Romney's income was $21.7 million in 2010 and $20.9 million last year

[Willys]

Romney's income was $21.7 million in 2010 and $20.9 million last year


Romney paid 42 percent of 2011 income in taxes and charity > WaPo, Jennifer Rubin
Biden gave $369 in charity
Clinton surpasses $75 million in speech income after lucrative 2010

Can't link URL's yet but the above are linked from Drudge, or InstaPundit or HotAir

 

[Care4all]

But no envy for Clinton making 70, 80 million? Man, y'all are transparent.

did he make his money through working or through risk taking where he was subsidized/ taxed less for it, than you and me?

I personally do not believe that we should subsidize the risk taker's risk, with a lower tax rate than the person who labors for their money earned.

What a stupid thing to say!! How is Capital gains "Subsidized" .

STOP LISTENING TO PROGRESSIVES!! !THEY BLEW A $1.3 TRILLION HOLE IN THE BUDGET!!!

If I earn the same amount of money laboring for a living as "the risk taker" (as the OP called him.... ) and I am suppose to pay 35% tax on what I have earned, while the "risk taker" who has not labored for his money, gets to pay only 15% capital gains tax on his earning due to the government deciding such instead of the SAME RATE as me who labors for it, then our government IS SUBSIDIZING that person's earnings via a tax break, and NOT subsidizing my earnings via the 35% rate on me, FOR THE SAME money earned....

the government is REDUCING the risk takers risk by hitting him with a lower tax rate than the person working for a living....

are you so silly that you can not see this?

Even the op said it himself, that they get a lower rate of taxes than the worker does because they are taking a "risk"....

are you saying our government does not cut them a break on taxes?

 

[Synthaholic]

STOP LISTENING TO PROGRESSIVES!! !THEY BLEW A $1.3 TRILLION[/COLOR] HOLE IN THE BUDGET!!!

stop lying frank.

you're still lying, no matter how big the font or bright the color.

now go take your meds.

My prediction: Obama does not seek a second term

 

[LordBrownTrout]

But no envy for Clinton making 70, 80 million? Man, y'all are transparent.

did he make his money through working or through risk taking where he was subsidized/ taxed less for it, than you and me?

I personally do not believe that we should subsidize the risk taker's risk, with a lower tax rate than the person who labors for their money earned.

I'm not understanding your reasoning. I've taken several risks by starting and then selling a company. I have never been subsidized.

 

[Jarhead]

Romney tied his dog to the roof of his car for a 12 hour trip. He did the same thing to the American worker when he looted American companies and shipped their jobs overseas.

Obama has created 22 months of private sector job growth.

I will be voting for Obama.

You need to be 18 to vote in this country....sorry...you wont be voting for Obama.

 

[Jarhead]

did he make his money through working or through risk taking where he was subsidized/ taxed less for it, than you and me?

I personally do not believe that we should subsidize the risk taker's risk, with a lower tax rate than the person who labors for their money earned.

What a stupid thing to say!! How is Capital gains "Subsidized" .

STOP LISTENING TO PROGRESSIVES!! !THEY BLEW A $1.3 TRILLION HOLE IN THE BUDGET!!!

If I earn the same amount of money laboring for a living as "the risk taker" (as the OP called him.... ) and I am suppose to pay 35% tax on what I have earned, while the "risk taker" who has not labored for his money, gets to pay only 15% capital gains tax on his earning due to the government deciding such instead of the SAME RATE as me who labors for it, then our government IS SUBSIDIZING that person's earnings via a tax break, and NOT subsidizing my earnings via the 35% rate on me, FOR THE SAME money earned....

the government is REDUCING the risk takers risk by hitting him with a lower tax rate than the person working for a living....

are you so silly that you can not see this?

Even the op said it himself, that they get a lower rate of taxes than the worker does because they are taking a "risk"....

are you saying our government does not cut them a break on taxes?

whoa.....

We want people investing in companies...not just their own...but other companies...so they can compete internationally.

Now, when one opts to invest and "take a risk"...there is an analysis done....anticipated ROI...anticipated LOI....and then a cost bemefit analysis done.

Sometimes, a decision is made over a few percentage points.

Well...if we raise the cap gains to 30%.....that is 15% less retuen one will get right off the bat.

FYI...cap gains is for investments...it is not for regular income.....but when one invests, he/she uses money that was already taxed at the normal rate.....just the roi is taxed at 15%.

As for government subsidized...no offense...but where did you come up with that?

 

[Freedomlover]

So what? That is what America's promise is. Get your education, work hard at what you can do and be wise about your personal finances and you too could be a millionaire some day. Except Obama says to do these things so he can tax your success and give your money to those who refuse to do what it takes to be financially secure.

 

[Freedomlover]

I doubt you are in the 35% tax bracket. If you are you are making a whole lot more money than you pretend to be making. Do you know that more than 40% of Americans are in the so-called investor class? Middle income people are probably more imvolved than higher income folks simply because they have 401K's, pensions invested in the markets or have IRA's, and perhaps directly own stocks that pay dividends. Quit worrying about what someone else does and take care of your own house!

 

[Care4all]

What a stupid thing to say!! How is Capital gains "Subsidized" .

STOP LISTENING TO PROGRESSIVES!! !THEY BLEW A $1.3 TRILLION HOLE IN THE BUDGET!!!

If I earn the same amount of money laboring for a living as "the risk taker" (as the OP called him.... ) and I am suppose to pay 35% tax on what I have earned, while the "risk taker" who has not labored for his money, gets to pay only 15% capital gains tax on his earning due to the government deciding such instead of the SAME RATE as me who labors for it, then our government IS SUBSIDIZING that person's earnings via a tax break, and NOT subsidizing my earnings via the 35% rate on me, FOR THE SAME money earned....

the government is REDUCING the risk takers risk by hitting him with a lower tax rate than the person working for a living....

are you so silly that you can not see this?

Even the op said it himself, that they get a lower rate of taxes than the worker does because they are taking a "risk"....

are you saying our government does not cut them a break on taxes?

whoa.....

We want people investing in companies...not just their own...but other companies...so they can compete internationally.

Now, when one opts to invest and "take a risk"...there is an analysis done....anticipated ROI...anticipated LOI....and then a cost bemefit analysis done.

Sometimes, a decision is made over a few percentage points.

Well...if we raise the cap gains to 30%.....that is 15% less retuen one will get right off the bat.

FYI...cap gains is for investments...it is not for regular income.....but when one invests, he/she uses money that was already taxed at the normal rate.....just the roi is taxed at 15%.

As for government subsidized...no offense...but where did you come up with that?

yes we do want them to invest, but why cut them a break for it? Why not make them work just as hard as us for their gains?

you realize that all you are taxed on as a laborer is your supposed ''gain'' as well don't you? taxable income is defined for IRS as ''profit'' by the supreme court decision.....thus you get the deductions on long form or the personal and standard deductions on the short form before your money can be taxed....before your profit can be taxed.

when you offer a lower tax rate for the investor's gains, then his losses mean less....he can make up for more losses because he has taken 20% more home for his gains....(15% vs the 35%)

this gives a buffer for taking more rash and stupid risks....

 

[Jarhead]

If I earn the same amount of money laboring for a living as "the risk taker" (as the OP called him.... ) and I am suppose to pay 35% tax on what I have earned, while the "risk taker" who has not labored for his money, gets to pay only 15% capital gains tax on his earning due to the government deciding such instead of the SAME RATE as me who labors for it, then our government IS SUBSIDIZING that person's earnings via a tax break, and NOT subsidizing my earnings via the 35% rate on me, FOR THE SAME money earned....

the government is REDUCING the risk takers risk by hitting him with a lower tax rate than the person working for a living....

are you so silly that you can not see this?

Even the op said it himself, that they get a lower rate of taxes than the worker does because they are taking a "risk"....

are you saying our government does not cut them a break on taxes?

whoa.....

We want people investing in companies...not just their own...but other companies...so they can compete internationally.

Now, when one opts to invest and "take a risk"...there is an analysis done....anticipated ROI...anticipated LOI....and then a cost bemefit analysis done.

Sometimes, a decision is made over a few percentage points.

Well...if we raise the cap gains to 30%.....that is 15% less retuen one will get right off the bat.

FYI...cap gains is for investments...it is not for regular income.....but when one invests, he/she uses money that was already taxed at the normal rate.....just the roi is taxed at 15%.

As for government subsidized...no offense...but where did you come up with that?

yes we do want them to invest, but why cut them a break for it? Why not make them work just as hard as us for their gains?

you realize that all you are taxed on as a laborer is your supposed ''gain'' as well don't you? taxable income is defined for IRS as ''profit'' by the supreme court decision.....thus you get the deductions on long form or the personal and standard deductions on the short form before your money can be taxed....before your profit can be taxed.

when you offer a lower tax rate for the investor's gains, then his losses mean less....he can make up for more losses because he has taken 20% more home for his gains....(15% vs the 35%)

this gives a buffer for taking more rash and stupid risks....

On the most part they DID work just as hard for their gains.

Now they are lucky enough to live off their investments. It is something we all would like to be able to do.

Would you prefer they retire and not spend their money at all and just use it for their needs and wants?

What about you? Do you want to get less back on your investments?

 

[Foxfyre]

If I earn the same amount of money laboring for a living as "the risk taker" (as the OP called him.... ) and I am suppose to pay 35% tax on what I have earned, while the "risk taker" who has not labored for his money, gets to pay only 15% capital gains tax on his earning due to the government deciding such instead of the SAME RATE as me who labors for it, then our government IS SUBSIDIZING that person's earnings via a tax break, and NOT subsidizing my earnings via the 35% rate on me, FOR THE SAME money earned....

the government is REDUCING the risk takers risk by hitting him with a lower tax rate than the person working for a living....

are you so silly that you can not see this?

Even the op said it himself, that they get a lower rate of taxes than the worker does because they are taking a "risk"....

are you saying our government does not cut them a break on taxes?

whoa.....

We want people investing in companies...not just their own...but other companies...so they can compete internationally.

Now, when one opts to invest and "take a risk"...there is an analysis done....anticipated ROI...anticipated LOI....and then a cost bemefit analysis done.

Sometimes, a decision is made over a few percentage points.

Well...if we raise the cap gains to 30%.....that is 15% less retuen one will get right off the bat.

FYI...cap gains is for investments...it is not for regular income.....but when one invests, he/she uses money that was already taxed at the normal rate.....just the roi is taxed at 15%.

As for government subsidized...no offense...but where did you come up with that?

yes we do want them to invest, but why cut them a break for it? Why not make them work just as hard as us for their gains?

you realize that all you are taxed on as a laborer is your supposed ''gain'' as well don't you? taxable income is defined for IRS as ''profit'' by the supreme court decision.....thus you get the deductions on long form or the personal and standard deductions on the short form before your money can be taxed....before your profit can be taxed.

when you offer a lower tax rate for the investor's gains, then his losses mean less....he can make up for more losses because he has taken 20% more home for his gains....(15% vs the 35%)

this gives a buffer for taking more rash and stupid risks....

Again, since you ignored my previous response, you don't tax capital gains at the same rate because if you do, people won't take risks as I took some pains to explain. It is people risking assets that they already own that makes it possible for most of those earning wages to earn those wages. Those working for wages risk nothing they already own.

However, if you want absolute equity, tax EVERYBODY on what they earn by ANY means, but at a rate low enough to allow a reasonable risk for the investors. Would you go for that?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Good for him! Capital gains are less because the person TAKES A RISK INVESTING!

Can you tell me how someone who works on a oil rig or as a police officer isn't taking a risk in their job? Maybe they should get special lower tax rates, too. By your logic they should.

Romney could of lost that much. It shows that he is a smart investor.

His losses count against his income.
Success in investing does not show you are a smart investor.

 

[Care4all]

whoa.....

We want people investing in companies...not just their own...but other companies...so they can compete internationally.

Now, when one opts to invest and "take a risk"...there is an analysis done....anticipated ROI...anticipated LOI....and then a cost bemefit analysis done.

Sometimes, a decision is made over a few percentage points.

Well...if we raise the cap gains to 30%.....that is 15% less retuen one will get right off the bat.

FYI...cap gains is for investments...it is not for regular income.....but when one invests, he/she uses money that was already taxed at the normal rate.....just the roi is taxed at 15%.

As for government subsidized...no offense...but where did you come up with that?

yes we do want them to invest, but why cut them a break for it? Why not make them work just as hard as us for their gains?

you realize that all you are taxed on as a laborer is your supposed ''gain'' as well don't you? taxable income is defined for IRS as ''profit'' by the supreme court decision.....thus you get the deductions on long form or the personal and standard deductions on the short form before your money can be taxed....before your profit can be taxed.

when you offer a lower tax rate for the investor's gains, then his losses mean less....he can make up for more losses because he has taken 20% more home for his gains....(15% vs the 35%)

this gives a buffer for taking more rash and stupid risks....

Again, since you ignored my previous response, you don't tax capital gains at the same rate because if you do, people won't take risks as I took some pains to explain. It is people risking assets that they already own that makes it possible for most of those earning wages to earn those wages. Those working for wages risk nothing they already own.

However, if you want absolute equity, tax EVERYBODY on what they earn by ANY means, but at a rate low enough to allow a reasonable risk for the investors. Would you go for that?

no, i didn't see your previous post foxy? i am working 2 different threads plus doing some Mod action, i will go back and look for it.

but in general to answer what you have said here....i still do not think the gvt should tax investor's less than workers, no matter the risk the investor takes....it is his choice to take that risk and only if he succeeds at that risk, is he taxed the 15%....you are only taxed on your gain, not your losses just as the laborer is only taxed on his gain not losses....your reinvestment in your company is not taxed is it?

i'm okay with a flat tax if it is low enough as well, and there is a flat standard deduction for expenses so that it meets the definition of IRS income....

 

[Foxfyre]

Good for him! Capital gains are less because the person TAKES A RISK INVESTING!

Can you tell me how someone who works on a oil rig or as a police officer isn't taking a risk in their job? Maybe they should get special lower tax rates, too. By your logic they should.

Romney could of lost that much. It shows that he is a smart investor.

His losses count against his income.
Success in investing does not show you are a smart investor.

It really doesn't matter though does it? If you lose what you invest, you are that much poorer. You don't get to deduct the losses. You are taxed on whatever is left if anything. But the fact is, the guy on the oil rig and the police officer CHOSE those professions. They weren't forced into them. Yes, their occupations involve personal risks, but they still are risking no property that they already own.

Romeny certainly doiesn't HAVE to risk anything he has. He and all his family have enough to live on for the rest of their lives. He could just bank the money or stick in under a mattress and put it out of reach of the tax man altogether. But that would also put it out of reach of the charitable organizations he supports, out of reach of the hundreds or thousands who have jobs because he takes risk with the property he owns.

Many of us have worked in jobs in which we risked our personal health and safety. I certainly have and my husband moreso than me. And over those years we managed to accumulate a modest savings that we now put at risk by investing it. If we had hundreds of thousands or millions to invest, we would likely be doing that too at today's rates.

Start jacking up the tax rate, however, and thereby substantially reduce our gains which increases the risk of investing, and we would likely look for safer things to do with our money than put it at risk here. There are currently trillions of dollars sidelined here in the USA and parked overseas out of reach of the tax man because there is no certainty re what the risk of investing that money will be.

The Obama Administration seems unable to understand that. And the 50% or so of American workers who currently pay little or no federal taxes continue to clamor for the government to take more and more from those who do and thereby keep themselves safe from the tax man. What's fair about that?

 

[Care4all]

whoa.....

We want people investing in companies...not just their own...but other companies...so they can compete internationally.

Now, when one opts to invest and "take a risk"...there is an analysis done....anticipated ROI...anticipated LOI....and then a cost bemefit analysis done.

Sometimes, a decision is made over a few percentage points.

Well...if we raise the cap gains to 30%.....that is 15% less retuen one will get right off the bat.

FYI...cap gains is for investments...it is not for regular income.....but when one invests, he/she uses money that was already taxed at the normal rate.....just the roi is taxed at 15%.

As for government subsidized...no offense...but where did you come up with that?

yes we do want them to invest, but why cut them a break for it? Why not make them work just as hard as us for their gains?

you realize that all you are taxed on as a laborer is your supposed ''gain'' as well don't you? taxable income is defined for IRS as ''profit'' by the supreme court decision.....thus you get the deductions on long form or the personal and standard deductions on the short form before your money can be taxed....before your profit can be taxed.

when you offer a lower tax rate for the investor's gains, then his losses mean less....he can make up for more losses because he has taken 20% more home for his gains....(15% vs the 35%)

this gives a buffer for taking more rash and stupid risks....

On the most part they DID work just as hard for their gains.

Now they are lucky enough to live off their investments. It is something we all would like to be able to do.

Would you prefer they retire and not spend their money at all and just use it for their needs and wants?

What about you? Do you want to get less back on your investments?

i think they would invest their money regardless. The bank is paying what? 1.5%? many would take the risk to make more than that jarhead...

 

[Foxfyre]

yes we do want them to invest, but why cut them a break for it? Why not make them work just as hard as us for their gains?

you realize that all you are taxed on as a laborer is your supposed ''gain'' as well don't you? taxable income is defined for IRS as ''profit'' by the supreme court decision.....thus you get the deductions on long form or the personal and standard deductions on the short form before your money can be taxed....before your profit can be taxed.

when you offer a lower tax rate for the investor's gains, then his losses mean less....he can make up for more losses because he has taken 20% more home for his gains....(15% vs the 35%)

this gives a buffer for taking more rash and stupid risks....

Again, since you ignored my previous response, you don't tax capital gains at the same rate because if you do, people won't take risks as I took some pains to explain. It is people risking assets that they already own that makes it possible for most of those earning wages to earn those wages. Those working for wages risk nothing they already own.

However, if you want absolute equity, tax EVERYBODY on what they earn by ANY means, but at a rate low enough to allow a reasonable risk for the investors. Would you go for that?

no, i didn't see your previous post foxy? i am working 2 different threads plus doing some Mod action, i will go back and look for it.

but in general to answer what you have said here....i still do not think the gvt should tax investor's less than workers, no matter the risk the investor takes....it is his choice to take that risk and only if he succeeds at that risk, is he taxed the 15%....you are only taxed on your gain, not your losses just as the laborer is only taxed on his gain not losses....your reinvestment in your company is not taxed is it?

i'm okay with a flat tax if it is low enough as well, and there is a flat standard deduction for expenses so that it meets the definition of IRS income....

When we were running our company--the Obama administration policies encouraged us to close it down much sooner than we intended to--again, when we put our capital and assets at risk in the business we can LOSE that capital and assets. That means we want pretty good odds that we can realize a good return on our money before we risk it. When you work for wages you are risking absolutely no property that you already own. Therefore a risk exists for the investor that does not exist for the wage earner.

Again, if nobody is investing, there are no jobs for most wage earners.

That simple fact is why a lower tax rate for investors makes sense.

If your goal is inspired by a desire to take down the rich (class envy), then taxing investors at a higher rate makes sense and yoou don't care how many jobs and opportunity that takes away from the little people or how much we lose in aesthetics and philanthrophy made possible by the rich.

If your goal is equity, then let's go with that flat tax meaning most of that 50% now paying little or no federal taxes will be paying more; paying something.

But if you want to keep that 50% protected, then the current system of keeping capital gains taxes low and the graduated tax is the best bet. It won't ever do the job as well as a total restructure of federal government and a flat tax, but it is sure better than destroying countless jobs by attacking the rich.

You simply cannot punish the rich for their success without hurting the poor.

 

[Care4all]

Again, since you ignored my previous response, you don't tax capital gains at the same rate because if you do, people won't take risks as I took some pains to explain. It is people risking assets that they already own that makes it possible for most of those earning wages to earn those wages. Those working for wages risk nothing they already own.

However, if you want absolute equity, tax EVERYBODY on what they earn by ANY means, but at a rate low enough to allow a reasonable risk for the investors. Would you go for that?

no, i didn't see your previous post foxy? i am working 2 different threads plus doing some Mod action, i will go back and look for it.

but in general to answer what you have said here....i still do not think the gvt should tax investor's less than workers, no matter the risk the investor takes....it is his choice to take that risk and only if he succeeds at that risk, is he taxed the 15%....you are only taxed on your gain, not your losses just as the laborer is only taxed on his gain not losses....your reinvestment in your company is not taxed is it?

i'm okay with a flat tax if it is low enough as well, and there is a flat standard deduction for expenses so that it meets the definition of IRS income....

When we were running our company--the Obama administration policies encouraged us to close it down much sooner than we intended to--again, when we put our capital and assets at risk in the business we can LOSE that capital and assets. That means we want pretty good odds that we can realize a good return on our money before we risk it. When you work for wages you are risking absolutely no property that you already own. Therefore a risk exists for the investor that does not exist for the wage earner.

Again, if nobody is investing, there are no jobs for most wage earners.

That simple fact is why a lower tax rate for investors makes sense.

If your goal is inspired by a desire to take down the rich (class envy), then taxing investors at a higher rate makes sense and yoou don't care how many jobs and opportunity that takes away from the little people or how much we lose in aesthetics and philanthrophy made possible by the rich.

If your goal is equity, then let's go with that flat tax meaning most of that 50% now paying little or no federal taxes will be paying more; paying something.

But if you want to keep that 50% protected, then the current system of keeping capital gains taxes low and the graduated tax is the best bet. It won't ever do the job as well as a total restructure of federal government and a flat tax, but it is sure better than destroying countless jobs by attacking the rich.

You simply cannot punish the rich for their success without hurting the poor.

nope, i don't want to take down the rich....my only issue is fairness.

 

[California Girl]

no, i didn't see your previous post foxy? i am working 2 different threads plus doing some Mod action, i will go back and look for it.

but in general to answer what you have said here....i still do not think the gvt should tax investor's less than workers, no matter the risk the investor takes....it is his choice to take that risk and only if he succeeds at that risk, is he taxed the 15%....you are only taxed on your gain, not your losses just as the laborer is only taxed on his gain not losses....your reinvestment in your company is not taxed is it?

i'm okay with a flat tax if it is low enough as well, and there is a flat standard deduction for expenses so that it meets the definition of IRS income....

When we were running our company--the Obama administration policies encouraged us to close it down much sooner than we intended to--again, when we put our capital and assets at risk in the business we can LOSE that capital and assets. That means we want pretty good odds that we can realize a good return on our money before we risk it. When you work for wages you are risking absolutely no property that you already own. Therefore a risk exists for the investor that does not exist for the wage earner.

Again, if nobody is investing, there are no jobs for most wage earners.

That simple fact is why a lower tax rate for investors makes sense.

If your goal is inspired by a desire to take down the rich (class envy), then taxing investors at a higher rate makes sense and yoou don't care how many jobs and opportunity that takes away from the little people or how much we lose in aesthetics and philanthrophy made possible by the rich.

If your goal is equity, then let's go with that flat tax meaning most of that 50% now paying little or no federal taxes will be paying more; paying something.

But if you want to keep that 50% protected, then the current system of keeping capital gains taxes low and the graduated tax is the best bet. It won't ever do the job as well as a total restructure of federal government and a flat tax, but it is sure better than destroying countless jobs by attacking the rich.

You simply cannot punish the rich for their success without hurting the poor.

nope, i don't want to take down the rich....my only issue is fairness.

If that is your issue, then why is it ok to attack people for having spent their lives working and being successful? Who decides what is 'fair'? Why should my family - who has worked hard and achieved, be expected to hand over what we have worked for because someone else either hasn't or will not work?

I honestly don't get it. What the hell does 'fair' mean? It's not 'fair' for you to take what I earn just because you don't earn as much.

 

[Avatar4321]

"Only the little people pay taxes."
- Leona Helmsley

Why do you think the rich democrats want to raise taxes?

Because then the "little people" can't work themselves out of poverty and challenge their power base.

 

[Avatar4321]

BTW. Congrats to Romney for making so much. It's good to see people succeeding in America