Mitt had a fundraiser....

[Red Arrow]

I've always been of the opinion that unearned income ought to be taxed more heavily than earned income. I don't really feel like the government needs to be in the business of rewarding risk, at least in general.

If government should not be in business of rewarding risk, why should it be in the business of punishing risk and even just plain savings with a higher tax rate for unearned income?  Are you saying no one should save for their future?  Should they always be dependent on cash on hand (oops, that's savings) or always borrow money for everything? We are just going to have to disagree on that one.

That is the role of the market. Perhaps in specific cases where research into a given technology is required and the market is not providing, like tax rebates on biodiesel production or whatever, but in general, no.

So you have your favorite pet projects too.  I think biodiesel, ethanol and other green energy should pay for itself.  Really, not just to make a point with you.

RA, nobody's going to throw Romney in jail for use of legal tax shelters. There's not really any reason to believe he didn't use any abusive tax shelters, though. I hope he didn't, but it's depressingly common, and would be a good reason for him to keep his returns to himself. I don't think most people realize the scale of the loopholes and quite how tailor-made they are for certain people, though. Anything that shone some light on that would be welcome indeed.

Got it, guilty until proven innocent.


Edit:
Another reason for you to disapprove of the State of Oklahoma
See Schedule 511-C, line 4:
Interest qualifying for exclusion (limited to $100 [$200 for joint return])

The State of Oklahoma allows one to deduct the said amount of interest earned from an Oklahoma "Bank" as an adjustment to income.  It's been there since I can remember, not just since Republicans gained power.

[nathanm]

If government should not be in business of rewarding risk, why should it be in the business of punishing risk and even just plain savings with a higher tax rate for unearned income?  Are you saying no one should save for their future?  Should they always be dependent on cash on hand (oops, that's savings) or always borrow money for everything? We are just going to have to disagree on that one.

That makes absolutely no sense, so I'm not even sure how to respond.

So you have your favorite pet projects too.  I think biodiesel, ethanol and other green energy should pay for itself.  Really, not just to make a point with you.

If you are under the impression that most new technology doesn't come from government funded and/or employed research, you're sadly mistaken. Private business does a shockingly small amount of R&D (at least without a government contract) these days. It's not about pet projects, it's about moving the state of the art forward. If business refuses and it's a project too large to be done by an individual or donation-funded nonprofit, there's nowhere to turn but government.

Private business is really good at wringing efficiency out of existing processes. They're just really shitty at coming up with new stuff. Of course, even in that case they're not all that great. The recipe basically all modern white bread uses (with minor modification) came from the USDA after years of research. Go figure.

Got it, guilty until proven innocent.

This is not a court of law, last I checked.

[Red Arrow]

That makes absolutely no sense, so I'm not even sure how to respond.

I think you understand just fine but I'll take the bait anyway.

I've always been of the opinion that unearned income ought to be taxed more heavily than earned income. I don't really feel like the government needs to be in the business of rewarding risk, at least in general.

If you had said to tax unearned income at the same rate as earned income I could have left it as we disagree.  If lower tax rates are to encourage risk taking (and saving) and you object to that concept, what do higher rates do?   Also, think about things like tax-free municipal bonds that make money less expensive for cities and towns to finance programs.

That is the role of the market. Perhaps in specific cases where research into a given technology is required and the market is not providing, like tax rebates on biodiesel production or whatever, but in general, no.

If you are under the impression that most new technology doesn't come from government funded and/or employed research, you're sadly mistaken. Private business does a shockingly small amount of R&D (at least without a government contract) these days. It's not about pet projects, it's about moving the state of the art forward. If business refuses and it's a project too large to be done by an individual or donation-funded nonprofit, there's nowhere to turn but government.

I support government funded research in principle.  Many projects are of questionable value.  Value is in the eye of the beholder grant recipient.  The government funded production is what I object to.  It was not so clever of you to include production with research.  Everyone seems to vehemently object to subsidies to the oil companies.  They should also object to government subsidies for corn to ethanol for fuel.

Private business is really good at wringing efficiency out of existing processes. They're just really shitty at coming up with new stuff. Of course, even in that case they're not all that great. The recipe basically all modern white bread uses (with minor modification) came from the USDA after years of research. Go figure.

And we all know how wonderful modern white bread is.  It should be banned as a health hazard. I think you are being over encompassing to say " They're just really shitty at coming up with new stuff."

RA, nobody's going to throw Romney in jail for use of legal tax shelters. There's not really any reason to believe he didn't use any abusive tax shelters, though. I hope he didn't, but it's depressingly common, and would be a good reason for him to keep his returns to himself. I don't think most people realize the scale of the loopholes and quite how tailor-made they are for certain people, though. Anything that shone some light on that would be welcome indeed.

This is not a court of law, last I checked.

The court of public opinion can be even worse as there cannot be a verdict to vindicate the supposed violator.

[Conan71]

Seems we could have cut two or more pages off of this thread and several others if the guy would just release his tax returns, explain them to those who think he abused the system or face up to any mistakes he may have made. Not making them public is causing conjecture and conspiracy theories to proliferate.

That is not the fault of media. Its the fault of a guy who seems to have a problem with a cost/benefits analysis of his own decision. It is a preview of how and why he makes decisions and how he will govern.

i don't recall who said it but someone made a valid point in terms of campaign strategy.  Let's say he releases 5, 10, 12 years.  Then it becomes one request after another about this partnership or that partnership, or the sale of this piece of property, etc. keeping him in constant defense mode when there is nothing which can be mined from those returns which are going to indicate his ability to lead.  It simply does nothing but add more fodder for people who want to castigate him for being wealthy and keeps the focus off Obama's economic record which is what Romney needs to keep focusing on.

I really don't give two craps how much he has earned, nor how much he's paid in taxes.  Unless there's been any outright tax fraud, then it's a different issue.  The IRS has had plenty of opportunities over the years to take him down if he were engaged in tax fraud.

[nathanm]

If you had said to tax unearned income at the same rate as earned income I could have left it as we disagree.  If lower tax rates are to encourage risk taking (and saving) and you object to that concept, what do higher rates do?   Also, think about things like tax-free municipal bonds that make money less expensive for cities and towns to finance programs.

Seems like tax free municipal bonds would be even better in a regime where capital gains were taxed at a higher rate than income. And I'd be OK with making the tax rates equal on capital gains and earned income. It's a damn sight better than what we've got now where certain people get rewarded with low tax rates on their labor (if you control a company, you can make most of your compensation capital gains) and others don't.

I support government funded research in principle.  Many projects are of questionable value.  Value is in the eye of the beholder grant recipient.  The government funded production is what I object to.  It was not so clever of you to include production with research.  Everyone seems to vehemently object to subsidies to the oil companies.  They should also object to government subsidies for corn to ethanol for fuel.

Of course some projects will be questionable. That's how R&D works. You often have to do some research before you figure out that a given process/technology/whatever isn't going to work out. I'd rather the government be out of that business, but the private sector refuses to play in any significant and systematic way. I also object to corn being used to produce fuel on any large scale. (it's good to have the technology available should we need it, beyond that, it's a bad idea) The subsidy was worthwhile before there were any production facilities, but now that it's an established business, the subsidies should meet their maker.

And we all know how wonderful modern white bread is.  It should be banned as a health hazard. I think you are being over encompassing to say " They're just really shitty at coming up with new stuff."

Didn't say it was tasty, only incredibly profitable for private industry. Also, at the time, it made a lot of sense. Much of the world was having trouble feeding itself at the time. The white bread recipe gets you more bread for the input relative to the previous state of the art. I'm sure the folks who had it when they didn't have much else to eat were quite happy with it.

The court of public opinion can be even worse as there cannot be a verdict to vindicate the supposed violator.

No verdict, but they are perfectly capable of being candid and releasing evidence.

[Red Arrow]

Seems like tax free municipal bonds would be even better in a regime where capital gains were taxed at a higher rate than income. And I'd be OK with making the tax rates equal on capital gains and earned income. It's a damn sight better than what we've got now where certain people get rewarded with low tax rates on their labor (if you control a company, you can make most of your compensation capital gains) and others don't.

I expect that if capital gains rates are increased that executive pay will be increased to provide an equivalent level of after tax compensation.  Of course the corporations will now deduct that increased salary cost from their income and reduce the corporate tax.

Of course some projects will be questionable. That's how R&D works. You often have to do some research before you figure out that a given process/technology/whatever isn't going to work out.

When a project is determined to not work or provide any significant increase in knowledge, it should be discontinued.

Didn't say it was tasty, only incredibly profitable for private industry. Also, at the time, it made a lot of sense. Much of the world was having trouble feeding itself at the time. The white bread recipe gets you more bread for the input relative to the previous state of the art. I'm sure the folks who had it when they didn't have much else to eat were quite happy with it.

If you are looking to fill bellies, regardless of nutrition, it works.  If you get more bread from the same amount of initial nutrition, each piece will be less nutritious unless it is enriched like"Wonder Bread".

No verdict, but they are perfectly capable of being candid and releasing evidence.

Wrong "they".  Mitt could produce everything asked of him, be innocent of any wrong doing, and still be guilty in the court of public opinion

[nathanm]

I expect that if capital gains rates are increased that executive pay will be increased to provide an equivalent level of after tax compensation.  Of course the corporations will now deduct that increased salary cost from their income and reduce the corporate tax.

Maybe, maybe not. Executive pay didn't decline, or even slow in growth, when earned income tax rates and capital gains tax rates were cut.

When a project is determined to not work or provide any significant increase in knowledge, it should be discontinued.

I don't think anyone argues otherwise. Sometimes it takes a long while to get to the point where you can say "nope, this won't work out." Sometimes political wrangling causes expensive projects to get cancelled after spending a fortune starting it. (See the Superconducting Supercollider)

[Red Arrow]

Maybe, maybe not. Executive pay didn't decline, or even slow in growth, when earned income tax rates and capital gains tax rates were cut.

No surprise there.  I still lean strongly towards executive after tax compensation not declining if the tax rates go up.  There may be isolated examples otherwise.

I don't think anyone argues otherwise.

They just find a way to appear to justify its continuance.

[nathanm]

They just find a way to appear to justify its continuance.

They seem to have a lot more trouble trying to procure things made from the research from the usual military contractors than they do with the research itself. That may be because the research is a lot less expensive than a thousand fighter jets or whatever.

[Red Arrow]

They seem to have a lot more trouble trying to procure things made from the research from the usual military contractors than they do with the research itself. That may be because the research is a lot less expensive than a thousand fighter jets or whatever.

They could tell you all the stuff procured but they'd have to kill you.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Wrong "they".  Mitt could produce everything asked of him, be innocent of any wrong doing, and still be guilty in the court of public opinion

Sounds like the flip side of the birther movement argument.  In spite of producing a real live, legal birth certificate before the election, the lunatic fringe continued it's task set down by Rupert Murdoch to keep hounding Obama about a non-issue.


John McCain saw all of Mitt's tax returns when he was vetting people for VP.  He went on to select Sarah Palin as running mate....

[Hoss]

Sounds like the flip side of the birther movement argument.  In spite of producing a real live, legal birth certificate before the election, the lunatic fringe continued it's task set down by Rupert Murdoch to keep hounding Obama about a non-issue.


John McCain saw all of Mitt's tax returns when he was vetting people for VP.  He went on to select Sarah Palin as running mate....

Said the same exact thing yesterday.

[Red Arrow]

Sounds like the flip side of the birther movement argument.  In spite of producing a real live, legal birth certificate before the election, the lunatic fringe continued it's task set down by Rupert Murdoch to keep hounding Obama about a non-issue.

So that will make them both legitimate or both not legitimate issues. 

Compare the "real live, legal birth certificate" with one tax return.  Sufficient for supporters, insufficient for the opposition.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Said the same exact thing yesterday.

I think I heard in on Letterman a few days ago...or maybe Leno??

[heironymouspasparagus]

So that will make them both legitimate or both not legitimate issues. 

Compare the "real live, legal birth certificate" with one tax return.  Sufficient for supporters, insufficient for the opposition.

I think both are legitimate issues.  The birth certificate issue was satisfied years ago.


As for the tax returns, well, I personally would tell them it's none of their business and go take a flying fart at the moon!  But the current "ground rules" - which Mitt's daddy helped establish with his past performance - pretty much demands 10 or 12 years returns be shown.  So just show 'em.