I wonder how much legs this birther movement would have had if Obama was born in a swing state like Ohio or Florida?
I suspect it would have died a premature death or at birth at least.
US Presidential Election: Tuesday November 6th, 2012
- Thread starter Team Brian GB
- Start date
- Status
I wonder how much legs this birther movement would have had if Obama was born in a swing state like Ohio or Florida?
I suspect it would have died a premature death or at birth at least.
Probably depends on how much wealth a person desires to accumulate. Plenty of people are happy reaching x figure while others want more and more. I have heard that neither Buffet nor Gates have held offshore accounts, though I have no idea if this is truth or false.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002907327
Senator Durbin asking Warren Buffet
"I asked Warren Buffet in a meeting we had recently, 'Have you ever had a Swiss bank account?' He said, 'No, there are plenty of good banks in the United States,'" Durbin said.
"So I started asking people: 'Why do you have Swiss bank account?' One, you believe the Swiss Franc is a stronger currency than the United States dollar. And that is apparently the decision the Romney family made during the Bush presidency. And secondly, you want to conceal something. You want to hide something. Why would you have a Swiss bank account instead of one in the United States? I would like to ... ask the press to really press some of these questions, the obvious questions. When is the last time a presidential candidate for the United States had a Swiss bank account? I think the answer is never."
Viewing your video link and his many showings - there are hardly any minorities at Romney's showings and some I have seen not a single minority in attendance. That's frightening. Even Bush drew his share of minorities.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure I could happily bum around for the rest of my life on a couple of million.
oh well Obama might as well give up
Speak for yourself, man. The whole point for me to having that much money would be never having to worry about money again. Spending my time paying accountants and the like to set up overseas tax shelters and such and checking up on him to make sure he's not robbing me sounds a fecking lot like worrying about money.
Romney claims he can't make his tax records public because of religious reason.
"After months stonewalling on releasing more tax returns, Mitt Romney invoked a brand-new explanation for demurring in an interview with Parade magazine set to hit newsstands this weekend: religion. “Our church doesn’t publish how much people have given [to the LDS Church]. This is done entirely privately. One of the downsides of releasing one’s financial information is that this is now all public, but we had never intended our contributions to be known. It’s a very personal thing between ourselves and our commitment to our God and to our church,” Romney told the magazine when asked about his returns, according to the Salt Lake Tribune."
http://www.salon.com/2012/08/24/mitt_romney_i_cant_im_mormon/
"After months stonewalling on releasing more tax returns, Mitt Romney invoked a brand-new explanation for demurring in an interview with Parade magazine set to hit newsstands this weekend: religion. “Our church doesn’t publish how much people have given [to the LDS Church]. This is done entirely privately. One of the downsides of releasing one’s financial information is that this is now all public, but we had never intended our contributions to be known. It’s a very personal thing between ourselves and our commitment to our God and to our church,” Romney told the magazine when asked about his returns, according to the Salt Lake Tribune."
http://www.salon.com/2012/08/24/mitt_romney_i_cant_im_mormon/
that took such a long time coming, did they take all this time to come up with such a stupid answer
that took such a long time coming, did they take all this time to come up with such a stupid answer
a lot of people had been predicting it was a concern over money given to the church. I can't imagine how much it could be to be a concern. 10s milllons? Still not sure why he fears that over offshore accounts though.
I haven't lookked at this model or their track record but a lot of these are misleading. They say they always get it right but the reality is they change their predictions over and over until the final day.
What possible controversy could exist over how much money he's given to his church? Nothing or everything he's ever made, I don't see how it matters.
Of course it's just a bullshit excuse, but I'm sure the democrats would be fine with him omitting his religious contributions if he released 10 years of taxes.
They gave 10% to the church his WIFE already said that on TV this week.
10% of What is the issue he does not want to discuss....
so what did you really earn Willard??
so what did you really earn Willard??
Even if he fecked over his church they wouldn't openly criticize him for it. They'd come out with some bullshit reason about why it's OK.
they wont criticize openly of course. But he would be in trouble with them surely.
We already know roughly what he earned. Its investment income so previous years will not be far off what he released already. In fact he might have made a loss in 2008 like most investors.
Well it looks like the RNC will be severely disrupted this week. Hurricane Isaac is strengthening and its path is dangerously close to Tampa. With a lot of the GOP Muppets staying at beach hotels they will all face evacuations.
I don't usually like to see Hurricanes heading our way but i this instance there is a silver lining.
I don't usually like to see Hurricanes heading our way but i this instance there is a silver lining.
Yikes, when did the polls get close again. Only 1.3% between them now and on the electoral vote Romney has picked up some States. Maybe Mittens superior advertising spend will make an impact over the next three month.
If the GOP had someone with a personality standing that was open about their taxes Obama would be in big trouble. Even the Republicans I know are not keen on Mittens.
If the GOP had someone with a personality standing that was open about their taxes Obama would be in big trouble. Even the Republicans I know are not keen on Mittens.
hope people are ok. so do you plan going somewhere? or are you going to board up and ride this through?
btw Nate Silver has the numbers ticking up a bit for the President.
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/
btw Nate Silver has the numbers ticking up a bit for the President.
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/
See God agrees with me, the conventions are worthless and ought to be cancelled.
The second time the GOP Convention has been disrupted by severe weather.
The same happened in 2008.
The same happened in 2008.
First day of the conference is cancelled.
Will be spun by the religious right as a blessing by god.
Oh yes, the old "tears of Christ and the farts of his father be fallen upon thee" reasoning.
I really doesn't hope this disrupts the Daily Show, they're supposed to be down there doing a special for the convention!
Ah, that's a thought, he's been saying he's been tithing but it turns out he's hiding his real income from his Church too! That would be brilliant, and surely a huge blow.
I really can't imagine anyone over here doing that for Cameron and Miliband.
that's what I was saying. He is lying...nothing surprising.
Mitt Romney Reaped Huge Tax Benefits Based On 'Active' Role At Bain Capital
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/26/romney-bain-taxes_n_1828816.html?utm_hp_ref=politics
WASHINGTON -- Mitt Romney has repeatedly insisted during the presidential campaign that layoffs and other controversy surrounding Bain Capital companies for the past decade are not his responsibility, because he retired in 1999. When tax experts charged that he benefited from legally dubious tax avoidance strategies employed by Bain, his campaign noted that the investments are kept in a blind trust completely out of his control.
"As we have said many times before, Governor and Mrs. Romney's assets are managed on a blind basis. They do not control the investment of these assets. The investment decisions are made by a trustee," spokeswoman Michele Davis said.
But according to his 2010 tax return, when the Internal Revenue Service comes calling in April, Romney has a different answer: The presumptive GOP nominee reaps lucrative tax breaks for "active" participation in the private equity firm he founded, as well as a host of other investments.
As David Kautter, a tax expert at American University, explains, the concept of active investment has different meanings for the IRS and for regular people. "When you say you're actively involved in all these businesses, people do think, OK, you're actively involved. But the tax law has its own definition," he said.
The IRS advises that "[f]actors that indicate active participation include making decisions involving the operation or management of the activity, performing services for the activity, and hiring and discharging employees. Factors that indicate a lack of active participation include lack of control in managing and operating the activity, having authority only to discharge the manager of the activity, and having a manager of the activity who is an independent contractor rather than an employee."
Even if Romney could persuade the IRS his involvement was legitimately active, that still leaves him in a rhetorical jam: For tax purposes, he claims an active status; for political purposes, he claims to have zero to do with the investments.
The distinction is valuable, for the IRS treats passive and active income and losses differently. If a passive investment loses money, the taxpayer can only write off that loss if passive gains have also been made. But active losses can be written off at a 35 percent rate and deducted from the taxpayer's ordinary income. In other words, a taxpayer wants active losses, not passive losses. So by describing many of his investments as active, Romney saves himself millions of dollars in taxes.
With those active investments, he is also securing a tax break few Americans enjoy: When he wins, he's paying a 15 percent rate on the gain. When he loses, he's writing it off at 35 percent, meaning that tax policy is subsidizing Romney's risk in his Bain investments.
In other words, Romney didn't build that, at least not without taxpayer backing.
[This story was the result of a reader tip. To tip us off to another, write to offthebus@huffingtonpost.com.]
Federal rules allow many of these tax loopholes. But under the technical terms of the retirement package that Romney negotiated for himself, he has borne a lighter tax load than most other retired financial professionals. And the unusually large scope of his deductions and the generous rate at which they are recognized have some tax experts questioning their validity.
Romney's 2010 tax return lists $301,630 in "trade or business interest" deductions and $503,737 in "trade or business expense" deductions -- all of it described as expenses from his business partnerships, including Bain. Specifically from his various Bain-related activities, Romney scored a total of $547,525 in such deductions.
These kinds of deductions are only available to "active" participants in business partnerships. While Romney filed as an active participant for tax purposes, there is no evidence that he took part in Bain management decisions in 2010, and he has denied doing so.
The sophistication with which Romney used Bain's later efforts to boost his own income could serve as fodder for political campaign advertisements. Since Romney has been willing to profit from Bain's later activity, the Obama campaign may well argue that such practices are fair game for attack ads. Some Democrats are already on the attack.
"Governor Romney appears to be saying one thing to the American people and one thing to the Internal Revenue Service," Rep. Brad Miller (D-N.C.) said to The Huffington Post. "Right now we are just seeing inconsistent statements. The American people are entitled to know more than that. If there's a legalistic distinction, we are entitled to know what that is. ... Has he played too close to the line or over the line?"
It is also possible that these deductions are all legitimate expenses for Bain and the handful of Goldman Sachs subsidiaries in which Romney is a partner. But listing personal expenses as business expenses is not allowed.
In addition, some tax experts are surprised by the size of the deductions he takes as business expenses and the aggressive nature of the deductions.
"One question is just the amount of the expenses," said Rebecca Wilkins, senior tax policy counsel at Citizens for Tax Justice. "At half a million dollars, you have to wonder what all of that is."
Romney's income can basically be divided into two parts. His "ordinary" income triggers the top 35 percent tax rate to which America's wealthiest earners are subject. But most of his income comes in the form of capital gains, which are taxed at only 15 percent. According to the Washington Post, 50 percent of all capital gains in the United States flow to the top 0.1 percent of taxpayers.
These two different tax rates present a tempting opportunity: By applying deductions to the pool of money taxed at 35 percent, rather than the pool of money taxed at 15 percent, Romney can reduce his overall tax bill. The $805,367 in deductions from his partnerships all receive exactly this useful treatment -- which may or may not be appropriate, depending on the nature of the expenses incurred.
"What's problematic is that these expenses are being deducted at the ordinary income tax rate of 35 percent, while the related income is mostly subject to the preferential long-term capital gain tax rate of 15 percent," Wilkins said.
Whether these expenses rightly apply to the pool of money taxed at 35 percent can only be determined by accessing the tax returns of Romney's Bain partnerships, which are not public documents. But many investment partnerships recognize stock losses that could not receive this favorable treatment.
In the years after Romney insists that he ended any active role at the firm, Bain Capital companies suffered huge job losses, plant closures and bankruptcies. KB Toys may be the saddest example. The New York Times has reported that after Bain bought the toy company in 2000, KB Toys filed for bankruptcy, laying off more than 3,000 workers. Bain's aggressive financial maneuvering, however, scored a 370 percent return on its investment.
Romney's own testimony and Securities and Exchange Commission filings demonstrate that he might not have been as hands off decision-making during those later years as he's suggested. Either way, his sophisticated tax practices show that he continued to benefit not only from Bain's profits but, at least in his tax bill, from Bain's losses.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/26/romney-bain-taxes_n_1828816.html?utm_hp_ref=politics
WASHINGTON -- Mitt Romney has repeatedly insisted during the presidential campaign that layoffs and other controversy surrounding Bain Capital companies for the past decade are not his responsibility, because he retired in 1999. When tax experts charged that he benefited from legally dubious tax avoidance strategies employed by Bain, his campaign noted that the investments are kept in a blind trust completely out of his control.
"As we have said many times before, Governor and Mrs. Romney's assets are managed on a blind basis. They do not control the investment of these assets. The investment decisions are made by a trustee," spokeswoman Michele Davis said.
But according to his 2010 tax return, when the Internal Revenue Service comes calling in April, Romney has a different answer: The presumptive GOP nominee reaps lucrative tax breaks for "active" participation in the private equity firm he founded, as well as a host of other investments.
As David Kautter, a tax expert at American University, explains, the concept of active investment has different meanings for the IRS and for regular people. "When you say you're actively involved in all these businesses, people do think, OK, you're actively involved. But the tax law has its own definition," he said.
The IRS advises that "[f]actors that indicate active participation include making decisions involving the operation or management of the activity, performing services for the activity, and hiring and discharging employees. Factors that indicate a lack of active participation include lack of control in managing and operating the activity, having authority only to discharge the manager of the activity, and having a manager of the activity who is an independent contractor rather than an employee."
Even if Romney could persuade the IRS his involvement was legitimately active, that still leaves him in a rhetorical jam: For tax purposes, he claims an active status; for political purposes, he claims to have zero to do with the investments.
The distinction is valuable, for the IRS treats passive and active income and losses differently. If a passive investment loses money, the taxpayer can only write off that loss if passive gains have also been made. But active losses can be written off at a 35 percent rate and deducted from the taxpayer's ordinary income. In other words, a taxpayer wants active losses, not passive losses. So by describing many of his investments as active, Romney saves himself millions of dollars in taxes.
With those active investments, he is also securing a tax break few Americans enjoy: When he wins, he's paying a 15 percent rate on the gain. When he loses, he's writing it off at 35 percent, meaning that tax policy is subsidizing Romney's risk in his Bain investments.
In other words, Romney didn't build that, at least not without taxpayer backing.
[This story was the result of a reader tip. To tip us off to another, write to offthebus@huffingtonpost.com.]
Federal rules allow many of these tax loopholes. But under the technical terms of the retirement package that Romney negotiated for himself, he has borne a lighter tax load than most other retired financial professionals. And the unusually large scope of his deductions and the generous rate at which they are recognized have some tax experts questioning their validity.
Romney's 2010 tax return lists $301,630 in "trade or business interest" deductions and $503,737 in "trade or business expense" deductions -- all of it described as expenses from his business partnerships, including Bain. Specifically from his various Bain-related activities, Romney scored a total of $547,525 in such deductions.
These kinds of deductions are only available to "active" participants in business partnerships. While Romney filed as an active participant for tax purposes, there is no evidence that he took part in Bain management decisions in 2010, and he has denied doing so.
The sophistication with which Romney used Bain's later efforts to boost his own income could serve as fodder for political campaign advertisements. Since Romney has been willing to profit from Bain's later activity, the Obama campaign may well argue that such practices are fair game for attack ads. Some Democrats are already on the attack.
"Governor Romney appears to be saying one thing to the American people and one thing to the Internal Revenue Service," Rep. Brad Miller (D-N.C.) said to The Huffington Post. "Right now we are just seeing inconsistent statements. The American people are entitled to know more than that. If there's a legalistic distinction, we are entitled to know what that is. ... Has he played too close to the line or over the line?"
It is also possible that these deductions are all legitimate expenses for Bain and the handful of Goldman Sachs subsidiaries in which Romney is a partner. But listing personal expenses as business expenses is not allowed.
In addition, some tax experts are surprised by the size of the deductions he takes as business expenses and the aggressive nature of the deductions.
"One question is just the amount of the expenses," said Rebecca Wilkins, senior tax policy counsel at Citizens for Tax Justice. "At half a million dollars, you have to wonder what all of that is."
Romney's income can basically be divided into two parts. His "ordinary" income triggers the top 35 percent tax rate to which America's wealthiest earners are subject. But most of his income comes in the form of capital gains, which are taxed at only 15 percent. According to the Washington Post, 50 percent of all capital gains in the United States flow to the top 0.1 percent of taxpayers.
These two different tax rates present a tempting opportunity: By applying deductions to the pool of money taxed at 35 percent, rather than the pool of money taxed at 15 percent, Romney can reduce his overall tax bill. The $805,367 in deductions from his partnerships all receive exactly this useful treatment -- which may or may not be appropriate, depending on the nature of the expenses incurred.
"What's problematic is that these expenses are being deducted at the ordinary income tax rate of 35 percent, while the related income is mostly subject to the preferential long-term capital gain tax rate of 15 percent," Wilkins said.
Whether these expenses rightly apply to the pool of money taxed at 35 percent can only be determined by accessing the tax returns of Romney's Bain partnerships, which are not public documents. But many investment partnerships recognize stock losses that could not receive this favorable treatment.
In the years after Romney insists that he ended any active role at the firm, Bain Capital companies suffered huge job losses, plant closures and bankruptcies. KB Toys may be the saddest example. The New York Times has reported that after Bain bought the toy company in 2000, KB Toys filed for bankruptcy, laying off more than 3,000 workers. Bain's aggressive financial maneuvering, however, scored a 370 percent return on its investment.
Romney's own testimony and Securities and Exchange Commission filings demonstrate that he might not have been as hands off decision-making during those later years as he's suggested. Either way, his sophisticated tax practices show that he continued to benefit not only from Bain's profits but, at least in his tax bill, from Bain's losses.
It's hard to knock the guy too much for benefiting from the 15% longterm capital gains rate. That only applies to money invested in US based companies.
I'm sure he's paying much much more on all the money he's socked away in Switzerland and the Caymans
I'm sure he's paying much much more on all the money he's socked away in Switzerland and the Caymans
The issue would be what tax he paid on it when it was income, he would not need to keep paying taxes on it year after year.
Ok.. so, it seems that we are permitted to post pics and videos. I keep hearing from Raoul that it's not permitted.
Here is the storm track of Tropical Storm (soon to be hurricane) Isaac
http://www.ssd.noaa.gov/goes/east/gmex/vis-animated.gif
*Not posted as an image
It doesn't appear to be effecting the RNC convention much, at all.
Here is the link to a 24/7 livestream link to an activist camps of indy journalists that I know http://www.ustream.tv/channel/nomadjik-show
He has to pay tax on the interest though. That is why many rich people have offshore accounts, to hide investment income from the IRS.
Well today's events were cancelled so it did impact the RNC somewhat, plus the beaches will be miserable today. As for the protests they will have absolutely zero impact in Tampa. They have the Arena pretty much locked down so they will not get anywhere near and GOP delegates. In all the sensitive areas the fencing is very high and substantial. Plus they have so many cops and security in town the protestors will be out numbered significantly.
yes that is true but the statement I replied to was not talking about interest.
You have to put them in spoilers. Pages load really slow when you clog them up with pics/vids.
Maybe it's just YOUR pics and videos that aren't permitted.
- Status