How Romney used his church's tax status to lower his tax bill

Floridatexan wrote:
They'll never get it, Sal, because they don't WANT to see it. Romney represents, maybe better than anyone else, what's WRONG with the country. I think the author got it wrong about Mitt's popularity as governor, other than so-called "Romneycare", but he has totally backed away from that stance in his current campaign. He has twisted the tax laws to his own advantage, even beyond the tithe to his church. He has shipped American jobs overseas and marveled at the wages and living conditions the Chinese will accept. He used highly questionable funding, to say the least, in the formation and operation of Bain Capital. He hit up the federal government for taxpayer dollars to salvage Bain & Co. by defrauding the FDIC; he took $1.3 billion taxpayer dollars to help finance the 2002 Olympics. He doesn't believe in banking in the US, for unknown reasons, preferring to set up overseas accounts, which are known for their usefulness in one major arena...the tax dodge. His "blind trusts" aren't really blind. His wife thinks it's "their turn" and doesn't think "you people" need anymore info on their tax situation, because (parsing) she doesn't want to provide more fodder for the press to decipher and the opposition to use against them.

And yet this is the man some want to run the country? ASTOUNDING!

You state Romney represents what is wrong with this country. So being an extremely successful business man is what is wrong with this country, being extremely rich is what is wrong with this country, being a man of faith is what is wrong with this country. So this is what liberals think is wrong with this country. Romney has not broken any laws and has used the tax laws to his advantage just like every other rich LIBERAL in this country has done for the past hundred years yet Romney represents what is wrong with this country all of a sudden but liberals elected man with zero experience, zero credibility, and questionable acquaintances. Lets face it liberals see success and wealth as a bad thing, unless of coarse it is their own wealth

boards of FL wrote:

nochain wrote:And what has your hero BHO done in the last 4 years to "fix" this?

He has pushed for the Buffet Rule and also for rolling back top tier tax rates to levels from the Clinton era.

nochain wrote:You hypocritical folks who denigrate someone for following the law - regardless of "appearance" are hilarious! So, you have on this side a businessman who grew wealthy using the tools made available by the government in past years. On the other hand you have someone who smoked dope and blew coke in past years - which regardless of your slant is still against the law - now to whom are you giving a free pass?

So, nochain, should someone who makes millions of dollars per year pay a lower effective tax rate than someone who makes $50k per year?

Yes, by legal deductions, such as capital gains? Of course they should. Do you not take the deductions allowed by law? I'm guessing you just might.

Ann Romney stated that we would not have scandals in the WH should her husband get elected. Call me a fool and I will admit it if proven wrong, but I had the privilege of working with about a dozen "big name" boys when I had my own business. Marriott headquarters was one, Mormon based.

None of the big guys were bad, but the Marriott was exemplary in all their business dealings,from the mundane to the payoff. Always on time.

Oddly, we never took any government contracts as they typically paid 90 days or longer and we could not afford to carry them.

The Mormons are people we don't really understand and I'm the first to admit it. They seem to have a faith that I do not, sadly.

I still will agree with Ann Romney that we will not find a scandal should he make the WH.

Of note: I'm not really a Republican, but more a libertarian and find Romney not always to my liking, but I do believe him more forthright than most politicians. Additionally, I will not throw away my vote on a third party. It's all we've really got left in a say.

It is my hope that we can, once more, respect our country and those who officiate. We've been needing that for a long time.

nsureme wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

nochain wrote:And what has your hero BHO done in the last 4 years to "fix" this?

He has pushed for the Buffet Rule and also for rolling back top tier tax rates to levels from the Clinton era.

nochain wrote:You hypocritical folks who denigrate someone for following the law - regardless of "appearance" are hilarious! So, you have on this side a businessman who grew wealthy using the tools made available by the government in past years. On the other hand you have someone who smoked dope and blew coke in past years - which regardless of your slant is still against the law - now to whom are you giving a free pass?

So, nochain, should someone who makes millions of dollars per year pay a lower effective tax rate than someone who makes $50k per year?

Someone that makes millions of dollars per year via long-term capital gains pays a tax rate of 15%. The capital used to create that income has typically already been taxed at rates up to 35%. Someone making millions of dollars per year in ordinary income will pay tax rates according to their income...up to 35%. Several studies by non-partisan groups have shown that people making $50000 in ordinary income pay effective tax rates in the 7-8% range. Your question is misleading at best and completely deceptive at worst.

Hold on now-that's false! You can't use the capital used to create income being taxed at 35%. That's totally deceptive yourself.Someone making 50,000 a yr. is not taxed at 7-8%. I do taxes and you're totally misinformed.

stormwatch89 wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

nochain wrote:And what has your hero BHO done in the last 4 years to "fix" this?

He has pushed for the Buffet Rule and also for rolling back top tier tax rates to levels from the Clinton era.

nochain wrote:You hypocritical folks who denigrate someone for following the law - regardless of "appearance" are hilarious! So, you have on this side a businessman who grew wealthy using the tools made available by the government in past years. On the other hand you have someone who smoked dope and blew coke in past years - which regardless of your slant is still against the law - now to whom are you giving a free pass?

So, nochain, should someone who makes millions of dollars per year pay a lower effective tax rate than someone who makes $50k per year?

Yes, by legal deductions, such as capital gains? Of course they should. Do you not take the deductions allowed by law? I'm guessing you just might.

Ann Romney stated that we would not have scandals in the WH should her husband get elected. Call me a fool and I will admit it if proven wrong, but I had the privilege of working with about a dozen "big name" boys when I had my own business. Marriott headquarters was one, Mormon based.

None of the big guys were bad, but the Marriott was exemplary in all their business dealings,from the mundane to the payoff. Always on time.

Oddly, we never took any government contracts as they typically paid 90 days or longer and we could not afford to carry them.

The Mormons are people we don't really understand and I'm the first to admit it. They seem to have a faith that I do not, sadly.

I still will agree with Ann Romney that we will not find a scandal should he make the WH.

Of note: I'm not really a Republican, but more a libertarian and find Romney not always to my liking, but I do believe him more forthright than most politicians. Additionally, I will not throw away my vote on a third party. It's all we've really got left in a say.

It is my hope that we can, once more, respect our country and those who officiate. We've been needing that for a long time.

I don't have anything against Mormons but I don't see the correlation of paying your bills on time being exemplary. Isn't that what you're supposed to do? How does this make them exemplary?

[quote="Dreamsglore"][quote=



Hold on now-that's false! You can't use the capital used to create income being taxed at 35%. That's totally deceptive yourself.Someone making 50,000 a yr. is not taxed at 7-8%. I do taxes and you're totally misinformed.[/quote]

Nevermind.

alecto wrote:

Floridatexan wrote:
They'll never get it, Sal, because they don't WANT to see it. Romney represents, maybe better than anyone else, what's WRONG with the country. I think the author got it wrong about Mitt's popularity as governor, other than so-called "Romneycare", but he has totally backed away from that stance in his current campaign. He has twisted the tax laws to his own advantage, even beyond the tithe to his church. He has shipped American jobs overseas and marveled at the wages and living conditions the Chinese will accept. He used highly questionable funding, to say the least, in the formation and operation of Bain Capital. He hit up the federal government for taxpayer dollars to salvage Bain & Co. by defrauding the FDIC; he took $1.3 billion taxpayer dollars to help finance the 2002 Olympics. He doesn't believe in banking in the US, for unknown reasons, preferring to set up overseas accounts, which are known for their usefulness in one major arena...the tax dodge. His "blind trusts" aren't really blind. His wife thinks it's "their turn" and doesn't think "you people" need anymore info on their tax situation, because (parsing) she doesn't want to provide more fodder for the press to decipher and the opposition to use against them.

And yet this is the man some want to run the country? ASTOUNDING!

You state Romney represents what is wrong with this country. So being an extremely successful business man is what is wrong with this country, being extremely rich is what is wrong with this country, being a man of faith is what is wrong with this country. So this is what liberals think is wrong with this country. Romney has not broken any laws and has used the tax laws to his advantage just like every other rich LIBERAL in this country has done for the past hundred years yet Romney represents what is wrong with this country all of a sudden but liberals elected man with zero experience, zero credibility, and questionable acquaintances. Lets face it liberals see success and wealth as a bad thing, unless of coarse it is their own wealth

You don't see anything wrong w/ rich politicians families taking farm aid from the govt. yet they diss poor people for doing it. This is what's wrong w/ this country.People like you who close your eyes to the hypocrisy.

nochain wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

alecto wrote:Please, please tell me you are not that naive BOF. in 2008 Candidate Obama said he would lower the deficit, he added 6+ trillion to it. Now President Obama says he is going to lower the deficit. Seriously, He is lying through his teeth, he isn't going to lower crap. Obama can tax the rich at 95% and it will not solve shit without massive spending cuts not only to the military but all the nice little social programs. I have a lot of respect for you BOF and can't believe you would believe Obama given his record. Would Romney do any better? Couldn't tell ya but in this election the unknown is better than the known.

Obama inherited a $1.4 trillion dollar deficit. The fiscal year 2012 recently closed and the deficit is now $1.1 trillion. The year before that it was $1.3 trillion. It seems as if a trend may be emerging.

http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43656

Yea, must be all that additional tax revenue from the highly successful, multi-billion dollar "Shovel Ready" and "Green Money Energy Bankruptcy" programs generating those millions of jobs BHO promised. Sure. Perhaps it is a result of austerity measures in BHOs budget submissions, oh wait - it can't be that because none were passed. Oh well, BHOs sheeple will vote out of their extreme pride in hearing teleprompter promises and just hope for the best. He will likely get reelected so it will be interesting to see how 2016 looks. I'm thinking just like now except 4 years worse. Maybe he can at least propose programs to get the unemployment rate down to say, maybe 7% within 4 years????

I see that you can't debate an issue w/o bringing some other unrelated stance. Why don't you just say nothing Obama does is good and you'll never give credit where credit is due because you don't like someone. You're just not a objective person who can evaluate anything fairly which gives your opinions no credibility.

Dreamsglore wrote:

stormwatch89 wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

nochain wrote:And what has your hero BHO done in the last 4 years to "fix" this?

He has pushed for the Buffet Rule and also for rolling back top tier tax rates to levels from the Clinton era.

nochain wrote:You hypocritical folks who denigrate someone for following the law - regardless of "appearance" are hilarious! So, you have on this side a businessman who grew wealthy using the tools made available by the government in past years. On the other hand you have someone who smoked dope and blew coke in past years - which regardless of your slant is still against the law - now to whom are you giving a free pass?

So, nochain, should someone who makes millions of dollars per year pay a lower effective tax rate than someone who makes $50k per year?

Yes, by legal deductions, such as capital gains? Of course they should. Do you not take the deductions allowed by law? I'm guessing you just might.

Ann Romney stated that we would not have scandals in the WH should her husband get elected. Call me a fool and I will admit it if proven wrong, but I had the privilege of working with about a dozen "big name" boys when I had my own business. Marriott headquarters was one, Mormon based.

None of the big guys were bad, but the Marriott was exemplary in all their business dealings,from the mundane to the payoff. Always on time.

Oddly, we never took any government contracts as they typically paid 90 days or longer and we could not afford to carry them.

The Mormons are people we don't really understand and I'm the first to admit it. They seem to have a faith that I do not, sadly.

I still will agree with Ann Romney that we will not find a scandal should he make the WH.

Of note: I'm not really a Republican, but more a libertarian and find Romney not always to my liking, but I do believe him more forthright than most politicians. Additionally, I will not throw away my vote on a third party. It's all we've really got left in a say.

It is my hope that we can, once more, respect our country and those who officiate. We've been needing that for a long time.

I don't have anything against Mormons but I don't see the correlation of paying your bills on time being exemplary. Isn't that what you're supposed to do? How does this make them exemplary?

It's not always the case and you will note that I said the government did not.

Dreamsglore wrote:
You don't see anything wrong w/ rich politicians families taking farm aid from the govt. yet they diss poor people for doing it. This is what's wrong w/ this country.People like you who close your eyes to the hypocrisy.

All government programs are riddled with fraud and people getting assistance that do not need it. What is the difference when a rich family takes assistance when they do not need it and a poor person taking assistance because he/she is to lazy or inept to work? absolutely nothing.

Bottom line is most poor people do suck and no matter what you do for them they will always be poor.

Let's start taxing govt spending... What could go wrong?

Dreamsglore wrote:

nsureme wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

nochain wrote:And what has your hero BHO done in the last 4 years to "fix" this?

He has pushed for the Buffet Rule and also for rolling back top tier tax rates to levels from the Clinton era.

nochain wrote:You hypocritical folks who denigrate someone for following the law - regardless of "appearance" are hilarious! So, you have on this side a businessman who grew wealthy using the tools made available by the government in past years. On the other hand you have someone who smoked dope and blew coke in past years - which regardless of your slant is still against the law - now to whom are you giving a free pass?

So, nochain, should someone who makes millions of dollars per year pay a lower effective tax rate than someone who makes $50k per year?

Someone that makes millions of dollars per year via long-term capital gains pays a tax rate of 15%. The capital used to create that income has typically already been taxed at rates up to 35%. Someone making millions of dollars per year in ordinary income will pay tax rates according to their income...up to 35%. Several studies by non-partisan groups have shown that people making $50000 in ordinary income pay effective tax rates in the 7-8% range. Your question is misleading at best and completely deceptive at worst.

Hold on now-that's false! You can't use the capital used to create income being taxed at 35%. That's totally deceptive yourself.Someone making 50,000 a yr. is not taxed at 7-8%. I do taxes and you're totally misinformed.

No, it's not false. Ordinary income is taxed at someones marginal tax rate which can be as high as 35%. If they take that income and invest it the growth is then taxed as capital gains. On average, someone with a $50000 income pays an EFFECTIVE tax rate of 7-8%. I'm talking effective tax rate, not marginal rates. It's scary to think you are preparing people's tax returns.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/01/18/us/effective-income-tax-rates.html

boards of FL wrote:

nsureme wrote:Someone that makes millions of dollars per year via long-term capital gains pays a tax rate of 15%. The capital used to create that income has typically already been taxed at rates up to 35%. Someone making millions of dollars per year in ordinary income will pay tax rates according to their income...up to 35%. Several studies by non-partisan groups have shown that people making $50000 in ordinary income pay effective tax rates in the 7-8% range. Your question is misleading at best and completely deceptive at worst.

Mea culpa. Let me rephrase. Being that our deficit problem can be traced back to tax cuts and ramped up defense spending, should we 1) cut taxes further and ramp up military spending further or 2) restore tax rates for top tier earners to those from the Clinton era, implement the Buffet rule, and rein in defense spending?

None of the above. 1) implies that our deficit problem is solely the result of tax cuts and military spending. You ignore other factors such as the economic downturn and the amount of money spent on social programs. 2) Have you researched how much revenue would be generated by increasing tax rates on the top tier earners? It's not nearly enough to make a dent in the deficit. The buffet rule (something that you don't hear talked about anymore) would have a negative impact on investment. I'm of the opinion we have a spending problem much more than a revenue problem and that ALL federal spending should be on the table. It's time to let the adults be in charge.

knothead wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

nsureme wrote:Someone that makes millions of dollars per year via long-term capital gains pays a tax rate of 15%. The capital used to create that income has typically already been taxed at rates up to 35%. Someone making millions of dollars per year in ordinary income will pay tax rates according to their income...up to 35%. Several studies by non-partisan groups have shown that people making $50000 in ordinary income pay effective tax rates in the 7-8% range. Your question is misleading at best and completely deceptive at worst.

Mea culpa. Let me rephrase. Being that our deficit problem can be traced back to tax cuts and ramped up defense spending, should we 1) cut taxes further and ramp up military spending further or 2) restore tax rates for top tier earners to those from the Clinton era, implement the Buffet rule, and rein in defense spending?

******************************

S-I-L-E-N-C-E . . . . . . . . .

What a wonderful sound....

nsureme wrote:

Dreamsglore wrote:

nsureme wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

nochain wrote:And what has your hero BHO done in the last 4 years to "fix" this?

He has pushed for the Buffet Rule and also for rolling back top tier tax rates to levels from the Clinton era.

nochain wrote:You hypocritical folks who denigrate someone for following the law - regardless of "appearance" are hilarious! So, you have on this side a businessman who grew wealthy using the tools made available by the government in past years. On the other hand you have someone who smoked dope and blew coke in past years - which regardless of your slant is still against the law - now to whom are you giving a free pass?

So, nochain, should someone who makes millions of dollars per year pay a lower effective tax rate than someone who makes $50k per year?

Someone that makes millions of dollars per year via long-term capital gains pays a tax rate of 15%. The capital used to create that income has typically already been taxed at rates up to 35%. Someone making millions of dollars per year in ordinary income will pay tax rates according to their income...up to 35%. Several studies by non-partisan groups have shown that people making $50000 in ordinary income pay effective tax rates in the 7-8% range. Your question is misleading at best and completely deceptive at worst.

Hold on now-that's false! You can't use the capital used to create income being taxed at 35%. That's totally deceptive yourself.Someone making 50,000 a yr. is not taxed at 7-8%. I do taxes and you're totally misinformed.

No, it's not false. Ordinary income is taxed at someones marginal tax rate which can be as high as 35%. If they take that income and invest it the growth is then taxed as capital gains. On average, someone with a $50000 income pays an EFFECTIVE tax rate of 7-8%. I'm talking effective tax rate, not marginal rates. It's scary to think you are preparing people's tax returns.

I know what an effective tax rate is and that is based on your filing status and deductions. People like me have one exemption and virtually no deductions except 401K and mortgage. They take more than 15% out of my pay initially including SS and medicare and I wind up paying more anyway if I don't increase my deductions. Only people w/ children or many other deductions would pay an effective tax rate like that.

boards of FL wrote:

alecto wrote:If no laws were broken then whats the problem?

The problem is that we have this deficit problem that ballooned ever since we cut taxes back in 2001-2003. We also have people like Romney paying lower effective tax rates than people who make $50k per year. Now, you can either vote for the candidate who wants to fix that, or you can vote for the candidate who wants to exacerbate that - essentially pouring gasoline on the fire.

Pour your gas on NY/NJ, it would save alot of mile long lines....

BTW: What is the tax rate on a muni? Who buys munis? How big is the muni-market? How does the muni-market help local government and taxpayers?

NY/NJ will have a problem in the muni market after the storm unless there is a federal guarantee. Their debt is "low-class" , ask yourself why......screw them....

I'll buy, I'll need alot of points.

Dreamsglore wrote:

nsureme wrote:

Dreamsglore wrote:

nsureme wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

nochain wrote:And what has your hero BHO done in the last 4 years to "fix" this?

He has pushed for the Buffet Rule and also for rolling back top tier tax rates to levels from the Clinton era.

nochain wrote:You hypocritical folks who denigrate someone for following the law - regardless of "appearance" are hilarious! So, you have on this side a businessman who grew wealthy using the tools made available by the government in past years. On the other hand you have someone who smoked dope and blew coke in past years - which regardless of your slant is still against the law - now to whom are you giving a free pass?

So, nochain, should someone who makes millions of dollars per year pay a lower effective tax rate than someone who makes $50k per year?

Someone that makes millions of dollars per year via long-term capital gains pays a tax rate of 15%. The capital used to create that income has typically already been taxed at rates up to 35%. Someone making millions of dollars per year in ordinary income will pay tax rates according to their income...up to 35%. Several studies by non-partisan groups have shown that people making $50000 in ordinary income pay effective tax rates in the 7-8% range. Your question is misleading at best and completely deceptive at worst.

Hold on now-that's false! You can't use the capital used to create income being taxed at 35%. That's totally deceptive yourself.Someone making 50,000 a yr. is not taxed at 7-8%. I do taxes and you're totally misinformed.

No, it's not false. Ordinary income is taxed at someones marginal tax rate which can be as high as 35%. If they take that income and invest it the growth is then taxed as capital gains. On average, someone with a $50000 income pays an EFFECTIVE tax rate of 7-8%. I'm talking effective tax rate, not marginal rates. It's scary to think you are preparing people's tax returns.

I know what an effective tax rate is and that is based on your filing status and deductions. People like me have one exemption and virtually no deductions except 401K and mortgage. They take more than 15% out of my pay initially including SS and medicare and I wind up paying more anyway if I don't increase my deductions. Only people w/ children or many other deductions would pay an effective tax rate like that.

Hopefully you understand what "on average" means. The 7-8% effective rate I spoke of does not include SS and medicare taxes because they are separate from marginal tax rates. The good news is that apparently you are a little above average...

[quote="Dreamsglore"][quote="alecto"]

Floridatexan wrote:
They'll never get it, Sal, because they don't WANT to see it. [color=red]

And yet this is the man some want to run the country? ASTOUNDING!

You don't see anything wrong w/ rich politicians families taking farm aid from the govt. yet they diss poor people for doing it. This is what's wrong w/ this country.People like you who close your eyes to the hypocrisy.

Please show us where anyone is "dissing" poor people for taking farm aid.

I believe all farm subsidies should be stopped, especially that for the growing of corn for alcohol.

boards of FL wrote:

alecto wrote:Please, please tell me you are not that naive BOF. in 2008 Candidate Obama said he would lower the deficit, he added 6+ trillion to it. Now President Obama says he is going to lower the deficit. Seriously, He is lying through his teeth, he isn't going to lower crap. Obama can tax the rich at 95% and it will not solve shit without massive spending cuts not only to the military but all the nice little social programs. I have a lot of respect for you BOF and can't believe you would believe Obama given his record. Would Romney do any better? Couldn't tell ya but in this election the unknown is better than the known.

Obama inherited a $1.4 trillion dollar deficit. The fiscal year 2012 recently closed and the deficit is now $1.1 trillion. The year before that it was $1.3 trillion. It seems as if a trend may be emerging.

http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43656

As you know, President Barack Hussein Obama added a $1 TRILLION expense that was SUPPOSED to stimulate the economy and did nothing. He also spent billions on Cash for Clunkers which was a massive failure.

Oh, a trend is emerging...at $200 billion per year, we'll be down to a balanced budget by 2020. Oh wait, that doesn't include the additional INTEREST on all that additional debt.

boards of FL wrote:

alecto wrote:If no laws were broken then whats the problem?

The problem is that we have this deficit problem that ballooned ever since we cut taxes back in 2001-2003. We also have people like Romney paying lower effective tax rates than people who make $50k per year. Now, you can either vote for the candidate who wants to fix that, or you can vote for the candidate who wants to exacerbate that - essentially pouring gasoline on the fire.

As you well know, after those tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 we had RECORD REVENUES. Why do you continue to deny that FACT?

Obviously adding nearly $6 TRILLION IN DEBT in only FOUR YEARS is "essentially pouring gasoline on the fire".

Where is all that money supposed to come from? No, the rich people combined don't have that much money.