what romney paid?

Again - a loophole is an unintentional result of the tax policy, not a deliberate part of it. If, as you claim, it is an unintentional outcome then there must be some record of this being the case that is available for examination. More likely is that "loophole" is being conveniently misused by "progressives" so that it the perception they wish others to have is more likely to take root. So which is it Dog - an actual loophole or what "progressives" have redefined a loophole to be?

PrintSmith wrote: The difference between us Dog is that I am not envious of the success of others. There exists not the slightest doubt in my mind that the money will be more wisely and beneficially spent by Romney himself than it could ever hope to be by the general government. I harbor not a single doubt that the general welfare of the union will be better served by allowing Romney to distribute the fruits of his efforts as he deems proper than it would be by the general government appropriating it and distributing it as they deem proper.

A tax structure which is intentional is not a loophole Dog. No one, at least no one who is being intellectually honest, could ever hope to sustain the argument that the lower tax rate on capital gains was an unintentional action on the part of the Congress. The tax rate charged on capital gains has been lower than the tax rate on salaries for quite some time now - mostly because the capital that is invested has already been taxed at least once before and it has been deemed that it is more beneficial to the general welfare of the union if capital is invested in the economy where both can grow than it is to have capital held and on the sidelines.

When capital is invested it is placed at risk of being lost - unless, of course, it is invested into something that the general government has decided to guarantee - like the mortgage securities issued by its GSEs. The reward for risking such a loss is that you get to keep more of what results if the risk pays off and you experience a gain instead of a loss of your capital. That is not a loophole - it is a deliberate tax policy passed into law by the general government to encourage those with "hundreds of thousands of dollars" they "don't need" in capital to risk losing that capital investing in the growth of the union's economy instead of holding onto it.

That is why your are a tool and I am not. This politics of envy talking point has been handed down in a manner that the British did to the colonists during Revolutionary times, and as have the select few have done through out history. It is merely saying is that you should know your place and be grateful to to the select few for allowing you that place. I for one choose to follow the path of our revolutionary forefathers and fight against the injustice and for the proposition that all are created equal and should have equal opportunities and be treated equally.

You are missing the entire point of what Romney did. He did not "invest" his savings, but instead took his untaxed compensation as the "investment" to avoid the personal income tax that you or I would be liable for. This loophole, and yes it is a loophole, is only offered to a few very wealthy fund managers. For example, if you took equity in a client instead of compensation for a print job, you would still be liable for the value of that equity at the applicable income tax rate, either personal or business and then taxed as a capital gain when you cashed out. Romney, Soros and few other select individuals have a special provision in the tax code that allows them to take their compensation as equity without payment of income tax on that compensation, and then cash out at a much lower capital gains tax rate. They are not investing in their savings, but instead taking their salary/compensation as a capital gains.

Something the Dog Said wrote:

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote: This is typical conservative responses. Rather than address the issue of whether Romney was able to pay at a lesser tax rate due to manipulations of his income and taking advantage of tax loopholes available only to a very select few, deflect instead to rants against the deficit, which as I recall, was largely due to a Republican president. As I said, you guys really are tools.

Yes he was able to pay a lesser tax rate on money that had already been tax. And the tax rate is available to all people rich enough to have generated that much money. I'm interested in how many of the super-rich sign on the the "Buffet Rule" in the coming weeks?

You really need to work on your research and comprehension skills. What Romney did was to take his untaxed compensation as equity/profits in the investment fund. Then he withdrew it as a capital gain. This is unavailable to anyone other than a few fund managers. If you or I tried to take our compensation for our labors as equity, it would still be taxed at our personal income tax rate, then again as capital gains. Romney, Soros and a few others have an explicit loophole that only benefits fund managers.

Actually my company runs that way too, we tend to underpay but offer good stock options, if the stock rises, I can trade in those options for shares in the company that I will not be taxed on until I sell the shares.
So I am trading immediate taxable income by not working somewhere else for stock that I can wait to sell once I retire and am paying a much lower tax rate.

Loophole, oh no!!!!

pineinthegrass wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote: Except that the flat tax codes that the Republicans have proposed would increase the tax burden on the middle class while lowering it for the 1%.

Now that I will agree with. Plus, off the top of my head, I'm pretty sure all of the Republican candidate's flat tax proposals wouldn't even tax capital gains at all.

Now back to Romney. If you object to what he did, which appears to be fully legal, do you also object when Democrats do the same thing?

Instead of directing this at Romney, I think you should be calling for a major overhaul of our tax code instead. As I've already pointed out, many of us middle class folks get nice tax breaks too like paying zero percent on capital gains, paying regular income at 15%, credits, and a nice tax break on our mortgage. I don't think my tax situation is very unusual and I can't think that I've ever had to pay as high a rate as Romney did. I can find it if necessary, but as I recall according to the CBO most middle class people pay an effective federal income tax rate of under 10% (I think it's close to 7%).

Absolutely I object to Democrats using this loophole. George Soros is another of the beneficiaries of this loophole, and I have railed against him taking advantage of it. FYI, Romney gets those same tax breaks as you up to the next tier of rates. In fact, Romney got busted a few years ago when he received a 45% tax break on a $3.8 million mansion in Utah by claiming it as his primary residence, while also claiming that Massachusetts was his primary residence in order to run for governor.

FYI, Printsmith, there is nothing that defines a loophole as being deliberate. A loophole is a mechanism available to only a few to avoid tax or other liabilities to circumvent the purpose of the tax code. These are typically only available to the politically connected or those wealthy enough to have those politically connected to lobby for them.

FredHayek wrote: Actually my company runs that way too, we tend to underpay but offer good stock options, if the stock rises, I can trade in those options for shares in the company that I will not be taxed on until I sell the shares.
So I am trading immediate taxable income by not working somewhere else for stock that I can wait to sell once I retire and am paying a much lower tax rate.

Loophole, oh no!!!!

Actually if you purchase and hold those stock options, you may still owe tax on them even if you don't sell them. If there is an unrealised profit, you may owe an AMT tax on your shares. In this case the "rich" get screwed! :woo hoo:

FredHayek wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote:

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote: This is typical conservative responses. Rather than address the issue of whether Romney was able to pay at a lesser tax rate due to manipulations of his income and taking advantage of tax loopholes available only to a very select few, deflect instead to rants against the deficit, which as I recall, was largely due to a Republican president. As I said, you guys really are tools.

Yes he was able to pay a lesser tax rate on money that had already been tax. And the tax rate is available to all people rich enough to have generated that much money. I'm interested in how many of the super-rich sign on the the "Buffet Rule" in the coming weeks?

You really need to work on your research and comprehension skills. What Romney did was to take his untaxed compensation as equity/profits in the investment fund. Then he withdrew it as a capital gain. This is unavailable to anyone other than a few fund managers. If you or I tried to take our compensation for our labors as equity, it would still be taxed at our personal income tax rate, then again as capital gains. Romney, Soros and a few others have an explicit loophole that only benefits fund managers.

Actually my company runs that way too, we tend to underpay but offer good stock options, if the stock rises, I can trade in those options for shares in the company that I will not be taxed on until I sell the shares.
So I am trading immediate taxable income by not working somewhere else for stock that I can wait to sell once I retire and am paying a much lower tax rate.

Loophole, oh no!!!!

Actually stock options can be handled in different ways. You may treat it as income when you receive the option, or when you exercise the option or when you cash out the stock. The taxation depends on when you treat it as income, or whether it is a statutory or nonstatutory option. The difference between the strike price of the option and it's value at the time the option is exercised is treated as ordinary income once it has a readily ascertainable market value. The difference between the price of the stock at the time of exercising the option and disposing of the stock may be taxed as a capital gain, and may also be subject to the alternative mininum tax. This is a very rough idea of how stock options are taxed, and should not be relied upon as it is a complicated subject.

So you do not get to avoid the income tax issue as Romney and Soros were able to do so. They simply did not pay income tax on the market value of the equity at the time they received it.

Something the Dog Said wrote: This politics of envy talking point has been handed down in a manner that the British did to the colonists during Revolutionary times, and as have the select few have done through out history. It is merely saying is that you should know your place and be grateful to to the select few for allowing you that place. I for one choose to follow the path of our revolutionary forefathers and fight against the injustice and for the proposition that all are created equal and should have equal opportunities and be treated equally.

Key word there is created equal Dog, not born equal. There exists no mechanism to create a society where all are born equal because not everyone is blessed with the same abilities at birth. I could never become a world class guitarist or percussionist or a celebrated painter or sculptor regardless of how strongly I desired to be any of them - I was not blessed with the same talent as others at birth. It is likewise impossible to level the playing field for one born into a home where the parents are crack addicts and one born into the home of a Steven Jobs. Neither should have an advantage over the other with regards to their inalienable rights, I think we agree on that, but what you are saying is that it is incumbent upon the Steven Jobs of the society to provide the same opportunity for the children of all the crack addicts as he has for his own children. There is nothing in that sentiment that even comes close to being what the founders envisioned despite your attempts to cloak it in their hopes for the posterity of the union. Marx perhaps, but not our revolutionary forefathers who believed in individual responsibility and self government and were willing to risk their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor to shed from their lives, and the lives of their posterity, a central government endowed with the plenary power to take whatever it wished, whenever it wished, for whatever purpose it wished, from the fruits of their own efforts.

PrintSmith wrote: I harbor not a single doubt that the general welfare of the union will be better served by allowing Romney to distribute the fruits of his efforts as he deems proper than it would be by the general government appropriating it and distributing it as they deem proper..

Romney gave 15% to charity over the last two years. The Obamas gave 1%. Joe Biden gave $369.00 dollars...

http://nation.foxnews.com/mitt-romney/2 ... ey-gave-15
http://harndenblog.dailymail.co.uk/2012 ... e-also-g.. .

He paid what was legally owed, get over it if you paid more then you had to or didn't take advantage of the tax rules then Bwah ha.

Printsmith, you never cease to amaze. When the facts contradict your opinions, then you simply revise history to your liking. Perhaps you should instruct Thomas Jefferson of the error of his views, those same views which served as the basis of our great country:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal"


And you wonder why you are considered tools!