Romney to Release Full Taxes

After all of this time I see folks here still think capital gains taxes are double dipping. You only pay money on the new money you accumulate. That is not double dipping. It is taxing income once.

It's always the people that claim to be doing so well that claim it's double taxation. Leads me to believe they are lying about how well they're doing or they'd have capital gains to know it's not taxed twice.

You are only taxed on the amount between the lower purchase price and the higher sale price. If you buy something for $1 million and sell it for $1.5 million you only pay taxes on $500k.

Simple... they don't have a nickel invested... that is why they are always saying the money was alreay taxed ...

I have 140K in gic ( 4 to5% interest ) ..I pay taxes on the interest of 5 to 6K a year ... not on the 140K ...

Makes me laugh when I read those morons repeating that ...

Well wouldn't that argument be that Buffett is giving to charity based on a "progressive" system? heh-heh

And my observations are just there to point out the pure hypocrisy of all these politicians.
For instance...a few weeks ago my own Senator, Harry Reid...went to the national press and claimed that he "heard" Romney hadn't paid ANY taxes in 10 years!

Are the press following up on that? Did Reid apologize?
Nope.

The Dems and media hold hands to attack Romney and carry water for Obama. It's pathetic really.

But again..I am fiscally conservative. And socially liberal. So NEITHER Obama or Romney fit my idea of good leadership.
Especially Obama...I voted for his sorry ass in 2008. And the only reason I still even consider him is because of the speech that Clinton gave at the DNC.
Obama made a lot of promises and statements and claims that he never even seemed to try to follow up on.

It was just more of the same. Lobbyist's and special interests and a total disconnect from reality while the country needs JOBS (he gave us health insurance )

Have you ever made really good money yourself? Not attacking you. I'm just asking.
I have. And when I sat down to write those quarterly checks to the govt. it was fucking painful.

And if you would like to see investment dry up overnight then go ahead and raise those capital gains taxes. And watch retirees suffer as well as the rest of the already crippled economy collapse even more.

I don't know what life experiences you have had. But mine have led me to completely different conclusions than the ones that you are expressing.

The initial investment is not taxed again.

If you earn $10,000 raking leaves, make a lucky investment and sell at $100,000, you are taxed on the $90,000 capital gain.

IMO the capital gains tax should be 0% for the little guy to encourage investment (poor retirees included). While I wouldn't mind 0% across the board, I don't think anyone can cry over it matching the income tax bracket system. Especially considering this is money you don't really work for. You don't contribute anything to society to earn it.

Romney's plan is to keep capital gains tax at 15% for anyone making over $200,000 Anyone under that will be taxed at 0%. Thus saving retirement plans.
Obama wants to raise everyone's capital gains tax.

And here is what tax.com has to say about capital gains and double taxation:
"1) All taxation of saving is a form of double taxation. This observation is nothing new to economists. For example, in 1848 the British philosopher and economist John Stuart Mill wrote: "Unless . . . savings are exempt from tax, the contributors are taxed twice on what they save, and only once on what they spend." Since then, economists have often said things like "income from saving is taxed twice." This is another way of saying an income tax is biased against saving -- a bias not shared by a consumption tax.

(2) Profits giving rise to capital gain on equities have already been subject to corporate tax. There is no good economic justification for the corporate tax. It is unfair and inefficient to tax profits first with the corporate tax and then again with an individual tax either on dividends or capital gains.

3) Inflationary gains are not real income and should not be subject to tax. The relative stability of the price level over the past three decades has greatly reduced concerns about the highly detrimental effects of inflation on the operation of the income tax. But even at low levels, inflation overstates returns to capital. One manifestation of this problem is the taxation of inflationary gains as if they represented appreciation in real value. "

Yes, I did when the real estate market crashed.

I also wasn't making any "conclusions." I was stating a fact.

I don't think there should be income taxes at all. Employers already pay income taxes on their revenue so why should employees?

#logicfail

No problem but look up what happens when you donate to a Legal Charity. Check to see how much of a break you get.

Okay. No sense us debating things since you know everything already.

But I think you are dead ass WRONG. And so do a lot of folks who have had different experiences than you. But don't let that stop you. Just keep stating "facts". Bullshit.

It's much the same as our graduated income tax system.When you're in a "30 percent tax bracket," that doesn't mean you pay 30 percent of your income in taxes, or even 30 percent of your taxable income. Rather, it means that the "last portion" of taxable income is taxed at 30 percent. Under the system of marginal tax rates, every time your income crosses the line into a new tax bracket, the rate rises *only* for income above that line.

Anyone actually paying 30%+ on the first 174K of their income needs to fire their incompetent accountant and file amended returns to get their money back. You only pay the listed rate on any dollars over the dollar amount listed... not every dollar you earn. Yet people insist on acting like they pay 30% on all of their income while someone else plays 15%, when in reality they pay the same 15% on all dollars up to the first 34,500, And that doesn't take into account the fact that FIca maxes out at 106,800... So after 106,800 the total effective rate drops By 6% from FICA maxing out while the bracket rate itself rises by 5% after 175K....
10% on taxable income from $0 to $8,500, plus
15% on taxable income over $8,500 to $34,500, plus
25% on taxable income over $34,500 to $83,600, plus
28% on taxable income over $83,600 to $174,400, plus
33% on taxable income over $174,400 to $379,150, plus
35% on taxable income over $379,150

Of course, if you inherit a pile of money, as Romney did, and invest that money as Romney did, your taxes cap out at only 15%, you pay taxes on only the investment income not the principal and you didn't pay taxes on the principal in the first place though an earlier generation may have or may not have when they earned it. It is a tax scheme that hammers the middle class and anyone actually earning wealth via payroll but is awfully kind to trustfunders and badly misunderstood by most of the people it governs.

The tax code should be 2 pages long at most,not 3000 pages. Everyone should get a 50K yearly exclusion whether you make 30K or 500B in a year. No other loopholes. Every dollar over 50K gets taxed at the same flat rate no matter who you are, a rate likely to be 12-15%. Then add a 3-5% sales tax on anything except basic staples like home heating oil, milk and diapers. The rest of the two pages is a simple list of staple items like food, basic clothing and the like which are not sales taxed. Every year Congress looks at revenue and decides to raise or lower the income tax rate and the sales tax rate. Every American pays the identical percentage and gets the identical exclusion. The result would be incentive to save money, lower tax rates for most Americans and a large increase on the people who choose to spend a lot of money. Taxing what people earn makes much less sense than taxing what people buy.The guy with a similar plan was Jack Kemp, the republican VP candidate Bob Dole chose. The idea never garnered enough support, but it would fix our tax system very quickly, making it simple and fair.... Which is why accountant and lawyers lobbies hate the idea.

Its just one year, the year befor the election

You need to have a smaller tax on investments to get money flow in the economy, nothing wrong with that

No. You don't.

If you had 10M and investments were taxed at the same rate as any other income, what would you do with it? Would you put it in your mattress? Buy a CD for 1%? Open a savings account for even less return?

If you decided instead to start a business with the money you would actually create jobs. Growing businesses always create jobs, stock investments usually do not. The stock market has nothing to do with P/E ratios, providing capital to businesses that need it, etc... That era is long gone. People buying Apple aren't doing it to help fund expansion, it has become little more than a sanctioned online casino. The lower rates attract unwitting 'day traders' looking to make a buck against the odds of high frequency momentum traders with brokerage seats and the ability to make massive moves after hours or before IPOs. They also help financiers pay a much lower tax rate... And financiers have powerful lobbyists to keep it that way. Tax it just like any other income and people will still invest, or they will put the money to other uses that fuel the economy more than most personal trading accounts ever would.

You're way off on one figure. The current tax code isn't 3000 pages. It's 73,600! 99% 0f which is for deductions/loopholes. Just underscores your point, things really need to change.

.