The Dow is down 300.

Two totally separate arguments going on here. Income is income, deductions and exemptions are another. The upper income brackets have their deductions and the lower income brackets have theirs.
So nobody is going to weigh in here and say Robme would never file an adjusted tax return to benefit his tax situation? I would if I were in his shoes.

I thought we were talking about taxes and what's fair and not fair. How one income is different than another, because that's what it comes down to. How is it any different if someone pays less taxees than I if it is because they have more kids, or made the money by certain legal means. It still boils down to someone not paying their fair share. I can give those that make more a small pass considering they pay a higher percentage so their dollar amount is still greater.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian GC

Warren Buffet has already said this is not true in his many decades of experience. He said he has never seen a corporation pass on a business opportunity because of the taxes that would be assessed.

---

That's neither here nor there. You are talking about what a profitable business will do in spite of obstacles, not because of them. Punishment does not push businesses to profitability so much as it gets in the way of it.

Quote:

---

If that is all Romney has done he would release more than two years of amended taxes. Using your church to avoid paying taxes is legal, but is it moral? Mormons live by their own set of secret rules and morals.

---

With all the misrepresentation, straw man arguments, and demagoguery by Obama and his handlers, I'd keep all my affairs as private as possible, no matter how perfect and above board they might be, just to avoid all the negative chatter and the consequent needless time and effort wasted in justifying things that would otherwise need no justification.

When liars are in the habit of attacking people who have a habit of telling the truth, the best thing a truth-teller can do for himself is keep his mouth shut.

If a few more Republicans understood this, they would have seats in Congress right now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by netsalt

This is how taxes were structured before, with long term and short term capital gains. I would be more favorable to the idea of long term capital gains with a longer period than one year, possibly 3 to 5 years.

---

What you seem to forget it is a double tax,Once at the company level and again on dividends and capital gains!

Yes, yesterday was most unkind to the stock market. Uncertainty again rears its ugly head.
On a happier note, today is marginally better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Space Racer

That's neither here nor there. You are talking about what a profitable business will do in spite of obstacles, not because of them. Punishment does not push businesses to profitability so much as it gets in the way of it.



With all the misrepresentation, straw man arguments, and demagoguery by Obama and his handlers, I'd keep all my affairs as private as possible, no matter how perfect and above board they might be, just to avoid all the negative chatter and the consequent needless time and effort wasted in justifying things that would otherwise need no justification.

When liars are in the habit of attacking people who have a habit of telling the truth, the best thing a truth-teller can do for himself is keep his mouth shut.

If a few more Republicans understood this, they would have seats in Congress right now.

---

I realize you will defend Romney till the cows come home but I have one question. If you discovered that Romney used the tax free umbrella of his church to avoid paying income tax would you hold him accountable for that? Is that acceptable to you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian GC

I realize you will defend Romney till the cows come home but I have one question. If you discovered that Romney used the tax free umbrella of his church to avoid paying income tax would you hold him accountable for that? Is that acceptable to you?

---

I can't say yes or no to that question. I wouldn't presume to judge him before I knew the facts.

I would have to have a good understanding of church procedures and I would need to know a little more about Romney's charitable motivation.

I am much more impressed with Romney now than I was during the Republican debates. I have no reason to doubt his sincerity, his integrity, and his humility. I think he fought an honest fight, give or take a few dumb comments, and I think he kept it all above board, which is far more than I can say for Obama.

If I was in a car accident and bleeding to death, I would much rather have Romney try to save my life than Obama.

I wouldn't even trust Obama to call an ambulance. He would have to talk to one of his handlers first and decide whether it suited his public image.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Space Racer

I can't say yes or no to that question. I wouldn't presume to judge him before I knew the facts.

I would have to have a good understanding of church procedures and I would need to know a little more about Romney's charitable motivation.

I am much more impressed with Romney now than I was during the Republican debates. I have no reason to doubt his sincerity, his integrity, and his humility. I think he fought an honest fight, give or take a few dumb comments, and I think he kept it all above board, which is far more than I can say for Obama.

If I was in a car accident and bleeding to death, I would much rather have Romney try to save my life than Obama.

I wouldn't even trust Obama to call an ambulance. He would have to talk to one of his handlers first and decide whether it suited his public image.

---

I also have a higher regard for Romney both personally and professionally than Obama. But just as you’d like the democrats to hold Obama accountable for his non-transparency, the same should be expected of Romney supporters. It’s a shame it doesn’t work that way. They both protect their man’s skeletons.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian GC

I also have a higher regard for Romney both personally and professionally than Obama. But just as you’d like the democrats to hold Obama accountable for his non-transparency, the same should be expected of Romney supporters. It’s a shame it doesn’t work that way. They both protect their man’s skeletons.

---

Well, I don't need an X-ray machine. I've seen enough.

I'm not a birther. Nor do I care much about tax returns, unless I have good reason to suspect that someone is a slimeball. But I do think it's fair to require a general understanding of the candidates' educational backgrounds.

That point has been much discussed, thus the Founders using the Electoral College...
But again, the problem is still the same, anyone can vote without excersizing due diligence. Those that did not do so didn't have anything to lose anyway, except stamps.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian GC

I would think taking it out, paying the tax on it in real time, and using it for venture capital would stimulate the economy far better than leaving in the bank for them to loan out and make their interest on. Heck, taking it out to buy toasters, TV’s and vacations would stimulate the economy better than leaving it in.

---

For each dollar the bank has on deposit, it can loan nine. This is because the US has a 10% reserve requirement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserve_requirement
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional-reserve_banking

This 10% reserve requirement is one of the reasons why there is so much easy (deflated) money in our economy. It also helps to explain the size of the gap between rich and poor.

For comparison, Brazil has a 20% reserve requirement. This means for each dollar it has on deposit, a Brazilian bank is only allowed to loan four! This one of the reasons why Brazil's economy is so much sounder than ours.

Of course, there's a lot more to this, and I haven't connected the dots, but I'm not about to start a course on fractional reserve banking in this thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Space Racer

For each dollar the bank has on deposit,
it can loan nine. This is because the US has a 10% reserve requirement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserve_requirement
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional-reserve_banking

This 10% reserve requirement is one of the reasons why there is so much easy (deflated) money in our economy. It also helps to explain the size of the gap between rich and poor.

For comparison, Brazil has a 20% reserve requirement. This means for each dollar it has on deposit, a Brazilian bank is only allowed to loan four! This one of the reasons why Brazil's economy is so much sounder than ours.

Of course, there's a lot more to this, and I haven't connected the dots, but I'm not about to start a course on fractional reserve banking in this thread.

---

Yep.

Their reserve requirements were lowered recently and now the banks get paid interest on their reserves from the Fed.

Yep the money they have to have on hand by law earnes them interest.

Lowering the ratio is one of the first things done to combat inflation. That and increasing interest rates.

Its how all the excess paper is rounded up.

The problem with getting paid interest for reserves is banks have little motivation to make loans to individuals or companies.

No credit, no economy. No growth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian GC

I also have a higher regard for Romney both personally and professionally than
Obama. But just as you’d like the democrats to hold Obama accountable for his non-transparency, the same should be expected of Romney supporters. It’s a shame it doesn’t work that way. They both protect their man’s skeletons.

---

Obamas skeletons are exposed and laughing at us clear to see.

Romneys are imagined, manufactured and part of a larger strawmam argument meant to distract voters.

Whats important was ignored by 60 million dunces.

What was Obamas plan to repair this mess he made.