Romney says he pays about 15 percent in income tax

[Papa_Complex]

Originally Posted by Amber Lamps

Who is stopping them? Again, investing in the Caymans is LEGAL!!! My God people, he is doing absolutely nothing wrong. People are trying top criminalize his actions when there is no crime. It's the same with Bain capital, perfectly legal. Get yourselves some money and invest it yourselves if you want. Nothing is stopping you except the fact that you all are a bunch of underachieving losers!!! J/K but seriously, what about the thousands that some of us have invested in bikes...well how dare we spend money on such frivolous things when Shamika can barely feed her kids and maintain her crack addiction.... The thing that a lot of you forget is that most of us would be considered rich in the hood where I grew up or in other countries. I live alone and have three TVs, maybe the govt should bust in my door and take two of them and give them to people who don't have one. I live in a 3 bedroom house by myself, I guess the govt should move me into a studio apt and move a more DESERVING family in.... This is all about redistribution of wealth. The federal govt is supposed to provide for the country's defense, represent our common interests abroad, establish a currency, protect our rights...not take money from half of the citizens and give it to the other half. If the federal govt stuck to it's original mandate, my taxes would be 1/3 of what they are now!

There's a bit of a difference between not being able to afford to buy something and being able to do something, that would be illegal for the majority of citizens, simply because you've got more money. As stated by others, most have to declare those investments.

[askmrjesus]

Originally Posted by goof2

"He" can certainly do that and it is completely legal. How does Romney want to expand it?

It's the mind set of the ORWG, (Old Rich White Guys). Their legislative focus is on tax cuts for "job creators", which is code for people who would hire lichen if it had thumbs. Romney never met a loop hole he didn't like. Bain had 138 corporate entities registered in the Caymans. We don't know how many they had in Luxembourg, cause they ain't telling.

With a record like that, what would make you think he's had a sudden change of feeling where his heart used to be, and now wants to do right by the little guy?

Originally Posted by goof2

How in your previous hypothetical does Romney go "out of his way to make that status unavailable for thousands of people"?

I'll admit, that was a rather broad stroke. In truth, he could go either way. I'll get to the bottom of that at the bottom. Vis-a-vis, post wise, as it were.

Originally Posted by Amber Lamps

Oh lord, no wonder we are 15+ trillion in the hole. Romney has 32 million in offshore investments....

138 companies in the Caymans. One Hundred and Thirty Eight.

How many do you have?

Originally Posted by Amber Lamps

Romney didn't write the damn tax code. I guess that none of the rich democrats in the world have ever taken advantage of tax loop holes. Of course not. You are all being lead astray of the real issues here. Where anyone chooses to invest their money is not what's fundamentally wrong with this country. Quite frankly, I'm more concerned with all of the welfare rats that pull EIC credits every year when they don't pay ANYTHING in taxes in the first place. How about the fact that half the country doesn't even pay federal income tax? What do you expect people to do? Do you pay taxes on your 401k? Don't you take every deduction that you can? Oh don't tell me, you guys pay in more than you have to to the federal govt just to be nice, right? Class envy, entitlement mentality, etc is what is fundamentally wrong with this country. Most have nots are also work nots in my experience. I don't fault rich guys trying to hold on to their money, that's what I do as well. Shit, all the feds are going to do is give it to some welfare rat, a foreign country or blow it on some bullshit project/study.... I may as well take 30% of my pay and light it on fire.

So to sum up, you're OK with rich people taking advantage of the tax code code, but if welfare fats do it, it's wrong.

Originally Posted by goof2

One other thing, I can't say that they have never done what you are describing but Bain doesn't focus on buying out companies to liquidate them. They focus on venture capital (providing money to start-up companies for continued operation and expansion in exchange for equity in the company, they profit when the company is acquired or goes public) and acquisitions for reorganization (Burger King and Dunkin' Doughnuts to name a few). The goal of both activities is to end up with a stronger company, not a company out of business.

The goal may be a stronger company, but from whose perspective, the share holders or the workers?

JC

[pauldun170]

Originally Posted by askmrjesus

So to sum up, you're OK with rich people taking advantage of the tax code code, but if welfare fats do it, it's wrong.

Quotable

[Amber Lamps]

Originally Posted by askmrjesus

138 companies in the Caymans. One Hundred and Thirty Eight.

How many do you have?

So to sum up, you're OK with rich people taking advantage of the tax code code, but if welfare fats do it, it's wrong.


JC

Um isn't that Bain Capital.....does Romney own that company?

What I am saying is that the millions of welfare rats that get EICs is a hell of a lot more than the taxes we are "losing" because Romney has some money stashed away overseas.

Direct question, do you think that it's "right" for people that already pay nothing in federal taxes and that sponge off the system already, to receive thousands of dollars every year from the federal govt?

[goof2]

Originally Posted by askmrjesus

It's the mind set of the ORWG, (Old Rich White Guys). Their legislative focus is on tax cuts for "job creators", which is code for people who would hire lichen if it had thumbs. Romney never met a loop hole he didn't like. Bain had 138 corporate entities registered in the Caymans. We don't know how many they had in Luxembourg, cause they ain't telling.

With a record like that, what would make you think he's had a sudden change of feeling where his heart used to be, and now wants to do right by the little guy?

Bain has 138 corporate entities in the Caymans now, Romney hasn't run Bain since 1999. Whose record is it?

Originally Posted by askmrjesus

I'll admit, that was a rather broad stroke. In truth, he could go either way. I'll get to the bottom of that at the bottom. Vis-a-vis, post wise, as it were.

I'll answer it in the same place

Originally Posted by askmrjesus

The goal may be a stronger company, but from whose perspective, the share holders or the workers?

JC

As the former employees of Circuit City or Lehman Bros. how great it is to work for a weaker company. If it weren't for government largesse you could throw the majority of the financial and automotive industries in America in to that mix. Weak companies eventually fail. There are no complaints from employees of failed companies because there are no employees.

[askmrjesus]

Originally Posted by goof2

Bain has 138 corporate entities in the Caymans now, Romney hasn't run Bain since 1999. Whose record is it?

Romney started Bain, with two other guys. I don't know exactly how many Cayman based entities they had back when he was in charge, but I'd be willing to bet it was more than a few.

The point is, Romney is not going to turn his back on all his business buddies if elected. The loop holes will get bigger, not smaller.

There is a lot of talk in Republican circles about entitlements for the "poor". Welfare, food stamps, Social Security, yadda, yadda, yadda. Yet the Republicans don't seem to have any aversion to Corporate Welfare in the form of subsidies, tax breaks, and loop holes. So again, the idea of "entitlements" for the rich are OK, but not for the poor. They want it both ways, and the hypocrisy is staggering.

Originally Posted by goof2

As the former employees of Circuit City or Lehman Bros. how great it is to work for a weaker company. If it weren't for government largesse you could throw the majority of the financial and automotive industries in America in to that mix. Weak companies eventually fail. There are no complaints from employees of failed companies because there are no employees.

That's true. Then again, a lot of those companies (especially those in the financial industry) wouldn't be so weak if adequate regulations were in place, to prevent them from making deals that should have never been made. Deals that were focused on short term gains for wealthy investors, with ZERO concern for the less wealthy, and the impact made on the economic security of the country as a whole.

JC

[goof2]

Originally Posted by askmrjesus

Romney started Bain, with two other guys. I don't know exactly how many Cayman based entities they had back when he was in charge, but I'd be willing to bet it was more than a few.

The point is, Romney is not going to turn his back on all his business buddies if elected. The loop holes will get bigger, not smaller.

There is a lot of talk in Republican circles about entitlements for the "poor". Welfare, food stamps, Social Security, yadda, yadda, yadda. Yet the Republicans don't seem to have any aversion to Corporate Welfare in the form of subsidies, tax breaks, and loop holes. So again, the idea of "entitlements" for the rich are OK, but not for the poor. They want it both ways, and the hypocrisy is staggering.

There is a lot of talk about entitlements for a few reasons. One is because because entitlements make up the majority of government spending. Another is because most other programs need action by the government to spend more money while entitlements demand more money all on their own. The amount of money entitlements will require is only going to see massive increases without significant changes.

As far as subsidies, tax breaks, and loop holes for corporations we still have one of the highest marginal corporate tax rates in the world and, depending on who is doing the study, we have one of the highest effective corporate tax rates in the world as well. For all the gnashing of teeth about corporations keeping foreign profits overseas to avoid taxes, we are also one of the few countries in the world that taxes foreign profits at all. Then consider that, despite all that corporate welfare, corporations are still moving HQs and operations overseas. How much sense does it make to further increase the penalty of having more operations than are absolutely necessary based in the US?

Originally Posted by askmrjesus

That's true. Then again, a lot of those companies (especially those in the financial industry) wouldn't be so weak if adequate regulations were in place, to prevent them from making deals that should have never been made. Deals that were focused on short term gains for wealthy investors, with ZERO concern for the less wealthy, and the impact made on the economic security of the country as a whole.

JC

Regulations were removed specifically to increase the number of mortgages that were approved since the government (comprised of administrations and legislators from both sides of the isle over a long period of time) believed that home ownership was a "good" thing. They were mistaken. Regardless, it shouldn't have taken regulations to keep financial institutions from making loans to people who were unlikely to be able to repay them. Regulations or not when the result of a company's decisions is it will go bankrupt without government intervention that is flat out shitty management and is a detriment to investors, wealthy or otherwise.

[Amber Lamps]

Originally Posted by goof2

There is a lot of talk about entitlements for a few reasons. One is because because entitlements make up the majority of government spending. Another is because most other programs need action by the government to spend more money while entitlements demand more money all on their own. The amount of money entitlements will require is only going to see massive increases without significant changes.

As far as subsidies, tax breaks, and loop holes for corporations we still have one of the highest marginal corporate tax rates in the world and, depending on who is doing the study, we have one of the highest effective corporate tax rates in the world as well. For all the gnashing of teeth about corporations keeping foreign profits overseas to avoid taxes, we are also one of the few countries in the world that taxes foreign profits at all. Then consider that, despite all that corporate welfare, corporations are still moving HQs and operations overseas. How much sense does it make to further increase the penalty of having more operations than are absolutely necessary based in the US?



Regulations were removed specifically to increase the number of mortgages that were approved since the government (comprised of administrations and legislators from both sides of the isle over a long period of time) believed that home ownership was a "good" thing. They were mistaken. Regardless, it shouldn't have taken regulations to keep financial institutions from making loans to people who were unlikely to be able to repay them. Regulations or not when the result of a company's decisions is it will go bankrupt without government intervention that is flat out shitty management and is a detriment to investors, wealthy or otherwise.

Then there's the argument that mortgage lenders were coerced by the govt into writing loans to the poor in another misguided attempt to be "fair"....

[goof2]

Originally Posted by Amber Lamps

Then there's the argument that mortgage lenders were coerced by the govt into writing loans to the poor in another misguided attempt to be "fair"....

There seems to have been a bit of that, but they were giving out "stated income" (tell the lender your income, no documentation required) loans for over 100% of the purchase price of a house to anyone and everyone. That is stupidity, not government intervention.

[Amber Lamps]

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

There's a bit of a difference between not being able to afford to buy something and being able to do something, that would be illegal for the majority of citizens, simply because you've got more money. As stated by others, most have to declare those investments.

It is not illegal. He did it absolutely on the up and up. If the tax laws are "unfair", don't blame those that take advantage of it. Change them!!! We have that power people, vote for a flat tax. What could be more fair than that? Everyone pays the same percentage. Why do people think that it's "fair" for people to pay a higher percentage because they make more money? Why do people believe that it is "fair" for people to pay more taxes if they choose to not have children?

Investment is what built this country and yours for that matter. People invested their life savings, their time, their sweat, their blood and even their lives to make a better life for themselves. They drilled for oil, they dug for gold, they worked the land, they put in the work, they made the sacrifices, they had the ideas, they took the risks and now they have to be demonized when they become rich. It's ridiculous. AGAIN Romney has committed absolutely no crimes and isn't doing anything that any American citizen with the means can do. If you do not have the means, it is YOUR fault, not Romney's. SOUR GRAPES!!!!