I'm concerned about Mitt Romney

[spence]

Originally Posted by justplugit

Prolly about right for a guy who pays most of his taxes based on IRS capital gains law.

Why do you think bankers give so much to Congress? To give them tax loopholes to defer their income with.

-spence

[rphud]

I was just very surprised to hear the words. Especially since everything seems to get taken out of context.

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by spence

Why do you think bankers give so much to Congress? To give them tax loopholes to defer their income with.

-spence

Of course, everyone gives to a candidate or party because they want something.

However, the purpose of a lower long term capital gains tax is to keep the
money invested in a company for long term use so it helps to capitalize,
grow the company, and hire more employees. Nothing wrong with that.

[spence]

Originally Posted by justplugit

Of course, everyone gives to a candidate or party because they want something.

Any why Romney's tax plan will fall apart, every deduction has a constituency and he's not going to name names before the election.

However, the purpose of a lower long term capital gains tax is to keep the money invested in a company for long term use so it helps to capitalize, grow the company, and hire more employees. Nothing wrong with that.

No, those are the tax rules that you and I follow.

A fund manager get's to set the initial value of profit they're entitled as part of their contract at zero if they want and be listed as a partner...even if they know the value should be higher...

It's even more crazy when you look at Romney's retirement account. He can then take these "worthless" profit shares and sell them into his 401K, where they grow like mushrooms tax free and circumvent contribution limits.

Worse, Romney then cut a deal where he gets his profit share for 10 years after employment...even though he's not working? These aren't priced options that any top exec would get...they're special.

I'm still curious to understand if he's really used Cayman firms so his IRA can invest back in Bain and avoid the tax hit.

Bottom line...there's a lot of tax talking points out there...but we're talking about someone who doesn't even reflect the 1%.

This is like fingers on one hand kind of stuff.

-spence

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by spence

A fund manager get's to set the initial value of profit they're entitled as part of their contract at zero if they want and be listed as a partner...even if they know the value should be higher...

It's even more crazy when you look at Romney's retirement account. He can then take these "worthless" profit shares and sell them into his 401K, where they grow like mushrooms tax free and circumvent contribution limits.

Worse, Romney then cut a deal where he gets his profit share for 10 years after employment...even though he's not working? These aren't priced options that any top exec would get...they're special.

I'm still curious to understand if he's really used Cayman firms so his IRA can invest back in Bain and avoid the tax hit.

Bottom line...there's a lot of tax talking points out there...but we're talking about someone who doesn't even reflect the 1%.

This is like fingers on one hand kind of stuff.

-spence

You'll have to complain to the IRS,or better yet have them change the rules.

[spence]

Originally Posted by justplugit

You'll have to complain to the IRS,or better yet have them change the rules.

The money guys get to make the rules, that's the entire point.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

The money guys get to make the rules, that's the entire point.

-spence

For all of 2009, Obama and the Democratic Congress made the rules. If they had issues with the tax code, they could have changed it. They chose not to. So why, then, is it fair to attack Romney for playing by the rules that the Democrats indirectly endorsed, by opting not to change them when they had the opportunity to change them?

[zimmy]

Filibuster proof majority from September 24, 2009 to February 10, 2010. The two years and "all of 2009" statements are incorrect.

There were more than 100 Republican filibusters in 2009.
How Filibusters Are Strangling the Senate - Political Hotsheet - CBS News