A little less that the 15 percent rate he quoted the other evening. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
You lack imagination: "In this country we tax income coming from investments at a lower rate. I want to lower everybody's taxes to that level. I pay a low rate because my money comes from investment income, but we should tax ALL income at the same low rate. Elect me as your President and I'll reform the tax code to make that a reality, and with more money in your pockets, we'll get America moving again!" Tada! The quoted rate does ignore the fact that most of that income was already taxed at the corporate level before it was paid to people like Romney. I fear that explanation requires more math than the average American can do, though.
Why is any spin required? He's been a Governor, he's not responsible for the Tax Policy which is to have a lower rate for Capital Gains (15%). Since that is the primary source of his income, so after standard deductions/exemptions and gifts to charity, 14% is all the Govt wants. You want him to pay more than he owes?
Your quote ignores the fact that taxes must go up, not down. A claim like his is simply fantasy. Spin means making a positive out of something that can go either way, not a lie that has no basis in reality. That corporate taxes were paid is irrelevant. We are talking about taxes on his personal income. That is something that every American can understand.
I thought I made my point pretty clear. In spite of claims from the right that the rich are overtaxed, everyone will see that the rich pay less [%] than most of the middle class. I'm not saying Romney should be singled out, but he is a symbol for the disparity between the classes and the growing wealth gap. This completely undermines the entire Republican economic platform. it shows that the system the Republicans desire and have created, is not fair.
You can safely ignore him It doesn't really matter if you think you made your point pretty clear. Some of our neighbors here at Sciforums give variable consideration not so much to the implications themselves, which can certainly have variable significance, but to the mere idea of implications. In this case, consider the question put to you: Why is any spin required? Are we to believe that Adoucette isn't paying attention to the GOP contest? Or should we suggest that he is simply incredulous toward those who might point to the cluster of "one-percenter" ideas on the right wing in general—Romney and his "corporations are people"; Gingrich telling Occupy protesters to take a bath and get a job; Cain telling poor people to blame themselves—and staining Mitt Romney in particular? To the one, it seems obvious to some that there are issues to be ironed out if Mitt Romney expects crossover votes from the tumultuous ranges of the middle class bell curve, or from anywhere on the proletariat spectrum. So we can speculate that maybe our neighbor hasn't noticed or perceived these issues, which says whatever it says. Or we might guess that he simply dismisses those issues as illegitimate, which says whatever it says. Either way, the lack of consideration—at best—he gives such issues helps contextualize his responses. Presently, for instance, he's gotten so ridiculous in another thread that I'm not paying a whole lot of attention to anything he says. That is, there doesn't seem to be any point. He just insists that whatever he says is absolutely true to the exclusion of any other idea, assertion, context, or perspective. In the end, whether or not one wastes his or her time on Adoucette is entirely left to the individual. But it's pretty clear that you would not be ducking anything important if you simply shrug and look around for a better discussion. I've been through this. If you commit a peripheral error or omission, he will make that the center of the discussion. But nothing he says should be questioned. I'm still trying to figure out how algebra is simpler than arithmetic, but, you know, our neighbor Adoucette insists, so it must be true.
That is not always the case. Master limited partnerships and REIT income is not taxable to the partnership or the REIT. In the case of master limited partnerships, the income is not taxable to the partnership and tax deferred for the limited partner and treated taxed as a long term capital gain. And then you have corporations like General Electric that earn profits but pay no income tax because of exceptions in the tax law. And then we have the case of carried interest in which compensation is taxed as capital gains (15% rate).
If you are a rich CEO - none required. If you are a rich former CEO who is running for president, and you are claiming things like "I’m also unemployed. . . .I may be unemployed for longer than I’d like" to prove solidarity with people who are unemployed and struggling - then you have to spin hard, fast and long to equate making an _income_ (not capital gains, but income from speaker's fees) of a third of a million dollars to being unemployed. Nope. I don't think anyone does. But he sure isn't going to make any headway claiming "people like me need to be taxed less" - and he's going to make even less claiming that he's unemployed so he understands what people are going through.
While Romney's taxes will make it difficult for him to sell this "common man" theme, I think he has bigger problems on the horizon - namely the Newt. I am not sure which candidate will be better for Obama in the fall. At this point, I think it will make little difference to Obama wither Republicans choose The Newt or Romney.
While that's true, those entities are taxed as partnerships, and so "pass through" income to the investor. Any returns investors get are treated as ordinary income (unless the income was not considered ordinary at the level of the investment vehicle). There are certainly additional deductions that could apply that a normal individual might get, but you don't typically get capital gains tax treatment on the ordinary income generated on a pass through basis. If the vehicle earns rental income or a gain from a sale of land, that's ordinary income. If the vehicle earns dividends, though that's a capital gain. Master Limited Partnerships are, typically, mostly earning money in the form of capital gains as they were created specifically to encourage investment in natural resource development companies. It seems as though, if anyone is investing in MLPs, the tax code is rewarding them for economic activity the government happens to like...so unless you find the government's decision to be unwise, then it's hard to fault someone for using that kind of vehicle and its tax benefits. If you think it's unwise to have MLPs and to favor investments in one sector over another (as I do), then MLPs and REITs are a bad thing, but there's still no moral problem with those who choose to use them. Of course, if you question the wisdom of Congress is setting up these tax rules, then it's reasonably likely that you question the government's ability to select winners and losers generally (as I do). At that point many of the proposals from the State of the Union, like favoring "alternative energy" over the winners the economy would select naturally, look to be of questionable value. (I feel the same way about proposals to give tax breaks to "manufacturers" from Santorum. It makes me wonder what part of "comparative advantage" he doesn't grasp.) I agree with you that it looks like Romney will not win the nomination. That leaves Newt. Newt is, I think, by far the preferred candidate from the Democrats' perspective, since he's narcissistic, wacky, and has troubles with his personal filter. I know that I can't in good conscience vote for Newt, so if the race is between Obama and Newt, then I guess I sleep in this election day, and choose neither of them. On the plus side, I can then tune out of election politics for the rest of this year. I watched the SotU in hopes that Obama might adopt a fiscally responsible stance...but other than a few words in passing referencing the debt, I found little encouragement. Edit: I also haven't mentioned that no candidate (not even Ron Paul, who I reject for various reasons) seems to favor open borders and no limits on immigration save screening out criminals (and people with contagious diseases). Open borders, I do believe, would be the greatest anti-poverty measure of all time. Not quite as great as some suggest (see link below) but closer to this position than it is to the notion that illegal immigration is somehow a harm to us: http://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/jep.25.3.83 I did once hope that Obama would lead the charge to liberalize immigration policy, but in fact my experience and what I've read both suggest that he's stepped up enforcement relative to what Bush was doing. I have a secret hope that Romney would be more in the Bush/Reagan model. Or perhaps that Mankiw could prevail on him that "free markets" means includes labor markets, and that includes foreign workers. Perry was probably closer to me on this than anyone. (I suppose Obama may be on my side "deep in his heart", much as I am told that in his heart he supports gay marriage and wants to close Guantanamo (as do I)...but he hides his heart and gives voice to and acts on relatively harsh policies on those issues. I have little use for a politician who may secretly agree with me, but then does the opposite.)
That is true for investor income from REITS. But it is not true for investor income from Master limited partnership income. But that was not the point. The point was the double taxation rationalization for favorable treatment of capital gains taxation does not hold true for tax privileged investments like master limited partnerships, REITS and some chapter C corporations like GE because of exceptions in the tax code. I am a long time investor in REITs and master limited partnerships. I am not questioning the wisdom of these investments, just pointing out that the double taxation claim as a rationalization for a 15 percent capital gains tax doesn't always hold up. There are exceptions, some major exceptions in the tax code. I can't fault President Obama for enforcing the immigration law. It is after all his Constitutional job as chief administrator to enforce our laws. However, I do agree our immigration law needs to be changed. Unfortunately it is a very sensitive political issue. And I think both parties are equally inept in that regard. At least Obama came out last night and called for a liberalization of our immigration laws. I think we are witnessing some real interesting politics on the Republican side - a party divide. The traditional Republican (representing cronyism) and the radical misinformed and "I Don't Care About the Facts" media inflamed masses as represented by The Newt and the "Anybody But Romney" faction of the party.
Interesting quotes from Romney: Jan 13: "If you've been out of work for a long period of time, you know these numbers are not just statistics. These numbers are real people, and real suffering. . . I'm concerned about the poor in this country. We have to make sure the safety net is strong and able to help those who can't help themselves." Feb 1: "I’m not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there."
The interesting thing here is that we have a clear recent record of Republican rule. And their rhetoric is not consistent with their actions and their results. They refuse to raise taxes, except on the middle class. They refuse legislation to make healthcare insurance and costs more affordable to middle class Americans except when it benefits their special interest benefactors (e.g. Medicare Reform, insurance & big pharma). If Romney continues to sing at his events, only the deaf will be in attendance.
I'll bet $10,000 he should be! :roflmao: I would bet R insiders are in full panic tonight. Barring a collapse in Europe or an unexpected event that crashes the economy again, I think that's the election, right there. I'm starting to wonder if either of these guys will be the nominee. I know it won't be Paul or Santorum. Most Republican insiders say Gingrich has no chance. I would tend to expect Jeb Bush as a wildcard, but then I think of the ad that would run showing George Senior declaring that we've had enough Bushs. That would play well! And to tell you the truth, while I tend to like Christie, I don't think he will sell once you take him out of the box [expose him to Presidential-level scrutiny].
Actually he said, "I’m not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there, and if it needs repair, I'll fix it." I was pretty taken aback until I realized how out of context and unfairly edited your version of the quote was. That's up there with quoting Obama as saying, "if we keep talking about the economy, we're going to lose." That said, Romney did betray his non-conservative roots there. The "pure" conservative would simply have said that his policies will be good for all Americans alike (and probably included the overused "lift all boats" metaphor). Instead Romney was saying that his policies will focus on the middle class. That blunts the "class warfare" argument the GOP is likely to use since Romney is also dividing the nation into classes and focusing on a subset of Americans to be the (putative) special beneficiaries of his administration's largess. That's the problem with having a "secret moderate" in the GOP, on a certain level he fundamentally agrees with the Democrats on certain philosophical points. (At least that's the problem for conservatives, I'm still hopeful he swings moderate in a big way if elected. I'm on the fence about whether he'd be better for America than Obama (though I don't think he could be too much worse), but I'm quite convinced he'd be better than Gingrich, Paul or Santorum.)
The problem is, he still said, "I’m not concerned about the very poor." There is no way to step that back. If he isn't concerned, then why should we believe he would worry about the safety net?
Credibly Odious: Two words I didn't expect to combine That's a bit fine a hair to split, don't you think? I mean, it's not like Romney isn't digging his own grave with one hand while burying himself with the other. In truth, stopping to harp on that particular statement probably works to his benefit by drawing attention away from more credibly odious aspects of his outlook.
I don't need to harp on the point. My point is how this plays in the minds of voters. He already has a rich guy image problem and an inabiliity to connect with the voters. This comments amplifies that image greatly. And you can be sure the super pacs will beat this to death.
