On 21 Aug 2012 12:49:30 GMT, Han wrote:

Tim Daneliuk wrote in
:

On 08/20/2012 11:29 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
Enjoy

Lew

----------------------------------------------------------------------
------ Can we stand back and pause a short minute to take in the
spectacle of a man who wants to be President of The United States,
who wants us to seriously regard him as a paragon of the American
civic ideal, declaiming proudly and in public that he has paid his
taxes at a third of
the rate normally associated with gentlemen of his economic benefit.

Stunning.

Another Proof By Repeated Assertion from the left. Let's
see the evidence of this and further see any evidence of
illegality.

We have to go by what is legal if we want to live in a system ruled by
law. But there may be a difference between what is legal and what is
right. As you know I am just a bit left of center ...

Veery much so.


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?

I believe the excess is taxed. Just the $6k is written off, until it's
cashed in.


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

How do we get all the richies to do this, Han? Then again, how much
of their wealth was created outside the US? Most richies are
men/women of the world, with MANY international business dealings.


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

Good question.

--
And the day came when the risk to remain tight in a bud
was more painful than the risk it took to blossom.
-- Anaïs Nin