Mitt's tax info

Why did Newt push so hard for Mitt to release his tax info?

All it did was show that Mitt paid a low rate (13.9%) on his $20 million plus yearly earnings and make a majority of people even madder about the rate someone weathly can pay vs someone working hard and making say $50- 60,000 a year.

Here's the catch though, Mitt's income was mostly from capital gains, which are taxed at a lower rate than other types of income and Newt said he would eliminate the capital gains tax all together if elected so all he would be doing is making Mitt even more wealthy.

Kinda puts them both in a pickle IMHO


Oh yeah, this proabably deserves it's own thread but Newt wants to establish a Moon colony by 2020 if elected.

[url]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/25/newt-gingrich-moon-colony_n_1232426.html[/url]

Talk about a brilliant idea and waste of money.

[QUOTE=pontooner;478960]Why did Newt push so hard for Mitt to release his tax info?

All it did was show that Mitt paid a low rate (13.9%) on his $20 million plus yearly earnings and make a majority of people even madder about the rate someone weathly can pay vs someone working hard and making say $50- 60,000 a year.

Here's the catch though, Mitt's income was mostly from capital gains, which are taxed at a lower rate than other types of income and Newt said he would eliminate the capital gains tax all together if elected so all he would be doing is making Mitt even more wealthy.

Kinda puts them both in a pickle IMHO


Oh yeah, this proabably deserves it's own thread but Newt wants to establish a Moon colony by 2020 if elected.

[url]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/25/newt-gingrich-moon-colony_n_1232426.html[/url]

Talk about a brilliant idea and waste of money.[/QUOTE]

I think gains should have a graduated rate. Maybe allow gains to be claimed as income but only amounts above 2 million dollars.

I know that sounds silly, but if you want to see the lower rates for gains, then you MUST take income above 2 million from your investments....AND the first 2 million is taxed as income at 36%, while the next x million is taxed at 15%, the regular capital gain rate.

AND if you want to really know what Romney paid, you need to see how much HIS profits in his BUSINESSES was taxed. Remember the GAINS is paid on profits, but the PRINCIPLE of those profits had already been taxed at maybe upwards of 36%.

I really WISH folks could understand that.

Later,

Geo.

[QUOTE=pontooner;478960]Why did Newt push so hard for Mitt to release his tax info?

All it did was show that Mitt paid a low rate (13.9%) on his $20 million plus yearly earnings and make a majority of people even madder about the rate someone weathly can pay vs someone working hard and making say $50- 60,000 a year.

Here's the catch though, Mitt's income was mostly from capital gains, which are taxed at a lower rate than other types of income and Newt said he would eliminate the capital gains tax all together if elected so all he would be doing is making Mitt even more wealthy.

Kinda puts them both in a pickle IMHO


Oh yeah, this proabably deserves it's own thread but Newt wants to establish a Moon colony by 2020 if elected.

[URL]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/25/newt-gingrich-moon-colony_n_1232426.html[/URL]

Talk about a brilliant idea and waste of money.[/QUOTE]

Not just a colony, headlines read making the moon a state!

Yahoo news;
<LI id=yui_3_3_0_4_1327624040386594 class="thumb clearfix">[URL="http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/technology-blog/newt-gingrich-promises-build-moon-colony-2020-u-211103078.html"][IMG]http://l.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/6ruzUcHhRq1OtgMyVHUAKw--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Zmk9ZmlsbDtoPTc1O3E9ODU7dz0xMDA-/http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/Reuters/2012-01-09T213217Z_01_HOU05_RTRIDSP_3_USA.jpg[/IMG][/URL]
[URL="http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/technology-blog/newt-gingrich-promises-build-moon-colony-2020-u-211103078.html"][COLOR=#0066cc]Newt Gingrich promises to build a moon colony by 2020; make it a U.S. state[/COLOR][/URL]


Just think the moon will have two senators and at least one house rep. They will have to establish residency and that commute to Washington will be tough.

Newt is also the new anti-establishment candidate. Really, forget about his Washington history, ethics violations when in office, ties to freddy and fanny. He has sought forgiveness for his past mistakes, whoops this is another issue altogether.

[QUOTE=GeoFisher;478963]I think gains should have a graduated rate. Maybe allow gains to be claimed as income but only amounts above 2 million dollars.

I know that sounds silly, but if you want to see the lower rates for gains, then you MUST take income above 2 million from your investments....AND the first 2 million is taxed as income at 36%, while the next x million is taxed at 15%, the regular capital gain rate.

AND if you want to really know what Romney paid, you need to see how much HIS profits in his BUSINESSES was taxed. Remember the GAINS is paid on profits, but the PRINCIPLE of those profits had already been taxed at maybe upwards of 36%.

I really WISH folks could understand that.

Later,

Geo.[/QUOTE]

Geo, why would you tax the first 2 mil. at the higher rate and any amount above this at the lower rate?

This would be a little unfair to the small investor and reward the largest investors only. Why not reverse this to the first 2 mil. income at the low rate and the amounts above this at the higher rate? You would have more investors that would translate to more investment. If the small investors were taxed that high rate I would think they would not risk even their small investments.

So I invest $20,000.00, have a return of 8% for a profit of $1600.00. Tax the $1600.00 at 36% would net $1024.00. An investment that returns 8% these days carries risks, I could just as easily lost $1600.00 or even the entire principal. Think I will buy a new Tracker pontoon instead.

Guys I think some of you are not understanding that Romney is paying more than the 13.9 %. He is taking money made from business, that has already been taxed as income(35% bracket), investing it....getting returns....and then being taxed another 13.9% on top of that. That equals paying close to 50% in taxes.....thats a lot of money. I don't understand how people can complain about that. He paid more in taxes this year than I will......EVER. I would like to be rich and successful too, but I'm not jealous of those that are.

[QUOTE=kydonky;478969]Geo, why would you tax the first 2 mil. at the higher rate and any amount above this at the lower rate?

This would be a little unfair to the small investor and reward the largest investors only. Why not reverse this to the first 2 mil. income at the low rate and the amounts above this at the higher rate? You would have more investors that would translate to more investment. If the small investors were taxed that high rate I would think they would not risk even their small investments.

So I invest $20,000.00, have a return of 8% for a profit of $1600.00. Tax the $1600.00 at 36% would net $1024.00. An investment that returns 8% these days carries risks, I could just as easily lost $1600.00 or even the entire principal. Think I will buy a new Tracker pontoon instead.[/QUOTE]

I don't have hardly any of the answers.

People BITCH about the rich not paying their fair share. If the "rich" need or want to take income, their ONLY income from gains, then maybe they should have a graduated rate to pay taxes on the first LUMP of it.

Obviously, from most of my other posts I'm against most tax increases, and I really had capital gains taxes.......they are kicking my ass too as a small investor. In my case, I save 1000 bucks, which has ALREADY been taxed, and then I invest that 1000 bucks buying apple stock. When I sell that stock I pay an additonal 20% So I paid 300 bucks initially on the 1000 bucks and then I get to pay 20% on the GAINS that it makes.

That is inherently wrong.

BUT, if the only income I get is from gains, and I'm crazy wealthy, Maybe the initial million or 2 should be taxed as income and the rest as gains.

Like I said. I don't know.

An even better solution would simply be a flat tax period.........on EVERYTHING. GAINS, INCOME, whatever. You make a buck, NO MATTER how, pay the gubment 15%.

I'd take that.

later,

Geo

[QUOTE=lroberts;478970]Guys I think some of you are not understanding that Romney is paying more than the 13.9 %. He is taking money made from business, that has already been taxed as income(35% bracket), investing it....getting returns....and then being taxed another 13.9% on top of that. That equals paying close to 50% in taxes.....thats a lot of money. I don't understand how people can complain about that. He paid more in taxes this year than I will......EVER. I would like to be rich and successful too, but I'm not jealous of those that are.[/QUOTE]

He paid more in taxes than I will EVER make.........

[QUOTE=kydonky;478969]Geo, why would you tax the first 2 mil. at the higher rate and any amount above this at the lower rate?

This would be a little unfair to the small investor and reward the largest investors only. Why not reverse this to the first 2 mil. income at the low rate and the amounts above this at the higher rate? You would have more investors that would translate to more investment. If the small investors were taxed that high rate I would think they would not risk even their small investments.

So I invest $20,000.00, have a return of 8% for a profit of $1600.00. Tax the $1600.00 at 36% would net $1024.00. An investment that returns 8% these days carries risks, I could just as easily lost $1600.00 or even the entire principal. Think I will buy a new Tracker pontoon instead.[/QUOTE]

Hey.....and TRUST me.......I want you to Keep all of that 1600.....EVERY PENNY, especially if you made the initial investment POST taxes.

I've never quite understood why libs think it is OK to tax money that has already been taxed. That is like property taxes. I already OWN it, Why do I have to pay the gubment money for the priviledge of OWNING it?? I've never understood that.

Same thing with inheritance tax. If I'm lucky enough to make a few million in my lifetime, and WILL that to my kids, why the hell should the gubment be able to take 55% of it when I die. THAT is wrong.

Later,

Geo

I think there may be some confusion on how gains are taxed.

First of all you are not taxed twice on investments. So you invest $1000.00 of funds you have worked for and paid tax on. This investment matures to a value of $1500.00. You pay gains on $500.00, not $1500.00. Your $1000.00 is not taxed twice. Currently gains are taxed at 15% no matter how much your return. Your wages on the other hand may be taxed at a rate as high as 35% + FICA (7%) and local tax.

[QUOTE=kydonky;478975]I think there may be some confusion on how gains are taxed.

First of all you are not taxed twice on investments. So you invest $1000.00 of funds you have worked for and paid tax on. This investment matures to a value of $1500.00. You pay gains on $500.00, not $1500.00. Your $1000.00 is not taxed twice. Currently gains are taxed at 15% no matter how much your return. Your wages on the other hand may be taxed at a rate as high as 35% + FICA (7%) and local tax.[/QUOTE]

Yea, you're right.........

I was trying to use an example with romney that really doesn't work with investment gains.

He paid most of his taxes on GAINS from businesses......that is why the rates are so low. ......my point is that if someone takes PRIMARY income as gains it should be taxes at income tax rates. I don't know how you'd evaluate and determine that.

As I stated before..........tax everything at a flat tax. 15% for everything. FIXES the problem period.

Later.

Geo

You buy a office building in 1972 for $30,000.00. You sell it in 2008 for $130,000.00. You pay capitol gains on $100.000.00 ($130.000.00 minus your investment). You do not pay gains on $130,000.00.

Now if you depreciated this property amoritized over 30 years you would be taxed on the $130,000.00, but keep in mind that you deducted the inital $100,000.00 investment over 30 years (from 1972 to 2002) so in essence that $100,000.00 investement was a pretax investment.

Now for confusing tax law, this depreciation does not amount to much each year as a deduction, only a few hundred dollars each year. But when you add it up over 30 years its $100,000.00. So without the cap on capitol gains, receiving these funds at the time of sale can push you into the highest tax brackets (if taxed as regular income).

It has been my experiance that depreciating property is not of any benifit. The tax law reads that at the time of sale you HAVE to recapture all depreciation that was allowed OR ALLOWABLE. So you recapture this depreciation weather you took it or not so you had better take it.

They used to let you do income averaging over 5 or 10 years but that was discontinued under Regan tax reform. That allowed you to average incomes over 10 years and pay the rate for the average. This worked well for those that have bust and boom years. Make $20,000.00 one year and $240,000.00 the next. Currently you really get hurt in that boom year. This helped eased the capitol gains burden before the Regan reforms. It actually worked quite well.

In other words it's too danged complicated!!!!

[QUOTE=kydonky;478975]I think there may be some confusion on how gains are taxed.

First of all you are not taxed twice on investments. So you invest $1000.00 of funds you have worked for and paid tax on. This investment matures to a value of $1500.00. You pay gains on $500.00, not $1500.00. Your $1000.00 is not taxed twice. Currently gains are taxed at 15% no matter how much your return. Your wages on the other hand may be taxed at a rate as high as 35% + FICA (7%) and local tax.[/QUOTE]

OK.....I had a misconception....thanks...that makes more sense and seems fair.