The Official Mitt Romney thread

[meazza]

!@#$, no. In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man gets the living **** beat out of him for being an arrogant know-it-all. I don't understand why anyone in their right mind would want to be president, and I'm not even in my right mind.

 

 

 

The debates would be a hoot.

 

"What's your position on tax reform?"

 

"Well, when the Soviet Union destroyed the Japanese Army at Nomohan..."

 

"Sir, what does that have to do with the question?"

 

"It's not my fault you asked the wrong question, you !@#$ing pinhead."

 

Dozens and dozens of Pac videos of teary eye witnesses all coming out against you:

 

"I posted on a forum that I like Bill Nye and he called me a retard"

[KD in CA]

Didn't the lefties hate president Regular Guy because of his regular grades and regular mispronunciations and tout his successor president Genius as the savior of all mankind?

 

 

Ah yes, I'd almost forgotten the joyous cries of "We finally have an intellectual as President!"

[3rdnlng]

!@#$, no. In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man gets the living **** beat out of him for being an arrogant know-it-all. I don't understand why anyone in their right mind would want to be president, and I'm not even in my right mind.

 

 

 

The debates would be a hoot.

 

"What's your position on tax reform?"

 

"Well, when the Soviet Union destroyed the Japanese Army at Nomohan..."

 

"Sir, what does that have to do with the question?"

 

"It's not my fault you asked the wrong question, you !@#$ing pinhead."

 

[DC Tom]

I think I'll invite Jimmy McMillan to my first debate...

 

 

"Candidates, what do you think is the greatest threat to the American way of life?"

 

Jimmy: "The rent...is tooooooo damn high."

 

DC Tom: "Jimmy, you have possibly the greatest facial hair in the history of American politics, and I respect you for that...but what the !@#$ is wrong with you? Seriously? I think you're too damn high, man..."

[birdog1960]

Now I'm not going to come in here and try to say that Romney started from Square One, but to act like it was all given to him is asinine.

 

He applied himself in school and graduated summa cum laude and worked as an analyst at Bain for 10+ years before he was put in charge of Bain Capital and helped build companies like Staples, Domino's, Sports Authority, etc. through capital investment. There are people in similar shoes that earn 8 figures in speaking fees for not many more engagements.

 

Now there are people who want to poo on his success. you. He earned it.

 

Since he entered public life, Romney took a $1 salary as governor in Mass. He wrote a book whose entire profits went to health care charities. His finances have been held in a blind trust. Again, this is not a means to portray him as something he's not, but he didn't enter public life and politics to get wealthy.

 

Romney pays more taxes in a year than most people ever will in the course of their whole lifetimes. And I'm sure he pays the full rate determined by the IRS according to his income. What the hell is your problem with speaking fees anyway? Jealous because that spending is coming privately rather than the U.S. Govt picking up a tab? Conferences like that generate money in local economies when Democrats do it as well as Republicans. Why don't you poo-poo the millions Al Sarpton makes from being on the board of Pepsi, etc.? Get off it.

 

Why does it feel like you want an apology from him because he earned a lot of money? Read the title of that book, Dave in Nor-!@#$. I know you've become accustomed to a certain level of presidential mea culpas in the past three years. But if you're expecting Romney to be sorry for his success, you'll be getting NO APOLOGIES.

 

I'd normally say 'Go to Cuba' but even there, the level of Communism you espouse has dropped off. Looks like you may have to go to either North Korea or build a time travel machine to go back to Mother Russia, you !@#$.

i haven't heard anyone asking for an apology. how about a simple acknowledgement of the problem with a system that allows folks making 1/10's to 1/1000's of the amounts made by romney to pay multiples of the tax he pays as a percentage? is that really too much to expect? is that really unamerican or just unrepublican? and a promise of fixing it?...don't see it in the cards, do you?

[/dev/null]

!@#$, no. In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man gets the living **** beat out of him

 

Tom's used to beating a one-eyed something on regular basis. Oh wait, wrong thread.

 

Anyways, Tom could never run. Too many Crap Throwing Monkey's in his closet. And I bet that closet needs some air freshener

Edited January 18, 2012 by /dev/null

[....lybob]

Two words

 

Carried interest

[meazza]

Two words

 

Carried interest

 

Actually carried interest in spirit reflects what you're actually making, a capital gain on an investment. The management fees on the other hand should be taxed as income on the other hand.

 

 

 

[B-Man]

The American Enterprise

 

 

Actually, Mitt Romney’s tax rate is too high

By James Pethokoukis

January 18, 2012

 

It’s real simple: If you think the biggest problem facing the United States today is income inequality, then you should be outraged that Mitt Romney’s income tax rate isn’t higher. But if you instead think America’s biggest problem is high unemployment and a lack of economic growth, then you should be outraged that Romney is paying any income taxes at all. Really.

 

See, most of Romney’s income is capital income—income from investments. And in the United States, capital gains generally are taxed at 15 percent vs. a top marginal income tax rate of 35 percent on ordinary wages for those making around $400,000 a year or more. But even folks with taxable income as low as $35,000 in 2011 will pay a much higher marginal rate, 25 percent.

 

Now, apparently that simple fact set is supposed to drive average Americans to a) seek out and join the nearest Occupy protest, b) support President Barack Obama’s “Buffett Rule,” so millionaires pay at least the same tax rate as middle-income households, and c) reelect Obama. At least, that’s how the liberal commentariat is playing it. Time for a reality check

 

1. While Romney’s tax rate is—in his own words—”probably closer to 15 percent than anything,” that’s still higher than the 8.2 percent average total effective income tax rate (as of 2010) of U.S. households (once you factor in various tax credits). Indeed, nearly half of U.S. households pay no income tax at all. Their average effective tax rate is actually negative. Even if you add in the payroll tax, the effective tax rate of the middle fifth of U.S. taxpayers is 12.8 percent.

 

2. The 15 percent headline rate is just the start. The capital gains tax is a double tax. For instance, corporate profits are taxed first as income and then a second time when they are distributed to shareholders as dividends. And capital gains from investments are not inflation adjusted, so taxes are often paid on illusory profits.

 

3. We shouldn’t tax what we want more of. And the real problem with the capital gains tax isn’t the rate or how it is structured, but what is taxed: gains on investments, which are savings put to work. Economists of all stripes have been saying Americans have consumed too much and invested too little over the past decade. So why would we want to tax investment even heavier, as the Obamacrats want to do?

 

Indeed, we shouldn’t want to tax capital at all. As an AEI study on consumption taxes explains: “The income tax’s penalty on saving is an undesirable distortion of consumer choice. It also causes less capital to be accumulated in the United States. The reduction in capital accumulation reduces labor productivity and lowers real wages throughout the economy, depressing the standard of living of future generations. Some studies have found that a switch to consumption taxation would increase the size of the U.S. economy by as much as 9 percent in the long run, although other studies estimate smaller gains.”

 

4. So the main reason people want to keep taxing capital—or even tax it more heavily—is one of theology rather than sound economics. As the Concise Encyclopedia of Economics puts it: “Strange as it may sound, most economists would agree that having zero taxes on capital income is theoretically the best thing to do. But many reject putting this theory into practice because they think that too much of the benefit would go to the ‘wrong’ people, namely high-income households and the wealthy.” That’s right, the desire to make sure the wealthy like Romney “pay their fair share” is desired by class warriors even if it make everyone poorer than they otherwise would be.

 

5. Take it away, JFK ( in his Special Message to the Congress on Tax Reduction and Reform from Jan. 24, 1963): ”The tax on capital gains directly affects investment decisions, the mobility and flow of risk capital from static to more dynamic situations, the ease or difficulty experienced by new ventures in obtaining capital, and thereby the strength and potential growth of the economy.”

 

Bottom line: Americans should pay taxes on their wages only, not on any income from saving. The right capital gains tax rate is zero, for everybody. Might a few rich people like Romney pay less in taxes? Maybe. But the result would be a stronger economy, more jobs, and higher incomes for all Americans.

 

 

 

.

[....lybob]

The American Enterprise

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

Historic capital gains tax

 

historical gdp growth

 

make the case and show me any correlation between Capital gains tax rate and gdp growth

 

JFK

(1) Reduction in individual income tax rates from their present levels of 20 to 91 percent, to a range of 14 to 65 percent--the 14 percent rate to apply to the first $2,000 of taxable income for married taxpayers filing joint returns, and to the first $1,000 of the taxable income of single taxpayers;

 

(2) Reduction in the rate of the corporate income tax from 52 to 47 percent;

 

(3) Reversal of the corporate normal and surtax rates, so that the tax rate applicable to the first $25,000 of corporate income would drop from 30 to 22 percent, so as to give particular encouragement to small business;

 

(4) Acceleration of tax payments by corporations with anticipated annual liabilities of more than $ 100,000, to bring the corporate payment schedule to a current basis over a five-year transition period;

 

(5) Revision of the tax treatment of capital gains, designed to provide a freer and fuller flow of capital funds and to achieve a greater equity;

 

(6) Removal of certain inequities and hardships in our present tax structure; and

 

(7) Broadening of the base of the individual and corporate income taxes, to remove unwarranted special privileges, correct defects in the tax law, and provide more equal treatment of taxpayers--thereby permitting a larger reduction in tax rates than would otherwise be possible and making possible my proposals to alleviate hardships and inequities

 

 

JFK's prevision for Capital Gains tax reform

1. Percentage inclusion. Reduce the percentage of long-term capital gains included in individual income subject to tax from the present 50 percent of the gain to 30 percent. Combined with the proposed individual income tax rate schedule ranging from 14 to 65 percent, this will produce capital gains tax rates that will start at 4.2 percent (instead of the present 10 percent) and progress to a maximum of 19.5 percent (instead of the present 25 percent).

 

The American Enterprise? how can you say !@#$ you enough to those basturds

Edited January 19, 2012 by ....lybob

[B-Man]

The American Enterprise? how can you say !@#$ you enough to those basturds

 

 

LOL..................you guys who complain about the "sites" that an article comes from, really kill me

 

James Pethokoukis is the Money & Politics columnist and blogger for Reuters where he covers the nexus of Washington and Wall Street.

 

Previously he was the economics columnist and business editor at U.S.News & World Report magazine. Pethokoukis is also an official CNBC contributor and appears frequently on that network's Kudlow Report, Power Lunch, and The Call shows.

 

 

 

Yeah, this clown certainly couldn't know as much as a poster on twobills drive...............what a hoot.......

 

.

[Magox]

i haven't heard anyone asking for an apology. how about a simple acknowledgement of the problem with a system that allows folks making 1/10's to 1/1000's of the amounts made by romney to pay multiples of the tax he pays as a percentage? is that really too much to expect? is that really unamerican or just unrepublican? and a promise of fixing it?...don't see it in the cards, do you?

First off, people who count other peoples money.... SUCK!

 

Second, and lets play with some fun facts....People who fall in the category of after deductions not paying any income taxes, (Which is close to half the American pubic ,in which overwhelmingy those who vote in this category, vote Democrat) NEVER can EVER say that the "Rich are not paying their fair share"

[Rob's House]

i haven't heard anyone asking for an apology. how about a simple acknowledgement of the problem with a system that allows folks making 1/10's to 1/1000's of the amounts made by romney to pay multiples of the tax he pays as a percentage? is that really too much to expect? is that really unamerican or just unrepublican? and a promise of fixing it?...don't see it in the cards, do you?

What would you propose to "fix" it? Specifically.

[Cinga]

First off, people who count other peoples money.... SUCK!

 

Second, and lets play with some fun facts....People who fall in the category of after deductions not paying any income taxes, (Which is close to half the American pubic ,in which overwhelmingy those who vote in this category, vote Democrat) NEVER can EVER say that the "Rich are not paying their fair share"

 

Excellent point!!! How can people who pay nothing, claim anyone else is not paying enough???

[UConn James]

I realize this may smack of a "X is bad, but Y is worse!" argument that is so lambasted here.... Not my intent here, but just as a point of comparison there's an article out tonight reporting that John Kerry paid 13% on his income of ~$5.5M in 2003.

[Chef Jim]

15%? Good for him. What's the issue?

[GG]

Historic capital gains tax

 

historical gdp growth

 

make the case and show me any correlation between Capital gains tax rate

 

 

Usually when people posts tables, it's done to support their position.

 

..bbbboobybob posts links to show that he can embed a URL.

 

Maybe he can find a youtube link to explain what happened to the cap gain tax receipts as tax rates went down in '98 and again in '04.

 

After all, I though the point was to maximize the revenues the government actually takes in, not to win the prom queen title of having a highest tax rate?

[IDBillzFan]

15%? Good for him. What's the issue?

I genuinely can not grasp how a great country like ours has reached a point where being financially successful is something to be frowned upon. Where being a cook at Ruth's Chris, serving $45 steaks to rich people, is front page news because your fatass wife had a stroke. Where finding a way to keep as much as what you earn as possible is a bad thing.

 

Note to America: voting for a popular president is not the same as voting for a popular singer. Please get your priorities straight.

[Dave_In_Norfolk]

First off, people who count other peoples money.... SUCK!

 

Second, and lets play with some fun facts....People who fall in the category of after deductions not paying any income taxes, (Which is close to half the American pubic ,in which overwhelmingy those who vote in this category, vote Democrat) NEVER can EVER say that the "Rich are not paying their fair share"

Really? So the weak and snivling lower orders need to just keep quiet? So you and Mitt are both of the "quiet room" opinion? Interesting. Not only can Mitt and his ilk buy up the political process with their money, but they should be able to do it without anyone being able to complain...

[Nanker]

My take on it is that Romney pays 15% more than 45% of Americans do.

 

So what's next - the pitch-fork-weilding-torch-bearing-mob demands his entire fortune be confiscated and distributed equally to every American? Would that be "fair"?

 

Suppose for argument's sake he has a personal wealth of $330 million. Equally distributed to every American and illegal squatter in the country - he'd have nothing, and we'd all be one dollar "richer". Would that be fair? Hell no - because he has the means to make another multi million dollar fortune and would set about doing it. In a year he'd be right back in the 1% and no one in the 99% would have moved up a tax bracket from his largess of spreading his wealth around.

 

Clearly this man is a menace and must be executed or at the very least - put into prison so he cannot earn more money than most other people - including President BO's paltry $5.5 million.