What Mitt's Taxes Could've Paid For (If Not For Those Cushy Tax Breaks)

Shuster is a tool. I haven't taken anything he says seriously since he said Hillary was "pimping out" Chelsea in the 2008 primaries. What a scumbag.

Shuster apologized. Get over it. It's more than you can say about the tools on your side of the aisle.

He apologized to try to keep his job, which he lost anyway. He is a total Obama schill who did his best to throw Hillary under the bus. His opinions are meaningless. Hillary should be President and we would all be better off if she was. My side of the aisle has not changed, the room around me has.

Funny, most of your posts seem to paint you as a raging right winger. You would be the last person I would think would prefer a Hillary presidency. Sounds like political expediency on your part just to slam me in this instance. You constantly change to fit the situation to prove your intellectual superiority. Unfortunately, it doesn't work with me. Who's opinions mean anything besides your own? He makes one blunder and then you write him off? Who is perfect in your eyes and deserves to be listened to?

I only seem like a raging right winger on current because it is full of the uber left wing Obamites that have highjacked the Democratic party. I wasn't slamming you, I was slamming Shuster. It was because of him and liberal stooge media hacks like him that we are saddled with the worst President in American history when we could have had, in the middle of an economic crisis, a President who had one of the best economies, Bill Clinton, back in the White House. They failed horribly to vet Obama, we still know nothing about the man, and still today give him a free pass at every chance. Their short sightness has cost the party, and the country. I did not leave the Democratic party, it left me, when it stole the nomination Hillary won and gave it to wonderboy who had absolutely zero experience or qualifications because he talked nice and looked good on TV. I will never vote for Obama and I probably will never vote Democrat again.

He was taxed on his income. Then he invested that. He then was taxed on what his investments earned. He was not taxed 15% of the total, the was taxed 15% on the gain.

What paycheck? He said himself, he lives off his investments.

Completely inaccurate.

That is what a tax on capital gains is. A tax on the gain not on the total invested. The tax is computed on the sales price less the basis. If the result is a gain it is taxed.

prove it otherwise

where do you think the investment income came from?

Man , if you don't see that paying one rate on one source of income and a second rate on a different source of income does not add up to a rate of 35%, then there is nothing I can do to make you understand.

OK.... thanks for playing though.

yes you are correct..I included on the dollar which meant the original investment burden.

I would really like to know the rationale behind a thumb down on this one.

I remember now, this came to light in the great "Buffet's secretary pays more taxes" story.

Thanks for the refresher.

Ha, that's like right of the How to talk like a Republican handbook.

Read this. http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/18/the-history-of-capital-gains-taxes/

There lays the problem, they invest in China or stick their money off shore. It's not a coincidence that the graph line of since this TAX Break was started and the Debt parallel each other. Don't you bitch all the time about the debt, GET OVER IT!

So what? The vast majority of his money comes from investments, not counting that chicken feed $375,000 he made last year from speaking fees. Truth is he probably doesn't pay SQUAT for Federal Income Tax (which I don't see spelled out anywhere in your response). Guys like Romney are the Silver Surfers on the federal tax code. I know it's your job to stroke the fat cats who feed you, but come on!

Anytime my friend. It is needed here a lot.

Not sure what your point is with the link. Tax rates change, that is not in dispute. Bush lowered Cap gains from 20 to 15%. What I am saying is Cap gains are not income taxes and cannot be compared as such. Many here have a problem with that.

It's theirs to invest wherever they wish they will still pay the taxes here. The debt is here due to irresponsible spending, not due to a 15% capital gains tax rate.

The point is that it's another example of how someone in Romney's position benefited from an unorthodox tax cut. I can see how people would have a problem with it because it demonstrates yet another narrative that has contributed to the wealth gap. If it was a regular fluctuation, then fine. But it isn't.

How ignorant.
The post is about capital gains taxes and I pointed out that these are not the same as income taxes. I haven o idea what Romney pays in FIT. It isn't germane to this post. You seem to be more than a little envious and perhaps obscessive in your desire to increase your position in life not through effort and work but in taking from the other person who does not feel that way. If you want to rise above and be like more successful people you may want put all this class envy away, work and invest rather than chopping the more successful off at the knees. It didn't work for Tanya Harding and it probably won't work for you.

Give 'em hell Kenny. LMAO!

his worth is lets say 250 million using a rate of return of 2% would "profit" 5 million. 15% tax equals 750 K per year tax and you pay how much???????
He has already paid FIT at the 35% tax rate.

I'm not envious at all, I have no problem paying what I owe in taxes. And if I made what he was making I wouldn't have a problem paying my fair share then either. I wasn't responding to the post, I was responding to your condescending attitude. You're the one who brought up the FIT and how it's not the same as Capitol Gains Tax. If your clients are paying you for that financial advice they're getting RIPPED OFF.

How the fuck do you know? Are you his accountant? Last I checked he hasn't released his returns yet. How do you know what he paid in FIT?

One more thing, you are ignorant if you think you and your fat cat .01% friends like Romney are going to keep on with business as usual. The country has gotten wise to you. Just take a look at Wisconsin. One million strong and your Koch boy Walker is heading out the door.

people Have flesh and blood
cooperations have a bigger vote than people
and the profits for advertising pay stock holders back the money they spent on the election
example Wisconsin recall election will cost the taxpayer over 100 million Dollars

yes
spending investment money against American companies

He Is

and the average wage has dropped 2% wow take from the labor and give to derivatives investors

If it act like a crook
talk like a crook
smell like a crook
play with crooks
it must be a crook

Could you define an "unorthodox tax cut" please. I 'm not sure what you mean by that. As I stated, everyone who invests, or sells any capital asset be it stocks, bonds, land, a piano etc at a gain is taxed at 15% on that sale of that item, not income. It is not a "tax loophole" or "tax break for the wealthy". It applies to everyone. If you wish to do away with tax breaks based on income how about we do away with the earned income credit.

because i have invested money and understand no matter where the money for investment came from it was taxed when it went into Romney's hands. and watch your mouth

Ok. I thought you had a better grasp on macroeconomics, but I'll break it down a bit more.

There is no debate that the capital gains tax is not income tax. This is obvious. And yes it does apply to everyone. Another obvious remark. The key though is who is able to take advantage of it.

As we all know Bush era tax policies made it very easy for the wealthy to retain and even increase there wealth, there for able to purchase more assets that can be targeted by the capital gains tax. However, that tax was reduced to an unprecedented low rate (or unorthodox as I stated earlier), in that era as well, enabling the wealthy to retain even more funds that would typically be re-cirulated back into the economy. Romney and people in his position have taken advantage of this.

So, if you look at the context of how the cut came about, yes, in reality it is a tax break for the well off because while it is open to whoever, it mostly benefits people who have large amounts of capital assets to tax, which fits the narrative of the Bush era tax policies. And just to reiterate, that's when the reduction of the rate took place, so you cannot separate the two.

Factually incorrect.

When a company grants you stock, you may not have to pay taxes on it.
Most executives get "qualified stock" which is not taxable at all until you sell it.

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/moneymag/money101/lesson10/index4.htm

Nonqualified stock options

These are the stock options of choice for broad-based plans. Generally, you owe no tax when these options are granted. Rather, you are required to pay ordinary income tax on the difference, or "spread," between the grant price and the stock's market value when you purchase ("exercise") the shares. Companies get to deduct this spread as a compensation expense.

Choosing the right moment to exercise is not as easy as it looks. For example, let's say you were granted an option to buy 1,000 shares at $5 per share. The stock hits $10 in the public market, at which point you cash in because your grant is about to expire. Your exercise price nets you a gain of $5,000 in this example, which you'd claim on your tax returns as ordinary income.

Now, let's say you think the stock is going to go higher, so you hold onto the shares. Sadly, the market crashes, bringing your shares down to $5, at which point you sell. Here's the bad part: you still owe income tax on that $5,000 profit, even though you never turned it into cash.

From the IRS point of view, that gain was income, which you chose to use to make an "investment" in the stock you kept. If you subsequently sold those shares at $5, you will get a $5,000 capital loss to show for your efforts, which will offset your notional gain somewhat but not entirely.

In a happier example, let's say you hold on, and the stock rises. Any subsequent appreciation in the stock is taxed at capital gains rates when you sell. Keep the stock for more than a year, and you'll have a long-term capital gain, taxed at a top rate of 15 percent; hold for one year or less, and your gain is short term, taxed at higher, ordinary income tax rates.

Nonqualified options can be granted at a discount to the stock's market value. They also are "transferable" to children and to charities, provided your company permits it.

A safe way to deal with potential uncertainty in share prices is to take out some cash when you exercise, at least enough to cover the tax bill.

An even more conservative way to deal with stock options is to view them exactly the way the IRS does: as income. When you decide to exercise, take 100 percent of your profits in cash - don't hold onto any shares. Then, manage that money as you see fit.
Incentive stock options

These are also known as "qualified" stock options because they qualify to receive special tax treatment. No income tax is due at grant or exercise. Rather, the tax is deferred until you sell the stock.

At that point, the entire option gain (the initial spread at exercise plus any subsequent appreciation) is taxed at long-term capital gains rates, provided you sell at least two years after the option is granted and at least one year after you exercise.

ISOs give employers no tax advantages and so generally are reserved as perks for the top brass, who tend to benefit more than workers in lower income tax brackets from the capital gains tax treatment of ISOs.

High-paid workers are also more likely than low-paid workers to have cash to buy the shares at exercise and ride out the lengthy holding period between exercise and sale.

If you don't meet the holding-period requirements, the sale is ruled a "disqualifying disposition," and you are taxed as if you had held nonqualified options. The spread at exercise is taxed as ordinary income, and only the subsequent appreciation is taxed as capital gain.

Unlike nonqualified options, ISOs may not be granted at a discount to the stock's market value, and they are not transferable, other than by will.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

He said closer to 15 percent. That probably means more than 10 maybe less than 10.
Closer to 15 than what?. My bet is in this case closer means less than. But we don't know do we?

Let's see what shakes after they look into the over 100 Bain funds in the caymans,

Mitt paid his fair share. He just didn't pay as much as you think he should. The FIT is NOT the same as capital gains tax. They are two different things. Oh, I don't have clients so I am not sure what you are talking about.

Wait until the election sport. I don't have a dog in the Wisconsin fight and frankly don't know how that relates to Capital gains taxes. You sound a little bitter. I don't know your age and background but perhaps one day you will wake up to realize that there is nothing wrong with earning money and the best way to do that is not to utilize class warfare to confiscate the dollars of the successful. Have a nice day.

It's always easier to make money if you have money. You don't need to be very wealthy. Allowing someone to keep their investment returns is good policy. Everyone can take advantage of it. It benefits everyone who sells capital assets. It is not a "tax break" at all much less only for the "well off". I don't agree with your reasoning.

It has been a long time since I have dealt with options. According to the current noise about Mitts taxes, his 15% is paid on capital gains in investment, not normally considered stock options which are generally used in lieu or or in addition to W2 compensation. I don't know if Romneys 15% taxed items are options but I would not think they were. I used to see these in CEO's or other highly compensated individuals who are employees of companies but not investors. As I said, I am not that familiar with Mitts return that I could comment on this. The biggest W2, line 1 amount I have seen is $22 million and that was based on the exercise of stock options. It's pretty easy to break out as long as the strike price vs option price is known but it can be a pain.

Thank you for the response.

We don't have any way of knowing yet how, or what type stock Mitt got. My point was just that the way the system is stacked Mitt would have to be an idiot not to take advantage of the many ways a principal can structure his financial instruments for personal compensation, and how to get the most money left over at the end of the affair.

I'm sure it's all legal but the point of this whole discussion is the institutionalized legalization of criminal behavior under the cover of incorporation. Obviously Mitt is not an idiot if he's worth a quarter billion or more. If and when he releases his info we may know more but as you probably know it's not all that difficult to create a Chinese box of financial instruments all over the world that is very difficult to track down.

Example

How many S.A.'s is Mitt invested in? No way to know the answer to that one.
Mitt is going to lose his bid over this and being way too out of touch with American life..

I'll bet you....ten thousand toothpicks.

NO bet. I would have to pay off with one large tree.
Oh I agree that he will be hung as being out of touch with us lesser mortals and that's a shame as it appears that he has complied with all applicable tax laws. I think that there are better angles to attack Mitt on than complying with the tax law.

He's the Clark Griswold of the GOP field! Probably wouldn't think twice about putting Grandma on the roof either rather that take a chance on her soiling the leather seats in the Bentley.

I have no doubt about that, because he's a cruel man. And why didn't any of the family members protest ---the fact that he did this to his own dog -- during that road trip incident back then? (If they did, I'm not aware of it.) The whole family is just as callous and coocoo as he is!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hReRmAdzfiw

Anyone who mistreats an animal should be shunned and never given any credibilty as a leader.

Yes indeed!

JFK worth 1 Billion...in the sixties, Your point is????

And JFK's tax policies helped the middle class and the poor. The Kennedys spent their lives serving the interests of the poor. Romney's tax plan cuts more taxes for the rich and raises taxes on those who make under 40,000. That is the issue.

good point
voted up

Thanks cm.

I'm all for shifting the fear, starting today!

That is why both parties need to fear the voter!

We sure wouldn't want that, but rolling back the Bush tax cuts and the Reagan tax cuts would solve much of the debt problem if we did that for thirty years!

But if we did that, who would trickle down on us?

Just our bosses, I guess! :)