Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
It's not called "Out Sourcing" if Mitt does it. It's called "Charitable Overseas Employment".?
"As our economy becomes less competitive due to higher taxes, burdensome and uncertain regulations, and capital flight, more manufacturing and services will be outsourced to foreign firms."
.
We pay one of the lowest effective corporate tax rates in the western world. Jobs aren't being outsourced because of low tax third world companies. They're being outsourced because those folks are willing to work for peanuts. Would you like to see American manufacturers pay people in this country the wages they pay in Vietnam, China, and India?
The point you're missing is that the statutory rate is only charged against corporate profit. Yet corporations are still moving production and services off-shore, to third world shitholes, where they pay higher effective tax rates, and deduct them against their US taxes. Hell, there's even tax incentives for moving some jobs off-shore.
Thus, the statutory tax rate argument is bullshit, as long as corporations are willing to screw America for near slave labor.
Don't you think that the percentage of effective corporate tax, dropping from near 6% of GDP under Ike, to near 1% today, is a joke?
You aren't following. I'm not saying the effective tax rate is high. I am saying that because the statutory rate is high, there is incentive to move production offshore. If we lower statutory corporate taxes, we reduce the incentive for companies to lower their effective tax rates by shifting production. Of course, taxes aren't the only cost, but they are one we can influence. So lower the corporate tax rate to 15% and eliminate the loopholes. Obama has proposed lowering corporate taxes for this very reason, though to something like 27%.
Again, the issue is their effective federal rate. When they shift jobs to low wage, third world shitholes, their profit increases. They are taxed, at the federal level, on profit. Hence, their effective tax rate should increase by screwing America. Yet it doesn't. Why is that?
Perhaps it's because countries like Vietnam and China don't have all of those tax credits that we do, but companies are willing to move operations there because they provide a cheap, near slave wage market, so it doesn't matter that they pay a bit more in tax to those countries, while they write those same taxes off here?
Nope. It's a bullshit argument that American corporate tax, effective rates are high. The reality is the corporations like paying peanuts for wages, and could give a rat's ass about America.
If it doesn't matter, why is Mitt reluctant to release his tax returns?Why shouldn't he take advantage of tax breaks? Most people do. Saying he shouldn't take advantage of tax breaks that is readily available to him is about as nonsensical as conservatives saying that if liberals want to raise taxes, they should voluntarily send money to the Treasury and not force everyone to pay. Same coin, different sides.
You realize that his tax return is irrelevant to determining his involvement in Bain, right? He would continue to receive partnership distributions from carried interest from past funds and profits from the management company whether or not he was actively involved. This was investigated when he ran for governor in MA. This whole "Was he running Bain" garbage reminds me of the birfers demanding to see Obama's birth certificate years after it was certified.
From what I understand, he wasn't just getting distributions, he was being paid a salary of $100,000 a year. While he "wasn't there" doing anything to earn a salary.
When he ran for governor is when he used his Bain tenure as proof that he really "was there" in MA and therefore qualified to run for governor.
Independent of the Bain issues, the refusal to release the tax returns is HUGE. Somebody on a talk show yesterday said the logical reason why he is not releasing them in the face of this massive outcry is because releasing them would do even more damage than NOT doing so.
Rut-roh!
Romney was listed as the CEO but that doesn't mean he was actively involved. That may sound weird to people, but in financial industry general partnerships, that's not uncommon. Founders often receive compensation long after they've either left or are at the firm but aren't doing much productive. In limited liability corporations, people receive stock they hold on to and can sell at later times. In general partnerships in the financial industry, they usually don't.
My guess why he is reluctant to release his tax returns is because it will show that he used offshore tax structures to avoid - legally - paying taxes, maybe some that the IRS has since ruled against. The IRS used to allow carried interest held offshore to be deferred until brought onshore. They disallowed that in the mid-OOs. He probably also had some tax swaps which deferred paying taxes which he no longer uses. All that stuff used to be common.
Well, gee, so you support a guy who doesn't want to let the little people know how he gamed the system to not pay his fair share while they struggle to make ends meet.
This is the guy you support, someone who isn't being honest with us, pretty much.
(Waiting for Toro's usual whine about Mormons and hate.)
He pays more in taxes than you make, how is that not a fair share?
First, he effectively said he didn't care when he claimed he had nothing to do with Bain while he "wasn't there." I say bullshit, he owned the company 100%.
Second, how could it be a GP if Mitten was the sole stock holder?
I can't comment on what he said or it's context but a GP is a legal entity. It doesn't imply broad ownership. This structure is common amongst private equity firms, hedge funds and law firms. It's not uncommon for there to be a sole owner. In my experience, that's probably the case a significant amount of time. Most of the time, there will only be one, two or three owners.
It seemed your response was in reference to a GP. I'd always thought a GP implied more than one owner. According to the filings, Mitt owned 100% of the stock until his retroactive retirement....basically, through 2002.
If it doesn't matter, why is Mitt reluctant to release his tax returns?
From what I understand, he wasn't just getting distributions, he was being paid a salary of $100,000 a year. While he "wasn't there" doing anything to earn a salary.
When he ran for governor is when he used his Bain tenure as proof that he really "was there" in MA and therefore qualified to run for governor.
Independent of the Bain issues, the refusal to release the tax returns is HUGE. Somebody on a talk show yesterday said the logical reason why he is not releasing them in the face of this massive outcry is because releasing them would do even more damage than NOT doing so.
Was it huge when Obama didn't do it in 2008?
We pay one of the lowest effective corporate tax rates in the western world. Jobs aren't being outsourced because of low tax third world companies. They're being outsourced because those folks are willing to work for peanuts. Would you like to see American manufacturers pay people in this country the wages they pay in Vietnam, China, and India?
you're a complete dumb ass.
Corporate taxes
Since you agree with everything Obama does, you must agree with him about lowering corporate tax rates... right?
Except for people like you, Dickless FuckAccording to study from PricewaterhouseCoopers, there have been 133 corporate tax cuts globally in the past six years. If the U.S. lags too far behind other countries, it will undoubtedly effect its ability to attract investment in the economy. It appears that Democrats and Republicans see eye to eye on this point.
You're either a lying fuck or a stupid fuck, not to understand the difference between a statutory and effective rate.
Buffett on corporate taxes - YouTube
?
If it doesn't matter, why is Mitt reluctant to release his tax returns?
From what I understand, he wasn't just getting distributions, he was being paid a salary of $100,000 a year. While he "wasn't there" doing anything to earn a salary.
When he ran for governor is when he used his Bain tenure as proof that he really "was there" in MA and therefore qualified to run for governor.
Independent of the Bain issues, the refusal to release the tax returns is HUGE. Somebody on a talk show yesterday said the logical reason why he is not releasing them in the face of this massive outcry is because releasing them would do even more damage than NOT doing so.
Was it huge when Obama didn't do it in 2008?
Dude. You don't own 100% of a company and then just go off and ignore it and not be concerned with the direction it takes or the profits it makes. You just don't.
Strangely enough, that wasn't his intention. The Olympics were a huge mess, which he knew, but it turned out to be a bigger mess than he was told. Instead of whining about inheriting a mess from the guy that was there before him he rolled up his sleeves and got busy doing what needed to be done. This kept him a lot busier than he had expected, so he let things that were less time critical than the Olympics run themselves without having to micromanage everything. This led to a basic change of strategy at Bain as the management team changed focus from venture capital to rebuilding failed companies. When he was done with the Olympics he looked at the opportunities and decided he wanted to do other things than go back to Bain.
I envy that he has the resources to do that kind of thing when I don't, but I am not going to sit around and plot ways to take it away from him. That is why I am not a Democrat, I prefer to try and make a world where everyone can do what rich people have the freedom to instead of making a world where no one can do it.
Thank you for that fairy tale.
If it doesn't matter, why is Mitt reluctant to release his tax returns?
From what I understand, he wasn't just getting distributions, he was being paid a salary of $100,000 a year. While he "wasn't there" doing anything to earn a salary.
When he ran for governor is when he used his Bain tenure as proof that he really "was there" in MA and therefore qualified to run for governor.
Independent of the Bain issues, the refusal to release the tax returns is HUGE. Somebody on a talk show yesterday said the logical reason why he is not releasing them in the face of this massive outcry is because releasing them would do even more damage than NOT doing so.
Was it huge when Obama didn't do it in 2008?
1) Income is income and it should all be taxed at the same rate. the fact that he can hire accountants is gaming the system in a way I can't, because the accountant would cost me more than any savings he could find. That's kind of the point. He's gaming the system. Period.
2) No, everyone should pay THEIR FAIR SHARE. None of his "flat tax" bullshit. We had our greatest prosperity when the Rich paid through the nose for the privilage of being rich. They did okay, and so did the rest of us. We had good roads, good schools, and we expanded economically.
3) No, being a rich douchebag isn't illegal, yet. For the happy day when it is.
Let me see if I understand your position.
You work most of your life to provide a home for your family, you pay off your mortgage, do some needed maintenance, and throw in a few improvements over the years. When you die the house you bought for $50,000 is appraise at $1.5 million because you live in LA. You think your kids should be taxed 39% on the $1,450,000 dollar income that they just got.
Is that an honest assessment of your position, or did you somehow manage to think that it would never matter to you if rich people pay more in taxes.
huh? who is paying ANY inheritance tax on that?
who?
You know, for almost a year you were sane, and normal.
Tell Valerie I miss her.
Fuck you very much!
And you think Ravi's hysterical?
No...What you clever fellows thought was HUGE in 08 was Rev Wright and the Oh so elusive birth certicicate.. How'd THAT work out for you? The college transcripts were a distant cry from a back burner.. THAT seems all important now that Obama has already been in office for 3 and a half years.
I think it is time in the GOP playbook for Mittens to select some kook as VP and take the sting out of these frivilous tax return questions..
Well, gee, so you support a guy who doesn't want to let the little people know how he gamed the system to not pay his fair share while they struggle to make ends meet.
This is the guy you support, someone who isn't being honest with us, pretty much.
(Waiting for Toro's usual whine about Mormons and hate.)
He pays more in taxes than you make, how is that not a fair share?
I paid a higher percentage of my income in taxes than he did. Is that fair?
When he was selling their shoes, Michael Jordan made more than the entire Vietnamese workforce who made those Nikes. Was that that fair?
In the commercial and legal parlance of most countries, a general partnership (the basic form of partnership under common law), refers to an association of persons or an unincorporated company with the following major features:A GP is a legal structure defined under state and federal tax codes. It does not imply multiple owners even though it is a "partnership."
I can't comment on what he said or it's context but a GP is a legal entity. It doesn't imply broad ownership. This structure is common amongst private equity firms, hedge funds and law firms. It's not uncommon for there to be a sole owner. In my experience, that's probably the case a significant amount of time. Most of the time, there will only be one, two or three owners.
It seemed your response was in reference to a GP. I'd always thought a GP implied more than one owner. According to the filings, Mitt owned 100% of the stock until his retroactive retirement....basically, through 2002.
Strangely enough, that wasn't his intention. The Olympics were a huge mess, which he knew, but it turned out to be a bigger mess than he was told. Instead of whining about inheriting a mess from the guy that was there before him he rolled up his sleeves and got busy doing what needed to be done. This kept him a lot busier than he had expected, so he let things that were less time critical than the Olympics run themselves without having to micromanage everything. This led to a basic change of strategy at Bain as the management team changed focus from venture capital to rebuilding failed companies. When he was done with the Olympics he looked at the opportunities and decided he wanted to do other things than go back to Bain.
I envy that he has the resources to do that kind of thing when I don't, but I am not going to sit around and plot ways to take it away from him. That is why I am not a Democrat, I prefer to try and make a world where everyone can do what rich people have the freedom to instead of making a world where no one can do it.
Thank you for that fairy tale.
Just imagine what the world would be like if Obama had done this instead of turning out to be the whinging butch he actually is, we wouldn't be arguing about a pair of flip flops.
The blue laughing guy is the emoticon meaning Laughing My Ass Off.
I used the word hysterical because when I mention the notion of Mitt's track record as successful Executive leader, her response was an hysterical blue laugher.
And my reply to you is a sincere response to your suggestion that I posted anything abnormal or insane...
Well, gee, so you support a guy who doesn't want to let the little people know how he gamed the system to not pay his fair share while they struggle to make ends meet.
This is the guy you support, someone who isn't being honest with us, pretty much.
(Waiting for Toro's usual whine about Mormons and hate.)
He pays more in taxes than you make, how is that not a fair share?
I paid a higher percentage of my income in taxes than he did. Is that fair?
When he was selling their shoes, Michael Jordan made more than the entire Vietnamese workforce who made those Nikes. Was that that fair?
