Tuesday, January 24, 2012

Busy Day


43 Comments:

Blogger Bob Bohne said...

That's Mitt trying to get some traction. But then, he's kinda built like Newt.

January 24, 2012 at 8:40 AM 
Blogger Bob Bohne said...

The Newt Gingrich school of debating -
Lesson 1. Blame the media.
Lesson 2. Cry foul every chance you get.
Lesson 3. Tell your opponent you'll answer his questions in writing. Tomorrow. On your web site.

"Let's get read to rumble" turned into "Let's get ready to rumba"

January 24, 2012 at 8:44 AM 
Blogger Squirrel said...

Penguins don't politic.

January 24, 2012 at 9:14 AM 
Blogger jake said...

Yeah, Bob, we're so lucky to have such a mental "Giant" as Joe Biden helping to lead our country.

January 24, 2012 at 9:14 AM 
Blogger Squirrel said...

Jake is apparently 'Jimmy Two-Times' from Goodfellas.

"I'm going to get the papers, get the papers"

January 24, 2012 at 9:22 AM 
Blogger Bob Bohne said...

Easy there squirrel. Jake's a very sensitive little fellow.

January 24, 2012 at 9:32 AM 
Blogger Dannytheman said...

As opposed to Pres Obama??

1)Blame Bush
2)Blame rich folk
3)Blame Bush Again
4)Don't forget to hate on the rich
5)Drop the race card.
6)I need 4 more to finish ruining this country.

January 24, 2012 at 10:22 AM 
Blogger steve mcdonald said...

This little penguin is rushing out to help pay Mitt's fair share. The same fair share that he already paid in the form of income tax before he invested what was supposed to be his "share"

January 24, 2012 at 10:28 AM 
Blogger Bob Bohne said...

Danny - IS THIS FAIR???? I paid 34% of my income in taxes in 2011. You probably paid close to the same percentage that I paid. Mitt Romney has released his tax returns. He made a hell of a lot more than me. $20.9 million to be exact, and he paid 15.4% of that in taxes. And under the Gingrich Tax Plan, he wouldn't pay ANY taxes! And there are Republican's like you who support this! Explain that to me Danny.

January 24, 2012 at 10:32 AM 
Blogger steve mcdonald said...

Bob, are you saying Mitt didn't pay any tax on the funds that went into the investments?

January 24, 2012 at 10:35 AM 
Blogger Bob Bohne said...

Steve - Who knows. If you have the answer to that, I'd be interested in hearing it. Do we even know if he paid into all of those investments? Were some of them gifts of part of his fathers estate? But what I'm saying that if you make your living through dividends on investments, you should pay at the same rate as everyone else.

January 24, 2012 at 10:49 AM 
Blogger steve mcdonald said...

aren't there taxes on gifts? I think there are!

He did make his living on regular income and he was taxed appropriately. These investments are capital from post tax income. In fact, with the 15% tax on capital gains, he's double taxed! So, in addition to paying a healthy amount in 1) regular income, 2) Capital gains, you want more!

January 24, 2012 at 11:06 AM 
Blogger jake said...

Obama would love to turn this election into a debate over income inequality rather than his dismal economic record.

Most people I know are far more concerned about misguided, out-of-control government spending (think Solyndra)and Obama's irresponsible allegiance to the public sector unions.

January 24, 2012 at 11:25 AM 
Blogger Bob Bohne said...

Steve - I believe the inheritance tax is about 35%. Correct me if I'm wrong. But then that's a one time tax. I can understand retirement investments being taxed at a lower rate, but if you earn your living through making investments, that's adifferent story. And Mitt claims he has no regular income. Remember him joking around about being being jobless? Take another scenario. What if my Dad was independently wealthy, and he left me a large fortune in stocks and bonds.Worth millions. Bear with me Steve. I'm dreaming. Anyway, the inheritance tax has been paid. Because of this I've never had to work a day in my life. I'm paying a tax rate of 15%
You're OK with that?

January 24, 2012 at 11:30 AM 
Blogger steve mcdonald said...

so the inheritance was still taxed, right? I'm still stuck on this double taxation business, Bob. And let's add to it that he made a decent income on his own through his days at places like Bain. So he made an income there that was taxed. Which gets taxed again when he invests it.

January 24, 2012 at 12:08 PM 
Blogger Bob Bohne said...

Steve - Steve, everybody is double and triple taxed. That's the way the system works. Given your belief, once he paid taxes, he shouldn't pay any more taxes. And remember the old saying. It takes money to make money. I'll give you an example. I'm a painter, and I deal with a faily well known center city gallery. I purchase a canvas, 10 tubes of paint, brushes, oil, turpentine etc. I have to pay sales tax on all of that. Then I complete the painting, take it to the gallery, and it sells. The person buying the painting pays sales tax on the painting. The gallery takes a 50% comission, and at the end of each year, they send me my tax form, I declare the income, and I pay tax again. Then the gallery pays tax on their 50%.

January 24, 2012 at 12:26 PM 
Blogger steve mcdonald said...

You're asking the guy to pay a second full tax on money for which he was already taxe = Double taxation. He's already paid his full tax on his original income, now a 15% tax on earnings for investing said after-tax income. It sounds more like Romney's already doing exactly what your example indicates:

1)he paid income tax on his pay/you paid tax on your stated income.

2)he's paying 15% on returns for investing his after-tax income / you're paying 6-7% sales tax on materials

I still don't see any reason for upping the capital gains tax on this one. In addition, this argument has yet to insert the fact that the top 48% is paying almost ALL the income tax for the Financial year!

Let's get to the point - I fully believe Romney and the others in his earnings class are already paying their fair share as their share is the majority of gross tax receipts. In addition, I fully believe that doubling the capital gains tax rate or increasing the wage tax for higher earners will 1) Have a minimul effect on our annual deficit/debt problem and 2) give our favorite politicians extra capital to use towards growing the government - whether it be more entitlements for the left or more military spending for the right.

January 24, 2012 at 12:38 PM 
Anonymous 8pounders said...

Steve, I am amused. Mitt is not paying tax on the same money twice. He is paying the capital gains tax on the money that the investments have earned. While I would prefer tax rates to be lower, I do think in fairness that he be taxed at the same rate as my earnings are being taxed.

January 24, 2012 at 1:08 PM 
Blogger Bob Bohne said...

Steve - I think you missed a step.
1. I earn a living and pay income tax = Mitt earns a living pays income tax.

2. I make an investment in my supplies and pay a sales tax = Romney purchases a stock and pays a sales tax.

3. I reap income from my painting and pay an income tax = Romney reaps a dividend from his investment and pays a capital gains tax.

We're both in it to make a living. The difference is that I'm producing something and receiving earned income. Romney is investing and receiving what is referred to as unearned income. And he's being taxed at a much lower rate.

January 24, 2012 at 1:10 PM 
Blogger steve mcdonald said...

I missed nothing. Besides, you brought up the odd comparison, I had to find a way to piece materials and investment earnings together which are apples and oranges as far as I'm concerned.

It's already earned income because it was taxed when he received it through wages/salary/estate tax, etc. . The fact that he's paying 15% on a percentage return of the original capital invested is another thing. You lefties get all worked up on capital gains when you seem to forget that you already got a healthy chunk out of the original piece. In addition, let's not forget that these investment earnings are already taxed at the corporate level (the reason for our favorite "EBIT" line in quarterly and annual reports). Therefore, I can argue that the capital gains tax is actually triple taxation on Romney's money. Feel free to calculate that total!

January 24, 2012 at 1:30 PM 
Blogger Bob Bohne said...

Steve - This "lefty" doesn't want you to misunderstand what he's saying. I'm not saying that Romney is doing anything wrong here. At least not as far as tax rates go. It could also be argued that Romney is really a private-equities manager who is taking advantage of a loophole in the law by declaring his actual income as capital gains.

January 24, 2012 at 1:53 PM 
Blogger steve mcdonald said...

Does "Loophole" mean you simply don't agree with it and therefore feel that he's sneaky? Personally, if he's able to work his way to the point to where he can live comfortably off of investment earnings, more power to him.

Raise the capital gains tax and you'll see that the government once again finds a way to screw up our economic well being by putting a hamper on investment and free market growth. Then we'll see another Ron Paul video predicting another recession as investment dries up.

January 24, 2012 at 2:32 PM 
Anonymous 8pounders said...

What are the sources of capital gains? Dividends would be taxed twice, once by corporation and once by individual receiving the distribution. But market growth is pure gain. If I invest $100K and later sell that for $150K, the $50K growth is income. Why should it be taxed at a lower rate than the wages I earn?

I think the PA flat income tax would treat them equally. If only PA would dump sales tax in full favor of the income tax.

January 24, 2012 at 3:28 PM 
Blogger Bob Bohne said...

Steve - I am by no means an expert on this, so bear with me. I'm trying to get an understanding of an issue that apparently even has the Republican candidates arguing, and from your replies, I think you understand this better than I do. Lets say my neighbor & I work together. We both make $50,000 a year. He decides to quit his job to become a day trader. In a year, he's buying and selling stocks, and he's making $50,000 a year. We both live in the same neighborhood, both make the same amount of money, both recieve the same services from our government, but he's taxed at a rate of 15% and I'm at 30%. Is that how it works?

January 24, 2012 at 4:41 PM 
Blogger steve mcdonald said...

if he's a day trader, my condolences. I don't see a market worth the risk.

Where's the investment money coming from?

January 24, 2012 at 4:49 PM 
Blogger Bob Bohne said...

Steve - In the example I gave, I said we worked together. So his initial investment was income from his job before he quit. But really, does that matter? So given my example, does this sound fair?

January 24, 2012 at 5:03 PM 
Blogger Bob Bohne said...

Or I should ask, is this the way the system works?

January 24, 2012 at 5:05 PM 
Blogger steve mcdonald said...

sounds absolutely fair in my opinion

1) Initial capital comes from the post-tax income he holds.

2) He runs a much higher risk/reward than his friend. His friend, barring any catastrophy, has a stable income.

3) His earnings are, at a minimum, getting double-taxed (initial wage tax, capital gains). Any dividends paid out are subject to triple taxation when you add in corporate taxation.

4) We should also add in for the sake of the argument that he's not getting any benefits while operating as a day trader - health, retirement, dental, vision, life, etc. These costs are out of pocket expenses.

5)The United States needs investment. There's no longer a tech bubble out there keeping our interest. People aren't talking about stock tips these days. Many of us cringe at the idea of checking our 401(k)s and commodities like gold and silver are attractive in that thir prices have performed well in the face of inflation, while trying out a stock or a fund can't beat S&P's historical return. You raise the capital gains rate, you're going to cut investment down further, affecting everyone.

Here's a prediction - raise capital gains, watch offshore investments thrive, as people once again scramble to find ways to keep their money away from excess US taxation. All in the interest of "fairness"

January 24, 2012 at 5:26 PM 
Blogger Bob Bohne said...

Steve - So we both agree that this is basically how it works. And this is where we part ways. The benefit of making a living by taking big risks with your money, is that you no longer have to get up and go to work every day. I don't believe it should also entitle you to pay 50% less for the same government services that I get.

January 24, 2012 at 5:43 PM 
Blogger steve mcdonald said...

So you're telling me that the guy paying 15% on $1m shouldn't be entitled to what the guy paying 35% on 50k does? Let's add to this, how about the individual collecting welfare, paying zero each year, are they, too no less entitled? How about some sad individual who doesn't utilize tax deductions that are available to him, paying more, should he be more entitled? Are we trying to say that the more in percentage we pay, the more 'fair' it is? We're reaching 'manifesto' levels here.

I say the capital gains is plenty fair since its income previously taxed. But since it's not fair to you, fine, raise it, as long as the original income tax and corporate rates can be deducted. Talk about loopholes.

January 24, 2012 at 7:34 PM 
Blogger CharlieSix said...

My head is spinning... Steve: You have done a good job trying to explain the Federal tax situation, the fact that investments that earn capital gains have already been taxed. Bob: Please don't try to mix a state/city sales tax into this mix. That tax is equal on all who purchase without regard to income... Steve: You'll never convince Bob. Bob: Steve will never convince you. Squirrel: Thanks for the initiative to try to explain...

January 24, 2012 at 9:29 PM 
Blogger CharlieSix said...

My head is spinning... Steve: You have done a good job trying to explain the Federal tax situation, the fact that investments that earn capital gains have already been taxed. Bob: Please don't try to mix a state/city sales tax into this mix. That tax is equal on all who purchase without regard to income... Steve: You'll never convince Bob. Bob: Steve will never convince you. Squirrel: Thanks for the initiative to try to explain...

January 24, 2012 at 9:30 PM 
Blogger Bob Bohne said...

Steve - Well, you've done a fine job of twisting my words, but that's OK. I think you know that's not what I was saying. My premise is simple and easy to understand.

January 24, 2012 at 10:22 PM 
Blogger Bob Bohne said...

Charlie Two Times - Why don't you spend a couple of weeks figuring out how to properly post a reply. Then we can work on something a little bigger. Like taking off the training wheels.

January 24, 2012 at 10:26 PM 
Blogger Bob Bohne said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

January 24, 2012 at 10:27 PM 
Blogger Dannytheman said...

Wow?!!?!?35%? Not me Bob, I'm married to a CPA!!

You probably pay 3.5 to PA, some to Social Security, and all together you might pay 35%.
But you ain't paying 35% to the Fed.

My wife says Mitt should get a better rate!

January 24, 2012 at 10:54 PM 
Blogger steve mcdonald said...

I'm not sure I twisted your words. Those are valid comparisons that go against your norm.

January 24, 2012 at 11:58 PM 
Blogger Bob Bohne said...

Danny - Maybe I should start having our wife do my taxes. Anyway, I'm single, have two decent paying jobs, and the only deduction I have is mortgage interest. That could be why I'm at such a high rate. But ou could be right about his calculation and my misunderstanding of it. I'll have to check with him.

January 25, 2012 at 8:50 AM 
Blogger Bob Bohne said...

Steve - Danny questioned the accuracy of my 35%, so I'll consider that in this next statement. What I'm saying is this. I labor for a living. Romney invests for a living. For every $50,000 that I make, I pay 30% in taxes. For every $50,000 that Romney makes, he pays 15% in taxes. I know I've simplified this, but this is the point that I'm trying to get across.

January 25, 2012 at 10:26 AM 
Blogger steve mcdonald said...

I'm not going to question the accuracy of your taxes - its simply none of my business. Rather, I'm adding to that 'simplification' that the original capital that went into the investment was taxed to the proper percentages.

January 25, 2012 at 10:46 AM 
Blogger Bob Bohne said...

Steve - Bare with me here, because I really want to get an understanding of how this works. I'm not trying to be argumentative. Because the investment was made with income that was already taxed, the profits from that investment shouldn't be taxed a second time, or at a lower rate? So if I decide to take some of my earnings from my current job, that have already been taxed at the normal rate, and invest my money in a small business, and then start to make a profit, the profits from my small business shouldn't be taxed, or should be taxed at a lower rate because the money that I used for my initial investment has already been taxed?

January 25, 2012 at 12:54 PM 
Blogger steve mcdonald said...

Yes.

January 25, 2012 at 1:01 PM 
Blogger Bob Bohne said...

Steve - OK Steve. Nuff said.

January 25, 2012 at 1:30 PM 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home