Romney pays 15% tax rate

marcr, your exactly correct. To bad your wasting your time. Investing is a high risk. Some people on thses boards can't see past the end of their BHL noses!

Yes, it sounds like long-term cap gains...15%

I think he also mentioned he made about $387,000
giving 8 speeches. LOL

Hey, how come? LOL

I wonder who will vote for him here? LOL

I'll bet some here will say, "Me, holding my nose while I do it." LOL

I think I'll vote for Mrs. Clinton (again). LOL

So, Mitt made his millions and paid his taxes on them (probably at a 35% rate) and invested the remainder. If it grows he pairs a 15% rate on his investment. If he loses money, he can claim up to a $3000 loss on his taxes.

Btw - Mitt Romney is worth about $200 Million.
John Kerry is worth about 300 million
JFK was worth about $1 billion in today's dollars - mostly from trust funds
George Washington was worth about $500 million in today's dollars

PJ

Not to argue too fine a point however I judge folks by what they do, not what they say.

The recent payment by Mr Buffet of $49k aside (no more than a publicity stunt and the $49k will be written off as a donation), his actions do not mirror his words.

If he is so upset and is a man of principle then his actions would follow.

However he could take his investment income as regular income, not a long term capital gain, and pay the appropriate rate thus rectifying the disparity between rates he pays and his secretary. But he has chosen not to.

He could write a check to the Treasury Department specifically applied to the debt much like he did with the $49k stunt. But he has chosen not to.

$3k rule not as simple as just deducting $3k from taxes.

I am not a tax specialist by any means however:

First and foremost any losses are first deducted from any capital gains. That is not capped but to qualify as a loss you must actually sell the investment (unless it has become totally worthless) and not be a paper loss. Any losses after the deduction can then be used, up to $3k, to offset regular income. Any losses still remaining can be rolled forward to next several years.

For example I lose $10k on my capital investments that I sell but make $2k from others. I can write off the $2k from the losses and take $3k from regular income. I am then left with a loss of $5k to roll forward.

The next year I make $1k from my investments and have no losses. I can deduct the $1k plus another $3k from regular income leaving $1k in losses left.

This is overly simplified and does point out one of the risks inherent in such investments. This is not unlike folks here who are supposed to claim any and all gambling wins. If you take the standard deduction you can not write off any wins with losses. If you do itemize you can claim losses to offset winnings but only up to those winnings.

Oh c'mon, Marc. Really? If people have a differing opinion about current policy they should "volunteer" to defy it at an individual level instead of engage in the democratic process to change it? Funny...where was that philosophy when it came time to depose Sadam Hussein? Maybe Dick Cheney should have individually gone over there with his quail rifle instead of taking our entire country to war.

There is a very important dialogue going on as to what shape fiscal responsibility will take in our country going forward. The greatest investor of our time has an opinion and it flies in the face of the political party that claim his ultra-low tax rates are essential to economic growth and private sector investment. So they dismiss him.

BTW - According to polls 3/4 of Americans agree with Mr Buffet. And so did the father of modern conservatism, Ronald Reagan.

PJ;

He is not "defying" anything. He has a choice of how to claim his profits form capital gains. He can do so using capital gains rates of 15 percent, he can do so by claiming them as normal income. He has chosen to claim the capital gains rate. He also has the option, with steps laid out by the Treasury, of donating the difference towards the National Debt. He has made the choice to take advantage of the capital gains tax rate. He has done so while claiming they are unfair. A man of principle, who sees something as unfair and can do something else besides just lobby against the rates would do so. It is in his power, legally and morally, to pay more if he wishes. He is not defying anything.

There is not one darn thing stopping him from advocating higher rates for the rich AND paying what he sees as his fair share.

Yes the majority state the rich should pay more. However, as has been pointed out, over half the people do not pay an INCOME TAX. Further nearly a third of those actually get a check from the IRS due to various legal deductions and programs. It is easy to make the choice when there is only positive effects to one and no negative ones.

The majority see we have a deficit and certain programs are at risk. The solution being given them is we can raise more money by taxing the rich but you will continue to pay nothing. Where is the downside for them supporting such a position?

Now pair the proposition that we will raise more money by raising rates on the rich (but not you) AND cut back on some of the services/programs (which may very well effect them) and see the results.

I fail to see your point, Marc.

Yes, Warren Buffet has a choice to pay more money to the treasury. His secretary does not have the choice to pay her taxes at the 15% level that he is granted. That is the injustice and that is what he advocates to change.

Why should people who earn a living investing in stocks pay a lower tax rate than a school teacher? Warren Buffet does not think that is right - and neither did Ronald Reagan.

Yes, you do fail to see the point PJ. Mr Buffet CAN choose which method he wishes to claim his profits as. He chooses to go with the lesser one, capital gains, instead of claiming his profits as income. So he is free to say it is unfair but there is NOTHING preventing him from putting his money where his mouth is.

And I have tried to explain. It was BOTH President Clinton AND President Bush who, in an effort to stimulate the economy, lowered the rate for investments. One reason was the risk, as outlined. You invest and you can loose it all and it is not insured. A school teacher earns a salary, They dont work for it and then suddenly dont get paid.

Now you can disagree with this school of economics, many have though many support it. But how can you hold Governor Romney to one standard and not the same one for Mr Buffet? They both earn the majority of their money from capital gains. Both claim the exact same method for taxation. Mr Buffet wishes to change the rate. Some economists agree others think it will be a disaster to do so. Governor Romeny, like President Clinton and President Bush feel it serves a purpose.

One thing we possibly CAN agree on is the need for the tax code to be overhauled AND cuts to be made in many programs. For example, now, the cut off for social security is $106,800. Perhaps increasing the ceiling is one possibility. And couple that with needs testing is but one small example of a combined approach.

So perhaps we can close on agreement.

Well I'm sorry you dont see a difference between someone who sets aside their own personal interest when it comes to tax policy and someone who does not.

And Bill Clinton's Capital Gains tax rate was drastically higher than the one of his successor ...and there is no bigger opponent of the Capital Gains tax cuts implemented under GWB than Bill Clinton ..and that has been the case from day 1 of their implementation... so I'm afraid your lumping of the two is a non-starter

But I will agree a tax code overhaul is needed. Perhaps our leaders can stary by hearing the opinion of 75% of the population.