obama speach - Page 4

Originally Posted by bionicarm 

http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/Romney-taxes-Gingrich-Republican/2012/01/30/id/426005

 

 

You apparently aren't familiar with the history of Cayman bank accounts, and how they are used to "hide" assets from prying eyes.  Sure he has to pay his afforded taxes on the money he has in those accounts, however the operative words are "the accounts and money the IRS knows about".  Grand Cayman is a little dot in the Caribbean (around 76 square miles), yet has over 278 banks (as of 2008).  Of course Mitt just brushes it off as saying, "the purpose of setting up those accounts in the Cayman Islands is to help attract money from foreign investors."  However, per this article - "

Tax experts agree that Romney remains subject to American taxes. But they say the offshore accounts have provided him -- and Bain -- with other potential financial benefits, such as higher management fees and greater foreign interest, all at the expense of the U.S. Treasury. Rebecca J. Wilkins, a tax policy expert with Citizens for Tax Justice, said the federal government loses an estimated $100 billion a year because of tax havens."

 

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/romney-parks-millions-offshore-tax-haven/story?id=15378566

 

I like how he gets to write off over $4 million in charitable contribution to his "Church" (see the bottom of this article).

 

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2012-01-24/mitt-romney-tax-return/52780230/1

 

You apparently don't read the facts. Where's the story claiming Romney didn't pay taxes? Hell, the left wing New York times did a story on his returns where they found a mistake that led to him paying more than he had to. For those of use who don't get our "news" from some guy living in his parent's basement we already knew the facts. He doesn't have bank accounts in the Caymens, he has investments based there. I had foreign investments too and I was taxed on them. So was he

 

 

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2012-01-20/romney-offshore-accounts/52700400/1

 

I like how he gets to donate millions to his church and a lot of other charities too. If we didn't allow that there would be a lot of people much worse off not just in this country but all around the world.

Originally Posted by bionicarm 

The legal banks aren't the issue.  It's the one's the IRS doesn't know about is the issue.  When you have that much money, there's a multitude of options to manipulate your reported income to Uncle Sam, than the poor suckers that Oscar keeps whining about that don't pay their "fair share".  What's the difference between this guy Reef says pays no taxes and gets a $5K+ refund, and someone like Romney tucking away money in an offshore account, or getting the tax shelters described in the articles I posted, and not paying the taxes they should pay?  One doesn't pay $8K - $10K in taxes, the other guy doesn't pay $1 MILLION - $2 MILLION in taxes.  For every 10,000 deadbeats that don't pay their fair share, you have a single 1%er that finds inventive tax loopholes and doesn't pay his.  So which one is cheating us out of more tax revenues?

 

Originally Posted by bionicarm 




Darth, it's our archaic tax code.  Everyone who files a tax return gets a standard deduction based on their marital status and how many dependents they have.  There is a set minimum deduction regardless of the income you make.  It's not as skewed as you make it out to be.  My daughter worked full-time last year during the summer, and made around $7,000 in income.  She filed single and took whatever the standard deduction was, filing a 1040EZ.  I think she paid somewhere around $600 - $700 in taxes.  She went click, click, click on TurboTax's online filing system, and got a refund of a whopping $35 or something like that.  Is that your definition of "transfer of wealth"?  Should she have become your model Conservative citizen and foregone filing her taxes, telling the IRS "No you keep my $700.  I want pay my part to keep this country running."  Meanwhile, Mitt Romney is stashing millions of his earnings in bank accounts in Switzerland and the Caymans, and ends up paying an effective tax rate of around 15%.  You're ideology is, "Good for him.  He stilled payed millions in taxes.  That's his fair share."  So why is it OK that someone makiing under $50K should dole out every dollar that was deducted from their paycheck to pay their "fair share", simply because they don't have the luxury of hiding their earned income in offshore bank accounts, charitable contributions, or flawed capital loss credits?  My wife and I make well over 6-figures per year, but after taking the standard deductions, my effectibe tax rate is 15% - 17% every year.  Last year, I got a refund of over $4,800.  Is that my fair share, or should I pay more and return my refund?

Originally Posted by bionicarm 

The legal banks aren't the issue.  It's the one's the IRS doesn't know about is the issue.  When you have that much money, there's a multitude of options to manipulate your reported income to Uncle Sam, than the poor suckers that Oscar keeps whining about that don't pay their "fair share".  What's the difference between this guy Reef says pays no taxes and gets a $5K+ refund, and someone like Romney tucking away money in an offshore account, or getting the tax shelters described in the articles I posted, and not paying the taxes they should pay?  One doesn't pay $8K - $10K in taxes, the other guy doesn't pay $1 MILLION - $2 MILLION in taxes.  For every 10,000 deadbeats that don't pay their fair share, you have a single 1%er that finds inventive tax loopholes and doesn't pay his.  So which one is cheating us out of more tax revenues?

 

Originally Posted by Darthtang AW 


federal income tax withholding on the sum of 7000 dollars would be less than 300 dollars. this is how i know you skew and lie about your figures. it amazes me a fellow business owner making 6 figures knows so little about the tax code. you are also lacking some pertinent information regarding your own return...such as if you paid in more than the standard rate and so on. also how you filed....business deductions and so on. see those of us that actually understand the tax code and how it works are not angry or blinded by such things. you look at the end result and that is it. i look at how the end result was acquired and assess that.
people like you are the same people that get mad when a corporation profits greatly. not understanding that under federal law they are unable to retain those earnings...it must be divided amongst stock holders, return back into the business in investments or expansion or one other option which escapes me at the moment. basically when a corporation profits this is a good thing...especially for those of us investing our retirement and 401kit in these types of companies. when corporations profit...i profit.

Originally Posted by stdreb27 

I think you're missing the point I was trying to make.  Romney hasn't broken any law, he has a "offshore" bank account...  Suddenly he's a crook...  Meanwhile, back at the capital, there are tax cheaters who've actually cheated in their taxes...  Making policy decisions, voting, hell running the Treasury Department...  maybe we should worry about those morons before we worry about someone who as far as they can tell, actually paid their taxes... 

 

That being said, Romney should be running as a democrat...

 

Originally Posted by bionicarm 

You won't get any argument from me about Congress.  You can toss the entire bunch out, Obama included, as far as I'm concerned.  Problem is, Romney probably won't do any better.  Even you consider him a RINO.  Gingrich and Santorum are too far Right, and the majority of Americans wouldn't risk putting them in to push their radical agendas (think colonizing the Moon, and putting low-income black kids to work as janitors at their respective schools.)  Ron Paul is a Libertarian pretending to be a Republican.  American voters know that, and they wouldn't vote him in like they wouldn't the last two times he tried running as an Independent.

 

Originally Posted by bionicarm 

Here is the 2010 IRS Tax Table.  Look at the taxes for ANY individual who makes around $7,000.  I see $703.  What do you see?

 

www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1040tt.pdf

 

I do my personal taxes and business taxes completely separate from one another.  I draw a salary from the business, and that's what I file on my personal income tax return.  I have an accountant that deals with the business side of the taxes, and he tells myself and my partners what we owe, don't owe, whatever the case may be.

 

Where did I say I was against any company from making a profit?  My argument has nothing to do with how corporations reap the benefit of tax shelters.  This is about how the one's who make the money, have more opportunities to hide their assets and revenues to receive a larger tax break, than the middle-incomer that can barely afford to pay his bills, much less stuff some of his earnings in a bank known to be a tax haven.
 

 

Originally Posted by bionicarm 

Here is the 2010 IRS Tax Table.  Look at the taxes for ANY individual who makes around $7,000.  I see $703.  What do you see?

 

www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1040tt.pdf

 

I do my personal taxes and business taxes completely separate from one another.  I draw a salary from the business, and that's what I file on my personal income tax return.  I have an accountant that deals with the business side of the taxes, and he tells myself and my partners what we owe, don't owe, whatever the case may be.

 

Where did I say I was against any company from making a profit?  My argument has nothing to do with how corporations reap the benefit of tax shelters.  This is about how the one's who make the money, have more opportunities to hide their assets and revenues to receive a larger tax break, than the middle-incomer that can barely afford to pay his bills, much less stuff some of his earnings in a bank known to be a tax haven.
 

 

Originally Posted by Darthtang AW 


true on the tax scale. yet i am willing to bet you claimed her as a dependent that year. had you not she could hav e filed head of household and seen it all back......but since you used her as a deduction yourself to minimize your own taxes she ended up paying more taxes. last i checked everyone in the us operatews under the same tax laws...meaning you have just as much oportunity to hide your money.

Originally Posted by stdreb27 

Gingrich has been all over the board as far as what he says, what he believes is anyone's guess...  And well, getting kids jobs is a great idea imo...  Handing them responsibility, a small pay check, and eating away that 3-6 pm.  The fact that people view work as extremist, is depressing... 

Originally Posted by bionicarm 

Both my daughters work after school.  They pay for their own gas, car notes, and car insurance.  They're also responsible for the majority of their "fun money".  Gingrich's vision came off as somewhat racist in the sense he targeted kids from low-income families (which are traditionally minorities), and used as an example a job that is primarily performed by these same minority groups.

 

Originally Posted by stdreb27 

Dude, I've not seen a black custodian in years.  They're all mexican...

Originally Posted by bionicarm 

They have Mexicans in Corpus?  Oh wait, Selena was from there.  You want to see Black custodians, just go to Alabama, Mississippi, or South Carolina. 

Originally Posted by bionicarm 


You want to see Black custodians, just go to Alabama, Mississippi, or South Carolina.