Welcome to PatsFans.com

Romney's rate Really Around 30% due to double Taxation.

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by IcyPatriot, Aug 21, 2012.

  1. IcyPatriot

    IcyPatriot ---- JAG ----- PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    36,497
    Likes Received:
    18
    Ratings:
    +25 / 1 / -0

    #87 Jersey

    The left is not going to be happy ... and what of the tax threads already here ... if true will some apologize and stand corrected ... let the blood letting begin.

    Mitt Romney Paid 30%, Not 13% In Federal Income Taxes - Forbes

    Last edited: Aug 21, 2012
  2. KDPPatsfan85

    KDPPatsfan85 Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2008
    Messages:
    2,294
    Likes Received:
    12
    Ratings:
    +12 / 1 / -0

    #51 Jersey

    Liberals: "Forbes is a right wing website. Romney didn't pay taxes for 10 years. BLAH BLAH BLAH"
  3. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,235
    Likes Received:
    16
    Ratings:
    +17 / 0 / -3

    The point about double taxation is correct.
  4. chicowalker

    chicowalker Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    12,385
    Likes Received:
    15
    Ratings:
    +25 / 0 / -0

    It is not "correct," it is a possibility -- an estimate based on assumptions that could well be wrong. A reasonable argument would be that the tax rate paid by Bain investments would have been below the average corporate rate because Bain, like most private equity firms, would have structured its deals to reduce taxes and to avoid double taxation as much as possible -- something that is easier for private companies with fewer shareholders than it is for public companies.

    There certainly was double taxation, but the magnitude could have been very low -- easily could have been single digits rather than 25%
  5. IcyPatriot

    IcyPatriot ---- JAG ----- PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    36,497
    Likes Received:
    18
    Ratings:
    +25 / 1 / -0

    #87 Jersey

    Chico the point is that 13% is the lowest and go up from there ...
    the premise that the guy is a criminal or felon or tax cheat or any of the things Obama has accused him of is wrong. Now if one wants to say he should have paid more ... well fine ... that's another topic. But the guy is not a tax cheat.
  6. chicowalker

    chicowalker Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    12,385
    Likes Received:
    15
    Ratings:
    +25 / 0 / -0

    Has Obama accused him of being a tax cheat?

    As for 13% being the low point -- yes, of course. But the title is not correct, 13's claim that the analysis was "correct" was wrong, and the 25% estimate isn't as reasonable as the author made it out to be.
    Last edited: Aug 21, 2012
  7. IcyPatriot

    IcyPatriot ---- JAG ----- PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    36,497
    Likes Received:
    18
    Ratings:
    +25 / 1 / -0

    #87 Jersey

    There's to much to copy and paste there ... the article ends this way.

  8. Patradomous

    Patradomous Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2007
    Messages:
    2,718
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -1

    #87 Jersey

    Don't worry if Obamas IRS had something on Romney it would be out there by now.
    What Obamas media would do under full disclosure is find out that Romney had invested in some company that had 10% ownership by a known KKK and NAMBLA member who was funded by a drug lord with child slaves. And this would be the new narrative when it was proven that Romneys taxes were in order.
    Just another distraction game that the leftwing children fall for over and over again.
  9. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,235
    Likes Received:
    16
    Ratings:
    +17 / 0 / -3

    The tax thing will continue Obama can't talk about the economy and unemployment so the freak show will continue.
  10. chicowalker

    chicowalker Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    12,385
    Likes Received:
    15
    Ratings:
    +25 / 0 / -0

    So the author acknowledges that the estimates may be off but still fails to point out that many companies and transactions are structured in tax-advantageous ways and writes off ctiricism of his assumptions as "quibbling."

    Look, if your point is simply that the effective tax rate on the earnings was somewhere above 13%, fine -- you're absolutely correct. But the article and a conclusion that the rate was really around 30% is flawed.

Share This Page