The Top 40.................

Quote:
Originally Posted by DragonZim http:///t/392751/the-top-40/80#post_3490248
Perfect! More layers of government!
If not the government, then who would make sure these people did what they were supposed to with the money? When you let the rich regulate and police themselves, you see what happens... You end up in 2012 with the economy collapsing on itself. If you have a better idea I'm all for listening!
I'm just SICK AND TIRED of the term "job creator" being tossed around acting like if they got the tax breaks, they would add jobs. Without any regulation, it's complete and utter BS.
 

bionicarm

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/392751/the-top-40/80#post_3490230
You didn't answer the question. How much would you expect to be paid to be a ceo of a wold wide corporation like home depot?
Clemson provided the perfect response, and you play your little game of wanting to be more specific. What would YOU feel is acceptable pay for that position?
 

reefraff

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/392751/the-top-40/80#post_3490213
The Top 10% and above don't have to worry about recouping any money. That's one of the arguments. How much money is too much money for one person to have? In a Cpitalistic society, it's limited to what you're capable of earming, by whatever means you decide to earn it with. It's actually quite easy to recoup the money, depending on how inventive you want to be. Romney dumped millions into accounts in the Caymans, and pays virtually no taxes up to a set amount due to Foreign Tax credits (look at his 2011 return). It's also relative to one's standard of living. If someone handed me $5 million today, I could dump that money into a simple interest earning account that pays a 3% dividend, and happily live off the interest earned ($150,000) and never touch the principle. Now apply that principle to someone who makes $60 million in income and capital gains. So do you honestly think jacking their tax rate another 3% is going to affect their bottom line?
CEO's get paid based on what the Board of Directors and stockholders allow. The one problem with that concept with huge corporations like Home Depot, is you have so many stockholders that are individuals who don't even realize they own stock in that compnay because their 401K accountants buy the stock without them even knowing it. They get some prospectus in the mail that's 20 pages long with all these economic stats in it that a normal person can't comprehend, and they toss it in the garbage without even reading it. They don't see the voting proxy contained in the 'junk mail' that states what the Board is wanting to vote on regarding salaries and compensations for the upper management, and a "no response" implies the Board determines how to use that vote. So they pay the Home Depot CEO some outrageous 7-figure salary with stock options and other perks, and at the same time write in "out clauses" providing some form of compensation based on performance. It's a win-win situation for the CEO because if he performs well, and Home Depot's profits soar, he get's more money from his stock options. If he's a complete moron and causes Home Depot to file Chapter 11 because of his ineptitude management style, he gets fired and walks out the door with yet another 7-figure package. He then walks to the next medium-sized corporation and tosses his resume to them stating his vast knowledge and experience, and they take a shot with him just based on said experience. It's good to be the king.
Have proof Romney didn't pay taxes on his income? That's what I thought, More Bionic BS LOL!. How do we know he had the money there? IT WAS ON HIS TAX RETURN.
 

reefraff

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheClemsonKid http:///t/392751/the-top-40/80#post_3490223
This is the main reason we're up s**t creek without a paddle. You give the rich tax breaks, and they keep the money for themselves. You tax the pants off them, and they just cut jobs and workforces, or start to shelter the money, so they can still maintain their wealth either way.
I am so, so tired of hearing the term "job creator". I'm not wealthy, but my father is after his company was bought out by Xerox a few years ago. He and all his rich little buddies at the club or on the golf course are all the same. Most of them own some small to medium sized business, and most all of them have laid off workers in the past three years. Yet all these guys still live in $750,000+ homes, pay that $50,000 country club fee annually, vacation on their island homes, drive their Mercedes, and generally live like you couldn't tell if it was 1998 or 2012. One particular guy I know personally just built a $1.7 million dollar home, after last year his company closed an entire call center and 450 people lost their jobs. The capitalist says "good for him, he earned his money he can do whatever he wants". And that's true, he can. But don't use people like him with the company tag line as a "job creator".
So the right wants me to believe that by giving them more money, they are going to "create" jobs? I think all they are going to create is a nicer car, and bigger home. Call my cynical, but that's just how I see it from my point of view...
Nobody is talking about "giving" them more money. In fact I find the way the left talks about taxes rather vulgar. The government doesn't give anything to those who pay their own way, they take less. As 0bama himself said a couple of years ago raising taxes in this economy on anyone would be a big mistake. I think it's obvious EVERYONE's taxes are going to have to go up at some point but it needs to be done right, slowly as the economy begins to really grow again.
 

reefraff

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheClemsonKid http:///t/392751/the-top-40/80#post_3490241
What if we gave these so called "job creators" the tax breaks they want, but set up a government entity to oversee that they actually take that money and use it to create jobs, as opposed to lining their own pockets? I'm generally left learning, but if you said that tax breaks given to the rich would be used exclusively to pay for new jobs, new factories, and real world economic stimulation... I'd totally be on board.
I'll ask you too. Who is talking about giving the rich a tax cut? I am pretty much a news junky and I have heard no one proposing new tax cuts.
 

darthtang aw

Active Member

Clemson provided the perfect response, and you play your little game of wanting to be more specific.  What would YOU feel is acceptable pay for that position?
Clemson gave three response that would come from three different types of people. I asked YOU, not what different types of people would want. And Both of you fail to answer that question. You won't give a monetary amount....why is that? You guys both complain about CEO salaries and compensation, but when asked about what you think the job is truly worth, you refuse to give a figure. Because you honestly don't know or it just might make you seem to be a hypocrite, because you would expect similar compensation.
I am not the one that is complaining about CEO compensation....that is you guys.
 

darthtang aw

Active Member

If not the government, then who would make sure these people did what they were supposed to with the money?  When you let the rich regulate and police themselves, you see what happens... You end up in 2012 with the economy collapsing on itself.  If you have a better idea I'm all for listening!
I'm just SICK AND TIRED of the term "job creator" being tossed around acting like if they got the tax breaks, they would add jobs.  Without any regulation, it's complete and utter BS.
There was a country once that dictated how a business' finances should be used, who got paid what and where that money went. That country suffered a huge economic collapse........ Any idea why?
 

darthtang aw

Active Member
And currently, under law corporations are unable to retain profits, they must be paid out in dividends, sunk back into the company, or paid out in bonuses....corporations can not hold profits, they must be sunk back in the company in some form or fashion the following year...
It is ironic to me, those that vehemetly want the government to not dictate their personal lives on what they can and can't do, are here asking for government to dictate where a business or business owner does with their money.
 

bionicarm

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/392751/the-top-40/100#post_3490269
Clemson gave three response that would come from three different types of people. I asked YOU, not what different types of people would want. And Both of you fail to answer that question. You won't give a monetary amount....why is that? You guys both complain about CEO salaries and compensation, but when asked about what you think the job is truly worth, you refuse to give a figure. Because you honestly don't know or it just might make you seem to be a hypocrite, because you would expect similar compensation.
I am not the one that is complaining about CEO compensation....that is you guys.
Like Clemson said, there's no defined salary that CEO's get paid. It's what the stockholders and Boards are willing to pay. I make 6-figures today and have a nice comfortable life. Of course I wouldn't mind making more so that when I decide to retire, I don't have to worry about possibly running out of money in case of an emergency, or maybe I'd like to travel more than I do now. The difference between me and some of these big time CEO's is I know how to live within my means. I don't play the game of if I make more money, I automatically have to up my standards simply because I have more disposable cash. I'm content drving my Hyundai Sonata, and wouldn't waste my money on a Mercedes or Lexus even though I can easily afford one of those overpriced POS. I can afford a 6,000 sq, ft, house in the market here in San Antonio, but why? My kids are getting to the "move out" stage, so why would I need something that huge for just me and my wife? Sorry I'm not a self absorbed snob that needs a bunch of status smbols to enjoy life. So how much salary would I need? I'd have to go pull up one of those retirement calculators where you plug in how much money you need each year to maintain the lifestyle you're accustomed to living. Calculate it until age 80, and it'll tell me how much cash I'd need to save up to reach that goal.
 

bionicarm

Active Member

darthtang aw

Active Member
Here's his 2011 Tax Retuen.  Look at the Foreign Tax Credit Forms he filled out
http://www.mittromney.com/learn/mitt/tax-return/2011/wmr-adr-return
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/25/business/in-romneys-tax-return-clues-in-foreign-taxes.html?pagewanted=all
Foreign tax credit means he paid taxes on the income to another government as it it is foreign money coming out of that foreign country.
From the IRS.
Topic 856 - Foreign Tax Credit
The foreign tax credit is intended to reduce the double tax burden that would otherwise arise when foreign source income is taxed by both the United States and the foreign country from which the income is derived.
Four tests must be met to qualify for the credit:
The tax must be imposed on you
You must have paid or accrued the tax
The tax must be a legal and actual foreign tax liability, and
The tax must be an income tax
Generally, only income taxes paid or accrued to a foreign country or a U.S. possession, or taxes paid or accrued to a foreign country or U.S. possession in lieu of an income tax, will qualify for the foreign tax credit. Qualified foreign taxes do not include taxes that are refundable to you, used to provide a subsidy to you or someone related to you, that are not compulsory because you could have avoided paying the taxes to the foreign country, or income taxes paid or accrued to any country if the income giving rise to the tax is for a period (the sanction period) during which:
The Secretary of State has designated the country as one that repeatedly provides support for acts of international terrorism,
The United States has severed or does not conduct diplomatic relations with the country, or
The United States does not recognize the country's government, unless that government is eligible to purchase defense articles or services under the Arms Export Control Act.
You can choose to take the amount of any qualified foreign income taxes paid or accrued during the year as a foreign tax credit or as an itemized deduction. To choose the deduction, you must itemize deductions on Form 1040, Schedule A. To choose the foreign tax credit you generally must complete Form 1116 (PDF) and attach it to your Form 1040 (PDF), or Form 1040NR (PDF).
You can claim the credit for qualified foreign income taxes without filing Form 1116 if all of the following requirements are met:
All of your foreign source income is passive income, such as interest and dividends,
All of your foreign source income and the foreign income taxes are reported to you on a qualified payee statement, such as Form 1099-INT (PDF) or Form 1099-DIV (PDF), and
The total of your qualified foreign taxes is not more than the limit given in the Form 1040 Instructions for the filing status you are using, or in the Form 1040-NR Instructions (if you file Form 1040-NR).
If you claim the credit directly on Form 1040 or Form 1040-NR without filing Form 1116, you cannot carryback or carryover any unused foreign income tax to or from this year.
If you use Form 1116 to figure the credit, your foreign tax credit will be the smaller of the amount of foreign tax paid or accrued, or the amount of United States tax attributable to your foreign source income. This limit is currently computed separately for passive income, income resourced under a tax treaty, income derived from sanctioned countries, and all other income.
If you cannot claim a credit for the full amount of qualified foreign income taxes you paid or accrued in the year, you may be allowed a carryback and/or carryover of the unused foreign income tax. You can carryback for one year or carryover for 10 years the unused foreign tax. For more information on this topic (including taxes paid or accrued in years before 2005) see Publication 514, Foreign Tax Credit for Individuals.
You may not take either a credit or a deduction for taxes paid or accrued on income you exclude under the foreign earned income exclusion or the foreign housing exclusion. There is no double taxation in this situation because the income is not subject to United States tax.
For more complete information on the foreign tax credit (including information on whether a particular tax is eligible for the credit), refer to the Form 1116 Instructions, or refer to Publication 514, Foreign Tax Credit for Individuals. If the information you need is not addressed in the instructions or in Publication 514, you may call the IRS International Tax Law hotline at 267-941-1000, Monday – Friday 6:00 a.m.–11: p.m. Eastern Time. This is not a toll-free number.
 

darthtang aw

Active Member
Like Clemson said, there's no defined salary that CEO's get paid.  It's what the stockholders and Boards are willing to pay.  I make 6-figures today and have a nice comfortable life.  Of course I wouldn't mind making more so that when I decide to retire, I don't have to worry about possibly running out of money in case of an emergency, or maybe I'd like to travel more than I do now.  The difference between me and some of these big time CEO's is I know how to live within my means. I don't play the game of if I make more money, I automatically have to up my standards simply because I have more disposable cash.  I'm content drving my Hyundai Sonata, and wouldn't waste my money on a Mercedes or Lexus even though I can easily afford one of those overpriced POS.  I can afford a 6,000 sq, ft, house in the market here in San Antonio, but why?  My kids are getting to the "move out" stage, so why would I need something that huge for just me and my wife?  Sorry I'm not a self absorbed snob that needs a bunch of status smbols to enjoy life.    So how much salary would I need?  I'd have to go pull up one of those retirement calculators where you plug in how much money you need each year to maintain the lifestyle you're accustomed to living.  Calculate it until age 80, and it'll tell me how much cash I'd need to save up to reach that goal.
So Bill Gates money? seriously dude...whatever.
 

reefraff

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/392751/the-top-40/100#post_3490297
Here's his 2011 Tax Retuen. Look at the Foreign Tax Credit Forms he filled out
http://www.mittromney.com/learn/mitt/tax-return/2011/wmr-adr-return
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/25/business/in-romneys-tax-return-clues-in-foreign-taxes.html?pagewanted=all
And? The income is listed and included on his taxable income. I've done the same on a Canadian oil trust I used to own. You get to write off the foreign tax you paid but you are still taxed on the income here. But nice try.
 

bionicarm

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/392751/the-top-40/100#post_3490315
And? The income is listed and included on his taxable income. I've done the same on a Canadian oil trust I used to own. You get to write off the foreign tax you paid but you are still taxed on the income here. But nice try.
Romney may not want the public viewing his returns. As one of the wealthiest candidates to run for president in recent times, Romney has used a variety of techniques to help minimize the taxes on his estimated $250 million fortune. In addition to paying the lower tax rate on his investment income, Romney has as much as $8 million invested in at least 12 funds listed on a Cayman Islands registry. Another investment, which Romney reports as being worth between $5 million and $25 million, shows up on securities records as having been domiciled in the Caymans.
Official documents reviewed by ABC News show that Bain Capital, the private equity partnership Romney once ran, has set up some 138 secretive offshore funds in the Caymans.
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.
Blum, the D.C. tax lawyer, said working through an offshore investment vehicle allows the investor to "avoid a whole series of small traps in the tax code that ordinary people would face if they paid tax on an onshore basis."
Wilkins agreed, saying the "primary advantage to setting those funds up in an offshore jurisdiction like the Cayman Islands or Bermuda is it helps the investors avoid tax."
"It helps U.S. investors avoid U.S. tax," said Wilkins, "it helps foreign investors avoid taxes in their home country, so it's not illegal or improper to set those funds up in a foreign jurisdiction, but it makes it more attractive to investors because it helps them avoid paying taxes on that income."
This articles digs deep into Romney's inventive ways to skirt taxes that the "normal taxpayer" has to pay:
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/2012/08/investigating-mitt-romney-offshore-accounts
These are just other articles on how "investing" in the Caymans makes a nice tax haven for the wealthy:
http://www.leadingluxuryrealestate.com/blog/2010/05/investing-in-the-cayman-islands-makes-sense/
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/bain-documents-romney-offshore-investments-blockers-avoid-taxes/story?id=17067015
http://www.netatty.com/articles/tax.html
http://www.blankrome.com/siteFiles/News/0DAB66C232AD7BE6D4DD84479A968E65.pdf
 

reefraff

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/392751/the-top-40/100#post_3490330
Romney may not want the public viewing his returns. As one of the wealthiest candidates to run for president in recent times, Romney has used a variety of techniques to help minimize the taxes on his estimated $250 million fortune. In addition to paying the lower tax rate on his investment income, Romney has as much as $8 million invested in at least 12 funds listed on a Cayman Islands registry. Another investment, which Romney reports as being worth between $5 million and $25 million, shows up on securities records as having been domiciled in the Caymans.
Official documents reviewed by ABC News show that Bain Capital, the private equity partnership Romney once ran, has set up some 138 secretive offshore funds in the Caymans.
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.
Blum, the D.C. tax lawyer, said working through an offshore investment vehicle allows the investor to "avoid a whole series of small traps in the tax code that ordinary people would face if they paid tax on an onshore basis."
Wilkins agreed, saying the "primary advantage to setting those funds up in an offshore jurisdiction like the Cayman Islands or Bermuda is it helps the investors avoid tax."
"It helps U.S. investors avoid U.S. tax," said Wilkins, "it helps foreign investors avoid taxes in their home country, so it's not illegal or improper to set those funds up in a foreign jurisdiction, but it makes it more attractive to investors because it helps them avoid paying taxes on that income."
This articles digs deep into Romney's inventive ways to skirt taxes that the "normal taxpayer" has to pay:
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/2012/08/investigating-mitt-romney-offshore-accounts
These are just other articles on how "investing" in the Caymans makes a nice tax haven for the wealthy:
http://www.leadingluxuryrealestate.com/blog/2010/05/investing-in-the-cayman-islands-makes-sense/
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/bain-documents-romney-offshore-investments-blockers-avoid-taxes/story?id=17067015
http://www.netatty.com/articles/tax.html
http://www.blankrome.com/siteFiles/News/0DAB66C232AD7BE6D4DD84479A968E65.pdfDid you read your own article (ABC) The fund is set up t]
Did you read your own article (ABC) The fund is set up to avoid taxes which is perfectly legal. Any income Romney gets from it was taxed, OTHER WISE IT WOULDN'T BE ON HIS TAX RETURN
 

bionicarm

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/392751/the-top-40/100#post_3490350
Did you read your own article (ABC) The fund is set up to avoid taxes which is perfectly legal. Any income Romney gets from it was taxed, OTHER WISE IT WOULDN'T BE ON HIS TAX RETURN

Read the other articles. It's the way he's reporting the millions he's stashing in the Caymans. At least the amounts the IRS knows about. You can put millions into an investment in the Caymans. Caymans has no taxes on investments. Caymans has no obligation to the US to report what profits you make on any money you invest into businesses in that country. IT''S TAX FREE MOONEY. A buddy of mine has been working down there for years. He's been trying to get me to come down there and invest in a couple of businesses, or just work down there for a company he knows. If you are a US citizen and live in the Caymans for 330 or more 24-hour periods, income you earn up to around $105,000 is not taxed due to the Foreign Tax credit. You also receive a stipend tax credit for your housing expenses.
 

reefraff

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/392751/the-top-40/100#post_3490364
Read the other articles. It's the way he's reporting the millions he's stashing in the Caymans. At least the amounts the IRS knows about. You can put millions into an investment in the Caymans. Caymans has no taxes on investments. Caymans has no obligation to the US to report what profits you make on any money you invest into businesses in that country. IT''S TAX FREE MOONEY. A buddy of mine has been working down there for years. He's been trying to get me to come down there and invest in a couple of businesses, or just work down there for a company he knows. If you are a US citizen and live in the Caymans for 330 or more 24-hour periods, income you earn up to around $105,000 is not taxed due to the Foreign Tax credit. You also receive a stipend tax credit for your housing expenses.
You are CLUELESS. It's reported on his TAX RETURN. Does that not sink in? The fund he is invested into isn't subject to US taxes but he has to claim the profit he gets as capital gains, that is why it is listed on his TAX RETURN. He reported the income and paid taxes on it. I realize this flies in the face of your talking points but you can't get around the facts.
 

darthtang aw

Active Member

You are CLUELESS. It's reported on his TAX RETURN. Does that not sink in? The fund he is invested into isn't subject to US taxes but he has to claim the profit he gets as capital gains, that is why it is listed on his TAX RETURN. He reported the income and paid taxes on it. I realize this flies in the face of your talking points but you can't get around the facts.
No, you are missing Bionics point. Having the intelligence to invest in a fund that gives a great return due to less tax implications is wrong. Being a smart guy with money is wrong. Having money is wrong. Taking all your legal deductions is wrong. giving more money to charities as a deduction is wrong as well.
This is the only thing they have on Romney...this is their main argument. Instead of defending their poor decisions, they attack the smart decisions of the opponent.
 

bionicarm

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/392751/the-top-40/100#post_3490435
You are CLUELESS. It's reported on his TAX RETURN. Does that not sink in? The fund he is invested into isn't subject to US taxes but he has to claim the profit he gets as capital gains, that is why it is listed on his TAX RETURN. He reported the income and paid taxes on it. I realize this flies in the face of your talking points but you can't get around the facts.
No, you are clueless to the fact that he has other investments down there that he apparently doesn't want to disclose. That's the beauty of "investing" your money in these offshore banks and investments, not everything is reported. And if you don't think that's happened, then you really need to do more research on how these types of investments work.
 

reefraff

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/392751/the-top-40/100#post_3490446
No, you are missing Bionics point. Having the intelligence to invest in a fund that gives a great return due to less tax implications is wrong. Being a smart guy with money is wrong. Having money is wrong. Taking all your legal deductions is wrong. giving more money to charities as a deduction is wrong as well.
This is the only thing they have on Romney...this is their main argument. Instead of defending their poor decisions, they attack the smart decisions of the opponent.
Yeah I suppose. I know about this stuff because I used to own a Canadian oil trust off and on. Paid better than 15% dividends and the payout was monthly. THem were the days.
 
Top