Without a job, Romney made $57,000.00 a DAY for last two years.

[Cecilie1200]

The phony outrage is getting rather silly and hypocritical. Do the names Kennedy and Rockefeller ring a bell? How about John Kerry? Which is better, old democrat money or new democrat money?

No phoney outrage.

The Buffett Rule raises taxes on all millionaires, Democrat and Republican.

Why should how much is your 'fair share' in taxes have anything to do with how you derive your income?

Because the liberal definition of "fair" is all about "whether or not I approve of you".

 

[M14 Shooter]

Romney's INCOME does NOT INCLUDE the profits being made by his $200,000,000 RETIREMENT accounts, kiddies.

That money is not currently taxably, ergo it is NOT reported as income.

Romeny is, therefore, probably making more than $57,000 a day if one includes those NONTAXABLE profits that are going into his retirement accounts.

That's because return on investment isn't taxed until it comes out of the retirement account as income.
Dont you worry - he'll be taxed on it.

 

[Nosmo King]

And so, anyone who does the same can expect that you will consider their compensation as their money, and make no claim on that.. Good.

On what basis?
Has someone not lived up to the terms settled upon in their contract?
The stockholders who made money based on the rise in stock price - what contract did they have with you?

So, according to the new values, it's okay to beg concessions and enhance the bottom line with that money, so long as a stock sale is profitable. Nothing should go back to the workers who sacrificed. It should all go to those who merely bet on the company, not those who produce for the company.
I sure miss fairness as a virtue!

I asked you three specific questions.
You dodged them.
Please try again.

You're asking me if it's okay for management to ask for concessions from workers AFTER a contact was negotiated in good faith. The mistakes of management (the size of their bonuses and compensation) should not be borne by the workers. Those mistakes should be borne by THOSE WHO MADE THE MISTAKES.

And that contract represent MY MONEY. I negotiated for it, I budget with that figure in mind.

 

[M14 Shooter]

So, according to the new values, it's okay to beg concessions and enhance the bottom line with that money, so long as a stock sale is profitable. Nothing should go back to the workers who sacrificed. It should all go to those who merely bet on the company, not those who produce for the company.
I sure miss fairness as a virtue!

I asked you three specific questions.
You dodged them.
Please try again.

You're asking me if it's okay for management to ask for concessions from workers AFTER a contact was negotiated in good faith.

No, I am not.

Please DO try to address the questions I -actually- asked you, rather than dodge them yet again.

You argue that anyone who lives up to the terms of a contract can expect that you will consider their compensation as their money, and that you will make no claim on that.

-Has someone not lived up to the terms settled upon in their contract?
-The stockholders who made money based on the rise in stock price - what contract did they have with you, and how did they not live up to it?
-If you cannot cite the breaches of contract, how thne do you, under your argument, have any claim to their money?

 

[rdean]

$57.000.00 a day. And with no job for years. I admit. I wonder what it would be like.

 

[thereisnospoon]

So, according to the new values, it's okay to beg concessions and enhance the bottom line with that money, so long as a stock sale is profitable. Nothing should go back to the workers who sacrificed. It should all go to those who merely bet on the company, not those who produce for the company.
I sure miss fairness as a virtue!

I asked you three specific questions.
You dodged them.
Please try again.

You're asking me if it's okay for management to ask for concessions from workers AFTER a contact was negotiated in good faith. The mistakes of management (the size of their bonuses and compensation) should not be borne by the workers. Those mistakes should be borne by THOSE WHO MADE THE MISTAKES.

And that contract represent MY MONEY. I negotiated for it, I budget with that figure in mind.

Bargain in good faith? That's a myth. Unions have never bargained. They make demands. The punishment for the compnay that does not knuckle under is a work stoppage.
Where I come from, you don't show up for work, you are replaced.
You union thugs just don't get it. The company does not exist to employ people. The first priority of business is to turn a profit. Workers are required to complete tasks in order to assist the business in turning that profit.
As revenue streams adjust, worker's compensation is increased or more workers are hired. If business does not do as well, workers compensation is lowered or positions are eliminated. A business does not "owe" jobs to anyone. There is no as one person put it "symbiotic relationship between business and community".
Job creation is a byproduct of increased profit and the need for more people to do the work. Labor is sumply a commodity in the equation. There is and alsways has been a balance between the rewuirtements of buisness and the need for labor.

 

[Bern80]

$57.000.00 a day. And with no job for years. I admit. I wonder what it would be like.

That is one factor that seperates the wealthy from others. I just wish people, especially on the left, would start taking a bigger picture look at wealth and how it's accumulated. I just don't get the venom that is spewed at people like Mitt simply for the way he is able to generate income. Isn't that a position all of us would like to be in if we could? If there was something you could do that would generate the same income from the job you have now without actually having to put in the time you put into it? I think pretty much all of us can think of other things we would like to be doing with our time. I just don't get why we begrudge those that have figured out how to do exactly that.

Now.....if your issue is the taxes that the rich pay for not working, pays vs. someone who puts in 40 hours a week, than maybe you have an argument. My question/suggestion would be why can't income be income be income and treat it all the same? A congressman from I believe South Carolina proposed a tax that was like 18.6% on all income. He came up with that number because the government historically collects a little less than that year and and year out as a percent of GDP. Seems like a fair compromise to me. The taxes of the wealthy go up a couple percentage points while the taxes of everyone else go down a lot.

 

[Dot Com]

$57.000.00 a day. And with no job for years. I admit. I wonder what it would be like.

Poor guy He did say he was unemployed back on one of his campaign stops

 

[editec]

Romney's INCOME does NOT INCLUDE the profits being made by his $200,000,000 RETIREMENT accounts, kiddies.

That money is not currently taxably, ergo it is NOT reported as income.

Romeny is, therefore, probably making more than $57,000 a day if one includes those NONTAXABLE profits that are going into his retirement accounts.

That's because return on investment isn't taxed until it comes out of the retirement account as income.
Dont you worry - he'll be taxed on it.

Yes I pointed out that his retirement account money was not taxed currently.

In fact that was PRECISELY the reason I posted that comment.

Because his "taxable income" does not include the profits his CAyman Island retirement accounts might be accruring this year.

So when somebody says he made $57,000 a day, they're understating his real income.

What they were describing is only his TAXABLE income for that year.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Romney's INCOME does NOT INCLUDE the profits being made by his $200,000,000 RETIREMENT accounts, kiddies.

That money is not currently taxably, ergo it is NOT reported as income.

Romeny is, therefore, probably making more than $57,000 a day if one includes those NONTAXABLE profits that are going into his retirement accounts.

That's because return on investment isn't taxed until it comes out of the retirement account as income.
Dont you worry - he'll be taxed on it.

Yes I pointed out that his retirement account money was not taxed currently.

In fact that was PRECISELY the reason I posted that comment.

Because his "taxable income" does not include the profits his CAyman Island retirement accounts might be accruring this year.

So when somebody says he made $57,000 a day, they're understating his real income.

What they were describing is only his TAXABLE income for that year.

Um, it's not taxed because IT'S NOT INCOME YET. That's sort of how retirement accounts work.

Anything those accounts earn which remains in that account, rather than being withdrawn (at which point, it becomes income), are part of his net worth, but it's not part of his income.

His taxable income IS his "real" income. Get a grip.

 

[Chris]

Why should the idle rich, who don't work, pay taxes at a lower rate than people who do work?

End welfare for the wealthy.

 

[editec]

That's because return on investment isn't taxed until it comes out of the retirement account as income.
Dont you worry - he'll be taxed on it.

Yes I pointed out that his retirement account money was not taxed currently.

In fact that was PRECISELY the reason I posted that comment.

Because his "taxable income" does not include the profits his CAyman Island retirement accounts might be accruring this year.

So when somebody says he made $57,000 a day, they're understating his real income.

What they were describing is only his TAXABLE income for that year.

Um, it's not taxed because IT'S NOT INCOME YET. That's sort of how retirement accounts work.

Oh for goodness sakes, you're going to try to quibble out a point of semantics aren't you?

Well you're still wrong anyway, Cecilie

It IS income.

The distinction without a difference you are seeking to turn into something it isn't, is merely that this is not taxed AS INCOME BY THE IRS UNTIL it is taken out of his retirement account.

And when it is taxed, it will still taxed as what it is....capital gains INCOME.

You're doing a valiant job, Cecilie, but you are punching way above your fighting weight here trying to quibble over THIS word IN THE CONTEXT it was introduced in this topic.

 

[Bern80]

Yes I pointed out that his retirement account money was not taxed currently.

In fact that was PRECISELY the reason I posted that comment.

Because his "taxable income" does not include the profits his CAyman Island retirement accounts might be accruring this year.

So when somebody says he made $57,000 a day, they're understating his real income.

What they were describing is only his TAXABLE income for that year.

Um, it's not taxed because IT'S NOT INCOME YET. That's sort of how retirement accounts work.

Oh for goodness sakes, you're going to try to quibble out a point of semantics aren't you?

Well you're still wrong anyway, Cecilie

It IS income.

The distinction without a difference you are seeking to turn into something it isn't, is merely that this is not taxed AS INCOME BY THE IRS UNTIL it is taken out of his retirement account.

And when it is taxed, it will still taxed as what it is....capital gains INCOME.

You're doing a valiant job, Cecilie, but you are punching way above your fighting weight here trying to quibble over THIS word IN THE CONTEXT it was introduced in this topic.

It isn't quibbling ed, nor is it semantics. A gain in the value of an investment is not income. Your retirment acct gaining value is not income. NOTHING is income until it 'comes in' or, in accounting terms, is realized. It isn't some evil loophole. It's the simple fact that to tax one's income they have to have money coming in. You can't tax nothing which is what a gain in the value of an investment is to the investor UNTIL he sells it. THEN and only then is that income and then and only then is it taxable. Here's simple way to look at it. Is your car income?

 

[rdean]

$57.000.00 a day. And with no job for years. I admit. I wonder what it would be like.

That is one factor that seperates the wealthy from others. I just wish people, especially on the left, would start taking a bigger picture look at wealth and how it's accumulated. I just don't get the venom that is spewed at people like Mitt simply for the way he is able to generate income. Isn't that a position all of us would like to be in if we could? If there was something you could do that would generate the same income from the job you have now without actually having to put in the time you put into it? I think pretty much all of us can think of other things we would like to be doing with our time. I just don't get why we begrudge those that have figured out how to do exactly that.

Now.....if your issue is the taxes that the rich pay for not working, pays vs. someone who puts in 40 hours a week, than maybe you have an argument. My question/suggestion would be why can't income be income be income and treat it all the same? A congressman from I believe South Carolina proposed a tax that was like 18.6% on all income. He came up with that number because the government historically collects a little less than that year and and year out as a percent of GDP. Seems like a fair compromise to me. The taxes of the wealthy go up a couple percentage points while the taxes of everyone else go down a lot.

Do you personally purchase politicians? And if so, then why?

 

[Bern80]

$57.000.00 a day. And with no job for years. I admit. I wonder what it would be like.

That is one factor that seperates the wealthy from others. I just wish people, especially on the left, would start taking a bigger picture look at wealth and how it's accumulated. I just don't get the venom that is spewed at people like Mitt simply for the way he is able to generate income. Isn't that a position all of us would like to be in if we could? If there was something you could do that would generate the same income from the job you have now without actually having to put in the time you put into it? I think pretty much all of us can think of other things we would like to be doing with our time. I just don't get why we begrudge those that have figured out how to do exactly that.

Now.....if your issue is the taxes that the rich pay for not working, pays vs. someone who puts in 40 hours a week, than maybe you have an argument. My question/suggestion would be why can't income be income be income and treat it all the same? A congressman from I believe South Carolina proposed a tax that was like 18.6% on all income. He came up with that number because the government historically collects a little less than that year and and year out as a percent of GDP. Seems like a fair compromise to me. The taxes of the wealthy go up a couple percentage points while the taxes of everyone else go down a lot.

Do you personally purchase politicians? And if so, then why?

It seems you want to remain willfully obtuse to the point. What exactly does buying politicians have to do with generating income?

 

[M14 Shooter]

I asked you three specific questions.
You dodged them.
Please try again.

You're asking me if it's okay for management to ask for concessions from workers AFTER a contact was negotiated in good faith.

No, I am not.

Please DO try to address the questions I -actually- asked you, rather than dodge them yet again.

You argue that anyone who lives up to the terms of a contract can expect that you will consider their compensation as their money, and that you will make no claim on that.

-Has someone not lived up to the terms settled upon in their contract?
-The stockholders who made money based on the rise in stock price - what contract did they have with you, and how did they not live up to it?
-If you cannot cite the breaches of contract, how thne do you, under your argument, have any claim to their money?

Still no response.
Predictable.

 

[rdean]

That is one factor that seperates the wealthy from others. I just wish people, especially on the left, would start taking a bigger picture look at wealth and how it's accumulated. I just don't get the venom that is spewed at people like Mitt simply for the way he is able to generate income. Isn't that a position all of us would like to be in if we could? If there was something you could do that would generate the same income from the job you have now without actually having to put in the time you put into it? I think pretty much all of us can think of other things we would like to be doing with our time. I just don't get why we begrudge those that have figured out how to do exactly that.

Now.....if your issue is the taxes that the rich pay for not working, pays vs. someone who puts in 40 hours a week, than maybe you have an argument. My question/suggestion would be why can't income be income be income and treat it all the same? A congressman from I believe South Carolina proposed a tax that was like 18.6% on all income. He came up with that number because the government historically collects a little less than that year and and year out as a percent of GDP. Seems like a fair compromise to me. The taxes of the wealthy go up a couple percentage points while the taxes of everyone else go down a lot.

Do you personally purchase politicians? And if so, then why?

It seems you want to remain willfully obtuse to the point. What exactly does buying politicians have to do with generating income?

Oh, that's hilarious. Politicians change the law. They can make what was illegal ---> legal. It's why the Chamber of Commerce gives to Republicans 9 to 1 over Democrats.

I'm embarrassed to have to explain it.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Do you personally purchase politicians? And if so, then why?

It seems you want to remain willfully obtuse to the point. What exactly does buying politicians have to do with generating income?

Oh, that's hilarious. Politicians change the law. They can make what was illegal ---> legal. It's why the Chamber of Commerce gives to Republicans 9 to 1 over Democrats.

I'm embarrassed to have to explain it.

To an ideologue, only the other party does bad things, while fellow demogogues are pure as the driven snow.

Both parties have this problem. Obama has demonstrated he has far more ocncern with Wall Street bankers than he has for the American working class, but at least he has some.

To Romney we are all nothing more than cattle to be milked for the profits of our labor then thrown out with the trash, as his years at Bain demonstrate resoundingly.

But owning communications networks like Clear Channel:
Bain Capital Owns Clear Channel (Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Michael Savage, Etc.)

Bain Capital Owns Clear Channel (Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Michael Savage, Etc.)
Wouldn't it be great if a Republican presidential candidate could just buy the support of just about every major conservative talk show host in America? Well, it may not be as far-fetched as you may think. Clear Channel owns more radio stations (850) than anyone else in the United States. They also own Premiere Radio Networks, the company that syndicates the radio shows of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Glenn Beck, among others. Needless to say, Clear Channel basically owns conservative talk radio in the United States. So who owns Clear Channel? Well, it turns out that Bain Capital is one of the primary owners of Clear Channel.

Money can buy you pundits and journalists as well as politicians.

 

[JimBowie1958]

$57.000.00 a day. And with no job for years. I admit. I wonder what it would be like.

Poor guy He did say he was unemployed back on one of his campaign stops

And he was soncerely trying to be mepathetic, but had no cleart he was in effect mocking these unemployed people.

He only knows what his advisers tell him.

 

[Bern80]

Do you personally purchase politicians? And if so, then why?

It seems you want to remain willfully obtuse to the point. What exactly does buying politicians have to do with generating income?

Oh, that's hilarious. Politicians change the law. They can make what was illegal ---> legal. It's why the Chamber of Commerce gives to Republicans 9 to 1 over Democrats.

I'm embarrassed to have to explain it.

And I'm embarrassed to have to explain it back to you. You are talking about laws dealing with contributions and the legality of the influence of money on politics. Go bark up a different true. The tree of those that make the laws. Not the wealthy