Anybody but Romney

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]Airtruth wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Airtruth wrote:
lol@Starting a thread to avoid all the people that are repeating the same silly shit from their party thread in this thread anyway.

The capital gains tax law needs to be reviewed. As with any loophole someone found it, then everyone exploited it. Dumb ass media pundits simplified it across party lines and the public is regurgitating it.

Originally nobody cared if you took money you already made and invested it. The problem came when people started getting paid in stock options to get around their perspective salary 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.

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.

What do you really think Romney is going to focus on when he’s in office? and what do you think he’s could accomplish?

[/quote]

How is the capital gains tax a loophole[/quote]? Show me where I stated this and I will answer your questions…if you can’t find it then you may have the comprehension skills to find my reasoning below it. [quote]<> Next you’re gonna tell me using a Roth instead of a traditional IRA is a loophole right? [/quote][/quote]

So I guess when you said, “The capital gains tax law needs to be reviewed. As with any loophole someone found it…” You weren’t talking about capital gains being a loophole? I misunderstood right?

Edit: I’m trying not to be sarcastic

62

[quote]Sweet Revenge wrote:

[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?[/quote]

It would only work if some one had control of the value of money and the value of commoditiesof sorts Oil being an example

Think of smaller (macro economies)

63

[quote]Sweet Revenge wrote:

[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?[/quot

It would only work if some one had control of the value of money and the value of commoditiesof sorts Oil being an example

Think of smaller (macro economies)

64

[quote]Airtruth wrote:

[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]

I am contending that a stock option doesn’t prevent you from paying Ordinary rates when it is granted to you or you exercise it, depending on the type.

I mean you can’t be talking about ISO’s, as you pay AMT, OI and then, if you have gains either OI rates again if they are short or LT rates when they are long.

Qualified also have you paying Ordinary rates when you exercise it.

Compensation is compensation is compensation.

Stock options can end up making you much more than your salary, and basis conciderations can bring down your cap gain rates, but you still have to pick up your basis as ordinary at some point.

[quote]
No, I’m in favor of the government controlling how salaries are paid out,[/quote]

So, you are in favor of government control over wages then?

Explain exploited please. And maybe a loophole that is exploited.

65

http://www.nyse.tv/crude-oil-price-history.htm

this is as close as I can come to explain my point . It does not matter if prices of oil go up or if the value of our currency goes down the result is the same . Sorry I can not explain it better

66

[quote]ZEB 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]

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?[/quote]

As I remember, Reagan more than doubled , almost trebled ,the size of US govt debt, from just under 1 trillion $ when he took office to around 3 trillion when he left. Don’t remember the numbers exactly, can check. Also expanded government size considerably.

Hardly sounds like a small govt. exponent to me. His budget deficits put even Obama’s in the shade percentage wise…by a long shot.

Plus after he cut taxes early on he had many tax increases as time went by, no?

67

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:

As I remember, Reagan more than doubled , almost trebled ,the size of US govt debt, from just under 1 trillion $ when he took office to around 3 trillion when he left. Don’t remember the numbers exactly, can check. Also expanded government size considerably.

Hardly sounds like a small govt. exponent to me. His budget deficits put even Obama’s in the shade percentage wise…by a long shot.

Plus after he cut taxes early on he had many tax increases as time went by, no?[/quote]

Not adjusted for inflation he increased the debt something like 188% and government spending 88%.

Things to consider:
This was over 8 years, and inflation from 1973-1982 was insane. I mean 6% was a banner year here. How much does the inflation of the first two years of his term effect those numbers? I don’t now, but I would assume it would effect how he did things. I mean I assume FDR didn’t want to kick off Keynesian created Croney-Capitialism but he had to I guess.

The changes that came about in 1986 were the most comprehensive changes in history (I believe) and largely eliminated a bunch of leeway people had in figuring tax. So while there may have been % increases or whatever, you had much less “fun” being had with the numbers.

edit

68

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[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.[/quote]

No worries at all man, I do the same thing all the time.

One thing: would you mind explaining why the AMT doesn’t do exactly what we’ve been talking about? I’m sure its complex lol, so if that’s unanswerable or takes an advanced degree to understand, just say so.

69

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:

[quote]ZEB 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]

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?[/quote]

As I remember, Reagan more than doubled , almost trebled ,the size of US govt debt, from just under 1 trillion $ when he took office to around 3 trillion when he left. Don’t remember the numbers exactly, can check. Also expanded government size considerably.

Hardly sounds like a small govt. exponent to me. His budget deficits put even Obama’s in the shade percentage wise…by a long shot.

Plus after he cut taxes early on he had many tax increases as time went by, no?[/quote]

please do not be confused by the facts

70

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:

As I remember, Reagan more than doubled , almost trebled ,the size of US govt debt, from just under 1 trillion $ when he took office to around 3 trillion when he left. Don’t remember the numbers exactly, can check. Also expanded government size considerably.

Hardly sounds like a small govt. exponent to me. His budget deficits put even Obama’s in the shade percentage wise…by a long shot.

Plus after he cut taxes early on he had many tax increases as time went by, no?[/quote]

Not adjusted for inflation he increased the debt something like 188% and government spending 88%.

Things to consider:
This was over 8 years, and inflation from 1973-1982 was insane. I mean 6% was a banner year here. How much does the inflation of the first two years of his term effect those numbers? I don’t now, but I would assume it would effect how he did things. I mean I assume FDR didn’t want to kick off Keynesian created Croney-Capitialism but he had to I guess.

The changes that came about in 1986 were the most comprehensive changes in history (I believe) and largely eliminated a bunch of leeway people had in figuring tax. So while there may have been % increases or whatever, you had much less “fun” being had with the numbers.

edit[/quote]

I hear what you’re saying. I’m not saying Reagan was either a disaster or a giant, What I’m saying is that he is very often misrepresented by the right as being something he wasn’t. More to the point , that some of his shall we say, more ‘revolutionary’ economic policies did not have the effects he predicted or rather, his advisers told him to trumpet.

Where was the enormous reduction in the deficit they promised as a result? Never happened.

Govt spending is the same as a household at its most basic. If you want to spend more, you better earn more. If not, you’re in debt. End of story.

Tax cuts are what we all want, of course. All over the world. But if they are not tied in to REAL cuts in govt spending, the only thing you’re doing is kicking the can down the road. Which Reagan did, big style. As most pols in most countries do.

So either the tax cuts didn’t stimulate an increase in tax receipts as was expected , or the govt spent like a drunken sailor. Or both.

PS, I also think Carter has been given the historical shaft by the right wing propaganda machine (Go ZEB!) as much of the policies Reagan took credit for had already been initiated by him, and Fed Chairman Volcker had done what was required to bring inflation down.

71

[quote]smh23 wrote:

One thing: would you mind explaining why the AMT doesn’t do exactly what we’ve been talking about? I’m sure its complex lol, so if that’s unanswerable or takes an advanced degree to understand, just say so.[/quote]

I will openly admit we have computer programs now that figure out page 2 of form 6251, and they can do math correctly so… All I can tell you is the basics without this being a super long post, that yes, you need some degree of understanding beyond “pretty good” to get, lol.

AMT takes taxable income, backs off certain deductions (state and local taxes ebing the biggest trigger), gives a small exemption to lower wage people, and forces you to pay, at least 28%.

The reason it doesn’t work the way you talked about is it follows the same character rules as normal tax. Qualified dividends and LTCG are treated different.

Easiest fix is up the exemption to 1mil and up the AMT LTCG rates to 20%… OUtside of tax credits, you shoudln’t ever see anyone pay less than 20% again.

But that won’t grab any headlines, and too many people would be like “What?” to do it that way. So they will do some convoluted bullshit that will just keep me employed, lol.

72

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:

Tax cuts are what we all want, of course. All over the world. But if they are not tied in to REAL cuts in govt spending, the only thing you’re doing is kicking the can down the road.
[/quote]

Well, there is data that cuts increase revenues. So you wouldn’t need to cut spending 100% of the time, you would have to be responsibile and not increase like crazy though.

73

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:

Tax cuts are what we all want, of course. All over the world. But if they are not tied in to REAL cuts in govt spending, the only thing you’re doing is kicking the can down the road.
[/quote]

Well, there is data that cuts increase revenues. So you wouldn’t need to cut spending 100% of the time, you would have to be responsibile and not increase like crazy though.

[/quote]

Perhaps the data supports it. Perhaps not.

http://www.econdataus.com/taxcuts.html

74

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:

Tax cuts are what we all want, of course. All over the world. But if they are not tied in to REAL cuts in govt spending, the only thing you’re doing is kicking the can down the road.
[/quote]

Well, there is data that cuts increase revenues. So you wouldn’t need to cut spending 100% of the time, you would have to be responsibile and not increase like crazy though.

[/quote]

Perhaps the data supports it. Perhaps not.

http://www.econdataus.com/taxcuts.html
[/quote]

I don’t have time to pour through that right now, lol. But I sorta discount the % of GDP stuff. And prefer to look at it from a constant dollar perspective.

But, I’m open to learning so thanks for the link.

75

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:

Tax cuts are what we all want, of course. All over the world. But if they are not tied in to REAL cuts in govt spending, the only thing you’re doing is kicking the can down the road.
[/quote]

Well, there is data that cuts increase revenues. So you wouldn’t need to cut spending 100% of the time, you would have to be responsibile and not increase like crazy though.

[/quote]

Perhaps the data supports it. Perhaps not.

http://www.econdataus.com/taxcuts.html
[/quote]

I don’t have time to pour through that right now, lol. But I sorta discount the % of GDP stuff. And prefer to look at it from a constant dollar perspective.

But, I’m open to learning so thanks for the link.[/quote]

No worries, let me know what you think when you’ve looked through it.

76

[quote]JLone wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
Well, an attorney/accountant spends YEARS and THOUSANDS of dollars to become an expert of the law in which they specialize… Unless you were prepared to spend equal time and equal money, why would you begrudge them charging for their services?[/quote]
I’m new to the political section, do all the people here create straw-man arguments and randomly use caps lock?

[quote]
I’ll GLADLY spend a few thousand bucks to save myself YEARS and HUNDREDS of thousands of bucks (not to mention limiting my personal exposure)…

But I hear what you’re saying. That’s not the reality we live in, though. If you want smaller, simpler government with LESS regulation, vote republican… Plain and simple.[/quote]
^This^ is a valid point that I can agree with, don’t know what the first half of your post was about.[/quote]

Yup! ALL the people here use strawman arguments and caps lock - you better get up to speed! LOL

For the record, I wasn’t trying be antagonistic.

77

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Airtruth wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Airtruth wrote:
lol@Starting a thread to avoid all the people that are repeating the same silly shit from their party thread in this thread anyway.

The capital gains tax law needs to be reviewed. As with any loophole someone found it, then everyone exploited it. Dumb ass media pundits simplified it across party lines and the public is regurgitating it.

Originally nobody cared if you took money you already made and invested it. The problem came when people started getting paid in stock options to get around their perspective salary 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.

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.

What do you really think Romney is going to focus on when he’s in office? and what do you think he’s could accomplish?

[/quote]

How is the capital gains tax a loophole[/quote]? Show me where I stated this and I will answer your questions…if you can’t find it then you may have the comprehension skills to find my reasoning below it. [quote]<> Next you’re gonna tell me using a Roth instead of a traditional IRA is a loophole right? [/quote][/quote]

So I guess when you said, “The capital gains tax law needs to be reviewed. As with any loophole someone found it…” You weren’t talking about capital gains being a loophole? I misunderstood right?

Edit: I’m trying not to be sarcastic
[/quote]

I am genuinely curious why you think the capital gains tax is a loophole or if I misunderstood your point?

78

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:

[quote]ZEB 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]

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?[/quote]

As I remember, Reagan more than doubled , almost trebled ,the size of US govt debt, from just under 1 trillion $ when he took office to around 3 trillion when he left. Don’t remember the numbers exactly, can check. Also expanded government size considerably.

Hardly sounds like a small govt. exponent to me. His budget deficits put even Obama’s in the shade percentage wise…by a long shot.

Plus after he cut taxes early on he had many tax increases as time went by, no?[/quote]

Obviously you don’t know much about the Reagan Presidency.

He lowered taxes to a top rate of 28%. And as I said that in addition to his other policies turned this country around after four years of an inept Jimmy Carter.

The debt did go up a small amount under Reagan but he also created 20 million private sector jobs during that time period. Would you like to compare that to what Barry did over the past four years? He added 5 trillion to the debt while residing over 42 months of unemployment over 8%. That is the longest run since the great depression! And then instead of actually helping the economy and taking advantage of his first two years in office with both houses of congress democrat, what did he do? He did a government take over of about 1/6th of the economy with obamacare. Where was his interest in turning the economy around in 2008-2010?

I could go on the differences between the two are virtually immeasurable. So much so that Barack Obama’s name does not even deserve to be mentioned in the same sentence with Ronald Reagan’s. Oops I just did it…won’t happen again.

Here become enlightened about the greatest modern day President:

http://www.reagandocumentary.com/?gclid=CIfX1oS5gLICFYKK4Aod720AeQ

79

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:

As I remember, Reagan more than doubled , almost trebled ,the size of US govt debt, from just under 1 trillion $ when he took office to around 3 trillion when he left. Don’t remember the numbers exactly, can check. Also expanded government size considerably.

Hardly sounds like a small govt. exponent to me. His budget deficits put even Obama’s in the shade percentage wise…by a long shot.

Plus after he cut taxes early on he had many tax increases as time went by, no?[/quote]

Not adjusted for inflation he increased the debt something like 188% and government spending 88%.

Things to consider:
This was over 8 years, and inflation from 1973-1982 was insane. I mean 6% was a banner year here. How much does the inflation of the first two years of his term effect those numbers? I don’t now, but I would assume it would effect how he did things. I mean I assume FDR didn’t want to kick off Keynesian created Croney-Capitialism but he had to I guess.

The changes that came about in 1986 were the most comprehensive changes in history (I believe) and largely eliminated a bunch of leeway people had in figuring tax. So while there may have been % increases or whatever, you had much less “fun” being had with the numbers.

edit[/quote]

I hear what you’re saying. I’m not saying Reagan was either a disaster or a giant, What I’m saying is that he is very often misrepresented by the right as being something he wasn’t. More to the point , that some of his shall we say, more ‘revolutionary’ economic policies did not have the effects he predicted or rather, his advisers told him to trumpet.

Where was the enormous reduction in the deficit they promised as a result? Never happened.

Govt spending is the same as a household at its most basic. If you want to spend more, you better earn more. If not, you’re in debt. End of story.

Tax cuts are what we all want, of course. All over the world. But if they are not tied in to REAL cuts in govt spending, the only thing you’re doing is kicking the can down the road. Which Reagan did, big style. As most pols in most countries do.

So either the tax cuts didn’t stimulate an increase in tax receipts as was expected , or the govt spent like a drunken sailor. Or both.

PS, I also think Carter has been given the historical shaft by the right wing propaganda machine (Go ZEB!) as much of the policies Reagan took credit for had already been initiated by him, and Fed Chairman Volcker had done what was required to bring inflation down.

[/quote]

Propaganda? If you think it is propaganda all you have to do is point out one thing that I have posted regarding Reagan that is not true.

Can you do that big man?

If so do it.

If not shut the fuck up.

Simple really.

I’m really tired of you message board wonder boys trying to rewrite history.

80

[quote]ZEB wrote:
The debt did go up a small amount under Reagan [/quote]

It went up 186%. That’s hardly small.

I like Reagan but I think you’re giving him too much credit:

http://prorev.com/reagan.htm

There’s always two sides to every story.

james