Ann Romney's horse get's them a $77,000 tax credit

[mike321]

Judoka,
You also are going back to my original point. Your hypothetical $100 was invested even though it is earned income. It is helping the economy via investment, just like capital gains is supposed to be doing. (and capital gains gets a lower rate at high amounts)

[judoka_uk]

Ok. What's the connection to tax rates? Earned is the term I am familiar with to designate wages as a form of taxable earnings. Wages in the us get taxed less or more than capital gains. The question is what is the justification?

You can't see why encouraging people with a capital surplus to channel capital to people with a capital deficit who want to grow a business and create jobs in exchange for a risk laden potential return isn't a justification?

[mike321]

You can't see why encouraging people with a capital surplus people to channel capital to people with a capital deficit who want to grow a business and create jobs in exchange for a risk laden potential return isn't a justification?

Ok now we are getting somewhere. The justification is based on funneling the money to potential capital gains and rewarding with a low tax rate. It is not justified by assuming the resulting profit will be invested (any more than any other money source) and the tax should therefore be low. That actually makes sense. (not claiming data supports it or it is right; just closer to understanding the principle)

[mike321]

And it was an honest question. I never understood the argument in detail.

[goodlun]

Judoka,
You also are going back to my original point. Your hypothetical $100 was invested even though it is earned income. It is helping the economy via investment, just like capital gains is supposed to be doing. (and capital gains gets a lower rate at high amounts)

The answer is simple incorporate take profits as dividends taxed as capital gains.

[judoka_uk]

Ok now we are getting somewhere. The justification is based on funneling the money to potential capital gains and rewarding with a low tax rate. It is not justified by assuming the resulting profit will be invested (any more than any other money source) and the tax should therefore be low. That actually makes sense. (not claiming data supports it or it is right; just closer to understanding the principle)

Well any money invested is potentially loseable. Whereas stashing of cash in a bank account isn't, higher capital gains taxes encouraging money stashing and discourage investment. Assuming non hyper-inflation or tax raid by government. Higher income taxes reduce the amount of money that can be invested, not sensible

The point being that any profit generated by investing cash will be a profit that has resulted in a supposed social good i.e increase in jobs, increase in spending on a piece of infrastructure, increase in wages that has generated a positive result. In other words the new jobs paid for by the investment have meant higher profits for the invested in company above and beyond the initial investment amount.

So for every dollar a Mitt Romney invests in a company that company has to add additional value of say 5 cents to make his investment worthwhile. They may add that value by hiring more staff, maybe they will pay more for a key position, maybe they will by new equipment or spend more on training staff. Whatever it is the company will spend the invested money in an effective way that helps them make more money and thus pay back the invested cash with interest.

Of course if the company is a **** up and spends the money poorly, a Romney dollar generates no positive effect, he receives no return and he loses money.

[goodlun]

The point being that any profit generated by investing cash will be a profit that has resulted in a supposed social good

The problem here is that an increase in profits or profits for that matter will result in a social good. One could say buy controlling shares in a company and reduce the size of the work force to make it more profitable or dispose of waste in a more cost effective but less environmentally friendly fashion. These results will make a good return on investment but will not help society as a whole.

I also don't buy into the lower tax rate thing, yes all things being equal the place with the lower tax rate will attract more investment but as most things in life things are rarely equal. Their are a lot of factors that effect return on investment that exceed a few % points in tax. Things such as having an educated, healthy workforce, proper infrastructure, good and enforced property laws, ect ect ect.

Don't get me wrong I am actually very pro-capitalistic its the best and more or less the most fair economic method out there. I just don't think that we have to bend over backward to get investment as most people would still rather have their money work for them then they work for it even if taxed at the same rate. So those who have the surplus and capabilities to make their money work for them still vs going out and getting a job.

[W. Rabbit]

How could you possible know what Romney does with his money? Have you got an itemised print out of his bank statements?

It's public info that he has assets in the Caymans (and other places), I didn't make that up. In fact, according to public info Romney moves every cent of income he can outside of the US to avoid taxes, to the point where his effective tax rate as he finally admitted it is "no less than 13%".

As much as you may dislike Romney and hell, there's certainly a lot to dislike. You're a fucking loon if you think you A: know his tax affairs. B: Know how and on what he spends his money on.

But see that's the issue at hand. It's been tradition in the US presidential race for over a generation to release a decade of tax returns if you are running for president, to prove you are, in fact, as square as you claim to be.

The person who started that tradition was Mitt's father, and it's been honored by every presidential nominee since, Republican or Democrat.

The person who stopped honoring it? Mitt Romney, when he refused to release older returns for fear it would "provide ammunition for Democrats".

In American politics, my friend, that's a win in the Blue column. Mitt's numbers are suffering in the US, one of the primary reasons is his refusal to lay his actual finances bare to the American public.

He may be acting like a savvy business man, but if you are vying for power and votes, in the court of public opinion it creates suspicion.

[mike321]

I doubt the tax return issue is that big a driver. Not saying it should not be just saying it isn't a big issue to deciding votes.

[W. Rabbit]

I doubt the tax return issue is that big a driver. Not saying it should not be just saying it isn't a big issue to deciding votes.

According to Gallup the race is practically 50-50. Independents and moderates will decide the election and those people want to know who to trust more.

Anne Romney said "we've given you people all you need to know".

President Obama has opened 12 years of his tax returns.

Here they are.

http://www.barackobama.com/tax-returns/