Should Make a Lively Discussion

[2firfun50]

Bain Documents: Romney Offshore Investments Used 'Blockers' To Avoid Taxes

http://news.yahoo.com/bain-documents-ro ... ories.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"The audited financial statements of one of the Cayman Islands funds make note of the use of "blocker" entities, which are used to help retirement accounts and nonprofit entities avoid some taxes. Financial statements for another fund note that it "intends to conduct its operations so it will … not be subject to United States federal income or withholding tax ..."

"The newly released documents rekindle questions about one of the more technical tax questions that has emerged about Romney's investments – the use of so-called "blocker" entities. The blocker is a paper company that serves as a buffer between the investor and the fund holding the investments, Wilkins explained. That means the investment income can be counted as a dividend and in some cases avoid income tax. "

I wonder how many American jobs the "paper companies" create?

Then there is Ryan

Analysis: Ryan takes aim at tax favors for rich - save a key break

http://news.yahoo.com/analysis-ryan-tak ... 38593.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"CARRIED INTEREST"

One controversial tax advantage that might be considered a subset of capital taxation - enjoyed exclusively by the rich - is the lower rate on what is known as carried interest.

That's the share of profits earned by executives of private equity firms, some hedge funds and real estate partnerships and which is treated as capital gains when it comes to taxes. These executives typically earn a 20 percent slice of profits, while earning a 2 percent management fee that is taxed as ordinary income.

Democrats have been trying for years to kill this tax advantage. Critics say the private equity managers are simply performing services and should pay the individual income tax rate, not the lower capital gains rate.

Romney benefits because he still earns income from his time at Bain Capital, the private equity firm he co-founded. About $13 million of his Bain income over the last two years was subject to the preferential 15 percent rate, according to his campaign.

Ryan is easier to pin down on this topic. Although he has not talked about it widely, he did vote against efforts in the House to kill the tax preference several times.

[mr surveyor]

so what?????


what laws were violated?????


I see much adoo about absolutely nothing.


trolling???

[ClarkLZeuss]

Bain Documents: Romney Offshore Investments Used 'Blockers' To Avoid Taxes

One of the "news outlets" that is trumpeting this story is Gawker. So it's worth pointing out:

Apparently, nobody thought to tell the boys on the Romney beat that Gawker Media is part of a shell company incorporated in the Cayman Islands. Gawker’s money lives in the same neighborhood as Romney’s money. Call it bipartisanship.

As John Cassidy relates in The New Yorker, Gawker’s finances are “organized like an international money-laundering operation.”
...
Incidentally, there is nothing in the Gawker report or the accompanying documents suggesting that Romney or Bain did anything improper. And neither did Gawker, for that matter: U.S. tax practices create very powerful incentives to pursue avoidance strategies. Gawker’s owners apparently know that, even if its writers lack the guts or the intellectual capability to acknowledge as much.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/31 ... williamson" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Oldgringo]

so what?????

what laws were violated?????

I see much adoo about absolutely nothing.

trolling???

Absolutely!

Where are the current POTUS' scholastic and early travel records? What passportS did he use and who funded him during this time when his poor white Momma was dying for lack of medical care? Why did it take so long to fabricate a bogus birth certificate and who paid for it? Who are/were his handlers?

Why did the current POTUS invoke "Executive Priviledge" to coverup his and Holder's role in "Fast and Furious"?

If you're gonna' ask questions, ask all of 'em!

[Teamless]

so what?????
what laws were violated?????
I see much adoo about absolutely nothing.
trolling???

And this is the real issue, if those that were "reporting" it, were to use some intellectual honesty, they would say "was it illegal", and if the answer was no, then it is NOT NEWS

[Heartland Patriot]

The people running the current iteration of the executive branch are, IMHO, crooks. They skirt the laws at every turn, disregard the Constitution and simply do not care. THAT bothers me. Where Mr. Romney's money is at does NOT bother me. Sorry. Call me a name...trot out some good ones, don't be shy...it makes no difference to me. I want the White House Occupier and his cronies GONE, and at this point, the only way to do that is to put Mr. Romney and his team in there...so be it.

[gdanaher]

Not all legal behavior is ethically correct behavior. And this applies to all political perspectives.

[Teamless]

Not all legal behavior is ethically correct behavior. And this applies to all political perspectives.

So if a person is being legal, but maybe not moral (and remember, "morality" is in the eye of the person, not in "all people"), then they should be shunned?
And they shouldn't be smart enough to know the in's and out's of the laws? And if they are smart enough, you should punish them?

I have an idea, make the laws without loopholes, until then, well, I cant see punishing them.

Lets think about this in relation to our carrying concealed weapons, legally, in the Great State of Texas.
I walk up to a business, they have a gun buster sign, or an all 4413.ee sign, and I walk right on by the sign into the business carrying my concealed weapon, still legally.
Is that a loophole?
Is that morally OK, even thought it is legally OK?

[The Annoyed Man]

The original report was broken by Gawker.com, a very disreputable "news" outlet. Here is what I posted in the "Romney" thread:

_______________________________________________________________________________________________
I found this article about Gawker.com: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/31 ... williamson.

It's an "exposé" by Gawker of Bain Capital's offshore tax avoidance strategies, attempting to paint Romney with a "dishonest capitalist" brush. What's hilarious is that it turns out that Gawker.com does exactly the same thing with it's own strategy. But the real money quote which is relevant to this thread is this:

Incidentally, there is nothing in the Gawker report or the accompanying documents suggesting that Romney or Bain did anything improper. And neither did Gawker, for that matter: U.S. tax practices create very powerful incentives to pursue avoidance strategies. Gawker’s owners apparently know that, even if its writers lack the guts or the intellectual capability to acknowledge as much.

We eagerly await the next Gawker editorial on the need for corporate-tax reform.

I won't hold my breath for that editorial because the point of their article wasn't to say it was wrong, it was to try and slander Romney.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________

Read the money quote. You cannot have the tax policies we have, and expect corporations—both those managed by conservatives (Bain) and those managed by liberals (Gawker) to NOT take strategies to avoid those policies. 2firfun50, you and I exchanged PMs about this. I told you that the way the tax code is written, "carried interest" is intended to encourage investors who have the resources to do so to take on additional risks than normal to invest in riskier investments such as new untried technologies and to collect a higher than normal return on that investment if the risk pays off. And of course, the flip side of that is that the risk may NOT pay off, in which case the investor has lost his money, and risk being what it is, these types of investments are less likely to pay off than others. It sounds to me like you want to punish investors for taking risks, which is a surefire way to discourage technological innovation...........the irrefutable consequence of eliminating carried interest.

There is absolutely NOTHING immoral or wrong or illegal about allowing a higher than normal return on a higher than normal risk. THAT is capitalism at its finest, and I only pray to be in the position some day to take advantage of that. If you can't handle any more risk than the nice safe .5% your savings account is paying you, that is fine, but it is ugly to chastise others for taking bigger risks in exchange for bigger payouts. It's not YOUR money they are gambling, so why do you even give a rip?

Your jealous envy is unbecoming. You told me about your own dream to start a business. Don't you think that tax policies should encourage it, not trample it?

[Moby]

The bottom line is it's Romney or Obama

Take your pick

[RoyGBiv]

I am in favor of making use of EVERY LEGAL avenue to reduce my taxes. The government, all parties at every level, has proven it cannot spend my tax money wisely, so I have no reservations whatsoever about using every loophole for which I am eligible.

That said.

I would like to see every loophole closed, save the one for charitable donations. Then we can reduce tax RATES for all taxpayers.

Therefore...

This "news" is nothing more than pot-stirring and distraction by the left, because they are losing on the real issues of the Economy, Healthcare, Jobs, Over regulation, Energy, Illegal Immigration, not to mention the stellar example of Moral Turpitude that is the current Justice Department.

[Beiruty]

I would say if 50% of US taxes payers pays $0 for federal tax and not counting countless illegal residents who pay $0 cent for federal government and take 100% of free hospital care including non-emergency emergency room visits. Then, there is something wrong with 99% of lower tax payers too, no?

[GeekwithaGun]

When the media and bloggers complain about Bain Capitol and how Mitt Romney "made millions and didn't pay any taxes" or how Mitt Romney only paid 15% in taxes last year, it makes me sick. That 15% was paid on investments that would have already had taxes paid on it before investing it. The taxation system is totally unfair where we are taxed on what we earn, taxed again on what is saved, and taxed yet again when we die. How is this "fair" to anyone?

I'll relate my own experience and job history (somewhat) even though I rarely talk about it

So how much is too much?

Who is anyone to say anything about how much money someone else makes when the earn a living in an honest and legal manner? Do I make too much money? Some people say might say I do IF they know what I make, does my son make too much money working at Quick Trip at $8.25/hour or my other son studying engineering at UTD and now has a $20/hour internship? Or my wife who can make $40 - $50/hr as a physical therapist assistant (2 year degree) and my daughter jsut got a teaching job at a Christian school strait out of college (I know SHE doesn't make enough)

How dare anyone say someone else makes an obscene amount of money just because they have worked hard, studied hard, put in the time and effort of learning their own vocation and maybe starting a business that employee many other people and cannot pay less than $7.25/hour or whatever the minimum wage is now.

I'm 46 years old, my first job at local ice cream and burger place was $1.40/hr in the 1980's. Then I got a better job and a better one and went to college and got an education and got a better job and so on. When I got married, 1988, I made $14,000 a year as a computer operator in a timesharing/software company, a year later I applied for and got a job in the software support and started at $24,000/year, did I make too much then? After another 1-2 years I doubled that salary at the same company. I left after 5 1/12 years in support and made more, then after 2 years I decided to be a consultant and work for myself in 1996. The first years had travel I worked weeks across the country with small kids at home, my wife made huge sacrifices and we nearly divorced after several years of this.

My point is that I paid more in taxes the first few years of owning my own company than my yearly salary working at that software company at $14k/yr. As my experience and skills improved so does my hourly rate. I now pay payroll taxes on 2 employee's (including myself), how many of you know that your employer pays 6.2% of YOUR social security "contributions" and you pay 4.2% Your employer also pays in 1/2 of your Medicare withholding "contribution" as well ( don't have percentages readily available). For me that means I get to pay twice to the so called "funds for my retirement" that I don't expect to see a dime of.

Right now I can shelter some of my income from federal taxes by contributing to a pre-tax retirement account, but then I will be paying taxes on that when I can start withdrawing it at the current tax rates at that time, hoepfully those will be lower. Interest rates and earnigs on these savings are at record lows (or seem to be), the lower interest rates help mortgages - we refinanced for 15yr @ 3.5% last spring and now I hear some are below 3%, but this hurts the savings rates.

We are trying to spend less, pay off debt and save more.

Bottom line is YOU are responsible for you and your family, the income you make generally is commesurate with the amount of effort that YOU put into your job, career and future. I still beleive that it is possible (at least for now) to suceed and fail here in the United States, but it is YOUR responsibilty not the federal, state or local government to ensure you do. I've had lots of up's and downs since 1996, I also took a full-time job at 2 different companies after 9/11 because the consulting work dried up and we went through our savings. I don't know what the future will hold after November if the left holds onto the Whitehouse and Senate, I may have to close my shop and work for someone else, I hope not, but we'll see. If the tax rate goes up for my income level, then I will be paying close to 40% of what I earn to the government.

Then on top of the taxes we have our normal houshold expenses - these have gone up considerably in the past 4 years and EVERYTHING costs more.

You really need to ask yourself this "Am I better off than I was 4 years ago?" Because I am not.

[2firfun50]

Not all legal behavior is ethically correct behavior. And this applies to all political perspectives.

You get it. One set of rules for everyone.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Not all legal behavior is ethically correct behavior. And this applies to all political perspectives.

You get it. One set of rules for everyone.

You throw something from Gawker out like it is credible, get a bunch of responses, and this is your only reply? Enlightening.

Chas.