PDA

View Full Version : Romney's Taxes--The Rest of the Sory!



road kill
01-26-2012, 10:47 AM
Mitt Romney's Taxes and True Reform

How many times should your money be taxed? One time? Two times? Three times? Four? Sounds like a ridiculous proposition, but that's the true story of capital gains taxes in America, and it's one that's not being told in the continuing debate over Governor Mitt Romney's taxes.

For more than a week, the media has focused on the subject of just how much Romney pays in taxes. On Tuesday, the governor released his tax returns indicating that he paid about 15 percent in taxes last year. At first blush, that sounds like a low rate, especially considering that Romney is admittedly worth millions. But as with all things in politics, there is more to the story.

As most Americans know, marginal individual income tax rates in America range between 15 and 35 percent. However, Americans making money from investments typically earn dividends. They face a lower rate to reduce the tax barrier to investing and growing businesses. For Americans in the lowest two income brackets, the tax rate on dividends is zero. For all the rest, the dividend tax rate is 15 percent -- hence Romney's rate.

Why do dividends face lower rates than wages or interest income? Because dividends have already faced one full level of tax at the corporate level.

But that's income tax. Americans making money from investments also typically pay a capital gains tax at the same lower rate as for dividends. Income and capital gains are very different. Income is what is generated from using resources, as wage income is generated by providing labor services, whereas a capital gain results from an increase in an asset price. Capital gains face a lower rate to reduce the tax barrier to investing, especially in high-risk, high-return, job-creating, business-growing investments.

So right off the bat, Romney is paying what is legally required of him -- and even when compared to the average federal income tax burden in America of 9.3 percent, he's paying more. There's still more to the story, though.

When Romney pays 15 percent to Uncle Sam, that's not the first time that money was taxed. J.D. Foster, the Norman B. Ture Senior Fellow in the Economics of Fiscal Policy at The Heritage Foundation, explains that Romney's money has likely gone through four levels of taxation, meaning that the level of taxation was at 50 percent and likely much higher:

At the very least, he paid nearly 45 percent, but a chunk of this tax was collected before he even saw the remainder. Income from capital gains and dividends means the income was first earned by businesses, most likely corporations which paid tax at 35 percent. So Romney paid his 15 percent only after the government had taken its 35 percent cut. That leaves Romney with a combined tax of 45 cents on the dollar of corporate earnings.

So that's two levels of taxation -- the corporate rate and the capital gains rate. But there's more. Foster explains that Romney's cash was likely subject to taxes on capital income repeatedly in the past. Few investments are one and done; rather, most are earned taxed dividends and capital gains over extended periods that are reinvested and taxed again and again. This is a third "level" of taxation. And then Romney was also taxed at the individual rate as wage or salary income--a fourth level. And that's how you get above 50 percent in taxes. (And don't forget that Romney contributes 15 percent of his income to charity--money that might not be available if the capital gains tax were raised as many liberals propose.)

Are four levels of taxation, topping out at 50 percent "fair" enough for the left? Unfortunately, the truth about capital gains taxes don't fit as neatly into a headline as 'Millionaire Only Pays 15% Tax Rate,' but Americans deserve to know the truth -- and they also deserve to be able to save, invest, spend, and contribute the money they have earned without it being confiscated by progressive politicians seeking a "fair" redistribution of wealth ushered in by a growing federal government.

Instead of eating the rich and burning down their mansions, Congress should find ways to make it easier for Americans to keep their money, invest it, and become more prosperous. In a new paper, Heritage's Curtis Dubay enumerates ways that Washington can focus on growth and set the economy free, among them: prevent tax hikes, extend the payroll tax holiday or replace it with a more pro-growth policy, make permanent the tax cuts that expire at the end of the year, avoid raising taxes after cutting taxes, repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the tax hikes that go with it, and switch to the New Flat Tax, which would tax individuals on what they spend each year rather than what they earn.

In politics, it's easy to demonize the rich and engage in class warfare, but tearing people down instead of building others up is no way to govern a country. If Washington politicians truly want to turn America around, they should focus on ways to raise the bar and help individuals succeed--not knock down real success stories in order to become populist heroes.



Awaiting the "yabutts!":D


RK

menmon
01-26-2012, 11:51 AM
Awaiting the "yabutts!":D


RK

I have my violin out for him.

Let me give you a good example. Recently I was asked to finance a $24 million helicopter for an individual that had agree to purchase the helicopter and lease it to a oil field service company for 10 years at a rate much lower that the cost of carry on the helicopter. It had a purchase option at the end too.

This indivdual's primary business was R/E and he was going to report, $17 million in personal income. However, by purchaseing the helicopter for $24 million and expensing it in the year it was purchased, he avoided paying any federal income tax in the current year, and the lease was structured where the interest he was paying on the helicopter offset the rental income until 10 years later when he sold the helicopter and repaid the balance of his note and paid 15% capital gain tax on the gain on sale.

So to sum this up, he avoid 39.6% tax on the $17MM, the lease carried the cost of financing the helicopter and 10 years later he paid 15% on $10 million in capital gain.

Now tell me how that made jobs?

road kill
01-26-2012, 11:56 AM
I have my violin out for him.

Let me give you a good example. Recently I was asked to finance a $24 million helicopter for an individual that had agree to purchase the helicopter and lease it to a oil field service company for 10 years at a rate much lower that the cost of carry on the helicopter. It had a purchase option at the end too.

This indivdual's primary business was R/E and he was going to report, $17 million in personal income. However, by purchaseing the helicopter for $24 million and expensing it in the year it was purchased, he avoided paying any federal income tax in the current year, and the lease was structured where the interest he was paying on the helicopter offset the rental income until 10 years later when he sold the helicopter and repaid the balance of his note and paid 15% capital gain tax on the gain on sale.

So to sum this up, he avoid 39.6% tax on the $17MM, the lease carried the cost of financing the helicopter and 10 years later he paid 15% on $10 million in capital gain.

Now tell me how that made jobs?

Ummmmm.....well........there is YOUR job!!!!!:D



RK

Gerry Clinchy
01-26-2012, 11:59 AM
they also deserve to be able to save, invest, spend, and contribute the money they have earned without it being confiscated by progressive politicians seeking a "fair" redistribution of wealth ushered in by a growing federal government.


Romney is being criticized for the amount he contributes to his church. However, churches do a lot in the line of social services that we overlook ... from food banks, to adoption services, to overseas ministries. When govt provides these things, it usually costs taxpayers more than when churches do them.

menmon
01-26-2012, 12:07 PM
Ummmmm.....well........there is YOUR job!!!!!:D



RK

The man did nothing wrong but work within the system. Having said that, I think things would be fair if he paid tax instead of those that collect a paycheck and do not have these tax avoidance methods at their disposal.

This is the point the president is trying to make. It takes money to pay our bills and the people that are capable of contributing the most are not paying their share, therefore, people like us are paying more than our share.

This is why I'm a democrat, because the republicans are more concerned with these guys having an easier go of it than me, while feeding me the line that they make jobs. I make jobs too when I have more to spend and then spend it.

All your famous merchandisers will tell you that they do best when everyone has a piece of the pie not just a few.

caryalsobrook
01-26-2012, 12:11 PM
I have my violin out for him.

Let me give you a good example. Recently I was asked to finance a $24 million helicopter for an individual that had agree to purchase the helicopter and lease it to a oil field service company for 10 years at a rate much lower that the cost of carry on the helicopter. It had a purchase option at the end too.

This indivdual's primary business was R/E and he was going to report, $17 million in personal income. However, by purchaseing the helicopter for $24 million and expensing it in the year it was purchased, he avoided paying any federal income tax in the current year, and the lease was structured where the interest he was paying on the helicopter offset the rental income until 10 years later when he sold the helicopter and repaid the balance of his note and paid 15% capital gain tax on the gain on sale.

So to sum this up, he avoid 39.6% tax on the $17MM, the lease carried the cost of financing the helicopter and 10 years later he paid 15% on $10 million in capital gain.

Now tell me how that made jobs?

I'm not an accountant but are you claiming that he expensed the whole 24 million in one year?? Tell me how. i have always had a dereciation schedule.

Franco
01-26-2012, 12:14 PM
Raise the taxes on Capital Gains = no incentive to invest = loss of jobs!

menmon
01-26-2012, 12:20 PM
I'm not an accountant but are you claiming that he expensed the whole 24 million in one year?? Tell me how. i have always had a dereciation schedule.

The federal Economic Stimulus Act of 2008, enacted in February 2008, included a 50% first-year bonus depreciation (26 USC 168(k)) provision for eligible renewable-energy systems acquired and placed in service in 2008. This provision was extended (retroactively for the entire 2009 tax year) under the same terms by The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, enacted in February 2009. Bonus depreciation was renewed again in September 2010 (retroactively for the entire 2010 tax year) by the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 (H.R. 5297).

In December 2010 the provision for bonus depreciation was amended and extended yet again by The Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010 (H.R. 4853). Under these amendments, eligible property placed in service after September 8, 2010 and before January 1, 2012 qualifies for 100% first-year bonus depreciation. For 2012, bonus depreciation is still available, but the allowable deduction reverts from 100% to 50% of the eligible basis.

To qualify for bonus depreciation, a project must satisfy these criteria:

the property must have a recovery period of 20 years or less under normal federal tax depreciation rules;
the original use of the property must commence with the taxpayer claiming the deduction;
the property generally must have been acquired during the period from 2008 - 2012; and
the property must have been placed in service during the period from 2008 - 2012.

road kill
01-26-2012, 12:23 PM
The man did nothing wrong but work within the system. Having said that, I think things would be fair if he paid tax instead of those that collect a paycheck and do not have these tax avoidance methods at their disposal.

This is the point the president is trying to make. It takes money to pay our bills and the people that are capable of contributing the most are not paying their share, therefore, people like us are paying more than our share.

This is why I'm a democrat, because the republicans are more concerned with these guys having an easier go of it than me, while feeding me the line that they make jobs. I make jobs too when I have more to spend and then spend it.

All your famous merchandisers will tell you that they do best when everyone has a piece of the pie not just a few.

So......if I earn an income, and pay taxes (income taxes) and invest that money in Apple stock, I should pay on the investment capital I already paid taxes on, and additional taxes on top of that so as you can give it to someone else?
(to create a job of course)

Robbing what I earned once is not enough, you have to rob me twice??

OK.....makes perfect sense.....to you!!!:rolleyes:

RK

menmon
01-26-2012, 12:29 PM
Kickapoo Ranch Pet Resort took advantage of this last year with the addition of that Dodge Longhorn you see it the picture with me and Sam. Did not need a new truck, but Obama made it too good for me not to buy one.

www.kickapooranchpetresort.com

Gerry Clinchy
01-26-2012, 12:31 PM
Sambo, it seems that:
The $24 million spent on the helicopter provided some jobs for the fellas who built the copter. They had some $ to spend as a result of their paychecks.

The 15% of $10 million came to $1.5 million. That's a nice chunk of change in taxes. How many people making $50,000/year with two kids would it take to pay that much in taxes. (Just saw a tax return of such a family, and their taxes, after deductions, came to about $1200 in FIT ... doesn't count SS & Medicare, of course. Perhaps pertinent, they have also been in default of the mortgage for at least 4 months.)

The banks who handled the financing/leasing of the copter also provided a few jobs to some people ... who also had some $ to spend.

I'd venture a guess that the fellow who put the deal together, if he had earned $17 million in income, also did some other spending with the $ he did not pay in FIT ... maybe bought some high-end items (like car, boat, landscaping, etc.) that provided a few more jobs.

I think the payroll tax holiday will prove useless, only further crippling SS and Medicare. Of course, in the long haul, I think the under-the-radar agenda would be that everyone (including seniors) would end part of Obamacare. We would "redistribute" the benefits of Medicare (for seniors & disabled) to those who presently do not have (cannot afford) health insurance ... and everyone will get a quite small piece of that pie; except in this case many seniors who are not "rich" will be giving up some of their already-small piece of pie. Eventually, as we see happening in the UK, and beginning to happen in Canada, the piece of pie that everyone gets continues to get smaller ... until, as has happened in the UK, people are encouraged to purchase their health care directly outside the system, since the system became unsustainable.

The idea is about creating wealth ... if you simply spend all the wealth today, there is none left to invest to create more wealth to meet the needs of the future. Redistribution does not create any new wealth for the future; it just appears to with some temporary improvement today ... and bankruptcy tomorrow.

menmon
01-26-2012, 12:38 PM
So......if I earn an income, and pay taxes (income taxes) and invest that money in Apple stock, I should pay on the investment capital I already paid taxes on, and additional taxes on top of that so as you can give it to someone else?
(to create a job of course)

Robbing what I earned once is not enough, you have to rob me twice??

OK.....makes perfect sense.....to you!!!:rolleyes:

RK

Ok you earn money and purchase a % of the Apple company at its current market value with after tax income. Now it earns money for you that is distributed to you in dividends and you pay tax on those earnings at a lessor tax rate, because the company took a C-election for taxes and has already paid tax according to the corporate tax rate. Now if you hold that stock or ownership longer than 1 year and sale it for more than you paid for it, you pay a capital gains tax on the gain of 15%. If you sale it for less than you paid for it, you have a capital tax credit that can offset other capital gains or be applied to ordinary income at $3000 per year.

Nothing unfair in that.

road kill
01-26-2012, 12:40 PM
Kickapoo Ranch Pet Resort took advantage of this last year with the addition of that Dodge Longhorn you see it the picture with me and Sam. Did not need a new truck, but Obama made it too good for me not to buy one.

www.kickapooranchpetresort.com

Good for you!!!



I mean that........a guy needs a new truck every so often.
Did you spend the commision off that helicopter deal on it?????:D


RK

menmon
01-26-2012, 12:46 PM
Sambo, it seems that:
The $24 million spent on the helicopter provided some jobs for the fellas who built the copter. They had some $ to spend as a result of their paychecks.

The 15% of $10 million came to $1.5 million. That's a nice chunk of change in taxes. How many people making $50,000/year with two kids would it take to pay that much in taxes. (Just saw a tax return of such a family, and their taxes, after deductions, came to about $1200 in FIT ... doesn't count SS & Medicare, of course. Perhaps pertinent, they have also been in default of the mortgage for at least 4 months.)

The banks who handled the financing/leasing of the copter also provided a few jobs to some people ... who also had some $ to spend.

I'd venture a guess that the fellow who put the deal together, if he had earned $17 million in income, also did some other spending with the $ he did not pay in FIT ... maybe bought some high-end items (like car, boat, landscaping, etc.) that provided a few more jobs.
I think the payroll tax holiday will prove useless, only further crippling SS and Medicare. Of course, in the long haul, I think the under-the-radar agenda would be that everyone (including seniors) would end part of Obamacare. We would "redistribute" the benefits of Medicare (for seniors & disabled) to those who presently do not have (cannot afford) health insurance ... and everyone will get a quite small piece of that pie; except in this case many seniors who are not "rich" will be giving up some of their already-small piece of pie. Eventually, as we see happening in the UK, and beginning to happen in Canada, the piece of pie that everyone gets continues to get smaller ... until, as has happened in the UK, people are encouraged to purchase their health care directly outside the system, since the system became unsustainable.

The idea is about creating wealth ... if you simply spend all the wealth today, there is none left to invest to create more wealth to meet the needs of the future. Redistribution does not create any new wealth for the future; it just appears to with some temporary improvement today ... and bankruptcy tomorrow.

He bought foreclosures for cents on the dollar with the orginal owner lossing largly and banks with large losses to their original loans. That is what distressed or vulture capitalist do. They are opportunist, nothing wrong with that.

Now I did not say that some did not benefit from this transaction, but this helicopter was needed and would have been bought and deployed without this guy avoiding $6.7 million in taxes

menmon
01-26-2012, 12:52 PM
Good for you!!!



I mean that........a guy needs a new truck every so often.
Did you spend the commision off that helicopter deal on it?????:D


RK

They have not paid bonuses yet. I plan to use that to purchase a 20 ft x 56" Go-devil boat with twin 35 hp Surface Drive engines. With this, I will be able to run about 30 mph in the marsh loaded with lard ass hunters like me, decoys, guns, shells and dog.

Now since this boat will be used for pond maintainence, Kickapoo will expense it using the above rules;)

caryalsobrook
01-26-2012, 01:18 PM
The federal Economic Stimulus Act of 2008, enacted in February 2008, included a 50% first-year bonus depreciation (26 USC 168(k)) provision for eligible renewable-energy systems acquired and placed in service in 2008. This provision was extended (retroactively for the entire 2009 tax year) under the same terms by The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, enacted in February 2009. Bonus depreciation was renewed again in September 2010 (retroactively for the entire 2010 tax year) by the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 (H.R. 5297).

In December 2010 the provision for bonus depreciation was amended and extended yet again by The Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010 (H.R. 4853). Under these amendments, eligible property placed in service after September 8, 2010 and before January 1, 2012 qualifies for 100% first-year bonus depreciation. For 2012, bonus depreciation is still available, but the allowable deduction reverts from 100% to 50% of the eligible basis.

To qualify for bonus depreciation, a project must satisfy these criteria:

the property must have a recovery period of 20 years or less under normal federal tax depreciation rules;
the original use of the property must commence with the taxpayer claiming the deduction;
the property generally must have been acquired during the period from 2008 - 2012; and
the property must have been placed in service during the period from 2008 - 2012.

Good grief!!! One of those renewable energy tax benefits!!! Just another boondoggle such as Solindra. The same people who bitch about tax breaks then pass such Stimulus:rolleyes: THEN THEY BITCH ABOUT THE TAX BREAK!!!! Funny you picked that REDICULOUS example:rolleyes:

Jason Glavich
01-26-2012, 01:30 PM
Couldn't the same be said about gambling or lottery wins? You buy a Ticket or round of cards with a dollar that was already taxed just like if you bought stock. In stock you lose just like gambling or the lottery, and if you win you pay tax on it, 15% for guys like Romney by investing, or you pay more than 25% for gambling and lottery winnings. So the money is taxed again. We all are double taxed but it is all in how you look at it. Income tax, leave you with taxed money to buy products that will carry a sales tax, or road tax or one of the other hundred taxes.

Only 2 sure things in life Death and Taxes. but there are many loopholes to pay less tax.

road kill
01-26-2012, 01:36 PM
If we took all of Romneys money, every penny, how many jobs would that create??


Just askin'.......


RK

caryalsobrook
01-26-2012, 01:38 PM
Couldn't the same be said about gambling or lottery wins? You buy a Ticket or round of cards with a dollar that was already taxed just like if you bought stock. In stock you lose just like gambling or the lottery, and if you win you pay tax on it, 15% for guys like Romney by investing, or you pay more than 25% for gambling and lottery winnings. So the money is taxed again. We all are double taxed but it is all in how you look at it. Income tax, leave you with taxed money to buy products that will carry a sales tax, or road tax or one of the other hundred taxes.

Only 2 sure things in life Death and Taxes. but there are many loopholes to pay less tax.

70,000 pages of loopholes and growing. Or anothr way to look at it is 70,000 pages of deductions. Take your pick. Everybody knows the income tax method is broken. You want to fix it?? That is how the tax code came to be 70,000 pages. Keep on trying to fix it and it will continue to grow. Sambo's example is a fine example of trying to force resources into sectors that no one will inves unless the are given A DIFFERENT SET OF RULES. POTUS says he wants everybody to play by the same rules. This along with the health care bill with its 2000 waivers is a clasic example of each having to play by different rules.

menmon
01-26-2012, 02:02 PM
If we took all of Romneys money, every penny, how many jobs would that create??


Just askin'.......


RK

I don't know, but it's better than them using my money:D

coachmo
01-26-2012, 02:28 PM
Kinda what's wrong with the liberal mindset...use other people's money but don't dare touch mine!

Jason Glavich
01-26-2012, 02:33 PM
70,000 pages of loopholes and growing. Or anothr way to look at it is 70,000 pages of deductions. Take your pick. Everybody knows the income tax method is broken. You want to fix it?? That is how the tax code came to be 70,000 pages. Keep on trying to fix it and it will continue to grow. Sambo's example is a fine example of trying to force resources into sectors that no one will inves unless the are given A DIFFERENT SET OF RULES. POTUS says he wants everybody to play by the same rules. This along with the health care bill with its 2000 waivers is a clasic example of each having to play by different rules.

I am just about out of deductions or loopholes in my house, aside from solar panels maybe they could add a few thousand more pages for me. I would do solar but they are ugly and will get in the way of my christmas lights. Clark Griswold aint got nuthin on me.

menmon
01-26-2012, 02:38 PM
Kinda what's wrong with the liberal mindset...use other people's money but don't dare touch mine!

I don't mind paying taxes....I just want the guy that makes over a million a year paying as big of percentage as me.

duckheads
01-26-2012, 03:10 PM
I don't mind paying taxes....I just want the guy that makes over a million a year paying as big of percentage as me.

Don't know what tax bracket you fall under but someone earning over a million as income does pay a higher percenatge than you unless you are in the same bracket as them.

What don't you understand or are just using the lastest misleading statements the libs are putting out there?

Buzz
01-26-2012, 03:13 PM
Don't know what tax bracket you fall under but someone earning over a million as income does pay a higher percenatge than you unless you are in the same bracket as them.

What don't you understand or are just using the lastest misleading statements the libs are putting out there?

I guess it depends on how they "earn" it, doesn't it?

coachmo
01-26-2012, 03:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by sambo
I don't mind paying taxes....I just want the guy that makes over a million a year paying as big of percentage as me.

I'm sure you do want people in a higher tax bracket to pay more just as I'm sure there are plenty of people in a lower tax bracket than you who feel you are not paying your fair share. It's called class envy!!!! Be careful what you wish for!

duckheads
01-26-2012, 03:20 PM
I guess it depends on how they "earn" it, doesn't it?

It certainly does and if it is earned in a way that he would owe "income taxes" he would pay a higher percentage of "income taxes" now wouldn't he?

Jason Glavich
01-26-2012, 03:22 PM
I guess it depends on how they "earn" it, doesn't it?

With all the deductions they can pay the same or less even if they weren't being paid by capital gains.

If someone makes a million bucks and is taxed at 35% one would think they would pay 35% in taxes but after deductions/credits that number is much much different. If they were taking every deduction that everyone else gets they could pay considerably less. More expensive home = more to write off, rental homes same thing, higher losses, higher medical expenses(due to seeing only the best doctors), give them the child credit,adoption credits(Angelina Jolie comes to mind), NHBTC, charity, green deductions,work related expenses,etc they add up pretty fast. They do not get all of these due to their income as well. All in all there are a lot of ways to get around paying what some see as a fair share.

I do not begrudge anyone for making more than me, I am only 27 so I have plenty of time to catch up to them.

Matt McKenzie
01-26-2012, 03:26 PM
Wouldn't it make more sense to just stop the government from manipulating our behavior through tax breaks? I don't care if it's loopholes that allow the purchase of helicopters and pickup trucks to avoid taxes or mortgage deductions or child tax credits or any of it. All these do is allow politicians a way to buy votes.
The facts are that the super rich pay the majority of the total tax bill. The top 1% of taxpayers pay 38% of the total federal tax bill, the top 10% pay 60% while the bottom 50% of filers pay 3% of the total tax bill and many receive more in return than they payed in (via EIC). If the rich aren't paying their "fair share", what exactly should the fair share be?
I don't care about rich people or poor people. I care about liberty and truth. The fact that our president is spouting what amounts to outright lies bothers me very much.
The way to solve the problem is to completely rebuild the tax code. The Fairtax would be a great place to start.

menmon
01-26-2012, 03:35 PM
Don't know what tax bracket you fall under but someone earning over a million as income does pay a higher percenatge than you unless you are in the same bracket as them.

What don't you understand or are just using the lastest misleading statements the libs are putting out there?

I didn't say tax bracket...I said % of income:rolleyes:

caryalsobrook
01-26-2012, 03:39 PM
Wouldn't it make more sense to just stop the government from manipulating our behavior through tax breaks? I don't care if it's loopholes that allow the purchase of helicopters and pickup trucks to avoid taxes or mortgage deductions or child tax credits or any of it. All these do is allow politicians a way to buy votes.
The facts are that the super rich pay the majority of the total tax bill. The top 1% of taxpayers pay 38% of the total federal tax bill, the top 10% pay 60% while the bottom 50% of filers pay 3% of the total tax bill and many receive more in return than they payed in (via EIC). If the rich aren't paying their "fair share", what exactly should the fair share be?
I don't care about rich people or poor people. I care about liberty and truth. The fact that our president is spouting what amounts to outright lies bothers me very much.
The way to solve the problem is to completely rebuild the tax code. The Fairtax would be a great place to start.

The gov. is not about making any common sense. It is about rules, regulations, taxes, income redistribution and most of all CONTROL and curtailing individual freedoms.

caryalsobrook
01-26-2012, 03:40 PM
I forgot dependence of gov.

Franco
01-26-2012, 03:49 PM
I have always been honest when filing my tax returns and I hate knowing how my taxes get wasted by the Feds!

I am all for a flat tax, 0% would work fine for me! We would just have to reign in the Fed Gov and make them stick to their Constituitional duties!

menmon
01-26-2012, 03:51 PM
The republicans want to tax the lower income folks instead of taxing the higher income earners. Why is that? The higher income folks vote for them for this reason.

So if you are a democrat you think the higher income folks should carry a bigger loan.

And if you are a republican you think the lower income should carry a bigger load.

I think most of us are in the middle, so it becomes about what is the right thing to do.

I'm in the middle and I think the rich should pay more, not the poor.

Daniel J Simoens
01-26-2012, 03:59 PM
I think we all should pay the same amount. Afterall, all men are created equally.

Franco
01-26-2012, 04:00 PM
The republicans want to tax the lower income folks instead of taxing the higher income earners. Why is that? The higher income folks vote for them for this reason.

So if you are a democrat you think the higher income folks should carry a bigger loan.

And if you are a republican you think the lower income should carry a bigger load.

I think most of us are in the middle, so it becomes about what is the right thing to do.

I'm in the middle and I think the rich should pay more, not the poor.

I'm just a working stiff and thinks the gov collects more than enough in taxes. They need to learn how to stop wasting it!

Cody Covey
01-26-2012, 06:25 PM
The republicans want to tax the lower income folks instead of taxing the higher income earners. Why is that? The higher income folks vote for them for this reason.

So if you are a democrat you think the higher income folks should carry a bigger loan.

And if you are a republican you think the lower income should carry a bigger load.

I think most of us are in the middle, so it becomes about what is the right thing to do.

I'm in the middle and I think the rich should pay more, not the poor.

Where have you EVER heard ANY republican say the poor should pay instead of the rich? You haven't it has never once been said. You have heard that that poor should pay something. They use a bulk of the resources and yet have to put nothing in. How much does Romney use from the government? He is not on any federal assistance, is completely self-sustaining and yet he should be forced to pay into a government that wants to keep the poor on the government teat to continue to get votes.

You summed it up nicely in one of your previous posts. You want people taxed to give to others you just don't want to be the one that actually is taxed. What percentage of the total income tax do you believe is the rich's fair share?

Matt McKenzie
01-26-2012, 07:39 PM
The republicans want to tax the lower income folks instead of taxing the higher income earners. Why is that? The higher income folks vote for them for this reason.

So if you are a democrat you think the higher income folks should carry a bigger loan.

And if you are a republican you think the lower income should carry a bigger load.

I think most of us are in the middle, so it becomes about what is the right thing to do.

I'm in the middle and I think the rich should pay more, not the poor.

The rich DO pay more. A lot more. All you have to do is go to the IRS website to find the truth. Some people make most of their money as capital gains rather than as income. They pay at the capital gains rate. Good for them. I certainly don't want to raise the capital gains tax just so that Warren Buffet or Mitt Romney have a higher effective tax rate. That's just stupid wealth envy that will not accomplish anything positive. We don't need to raise taxes on anyone, rich or poor. We need to delete ALL tax deductions and seriously cut spending on Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid and other entitlement programs. We need to repeal Obomacare. We need to do some serious tort reform. We need to install term limits on the house and senate and we need to do away with retirements for them as well as all exemptions they enjoy. Every program they pass must apply to them as well as the general public (social security, Obamacare, etc.). We must take some of the power back from the Federal government. We must take control of this country back from our so-called "representatives". But of course the problem is that everyone wants us to cut back on spending, as long as it doesn't affect us directly. So we're going to keep rolling down the track until we all get equally screwed. Soon, we'll be in the same shape that Greece is in. But there will be no EU and USA to bail us out. But there will be plenty of countries waiting to feed off of our carcass. So keep on pushing the class warfare lines and keep on supporting social policies that we cannot afford. Sooner or later, we'll have to pay the piper. Will it be our kids who pay the price or our grandkids?

JDogger
01-26-2012, 07:58 PM
Odd, that I agree with you Matt, mostly, but I think we are already paying.
What are your ideas for change?
If a change in regime happens, what would you like to see implemented?

JD

Marvin S
01-26-2012, 09:46 PM
We need to delete ALL tax deductions and seriously cut spending on Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid and other entitlement programs. We need to repeal Obomacare. We need to do some serious tort reform. We need to install term limits on the house and senate and we need to do away with retirements for them as well as all exemptions they enjoy.

I have no issue with R-Money's ability to use the tax code. He didn't institute it, blame your congresscritters for that.

Medicare & Social Security are not entitlement programs, they would be fully self funded if properly managed & eligibility rules were maintained, ie, you have to have skin in the game to participate. Medicaid is an entirely different story.

We owned a kennel business for 20 years. When we started the effective CG rate was 14%, along came Reagan's Tax Simplification Act of 1986 & the CG rate went to 28%. We took the risk, the overspenders reaped the rewards. We sold the kennel when the CG rate was 28% on contract, shortly after the sale CG rates went back to 15%. Guess which rate we got to pay on the entire amount? BTW, our kennel wasn't nearly as palatial as Sambo's & though it paid for the trucks our boat was an aluminum 12 footer ;-). I'm not complaining as I took what we got & multiplied it, just not @ R-Money's level.

I take a look at the folks in MT who started a Gas station, Motel, convenience store at the intersection of HWY 200 & the Seeley Lake Hwy. For taking a greater risk than normal should their CG rate be different than those who restructure businesses that are ripe for the picking? IMO, the financial services industry is the one ripe for higher taxation. It should not be income initiated, it should be on how that income was derived. Risk/Reward :).

I don't know how many of you read some of the entepreneurial (INC, Wired & others) magazines, but you should. I am amazed at how people can create real value with solid business ideas. They are the ones who should reap the rewards :eek:. & be motivated to do so :cool:.

caryalsobrook
01-27-2012, 02:26 AM
The republicans want to tax the lower income folks instead of taxing the higher income earners. Why is that? The higher income folks vote for them for this reason.

So if you are a democrat you think the higher income folks should carry a bigger loan.

And if you are a republican you think the lower income should carry a bigger load.

I think most of us are in the middle, so it becomes about what is the right thing to do.

I'm in the middle and I think the rich should pay more, not the poor.

You are in the top 50%. You are the RICH that the bottom 50% are talking about. YOU are the rich they want to raise taxes on.

Down East Labs 217
01-27-2012, 09:14 AM
We need to delete ALL tax deductions and seriously cut spending on Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid and other entitlement programs.

I do not believe Social Security is an entitlement funded by the government. It is payed into by every working citizen and is payed out (your own money to start with) when you hit the magic, constantly changing age.

To many people think this is money given by the government. It is not , it is my money, let me decide how to invest it, or not invest it. My choice. If I decide not to invest it than I have no retirement to fall back on. My fault. Grown men and women, treat them that way and don't coddle them because they lack the discipline to plan ahead.

Have a great day

Richard

Cowtown
01-27-2012, 09:23 AM
I have my violin out for him.

Let me give you a good example. Recently I was asked to finance a $24 million helicopter for an individual that had agree to purchase the helicopter and lease it to a oil field service company for 10 years at a rate much lower that the cost of carry on the helicopter. It had a purchase option at the end too.

This indivdual's primary business was R/E and he was going to report, $17 million in personal income. However, by purchaseing the helicopter for $24 million and expensing it in the year it was purchased, he avoided paying any federal income tax in the current year, and the lease was structured where the interest he was paying on the helicopter offset the rental income until 10 years later when he sold the helicopter and repaid the balance of his note and paid 15% capital gain tax on the gain on sale.

So to sum this up, he avoid 39.6% tax on the $17MM, the lease carried the cost of financing the helicopter and 10 years later he paid 15% on $10 million in capital gain.

Now tell me how that made jobs?

Making jobs isn't he point...the man is taking advantage of current tax law. Blame the government, not the man. Why is it bad to take advantage of tax deductions?

You tell me how many people it takes to build a single helicopter and how many employees at the oil field service company will utilize the copter over the life of the lease... allowing them to do their jobs...and do their jobs more efficiently?

Cowtown
01-27-2012, 09:25 AM
The man did nothing wrong but work within the system. Having said that, I think things would be fair if he paid tax instead of those that collect a paycheck and do not have these tax avoidance methods at their disposal.

This is the point the president is trying to make. It takes money to pay our bills and the people that are capable of contributing the most are not paying their share, therefore, people like us are paying more than our share.

This is why I'm a democrat, because the republicans are more concerned with these guys having an easier go of it than me, while feeding me the line that they make jobs. I make jobs too when I have more to spend and then spend it.

All your famous merchandisers will tell you that they do best when everyone has a piece of the pie not just a few.

We don't have a revenue problem in the U.S., we have a spending problem. In case you missed it our debt is now 103% of GDP. Do you understand what that means? You can tax "the rich" 100% and it won't solve the problem.

luvmylabs23139
01-27-2012, 09:34 AM
I do not believe Social Security is an entitlement funded by the government. It is payed into by every working citizen and is payed out (your own money to start with) when you hit the magic, constantly changing age.

To many people think this is money given by the government. It is not , it is my money, let me decide how to invest it, or not invest it. My choice. If I decide not to invest it than I have no retirement to fall back on. My fault. Grown men and women, treat them that way and don't coddle them because they lack the discipline to plan ahead.

Have a great day

Richard

There are components of SS that are entitilements.
SSDI: You do realize that a child can get SSDI funded by the SS witholding that have never paid a dime in. I'm talking about the parent getting a medical diagnosis on the child that gives the kid a monthly payout (parent gets the money) yet the child has never paid a dime.
Also how many people have bs SSDI claims (gov't fault)
Regular SS give a higher return to those who pay in less than those who max out. How about everyone receive an equal return on their money!

menmon
01-27-2012, 10:24 AM
Most people's taxable income is less than $250,000, and he is not proposing to increase these folks taxes. My employees I pay $10-$12 per hr and they struggle to get by on that, so I don't think they need to pay anymore.

Now I work with people in banking that get hammered on their taxes, because they have nothing but a mortage to avoid it, so their taxes don't need to be increased either, and after mortage deductions, most of them are within the $250,000 of taxable income.

Now lets talk about those that have more than $250,000 in taxable income. Increasing their taxes does not effect their way of life, and yes many get subsidized by the government, it is just not in a foodstamp.

In a perfect world, I don't want anybody's taxes to go up, but we don't live in a perfect world and to solve our problems, we have to not only cut spending, we have to increase revenue, and since we do, I think the ones best capable of affording it should pay more, because they have received the most benefits from government.

I bank many people that have large taxable income and most are ok with some increase.

Now if we don't increase taxes and our economy gets hot again, the elderly poor will get taxed largly by inflation so the rich can pay less. We saw this in 2007 and 2008 and when inflation showed it head, but then the economy crashed and deflation became the pain.

luvmylabs23139
01-27-2012, 10:33 AM
I think the ones best capable of affording it should pay more, because they have received the most benefits from government.

.

HUH????
1. Welfare
2. SEction 8 gov;t housing
3. Food stamps
4 heating assistance
5 WIC
6 PELL grants
7 Medicaid
8 taxpayer babysitting
9 taxpayer paid preschool

Just a few examples of what the LEACHES take but pay nothing for. I could go on and on.

menmon
01-27-2012, 10:50 AM
HUH????
1. Welfare
2. SEction 8 gov;t housing
3. Food stamps
4 heating assistance
5 WIC
6 PELL grants
7 Medicaid
8 taxpayer babysitting
9 taxpayer paid preschool

Just a few examples of what the LEACHES take but pay nothing for. I could go on and on.

I'm pretty sure some of my employees get some of the subsides you mentioned. But I do not think of them as leaches, but instead hard working people that skill levels don't allow them to earn enough income, so I'm happy they can get some relief.

Funny when a poor person needs help and takes it, they are leaches; and when a rich person that does not need it takes it they are just smart business people and that is ok.

caryalsobrook
01-27-2012, 10:59 AM
Most people's taxable income is less than $250,000, and he is not proposing to increase these folks taxes. My employees I pay $10-$12 per hr and they struggle to get by on that, so I don't think they need to pay anymore.

Now I work with people in banking that get hammered on their taxes, because they have nothing but a mortage to avoid it, so their taxes don't need to be increased either, and after mortage deductions, most of them are within the $250,000 of taxable income.

Now lets talk about those that have more than $250,000 in taxable income. Increasing their taxes does not effect their way of life, and yes many get subsidized by the government, it is just not in a foodstamp.

In a perfect world, I don't want anybody's taxes to go up, but we don't live in a perfect world and to solve our problems, we have to not only cut spending, we have to increase revenue, and since we do, I think the ones best capable of affording it should pay more, because they have received the most benefits from government.

I bank many people that have large taxable income and most are ok with some increase.

Now if we don't increase taxes and our economy gets hot again, the elderly poor will get taxed largly by inflation so the rich can pay less. We saw this in 2007 and 2008 and when inflation showed it head, but then the economy crashed and deflation became the pain.
Spoken like a true progressive, liberal, socialist or Marxist. different breeds but the same species. From those acording to ability to those according to need.

luvmylabs23139
01-27-2012, 11:06 AM
I'm pretty sure some of my employees get some of the subsides you mentioned. But I do not think of them as leaches, but instead hard working people that skill levels don't allow them to earn enough income, so I'm happy they can get some relief.

Funny when a poor person needs help and takes it, they are leaches; and when a rich person that does not need it takes it they are just smart business people and that is ok.\

Name one rich person that gets this stuff by law. Note I exclude those that have lied or cheated to obtain any of the SOCIALIST REDISTRIBUTION I listed.
Do you know any rich person who gets food stamps?
SECTION 8?
Medicaid?
If so name them so we can have the gov't explain why.

luvmylabs23139
01-27-2012, 11:12 AM
Sambo, how many have kids they bred but could never afford to begin with?
If a person has a problem paying for themselves they should not be breeding!

menmon
01-27-2012, 11:13 AM
Spoken like a true progressive, liberal, socialist or Marxist. different breeds but the same species. From those acording to ability to those according to need.

You are right....survival of the fittest! If we stop assisting people we could employee them for next to nothing and make much more money. With that extra money we could build bigger plants and employee them for nothing so we could buy bigger toys...sounds good!!!!

Big problem....if no one makes any money, they can't buy anything us rich folks make. That is ok though we are rich and don't need them.

I'm damn proud of the men and women that get up everyday, hot or cold and make sure my coffee pot works, water comes my house to make the coffee, someone unload the ship that brought coffee here, someone delivered the coffee to the store, etc....

Remember that everyone needs a piece of the pie, so if we did it your way, only a few would and that would suck!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I forgot more about capitalism than most know, and for capitalism to work, capital has to turn. So take a little from me and give it to someone else and it turns, so now you have a chance at getting some of it. The alternative is only a few have it and the rest of us don't:(

luvmylabs23139
01-27-2012, 11:19 AM
water comes my house to make the coffee,:(

Try a well! Better, free, free of gooberment chemicals, oh and only a slight hassle if the power goes out. I can still lift the cover and drop a bucket down on a rope! And yes I have done that.

menmon
01-27-2012, 11:21 AM
Sambo, how many have kids they bred but could never afford to begin with?
If a person has a problem paying for themselves they should not be breeding!

I agree with that, but not everyone as smart as us, and make mistakes and have kids they can't afford to take care of. So what do you suggest, we let their kids starve. It is a problem and a burden on the rest of the country, but short of spay or neuter them, not much we can do but keep helping them. Don't have to like it, but we have to do it.

menmon
01-27-2012, 11:29 AM
Try a well! Better, free, free of gooberment chemicals, oh and only a slight hassle if the power goes out. I can still lift the cover and drop a bucket down on a rope! And yes I have done that.

I have one and it is good water too! On a better note, the drought is over here in Texas and my lakes are full. In the neighborhood and want to work water, you are welcome to stop by.

caryalsobrook
01-27-2012, 11:33 AM
You are right....survival of the fittest! If we stop assisting people we could employee them for next to nothing and make much more money. With that extra money we could build bigger plants and employee them for nothing so we could buy bigger toys...sounds good!!!!

Big problem....if no one makes any money, they can't buy anything us rich folks make. That is ok though we are rich and don't need them.

I'm damn proud of the men and women that get up everyday, hot or cold and make sure my coffee pot works, water comes my house to make the coffee, someone unload the ship that brought coffee here, someone delivered the coffee to the store, etc....

Remember that everyone needs a piece of the pie, so if we did it your way, only a few would and that would suck!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I forgot more about capitalism than most know, and for capitalism to work, capital has to turn. So take a little from me and give it to someone else and it turns, so now you have a chance at getting some of it. The alternative is only a few have it and the rest of us don't:(

Then you should be proud of the species I mention and proclaim with pride the successes of the USSR, greece, North Korea, and Italy just to name a few. Should I mention that taking a piece of someone else's pie does not raise the standard of living? MAKING A NEW PIE RAISES THE STANDARD OF LIVING. "I have rather see everybody poor than see somebody rich." Oh I forgot the wonderful prosperous nation of Cuba!!!!!

Buzz
01-27-2012, 11:35 AM
We don't have a revenue problem in the U.S., we have a spending problem. In case you missed it our debt is now 103% of GDP. Do you understand what that means? You can tax "the rich" 100% and it won't solve the problem.

That is a nice slogan. I hear Republicans repeat it many times.

But here are the facts, taken from OMP numbers here:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2012/assets/hist01z3.xls

In case numbers don't mean a lot, here is a picture I made from the spreadsheet.

http://i108.photobucket.com/albums/n3/davebezesky/FederalReceipts.jpg

In case you're wondering, GDP in 2011 is estimated at: $15,079.6 Billion. So lets say that we could get back to about 18% from the 15% we're sitting at. That would be an additional

.03 x $15079 = $452 billion

So we would still have a deficit, but it would be more in line with historic deficits, not what we've seen since the bottom dropped out of the economy.

menmon
01-27-2012, 11:39 AM
Then you should be proud of the species I mention and proclaim with pride the successes of the USSR, greece, North Korea, and Italy just to name a few. Should I mention that taking a piece of someone else's pie does not raise the standard of living? MAKING A NEW PIE RAISES THE STANDARD OF LIVING. "I have rather see everybody poor than see somebody rich." Oh I forgot the wonderful prosperous nation of Cuba!!!!!

Problem is there is not many new pie because we have eaten them already. Shale is our new pie..enjoy it while it last.

luvmylabs23139
01-27-2012, 11:42 AM
I agree with that, but not everyone as smart as us, and make mistakes and have kids they can't afford to take care of. So what do you suggest, we let their kids starve. It is a problem and a burden on the rest of the country, but short of spay or neuter them, not much we can do but keep helping them. Don't have to like it, but we have to do it.


Spaying and neuturing would be a good start! Liberals try to force that on responsible pet owners but won't apply the same to irresponsible human breeders. On the other side of the extreme I also believe (and many people will take offense) that a person with a terminal illness has a right to die with dignaty and choose to end their suffering. We as a society claim that it is inhumane to let an animal linger in pain with no hope of recovery yet we have an issue with a human who does not want to do the same. BY which I am saying that the person should choose not the government or anyone else.
How about a simple no money for a kid, put it up for adoption and then impose a severe penalty on the human breeder.
BY the way we DO NOT have to do it, end of story. As long as the actual taxpayer pays for their stupid choices the cycle will not change.

caryalsobrook
01-27-2012, 11:42 AM
That is a nice slogan. I hear Republicans repeat it many times.

But here are the facts, taken from OMP numbers here:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2012/assets/hist01z3.xls

In case numbers don't mean a lot, here is a picture I made from the spreadsheet.

http://i108.photobucket.com/albums/n3/davebezesky/FederalReceipts.jpg

In case you're wondering, GDP in 2011 is estimated at: $15,079.6 Billion. So lets say that we could get back to about 18% from the 15% we're sitting at. That would be an additional

.03 x $15079 = $452 billion

So we would still have a deficit, but it would be more in line with historic deficits, not what we've seen since the bottom dropped out of the economy.Boy do I like your arguement!! Lets also get spending back to historical levels of 18%!:D THEN there would be no deficit. Best idea using history I have heard from you!!!!!!

menmon
01-27-2012, 11:47 AM
Spaying and neuturing would be a good start! Liberals try to force that on responsible pet owners but won't apply the same to irresponsible human breeders. On the other side of the extreme I also believe (and many people will take offense) that a person with a terminal illness has a right to die with dignaty and choose to end their suffering. We as a society claim that it is inhumane to let an animal linger in pain with no hope of recovery yet we have an issue with a human who does not want to do the same. BY which I am saying that the person should choose not the government or anyone else.
How about a simple no money for a kid, put it up for adoption and then impose a severe penalty on the human breeder.
BY the way we DO NOT have to do it, end of story. As long as the actual taxpayer pays for their stupid choices the cycle will not change.

I guess we can kill the ones that no one wants too. That is what they do at the dog shelters.

luvmylabs23139
01-27-2012, 11:50 AM
I have one and it is good water too! On a better note, the drought is over here in Texas and my lakes are full. In the neighborhood and want to work water, you are welcome to stop by.


Thanks for the offer but I'm in NC. Gotta admit as far as the dogs go and water access I'm very lucky. My property backs up to a farm(tax write off for the wealthy owner since he keeps a few cows on the land) and I can use it as much as I want. Three ponds plus a mile of riverfront! 400 acres and the only rules he has is not to let the dogs chase the cows and to close the gates to the pastures behind us.

luvmylabs23139
01-27-2012, 12:08 PM
I have one and it is good water too! On a better note, the drought is over here in Texas and my lakes are full. In the neighborhood and want to work water, you are welcome to stop by.


Oh on another note droughts are no fun. The second year we owned this house we lost our water. When I called a well company I knew(having grown up with wells) that my well was not dry. I thought my pump may have gone, explained everything and still since NC was in a drought the first thing they wanted to check for was a dry well. I told them to do whatever but if they wasted my time and money on that before checking the pump etc they could eat the bill if that wasn't the issue. The end reult was a $75 bill for a bad pressure guage and a well that was better than 98% of all wells.

menmon
01-27-2012, 12:22 PM
Thanks for the offer but I'm in NC. Gotta admit as far as the dogs go and water access I'm very lucky. My property backs up to a farm(tax write off for the wealthy owner since he keeps a few cows on the land) and I can use it as much as I want. Three ponds plus a mile of riverfront! 400 acres and the only rules he has is not to let the dogs chase the cows and to close the gates to the pastures behind us.

Keep that guy happy...bring him good whiskey and cold beer regularly:D

Gerry Clinchy
01-27-2012, 12:28 PM
I guess we can kill the ones that no one wants too. That is what they do at the dog shelters.

The dogs cannot make their own decisions. Humans can.

Some believe that women can decide to abort even in the 3rd trimester.