gut;1227831 wrote:While buying equity in a privately held company is highly unusual for an IRA, it's not really a tax dodge. Anyway you slice it, that's a long-term gain taxed at capital rates and when he takes distributions it is most likely taxed at capital gains rates....

Not if it's in an IRA. It has to come out of an IRA as ordinary income.

Con_Alma;1227833 wrote:Not if it's in an IRA. It has to come out of an IRA as ordinary income.

That's right. My mistake.

Although, if it were a Roth IRA the contribution could have been after-tax and then used to buy the equity share, and the distributions are then tax-free. But I don't think they had Roth IRA's back then.

Rick Santorum was right about one thing. Romney is the worst candidate they could have picked at this time. He can't really argue against obamacare. He comes off as a guy who reminds you of your boss, and unfortunately is super rich at a time when people are struggling to buy food. I do think Romney is a good guy who has been very successful in business the right way.

The Obama campaign is controlling the narrative with the help of the media no doubt. Romney has to find a way to get rid of this bain and tax return issue. Romneys only hope is the unemployment numbers staying above 8%.

I'm just pissed that after 4 yrs, this is what the Republican party came up with. I almost think they want to lose this time to get a real candidate in 2016.

I h

Con_Alma;1227802 wrote:Sure it does....if and the if was important, if it was done with in the law. At least it garners my respect, no matter who does it.

Kant? Is that you?

I Wear Pants;1227883 wrote:Kant? Is that you?

Lol well played.

Didn't Government Motors outsource some jobs as well?

Con_Alma;1227802 wrote:Sure it does....if, and the if was important, it was done within the law. At least it garners my respect, no matter who does it.

So...if Mr. Romney hid his money through legal loopholes to circumvrnt US tax laws...then you would respect him? How about those who hold their blooge in Swiss bank accounts,,,where the customers are secretly hidden from the public.

Just a theory on my part, but given the climate of those in financials over the past 4 years or so, my guess is that Romney is guilty of more things than circumventing the US tax codes.

Otherwise, he would honor the wishes of dozens...from his party...to come clean. Just obeying tax laws? Prove it, Mitt.

Most Americans...my guess well over 90% would love to see loopholes closed...especially those that directly hurt Americans. And if you don't think hiding tax liabilities in the tens of millions range doesn't hurt Americans, then a new thread needs to be started.

BoatShoes;1227819 wrote:In the state of Ohio it would be legal for Mitt Romney to divorce his wife and engage in a sexual relationship with a girl who is 16 years old. Suppose she then gets pregnant and Romney then pays for her abortion and a company he invested in eviscerates the remains but all in all the value of his stock in the company goes up because of the publicity from the event and he gets richer and is a net winner off of knocking up the high school cheerleader and paying for the abortion; also legal.

Now we know that because this type of behavior is all legal, it garners the respect of Con_Alma.

Wow, we now have the largest non-sequitur in the history of the internet - congrats Boatshoes.

If anyone thinks the IRS hasn't investigated Romney in all of his returns, there is a word for that person. Idiot.

We make a fraction of what the Romneys (or Kerrys or Clintons for that matter) do and if you have an offshore account you need to have a good accountant, we use Deloitte. The IRS will not turn its back against you. They will look at your return

Legality has nothing to do with it, politics may have something to the mouth breathers who think that its weird that a rich guy continues to be rich.

To Boatshoes' (lack of) point, I suppose if Outback Steakhouse offers a 10% coupon, Mitt Romney shouldn't use it because he's rich and should pay full price because he can. Sounds curiously like a philosophy propagated by a certain person with the initials K.M.

Manhattan Buckeye;1228375 wrote: If anyone thinks the IRS hasn't investigated Romney in all of his returns, there is a word for that person. Idiot.

We make a fraction of what the Romneys (or Kerrys or Clintons for that matter) do and if you have an offshore account you need to have a good accountant, we use Deloitte. The IRS will not turn its back against you. They will look at your return

Legality has nothing to do with it, politics may have something to the mouth breathers who think that its weird that a rich guy continues to be rich.

Amen- reps.

Huffington Post (liberal rag) is now running a story that anonymous Bain Capital sources are claiming if Romney had known he would ultimately have to release his tax returns he likely wouldn't have gone forward with his run for the Presidency. Keeping that part of his life secret is that important to him.

Apparently he was under the naive belief that this was not going to be an issue, or it was one he could just get past.

Bain has also apparently gotten a directive from the Romney camp that all information related to him is to be put on complete lockdown as there is a growing concern about the possibility of leaks the bigger the story gets and the more the pressure builds.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/18/mitt-romney-tax-returns_n_1682539.html

This issue is sucking the air out of the campaign right now, and is creating a problem that in reality doesn't exist.

I am sure there is nothing illegal in his taxes, but as long as he doesn't show them the BHO campaign can make any claim they want about what he is hiding because there is nothing to refute it or show otherwise.

The longer this goes on the more of a distraction it will be, and make it that much harder to stay on and deliver a message.

Instead of talking about the economy, we are talking about what Willard is hiding. That is a self inflicted wound and political malpractice on the part of his advisers who need to tell him to put them out and move on.

He decided he was running in 06. If he released 6 years of returns it would be enough to calm the storm, and you can bet they should be scrubbed totally clean as no one in their right mind would have run for President with anything sketchy in their immediate past.

This whole episode is a gift that BHO doesn't deserve.

Manhattan Buckeye;1228375 wrote:Wow, we now have the largest non-sequitur in the history of the internet - congrats Boatshoes.

If anyone thinks the IRS hasn't investigated Romney in all of his returns, there is a word for that person. Idiot.

.

And anyone who thinks Romney has been vetted by the IRS is virtually insane. You have no fuckin clue as to how protected the power elite are. No idea at all.

There are hundreds of top doggies in the banking sector that should have been convicted and denutted...for heisting over 15 trillion from the hard working middle class. These thugs are protected...just as Romney is protected. That's the way it works....because that is the way it is.

As for MB, another sick commentary by the resident know it all.

IggyPride00;1228421 wrote:Huffington Post (liberal rag) is now running a story that anonymous Bain Capital sources are claiming if Romney had known he would ultimately have to release his tax returns he likely wouldn't have gone forward with his run for the Presidency. Keeping that part of his life secret is that important to him.

Apparently he was under the naive belief that this was not going to be an issue, or it was one he could just get past.

Bain has also apparently gotten a directive from the Romney camp that all information related to him is to be put on complete lockdown as there is a growing concern about the possibility of leaks the bigger the story gets and the more the pressure builds.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/18/mitt-romney-tax-returns_n_1682539.html

This issue is sucking the air out of the campaign right now, and is creating a problem that in reality doesn't exist.

I am sure there is nothing illegal in his taxes, but as long as he doesn't show them the BHO campaign can make any claim they want about what he is hiding because there is nothing to refute it or show otherwise.

The longer this goes on the more of a distraction it will be, and make it that much harder to stay on and deliver a message.

Instead of talking about the economy, we are talking about what Willard is hiding. That is a self inflicted wound and political malpractice on the part of his advisers who need to tell him to put them out and move on.

He decided he was running in 06. If he released 6 years of returns it would be enough to calm the storm, and you can bet they should be scrubbed totally clean as no one in their right mind would have run for President with anything sketchy in their immediate past.

This whole episode is a gift that BHO doesn't deserve.

No shit. If his "worth" certificate were ever to be made public and the anti-American shenanigans he pulled off to get there, the wall of cards would come crashing down and Romney would be one of the most disgraced GOPers since Nixon.

Footwedge;1228423 wrote:And anyone who thinks Romney has been vetted by the IRS is virtually insane. You have no ****in clue as to how protected the power elite are. No idea at all.

There are hundreds of top doggies in the banking sector that should have been convicted and denutted...for heisting over 15 trillion from the hard working middle class. These thugs are protected...just as Romney is protected. That's the way it works....because that is the way it is.

As for MB, another sick commentary by the resident know it all.

I don't need to know it all, just more than you do (which isn't difficult). If an American has an offshore account with any type of income (usually US$200,000+ works), the IRS will perform a general overview review if not a full audit. It happened to us, and we certainly aren't on Mitt Romney's level. And contrary to popular belief you can't buy your way our of an IRS review - I know attorneys at the IRS. Most of them are good and diligent workers. Prior to '06 I would say all but I've had some run-in's with IRS agents recently.

"While buying equity in a privately held company is highly unusual for an IRA,"

Between 1998 until 2006 it wasn't at all. Smith Barney and T. Rowe Price definitely allowed IRA private placements, IIRC Fidelity did as well but was more diligent in making sure one was an accredited investor.

I should know. I'm the resident know-it-all according to Footwedge. And part of that knowledge is that one could easily invest an IRA into a private company via custodian. It happened often.

I think we should see Manhattan Buckeye tax returns. Its obvious that anyone that is rich has to be a cheat and he should be ridiculed for making money.

pmoney25;1228516 wrote:I think we should see Manhattan Buckeye tax returns. Its obvious that anyone that is rich has to be a cheat and he should be ridiculed for making money.

Pmoney and Rmoney are obviously related.

Manhattan Buckeye;1228443 wrote:I don't need to know it all, just more than you do (which isn't difficult). If an American has an offshore account with any type of income (usually US$200,000+ works), the IRS will perform a general overview review if not a full audit. It happened to us, and we certainly aren't on Mitt Romney's level. And contrary to popular belief you can't buy your way our of an IRS review - I know attorneys at the IRS. Most of them are good and diligent workers. Prior to '06 I would say all but I've had some run-in's with IRS agents recently.

All that tells me is that you haven't graduated to the next level. Keep playin the game dude....soon enough you'll be a member of "the club" that Romney belongs to. When you get there, there's not a Cayman Island or a Swiss bank account that you can't run your piles of c-notes through.

pmoney25;1228516 wrote:I think we should see Manhattan Buckeye tax returns. Its obvious that anyone that is rich has to be a cheat and he should be ridiculed for making money.

I should be ridiculed for not turning in my citizenship (I'm joking, joking) like the Facebook guy. I've probably spent US$500 or more in phone calls with the IRS over a lousy US$1,500 incorrect tax, that after one of the calls resulted in a check sent to my in-laws that they cashed which was an incorrect disbursal.

I'm trying to PAY the U.S. treasury back the $1,500. It has taken months to do it, at least a dozen of certified letters and calls to my credit card company, bank and the IRS. Guess which one has been the most difficult to deal with. But we need more government and public employees with no accountability. Got it.

Footwedge;1228248 wrote:So...if Mr. Romney hid his money through legal loopholes to circumvrnt US tax laws...then you would respect him? How about those who hold their blooge in Swiss bank accounts,,,where the customers are secretly hidden from the public.

Just a theory on my part, but given the climate of those in financials over the past 4 years or so, my guess is that Romney is guilty of more things than circumventing the US tax codes.

Otherwise, he would honor the wishes of dozens...from his party...to come clean. Just obeying tax laws? Prove it, Mitt.

Most Americans...my guess well over 90% would love to see loopholes closed...especially those that directly hurt Americans. And if you don't think hiding tax liabilities in the tens of millions range doesn't hurt Americans, then a new thread needs to be started.

I respect anyone that within the rules increases or amasses their fortune and minimizes the taxes they pay on it. Did that answer the question you asked? I can't tell.

Manhattan Buckeye;1228375 wrote:Wow, we now have the largest non-sequitur in the history of the internet - congrats Boatshoes.

If anyone thinks the IRS hasn't investigated Romney in all of his returns, there is a word for that person. Idiot.

We make a fraction of what the Romneys (or Kerrys or Clintons for that matter) do and if you have an offshore account you need to have a good accountant, we use Deloitte. The IRS will not turn its back against you. They will look at your return

Legality has nothing to do with it, politics may have something to the mouth breathers who think that its weird that a rich guy continues to be rich.

To Boatshoes' (lack of) point, I suppose if Outback Steakhouse offers a 10% coupon, Mitt Romney shouldn't use it because he's rich and should pay full price because he can. Sounds curiously like a philosophy propagated by a certain person with the initials K.M.

Apparently you don't know what a non-sequitur is. A non-sequitur would be the random anecdotes you include in your posts about your wife, etc. that make no sense and are totally unrelated to the topic at hand. My example, however was an extrapolation of the principle in which Con_Alma uses to measure whether or not someone's behavior can warrant respect and could easily fit within a traditional syllogism.

1. If Someone(Creates Wealth Within the Law) it (Deserves Respect)
2. If Someone (Knocks Up 16 Year Olds to Abort the Fetus to increase the value of the stock One owns in Fetus Disposing Company) It (Creates Wealth Within the Law)
3. Therefore (Knocking up 16 Year Olds to Abort Fetus to Increase the Value of the Stock One Owns In Fetus Disposing Company) (Deserves Respect)

It is an attempt to reduce Con_Alma's position to absurdity because with little effort one can think of ways that one might increase one's net worth within the bounds of the legal system that may not deserve respect. Therefore it is not a non-sequitur but an example of Aristotelian reasoning.

And furthermore, using an Outback Steakhouse coupon has nothing to do with being honest. One does not act disingenuously one when hands a face value valid coupon to the waitress at Chili's. A person doesn't act deceitfully if they decide to maximize their health insurance plan so as to maximize the amount of income excluded from gross income. A person doesn't act deceitfully if they decide to keep foreign earnings within a foreign corporation to defer taxation. However, knowingly or willfully valuing stock at liquidation value knowing that such value is significantly less than fair market value in order to take advantage of provisions that were intended to give middle class Americans consumption-tax treatment is dishonest.

Just because it is legal or the IRS gives it a pass does not mean it is ethical or appropriate. Abortion is legal but that does not mean it is ethical or appropriate. The IRS gave limited amnesty to the incredible number of Americans hiding their money in Swiss bank accounts. Because people could get away with limited penalties and paying them anonymously doesn't mean they might not have been wrong for hiding their money from the tax authorities.


But, as I've said before...we know from grim real world experiments that Romney's vision for the future will cause more unemployment and make our short, medium and long term debt/deficit problems worse because unfortunately economics is not a morality play and that is why people ought to vote for the mediocrity that is Obama and the democrats...not because Romney was dishonest when he made contributions to his IRA.

These Bain attacks are all Obama has really because he spent four years trying to meet Republicans in the middle who are now more extreme than ever; so extreme in fact that ideas they invented are now called socialist but alas, if it helps Obama win then carry on.

Too long, didn't read. Don't care. You blew your credibility. Are you Footwedge?

I lied, I read it. That was the strangest post I've ever seen.

No part of this made sense (I like that Boatshoes highlighted it): "However, knowingly or willfully valuing stock at liquidation value knowing that such value is significantly less than fair market value in order to take advantage of provisions that were intended to give middle class Americans consumption-tax treatment is dishonest. "

What on God's green earth are you talking about?

Manhattan Buckeye;1228916 wrote:I lied, I read it. That was the strangest post I've ever seen.

No part of this made sense (I like that Boatshoes highlighted it): "However, knowingly or willfully valuing stock at liquidation value knowing that such value is significantly less than fair market value in order to take advantage of provisions that were intended to give middle class Americans consumption-tax treatment is dishonest. "

What on God's green earth are you talking about?

Your constant condescension really makes it better when you reveal your own ignorance. I'm talking about Romney's IRA and the strategies he likely unemployed to get it up to $102 million dollars. It would be unethical for a tax attorney to advise a client to value a liquid security at liquidation value for an IRA contribution and dishonest for the client to claim that is the security's value for tax purposes.

Manhattan Buckeye;1228893 wrote:Too long, didn't read. Don't care. You blew your credibility. Are you Footwedge?

Everyone on here seems like a good guy to share a beer with in real life except you. There's just no way you're not an impossible douche in non-internetz life.

BoatShoes;1228751 wrote:...

1. If Someone(Creates Wealth Within the Law) it (Deserves Respect)
2. If Someone (Knocks Up 16 Year Olds to Abort the Fetus to increase the value of the stock One owns in Fetus Disposing Company) It (Creates Wealth Within the Law)
3. Therefore (Knocking up 16 Year Olds to Abort Fetus to Increase the Value of the Stock One Owns In Fetus Disposing Company) (Deserves Respect)

It is an attempt to reduce Con_Alma's position to absurdity because with little effort one can think of ways that one might increase one's net worth within the bounds of the legal system that may not deserve respect. Therefore it is not a non-sequitur but an example of Aristotelian reasoning.....

The type of reasoning isn't nearly as important as the fact the respect and it's earned parameters are in and of thelmsleves subjective based onthe individual.

What you may find as nauseating another may determine to be admirable.