Romney's ridiculous comments on 47% of Americans

[Chef Jim]

Given the fact that household income of $200,000 or greater puts you in the top 2.67% my answer would be no these folks are not upper middle income they are in the top 2.67%.

 

Extending the Bush Tax Cuts for folks who make above $250,000 is ludicrous considering the "dire" nature of our deficit.

 

Remember that the FICA taxes (Social Security, is capped at $110,100 of income).

.

 

So if you make the tax on income for SS unlimited would you agree with an unlimited SS benefit?

 

so you abolish most tax deferred accounts especially those that primarily benefit the very wealthy.

 

So which ones do you abolish?

[TakeYouToTasker]

so you abolish most tax deferred accounts especially those that primarily benefit the very wealthy.

...

 

IRA's, 401k's, 403b's, 457's, etc already have upper-level annual contribution limits, and those limits hurt the working class far more than the wealthy. Annuities are really the only non-qualified vehicle offering tax defered growth, but annuities aren't attractive to the affluent and wealthy because they remove the asset from the annuitant's control; once again this investment choice is really only of large benefit to the working and middle class.

 

You have no idea what you're talking about.

[birdog1960]

certainly would leave 401k's, ira's with the limits currently in place for yealy contributions alone. these aren't getting billionaires to a 12% tax rate. clearly there are vehicles, including tax deferred vehicles that do. Are you really saying that there is no way to close those loopholes? there's no way to ensure 30% or more income tax on the wealthy, however you want to define them? of course there is...as meazza implied, those that are on the cusps of wealthy status or just above mostly pay that now. why can't a tax plan be devised that forces that same burden on people with romney money? the answer is that it can but you won't see it even inch in that direction if romney wins (which looking at ohio, fla and va polls right now isn't looking to be a great bet, btw).

[Chef Jim]

certainly would leave 401k's, ira's with the limits currently in place for yealy contributions alone.

 

So what you're saying is you don't know what you'd abolish because you're talking out your ass.

 

...

 

IRA's, 401k's, 403b's, 457's, etc already have upper-level annual contribution limits, and those limits hurt the working class far more than the wealthy. Annuities are really the only non-qualified vehicle offering tax defered growth, but annuities aren't attractive to the affluent and wealthy because they remove the asset from the annuitant's control; once again this investment choice is really only of large benefit to the working and middle class.

 

You have no idea what you're talking about.

 

How does an NQ annuity remove the asset from the annuitant's control?

 

And the vehicle with the best tax treatment advantage? Life insurance.

Edited September 18, 2012 by Chef Jim

[birdog1960]

So what you're saying is you don't know what you'd abolish because you're talking out your ass.

no, i don't know much about the intricacies of tax avoidance for the very wealthy. you're absolutely correct. i know that they manage, supposedly legally, within the current system to avoid paying anywhere near what many people making fractions of their incomes make. and i know that there are remedies to that problem that could be implemented. it is not unsolvable.. but of course, one has to first see it as a problem...

[Chef Jim]

no, i don't know much about the intricacies of tax avoidance for the very wealthy. you're absolutely correct. i know that they manage, supposedly legally, within the current system to avoid paying anywhere near what many people making fractions of their incomes make. and i know that there are remedies to that problem that could be implemented. it is not unsolvable.. but of course, one has to first see it as a problem...

 

So what are you implying with those two bolded words?

[TakeYouToTasker]

 

 

So what you're saying is you don't know what you'd abolish because you're talking out your ass.

 

 

 

How does an NQ annuity remove the asset from the annuitant's control?

 

And the vehicle with the best tax treatment advantage? Life insurance.

With many annuity products the only way to retrieve the asset is through annuitising, which reliquishesthe lump sum value to the insurance company in exchange for a promise to pay out a monthly stipend for the entire lifetime of the annuitant.

 

As to life insurance, I agree. Although that really only applies to a generational transfer of wealth, unless you're talking about CVLI, which comes with it's own problems.

[Chef Jim]

With many annuity products the only way to retrieve the asset is through annuitising, which reliquishesthe lump sum value to the insurance company in exchange for a promise to pay out a monthly stipend for the entire lifetime of the annuitant.

 

As to life insurance, I agree. Although that really only applies to a generational transfer of wealth, unless you're talking about CVLI, which comes with it's own problems.

 

First part. Wrong.

 

Second part. Wrong again.

[TakeYouToTasker]

 

 

So what are you implying with those two bolded words?

Yeah... That phrasing struck me as well.

 

 

 

First part. Wrong.

 

Second part. Wrong again.

To the first, there are some exceptions, but let's not pretend there are no mitigating risks (variable products) or significant surrender charges.

 

To the second, I'm 100% correct, although it's entirely possible that your company uses a term other than CVLI (cash value life insurance).

[UConn James]

As posted in another thread, well... what about the new video showing Obama in 1998 saying "I actually believe in redistribution."

 

This is a conversation that Romney WANTS in the field. ANd it needs to be polished, sure. Move into that his economic policies are designed to get people back to work so they DON'T HAVE to collect from the federal govt to get by.

 

But make no mistake --- there IS a sizable portion of this country's citizens whose families are in their fourth or fifth generation of food stamps, section 8, medicaid, et al., and beat feet to apply for whatever new free money there is, but won't do the same when it comes to getting a job. And this has been the case for far too long to blame it on this or that recession. It's a case of people being free riders and mooches on the system.

[Chef Jim]

To the first, there are some exceptions, but let's not pretend there are no mitigating risks (variable products) or significant surrender charges.

 

To the second, I'm 100% correct, although it's entirely possible that your company uses a term other than CVLI (cash value life insurance).

 

Name and investment that doesn't have a risk of some sort? Even though there are plenty of 100% liquid annuities who cares about surrender charges when you're using it for an income stream.

 

Of course we're using CVLI. Name me another plan where you could put in hundrends of thousands a year have it grow tax deferred with a guaranteed return and then pull out an income stream tax free. Term is for Suzi Orman.

[TakeYouToTasker]

As I said, annuities are boons for the middle and working class; and are rarely a strategy employed by the affluent of wealthy.

 

as to cvli, those returns absolutely are not guaranteed. The interest rates paid on whole life and universal life are always at the discretion of the insurance provider; and there are additional problems with variable policies who's actuarial solvency can be compromised by market loss leaving the client with massive tax liabilities.

[Chef Jim]

As I said, annuities are boons for the middle and working class; and are rarely a strategy employed by the affluent of wealthy.

 

as to cvli, those returns absolutely are not guaranteed. The interest rates paid on whole life and universal life are always at the discretion of the insurance provider; and there are additional problems with variable policies who's actuarial solvency can be compromised by market loss leaving the client with massive tax liabilities.

 

And yes those returns are absolutely guaranteed. I use one contractually guaranteed at 3% and one at 4%. I would never use a variable policy for the reasons you state.

 

And you'll see the affluent using annuities a lot more when their taxes start going through the roof.

[TakeYouToTasker]

If you speak with your internal wholesaler and read your prospectus carefully you'll find clauses that allow those "guaranteed" rates to be unilaterally changed by the insurer as long as the changes occur accoss the entire product class, and not only subsets or individual policies.

[Chef Jim]

If you speak with your internal wholesaler and read your prospectus carefully you'll find clauses that allow those "guaranteed" rates to be unilaterally changed by the insurer as long as the changes occur accoss the entire product class, and not only subsets or individual policies.

 

Prospectus? Fixed insurance?

[TakeYouToTasker]

As to the wealthy flocking to annuities? I don't see it happening, as the interest rates offered, backed almost universally by the yield of the 10 year T-bill, are all being scaled back drastically; combined with the attractiveness of insured mini-bonds.

[Chef Jim]

As to the wealthy flocking to annuities? I don't see it happening, as the interest rates offered, backed almost universally by the yield of the 10 year T-bill, are all being scaled back drastically; combined with the attractiveness of insured mini-bonds.

 

I'm not talking about fixed annuities.

[Nanker]

So if EVERYONE has to pay some Federal income tax, and certain deductions would be disallowed - who's balking at paying their fair share? I remember when we lost the tax credit for unsecured credit interest expense under Carter. He also bumped up the health expense deduction to greater than 20% of you Net Income. There were others. Those are the two that came to mind.

[Duck_dodgers007]

As posted in another thread, well... what about the new video showing Obama in 1998 saying "I actually believe in redistribution."

 

This is a conversation that Romney WANTS in the field. ANd it needs to be polished, sure. Move into that his economic policies are designed to get people back to work so they DON'T HAVE to collect from the federal govt to get by.

 

But make no mistake --- there IS a sizable portion of this country's citizens whose families are in their fourth or fifth generation of food stamps, section 8, medicaid, et al., and beat feet to apply for whatever new free money there is, but won't do the same when it comes to getting a job. And this has been the case for far too long to blame it on this or that recession. It's a case of people being free riders and mooches on the system.

 

How anybody be against redistributing income? How would the economy work if nothing was redistributed?

[B-Man]

How anybody be against redistributing income? How would the economy work if nothing was redistributed?

 

Wow.

 

what a buffoon.

 

 

UPDATE: CNBC And Yahoo Finance Readers REALLY Liked Mitt Romney’s Comments.

 

 

Watch this “campaign-changing gaffe” become a nonstory as soon as the press decides it’s hurting Obama instead of helping him.