Anybody but Romney

[pittbulll]

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

I just don’t understand why you would want to penalize someone for taking a risk with the money they’ve already earned and already paid tax on? If you’re risking your own money shouldn’t you be rewarded?
[/quote]

I agree. It should be encouraged rather than penalized.

That said, I don’t think anyone making over $1 million should ever be paying a lower tax rate than someone making less than a tenth of that.[/quote]

I agree with you in principle…but folks who put it all on the line and start businesses…hire people…and make our country go, are kind deserving of some perks once they get there. One would think.[/quote]

What you want to be part of the conversation now . and yes i would agree with that . It is called profit

[UtahLama]

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

I just don’t understand why you would want to penalize someone for taking a risk with the money they’ve already earned and already paid tax on? If you’re risking your own money shouldn’t you be rewarded?
[/quote]

I agree. It should be encouraged rather than penalized.

That said, I don’t think anyone making over $1 million should ever be paying a lower tax rate than someone making less than a tenth of that.[/quote]

I agree with you in principle…but folks who put it all on the line and start businesses…hire people…and make our country go, are kind deserving of some perks once they get there. One would think.[/quote]

What you want to be part of the conversation now . and yes i would agree with that . It is called profit[/quote]

Those who take the greatest risks should be give the greatest rewards…not have MORE of their hard earned money taken away, and given to somebody else.

[pittbulll]

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

I just don’t understand why you would want to penalize someone for taking a risk with the money they’ve already earned and already paid tax on? If you’re risking your own money shouldn’t you be rewarded?
[/quote]

I agree. It should be encouraged rather than penalized.

That said, I don’t think anyone making over $1 million should ever be paying a lower tax rate than someone making less than a tenth of that.[/quote]

I agree with you in principle…but folks who put it all on the line and start businesses…hire people…and make our country go, are kind deserving of some perks once they get there. One would think.[/quote]

What you want to be part of the conversation now . and yes i would agree with that . It is called profit[/quote]

Those who take the greatest risks should be give the greatest rewards…not have MORE of their hard earned money taken away, and given to somebody else.
[/quote]

I am not pro taxing corporations IMO all Corps should be tax exempt another area of disparity is local sales tax. HD pays sales tax but Pitt’s Hardware pays %1.65 more

[smh23]

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

I am perfectly aware of the AMT. It added about $233,000 to Romney’s bill on his 2010 tax return. You tell me in what fucking way that has a single thing to do with my statement that I’d like “to ensure that no one taking in over $500,000 is paying less than 20%.” Did the AMT force Romney to pay 20%? No. So shut the fuck up.[/quote]

I am sorry for losing my cool in my reply to you.

But anyway…

You tell me in what fucking way that has a single thing to do with my statement that I’d like “to ensure that no one taking in over $500,000 is paying less than 20%.” Did the AMT force Romney to pay 20%? No. So shut the fuck up.

You apparently aren’t “perfectly aware” of AMT, what it was supposed to do or why it doesn’t do just what you are asking, if you have to ask me the above.

And while I don’t pretend to understand Romney’s tax return line by line, I don’t believe–and this is about principle–that he should pay a lower tax rate than someone who works hard an d yet will never own a fucking prize mare.

Honest questions:

1. Why not?
2. Do you not think investing is hard work?

[quote] As I mentioned already, Warren Buffet has a point when he says he shouldn’t be paying a lower rate than his secretary.

edited[/quote]

Well, he could always elect to pay more. Does he?

Think about that. He is perfectly fine not doing it, yet stirring up the classwarfare and “fairness” bullshit… hmmmm… Sounds like someone has a strong Gold position.[/quote]

To recap:

1. I said that we should “ensure that no one taking in over $500,000 is paying less than 20%.”
2. You called me a fucking idiot for saying that because “we already have what you are talking about, have for fucking years.” You were referring to the AMT.
3. I showed that the AMT does not in any way “ensure that no one taking in over $500,000 is paying less than 20%.” I showed it using Mitt Romney as an example.

At this point, I have showed that your initial reaction to my post was unwarranted, misleading, and pretty fucking stupid. We DO NOT have something like what I originally described, and your credentials as an accountant will do nothing to change that.

[countingbeans]

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

By cutting their taxes investing in something that will out pace inflation [/quote]

Okay… The market doesn’t always outpace inflation, but irrelevant.

How does that take anything away from anyone else?

[pittbulll]

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

By cutting their taxes investing in something that will out pace inflation [/quote]

Okay… The market doesn’t always outpace inflation, but irrelevant.

How does that take anything away from anyone else?[/quote]

There are many investments that are better than gold when gold was the standard .

if everybody’s money has less and less value but my curency stays the same or becomes more powerful then my currency is superior and will double and triple and all I have to do is trade part of my currency back into money

[UtahLama]

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

I just don’t understand why you would want to penalize someone for taking a risk with the money they’ve already earned and already paid tax on? If you’re risking your own money shouldn’t you be rewarded?
[/quote]

I agree. It should be encouraged rather than penalized.

That said, I don’t think anyone making over $1 million should ever be paying a lower tax rate than someone making less than a tenth of that.[/quote]

I agree with you in principle…but folks who put it all on the line and start businesses…hire people…and make our country go, are kind deserving of some perks once they get there. One would think.[/quote]

What you want to be part of the conversation now . and yes i would agree with that . It is called profit[/quote]

Those who take the greatest risks should be give the greatest rewards…not have MORE of their hard earned money taken away, and given to somebody else.
[/quote]

HD pays sales tax but Pitt’s Hardware pays %1.65 more [/quote]

Link?

[countingbeans]

[quote]smh23 wrote:

1. I said that we should “ensure that no one taking in over $500,000 is paying less than 20%.”
2. You called me a fucking idiot for saying that because “we already have what you are talking about, have for fucking years.” You were referring to the AMT.
3. I showed that the AMT does not in any way “ensure that no one taking in over $500,000 is paying less than 20%.” I showed it using Mitt Romney as an example.[/quote]

Did you happen to notice the following part of my post?

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

It is called Alternative Mininum Tax, AMT. The thing is, it hasn’t been updated for the 21st century. But no one wants to fix it, like everything, put a bandade on it and hope it sticks. …

This whole tax bullshit could be fixed on one form, one simple form. But …[/quote]

At this point, I have showed that your initial reaction to my post was unwarranted,

I would say the language, which I have said sorry for twice now, was unwarranted. But the content was pretty spot on.

misleading,

We’ll have to agree to disagree.

and pretty fucking stupid.

I would also disagree with this. You seemed to get really upset at the tone of my post which lead you to not actually read what it said…

We DO NOT have something like what I originally described,

Yes we do, it just needs to be updated (or fixed if you want to call it that).

[quote] and your credentials as an accountant will do nothing to change that.

[/quote]

Change what? That you don’t know what AMT was intended to do? Or what simple changes could be made to accomplish what it was intended to do? Or that what it was intended to do it prety much what you said we need?

[smh23]

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

1. I said that we should “ensure that no one taking in over $500,000 is paying less than 20%.”
2. You called me a fucking idiot for saying that because “we already have what you are talking about, have for fucking years.” You were referring to the AMT.
3. I showed that the AMT does not in any way “ensure that no one taking in over $500,000 is paying less than 20%.” I showed it using Mitt Romney as an example.[/quote]

Did you happen to notice the following part of my post?

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

It is called Alternative Mininum Tax, AMT. The thing is, it hasn’t been updated for the 21st century. But no one wants to fix it, like everything, put a bandade on it and hope it sticks. …

This whole tax bullshit could be fixed on one form, one simple form. But …[/quote]

At this point, I have showed that your initial reaction to my post was unwarranted,

I would say the language, which I have said sorry for twice now, was unwarranted. But the content was pretty spot on.

misleading,

We’ll have to agree to disagree.

and pretty fucking stupid.

I would also disagree with this. You seemed to get really upset at the tone of my post which lead you to not actually read what it said…

We DO NOT have something like what I originally described,

Yes we do, it just needs to be updated (or fixed if you want to call it that).

[quote] and your credentials as an accountant will do nothing to change that.

[/quote]

Change what? That you don’t know what AMT was intended to do? Or what simple changes could be made to accomplish what it was intended to do? Or that what it was intended to do it prety much what you said we need?[/quote]

No worries over the tone, didn’t mean to sound like I was upset because I wasn’t.

My point is, the AMT may sound like it’s supposed to do what I described, but it certainly doesn’t. So my point was, and still is: that we need to encourage investment and the best way to do that is to keep the capital gains tax rate low. However, a blanket rule should be that the very wealthy aren’t paying significantly lower rates than people much poorer than they are. Your point could have been made extremely well by saying “this is what the AMT is supposed to do.” Instead, you said “we already have that,” and acted like I shouldn’t be bringing it up at all because it already exists. It doesn’t.

In the end, we are saying the same thing. I think.

[system]

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]Sweet Revenge wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I do think because of the tax code the wealthy are taking the wealth away from the working class.
And Romney is a exemplary example .[/quote]

How?

How is Romney’s tax rate, tax payment or tax filing in any way taking away from anyone?

Please be specific.

[/quote]

I was wondering the same thing. How do the wealthly take wealth away from the middle class because of the tax code, exactly?[/quote]

By cutting their taxes investing in something that will out pace inflation and promoting policy that inflates the value of the dollar
[/quote]

Dude, seriously, where do you get your information? Who fed that line of BS to you?

[smh23]

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

I just don’t understand why you would want to penalize someone for taking a risk with the money they’ve already earned and already paid tax on? If you’re risking your own money shouldn’t you be rewarded?
[/quote]

I agree. It should be encouraged rather than penalized.

That said, I don’t think anyone making over $1 million should ever be paying a lower tax rate than someone making less than a tenth of that.[/quote]

I agree with you in principle…but folks who put it all on the line and start businesses…hire people…and make our country go, are kind deserving of some perks once they get there. One would think.[/quote]

What you want to be part of the conversation now . and yes i would agree with that . It is called profit[/quote]

Those who take the greatest risks should be give the greatest rewards…not have MORE of their hard earned money taken away, and given to somebody else.
[/quote]

Nor less. That is our point.

[pittbulll]

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

I just don’t understand why you would want to penalize someone for taking a risk with the money they’ve already earned and already paid tax on? If you’re risking your own money shouldn’t you be rewarded?
[/quote]

I agree. It should be encouraged rather than penalized.

That said, I don’t think anyone making over $1 million should ever be paying a lower tax rate than someone making less than a tenth of that.[/quote]

I agree with you in principle…but folks who put it all on the line and start businesses…hire people…and make our country go, are kind deserving of some perks once they get there. One would think.[/quote]

What you want to be part of the conversation now . and yes i would agree with that . It is called profit[/quote]

Those who take the greatest risks should be give the greatest rewards…not have MORE of their hard earned money taken away, and given to somebody else.
[/quote]

HD pays sales tax but Pitt’s Hardware pays %1.65 more [/quote]

Link?[/quote]

http://www.gctelegram.com/news/home-depot-sales-tax-5-30-12

This is a similar link , I know Scottsdale AZ gave them a sales tax exemption for 10 years ,which disadvantaged Ace and True Value . Lowes probably got a similar offer

[ZEB]

It’s actually sick how people think about politics and politicians in 2012. And I blame the media and Obama for most of it because it is pure class warfare.

Candidate Romney makes 300 million in the private sector creating jobs (Staples and other large companies that employ hundreds of thousands of people). And he pays regular income tax on that money which everyone does, and then leaves Bain and lives off his investments which happen to be taxed at 15% and for some reason that makes him a bad guy?

RIGHT? He’s an evil rich BASTARD who just happens to understand economics well enough to pocket 300 million bucks. And on top of that he’s picked a man to run with him, Paul Ryan that fully understands the economy as well.

However, candidate Obama who did basically nothing other than read the communist manifesto and teach law at Harvard before becoming President is the man for the job. He suddenly knows everything about the economy and while he’s had four years to fix it and he’s made it worse he just …well…he just needs another four years.

If people would just forget about republican vs democrat and vote for someone who actually knows something about the economics we wouldn’t be having these endless and very foolish debates.

Here’s a clue for you OBAMA CAN’T DO IT!! He’s had four years and he’s failed. Give someone else a shot at it. Who cares what party he is? If Obama had fixed the economy over these past four years I’d be voting for him!

I want to succeed and I want my country to succeed I care less about party affiliation and far, far more about actual success.

Why is that so hard for others to understand? Who cares what party he is? Who cares about anything else except getting someone who can fix this failed economy?

Four more years of Obama and we are going to be in a bigger mess than we are now. The writing is on the wall boys…Obama can’t do it. And here’s how I know…if he could have done it he would have by now!

[Airtruth]

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Airtruth wrote:
The problem came when people started getting paid in stock options to get around their perspective salary rates. [/quote]

Completely false.[/quote] So you are contending that high level execs are not negotiating payments that lower the amount of tax they have to pay on their total compensation?[quote]You don’t know what you are talking about.

Stock options are good on a lot of levels, very good. But they do not serve as an opportunity to avoid OI rates.

Some instances have college coaches getting paid millions in stock options in ways that significantly reduced their tax rate for what is really a salary or bonus.

Not happening, I assume the journalist who reported this didn’t understand option either.

Now that I think about it, it sounds like they need to control how salaries are paid out. I’m sure millions are lost on VP’s that have $100k Salary and $2.5 million in stock bonus’s. Maybe something along the lines of 90% of income received from employment needs to be salary for all non-trading jobs.

So you are in favor of the government controlling salaries?
[/quote]
No, I’m in favor of the government controlling how salaries are paid out, or at the minimum closing loopholes that are exploited.

[pittbulll]

[quote]Sweet Revenge wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]Sweet Revenge wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I do think because of the tax code the wealthy are taking the wealth away from the working class.
And Romney is a exemplary example .[/quote]

How?

How is Romney’s tax rate, tax payment or tax filing in any way taking away from anyone?

Please be specific.

[/quote]

I was wondering the same thing. How do the wealthly take wealth away from the middle class because of the tax code, exactly?[/quote]

By cutting their taxes investing in something that will out pace inflation and promoting policy that inflates the value of the dollar
[/quote]

Dude, seriously, where do you get your information? Who fed that line of BS to you?[/quote]

http://followpioneer.com/2011/06/22/multi-asset-investing/

[ZEB]

[quote]Sweet Revenge wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]Sweet Revenge wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I do think because of the tax code the wealthy are taking the wealth away from the working class.
And Romney is a exemplary example .[/quote]

How?

How is Romney’s tax rate, tax payment or tax filing in any way taking away from anyone?

Please be specific.

[/quote]

I was wondering the same thing. How do the wealthly take wealth away from the middle class because of the tax code, exactly?[/quote]

By cutting their taxes investing in something that will out pace inflation and promoting policy that inflates the value of the dollar
[/quote]

Dude, seriously, where do you get your information? Who fed that line of BS to you?[/quote]

Save your posting time on someone who will actually listen to facts. Pitt says Reagan was the worst President in US history. Ronald Reagan who inherited almost as big a mess as Romney should a miracle happen and he beats Obama. Reagan created 20 million private sector jobs by cutting taxes to their lowest point in modern times.

But yeah Obama raise taxes on the rich …raise fees, raise health costs…don’t drill for oil…attack small business…grow government…

Do all of the things that have proven to fail.

I sit in awe of people who actually want to reelect this guy…I wonder what the heck are they thinking? How jealous are they of Romney and the money that he worked hard to get. Or, how loaded up with lies are they after listening to Obama’s class warfare?

[countingbeans]

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

By cutting their taxes investing in something that will out pace inflation [/quote]

Okay… The market doesn’t always outpace inflation, but irrelevant.

How does that take anything away from anyone else?[/quote]

There are many investments that are better than gold when gold was the standard .

if everybody’s money has less and less value but my curency stays the same or becomes more powerful then my currency is superior and will double and triple and all I have to do is trade part of my currency back into money
[/quote]

Okay, but I still don’t see how you making wise investment choices takes away from anyone else.

[countingbeans]

[quote]smh23 wrote:

In the end, we are saying the same thing. I think.[/quote]

LOL, we really are.

But yeah, AMT was supposed to prevent this entire conversation from happening. And it very easily could, I mean, so easy (well for people that do this for a living. I’m sure a nail gun makes framing a house easier, but I couldn’t erect shoe box let alone a house.)

I just got frustrated and blasted your post. I wasn’t clear and acted like a child. Otherwise the ocnversation would have been more productive.

[UtahLama]

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

I just don’t understand why you would want to penalize someone for taking a risk with the money they’ve already earned and already paid tax on? If you’re risking your own money shouldn’t you be rewarded?
[/quote]

I agree. It should be encouraged rather than penalized.

That said, I don’t think anyone making over $1 million should ever be paying a lower tax rate than someone making less than a tenth of that.[/quote]

I agree with you in principle…but folks who put it all on the line and start businesses…hire people…and make our country go, are kind deserving of some perks once they get there. One would think.[/quote]

What you want to be part of the conversation now . and yes i would agree with that . It is called profit[/quote]

Those who take the greatest risks should be give the greatest rewards…not have MORE of their hard earned money taken away, and given to somebody else.
[/quote]

HD pays sales tax but Pitt’s Hardware pays %1.65 more [/quote]

Link?[/quote]

http://www.gctelegram.com/news/home-depot-sales-tax-5-30-12

This is a similar link , I know Scottsdale AZ gave them a sales tax exemption for 10 years ,which disadvantaged Ace and True Value . Lowes probably got a similar offer
[/quote]

What I got from that is those businesses employ thousands, and bring millions of dollars into local tax coffers (from streams other than property tax)…they are going to get tax breaks.

These stores ANCHOR developments and bring all sorts of people to smaller towns from outlying areas.

Here in Northern Utah we just gave a large Procter & Gamble manufacturing/distribution facility tax exempt status for 5 years…but they bring 5,000 high paying jobs to our area.

Come on man, you gotta see the benefit.

[system]

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]Sweet Revenge wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]Sweet Revenge wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I do think because of the tax code the wealthy are taking the wealth away from the working class.
And Romney is a exemplary example .[/quote]

How?

How is Romney’s tax rate, tax payment or tax filing in any way taking away from anyone?

Please be specific.

[/quote]

I was wondering the same thing. How do the wealthly take wealth away from the middle class because of the tax code, exactly?[/quote]

By cutting their taxes investing in something that will out pace inflation and promoting policy that inflates the value of the dollar
[/quote]

Dude, seriously, where do you get your information? Who fed that line of BS to you?[/quote]

http://followpioneer.com/2011/06/22/multi-asset-investing/
[/quote]

How does that take away anything from anyone else? i.e. the middle class?