Romney paid $1.9M in taxes in one year. You think you'll ever end up paying $1.9M in total (combined) for every year of your life you pay taxes? I mean, the guy paid $1.9M in taxes. $1.9M sure seems like a lot of money to not keep.
That's a naive view of how it really works. To do $14M worth of trades is a lot of hours spent going over fundamentals, stock charts, investigating company behavior, looking at the kinds of people they're looking to hire (like on Monster.com), etc. But sure, it's as easy is throwing a dart at the stock page hanging on the wall and making a few phone calls.
I guess . . . to me it's all relative. Paying 100K in taxes to someone who made 400K could mean a lot more than paying 1.9 million to a person who made 13M. Also, with a total net worth of over 250M, I doubt he is crying over 1.9M. And again, if you live in a country that allowed you to make 13M mostly in investment money . . . fuck anyone who thinks they are over paying when they pay 1.9M because that is a lot of money. 13M is a lot of money too. I just read Romney filed his tax returns today. No wonder he didn't take the charitable deduction. He claimed he pays at least 13% in taxes before his taxes were released and he knew thees taxes would be scrutinized once filed and he releases it to the public. What candidate would take that deduction and ironically he ends up paying 14% in taxes. Romney paid a price—literally—for saying that he paid at least 13 percent in federal income taxes over the past decade. He and his wife did not take the full deductions to which they were entitled for their charitable giving."The Romneys' generous charitable donations in 2011 would have significantly reduced their tax obligation for the year," Malt wrote. "The Romneys thus limited their deduction of charitable contributions to conform to the Governor's statement in August, based upon the January estimate of income, that he paid at least 13% in income taxes in each of the last 10 years." Honestly, if he was not running for presidency, do you think he would have taken his charitable deduction? It's all just a big political game where only the rich can play. Ugh!
Yes, it's hard, slaving labor. My god, the drudgery of reading 10-Ks. The endless toil of clicking on the refresh button. Begging at the country club for a hot tip. The poor, under-appreciated investor, all he wants to do is make a buck off someone else's labor, why do we make it so hard on him? barfo
I file an extension every year and generally my final tax return by august/september time. It's pretty common. He paid $3M last year. So $5M in two years. That's a shitload of money. That's $3M on an income of $21M or 14% (nothing out of the ordinary to jack up his effective rate). His real tax rate was $3M on AGI of $17M or 17.6%. The whole % game is the joke. He made similar money as income as Warren Buffett, but paid 100x in taxes what Buffett's secretary did. Obama, similarly, paid 10x what his secretary did. The system is progressive, clearly.
That's not how people with money invest it. Do you manage your own 401K portfolio, or do you invest it in some fund managed by a fund manager? The only difference between a rich guy and a fund is the rich guy's money is a fund in its own right. It is a fuck load of work staying on top of it.
The percentage game isn't a joke, the numbers game is a joke. Look, look, look Romney paid 1.9M in taxes, what more do you want? How about he pays his fair share . .. and i doubt the average American feels like Romney or Obama paid their fair share. It's this kind of thinking that scares me from Romney. If one just starts looking at how much each person pays and not the percentage, that is just plain wrong. Heck you can find many who think paying 1 million is paying too much, especially compared to how little a white house secretary pays. Maybe Romney paid 50% more than he should have. Should there be a rule you only have to pay up to 1 million because that is a lot of money. BTW-i doubt 1 million is a lot of money to Romney and even Obama
Tell us Denny how people with money do it? Because the ones I know, pay people to do all that for them . . . and then write off those costs.
A $million is a lot to Romney and Obama. $100 is a lot to Bill Gates. $100 is $100. There's no reason to decide for someone else the value of their money to them.
They pay people with their own money to manage their money. I'm wondering how they "write off" those costs, though, since the people they pay to manage their money, and the people of the people they pay to manage their money, pay taxes on that income. What are you talking about? Are you looking to shut down the entire money management/accounting sector as well, and the taxes that those people pay from people like Mitt Romney for employing them?
What exactly is Romney's expertise? Oh yeah, he was an investment banker. I'm sure he'd hire someone to run his finances, right? I am sure, rather, that he invested his money wisely on his own to make his fortune.
Well if there is no reason to decide for someone else he value of their money to them, how can you say a million is a lot to them????? I can say $100 is not a lot for me and I can guess with confidence that $100 is practically nothing to Gates. One dollar is one dollar. One penny is one penny . . . that doesn't make it a lot of money to most people
My guess, without studying the tax code, you create an investment company and hire employees. You put in all under a business and write off your costs to the money the company makes. I do know with property, you put it under a corp and write off any cost to the property including property management. I know very little about running a rental property, I just know it makes me money doing it. I wonder if I had 100Xs the amount of capital to invest in property, would I make 100s what I make now. It would be sweet, and I do very little work and have little knowledge about the rental industry.
You still pay 1099 taxes on your corp, though. That's damn near a 40% rate. I guess I'm not following you line of logic here. It seems to point to "trickle down" in terms of taxable income, though.
I wasn't talking about Romney. Again you make the generalization that people with money do all their own work in managing and investing their money. That is just not true.
The only point I was making is that I doubt all rich people spend tons of time on their investments. Many just turn their money over to experts
Experts that they pay out of taxed income, and then the experts have that income taxed as well. Economics 101 You're actually arguing for the Trickle Down theory at this point.
