*Applauds*

Would be nice to have a President who knows how to handle money, and Romney clearly does.
He is known to be a frugal man and is likely to be with the taxpayer’s money.

Based on what? His tax plan would create larger deficits because our tax revenue would be significantly lower. And if I’m not mistaken, GWB knew how to handle money well also. But I don’t remember that leading to a lower deficit or healthier economy. 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/chart-what-romney-would-pay-under-his-own-tax-plan/2012/01/24/gIQAMJDtNQ_blog.html 

John S Wilson, no doubt that will be the attack from the progressive left.  But how can you expect any sane or independent person to buy into stats cited from the universally ridiculed CBPP? 

It’s not that their bias is in question, it’s their mission statement.  It’s funded by the Democracy Alliance.

Don’t worry about Gloves John-his comments are not reality based and not meant to be taken as factual statements. You’re better off sparing with turk who actually is intelligent.

there’s plenty of wapo arguments to be made about romney on either side today:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/romney-paid-42-percent-of-2011-income-in-taxes-and-charity/2012/01/24/gIQAGe4qNQ_blog.html

Any Republican will stop the crazy spending. Memos from Larry Summers show the stimulus was a total waste. Give Congress more to spend, and they spend it.

“…the nearly trillion-dollar expenditure package was primarily about implementing Obama’s political agenda, not fixing a damaged economy.

The Summers memo is clear evidence that much of the rhetoric put forward by the administration and allies was patent hogwash.
The point of the stimulus was to keep campaign promises about making sure federal dollars flowed to pet projects, especially on the energy sector (think Solyndra), not the vaunted benefits to the economy that were promised.”

And bolster the union’s vote through bailouts of a sort. Remember, they’re built on a pyramid scheme.

’cause they did so well controlling spending from 2001-2007?

In 2007, Joe Biden gave $326 to charity.  Obama gave $1,000.00.  That’s the definition of being a liberal.  Always demanding people give you more money while never giving it yourself.  

By looking at the footnotes they cited. Unless you have an issue with those, then I would say the stats are accurate. Additionally some things are a matter of fact. For instance, their point about 401Ks and retirement accounts (with the only caveat being Roth IRAs).

I’d be careful to not impugn an organization just because they aren’t independent. Moreover, this was written as a strategy Democrats should use. So it’s not an objective standpoint, although many Republicans could agree with it as well. After all, a NY Times poll showed that 40% of Republicans believe the rich don’t pay their fair share of taxes.

Where’s the link? And what does the stimulus have to do with a Republican doing a good job running the economy?

Romney paid 6 million in taxes and donated another 4 million to charity the last two years. We should all be thanking him not attacking him. How many food stamps does 6 million dollars pay for?

Great! What does that have to do with the tax debate? 

Great. What does that have to do with the tax debate?

Obama had his shot and he blew it. His economic advisors told him not to do it.The stimulus was  a huge giveaway to Dems and added a trillion to the debt. What would he do if he did not have to worry qabout reelection? Who says Romney would work only in his self interest like Obama has done for his supporters?

The quote was from Commentary.
Here is the original story:

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/01/30/120130fa_fact_lizza

Thanks for the link. I’ll check out the story. I don’t want to get away from my main point of the article and by extension would like to know exactly what your thoughts are about the two questions I posed in the article. Do you believe Romney is motivated to change the tax system when he’s such a big benefactor in its current form?

To John. Yes, I think he’ll get the tax system changed if he wants to be a consequential leader, and you have to get the big things done early, because bad things seem to happen in second terms. I can’t imagine he’s too worried about the effect on his own finances. The last 30 years or so, ex-Presidents get rich after they leave office. This guy doesn’t need to worry about that.

John, there are credible economic think tanks on the left, right, and center.  CBPP is pretty discredited across the board.

I’m sure a portion of Republicans agree that the rich aren’t paying their fair share of taxes, and to some degree that’s true as far as deductions and loopholes, but that’s unrelated to capital gains levels.

If you have a minute watch Obama in 2008 debating Hillary:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YoqkOrA4tEs

He actually states that raising cap gains could LOSE revenue for the government, but should be done for “fairness.”

That might be good politics, but it’s not good policy.

lol You truly are delusional. You really believe that Romney if elected is beholden to no one and he will cut taxes? There is none absolutely no evidence that a republican president will reduce the deficit. Its never happened. Yet you guys keep on believing it.

My point is, the facts they and I cited are real. Nothing is made up. What you’re basically saying is, since they’ve said some stuff I don’t trust before I’ll never trust them again. If that were the case you would never believe any facts cited by anyone. After all, we all make mistakes. They cited the Federal Reserve and peer-reviewed university research. 

OK, but we all know cap gains taxes were higher in the ’90s and even higher in the ’80s. It’s at the lowest its ever been and research done by the Congressional Budget Office during the GWB administration showed that there is not a positive correlation between low cap gains rates and tax revenue. 

http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=3856&type=0

Mittens is the 1%, fighting for the 1%!!

John, follow their footnotes at the bottom and how “peer” reviewed they are:

1. themselves
2. themselves
3. themselves
4. The Urban Institue
5. themselves
6. themselves

from your link to the CBO report:

“In general, there is significant consensus that broad-based reductions
in taxes on capital have the potential to boost economic growth over the
long run. Reductions in capital taxation increase the return on investment
and therefore the formation of capital. The resulting increase in the capital
stock yields greater output and higher incomes throughout much of the economy.”

Interesting that you didn’t see this part of the CBO report just a few lines above what you quote “Careful studies have failed to agree on how responsive gains realizations are to changes in tax rates, with estimates of that responsiveness varying widely.” 

So clearly there is NO consensus on what you’re saying according to CBO. 

Moreover, the numbers I cited – [f]or those making less than $100,000, capital gains and dividend income makes up an average of 1.4 percent of total income.” Even when including millionaires in the discussion, those earning up to $1 million annually, only 12% of their income consists of capital gains. — were from  IRS reports that are in graphs on their site. 

So, again, your bias is showing, not theirs.

John, I appreciate the back and forth.  We’re going to have to agree to disagree, but a quick question:

IF raising the cap gains tax did not bring in more revenue, would you advocate for it to be be raised for the sole purpose of fairness?

Nice work John!

In terms of Romney’s taxes, they show him giving $3 million away.

No, I wouldn’t. 

(1) If the system as is benefits people like Romney so much, what is the
motivation for him to change the tax code? Clearly he’s doing just
fine.

Who are “People like Romney”? Investors? The unemployed? At what tax rate would he not be doing fine? Would it make sense to go there?

(2) How exactly will Romney make the argument that the average American
is overtaxed? He’s not one of them. And most wealthy people in his
position are paying a similarly low effective tax rate. How can he help
the middle class with tax woes?

Big earners are paying much, much more than the average American. Almost half of Americans are paying no income tax at all. The rate tables are not a secret, nor is it a secret that capital gains are taxed at a lower rate than earnings.

How are Democrats going to argue for raising the capital gains rate to match? I think we’re going to find out very shortly. http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/01/24/warren-buffetts-secretary-to-attend-state-of-the-union/

I suspect Obama will just talk about unfairness, and never mention the reason for the different rates.

Do you really think that the capital gains tax being lower means that people choose to “create jobs” by investing? Romney has no skills other than investing. He could not weld one piece of steel to another. He could not install or maintain a piece of factory equipment. He could do physical labor, but why would he choose to do so when he will not only get lower pay, he would pay a higher rate of taxes! Of course, that would require working overtime, but you can bet he doesn’t do that to “create jobs” right now.

I’m technically the 1% of the 1%. I consider 99% of the 1% to be poor.

6 million dollars worth.

Not really SILLY LIBERALS seem to be so STUPID that they can’t distinguish between money that was taxed ONCE at the corporate rate of 35% and a CAPITAL GAIN which is taxed at 15%.  Commie libtards want to have their hand in your pocket at EVERY phase even when you’re taking a crap!  
Let me see if I can explain it for the economically challenged among you, including the author of the above “article/ propaganda/wish fulfillment/gameplan”.  
If you make 100 dollars and are taxed at a rate of 35% you would be left with $65.00 GET IT? Now, if you take your 65 bucks and invest it in your KY JELLY for your anal gayness and liberal anal gayness SKYROCKETS, (yeah, I know) and now your 65 dollars worth of liberal BUTT JELLY STOCK is worth 200.00. You already PAID taxes on 65 dollars of it, IF, as is obvious from stupid liberal blogs, you tax the REST which is NOT INCOME but DIVIDEND at the same rate, you take away the incentive for people to INVEST THEIR MONEY IN AMERICA.  This, to those who actually LOVE this country is seen as a bad thing. Get it? Got it? Good!  And I say this as someone who does NOT have Mitt’s dough. 

And what happens when you lose money on these investments that you invested with already taxed dollars if the invest goes bad? Does the goverment help you out on your losses? Of course not.Like every friggin parasite or mafia don they only win.You take the risk of the invesment and the goverment blood suckers take their cut on YOUR risk.
Hows that for fairness Obambots?

John,

The level of the capital gains tax is not the only factor in the historical data comparing the rate to Federal Revenue. Just as important, if not more important, is the act of lowering it and the timing of lowering it. Please go to the link below and scroll down to “The Laffer Curve and the Capital Gains Tax”. Pay special attention to the graph in Figure 3.

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2004/06/the-laffer-curve-past-present-and-future

would it matter to you, if your learned that your understanding of capital gains in the example of performance fees / carried interest doesn’t fit your example at all.  but rather carried interest is actually new income  to the hedge fund / private equity firm, earned by contract, from managing another person’s investment.  that what for you or me would be considered a sales commission and thereby normal income subject to regular taxation and social security tax has a special carve out and is merely named long term capital gain, something it bears little resemblance to.

People like Romney are, yes, the investor class. Sorry I didn’t qualify. 
I think it will be hard for him to sell folks on why there needs to be tax reform when he’s benefiting extremely well from that same system as is. 

And as I said, there’s a legit argument to be had over how much folks like this should pay and what the structure would look like, but there’s no debate about the fact GOP tax proposals focus almost exclusively on the investor class, and that’s a very very small population who pays taxes. 

Thank you!

The question at hand is what the capital gains rate should be. Or, if you’d prefer to discuss Romney’s tax plan, let’s hand this over to Reuters: Romney may benefit least from his own tax plan

The tax plan that Romney is proposing as he campaigns for the Republican nomination eliminates the capital gains tax for individuals earning less than $200,000 per year and keeps the same 15 percent rate for individuals earning over that level.
Romney could pay more under his own proposal.”If Romney had his druthers, middle income investors would benefit more than upper income investors,” Logan said.

Two words that this author and the rest of the half brains keep missing when “analyzing” Romney’s finances:

BLIND.  TRUST.

Lord, how idiotic.

Great point, and I actually agree with Romney’s proposal. Btw, if you sell a non-primary property you also pay capital gains on the profits.

Romney’s proposal is reasonable and fair, so of course, it’ll never happen…

I hope your numbers are wrong.   Those are incredibly low numbers for charitable giving.

OK enough with the talking points.  This is a type of delayed compensation or option that has never been taxed before, it delays being taxed until it is withdrawn/liquidated.  I bet you really know that and you are just trying to pass false information to make this man look better.  You are obviously the economically challenged one if you believe this taxes twice hogwash.

your analysis is totally incorrect, get better information before you spew this idiocy.  I’m embarrassed that you are a Patriots fan without a brain.

I just question the amount of time the gloves fool has to post on every question.  Does he work, does he ever go to the gym, he must do something except hover on this site that doesn’t control its posters.

Seeing how the majority of Patriots fans hail from the People’s Republik of Mass, and then you look at the voter demographics in PRM, Patriots fans without brains are more common than not.

Take you for example…..

They are correct….

:He could not weld one piece of steel to another. He could not install or maintain a piece of factory equipment. He could do physical labor, but why would he choose to do so when he will not only get lower pay, he would pay a higher rate of taxes!”

Great point man, and since Obama has had a long history of welding, installing factory equipment, physical labor, and such…we ought to vote for him..right?

what skill does Obama have?

amazing, American people have now sunk so low as to skewer a person for being successful, obeying the law, paying his taxes as he should, being married for 42 years to the same woman and raising an good family, donating 15% of his income to his church and other charities.  Man he does sound like someone we all should hate, I see it now.       I’d rather have Obama again, he attended a church with his wife for 20 years where the pastor railed against America and everything it stood for, has never held a job other that  politician from the Chicago machine, has donated 1% of his income to charity, his wife never had any reason in her entire life to be proud of America, and he has filled his cabinet with socialists and communists who want to destroy capitalism.  And, oh yes, has run the country into bankruptcy with a 16.4 trillion dollar debt.  That’s my hero.

Yes, but it is not the President who controls the purse strings. It is Congress. If we want to cast stones at the money spenders, we need to focus on Capital Hill, not the White House.

Your dripping sarcasm is noted with glee. I heartily agree (with the sarcasm).

We could just as easily attack Donald Trump, because he makes his money the same way Romney does. Trump has no manual labor “skills” either; he just isn’t running for president.

Silver tongue…

And how does Obama’s pastor have anything to do with appropriate level of capital gains? When you can show me the link, I’m all ears.

Actually, I think you missed the critical point of the article. Let’s try again:

I’m not suggesting that Romney has done anything untoward when it comes to his taxes. On the contrary, it looks as though he has toed the legal line extremely well. But therein lies his problem:(1) If the system as is benefits people like Romney so much, what is the motivation for him to change the tax code? Clearly he’s doing just fine.(2) How exactly will Romney make the argument that the average American is overtaxed? He’s not one of them. And most wealthy people in his position are paying a similarly low effective tax rate. How can he help the middle class with tax woes?

Donald Trump is not my idea of a role model. He is a spoiled brat as an adult. He is more well known for his “its all about me” attitude than anything else.

The point is that tax breaks are supposed to encourage job creation, but they do not when the break is for investing. All incomes should be taxed the same. Whether one earns money by investing or welding steel, the tax rate should be the same.

Book writing, for one.
My point is that investing is a skill set on its own, but it does not directly create jobs.

In theory, the lower rate for capital gains is supposed to encourage people who would otherwise not invest to invest in start-ups, thus creating new businesses. Mitt Romney and Warren Buffett get a tremendous advantage by getting that special low tax rate while investing in long-established and continuing businesses.

It is a rate that only helps those who don’t need more help.

Unlike Mr. Howe, I KNOW I’m missing the point of your argument.  But I’ll try to understand.

“(1) If the system as is benefits people like Romney so much, what is the motivation for him to change the tax code?”
Maybe Romney wants to improve the tax code to benefit the American people.  Are we assuming that every single Presidential candidate is running in order to improve his or her personal financial position?
“(2) How exactly will Romney make the argument that the average American is overtaxed? He’s not one of them.”
When was the last time we had an “average American” in the White House?  President Obama’s a millionaire.  So were both Bushes.  Senator Clinton earns about as much as Mitt Romney.

I’m not following your logic.

(1) I’m not saying he’s running for president to improve his financial position, but voters will probably find it hard to believe that a guy who’s mastered the tax system, pays an effective rate of less than 14%, and has bank accounts flung across the globe is the person most motivated to change a system which his use of loopholes shows that he knows all too well. 

After all, the far majority of Romney’s wealth was never taxed at the rate it should have been. Instead even when he was at Bain, due to the carried interest loophole, he paid a 15% capital gains rate instead of the income taxes he should have paid. 

Did he do anything illegal? Of course not. But, again, if you’ve mastered the system of loopholes and everything else, you have no reason — or for that matter credibility — to address “unfair ” taxation. 

(2) New polls show Romney’s support among whites earning less than $50,000 is plummeting. So I think many are finding it hard to envision Romney has the fighter for the average American, my friend.

And the last time we had an average American in the White House was right now. A guy raised by a single mother on welfare (at one point). Additionally, Clinton was also raised by a single mother and had none of the trappings of wealth usually consistent with most presidents. 

But it’s about how Romney became successful, Seemly at the expense of a lot of working class people jobs and families livelihood.

White Hats and Black Hats and the difference.

And really? Just how blind are those trust, Romney has to read and verify His tax returns to the IRS, and also would have to submit his taxes quarterly.

So a Ghost Writer is a personal skill?

Really and your posting on blogs??????

Sure. Are you claiming Obama used a ghost writer?
On what grounds? Sheer jealousy? Anger that a Republican did not win the presidency?

No, My Anger is that a president hasn’t passed a budget in 1000+ days,

at a President that has allowed the national debt to explode to $16+ Trillion Dollars,

at a President who has kowtowed to every little despot and tin horn dictator on the planet, apologizing and begging for forgiveness for our Nations Greatness,

at a President that spends more time on Vacation and Playing Golf than taking care of the Nations Business………