Magox Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 (edited) the only thing i'm envious of is that romney pays a lower tax rate than me, whether you care to believe it or not. and envy is not really the right word. "appalled" is more appropriate. i don't resent my tax burden. i resent romney's in comparison to mine. Well then you are a sad sad creature, try worrying about your own. Never in my life have I EVER and I mean EVER been appalled or resented what another man made in comparison to me. Thats a difference between people like yourself and me. Envious people suck! He has way too much money, I say it should be taken away and put to good use Wow, what an envious piece of ****! Any??? You think he pays too much now? The guy doesn't even work, the son of a CEO and then a CEO himself. This guy's whole life proves how he was an affirmitive action baby of wealth, it's not what you know, its who you know. I say this with all sincerity. You are ONE dumb !@#$! Is he a CEO now? No Is he still "earning" millions a year? Yes Does he pay a lower rate than a person who does work? Yes No he does't you dumb ****... Just go back and read some of the previous links from the IRS. Edited January 20, 2012 by Magox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 Yes, Willard has us shaking in our boots! Has he even broke 40% yet of his own party's voters in a primary? You Republicans are so funny Quick Dave, which Dem broke 40% after the first two votes in '08? And is that more embarrassing than a sitting POTUS getting 85% vote in a primary running unopposed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 Please enlighten me on how you do it. First you boil some water.................... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigfatbillsfan Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 (edited) Well then you are a sad sad creature, try worrying about your own. Never in my life have I EVER and I mean EVER been appalled or resented what another man made in comparison to me. Thats a difference between people like yourself and me. Envious people suck! Wow, what an envious piece of ****! I say this with all sincerity. You are ONE dumb !@#$! No he does't you dumb ****... Just go back and read some of the previous links from the IRS. Wow, what a long post to say absolutely nothing. We are not envious of Romney's wealth. If I am in any way envious I wish I could make as much money as he does. What I would like to see happen is the tax code change so that I'm not paying more of a % of my income in tax than he is. I don't know where you guys keep getting the idea that all the left want to do is forcibly take the money from the rich. Edit: Nor at any point in his post did BD say he was envious of what Romney made. Just upset that Romney's tax percentage is less than his. Edited January 20, 2012 by Bigfatbillsfan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigfatbillsfan Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 Yes, Willard has us shaking in our boots! Has he even broke 40% yet of his own party's voters in a primary? You Republicans are so funny This means nothing at this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drinkTHEkoolaid Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 Dave when will you just stop and think for yourself ? Seriously just step back and take an objective look at the problems we have in this country and what the causes are. Then hopefully you will come to your senses and realize how flawed the liberal ideology is and you can become part of the solution and help us turn this country around. I mean this honestly... I'm halfway in the bag so I have to reason to lie and its too easy to call u names and make fun of your illogical arguments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 Finally, you got it. Its not Mitt, its the tax laws. I think we could all agree on this board that the tax laws are !@#$ed up. Hell, maybe the only thing on this board (well besides the Bills sucking for 12 years) we could all agree on. The tax laws are screwed as heck but the capital gains laws are probably the most fair of those that are on the books. They benefit both the people and the economy, while giving the government what amounts to pretty much free money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 Dave when will you just stop and think for yourself ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigfatbillsfan Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 First you boil some water.................... I was talking about how you calculate your taxes, not whatever strange form of masturbation you like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 I was talking about how you calculate your taxes, not whatever strange form of masturbation you like. You're not helping yourself, FNG. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFanNC Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 I'm no Romney fan but this is just a capital gains tax isn't it? Not a tax guy but is this the same rate everyone else would pay? Much to do about nothing. Seems like just another phase of the liberal media's effort to take down every Republican candidate. They did the same to Cain. Went crazy when Perry stumbled. In the process of discrediting Newt by a ex wife of all things. Almost. People in the 10% and 15% income tax bracket actually pay 0% on long term capital gains, everyone else pays 15%. Barring any changes, starting in 2013 the 10 and 15% bracket will pay 10% and the higher brackets 20% on long term cap gains. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 A rational analysis of populist distortion from a future POTUS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 Yes, Willard has us shaking in our boots! Has he even broke 40% yet of his own party's voters in a primary? You Republicans are so funny You sir, on the other hand are funny only in the sad sense. Politico Mitt Romney currently leads President Barack Obama by competitive margins in five general election swing states, according to private polling conducted for the Idaho-based GOP firm GS Strategy Group and shared with POLITICO. The consulting firm -- headed by Republican strategist Greg Strimple -- tested Romney against Obama in six states: Florida, Ohio, Nevada, New Mexico, Virginia and Wisconsin. Romney led in all but New Mexico, where the race was an exact tie. Romney bested the president in Florida by 5 points, in Ohio by 7 points, in Nevada by 11 points, in Virginia by 3 points and in Wisconsin by a mere 1 percentage point. Dismiss as "just a GOP" poll at your own risk. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 A rational analysis of populist distortion from a future POTUS They'll read this just like they read the Health care bill. What a shame. Closing paragraph. Nice!! Reforming the tax code and entitlements would not only go a long way toward putting the budget on the path to balance and the economy on the path to prosperity; these reforms would also help promote upward mobility and equal opportunity for all Americans – core tenets of the American Idea. Thanks G. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 The Atlantic So the story-of-the-week seems to be Mitt Romney's off-shore investments. I am deeply confused by the reporting. Either that, or the reporters are....... {snip} Most of the writing I've seen today about this seems to be confusing the Cayman's role as an offshore tax haven, and its other role as a headquarters for hedge funds. They are not entirely unrelated, but they are also not the same thing. Cayman, and a lot of other islands, became tax havens because they wouldn't tell your government if you had money there. It's not because there is some special tax break for investing there. If the investments are showing up on Romney's tax return, then they are definitionally not this sort of tax haven. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 It is amazing to me how stupid some people can be comparing capital gains to wages. In order to have capital gains a person most likely had to put their money at risk. That money came from somewhere, with a good chance that it was earned via wages at some point in time. Taxes were paid on it then. Let's say Fatty and Dave are partners and save enough money from their Burger King gigs to buy an income property for 100k. They keep it several years and sell it for 200k. Ignoring all the other things such as depreciation, and to keep things simple, they have capital gains of 100k. They pay the government 15k and all is fine and good. But what if they bought that property in 2006 and just sold it now for 50k? Will the government send them a check for $7500 for their 50k capital loss? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. If they don't have something else that would give them some capital gains then they don't even have that offset. So, comparing wages and capital gains is for stupid people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 First off, people who count other peoples money.... SUCK! Hey I have been fighting accountants one way or another all of my adult life. They do suck. Not only do they suck, they hate consultants for no reason other than: envy. That should be on a Mitt Romney bumper sticker. But no. Liberals would rather Mittpick* because it serves their narrative better. So, by definition, the antonym to MittpickTM is: ObamafuscateTM. I claim the same rights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 It is amazing to me how stupid some people can be comparing capital gains to wages. In order to have capital gains a person most likely had to put their money at risk. That money came from somewhere, with a good chance that it was earned via wages at some point in time. Taxes were paid on it then. Let's say Fatty and Dave are partners and save enough money from their Burger King gigs to buy an income property for 100k. They keep it several years and sell it for 200k. Ignoring all the other things such as depreciation, and to keep things simple, they have capital gains of 100k. They pay the government 15k and all is fine and good. But what if they bought that property in 2006 and just sold it now for 50k? Will the government send them a check for $7500 for their 50k capital loss? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. If they don't have something else that would give them some capital gains then they don't even have that offset. So, comparing wages and capital gains is for stupid people. Dave _in Norfolk, you're being paged!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 It is amazing to me how stupid some people can be comparing capital gains to wages. In order to have capital gains a person most likely had to put their money at risk. That money came from somewhere, with a good chance that it was earned via wages at some point in time. Taxes were paid on it then. Let's say Fatty and Dave are partners and save enough money from their Burger King gigs to buy an income property for 100k. They keep it several years and sell it for 200k. Ignoring all the other things such as depreciation, and to keep things simple, they have capital gains of 100k. They pay the government 15k and all is fine and good. But what if they bought that property in 2006 and just sold it now for 50k? Will the government send them a check for $7500 for their 50k capital loss? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. If they don't have something else that would give them some capital gains then they don't even have that offset. So, comparing wages and capital gains is for stupid people. To be fair they do have a $3000 per year capital loss they can deduct from their income. I've seen people that have enough capital losses to carry forward for several centuries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 It is amazing to me how stupid some people can be comparing capital gains to wages. In order to have capital gains a person most likely had to put their money at risk. That money came from somewhere, with a good chance that it was earned via wages at some point in time. Taxes were paid on it then. Let's say Fatty and Dave are partners and save enough money from their Burger King gigs to buy an income property for 100k. They keep it several years and sell it for 200k. Ignoring all the other things such as depreciation, and to keep things simple, they have capital gains of 100k. They pay the government 15k and all is fine and good. But what if they bought that property in 2006 and just sold it now for 50k? Will the government send them a check for $7500 for their 50k capital loss? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. If they don't have something else that would give them some capital gains then they don't even have that offset. So, comparing wages and capital gains is for stupid people. The B word is that the money some people get to invest is inherited. Oh wait, didn't the Death Tax go back into effect? Perhaps Dave can explain how it's ok to tax inherited money 3 times(first when it was income, then when it was inherited, and again with capital gains)....and still say it's not being taxed fairly. The number #1 thing this economy needs is the willingness to risk capital. As soon as that willingness returns, the economy will literally boom. Now, let's also ask Dave: what's the best way to get that willingness to return? More taxes on capital gains? Or less? How about an even easier question for Dave? Why do cigarettes cost $10 a pack in NYS? I think we can all agree it is because they want to get rid of cigarettes, right? Amazing. You tax something more, and you get less of it, you lower the taxes on it, you get more. But, apparently that simple concept only applies for cigarettes for Dave. We need more capital investment immediately, yet, according to Dave, we should tax it more. On second thought, why bother asking Dave? It's not like he's going to understand the above anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts