It was bad enough when it came out that Mitt Romney had off-shored money in the Grand Caymans which reeks of crooked businessman/mobster/evil genius who will eventually blow up the world with a laser from a space-based platform unless his demands are met (and let’s not put that past Mitt just yet). But this…. this will not, as they say, play well in Peoria:
U.S. Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney released tax records on Tuesday indicating he will pay $6.2 million (3.9 million pounds) in taxes on a total of $45.2 million in income over the years 2010 and 2011.
Bowing to increasing political pressure to provide more detail about his vast wealth, the former private equity executive released tax returns indicating he and his wife, Ann, paid an effective tax rate of 13.9 percent in 2010. They expect to pay a 15.4 percent rate when they file their returns for 2011.
Romney’s tax rate is below that of most wage-earning Americans because most of his income, as outlined in more than 500 pages of tax documents, flows from capital gains on investments.
Under the U.S. tax code, capital gains are taxed at 15 percent, compared with a top tax rate of 35 percent for wage earners.
[...]
Romney’s campaign officials stressed that his tax rate is based mostly on income from investments that are held in a blind trust. Romney’s holdings include an undisclosed amount in funds based in the Grand Cayman Islands and other overseas entities.
Romney advisers stressed that the holdings in the Caymans — along with those in a Swiss bank account that was closed in 2010 after an investment adviser decided it could be politically embarrassing to Romney — were reported on tax returns and were not vehicles to avoid taxes.
Uh, no duh. Someone had to tell him that? Really?
And that is what we know from the 2010 & 2011 tax returns only. It’s likely that his tax returns for the preceding ten years or so are boxed up and stashed away in a safe somewhere with the warning “Here be dragons” Sharpied on the boxtop.




79 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About TBogg
RSS/XML Feed
“Here be dragons,” on boxes likely stashed in the Caymans. Or could be the Turcs and Caicos. Perfect.
$3+ million bucks = 13.9% of his income.
Yeah, Mitt’s of the streets, all right. And self-made! Having a dad who ran a huge corporation, was governor of a major state, and left him money (I don’t care how much he gave away, irrelevant) didn’t give him any kind of head start or advantage or connections or anything at all. Nope, nosiree. All self-made from productive businesses Mittsie established and ran. Sure.
He didn’t really need tax shelters to avoid taxes, since the US government did that for him
mmm…cooked businessman/…
There’s another way to determine Romney’s wealth, also too. All good Christians tithe 10% of their gross income to their church so alls ya gotta do is find out how much he gave to Moroni. Mystery solved, maybe.
Willard doesn’t even have to manage the funds.
I guess the mindset really must be, “I didn’t do a damn thing to earn the money so I sure as hell shouldn’t owe any taxes on it!”
Mr. Charles Pierce really does get to the heart of it.
Now there is a Republican debate I’d PAY to see.
Dear Satan/George Soros/Whichever Comes First,
Thank you for making Mitt Romney the Republican Presidential Nominee. In a year in which extravagant under-taxed wealth derived from exploiting the suffering of middle and working class workers has become more unfashionably evil than possibly any other time in our history, having the second coming of Gordon Gekko as the nominee is a gift of incalculable value of which we are unworthy. I promise to redouble my efforts to establish socialism or satanism or sharia or Santa’s workshop or whatever system I’m supposedly working to establish forevermore amen.
Dear Saul Alinsky/Satan/Whichever is Greater,
Thank you for making Newt Gingrich the Republican Presidential Nominee. At a time when most people are about as fond of government as herpes, sending us the very symbol of baggage-laden hypocrisy and corruption who had higher disapproval ratings than Congress itself is a gift that we……
I’m keeping both letters handy. Plus the one about the broken gift that is Rick Santorum, just in case.
Gee. That’s lots and lots less than I paid. Lots and lots and lots and lots and lots.
Some Christian sects ask for a tithe, but it’s not an all or nothing kind of thing. Mormons do, however.
newt would turn paying a low tax rate on millions into a positive by saying “Look at me. I work hard. Im successful. This is what murika can be for everyone who works hard. Its a fair playing field for all. By the way, my latest wife has blonde hair”, followed by thunderous applause from the rw rabble.
Why oh why cant Mittbot stand erect, gird himself and deliver an I-got-mine-fuck-you moment? Such a message fits neatly within the libtard wealth-excuse-making parameters accepted by most of the knuckle-dragging gop electorate. For the base, its solely about thumbing the eye of librulism-truth/reality be damned!
And a thithe is little more than a soul tax enacted by the church. Pay a small feee and improve your chances with CEO jeebus.
Uhm, according to most good Xtians, Mormons are not good Xtians. Besides, I think you’d have a better chance of getting Mittens to give you the account number to his Cayman Islands account than of getting the Mormons to tell you *anything* that might be embarrassing to one of their big rollers. They’re “special,” remember, so it’s not like they’re accountable to the rest of society, after all…
MyInsides @10 touched on it, but the sad reality is that it probably won’t play poorly in Peoria. The hardcore 27%er believes that someday he too will be incredibly wealthy, and damned if he wants to pay more than 15%! This is ‘Murika, looters! Sure, he is 47 years old, owes 425K on a house that’s worth 200K, has $352 in his checking account and a bill from the local hospital for that 45K appendectomy operation, but if he works hard enough at the Jiffy Lube, makes manager, starts putting some money away, THEN the plan will go into motion for his own brand of barbeque sauce/new electric fly swatter/children’s-book-about-the adventures of three blood hounds puppies named Barky, Woofy, and Howly. Presto, RICH!
Of course, the Jiffy Lube just laid him off, but there is still the scratch-off lottery ticket option. Hell, he hit one for $25 the other day!
As far as the “on the fence” or “hasn’t decided yet” voter, well, we all know about him. He’ll raise his eyebrows when he sees 15%, but on voting day he never makes it to the booth because his favorite rerun of Everybody Love’s Raymond is on.
Just y’all wait: some knuckle-dragging troll’ll swing by any moment to chide us libtards with the usual “But Mittens paid MOAR in taxes than you pervy skank LIEbruls will pay altogether for the whole of your worthless loathsome disgusting despicable lives… ya LOSERS!!!!”
And yeah: too true. Mittens “paid” (not really; Mittens ain’t never really “paid” for a damn freakin thing in his over-privileged plundering rapacious life, but that’s another story) $6.2mill in “taxes” (fealty?) in 2010, which IS, in total, a LOT LOT more than what I paid.
But what I paid was a HUGE amount more in terms of my paltry income, and fuck you, but I DID work damn hard for what I actually really truly *earned* by my labor.
But I am a scum-sucking LIEbrul 99%er, so I *deserve* to pay more, percentage-wise, in taxes than greedy shyster job-destrying crook Willard & any other vaunted 1%er.
Blah blah blah yadda yadda…
Hatmandu@12: You are completely, utterly and incorrigibly Wrong.
Mr Jiffy Lube CANNOT make those comic books because he never learned to read.
And who extended BushCo’s tax cuts for the rich? Oh, I remember. The guy whose Chief of Staff called us fu*king retards.
Sounds like you should fire your financial advisor
This. At some point before the end of days finally arrives, this dumbass country is going to have an actual debate about this very topic. The real problem is not that Romney did anything illegal, it’s that everything he did was PERFECTLY LEGAL!!!
I’ve read a couple times on the intertoobz this morning that the Romney campaign is seriously considering spinning this as “Look how much taxes he paid!”, on the theory that $3 million will get people’s attention, not the 13.9% rate.
And as for this:
I’m with Dr. Krugzilla, who says:
I’m guessing the older ones have lots of really interesting stuff in them.
They 1%? Try 0.006%> From the 10.39am comment:
Mormons, as do others who follow the Bible, pay one-tenth of their increase, or income. It is left to individual Mormons to decide what income involves. Various Mormons interpret it in different ways, but we are asked only to take it to God for clarification.
In the run-up for the election, instead of working to pass legislation which will benefit the struggling electorate, the focus will be on bad-mouthing the other party.
Are you yanking my chain?
I didn’t invent it. Just found it on some random Mormon site.
Well, ONITGOES @ 11, it took all of 2 posts for ole’ KAFKA @15 to show up with a rejoinder. A wonderfully disingenuous one at that.
Or I just learned that O unilaterally kept the Bush tax rates in place. Apparently, so his spokesperson could curse at us.
He’s really getting his money’s worth out of using Turbo Tax. Just think of all those deductions he might have missed. Like…the death squad ones, for example…
I expect Mitt will drop in the polls even more now. Of course this gets OWS arguments much more publicity :)
The warning sign says, “Beware of the Leopard”. Sorry, i needed to fix that.
Mitt pays less taxes than most regular people do who make much less WTF! Given the horrible job creation numbers for the last ten years the GOP is killing itself arguing that the rich need to be taxed less to create jobs.
Given that jobs are voters biggest issue the GOP very well might lose to Obama this election.
Aside from his returns from his years at bain, the 2008/2009 returns are also important. Just how was he ‘affected’ by the meltdown and the aftermath.
“Close that Swiss account and fire those bankers! I’m running for office here!”
That’s exactly what I’d love to know, but I doubt that we 99%ers will ever learn the real truth about that.
Now there’s a movement beginning in Parliament to end the Cayman tax haven that is in direct response to Mitt and those like him who hide their extreme wealth from taxes.
Sometimes you just got to love those Brits.
the GOP is killing itself arguing that the rich need to be taxed less to create jobs
They’re running out of oxygen. Maybe we’ll breath better if we give them ours.
Taxes could be zero but unless the federal government starts getting realistic about current overregulation it won’t make a bit of difference. Repeal Obamacare and stick of fork in Dodd-Frank and you will start to see meaningful job growth in the U.S.
That is exactly what just about every low 1%er, mostly small business owners, has told me with half a laugh;
“if you pay any taxes at all, fire your accountant.”
A Navel Architect (designed $10M+ luxury yachts) that was a drinking buddy of mine ~10 years ago now told me that in the previous year he had made $250k. His accountant had to drop a deduction to keep him from getting $5k back, which would have triggered an audit. He was on track to make $375k in that current year.
You must have slept through Econ 101; otherwise you’d know about that most basic of all economic principals – “supply and demand.” It’s clear that you don’t, because otherwise you wouldn’t spout foolish BS about how taxes and regulations keep people from “creating” jobs.
No, dumbshit. People “create” jobs when there is more demand for their product than they can supply with the current workforce. When people have no fucking money because either 1)the economy is the shitter because people like Romney put it there or 2)only a few people have any money to spend because they’ve bled everyone else until there’s nothing left to squeeze out (again, like Romney) or 3) both, as is our current situation, demand increases very very slowly or not at all. You could cut all regulations and still no one will bother with polluting the air or water to make stuff no one is going to buy. You could cut tax rates on business owners and shareholders to zero, and they aren’t going to go out and hire people to make stuff no one is going to buy. And if you weren’t such a FUCKING DUMBASS, you would know this already.
End of rant.
You know normally, perhaps. This year however rather amazingly the spotlight is on “the 1%” largely because of OWS (the “Occupy Wall Street hokum”, as David Brooks calls it today) and this stuff is going to just destroy Mitt, it already is doing so, really.
That’s why I’m thanking providence or whatever the hell brought about Mittens or Newt as evidently the two possible nominees, because it really couldn’t be worse timing, for either one of them.
So much for the OWS hokum. It’s essentially destroyed any chance David Brooks’ preferred candidate ever had, but he’ll continue to sneer at it and pretend otherwise. Not to mention that David Brooks is actually pretty much okay with Obama as President also, but that’s another long story.
Sorry dude, we tried that in the last decade. Didn’t work. Instead of investing in capital goods folks just sold houses back and forth to each other for higher and higher prices. A global economy makes U.S. investment unprofitable, so the extra capital goes into the Tulip Boom du jour.
But hey, you’re making 10 cents a pop from Koch Industries for trolling, so you’ll be 1%ing in no time.
Since I believe Willard lives in New Hampshire, in addition to paying less than 15% on his Fed taxes, New Hamshire has no state income or sales tax and capital gains are tax free.
Thus Willard gives more to the Mormon church than all the federal and state taxes he pays.
So I guess the saying is true about when a Mormon comes to town for the weekend. He brings a clean shirt and $50 and doesn’t change either one.
Keep sticking your head in the sand Jenn.
Supply and demand do not occur in a vacuum. There are outside influences that help drive both. I know Econ probably didn’t make it onto your GED test but take it from someone with a both a professional background and an advanced degree on the topic.
If you’ve got both a “professional background” and “an advanced degree” on the topic and still find yourself insisting that “regulation” is a more important market factor in determining job creation than lack of demand is, then 1) in your professional background, you’ve probably helped put us in the shithole economy we find ourselves in and 2) you should sue whoever gave you your “advanced degree” for educational malpractice in allowing you to matriculate without knowing the first thing about basic principles of economics.
Uh-oh. Food fight.
You’re probably right, and I hope this news cycle does have lasting power, but I really don’t have much faith in the attention span of the average “independent” voter. Not to mention that I believe racism has greater staying power in their minds than any economic indignities. When it comes to blaming others for their problems, they will always go that route rather than pointing a finger at a rich, white guy. Because, as I mentioned, they always see themselves as the rich, white guy, if only they weren’t so darn unlucky and the government wasn’t holding them back.
Sigh, now I’ve depressed myself.
So you’re arguing that regulation and taxation have no impact on supply and demand? It is pretty clear who the economic retard is in this conversation. Your view is nothing more than convenient to your beliefs and a broad declaration of your ignorance. Just know that 1) it is intellectually lazy (something I have come to expect from you) and 2) flat out wrong.
So our current episode of non-job growth that began in 2007 is the fault of “Obamacare”? Damn that George W Bush for derailing the economy by stealing Obama’s name and instituting universal health care, which even Obama didn’t do once he took office. Dodd Frank was in 2010, three years after the recession had brought down the economy along with employment.
The era of non-regulation and housing being treated like casino chips blew up the economy and destroyed job growth. The notion that A) Obama has created massive increases in regulation and B) this is what caused unemployment is just too absurd to take seriously. Try a real argument, especially if you want to be so arrogant about it.
Careful, buddy. If you got your econ education in the 1980s and 1990s, the saltwater might be too diluted by freshwater to allow it to float reasonable ideas. (Austerity and similar advice in our current situation are especially…not bouyant.)
Also too, ‘no impact’ is the kind of a reducto argument that sets off Laffer alarm bells.
Dear FSM, where to begin?
OK, if you want to use “argument by authority”, let’s do that. I, too, have “an advanced degree on the topic” — only mine is from NYU, where I had professors like Nobel laureate Wassily Leontief; if you don’t (apparently) understand supply and demand, I’m guessing you got yours from a matchbook cover offer.
The problem is, in its simplest form, lack of aggregate demand. If you think some alleged “overregulation” or Obamacare or Dodd-Frank is the source of the problem, not the lack of demand, then you really don’t know anything at all about economics. To take the most screamingly obvious point, how exactly did the economy collapse in September 2008 when Dodd-Frank was not signed until July 2010, and most of the significant provisions of Obamacare do not take effect until 2014?
I’m sure you have some idiotic talking point that you got from Fux News or the usual collection of freshwater economics pinheads. Please, do share it with us; I am really looking forward to being enlightened by your genius.
Sounds like the troll has arrived.
So much for credentia.
Its 2012 not 2007. Events that have occurred in the last five years have an impact on what is or is not occuring currently. To suggest that overregulation does not have an impact on current job creation is ridiculous. With that kind of thinking no wonder you are unemployed.
Step out of your time machine. Its 2012 not 2007 or 2008. We are talking about the current lack of job creation which is in part the result of increased regulation stifling demand. And bro, not impressed with your part-time MBA from NYU.
No dumbass, I’m arguing that only a moron would claim that regulation has a bigger impact on job creation than demand does, which is what you are arguing. Here, Einstein, I’ll give a real-world example; hell, I’ll give you more:
In terms of “regulation” you could say that meth and cocaine are some of the most regulated substances out there, since they aren’t legal. Yet lots of folks are “employed” in the manufacture, transportation, and sale of these substances. Why? Because there is demand for the product. If you make it, they will buy.
Let’s look inside the legal economy. I’ve just started another small business making a food mix. In order to manufacture it, I have to follow certain regulations regarding the cleanliness and safety of the facility where the product is produced, and I’m required to tell people what’s in it. I’m also subject to all the other regulations any other small business would face – I have to be licensed, I have to pay taxes, & etc.
I price my product accordingly; the price I arrived at reflected the costs of complying with all those regulations, raw materials, labor & etc. Many of those regulatory costs are one-time events – paying for Health Department review of the manufacturing facility, paying for a nutritional analysis of the product to be performed – and most of the others are infrequent costs – renewal of the annual business license, etc. The biggest ongoing cost associated with regulation is bookkeeping, and even for that the part we have to do because of “regulations” rather than just basic sound business practice is just a fraction of the time put into bookkeeping.
None of these costs are going to affect the business more than simple demand will. I’ll sell as much product as I can by getting it out there, and only if and when there’s sufficient demand will I hire anyone to help produce more of it. You could cut out ALL my regulatory expenses and it wouldn’t make a damn bit of difference as to my hiring, because basic common sense says you don’t hire people to do work that you don’t need done.
My regulatory environment is pretty simple, granted, because I’m not a chemical maker or heavy manufacturer. But NONE OF US are going to pay people to work to make things that no one wants to buy. Regulatory costs might make products a little or a lot more expensive, depending on the product – it’s typically those that have the capacity to poison us and our environment where regulations would tend to drive costs up more – but the answer isn’t to let the manufacturer shit the nest so he can lower his price and attract more buyers (which is essentially the Chinese model) – it’s to increase buyers by sharing prosperity more broadly. What you propose is to shift costs by doing away with regulation (at least in part), and claim that this will create jobs. No, it will shift costs – you dump the consequences and costs of unregulated business onto the public as a whole, and a few people get jobs out of it – maybe. More likely, you (or your shareholders) just get extra profit out of it.
Demand in a vacuum: You need nourishment.
Supply in a vacuum: No one needs your fertilizer.
Patent nonsense, your currency.
You really did get your degree — if you actually have one — from a matchbook cover, didn’t you? My degree is from the Graduate School of Arts and Science, and no, it is NOT an MBA. (BTW, my undergraduate degree is from one of the Little Ivies, and it, too, is in Economics.)
And if you are telling us (I see you copy-pasted your response to UVP to reply to me) that the current economic situation is totally divorced from the events of the Cheney-Bush Maladministration, then I do not even believe you have a degree from a matchbook cover, as you clearly are not bright enough to collect even a GED.
If you cannot respond factually to any of the people disputing your patent bullshit, then please just go away.
OT: Steve Benen is moving to work for Rachel Maddow.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal/2012_01/hello_i_must_be_going034961.php
Your ninja like comments have made cuts so swiftly and deftly that Beck east does not yet realize his head is no longer connected to his torso. The neat part about that is that his head is completely up his ass but still in place between his shoulders. Round of snaps to you…
Facts? He don’t need no stinkin’ facts, he’s got ideology, the Wall Street Journal editorial page and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce on his side. Self-regulation works, just ask Alan Greenspan. (Shorter Uncle Alan: “I was shocked, SHOCKED to find out that given the opportunity, greedy Wall Street pigs would enrich themselves at the expense of their clients, their firms, their industry and their country!”)
(Shorter Wall Street: “What’s the worst that can happen? We make $200 million and get fired?”)
What? You got a problem with Mitten’s Galtian Overlord status? He’s a Wealth and Job Creator, so…as the Moustache of Understanding would say…Suck On This. His tax rate ought to be cut to 0%, then he’d create even more Wealth and Jobs! (Except for you, you soshulist hippie scum. After Mitten’s election there will be a place for you in a labor camp in North Dakota.)
No, we’re supposed to be grateful to these pigfuckers, who at this point ought to be grateful that they’re not hanging from lampposts. I do not advocate violence, but I can understand the impulse towards it. Particularly on the part of people who have become poor and desperate for no reason they can understand, yet see the likes of Mitt Romney paying a lower tax rate on more money than they would see in twenty lifetimes.
Wait… what? Nothing? Beck East has no snappy comeback — down for the count, schooled with those pesky facts and a strong shot of logic? What kind of neo-con troll is that? Sheesh, they don’t make them like they used to. I am disappoint.
Also, too: regulation wouldn’t “stifle demand.” It would stifle supply if in fact it stifles anything at all. You moron.
AssBackwards, like all of the subspecies “bidness onterpernoor troll”, claims advanced degrees, professional expertise and a 16-inch penis.
In reality, he shows up at local Chamber of Commerce events to neck as much Wibbling Wombat as possible, before going home to masturbate to the editorial page of Investors’ Business Daily.
Well, if I do get sent to a labor camp in North Dakota, at least I’ll be close to most of my relatives (yes, really).
And to thingwarbler, JennOfArk, pseudonymousinnc, and all the others who “enjoyed” the rantings of our little troll, I really didn’t expect him/her/it to take my “please go away” seriously.
No, they just don’t make them like they used to.
Hadmandu, you’re right. Not just about Joe JiffyLube, but about our movers and fakers, wannabes and never-wases. They’re rich and conservative as can be. They bring in the top Republican “talent” on a regular basis to keep their Congressboy in office. I hope they’ll all be crying in their Moet on election day.
That was enjoyable JennOfArk, LittlePig, hector6766, waveydavy, and psudomouseinnc!
Thanks.
This man is scum.
Even multi-millionaire grifter Gingrich looks like a blue-collar Democrat in comparison.
I permanently soured on Romney when, after “winning” in Iowa and having his first chance to address the nation as a presumptive nominee chose to start his oration by calling for an aggressive war against Iran.
As you know, such wars leads to the INCINERATION of innocent women and children by employees of the Federal Government.
That’s pure evil.
Wow, remind me not to say anything stupid around you!
I get it! Demand from the rich will encourage them to make stuff to sell to themselves!
To all of you who slapped BackEast around; good job as far as you went. But you didn’t really address the core fallacy behind his world view. Where “Supply Siders” go wrong is their almost religious belief that the only goal for having a Free Market is maximizing profit. They don’t understand that the point of a Free Market is to efficiently allocate resources, goods and services within the economy.
His contention that regulation suppresses “Demand” is correct, but that isn’t necessarily a bad thing. For example, if the market price for cigarettes only reflects the cost of production (as it did for most of the product’s history) and not the External Costs to Society (increased Healthcare costs) then the Free Market doesn’t price cigarettes properly and the economy over-produces cigarettes. Regulation and taxation is required to force the market price to more closely reflect the actual cost of cigarettes, because there is no direct economic connection between Lung Cancer and Philip Morris.
The “Invisible Hand” is only a metaphor not a Super Natural Force.
BackEast/HeadedWest is a troll who loves to spout Galtian Libertarian nonsense, all while claiming educational background & work “expertise.”
Bogus.
Way up top, I complained about Mitt paying such low taxes for essentially sitting around on his ass after destroying jobs via his stint at Bain. I pay a much higher tax on income that I earn honestly by my labor.
BackEast’s solution for me?? That I go hire a different tax accountant to help me find loopholes to avoid paying taxes, myself.
Well here’s the drill: I don’t want to avoid paying my fair share of taxes. I’m NOT GREEDY and unpatriotic, like Mitt & Newt & all the rest of the 1%. For shit’s sake: don’t these crooks at the top have enough, already???? Steve Jobs is our new “god” to whom we must all bow down, but how did Jobs make his greedy gazillions? By off-shoring decent-paying USA jobs to slave labor at Foxconn in China.
Sheesh.
I just want the 1% to their fair share. I’m not looking to cut MYSELF a deal/break.
Yesterday I was on a business road trip, and all I saw for miles upon miles were rapidly degrading highways. The only bit that was in good shape was a short stretch of what had used to be a “car pool” lane but had been changed into a toll stretch on a freeway.
It’s simply idiotic that I have pay taxes, and then to get a good stretch of road, I have to pay tolls to use it.
But as another commenter posited, too many citizens are quite willing to give RICH WHITE MEN the leeway to be greedy unpatriotic crooks. And so that’s the way it is.
PS Good food-fight, by the way.
Tbogg: “The situation is totally unacceptable.”
MSM: “Well gentelmen, I guess that just about wraps it up.”
Firedoglake: “Where are the other tax returns?”
Intelligence: “I thought we settled this. They are somewhere very safe.”
Tbogg: “From who?”
Firedoglake: “Those tax returns are a source of unspeakable power and they have to be researched.”
MSM: “And it will be. I assure you, Firedoglake, Tbogg. We have top men working on it right now.”
Tbogg: “Who?”
MSM: “Top… Men…”
Even if you did follow HeadEast’s advice it wouldn’t do you any good.
You would spend more paying your accountant than you get back on your taxes because the overwhelming majority of tax loopholes apply to unearned income, not earned income.
Yes, that is ALSO true, which is why HeadedEast’s so-called “professional & highly educated” advice is doubly bogus.
US workers who, you know, actually do real honest-to-goodness WORK for a living, simply are ineligible for the kinds of tax breaks, tax loopholes and other tax incentives ONLY available to the mega-wealthy, who mainly make money by greed, job-destruction, off-shoring US jobs to slave-labor countries, and/or by CRIMINAL means, such as what the banks and Wall St have done.
But hey: libertarian Galtians, like HeadEast, are all “down” with that. It’s all FAIR gain, until we start taxing the 1% at rates similar to what the middle & working class get taxed at. If we try to implement a fair progressive tax rate, then the almighty 1% whining & crying commences.
Bah!
JennofArk – I may just print & paste onto a card your lovely succinct and clear refutation of this stupid argument for the next time I run into one of “those people” and get so po’d I can’t think straight. It’s beautiful.
onitgoes – yeah, you articulate well why so many people hate Romney…and why it ain’t about envy. He really is utterly clueless, which is a major reason he’d be dangerous as (choke) president. He has no idea what works for the middle class, the country as a whole, or even how and why he himself got rich.
I think it’s Charlie Pierce who yesterday explained Mitt by saying “he hasn’t explained himself to himself yet.” He really does seem to think he’s some sort of self-made man, with no advantages to help him get stinkin’ rich.
As I pointed out above the (2) reasons why they think this way are:
1) To them, their Economic beliefs are their religion.
2) Their view is that the “Free Market” exists to maximise profit.
Which is very, very, very wrong.
Yes, yes, and yes.
But duly noted that HeadEast @16 disinegenously suggests:
implying that if I had a
crook“different” financial advisor, somehow I, too, would be enabled to lower my tax rate.Which is wrong for many reasons, not the least of it being: no financial advisor is going to be able to “figure out” a way to lower my tax burden any differently/better than what my present financial advisor is doing.
Like all Galtian Libertarians, not only is HeadEast, wrong, but s/he lies and is full of shit.
With all due respect, I must disagree with you… only bc I truly do not for one nanosecond believe that Mitt thinks he’s “middle class” or some kind of “self-made man.” No, I don’t believe that for an instant.
OWS has had an impact, methinks. It is Mitt’s advisors (not Mitt, himself, bc I think Mitt is so cushioned from the “fray” of every day life that he’s not really clueless, he’s simply indifferent to the fate of “others” who exist in some universe far far far away from Mitt’s exhaulted realm in the upper eschelons of the Mormon firmament) who have written certain words for Mitt to memorize and then bleat out to the “masses.”
Mitt? He KNOWS he’s stinking filthy rich. And somewhere in the darker recesses of his being, he also KNOWS that he’s a freaking greedy grubby crook who destroyed the lives of the serfs. But he doesn’t give a shit. No one little shit.
So whatever thing that Mitt bleats out that looks “clueless”??? IMO, Mitt’s just indifferent, and that’s why he appears so awkward when he says it.
JHMO, of course.
Hey, come on! Mitt says he provided his tax return, but did he really? Were they the long form return? Sorry, but I’m not convinced. I don’t want to see some bullshit “copy,” I want to have the actual physical form right here in front of me — and everybody else in the world, including those yet to be born — or I don’t believe a digit of it.
If you’d like the version without all the curse words (which is the one I use when talking with people IRL; I save the other for trolls), here it is:
Businesses only hire more labor when demand warrants. The reasons are fairly simple: if you manufacture a product, excess labor results in excess production and inventory overstock – you’re essentially taking a liquid asset (money) and turning it into a non-liquid asset (inventory) which you can only unload when there is sufficient demand. In addition to paying more for labor than is warranted, you have tied up capital in the raw materials needed to produce the product and may accrue additional costs for warehousing excess inventory. So, it’s not something any reasonable business owner would do. Not even if you have no regulations or taxes. If you give a business owner a tax cut during a recession, that’s nice but it’s not going to convince him to hire more workers unless he’s dumb; it’s just going to go into his pocket, because only a fool would convert a liquid asset into a non-liquid asset when there’s not sufficient demand to move it, and particularly not in the midst of a sky-is-falling economic downturn where access to credit has dried up.
The situation is even worse in a service-based business; in that case, excess labor isn’t producing anything when your labor capacity exceeds the demand for your service. Hiring additional workers for a service business when demand doesn’t require it is the same as setting money on fire, or flushing it down a toilet. You’ll get no return on the wages you pay for the excess labor capacity you’re carrying, not even when demand picks up. It’s just money that’s gone forever.
Anyone who has ever run a business knows all of this already, even those of us who don’t have imaginary economics degrees or fantasy “professional backgrounds” in economics. Hell, you don’t even have to have run a business to know this – all you have to do is use your brain instead of parroting insipid talking points.
Having spent some quality time in Peoria, I can affirm that you are exactly right.