On 08/21/2012 07:49 AM, Han wrote:
snip


Two for instances.
Romney has amassed over 100 million in an IRA. Supposedly IRAs are
limited to something like $6000/year in contributions. Not sure when the
IRA system was started, but let's say for argument's sake 45 years ago.
That would mean (if I am correct) that Romney's 45x$6000 or $270,000 had
a phenomenal yield. But then, he could have transferred more than
$6000/year?

This is trivial to explain: He used a self-directed IRA - probably set
up by Bain - wherein his contributions were invested in Bain deals. This
is common among investment banks wherein the employees want to share in
the risk/reward. If the deals were successful (as we know they were)
there was probably huge returns associated with these contributions,
not to mention company matching funds. No only is this not illegal it
is perfectly ethical.



Romney has large amounts of capital off-shore. Theoretically that money
could be in use to support the US economy. Is it?

So what? It is HIS money and where he chooses to keep it is HIS business.


In other words, if this is legal, is it right?


Nothing you've suggested even rises slightly to any level of being
unethical.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk