PDA

View Full Version : Romney's Tax Plan



JackFinfan
10-11-2012, 11:42 PM
I didn't catch this part of the debate, I just saw a clip. Is it true that Ryan stated that they'll decrease tax rates by 20 %, make it deficit neutral, and they wouldn't touch middle class deductions in order to do it?

TheWalrus
10-11-2012, 11:47 PM
http://www.finheaven.com/images/imported/2012/10/128951730373109166-1.jpg

Tetragrammaton
10-11-2012, 11:54 PM
The Republicans have been making up tax figures for thirty-plus years. It isn't anything new.

JackFinfan
10-12-2012, 12:02 AM
Even worse, they won't specifically identify any of the deductions or loopholes they'd eliminate.

Spesh
10-12-2012, 12:28 AM
http://www.finheaven.com/images/imported/2012/10/128951730373109166-1.jpg

Spit take'd my beer with that. Well played sir.

Romney campaign has promised the world but hasnt been able to detail anything about their promises. I gave up with realistic expectations months ago. Im not sure why you(the OP) were expecting anything new. Romney ran over Obama with false promises and fake claims in his debate, not surprised Ryan did the same.

Honestly, im waiting for Romney to promise to single handedly patrol the Middle East as Iron Man. That i could get behind.

MoFinz
10-12-2012, 08:17 AM
all politicians channel Merlin when they run for office? Remember one promising to halve the deficit, get unemployment down to 6% and bring transparency and bi-partisanship to Washington?

:rolleyes2:

cuzinvinny
10-12-2012, 10:17 AM
Even worse, they won't specifically identify any of the deductions or loopholes they'd eliminate.

I maybe missing something, and you could possibly educate me. But I don't really see a great importance in knowing which deductions and loopholes are eliminated. Sure be interesting to know but if these as stated, are only effecting the very rich and at the same time makes these people responsible for more of their taxes in which the revenue they've paid in the past will not decrease one bit. Romney has stated that the very rich will not pay any less in tax revenue while the middle class has taxes lowered. Removing loopholes & deduction makes more profits and income taxable .... General Electric actually paid No taxes last year.....
Lowering taxes to businesses making over 250,000 gives businesses more money for investing and the ability to hire more people. More people in the working place creates a much larger working pool of individuals who are paying their taxes thus creating more revenue and a middle class having more money for spending...

phins_4_ever
10-12-2012, 10:28 AM
I maybe missing something, and you could possibly educate me. But I don't really see a great importance in knowing which deductions and loopholes are eliminated. Sure be interesting to know but if these as stated, are only effecting the very rich and at the same time makes these people responsible for more of their taxes in which the revenue they've paid in the past will not decrease one bit. Romney has stated that the very rich will not pay any less in tax revenue while the middle class has taxes lowered. Removing loopholes & deduction makes more profits and income taxable .... General Electric actually paid No taxes last year.....
Lowering taxes to businesses making over 250,000 gives businesses more money for investing and the ability to hire more people. More people in the working place creates a much larger working pool of individuals who are paying their taxes thus creating more revenue and a middle class having more money for spending...

Blind trust is fatal. If the loopholes just affect the 1% why not say so. But there are legal tax breaks for the middle class and poor which can be cut just as easily. I am not sure if that program is a national program but in Florida you have the homestead exemption. $25,000 on the value of your home are tax free. Elimination this would definitely be a tax increase. What about the tax break on your interest on your mortgage. As of right now you can deduct the interest paid from your income tax. It is a valuable small amount for lower income and the middle class. Eliminating these loopholes would kill any benefit gained by cutting the taxes of the 1%.
He hasn't given details because he won't hurt himself and the 1%. Most of the loophole-closings come from the bottom and middle.

Let me tell you something as a business owner who would benefit from tax breaks. If I need employees I hire them because I need them not because of tax breaks. Taxes are never an issue if I hire someone or not. Hiring people because of tax breaks is the biggest bogus proposal I have ever seen. The question is what do business owners do with the tax breaks. I am a social active business owners. My employees come first. I would leave the saved money (from tax breaks) in the company. For bad times. But I do know that most would just take the money as an income increase for themselves.
Another thing you need to know. Most business categorized as small or medium are actually S-Corporations which channel their income/losses through their shareholders rather than paying separate corporate taxes. So, if you have a S-Corp family business making $500,000 a corporate tax break won't affect you as you channel losses and income to those who are legally shareholders. Now if Romney/Ryan would try to eliminate the taxes on mortgage interest (loophole), the homestead exemption (loophole) your personal income tax, despite your possible corporate losses, will increase. A tax break for corporation will only affect the top corps who are not S Corporations and the loophole closing will be in the lower brackets. Because if you want job creators to create jobs through tax cuts what sense does it make to have them pay taxes somewhere else to make it budget neutral??????

JackFinfan
10-12-2012, 10:54 AM
I maybe missing something, and you could possibly educate me. But I don't really see a great importance in knowing which deductions and loopholes are eliminated. Sure be interesting to know but if these as stated, are only effecting the very rich and at the same time makes these people responsible for more of their taxes in which the revenue they've paid in the past will not decrease one bit. Romney has stated that the very rich will not pay any less in tax revenue while the middle class has taxes lowered. Removing loopholes & deduction makes more profits and income taxable .... General Electric actually paid No taxes last year.....
Lowering taxes to businesses making over 250,000 gives businesses more money for investing and the ability to hire more people. More people in the working place creates a much larger working pool of individuals who are paying their taxes thus creating more revenue and a middle class having more money for spending...

It's important to know because people are under the illusion that a) there's enough loopholes and deductions to cover the tax rate decreases b) these loopholes can actually be eliminated. Many of the "loopholes" are due to international tax treaties. Look up "Dutch Sandwich" or "Double Irish." These loopholes can't be eliminated with ease like the GOP wants you to believe.

When it comes to deductions, they've stated that they won't eliminate them for the middle class. Well that leaves the rich. The rich have their itemized deductions phased out, so they rarely get to itemize. So who are we eliminating the deductions for?

The reason why they won't be specific is not because they want to wait for input from the Democrats and create a bipartisan bill (that's what Ryan said in the debate). They can't be specific because it can't be done. If they wanted to lower the rates by 5%, then I could see them pulling it off without increasing the deficit, but 20% is just insane.

I expect both parties to make crazy promises. I also don't expect the majority of people to understand the tax code. Hell, I have a masters in taxation and work with other accountants on a daily basis, and we constantly have to research tax topics. I'm just trying to give some insight.

JackFinfan
10-12-2012, 11:08 AM
Blind trust is fatal. If the loopholes just affect the 1% why not say so. But there are legal tax breaks for the middle class and poor which can be cut just as easily. I am not sure if that program is a national program but in Florida you have the homestead exemption. $25,000 on the value of your home are tax free. Elimination this would definitely be a tax increase. What about the tax break on your interest on your mortgage. As of right now you can deduct the interest paid from your income tax. It is a valuable small amount for lower income and the middle class. Eliminating these loopholes would kill any benefit gained by cutting the taxes of the 1%.
He hasn't given details because he won't hurt himself and the 1%. Most of the loophole-closings come from the bottom and middle.

Let me tell you something as a business owner who would benefit from tax breaks. If I need employees I hire them because I need them not because of tax breaks. Taxes are never an issue if I hire someone or not. Hiring people because of tax breaks is the biggest bogus proposal I have ever seen. The question is what do business owners do with the tax breaks. I am a social active business owners. My employees come first. I would leave the saved money (from tax breaks) in the company. For bad times. But I do know that most would just take the money as an income increase for themselves.
Another thing you need to know. Most business categorized as small or medium are actually S-Corporations which channel their income/losses through their shareholders rather than paying separate corporate taxes. So, if you have a S-Corp family business making $500,000 a corporate tax break won't affect you as you channel losses and income to those who are legally shareholders. Now if Romney/Ryan would try to eliminate the taxes on mortgage interest (loophole), the homestead exemption (loophole) your personal income tax, despite your possible corporate losses, will increase. A tax break for corporation will only affect the top corps who are not S Corporations and the loophole closing will be in the lower brackets. Because if you want job creators to create jobs through tax cuts what sense does it make to have them pay taxes somewhere else to make it budget neutral??????

Well said. Also, something people don't realize, the U.S. effective tax rate for Corporations are pretty low compared to most countries. Yes, our marginal rates are the highest, but the effective rate is what really matters. Most European countries have an income tax and a value added tax (VAT). It's not the tax rates that drive companies overseas. Corporations go to China and other poor countries for cheap labor. You could lower the tax rate to 0 and Corporations would still send jobs overseas.

cuzinvinny
10-12-2012, 11:36 AM
Blind trust is fatal. If the loopholes just affect the 1% why not say so. But there are legal tax breaks for the middle class and poor which can be cut just as easily. I am not sure if that program is a national program but in Florida you have the homestead exemption. $25,000 on the value of your home are tax free. Elimination this would definitely be a tax increase. What about the tax break on your interest on your mortgage. As of right now you can deduct the interest paid from your income tax. It is a valuable small amount for lower income and the middle class. Eliminating these loopholes would kill any benefit gained by cutting the taxes of the 1%.
He hasn't given details because he won't hurt himself and the 1%. Most of the loophole-closings come from the bottom and middle.

Let me tell you something as a business owner who would benefit from tax breaks. If I need employees I hire them because I need them not because of tax breaks. Taxes are never an issue if I hire someone or not. Hiring people because of tax breaks is the biggest bogus proposal I have ever seen. The question is what do business owners do with the tax breaks. I am a social active business owners. My employees come first. I would leave the saved money (from tax breaks) in the company. For bad times. But I do know that most would just take the money as an income increase for themselves.
Another thing you need to know. Most business categorized as small or medium are actually S-Corporations which channel their income/losses through their shareholders rather than paying separate corporate taxes. So, if you have a S-Corp family business making $500,000 a corporate tax break won't affect you as you channel losses and income to those who are legally shareholders. Now if Romney/Ryan would try to eliminate the taxes on mortgage interest (loophole), the homestead exemption (loophole) your personal income tax, despite your possible corporate losses, will increase. A tax break for corporation will only affect the top corps who are not S Corporations and the loophole closing will be in the lower brackets. Because if you want job creators to create jobs through tax cuts what sense does it make to have them pay taxes somewhere else to make it budget neutral??????

Blind truth is fatal, but a first time candidate always brings to the table a large quantity of ideas not yet in place which require a degree of faith...
Obama came in with it " Hope and Change " and promises to reduce the deficet and bring unempolyment down to the 6% area, a new open Washington.....and bring the country together....

Obama's much in the same way as Bush, now has a record to be judged on. I just don't like the direction he's been driving this country (not blind truths actual failed policies).
I feel Romney has more business understanding and running the economy on his little finger than Obama (see debate) and right or wrong can't do worse than the empty suit in the White House. Also feel his ability to actually work with a major democratic state like Mass. and get things done shows a sign of leadership which hasn't been seen in the last 4 years,even when the president had the majority in the Houses.........And an essential quality to being a good President IMO....

I am more willing to have some trust in Romney than to allow another 4 years of what we have actually been exposed to, If down the road Romney screws up.... we will have another election to deal with him. But I've seen enough of this administration...

phins_4_ever
10-12-2012, 12:53 PM
Blind truth is fatal, but a first time candidate always brings to the table a large quantity of ideas not yet in place which require a degree of faith...
Obama came in with it " Hope and Change " and promises to reduce the deficet and bring unempolyment down to the 6% area, a new open Washington.....and bring the country together....

Obama's much in the same way as Bush, now has a record to be judged on. I just don't like the direction he's been driving this country (not blind truths actual failed policies).
I feel Romney has more business understanding and running the economy on his little finger than Obama (see debate) and right or wrong can't do worse than the empty suit in the White House. Also feel his ability to actually work with a major democratic state like Mass. and get things done shows a sign of leadership which hasn't been seen in the last 4 years,even when the president had the majority in the Houses.........And an essential quality to being a good President IMO....

I am more willing to have some trust in Romney than to allow another 4 years of what we have actually been exposed to, If down the road Romney screws up.... we will have another election to deal with him. But I've seen enough of this administration...

Based on Romney's idea of democracy you may not have another election or a watered down election. Just remember the voter suppression at the RNC convention in Tampa.

Sure Obama promised a lot. But he also had details on his plans prior to his election. Now you can argue that he did not act on all of them but you also have to lay blame on Congress. Probably more so than the WH. Congress creates laws and the WH executes such laws. The President is very limited in creating any kind of law unless he unleashes Executive Orders. In Romney's and Ryan's case I could see that very easily happen. But even then the law-making abilities are limited.

Now Congress has passed literally nothing to decrease the unemployment rate. The GOP has institute since 2009 a policy (our job is to make Obama a one-term President) to block everything which could make Obama look good, darn the country and its health. They even blocked their own requests when Obama liked them. And Ryan is a leader in crap politics. He rose up on government funding, became rich while working for government, made policies or submitted bills which benefited him and was instrumental in enacting legislature and then using his own policies against political opponents. He is the least you want in any position in Congress much less in the WH.

Romney is not one you want in the WH either. I find it funny that people say we need someone with business sense in the WH. Well, that was that argument for Bush/Cheney. But where did it get us? Romney is worse though. His business policies was not very American-like. It was more the greed which started in the 80s, increased in the 90s and is atop in the new Millennium than sound business decisions.
Everything he has done as a business man was and is against US interests, the economy overall and the well-being of this country. Firing US employees and giving the same jobs overseas, outsourcing to foreign countries cutting out US suppliers, liquidation to line the pockets of the few hurting everybody else in the process, moving his own money and corporate money into offshore accounts which may not be illegal (unless caught using such funds as a piggy bank), using tax payers money for the wealthy and kicking the not so rich into the unemployment line. A business man like Romney is never a good politician.

As a politician you should work for your constituents - all of them - not just a percentage. Even for those who have not voted for you. Working in politics bears responsibility and sacrifice, not an easy way to line your pockets. Our system is broken but Romney and Ryan not only present what is broken they are the poster children, the root of all evil in today's politics.

Romney and Ryan are not the same as Obama/Biden. They are worse.

It is funny how history repeats itself. Since ages mankind always had rulers who suppressed people by simply keeping the lower and middle class uneducated and financially unstable. The richer the rich got, the poorer the poor got, the better the controlling effect. Our recession was a planned recession in 2008. It was a Wall Street created recession and became a domino effect. It was nothing else than to re-shift the power just before the election. (I can tell you easily the dynamics of that). Poor and unemployed people or middle class who lives paycheck by paycheck are so easily manipulated.

Obama may have been an interruption. Because if you go out there we don't live that bad. The malls and stores are full. Every second car is still a gas guzzling SUV. We still travel and do vacation.

To assure that the middle class and the poor stay where they are or lose even more influence the best way to do that is to declare the President a one-term President, block every job creating measure, blame the current President for things, like the bailout, you had a hand in as well (which was actually partially enacted by the party's former President) and promote a greedy, corrupt business man with a "idealist" running mate who became part of the system through the system.

Romney/Ryan will be much worse for the majority of the country. The USA will not go under if Romney/Ryan are elected. Neither will it go down under Obama/Biden. But under Romney/Ryan and a Congress controlled by their own party will make Obama/Biden look like Saints.

9954 is worried about freedom now. Wait until a business man takes office who stepped over people who had different opinions.

Do you think really think this whole "voter ID' crap is by accident or is really about the literally non-existing voter fraud???? It is an attempt to suppress voters and a test run for bigger things to come. Why else would the Republican party nominate two imbeciles like that? There were much better candidates in the primaries (like Huntsman). But they were too much middle of the road and maybe could have done to much good for the majority. If the GOP decides someone to be unelectable you pretty much bite the dust. But Huntsman was very well electable. But he didn't fit the profile.

Any vote for Romney/Ryan is unpatriotic.

Statler Waldorf
10-12-2012, 02:00 PM
all politicians channel Merlin when they run for office? Remember one promising to halve the deficit, get unemployment down to 6% and bring transparency and bi-partisanship to Washington?

:rolleyes2:

Exactly! I doubt any of these guys had any problem voting for that man in '08, life must be grand when you can change the rules you play it by whenever you desire.
:-P

Statler Waldorf
10-12-2012, 02:03 PM
[QUOTE=JackFinfan;1064456936]It's important to know because people are under the illusion that a) there's enough loopholes and deductions to cover the tax rate decreases b) these loopholes can actually be eliminated. Many of the "loopholes" are due to international tax treaties. Look up "Dutch Sandwich" or "Double Irish." These loopholes can't be eliminated with ease like the GOP wants you to believe.

So last week you insisted that such loopholes didnít exist, and now this week you are arguing that they actually do exist but we cannot close them? Perhaps you should get your story straight before you critique debates you admit not even watching.

Statler Waldorf
10-12-2012, 02:06 PM
Based on Romney's idea of democracy you may not have another election or a watered down election. Just remember the voter suppression at the RNC convention in Tampa.

It’s statements like this that prove the left is out of touch with the rest of America, ensuring that elections are accurate and trustworthy is a principle that only the Left seems to have a problem with, I wonder why that is? :- ) The days of stealing elections and Chicago-style politics are now over, you all will have to actually win your elections from here on out.

Speaking of "voter suppression", what does a 2/3 majority really sound like? ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTlC0brgGUI

BAMAPHIN 22
10-12-2012, 02:16 PM
From the Huffington Post:


Romney's tax plan is mathematically impossible: he can't simultaneously keep his pledges to cut tax rates 20 percent and repeal the estate tax and alternative minimum tax; broaden the tax base enough to avoid growing the deficit; and not raise taxes on the middle class. They say they have six independent studies -- six! -- that "have confirmed the soundness of the Governor’s tax plan," and so I should stop whining. Let's take a tour of those studies and see how they measure up.

The Romney campaign sent over a list of the studies, but they are perhaps more accurately described as "analyses," since four of them are blog posts or op-eds. I'm not hating -- I blog for a living -- but I don't generally describe my posts as "studies."

None of the analyses do what Romney's campaign says: show that his tax plan is sound. I'm going to walk through them individually, but first I want to make a broad point.
The Tax Policy Center paper (http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2012/08/01-tax-reform-brown-gale-looney) that sparked this discussion found that Romney's plan couldn't work because his tax rate cuts would provide $86 billion more in tax relief to people making over $200,000 than Romney could recoup by eliminating tax expenditures for that group. That means his plan is necessarily a tax cut for the rich, so if Romney keeps his promise not to grow the deficit, he'll have to raise taxes on the middle class.

Various analyses have adjusted TPC's assumptions in an effort to bring down that $86 billion deficit. But getting from $86 billion down to $0 is not enough to make Romney's proposal work. For Romney's math to add up, he actually needs a substantial surplus of a high-income base broadening above the cost of his high-income rate cuts.

This is for two reasons. First, TPC's thought experiment -- eliminate as many deductions as possible at the top while holding those below $200,000 harmless from tax increases -- was not only exceedingly generous in granting Romney's assumptions. It was impossibly generous. Under the terms analyzed by the TPC study, a taxpayer earning $199,999 would face a drastically higher tax bill for earning $1 more in income. That doesn't happen in the real world.

cuzinvinny
10-12-2012, 02:34 PM
Based on Romney's idea of democracy you may not have another election or a watered down election. Just remember the voter suppression at the RNC convention in Tampa.

Sure Obama promised a lot. But he also had details on his plans prior to his election. Now you can argue that he did not act on all of them but you also have to lay blame on Congress. Probably more so than the WH. Congress creates laws and the WH executes such laws. The President is very limited in creating any kind of law unless he unleashes Executive Orders. In Romney's and Ryan's case I could see that very easily happen. But even then the law-making abilities are limited.

Now Congress has passed literally nothing to decrease the unemployment rate. The GOP has institute since 2009 a policy (our job is to make Obama a one-term President) to block everything which could make Obama look good, darn the country and its health. They even blocked their own requests when Obama liked them. And Ryan is a leader in crap politics. He rose up on government funding, became rich while working for government, made policies or submitted bills which benefited him and was instrumental in enacting legislature and then using his own policies against political opponents. He is the least you want in any position in Congress much less in the WH.

Romney is not one you want in the WH either. I find it funny that people say we need someone with business sense in the WH. Well, that was that argument for Bush/Cheney. But where did it get us? Romney is worse though. His business policies was not very American-like. It was more the greed which started in the 80s, increased in the 90s and is atop in the new Millennium than sound business decisions.
Everything he has done as a business man was and is against US interests, the economy overall and the well-being of this country. Firing US employees and giving the same jobs overseas, outsourcing to foreign countries cutting out US suppliers, liquidation to line the pockets of the few hurting everybody else in the process, moving his own money and corporate money into offshore accounts which may not be illegal (unless caught using such funds as a piggy bank), using tax payers money for the wealthy and kicking the not so rich into the unemployment line. A business man like Romney is never a good politician.

As a politician you should work for your constituents - all of them - not just a percentage. Even for those who have not voted for you. Working in politics bears responsibility and sacrifice, not an easy way to line your pockets. Our system is broken but Romney and Ryan not only present what is broken they are the poster children, the root of all evil in today's politics.

Romney and Ryan are not the same as Obama/Biden. They are worse.

It is funny how history repeats itself. Since ages mankind always had rulers who suppressed people by simply keeping the lower and middle class uneducated and financially unstable. The richer the rich got, the poorer the poor got, the better the controlling effect. Our recession was a planned recession in 2008. It was a Wall Street created recession and became a domino effect. It was nothing else than to re-shift the power just before the election. (I can tell you easily the dynamics of that). Poor and unemployed people or middle class who lives paycheck by paycheck are so easily manipulated.

Obama may have been an interruption. Because if you go out there we don't live that bad. The malls and stores are full. Every second car is still a gas guzzling SUV. We still travel and do vacation.

To assure that the middle class and the poor stay where they are or lose even more influence the best way to do that is to declare the President a one-term President, block every job creating measure, blame the current President for things, like the bailout, you had a hand in as well (which was actually partially enacted by the party's former President) and promote a greedy, corrupt business man with a "idealist" running mate who became part of the system through the system.

Romney/Ryan will be much worse for the majority of the country. The USA will not go under if Romney/Ryan are elected. Neither will it go down under Obama/Biden. But under Romney/Ryan and a Congress controlled by their own party will make Obama/Biden look like Saints.

9954 is worried about freedom now. Wait until a business man takes office who stepped over people who had different opinions.

Do you think really think this whole "voter ID' crap is by accident or is really about the literally non-existing voter fraud???? It is an attempt to suppress voters and a test run for bigger things to come. Why else would the Republican party nominate two imbeciles like that? There were much better candidates in the primaries (like Huntsman). But they were too much middle of the road and maybe could have done to much good for the majority. If the GOP decides someone to be unelectable you pretty much bite the dust. But Huntsman was very well electable. But he didn't fit the profile.

Any vote for Romney/Ryan is unpatriotic.

Funny two people watching the same thing coming up with pretty much completely opposite views....
Phins I'm not saying this as a criticism and I respect your view though totally disagree with them, and see 4 more years of this bumbling administration were everybody else is at fault except the man IN ChARGE is mind blowing.
So with all due respect after reading about 3/4s of your post have to say we just have to respectfully acknowledge and accept that we just totally disagree with each others political views.....
Not that I couldn't express logical opposite views but what for ...are you going to change ????............me either......and I feel I or anyone has the right to express there political preference and support for whoever the hell I or they want, that being Romney/Ryan without someone calling us Unpatriotic. So tired of the name calling lies and excuses and just hoping the majority of people in American are to.....
Like to see this back on the Presidents desk " The Buck Stops Here " Instead of, " The Excuses Start Here" god how I wished he understood that...but in my view he will never get it ..... So good luck have a great day and GO FINS something we most likely agree on...

JackFinfan
10-12-2012, 06:10 PM
[QUOTE]

So last week you insisted that such loopholes didn’t exist, and now this week you are arguing that they actually do exist but we cannot close them? Perhaps you should get your story straight before you critique debates you admit not even watching.

In the other thread we were talking about personal income loopholes, the loopholes I mentioned: Double Irish & Dutch Sandwich are corporate loopholes. Corporate loopholes definitely exist. I watched the debate, but got a call for about 15 mins (they must have discussed the tax plan somewhere in there). I have my story perfectly straight. Perhaps you should work on your reading comprehension a bit, and while your at it your civility as well.

JackFinfan
10-12-2012, 06:13 PM
[FONT=Book Antiqua][SIZE=3][COLOR=#000000]
From the Huffington Post:


It's absolutely impossible for anyone to confirm the soundness of Romney's plan, because he hasn't identified any of the deductions or loopholes he'd get rid of. Which btw is the exact reason he won't be specific. Once he gives the details, we'll be able to do the math, and trust me the math won't work.

Statler Waldorf
10-12-2012, 07:05 PM
In the other thread we were talking about personal income loopholes, the loopholes I mentioned:

That’s just incorrect though, a variable pre-paid forward contract, which is the example I gave you can be taken advantage of by any individual who is looking to invest their money.


Perhaps you should work on your reading comprehension a bit, and while your at it your civility as well.

Save me the lecture on civility, you have never passed up a chance to demean me or insinuate I was somehow ignorant or delusional simply because I disagree with you. I caught you being disingenuous, just fess up to it.

JackFinfan
10-12-2012, 07:28 PM
That’s just incorrect though, a variable pre-paid forward contract, which is the example I gave you can be taken advantage of by any individual who is looking to invest their money.



Save me the lecture on civility, you have never passed up a chance to demean me or insinuate I was somehow ignorant or delusional simply because I disagree with you. I caught you being disingenuous, just fess up to it.

I've already responded to the pre-paid forward contract. It's peanuts, and wouldn't do anything to counter the revenue lost from the tax rate decreases. Individuals dodge taxes by using tax evasion tactics such as hiding money overseas, they don't utilize tax loopholes like corporations do. There's really very little room in the tax code for individuals to avoid taxes. Almost all of the significant loopholes were taken care of in the Tax Reform Act of 1986.

BTW i didn't insinuate you were ignorant, I flat out told you that believing the Earth is 4000 years old is ignorant. There's a difference.

irish fin fan
10-12-2012, 09:01 PM
I've already responded to the pre-paid forward contract. It's peanuts, and wouldn't do anything to counter the revenue lost from the tax rate decreases. Individuals dodge taxes by using tax evasion tactics such as hiding money overseas, they don't utilize tax loopholes like corporations do. There's really very little room in the tax code for individuals to avoid taxes. Almost all of the significant loopholes were taken care of in the Tax Reform Act of 1986.

BTW i didn't insinuate you were ignorant, I flat out told you that believing the Earth is 4000 years old is ignorant. There's a difference.

Actually, he said 6 thousand years old. I mistakenly said he thought it was 8 thousand years and he was not happy. I know, 8 thousand years is way too old. Smh.