« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Don’t Hate Mitt Romney’s Success

Unless You Also Believe That Prometheus Had It Coming

By: Repair_Man_Jack (Diary)  |  January 24th, 2012 at 01:00 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Eat The Rich Like Prometheus' Liver!!!! (sarc/

Mitt Romney offered a partial snapshot of his vast personal fortune late Monday, disclosing income of $21.7 million in 2010 and $20.9 million last year — virtually all of it profits, dividends or interest from investments.

(HT: Washington Post)

It’s not just official – it’s officially official. Mitt Romney isn’t just bad. Mitt Romney is E-VIL! You see, according to Pravda on The Potomac, Mitt Romney doesn’t get income the same way normal Americans do. His is entirely derived from dividends and such while poor, humble schlubs such as little, old moi rely on those bi-weekly paychecks.

He even gives more to charity than he pays in taxes. He gives almost as much to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints ($4.2M) as he does to the IRS ($6.2M). The apostasy of the man! This definitely means he isn’t like the Average American.™ However; I’m no fan of liberal agitprop. I don’t think everyone should be forced into some common mold in order to be good presidential material.

For starters, Mitt Romney actually reports and pays taxes on his Caribbean investments. If this were Charlie Rangel’s tax return, you wouldn’t even know what was in The Caymans until the Congressional Ethics Committees convened.

So Mitt got something in the neighborhood of 8% on his capital. He didn’t even have to break a sweat to self-enrich. He like Jimmy Page or Stephen King can pretty much live off the royalties of things he did earlier in his life. The new American Gospel is to hate the man. As Barack Obama all but announced in his speech in Kansas last year: Prometheus had it coming!

Romney is successful. We have an entire OWS Movement convinced that you can’t spell success without S-A-T-A-N. (I’ll have to go check a dictionary and get back to you on that). To Speaker Gingrich, President Obama, and to anyone else slugging Mitt Romney for living off of royalties instead of paycheck-to-paycheck, I have one message. Stop doing this if you like the idea of Americans attempting to succeed.

If you think a guy who plans his life and finances with a little more acumen than a typical Kardashian Sister is the epitome of E-VIL, then don’t be too shocked if the Good Ol’ US of A goes another 1000 days without a properly legislated Federal Budget. We as a nation may not deserve to have a properly legislated budget, a decent Armed Forces, a vibrant culture, or a thriving technological base if we hate success. Our political leadership will accurately mirror the results of our moral values as a nation.

And success is cool with that. If you hate it, it shrugs and walks away; far away. If you go through life hating success (like I was once stupid enough to do in my youth) it won’t burden your life with its oppressive presence. It hangs with people who appreciate it, work for it and never forget how hard it is to attain.

Do I want a President who can relate to The Average American™? Not necessarily. It doesn’t guaruntee fair or decent governance. Sometimes people don’t eat very well when they are governed by someone who is too much of a man of the people. It was American Fascist Huey Long who said “Every man a king, but no one wears a crown.”

In conclusion, I’d rather not see Mitt Romney win the GOP Nomination. I have fulsomely critiqued the man (here, here, here, and here). He ranks only above Ron Paul in my personal estimate of who should be the GOP nominee this year. But all of that being caveat; his ability to manage his life and his fortune well enough to cruise comfortably on an 8% return and still give heavily to his church is a reason to vote FOR Mitt Romney, not against. People criticizing his wealth and personal success are criticizing a legitimate vehicle of American aspiration and renewal.

Tags: , , , , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • goodgovernance

    But why does he seem so uncomfortable about it? It makes me suspect he donated money to the Obama campaign in 2008 or something…

    • fightnright

      Many of my conservative friends were cheering the fellow who predated Newt in using fog-clearing, outright attacks on Obama and his leftist policies – Donald Trump – and adding that Trump’s business expertise, with its record of success, would contribute to the remedy the US needs to grow the economy.

      A large number of those same friends are now warning that no economically struggling electorate will trust or elect a mega-wealthy business mogul to be PotUS.

      Now I realize that all this is anecdotal, and that Trump was never going to be elected or even become a nominee, but as per your question – I’m wondering what is the difference between the two men in the way they think about and refer to their own fortunes and business savvy that might make one admired by the citizens, and the other reviled?

      Something for Mitt to think about….

      • goodgovernance

        If Mitt appeared confident and comfortable in his own skin, I suspect a lot of these problems would go away on their own.

        • fightnright

          Generations ago, a prevailing myth held – pretty much globally – that all poorer, darker, disadvantaged people of common birth in their midst were innately low-minded, unscrupulous, likely as not to rob or cheat you.

          Not everybody bought the myth of course, and philosophers, writers, artists and authentic liberals exposed the truth in their preferred mediums.

          Over time, authentic liberals alerted the majority of folks to the lie that had held for so long in the unsupported meme. A happy chance arose that people might finally accept that it was not color, background or economic class that determined an individual’s nature!

          Many of today’s liberals are extremely proud at having supported the wave of truth that swept out the nasty old false bigotries which had existed. The problem came as politics were used to create all NEW nasty false bigotries that were also frequently accepted without examination, often by those who had a stake in them: now it was implied that all richer, whiter, well-connected people of fortunate birth were innately low-minded, unscrupulous, likely as not to rob and cheat you.

          Mitt had just better find a way to expose these new bigotries fast. We don’t know if Mitt ultimately will get the nomination or not, and while I’ll accept his losing the candidacy because of the primary vote, I’ll not be so forgiving if he becomes the nominee and loses the election because he’s a fool.

        • In The Hook

          He’s just a very private person and wants to somehow be in the public limelight without having to bare his soul to the world. I think his soul is actually pretty clean. He has, by all accounts, been an outstanding human being. A devoted husband, good father to five young men, donated his time and wealth to his church. What else could you ask for in terms of a human being?

          But his unwillingness to let the world in coupled with his history of flip-flops gives people the impression that he’s even more fake than the average politician. Let the world in Mitt! It might actually give people a positive reason to vote for you.

      • radicalrighty

        I bet Trump didn’t donate $4M to a church or any other charity.

  • snowshooze

    And that gave Newt 3 victorys NC, Taxes, and forcing Romney to participate in the debates.
    Only minor detail beyond that is that Romney refused to disclose older taxes…but the only bad thing about that is his lame defense for refusing.

    • Ann_W

      Romney’s released more than anyone else on the stage. Please be consistant.

      • snowshooze

        The taxes themselves being a non-issue with me.
        Romney… acts weird.

    • http://travismonitor.blogspot.com Freedoms Truth

      1) Early vetting avoids a ‘glass jaw’ syndrome, where a late campaign ‘surprise’ knocks him off.

      2) If Romney really isnt Mr Electable, heck, lets roll the dice on a real conservative then.

  • billyd

    In order for Mitt to make money, the companies have to be profitable. If the company is profitable, and Mitt is getting dividends, prior to him getting his share of the profits, the government takes it’s share which is 35%, prior to Mitt paying another 15% on those post taxed profits.

    • Repair_Man_Jack

      Not as much fun as hating the rich, but dead-on correct.

      • andystone

        “Corporations are people, too” is the perfect argument in favor of the corporate income tax. (Of course, corporations are legal arrangements, not people, yada yada yada. But this just underscores how many rhetorical feet Romney will have placed in his mouth before the general election. Let’s just face it, he may be a family man and a successful businessman, but he’s a terrible advocate for both kinds of values.)

        • deVere

          then he may be liable to arrest for multiple manslaughter charges.

          Fortunately Romney is wrong about corporations; he just quoting a bad Supreme Court decision that hopefully will one day get reversed.

          One thing that gives me trepidation about Romney is his excessive deference toward the judiciary. Romney is a judicial supremacist, and that’s why we have gay marriage in America. Romney doesn’t think that the excutive or legislature can ever overrule the courts, no matter what.

          Gingrich is much better in his lack of deference toward bad court decisions, and that may be the difference that makes him clearly preferable to Romney, in spite of his otherwise horrendous personal baggage.

    • jakeofalltrades

      in which case the company was taxed at the 15% rate (or a higher rate for certain cap gains).

      • arizonajohnson

        Corporations do not receive the same treatment as individuals with regards to net long term capital gains. Net capital gain of a corporation is treated as ordinary income at the corporate income tax rate.

        • jakeofalltrades

          That rule I was thinking of goes to the individual’s tax treatment of the dividend, and determines whether the distribution is taxable at all, rather than whether it gets taxed as ordinary income. Thanks, arizonajohnson!

      • http://lukos.com Ed54

        nt

    • Kyle-MI

      But of course, neither the MSM nor Warren Buffet will mention this number.

      • bobvious

        You are not using the right adjective. Don’t use “effective”, you need to use “nominal” or “statutory”.

        There is a statutory rate (that is, tax regulation) of 35%.. This number can be modified by credits allowed under regulations. Nearly all businesses take advantage of these credits, so their “effective” tax rate is about 18%. according to a brief look around the intertubes.

        • Kyle-MI

          Didn’t realize there was an actually defined “effective tax rate”. I meant effective as practical or true.

          Even though the government has set it up so that business profits are taxed and then the dividends from which those profits are paid are also taxed, in truth the stockholders pay both taxes.

          For example, if a business makes $1000 net profit and is taxed at 35%, there is only $650 of it left to give the stockholder as a dividend. If that dividend is taxed at 15% there will be only $552.50 left for the stockholder to use. So out of $1000 the business is paying $350 in taxes and the stockholder is paying $97.50 in taxes on the dividend for a total of $447.50 so the real tax rate paid is 44.75% for all practical purposes.

          Contrast this with the business owner of an unincorporated business. Net profit is simply counted as part of their income and only taxed at 35%. There is no additional 15%.

          What is the difference between a business owner and a stockholder? Stocks are just a way of organizing a business owned by multiple people. (Of course, there are other ways of arranging this as well.)

  • Ann_W

    The best defense, after all… Seriously, who should we choose –a homeless person? This is ridiculous. He used his instincts and brains to make himself successful and now wants to let us use them. How hard was that?

    I hope his debate people are smartening up about this.

    • goodgovernance

      I tell you, he’s just an odd duck. If you made your fortune independently, by all means, tell the world you’re (rightly) proud of what you’ve accomplished. Why act furtive and guilty whenever the issue about tax records come up?

      Don’t think Obama hasn’t noticed Mitt’s got some sort of psychological hangup about this. He and Axelrod are already scheming how they’ll throw Mitt off his game with the occasional casual remark about Mitt’s wealth, maybe interrupting him from time to time in his prepared answers, so that Mitt gets so rattled he yells out, “Anderson! Anderson!” calling for the moderator to intervene, again.

      • Repair_Man_Jack

        NT.

        • goodgovernance

          Of course, he’d have to answer questions why his father was wrong for creating the trend of presidential candidates releasing their tax returns in the first place.

          The real point here is, the tax records issue is one every supposedly legitimate presidential candidate has to see coming, and should be prepared for. It’s Campaigning For President 101. The fact Romney fumbled something this basic, and couldn’t correct for so long, is troublesome, especially since his main rationale for running for president is that he’s the best prepared to take on Obama.

          • Repair_Man_Jack

            I hope a future candidate of either party tells his opposition and the MSM to jam it up their rectum when they demand to paw through his/her finances.

          • texashistorian

            at the last SC debate, right? No, I have no plans to release my taxes, it’s nobody’s business. Guess what? He is still alive ;)

      • bonnman

        and was probably trying to figure out the right time and right manner to take the least damage.

        • macbookben

          he could clench the nomination if he donates 100% of his wealth, property and all, to charity (and one without direct/indirect benefit to LDS or BYU). With his business acumen, Romney would be able to recover from that, right? Anyway, it would certainly diffuse the OWS’er’s complaints that he didn’t pay his fair share.

  • Ann_W

    But I think he just thought it through and decided he’d only give the media one time to beat up on him (April) and didn’t think it would be a big deal because none of the other candidates had done it.

    He’s used to sticking with his instincts so he did, until it was made very clear to him that that wouldn’t work out.

    • texastaxpayer

      he will eventually be forced to produce any and all documentation Obama demands through his media minions. Including however many years of tax returns King “O” deems necessary. He just proved he has no stomach for confrontations with the press. Obama will exploit this weakness to drain Romney of credibility by making accusations, playing off Romney’s initial refusal and then repeating the process as the media plays its role misrepresenting both the denials and the eventual information he concedes. Romney has no stomach for this contest, best to move past him now rather than lose later.

  • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

    Mitt’s 5 sons, have gone out to make their own living. They’ve joined him on the campaign trail, but each of them have held their own job, and have collected their own paycheck.

    I’m not suggesting that Mitt, and his sons didn’t get advantages due to the wealth of their father… but they certainly didn’t go living off the family trust fund either.

    Clearly he’s taught his children the meaning of merit, and with 16 granchildren, the meaning of family.

    You can’t take that away from Mitt in any setting.

  • kipling

    Rather than earned it. It worked for John Kerry and the Democratics did not have a problem with it.

    • Repair_Man_Jack

      Can you imagine what the MSM would say if a GOP contender sold off a bunch of real estate to finance his run for office?

    • buddyp

      … he married Teresa. That’s kind of “earning it”. I don’t know if I’d take that job, even for that much money.

      • http://lukos.com Ed54

        nicely done

  • lineholder

    I do wonder to what extent someone who was basically born with a silver spoon in their mouth and has never had to start from scratch will resonate with the American people in the type of economic environment that exists at the present time. Obama is going to have difficulty with this as well.

    People are counting pennies out here, RMJ, and tightening their belts to the point that exemplifying an attitude of “a penny saved is a penny earned” is something they absolutely HAVE to live by. They may not resent those who are rich, but neither are they likely to believe that person understands one whit of what it means to suffer financial hardship or the kind of obstacles those who are facing financial hardship find themselves tackling on a day to day basis or what it means to struggle to find ways to overcome those obstacles.

    • Repair_Man_Jack

      It’s very easy to look at Mitt’s net worth and occupation and blindly hate him. However, I don’t because I want someone to effectively govern, not resonate. I like Mitt better than BHO, but not Newt or Rick S. I don’t rank them on $$$. If I did, I’d probably just have to join the ROn Paul rEVOLUTION!

      • lineholder

        Can someone who has no realm of life experience that allows them to empathize with the difficulties the American people are facing right now govern effectively? From a fiscal viewpoint, can they do so?

        Not all people who are facing hard times or poor want a hand out from the government or to have government provide everything for them from the cradle to the grave. Many of them would rather work for what they earn. Just call it an issue of self-respect and self-esteem.

        Someone who has experienced that type of hardship will understand the what and why of it whereas someone who has never experienced it won’t have a clue. And being clueless, they aren’t in the least bit likely to do or say anything that will resonate with voters in making the kind of choices that lets people on the low end of the economic scale truly have the opportunity to make their own future!

        I’m not sure that someone in Romney’s position understands that at all. I genuinely and sincerely am not. Have you seen anything in his personal history that indicates he might? Anything at all?

        • Repair_Man_Jack

          I also have always distrusted people who claim they will fight for me, or feel my pain or whatever the compassion catchword of the day is. I really don’t see the difference in quality between a President who understands me personally and one who doesn’t.

          In this particular case, I think ROmney is less appealing than other GOP candidates at present, but it has very little to do with his life experiences. Josef Stalin had a brutal childhood as a poor Jew, in early 20th Century Russia. He felt the people’s pain – and continued to massively inflict it.

          • lineholder

            I simply believe that we may not have a chance of governing or turning back the economic tide, so to speak, if we don’t first present a solid message that resonates with voters and gets them to the voting booth. The greater portion of my opinion on that point has to do with my belief that the MSM and the left will pull out every dirty trick known in the history of mankind to win this next election rather than having to do with anything pertaining to lack of qualification of Repub candidates in this race.

          • Repair_Man_Jack

            Perhaps I indulge in wishful thinking when I want people to be measured on their qualifications instead of something stupid like what their tax returns look like.

          • lineholder

            somewhat contradictory to human nature when the economic reality that so many people are facing is a very tough hard reality.

            Voters are simply human, and during tough times, there are very few of us who won’t instinctively bond to those who have experienced similar hardships and managed to succeed in spite of them. Their success can provide a mental reason, source of encouragement, source of inspiration, etc. for us to keep striving to succeed. That’s just a very human response, I think, that many of us know of from practical experience but don’t necessarily think about that much.

            I don’t think it has that much to do with what their tax return looks like, per se, or at least it doesn’t for me personally.

          • texashistorian

            to have a Tabasco sauce enema to know it wouldn’t feel very good. Mitt simply needs to get forceful about his wealth and be honest. He doesn’t know what poverty is like, and is glad of it, and want those that do to have more opportunity to not experience it in the future. It would sell, and kill the objection at the same time.

          • unclefred

            Only those who are first generation and made it from scratch themselves understand the sacrifice required for the regular person to succeed.

            I don’t think that is important, as long as they realize how narrow the path to success can be and how important it is to minimize regulatory impact. Another 1%, which a large enterprise can absorb, can be the straw that puts a start up or small business under. That lesson is one that first generation successes never forget, and often is one that subsequent generations never learn, or at least internalize.

            Romney talks like he understands. Who knows for sure?

          • Ann_W

            when he counseled people in his volunteer position with his church. In those positions people call them when they are in dire circumstances and when they need help. As a bishop you sit for hours talking to people who make “appointments” on Sunday, then during the rest of the week get random calls from people who need help. (Including some just passing through your area.) Problems include needing money, domestic violence, sudden death, etc. etc. Many visits are in people’s homes, so you get the full effect of seeing what it’s like. He was in those positions for years. It’s no cake walk.

            Granted he had a nice home and family to go home to; but it’s much more perspective than say John Kerry, John McCain, or I would guess even Gingrich at this point have.

          • lineholder

            As to Newt, during one of the debates, he mentioned growing up living in an apartment over a garage. And from the context of his comments, I’d say that this was taking place while his father was away, during his teen years (?Not sure of the age)

            There’s nothing wrong with them allowing the general public to have a glimpse of those kinds of experiences. Nothing at all. Especially in this context. Facing tough times is nothing to be ashamed of, and it certainly isn’t reason to give way to a sense of despair that would cause voters to see expansion of the federal government as being their only hope.

            I guess that’s one of my primary concerns at this point, i.e. how close are some of our people to that line of despair? And how will it impact their choice pertaining to public policy via their vote?

          • In The Hook

            And seriously it’s his biggest problem. I think the issue is twofold. One, he’s been told by his advisers that trying to be folksy or talk about “real people” will sound phony because he’s so rich, so avoid it. And two, he’s just genuinely uncomfortable talking about his private life.

            He can talk about his wife and his kids, but I think he’s just really unnerved with the idea of revealing his personal self to the entire world. It’s a daunting prospect to be sure, but one has to overcome if he wants to win. So I agree with you Ann, it’s something that will boost his favorables tremendously and give people a positive reason to vote for him, but I don’t think it will happen.

          • Ann_W

            He probably is nervous about starting to talk about experiences, because there are people that would have been in the congregations that would know exactly who he is talking about. I don’t know how he could do it without kind of selling out the people he helped. Some magazines have gotten interviews w/ people directly, but that’s not the same.

    • goodgovernance

      Despite the fact the public tends to like Obama personally, Obama’s big weakness (especially in swing states) is that people are unsure if he really understands them and what they’re going through, because he projects the East Coast Ivy League Elitist mentality. That could really work to the GOP’s benefit in the fall. But if Mitt’s the nominee, we basically give some of that advantage away, because Mitt comes across as East Coast Big Money Elitist, someone who’s just as out of touch as Obama.

  • thosjefferson

    Emperor Newt has already told us that Romney’s form of capitalism is “exploitive” and “not defensible.” Why are we still having this debate? When the Emperor speaks, the debate is over.

    South Carolina had it right. We need someone who knows how to attack the media, how to ridicule capitalism, and how to rewrite his history (and call his ex a liar). The last thing we need in a President is someone who has earned his money in the private sector and invested it in the private sector for the future. We need someone who makes millions selling influence and spends it at Tiffany’s.

    • goodgovernance

      One South Carolina win and suddenly it’s “Emperor Newt”? That’s pretty rich from the Romney crowd, considering how Romney’s the establishment favorite who almost turned down participating in last night’s debate because he thought he had all this in the bag.

      Actually, if there’s one thing that really makes me mistrust Romney and his supporters, it’s that they engage in a pattern of sophistry as they attack Mitt’s opponents. Basically, they try to take whatever charges or criticisms have been made against Mitt and use them against everyone else. A form of “I know you are, but what am I”? They do it time and time again. And now here you’re doing it: Romney’s not the “Emperor,” Newt is!

      • thosjefferson

        Newt’s been the Emperor in his own mind since before he was Speaker. You just didn’t realize it.

        Check out emperornewt.org for an analysis, but even Newt agreed with Santorum that he is “grandiose.” As the world’s best-paid historian, Newt knows it’s a term commonly used when describing Napoleon, the Roman Emperors, etc.

        I don’t know what Romney has to do with this, btw. He’s hardly claiming Newt is an Emperor.

  • Cheetah772

    TAX CODE IS MESSED UP. Okay, sorry, that’s five words. ;)

    Seriously, though….

    I’m not bothered by Romney’s wealth, but this proves why tax cuts are so important for average Americans, and the tax code needs to be overhauled big time.

  • annas

    Cheetah772 you think it is not enough that Romney paid 15% on top of 35% already taxed on his wealth? How much would be enough for you? Especially since 40% of Americans don’t pay one single dime!!

    • CrabCakes

      but don’t count the payroll tax at all? Weird accounting.

      Cheetah’s right; tax code is messed up.

      Personally, I’d eliminate the corporate tax, the payroll tax, the estate tax, and all deductions, tariffs, and subsidies. I’d set marginal tax rates at 3%-5% higher than they are now across the board and tax all income the same, whether it came from investment or labor. No one wants to let CrabCakes be Boss of America, though.

    • Cheetah772

      I didn’t know you replied to my comment until I checked other comments in this diary.

      You need to re-read my comment more carefully. I stated that I’m not bothered that Romney is wealthy. I have no bitterness or jealousy toward his wealth. I have no problem with him being taxed only at 15%, while others who rely on wages are taxed at higher rates.

      However, I did say that it’s exactly why tax cuts and a major tax reform are needed here. I WANT to see average Americans to see their payroll taxes reduced significantly, and other taxes reduced as well. I want to see our tax code to be overhauled in big ways. I want to see MORE money back into the hands of average AND wealthy Americans.

      If you want to cut the taxes on wealthy businessmen, then go for it. I have nothing against that. If you say that Romney also pays 35% on corporate taxes, then that should be reduced as well. I have no problem with that.

      Do you get it?

  • naraht

    The *first* myth about Prometheus isn’t about stealing fire, it is the “trick at Mecone” where prometheus arranged by trickery for the the Gods to be cheated in what portion they would receive in sacrifice.

    So the first myth about Prometheus is about getting away with giving less than he should to the powers that be. Is that *really* a parallel we want for Romney?

  • tailfins1959

    Romney might not be prepared to take on Obama since he has been protected by the media. As I have said before, he is starting to seem like a bowling pin (set him up then knock him down).

    • Repair_Man_Jack

      Mitt Romney gave millions to charity. Joe Biden gave $369.
      http://harndenblog.dailymail.co.uk/2012/01/much-ado-about-nothing-mitt-romney-is-very-rich-he-also-gave-millions-to-charity-and-the-taxman.html

      Charity Give-A-Thon: Mitt ROmney 15% – Barack Obama 1%.
      http://nation.foxnews.com/mitt-romney/2012/01/24/whos-greedy-obama-gave-1-charity-romney-gave-15

      • In The Hook

        It’s not like Mitt is incapable of going on the attack. I think he’s uncomfortable with it but not because he’s “too nice” or whatever. I believe he has his surrogates attack because he doesn’t really know how to do it. Last night’s debate was the first time I saw him cogent while personally on the offensive. Portends well for the general if he gets there.

        I really, really doubt you’ll ever hear him talk about his charitable giving. But I do think conservatives should warm to the fact that he gives more to private charity and his church than he does to the government.

  • andystone

    is that it shows the abject failure of progressive taxation. The 35% rate only affects professionals and small businessmen who can’t afford the fancy tax lawyers, accountants, and investment spreads. We need a simple, flat tax instead.

    • CrabCakes

      it’s an argument against loopholes, and loopholes can be slipped into a flat tax just as easily as they have been into a progressive one.

      • andystone

        Which would effectively raise the tax rate for Mitt Romney from 15% to 35%, causing his assets to quickly fly to Switzerland and the Cayman Islands. We should just be honest about the maximum tax rate that can be made effective, charge 15-20% up front and transparently, and eliminate this whole dishonest industry of playing hide-and-seek with people’s money.

        • CrabCakes

          The year that Mitt decided to take the profits, it would get taxed as income. The corporate tax is the only incentive to offshore your investments, which is why it needs to go altogether.

          All of that is an entirely separate issue from whether the tax code should be flat or progressive, though.

      • http://lukos.com Ed54

        The 15% capital gains tax rate is a basic tenet of tax policy in this country. We all pay it. Do you have any taxable mutual funds? Then you pay it too.

        • CrabCakes

          which (let me get out my calculator) is less than 15%.

          And I consider the fact that you get taxed differently based on how you derive your income to be a loophole, although reasonable people can disagree.

          (Also, since almost all of my investments are tied up in a Roth IRA, I pay exactly 0% on most of my investments, which is also a loophole. I oppose that one, too.)

          • blato

            of his charitable donations. Do you consider deducting charitable donations a “loophole” that should be eliminated?

          • CrabCakes

            n/t

          • blato

            even though I don’t completely agree with you.

          • CrabCakes

            but it’s rarely successful. The tax code is so complicated that almost no one has any idea what percentage that they’ll pay at the end of the year. It’s like a lottery: “Will I get a big check in February or owe a ton in April? I can’t wait to find out!” The only people who are able to take advantage of the ridiculously complex code that we have are those with enough resources to hire tax lawyers to look for ways to take advantage of tax loopholes.

            I’d rather we lose all the deductions (including mortgage, children, charitable contributions, etc.), ditch every federal tax except a progressive income tax (including the payroll tax, estate tax, tariffs, etc.). If I know my salary, I’d be able to calculate my taxes owed with a marginal tax rate chart and a pencil and a sheet of paper in under a minute.

          • CrabCakes

            .

    • http://lukos.com Ed54

      to figure out how to pay 15% tax on capital gains. Most of us can do that with Turbo Tax, or with a pencil and the IRS tax forms. If you have a mutual fund, then you are paying 15% tax rate on your capital gains too, same as Romney.

  • sethellis

    I liked the comment Romney made in his speech after losing SC. Such attacks are an assault on anyone who has ever dreamed of being successful in this country. They are not attacking Mitt Romey, they are attacking you.

  • steeltube

    I agree Romney was doomed on this issue. If he did not release his taxes he was going to allow his GOP opposition (Sheldon Adelson dba “Winning Our Future”) to make any accusation they wanted without fear of being called liars. And if he did release them then voters would see things that he knows are not going to play well in Peoria.

    The average voter knows little about swap derivatives and leveraged buy outs but they do know the Caymans is where the “bad guys” in every movie hide their money. They also know that Switzerland is in the same business. It may not be fair-most things in life are not-but Romney is going to be looked at suspiciously by voters due to his accounts there.

    And he pays only 13.9%? Is this not the part of the year folks are getting their W-2′s and looking at the tax tables and seeing what they are being taxed? Talk about bad timing.

    I was a Romney supporter but I realize that at this point in time in America (terrible economy, high unemployment, Wall St bailouts) anyone with his background is unelectable. Whitman could not overcome it and neither could Fioina.

    And remember-this is JUST the 2010 return. One assumes he knew he had to release it and made sure it looked as good as possible to voters. What do you think the previous years look like when he didn’t have those concerns when filing?

    The only good thing about this is it happened now instead of after the nomination was sewed up for him.

    • blato

      showed much less income. He had a large loss carry forward on his 2010 return, which makes sense – 2009 was a horrible year for investors.

      I make six figures, 99% from earned income, and I pay about an 11% federal income tax rate on AGI. Hannity pointed out today that according to IRS data, Romney’s 13.9% rate puts him at about the 97th percentile of tax payers. Don’t believe the crap that the media spews – “Mitt pays a lower rate than most Americans, blah, blah, blah…”. We’re to the point where most Americans don’t pay any federal income tax.

      I saw a tweet today that said that Romney’s 2010 federal taxes would have funded monthly food stamp allotments for about 24,000 people.

      What a sad state we’re in as a country and a party if we start to believe that someone who massively succeeds is not fit for public office. We might as well throw in the towel on the American Dream that anyone through talent and hard work can succeed. This isn’t the America I grew up in. Shame on us if this is our reason for not supporting Romney.

  • davidengageamerica

    it?s not Romney’s fault that the system is designed to favor people who make their money through investments. http://on-msn.com/wOAIBj

    A well designed tax code should treat similar sources of income equally. http://eng.am/s8Cu0P That means even though a person might earn their salary as capital gains (because there job is to make investments) it should be subject to the same tax rates as every other taxpayer?s salary.

    There is nothing wrong with taxing capital gains at lower rates than earned income. What is important is to make sure that people who work in one industry don?t get special tax treatment over taxpayers in another industry.

    • blato

      The guy whose infamous secretary will be at the SOTU address tonight clapping for Obama??

      Do you understand that Romney made his money (mostly in the 80s and 90s) and paid taxes on it at that time? Then he invests it and pays taxes on the investment income again. And any private companies that he invests in have already paid the (very high) corporate income taxes on their profits before they can beneift an investor like Romney.

      How many times should we tax the same money? When will Romney have paid enough? And I’m reading comments like yours on Red State?

      The “Conservative Movement” has a long way to go if we have people in it that think Romney is not paying his fair share.

  • goodgovernance

    It’s like arguing that if you attack a politician for abusing the powers of his office, you’re attacking democracy.

    I think it’s perfectly legitimate to question whether Mitt was truly a “jobs creator” as he claims, or mostly created wealth through creative destruction. Not because there’s anything wrong with creative destruction (without it, our businesses would work about as well as your typical governmental bureaucracy) but because his “job creator” claim is fundamental to how he’ll convince independents to vote for him. If it’s a bogus claim we need to know now.

    Mitt also needs to hook up how any “jobs creator” record at Bain translates to how he’ll promote job growth via governmental office. So far he’s failed to do so, but it’s crucial that he does, especially given how his record as a Massachusetts governor does not look impressive at all.

    • lizzie

      instead of relying on the WaPo solely to defuse any attack on Romney’s 2010 tax return as ‘liberal attack’

      http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/rich-really-are-different_617667.html?nopager=1

      Romney really should NOT be taking so much credit for “helping” to create all those jobs at Staples.

      Even more interesting than his tax returns (though there is that CDO…), is how extraordinarily risk-averse he was when offered the chance to start Mr. Bain’s new company (not the same as debater Romney claiming he started HIS own company):

      “…Starting almost immediately, Bain proposed, Romney would become the head of a new company to be called Bain Capital. With seed money from Bill Bain and other partners at the consulting firm, Bain Capital would raise tens of millions of dollars, invest in start-ups and troubled businesses, apply Bain?s brand of management advice, and then resell the revitalized companies or sell their shares to the public at a profit. It sounded exciting, daring, new. It would be Romney?s first chance to run his own firm and, potentially, to make a killing. It was an offer few young men in a hurry could refuse.

      Yet Romney stunned his boss by doing just that. He explained to Bain that he didn?t want to risk his position, earnings, and reputation on an experiment. He found the offer appealing but didn?t want to make the decision in a ?light or flippant manner.? So Bain sweetened the pot. He guaranteed that if the experiment failed Romney would get his old job and salary back, plus any raises he would have earned during his absence. Still, Romney worried about the impact on his reputation if he proved unable to do the job. Again the pot was sweetened. Bain promised that, if necessary, he would craft a cover story saying that Romney?s return to Bain & Company was needed due to his value as a consultant. ?So,? Bain explained, ?there was no professional or financial risk.? This time Romney said yes. …”

      Time for the GOP to STOP defending Romney’s “success”.

  • kowalski

    .

  • blato

    He is not rich because of his father – he gave his inheritance away. Got his undergaduate degree at BYU, like lots of other Mormons. Got into Harvard on merit – excelling in a dual MBA/JD degree – no small task.

    From the very beginning at Bain Consulting, he stood out as an extremely talented business consultant. At a relatively young age, he was arm-twisted by Bain into leading their venture capital start-up, Bain Capital. He then commenced to drive the profitability and success of this new company through the roof, enriching himself and his investors in the process.

    His turnaround of the SLC Olympics is no less impressive. How many Olympics made so much money that the surplus can fund the remaining sports facilities in perpetuity – just one that I know of, the one Romney pulled out of the ditch.

    His success flows from his talent – it’s natural. He is to business what an all-star is to sports.

    But the talent he has doesn’t translate to politics. In front of a crowd, he’s stiff, often too mannerly, occassionally forcing a “tough response”, that seems put on. He’s also seemingly unable to rapidly shift from a preset direction. He’d rather huddle with staff, think about his options and then act. By the time he did that in SC, it was over, and he’d lost big.

    I think it is a real shame that his political skills are so poor, making it unlikely (at least as it looks now) that he will even be nominated. If we (Republicans) win this election, I hope the new President has the sense to utilize Romney in a capacity suited to his abilities. He obviously wants to serve his country, and he can do amazing things when working within his element.

  • deVere

    I just dislike him for being a no-good flip-flopping hypocritical liar.

    • blato

      Can’t follow directions, eh?

      • acat

        If you have a problem, take it to the contacts page.

        Mew

        • lineholder

          ,

        • blato

          Just commenting on a flamethrower.

          I’m new here. Obviously, I know I can’t moderate. But I can have an opinion about whether a comment is outrageous, can’t I? Or is that not allowed at Red State?

          • lineholder

            you just accused of being a “flamethrower” to express their opinion.

          • blato

            I didn’t (and couldn’t) do anything to prevent this person from expressing his opinion. So what’s the beef?

          • lineholder

            Only that during the past few weeks in particular we’ve had a lot of new people begin to post at RS who actually try to use the rules to gain a political advantage in silencing their opposition (so to speak). So it raises red flags when that is the direction a new poster goes in right off the bat.

          • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

            so as a newcomer, be prepared. We’re all a little punchy, and you’re likely to see comments you think are over the top but are fairly routine for the season. Or so I’ve learned in the last few months.

          • acat

            If you really think something is over the line, take it to the contact page.

            Otherwise, quoting cite rules tends to make it look like you’re trying to cut off aggressive debate.

            Mew

      • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

        until you meet mbecker or tbone. Just wait.

        • lineholder

          They like the challenge (cough) of finding what a new poster is made of better than most of us do.

          • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

            Thoughts of Elmer Fudd hunting Bugs Bunny popped into my head.

            I hope you can hewp me mister game warden. I’ve been towd I can shoot wabbits, mongooses, pigeons, dirty skunks and ducks. Can you teww me what season it weawwy is??!!

            Elmer Fudd Quotes

          • lineholder

            What are Conservatives hunting for? Do you have a good definition? I’m not sure that have one any more, Mel.

        • blato

          for a few months now. I understand that “respectful” is interpreted very loosely here.

        • Christine (Trelaina)

          MBecker is a model RedStater. We would all do well to emulate him..

          (Um, completely kidding here. Love ya MB. Wouldn’t be RS without you.)

  • bk

    Ref: Forbes for 2010

    So he is WAY more evil than Romney according to liberals, correct?

    And Buffett didn’t release his whole return – he just offered a few totals. What’s he hiding?

    • Juggernaut

      then invested for the money train ride. He’s just a cheap prop in the BO reelection circus. Neither man is evil but I’d like to see his tax return too.

  • Juggernaut

    Romney is now past Santorum on my list. Ron Paul, heck, I’d have to toss a coin.

    NO ONE HATES CAPITALISM this is not the dailykos.

    The issues with how Mitt earns his money is the money is taxed the same way Halliburton pays taxes………only on what is transferred into the USA. Its perfectly legal but in politics, the left will feed on this like the pic above. When money is repatriated, the tax is paid, nothing wrong unless you’re a liberal or someone who is jealous of strategies they don’t know who to use. Its easy to do, just let the IRS know before and when funds come home.

    The real stink that the media will feed on is that gifts can have any value declared chosen and whomever receives the gift will pay no taxes till the money comes into the USA. Mitt gave his kids money and the media shall feed on that. Its fair and legal but its the media who are evil. That could be proven with a poll.

  • Pingback: Homepage

  • Pingback: Whips

  • Pingback: Looking for popular Name Band fantasy aids? We have any selection: Vibrators,Male Sex Toys,Adult Products,Male Masturbators and Cock Rings

  • Pingback: cigarette electronique

  • Pingback: bad credit loan to resolve cash

  • Pingback: yim y3

  • Pingback: best personal installment loans

  • Pingback: Compare Web Hosts

  • Pingback: westech contact adhesive

  • Pingback: sxoli xorou