Mitt Romney pays a lower tax rate than you do.

[Trajan]

Again with this argument?

There is no "double tax" on capital gains.

1. Stocks are not based on company earnings. They do not go up and down based on company profit.

2. The principle investment is not taxed again, it is only the value increase that is taxed after an investment is made. Value decreases can in fact be written off as losses.

3. There is no effective difference between wages and dividends, as both are based on how much revenue a company has in the first place. The more a company makes, the more it can pay it's workers, or the more workers it can hire, and the more dividends it can afford to give out.

The only difference between the two is what kind of contribution is being made. In one case, it's time and effort, in the other, it's capital.

Why should my bonus or my overtime be taxed at a MUCH higher rate than dividends when it's basically the same thing?

So, if there is a "double tax" on capital gains then there is a "double tax" on salary in the first place.

VastLWC is right. When you initially earn the money you are taxed on it. When you take the money and invest it you are only taxed on profits on that money, not on the initial amount you invested.

yes, I am aware, I have noted that several times but thats not all he said its a very small part of is 'post'.

 

[Trajan]

And here's the reporting Stewart was referring to in his show:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/11/b...ecomes-part-of-the-debate.html?pagewanted=all

thx for posting it.

I just read it, now, how does this sppt. your assertion?

 

[California Girl]

EVERYONE who pays the cap gain rate pays it becasue the government understands to some extent, ( some admins more than others) it makes sense to reward RISK. The cap gains issue is a risk reward venture. People will not RISK as much, IF they do not see a commensurate advantage on the back end if successful. And even then before one dime passes to their hands, the government takes a piece via the corporate entity that generated it from the original source.

This whole argument is dishonest without acknowledging that fact.

this is not about that though,imho , its about hammering romney for doing what every single liberal entrepreneur and and investor does too.

Let me ask you a question- how was obamas book proceeds taxed? Do you know? How are the proceeds of that money he earned via those sales used? You think its sitting in 1% interest CD? Does obama have a portfolio where in he has cap gains accrued? has he realized any? What was HIS rate on those gains?

For those that don't know, you are it appears to me employing a very selective form of partisan BS.

I understand about the risk and the reasoning for the lower rate. However, the rate didn't need to be lowered to 15%. People have always invested and they always will. In fact you could make a case that everyone went too far with their risks and helped bring down the economy when the rate was lowered to 15%.

I think book royalties are taxed as regular income, not as a capital gain. I also think he donated his royalties to charity.

But that has nothing to do with the fairness or unfairness of taxing different types of income at different rates.

Interestingly enough, most of those "charitable donations" were in the form of a tithe that Romney is REQUIRED to pay to the Mormon Church every year, which amounts to a full ten percent.

10% to his Church.... which is their duty (no one is forced to pay it).

The rest - considerably more - to a vast array of charities.... with absolutely no connection to his church.

Hack.

 

[Vast LWC]

And here's the reporting Stewart was referring to in his show:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/11/b...ecomes-part-of-the-debate.html?pagewanted=all

thx for posting it.

I just read it, now, how does this sppt. your assertion?

Actually, that article only had a couple of short paragraphs highlighting Stewart's point.

Let me go further.

In 2007, private equity had a record profit year, and congress decided to end the private equity tax break.

Congress Weighs End to Private Equity Tax Break - New York Times

The bipartisan effort was lead by the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Max Baucus, Democrat from Montana, and Charles Grassley of Iowa, who was the ranking Republican at the time.

Legislation was introduced in June of 2007.

Bill Is Offered to Increase Tax on Private Equity - New York Times

However, after an intense lobbying campaign by "the Private Equity Council", a trade group made up of multiple private equity firms, of which Bain was a leading member, lobbied Congress hard, and Congress suddenly changed it's mind.

Reported lobbying funds given to select members of congress can be found here:

Lobbying Spending Database - Private Equity Council, 2009 | OpenSecrets

And that doesn't include non-reported lobbying, which would be funneled through secondary groups.

 

[Chris]

Welfare for the wealthy has to end.

Pass the Buffett Rule.

 

[Vast LWC]

10% to his Church.... which is their duty (no one is forced to pay it).

The rest - considerably more - to a vast array of charities.... with absolutely no connection to his church.

Hack.

He gave about 15% of his income to charitable donations, most of which (10%), went to the Mormon Church.

Of course, the Mormon church also puts it's considerable weight behind Romney's major life efforts, so it all works out for him in the end.

 

[ABikerSailor]

I understand about the risk and the reasoning for the lower rate. However, the rate didn't need to be lowered to 15%. People have always invested and they always will. In fact you could make a case that everyone went too far with their risks and helped bring down the economy when the rate was lowered to 15%.

I think book royalties are taxed as regular income, not as a capital gain. I also think he donated his royalties to charity.

But that has nothing to do with the fairness or unfairness of taxing different types of income at different rates.

Interestingly enough, most of those "charitable donations" were in the form of a tithe that Romney is REQUIRED to pay to the Mormon Church every year, which amounts to a full ten percent.

10% to his Church.... which is their duty (no one is forced to pay it).

The rest - considerably more - to a vast array of charities.... with absolutely no connection to his church.

Hack.

Ummm.........hate to tell you Cali Twit, but the tithe is MANDATORY if you're a Mormon.

Mormons are required to attend a Tithing Settlement with the Bishop each year. A member is questioned in a one-on-one interview with the Bishop to ensure the member is paying a full 10%. Those members who are not paying a full 10% loose their temple recommends and are prevented from entering the Temple.

Mormons who loose their temple recommends are in serious jeopardy of loosing their Celestial blessings. A Mormon who does not pay tithing cannot enter the temple. If a member cannot get into the temple, the member cannot learn the secret handshake, secret password, secret "new name" and special “sealings”. Without these, the member will be unable to pass Joseph Smith and the angels who guard the entrance to the Celestial Kingdom.

Mormons are commanded that tithing must come first before anything else. Utah has the highest rate of bankruptcies in the United States. Mormons often are told "I cannot pay my bills until I've paid my tithing." Mormons will even pay their tithing rather than give the money to a relative who is on the verge of eviction. Mormon published magazines (Ensign, New Era) constantly stress that tithing must always be paid.

Recently, Mormon Senator Orrin Hatch passed legislation that allowed members to pay a full tithe even while they were in bankruptcy court. (See S. 4044).

Mormons are told: "if a destitute family is faced with the decision of paying their tithing or eating, they should pay their tithing." (Lynn Robbins, General Conference, April 2005).

The Mormon Curtain - MORMON TITHING

Might help if you'd actually inform yourself of the topic, rather than blindly lashing out.

 

[Valerie]

The argument is really as dumb as the inheritance tax argument. THAT money isn't being taxed twice either, the person getting the income is having their income taxed.

Wellll.......Yes an individual receiving an inheritance is paying tax on that capital for the first time, but that is not the first time that capital has been taxed either...

I don't think it's dumb to want the government to keep their paws off.



And the point of that article was to illustrate how much tax revenue a corporate dollar generates one way or the other...

Please. If I give you $300,000 it is income to you and taxed.

Welll...What are you waiting for...?






Seriously, though...All I'm saying with that is since grandma's hard earned life savings has already been taxed and continues to be taxed as it earns interest or dividends or capital gains or real estate, etc...and will continue to be taxed in the same manner upon inheritance...On what grounds should the government step into a private exchange of capital and seize another percentage upon one's death...?

 

[Pheonixops]

True Story.

Romney Says His Effective Tax Rate Is ‘Probably’ 15%

There's nothing wrong with that and anyone with some money can do the same thing. More power to him.

 

[Ravi]

Wellll.......Yes an individual receiving an inheritance is paying tax on that capital for the first time, but that is not the first time that capital has been taxed either...

I don't think it's dumb to want the government to keep their paws off.



And the point of that article was to illustrate how much tax revenue a corporate dollar generates one way or the other...

Please. If I give you $300,000 it is income to you and taxed.

Welll...What are you waiting for...?






Seriously, though...All I'm saying with that is since grandma's hard earned life savings has already been taxed and continues to be taxed as it earns interest or dividends or capital gains or real estate, etc...and will continue to be taxed in the same manner upon inheritance...On what grounds should the government step into a private exchange of capital and seize another percentage upon one's death...?

Only the profits are taxed.

Or are you trying to tell me that if I save money over a period of time, after already paying taxes on it, and decide to employ you that you shouldn't have to pay taxes because when the money was mine I had already paid taxes on it?

 

[Valerie]

Please. If I give you $300,000 it is income to you and taxed.

Welll...What are you waiting for...?






Seriously, though...All I'm saying with that is since grandma's hard earned life savings has already been taxed and continues to be taxed as it earns interest or dividends or capital gains or real estate, etc...and will continue to be taxed in the same manner upon inheritance...On what grounds should the government step into a private exchange of capital and seize another percentage upon one's death...?

Only the profits are taxed.

Or are you trying to tell me that if I save money over a period of time, after already paying taxes on it, and decide to employ you that you shouldn't have to pay taxes because when the money was mine I had already paid taxes on it?

No, I'm saying employing someone who earns a taxable income is different than a private exchange of capital upon a death in the family...

 

[Ravi]

Welll...What are you waiting for...?






Seriously, though...All I'm saying with that is since grandma's hard earned life savings has already been taxed and continues to be taxed as it earns interest or dividends or capital gains or real estate, etc...and will continue to be taxed in the same manner upon inheritance...On what grounds should the government step into a private exchange of capital and seize another percentage upon one's death...?

Only the profits are taxed.

Or are you trying to tell me that if I save money over a period of time, after already paying taxes on it, and decide to employ you that you shouldn't have to pay taxes because when the money was mine I had already paid taxes on it?

No, I'm saying employing someone who earns a taxable income is different than a private exchange of capital upon a death in the family...

Why?

 

[The T]

So what is the OP trying to say here? That MITT didn't follow the LAW...or this is more class warfare rhetoric?

 

[Valerie]

Only the profits are taxed.

Or are you trying to tell me that if I save money over a period of time, after already paying taxes on it, and decide to employ you that you shouldn't have to pay taxes because when the money was mine I had already paid taxes on it?

No, I'm saying employing someone who earns a taxable income is different than a private exchange of capital upon a death in the family...

Why?

Because it's a PRIVATE exchange upon death.

 

[Ravi]

So what is the OP trying to say here? That MITT didn't follow the LAW...or this is more class warfare rhetoric?

How's your run for president coming along?

 

[Ravi]

No, I'm saying employing someone who earns a taxable income is different than a private exchange of capital upon a death in the family...

Why?

Because it's a PRIVATE exchange upon death.

So? If I hire you, it is also a private exchange.

Why are "private exchanges" treated differently as regards to income?

 

[Valerie]

Why?

Because it's a PRIVATE exchange upon death.

So? If I hire you, it is also a private exchange.

Why are "private exchanges" treated differently as regards to income?

No, running a business and hiring people is a public enterprise...

 

[California Girl]

Why?

Because it's a PRIVATE exchange upon death.

So? If I hire you, it is also a private exchange.

Why are "private exchanges" treated differently as regards to income?

Because it's already been taxed. For example, If I pay tax on my income, and die, and leave it all to you... why should you be taxed on that money? It's already been taxed.

 

[Vast LWC]

Because it's already been taxed. For example, If I pay tax on my income, and die, and leave it all to you... why should you be taxed on that money? It's already been taxed.

Yeah, I could go either way on this one actually.

It really depends on how you look at it.

If you see a family as a single taxable unit, then the money has already been taxed.

If you see each individual person in the family as a unit, the tax should apply.

This is a grey area.

Maybe it should be taxable if it's immediate family and should be if it's extended family?

 

[Cecilie1200]

So how much is enough? Since you want to say that there should be a fixed number that someone pays, whats the magic number? Let's hear this brilliant plan of yours.

Hell God only asked for 10%

Haven't you heard? Liberals believe themselves better than, and having more refined tastes than God. That's why they 'need' more.

More to the point, they consider themselves morally superior to God, and to be doing much better and more noble works than He does.