• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Mitt Romney releases two years of tax records from 2010to 2011

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
cybrsage said:
So basically, investors take a risk in the company so that it can expand and hire more people. They then get the benefit of a lower tax rate, since the government wants companies to expand and hire more people. More people employed means more regular income taxed.

It really is a win-win.
Click to expand...

But they don't need that lower tax rate as an incentive. Incentives should be used to encourage one behaviour over another. Are those people magically going to earn that income as a salary instead?

The incentive to invest is that it allows you to grow your money. People will do that even if the tax rate is HIGHER than salary earnings, since they want to grow their money, and they can't do that without investing it.
 
Sophitia said:
Holy crap. Just looking at this topic and at this board it becomes clear this election is more about math and how effectively politicians can spin it then any other I have ever seen.

"If anything the rich have never had more of the tax burden! They're being taxed to death!"

"If anything the rich have more of the tax burden because they became two and a half times richer while everyone elses pay stayed flat!"

"If anything the corporations are taxed to death at 35%!"

"If anything corps like GE and others exploit the tax code to pay nothing at all!"

UGH. It's become a damn "spinning" war.
Click to expand...

It's easy to use math as a weapon when your overwhelming base of voters haven't used more than basic arithmetic since high school.
 
The irony would be hilarious that if he won, as one of the wealthiest people to ever run for President, during a time where the anger of the imbalance of wealth (or "class warfare") was at it's peak.

Man I wish I was rich.
 
Last edited:
I don't see how this this guy can be elected in the current climate. At a time when unemployment has been at record levels for years, this guy makes many $millions off of vulture capitalism destroying jobs and liquidating companies.
 
GuitarDaddy said:
I don't see how this this guy can be elected in the current climate. At a time when unemployment has been at record levels for years, this guy makes many $millions off of vulture capitalism destroying jobs and liquidating companies.
Click to expand...

His firm buys companies that otherwise would not have access to capital due to their dire financial situations. This allows the companies to continue to operate and potentially recover...maintaining jobs. In some cases, they have to liquidate which is the path the company was heading down anyway.

His firm had bad investments where liquidation was the end result anyway, and success where a healthy, profitable and growing company emerged as the net result... which maintained jobs, and/or grew them.

Try to look at it from all angles please.
 
WD, he did this at-cost right?

His concern was for the companies he was saving, not for teh money he earned while doing it.... right?



😉
 
WackyDan said:
His firm buys companies that otherwise would not have access to capital due to their dire financial situations. This allows the companies to continue to operate and potentially recover...maintaining jobs. In some cases, they have to liquidate which is the path the company was heading down anyway.

His firm had bad investments where liquidation was the end result anyway, and success where a healthy, profitable and growing company emerged as the net result... which maintained jobs, and/or grew them.

Try to look at it from all angles please.
Click to expand...

Actually, this is a fair point. As much as I'm against Romney some are simplistic in what they attack him for.

He was wrongly attacked for his 'likes to fire people who provide him service' comment, which was misrepresented by both parties.

He was wrongly attacked for his 'consulting fees weren't much' comment - a bit of criticism was valid but I think he meant compared to his other income.

And it's easy to attack him for the firings from Bain capital but as you say these were companies in trouble who chose this option. There's unfair demonization.

I don't know all the details, though the very large amonts of profit taken increase the chance there was exploitive activity - that's possible.

But the real issue isn't that, it's things like his utter whorishness about saying anything to get elected and serving the agenda of wealth to an extreme terrible for the nation.

Lowering the taxes on the rich like him is the last thing we need to do.
 
actuarial said:
But they don't need that lower tax rate as an incentive. Incentives should be used to encourage one behaviour over another. Are those people magically going to earn that income as a salary instead?
Click to expand...

They may put it somewhere else, rather than investing it in companies.
 
Ninjahedge said:
WD, he did this at-cost right?

His concern was for the companies he was saving, not for teh money he earned while doing it.... right?



😉
Click to expand...

Really? What would be the motivation to do it if you could not reap the rewards? You take some extreme risks, lose some, win some... and hope you coming out winning more often than losing.

Building a company back to health and selling it...or letting it go to an IPO is a very time consuming high cost risk which when successful has significant monetary reward.
 
WackyDan said:
Really? What would be the motivation to do it if you could not reap the rewards? You take some extreme risks, lose some, win some... and hope you coming out winning more often than losing.
Click to expand...

Which means he was doing a job for profit. People seem t say "well, if he did not do it, they would have failed, etc etc". So? He was not doing it to save the company so much as to save money for the investors and make money for himself in doing so.

I am not incriminating him for that, but I sure as hell am not praising him either.

Building a company back to health and selling it...or letting it go to an IPO is a very time consuming high cost risk which when successful has significant monetary reward.
Click to expand...

Question, was it HIS money he was risking in that? Or was he making money regardless of success or failure?
 
Rumor is that he's not posting his 2009 returns possibly because he paid no taxes due to stock losses. Notice the almost 5 mil carry-over on his 2010 return. Not saying it's illegal but it's hard for us with earned income to do the same thing.
 
hal2kilo said:
Rumor is that he's not posting his 2009 returns possibly because he paid no taxes due to stock losses. Notice the almost 5 mil carry-over on his 2010 return. Not saying it's illegal but it's hard for us with earned income to do the same thing.
Click to expand...

Cannot possibly be that reason.

The annual limit for deducting (net) capital losses (e.g., losses on sale of stock) is $3,000.

Fern
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top