Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Irrelevant pointless rant.
The rich lose money frequently. Investments don't always appreciate. There are both gains AND losses.
You really don't know that? Seriously?
That was a point because I noticed the propensity in right-wing posters to double, triple, quadruple-space their posts. Curious - but you would know.
You still champion the Limbaugh fable that the rich are the truly poor - and expect people to buy it? Seriously?
With Romney saying the middle class is $250k per year.
1) People who live off their investment income and report large investment losses in a given year may have lost so much that it negates any income on investment gains.
2) They may have gotten a lot of their income from tax-free investments, such as municipal bonds.
Quote:
Originally Posted by detwahDJ
With Romney saying the middle class is $250k per year.
Huffington Post:
Quote:
Obama also has set his definition for "middle class" as families with income of up to $250,000 a year.
This: I had to explain to you that they weren't loopholes. Municipal, etc., bonds are tax-free to attract investors who would otherwise pursue higher earnings elsewhere. If no one buys those bonds because they earn too little, cities and towns can't build schools, roads, sewers, etc. And actualized losses aren't income, they're the opposite of income.
Someone depends on muni's, I surmise. Typical Republican thinking: take his loophole not mine.
The same logic is applied to every loophole. And it is almost always BS. There is always some (dubious) public benefit in treating this or that more or less favorably with respect to taxation. Muni's should enjoy no favored treatment. You should pay the same taxes as someone who invests in stocks and bonds. Let's not pick winners and losers here, OK?
Someone depends on muni's, I surmise. Typical Republican thinking: take his loophole not mine.
The same logic is applied to every loophole. And it is almost always BS. There is always some (dubious) public benefit in treating this or that more or less favorably with respect to taxation. Muni's should enjoy no favored treatment. You should pay the same taxes as someone who invests in stocks and bonds. Let's not pick winners and losers here, OK?
Tax-free municipal bonds are not a loophole.
Once again for the s-l-o-w thinkers in the group ...
Municipal, etc., bonds are tax-free to attract investors who would otherwise pursue higher earnings elsewhere. If no one buys those bonds because they earn too little, cities and towns can't build schools, roads, sewers, etc.
Why are the earnings on municipal, etc., bonds so low and must therefore be tax-free to attract investors away from higher-earning investments? Guess who pays the interest municipal bonds pay to investors? The local taxpayers, usually via property tax
Example:
Quote:
The bottom line: For borrowing $105 million in 2011, taxpayers will end up paying investors more than $981 million by 2051, or almost 10 times what the district borrowed.
Romney is in the 49% who actuallyPAY federal income tax. Capital gains income is reported on the 1040 Income Tax Return Form and taxed accordingly. Romney paid $1.9 million in federal income tax in 2011.
Romney's effective tax rate was about 14% based on his reported income.
In 2010 Warren Buffet's effective tax rate was 11%.
Obama paid 20.9%, which is less than his secretary paid.
Yes, it was. It reinforced the suspicions about Romney, that he is the stereotypical born on home plate, county club millionaire that has utter disdain and contempt for the lower classes and no concept of how ordinary people struggle in their daily lives.
Romney's effective tax rate was about 14% based on his reported income.
In 2010 Warren Buffet's effective tax rate was 11%.
Obama paid 20.9%, which is less than his secretary paid.
Nobody can fault anyone who uses the tax code for maximum advantage. On can fault a candidate, however, for advocating policies that favor their elite position.
Romney endorsed the Ryan Plan that eliminates capital gains, interest income and dividend income. Under that plan, billionaires would effectively pay no taxes. That's not a plan for America.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
