Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Romney Releases 2011 Tax Returns  
User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 7175 posts, RR: 17
Posted (1 year 10 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 3527 times:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...-11e2-9132-f2750cd65f97_story.html

Reportedly (via twitter) being taxed about 14% of his income.

From his previous work, he paid the previous dues, and since he worked for years, he is pretty much living off the interest from his investments.

If he wasn't living off interest, he'd probably pay about 45% on taxes. But that's based off of how much he would make if he was still working as an investment banker.


It's all interest, stuff that was already taxed previously. According to my dad, who is an investment banker, Interest is automatically taxed based off of the rate of interest and the amount of money that was originally invested. Therefore, this is in reality a fair deal.

Democrats can sit down now.

[Edited 2012-09-21 11:04:00]

[Edited 2012-09-21 11:07:37]


One of the FB admins for PHX Spotters. "Zach the Expat!"
113 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinembmbos From United States of America, joined May 2000, 2597 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (1 year 10 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 3518 times:

I'm not sitting down. Tax returns for 2011 only. Not the years where he most likely paid less.

And by the way, 14%? Ridiculous!


User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8785 posts, RR: 24
Reply 2, posted (1 year 10 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 3506 times:

Quoting mbmbos (Reply 1):
And by the way, 14%? Ridiculous!

Why?

He earned $1000 way back when, and paid around $450 in taxes (Federal. State and Local)

The remaining $550, he invested and earned another $50, on which he pays another 14% in taxes.

Please explain why he should pay full income rates on that $50, when already nearly half his original earnings went to taxes.

Capital Gains taxes should not exist at all.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 7175 posts, RR: 17
Reply 3, posted (1 year 10 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 3508 times:

He already paid his taxes on his income, and now what he's paying is dividends from his investments. He already paid the 40-50% on taxes when he got the initial investments. That's all been taxed previously. This second income is dividends, already taxed money. The taxed money gets automatically removed from the paycheck. This IRS report only shows what gets re-taxed, such as property taxes, federal, state, local, school taxes, etc., taxes people pay normally that aren't necessarily based off income. If the government didn't tax the initial income before he received it, that 13 million would have been reported as 26 million. Simple.

Learn the basics of capital gains taxes before complaining (all this information I got from my dad who works for the banks and gets his income directly taxed by the government, but makes considerably less than Romney.)

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 2):
Capital Gains taxes should not exist at all.
   thank you. Welcome to my respected user's list.

[Edited 2012-09-21 11:16:44]

[Edited 2012-09-21 11:17:12]


One of the FB admins for PHX Spotters. "Zach the Expat!"
User currently offlinepu From Sweden, joined Dec 2011, 695 posts, RR: 13
Reply 4, posted (1 year 10 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 3496 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 2):

How do we know how much he paid in taxes initially off the income? It may have been 0 or 45% or anywere in between.

Saying it "has already been taxed" once is ridiculous. Each new additional income is more income, regardless of where it came from, and it is the INTEREST, not the underlying asset that is being taxed.

He should pay higher taxes because people who simply OWN things and collect rent (or interest) off what they own do little to contribute to the growth of the economy and much of the income of the wealthy comes from what they OWN instead of what they DO.

Furthermore, it is a structural failure of capitalism that merely owning an asset generates wealth potentially forever...thats how lop sided societies in Latin America are perpetuated where a small owning class keeps everyone else in poverty. It is necessary to tax these asset owners so they either have to keep on working/contributing or have to sell what they own.

Owning physical or monetary assets in any event should not perpetuate wealth beyond the generation that earned it, which again is another reason for the tax.

Pu

[Edited 2012-09-21 11:27:02]

User currently onlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4461 posts, RR: 2
Reply 5, posted (1 year 10 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 3486 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 2):
Please explain why he should pay full income rates on that $50, when already nearly half his original earnings went to taxes.

Capital Gains taxes should not exist at all

Because that is the way the tax code exists.
Are you suggesting we alter it further to have less revenue to pay for spending. Which by the way even the GOP can't figure out how to lower without getting yelled at.
Seems like a play right out of the George Bush Playbook



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6568 posts, RR: 6
Reply 6, posted (1 year 10 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 3487 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 2):
Capital Gains taxes should not exist at all.

So you want him to pay 0% in taxes? Would that make him be part of the 47% that is voting for Obama?



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 7175 posts, RR: 17
Reply 7, posted (1 year 10 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 3482 times:

Quoting casinterest (Reply 5):
Quoting mt99 (Reply 6):
Quoting pu (Reply 4):

All 3 of you do some research on what capital gains is.

I'll repeat myself: Romney's returns that HAVE ALREADY BEEN TAXED, which do not report on an IRS filing. It's money that never lands in the hands of Romney, pretty much.



One of the FB admins for PHX Spotters. "Zach the Expat!"
User currently onlineKiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7095 posts, RR: 3
Reply 8, posted (1 year 10 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 3463 times:

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 3):
He already paid the 40-50% on taxes when he got the initial investments.

Can you prove it, if he had an integrity he'd release everything, the fact that he hasn't makes me and a lot of other people think he has something to hide.


User currently onlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4461 posts, RR: 2
Reply 9, posted (1 year 10 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 3461 times:

[

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 2):
Please explain why he should pay full income rates on that $50, when already nearly half his original earnings went to taxes.

Because captial gains is about gains made for investing money in someone else's business, by which you expect a return on time and money. It is earnings. By the same token, if you lose money, guess what..... you claim a tax deduction.

Quoting PHX787 (Thread starter):
Democrats can sit down now.

No. Responsible people are still paying attention and asking for more. But folks with small attention spans , and no attention to details can move on whistling in the wind and worry about birht certiffcates.



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlinePSA53 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3053 posts, RR: 4
Reply 10, posted (1 year 10 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 3450 times:

Here's another follow up from Yahoo.

http://news.yahoo.com/romneys-paid-1...axes-2011-181548066--election.html



Tuesday's Off! Do not disturb.
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12333 posts, RR: 25
Reply 11, posted (1 year 10 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 3450 times:

Quoting mbmbos (Reply 1):
Tax returns for 2011 only.

I guess we should use the singular, then.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineclemsonaj From United States of America, joined Aug 2009, 269 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (1 year 10 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 3438 times:

You know it's a bad week for Romney when he's drawing attention to his tax returns. Something that you haven't noticed is that he avoided taking all the available deductions for his charitable contributions. His effective tax rate should have been closer to 9% for 2011. Instead he chose to pay a little more this year to avoid the headache of trying to explain an effective 9% rate.

Also a pinky-swear from Romney's accountant doesn't amount to much confidence in those numbers.

Mitt's Blog


User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8785 posts, RR: 24
Reply 13, posted (1 year 10 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 3423 times:

Quoting pu (Reply 4):
He should pay higher taxes because people who simply OWN things and collect rent (or interest) off what they own do little to contribute to the growth of the economy

And here we have an example of the ignorance that exists on the left. Investment capital is EVERYTHING. Investment capital is what every company requires to expand their business. You make those investments more expensive (like taxing them more), you will have have less of it - people will stash their money into gold bullion or cash, in which case I would agree - that does not do anything for the economy. A $10,000 gold brick sitting in your safe is essentially $10,000 taken out of the economy. Not so with $10,000 that you invest in stocks or bonds.

Quoting casinterest (Reply 5):
Because that is the way the tax code exists.

The way the tax code exists is that he pays 14%, not full income rates

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 8):
Can you prove it, if he had an integrity he'd release everything, the fact that he hasn't makes me and a lot of other people think he has something to hide.

That's not what you or anyone else asked for. You guys asked for 10 years. He's been retired for more than that, so the past 10 years would be more of the same investment income. But of course you knew that.

Nobody asked to see how much he paid in the 1990s; when his total tax rates (including local etc) would have been 50% or more. For the Dems that would be counterproductive.

Quoting casinterest (Reply 9):
Because captial gains is about gains made for investing money in someone else's business, by which you expect a return on time and money. It is earnings. By the same token, if you lose money, guess what..... you claim a tax deduction.

Small comfort. I'd rather not make the loss in the first place.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6568 posts, RR: 6
Reply 14, posted (1 year 10 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 3415 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 7):
I'll repeat myself: Romney's returns that HAVE ALREADY BEEN TAXED, which do not report on an IRS filing. It's money that never lands in the hands of Romney, pretty much.

We get it dude, calm down, but i still think that "income is income" regardless of the source.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 2):
Capital Gains taxes should not exist at all.

Is this part of Mitt's proposal?



Step into my office, baby
User currently onlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4461 posts, RR: 2
Reply 15, posted (1 year 10 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 3410 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 13):
The way the tax code exists is that he pays 14%, not full income rates

He paid a higher rate than he could have.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 13):
mall comfort. I'd rather not make the loss in the first place.

So would everyone, but that is the tax code. Also , if you invest for less than a year and reap a big profit, then you pay full taxes as you should. You put your money out there to work for you , so it could work for someone else to make a profit in another company. The fact that long term gains is low, is due ot the fact that you are allowing your money to be tied u[p for longer and longer.
Capital gains exists and should exist, as it effectively a worker for the company you invest in.



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlinezckls04 From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 1262 posts, RR: 3
Reply 16, posted (1 year 10 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 3412 times:

Quoting PHX787 (Thread starter):
Romney Releases Tax Returns

My question is WHY? He's waited until JUST after everybody's forgotten about it and is now resurrecting the story. This campaign is a shambles.



If you're not sure whether to use a piece of punctuation, it's best not to.
User currently onlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4461 posts, RR: 2
Reply 17, posted (1 year 10 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 3403 times:

Quoting zckls04 (Reply 16):
My question is WHY? He's waited until JUST after everybody's forgotten about it and is now resurrecting the story. This campaign is a shambles.

Umm he promised to relase 2011 when it was done.
The others are just going to be summary pages, and will not contain the actual returns.



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlinebhill From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 948 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (1 year 10 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 3380 times:

Meh...2008-2009 please. Especially 2009...


Carpe Pices
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8184 posts, RR: 8
Reply 19, posted (1 year 10 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 3364 times:

Quoting PHX787 (Thread starter):
It's all interest, stuff that was already taxed previously.



Or hidden in Swill Bank Accounts he had, or Bahama depots he had, or Caribbean accounts he had.

My bet is that the 14% rates or '10 and '11 are the highest he has had and he's only paying them because he wanted to un for President.

Ant that, IMO, is why he is keeping his previous tax returns well hidden. He doesn't want the political embarrassment of making tens of millions in a year and having zero taxes paid.

Quoting PHX787 (Thread starter):
Democrats can sit down now.

Democrats don'e have a problem with people making money. Or reducing taxes. It was a Democrat (JFK) that cut the top tax rate from 90% (the rate the Republicans used) to 75%.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 2):
Capital Gains taxes should not exist at all.

Correct. It should be taxed at normal income rates. There is no justifiable reason for lower rates for capital gains. It just increases the national debt.


User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21406 posts, RR: 54
Reply 20, posted (1 year 10 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 3347 times:

Quoting zckls04 (Reply 16):
My question is WHY? He's waited until JUST after everybody's forgotten about it and is now resurrecting the story. This campaign is a shambles.

Sure it is, but his taxes have not just not been forgotten, they are automatically becoming front and center through his own cynical remarks that have come to light – if he still chickens out from releasing the same number of years as every other recent candidate after that, he's simply toast.

The irony is that his entire campaign was supposed to be about taxes first and foremost. In more than one way, that has come more true than he'd ever dreamed of.

He's not free to make many choices there any more. His problem is that actually releasing his older tax returns would apparently be so toxic that he'd rather lose the election than put them forward.

That in itself makes a statement of its own.


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15715 posts, RR: 26
Reply 21, posted (1 year 10 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 3337 times:

Quoting pu (Reply 4):
Owning physical or monetary assets in any event should not perpetuate wealth beyond the generation that earned it, which again is another reason for the tax.

That philosophy is too abhorrent for words. When one owns something, be it physical, land, equity in a business, or financial instruments they own it outright and should be the sole entity to determine the fate of whatever it is they own. It isn't a rental for life, it's ownership. Whether you want to give it to your kids, charity, make it a trust, or anything else I don't care but it must be under the sole control of the person who owns it.

Quoting bhill (Reply 18):
Meh...2008-2009 please. Especially 2009...

You just want to blast him for writing off losses suffered in 2008. Just like everybody did.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 19):
There is no justifiable reason for lower rates for capital gains. It just increases the national debt.

It didn't increase the national debt for the first seven decades of the capital gains tax.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinepu From Sweden, joined Dec 2011, 695 posts, RR: 13
Reply 22, posted (1 year 10 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 3327 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 13):
Investment capital is EVERYTHING. Investment capital is what every company requires to expand their business.

No.
Banks create money out of thin air in the fractional reserve banking system. Its called making loans. Individual investors play a relatively SMALL role in financing corporate expansion. "Investing" in stocks or bonds does nothing to help the business expand unless you buy at the IPO, "investing" in the stock market is not investing at all in the economy or helping the underlying company...the stock market is booming, job growth is stagnent.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 13):
ou make those investments more expensive (like taxing them more),

Hahahahahah......there is historically no correlation between capital gains tax rates and promoting GDP growth.
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3837

...all reducing capital gains tax rates do is make the rich richer. They don't actually invest more of it and create more jobs when tax rates are lower. The big problem with some arachaic Republican thinking is that they are married to a DOCTRINE that looks good in books, instead of practical realities that actually work, as shown by:

http://www.foxbusiness.com/investing...ts-gdp-outperform-under-democrats/


Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 13):
ou will have have less of it - people will stash their money into gold bullion or cash,

If the choice were invest in the stock market or hide your money under the mattress, I might agree with you, but in fact there are many more options than simply your crude udnerstanding of "investment capital" and investing in gold, for example, captial gains rates can be used to encourage "investing" that actually helps the economy (e.g. domestic investments in infrastructure, innovation and job-producing projects) instead of merely allowing any paper asset that does nothing except make the rich richer.

Pu


User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8941 posts, RR: 40
Reply 23, posted (1 year 10 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 3306 times:

Quoting pu (Reply 4):
thats how lop sided societies in Latin America are perpetuated where a small owning class keeps everyone else in poverty.

High inflation and hyperinflation keeps people in Latin America in poverty, not the "owners" of real assets. The owners of real assets in Latin America would much rather have a wealthier population to sell their goods to.

Large landowners would much rather sell their unproductive lands and invest the money in something that actually generates a return, like bonds, but it in a highly inflationary environment there is zero incentive to do this unless you want to lose everything.

[Edited 2012-09-21 12:54:18]


"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlinesomething From United Kingdom, joined May 2011, 1633 posts, RR: 21
Reply 24, posted (1 year 10 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 3289 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 2):
Capital Gains taxes should not exist at all.

Yes, revolutionary idea. Name one country that has done this, or implemented ''Republican'' economic plans and has succeeded. I can name about 10 off the top of the my head that did, and failed miserably.

I'll start: Ireland.

Your turn..

A country who's fiscally much more left than the US Democrats but is doing rather well:

Sweden.

But please, feed me historic precedence of the functionality of any of their propositions. I'm exicted..

Edit: More hilarity...

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 13):
Investment capital is EVERYTHING. Investment capital is what every company requires to expand their business. You make those investments more expensive (like taxing them more), you will have have less of it

You learn about investments in the first semester of your bachelor's degree in economics. About the macroeconomic impact of taxes on investment capital in either the first, or the semester. As I've finished both, and had to familiarize myself with all theories surrounding the capital gains tax, I can guarantee that you have no such education on the matter.

Furthermore, you conveniently leave out all the consequences, or as you would say CONSEQUENCES, that the absense of tax revenue derived from capital gains taxes has. But again, the economic institutions of this world will be thrilled to be proven wrong by you.

[Edited 2012-09-21 13:13:05]


..sick of it. -K. Pilkington.
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12333 posts, RR: 25
Reply 25, posted (1 year 10 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 3342 times:

Quoting clemsonaj (Reply 12):
You know it's a bad week for Romney when he's drawing attention to his tax returns.

I thought it was a bad week for him when he went to London and manged to piss off rich white folks, but this one tops that.

Quoting zckls04 (Reply 16):
My question is WHY? He's waited until JUST after everybody's forgotten about it and is now resurrecting the story. This campaign is a shambles.

When I first read this thread, I thought it was about him releasing 8 years of tax returns and thought he was doing something big to try to turn the tide. When I read it was just the one year, I thought the same thing - his campaign is being run by idiots. All they are doing is handing the tax return issue back to the Dems and re-enforcing the notion that Romney is hiding things.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8941 posts, RR: 40
Reply 26, posted (1 year 10 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 3350 times:

Quoting pu (Reply 22):
Banks create money out of thin air in the fractional reserve banking system. Its called making loans. Individual investors play a relatively SMALL role in financing corporate expansion. "Investing" in stocks or bonds does nothing to help the business expand unless you buy at the IPO, "investing" in the stock market is not investing at all in the economy or helping the underlying company...the stock market is booming, job growth is stagnent.

You, sir, have no concept of how fractional reserve banking and the money multiplier works.

Buying newly-issued bond is a direct loan to the business. Buying newly issued stock is a direct investment into that business.

Trading stock in the market that isn't newly issued is simply you trading places with the original investor.

Quoting pu (Reply 22):
...all reducing capital gains tax rates do is make the rich richer. They don't actually invest more of it and create more jobs when tax rates are lower. The big problem with some arachaic Republican thinking is that they are married to a DOCTRINE that looks good in books, instead of practical realities that actually work, as shown by:

How does lower capital gains taxes only make the rich richer if they don't reinvest it?

If capital tax rates are low, it tips the balance from using the money NOW (consuming) to the FUTURE (investing) because it raises the benefits of waiting.

It's utterly wrongheaded to think that reducing the incentive to invest for the long run will improve the economy.

Quoting pu (Reply 22):
captial gains rates can be used to encourage "investing" that actually helps the economy (e.g. domestic investments in infrastructure, innovation and job-producing projects) instead of merely allowing any paper asset that does nothing except make the rich richer.

Wow, this only gets worse! Paper assets???? I guess my car's ownership title is just paper - there is no real asset behind it! I HAVE BEEN DUPED!   

And never mind about government infrastructure, talk about a massive misallocation of resources. And incredibly mismanaged, to boot!



"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlinezckls04 From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 1262 posts, RR: 3
Reply 27, posted (1 year 10 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 3322 times:

Quoting casinterest (Reply 17):
Umm he promised to relase 2011 when it was done.

Yes, I'm questioning the timing, not releasing the returns. He effectively had no choice to release something, though the law doesn't require it.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 25):
When I first read this thread, I thought it was about him releasing 8 years of tax returns and thought he was doing something big to try to turn the tide. When I read it was just the one year, I thought the same thing - his campaign is being run by idiots. All they are doing is handing the tax return issue back to the Dems and re-enforcing the notion that Romney is hiding things.

Exactly.

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 26):
You, sir, have no concept of how fractional reserve banking and the money multiplier works.

On a more lighthearted note can I just say this is the finest piece of trash talk I have ever heard in my life.

[Edited 2012-09-21 13:23:22]


If you're not sure whether to use a piece of punctuation, it's best not to.
User currently offlinejakeorion From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 1253 posts, RR: 2
Reply 28, posted (1 year 10 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 3318 times:

The country is falling into chaos and yet all we have to focus on is Romney' Tax Returns?

I love people's priorities.



Every problem has a simple solution; finding the simple solution is the difficult problem.
User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8941 posts, RR: 40
Reply 29, posted (1 year 10 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 3311 times:

Quoting zckls04 (Reply 29):
On a more lighthearted note can I just say this is the finest piece of trash talk I have ever heard in my life.

Huh? Explain.



"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11200 posts, RR: 52
Reply 30, posted (1 year 10 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 3305 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 2):
Please explain why he should pay full income rates on that $50,

because he earned $50.

I'm not sure why that's hard...



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlinePSA53 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3053 posts, RR: 4
Reply 31, posted (1 year 10 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 3309 times:

Quoting jakeorion (Reply 30):
The country is falling into chaos and yet all we have to focus on is Romney' Tax Returns?

I love people's priorities.

Great point.Meanwhile,Obama is allowed to hide his failures and continued blame game.



Tuesday's Off! Do not disturb.
User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8941 posts, RR: 40
Reply 32, posted (1 year 10 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 3284 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 19):
It should be taxed at normal income rates.

It already is. It's called corporate taxes.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 19):
There is no justifiable reason for lower rates for capital gains. It just increases the national debt.

To take on debt is a decision, not an effect.



"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12333 posts, RR: 25
Reply 33, posted (1 year 10 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 3284 times:

Quoting jakeorion (Reply 30):
The country is falling into chaos and yet all we have to focus on is Romney' Tax Returns?

The GOP spent a lot of time and energy in the pre-9/11 chaos having an inquest into a blow job.

It seems they might have wanted to spend their time looking into national security issues, along with banking and investing issues too.

I thought they justified that because they were trying to determine if we could trust the guy or not.

Seems to me we have the same question about Romney, one he could easily answer in seconds if he chose to do so.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8397 posts, RR: 3
Reply 34, posted (1 year 10 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 3279 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 2):
Why?

This was all wage income. These investment toilet bank asses should pay the full marginal rate on their wage income. Sure, I could set up a money laundering chicanery outfit exactly like they do. Only I might actually get prosecuted, because I have only a few Harvard lawyers or mathematicians to help me, not 3,000 like they do.


User currently offlineAirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 24
Reply 35, posted (1 year 10 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 3265 times:

Quoting mbmbos (Reply 1):
And by the way, 14%? Ridiculous!

Oh, wah! Cry me a river. The last time I checked, 14% paid taxes is sure a hell of a lot better than paying 0%!



A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6568 posts, RR: 6
Reply 36, posted (1 year 10 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 3258 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 38):
Oh, wah! Cry me a river. The last time I checked, 14% paid taxes is sure a hell of a lot better than paying 0%!

"According to an announcement by the campaign Friday, the Romneys could have had a lower tax rate than 14.1% in 2011 if they had claimed more of their charitable deductions–an amount that equaled 30% of their income. Romney made $13.7 million mostly off of investment income last year."

However, the Romneys only claimed 16% in charitable deductions, thus keeping their income tax rate higher, in order "to conform" to Romney's previous comments about his tax rate, the statement read Friday.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...to-keep-his-word-and-break-it-too/



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlinepu From Sweden, joined Dec 2011, 695 posts, RR: 13
Reply 37, posted (1 year 10 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 3250 times:

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 26):
You, sir, have no concept of how fractional reserve banking and the money multiplier works.

I finished an MBA from L S E and before retiring I helped run the commercial lending department of the largest bank in Sweden. Your credentials?
.
I don't post remarks based on what my dad said or what my teacher told me today. I am not married to economic policy soundbites used to buy your votes in elections. I am only married to what works.

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 26):
Buying newly-issued bond is a direct loan to the business. Buying newly issued stock is a direct investment into that business.

Trading stock in the market that isn't newly issued is simply you trading places with the original investor.

In households where English is the native language, my earlier post is obviously saying what you wrote here (but are strangely acting like you are arguing with me)
... the reward of lower capital gains taxes ("incentive") does nothing to enhance the economy. Its a shell game in many cases, like the stock market (simply changing one owner for another)...unless you buy at the IPO. No public benefit for rich people doing this, thus they should not be getting a tax breaksimply for moving money around.

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 26):
How does lower capital gains taxes only make the rich richer if they don't reinvest it?

The key word in your question is LOWER. If the capital gains tax is made lower, the rich get richer by in most cases investing in paper assets (e.g. buying stock on the stock market or buying into a bond fund) that does zero to help the economy or produce jobs. Worse, they may invest overseas and get a tax benefit from doing so.
...
Find a mechanism that ensures the rich get the benefit of a lower tax rate only when they invest to create jos and GDP growth, and I am perfectly happy giving them a break on taxes. But most of the time they invest purely for financial returns and should not be rewarded by tax incentives.

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 26):
If capital tax rates are low, it tips the balance from using the money NOW (consuming) to the FUTURE (investing) because it raises the benefits of waiting.

It's utterly wrongheaded to think that reducing the incentive to invest for the long run will improve the economy.

As mentioned, the difference between me and the teen agers who report what they've read in class, what their dad told them or what they heard on the internet is that I talk about what works. NOT THEORY. again...
THERE IS NO HISTORICAL CORRELATION BETWEEN LOWER CAPITAL GAINS TAXES AND GDP GROWTH OR JOB CREATION.

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 26):
Wow, this only gets worse! Paper assets???? I guess my car's ownership title is just paper - there is no real asset behind it! I HAVE BEEN DUPED!

In the world of the educated a paper asset is one where there is no physical asset to back it up, sorry I used terminology above your head.

Pu

[Edited 2012-09-21 14:17:40]

[Edited 2012-09-21 14:19:05]

[Edited 2012-09-21 14:22:00]

User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15715 posts, RR: 26
Reply 38, posted (1 year 10 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 3212 times:

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 35):
It already is. It's called corporate taxes.

That's really not a good argument. Money that leaves a company as wages is taxed at the corporate level too.

There's no huge ideological reason why capital gains tax rates should be different, but raising them will suddenly make every US investment look a little bit worse.

Also, people who tell you that not having capital gains taxed as regular income is what causes the national debt to explode are lying to you.

Quoting pu (Reply 40):
Find a mechanism that ensures the rich get the benefit of a lower tax rate only when they invest to create jos and GDP growth, and I am perfectly happy giving them a break on taxes.

I disagree. The government should not be telling people what they ought to be investing in.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8941 posts, RR: 40
Reply 39, posted (1 year 10 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 3196 times:

Quoting pu (Reply 40):
I finished an MBA from L S E and before retiring I helped run the commercial lending department of the largest bank in Sweden.

Great. So you also know that without savings, there is no banking system, right?

Quoting pu (Reply 40):
... the reward of lower capital gains taxes ("incentive") does nothing to enhance the economy. Its a shell game in many cases, like the stock market (simply changing one owner for another)...unless you buy at the IPO. No public benefit for rich people doing this, thus they should not be getting a tax breaksimply for moving money around.

There must ALWAYS be somebody behind that investment, whether it is stocks or bonds. While trading spaces doesn't result in new investments in and of itself, it frees up cash of the original investor for other uses, like starting a new company or for consumption purposes. Trading also sets prices which is fundamental to resource allocation in an economy.

Quoting pu (Reply 40):
If the capital gains tax is made lower, the rich get richer by in most cases investing in paper assets (e.g. buying stock on the stock market or buying into a bond fund) that does zero to help the economy or produce jobs.

See comment above.

Quoting pu (Reply 40):
Find a mechanism that ensures the rich get the benefit of a lower tax rate only when they invest to create jos and GDP growth, and I am perfectly happy giving them a break on taxes. But most of the time they invest purely for financial returns and should not be rewarded by tax incentives.

They get the benefit whether they reinvest or whether they consume the dividends/interest. There are legal mechanisms that kinda accomplish what you are saying by exempting taxation if the funds get reinvested, but no economic mechanism - other than saying they would get greater benefit by reinvesting, since that will grow their wealth.

Quoting pu (Reply 40):
THERE IS NO HISTORICAL CORRELATION BETWEEN LOWER CAPITAL GAINS TAXES AND GDP GROWTH OR JOB CREATION.

There are a million different factors that affect economic growth. It is extremely easy to imagine a scenario with zero capital gains taxes but extremely high income taxes that still hurt economic growth.

That study is COMPLETELY USELESS.

Quoting pu (Reply 40):
In the world of the educated a paper asset is one where there is no physical asset to back it up, sorry I used terminology above your head.

The only assets that come to my mind that fit your definition are things like patents and copyrights. You can say bonds are backed by nothing more than a promise, but there is very real cash behind it. Stocks have all sorts of assets behind it - both physical and non (like patents).

[Edited 2012-09-21 14:55:29]


"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlineEA CO AS From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 13508 posts, RR: 62
Reply 40, posted (1 year 10 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 3184 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Interesting that Harry Reid is now saying Romney "manipulated" his taxes, conveniently ignoring the fact he's been publicly saying Romney hasn't paid any taxes at all.

Sen. Reid needs to shut up for his own sake; the good people of Nevada may decide they've had it with his shenanigans.



"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan
User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8941 posts, RR: 40
Reply 41, posted (1 year 10 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 3185 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 41):
That's really not a good argument. Money that leaves a company as wages is taxed at the corporate level too.

Corporate taxes affect only profits. Since to arrive at profit you need to exclude all expenses, which includes wages, it means companies don't pay corporate taxes on wages. At that point it's just personal income taxes and payroll taxes.

[Edited 2012-09-21 15:00:16]


"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlineltbewr From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13029 posts, RR: 12
Reply 42, posted (1 year 10 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 3170 times:

I pay about net 10% in Fed income taxes on a gross income of just over $50K after deductions for State income taxes and deductions for health care including HC insurance premiums. Throw in my pay deducted share of SS/Medicare taxes, and my total income based tax rate exceeds that of the very rich Mitt Romney. If he was paying a net of something like 20%, like his running mate Ryan, or President Obama's, that would be a lot better.

This proves that our Federal Tax policy is really screwed up and fixed the wrong way when a multi-millionaire pays an effect rate of tax on his income less than a 'middle class' person does.


User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8941 posts, RR: 40
Reply 43, posted (1 year 10 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 3161 times:

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 45):
This proves that our Federal Tax policy is really screwed up and fixed the wrong way when a multi-millionaire pays an effect rate of tax on his income less than a 'middle class' person does.

How many companies do you own and how much tax do these companies pay?

All this really means is that tax laws are way too complex to have a reasonable discussion over it without requiring everybody to take classes on it.

[Edited 2012-09-21 15:26:22]


"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlinepu From Sweden, joined Dec 2011, 695 posts, RR: 13
Reply 44, posted (1 year 10 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 3153 times:

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 42):
While trading spaces doesn't result in new investments in and of itself, it

Exactly, there is no new investment. Therefore no one should get taxed at a lower rate on income gained from investing in the stock market, which along with home ownership is probably the single biggest asset subject to capital gains.
.
The sheep are sold by the writers of public opinion that capital gains taxes should be lower to encourage investment, but "investing" in stocks as you say "doesn't result in new investments in and of itself," therefore there should be no tax advantage to doing it because the premise is invalid.

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 42):
it frees up cash of the original investor for other uses, like starting a new company or for consumption purposes.

That is theory straight from freshman economics of an ideally functioning world but is not backed by real data. Likewise, it is sold as justification for lower capital gains tax rates even though the stated benefits do not exist in the real world. I am fine with letting the original investor at an IPO get a tax benefit with lower capital gains tax rates, which would for once accomplish the advertised benefit of capital gains tax breaks
...... BUT, everyone else who buys the stock later, aka "invests in the stock market" should gain no benefit for merely changing ownership with someone else, it adds nothing to GDP, does nothing for job growth.

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 42):
They get the benefit whether they reinvest or whether they consume the dividends/interest. There are legal mechanisms that kinda accomplish what you are saying by exempting taxation if the funds get reinvested, but no economic mechanism - other than saying they would get greater benefit by reinvesting, since that will grow their wealth.

Bring the capital gains tax rate to 0% on IPO investors. Great! Watch an IPO explosion! New companies left and right. (many will fail but 1/20 will thrive and 1/100 will be another Apple, Google, etc...) Bring the capital gains tax rate to 0% on any investment that immediately and quantifiably serves the public policy goals of GDP growth and job creation. BUT, creating a tax benefit on ALL capital gains (like stock investing) simply makes the rich richer as they move money around and designate a "capital gain" what the rest of us would simply call "income".

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 42):
There are a million different factors that affect economic growth. It is extremely easy to imagine a scenario with zero capital gains taxes but extremely high income taxes that still hurt economic growth.
Quoting PPVRA (Reply 42):
That study is COMPLETELY USELESS.

If the capital gains tax break is sold as helpful to the economy, it should be quantifiable. It is not. The idea is PURE THEORY and does not find support in the data.

... The study I posted merely points that out. You are merely guessing/hoping that the rich will behave as a pedantic college Economics professor says they will and "invest" in such a way that we all benefit. In the globalized world, today they usually don't, ....although in yesteryear with limited investment options they usually did actually do something constructive with their money. Today they can instantly play the currency markets (hmmmm.....why award a tax break to people who live off currency trading?, play the stock market, sell options on stock futures and do all kinds of things THAT IN NO WAY QUALIFY AS "INVESTING" AS SOLD TO THE PUBLIC BY THE CAPITAL-GAINS-TAX-CUTTING sheep followers of the wealthy.

The fundamental difference between you and me is I'm speaking only in realities. You speak in textbook theories. You are quoting economic theory (of the 1950s) which says a rich man will invest excess funds in ways that benefit us all. Today capital gains can be generated in a million different ways, in a few seconds and in a few electronic impulses crisscrossing the globe,many of which are actually harmful to GDP growth and job creation, thus there should be no blanket tax break for capital gains.

Again, tax breaks for GDP growing and job-creating investments (like IPOs) are perfectly reasonable for tax breaks, but these investments are rarely chosen by billionaires who can easily make money just moving money between one asset and another in arbitrage.

Pu

[Edited 2012-09-21 15:45:40]

User currently offlineflymia From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 7108 posts, RR: 9
Reply 45, posted (1 year 10 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 3102 times:

Just an interesting thought when you add the taxes and the amount he gave to charity Mitt "gave away" 38.5% of his income since 1990. That's a lot of money. He isn't just hoarding all his money in bank accounts like everyone wants to think. Get over it guys. He follows the laws of the U.S. and gives a ridiculous amount of income to good causes.

I know I would and I know just about everyone in this thread would pay the minimum amount required in their taxes whether they make $100k or $50 million. So this attack on Romney needs to end already. If you want to talk about a flawed tax code sure go ahead but attacks on him are baseless and ridiculous. Mitt follows the law and gets attacked. President Obama admits to using illegal drugs and no one cares. President Obama would not be eligible to be a Federal Agent and would have had a hard time passing a background check for a security clearance and here we are, people are arguing about how a guy legally pays low taxes. This makes perfect sense.

[Edited 2012-09-21 16:39:02]


"It was just four of us on the flight deck, trying to do our job" (Captain Al Haynes)
User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8941 posts, RR: 40
Reply 46, posted (1 year 10 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 3088 times:

Quoting pu (Reply 47):
Quoting PPVRA (Reply 42):
While trading spaces doesn't result in new investments in and of itself, it

Exactly, there is no new investment.

But it's supporting the old investment, which otherwise you would have to yank out of the company which in turn could cause all sorts of problem, including bankruptcy.

Quoting pu (Reply 47):
Quoting PPVRA (Reply 42):
it frees up cash of the original investor for other uses, like starting a new company or for consumption purposes.

That is theory straight from freshman economics of an ideally functioning world but is not backed by real data.

No, it's OBVIOUS that the person selling the stock or bond will have cash proceeds and will do something with it.

Quoting pu (Reply 47):
Likewise, it is sold as justification for lower capital gains tax rates even though the stated benefits do not exist in the real world.

What is sold as a justification for lower capital gains tax? My explanation of why trading is good for the economy?

Quoting pu (Reply 47):
Bring the capital gains tax rate to 0% on IPO investors. Great! Watch an IPO explosion! New companies left and right.

You do realize that capital gains tax isn't limited to the stock market, right? There is ZERO incentives for IPOs in eliminating the capital gains tax.

Quoting pu (Reply 47):
BUT, creating a tax benefit on ALL capital gains (like stock investing) simply makes the rich richer as they move money around and designate a "capital gain" what the rest of us would simply call "income".

You realize that the stock market is an avenue that open the door to investing in very large companies to very small investors? You would be hurting small investors the most while benefitting venture capitalists with hefty bank accounts.



"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlineqantas077 From Australia, joined Jan 2004, 5850 posts, RR: 40
Reply 47, posted (1 year 10 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 3060 times:

Quoting flymia (Reply 48):
Just an interesting thought when you add the taxes and the amount he gave to charity Mitt "gave away" 38.5% of his income since 1990. That's a lot of money. He isn't just hoarding all his money in bank accounts like everyone wants to think. Get over it guys. He follows the laws of the U.S. and gives a ridiculous amount of income to good causes

which he undoubtedly claims back when he submits his tax returns...its a favorite of the rich!



a true friend is someone who sees the pain in your eyes, while everyone else believes the smile on your face.
User currently offlineAirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 24
Reply 48, posted (1 year 10 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 3040 times:

Quoting mt99 (Reply 39):

What's your point? He paid his tax.   



A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
User currently offlinepu From Sweden, joined Dec 2011, 695 posts, RR: 13
Reply 49, posted (1 year 10 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 3046 times:

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 49):
No, it's OBVIOUS that the person selling the stock or bond will have cash proceeds and will do something with it.

Yes, something has to be done with the money. But it should only get a tax incentive (lower tax rate) if how they "invested" the money demonstratively furthers the overall economic agenda of GDP growth and job creation. Otherwise let them pay the same rate as "regular" income.

For a long time it was practically impossible for a wealthy person to spend money and NOT somehow help the economy, which is the basis of trickle-down economics, aka Reagonomics. HOWEVER, today billionaires are borderless and make a handsome living just changing money from one currency to another....no one benefits except them and they deserve no tax break for it.

IF their capital gains came from, for instance, trading currencies and dumping the dollar for the euro (or vice versa) they should get no special tax favors for this, which may in fact hurt the national economy. George Soros killed the pound in the 90s, broke the Bank of England vastly damaging Britian, yet if he did the same to the dollar and broke the Fed he would get a tax break for it! (according to the religion that capital gains are always desirable and the wealthy ALWAYS invest in job-creating GDP-enhancing ways).

....it is ok to give a tax break to quantifiably job-creating GDP-improving investments, like say, building a factory. But no tax breaks for capital gains on mere financial transactions that in most cases take place overseas and do nothing for the economy. I've said my peace on this, thanks for chatting.

Pu

[Edited 2012-09-21 17:25:42]

User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6568 posts, RR: 6
Reply 50, posted (1 year 10 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 3033 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 51):
Quoting mt99 (Reply 39):

What's your point? He paid his tax.   

Point is, that he CHOSE to pay more in taxes. He could have legally paid less than 14%. But he choose not too. You dont find that interesting?



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11520 posts, RR: 15
Reply 51, posted (1 year 10 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 3015 times:

How many thousands of jobs did Romney create from that low, low tax rate of 14%? And I mean real jobs for real Americans. Not for investment bankers in Switzerland.


Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineVenus6971 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 1439 posts, RR: 0
Reply 52, posted (1 year 10 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 3000 times:

Tax returns don't matter, what does matter is that he makes more money than you and that pisses some people off. It doesn't matter that he gave over 4 million away in charity, he did not give it to you. It is the classic form of class warfare, he could give them everything they ask for and still not be good enough. He was right, no matter what he does 47% will not vote for him. He's too white, too rich, too nice, too Republican, and too Mormon.


I would help you but it is not in the contract
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8785 posts, RR: 24
Reply 53, posted (1 year 10 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 3007 times:

Quoting qantas077 (Reply 50):
which he undoubtedly claims back when he submits his tax returns...its a favorite of the rich!

By which you are implying that he really does not give anything. Get off it. Even if he did the credit is only a tiny fraction of what he gave. You may despise him for it, but Romney has a track record of being a very caring and generous man, not only with his money but with his time and attention.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5414 posts, RR: 8
Reply 54, posted (1 year 10 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 2996 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 2):
Capital Gains taxes should not exist at all.

I firmly disagree. All earnings should be taxed and no one should be exempt.

Quoting PHX787 (Thread starter):
Democrats can sit down now.

Great, what about Republican's that want and expect their candidate to release multiple years of their taxes?

Quoting clemsonaj (Reply 12):
You know it's a bad week for Romney when he's drawing attention to his tax returns. Something that you haven't noticed is that he avoided taking all the available deductions for his charitable contributions. His effective tax rate should have been closer to 9% for 2011. Instead he chose to pay a little more this year to avoid the headache of trying to explain an effective 9% rate.

Yeah, I don't really respect that. If you have to pay taxes and are smart then you should always pay as little as possible.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 13):
Quoting casinterest (Reply 9):
Because captial gains is about gains made for investing money in someone else's business, by which you expect a return on time and money. It is earnings. By the same token, if you lose money, guess what..... you claim a tax deduction.

Small comfort. I'd rather not make the loss in the first place.

But you did not address his point.

Quoting D L X (Reply 32):
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 2):
Please explain why he should pay full income rates on that $50,

because he earned $50.

I'm not sure why that's hard...

  

Technically any income could be "investment", I mean if a poor person buys stuff that supports a company, why is that not also considered "investment" as it supports that company and allows them to buy capital equipment and develop their product. It's crazy.

Tugg

[Edited 2012-09-21 18:30:44]


I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15715 posts, RR: 26
Reply 55, posted (1 year 10 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 2991 times:

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 44):
Corporate taxes affect only profits. Since to arrive at profit you need to exclude all expenses, which includes wages, it means companies don't pay corporate taxes on wages. At that point it's just personal income taxes and payroll taxes.

Good catch, but still, capital gains are income and could be taxed in some way. Just don't let anyone fool you into thinking that's why the debts exploded.

Quoting pu (Reply 47):
Bring the capital gains tax rate to 0% on IPO investors. Great! Watch an IPO explosion! New companies left and right. (many will fail but 1/20 will thrive and 1/100 will be another Apple, Google, etc...)

That investment money has to come from somewhere. Such policies could mean pulling the plug on investments in real estate, bank accounts, bonds, blue chip stocks, etc. to chase the tax free jackpot in an IPO. Isn't that the exact sort of short sighted paper chasing that Wall Street got blasted for after 2008? Do you really want a system to heap even more reward on riskier investments?

And should this be relegated to stocks? Should I get a bigger tax deduction for building a new house versus buying an existing one? Of course doing that would throw the market into a tailspin.

Quoting pu (Reply 47):
Bring the capital gains tax rate to 0% on any investment that immediately and quantifiably serves the public policy goals of GDP growth and job creation.

That's would be a problem and that's why the tax code is so messed up now. Taxes became about serving public policy and social goals rather than the actual sole purpose of taxes: funding the government.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 54):
How many thousands of jobs did Romney create from that low, low tax rate of 14%?

What page of the tax code makes that relevant?



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineAirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 24
Reply 56, posted (1 year 10 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 2945 times:

Quoting mt99 (Reply 53):
Point is, that he CHOSE to pay more in taxes.

Ok, so? Seems like nothing will ever satisfy you, not even getting a raise and a promotion on your birthday.   

Quoting mt99 (Reply 53):
You dont find that interesting?

  



A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7799 posts, RR: 52
Reply 57, posted (1 year 10 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 2941 times:

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 59):
Quoting mt99 (Reply 53):
Point is, that he CHOSE to pay more in taxes.

Ok, so? Seems like nothing will ever satisfy you, not even getting a raise and a promotion on your birthday.   

Well, not sure where I stand on capital gains (valid arguments on each side) it's quite easy to see that mt99 is upset that the rich/Romney have a low effective tax rate. There may be many other Romneys that pay only 14% or whatever and don't donate. He sees it as unfair that millionaires pay a very low effective tax rate.

Agree or disagree on mt99's position on capital gains, it's your choice, but it's based in logic (that you might disagree with) and I'm quite sure he'd be happy to get a raise and promotion, especially on his birthday  



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11520 posts, RR: 15
Reply 58, posted (1 year 10 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 2907 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 58):
What page of the tax code makes that relevant?

The entire narrative of the right-wing is: give the rich all the tax breaks they want and they will create jobs. One would know that if they follow anything other than FOX.

How many thousands of jobs did Romney create with his 14% tax rate? Better yet: Tell me why a billionare paying only 14% in taxes is better for the economy than a parasite paying 45% tax rate? Let's also consider the billionare can carry over the tax they had to "pay" and use creative accounting to get that all back while the parasite takes a loss.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5414 posts, RR: 8
Reply 59, posted (1 year 10 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 2894 times:

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 59):
Quoting mt99 (Reply 53):
Point is, that he CHOSE to pay more in taxes.

Ok, so? Seems like nothing will ever satisfy you, not even getting a raise and a promotion on your birthday.

Quoting mt99 (Reply 53):
You dont find that interesting?

To me the point is that it is stupid! Why would you pay more taxes than you have to? I mean really, I support that tax rate need to return to where there were before the Bush II administration but still you should not pay more taxes than you need to, than you are absolutely required to. To do otherwise is stupid and in this case pandering.

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15715 posts, RR: 26
Reply 60, posted (1 year 10 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 2891 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 61):
The entire narrative of the right-wing is: give the rich all the tax breaks they want and they will create jobs.

Actually it should be that the rich are going to go where they'll make the most money and it's in America's best interests to become that place. But you wouldn't know that since apparently all you watch is Fox News.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 61):
Better yet: Tell me why a billionare paying only 14% in taxes is better for the economy than a parasite paying 45% tax rate?

Frankly I don't want to see anyone paying 45% in taxes. And of course if they're a parasite, you have to deduct all of the money they suck from the system to see how much they actually contribute.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 61):
Let's also consider the billionare can carry over the tax they had to "pay" and use creative accounting to get that all back while the parasite takes a loss.

What is so magical about the idea of loss carried forward? The fact that so many people either don't get it or insist that others don't get it points to a problem not with the tax code, but rather the education system.

Quoting tugger (Reply 62):
Why would you pay more taxes than you have to?

You would if you were running for president and wanted to prove how patriotic you are.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5414 posts, RR: 8
Reply 61, posted (1 year 10 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 2880 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 63):
Quoting tugger (Reply 62):
Why would you pay more taxes than you have to?

You would if you were running for president and wanted to prove how patriotic you are.

It's still dumb, and still just pandering. I mean if he wants to really be patriotic he should announce that he believes the nation must cut spending and return taxes to where there were and that all the revenue from those changes would go toward paying down the debt.

That would be patriotic and show chutzpah, an ability to lead rather than an ability to pander.

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlinescbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12379 posts, RR: 47
Reply 62, posted (1 year 10 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 2862 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 63):
You would if you were running for president and wanted to prove how patriotic you are.

Seriously?

Quoting tugger (Reply 64):
It's still dumb, and still just pandering.

We have a winner!



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana!
User currently offlinePyrex From Portugal, joined Aug 2005, 3928 posts, RR: 28
Reply 63, posted (1 year 10 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 2845 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 2):
Why?

He earned $1000 way back when, and paid around $450 in taxes (Federal. State and Local)

The remaining $550, he invested and earned another $50, on which he pays another 14% in taxes.

Please explain why he should pay full income rates on that $50, when already nearly half his original earnings went to taxes.

Not to mention that $50 already gets taxed at the corporate level, at the highest corporate tax rate in the world, so what gets to him is a small percentage. If you pay 15% on 65% that actually gets to you, your effective tax rate is 45%.

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 8):
Can you prove it, if he had an integrity he'd release everything, the fact that he hasn't makes me and a lot of other people think he has something to hide.

Luckily what a New Zealander thinks about Mitt Romney's tax returns has no bearing whatsoever in the U.S. election, as much as that costs you.

Quoting casinterest (Reply 9):
By the same token, if you lose money, guess what..... you claim a tax deduction.

You can only claim ~$3,000 of capital losses per year against your ordinary income (you can carry them forward, so if you live thousands of years you might be able to get it all back in the end). Of course you would know that if you had any idea how the tax code worked.

Quoting pu (Reply 22):
"Investing" in stocks or bonds does nothing to help the business expand unless you buy at the IPO, "investing" in the stock market is not investing at all in the economy or helping the underlying company..

Liquidity in the secondary market (be it of debt or equity) drastically reduces the cost of capital for businesses. Who is going to invest in a company if they know that no matter what they can never exit their position?

Quoting pu (Reply 22):
the stock market is booming, job growth is stagnent.

It's called inflation and quantitative easing, you should look it up?

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 26):
You, sir, have no concept of how fractional reserve banking and the money multiplier works.

Screw fractional reserve banking, he has no idea how an economy works.

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 28):
That's not proven. And if they exist, its only exists because US banks only insure a certain amount.

People put money in Swiss banks for the same reason Latin Americans buy condos in Miami - it is an insurance policy, preservation of principal. Because they know that, throughout history, governments everywhere have never been able to resist the urge to get their greedy, dirty little hands on people's property (not a portion of income), and the Swiss have been the only rational ones (just ask the Jews that made it out of Germany alive in the 1930s). Frankly, having enough money to make it worthwhile (like Obama does) and NOT putting a portion of your money in Switzerland just shows a profound lack of financial common sense.

Quoting pu (Reply 40):
I finished an MBA from L S E and before retiring I helped run the commercial lending department of the largest bank in Sweden.

And now you train dogs?

Quoting pu (Reply 40):
investing in paper assets (e.g. buying stock on the stock market or buying into a bond fund) that does zero to help the economy or produce jobs.

Secondary liquidity dramatically reduces the cost of capital for companies, which of course you would know if you are indeed who you claim to be. But then again, maybe you are and that is why the whole Swedish financial system collapsed in the 1990s...

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 41):
That's really not a good argument. Money that leaves a company as wages is taxed at the corporate level too.

This has already been explained, but always worth repeating - wages are a deduction from corporate income (as they should be), so are not taxed at the corporate level. Dividends, on the other hand, should be a deduction too but aren't.

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 45):
Throw in my pay deducted share of SS/Medicare taxes, and my total income based tax rate exceeds that of the very rich Mitt Romney.

Did you give away 30% of your income to charity?



Read this very carefully, I shall write this only once!
User currently offlineAirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 24
Reply 64, posted (1 year 10 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 2798 times:

Quoting tugger (Reply 62):

The point I was making is that Romney paid SOMETHING instead of nothing. But no, you all would still disagree with me when it's actually a fact.



A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
User currently offlineflymia From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 7108 posts, RR: 9
Reply 65, posted (1 year 10 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 2766 times:

This conversation is nuts! He pays more taxes than he could have he is just pandering and being an idiot. He pays a low tax rate it's unfair and he isn't connected to Americans. Come on people you can't be serious, is Obama really that good at brainwashing you guys? This is the classic lose lose situation for a republican no matter what he did or shows you guys will have something bad to say about it. It's pathetic.

Again 38.5% of his income since 1990 has gone to taxes and charity. That is a pretty penny.



"It was just four of us on the flight deck, trying to do our job" (Captain Al Haynes)
User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6568 posts, RR: 6
Reply 66, posted (1 year 10 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 2762 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 59):
Ok, so? Seems like nothing will ever satisfy you, not even getting a raise and a promotion on your birthday.   

It has happened before.. and ill admit it was nice..

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 60):
. He sees it as unfair that millionaires pay a very low effective tax rate.

True that!

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 63):
Quoting tugger (Reply 62):
Why would you pay more taxes than you have to?

You would if you were running for president and wanted to prove how patriotic you are.

Which is idiotic.

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 67):
The point I was making is that Romney paid SOMETHING instead of nothing. But no, you all would still disagree with me when it's actually a fact.

He is openly pulling the wool over your eyes by not claiming all the tax deductions that he was entitled to. What kind of business man leaves money on table?

I would rather him say that he paid 9% and be honest.



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11520 posts, RR: 15
Reply 67, posted (1 year 10 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 2749 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 63):
What is so magical about the idea of loss carried forward? The fact that so many people either don't get it or insist that others don't get it points to a problem not with the tax code, but rather the education system.

You mean that people can not afford to hire an accountant because they work low-wage jobs when their good paying job was axed? Those problems of the education system?

BTW: there are plenty of problems with private education. I am glad to see you made a general remark about the state of education as a whole instead of simply going after public education.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 63):
Actually it should be that the rich are going to go where they'll make the most money and it's in America's best interests to become that place. But you wouldn't know that since apparently all you watch is Fox News.

We have been hearing this for at least 25 years. Trickle-down economics? People forget the 1980s.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 63):
Frankly I don't want to see anyone paying 45% in taxes. And of course if they're a parasite, you have to deduct all of the money they suck from the system to see how much they actually contribute.

Then you are either living in a cave or on Social Security or a member of the military. I work for a living and go to school. I am paying at least 30%. Many people I work with are paying that or more in taxes.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15715 posts, RR: 26
Reply 68, posted (1 year 10 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 2743 times:

Quoting mt99 (Reply 69):
Which is idiotic.

I agree. But it's his money and what he does with it is his business.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 70):
You mean that people can not afford to hire an accountant because they work low-wage jobs when their good paying job was axed?

A little math never killed anyone. The inability to understand loss carried forward would go some distance toward explaining why they hold only a low paying job.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 70):
Then you are either living in a cave or on Social Security or a member of the military.

I never said people don't. I just said it would be better if nobody had to pay that much.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8184 posts, RR: 8
Reply 69, posted (1 year 10 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 2730 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 21):
Whether you want to give it to your kids, charity, make it a trust, or anything else I don't care but it must be under the sole control of the person who owns it.

Unfortunately you do have to face taxes - you don't live in this country for free. Don't like that? Then move somewhere that won't tax you.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 21):
It didn't increase the national debt for the first seven decades of the capital gains tax.
Quoting mt99 (Reply 53):
Point is, that he CHOSE to pay more in taxes. He could have legally paid less than 14%. But he choose not too. You dont find that interesting?

I think a lot of people have figured this one out.

Mitt has paid taxes at a level he considers politically acceptable. The lowest level he considers political acceptable.

After the election he simply files a revised return, takes all his "deductions" and gets a refund check from the government. THe voters are non the wiser.

Actually he might file amended returns on both years he has "publicly disclosed" if the 2010 returns were "politically fudged". That might put him below 10% for both years for all we know. Or maybe zero.

Regardless, I believe these returns should be called "political returns". They look marginally acceptable, get him through the election and can be revised the day after the election.


User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6516 posts, RR: 9
Reply 70, posted (1 year 10 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 2712 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 13):
You make those investments more expensive (like taxing them more), you will have have less of it - people will stash their money into gold bullion or cash, in which case I would agree - that does not do anything for the economy. A $10,000 gold brick sitting in your safe is essentially $10,000 taken out of the economy. Not so with $10,000 that you invest in stocks or bonds.

Gold might go up or it might go down, not a great idea. It can also be taxed (in fact here it's more taxed than investments). Cash, well, it will always go down, I don't see the point. You can easily tax investments far more (say, 50%) and it will still make more sense to invest if you actually want a return (which, if you're living off your investments, is a given). As for the "risk", I have no problem if there are ways to balance income and losses over the years.



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15715 posts, RR: 26
Reply 71, posted (1 year 10 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 2694 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 72):
Unfortunately you do have to face taxes - you don't live in this country for free. Don't like that? Then move somewhere that won't tax you.

There are bills that have to be paid. Pu seemed to be advocating a 100% inheritance tax, which as I said, is too abhorrent for words.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 72):
After the election he simply files a revised return, takes all his "deductions" and gets a refund check from the government. THe voters are non the wiser.

That would be awesome. This is why he shouldn't have released the tax returns: nobody who wasn't going to vote for him will now and all of the people (who already didn't like him) clamoring for the returns respond by saying that they are dishonest or incorrect. Romney had no incentive to release them.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinePyrex From Portugal, joined Aug 2005, 3928 posts, RR: 28
Reply 72, posted (1 year 10 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 2685 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 72):
Don't like that? Then move somewhere that won't tax you.

You do realize that little flag next to his name means no such place exists, right? You do know that the U.S. is the only country in the world, along with Eritrea, with extra-territorial taxation, right?



Read this very carefully, I shall write this only once!
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11520 posts, RR: 15
Reply 73, posted (1 year 10 months 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 2614 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 71):
The inability to understand loss carried forward would go some distance toward explaining why they hold only a low paying job.

But, many of us don't have the luxury of deducting what we give to charity or "loss carried forward" because we are not business owners or millionares. We are simply working to scrape by. That's what the FOX watchers don't understand. They work and shop at Wal-Mart but still insist they are not part of the 47%.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 71):
I just said it would be better if nobody had to pay that much.

And still run a huge military? How has that worked out for you? (Hint: $16 TRILLION) Don't give me the "entitlements" argument, either. Cutting the military would save more money than stopping all entitlements combined.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8184 posts, RR: 8
Reply 74, posted (1 year 10 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 2596 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 74):
Pu seemed to be advocating a 100% inheritance tax, which as I said, is too abhorrent for words.

I'm far from a believer in the 100% inheritance tax, but I do support some level of taxing over a decent amount. The starting point should be around $5 million, adjusted for inflation. The rate doesn't have to be over 25%, but it needs to be realistic.

For me the inheritance tax isn's about punishing those for being successful. It is about the reality that the US provided the environment (from laws to infrastructure to tax loopholes) that allowed the deceased to be successful.

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 75):
You do realize that little flag next to his name means no such place exists, right? You do know that the U.S. is the only country in the world, along with Eritrea, with extra-territorial taxation, right?

Of course I understand that - I've lived overseas and ensured I went to all the IRS presentations at the local Consulate.

But, as you would know, when someone leaves the US to avoid being taxed they will, as soon as possible, change citizenship. As soon as they take on a new citizenship they are free of the US taxes. (Unless they have, say, assets remaining in the US that accuser property taxes, or the like.)


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15715 posts, RR: 26
Reply 75, posted (1 year 10 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 2574 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 76):
But, many of us don't have the luxury of deducting what we give to charity or "loss carried forward" because we are not business owners or millionares.

You don't mean to say that only millionaires donate to charity, because that is very much not true. Please cite which of the roughly 72,000 pages in the tax code says that charity and loss carried forward deductions only apply to millionaires.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 76):
And still run a huge military?

Yes. That's one of the essential services of the government. Entitlements need to be wiped out before we start cutting important things, although I should clarify that rationalizing and making them more efficient is not a bad idea.

I have no problem paying Sprint each month for phone service. What I would have a problem with is if they increased my bill by $10 and sent me a sandwich. I want the lower bill and if I want a sandwich, I'll go find myself a sandwich.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 77):
I'm far from a believer in the 100% inheritance tax, but I do support some level of taxing over a decent amount.

Well that's just stupid.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 77):
It is about the reality that the US provided the environment (from laws to infrastructure to tax loopholes) that allowed the deceased to be successful.

Which people have already been paying for their entire lives via income taxes, property taxes, etc. There is no reason why the government should get to swoop in and swipe a bunch of your money when you die.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 7175 posts, RR: 17
Reply 76, posted (1 year 10 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 2561 times:

Quoting tugger (Reply 62):
Why would you pay more taxes than you have to?

Exactly my argument. When your taxes are based off of a certain amount of money, you shouldn't need to be taxed over that percentage. But since Romney's income is capital gains, there really is no need to tax him further because it's already been taxed.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 63):
Actually it should be that the rich are going to go where they'll make the most money and it's in America's best interests to become that place. But you wouldn't know that since apparently all you watch is Fox News.

More money in the hands of people = more money to spend = more blood for the economy. Plain and simple.

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 66):
Because they know that, throughout history, governments everywhere have never been able to resist the urge to get their greedy, dirty little hands on people's property (not a portion of income),

   couldn't have said it better myself.

Quoting flymia (Reply 68):
Again 38.5% of his income since 1990 has gone to taxes and charity. That is a pretty penny.

Lets do some quick math here: 14 mil per year multiplied by .385 = 5.39 million per year going to charities.

Quoting flymia (Reply 68):

Thanks for the response, very informative.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 70):
Trickle-down economics?

Actually works when practiced right, see also: Reagan administration, Clinton admin when Newt was Speaker.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 78):
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 77):
I'm far from a believer in the 100% inheritance tax, but I do support some level of taxing over a decent amount.

Well that's just stupid.

What is your idea of "decent amount," because for money that's been taxed and taxed and taxed over and over, I'd say "0%"



One of the FB admins for PHX Spotters. "Zach the Expat!"
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15715 posts, RR: 26
Reply 77, posted (1 year 10 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 2551 times:

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 79):
More money in the hands of people = more money to spend = more blood for the economy. Plain and simple.

The argument is that welfare puts money in the hands of people as well.

The simple truth is that we live in a globalized economy and there is more choice of what to do with your money than ever before. With so many options for investment and powerful emerging markets, I would posit that the Laffer Curve is more in play than perhaps at any time in history. The more the government tightens their grip, the more money will slip through their fingers. Profit motive is an unbelievably powerful force, and we will all be better off using it as a tool rather than fighting against it.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinePyrex From Portugal, joined Aug 2005, 3928 posts, RR: 28
Reply 78, posted (1 year 10 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 2547 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 77):
For me the inheritance tax isn's about punishing those for being successful.

No, it is about punishing responsible behavior. You earn $1 million in life and then spend it all on hookers and blow? Congrats, you managed to use your property to the fullest. You earn $1 million and instead invest it and make it grow, employing people in the process? Tough, when you die the government takes over half of that.



Read this very carefully, I shall write this only once!
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8785 posts, RR: 24
Reply 79, posted (1 year 10 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 2536 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 80):
The argument is that welfare puts money in the hands of people as well.

No, because welfare takes money from one person (assuming a balanced budget) and gives it to someone else - net economic impact is zero, minus the natural inefficiencies of government.

That's not to say that there should not be welfare. Simply that the argument (which Nancy Pelosi has espoused) that it is an economic driver is pure garbage. Welfare exists simply because we don't want people to starve in the streets. It's a moral argument, not an economic one.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlinesomething From United Kingdom, joined May 2011, 1633 posts, RR: 21
Reply 80, posted (1 year 10 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 2523 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 82):
It's a moral argument, not an economic one.

In a world where 1+1 = 4, maybe.



..sick of it. -K. Pilkington.
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8785 posts, RR: 24
Reply 81, posted (1 year 10 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 2523 times:

Quoting something (Reply 83):
In a world where 1+1 = 4, maybe.

Explain.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8184 posts, RR: 8
Reply 82, posted (1 year 10 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 2519 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 78):
Which people have already been paying for their entire lives via income taxes, property taxes, etc. There is no reason why the government should get to swoop in and swipe a bunch of your money when you die.

All you need to do is look at Romney, making tens of millions a year and paying 13%, shifting money to Swill Accounts, the Bahamas and the Caribbean. All his life he's been playing the games and getting a ton of loopholes. That's fine, but at some point there is going to be an estate tax due. Don't feel too sad for his family as I'm sure that he will have done everything to "minimize" that tax. Just like all the others.


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15715 posts, RR: 26
Reply 83, posted (1 year 10 months 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 2503 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 82):
No, because welfare takes money from one person (assuming a balanced budget) and gives it to someone else - net economic impact is zero, minus the natural inefficiencies of government.

It is. Which is why you can't say that welfare takes money out of people's hands, which except for bureaucratic costs, doesn't really happen. It just puts it in different hands.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 85):
All you need to do is look at Romney, making tens of millions a year and paying 13%, shifting money to Swill Accounts, the Bahamas and the Caribbean.

Right. Paying all the taxes he owes the government and none he doesn't (at least until he decided he wanted to apparently). Then, when he dies the government is going to double dip just because they can.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 85):
Don't feel too sad for his family as I'm sure that he will have done everything to "minimize" that tax.

That should not be necessary because it's a ridiculous tax to start with.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11200 posts, RR: 52
Reply 84, posted (1 year 10 months 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 2502 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 78):
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 77):
I'm far from a believer in the 100% inheritance tax, but I do support some level of taxing over a decent amount.

Well that's just stupid.

Nice analysis.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 82):
No, because welfare takes money from one person (assuming a balanced budget) and gives it to someone else - net economic impact is zero

If you take money from a cost center that doesn't need it, and you put it in a cost center that _does_ need it, that's called smart business.



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11520 posts, RR: 15
Reply 85, posted (1 year 10 months 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 2502 times:

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 79):
Actually works when practiced right, see also: Reagan administration, Clinton admin when Newt was Speaker.

Raising taxes. Go back and look.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 78):
That's one of the essential services of the government.

So, killing people in other countries and taking away from our education system somehow makes our lives better?



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8785 posts, RR: 24
Reply 86, posted (1 year 10 months 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 2505 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 85):
That's fine, but at some point there is going to be an estate tax due. Don't feel too sad for his family as I'm sure that he will have done everything to "minimize" that tax. Just like all the others.

I'm sure Romney's family will be OK, but if you want to get into the estate tax argument, high estate taxes cause families to lose the deceased's farms, restaurants, shops and other small businesses. These small entrepreneurs, who build their business over their lifetime, pouring everything they have into it, are told that they can't hand that business down to their children, because "government knows how to spend it better".

The very wealthy might get tax advice and pay lawyers to set up trusts and find the other loopholes. That works fine when your fortune is largely liquid, in stocks and bonds etc, but do you think that Grampa Joe, who is working the land his father left to him, can do that? Remember that in 2 months' time, the Estate tax is coming back in full force - 55% of anything more than $1 million. $1 million is nothing - a farm with a house on it, a few possessions, a tractor and other farm equipment and you will easily be above that number.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8785 posts, RR: 24
Reply 87, posted (1 year 10 months 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 2504 times:

Quoting D L X (Reply 87):
If you take money from a cost center that doesn't need it, and you put it in a cost center that _does_ need it, that's called smart business.

You are assuming that the money would otherwise be stuffed under the mattress. It won't be. It will be invested or lent to people who need it.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7799 posts, RR: 52
Reply 88, posted (1 year 10 months 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 2505 times:

Millionaires aside, what about the majority of Americans? I find the inheritance tax pretty BS honestly


Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15715 posts, RR: 26
Reply 89, posted (1 year 10 months 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 2499 times:

Quoting D L X (Reply 87):
Nice analysis.

No sense calling it a miniaturized earth moving tool operable with one hand when everyone knows it's a spade.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 88):
So, killing people in other countries and taking away from our education system somehow makes our lives better?

You don't need to actually kill people in other countries, just being able to is enough usually. And I don't want to take away from education. That's where some of the entitlement cut money has to go and people will get education instead of welfare. Go as far as their ability and work ethic will take them, but if you choose to screw around and drop out the government won't supplement your minimum wage income to soften the bed you made.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 89):
$1 million is nothing - a farm with a house on it, a few possessions, a tractor and other farm equipment and you will easily be above that number.

The inheritance tax forces families to sell part of the farm to keep the farm. I'd be surprised if many family farms weren't worth less than $1 million on paper. It's a very capital intensive business.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinepu From Sweden, joined Dec 2011, 695 posts, RR: 13
Reply 90, posted (1 year 10 months 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 2500 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 90):
It will be invested or lent to people who need it.

This is straight out of a freshman economics book. Circa 1952. Although you are clearly more experienced than the students here explaining to us what they learned this semester, it is nevertheless the same fundamental error of following a theoretical model not supported by reality in the gloablised economy of today.

It is the same erroneous fallacy used to "justify" a low capital gains tax, namely, that the the extra money accumulated by the rich will be "invested" or "lent to people who need it" or used to start companies, build factories or invest in new technologies.

THIS ALMOST NEVER HAPPENS in the 21st century.

Instead billionaires with extra cash make quick and easy low rIsk profits unavailable to those without huge cashpiles by doing such things as simultaneously buying dollars in Frankfurt while selling them in Singapore, or by selling Nikkei futures in Tokyo while buying eurodollars in Paris, or by playing an old fashioned game of index arbitrage on the London stock exchange.

Net positive contribution to GDP - zero....in fact their financial tactics on the international markets often damage national economies.

Compare this to the well-documented proof that unemployment benefits (aka "welfare") get spent immediately and circulate through the economy purchasing consumables, enhancing GDP and sustain employment.

Forget theory. Embrace reality.
What was true in 1952 or even 1982 is no longer true today.

Pu


User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11520 posts, RR: 15
Reply 91, posted (1 year 10 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 2481 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 92):
if you choose to screw around and drop out the government won't supplement your minimum wage income to soften the bed you made

Here's the problem: People like Mitt Romney moved their factories overseas because people here wanted to be able to pay for rent and to get to work and to eat. How dare they! The leeches! So, people like Romney moved their factories overseas so they could pay for only the bare minimum. Or, less. We expect to be able to pay for housing and food on our own. When we can't, we get huffy and move our factories overseas and then blame our workers for our problems. Huh??

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 92):
You don't need to actually kill people in other countries

That's right. We need to take care of our own first. Not police the world. Don't like what's going on in Lybia? Not our problem. We have our own problems to worry about.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15715 posts, RR: 26
Reply 92, posted (1 year 10 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 2466 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 94):
People like Mitt Romney moved their factories overseas because people here wanted to be able to pay for rent and to get to work and to eat.

You have one guy willing to do a job for $10 and another willing to do the same job for $5, which do you choose? Simply repeating that Romney and others are bad guys for taking the profitable route ad nauseum just avoids the real issue. If you want those jobs back or to keep other jobs from leaving, America has to do things either cheaper or better. Jacking up social programs really does neither, unless your going to basically subsidize everyone so they can live an American middle class life on Chinese wages. Obviously that's a terrible idea and the actual solution is to make America and its workers leaner and smarter.

After WWII America was basically the only part of the world that wasn't blown to bits and was home to an incredible concentration of technology and the people to build and use it. Nowhere else could come close since they were much too busy trying to feed themselves and rebuild their countries. The US, on the other hand, was intact and building a highly educated workforce not to mention having smart people from all over the world who came to escape the war. At the end of the day America was the only game in town and built up a huge lead. And as a result America got fat: everyone got cars, appliances, air conditioning, televisions, houses, etc. while blue collar jobs started paying a lot of money with hefty pensions.

But then the rest of the world started to catch up. Western Europe rebuilt itself, then Japan and Korea, now China, India, and Brazil plus the former Communist bloc, and countries with oil riches looking to diversify. It's hardly a surprise, considering that America has never had a monopoly on smart people, and America was more than willing to educate them which is not a bad thing at all. But as Dr. Kaku points out in the link below, they started to go back home, which again is not a problem, because America wasn't the only game in town anymore. The whole rise of foreign economies wasn't that big of a problem, because for everything that went offshore from the bottom something new got added to the top in the US. If the dildo factory moves to China you just make microchips instead.

The catch is that it takes an educated workforce and a taxation/regulatory environment that is growth friendly. That's the recipe: make sure the people are capable and then let them put their abilities to work as unfettered as possible. Pull the weeds of regulation and taxation out of the garden as much as possible and things will grow better.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7D3_eGaO5k

Quoting seb146 (Reply 94):
That's right. We need to take care of our own first. Not police the world. Don't like what's going on in Lybia? Not our problem.

When they light American embassies on fire it becomes are problem. But America needs to maintain forces that can both demolish entire countries and wage a smarter, more widespread war against terrorism.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 7175 posts, RR: 17
Reply 93, posted (1 year 10 months 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 2454 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 80):
The argument is that welfare puts money in the hands of people as well.
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 82):
No, because welfare takes money from one person (assuming a balanced budget) and gives it to someone else - net economic impact is zero, minus the natural inefficiencies of government.

Check your argument there BMI, Welfare goes to people who are usually not supposed to be using money anyway because they use it improperly.

We need to reform welfare so that people who NEED the money get it and people who don't need it get correctional help for what causes them to blow through their welfare.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 88):
Raising taxes. Go back and look.

I suggest you go back and look again. Taxes were raised right before the new government was seated because they had a deadlocked congress--very similar to ours. it took them 4 years but then they lowered taxes again in 2001/2002 (Bush tax rates....NOT cuts.)

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 95):
.

All of this.



One of the FB admins for PHX Spotters. "Zach the Expat!"
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15715 posts, RR: 26
Reply 94, posted (1 year 10 months 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 2439 times:

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 96):
Welfare goes to people who are usually not supposed to be using money anyway because they use it improperly

I'm not going to say that there is a proper or improper use for money that is in private hands. I obviously think it's better to have it in the private hand that earned it, but I'm not going to tell you that throwing money in a hedge fund is inherently better than buying a bottle of Jack. A lot of liquor store owners would disagree with me, take the money, and throw it in a hedge fund.

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 96):
All of this.

It's all too easy to grow complacent when you're the only game in town for quite a while. In the wake of WWII, America was the only place with the people and ability to push the limits of innovation. If you wanted to be on the cutting edge of technology, America was the place to be.

America was also (until the rise of Japan and others) largely the only place with the workforce and infrastructure to build all of these great new inventions.

And as a result of the first two, America was also the place with people in the best position to buy and use such modern luxuries.

Ever since countries have been catching up, each at their own pace and in their own way. The result is that there is now competition. First a few countries and now a lot. The teams that used to get steamrolled are now putting up a fight, so now we can't get away with playing our second stringers for a half, so to speak. Belts have to be tightened and barriers need to be removed and pretty much everything needs to move towards making America (and its government) a leaner and smarter country.

And it's not all bad. It's not that there isn't a bridge while we transition to a better way of doing things. All those factories and roads in China are being built with Caterpillar construction equipment. When the workers take their first vacation, there's a good chance they'll do it on a Boeing jetliner. And they'll save up their money to buy a Buick. American's would be stupid to not make significant investments in emerging markets, no matter what the situation here is. Conversely, it would also be stupid to not make it more attractive for foreigners' newly acquired wealth to be invested here.

But, the catch is that doing all of that is difficult. It takes the will, it takes work, and it takes time. Voting to just give another shake to the money trees that live in gated communities is easier, but not better or smarter.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinewindy95 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 2707 posts, RR: 8
Reply 95, posted (1 year 10 months 3 days ago) and read 2390 times:

Quoting flymia (Reply 68):
Again 38.5% of his income since 1990 has gone to taxes and charity. That is a pretty penny.

And that is not including state and local taxes like Property taxes, So it is even more....


The funny thing is that the Democrats have a large hand in the tax code and tax policies of this country yet they want to complain about someone using those codes to his advantage...Why attack Romney and not the system that he did not create and nothing to do with?

Quoting D L X (Reply 87):
If you take money from a cost center that doesn't need it, and you put it in a cost center that _does_ need it, that's called smart business.

It is called wealth redistrubution.

Quoting pu (Reply 93):
Compare this to the well-documented proof that unemployment benefits (aka "welfare") get spent immediately and circulate through the economy purchasing consumables, enhancing GDP and sustain employment

That is still a net of zero because the money they are spending was stolen for the businesses that they are spending it in the first place. Taking water from one end of the pool and dumping it in the other end does not keep the pool filled.



OMG-Obama Must Go
User currently offlinesomething From United Kingdom, joined May 2011, 1633 posts, RR: 21
Reply 96, posted (1 year 10 months 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 2371 times:

Quoting windy95 (Reply 98):
Quoting D L X (Reply 87):
If you take money from a cost center that doesn't need it, and you put it in a cost center that _does_ need it, that's called smart business.

It is called wealth redistrubution.

And I can call you Butterface, but neither is a cogent argument against the principle. Find me any empirical study that would suggest, or better yet conclusively prove, that a two class society has ever worked out. Afterwards, I will provide you with as many examples as you require, that demonstrate that a consumerist, capitalist society can mathematically only function in a middle-class based society.



..sick of it. -K. Pilkington.
User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6568 posts, RR: 6
Reply 97, posted (1 year 10 months 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 2367 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting windy95 (Reply 98):
That is still a net of zero because the money they are spending was stolen for the businesses that they are spending it in the first place. Taking water from one end of the pool and dumping it in the other end does not keep the pool filled.

You assume that business would keep the money in country and not move it to The Bahamas... Ask Mitt Romeny how he does it..



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11520 posts, RR: 15
Reply 98, posted (1 year 10 months 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 2355 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 95):
If you want those jobs back or to keep other jobs from leaving, America has to do things either cheaper or better. Jacking up social programs really does neither, unless your going to basically subsidize everyone so they can live an American middle class life on Chinese wages.

So, it is our fault: the American worker. Not the guy at the top who is blaming us and taking our money and jobs overseas. Not the guy who raids all the pentions, parts out factories, then blames the workers. No, it is the workers. I keep hearing how they want the workers to succeed but they are given nothing. Public schools are being shut down, food stamps are being taken away.... And the poor who lost everything so one person can make a buck are told they have all the tools they need to succeed. Those tools are.....? They can't afford education, they can't get a loan to start a small business, they can't afford to move to where more low-wage jobs are. But, they are the parasites and bums and how dare they be lazy? Someone else put those workers in that position and it is the workers' fault? Still gonna go with that? Okay.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 95):
a taxation/regulatory environment that is growth friendly.

Like in 2008? That worked out well, didn't it?

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 95):
When they light American embassies on fire it becomes are problem. But America needs to maintain forces that can both demolish entire countries and wage a smarter, more widespread war against terrorism.

Oh, geez... not this again... Osama is dead. Get over it. Small teams of eliete fighters took him out. Why do we need to send hundreds of thousands of poor and middle class people to their deaths? It would do the American budget good if private industry fights wars. And not use uniforms that look like our soldier's uniforms. Someone wants to invade another country? Hire a bunch of private citizens for $2 an hour to do it.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlinePyrex From Portugal, joined Aug 2005, 3928 posts, RR: 28
Reply 99, posted (1 year 10 months 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 2357 times:

Quoting mt99 (Reply 100):
You assume that business would keep the money in country and not move it to The Bahamas... Ask Mitt Romeny how he does it..

Damn, the xenophobia from the left never ceases to amaze me... they seem to believe there should be no borders whatsoever and allow every illegal immigrant that wants to come to the U.S. that possibility, but once they are here, if they produce something of value that capital must stay in place. Free circulation of people but not of money.



Read this very carefully, I shall write this only once!
User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6568 posts, RR: 6
Reply 100, posted (1 year 10 months 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 2354 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 102):
they seem to believe there should be no borders whatsoever and allow every illegal immigrant that wants to come to the U.S. that possibility, but once they are here, if they produce something of value that capital must stay in place. Free circulation of people but not of money.

No, in fact.. we have been calling for you to leave the US for a while now.. you can "circulate" yourself back to wherever you are from anytime really.

Your posts are truly incredible, not to mention your ability to imagine all sorts of connections that do not exist.



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15715 posts, RR: 26
Reply 101, posted (1 year 10 months 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 2324 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 101):
So, it is our fault: the American worker.

It's just economics. American workers aren't the only game in town anymore and you can't blame other workers around the world for wanting what America has, or had. No longer is it just a matter of showing up, we have to compete.

The simple truth is that going forward there will be things that used to be careers that will be just jobs. Having a job driving a forklift is going to no longer be a middle class job. Now America can either try to compete and exploit that, or just try to heap punishment on the people whose fault they perceive it to be.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 101):
Public schools are being shut down,

Why don't you actually read what I've written about what I think should happen to education.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 101):
Like in 2008? That worked out well, didn't it?

It did work out for a while. Nobody is forcing you or anybody else to take on excessive risk, just do what you're comfortable doing.

And, by the way, if you want to blame banking deregulation for the recession, you'll have to plant your crosshairs squarely on one William Jefferson Clinton.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 101):
Osama is dead.

Al-Qaeda, despite being weakened by a prolonged worldwide war, is not. You cannot seriously believe that since we shot Bin Laden we can just pack up our stuff and go home.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 101):
Small teams of eliete fighters took him out.

Let's see, they got there and back via helicopters, all of which need to be built and maintained by someone. And of course the helicopters didn't just appear there either, so you can chalk up the 5,000 crew on the aircraft carrier. Plus the rest of the carrier battle group. And then the constellation of spy and communication satellites that were most likely necessary to complete the attack. Plus the likely thousands of people in the intelligence community who managed to find and confirm Bin Laden's presence in the first place.

The bottom line is that your assertion couldn't be more wrong. Bin Laden's compound was attacked by a small team, but the team that took him out was anything but small.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinepu From Sweden, joined Dec 2011, 695 posts, RR: 13
Reply 102, posted (1 year 10 months 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 2328 times:

Quoting windy95 (Reply 98):
That is still a net of zero because the money they are spending was stolen for the businesses that they are spending it in the first place. Taking water from one end of the pool and dumping it in the other end does not keep the pool filled.

Soros sells a billion eurodollars in Paris and buys them in Sydney, simultaneously. He collects a profit of 5 million dollars. GDP not increased. No jobs added.
.
AND
.
Soros is taxed at a ridculosuly low rate, say 15%, because his "job" of moving money back and forth across the globe has been successfully sold to unthinking sheep as beneficial investments that create jobs and enhance GDP in America, when in reality they are just making him richer as he enjoys all the same services government provides for a substantialky cheaper rate than working class people who actually enhance GDP.
.
....The ONLY GDP-positive thing Soros does in this example is pay his tax....part of that 15% tax funds the general government, unemployment benefits, or other "welfare". That 15% tax he paid actually adds to GDP and creates jobs because it is used to buy aircraft carriers, pharmaceuticals via Medicare and fund a little household spending on consummables via unemployment benefits.

. This isn't 1952 or even 1982, the same financial wizardry that allowed the superwealthy to actually benefit from the financial crisis of the last few years allows them to do plenty of low risk electronic cross border transactions that do nothing for jobs or GDP, but serve only to make the rich richer.

Quoting mt99 (Reply 100):

You assume that business would keep the money in country and not move it to The Bahamas... Ask Mitt Romeny how he does it..

Exactly. I'm betting his wealth went up during the meltdown while American taxpayers, German taxpayers and so forth saw their net worth destroyed and were left holding the bag in fiscal government terms...

Pu


User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8184 posts, RR: 8
Reply 103, posted (1 year 10 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 2305 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 86):
(at least until he decided he wanted to apparently).



Or when he decides to bring it back from overseas shelters.  
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 86):
Then, when he dies the government is going to double dip just because they can.

Inheritance taxes are delayed taxes when you get right down to it. We see that in other areas, like the delayed taxing of income in retirement plans.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 86):
That should not be necessary because it's a ridiculous tax to start with.

There can be arguments against a lot of taxes, but governments are going to raise revenues and that is one approach. Like it or not, that is a tax that has been on the books at one level or another for generations.

Quoting D L X (Reply 87):
Nice analysis.

But missed a few points. Like I am FAR from agreeing with a 100% tax.

I think we should have a reasonable exclusion, and I believe $5 million is realistic.

I also believe in a reasonable rate.

And that is just plain stupid? So go with the $1 million exclusion and the 55% rate if you like it more.  
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 89):
but if you want to get into the estate tax argument, high estate taxes cause families to lose the deceased's farms, restaurants, shops and other small businesses

And:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 89):
These small entrepreneurs, who build their business over their lifetime, pouring everything they have into it, are told that they can't hand that business down to their children, because "government knows how to spend it better".

Sounds impressive, but in reality most small business owners will be pulling funds out of that company whenever possible. He has to feed his family, pay rent (or make a mortgage payment), pay the utilities, etc. If his small business was not able to provide a decent standard of living for his family he would have gone to work for someone who could.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 89):
$1 million is nothing - a farm with a house on it, a few possessions, a tractor and other farm equipment and you will easily be above that number.

And how many times did Grampa Joe get checks from the government under one farm program or another? How much money did the federal and state governments pour into agriculture research over Old Joe;s lifetime to help him increase his yields.

And would Gramps have been able to even keep his farm over his lifetime without direct and indirect funding from state and federal governments?

I've stated that I believe in a higher exclusion (at $5 million, COLA adjusted) and a smaller rate of around 25%. But there is still going to be an inheritance tax. Cutting out taxes is a fast way of generating debt.

Quoting windy95 (Reply 98):
It is called wealth redistrubution.

The largest redistribution of wealth I have seen was under programs started by Bush/Cheney. Unfortunately for the nation the redistribution was from the poor & middle class to the wealthy. Actually, it didn't change the poor that much, but it sure did hit the middle class hard. Still shrinking and will probably continue to do so until Bush/Cheney can be reversed,


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15715 posts, RR: 26
Reply 104, posted (1 year 10 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 2298 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 106):
Inheritance taxes are delayed taxes when you get right down to it.

Except that the money and assets have already been taxed.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 106):
There can be arguments against a lot of taxes, but governments are going to raise revenues and that is one approach.

It's an exceptionally poor one.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 106):
Sounds impressive, but in reality most small business owners will be pulling funds out of that company whenever possible. He has to feed his family, pay rent (or make a mortgage payment), pay the utilities, etc.

And such funds would be subject to capital gains or income taxes.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 106):
The largest redistribution of wealth I have seen was under programs started by Bush/Cheney. Unfortunately for the nation the redistribution was from the poor & middle class to the wealthy.

Like what? What money has left our pockets and been redistributed to the wealthy without being spent on a service?



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8184 posts, RR: 8
Reply 105, posted (1 year 10 months 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 2262 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 86):
(at least until he decided he wanted to apparently).



Or when he decides to bring it back from overseas shelters.  
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 86):
Then, when he dies the government is going to double dip just because they can.

Actually, when he dies the government might actually get a look at all the wealth that didn't make it on to the tax returns. That would result in a "delayed tax" more than an inheritance tax.  Wow!
Quoting D L X (Reply 87):
Nice analysis.

But missed a few points. Like I am FAR from agreeing with a 100% tax.

I think we should have a reasonable exclusion, and I believe $5 million is realistic.

I also believe in a reasonable rate.

And that is just plain stupid? SO go with the $1 million exclusion and the 55% rate if you like it more.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 89):
but if you want to get into the estate tax argument, high estate taxes cause families to lose the deceased's farms, restaurants, shops and other small businesses

And:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 89):
These small entrepreneurs, who build their business over their lifetime, pouring everything they have into it, are told that they can't hand that business down to their children, because "government knows how to spend it better".

Sounds impressive, but in reality most small business owners will be pulling funds out of that company whenever possible. He has to feed his family, pay rent (or make a mortgage payment), pay the utilities, etc. If his small business was not able to provide a decent standard of living for his family he would have gone to work for someone who could.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 89):
$1 million is nothing - a farm with a house on it, a few possessions, a tractor and other farm equipment and you will easily be above that number.

And how many times did Grampa Joe get checks from the government under one farm program or another? How much money did the federal and state governments pour into agriculture research over Old Joe;s lifetime to help him increase his yields.

And would Gramps have been able to even keep his farm over his lifetime without direct and indirect funding from state and federal governments?

I've stated that I believe in a higher exclusion (at $5 million, COLA adjusted) and a smaller rate of around 25%. But there is still going to be an inheritance tax


User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11520 posts, RR: 15
Reply 106, posted (1 year 10 months 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 2264 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 104):
l of which need to be built and maintained by someone.

Built by China. Components built by China.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 104):
Having a job driving a forklift is going to no longer be a middle class job. Now America can either try to compete and exploit that, or just try to heap punishment on the people whose fault they perceive it to be.

Are you kidding me?? There are plenty of people who would give their eye-teeth for a good paying forklift driving job! Where do they work? McDonalds or Wal-Mart or collecting unemployment, because they are "too old" or have "too much education" or some other BS.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 104):
It did work out for a while. Nobody is forcing you or anybody else to take on excessive risk, just do what you're comfortable doing.

They had no problem gambling with our money and our houses and our lives.

You can blame Clinton all you want, but the right-wing had six years to repeal it and they did NOTHING even after the collapse. They still assert that it is the greatest thing for the economy. All those horrid loans and gambling on the stocks and all that. It could have all been stopped by the right wing. But they did nothing.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineAirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 24
Reply 107, posted (1 year 10 months 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 2251 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 91):
I find the inheritance tax pretty BS honestly


I agree 100%. I don't understand why items that were taxed before need to be taxed again. It makes no sense.

The inheritance tax sounds more like a "change in ownership" fee. Why the hell for?!



A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15715 posts, RR: 26
Reply 108, posted (1 year 10 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 2247 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 109):
Built by China. Components built by China.

I'd be curious to know which parts of the helicopters are made in China and which Chinese people are contracted to maintain them. (There are parts there now I bet though)

Either way, your premise of "we killed Bin Laden and did it with only a few dozen people so the war's over and we can go slash defense" could not possibly be more wrong.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 109):
There are plenty of people who would give their eye-teeth for a good paying forklift driving job!

In the new economy many blue collar jobs cannot pay that well. If the price gets too high, foreign workers undercut American workers and then there is no job. As GM pretty well demonstrated, we cannot pay people with impunity anymore, it's all a competition.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 109):
They had no problem gambling with our money and our houses and our lives.

I don't know about you, but I have yet to hear of one person who was forced to buy or refinance a house at gunpoint.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 109):
You can blame Clinton all you want,

I don't really get a choice in the matter, a given law can only be signed by one president.

But for what it's worth, I don't blame deregulation. It's a bubble, and it burst. Some people won and some people lost, as is the nature of markets. People should have the maximum in freedom and the minimum in regulation, which of course means that nobody will force you to make a risky bet unless you want to.

[Edited 2012-09-23 14:40:53]


Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11520 posts, RR: 15
Reply 109, posted (1 year 10 months 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 2184 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 111):
your premise of "we killed Bin Laden and did it with only a few dozen people so the war's over and we can go slash defense" could not possibly be more wrong.

There are stragglers in many countries. That does not give us liscence to invade everyone nor does it mean we should spend trillions every year to keep us scared.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 111):
In the new economy many blue collar jobs cannot pay that well. If the price gets too high, foreign workers undercut American workers and then there is no job. As GM pretty well demonstrated, we cannot pay people with impunity anymore, it's all a competition.

You want to hire illegals to do warehouse work?

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 111):
I have yet to hear of one person who was forced to buy or refinance a house at gunpoint.

All those people were told they have to buy a house to be a true American. When that dream came within reach of many Americans, they took it. Beyond that, what we the people had invested in banks were gambled away.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 111):
But for what it's worth, I don't blame deregulation. It's a bubble, and it burst. Some people won and some people lost, as is the nature of markets. People should have the maximum in freedom and the minimum in regulation, which of course means that nobody will force you to make a risky bet unless you want to.

Again, we tried that. A few times. Same results every time: People end up on welfare and the right screams about how there are so many welfare queens and we need to get rid of "entitlements".

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 102):
xenophobia from the left never ceases to amaze me... they seem to believe there should be no borders whatsoever and allow every illegal immigrant that wants to come to the U.S. that possibility, but once they are here, if they produce something of value that capital must stay in place.

What xenophobia? Keeping American money in America is not xenophobic. Scream racism all you want, but what you are talking about it finance, not skin color.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15715 posts, RR: 26
Reply 110, posted (1 year 10 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 2169 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 116):
That does not give us liscence to invade everyone nor does it mean we should spend trillions every year to keep us scared.

Reducing overseas combat operations will save money. And defense needs to remain well funded to ensure...uh, defense. Not at all hard to understand.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 116):
You want to hire illegals to do warehouse work?

Not necessarily, but what may have been a great union job before with a nice middle class paycheck and plenty of benefits is going to pay less with fewer benefits. Continuing to pay like before would render the company unable to compete with foreign companies.

Warehouses are relatively safe, since those cannot be easily moved elsewhere. Jobs that could be transferred overseas would get hit hard with the "cheaper, better, or gone" proposition.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 116):
All those people were told they have to buy a house to be a true American.

Who said that? And who was dumb enough to believe it?

Quoting seb146 (Reply 116):
When that dream came within reach of many Americans, they took it.

Plenty of Americans for whom it wasn't really in reach, but allowed themselves to think it was, took it too.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 116):
Beyond that, what we the people had invested in banks were gambled away.

You picked the wrong banks and the wrong markets. My accounts are perfectly intact, although I make very small returns.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineAirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 24
Reply 111, posted (1 year 10 months 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 2146 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 117):
a great union job

A union job will never give you everything. There is no such thing as a "great union job" anymore, unfortunately.



A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
User currently offlinePyrex From Portugal, joined Aug 2005, 3928 posts, RR: 28
Reply 112, posted (1 year 10 months 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 2147 times:

Quoting mt99 (Reply 103):
No, in fact.. we have been calling for you to leave the US for a while now.. you can "circulate" yourself back to wherever you are from anytime really.

Ah, another example of the tolerant left... since I am in the U.S. legally, like the country (and what it truly means) more than you ever will and pay more taxes in a year than you have probably ever paid in a lifetime I am somehow unwelcome. If I was an illegal apple picker in California would get benefits and a free voter ID. Got it.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 116):
What xenophobia? Keeping American money in America is not xenophobic.

What American money? It is not America's money it is Romney's. R-O-M-N-E-Y, Romney's. Get that into your head once and for all. I know you think you still live in the 1950s, where everybody's dad works a good 9-5 union job that allows you to take Mary Jane Rottencrotch to the drive-thru every night, and everybody's mom stays home the whole day baking apple pie, but the world has evolved beyond your parochial self.



Read this very carefully, I shall write this only once!
User currently offlineNZ1 From New Zealand, joined May 2004, 2248 posts, RR: 25
Reply 113, posted (1 year 10 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 2131 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

Due the way this thread has gone well off topic and the amount of posts removed due to the inflammatory nature of the content, it will now be locked.

NZ1
Forum Moderator


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Obama Wants Hillary's Tax Returns! posted Wed Mar 5 2008 16:37:51 by Tsaord
U.S. Tax Returns - Refund, Or Do You Owe? posted Tue Feb 5 2008 03:13:42 by EA CO AS
Rep Party Ditch Romney For Ryan / Rubio Ticket? posted Wed Sep 19 2012 04:38:48 by cedarjet
Romney's Recent Controversial Comments posted Mon Sep 17 2012 19:01:07 by 777222LR
Grade Romney And President Obama posted Sat Sep 8 2012 13:27:28 by DeltaMD90
Mitt Romney Campaign Planes posted Thu Aug 30 2012 23:04:03 by Kiffy
Romney: "No One's Ever Asked To See My Birth Cert" posted Fri Aug 24 2012 10:29:58 by bestwestern
Romney Campaign Data Mining posted Fri Aug 24 2012 07:33:52 by casinterest
Breaking News: Romney To Announce VP posted Fri Aug 10 2012 20:47:40 by randyh3253
Olympics:Romney's Horse Rafalca Take A Dive? posted Tue Aug 7 2012 11:04:37 by mt99