It really is remarkable. What happened to tolerance? "The New Left: We Accept Everyone...As Long As They Think Exactly Like Us"
You are using Income and AGI interchangeably which is a big mistake. AGI is extremely easy to manipulate when you have access variety of income sources and the best tax planners available.
Grasping... at... straws. The point remains. Those calling Romney a selfish, greedy, asshole trying to screw over the middle and lower class should be ashamed of themselves.
That's fantastic, but at the same time this shouldn't change anyone's perception of Romney either way considering that most major politicians get extensive financial coaching to make themselves look more politically friendly. This goes for both Democrats and Republicans.
Well if you don't understand difference between the two terms then good luck, and I never once called Romney any of those things so focus your diatribe elsewhere. Bottomline, I find the fact that people are making character judgments about Romney (or any person for that matter) based on how much they donate really amusing. If we are going to make any type of judgement based on donations.... donations as a percentage of total net worth would be a much more useful number, but it's something we will never know.
Because he seems reluctant to release them which causes speculation that he has something to hide (which he doesn't besides being obscenely wealthy)
I was going to make this point in another way: I think we can all agree that Mitt Romney--whatever you may think of his politics--is a very generous man.
He doesn't??? How can you make that claim? Romney's father George's political legacy is that politicians running for national office release 12 years of tax returns... it's become a standard practice for every Presidential candidate since as it gives the American people a chance to see who it is that they're considering. George's famous quote... "One year could be a fluke, perhaps done for show." I don't see much of a difference with 2 years and I truly hope that Mitt's feet are continued to be held to the fire on this. I want more transparency not less and do not want to see George's legacy fade away btw...here's a link to Obama & Biden's returns STOMP
I'm with pp on this . . . there is a huge difference between income and adjusted gross income. Having said that, I don't think these tax returns can be read to show Romney cares about the lower middle class and poor or not. I don't know if he does and his opinion about the lower economic class is certainly disturbing. But I would like to think that if you become the president of the United States that you would have to consider and care about that cross section of America. As far as capital gains tax. . . this is my beef. The rich get richer as they invest their money into wall street and make more money at a lower tax rate and without working. I'm sure wall street loves the low capital gains tax but I think it is creating a bigger divide among this country. It takes money to make money AND you don't really get taxed much on that new money . . . now you just need investment money to get into this great US situation . . . which of course many lower middle class don't have that
I was going to say this earlier, but chose not to since I didn't think anyone else would actually think income vs. adjusted gross income made much difference when the man donated over $4MM, but I guess I was wrong. Tithing in the LDS church is 10% of your increase. So at least 10% of that 13.45% has nothing to do with deductions on his house, dependents, or even Ann's horse. I see the point you're trying to make about capital gains tax, but it's not like the tax only benefits people worth $1MM or more. Also, how did these people get their money to invest? At some point, whether it was an ancestor or themselves, someone had to work to obtain that money. Furthermore, it's not like there isn't any risk involved in investing. People can and do end up worse off than if they hadn't invested at all. Yeah, the people with money benefit from the rule and those who don't have expendable cash don't, but it's not like the rule takes money out of the pocket of the financially needy.
There is a big difference in income and AGI no matter what he donated to charity. If I understand this right, we know he donated about 14% of his AGI. I'm not here to say 4 million is little just that it isn't correct to say he donated 14% of his income. Who knows what his real income is, we know his AGI . . . or does his tax returns show his total income and I missed that? With regard to capital gains tax . . . the rule doesn't take out of others pockets unless you lower income tax and raise capital gains tax. But we know that isn't going to happen because that is how so many politicians make their money. I mean 13 million in AGI with most of it being generated by investment income . . . man, that is the way to do it in the US.
you do realize that CG taxes are getting taxed on dollars that have already been taxed, and that the econemy needs investment to grow and create jobs?
How do you figure? Yes. If we increase the capital gains tax rate, investors will take their money and.... do what, exactly? Bury it in the yard? barfo
well its pretty simple any money earned is taxed, CGs are wealth gained using existing capital (said taxed dollars) the percentage is lower to compensate for this No they invest elsewhere, like other countries with more favorable tax structures and less intervention from the gov
You pay taxes on Capital "Gains" not on capital investment. In other words you get taxed on new money, not on the taxed money you invested.
