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

[drsmith1072]

Good for him! Capital gains are less because the person TAKES A RISK INVESTING! Romney could of lost that much. It shows that he is a smart investor.

Unfortunately most people are jealous and think Romney is out of touch with the "so called
average person". I want somebody smart like Romney as President!

Mitt Romney releases tax returns - The Washington Post



-

Even if you give him the high side of a return of about 20% that still means that he had to invest over $100 million to get that kind of return.

However, unless you know what he invested in, what his return was and how much he invested isn't it kind of hard to say that he is a "smart investor?"

What if it took him investing 300 million at a 7% return to make 21 million would that be evidence of a "smart investor?"

 

[drsmith1072]

so us tax payers should be penalized for working with higher tax rates and subsidize the risk of the risk taker with lower taxes???

why? why should we subsidize their risk?

Oh and nevermind the fact that what he is risking is more than likely disposable income that he can afford to "risk."

Furthermore until we know what he invested in how do we know how so-called "risk" was involved?

 

[drsmith1072]

so us tax payers should be penalized for working with higher tax rates and subsidize the risk of the risk taker with lower taxes???

why? why should we subsidize their risk?

How many times can you possibly tax the same money?????????????

When romney or anyone for that matter chooses to put their money into an "investment" and gets MORE money back than they "invested" then how is that the "same money" as you claim?

Is the money he initially "invested" taxed again or is the NEW MONEY that he gets back from the "investment" taxed for the first time?

 

[drsmith1072]

"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.

And yet it's republicans who are talking about "broadening the tax base" and making the bottom 47, who pay no income taxes because they are so poor they can't afford it, pay their "fair share.'

How does that fit into your argument?

 

[NYcarbineer]

What's the big risk of investing? Compared to say, working for a living.

You're joking, right?

Answer the question. What's the inordinate risk, for example, of putting a million dollars in US treasury bonds, that would warrant you being taxed at a lower rate than say,

a fireman, or a policeman?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Good for him! Capital gains are less because the person TAKES A RISK INVESTING! Romney could of lost that much. It shows that he is a smart investor.

Unfortunately most people are jealous and think Romney is out of touch with the "so called
average person". I want somebody smart like Romney as President!

Mitt Romney releases tax returns - The Washington Post



-

founding fathers would be quivering in their graves....they believed money earned from working was much more valuable than money earned from risk taking!

AND WHY do you think money earned from risk taking should be subsidized by our government with a lower tax rate for it than the man working for a living?????

I think an electrical lineman takes more risks than some guy sitting in an office.

Most investments also represent money that someone can afford to lose.

A real job, however, is normally something one can ill afford to lose, especially if the home, the spouse, the kids, all depend on it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Investment income is taxed at a lower rate for one reason:

The people who make most of the investment income can afford to influence politicians to make it that way.

 

[Chris]

The Reagan Bush tax cuts for the rich transferred trillions of dollars from the middle class taxpaper to the super rich.

Now guess who has to pay the bill? The middle class taxpayer.

Billionaires should NOT have to pay taxes at a lower rate than the rest of us, but that is the situation as it now stands.

Thanks Republicans for stealing trillions of dollars from the middle class. You will burn in hell.

 

[Foxfyre]

If consumer spending does not drive the economy anymore, then what does or what will?

Though I can see your point on it being better when we produced everything here in the USA that we consumed vs consuming other country's products and having a trade deficit....

I will agree that a healthy economy is consumer driven. I understand what California Girl is saying, but may or may not gently disagree on the factors that got us there. I do not think the problem was over producing, but rather was artificial producing to meet the demand of shaky buyers, courtesy of the U.S. government who promoted, in fact demanded that such a system exist.

THEN when those shaky buyers started defaulting on their loans, THAT created an instant over production in the housing market, and the whole thing collapsed in a matter of hours or at most a few days.

The whole point I'm making is that you cannot have consumers without the wherewithal to consume. Taking the money away from Citizen A and giving it to Citizen B so that Citizen B can consume, will almost always result in a job that won't be available to Citizen C who then will also need help to consume. Do this often enough and pretty soon Citizen A is out of money or he is sheltering it off shore or otherwise to protect his assets.

The economy is healthy when Citizen A is willing to risk his property in return for an acceptable profit. That will allow Citizen B and Citizen C to sell their labor to Citizen A who is risking his assets and thereby, all three realize a profit and are better off than they were before. Take Citizen A out of the equation, and nobody profits. Over regulation, too many mandates, and too high taxes will encourage Citizen A to sit on his assets rather than risk them. And Citizen B and C and all the rest of the alphabet will make do with less opportunity and less income.

Foxy, I didn't say we were over producing, I said we were consuming too much and producing too little. Economist around the world agree with that - it's not just something I came up with.... it's hard economics. Over consume and under produce is a highway to financial crisis.

Globally, we had countries like the US (and a few others) who were over consuming and under producing. Then, we had countries such as China who were over producing and under consuming.... that was a root cause of the global crisis.

In macro economics, your analysis has merit. However this thread started with comments about Romney's income and whether he and other 1 per centers should be required to pay proportionately more in taxes than those of us who aren't 1 per centers or even 20 per centers.

My argument is why it might make the class envy types feel better to tax somebody like Romney more; however, it will have negative results on others on down the line. That is not a macro economic concept, but can have macro economic implications when we are looking for solutions to a massive deficit, out-of-control national debt, and no light at the end of the tunnel in this current economic mess we are in.

 

[Chris]

 

[Care4all]

On that whole 'consumer driven economy' thing.... I'd like to just point out an inconvenient truth.... a huge part of the reason that our economy tanked so badly was exactly that. We were over-reliant on a 'consumer driven economy'. Now, a consumer driven economy is fine and dandy..... IF.... we are producing at an equal rate. But we were not. Globally, the US had (and will probably continue to have if we don't start electing smarter politicians) a huge differential between consuming and producing. At the same time, other countries were over producing and under consuming. Many economist pointed out the huge danger of that.... but we did not listen. Perhaps we should start listening?

If consumer spending does not drive the economy anymore, then what does or what will?

Though I can see your point on it being better when we produced everything here in the USA that we consumed vs consuming other country's products and having a trade deficit....

Consumerism is fine - it's great for the economy. The issue is when people spend what they do not have... an over-reliance on credit and debt. If we learn nothing from this current situation, we should - as individuals - learn that. Don't spend what you don't have. Consume - in moderation. Can't afford it? Don't buy it.

I hardly ever by new stuff. Most of my furniture, my cars, and I learned to fix shit so when something breaks, I fix it, I don't throw it away and buy new. I don't say everyone should live like that but we need to stop the massive over spending.

the problem is, the whole of the economy has been and still is, driven by consumerism....and every business wants to beat last year's figures....so it keeps the vicious cycle going....ad after ad after ad trying to sell new products to us consumers, so to beat last year's business....so people buy a bunch of crud that they truly do not need, and they borrow to do it.

When I was young, there were no credit cards....well, maybe there were 2, master charge, and visa but my parents never had them or used them, they paid cash for whatever they were buying or used a check....then it seems like in a matter of minutes, there was master card and visa from every bank that existed, american Express, Diner's club and then gas charge cards galore and then all major department stores went to credit cards instead of layaway or a Store credit allowance....and then came in the credit cards that were equity lines of credit where you could use the equity in your home to buy things with.... sheesh, what a mess.... the country has been driving consumerism via CREDIT ever since....

Unless we as a country, are willing to take a major hit....I can't see how we will ever get out of this mess....

I am like you, waste not, want not....I fix things when they break and I don't shop anymore...I was a shop a holic, though I never spent more than I had in excess to spend....but now a days, I spend nada, nothing, niente, zip! I feel embarrassed about all the things I do own already, and truly don't need....we have a tv in every single room in the house kind of thing....this morning matt took 2 of the tv's and is giving them to one of his young employees who is poor and does not even own one tv.....we still have 6 tv's left here....

 

[WillowTree]

I'm going out to the clinique counter this mawning. I'll do my part.

 

[Sallow]

Good for him! Capital gains are less because the person TAKES A RISK INVESTING! Romney could of lost that much. It shows that he is a smart investor.

Unfortunately most people are jealous and think Romney is out of touch with the "so called
average person". I want somebody smart like Romney as President!

Mitt Romney releases tax returns - The Washington Post



-

Seriously?

Show a CEO that "lost it all" as a result of the recent financial calamity.

Dick Fuld ran Lehman into the ground and got a 20 million dollar payout.
Same with Wagoneer and GM.

Risk is public..and Profit is private.

And corporations are people my friend.

 

[Foxfyre]

Good for him! Capital gains are less because the person TAKES A RISK INVESTING! Romney could of lost that much. It shows that he is a smart investor.

Unfortunately most people are jealous and think Romney is out of touch with the "so called
average person". I want somebody smart like Romney as President!

Mitt Romney releases tax returns - The Washington Post



-

Seriously?

Show a CEO that "lost it all" as a result of the recent financial calamity.

Dick Fuld ran Lehman into the ground and got a 20 million dollar payout.
Same with Wagoneer and GM.

Risk is public..and Profit is private.

And corporations are people my friend.

Nobody forced people to invest with Lehmann, and this is an example of the mentality of the times. The entitlement mentality rewards bad choices and punishes success.

The U.S. Congress has run the country into the ground too, but those elected to Congress, if they can stay for just a little while, leave as multi-millionaires on your and my dime. I say shame on corporations that pay people for failure. I say shame on the American people who reward their elected leaders who also fail to responsibly represent us. We need to get back to a mentality where irresponsible or incompetent corporate leaders are fired and sent on their way to make a living some other way. We also need a Congress who isd there to represent us and who are not there to increase their own personal fortunes which means they do whatever they have to do to get re-elected instead of concentrating on doing the right thing. So we have a system that creates a Lehmann syndrome. All the big boys have to do is shell out the big bucks to keep those Congressmen in office and they will be allowed to do pretty much whatever they want.

We can correct that by changing our own mentality and demand responsibility, integrity, and competence in those we send to Washington, and when their term of office is over, so is their compensation from ANY public source. THAT will fix most of the problem.

 

[California Girl]

Good for him! Capital gains are less because the person TAKES A RISK INVESTING! Romney could of lost that much. It shows that he is a smart investor.

Unfortunately most people are jealous and think Romney is out of touch with the "so called
average person". I want somebody smart like Romney as President!

Mitt Romney releases tax returns - The Washington Post



-

Seriously?

Show a CEO that "lost it all" as a result of the recent financial calamity.

Dick Fuld ran Lehman into the ground and got a 20 million dollar payout.
Same with Wagoneer and GM.

Risk is public..and Profit is private.

And corporations are people my friend.

Nobody forced people to invest with Lehmann, and this is an example of the mentality of the times. The entitlement mentality rewards bad choices and punishes success.

The U.S. Congress has run the country into the ground too, but those elected to Congress, if they can stay for just a little while, leave as multi-millionaires on your and my dime. I say shame on corporations that pay people for failure. I say shame on the American people who reward their elected leaders who also fail to responsibly represent us. We need to get back to a mentality where irresponsible or incompetent corporate leaders are fired and sent on their way to make a living some other way. We also need a Congress who isd there to represent us and who are not there to increase their own personal fortunes which means they do whatever they have to do to get re-elected instead of concentrating on doing the right thing. So we have a system that creates a Lehmann syndrome. All the big boys have to do is shell out the big bucks to keep those Congressmen in office and they will be allowed to do pretty much whatever they want.

We can correct that by changing our own mentality and demand responsibility, integrity, and competence in those we send to Washington, and when their term of office is over, so is their compensation from ANY public source. THAT will fix most of the problem.

So, explain to me why the GOP seems hellbent on submitting one of these incompetent, corrupt bastards to run against Obama?

 

[Foxfyre]

Seriously?

Show a CEO that "lost it all" as a result of the recent financial calamity.

Dick Fuld ran Lehman into the ground and got a 20 million dollar payout.
Same with Wagoneer and GM.

Risk is public..and Profit is private.

And corporations are people my friend.

Nobody forced people to invest with Lehmann, and this is an example of the mentality of the times. The entitlement mentality rewards bad choices and punishes success.

The U.S. Congress has run the country into the ground too, but those elected to Congress, if they can stay for just a little while, leave as multi-millionaires on your and my dime. I say shame on corporations that pay people for failure. I say shame on the American people who reward their elected leaders who also fail to responsibly represent us. We need to get back to a mentality where irresponsible or incompetent corporate leaders are fired and sent on their way to make a living some other way. We also need a Congress who isd there to represent us and who are not there to increase their own personal fortunes which means they do whatever they have to do to get re-elected instead of concentrating on doing the right thing. So we have a system that creates a Lehmann syndrome. All the big boys have to do is shell out the big bucks to keep those Congressmen in office and they will be allowed to do pretty much whatever they want.

We can correct that by changing our own mentality and demand responsibility, integrity, and competence in those we send to Washington, and when their term of office is over, so is their compensation from ANY public source. THAT will fix most of the problem.

So, explain to me why the GOP seems hellbent on submitting one of these incompetent, corrupt bastards to run against Obama?

Because the GOP (or the Democrats for that matter) can't get a true public servant to run for high public office. Who with any sense of decency would put himself or herself and/or his/her family through the cesspool of personal destruction that is automatically heaped upon any who presume to run for President? Who among us has not sinned? But if they can't find an unforgivable sin to wave in the public breexze, they'll manufacture some. The media deals with that reluctantly with the Democrats. They help as much as they can when it is a Republican.

Unless we the people see that for what it is and demand that it stop, we cannot hope to ever again have somebody in the White House that we truly admire. We will continue to get hardened career politicians who are in it for themselves and nobody else.

 

[Sallow]

Good for him! Capital gains are less because the person TAKES A RISK INVESTING! Romney could of lost that much. It shows that he is a smart investor.

Unfortunately most people are jealous and think Romney is out of touch with the "so called
average person". I want somebody smart like Romney as President!

Mitt Romney releases tax returns - The Washington Post



-

Seriously?

Show a CEO that "lost it all" as a result of the recent financial calamity.

Dick Fuld ran Lehman into the ground and got a 20 million dollar payout.
Same with Wagoneer and GM.

Risk is public..and Profit is private.

And corporations are people my friend.

Nobody forced people to invest with Lehmann, and this is an example of the mentality of the times. The entitlement mentality rewards bad choices and punishes success.

The U.S. Congress has run the country into the ground too, but those elected to Congress, if they can stay for just a little while, leave as multi-millionaires on your and my dime. I say shame on corporations that pay people for failure. I say shame on the American people who reward their elected leaders who also fail to responsibly represent us. We need to get back to a mentality where irresponsible or incompetent corporate leaders are fired and sent on their way to make a living some other way. We also need a Congress who isd there to represent us and who are not there to increase their own personal fortunes which means they do whatever they have to do to get re-elected instead of concentrating on doing the right thing. So we have a system that creates a Lehmann syndrome. All the big boys have to do is shell out the big bucks to keep those Congressmen in office and they will be allowed to do pretty much whatever they want.

We can correct that by changing our own mentality and demand responsibility, integrity, and competence in those we send to Washington, and when their term of office is over, so is their compensation from ANY public source. THAT will fix most of the problem.

You missed the whole ******* point.

FULD FAILED. HE WAS STILL REWARDED.

Got it now?

 

[driveby]

So, how did Reversible Mittens get that cushy job at Bain, anyway?

Better question would be how the hell did Obama get elected President.

I'll take dumb ***** like synthaholic voted for him for 200, Alex.......

 

[Jarhead]

The Reagan Bush tax cuts for the rich transferred trillions of dollars from the middle class taxpaper to the super rich. Now guess who has to pay the bill? The middle class taxpayer.

Billionaires should NOT have to pay taxes at a lower rate than the rest of us, but that is the situation as it now stands.

Thanks Republicans for stealing trillions of dollars from the middle class. You will burn in hell.

the line in bold...

Very interesting statement.

Please explain exactly how tax cuts took money from the middle calss and gave it to the super rich.

In other words...back it up.

 

[California Girl]

Nobody forced people to invest with Lehmann, and this is an example of the mentality of the times. The entitlement mentality rewards bad choices and punishes success.

The U.S. Congress has run the country into the ground too, but those elected to Congress, if they can stay for just a little while, leave as multi-millionaires on your and my dime. I say shame on corporations that pay people for failure. I say shame on the American people who reward their elected leaders who also fail to responsibly represent us. We need to get back to a mentality where irresponsible or incompetent corporate leaders are fired and sent on their way to make a living some other way. We also need a Congress who isd there to represent us and who are not there to increase their own personal fortunes which means they do whatever they have to do to get re-elected instead of concentrating on doing the right thing. So we have a system that creates a Lehmann syndrome. All the big boys have to do is shell out the big bucks to keep those Congressmen in office and they will be allowed to do pretty much whatever they want.

We can correct that by changing our own mentality and demand responsibility, integrity, and competence in those we send to Washington, and when their term of office is over, so is their compensation from ANY public source. THAT will fix most of the problem.

So, explain to me why the GOP seems hellbent on submitting one of these incompetent, corrupt bastards to run against Obama?

Because the GOP (or the Democrats for that matter) can't get a true public servant to run for high public office. Who with any sense of decency would put himself or herself and/or his/her family through the cesspool of personal destruction that is automatically heaped upon any who presume to run for President? Who among us has not sinned? But if they can't find an unforgivable sin to wave in the public breexze, they'll manufacture some. The media deals with that reluctantly with the Democrats. They help as much as they can when it is a Republican.

Unless we the people see that for what it is and demand that it stop, we cannot hope to ever again have somebody in the White House that we truly admire. We will continue to get hardened career politicians who are in it for themselves and nobody else.

That's what I don't get. They have that guy staring them in the face - and prepared to take the shit that goes with it. And it appears they prefer the amoral, DC insider. I have to say, I'm having a serious 'WTF' moment with the GOP. It's like they want to lose so they can continue ranting on the sidelines. I don't get that.