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.

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.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

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 ...

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?

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

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.

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.

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.

--

-Mike-

"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?

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

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

"HeyBub" wrote in
m:

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.

Yes, and I take "advantage" of the breaks too, specifically the huge
loophole that transfer of appreciated stock to charity offers (a total
charitable deduction for FMV, without regard to basis or cap gains).

Perhaps we should have an automatic sunset to those social goals.
Equally to depletion allowances and subsidies to green technologies.
(I have no idea what the law says on these at the moment, just that they
have supporters and detractors on the left and the right).

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"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?

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

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.

--

-Mike-

On 08/21/2012 09:02 AM, 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?


cf "The Wealth Of Nations" by Adam Smith - considered the beginning of
modern economics. Everyone quotes him, very few people have actually
read him. I recommend this as a painless intro:

http://www.amazon.com/Wealth-Nations.../dp/0871139499

Another VERY good intro:

http://www.knowledgeproducts.net/htm...political3.cfm

(Knowledge Products stuff is all really, really good.)

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

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

Tim Daneliuk wrote:


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.

Agreed! I do get concerned when I see or hear people talking about the
money of others (usually those with more money...), and either saying or
suggesting that others should use that money for some pupose that they feel
is appropriate. Since when do any of us have that right? Han might have
his own thoughts on what is good for society, but so do a ton of other
people. So - how to decide how those with more money should use their
money? By whose definitions? Not to mention that such a thought all by
itself is really presumptuous. I guess we all do that, and I'm not calling
Han out on this, other than to note that we as people do those things. I
guess that's one of the benefits of forcing a compromise between two adverse
parties such as liberals and conservatives.


--

-Mike-

"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?

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Tim Daneliuk wrote in
:

On 08/21/2012 09:02 AM, 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?


cf "The Wealth Of Nations" by Adam Smith - considered the beginning of
modern economics. Everyone quotes him, very few people have actually
read him. I recommend this as a painless intro:

http://www.amazon.com/Wealth-Nations...rld/dp/0871139
499

Another VERY good intro:

http://www.knowledgeproducts.net/htm...political3.cfm

(Knowledge Products stuff is all really, really good.)

Thanks!!

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

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. Bear in mind - I am not an advocate of that strategy, but I lean that
way.

--

-Mike-

Han wrote:


I'm speaking on this because as I see it, Romney and his "friends"
(ilk has a bad connotation, and I don't mean that) want to have taxes
on their incomes reduced, while in effect increasing the burdens on
middle and lower incomes.

So - you just made an accusation there Han. Let me paraphrase it as I read
it... I read that to say that rich folks want to reduce thier tax burden
and let others pick it up. It is the latter of that paraphrase that I
disagree with. Have you ever know a millionaire - or a billionaire? Have
you ever spoken with them? Do you have any idea what people with that kind
of money actually do contribute in terms of real tax dollars, and in terms
of charitable contributions? I have. More than one, more than two and more
than ten. Certainly - their focus is different than that of you and I.
But - you sir do a great disservice to at least a very large percentage of
the rich population with your (again...) unfounded beliefs. You might be
well served Han, as I suggested in a totally different thread, to look out
beyond your own unfounded thoughts, and check out that world around you,
that you speak about.



--

-Mike-

"Mike Marlow" wrote in
:

Han wrote:


I'm speaking on this because as I see it, Romney and his "friends"
(ilk has a bad connotation, and I don't mean that) want to have taxes
on their incomes reduced, while in effect increasing the burdens on
middle and lower incomes.

So - you just made an accusation there Han. Let me paraphrase it as I
read it... I read that to say that rich folks want to reduce thier
tax burden and let others pick it up. It is the latter of that
paraphrase that I disagree with. Have you ever know a millionaire -
or a billionaire? Have you ever spoken with them? Do you have any
idea what people with that kind of money actually do contribute in
terms of real tax dollars, and in terms of charitable contributions?
I have. More than one, more than two and more than ten. Certainly -
their focus is different than that of you and I.
But - you sir do a great disservice to at least a very large
percentage of
the rich population with your (again...) unfounded beliefs. You might
be well served Han, as I suggested in a totally different thread, to
look out beyond your own unfounded thoughts, and check out that world
around you, that you speak about.

That was indeed what I wanted to "say that rich folks want to reduce
their tax burden and let others pick it up". I do the same when I donate
15K to charity and use the tax deduction. I am not averse to using the
law to my advantage.

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.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 8/21/2012 6:49 AM, Han wrote:
Romney has amassed over 100 million in an IRA. Supposedly IRAs are
limited to something like $6000/year in contributions.

Wrong. Any IRA cap is only on tax-free contributions. You can put as
much over that into an IRA as you please, it's just that only the amount
up to the cap is untaxed.

On 8/21/2012 9:02 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:

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.
Agreed! I do get concerned when I see or hear people talking about the
money of others (usually those with more money...), and either saying or
suggesting that others should use that money for some pupose that they feel
is appropriate. Since when do any of us have that right? Han might have
his own thoughts on what is good for society, but so do a ton of other
people. So - how to decide how those with more money should use their
money? By whose definitions? Not to mention that such a thought all by
itself is really presumptuous. I guess we all do that, and I'm not calling
Han out on this, other than to note that we as people do those things. I
guess that's one of the benefits of forcing a compromise between two adverse
parties such as liberals and conservatives.

If someone other than Romney can ethically decide what Romney does with
his money, that same someone can just as ethically decide what Tim can
do with his money, no matter how much Tim might disagree.

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.

Ugh! You just opened up a new aspect of discussion. Do we really want to
go there?

--

-Mike-

On 8/21/2012 9:48 AM, Han wrote:
"Mike Marlow" wrote in
:

Han wrote:

I'm speaking on this because as I see it, Romney and his "friends"
(ilk has a bad connotation, and I don't mean that) want to have taxes
on their incomes reduced, while in effect increasing the burdens on
middle and lower incomes.
So - you just made an accusation there Han. Let me paraphrase it as I
read it... I read that to say that rich folks want to reduce thier
tax burden and let others pick it up. It is the latter of that
paraphrase that I disagree with. Have you ever know a millionaire -
or a billionaire? Have you ever spoken with them? Do you have any
idea what people with that kind of money actually do contribute in
terms of real tax dollars, and in terms of charitable contributions?
I have. More than one, more than two and more than ten. Certainly -
their focus is different than that of you and I.
But - you sir do a great disservice to at least a very large
percentage of
the rich population with your (again...) unfounded beliefs. You might
be well served Han, as I suggested in a totally different thread, to
look out beyond your own unfounded thoughts, and check out that world
around you, that you speak about.
That was indeed what I wanted to "say that rich folks want to reduce
their tax burden and let others pick it up". I do the same when I donate
15K to charity and use the tax deduction. I am not averse to using the
law to my advantage.

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.

Nobody has challenged the government's role in building roads and
bridges. Tell me, how much of the $3.8 trillion federal budget is spent
on roads and bridges?

"Just Wondering" wrote:

Nobody has challenged the government's role in building roads and
bridges. Tell me, how much of the $3.8 trillion federal budget is
spent on roads and bridges?
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Hope it's not too much.

After all, those unwed mothers need their welfare checks.

Lew

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
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,

Bain is private but it must have investors. One wonders if those investors
realized gains as large as Romney's.

not to mention company matching funds.

Matching funds (contributions?)? I don't seem to recall any venue for
matching funds in an IRA.

--

dadiOH
____________________________

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

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.



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.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

On 08/21/2012 12:20 PM, Just Wondering wrote:
On 8/21/2012 9:02 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:

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.
Agreed! I do get concerned when I see or hear people talking about the
money of others (usually those with more money...), and either saying or
suggesting that others should use that money for some pupose that they feel
is appropriate. Since when do any of us have that right? Han might have
his own thoughts on what is good for society, but so do a ton of other
people. So - how to decide how those with more money should use their
money? By whose definitions? Not to mention that such a thought all by
itself is really presumptuous. I guess we all do that, and I'm not calling
Han out on this, other than to note that we as people do those things. I
guess that's one of the benefits of forcing a compromise between two adverse
parties such as liberals and conservatives.

If someone other than Romney can ethically decide what Romney does with his money, that same someone can just as ethically decide what Tim can do with his money, no matter how much Tim might disagree.

What money? I'm living in the age of Hoax And Shame...

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

On 08/21/2012 09:07 AM, Han wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in
m:

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.

Yes, and I take "advantage" of the breaks too, specifically the huge
loophole that transfer of appreciated stock to charity offers (a total
charitable deduction for FMV, without regard to basis or cap gains).

Perhaps we should have an automatic sunset to those social goals.
Equally to depletion allowances and subsidies to green technologies.
(I have no idea what the law says on these at the moment, just that they
have supporters and detractors on the left and the right).


How about no deductions for anyone for any reason period?

How about a flat tax at time of *consumption* with a "prebate" to make
sure the first $XX,XXX dollars are effectively untaxed so as to not put
an undue burden on the poor?

This is called the "Fair Tax" and it would work swimmingly. But the left,
especially, hates this. Why? There's getting the money and there's spending the
money. Getting it should be simple. The problem is that not everyone agrees
on how to spend it. So the left, especially, has used all manner of tax
monkeybusiness to change how we get it, who pays, and who does. The right,
seeing what was going on, joined the party. Fair Tax would make the getting
part of it simple. Then the only argument would be the spending part which is
FAR more evident and transparent to the taxpaying public.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

On 8/21/2012 1:08 PM, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
On 08/21/2012 12:20 PM, Just Wondering wrote:
On 8/21/2012 9:02 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:

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.
Agreed! I do get concerned when I see or hear people talking about the
money of others (usually those with more money...), and either
saying or
suggesting that others should use that money for some pupose that
they feel
is appropriate. Since when do any of us have that right? Han might
have
his own thoughts on what is good for society, but so do a ton of other
people. So - how to decide how those with more money should use their
money? By whose definitions? Not to mention that such a thought
all by
itself is really presumptuous. I guess we all do that, and I'm not
calling
Han out on this, other than to note that we as people do those
things. I
guess that's one of the benefits of forcing a compromise between two
adverse
parties such as liberals and conservatives.

If someone other than Romney can ethically decide what Romney does
with his money, that same someone can just as ethically decide what
Tim can do with his money, no matter how much Tim might disagree.

What money? I'm living in the age of Hoax And Shame...


If so, you can thank BO for that. You are the one who inferred that
someone other than Romney can ethically decide what Romney does with his
money. Are you therefore on board with giving that some someone the
same decision making power over YOUR money?

Just Wondering wrote:
On 8/21/2012 6:49 AM, Han wrote:
Romney has amassed over 100 million in an IRA. Supposedly IRAs are
limited to something like $6000/year in contributions.

Wrong. Any IRA cap is only on tax-free contributions. You can put as
much over that into an IRA as you please, it's just that only the
amount up to the cap is untaxed.

Be sure to let the IRS know.
http://www.irs.gov/publications/p590...link1000230381

--

dadiOH
____________________________

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

On 08/21/2012 02:25 PM, Just Wondering wrote:
SNIP

What money? I'm living in the age of Hoax And Shame...


If so, you can thank BO for that. You are the one who inferred that someone other than Romney can ethically decide what Romney does with his money. Are you therefore on board with giving that some someone the same decision making power over YOUR money?


Um, I was agreeing with you ...

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Tim Daneliuk wrote in news:5033DAE5.5040404
@tundraware.com:

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?

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?

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"Lew Hodgett" wrote in news:5033cc3a$0$11840
:


"Just Wondering" wrote:

Nobody has challenged the government's role in building roads and
bridges. Tell me, how much of the $3.8 trillion federal budget is
spent on roads and bridges?
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Hope it's not too much.

After all, those unwed mothers need their welfare checks.

Lew

If the unwed mothers are your concern Leon, do something about them. I am
NOT accusing you of being the cause of unwed mothers, but would like your
support in providing any potential unwed mothers with birth control or
abortion facilities, to be used as they see fit. No coercion, no
withholding.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Just Wondering wrote in
:

On 8/21/2012 6:49 AM, Han wrote:
Romney has amassed over 100 million in an IRA. Supposedly IRAs are
limited to something like $6000/year in contributions.

Wrong. Any IRA cap is only on tax-free contributions. You can put as
much over that into an IRA as you please, it's just that only the
amount up to the cap is untaxed.

What about this link?
http://www.irs.gov/retirement/participant/article/0,,id=211358,00.html
It starts out:

For 2011 and 2012, the maximum you can contribute to all of your
traditional and Roth IRAs is the smaller of:

$5,000 ($6,000 if you’re age 50 or older), or
your taxable compensation for the year.

The IRA contribution limit does not apply to:

Rollover contributions
Qualified reservist repayments

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Tim Daneliuk wrote in
:

On 08/21/2012 09:07 AM, Han wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in
m:

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.

Yes, and I take "advantage" of the breaks too, specifically the huge
loophole that transfer of appreciated stock to charity offers (a
total charitable deduction for FMV, without regard to basis or cap
gains).

Perhaps we should have an automatic sunset to those social goals.
Equally to depletion allowances and subsidies to green technologies.
(I have no idea what the law says on these at the moment, just that
they have supporters and detractors on the left and the right).


How about no deductions for anyone for any reason period?

How about a flat tax at time of *consumption* with a "prebate" to make
sure the first $XX,XXX dollars are effectively untaxed so as to not
put an undue burden on the poor?

This is called the "Fair Tax" and it would work swimmingly. But the
left, especially, hates this. Why? There's getting the money and
there's spending the money. Getting it should be simple. The problem
is that not everyone agrees on how to spend it. So the left,
especially, has used all manner of tax monkeybusiness to change how we
get it, who pays, and who does. The right, seeing what was going on,
joined the party. Fair Tax would make the getting part of it simple.
Then the only argument would be the spending part which is FAR more
evident and transparent to the taxpaying public.

Sounds indeed simple and very worthwhile. I could be persuaded. It
would certainly eliminate a bunch of IRS employees, accountants and
lawyers who don't really contribute to GDP. There is only 1 disadvantage
I can see right off. It leaves us without a tax mechanism to promote
things like home ownership, charity, etc. But perhaps we can do without,
just like other countries (I think).

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
On 08/21/2012 01:40 PM, dadiOH wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
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,

Bain is private but it must have investors. One wonders if those
investors realized gains as large as Romney's.


Um ... you need to examine how Private Equity firms work.

I know how they work. I just wondered if the investors % returns aproached
those of Romney.
____________


Again, I fail to understand this visceral hatred of wealth.

I don't hare it, I'm quite fond of it.

--

dadiOH
____________________________

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

On 08/21/2012 03:21 PM, dadiOH wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
On 08/21/2012 01:40 PM, dadiOH wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
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,

Bain is private but it must have investors. One wonders if those
investors realized gains as large as Romney's.


Um ... you need to examine how Private Equity firms work.

I know how they work. I just wondered if the investors % returns aproached
those of Romney.
____________

In general, they ought to be similar, at least up to a point. People
that invest this way are all investing approximately the same kinds
of deals. However, Romney, like any principal in a partnership, stood to do
better in a couple ways in all probability:

- Bain likely got significant fees for doing the various buyout deals.
20% of the total deal value is not uncommon. As a partner, he'd have
gotten a piece of that fee.

- Using various (legal) mechanisms, Romney's end from these deals would
be treated as "compensation" and probably more of it would be able to be
tax deferred than the other investors' for whom the money was a profit
on an investment and thereby taxed immediately.

- As a partner/employee at Bain, he probably had access to deals that their
smaller investors would not. That is, he could get into syndicates that
others would not be able to .

None of this is remarkable or unethical so long as no fraud was involved.


--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

dadiOH wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
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,

Bain is private but it must have investors. One wonders if those
investors realized gains as large as Romney's.

What would it matter if they did or not? As long as they are comfortable
with their return, why should any other questions be raised?


--

-Mike-

On 08/21/2012 02:54 PM, Han wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote in news:5033DAE5.5040404
@tundraware.com:

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?

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?


Just because you don't like something does not make it unethical.
For it to be unethical it would involve him using some form of fraud,
force, or threat. I see no evidence of any of the above.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

On 8/21/2012 1:20 PM, Tim Daneliuk wrote:

How about no deductions for anyone for any reason period?

How about a flat tax at time of *consumption* with a "prebate" to make
sure the first $XX,XXX dollars are effectively untaxed so as to not put
an undue burden on the poor?

Uh, your "no deductions" plan starts off with a deduction. Your
"prebate" is a deduction.