the basic mechanisms at play. They don't always understand the details of politics, they don't always know exactly how a bond issue works for example, but they are more likely to have a blunt summary that nonetheless is as accurate as those people with much more education but less insight. When a person spends their life working in a narrow, technological or specific category of employment, they tend to think they are much smarter than they really are. These people have worked in multiple industries at the guts level and know bs when they hear it. Some are just stupid and will always be so, but more and more are realizing that OK doesn't seem to like the poor, the aged, workers, unions and minorities. They voted for this group of T'Pers against their own best interests, and are beginning to see their mistake. Incumbents beware.
I highly recommend a flick I saw this weekend called, "In Time" starring Justin Timberlake. A little simple, a little crude but closer to identifying the basic mechanisms of human behavior and organizational excess than many are aware of. JT can actually perform.
The GOP's Class-Warfare Hypocrisy, From Nixon to Romney
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/07/09/the-gop-s-class-warfare-hypocrisy-from-nixon-to-romney.html (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/07/09/the-gop-s-class-warfare-hypocrisy-from-nixon-to-romney.html)
Romney in the Hamptons, Romney on a Jet Ski at his N.H. estate—conservatives may be crying foul at the Obama campaign playing up these stories, but they're masters at running on class resentment, says Peter Beinart.
Quote"A woman in a blue chiffon dress poked her head out of a black Range Rover here on Sunday afternoon and yelled to an aide to Mitt Romney, 'Is there a V.I.P. entrance. We are V.I.P.'
Thus began yesterday's nasty little New York Times story entitled, "Romney Donors Out in Force in Hamptons." It follows snarky coverage of Romney's Jet Ski-filled vacation at his multi-million dollar New Hampshire estate. Which follows a flurry of reports suggesting that the Obama campaign's assault on Romney's record at Bain Capital is hurting him in key states like Ohio.
Conservatives are livid. "The Obama campaign has made it clear that they will run this whole election on class warfare," declared the website The Right Sphere. "Instead of focusing on Obama's dismal record, they want Americans to resent Mitt Romney for being successful." Luckily, added Commentary, Obama's Maoist tactics will fail because America remains "an aspirational society that admires rather than resents success."
Really? If that's the case, why have Republicans used class resentment so effectively for the last 60 years? Joseph McCarthy, the man whose specter terrified Democrats for a generation, was all about class warfare. "It has not been the less fortunate or members of minority groups who have been selling this nation out," he told the Republican Women's Club of Wheeling, West Virginia, in 1950, in the speech that catapulted him to stardom, "but rather those who have had all the benefits that the wealthiest nation on earth has had to offer—the finest homes, the finest college education, and the finest jobs in government we can give. This is glaringly true in the State Department. There the bright young men who are born with silver spoons in their mouths are the ones who have been worst."
Richard Nixon seethed with class anger. "What starts the process really are laughs and slights and snubs when you are a kid," he confided to a friend. "Sometimes it's because you're poor or Irish or Jewish or Catholic or ugly or simply that you are skinny. But if you are reasonably intelligent and if your anger is deep enough and strong enough, you learn that you can change those attitudes by excellence, personal gut performance, while those who have everything are sitting on their fat butts."
Then there are the more recent examples. In 1988, George H.W. Bush accused Michael Dukakis of having learned his views in "Harvard Yard's boutique," a bastion of "liberalism and elitism." (Bush's campaign manager, Lee Atwater, later declared that had he been running Dukakis' campaign, he would have shown ads featuring Bush on his private tennis court alongside images of his waterfront mansion in Kennebunkport, before having the narrator intone: "No wonder he wants to cut capital gains taxes on the wealthy.")
In 2004, the GOP-aligned Club for Growth (an organization composed largely of dirt farmers) ran an ad calling Howard Dean's campaign a "latte-drinking, sushi-eating, Volvo-driving, New York Times-reading, body-piercing, Hollywood-loving left-wing freak show." When John Kerry bested Dean for the Democratic nomination, George W. Bush's campaign ran an ad that featured him windsurfing. Bush's commerce secretary declared that Kerry "looked French."
And Republicans don't use class warfare only against Democrats. They use it against Mitt Romney. "Even the richest man can't buy back his past," announced a Rick Perry ad last October. "This is a campaign of people power versus money power," declared Newt Gingrich this February. "We're just not going around meeting with CEOs and in the big cities," added Rick Santorum in March. "This campaign is living off the hard work of average ordinary people across this country who want to see a fundamental change, not on folks who have—well, let's say a special interest in electing their candidate."
For his part, Romney responded by calling Gingrich "a wealthy man, a very wealthy man. If you have a half a million dollar purchase from Tiffany's, you're not a middle-class American."
So, yes, America is an "aspirational" country, but it's also a country where people distrust elites. It's a country where people with money and pedigree are vastly overrepresented in government yet risk their careers if they can't connect to ordinary voters. Mitt Romney will be judged by those same rules: Do middle class Americans find him personally appealing? Do they believe his success has benefited the nation as a whole?
For much of the last half-century, Republicans have understood these rules better than Democrats. If Mitt Romney doesn't, he has no one to blame but himself.
Quote from: AquaMan on July 09, 2012, 10:00:34 AM
When a person spends their life working in a narrow, technological or specific category of employment, they tend to think they are much smarter than they really are. These people have worked in multiple industries at the guts level and know bs when they hear it. Some are just stupid and will always be so, but more and more are realizing that OK doesn't seem to like the poor, the aged, workers, unions and minorities. They voted for this group of T'Pers against their own best interests, and are beginning to see their mistake. Incumbents beware.
Red and I had a discussion sometime back about the folly that so many highly trained people fall into (in our case - engineers) of thinking that just because someone doesn't have a string of degrees following their name, that somehow they aren't very bright. THAT is a very stupid presumption on the behalf of the "highly trained" person. And breathtakingly arrogant.
We had a vote here a few years ago concerning Right to Work. The proponents were literally saying that it would bring many more jobs to the state and that the average pay would go up by double digits - 20% or more. Both lies, of course. But the working people who I worked with felt that somehow the state was hurting worse than the national average at that time (also a lie propagated by the proponents at the time), so they were going along with it just in case it would help things.
And the results so far? Well, it certainly did NOT bring more employment as promised. And wages did NOT go up 20% and more.
One big issue that I hear/see/perceive from the blue collar people I associate with (lots of them) is that the Democrats have become 'elitists' in much the same fashion as Republicans. Which is true.
Let's hope there is adequate enlightenment.
Quote from: Conan71 on July 09, 2012, 12:25:37 AM
$75K my butt!
I'll gladly treat every member on this forum to a far better BBQ throw down for a paltry $50,000 per couple. Even better is I won't even invite a politician to muck up the event. I'll simply keep the proceeds as profit.
Far more honest dealing, eh?
But would you do it for ten bucks, Conan? Since you've made it obvious you can be bought, all that's left to do is dicker over the price!
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on July 09, 2012, 08:30:14 AM
I think you have done it, Ed! We're talking post of the year here!
I wouldn't go that far. If you follow the link, you'll see that the excerpt I used is just the teeniest bit slanted to reflect my personal viewpoint. Yes, I freely admit to having bias and I'm sure someone could do a cut-and-paste job with that column to reflect a contrasting viewpoint.
Quote from: Ed W on July 09, 2012, 05:03:52 PM
I wouldn't go that far. If you follow the link, you'll see that the excerpt I used is just the teeniest bit slanted to reflect my personal viewpoint. Yes, I freely admit to having bias and I'm sure someone could do a cut-and-paste job with that column to reflect a contrasting viewpoint.
You did not include that part about David Koch. That goes even further at explaining what most people already know and how correct my original assessment was.
Quote from: Ed W on July 09, 2012, 04:56:53 PM
But would you do it for ten bucks, Conan? Since you've made it obvious you can be bought, all that's left to do is dicker over the price!
Damn right I would! I just love to fire up the smoker. Hell I do it for free quite often ;)
Business Week has a cover story on The Mormon Empire and it's ability to make billions. Then they hide it all....so you won't be able to trace it to Citizens United. Indirectly through separate ownership's you might whittle it all out.
RecycleAmerica, It's not that I am attacking a religion, but a cult that has grown into this huge secretive colony.
And, I am wondering why it is that Fortune Magazine, Forbes and Business Week seem to have all the in depth journalism posing the right questions.
The WSJ must be scratching their nuts too.
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865558976/Criticism-follows-Businessweek-cover-on-Mormon-Church-finances.html
(http://www.abc4.com/media/lib/5/2/0/2/202c175c-3386-444c-8a97-b3f667766f1f/Original.jpg)
"The lack of transparency allows articles like Bloomberg Businessweek to question the tax exempt status of the Church because of its business ventures. " http://www.abc4.com/mostpopular/story/Bloomberg-Businessweek-cover-mocks-Mormon-Church/Yv9ZIEMhWkWu0HRl4uiNiQ.cspx
Quote from: Conan71 on July 10, 2012, 09:20:59 AM
Damn right I would! I just love to fire up the smoker. Hell I do it for free quite often ;)
Where is my invite? Can I pay you with food stamps?
Quote from: RecycleMichael on July 16, 2012, 05:31:25 PM
Where is my invite? Can I pay you with food stamps?
You don't have to pay, I'd bill you as the evening's entertainment.
Quote from: Teatownclown on July 16, 2012, 04:51:51 PM
Business Week has a cover story on The Mormon Empire Roman Catholic Church and it's ability to make billions. Then they hide it all....so you won't be able to trace it to Citizens United. Indirectly through separate ownership's you might whittle it all out.
^^^^^
"He has his father's eyes..."
(http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lpntseQY9Y1qe0eclo1_r14_500.gif)
Oh God...
Road Trip: Mormon-in-chief? Latter-day Saints talk about what a President Romney would mean to them
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/road-trip-mormon-chief-latter-day-saints-talk-112251045.html
Conan, the Roman Catholics are world wide and mostly broke...The LDS is a $50billion+ business that avoids taxation at every turn and has income of several billion a year. Big big diff...
What would have happened if in 2008 when after reviewing Obama's tax return it was discovered Obama gave 5 times more money to Jeremiah Wright's congregation than the US government?
And two, what would have happened if the public found out he did not celebrate Christmas?
RM, looks like this issue will come to light. But the Chicago Mob knows to leave it to supporters like me to ask about this "colony" and the leadership will remain silent unless those tax returns portray flagrant disrespect for our troops and our government services. This is a major issue. It's not about religion...it's about the business of religion and the ferreting out of those in control of the oval office. Obviously, Mitt's not going to be calling the shots as he is incapable.
Quote from: Teatownclown on July 19, 2012, 11:24:52 AM
And two, what would have happened if the public found out he did not celebrate Christmas?
RM, looks like this issue will come to light.
It was never in the dark. Mitt Romney has never hid his religion from the public. But isn't it refreshing for a candidate to not flaunt their faith for votes?
You, on the other hand, are a religious bigot. You mock people of faith on this forum. No one else on TulsaNow ever brings up religion, but you are obsessed with it and feel compelled to treat any faith as a character flaw.
Our forum is better than that and better than you.
Please go away.
I think TTC goes too far in his criticism, but the LDS church is pretty busy spreading its anti-gay bigotry far and wide, so I have little sympathy for those who give to the cause being called out on it.
http://mashable.com/2012/07/19/ann-romney-you-people/
Should we expect any other "wives" to come forward in defense of the billionaire %1 candidate who doesn't pay taxes?
"There will be so many things that will be open again for more attack." COWARDS.
Did it ever occur to "you people" that the Mormon Church might be up to it's neck in Bain and vise-verse? Do you think there might be something in those returns that shows Mittens making investments for the church?
Cults always have their hands in the pockets of their wealthiest followers, no matter what...
Quote from: Teatownclown on July 19, 2012, 03:39:17 PM
Not a fake name Mister America...it's a moniker. Those of us who care not for ego enhancing do this. Who has their real name on here besides Guido? :D
I use my real name here, and so do some others. It makes us accountable for what we write. It's part of taking a credible, responsible approach to both our own ideas and those so closely held by our opponents. It goes a long way toward ensuring that we treat other posters here with dignity and respect. I may vehemently disagree with someone's position, but that is not an excuse for an ad hominem attack.
Leave personal attacks, character assassination, assorted half-truths, lies, and innuendo to Rush Limbaugh, Hannity, and other sock puppets. While it's clearly true that a lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes, we're better than that. We do not simply make up our own narrative, even if it rings of truthiness, simply because some of our opponents do not allow facts to interfere with a good argument. Again, we're better than that.
Now, why do I feel that this is a waste of perfectly good pixels?
Quote from: Ed W on July 19, 2012, 05:16:23 PM
Now, why do I feel that this is a waste of perfectly good pixels?
Don't worry, the pixels can be recycled.
Quote from: Teatownclown on July 19, 2012, 03:45:22 PM
Should we expect any other "wives" to come forward in defense of the billionaire %1 candidate who doesn't pay taxes?
Did you pay $3,009,766. in Federal Income Tax for 2010?
http://www.mittromney.com/learn/mitt/tax-return/2010/wmr-adr-return
Did you get to take a $75,000 deduction for your horseairplane?
Quote from: Ed W on July 19, 2012, 05:16:23 PM
I use my real name here, and so do some others. It makes us accountable for what we write. It's part of taking a credible, responsible approach to both our own ideas and those so closely held by our opponents. It goes a long way toward ensuring that we treat other posters here with dignity and respect. I may vehemently disagree with someone's position, but that is not an excuse for an ad hominem attack.
Leave personal attacks, character assassination, assorted half-truths, lies, and innuendo to Rush Limbaugh, Hannity, and other sock puppets. While it's clearly true that a lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes, we're better than that. We do not simply make up our own narrative, even if it rings of truthiness, simply because some of our opponents do not allow facts to interfere with a good argument. Again, we're better than that.
Now, why do I feel that this is a waste of perfectly good pixels?
I did not start the name calling and after 4 or 5 slanderous "ad hominem" darts ... well, what goes around comes around.
I looked up Ed W ...is it listed under Eddie? There were no Dubyah's either.
Quote from: Red Arrow on July 19, 2012, 06:05:44 PM
Did you pay $3,009,766. in Federal Income Tax for 2010?
http://www.mittromney.com/learn/mitt/tax-return/2010/wmr-adr-return
a %15 rate .... good catch. Uh, wait a minute ... is that the 2010 return that has some missing paper?
Quote from: nathanm on July 19, 2012, 06:08:00 PM
Did you get to take a $75,000 deduction for your horseairplane?
I own my airplane personally, not as a business. I do not use it for business. It is a toy.
Quote from: Teatownclown on July 19, 2012, 06:17:37 PM
a %15 rate .... good catch. Uh, wait a minute ... is that the 2010 return that has some missing paper?
15% is, in this case, a LOT more than paying no tax.
Quotethe billionaire %1 candidate who doesn't pay taxes?
Missing paper? I don't know, I didn't examine all 203 pages.
Quote from: nathanm on July 19, 2012, 06:08:00 PM
Did you get to take a $75,000 deduction for your horseairplane?
$75,000/$21661,344 = .0035 or 0.35%
0.35% of my gross income (a small 3 digit left of the decimal point number) wouldn't cover the expenses of trying to make my airplane a business.
Quote from: Red Arrow on July 19, 2012, 06:27:45 PM
15% is, in this case, a LOT more than paying no tax.
Missing paper? I don't know, I didn't examine all 203 pages.
I'm willing to bet with all the loss carry forwards and the deductions to the LDS, his taxes should have been 5 times that amount. He paid no tax compared to the %99ers.
Quote from: Red Arrow on July 19, 2012, 06:24:11 PM
I own my airplane personally, not as a business. I do not use it for business. It is a toy.
When has the horse business made a profit? If you called your hobby a business the IRS would disallow the deduction.
The proportion of the deduction to his income is irrelevant. If he made $75,000 a year he could deduct the loss if it were a legitimate business.
Quote from: nathanm on July 19, 2012, 06:37:08 PM
The proportion of the deduction to his income is irrelevant.
We will just have to disagree on that point.
I find it amusing that when people talk about how much tax a rich person pays they always point out how low a percentage it is of their income. When there is a deduction, that is actually a small percentage that would only amount to a couple hundred dollars for most of us, the actual number of dollars is used.
Quote from: Red Arrow on July 19, 2012, 06:58:21 PM
I find it amusing that when people talk about how much tax a rich person pays they always point out how low a percentage it is of their income. When there is a deduction, that is actually a small percentage that would only amount to a couple hundred dollars for most of us, the actual number of dollars is used.
It wouldn't amount to a small deduction for you. If you lost $74,000 on a business, you could deduct that loss, making your taxable income $74,000 lower, just like Mitt Romney did. (presuming the business isn't actually a hobby)
Quote from: nathanm on July 19, 2012, 07:13:31 PM
It wouldn't amount to a small deduction for you. If you lost $74,000 on a business, you could deduct that loss, making your taxable income $74,000 lower, just like Mitt Romney did. (presuming the business isn't actually a hobby)
Since we disagree on
QuoteThe proportion of the deduction to his income is irrelevant.
your point is irrelevant as presented.
Say I grossed $100,000 (which I don't) and got to deduct $75000. That would be 75%. 75% of $21,661,344. is $16,246,008., not $75,000.
I get to divert approx 15% of my gross salary to a tax deferred 401K. That particular instrument is limited to somewhere around $15,000 which is so low on the Romney scale that you can't see it for the noise in the signal. In this instance, the dollar cap is significant in that it is a limit regardless of your income. Advantage, little guy. The standard deduction for single, no dependents is $5800., 11.6% for a $50,000 income. 0.03% for Romney. Advantage, little guy. $5800 is to Romney like $13.39 to someone making $50,000.
I am not going to convince you of anything. You are not going to convince me of anything. We are just like congress. From my view, you are being the obstructionist. I'm sure the feeling is mutual.
Quote from: Teatownclown on July 19, 2012, 06:34:24 PM
I'm willing to bet with all the loss carry forwards and the deductions to the LDS, his taxes should have been 5 times that amount. He paid no tax compared to the %99ers.
Would you feel better if he gave that money he gave to the LDS to your favorite tax deductible charity?
Since you consider $3,009,766. to be nothing, you must be up there in money. PM me with your info and we can arrange for you to send me an even $3,000,000. You can keep $9,766 for being a nice guy.
Quote from: Red Arrow on July 19, 2012, 08:02:54 PM
I get to divert approx 15% of my gross salary to a tax deferred 401K. That particular instrument is limited to somewhere around $15,000 which is so low on the Romney scale that you can't see it for the noise in the signal.
You quote all these supposed advantages to the little guy, but fail to note that Romney gave $100,000,000 tax free to his son. Or that he has an IRA somehow worth $100,000,000? Seems like the advantage goes to Romney. And to Bush, who saved himself $15,000,000 by misclassifying income.
Quote from: nathanm on July 19, 2012, 08:27:29 PM
You quote all these supposed advantages to the little guy, but fail to note that Romney gave $100,000,000 tax free to his son.
I don't care.
QuoteOr that he has an IRA somehow worth $100,000,000?
I don't care.
QuoteAnd to Bush, who saved himself $15,000,000 by misclassifying income.
You have claimed this. I have not investigated it. If the law decides in your favor, Bush will have to pay the tax, penalty, and interest. You may not believe it or believe that Bush should go to prison regardless but I disagree wtih you, again. It is possible you don't have the whole story with all the details. A taxpayer can't even get a binding decision from the IRS regarding tax issues, I don't consider you to be all knowing regarding Bush's taxes.
Quote from: nathanm on July 19, 2012, 06:37:08 PM
When has the horse business made a profit? If you called your hobby a business the IRS would disallow the deduction.
Do you know for a fact that the Romney horse business has not made a profit in the required number of years to qualify as a business? A lot of people set up a business to support a hobby. It only has to not lose money once in while (I forget the actual number of years of not losing to the number of losing years.) to still qualify as a business.
American Airlines has not made much profit for a while. Is it just a hobby for the stockholders? Should they not be able to deduct their expenses in a money losing year?
Quote from: Red Arrow on July 19, 2012, 08:41:34 PM
I don't care.
I know you don't care, but it still refutes your implied claim that, on balance, the tax code favors the little guy.
Quote
You have claimed this. I have not investigated it. If the law decides in your favor, Bush will have to pay the tax, penalty, and interest.
It's not my favor, it's our favor. And it's been far more than three years since the return was filed, so the statute of limitations applies. It was released during the 2000 campaign, as I recall, but nobody bothered to look closely until 2002. I doubt the IRS ever did; they did very few audits at that time. You may recall that was shortly after they were taken to the woodshed by Congress. I doubt Romney wants to be subject to the same public scrutiny of his returns. Who knows what might be revealed? (aside from McCain, who then picked Palin)
Quote
I don't consider you to be all knowing regarding Bush's taxes.
Good, because I goofed. It was about $5.75 million. For some reason, I thought Bush's share of the $250 million they got for the Rangers was $80 million, not a little under $30 million. Discoveries like this in other politicians' tax returns probably weigh on Romney's mind when he considers releasing more of his own. How many Congresspeople have been brought down for not paying payroll tax for household employees?
Quote from: nathanm on July 19, 2012, 08:59:48 PM
I know you don't care, but it still refutes your implied claim that, on balance, the tax code favors the little guy.
It does not refute my claim since I don't buy into your mix of absolute dollars vs. percentage.
QuoteIt's not my favor,
"Your favor" meaning you are correct. Not whether or not Bush should have paid more money. Why does everyone have to keep records longer than three years if that is the statue of limitations for taxes. I keep hearing at least 7 years for taxes and forever for some things.
QuoteGood, because I goofed. It was about $5.75 million. For some reason, I thought Bush's share of the $250 million they got for the Rangers was $80 million, not a little under $30 million.
Stuff happens. What else don't you know about his return? (Obviously you cannot answer that because you don't know.)
QuoteDiscoveries like this in other politicians' tax returns probably weigh on Romney's mind when he considers releasing more of his own. How many Congresspeople have been brought down for not paying payroll tax for household employees?
Maybe that and intentional misinterpretations that wouldn't be straightened out until after the election.
Quote from: Red Arrow on July 19, 2012, 09:44:19 PM
It does not refute my claim since I don't buy into your mix of absolute dollars vs. percentage.
We'd be able to calculate the percentage if he released his returns when the relevant transactions took place. I dare say that even for Mitt Romney saving tax on $100,000,000 is a large percentage of income. Are you really going to argue that $70,000,000(ish) is proportionally less tax benefit than you've received in your lifetime? Romney only claims to be worth $200,000,000(ish). And that's just what's been revealed so far.
Quote
Why does everyone have to keep records longer than three years if that is the statue of limitations for taxes.
Some states have a different term. For federal taxes, though, it's 3 years after filing. When the tax became due is irrelevant, though. If you didn't file a 1968 return that would have been balance due, they can come after you for the money today should they discover the error. If you did file, they would not be able to do so. I don't know the full history of it, so I can't say that they would have had until April 15th, 1971 had you filed on time with no extension. If you filed on April 17th, 2012 the IRS only has until April 17th, 2015 to get you. (possibly a couple of days difference, depending on how the court decided to count if it came to that)
Quote
What else don't you know about his return?
Nothing that can turn ordinary income into a capital gain. That's a pretty simple test in the case of a managing partner of a limited partnership, especially where most of the return was incentive pay.
One question. How do you give someone a $100,000,000 gift tax free?
Isn't the limit still $10K per year?
Teattownclown, recyclemichael, et al
This is a forum for candid and open discussion, not for attacking other posters and other social groups. Usage of this site is purely at our discretion. As they say; shape up or we'll ship you out.
Quote from: nathanm on July 19, 2012, 10:13:23 PM
We'd be able to calculate the percentage if he released his returns when the relevant transactions took place. I dare say that even for Mitt Romney saving tax on $100,000,000 is a large percentage of income. Are you really going to argue that $70,000,000(ish) is proportionally less tax benefit than you've received in your lifetime? Romney only claims to be worth $200,000,000(ish). And that's just what's been revealed so far.
I think you are mixing time basis.
Saving tax on $100M at any rate will be big $ to me. Depends on how much he saves to what percentage it is.
You ask about $70,000,000 over my lifetime compared to Romney:
The oldest tax instruction booket I have on file is 1982 and it shows the standard exemption at $1000 and the standard deduction for single, no dependents at $2300 for a total of $3300.
The standard exemption in 2011 was $3700 and the standard deduction for single, no dependents was $5800 for a total of $9500.
I don't feel like looking through each year so we'll do the limits. 1982 to 2011 is 29 years. During that time I have had a standard deduction and exemption between $95,700 and $275,500. Even if I cash out everything, I'm sure I'm worth less than $500K or about 1/400th of Romney at $200M. $70M/400 = $175,000. Then add in my tax saving due to IRA contributions for a few years, 401K contributions which have been near the maximum allowable since 401Ks were first started, savings on health insurance due to previous law, free life insurance from most of my employers, capital gains rates on stock kept for longer than 1 year that I sold for a profit and maybe some things I was never aware of. I might come up a few percentage points short on actual reduction in tax but not so much that I'm going to complain about it.
No fair counting employer-sponsored benefits. (unless you do agree after all that the entire 15.3% payroll tax should properly be allocated to the employee when considering overall tax rates)
Is at least 35% of your net worth due to your taking advantage of tax loopholes? Romney's is. This isn't like the standard deduction or whatever. Romney's ability to contribute $100 million to his IRA(s) probably wasn't intended by Congress. After all, the limits were set specifically to prevent people from gaming the system by putting all their income into a retirement fund so as to avoid taxation. It would be interesting to know how much, if any, Romney has borrowed against his IRA.
Quote from: nathanm on July 20, 2012, 01:05:50 AM
No fair counting employer-sponsored benefits. (unless you do agree after all that the entire 15.3% payroll tax should properly be allocated to the employee when considering overall tax rates)
I consider the payroll tax to be a separate program from income tax and this thread is talking about income tax. You also seem to refuse to acknowledge that the lower income folks will receive a far greater percentage benefit during retirement from SS than upper income folks. You also seem to believe it is unfair that they contribute a greater portion of their income to receive that benefit. We disagree. Just to be clear, someone with no retirement savings will be 100% dependent on SS if they quit working. The amount of money a rich person with lots of savings receives from SS will be a small (but paid for in principal) portion of their retirement.
QuoteIs at least 35% of your net worth due to your taking advantage of tax loopholes? Romney's is. This isn't like the standard deduction or whatever.
One man's deduction is another man's loophole. I believe that things like standard deduction or whatever are a significant factor in reducing one's tax liability in the lower income groups. For 2011, someone making $19,000 gets to deduct the same $9500 that I deducted. That's 50% of their gross income immediately knocked off the tax rolls. That same $9500 is a lot smaller than 50% for me but not nearly as small as for a rich person.
I didn't include them because they don't apply directly to me but the home mortgage deduction and the deduction for dependents can also significantly knock down the tax liability for the lower income groups but at a much smaller percentage for a rich person.
QuoteRomney's ability to contribute $100 million to his IRA(s) probably wasn't intended by Congress. After all, the limits were set specifically to prevent people from gaming the system by putting all their income into a retirement fund so as to avoid taxation. It would be interesting to know how much, if any, Romney has borrowed against his IRA.
I'm going to need some documentation on the $100M IRA and the gift to his son. I expect there are some important details being omitted, perhaps by your source.
Conan, $13,000 until Jan.1.
Dim, please define "social group."
Quote from: Conan71 on July 19, 2012, 10:34:25 PM
One question. How do you give someone a $100,000,000 gift tax free?
Isn't the limit still $10K per year?
A husband and wife can do $20,000 to any given recipient. Additionally, if you want to use up some of your estate tax exemption, you can do that as well, although most tax advisers would probably tell you to pay the income tax rather than use up your exemption, at least for us little guys.
RA, Bloomberg probably isn't good enough for you, but here's a starting point on the IRA: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-15/the-secret-behind-romney-s-magical-ira.html
And regarding the gifts: http://blogs.reuters.com/david-cay-johnston/2012/01/31/romneys-gift-from-congress/
Quote from: nathanm on July 20, 2012, 05:38:50 PM
A husband and wife can do $20,000 to any given recipient. Additionally, if you want to use up some of your estate tax exemption, you can do that as well, although most tax advisers would probably tell you to pay the income tax rather than use up your exemption, at least for us little guys.
RA, Bloomberg probably isn't good enough for you, but here's a starting point on the IRA: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-15/the-secret-behind-romney-s-magical-ira.html
And regarding the gifts: http://blogs.reuters.com/david-cay-johnston/2012/01/31/romneys-gift-from-congress/
Seems to be a lot of "what if", conjecture, and theories in those links. I think to make things fair that the gift tax should apply to everyone. If you want to give me $10., when you stop laughing at the concept, you should pay the feds $3.50 in gift tax.
Quote from: Red Arrow on July 20, 2012, 06:12:30 PM
Seems to be a lot of "what if", conjecture, and theories in those links. I think to make things fair that the gift tax should apply to everyone. If you want to give me $10., when you stop laughing at the concept, you should pay the feds $3.50 in gift tax.
Once over the yearly exemption and presuming my marginal income tax rate is in fact 35%, sure. Anyway, of course there's a lot of conjecture, Romney hasn't released enough tax returns to be able to see how these oddly large accounts actually came to have the value they have, so conjecture is all that's possible. There are some constraints on how these accounts came to be, barring rank tax evasion on Romney's part, so it is possible to make an educated guess here.
Quote from: nathanm on July 20, 2012, 06:38:21 PM
Once over the yearly exemption and presuming my marginal income tax rate is in fact 35%, sure. Anyway, of course there's a lot of conjecture, Romney hasn't released enough tax returns to be able to see how these oddly large accounts actually came to have the value they have, so conjecture is all that's possible. There are some constraints on how these accounts came to be, barring rank tax evasion on Romney's part, so it is possible to make an educated guess here.
Yearly exemptions are an arbitrary amount. That amount should be without limit or zero. There is no reason to tie the gift tax to your marginal rate. It's a gift tax, not an income tax to you. This is a tax on the giver, not the receiver. Why not assign a 90% rate? Make sure no one gives anyone anything. If you buy me a beer, (again, I will wait for you to stop laughing) should you pay a tax on the privilege of buying me a beer.
Although I see some practical reasons, I don't see any legal reasons why you cannot participate in the tax breaks you cite for Romney. You might need to invest wisely and become a big whig but I see no legal reason why you cannot do that. We disagree
a lot on almost everything, but I do not think you are stupid.
One of my friends is in the oil business. Many years ago I was complaining about the price of oil and the middle men. He asked if he should voluntarily take a significantly less price for his oil than the market price. I had to say no. If you don't like breaks for the rich which bring their rate down to the average level of most of us, you are certainly entitled to work to get rid of them. I may even agree with some. The thing I object to is the trial by media that Romney or anyone else is presumed guilty of tax evasion (not avoidance) merely because they are not living from paycheck to paycheck.
Anyway, in todays environment, conjecture becomes fact and a person can be "convicted" without all the facts.
Quote from: Red Arrow on July 20, 2012, 09:45:05 PM
Yearly exemptions are an arbitrary amount. That amount should be without limit or zero. There is no reason to tie the gift tax to your marginal rate. It's a gift tax, not an income tax to you. This is a tax on the giver, not the receiver. Why not assign a 90% rate? Make sure no one gives anyone anything. If you buy me a beer, (again, I will wait for you to stop laughing) should you pay a tax on the privilege of buying me a beer.
I'm not against buying you a beer, just don't expect me to buy you a case. ;)
The gift tax is necessary to make the estate tax enforceable. Without it, a person could simply sign over enough of their assets to their heirs before death that their estate would be valued at less than $10 million at the time it transfers. It's there to close the obvious loophole. The exception is because nobody really wants to live in a country where they can't give other people things without filing forms with the IRS. There's nothing wrong with gifting, it's great. Since it can be used as a tax avoidance technique, however, we have to have seemingly stupid rules.
Quote
Although I see some practical reasons, I don't see any legal reasons why you cannot participate in the tax breaks you cite for Romney. You might need to invest wisely and become a big whig but I see no legal reason why you cannot do that. We disagree a lot on almost everything, but I do not think you are stupid.
First, assume you're a hedge fund manager.... ;)
Seems we could have cut two or more pages off of this thread and several others if the guy would just release his tax returns, explain them to those who think he abused the system or face up to any mistakes he may have made. Not making them public is causing conjecture and conspiracy theories to proliferate.
That is not the fault of media. Its the fault of a guy who seems to have a problem with a cost/benefits analysis of his own decision. It is a preview of how and why he makes decisions and how he will govern.
Quote from: nathanm on July 20, 2012, 10:08:41 PM
I'm not against buying you a beer, just don't expect me to buy you a case. ;)
The gift tax is necessary to make the estate tax enforceable. Without it, a person could simply sign over enough of their assets to their heirs before death that their estate would be valued at less than $10 million at the time it transfers. It's there to close the obvious loophole. The exception is because nobody really wants to live in a country where they can't give other people things without filing forms with the IRS. There's nothing wrong with gifting, it's great. Since it can be used as a tax avoidance technique, however, we have to have seemingly stupid rules.
First, assume you're a hedge fund manager.... ;)
Then the gift tax is unnecessary since I don't believe in the estate tax.
Is there any legal reason you cannot be a hedge fund manager? I didn't say it would be easy.
Quote from: Red Arrow on July 21, 2012, 01:06:09 PM
Then the gift tax is unnecessary since I don't believe in the estate tax.
I take it you don't believe in the capital gains tax, either?
Quote
Is there any legal reason you cannot be a hedge fund manager? I didn't say it would be easy.
It's a reapplication of the punchline to an old physics joke.
Quote from: nathanm on July 21, 2012, 03:31:45 PM
I take it you don't believe in the capital gains tax, either?
I don't like it but accept it. I do support a lower tax rate for capital gains compared to ordinary income as a reward for taking a risk. I would also support a lower tax rate than ordinary income for regular savings interest to encourage savings. I also accept taking lower interest rates for my savings that are FDIC and the Credit Union equivalent (that I can't remember the letters for at the moment) than I could get elsewhere in exchange for the security of my principal.
Quote
It's a reapplication of the punchline to an old physics joke.
Missed it, sorry.
Quote from: AquaMan on July 21, 2012, 10:32:57 AM
explain them to those who think he abused the system
Do you really think that he could change anyone's mind on that regardless of facts? I don't. Even if everything is perfectly legal and is just use of the existing system, not abuse, many will say that he just shouldn't do it.
Quote from: nathanm on July 20, 2012, 10:08:41 PM
I'm not against buying you a beer, just don't expect me to buy you a case. ;)
OK, but I expect a good beer. Not a Millercoorsbud Lite.
Quote from: Red Arrow on July 22, 2012, 11:44:13 AM
I don't like it but accept it. I do support a lower tax rate for capital gains compared to ordinary income as a reward for taking a risk.
I've always been of the opinion that unearned income ought to be taxed more heavily than earned income. I don't really feel like the government needs to be in the business of rewarding risk, at least in general. That is the role of the market. Perhaps in specific cases where research into a given technology is required and the market is not providing, like tax rebates on biodiesel production or whatever, but in general, no.
RA, nobody's going to throw Romney in jail for use of legal tax shelters. There's not really any reason to believe he didn't use any abusive tax shelters, though. I hope he didn't, but it's depressingly common, and would be a good reason for him to keep his returns to himself. I don't think most people realize the scale of the loopholes and quite how tailor-made they are for certain people, though. Anything that shone some light on that would be welcome indeed.
Quote from: nathanm on July 22, 2012, 07:20:42 PM
I've always been of the opinion that unearned income ought to be taxed more heavily than earned income. I don't really feel like the government needs to be in the business of rewarding risk, at least in general.
If government should not be in business of rewarding risk, why should it be in the business of punishing risk and even just plain savings with a higher tax rate for unearned income? Are you saying no one should save for their future? Should they always be dependent on cash on hand (oops, that's savings) or always borrow money for everything? We are just going to have to disagree on that one.
QuoteThat is the role of the market. Perhaps in specific cases where research into a given technology is required and the market is not providing, like tax rebates on biodiesel production or whatever, but in general, no.
So you have your favorite pet projects too. I think biodiesel, ethanol and other green energy should pay for itself. Really, not just to make a point with you.
QuoteRA, nobody's going to throw Romney in jail for use of legal tax shelters. There's not really any reason to believe he didn't use any abusive tax shelters, though. I hope he didn't, but it's depressingly common, and would be a good reason for him to keep his returns to himself. I don't think most people realize the scale of the loopholes and quite how tailor-made they are for certain people, though. Anything that shone some light on that would be welcome indeed.
Got it, guilty until proven innocent.
Edit:
Another reason for you to disapprove of the State of Oklahoma
See Schedule 511-C, line 4:
Interest qualifying for exclusion (limited to $100 [$200 for joint return])
The State of Oklahoma allows one to deduct the said amount of interest earned from an Oklahoma "Bank" as an adjustment to income. It's been there since I can remember, not just since
Republicans gained power.
Quote from: Red Arrow on July 22, 2012, 08:56:24 PM
If government should not be in business of rewarding risk, why should it be in the business of punishing risk and even just plain savings with a higher tax rate for unearned income? Are you saying no one should save for their future? Should they always be dependent on cash on hand (oops, that's savings) or always borrow money for everything? We are just going to have to disagree on that one.
That makes absolutely no sense, so I'm not even sure how to respond.
Quote
So you have your favorite pet projects too. I think biodiesel, ethanol and other green energy should pay for itself. Really, not just to make a point with you.
If you are under the impression that most new technology doesn't come from government funded and/or employed research, you're sadly mistaken. Private business does a shockingly small amount of R&D (at least without a government contract) these days. It's not about pet projects, it's about moving the state of the art forward. If business refuses and it's a project too large to be done by an individual or donation-funded nonprofit, there's nowhere to turn but government.
Private business is really good at wringing efficiency out of existing processes. They're just really shitty at coming up with new stuff. Of course, even in that case they're not all that great. The recipe basically all modern white bread uses (with minor modification) came from the USDA after years of research. Go figure.
Quote
Got it, guilty until proven innocent.
This is not a court of law, last I checked.
Quote from: nathanm on July 22, 2012, 10:44:49 PM
That makes absolutely no sense, so I'm not even sure how to respond.
I think you understand just fine but I'll take the bait anyway.
QuoteI've always been of the opinion that unearned income ought to be taxed more heavily than earned income. I don't really feel like the government needs to be in the business of rewarding risk, at least in general.
If you had said to tax unearned income at the same rate as earned income I could have left it as we disagree. If lower tax rates are to encourage risk taking (and saving) and you object to that concept, what do higher rates do? Also, think about things like tax-free municipal bonds that make money less expensive for cities and towns to finance programs.
Quote
That is the role of the market. Perhaps in specific cases where research into a given technology is required and the market is not providing, like tax rebates on biodiesel production or whatever, but in general, no.
QuoteIf you are under the impression that most new technology doesn't come from government funded and/or employed research, you're sadly mistaken. Private business does a shockingly small amount of R&D (at least without a government contract) these days. It's not about pet projects, it's about moving the state of the art forward. If business refuses and it's a project too large to be done by an individual or donation-funded nonprofit, there's nowhere to turn but government.
I support government funded research in principle. Many projects are of questionable value. Value is in the eye of the
beholder grant recipient. The government funded production is what I object to. It was not so clever of you to include production with research. Everyone seems to vehemently object to subsidies to the oil companies. They should also object to government subsidies for corn to ethanol for fuel.
QuotePrivate business is really good at wringing efficiency out of existing processes. They're just really shitty at coming up with new stuff. Of course, even in that case they're not all that great. The recipe basically all modern white bread uses (with minor modification) came from the USDA after years of research. Go figure.
And we all know how wonderful modern white bread is. It should be banned as a health hazard. I think you are being over encompassing to say " They're just really shitty at coming up with new stuff."
QuoteRA, nobody's going to throw Romney in jail for use of legal tax shelters. There's not really any reason to believe he didn't use any abusive tax shelters, though. I hope he didn't, but it's depressingly common, and would be a good reason for him to keep his returns to himself. I don't think most people realize the scale of the loopholes and quite how tailor-made they are for certain people, though. Anything that shone some light on that would be welcome indeed.
QuoteThis is not a court of law, last I checked.
The court of public opinion can be even worse as there cannot be a verdict to vindicate the supposed violator.
Quote from: AquaMan on July 21, 2012, 10:32:57 AM
Seems we could have cut two or more pages off of this thread and several others if the guy would just release his tax returns, explain them to those who think he abused the system or face up to any mistakes he may have made. Not making them public is causing conjecture and conspiracy theories to proliferate.
That is not the fault of media. Its the fault of a guy who seems to have a problem with a cost/benefits analysis of his own decision. It is a preview of how and why he makes decisions and how he will govern.
i don't recall who said it but someone made a valid point in terms of campaign strategy. Let's say he releases 5, 10, 12 years. Then it becomes one request after another about this partnership or that partnership, or the sale of this piece of property, etc. keeping him in constant defense mode when there is nothing which can be mined from those returns which are going to indicate his ability to lead. It simply does nothing but add more fodder for people who want to castigate him for being wealthy and keeps the focus off Obama's economic record which is what Romney needs to keep focusing on.
I really don't give two craps how much he has earned, nor how much he's paid in taxes. Unless there's been any outright tax fraud, then it's a different issue. The IRS has had plenty of opportunities over the years to take him down if he were engaged in tax fraud.
Quote from: Red Arrow on July 23, 2012, 08:06:53 AM
If you had said to tax unearned income at the same rate as earned income I could have left it as we disagree. If lower tax rates are to encourage risk taking (and saving) and you object to that concept, what do higher rates do? Also, think about things like tax-free municipal bonds that make money less expensive for cities and towns to finance programs.
Seems like tax free municipal bonds would be even better in a regime where capital gains were taxed at a higher rate than income. And I'd be OK with making the tax rates equal on capital gains and earned income. It's a damn sight better than what we've got now where certain people get rewarded with low tax rates on their labor (if you control a company, you can make most of your compensation capital gains) and others don't.
Quote
I support government funded research in principle. Many projects are of questionable value. Value is in the eye of the beholder grant recipient. The government funded production is what I object to. It was not so clever of you to include production with research. Everyone seems to vehemently object to subsidies to the oil companies. They should also object to government subsidies for corn to ethanol for fuel.
Of course some projects will be questionable. That's how R&D works. You often have to do some research before you figure out that a given process/technology/whatever isn't going to work out. I'd rather the government be out of that business, but the private sector refuses to play in any significant and systematic way. I also object to corn being used to produce fuel on any large scale. (it's good to have the technology available should we need it, beyond that, it's a bad idea) The subsidy was worthwhile before there were any production facilities, but now that it's an established business, the subsidies should meet their maker.
Quote
And we all know how wonderful modern white bread is. It should be banned as a health hazard. I think you are being over encompassing to say " They're just really shitty at coming up with new stuff."
Didn't say it was tasty, only incredibly profitable for private industry. Also, at the time, it made a lot of sense. Much of the world was having trouble feeding itself at the time. The white bread recipe gets you more bread for the input relative to the previous state of the art. I'm sure the folks who had it when they didn't have much else to eat were quite happy with it.
Quote
The court of public opinion can be even worse as there cannot be a verdict to vindicate the supposed violator.
No verdict, but they are perfectly capable of being candid and releasing evidence.
Quote from: nathanm on July 23, 2012, 05:27:53 PM
Seems like tax free municipal bonds would be even better in a regime where capital gains were taxed at a higher rate than income. And I'd be OK with making the tax rates equal on capital gains and earned income. It's a damn sight better than what we've got now where certain people get rewarded with low tax rates on their labor (if you control a company, you can make most of your compensation capital gains) and others don't.
I expect that if capital gains rates are increased that executive pay will be increased to provide an equivalent level of after tax compensation. Of course the corporations will now deduct that increased salary cost from their income and reduce the corporate tax.
QuoteOf course some projects will be questionable. That's how R&D works. You often have to do some research before you figure out that a given process/technology/whatever isn't going to work out.
When a project is determined to not work or provide any significant increase in knowledge, it should be discontinued.
QuoteDidn't say it was tasty, only incredibly profitable for private industry. Also, at the time, it made a lot of sense. Much of the world was having trouble feeding itself at the time. The white bread recipe gets you more bread for the input relative to the previous state of the art. I'm sure the folks who had it when they didn't have much else to eat were quite happy with it.
If you are looking to fill bellies, regardless of nutrition, it works. If you get more bread from the same amount of initial nutrition, each piece will be less nutritious unless it is enriched like"Wonder Bread".
QuoteNo verdict, but they are perfectly capable of being candid and releasing evidence.
Wrong "they". Mitt could produce everything asked of him, be innocent of any wrong doing, and still be guilty in the court of public opinion
Quote from: Red Arrow on July 23, 2012, 09:26:22 PM
I expect that if capital gains rates are increased that executive pay will be increased to provide an equivalent level of after tax compensation. Of course the corporations will now deduct that increased salary cost from their income and reduce the corporate tax.
Maybe, maybe not. Executive pay didn't decline, or even slow in growth, when earned income tax rates and capital gains tax rates were cut.
Quote
When a project is determined to not work or provide any significant increase in knowledge, it should be discontinued.
I don't think anyone argues otherwise. Sometimes it takes a long while to get to the point where you can say "nope, this won't work out." Sometimes political wrangling causes expensive projects to get cancelled after spending a fortune starting it. (See the Superconducting Supercollider)
Quote from: nathanm on July 23, 2012, 11:39:20 PM
Maybe, maybe not. Executive pay didn't decline, or even slow in growth, when earned income tax rates and capital gains tax rates were cut.
No surprise there. I still lean strongly towards executive after tax compensation not declining if the tax rates go up. There may be isolated examples otherwise.
QuoteI don't think anyone argues otherwise.
They just find a way to appear to justify its continuance.
Quote from: Red Arrow on July 24, 2012, 07:44:46 AM
They just find a way to appear to justify its continuance.
They seem to have a lot more trouble trying to procure things made from the research from the usual military contractors than they do with the research itself. That may be because the research is a lot less expensive than a thousand fighter jets or whatever.
Quote from: nathanm on July 24, 2012, 02:11:51 PM
They seem to have a lot more trouble trying to procure things made from the research from the usual military contractors than they do with the research itself. That may be because the research is a lot less expensive than a thousand fighter jets or whatever.
They could tell you all the stuff procured but they'd have to kill you.
;D
Quote from: Red Arrow on July 23, 2012, 09:26:22 PM
Wrong "they". Mitt could produce everything asked of him, be innocent of any wrong doing, and still be guilty in the court of public opinion
Sounds like the flip side of the birther movement argument. In spite of producing a real live, legal birth certificate before the election, the lunatic fringe continued it's task set down by Rupert Murdoch to keep hounding Obama about a non-issue.
John McCain saw all of Mitt's tax returns when he was vetting people for VP. He went on to select Sarah Palin as running mate....
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on August 01, 2012, 10:25:56 PM
Sounds like the flip side of the birther movement argument. In spite of producing a real live, legal birth certificate before the election, the lunatic fringe continued it's task set down by Rupert Murdoch to keep hounding Obama about a non-issue.
John McCain saw all of Mitt's tax returns when he was vetting people for VP. He went on to select Sarah Palin as running mate....
Said the same exact thing yesterday.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on August 01, 2012, 10:25:56 PM
Sounds like the flip side of the birther movement argument. In spite of producing a real live, legal birth certificate before the election, the lunatic fringe continued it's task set down by Rupert Murdoch to keep hounding Obama about a non-issue.
So that will make them both legitimate or both not legitimate issues.
Compare the "real live, legal birth certificate" with one tax return. Sufficient for supporters, insufficient for the opposition.
Quote from: Hoss on August 01, 2012, 10:30:51 PM
Said the same exact thing yesterday.
I think I heard in on Letterman a few days ago...or maybe Leno??
Quote from: Red Arrow on August 01, 2012, 10:47:30 PM
So that will make them both legitimate or both not legitimate issues.
Compare the "real live, legal birth certificate" with one tax return. Sufficient for supporters, insufficient for the opposition.
I think both are legitimate issues. The birth certificate issue was satisfied years ago.
As for the tax returns, well, I personally would tell them it's none of their business and go take a flying fart at the moon! But the current "ground rules" - which Mitt's daddy helped establish with his past performance - pretty much demands 10 or 12 years returns be shown. So just show 'em.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on August 01, 2012, 11:02:49 PM
I think both are legitimate issues. The birth certificate issue was satisfied years ago.
As for the tax returns, well, I personally would tell them it's none of their business and go take a flying fart at the moon! But the current "ground rules" - which Mitt's daddy helped establish with his past performance - pretty much demands 10 or 12 years returns be shown. So just show 'em.
That's likely the problem.
Quote from: Hoss on August 01, 2012, 11:12:05 PM
That's likely the problem.
Probably.
I would tell them...well, I said what I would tell them.
Quote from: Red Arrow on August 01, 2012, 10:47:30 PM
insufficient for the opposition.
And a fairly large cast of Republicans.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on August 01, 2012, 11:02:49 PM
I think both are legitimate issues. The birth certificate issue was satisfied years ago.
As for the tax returns, well, I personally would tell them it's none of their business and go take a flying fart at the moon! But the current "ground rules" - which Mitt's daddy helped establish with his past performance - pretty much demands 10 or 12 years returns be shown. So just show 'em.
There may or may not be truth to McCain reviewing Mitt's returns, but it was of no consequence in rejecting him as a VP candidate. McCain is considered a RINO in the minds of the more conservative wing of the party. He couldn't pick another moderate and hope that the more conservative element would show up to vote.
Secondly, just because someone's father does something, doesn't make it a requirement for their children to do it.
The people who are concerned about why Romney isn't releasing 10-12 years of returns aren't going to vote for him in the first place so it's a non-issue.
Quote from: Conan71 on August 02, 2012, 10:54:44 AM
There may or may not be truth to McCain reviewing Mitt's returns, but it was of no consequence in rejecting him as a VP candidate. McCain is considered a RINO in the minds of the more conservative wing of the party. He couldn't pick another moderate and hope that the more conservative element would show up to vote.
Secondly, just because someone's father does something, doesn't make it a requirement for their children to do it.
The people who are concerned about why Romney isn't releasing 10-12 years of returns aren't going to vote for him in the first place so it's a non-issue.
Then we have senate playboy Harry Reid: "I don't think the burden should be on me," he said. "The burden should be on him. He's the one I've alleged has not paid any taxes." But he would not expand on his sources. Even though Romney has released his 2010 tax return, and it references the payments on previous returns, and he has had his financial discovery submission approved by the FEC, Reid continues his pander to idiots, and on the Senate floor Thursday, Reid said, "The word is out he hasn't paid taxes for 10 years."
Hey, an un-named senate official tells me that Harry Reid engages in sexual relations with dolphins. I'm not telling you who said that, but the word is out. He's a dolphin folker!
What a bunch of children we've elected.
Quote from: Gaspar on August 02, 2012, 12:49:18 PM
What a bunch of children we've elected.
I've voted in every election for years. I believe I can claim, due to where I've lived, that I've not helped anyone into office in quite some time. (electoral college, et al)
Quote from: Gaspar on August 02, 2012, 12:49:18 PM
What a bunch of children we've elected.
Very close to what I've been saying. That's why I vote against incumbent every chance I get.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on August 02, 2012, 02:18:53 PM
Very close to what I've been saying. That's why I vote against incumbent every chance I get.
So you won't be voting for Obama?
Quote from: Conan71 on August 02, 2012, 10:54:44 AM
The people who are concerned about why Romney isn't releasing 10-12 years of returns aren't going to vote for him in the first place so it's a non-issue.
I disagree. Not releasing the tax returns will cause people to not vote for him.
If Romney doesn't release them, the democrat PAC money will crucify him. It is an easy message to get out. "If Romney won't show them, then we shouldn't trust him."
This minor thing will become a major reason when he loses.
Quote from: Conan71 on August 02, 2012, 10:54:44 AM
The people who are concerned about why Romney isn't releasing 10-12 years of returns aren't going to vote for him in the first place so it's a non-issue.
Other than the conservatives who have called on him to settle this issue and get it behind him, anyway.
Quote from: Conan71 on August 02, 2012, 02:31:05 PM
So you won't be voting for Obama?
That was a definite yes, until the last couple of weeks when Mitt started talking (foot in mouth disease). Now, I am conflicted - my strong internal inclination to always vote against incumbent, contrasting to how he has shown that he is even MORE incapable of representing the US on the world stage than Blowbama - I just can't believe it!!!!!!!! Geez, why don't the puppet-masters give us an actual choice JUST ONCE!!??? The frustration is massive.
P.S. - you have to know I am not a fan of Obama, not because of all the RWRE psycho-mouthic lies and nonsense, but because of his self expressed opposition to the Second Amendment (plus the Fast and Furious carp). This term, though, he could easily have been mistaken for governor of Massachusetts while Mitt was there. Some goofs, but mostly no worse than neutral on performance - about like Mitt...
Quote from: RecycleMichael on August 02, 2012, 02:55:54 PM
I disagree. Not releasing the tax returns will cause people to not vote for him.
If Romney doesn't release them, the democrat PAC money will crucify him. It is an easy message to get out. "If Romney won't show them, then we shouldn't trust him."
This minor thing will become a major reason when he loses.
I disagree with your intolerance. :P
Romney's supporters will counter with: "Why won't Obama release his college records? What was he hiding?"
Or simply go for the obvious: "President Obama wants you to focus on Mitt Romney's tax returns so you won't focus on 8.2% unemployment, $5 trillion more in debt, jobs fleeing the country, dinosaurs becoming extinct..."
Remember, there's a lot of anti-Obama sentiment out there, especially amongst those who think he's a "Moslum" bent on destroying the American way of life and our economy with his socialist and communist ideals.
There's going to be plenty of fodder for the Super PAC's for both candidates this year. I can't wait for Romney to get this thing won so we can get on to sniping about how he stole the election from Obama.
The only thing I'm unsure about at this point is which candidate most moderates will view as being able to get the economy out of it's extended funk.
Those are the only votes in play, pretty obviously.
Quote from: Conan71 on August 02, 2012, 04:00:08 PM
I can't wait for Romney to get this thing won so we can get on to sniping about how he stole the election from Obama.
Fortunately, that's seeming exceedingly unlikely at the moment. Perhaps something major will happen and the survey data will change before then, but Romney's been on the decline over the past month. Apparently it will take another meltdown to unseat Obama. In an ideal world, they could both love right off back to where they came from. They're both part of the party of no-(big)-business-left-behind.
Quote from: nathanm on August 02, 2012, 04:04:43 PM
Fortunately, that's seeming exceedingly unlikely at the moment. Perhaps something major will happen and the survey data will change before then, but Romney's been on the decline over the past month. Apparently it will take another meltdown to unseat Obama.
Honestly, I could care less what poll data says at this point. He still doesn't have a running mate. I'd wait till October before I'd put much confidence in the polls predicting the outcome and I still don't believe the results of any poll except for the one on Nov. 6.
Of course you realize that due to precinct over-crowding, Democrats will vote on Weds. right?
If you want to get your hopes up, be my guest. Things can change, but they usually don't change that much, unless the Iranians take hostages again...
Quote from: nathanm on August 02, 2012, 04:15:39 PM
unless the Iranians take hostages again...
He's got enough money to make that happen or to buy an insurrection in some little shite hole across the globe.
You probably earned an A+ in Cynicism 501 for that.
Quote from: nathanm on August 02, 2012, 04:15:39 PM
If you want to get your hopes up, be my guest. Things can change, but they usually don't change that much, unless the Iranians take hostages again...
How about this for an October Surprise:
A former Israeli spymaster on Thursday cautioned Iran not to dismiss Israel's talk about possibly attacking Iranian nuclear facilities.
The next 12 weeks will be "very critical" to Israel's decision on whether to strike, Ephraim Halevy said. That time frame coincides with the run-up to the U.S. presidential election.http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/former-israeli-spymaster-says-iran-should-be-worried-by-israeli-attack-threats/2012/08/02/gJQAlwLGRX_story.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/former-israeli-spymaster-says-iran-should-be-worried-by-israeli-attack-threats/2012/08/02/gJQAlwLGRX_story.html)
Twelve weeks? What's the significance of twelve weeks?
Quote from: Townsend on August 02, 2012, 12:53:29 PM
I've voted in every election for years. I believe I can claim, due to where I've lived, that I've not helped anyone into office in quite some time. (electoral college, et al)
I know how you feel. For many years I was only exercising my right to complain by voting mostly Republican.