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

[reefraff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/392751/the-top-40/100#post_3490454
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.
How do you know?

 

[bionicarm]

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.
I never said it was wrong to find "inventive" ways to avoid paying higher taxes. The issue is that only the wealthy have the capability of using these loopholes to benefit their bottom line. And please don't say the average taxpayer has the ability to do the same. Someone who makes $60K/year doesn't have the same amount of disposable income that would allow them the benefit of making much, if any difference at all, on the amount of taxes they pay each year by "investing" in the Caymans. Most of the banks down there probably wouldn't even talk to you unless you had at least $10,000 to invest.
Grand Cayman Island is part of the British Overseas Territories, which are in the western Caribbean Sea. There are a variety of islands located in the British Territories. The other islands in the area are Cayman Brac and Little Cayman. These islands are renowned in the world for being a financial fortress for business.
Did you know that the Cayman Islands have more businesses registered in its location than people living there? Here you can get an idea for the popularity of Grand Cayman as a financial haven.
For stocks, there is no capital gains tax, which makes Grand Cayman Island attractive for investors. No matter how much you earn on an investment, you do not owe any taxes to the government. The Cayman Islands Monetary Authority oversees all hedge funds, investments, corporate governance activities, and structured finance activities in the island.
With $1.5 trillion dollars in banking liabilities, Grand Cayman is the fifth-largest place for banking in the world. Over 280 banks are located in the Cayman Islands. 19 of the banks are allowed to conduct banking activities with Cayman based clients, while the other banks are only allowed to conduct business on an international scale with certain transactions.
Hedge funds in particular experience ridiculously large growth rates in the Cayman Islands. In 1993, the Mutual Funds Law was passed which helped position the Cayman Islands as a home to the greatest number of hedge funds in the world. In 2008, over 10,000 hedge fund registrations were passed in the Cayman Islands. That same year, these hedge funds experienced a 12% growth rate.

 

[reefraff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/392751/the-top-40/120#post_3490458
I never said it was wrong to find "inventive" ways to avoid paying higher taxes. The issue is that only the wealthy have the capability of using these loopholes to benefit their bottom line. And please don't say the average taxpayer has the ability to do the same. Someone who makes $60K/year doesn't have the same amount of disposable income that would allow them the benefit of making much, if any difference at all, on the amount of taxes they pay each year by "investing" in the Caymans. Most of the banks down there probably wouldn't even talk to you unless you had at least $10,000 to invest.
Grand Cayman Island is part of the British Overseas Territories, which are in the western Caribbean Sea. There are a variety of islands located in the British Territories. The other islands in the area are Cayman Brac and Little Cayman. These islands are renowned in the world for being a financial fortress for business.
Did you know that the Cayman Islands have more businesses registered in its location than people living there? Here you can get an idea for the popularity of Grand Cayman as a financial haven.
For stocks, there is no capital gains tax, which makes Grand Cayman Island attractive for investors. No matter how much you earn on an investment, you do not owe any taxes to the government. The Cayman Islands Monetary Authority oversees all hedge funds, investments, corporate governance activities, and structured finance activities in the island.
With $1.5 trillion dollars in banking liabilities, Grand Cayman is the fifth-largest place for banking in the world. Over 280 banks are located in the Cayman Islands. 19 of the banks are allowed to conduct banking activities with Cayman based clients, while the other banks are only allowed to conduct business on an international scale with certain transactions.
Hedge funds in particular experience ridiculously large growth rates in the Cayman Islands. In 1993, the Mutual Funds Law was passed which helped position the Cayman Islands as a home to the greatest number of hedge funds in the world. In 2008, over 10,000 hedge fund registrations were passed in the Cayman Islands. That same year, these hedge funds experienced a 12% growth rate.
So what? The more money Romney or other US investors make on these investments the more US income taxes they pay. I'd think a liberal like you would cream your jeans over that.

 

[darthtang aw]

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.
Ummm...John Kerry has accounts in the Caymans as well....where was your outrage when you voted for him against bush over this type of "tax evasion"?

 

[darthtang aw]

Bionic, you fall for this crap hook line and sinker. Just because President Obama is your guy. Even though the country is not any better since he took office.
Gawker writes:
Today, we are publishing more than 950 pages of internal audits, financial statements, and private investor letters for 21 cryptically named entities in which Romney had invested—at minimum—more than $10 million as of 2011 (that number is based on the low end of ranges he has disclosed—the true number is almost certainly significantly higher). Almost all of them are affiliated with Bain Capital, the secretive private equity firm Romney co-founded in 1984 and ran until his departure in 1999 (or 2002, depending on whom you ask).
Many of them are offshore funds based in the Cayman Islands. Together, they reveal the mind-numbing, maze-like, and deeply opaque complexity with which Romney has handled his wealth, the exotic tax-avoidance schemes available only to the preposterously wealthy that benefit him, the unlikely (for a right-wing religious Mormon) places that his money has ended up, and the deeply hypocritical distance between his own criticisms of Obama's fiscal approach and his money managers' embrace of those same policies.
So if being based in the Cayman Islands immediately translates to a 'tax-avoidance scheme available only to the preposterously wealthy', then why is Gawker complaining?
After all, the Gawker Media Group is domiciled in - you guessed it - the Cayman Islands.
Financial journalist, Felix Salmon reported:
"Gawker Media has been going through a big corporate revamp over the past year or so. The ultimate parent company has never been in the U.S.: it used to be Blogwire in Hungary, but now Blogwire Hungary has become a subsidiary of a Cayman Islands entity called Gawker Media Group Inc, which also owns various U.S. operations like Gawker Media LLC, Gawker Entertainment LLC, Gawker Technology LLC, and Gawker Sales LLC."

Then there's this little tidbit of information; something regarding obscene profits, untaxed revenue, and side-stepping the IRS…
" The Hungarian companies get all of Gawker’s international income, which flows in from 13 different salespeople in ten different countries and which, since it’s international income flowing to a Hungarian company owned by a Cayman Islands parent, is basically pure profit which never comes close to being taxed in the U.S. The result is a company where 130 U.S. employees eat up the lion’s share of the U.S. revenues, resulting in little if any taxable income, while the international income, the franchise value of the brands, and the value of the technology all stays permanently overseas, untouched by the IRS."
This is weapons-grade hypocrisy...
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/rusty-weiss/2012/08/23/liberal-website-attacked-romneys-cayman-island-schemes-hides-their-inco#ixzz253rAZ1jG

 

[reefraff]

If this is so important should we be told how 0bama, living with his poor grandparents could go to a private school in Hawaii, Go to Occidental College and travel to Indonesia and Europe while in college. Maybe he wasn't just using drugs???

 

[theclemsonkid]

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.
I don't think anyone is arguing that what Romney has done is illegal. Because it's not. At all.
I think most people have trouble with the moral and ethical decisions he has made, and whether that's the person you want running the country. Based on what he did at Bain, I would never vote for the guy. In essence, he ran a company that went in and bought troubled companies with less than 20% of their own money, financed the rest, charged insane amounts of "fees" and interest to these companies, then get out, leaving them to foot the astronomical debt and bills after the usually turned profits in the 1000% or more range. That's one hell of a ROI.
So he wants to get rid of the national debt, even though he ran a company that specialized in buying companies, turning a huge profit, and then leaving them in huge amounts of debt until they typically went out of business or filed bankruptcy. It's all 100% legal, it's just not even a little ethical.

 

[darthtang aw]

I don't think anyone is arguing that what Romney has done is illegal.  Because it's not.  At all.
I think most people have trouble with the moral and ethical decisions he has made, and whether that's the person you want running the country.  Based on what he did at Bain, I would never vote for the guy.  In essence, he ran a company that went in and bought troubled companies with less than 20% of their own money, financed the rest, charged insane amounts of "fees" and interest to these companies, then get out, leaving them to foot the astronomical debt and bills after the usually turned profits in the 1000% or more range.  That's one hell of a ROI.
So he wants to get rid of the national debt, even though he ran a company that specialized in buying companies, turning a huge profit, and then leaving them in huge amounts of debt until they typically went out of business or filed bankruptcy.  It's all 100% legal, it's just not even a little ethical.
And you don't research enough.
Sealy Corp was sold to Bain Capital in 1997.[1] Sealy Corp reported in 1997 the following:[2]
5,456 employees
$721 million in assets
$11.7 million in net income
In 2003, Sealy's last year with Bain Capital, they reported the following:[3]
6,562 employees
$959 million in assets
$18.3 million in net income
Under Bain Capital, Sealy Corp managed to add 1106 new full-time jobs(a 20% increase in its workforce), $238 million in assets, and still report a 56% increase in net income.
-----Staples-----
Staples is one of the many companies Bain Capital has invested in during start-up and expansion. Staples now has over 89,000 employees.[4] Stemberg, the co-founder of Staples, said about Mitt Romney: “Most V.C.’s thought it was ridiculous... Mitt was highly unusual in that he went to the research level to study it.”[5]
And There are many others such as this...

 

[ironeagle2006]

Clemson compare what Romney did at Bain to what Obama did with GM shall we for a Minute as GM is the Closest Obama has EVER come to running a Business in his LIFE in the Private Sector. In a Normal Bankrupcy the Secured Debt Holders will be the First Paid off at all times the Unions if any are the LAST. Obama to make sure he could not lose the UAW and Big Labors Support in the Future Ignored Federal Law and made the Bondholders LAST on the list. Now we have American Airlines going thru a Chapter 11 right now and Guess what because of the GM Precedent set by Obama and how that one was Handled American can NOT get the Needed Labor Savings to Get out of Bankrupcy and may end up being LIQUIDATED and sold off in Parts to Other Carriers. Bain yes they may have been a Bloodthristy on how they did things BUT THEY GOT RESULTS. Staples Survived because of Bain Baskin Robbins Survived Because of Bain Capital and a Few Others SURVIVED becuase of BAIN and what they did. GM is Still LOSING CASH as Fast as BEFORE and will be going back to Bankrupcy court more than likely NEXT Year if not BEFORE THE ELECTION if they can not get more money from the Goverment. That tell you anything.

 

[reefraff]

During Romney's time at Bain they invested in 77 companies. 17 of them filed for Bankruptcy and many of those occurred AFTER Bain had sold the company. Depending on who you listen to 5 to 8 of those companies went bankrupt while still owned by Bain and most of those well after Romney had left the company. But believe what you want to.
I would never vote for an inexperienced, Narcissistic man who's never ran anything but his mouth. Based on the 0bama economy my instincts were right. He's completely over his head and too arrogant to admit he's wrong. To each their own.

 

[theclemsonkid]

Quote:
Originally Posted by ironeagle2006 http:///t/392751/the-top-40/120#post_3490471
Clemson compare what Romney did at Bain to what Obama did with GM shall we for a Minute as GM is the Closest Obama has EVER come to running a Business in his LIFE in the Private Sector. In a Normal Bankrupcy the Secured Debt Holders will be the First Paid off at all times the Unions if any are the LAST. Obama to make sure he could not lose the UAW and Big Labors Support in the Future Ignored Federal Law and made the Bondholders LAST on the list. Now we have American Airlines going thru a Chapter 11 right now and Guess what because of the GM Precedent set by Obama and how that one was Handled American can NOT get the Needed Labor Savings to Get out of Bankrupcy and may end up being LIQUIDATED and sold off in Parts to Other Carriers. Bain yes they may have been a Bloodthristy on how they did things BUT THEY GOT RESULTS. Staples Survived because of Bain Baskin Robbins Survived Because of Bain Capital and a Few Others SURVIVED becuase of BAIN and what they did. GM is Still LOSING CASH as Fast as BEFORE and will be going back to Bankrupcy court more than likely NEXT Year if not BEFORE THE ELECTION if they can not get more money from the Goverment. That tell you anything.
I'm not saying Obama is any better. And yes, Bain absolutely did help a few companies. However, if you look at the totals financially of the debt to profit ratio of every company Bain purchased during the Romney years, it was something like 5 to 1. Again, I can't blame Romney for making fist fulls of money, that's capitalism in America. I just don't want to vote for someone who chooses to do the wrong thing, just because it's legal. I think it's ridiculous that we have to chose between Obama and Romney. This great country can only produce those two? Really?

 

[darthtang aw]

I don't think anyone is arguing that what Romney has done is illegal.  Because it's not.  At all.
I think most people have trouble with the moral and ethical decisions he has made, and whether that's the person you want running the country.  Based on what he did at Bain, I would never vote for the guy.  In essence, he ran a company that went in and bought troubled companies with less than 20% of their own money, financed the rest, charged insane amounts of "fees" and interest to these companies, then get out, leaving them to foot the astronomical debt and bills after the usually turned profits in the 1000% or more range.  That's one hell of a ROI.
So he wants to get rid of the national debt, even though he ran a company that specialized in buying companies, turning a huge profit, and then leaving them in huge amounts of debt until they typically went out of business or filed bankruptcy.  It's all 100% legal, it's just not even a little ethical.
Since we are talking morals and ethics....is It immoral to tell your law enforcement to not uphold the law? Is it ethical?
Is it ethical to add 5 trillion new debt in 4 years?
Was the payments to Solindra ethical?
Is it ethical to push for a bill to have olympic medal winners tax exempt?

 

[darthtang aw]

I'm not saying Obama is any better.  And yes, Bain absolutely did help a few companies.  However, if you look at the totals financially of the debt to profit ratio of every company Bain purchased during the Romney years, it was something like 5 to 1.  Again, I can't blame Romney for making fist fulls of money, that's capitalism in America.  I just don't want to vote for someone who chooses to do the wrong thing, just because it's legal.  I think it's ridiculous that we have to chose between Obama and Romney.  This great country can only produce those two? Really?
Did those companies fail while under bains umbrella? How many years later was it that they failed? What were the circumstances that caused failure. You can not adequately debate this as a point without having this needed information. Did a new ceo take over? Did the companies just decide to fold? Were the folding under bain or was it years after and they were profitable while under bain?
And actually, the ration is closer to 50/50 than 5 to 1.
Then vote for gary johnson.

 

[reefraff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheClemsonKid http:///t/392751/the-top-40/120#post_3490473
I'm not saying Obama is any better. And yes, Bain absolutely did help a few companies. However, if you look at the totals financially of the debt to profit ratio of every company Bain purchased during the Romney years, it was something like 5 to 1. Again, I can't blame Romney for making fist fulls of money, that's capitalism in America. I just don't want to vote for someone who chooses to do the wrong thing, just because it's legal. I think it's ridiculous that we have to chose between Obama and Romney. This great country can only produce those two? Really?
Which one do you think knows more about what will create jobs.
Romney was hired to do a job a Bain. It appears he was really good at it. He was asked to do a job with the 2002 Olympics, he was really good at it. He was hired to run the state of Mass. He was really good at it. He has a record of success.
Honestly 0bama's greatest accomplishment to date was the political genius he used to win his first election. There was no Republican opposition so he rounded up a group of his law school buddies to go through his fellow Democrat candidates for the primary's petitions. He used technicalities like a hand written rather than printed name on an incomplete address to invalidate enough signatures to get all his opponents thrown off the ballot. When he ran for the US senate he went to the Illinois Senate President and asked for help. The Illinois Senate president reassigned nearly every piece of legislation written to 0bama to make him look like some sort of wiz kid when 0bama had nothing to do with creating the legislation. In the US Senate 0bama only ever created one bill, ONE. Why would anyone think he could run a country.

 

[theclemsonkid]

Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/392751/the-top-40/120#post_3490477
Which one do you think knows more about what will create jobs.
Romney was hired to do a job a Bain. It appears he was really good at it. He was asked to do a job with the 2002 Olympics, he was really good at it. He was hired to run the state of Mass. He was really good at it. He has a record of success.
Honestly 0bama's greatest accomplishment to date was the political genius he used to win his first election. There was no Republican opposition so he rounded up a group of his law school buddies to go through his fellow Democrat candidates for the primary's petitions. He used technicalities like a hand written rather than printed name on an incomplete address to invalidate enough signatures to get all his opponents thrown off the ballot. When he ran for the US senate he went to the Illinois Senate President and asked for help. The Illinois Senate president reassigned nearly every piece of legislation written to 0bama to make him look like some sort of wiz kid when 0bama had nothing to do with creating the legislation. In the US Senate 0bama only ever created one bill, ONE. Why would anyone think he could run a country.
I guess it just shows that the country is full of a bunch of incompetent malcontents who will vote for whichever guy is the loudest and shiniest. Now I think about it, voting for president is like playing a slot machine. You pick whichever one is the loudest and shiniest, and in the end it takes your money regardless...

 

[bionicarm]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/392751/the-top-40/120#post_3490474
Since we are talking morals and ethics....is It immoral to tell your law enforcement to not uphold the law? Is it ethical?
Is it ethical to add 5 trillion new debt in 4 years?
Was the payments to Solindra ethical?
Is it ethical to push for a bill to have olympic medal winners tax exempt?
Sorry, I don't need "morality police" determining what is moral or immoral.
Was it ethical to run up $5 trillion in 8 years like Bush?
The only reason Solyndra is "unethical" in your mind is because they failed as a business. Would you say the same thing if they suceeded beyond expectations? I never delved into whatever happened to that organization, and why the did what they did. When you're trying to be successful in a brand new "controversial" market, things like that happen. You have all the disbelievers that solar power is a waste of money, that there's no profit in it. Unless you can find a company like Solyndra that has the balls to at least advance that technology, it never will have a chance to grow.
You're telling me the Olympic tax exemption wasn't a bipartisan affair?

 

[bionicarm]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/392751/the-top-40/120#post_3490462
Ummm...John Kerry has accounts in the Caymans as well....where was your outrage when you voted for him against bush over this type of "tax evasion"?
I voted against Bush in 2004 because of his massively failed economic policies, and dragging us into a war we had no business going into. I honestly never heard anything about Kerry and his "Cayman Connections". I could care less which side of the fence they're on. It has to do with the wealthy having an upper hand over the average taxpayer, and their ability to legally cheat the tax system to keep more of their money in their pockets that most of them will never spend in their lifetime. The Treasury Dept. has stated that we lose almost $100 billion a year in tax revenues to these "investments" in offshore deals in the Caymans and Bermuda. That's money that could go towards the deficit, or lower the tax rates for the average person who can't afford the luxury of hiding their money in the same type of accounts.

 

[darthtang aw]

Sorry, I don't need "morality police" determining what is moral or immoral.
Was it ethical to run up $5 trillion in 8 years like Bush?
The only reason Solyndra is "unethical" in your mind is because they failed as a business.  Would you say the same thing if they suceeded beyond expectations?  I never delved into whatever happened to that organization, and why the did what they did.  When you're trying to be successful in a brand new "controversial" market, things like that happen.  You have all the disbelievers that solar power is a waste of money, that there's no profit in it.  Unless you can find a company like Solyndra that has the balls to at least advance that technology, it never will have a chance to grow.
You're telling me the Olympic tax exemption wasn't a bipartisan affair?
If you don't need morality police to determine what is moral...then why are your panties all wedged up over a legal tax action? Abortion is currently legal....yet you supportthat because it is legal, regardless of morality involved with the issue. Once again. you pick and chose which morals you chose to fllow as they suit your desired argument and agenda. if his legal tax evasion is a moral issue....aren't you the same person that wants government out of moral decisions?
No, the solyndra deal was unethical regardless if they had succeeded or failed. Read the reasons why they got the money and how. Obviously it isn't viable, otherwise it wouldn't have to be funded by the government and the consumer wouldn't be offerred huge tax breaks and a return on their solar purchase if it was viable. I live in the friggin desert. I have sun more than most in this country. yet, the industry that makes and sells this technology, is the highest paying consumer of electricity when compared to other manufacturers. One would think a solar panel company would be able to produce their own power....Irony?
Bush never claimed he would reduce the deficit in his terms. Obama claimed he would cut it in half his first term....woops, really screwed that one up. Maybe he meant increase it by half?
Lets try this a different way. What has Obama done for this country in four years.
When one is complaining about people paying their fair share and wanting to raise taxes...then turn around and make select people tax exempt....i call that unethical hypocrisy.

 

[darthtang aw]

I voted against Bush in 2004 because of his massively failed economic policies, and dragging us into a war we had no business going into.  I honestly never heard anything about Kerry and his "Cayman Connections".  I could care less which side of the fence they're on.  It has to do with the wealthy having an upper hand over the average taxpayer, and their ability to legally cheat the tax system to keep more of their money in their pockets that most of them will never spend in their lifetime.  The Treasury Dept. has stated that we lose almost $100 billion a year in tax revenues to these "investments" in offshore deals in the Caymans and Bermuda.  That's money that could go towards the deficit, or lower the tax rates for the average person who can't afford the luxury of hiding their money in the same type of accounts.
failed economic policy? After four years?
yet you give this President a pass using the same criteria? Really? Hypocrisy at its finest. Double the employment rate than under bush's first four years, still in two wars....A floundering economy with no significant positive growth in the last year? But Obama is your guy....I get it. He doesn't have to atleast match the first four years of Bush.
You heard nothing about his cayman connections because his running opponent didn't need to drudge up an issue that holds no bearing on the state of the country. Kerry's opponent (Bush) ran on his record ....Unlike Obama....

 

[reefraff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheClemsonKid http:///t/392751/the-top-40/120#post_3490486
I guess it just shows that the country is full of a bunch of incompetent malcontents who will vote for whichever guy is the loudest and shiniest. Now I think about it, voting for president is like playing a slot machine. You pick whichever one is the loudest and shiniest, and in the end it takes your money regardless...
I play video poker, you can win at that LOL