Tim Daneliuk wrote in
:

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.

So that's where you can get a 370 fold (37,000%) yield?

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.

Great job creators always look out for themselves first.

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


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

That's your opinion. I disagree.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid