Without a job, Romney made $57,000.00 a DAY for last two years.

[M14 Shooter]

And so, anyone who does the same can expect that you will consider their compensation as their money, and make no claim on that.. Good.

On what basis?
Has someone not lived up to the terms settled upon in their contract?
The stockholders who made money based on the rise in stock price - what contract did they have with you?

So, according to the new values, it's okay to beg concessions and enhance the bottom line with that money, so long as a stock sale is profitable. Nothing should go back to the workers who sacrificed. It should all go to those who merely bet on the company, not those who produce for the company.
I sure miss fairness as a virtue!

I asked you three specific questions.
You dodged them.
Please try again.

Oh look - no response from NK.

 

[sfcalifornia]

Capital gains tax isn't applied to the already-taxed income he invests. Capital gains tax is applied to the money earned from investing his already-taxed income.

yeah no kidding..........and?

If I use my income to buy some rental equipment, and go into business renting it, and make money at it,

they tax my new income, right? Even though the money I used to buy the equipment had already been taxed.

You are correct. In this instance, the money you make from renting out equipment would be income, not capital gains. Being self-employed, if the income you make from your capital investment is less than $106,800, then it is subject to self-employment tax of 13.3% (which went down from 15.3% last year). If it is more than $106,800, there is a different formula to figure out tax owed.

If you sell your capital investment (equipment in this case) for a higher price than what you bought it for, that difference in price is a capital gain and you would be subject to capital gains tax.

 

[sfcalifornia]

yeah no kidding..........and?

If I use my income to buy some rental equipment, and go into business renting it, and make money at it,

they tax my new income, right? Even though the money I used to buy the equipment had already been taxed.

Only if you are too stupid to amortize your investment.

You mean amortize the depreciation on the value of the equipment as a business expense. Depending on the price of equipment, sometimes the value is too large to expense all at once. The depreciation is expensed from the INCOME earned on the equipment but none of this has anything to do with capital gains. Capital gains occur when you SELL the equipment at a higher rate than what you bought it for. Capital gains tax applies to the money earned from selling the equipment.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Actually the opposite of true. The notion that fair distribution of tax burden has anything to do with a person's ability to pay it is what fits no definition of fair.

It doesn't? Who appointed you master definer?

Therefore our public school system, which provides a basic education regardless of one's ability to pay,

is fundamentally unfair. And because it's unfair, by your definition, and because you believe that 'unfairness' should be wiped out,

we should get rid of our public education systems and let people sink or swim educationally based on how much money they have.

You see people? this is why conservatism is dead.

Actually I'm using the dictionary definition of the term.

Definition of FAIR
1: pleasing to the eye or mind especially because of fresh, charming, or flawless quality
2: superficially pleasing : specious <she trusted his fair promises>
3a : clean, pure <fair sparkling water> b : clear, legible
4: not stormy or foul : fine <fair weather>
5: ample <a fair estate>
6a : marked by impartiality and honesty : free from self-interest, prejudice, or favoritism <a very fair person to do business with>1) : conforming with the established rules : allowed (2) : consonant with merit or importance : due <a fair share> c : open to legitimate pursuit, attack, or ridicule <fair game>
7a : promising, likely <in a fair way to win> b : favorable to a ship's course <a fair wind>
8archaic : free of obstacles
9: not dark <fair skin>
10a : sufficient but not ample : adequate <a fair understanding of the work> b : moderately numerous, large, or significant <takes a fair amount of time>
11: being such to the utmost : utter <a fair treat to watch him — New Republic>

If you can fit taking from those simply because they can afford it and/or absolving those for whom paying it would be difficult, into any of those definitions, by all means, make your case.

With a 10% flat tax, a guy making 50,000 a year pays 5,000 dollars. A guy making 5 million a year pays 500,000.

Why is that 'fair'? Why should one guy pay 100 times what another guy pays, just because he can afford it?

 

[Vel]

$57,000.00 a day without a job. Less than 14% in taxes.

I'm envious. That I don't have enough money to buy Republican politicians to make sure what is unethical is NOT illegal. Who cares about "ethics". I'm with the Republicans. I want money. And if that means we screw everyone else, so be it. I have a "constitutional" right to look out for Number one. I don't care about the rest of America. Only I'm important. And besides, I gave 12 cans of creamed corn I found on the back shelf in the pantry to charity. See?

Says he who chides Republicans because, as he says, they vote against their own self interests.

 

[M14 Shooter]

It doesn't? Who appointed you master definer?

Therefore our public school system, which provides a basic education regardless of one's ability to pay,

is fundamentally unfair. And because it's unfair, by your definition, and because you believe that 'unfairness' should be wiped out,

we should get rid of our public education systems and let people sink or swim educationally based on how much money they have.

You see people? this is why conservatism is dead.

Actually I'm using the dictionary definition of the term.

Definition of FAIR
1: pleasing to the eye or mind especially because of fresh, charming, or flawless quality
2: superficially pleasing : specious <she trusted his fair promises>
3a : clean, pure <fair sparkling water> b : clear, legible
4: not stormy or foul : fine <fair weather>
5: ample <a fair estate>
6a : marked by impartiality and honesty : free from self-interest, prejudice, or favoritism <a very fair person to do business with>1) : conforming with the established rules : allowed (2) : consonant with merit or importance : due <a fair share> c : open to legitimate pursuit, attack, or ridicule <fair game>
7a : promising, likely <in a fair way to win> b : favorable to a ship's course <a fair wind>
8archaic : free of obstacles
9: not dark <fair skin>
10a : sufficient but not ample : adequate <a fair understanding of the work> b : moderately numerous, large, or significant <takes a fair amount of time>
11: being such to the utmost : utter <a fair treat to watch him &#8212; New Republic>

If you can fit taking from those simply because they can afford it and/or absolving those for whom paying it would be difficult, into any of those definitions, by all means, make your case.

With a 10% flat tax, a guy making 50,000 a year pays 5,000 dollars. A guy making 5 million a year pays 500,000.

Why is that 'fair'? Why should one guy pay 100 times what another guy pays, just because he can afford it?

Hmm.

The idea that poor people should pay the same rate of tax as rich people is only 'fair' by someone's arbitrary made-up definition of what 'fair' is.

Similarly...
If you have a shred of intellectual honesty, you'll then have to agree that the idea that rich people should pay a higher tax rate than poor people is only 'fair' by someone's arbitrary made-up definition of what 'fair' is.

Well?

 

[Bern80]

It doesn't? Who appointed you master definer?

Therefore our public school system, which provides a basic education regardless of one's ability to pay,

is fundamentally unfair. And because it's unfair, by your definition, and because you believe that 'unfairness' should be wiped out,

we should get rid of our public education systems and let people sink or swim educationally based on how much money they have.

You see people? this is why conservatism is dead.

Actually I'm using the dictionary definition of the term.

Definition of FAIR
1: pleasing to the eye or mind especially because of fresh, charming, or flawless quality
2: superficially pleasing : specious <she trusted his fair promises>
3a : clean, pure <fair sparkling water> b : clear, legible
4: not stormy or foul : fine <fair weather>
5: ample <a fair estate>
6a : marked by impartiality and honesty : free from self-interest, prejudice, or favoritism <a very fair person to do business with>1) : conforming with the established rules : allowed (2) : consonant with merit or importance : due <a fair share> c : open to legitimate pursuit, attack, or ridicule <fair game>
7a : promising, likely <in a fair way to win> b : favorable to a ship's course <a fair wind>
8archaic : free of obstacles
9: not dark <fair skin>
10a : sufficient but not ample : adequate <a fair understanding of the work> b : moderately numerous, large, or significant <takes a fair amount of time>
11: being such to the utmost : utter <a fair treat to watch him &#8212; New Republic>

If you can fit taking from those simply because they can afford it and/or absolving those for whom paying it would be difficult, into any of those definitions, by all means, make your case.

With a 10% flat tax, a guy making 50,000 a year pays 5,000 dollars. A guy making 5 million a year pays 500,000.

Why is that 'fair'? Why should one guy pay 100 times what another guy pays, just because he can afford it?

I guess it would not be fair if your example of flat tax was somehow in violation of one of the defiitions posted. To me a flat tax, where the same percentage of income comes from everyone regardless of income, is 'free from self-interest'. Free of prejudice and does not show favoritism. Do you disagree?

Regardless, if you contend that not even a flat tax is fair, then you would certainly have to admit that the way it is done now is also not fair and thus also have to admit that a fair tax code is not what your really want.....which was my point to begin with.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Actually I'm using the dictionary definition of the term.

Definition of FAIR
1: pleasing to the eye or mind especially because of fresh, charming, or flawless quality
2: superficially pleasing : specious <she trusted his fair promises>
3a : clean, pure <fair sparkling water> b : clear, legible
4: not stormy or foul : fine <fair weather>
5: ample <a fair estate>
6a : marked by impartiality and honesty : free from self-interest, prejudice, or favoritism <a very fair person to do business with>1) : conforming with the established rules : allowed (2) : consonant with merit or importance : due <a fair share> c : open to legitimate pursuit, attack, or ridicule <fair game>
7a : promising, likely <in a fair way to win> b : favorable to a ship's course <a fair wind>
8archaic : free of obstacles
9: not dark <fair skin>
10a : sufficient but not ample : adequate <a fair understanding of the work> b : moderately numerous, large, or significant <takes a fair amount of time>
11: being such to the utmost : utter <a fair treat to watch him &#8212; New Republic>

If you can fit taking from those simply because they can afford it and/or absolving those for whom paying it would be difficult, into any of those definitions, by all means, make your case.

With a 10% flat tax, a guy making 50,000 a year pays 5,000 dollars. A guy making 5 million a year pays 500,000.

Why is that 'fair'? Why should one guy pay 100 times what another guy pays, just because he can afford it?

Maybe even that isn't fair either, though certainly more fair than what we have now, not as far as dollar for dollar. But if you're willing to say even a flat tax isn't fair than you must be willing to concede that a fair tax code isn't really what you're interested in, right?

NYC is quickly and unwittingly providing significant support for the notion that, to a liberal, "fair" is simply a code word for "what we want".
That is, to him and his ilk, "fair" has much more to do with ideology than equality.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Actually I'm using the dictionary definition of the term.

Definition of FAIR
1: pleasing to the eye or mind especially because of fresh, charming, or flawless quality
2: superficially pleasing : specious <she trusted his fair promises>
3a : clean, pure <fair sparkling water> b : clear, legible
4: not stormy or foul : fine <fair weather>
5: ample <a fair estate>
6a : marked by impartiality and honesty : free from self-interest, prejudice, or favoritism <a very fair person to do business with>1) : conforming with the established rules : allowed (2) : consonant with merit or importance : due <a fair share> c : open to legitimate pursuit, attack, or ridicule <fair game>
7a : promising, likely <in a fair way to win> b : favorable to a ship's course <a fair wind>
8archaic : free of obstacles
9: not dark <fair skin>
10a : sufficient but not ample : adequate <a fair understanding of the work> b : moderately numerous, large, or significant <takes a fair amount of time>
11: being such to the utmost : utter <a fair treat to watch him — New Republic>

If you can fit taking from those simply because they can afford it and/or absolving those for whom paying it would be difficult, into any of those definitions, by all means, make your case.

With a 10% flat tax, a guy making 50,000 a year pays 5,000 dollars. A guy making 5 million a year pays 500,000.

Why is that 'fair'? Why should one guy pay 100 times what another guy pays, just because he can afford it?

I guess it would not be fair if your example of flat tax was somehow in violation of one of the defiitions posted. To me a flat tax, where the same percentage of income comes from everyone regardless of income, is 'free from self-interest'. Free of prejudice and does not show favoritism. Do you disagree?

Regardless, if you contend that not even a flat tax is fair, then you would certainly have to admit that the way it is done now is also not fair and thus also have to admit that a fair tax code is not what your really want.....which was my point to begin with.

No, you're conceding that 'fair' is entirely subjective.

 

[gallantwarrior]

If I use my income to buy some rental equipment, and go into business renting it, and make money at it,

they tax my new income, right? Even though the money I used to buy the equipment had already been taxed.

Only if you are too stupid to amortize your investment.

You mean amortize the depreciation on the value of the equipment as a business expense. Depending on the price of equipment, sometimes the value is too large to expense all at once. The depreciation is expensed from the INCOME earned on the equipment but none of this has anything to do with capital gains. Capital gains occur when you SELL the equipment at a higher rate than what you bought it for. Capital gains tax applies to the money earned from selling the equipment.

Sorry, end of a long day, incompletely worded response.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Actually I'm using the dictionary definition of the term.

Definition of FAIR
1: pleasing to the eye or mind especially because of fresh, charming, or flawless quality
2: superficially pleasing : specious <she trusted his fair promises>
3a : clean, pure <fair sparkling water> b : clear, legible
4: not stormy or foul : fine <fair weather>
5: ample <a fair estate>
6a : marked by impartiality and honesty : free from self-interest, prejudice, or favoritism <a very fair person to do business with>1) : conforming with the established rules : allowed (2) : consonant with merit or importance : due <a fair share> c : open to legitimate pursuit, attack, or ridicule <fair game>
7a : promising, likely <in a fair way to win> b : favorable to a ship's course <a fair wind>
8archaic : free of obstacles
9: not dark <fair skin>
10a : sufficient but not ample : adequate <a fair understanding of the work> b : moderately numerous, large, or significant <takes a fair amount of time>
11: being such to the utmost : utter <a fair treat to watch him — New Republic>

If you can fit taking from those simply because they can afford it and/or absolving those for whom paying it would be difficult, into any of those definitions, by all means, make your case.

With a 10% flat tax, a guy making 50,000 a year pays 5,000 dollars. A guy making 5 million a year pays 500,000.

Why is that 'fair'? Why should one guy pay 100 times what another guy pays, just because he can afford it?

I guess it would not be fair if your example of flat tax was somehow in violation of one of the defiitions posted. To me a flat tax, where the same percentage of income comes from everyone regardless of income, is 'free from self-interest'. Free of prejudice and does not show favoritism. Do you disagree?

Regardless, if you contend that not even a flat tax is fair, then you would certainly have to admit that the way it is done now is also not fair and thus also have to admit that a fair tax code is not what your really want.....which was my point to begin with.

In a 'fair' tax system, you and Mitt Romney would pay the same dollar amount of taxes.

YOU don't want that, which means you don't want a fair tax system either.

 

[Bern80]

With a 10% flat tax, a guy making 50,000 a year pays 5,000 dollars. A guy making 5 million a year pays 500,000.

Why is that 'fair'? Why should one guy pay 100 times what another guy pays, just because he can afford it?

I guess it would not be fair if your example of flat tax was somehow in violation of one of the defiitions posted. To me a flat tax, where the same percentage of income comes from everyone regardless of income, is 'free from self-interest'. Free of prejudice and does not show favoritism. Do you disagree?

Regardless, if you contend that not even a flat tax is fair, then you would certainly have to admit that the way it is done now is also not fair and thus also have to admit that a fair tax code is not what your really want.....which was my point to begin with.

No, you're conceding that 'fair' is entirely subjective.

No I'm not. I have 'conceded' that fair is whatever the dictionary says it is. I fail to see how that is subjective. You couldn't even bring yourself to explain how a flat tax violates any dictionary definition of the term. Nor could you admit the hole you dug yourself by suggesting not even a 'fair tax' is fair. If that isn't fair, then most certainly what you want isn't fair either. At least show a little integrity and admit it.

 

[Bern80]

With a 10% flat tax, a guy making 50,000 a year pays 5,000 dollars. A guy making 5 million a year pays 500,000.

Why is that 'fair'? Why should one guy pay 100 times what another guy pays, just because he can afford it?

I guess it would not be fair if your example of flat tax was somehow in violation of one of the defiitions posted. To me a flat tax, where the same percentage of income comes from everyone regardless of income, is 'free from self-interest'. Free of prejudice and does not show favoritism. Do you disagree?

Regardless, if you contend that not even a flat tax is fair, then you would certainly have to admit that the way it is done now is also not fair and thus also have to admit that a fair tax code is not what your really want.....which was my point to begin with.

In a 'fair' tax system, you and Mitt Romney would pay the same dollar amount of taxes.

YOU don't want that, which means you don't want a fair tax system either.

Two things:

1) Who says I don't want that? The only way to realistically do dollar for dollar is for the dollar amount to be no more than the poorest person can provide. I'd be fine with that.

2)I ask again, how does the same percentage of income coming from everyone violate the posted definition of fair?

 

[MikeK]

This is absurdly idiotic.
The economy fell because a number of things - but to argue that it fell because of Federal spending that you disagree with denotes a indescribeable ignorance of the issue and an overwhelming sense of partisan bigotry.

How about substituting some specifics in place of your usual empty, inane nonsense.

Great idea.
Please show how, specifically and exactly, Bush spendng money on things you did not like "brought down the economy."

This is kindergarten economics but if you need it, here it is:

Bush took Office with a balanced budget and a projected surplus. He initiated two wholly unnecessary, major military actions, he attached Part-D to Medicare, which is an enormous, totally unnecessary expense, and he lowered taxes on the upper income brackets. He wasted so much money that he left Office with an enormous deficit, which Obama has had to deal with.

Those are the verifiable facts. But I expect you to refute them because you've been so effectively brainwashed that nothing short of electroshock therapy will clear your mind sufficiently to accept the truth.

 

[MikeK]

I believe that equitable distribution of this Nation's exceptional wealth is the way to maintain its strength and stability. What you believe in is the formula for its ultimate demise. And by equitable I don't mean equal. I mean fair and sensible -- as it was throughout the 40s, 50s, 60s and 70s, the most prosperous decades in our history.

You know, of course, tha the governmnt had little or nothing to do with this "equitable distribution of wealth" across this time period - right?

Did you ever hear of the New Deal?

From this point on I will impose a charge for imparting such elementary information to you. These are very basic things that you should already know. My fourteen year-old granddaughter is aware of them.

 

[kwc57]

How about substituting some specifics in place of your usual empty, inane nonsense.

Great idea.
Please show how, specifically and exactly, Bush spendng money on things you did not like "brought down the economy."

This is kindergarten economics but if you need it, here it is:

Bush took Office with a balanced budget and a projected surplus. He initiated two wholly unnecessary, major military actions, he attached Part-D to Medicare, which is an enormous, totally unnecessary expense, and he lowered taxes on the upper income brackets. He wasted so much money that he left Office with an enormous deficit, which Obama has had to deal with.

Those are the verifiable facts. But I expect you to refute them because you've been so effectively brainwashed that nothing short of electroshock therapy will clear your mind sufficiently to accept the truth.

Correction, Which Obama has gleefully compounded like a kid in a candy store.

 

[M14 Shooter]

How about substituting some specifics in place of your usual empty, inane nonsense.

Great idea.
Please show how, specifically and exactly, Bush spendng money on things you did not like "brought down the economy."

This is kindergarten economics but if you need it, here it is:

Bush took Office with a balanced budget and a projected surplus. He initiated two wholly unnecessary, major military actions, he attached Part-D to Medicare, which is an enormous, totally unnecessary expense, and he lowered taxes on the upper income brackets. He wasted so much money that he left Office with an enormous deficit, which Obama has had to deal with.

Those are the verifiable facts. But I expect you to refute them because you've been so effectively brainwashed that nothing short of electroshock therapy will clear your mind sufficiently to accept the truth.

Your argument is summarily dismissed as you have done nothing to tie all of the above to the economy being "brought down".

Try again, son.

 

[M14 Shooter]

With a 10% flat tax, a guy making 50,000 a year pays 5,000 dollars. A guy making 5 million a year pays 500,000.

Why is that 'fair'? Why should one guy pay 100 times what another guy pays, just because he can afford it?

I guess it would not be fair if your example of flat tax was somehow in violation of one of the defiitions posted. To me a flat tax, where the same percentage of income comes from everyone regardless of income, is 'free from self-interest'. Free of prejudice and does not show favoritism. Do you disagree?

Regardless, if you contend that not even a flat tax is fair, then you would certainly have to admit that the way it is done now is also not fair and thus also have to admit that a fair tax code is not what your really want.....which was my point to begin with.

No, you're conceding that 'fair' is entirely subjective.

If you have a shred of intellectual honesty, you'll then have to agree that the idea that rich people should pay a higher tax rate than poor people is only 'fair' by someone's arbitrary made-up definition of what 'fair' is.

Well?

 

[M14 Shooter]

I believe that equitable distribution of this Nation's exceptional wealth is the way to maintain its strength and stability. What you believe in is the formula for its ultimate demise. And by equitable I don't mean equal. I mean fair and sensible -- as it was throughout the 40s, 50s, 60s and 70s, the most prosperous decades in our history.

You know, of course, tha the governmnt had little or nothing to do with this "equitable distribution of wealth" across this time period - right?

Did you ever hear of the New Deal?

Yep.

Now, the hard part:
Can you show its effect from the 40s to the 70s and how, without it, there would have been no 'equity' in the distribution of wealth?

Of course you can't. Heck, even your 14-yr old grandaughter knows you can't.

 

[oreo]

My goal is a 100k a day without working.

There is no doubt that Mitt Romney is going to get SLAUGHTERED by the Obama reelection campaign committee with this. It's going to be a 24/7 hour onslaught. Not only that--but he also has investments into Swiss and Cayman Island banking accounts. Now while it's LEGAL--the 1st impression everyone gets when one mentions Swiss banks and Cayman Island banking accounts is: Someone is trying to hide money in order to get out of paying US federal taxes. They're not going to believe any different.

The last week Romney made this comment that he ONLY made 300K on couple of speeches he did. Last night he admitted his investments were in a blind trust--and he didn't even know what investments he had. This while millions of Americans look at their 401 K statements each and every month--and know exactly where their money is.

Mitt Romney is SOOOOOO out of touch with the average American it's very difficult seeing him beating Barack Obama. This election is not going to be about Obama's failed economic policies--it's going to be about Mitt Romney's money--his tax rate--and his off-shore bank accounts.