Why Won't Romney Release His Tax Returns?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
161

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

Hey, I have more in my 401k than a lot of people who read this post will make this year. Should I pay my more taxes on it now so I can feed a poor family and pave a road, or can I pay my taxes on it when I retire and take that money out to use it?[/quote]

not on your investment but on your capital gains [/quote]

LOL, okay. That will reduce total tax revenue. It wouldn’t be just a timing difference either.

So, you would be saving the 1% even more $. [/quote]

how do you figure ?

162

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

Hey, I have more in my 401k than a lot of people who read this post will make this year. Should I pay my more taxes on it now so I can feed a poor family and pave a road, or can I pay my taxes on it when I retire and take that money out to use it?[/quote]

not on your investment but on your capital gains [/quote]

LOL, okay. That will reduce total tax revenue. It wouldn’t be just a timing difference either.

So, you would be saving the 1% even more $. [/quote]

how do you figure ?
[/quote]

Under current IRC regulation:

Long Term Capital gain rates are 15%. And then all those gains would be tax free withdrawls upon retirement age.

401k and other retiremnet savings, generally are taxed at OI rates. So assuming a 20% effective rate, you are losing at least 5% in taxable income.

Now, you will have the average joe that will actually be hurt by your plan. Someone with 1mil in other investment income will pay OI rates on their retirement withdrawls upon reaching proper age of 25-30%. The little guy’s withdrawls & investment income will be less, and will have him in a lower bracket. So he would only being paying effective 10-15%.

Based on your plan they both pay 15% on gains as they happen. So the little guy just went from only paying 10% in some situations to now paying 15% on phantom income throughout his working years, and then an additional 10-15% on his principle, interest and dividends upon retirement. Rather than just 10-15% upon retirement on his withdrawls.

163

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

Hey, I have more in my 401k than a lot of people who read this post will make this year. Should I pay my more taxes on it now so I can feed a poor family and pave a road, or can I pay my taxes on it when I retire and take that money out to use it?[/quote]

not on your investment but on your capital gains [/quote]

LOL, okay. That will reduce total tax revenue. It wouldn’t be just a timing difference either.

So, you would be saving the 1% even more $. [/quote]

how do you figure ?
[/quote]

Under current IRC regulation:

Long Term Capital gain rates are 15%. And then all those gains would be tax free withdrawls upon retirement age.

401k and other retiremnet savings, generally are taxed at OI rates. So assuming a 20% effective rate, you are losing at least 5% in taxable income.

Now, you will have the average joe that will actually be hurt by your plan. Someone with 1mil in other investment income will pay OI rates on their retirement withdrawls upon reaching proper age of 25-30%. The little guy’s withdrawls & investment income will be less, and will have him in a lower bracket. So he would only being paying effective 10-15%.

Based on your plan they both pay 15% on gains as they happen. So the little guy just went from only paying 10% in some situations to now paying 15% on phantom income throughout his working years, and then an additional 10-15% on his principle, interest and dividends upon retirement. Rather than just 10-15% upon retirement on his withdrawls.

[/quote]

It is possible I do not grasp what you are saying. But to me this seems to be Demagoguery

example unless I missed it no where did you introduce the term IO

164

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

It is possible I do not grasp what you are saying. But to me this seems to be Demagoguery

example unless I missed it no where did you introduce the term IO

[/quote]

Sorry man. It is hard for me not to talk in jargon. OI is Ordinary Income, OI rates are higher, and scaled based on income, than Long Term Capital gains, which are not scaled on income unless you are in the lowest bracket, then they are not taxable.

I’m not trying to trick you. I just am not explaining it well.

15% today is less revenue than 30% later, is basically what I am saying and what would happen if you were to tax the cap gains in someone’s 401k each year.

Plus you are taxing them on phantom income. Phantom income is income that shows up on your return but the tax payer never actually received any cash for it. This happens a lot when you are invested in PE funds and the like. It is typically a timing difference, but sometimes it isn’t. If the timing difference is say, 30 year until retirement, someone is paying 15% now on cash they won’t see for 30 years. That hurts the little guy much more than someone with 2mil liquid and 20mil invested in some limited partnerships.

165

PE = private equity, or venture capital in other words

166

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

It is possible I do not grasp what you are saying. But to me this seems to be Demagoguery

example unless I missed it no where did you introduce the term IO

[/quote]

Sorry man. It is hard for me not to talk in jargon. OI is Ordinary Income, OI rates are higher, and scaled based on income, than Long Term Capital gains, which are not scaled on income unless you are in the lowest bracket, then they are not taxable.

I’m not trying to trick you. I just am not explaining it well.

15% today is less revenue than 30% later, is basically what I am saying and what would happen if you were to tax the cap gains in someone’s 401k each year.

Plus you are taxing them on phantom income. Phantom income is income that shows up on your return but the tax payer never actually received any cash for it. This happens a lot when you are invested in PE funds and the like. It is typically a timing difference, but sometimes it isn’t. If the timing difference is say, 30 year until retirement, someone is paying 15% now on cash they won’t see for 30 years. That hurts the little guy much more than someone with 2mil liquid and 20mil invested in some limited partnerships.

[/quote]

The way it works now is you tax the gains when you remove them . Which is fair. There is difference in people using a 401 k and some one that makes a living via the stock market. If the wealthy would pay their fair share , rates could go down for ALL

167

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
If the wealthy would pay their fair share , rates could go down for ALL
[/quote]

The top 10% of earners pay 70% of the tax burden as is. How much more of the load would you prefer they carry?

I mean really?

How about we focus on the government spending less, and then tackle tax rates? We can’t tax our way out of this problem, it is too large at this point.

168

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
If the wealthy would pay their fair share , rates could go down for ALL
[/quote]

The top 10% of income earners pay 37% of all income taxes. The top 10% pay 70% of all income taxes. The bottom 48% pay nothing.

You are correct (for a change) the wealthy are not paying their fair share their paying far, far more!

You made more sense when you were at least acting like you wanted Ron Paul to be President. At the time you said that you wouldn’t vote for Obama again. But I guess you’ve had a change of heart. Why toss Obama out (and give someone else a chance) when he can continue to keep the gravy train going for those who don’t want to work?

16 trillion and counting…You democrats won’t be happy until we’re busted.

NICE!

169

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
If the wealthy would pay their fair share , rates could go down for ALL
[/quote]

The top 10% of earners pay 70% of the tax burden as is. How much more of the load would you prefer they carry?

I mean really?

How about we focus on the government spending less, and then tackle tax rates? We can’t tax our way out of this problem, it is too large at this point.[/quote]

I think one of the disparities is that of the difference between the top 10% and the to .1% or.01%

170

There is some thing like 1.65 people employed for every one person on welfare. (Feel free to fact check my info, I can’t remeber where I heard it.)

We can ask those 1.65 people to pay MORE just to support the other one.

Even if we round up to 2, that is one third the population living off the backs of the other third. You can’t tell me one third of the fucking population is incapable of providing for themselves to the extent we have to provide for them. Really?

171

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
If the wealthy would pay their fair share , rates could go down for ALL
[/quote]

The top 10% of earners pay 70% of the tax burden as is. How much more of the load would you prefer they carry?

I mean really?

How about we focus on the government spending less, and then tackle tax rates? We can’t tax our way out of this problem, it is too large at this point.[/quote]

I think one of the disparities is that of the difference between the top 10% and the to .1% or.01%[/quote]

top 1% had 17% of the AGI and paid 37% of the tax burden.

That isn’t fair share?

172

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
If the wealthy would pay their fair share , rates could go down for ALL
[/quote]

The top 10% of income earners pay 37% of all income taxes. The top 10% pay 70% of all income taxes. The bottom 48% pay nothing.

You are correct (for a change) the wealthy are not paying their fair share their paying far, far more!

You made more sense when you were at least acting like you wanted Ron Paul to be President. At the time you said that you wouldn’t vote for Obama again. But I guess you’ve had a change of heart. Why toss Obama out (and give someone else a chance) when he can continue to keep the gravy train going for those who don’t want to work?

16 trillion and counting…You democrats won’t be happy until we’re busted.

NICE![/quote]

The problem with you Zeb is you think I am against you. The top %50 pay 97% of taxes

I unlike you know to get services from the Government , some one will have to pay for them. I peronally think the people that want to can all the services should just move to a country that offeres no services rather than try and turn America into a third world country.

To lump me a person that probably pays twice or possibly 3 times the tax rate of Romney with the people try to get Your’s and Mitt’s money is redickuluss :slight_smile:

173

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

To lump me a person that probably pays twice or possibly 3 times the tax rate of Romney with the people try to get Your’s and Mitt’s money is redickuluss :)[/quote]
If you are paying 45% rate you need a new accountant, lol

174

I can see the arguement that 1% of the population making 20% of the income is “unfair”. I can see that, my personal views aside, I really can understand.

But the fact is they pay more than enough of the tax. People have been bitten by the “class warfare” bug, and it is going to lead this country no where but worse off than it is.

We can’t tax our way out of this problem, and believing the people feeding you the lie we can is only going to result in our country going belly up.

They created class warfare to get you to vote for them, while they do the same things repulicans do. Watch the fucking docmentary I’ve talked about 286 times already.

You are being bamboozeled.

175

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

To lump me a person that probably pays twice or possibly 3 times the tax rate of Romney with the people try to get Your’s and Mitt’s money is redickuluss :)[/quote]
If you are paying 45% rate you need a new accountant, lol

[/quote]

I do have accountant , and I doubt I pay 45% but I also did not get to write off $77,000 for a horse . I do have dogs and did not get awrite off for them . Can you help me :slight_smile:

176

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
I can see the arguement that 1% of the population making 20% of the income is “unfair”. I can see that, my personal views aside, I really can understand.

But the fact is they pay more than enough of the tax. People have been bitten by the “class warfare” bug, and it is going to lead this country no where but worse off than it is.

We can’t tax our way out of this problem, and believing the people feeding you the lie we can is only going to result in our country going belly up.

They created class warfare to get you to vote for them, while they do the same things repulicans do. Watch the fucking docmentary I’ve talked about 286 times already.

You are being bamboozeled.[/quote]

post a link, There is agood 3 hr documentary on Corporations . if you are interested

177

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

To lump me a person that probably pays twice or possibly 3 times the tax rate of Romney with the people try to get Your’s and Mitt’s money is redickuluss :)[/quote]
If you are paying 45% rate you need a new accountant, lol

[/quote]

I do have accountant , and I doubt I pay 45% but I also did not get to write off $77,000 for a horse . I do have dogs and did not get awrite off for them . Can you help me :slight_smile:
[/quote]
haha

I can help you by explaining what really happened with the horse deal:

He has a business that involves his wife and her horse. Ropes and Grey aren’t idiots and I’m sure it is a legit business.

Well that business had a 77k loss. As in they spend more than they took in for revenue.

This business is passive. Which means he can only take passive losses to the extent of passive gains. He didn’t have many passive gains, and you can clearly see on page 2 of his schedule E that he got a $52 reduction of taxable income. At his effective rate of 15%, that means his horse business saved him $8 in tax. Romney pisses out $8 worth of coffee after his morning meetings.

So not only did they spend more than they took in, they didn’t even get a substancial break for it.

(I’m going from memory reading his returns and can double check for anyone that woudl like me to later.)

178

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
I can see the arguement that 1% of the population making 20% of the income is “unfair”. I can see that, my personal views aside, I really can understand.

But the fact is they pay more than enough of the tax. People have been bitten by the “class warfare” bug, and it is going to lead this country no where but worse off than it is.

We can’t tax our way out of this problem, and believing the people feeding you the lie we can is only going to result in our country going belly up.

They created class warfare to get you to vote for them, while they do the same things repulicans do. Watch the fucking docmentary I’ve talked about 286 times already.

You are being bamboozeled.[/quote]

post a link, There is agood 3 hr documentary on Corporations . if you are interested
[/quote]

please feel free to share. I love info.

179

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
I can see the arguement that 1% of the population making 20% of the income is “unfair”. I can see that, my personal views aside, I really can understand.

But the fact is they pay more than enough of the tax. People have been bitten by the “class warfare” bug, and it is going to lead this country no where but worse off than it is.

We can’t tax our way out of this problem, and believing the people feeding you the lie we can is only going to result in our country going belly up.

They created class warfare to get you to vote for them, while they do the same things repulicans do. Watch the fucking docmentary I’ve talked about 286 times already.

You are being bamboozeled.[/quote]

post a link, There is agood 3 hr documentary on Corporations . if you are interested
[/quote]

please feel free to share. I love info.[/quote]

thanks too bad I can’t write off the wife too :slight_smile:

180

Some of you need to turn in your iPhones less you contribute to everything you rally against

Look at that. Just what I’ve been saying. Lower the rate and that cash comes back to America.

Shit man.