Dem Lawmakers Want Answers About Romney’s Enormous IRA

page: 1
20
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
+2 more 
posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 09:48 PM
link   

Leading House Democrats want to turn Mitt Romney’s enormous IRA into more than just a political problem.

Romney’s most recent financial disclosure form revealed that his tax-deferred individual retirement account holds upwards of $100 million — an amount that awkwardly showcases his enormous wealth but also raises legal and ethical questions.

IRAs are intended to allow workers to put away modest sums of money each year in order to help finance a middle class retirement. The savings are tax deferred, but there’s a legal limit — now $6,000 — on how much each IRA holder can contribute annually.

link

Is this more dishonesty from Romney? How can a person amass $100 million in a IRA when your only allowed by law to contribute $6000 a year? Democrat lawmakers wish to know how Romney was able to do this and they could subpena his tax records to find out.

Yet more financial issues with Romney.
edit on 4-8-2012 by LDragonFire because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 10:01 PM
link   
There is no income restriction on a traditional IRA and as I understand it no cap on investing like a Roth IRA.
edit on 4-8-2012 by Domo1 because: (no reason given)


I think I was wrong about this.
edit on 4-8-2012 by Domo1 because: (no reason given)




edit on 4-8-2012 by Domo1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 10:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by LDragonFire
Is this more dishonesty from Romney? How can a person amass $100 million in a IRA when your only allowed by law to contribute $6000 a year? Democrat lawmakers wish to know how Romney was able to do this and they could subpena his tax records to find out.

Yet more financial issues with Romney.


While it would be in his growing best interest to disclose his finances (it is a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation in my opinion), the premise here is a bit misleading.

So the IRA is worth 100 million, but they are trying to tie that to the contribution limit. This is disingenuous as its best and political pandering at its lowest. IRA or Individual Retirement Accounts started in 1974. While the contribution amount has risen from $1500 to $5000 (as of 2011), it should also be noted that transferring assets between IRAs is not against the law.

It should also be note that maybe Mitt Romney made wise investments with his IRA and is enjoying the fruits of those investments, making the worth of that IRA $100 million.

Of course, this attacks the narrative....so eat it up sheep....and than count your brethren while you sleep.

Edit to add:

Even if Romney was taking advantage of a tax-loophole; remember this -- he wasn't the only one given that opportunity nor the only one who took it. He also wasn't the Representative who allowed it into the tax-code.
edit on 4-8-2012 by ownbestenemy because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 10:27 PM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 





Edit to add: Even if Romney was taking advantage of a tax-loophole; remember this -- he wasn't the only one given that opportunity nor the only one who took it. He also wasn't the Representative who allowed it into the tax-code.


Interesting little caveat... Seems to tie directly into the big business - banking paradigm.

The equivalent of mirroring mobsters because extorting from myriad patrons pays off.
edit on 4-8-2012 by Americanist because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 10:32 PM
link   
OK, I may be simple-minded, but does anyone believe that this administration's IRS isn't poring over every comma on Romney's returns? If there is the slightest thing wrong it will be announced when Obama thinks it will do the most harm.

If there's a problem there, you'll certainly know about it, don't worry. And you'll know about it before the election.



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 10:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Americanist
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 





Edit to add: Even if Romney was taking advantage of a tax-loophole; remember this -- he wasn't the only one given that opportunity nor the only one who took it. He also wasn't the Representative who allowed it into the tax-code.


Interesting little caveat... Seems to tie directly into the big business - banking paradigm.

The equivalent of mirroring mobsters because extorting from myriad patrons pays off.


I am not advocating it is right by ethical means but I "take-a-penny" because it is there and easier to use than dig through my pockets or break a dollar. While not quite the same, it is a rule/law in place that was made by our Representatives and yet we want to only tar and feather those who use the rules they are presented......

Class warfare...wealth envy....they are all the same. The real culprits is an anemic and idiotic society that continues to vote in clowns (even while wrangling their fists in fury over their policies) that perpetuate these types of tax loopholes.



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 10:37 PM
link   
reply to post by LDragonFire
 


Yeah, but we have a lot of dirty linen from the other guy to be aired first?
Frankly, I don't care if they roast him. That will entice their boys to really go public with Obama's many secrets a great deal of which deal with his personal history and ideology which are directly important to him being our leader. So let the airing begin.



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 10:40 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


This wouldn't be the first time that a politician has used the IRS nor the last to gain politically. I believe there were many stories of the Clinton's and their use of the IRS to project their power/influence (though I believe a bit thin).



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 10:55 PM
link   
reply to post by LDragonFire
 





Mitt Romney’s enormous IRA


This is the best we can get from obama's minions? Hey obama, why don't you try running on your record? Oh, that's right, you have none. . . well except for playing golf which I see you got another game in today. All I see with Mr. Romney is a man that knows how to make and invest money and after three and a half years of obamas fumbling that's exactly what we need.
Now why aren't the lawmakers just as concerned about what obamas hiding with Fast & Furious?



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 11:03 PM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 





Class warfare...wealth envy....they are all the same. The real culprits is an anemic and idiotic society that continues to vote in clowns (even while wrangling their fists in fury over their policies) that perpetuate these types of tax loopholes.


In other words... Institutions behind the manipulation of our electoral college while at the same time utilizing clever accounting weigh more heavily than society.

Got it... Loud and clear.



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 11:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chance321
Now why aren't the lawmakers just as concerned about what obamas hiding with Fast & Furious?


I will agree with this point. Between the Republican's renaming post-offices to both sides basically doing nothing about Fast & Furious -- on down the line to the multitude of problems that both sides have decided aren't important.

But all of a sudden vetting a person's wealth is a new requirement to become President. The People can call for it and demand it and not vote for those who do not; but the State or Federal Government? Show me the requirements to be President of the United States of America to fully disclose your life.

The system is great but the people occupying it are an utter joke and it all comes back to the People. Lazy and utterly disconnected.



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 11:06 PM
link   
Came across this article on Romney's $100 million IRA.

Mitt Romney's IRA (spencerlawfirm.com)


A former Bain Capital partner said that Bain Capital had a 401(k) plan that allowed employees to invest in its deals. Romney's 401(k) was rolled over to his IRA. Apparently the IRA has holdings in Bain Capital, the private equity firm Romney helped to start. Private equity is equity capital that is not quoted on a public stock exchange. It consists of investors and funds that make investments directly into private companies or conduct buyouts of public companies that result in a delisting of public equity.

(...)

Some expert commentators speculate that Mr. Romney uses a strategy involving offshore funds to avoid UBIT. He could have had the IRA invest through an offshore affiliate of the private-equity firm, known as an offshore blocker corporation, which in turn invests the same money in the private-equity partnership. The tax is avoided because the IRA technically is investing in the offshore corporation, not in a private-equity partnership.


So his IRA may have some connection to his offshore accounts/shell corporations.



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 11:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Americanist
In other words... Institutions behind the manipulation of our electoral college while at the same time utilizing clever accounting weigh more heavily than society.

Got it... Loud and clear.


Representatives do not hide behind an electoral college. Since the 17th Amendment, we have had a "popular" legislature. One that has given us: the Fed, Social Security, abdicated "war powers", etc.

So I am not sure what exactly you "got" that is "loud and clear".



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 11:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Blackmarketeer
 

Dear Blackmarketeer,

Nice find.
A good explanation of how it could have happened, thanks. I didn't notice anything in the article indicating he did anything illegal or unethical, so I'm tempted to give him a pass on this issue.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 11:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blackmarketeer
So his IRA may have some connection to his offshore accounts/shell corporations.


I want to see the truth behind it but so far it is all speculation....perpetuated by the great "denier" of ignorance of ATS....

Is this the same Bain connection that Ried is using for his unfounded claims -- made from the Senate floor (what a great utilization of our legislature by the way).

I am not going to defend Romney but I will stand up against baseless claims until evidence proves otherwise.

Here is an example: An ATS memeber told me that So-and-So, also a member of the site, has an IRA that may or may not be linked to dubious offshore accounts. I cannot give you specifics nor tell you who the source is, but trust me on this one, I don't like the other guy's attitude.
edit on 4-8-2012 by ownbestenemy because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 11:34 PM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


That was an explanation by a law firm on how an IRA could have reached $100 million. Mitt Romney sure didn't do it by maxing out his contribution level (which would take somewhere in the neighborhood of 70,000 years to reach that amount). As the firm stated, Bain could have tied their IRA to their investments which used an offshore corporation to invest the funds (sans taxes) back into the IRA's. They didn;t say for a fact that was what happened, only one way that it could have. They also say information about the firm's IRA practices came from a Bain employee.

By the way, the reason their is a limit on individual contributions to an IRA, since they are tax deductible, is to limit them from being used as tax shelters by guy's like Mitt Romney. But considering his IRA is worth $100 million, we can rest assured he found some way past that pesky legal limit.
edit on 4-8-2012 by Blackmarketeer because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 11:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by ownbestenemy

Originally posted by Americanist
In other words... Institutions behind the manipulation of our electoral college while at the same time utilizing clever accounting weigh more heavily than society.

Got it... Loud and clear.


Representatives do not hide behind an electoral college. Since the 17th Amendment, we have had a "popular" legislature. One that has given us: the Fed, Social Security, abdicated "war powers", etc.

So I am not sure what exactly you "got" that is "loud and clear".


Substitute corporations for representatives. Crystal clear.



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 11:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Blackmarketeer
 

Dear Blackmarketeer,

I think I agree with you completely. One tiny nit to pick, all we know is that the value of his IRA is between $20.7 million and $101 million. Not that it changes the discussion much.

I'm probably naive, but if this firm can describe a legal way to shuffle money around, I'm sure Romney's advisors found one too.

I was relieved to hear that in 2017 he would have to start drawing money from his IRA and those withdrawls would be taxed at 35%. Looks like he's going to have to pay one way or the other. Of course, another way around that is to donate it to charity. As the article stated, he's been very generous in the past.

A fascinating lesson, and I learned a lot. Thanks.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 12:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by Blackmarketeer
 

Dear Blackmarketeer,

I think I agree with you completely. One tiny nit to pick, all we know is that the value of his IRA is between $20.7 million and $101 million. Not that it changes the discussion much.

I'm probably naive, but if this firm can describe a legal way to shuffle money around, I'm sure Romney's advisors found one too.

I was relieved to hear that in 2017 he would have to start drawing money from his IRA and those withdrawls would be taxed at 35%. Looks like he's going to have to pay one way or the other. Of course, another way around that is to donate it to charity. As the article stated, he's been very generous in the past.

A fascinating lesson, and I learned a lot. Thanks.

With respect,
Charles1952




Plenty of time to establish your own charitable foundation with friends and family as salaried board members.



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 12:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blackmarketeer
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


That was an explanation by a law firm on how an IRA could have reached $100 million. Mitt Romney sure didn't do it by maxing out his contribution level (which would take somewhere in the neighborhood of 70,000 years to reach that amount).


While I agree with it would have taken much longer, if we are to base it purely upon contributions and not compounded interest and market value, that figure isn't reported based of any of that except "contribution". I find that baseless reporting and designed for one reason; political gain.





new topics
top topics
 
20
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join