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




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?

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

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

Why not? If it is legal, it was deemed right by the lawmakers. If
Romney or others want to give money away, fine, but that should be
their decision, not mine and yours.

Wish I could remember the details of a 60 Minutes piece asking about
some corporations with operations off shore. They would bring them
back of the tax rate was lower. We accept nothing over a lower
percentage of billions.

Our tax code is terrible and should be tossed out. The code should be
re-written and no more than three pages long. Problem is, that would
put many accountants and lawyers out of work.

On 21 Aug 2012 15:48:55 GMT, Han wrote:




So the discussion then becomes: Is donating to charity (and other
"loopholes") better than paying taxes? I would posit that at times it is
better to do so, in order to stroke your ego and enahnce your goals,
while at other times it may be better to let gvmnt build roads and
bridges.

We are not discussing the need to build bridges. What we do want
though, is a fair contribution towards paying for them. Under present
laws, that is not possible.

I don't blame anyone that avoids taxes when following the tax code.
I'd take every possible advantage. Don't throw darts at the tax
payer, toss those darts at the people that passed our inane tax laws.

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

On Tue, 21 Aug 2012 14:00:53 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:

On 08/21/2012 10:01 AM, Han wrote:
So that's where you can get a 370 fold (37,000%) yield?

It's entirely possible, legal, and ethical.

It's also possible for people to put their shares of their companies
into the IRA, which may be true in this case.


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.

I'm not sure I know what that means. EVERYONE (who is sane) looks
out for themselves and the ones they love first. The virtue of
capitalism is that, in doing so, they incidentally create opportunity
for others.

All businesspeople who do well take care of themselves first. If
they're not solvent, they lose the business and their employees lose
their jobs. I hope Han tells us what he meant by that.


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.


Please cite a single demonstrable example of something being unethical.
You cannot. You may not *like* what he's done, but it's HIS money
and therefore, no one else's business.

I'd like to see that, too. IAC, I won't be voting for the
Romneycritter.

--
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

On 21 Aug 2012 19:54:34 GMT, Han wrote:

Tim Daneliuk wrote in news:5033DAE5.5040404
:

On 08/21/2012 10:01 AM, Han wrote:
So that's where you can get a 370 fold (37,000%) yield?

It's entirely possible, legal, and 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.
Great job creators always look out for themselves first.

I'm not sure I know what that means. EVERYONE (who is sane) looks
out for themselves and the ones they love first. The virtue of
capitalism is that, in doing so, they incidentally create opportunity
for others.

That's a feel good statement if I ever saw one. I hope it is a
consideration for every capitalist, see whether what they do is creating
opportunity for others. Have you asked Steve Gass what opportunities he
is creating?

What's "feel-good" about incidentals?


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.


Please cite a single demonstrable example of something being unethical.
You cannot. You may not *like* what he's done, but it's HIS money
and therefore, no one else's business.

Didn't I say that I find it less than "right" that Mitt stores his money
in offshore tax havens?

How many richies do you know who keep -all- their money in US-only
banks/investments? Most don't because interest is higher elsewhere,
not to mention lower or no taxes elsewhere.

--
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

On 21 Aug 2012 14:09:34 GMT, Han wrote:

"Mike Marlow" wrote in
:

HeyBub wrote:
Lew Hodgett wrote:
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.


Certainly.

That Romney paid a lesser rate implies that he took advantage of tax
breaks, deductions, etc., built into the tax code.

Now these exemptions and so forth were placed in the tax code by our
betters to further various social goals such as contributions to
charity, home mortgage interest, and the like. To the degree that
Romney sought out and participated in those social goals, he should
be commended!
Ross Perot, as an exemplar, paid NO taxes on his millions in income
because his income was solely in the form of tax-exempt mutual bonds.

Because Romney evidently helped fund various social goals, cities are
improved, children don't go to bed hungry, the homeless find succor,
alcoholics have access to treatment programs, and, for all I know,
stray dogs and cats get three hots and a cot.

Don't bother HeyBub. This has always been a sore spot for people.
It's usually middle class people who pay a greater percentage of their
income in taxes, because they either don't qualify for the breaks, or
do not put the effort into getting those breaks. I don't believe it's
because they feel they should pay all of those taxes for some
altruistic reason. Net - it comes down to a certain level of jealousy
for those who do know how to, and do take advantage of those breaks.
Not totally logical IMHO. What those people don't look at is the
actual dollar amounts. Sure, the percentage is lower if you know how
to take advantage of the breaks, but the dollars are a lot higher. In
the end - there is a big difference between the thousands of dollars
that most folks pay, and the millions of dollars that those nasty rich
folks pay.

That is the question whether total amount or percentage is more
important. IOW, is progressive taxation good or not? A question of
ideology, perhaps?

I'm damned glad it's in effect here in the USA. Otherwise, I'd be
paying triple what I do. Under a flat tax or non-progressive
taxation, we little guys get repeatedly raped, blued, and tattooed.

--
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

Larry Jaques wrote:

How many richies do you know who keep -all- their money in US-only
banks/investments? Most don't because interest is higher elsewhere,
not to mention lower or no taxes elsewhere.

It doesn't matter where the money is, interest on it is subject to US taxes,
not local.

--

dadiOH
____________________________

Winters getting colder? Tired of the rat race?
Maybe just ready for a change? Check it out...
http://www.floridaloghouse.net

Larry Jaques wrote:
On Tue, 21 Aug 2012 14:00:53 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:

On 08/21/2012 10:01 AM, Han wrote:
So that's where you can get a 370 fold (37,000%) yield?

It's entirely possible, legal, and ethical.

It's also possible for people to put their shares of their companies
into the IRA, which may be true in this case.

True. But only an amount with a value equal to or less than the maximum
allowable IRA contribution.

--

dadiOH
____________________________

Winters getting colder? Tired of the rat race?
Maybe just ready for a change? Check it out...
http://www.floridaloghouse.net

On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 07:57:43 -0400, "dadiOH"
wrote:

Larry Jaques wrote:
On Tue, 21 Aug 2012 14:00:53 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:

On 08/21/2012 10:01 AM, Han wrote:
So that's where you can get a 370 fold (37,000%) yield?

It's entirely possible, legal, and ethical.

It's also possible for people to put their shares of their companies
into the IRA, which may be true in this case.

True. But only an amount with a value equal to or less than the maximum
allowable IRA contribution.

Tell that to the guy who wrote the wiki on it.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individ...rement_account

Large balances

While the average and median IRA individual balance in 2008 were
approximately $70,000 and $20,000, higher balances are not rare. 6.3%
of individuals had total balances of $250,000 or more (about 12.5
times the median),[17] and in rare cases, individuals own IRAs with
very substantial balances, in some cases $100 million or above (about
5,000 times the median individual balance).[18] This typically occurs
when founders of companies place shares in their own company in an
IRA, and the share value subsequently rises substantially.[18]

--
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

Larry Jaques wrote:
On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 07:57:43 -0400, "dadiOH"
wrote:

Larry Jaques wrote:
On Tue, 21 Aug 2012 14:00:53 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:

On 08/21/2012 10:01 AM, Han wrote:
So that's where you can get a 370 fold (37,000%) yield?

It's entirely possible, legal, and ethical.

It's also possible for people to put their shares of their companies
into the IRA, which may be true in this case.

True. But only an amount with a value equal to or less than the
maximum allowable IRA contribution.

Tell that to the guy who wrote the wiki on it.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individ...rement_account

Large balances

While the average and median IRA individual balance in 2008 were
approximately $70,000 and $20,000, higher balances are not rare. 6.3%
of individuals had total balances of $250,000 or more (about 12.5
times the median),[17] and in rare cases, individuals own IRAs with
very substantial balances, in some cases $100 million or above (about
5,000 times the median individual balance).[18] This typically occurs
when founders of companies place shares in their own company in an
IRA, and the share value subsequently rises substantially.[18]

That doesn't change what I said. Those founder's shares value had to be no
more than the maximum allowable IRA contribution when they were placed in
the IRA. There is no limit on how much the items in an IRA can grow *after*
they are in the IRA; in fact, that is the whole idea.

--

dadiOH
____________________________

Winters getting colder? Tired of the rat race?
Maybe just ready for a change? Check it out...
http://www.floridaloghouse.net

Ed Pawlowski wrote in
:

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




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?

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

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

Why not? If it is legal, it was deemed right by the lawmakers. If
Romney or others want to give money away, fine, but that should be
their decision, not mine and yours.

Wish I could remember the details of a 60 Minutes piece asking about
some corporations with operations off shore. They would bring them
back of the tax rate was lower. We accept nothing over a lower
percentage of billions.

Our tax code is terrible and should be tossed out. The code should be
re-written and no more than three pages long. Problem is, that would
put many accountants and lawyers out of work.

So sad, so true ...

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Han wrote:

Those *******s in D.C. need to pass a Balanced Budget Amendment.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...59544011685733
0.html?mod=hp_opinion


Where is this link supposed to point to, that is relevant to any discussion
here?

--

-Mike-

On 08/21/2012 09:46 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 21 Aug 2012 12:49:30 GMT, Han wrote:




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?

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

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

Why not? If it is legal, it was deemed right by the lawmakers. If
Romney or others want to give money away, fine, but that should be
their decision, not mine and yours.

Wish I could remember the details of a 60 Minutes piece asking about
some corporations with operations off shore. They would bring them
back of the tax rate was lower. We accept nothing over a lower
percentage of billions.

Our tax code is terrible and should be tossed out. The code should be
re-written and no more than three pages long. Problem is, that would
put many accountants and lawyers out of work.


Republican version:

- How much do you make?
- Do you make use of government services like secure borders, rule of law, ...?
- Pay nothing anyhow

Democrat version:

- How much do you make?
- We'll take it all and decide what you can have back for things we think you deserve.



--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk

Han wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in
m:

Han wrote:

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 ...

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?

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

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

This was settled in the late 18th century by the Englishman Adam
Smith in his book "An Inquiry into the Wealth of Nations." In that
work, he postulated the theory of "The Invisible Hand."

You really should keep up.

Sorry (contrite). Not familiar with the nitty gritty of invisible
hands. Doesn't seem to answer my question. Hints?

Sure. In sum, Smith postulate - and to my mind proved - that when each
person does what is best for himself, the entire community prospers.

Han wrote:

Didn't I say that I find it less than "right" that Mitt stores his
money in offshore tax havens?

That is way too big an implication in your statement. There is NO showing of
tax evasion or even tax avoidance in having an account in a Caymen Island
bank. Maybe he was attracted by their "free checking" offer.

No one knows.

But your suggestion of a "tax haven" is rank speculation. Further, there is
no "tax haven" capability in an off-shore account. The US is one of only two
countries that tax foreign earnings (the other is the Philippines). What the
Caymens, Bahamas, etc., offer is bank "secrecy." Now one CAN use the secrecy
to hide dodgy transactions, but Romney is a Republican. Republicans just
don't do that sort of thing.

In fact, but keep this confidential, I have accounts in two foreign banks in
different countries! These are my stash of "get out of town money." I
receive NO tax advantages in these account; they exist for completely
different purposes.

Han wrote:
"Mike Marlow" wrote in
news:4cffe$50339d3f :

Han wrote:


That is the question whether total amount or percentage is more
important. IOW, is progressive taxation good or not? A question of
ideology, perhaps?

My personal opinion? I tend towards a flat tax.

What's a flat tax in your opinion? Everyone should pay 9% here and 9%
there? Without regard of minimum living costs?

Yes. Personally, I favor a per-capita tax. That is one AMOUNT, not a single
percentage. Like a movie ticket or a can of jalapeno-flavored chicken
nuggets. One money for all. [Currently, that would be about $15,000 per
person per year]

Tim Daneliuk wrote:


Republican version:

- How much do you make?
- Do you make use of government services like secure borders, rule of
law, ...? - Pay nothing anyhow


That's what's wrong with this - regardless off whether that is really the
republican version or not, the "Pay nothing anyhow" part is just bull.
Think... taxes...


Democrat version:

- How much do you make?
- We'll take it all and decide what you can have back for things we
think you deserve.

This is quite true.

--

-Mike-

HeyBub wrote:


But your suggestion of a "tax haven" is rank speculation. Further,
there is no "tax haven" capability in an off-shore account. The US is
one of only two countries that tax foreign earnings (the other is the
Philippines). What the Caymens, Bahamas, etc., offer is bank
"secrecy." Now one CAN use the secrecy to hide dodgy transactions,
but Romney is a Republican. Republicans just don't do that sort of
thing.

Sorry - as much of a Democrat, or a liberal as I am not - I just cannot
bring myself to accept such a broad brush statement. Republicans have been
and can be as guilty of any sort of sin as anyone else.

--

-Mike-

"HeyBub" wrote in
m:

Han wrote:

Didn't I say that I find it less than "right" that Mitt stores his
money in offshore tax havens?

That is way too big an implication in your statement. There is NO
showing of tax evasion or even tax avoidance in having an account in a
Caymen Island bank. Maybe he was attracted by their "free checking"
offer.

No one knows.

But your suggestion of a "tax haven" is rank speculation. Further,
there is no "tax haven" capability in an off-shore account. The US is
one of only two countries that tax foreign earnings (the other is the
Philippines). What the Caymens, Bahamas, etc., offer is bank
"secrecy." Now one CAN use the secrecy to hide dodgy transactions, but
Romney is a Republican. Republicans just don't do that sort of thing.

In fact, but keep this confidential, I have accounts in two foreign
banks in different countries! These are my stash of "get out of town
money." I receive NO tax advantages in these account; they exist for
completely different purposes.

I have a Dutch euro accoun too. Properly mentioned on the relevant
documents etc. Comes in handy when I need euros. No need for foreign
exchange fees from the credit cards.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"HeyBub" wrote in
m:

Han wrote:
"Mike Marlow" wrote in
news:4cffe$50339d3f :

Han wrote:


That is the question whether total amount or percentage is more
important. IOW, is progressive taxation good or not? A question
of ideology, perhaps?

My personal opinion? I tend towards a flat tax.

What's a flat tax in your opinion? Everyone should pay 9% here and
9% there? Without regard of minimum living costs?

Yes. Personally, I favor a per-capita tax. That is one AMOUNT, not a
single percentage. Like a movie ticket or a can of jalapeno-flavored
chicken nuggets. One money for all. [Currently, that would be about
$15,000 per person per year]

Perhaps you want to explain a little, because that is so far out. A
family of 4 making 100K would then have 55K left. Which would mean that
in order to keep near their current standard of living, they'd have to
make at least 100K/yr more. Lower incomes would have to have a rise in
income of (nearly) the same amounts. Unless, perhaps you meant this
seriously, unless everyone should not only be paying the same in taxes,
they should earn the same amounts. By Heybub decree, which of course
supersedes government decree.

Just like a VAT, this type of proposal is a recipe for instant inflation.
Moreover, I don't think Boehner and Ryan want to be brought down to a
mere 200K/yr. Dream on ...

I apologize in advance for poking fun at your proposal, but to me it is
indeed utopian drivel.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 20:05:37 -0400, "
There are more people out of work now than there were when he was coronated.
Any "new jobs" are spin,just as his moronic "jobs created or saved".

Fine, but consider the current economic climate around the world.
There maybe more out of work now. But, you could also hypothesize that
if someone else was in power, even more might be out of work. Who is
to say differently?

Dave wrote:
On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 20:05:37 -0400, "
There are more people out of work now than there were when he was
coronated. Any "new jobs" are spin,just as his moronic "jobs created
or saved".

Fine, but consider the current economic climate around the world.
There maybe more out of work now. But, you could also hypothesize that
if someone else was in power, even more might be out of work. Who is
to say differently?

Ooooooo... Dave - that wasn't good. A good rebuttal is one thing, but I
expected better from you. Here - give it another go...

--

-Mike-

On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 20:38:15 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
Ooooooo... Dave - that wasn't good. A good rebuttal is one thing, but I
expected better from you. Here - give it another go...

Well in my own defense, as a Canadian, my interests lie mostly with
what is happening north of the border. That's not to say that I'm not
concerned with what is happening in the US, since most of what you do
has a tremendous impact on Canada. But, there's very little I can do
about it.

That's he only defense I can offer.

On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 20:50:33 -0400, Dave wrote:

On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 20:38:15 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
Ooooooo... Dave - that wasn't good. A good rebuttal is one thing, but I
expected better from you. Here - give it another go...

Well in my own defense, as a Canadian,

Well, that says it all. Butt out.

In article ,
says...

Han wrote:
"Mike Marlow" wrote in
news:4cffe$50339d3f :

Han wrote:


That is the question whether total amount or percentage is more
important. IOW, is progressive taxation good or not? A question of
ideology, perhaps?

My personal opinion? I tend towards a flat tax.

What's a flat tax in your opinion? Everyone should pay 9% here and 9%
there? Without regard of minimum living costs?

Yes. Personally, I favor a per-capita tax. That is one AMOUNT, not a single
percentage. Like a movie ticket or a can of jalapeno-flavored chicken
nuggets. One money for all. [Currently, that would be about $15,000 per
person per year]

So how do you deal with people whose income is $14,000 per year?

On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 21:24:12 -0400, "
Well in my own defense, as a Canadian,
Well, that says it all. Butt out.

Hey, not much chance of that happening. I enjoy telling assholes like
to where to go.

On 8/22/2012 10:35 AM, Han wrote:
Ed Pawlowski wrote in
:

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



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?

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

In other words, if this is legal, is it right?
Why not? If it is legal, it was deemed right by the lawmakers. If
Romney or others want to give money away, fine, but that should be
their decision, not mine and yours.

Wish I could remember the details of a 60 Minutes piece asking about
some corporations with operations off shore. They would bring them
back of the tax rate was lower. We accept nothing over a lower
percentage of billions.

Our tax code is terrible and should be tossed out. The code should be
re-written and no more than three pages long. Problem is, that would
put many accountants and lawyers out of work.
So sad, so true ...

By all means, let's simplify the tax code. Don't worry about the
lawyers, they'll always find work to do.

Mike Marlow wrote:
HeyBub wrote:


But your suggestion of a "tax haven" is rank speculation. Further,
there is no "tax haven" capability in an off-shore account. The US is
one of only two countries that tax foreign earnings (the other is the
Philippines). What the Caymens, Bahamas, etc., offer is bank
"secrecy." Now one CAN use the secrecy to hide dodgy transactions,
but Romney is a Republican. Republicans just don't do that sort of
thing.

Sorry - as much of a Democrat, or a liberal as I am not - I just
cannot bring myself to accept such a broad brush statement. Republicans
have been and can be as guilty of any sort of sin as
anyone else.

Your claim, that Republicans can be rascally in their financial dealings, is
certainly true.

There was an instance back in 1922 called the "Teapot Dome Scandal" during
the administration of Warren G. Harding which we Republicans like to forget.

Han wrote:

In many ways we are much better off now than we realize, and those
graphs show it. I wish I knew how to translate it into more jobs.
Serious suggestions?

A good part of it is uncertainty.

Estimates are that business in the US are sitting on over $1 trillion in
cash but are reluctant to invest it due to uncertainty.

Uncertainty in imminent tax policies, energy development, health care costs,
and more.

Another $1 trillion in corporate assets are reported parked in off-shore
accounts due to unfavorable tax regulations. With a modest change in the tax
law, these profits could easily be repatriated to the US.

J. Clarke wrote:

Yes. Personally, I favor a per-capita tax. That is one AMOUNT, not a
single percentage. Like a movie ticket or a can of jalapeno-flavored
chicken nuggets. One money for all. [Currently, that would be about
$15,000 per person per year]

So how do you deal with people whose income is $14,000 per year?

I haven't worked out all the details, but as I've said before such an
individual could contribute a kidney. I call that my "Federal Withdrawal
Plan."

On 08/23/2012 01:49 AM, Just Wondering wrote:
By all means, let's simplify the tax code. Don't worry about the lawyers, they'll always find work to do.


By one means or another:

http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/08/21...cruits-dwarfs/

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk

HeyBub wrote:
Mike Marlow wrote:
HeyBub wrote:


But your suggestion of a "tax haven" is rank speculation. Further,
there is no "tax haven" capability in an off-shore account. The US
is one of only two countries that tax foreign earnings (the other
is the Philippines). What the Caymens, Bahamas, etc., offer is bank
"secrecy." Now one CAN use the secrecy to hide dodgy transactions,
but Romney is a Republican. Republicans just don't do that sort of
thing.

Sorry - as much of a Democrat, or a liberal as I am not - I just
cannot bring myself to accept such a broad brush statement.
Republicans have been and can be as guilty of any sort of sin as
anyone else.

Your claim, that Republicans can be rascally in their financial
dealings, is certainly true.

There was an instance back in 1922 called the "Teapot Dome Scandal"
during the administration of Warren G. Harding which we Republicans
like to forget.

As well - GW didn't do a lot to endear me...

--

-Mike-

On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 10:05:34 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:

HeyBub wrote:
Mike Marlow wrote:
HeyBub wrote:


But your suggestion of a "tax haven" is rank speculation. Further,
there is no "tax haven" capability in an off-shore account. The US
is one of only two countries that tax foreign earnings (the other
is the Philippines). What the Caymens, Bahamas, etc., offer is bank
"secrecy." Now one CAN use the secrecy to hide dodgy transactions,
but Romney is a Republican. Republicans just don't do that sort of
thing.

Sorry - as much of a Democrat, or a liberal as I am not - I just
cannot bring myself to accept such a broad brush statement.
Republicans have been and can be as guilty of any sort of sin as
anyone else.

Your claim, that Republicans can be rascally in their financial
dealings, is certainly true.

There was an instance back in 1922 called the "Teapot Dome Scandal"
during the administration of Warren G. Harding which we Republicans
like to forget.

As well - GW didn't do a lot to endear me...

Are you alleging criminal activity in their financial dealings?

On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 01:42:17 -0400, Dave wrote:

On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 21:24:12 -0400, "
Well in my own defense, as a Canadian,
Well, that says it all. Butt out.

Hey, not much chance of that happening. I enjoy telling assholes like
to where to go.

I suppose you can't lose yourself. But really, US politics is none of your
business.

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 10:05:34 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:

HeyBub wrote:
Mike Marlow wrote:
HeyBub wrote:


But your suggestion of a "tax haven" is rank speculation. Further,
there is no "tax haven" capability in an off-shore account. The US
is one of only two countries that tax foreign earnings (the other
is the Philippines). What the Caymens, Bahamas, etc., offer is
bank "secrecy." Now one CAN use the secrecy to hide dodgy
transactions, but Romney is a Republican. Republicans just don't
do that sort of thing.

Sorry - as much of a Democrat, or a liberal as I am not - I just
cannot bring myself to accept such a broad brush statement.
Republicans have been and can be as guilty of any sort of sin as
anyone else.

Your claim, that Republicans can be rascally in their financial
dealings, is certainly true.

There was an instance back in 1922 called the "Teapot Dome Scandal"
during the administration of Warren G. Harding which we Republicans
like to forget.

As well - GW didn't do a lot to endear me...

Are you alleging criminal activity in their financial dealings?

Nope - not at all. In fact, I was generalizing in a way that was outside of
the "financial dealings" that HeyBub laid down in his prior reply. So - in
that sense, I did (with my reply) extend this beyond what had previously
been stated.

--

-Mike-

Scott Lurndal wrote:

But, you won't. You'll just ditto conservative commentators and
resort to offensive name calling behavior, as is your wont.


To be fair - the same could be said of either side of the coin. Are you
saying that you don't see the same kind of thing happening with/from those
on the left?

--

-Mike-

"HeyBub" wrote in
:

Han wrote:

In many ways we are much better off now than we realize, and those
graphs show it. I wish I knew how to translate it into more jobs.
Serious suggestions?

A good part of it is uncertainty.

Estimates are that business in the US are sitting on over $1 trillion
in cash but are reluctant to invest it due to uncertainty.

Uncertainty in imminent tax policies, energy development, health care
costs, and more.

Another $1 trillion in corporate assets are reported parked in
off-shore accounts due to unfavorable tax regulations. With a modest
change in the tax law, these profits could easily be repatriated to
the US.

Totally agree. In spades. Previous tax amnesties haven't had too much
success, but it should be tried again, maybe with a jobs clause attached?
There are legitimate differences in the tax proposals, but Bowles-Simpson
seems to me a good (improvable!!) basis.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

" wrote in
:

It's not just NY. Government is forcing jobs off-shore, too. ...but
everyone knows that (Democrats won't admit it, though).

Here in NJ, it is a Republican heavy weight poster boy who has just about
singlehandedly instituted severe austerity. SO far no result on the jobs
whatsoever.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 08/23/2012 01:38 PM, Han wrote:
Good news! My personal economics will not be affected, I think and hope,
since I am retired.

You're kidding yourself. If we continue down the debt rathole - produced
by both Rs and Ds but REALLY accelerated by the Hoax And Shame administration -
you WILL be affected. Why? Because sooner or later, all the phony
dollars being logically printed are going to be worth less. Presumably,
you are on a fixed income in retirement. What happens when a loaf of
bread costs $7 or gas hits $10/gal (which affects the "price" of
pretty much everything)?

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk

Just Wondering wrote in news:5035d28b$0$28867$882e7ee2
@usenet-news.net:

By all means, let's simplify the tax code. Don't worry about the
lawyers, they'll always find work to do.

Yes. Let us do that. Let us firstly that a letter of intent should
accompany all legislation, laying out the spirit of the proposed law. Then
somehow codify that legalistic loopholes are not valid if they violate the
spirit of the law. I thought that something like that may (have) exist
(ed).

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid