It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

In Superrich, Clues to What Might Be in Romney's Returns

page: 1
9

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 05:33 PM
link   

In Superrich, Clues to What Might Be in Romney's Returns


[url=http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/11/business/in-the-superrich-clues-to-romneys-tax-returns-common-sense.html?pagewanted=1&_r=3]www.nytimes.com[/url ]

It so happens that this summer the Internal Revenue Service released data from the 400 individual income tax returns reporting the highest adjusted gross income. This elite ultrarich group earned on average $202 million in 2009, the latest year available. And buried in the data is the startling disclosure that six of the 400 paid no federal income tax.

The I.R.S. has never before disclosed that last fact.
(visit the link for the full news article)


edit on 12-8-2012 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 05:33 PM
link   
The title refers to Romney, but IMO this is about the tax that hte rich pay - not specifically about Romney - in fact he doesnt' even feature in the ranks of the 400 "super rich elite" that this information covers.

And there's a dichotemy here for those who pillory the rich - supposedly the USA is the land of the free where you can get super rich, and where you CAN hand down hundreds of millions to your kids, and the state SHOULD butt out of it.

So why do people then complain when this actually happens??


You cannot have it both ways - restrict people from earning mega bucks, claim to want less government, and then complain when that results in this sort of thing happening.

Also of course it may be that 2009 was an exceptional year due to eth losses incured in 208:


And that data demonstrates that many of the ultrarich can and do reduce their tax liability to very low levels, even zero. Besides the six who paid no federal income tax, the I.R.S. reported that 27 paid from zero to 10 percent of their adjusted gross incomes and another 89 paid between 10 and 15 percent, which is close to the 13.9 percent rate that Mr. Romney disclosed that he paid in 2010. (At the other end of the spectrum, 82 paid 30 to 35 percent. None paid more than 35 percent.) So more than a quarter of the people earning an average of over $200 million in 2009 paid less than 15 percent of their adjusted gross income in taxes.

How do they do it?

The data show that the ultrarich typically pay low tax rates every year, but 2009 was a special case. In 2008, people with large stock portfolios and other less liquid assets were disproportionately hit with large losses on paper. One of the oddities of the tax code is that capital gains taxes are discretionary, since they must be paid only when gains are realized. And they can be offset by losses. The silver lining in a bad year like 2008 for wealthy people is that they can “harvest” losses by selling assets, then use those losses to offset any gains. They can also carry forward the losses to offset gains in future years.


New York Times
(visit the link for the full news article)
edit on 12-8-2012 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)

edit on 12-8-2012 by Aloysius the Gaul because: more crappy typing



posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 05:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 



And there's a dichotemy here for those who pillory the rich - supposedly the USA is the land of hte free where you can get super rich, and where you cAN hand down hundreds of millions to your kids, adn the state SHOULD butt out of it.

So why do people then complain when this actually happens??

You cannot have it both ways - restrict people from earning mega bucks, claim to want less government, and then complain when that results in this sort of thing happening.

Also of course it may be that 2009 was an exceptional year due to eth losses incured in 208:


I don't have an issue with anyone being rich. It is when they use their wealth to become ABOVE THE LAW and then their family is assured a spot amongst the ruling CLASS, is what I have an issue with!

One of the reasons I find Meritocracy so interesting! It eliminates the old money from remaining in the ruling class!



posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 05:56 PM
link   
reply to post by seeker1963
 


I have a real problem with meritocracy. While I understand where the idea is coming from I don't see how anyone has the right to take someone's money away when they die. I think the best option is to raise taxes on the rich. If you're being payed 1.25 million a year you can afford to live on 800 thousand of those dollars. That's about a 30% rate and I think that it is fair to even tax income like that a little more. Also, a no-brainer, is to close tax loopholes for the rich and corporations.

I think the corporations are the biggest problem over the rich. Verizon brought in over a billion in profits a few years back and paid nothing in tax.



posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 06:32 PM
link   
reply to post by PhantomLimb
 



I have a real problem with meritocracy. While I understand where the idea is coming from I don't see how anyone has the right to take someone's money away when they die. I think the best option is to raise taxes on the rich. If you're being payed 1.25 million a year you can afford to live on 800 thousand of those dollars. That's about a 30% rate and I think that it is fair to even tax income like that a little more. Also, a no-brainer, is to close tax loopholes for the rich and corporations.

I think the corporations are the biggest problem over the rich. Verizon brought in over a billion in profits a few years back and paid nothing in tax.


I do agee with you on taking a families money is wrong, but take a look at the inheritance tax we have now. I believe they will now take 50% for this tax! What bothers me is I will bet money that the wealthy already have loopholes to avoid it! Now maybe a poor family, MIGHT for example have a life insurance policy of 50k. If the government take 50 percent, what does that leave them? Now let's look at the wealthy class. They have assets of 10 million......................................

I think if you look at Meritocracy as to getting the ruling class out of the business of RULING, that is what I find appealing about it. It seems that even though America was freed from the Monarchy, we still our under the blood rule of the same families that have been manipulating puppets for hundreds of years.



posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 06:33 PM
link   
I think you misunderstand the majority of peoples' complaints. We are not stating that we believe people should not be allowed to accumulate that much wealth. We don't have a problem with that. What we DO have a problem with is the way they acquire that wealth. It is virtually impossible in this day and age to make that kind of money without doing things that are illegal, or in some cases highly immoral. There should be laws in place that prevent the raping and pillaging of the US middle and lower class. There are quite a few issues that would have to be dealt with individually, and the fact that there are so many ways the people get screwed by the conglomeration of government and business, among other things, that it is virtually impossible to stop the corruption.



posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 06:36 PM
link   


This vid's worth repeating.

Progressive taxes are the heart of democracy going back 2500 years ago.


There's no economic gain without civilization....The greater the economic gain you've achieved from living in that civilized society the greater your duty to maintain that society with your taxes.



posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 06:38 PM
link   
reply to post by JiggyPotamus
 


do you actualy differentiate between those who acquired their wealth legally and those who did not?

Or is there a presumption of guilt?



posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 06:39 PM
link   
reply to post by seeker1963
 


You don't know tax law. Most people are never going to make enough money to be affected by federal estate taxes.
en.wikipedia.org...


For deaths occurring in 2011, up to $5,000,000 can be passed from an individual upon his or her death without incurring federal estate tax.



posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 06:44 PM
link   
reply to post by antonia
 


Thank you for correcting my ignorance!



posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 06:50 PM
link   
I already know what is in Romneys tax returns that he wont show. Its a HUGE MIDDLE FINGER to ALL American tax payers who actually PAY their FAIR SHARE percentage-wise.

And he is laughing at us middle-class folks right now while we are forced to be STUCK with the BURDEN of paying our FAIR share while he and his cronies do not pay their fair share PERCENTAGE-WISE as usual.

A HUGE middle-finger to the American Middle-class.



edit on 12-8-2012 by HangTheTraitors because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 07:48 PM
link   

A new report reveals how wealthy individuals and their families have between $21 and $32 trillion of hidden financial assets around the world in what are known as offshore accounts or tax havens. The actual sums could be higher because the study only deals with financial wealth deposited in bank and investment accounts, and not other assets such as property and yachts. The inquiry was commissioned by the Tax Justice Network and is being touted as the most comprehensive report ever on the "offshore economy." It also finds that private banks are deeply involved in running offshore havens, with UBS, Credit Suisse and Goldman Sachs handling the most assets. We’re joined by the report’s author, James Henry, a lawyer and former chief economist at McKinsey & Company


Exhaustive Study Finds Global Elite Hiding Up to $32 Trillion in Offshore Accounts


Real economists don’t do that if their goal is to assess the overall impact of the federal government on the distribution of income. Economists take into account both taxes paid to the government and transfer payments to citizens from the government. In fact the CBO Report Fleischer cites, which is prepared by trained economists and statisticians, addresses that issue squarely with a table that shows exactly that. It is called the after-tax income distribution.



According to the CBO report (Figure 6 on page 15), the after-tax-and-transfers income of the richest 20% of Americans rose between 1979 and 2009 far more than that income for the other 80%. And the most spectacular rise was for the top 1%. That’s right, the impact of the federal government’s taxes and transfer payments made the distribution of income in the US more unequal across the period. That would be the real “fairness” issue. People like Fleischer have long been repeating how awful the federal government was for “punishing success” by “taking from the rich and giving to the poor.” They abuse government reports to support such delusions. The CBO report shows the actual US government doing exactly the opposite. What better cover for such behavior than a constant barrage of phony, sleazy economics claiming to prove otherwise?


Economics as Sleaze (Blog): The Economic Crisis by Richard Wolff. Published on July 24, 2012

Pulitzer-Winning Reporting Duo Don Barlett and James Steele on "The Betrayal of the American Dream" (Part 1)



posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 09:05 PM
link   
How come we didn't hear about this when John Kerry was running 8 years ago? He is far richer than Romney...

Oh well, whatever.



posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 10:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Signals
How come we didn't hear about this when John Kerry was running 8 years ago? He is far richer than Romney...

Oh well, whatever.


Prob ably because JK released all his tax returns every time he ran for governor - so 20 years worth by the time he ran for President.

but hey - dont bother to do any research or worry about actually finding stuff out....


And of course Kerry's wife's tax returns WERE a subject of controversy whipped up by the GOP...even though she was NOT running to be POTUS!!



posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 10:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


ahem....wife = husband as far as money goes, in the good 'ol US...

The only reason anyone wants to see X amount of tax returns is to holler about how rich the guy is.

Would you rather have a community organizer in charge of your money (and future), a guy who never had a real job in his life....or a guy who knows how to turn it into more money (jobs) ?






but hey - dont bother to do any research or worry about actually finding stuff out...


Yeah, that's me....always spouting about at the mouth, never do my homework.


edit on 12-8-2012 by Signals because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 11:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Signals
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


ahem....wife = husband as far as money goes, in the good 'ol US...


Really? I thought they weer allowed to have seperate property these days - what with marriage no longer being a man owning a woman...let's see:

the communal property principle in the USE apaprently applies in 9 states, and apparently more or less says that only property gained qwhile married is actualy communal.

Otherwise it is seperate property, with various rules as to how it might become communal property where that applies.

So looks like you are still wrong.


The only reason anyone wants to see X amount of tax returns is to holler about how rich the guy is.

Would you rather have a community organizer in charge of your money (and future), a guy who never had a real job in his life....or a guy who knows how to turn it into more money (jobs) ?



So far I'd rather have the one who is prepared to show that his taxes are paid as required.

and how come you missed your own point point - which was that JK DID put his tax returns up for examination?? 20 + years worth of them, whereas you said he did not??





but hey - dont bother to do any research or worry about actually finding stuff out...


Yeah, that's me....always spouting about at the mouth, never do my homework.



2 cases in a row makes a bit of a trend......
edit on 12-8-2012 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 11:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Signals


Would you rather have a community organizer in charge of your money (and future), a guy who never had a real job in his life....or a guy who knows how to turn it into more money (jobs) ?



Community organizer yes, yet Obama had his own banker/golf partner

Robert Wolf Top UBS Exec –a major Obama campaign fundraiser and frequent golf partner
of the president raking in the dough for O campaign. Haha the pot calling the kettle.

With media reports pointing out that UBS top executives was also one of the
Obama campaign’s top bundlers — So Obama has his hands in deep pockets.

In fact, Obama has bundles ( yes, of money ) and bundlers!


a word that one UBS executive said “makes people’s hair
stand on end” inside the bank — the Swiss banking giant
has decided to take an unusual step.

The bank’s powerful group executive board in Zurich recently presented Mr. Wolf with
an edict directing him to report all his media inquiries to the firm’s press office. Since then,
most of the requests to speak to Mr. Wolf have been rejected, according to people briefed
on the situation, resulting in a much dimmer limelight for Mr. Wolf.


freebeacon.com...


Rezko eat your heart out!

Who is crying now....


Obama has his own Swiss Bankers
edit on 12-8-2012 by burntheships because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 11:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
The title refers to Romney, but IMO this is about the tax that hte rich pay - not specifically about Romney - in fact he doesnt' even feature in the ranks of the 400 "super rich elite" that this information covers.

And there's a dichotemy here for those who pillory the rich - supposedly the USA is the land of the free where you can get super rich, and where you CAN hand down hundreds of millions to your kids, and the state SHOULD butt out of it.

So why do people then complain when this actually happens??


You cannot have it both ways - restrict people from earning mega bucks, claim to want less government, and then complain when that results in this sort of thing happening.

Also of course it may be that 2009 was an exceptional year due to eth losses incured in 208:


And that data demonstrates that many of the ultrarich can and do reduce their tax liability to very low levels, even zero. Besides the six who paid no federal income tax, the I.R.S. reported that 27 paid from zero to 10 percent of their adjusted gross incomes and another 89 paid between 10 and 15 percent, which is close to the 13.9 percent rate that Mr. Romney disclosed that he paid in 2010. (At the other end of the spectrum, 82 paid 30 to 35 percent. None paid more than 35 percent.) So more than a quarter of the people earning an average of over $200 million in 2009 paid less than 15 percent of their adjusted gross income in taxes.

How do they do it?

The data show that the ultrarich typically pay low tax rates every year, but 2009 was a special case. In 2008, people with large stock portfolios and other less liquid assets were disproportionately hit with large losses on paper. One of the oddities of the tax code is that capital gains taxes are discretionary, since they must be paid only when gains are realized. And they can be offset by losses. The silver lining in a bad year like 2008 for wealthy people is that they can “harvest” losses by selling assets, then use those losses to offset any gains. They can also carry forward the losses to offset gains in future years.


New York Times
(visit the link for the full news article)
edit on 12-8-2012 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)

edit on 12-8-2012 by Aloysius the Gaul because: more crappy typing


I agree that this is the country where you can become millionairs.
I disagree that this is the country where that all but the upper 400 richest people don't
have to follow the same
rules that the rest of the americans do. By that I mean that if any average citizen is made to show tax
records, banking records and any other papers of where the money made came
from or where it went, then so should the 400 richest people should follow the same rules.
Think about it, there are 10 yr old kids that have their lemonade, hotdog stands
shut down and the parents
fined for making $10 in a week. On the other hand the top wealthy dont have
to show how much they made or where it was made; THAT IS NOT RIGHT !!!!!
edit on 12-8-2012 by cutnshoot84 because: edited to add my statement



posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 11:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 





whereas you said he did not??


Please quote where I said that....

Yep, didn't think so.

The entire premise of your thread follows the only argument your candidate can come up with.

Wouldn't want to discuss his record, would we?



Romney is mega-rich we all know this, your enemy is the rich, that is obvious.

Maybe we get another 4 years of hand-outs and entitlements, then you will be closer to achieving justice.

Justice for successful people being successful.

After all, they didn't build that, somebody else did.




posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 12:25 AM
link   
reply to post by seeker1963
 


Believe it or not, this type of thing has happened before. The difference is that before, the lower class was able to finally gain access to the higher class world (to the displeasure of many, of course). You know what happened? The lower class people who demanded equal treatment began to shut out the rest of the lower class, because they felt they were no longer one of "them." It's all about selfish greed. It persists throughout human history, and will continue to be evident.

By the way, I'm talking about Ancient Rome, a society which America seems to reflect on many levels.




top topics



 
9

log in

join