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

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 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 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

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.

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

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

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/

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-

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.

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

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 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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

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-

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

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.

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-

"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-

"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

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

"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

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/

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

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.