I've done that in the past, too - pretty standard stuff.

Except this is a highly political year and, as we've read 500 gajillion times, Romney has excellent investment advisors who have managed to lower his effective tax rate below the politically-correct level.

========

I wonder if his effective tax rate THIS time was so low that his =political= advisors told him it would be ill-advised to file his taxes until he got his tax advisors to find a way to RAISE his effective rate?

That would be funny, wouldn't it?

4 more years, II Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I've done that in the past, too - pretty standard
> stuff.
>
> Except this is a highly political year and, as
> we've read 500 gajillion times, Romney has
> excellent investment advisors who have managed to
> lower his effective tax rate below the
> politically-correct level.
>
> ========
>
> I wonder if his effective tax rate THIS time was
> so low that his =political= advisors told him it
> would be ill-advised to file his taxes until he
> got his tax advisors to find a way to RAISE his
> effective rate?
>
> That would be funny, wouldn't it?


More politics of hate from the left.

Why the hell does somebody running for President need to file for an extension?

WTF???

If Obomney can't get his financial affairs in order why the hell do I want Obomney managing the federal budget?

4 more years, II Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I've done that in the past, too - pretty standard
> stuff.
>
> Except this is a highly political year and, as
> we've read 500 gajillion times, Romney has
> excellent investment advisors who have managed to
> lower his effective tax rate below the
> politically-correct level.
>
> ========
>
> I wonder if his effective tax rate THIS time was
> so low that his =political= advisors told him it
> would be ill-advised to file his taxes until he
> got his tax advisors to find a way to RAISE his
> effective rate?
>
> That would be funny, wouldn't it?


I'm sure he just wants to make sure he's going with the current trend.......pay at a lower rate than his secretary.

Vexxxed Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm sure he just wants to make sure he's going
> with the current trend.......pay at a lower rate
> than his secretary.

Nah, he already did that - NOW he wants to come in above there so he can tout it, or at least refute dem accusations, during the campaign.

He'll wait to see what a Obama's tax return looks like and then make his a copy of that.

IRS Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> He'll wait to see what a Obama's tax return looks
> like and then make his a copy of that.

I figured if it actually WAS extended for political reasons they (not he - he's clueless) wanted to raise his rate to something roughly 15%-ish - it's real unlikely they can get it up to 20%-ish that Obama's is.

The problem for Romney is two-fold - he hasn't released very much tax info at all and (2) a lot of tax stuff is based off prior years' meanderings and ALL those prior years are pretty much pre-idea-of-Presidency for him - I =easily= can picture his tax advisors/lawyers getting him a tax rate well into the single digits, given his last one of, what?, 12%-ish?

If so, he makes Obama's case even better than Obama could.

4 more years, II Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> IRS Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > He'll wait to see what a Obama's tax return
> looks
> > like and then make his a copy of that.
>
> I figured if it actually WAS extended for
> political reasons they (not he - he's clueless)
> wanted to raise his rate to something roughly
> 15%-ish - it's real unlikely they can get it up to
> 20%-ish that Obama's is.
>
> The problem for Romney is two-fold - he hasn't
> released very much tax info at all and (2) a lot
> of tax stuff is based off prior years' meanderings
> and ALL those prior years are pretty much
> pre-idea-of-Presidency for him - I =easily= can
> picture his tax advisors/lawyers getting him a tax
> rate well into the single digits, given his last
> one of, what?, 12%-ish?
>
> If so, he makes Obama's case even better than
> Obama could.


Where's Obama's school papers? Where's his grades? Never released. All his school records, including elementary schools in Indonesia have been sealed. Obama's never worked a private industry job in his life. He has no idea how capitalism and a free market works. Obama's case is that successful people are bad and should be punished. What a shitty case to make.

The Obama's sheltered almost $50K in income by each giving $12K to each of their daughters. El Presidente pays a lower rate than his secretary (20% vs. 23%) by using tax dodges and shelters. The Great Divider is no better than Romney in taking advantage of the tax code to shelter money. All you blind sheep that think he's trying to protect you are idiots. He wants money to feed his government machine and pay off his political supporters and buddies. He's just a typical politician. Baaaaaaaah goes the sheeple.

As long as the government throws million dollar parties in Las Vegas for useless bureaucrats then my rate should be 0%.

1040EZ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> sheltered almost $50K in income by each giving $12K to each of their daughters.

That is indeed a fantastic way to build a child's nest egg - if you can do that for you kids I heartily recomend it.

Note, however, that "the Obamas" themselves, of course, didn't save any taxes since they already paid income taxes before the donation to their kids - their KIDS, however, saved on income tax on the almost-$50K - the kids will, of course, still pay taxes on the returns that their money makes (how MUCH taxes, of course, is EXACTLY the real side-topic of this thread!).

Romney's extension is probably to keep from Obama's return release being a news item and compared to his.

Romney is going to have trouble explaining some of his tax shelters. Democrats have been waiting with baited breath for Romneys tax returns.

Eventually the returns will be public. I think it plays better for Obama that Romney is delaying releasing his returns. Now the returns will be released closer to the election.


Romney's Tax returns will just be another nail in the coffin for his campaign.

4 more years, II Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Vexxxed Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I'm sure he just wants to make sure he's going
> > with the current trend.......pay at a lower
> rate
> > than his secretary.
>
> Nah, he already did that - NOW he wants to come in
> above there so he can tout it, or at least refute
> dem accusations, during the campaign.

I think you're confusing Romney with the Cheeseburger twins in Paradise.

Buffet and Obama.

What is lost on everyone is not how much people should pay but how much the government needs to operate without raising taxes. The purpose of taxes is to pay for government operation not as some sort of punishment system against the successful.

west end Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What is lost on everyone is not how much people
> should pay but how much the government needs to
> operate without raising taxes. The purpose of
> taxes is to pay for government operation not as
> some sort of punishment system against the
> successful.

I agree it should not be as punishment against the successful., but why does it consistently seem the more money you make, provides you the ability to disproportionally lessen your tax burden , and the less money you make the larger your tax burden.

I have never understood the idea that the folks with the least should pay the most( relative to income)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/15/2012 04:16PM by Take a Stand.

The purpose of taxes is to pay for government operation not as some sort of punishment system against the successful.

yeah,,,only punish the moderately successful,,,

Loan money to WALL ST @ 0% so they can pay out bonuses to the criminals that destroyed our economy, and give oil companies with record profits tax shelters and subsidies,,

along with all the other too numerous to name tax benefits the wealthiest businesses enjoy,,,

It's not just unfair to the majority of Americans, it's obscene,,,


Our progessive tax rate system has turned into a regressive tax rate system that punishes small business owners and middle income earners,,,

Can't wait to send my check out tomorrow,,,bye bye money,I'll miss you,,,

Hatemotor Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The purpose of taxes is to pay for government
> operation not as some sort of punishment system
> against the successful.
>
> yeah,,,only punish the moderately successful,,,
>
> Loan money to WALL ST @ 0% so they can pay out
> bonuses to the criminals that destroyed our
> economy, and give oil companies with record
> profits tax shelters and subsidies,,
>
> along with all the other too numerous to name tax
> benefits the wealthiest businesses enjoy,,,
>
> It's not just unfair to the majority of Americans,
> it's obscene,,,
>
>
> Our progessive tax rate system has turned into a
> regressive tax rate system that punishes small
> business owners and middle income earners,,,
>
> Can't wait to send my check out tomorrow,,,bye bye
> money,I'll miss you,,,


http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer

Take a Stand Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> west end Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > What is lost on everyone is not how much people
> > should pay but how much the government needs to
> > operate without raising taxes. The purpose of
> > taxes is to pay for government operation not as
> > some sort of punishment system against the
> > successful.
>
> I agree it should not be as punishment against the
> successful., but why does it consistently seem the
> more money you make, provides you the ability to
> disproportionally lessen your tax burden , and the
> less money you make the larger your tax burden.
>
> I have never understood the idea that the folks
> with the least should pay the most( relative to
> income)


Me either, because it isn't true.

http://dmarron.com/2011/07/27/why-do-half-of-americans-pay-no-federal-income-tax/

4 more years, II Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 1040EZ Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > sheltered almost $50K in income by each giving
> $12K to each of their daughters.
>
> That is indeed a fantastic way to build a child's
> nest egg - if you can do that for you kids I
> heartily recomend it.
>
> Note, however, that "the Obamas" themselves, of
> course, didn't save any taxes since they already
> paid income taxes before the donation to their
> kids - their KIDS, however, saved on income tax on
> the almost-$50K - the kids will, of course, still
> pay taxes on the returns that their money makes
> (how MUCH taxes, of course, is EXACTLY the real
> side-topic of this thread!).


Wrong sheeple. They get to deduct that money from their taxes, which they have been doing for years. Gifts for education are deductable. Perhaps if you had a job and paid taxes you'd know stuff like that. Baaaaaaaaaah

Take a Stand Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> west end Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > What is lost on everyone is not how much people
> > should pay but how much the government needs to
> > operate without raising taxes. The purpose of
> > taxes is to pay for government operation not as
> > some sort of punishment system against the
> > successful.
>
> I agree it should not be as punishment against the
> successful., but why does it consistently seem the
> more money you make, provides you the ability to
> disproportionally lessen your tax burden , and the
> less money you make the larger your tax burden.
>
> I have never understood the idea that the folks
> with the least should pay the most( relative to
> income)


48% of income earners paid ZERO federal income taxes and almost everyone of them was because they fell below the threshold of earnings. Is that too high a burden. Many of them actually get money back that they didn't pay in because they qualify for the EITC. Is that too high a burden. The highest 5% of wage earners pay 37% of federal income taxes. Is that too high a burden? You, like most uninformed slack-jawed doofites on this forum don't know jack.

Actually, tax deductions for mortgages, children and the elderly account for a large part of that 48%,,,

And it doesn't keep the states from taxing people living well below the poverty line,,

But keep beating that tired talking point into the ground,,your fellow Americans are all evil, free cheese eating communists,,,

just another fat cat in washington, that's what I say..

1040EZ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ..They get to deduct that money from their taxes, which
> they have been doing for years...

Incorrect.

The gift to the kids is post-tax for the parents, untaxed for the kids.

http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=108139,00.html#4

At best, you are confused between gifts and education.

Here's some numbers for you liberal shitheads......

Latest head to head polls

Rasmussen
Romney 48
Obama 44

FoxNews Dynamic (first time Romeny has been ahead in this poll)
Romney 46
Obama 44

The right will continue to coalesce around Romney. The GOP superpacs will now start turning their attention to Obama and not each other. And Romney starts out ahead. GOP continues to lead the Congressional Generic Ballot (for only the 3rd time in 50 years). Things are looking craptastic for you liberal douches and your shit for brains dear leader. Have a nice day.