The people just aren't buying the Romney thing ...He and his wife just creep me out .You cant trust either to ever tell the truth ! .And now his Vegas Mob money and money from Macau ?

That doesn't sound American to me !

Hey, "I'm a VIP" from:

Occupy SoggyBottom !

Where in the Bottom doya want me to Park this 4 Wheeler?

You Betcha!

In Palm Springs Ca

It's incredible how much grief the media gave Barack Obama in 2008 over his not wearing an American flag pin, and here is Romney, whose biggest supporter makes 3/4 of his money from gambling interests in the very corrupt country of Macau. How patriotic is that?

And this clown has the audicity to think we believe him? lmao

A supposed economic genious who claims not to know what "off-shore accounts" are?

Seriously???

Facing renewed criticism from the Obama campaign and new questions about his offshore investments in recent reports, Mitt Romney said on Monday that his offshore investments were managed by a blind trust and he had no knowledge of their whereabouts.

"I don’t manage them," he said in an interview with Radio Iowa's O. Kay Henderson. "I don’t even know where they are. That trustee follows all U.S. laws. All the taxes are paid, as appropriate. All of them have been reported to the government. There’s nothing hidden there. If, for instance, you own shares in Renault or Fiat, you still have to disclose that in the United States."

Willard the Guru of out-sourcing JOBS & off-shoring his $$$!

If Willard can release his tax returns to John McCain, he sure as hell can show the COUNTRY what he's up to!

Feisty -- You're right. Releasing tax returns is standard practice for all Presidential candidates.

Here's an article that argues why he should release them:

The clamor for Mitt Romney to release a decade or so of tax returns continues to grow louder--and with very good reason.

Mitt Romney is the only President or Presidential candidate in the past couple of decades to refuse to release his tax returns.

He's also the only candidate for President in the Romney family to refuse to release his tax returns (Romney's dad, George Romney, released 12 years of returns--and said that releasing just one year's return, as Romney has done, is meaningless).

Romney is also a candidate for President about whom there are the completely justifiable questions and concerns about his earnings and tax payments.

So it's no surprise that America is concluding that Romney is not releasing his tax returns because he has something to hide.

And, the truth is... of course he has something to hide.

Even if Romney paid every dime of taxes that he owed, he made eye-popping amounts of money--earnings that presumably put him in the 0.01% of Americans, which he presumably does not want to remind people of. Romney also undoubtedly did his damnedest to avoid paying a single penny of taxes more than he had to--and was able to afford the best expertise available on how to do that. There is nothing wrong with that--if Mitt Romney's critics were as rich as Mitt Romney, they'd do the same thing. But Mitt Romney presumably knows that those tax-avoidance strategies were 1) very successful, and 2) won't look good to people who pay higher tax rates--namely most Americans. And Mitt Romney also wants to hide how rich he is and how much money he has made. Because, among other things, those facts will make his desire to further cut taxes for rich Americans look even more self-serving that it already seems to be.

So, yes, Mitt Romney has something to hide--even if he paid every dime of taxes that he owed.

But he should still release his returns.

Why?

Well, first, for these very good reasons, which I enumerated in more detail last week:

• It has become standard practice for Presidents and Presidential candidates to release their returns.
• Everyone already knows Mitt Romney is loaded, and he says he has paid all of his taxes, so he should have nothing to hide.
• Mitt Romney says taxes on rich people are too high, so if he releases his returns, he can use himself as a prime example of the harm that this causes the economy.
• Romney says that instead of resenting him for being a member of the 0.01%, Americans should be be proud of and emulate his success.
• Romney's own father released a dozen years of tax returns and said that one year is meaningless.

And there's another very good reason:

It's the right thing to do.

Mitt Romney is campaigning to become President of the United States. Americans have every right to want to know how he made his money and and how he manages it, as well as what sorts of taxes he pays. Regardless of who you're rooting for in the campaign, it is is far better that this information come out now, rather than later (and it will come out). Given that Mitt Romney is campaigning on financial expertise and economic know-how, these questions are even more relevant for him than for any other candidate, which Mitt Romney obviously knows. And if Mitt Romney persists in refusing to release the returns, this issue really will become a distraction.

The Mormon Church advocates doing the right thing without delay regardless of the cost.

Mitt Romney should stop denouncing people asking perfectly reasonable questions and, instead, follow that advice.

More from The Daily Ticker

Mitt Romney Needs to Send a Clear Message To Voters About His Economic Plan: Larry Kudlow

Here is link to above article, sorry forgot to link and give credit.

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/yes-mitt-romney-release-tax-returns-143126596.html?l=1

It's a good strategy to just ..shove..Bain in Romney's arse ... that is...bain in the arse.

Amy - go back to old videos back then and watch John McCain. He NEVER had a flag pin on. Only in the beginning but after they attacked Obama, he stopped wearing one. I made a big deal out of this but......

The people just aren't buying the Romney thing ...He and his wife just creep me out .You cant trust either to ever tell the truth ! .And now his Vegas Mob money and money from Macau ?

That doesn't sound American to me !

What creeps me out is yesterday I bought a brand new pair of Chuck Taylors, and they were made in Vietnam. Yep, an iconic American tennis shoe, Converse Chuck Taylor All Stars, made in Vietnam

That doesn't sound American to me!

Don't thank me ....thank Romney ! He outsourced America !

Don't thank me ....thank Romney ! He outsourced America !

------------------------------------------------

And he made more than few bucks doing it!

The real reason people should be creeped out about Mitt Romney is that he will do or say anything to obtain wealth and power. His choice to go to Bain Capital is very telling. As the son of a governor, he had many choices, such as becoming the leader of a major charity or starting up a manufacturing business with other investors. Instead, he became the public face for an outfit that sucked into going concerns like a huge leech and drained the blood out of them. Then he opens up Cayman Island bank accounts. I associate, like many people, Cayman Island accounts with dope smugglers or other international thieves. He should explain all of his international bank accounts. He thought, surely, that something needed hiding. Also, how much of his cash reserves did he put there? Do we want a president that thinks industrialists should take all of their cash and move it overseas to avoid income taxes? Think about it. Either something was wrong with the way the money was made, OR he wanted to shield the interest or other appreciation from taxes. This is the way he thinks. It is an extremely, extremely greedy and disgusting way of thinking for someone worth hundreds of millions of dollars who considers himself a public servant.

Next, on basic core issues like abortion, he has completely changed his position when moving from the governor of a liberal state to challenger for the Republican nomination. No doubt about it, the REAL reason for his change was the change of the audience. The same is true on healthcare. He knows we need a national solution, and the Affordable Care Act is very close to the Massachussetts enactment, but he has the gaul now to say it's a JOB KILLER. Well, if it is a job killer for the US, it would be a job killer in Mass. Actually, it gives employers more flexibility.

Chucky - I have to tell you, I'm working very hard to only buy American made. It takes more time and isn't always exactly what I want, but to me it's worth the effort. I look at every label and if I find one that is US made, that's what I buy. If we all did that we could bring more manufacturing back, faster. Demand American made!

Obama/Biden 2012

Instead, he became the public face for an outfit that sucked into going concerns like a huge leech and drained the blood out of them. Then he opens up Cayman Island bank accounts. I associate, like many people, Cayman Island accounts with dope smugglers or other international thieves. He should explain all of his international bank accounts. He thought, surely, that something needed hiding. Also, how much of his cash reserves did he put there? Do we want a president that thinks industrialists should take all of their cash and move it overseas to avoid income taxes? Think about it. Either something was wrong with the way the money was made, OR he wanted to shield the interest or other appreciation from taxes.

You really should do some research into the activities of private equity. How do you square the circle that one of the biggest backers of President Obama is the BlackRock group, a private equity company? I guess Bain never saved a job in its existence and all those companies would have thrived but for the Bain investment? Sad fact is that 80% survived which is a hell of record considering the companies were in trouble when Bain invested in them. Wonder if BlackRock's record is as good?

The U.S. is one of only two nations that taxes its citizens and corporations on their income from wherever it is derived. Anywhere and everywhere in the world. U.S. citizens are also taxed on investments directly or indirectly made through foreign trusts and foreign corporations, including offshore trusts and IBC's. Thus, the fact that an offshore jurisdiction may have low or no taxes does not mean that a U.S. citizen doing business there will enjoy only low or no taxes on the personal income made. There are simply no PERSONAL income tax advantages, at all, for U.S. citizens to use offshore structures, and anyone who tells you differently is telling you a falsehood. The U.S. congress does not care WHERE you make your income, they simply demand their share.

So why keep accounts in foreign countries if they are not secret. In the case of the Swiss account it is probably to maintain the value of the account as the Dollar has fallen dramatically during the current Administration.

BTW, when President Obama claims the foreign earning deduction (where he offsets taxes paid in other jurisdictions against his US tax liability) is he being greedy and disgusting, or just complying with the current tax laws?

SeekingSanity

I'm working very hard to only buy American made.

I agree. I will not shop in places like Wal-Mart (it's been years), and I support local, hometown banks, and small mom-and-pop stores.

Corporations with off-shore PO Boxes can go f*ck themselves!

Alan -- His accounts have been there forever. Why he won't release his tax returns is perhaps it's because he is trying to hide that he may have taken advantage of a LOOPHOLE that gives him a very low rate of tax on his INCOME.

BTW Why is it people like you love certain tax laws of those "socialist" European countries?

Here are the hedge funds trying to play king maker for Romney

http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2012/03/26/paul-singer-mitt-romney/

Alan, NJ,

So why keep accounts in foreign countries if they are not secret. In the case of the Swiss account it is probably to maintain the value of the account as the Dollar has fallen dramatically during the current Administration.

Apparently you keep excusing Romney's decisions but I am waiting for Romney to do it. Why is he hiding his tax returns? If he has nothing to hide, why won't he do what every presidential candidate -INCLUDING HIS FATHER - has done?

Why only 2010 - why the secrecy?

Apparently you keep excusing Romney's decisions but I am waiting for Romney to do it. Why is he hiding his tax returns? If he has nothing to hide, why won't he do what every presidential candidate -INCLUDING HIS FATHER - has done?

I'm not excusing him...I really don't care. Romney's tax returns, no more than Obama's college transcripts, will reduce the deficit nor produce a job. It is all part of the Obama campaign to destroy his opponent.

The sad fact is is that the Administration has nothing to run on. You say Romney won't talk about Bain, Massachusetts the Olympics but Obama won't defend the ACA or his Green Energy policy. The President came out for a one year extension of the Bush tax rates for those earning under 250K. Then what? His plans are as vague as Romney's. The Administration has produced no plan to reduce the deficit. You may call Ryan's plan DOA but at least its out there. Why do you not use the same rhetoric as for the ACA..it can be amended and improved.

At he end of the day I am disappointed with both candidates right now. I'll give them another month or so but then I do want specifics.

Why he won't release his tax returns is perhaps it's because he is trying to hide that he may have taken advantage of a LOOPHOLE that gives him a very low rate of tax on his INCOME.

BTW Why is it people like you love certain tax laws of those "socialist" European countries?

What certain laws are you referring to? I can see that other countries can do some things better than us. I'll take good ideas no matter the source. As to insinuation that Romney may have taken advantage of a loophole so what? If he didn't break the law then I don't care. the tax laws should be re-written but as long as both candidates comply with the current law what exactly is the problem? Romney already pays a low rate of 15% so I think his accountants are on the ball to begin with.

Alan --- You SHOULD care. Why should their income get favorable treatment over anyone else's? Read up on how much this costs us.

http://www.epi.org/publication/pm120/

Alan, NJ

I'm not excusing him...I really don't care. Romney's tax returns, no more than Obama's college transcripts,

college transcripts by no means equal tax returns! I don't give a crap about Romney's grades. I wanna see what he did when he filed taxes.

Alan --- You SHOULD care. Why should their income get favorable treatment over anyone else's? Read up on how much this costs us.

Because the congress agreed that dividends and LT Capital Gains should be taxed at this rate. It was an incentive to spur investment. Just as I get to deduct mortgage interest as an incentive to own a house. If you don't like it vote for someone who wants to change it, but I haven't heard either of these candidates propose such a change.

college transcripts by no means equal tax returns! I don't give a crap about Romney's grades. I wanna see what he did when he filed taxes.

Why? Do you suspect criminal behavior? If so what has given this indication? Sounds like you support Issa's investigation of Holder. All suspicion but no real facts ... yet.

OBAMA has. He called for eliminating the carried interest loophole. Romney's camp says that's a tough loophole to take away. WHY??? Perhaps because all his buddies enjoy taking advantage of it.

It's not long term capital gains it's their income that's allowed to be funneled under another name.

BTW Do you get to call your INCOME something different to lower your rate?

Alan-

The dollar has done very well against the Euro under Obama, unless you prefer 60 cents to 80 cents. Of course, the foreign accounts (Swiss, Bermuda, Cayman Islands) all antedated the Obama administration so Obama had nothing to do with them, but nice try. In what currency do you speculate the Swiss accounts were denominated? Do we even know? If they were all so benign, why was he late in disclosing on election forms? (Two or three million bucks was just a drop in the bucket was the tenor of his, "Aw shucks, I forgot" excuse.) Why did he shift the Bermuda stuff into a trust for his wife just before becoming Governor of Mass.?

BTW Do you get to call your INCOME something different to lower your rate?

No..I'm a vanilla w-2 / 1040 filer.

I still don't see the big deal. Do you have anything to suspect that there is criminal behavior occurring? It seems you are using the same logic as Issa. I haven't seen everything so they must be hiding something possibly illegal but who knows.

Are you simply offended that he has a foreign bank account. What is the reason for your outrage? To me its simply to deflect from the real issue of jobs and the economy.

If Obama wants to fix the tax code he is President. Time to actually propose and lobby instead of blaming some one else. If this was so important why was not introduced when the Democrats had control of the House? And as a note he can't blame the Senate Republicans...this is a tax issue and can not be filibustered and can be passed through reconciliation.

The Alan of this world is such a HYPOCRITE that ideology trumps commonsense any time any how. The same people who hounded the Potus to produce his birth certificate and would not accept a government fact sheet as existed now says he doesn't care if a guy who said he has paid all his taxes as an when due but refused to produce a fact sheet in his possession to extinguish all doubts about his proclamation but to take his words at face value even when he Mitt and co will not accept the Potus fact sheet from the government. BTW the constitution party that will not celebrate the victory of ACA demise if proclaimed by their supreme court has a big problem accepting the same supreme court proclamation in favor of ACA. In Alan's world only the script as written by the GOPers is American and authentic. Are they for real?

The same people who hounded the Potus to produce his birth certificate and would not accept a government fact sheet as existed now says he doesn't care if a guy who said he has paid all his taxes as an when due but refused to produce a fact sheet in his possession to extinguish all doubts about his proclamation but to take his words at face value even when he Mitt and co will not accept the Potus fact sheet from the government. BTW the constitution party that will not celebrate the victory of ACA demise if proclaimed by their supreme court has a big problem accepting the same supreme court proclamation in favor of ACA. In Alan's world only the script as written by the GOPers is American and authentic. Are they for real?

You mistake me for someone else. I have never cared nor worried about the President's birth certificate nor his college transcripts. They to are simply distractions. You are typical of the person who attacks the messenger and not the message. My point is that these attacks on Romney are simply distractions from the issues that face this country. There has never been the slightest evidence that Romney has not paid his taxes in full or late but you through out the innuendo. As to the ACA I have always maintained, and you can check my previous posts, that the mandate as constituted under the commerce clause was unconstitutional. My posts were of the theme that if the Democrats had the balls to call it a tax then it would pass muster so the SC ruling vindicated my view.

As to ideology I am fiscally responsible. George W Bush was one of the most reckless Presidents in this area and the current incumbent has been no improvement. Maybe if you look back at all the actions that GWB took, debt-ceiling increases, massive deficits, warrentless wire-tapping, expansion of executive powers and then apply these standards to the current Administration then I may consider you not be the hypocrite you so obviously are.

"Four Legs Good, Two Legs Bad"

Fiscally responsible people would call for an end to loopholes for millionaires and billionaires.

You are not fiscally responsible Alan.

I will give you credit for your prediction on the mandate being called a tax.

Alan, NJ,

Why? Do you suspect criminal behavior? If so what has given this indication? Sounds like you support Issa's investigation of Holder. All suspicion but no real facts ... yet.

what? How did you get that from me saying I want to see Romney's taxes while I don't care about Romney's college grades?

Are you this desperate?

Fiscally responsible people would call for an end to loopholes for millionaires and billionaires.

I support the end of deductions across the board. Mortgage interest deduction should be phased out...why should I get a tax break over a renter when they may not be able to afford to buy a home. Child and dependent deduction should be limited to 3 children. Dependents should be considered but one of the changes I think Medicare will have to undergo is a reduction of nursing home payments. I'm afraid we're going to have to look after our aging parents rather than dump them on the government. I am very interested in anybody who is proposing a complete re-vamping of the personal and corporate tax systems by removing deductions and lowering rates. Removes the propose of lobbyists.

I am also for cuts in defense spending and farm subsidies.

What those on the left don't seem to realize is that fiscal predictions are coming true. Entitlements are eating up so much of the Federal Budget that discretionary spending will continue to be squeezed. That is what is happening through sequestration. And this round of cuts are nothing to do with tax rates because we are still borrowing the same amount to make up the difference, only it is being allocated to entitlements instead of discretionary spending.

Alan -- Either you do not understand the loophole carried interest or you are being disingenuous in your 2.14 post.. Hedge fund managers and private equity guys take their income and use a loophole to get a lower rate of tax. Are you in favor of eliminating this loophole specifically?

Alan -- Either you do not understand the loophole carried interest or you are being disingenuous in your 2.14 post.. Hedge fund managers and private equity guys take their income and use a loophole to get a lower rate of tax. Are you in favor of eliminating this loophole specifically?

If it can actually be done. As far as I understand it, it is wrapped up in LT Capital Gains where a fund manager actually has skin in the gain as opposed to a fund manager is receiving this benefit simply for managing a fund but with no risk of losing his own capital. As with anything this complicated the devil is in the details and I see a lot of definitions being required to actually specify which manager is risking capital and which manager is not. I would say it is better to simplify the whole tax code and tax capital gains either at the same rate as income or maybe slightly less to encourage investment. The problem with an incentive is that you start down the path to loopholes again.

I hope you don't consider this answer disingenuous, but it does show what looks like a simple fix can have unintended consequences.

I completely agree with Alan on each of his posts. This whole tax return/offshore bank accounts is just a distraction. I see the offshore bank accounts all the time in my job including being funded in one transaction via an offshore bank account by one of Obama's biggest supporters. There is nothing nefarious, criminal or and tax avoidance motives behind having accounts with foreign banks. Its just a something that Obama supporters prefer to try and make seem like a bigger issue rather than talk up the successes of their candidate. As for the carried interest provision, it is a much bigger issue than the media portrays it and Alan has described it well. Its not just hedge fund manager salaries in which a loophole is allowing them to pay a lower tax rate, it really is a capital gain. The carried interest only applies to gains made from investing their investor's money successfully. It doesnt apply to fees generated or any income related to anything but successful investments. In addition, this carried interest is also a big part of the real estate industry which has been crushed by the financial crisis. Just like a lot of things congress does when it carries its big stick and tries to wipe out a problem but causes more by not taking into account the unintended consequences. If they want to reduce the attractiveness to real estate investment by making the after tax returns of investors smaller which will keep real estate values depressed, eliminate the carried interest rule. Romney was correct and being alot more financially savvy than Obama, he understands that its not as simple as bloggers on here think by saying lets tax those 5 successful hedge fund managers more.

Seeking Sanity--if you only buy American--I am confused as to why you are an Obama supporter. He is 50% genetically a foreigner. He spent much of his formative years in Indonesia so he clearly isnt 100% made in the USA. Seems kind of inconsistent isnt it? You are worried about where your blouse is made more than you are worried about the background and creation of the leader of the free world?

Kirk - this is possibly the stupidest of all of your posts. President Obama is a US Citizen, born here. Your ignorance is overwhelming. But your lack of integrity is not surprising and your bigotry is now out there for all to see.

The background of President Obama is very clear. He was born in Hawaii to a US citizen who then moved to another country for a while. He then moved back to Hawaii to live with his grandparents. He grew up there and was educated in the US.

Your ignorance and bigoted stupidity is out there for all to see. Does it surprise anyone? Not a bit. Your lack of intelligence is highlighted in every post you make. When you try to impress everyone with your circular and ridiculous "facts" we see right through you. Now you've finally admitted what we have all suspected. Surprise! Surprise! NOT

Obama is ten times more American than Mitt Romney will EVER be and most of us realize that. Only those bigoted far right wingers would post a stupid remark like you just did but it is refreshing to see your ignorance out there in print.

Just more proof - there is no sanity, intelligence, integrity, honor or class in the GOP.

Obama/Biden 2012

Seeking Sanity--its unfortunate that you have lost all credibility by being a shrill mean spirited hopelessly naive tool for the Obama campaign. You wouldnt know the truth if you bounced off your head. You have no interest in having any objective discussion, just bouncing around this blog, firing off mean spirited personal attacks that you think are cute and funny but add nothing to the debate. This is a perfect example of your inability to really think about what you said. You said you wanted to only buy things 100% made in the USA. Do you realize in a global economy how incredibly naive and prejudicial and almost stupid that is? It is a laudable goal in many ways but not necessarily the smartest financial move on your part. For example, do you own an Ipod? What about a GM car? Do you drink Coca Cola and do the machine parts that make or manufacture goods need to be US made too? What about a BMW? Do you realize how much the global economy also helps us. What if GM were no longer able to sell cars in China or Europe because of your provincial views? Do you think that is a job killer or creator? Actually my posts and reasoning generally runs circles around your personal attacks and your inability to ever respond so I dont really worry what you call me.

By the way you do realize that Obama's father was from Kenya correct? So you do understand what the word genetic means right? Yes he is a US citizen but isnt a 50% foreign? So if you somebody besides the president if their mother was a Chinese resident and their dad was US resident and they were born in the US, do you think that person might consider themselves 50% of each regardless of where they were born. Under your example (because you didnt think it through as usual), if all the parts of an Ipod, toy, car or whatever were made in China, but they were put together here in the US, does that make them 100% US made? If not which is what should be the answer, then Obama isnt 100% US made. As for moving to another country for awhile? So you actually have the ability to agree with me? He was in Indonesia for a big part of his formative years so again not 100% US made. What I am trying to illustrate is your constant inability to think before you post and make outrageous statements. I personally dont care where Obama was born or whether he is 100% US made but just trying to show how silly your original post was in light of your the candidate you are working for.

KIRK -- Wrong. You said:

it really is a capital gain. The carried interest only applies to gains made from investing their investor's money successfully. It doesnt apply to fees generated or any income related to anything but successful investments.

They provide a service and get paid compensation for that service, a percentage based on a gain, not their personal gain, but their clients gain. THAT's INCOME.

Kirk - I do not need anyone of your limited intelligence and utter lack of integrity explaining anything to me. You have shown over and over that your knowledge is skewed - at best - and usually non-existent. Your stupidity in thinking that talking down to anyone makes you look intelligent is very telling and none of what it says about you is good. It shows you are insecure about your narrow bit of knowledge and you are completely lacking in self confidence - which is why you try SO hard to pretend you're in some way more intelligent than others when in fact you barely measure up to the lowest person on any of these posts.

Do not think I am impressed by yet another try at arrogance by you. It's not only unimpressive, it's tiring and frankly it shows your ignorance.

Everyone knows our President's background and nothing I said was even remotely outrageous or silly - except to a low information person like you who is trying sooooo hard to appear intelligent and failing every time.

Too bad your bigoted and insecure attitude shows you up but you have been revealed. Not pretty but it's entirely what most of us expected.

Dont Carry it All--given that I have a carried interest in several real estate projects--I fully understand what it is. No one said it isnt income, but its income related to gains on their investors investments not the service. But I agree that its a very close call with hedge fund and private equity guys but in real estate, the sponsors must put skin in the game as Alan said but get an oversized return on that investment called the promote which is a carried interest. But in the hedge fund world, your carried interest is the amount earned after their investors receive a compounded return of generally somewhere between 8-10% and the manager receives a carried interest of 20% of the gain over that amount. So if the sale of the investment doesnt generate enough gain, then there is zero carried interest which is why its not payment for services.

Seeking Sanity--so in other words you couldnt answer and I was right? So you spent 4 paragraphs again spewing your personal hatred and ridiculous personal attacks (by the way with absolutely no style--at least some of the people on here have so much more style in their personal attacks and are witty and avoid using the same repeated phrases like low information person--you are just awful) while ignoring substance. I love how you think you have an audience you are preaching to, why not pretend its just a conversation with you and I and maybe you could be a little nicer and more gentle and actually try to stay on point to the actual substance of the issue. Again I proved you wrong. Why does that bother you so much? Its not like I am going to convince you to stop working for the Obama campaign team?

Kirk - as always - you've proved nothing except how great you are - in your mind only.

KIRK -- The MANAGER takes the money from the client and invests it for them. That's a service.

Dci a--they earn a fee for the service not for the carried interest which they only earn if successful. Much different and you could equate it to instead of getting paid they invest sweat equity and realize gain on their investment. It's not as black and white as you make it.

Seeking sanity--so again I was right? Still no substantive response? Notice a pattern yet in your responses?

KIRK -- It's very clear. Managers are getting a percentage of the gains they realize for their clients. That's their pay, bonus, compensation, WHATEVER you want to call it. IT'S ORDINARY INCOME. It's not their money or investment to begin with Kirk, it's their clients. Why should they enjoy an INCOME TAX RATE of 15% for doing their job?

We all work and put in sweat equity for our pay. We also invest that money in 401K's which is taxed as ordinary income when withdrawn. If we get a bonus at work it is taxed as ordinary income as well.

These guys are getting a sweet deal. And it's time they pay regular income tax on their income like the rest of us do.

DciA-that's true about stock grants and many forms of compensation that are treated as capital gains. That's a policy decision different than singling out the carried interest rule. I understand your argument but your logic applies to every deduction or loophole in the code that is social engineering and I agree with Alan that they should be eliminated. Get rid of the mortgage deduction, child credits, education credits , corporate loopholes etc

Kirk - no you're NEVER right you just like to say you are. Have you noticed a pattern in your responses. You change the question every time (there was no question to me) and then you claim a "victory." Don't you understand yet why people refuse to communicate with you? It's because of your circular arguments - never keeping one position and never really saying anything then proclaiming "so, you can't answer me so I win." It's like the child on the playground. I guess if enough people quit talking with you - like most have - maybe you'll get the idea. I doubt it. You'll probably decide they can't keep up with you. It's really humorous watching you try to convince yourself you're so smart.

The score after 3 innings of play: Kirk 3 , SeekingSanity 0 .... I mean ZERO, ZIP, ZILCH, NADA !

Kirk, while I agree with a lot of the substance in your recent posts, I cannot agree with your comments about eliminating the mortgage deduction. That has been a part of tax law for many decades and has been instrumental in helping U.S. citizens to afford homes. If the U.S. was to eliminate mortgage deductions, the housing market would crumble well beyond its already WEAK status ! Our country does not need to be a nation of only apartment dwellers.

As far as corporate loopholes goes, it seems to be a generally accepted concept that corporate loopholes exist, but virtually NO ONE CAN DEFINE specific corporate loopholes to be targeted for elimination. Right now, our country has the highest C-corp rates in the world. I would imagine, however, that most corporate "loopholes" were put there to encourage an activity or to stimulate a certain purpose or to reduce those taxes.

Since you seem to be capable of intelligent debate (unlike some others), perhaps you could give us your thoughts on specific "loopholes" you would consider for elimination

jim aka Kirk - it's really pathetic that you are the way you are. But, I guess that's all you've got. Small, little man.

Are you still suffering from delusions that I am Kirk ?

"Delusions of Adequacy" is like "Delusions of Grandeur" ...... only on a much, much lower level ! LOL !! Kirk just ate your lunch again.

Our writing styleas are substantially different, Kirk lives in a different part of the country and he is far more polite to you than you possibly deserve. Like me, however, he has noticed your ongoing "acidic" personal attacks on others posting on this website who you disagree with.

The article is about the importance of Iowa and Colorado to the elections. Try to stay on topic if you can.

Jim, thanks for your response. Seeking Sanity is one of the more bizarre posters on here. I understand many of the motivations of some of the progressive posters whether they are really just part of the Obama campaign team, have heartfelt honest views on many political topics or want to use intellectual debate to convince you of their position. Whether I agree with any of them, the only ones I respect are the last where honest and critically thought out debate can be had in a respectful manner albeit heated in some cases. You dont have to agree but at least we discuss. From my perspective, the only think Seeking Sanity does is to intervene herself into discussions and throw the same personal attacks at anyone who appears to be someone who wont vote for Obama. She isnt interested in any debate nor discussion and admits to being a volunteer campaigner. Why she thinks anyone really cares on an anonymous blog what she thinks is beyond me so she would be far more credible and likeable if she just quit the personal hatred that she spews with her very limited vocabulary. By attacking others she thinks she comes across smart and witty and has no clue that she comes across and shrill, petty and mean. Its really too bad because it really is more fun to have discussion and debate without the silly campaigners just interjecting their partisan hatred into the mix.

As for tax loopholes, I am one of those people who favors a far more simplified reduced tax code with lower but progressive rates that is applied equally across everyone. So lets say that the current effective tax rate for those making less than 100k is 10%. I would reduce the tax rate to 10% and eliminate all tax deductions. You are correct there would be winners and losers but that will happen no matter what and I think the impact on the housing and mortgage industry would be very minimal in this current low interest rate environment. There is no reason that taxpayers should be subsidizing homeowners over renters as that is a behavioral and financial choice. We could actually increase overall revenue by reducing rates but eliminating deductions. Same thing at the corporate level but I would just almost eliminate the corporate tax which would give our corporations a huge competitive advantage competing overseas, would encourage foreign corporations to come to the US and manufacture here and be a huge job creator. If we did that, then the individual tax rate on dividends should be equal to the overall tax rate and same thing with capital gains and we wouldnt need to reduce those rates to encourage investment in a double tax environment.

Kirk, While I respect your reply to a certain degree, I still disagree with eliminating mortgage deductions, charitable contributions, property taxes and even medical deductions when someone has a really bad year for out-of-pocket medical expenses.

The effect of eliminating mortgage interest would be catastrophic to the housing industry. While I recognize that apartment living may be the accepted norm in places like New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, D.C. etc., it is certainly not the accepted norm elsewhere in less congested areas.

Furthermore, you didn't really answer the question about which specific "loopholes" you would eliminate, thus proving to some degree, that it is a widely accepted concept that virtually NO ONE can define and give concrete examples to prove. Therefore, I must wonder if "loopholes" is like going on a "snipe" hunt. Unless we can get some specifics, then the concept of "loopholes" might be pictured right next to the unicorns !

jim - ####'s -- Loopholes exist but I'm not sure about unicorns YET. Remember I am Magnificent, so you never know. Anyway, please read all links as well as the link in my 2.12 post.

First, a quick primer on how carried interest works. Capital gains generally only apply to profits investors earn from risking their own capital. This is not so with carried interest. Indeed, the magic of carried interest is that some financiers book capital gains far in excess of any capital they ante up—or, put differently, they get to count performance fees as capital gains. This is an enormous boon due to the low taxation of capital gains. After equaling the top marginal rate of 28 percent at the end of the Reagan years, the capital gains rate has fallen to 15 percent over the past two decades (versus a top marginal rate now of 35 percent). This is why the über-wealthy—the top 0.1% earn half of all capital gains—have had their effective tax rate plummet over this period. This lower rate is usually justified due to the double taxation of capital from corporate income taxes, but this isn’t necessarily true. It’s well-known that many corporations pay little or no income tax, and there are certain corporate structures called “pass-throughs” that avoid all tax as well. Private equity funds like Romney’s Bain Capital are, of course, organized as pass-throughs.

Leave aside for now the debate over whether it makes sense, to begin with, to tax capital gains at a lower rate than other income. What can’t be denied is that the carried interest loophole allows Romney (and many other wealthy Americans) to apply the capital gains rate to something different altogether: ordinary income, specifically the profits owed to the members of private partnerships—think venture capitalists, along with private equity, hedge fund, and real estate trust managers. These financiers are customarily compensated along a two-and-20 model: they earn a management fee equal to two percent of the size of their fund, and a performance fee of 20 percent of any profits. The two percent management fee is taxed as ordinary income—i.e., 35 percent—but, due to carried interest, the 20 percent performance fee is taxed at the long-term capital gains rate of 15 percent, despite the fact that fund managers typically only contribute a small fraction of the capital at risk.

In Romney’s case, he’s earning the vast majority of his money from a retirement package that entitles him to a continued share of Bain Capital’s profits. Courtesy of this cushy pension, Romney received $27 million in 2010 alone. The good news, though, didn’t stop there for Romney. Because Bain Capital is a private equity fund, Romney was eligible for carried interest. So while any other pensioner would be stuck paying a 35 percent tax rate on such a generous package, Romney was able to knock his tax bill down to 15 percent. Even his own economic advisor Greg Mankiw, a professor of economics at Harvard University, doesn’t think this makes any sense. As Mankiw points out, plenty of other professions involve working hard for an uncertain, but potentially lucrative return—such as textbook writers, like Mankiw himself. It’s difficult to dream up a rationale for why the tax code should so privilege financiers.

Apologists for carried interest—they do exist!—insist that eliminating this loophole would cripple investment. Much hand-waving ensues. So too do invocations of “job creators” and admonitions against disincentivizing risk-taking. These free market bromides are, to put it politely, little more than fairy tales. Indeed, it’s hard to figure how ending carried interest would harm investment when doing so wouldn’t increase investors’ tax bills. Only fund managers would owe more to Uncle Sam. Of course, financiers might jack up their fees to try to recoup their lost income, but the threat of investors parking their money elsewhere should hold this in check.

Even less convincing, though, are the claims that taxing fund managers like everybody else is taxed would curb their activities or make it harder for them to recruit talent. This is just empirically untrue. Consider the case of high-frequency trading (HFT) hedge funds. These automated traders aren’t eligible for the long-term capital gains rate (and hence the carried interest loophole) due to their gains not being, well, long-term. A position has to be held for a year to count as a long-term capital gain, otherwise it is taxed as ordinary income. There is, of course, an exception: gains from certain futures and options are taxed 60 percent as a long-term capital gain and 40 percent as ordinary income, regardless of their duration. None of this is an issue for venture capitalists and private equity managers who make multi-year investments, but it does impact the HFT crowd who make lightning-quick trades. Consequently, HFT hedge funds are taxed between 23 and 35 percent, depending on their portfolios. If there have been stories about HFT hedge funds having trouble hiring due to prospective employees worrying about their tax statuses, I have certainly missed them.

This type of favoritism in the tax code is precisely what Republicans say they despise. Indeed, imagine the outcry from the Wall Street Journal editorial pages if President Obama proposed halving the taxes of teachers, lawyers or—gasp!— manufacturing workers. There would be shrieks about crony capitalism. And yet, when it comes to implicitly subsidizing financiers, the Republican establishment suddenly sees things differently. They shouldn’t. The proliferation of HFT hedge funds, despite being taxed higher, shows that the warnings of economic calamity if carried interest is eliminated are ill-founded. It’s well past due to close this loophole and make the game a little less rigged.

Matt O’Brien is an intern at The New Republic.

http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-cohn/100219/carried-interest-hft-hedge-fund-scam/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carried_interest

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/time-to-close-the-carried-interest-loophole/2012/02/07/gIQAJokKxQ_story.html

Jim, sorry I wasnt specific or maybe articulate enough but I advocate the elimination of all deductions whether you characterize them as loopholes or deductions all they are is government welfare and the government picking winners and losers. If at the same time you lower rates while eliminating all deductions, the tax code becomes fair to everyone while lowering everyone's tax bill. If it were to be proven that eliminating the mortgage deduction would hurt the housing market as you state, I assume a phase in would be better. But first I just dont believe it would hurt. Nobody that currently owns a home is impacted because they already have a mortgage rate probably at a rate of less than 5%. The tax benefits received from the deduction really only helps those upper middle class in a manner that makes an annual cash flow difference. Given low interest rates and the tax savings from lowering the tax rates, it really should be a wash for this group. As for stuff like medical deductions, I just disagree because as bad as you see someones financial pain from these circumstances, why should the government decide that someone who has a medical tradegy is more worthy of welfare than the small business owner that goes out of business because of a plant closing or Walmart moving in? Economic tragedy doesnt really have favorites and not sure why the government does.

DCIA--I the problem with that article is that it is an editorial not a factual presentation. The tax rules presented are exactly as I explained them to you but he misses huge aspects on purpose because he clearly is a punish the successful writer. He forgot to explain that the 20% carried interest in his mind only applies to REALIZED GAINS not losses and just like all fiction progressive writers they never look at the unintended consequences. He is dead wrong on the double taxation aspect as he knows it. He also totally ignores the cost of capital economic aspect of investment and thinks that investment decisions are made totally independent of this cost. I am not apologizing for hedge fund and private equity managers and I would be fine eliminating some aspects of the carried interest rules as it applies to certain types of investment. But the capital gains rates and carried interest rules are very effective tools for investment in a double taxation system where the real estate investor/promoter or private equity guy is putting his own capital at risk. The writer trys to ignore that issue by flippantly saying some corporations dont even pay tax (thats testing annually not over a period of time by him of course). He just doesnt want to deal with the fact that the lower capital gains rate is very effective in recessions in attracting investment capital. It worked very well for Reagan and extremely well for Clinton as he lowered the capital gains rate and attracted enormous capital into the internet sector. My guess is that you know better than to just ignore all consequences to knee jerk reactions.

Kirk -- Obviously you are unaware that REAGAN at first lowered the rate to 20% but then turned around a few years later and RAISED the rate to 28%.

It's time to raise the capital gains rate to at least 20%.

My focus is on the hedge funds and private equity guys who use other peoples money.

Yes I am very aware of Reagan increasing rates and I think that was very smart to increase rates after many years of 6% GDP growth and huge increases in employment. His target tax increases with accelerated depreciation, investment tax credit and research and development credit and tax rate decreases got the economy going. Since we are in a recession, still the wrong time to increase rates and Obama has focused on the wrong incentives.

I dont have a problem with a targeted tax provision for private equity and hedge funds but none of the bills that have been put forth so far limit the carried interest repeal to just them and it impacts all industries and it also doesnt limit it to where they earn it only on deals where they didnt invest. I realize this issue is a big media issue but it impacts a very tiny segment and their are far worse so called "abuses" or inequity in the code. They all need to be addressed not just one.

Let's not forget that it was the Republicans that passed these tax cuts over 10 years ago. At that time, it was the Democrats who were against them, forcing them to be passed via reconcilliation. 80% of these tax cuts went to folks making less than $250K per year. The democrats are know trying to claim this was their idea? Amazing....

The other question I have. If the democrats are so concerned about the middle class, why not make these rates permanent? Why just a one year extension? The only answer that is reasonable is they plan to eliminate them if they remain in control thus enacting the largest tax increase ever on the middle class.

Va Ind - your assumption is not only based on nothing - it isn't even remotely logical.

Considering the democrats campained on elimination of the Bush Tax Cuts during the 2008 election, basically saying they wanted to return to the Clinton rates, the assumption is very logical. Answer my question, if it is not in the plan to eliminate all the tax cuts, why not make the ones for folks less than $250K permanent?

Because Einstein Va Ind, our country if you had not noticed is still recovering from the republicans recession.

The republicans have refused to pass a jobs bill to stimulate our economy and a tax cuts for the bottom 98% is the next best thing.

Or are you cheering for American to fail like the rest of the republicans?

That makes no sense. Answer the question. All he is proposing is leaving the tax rates where they have been for the last 11 years. There is no tax cut, how is this going to provide any stimulus. In fact, he is proposing potentially pulling 80 billion out of the economy by raising taxes on folks over $250K.

From what you are saying, the tax breaks put us in a recession, so your are extending us to help get us out of the recession, then are you saying you would get rid of them to keep us from going back into a recession?

What are you talking about? And no, I'm not a republican or democrat, I want our country to be succesful, but explain to me how extending the current tax rates for the next year is a tax cut? Nobody is going to have any more money than they have today. All this does is still leave uncertainty into what our tax rates and liabilities will be going forward and will solve nothing.

"In 2008, Wall Street donors supported Obama to get us out of the financial mess. He bailed out banks, the auto industry and sent stimulus to the states."

Amy is telling us how Obama was bought off by Wall Street in 2008...for once I agree with her.

It couldnt be more obvious..Obama paid off Goldman Sachs execs with cabinet posts, paid off crooked public sector unions with massive federal payoffs to state and local governments, and broke the law by stiffing creditors of auto industry, and paying off the auto unions which supported him .

Bob,

I thought it was President Bush that bailed out the banks (TARP).

Dennis, tell Amy, she is the one that said Obama bailed out the banks. Which is it? You want to take credit for saving the financial sector with the bailout, but don't want to take credit for the huge deficit it created?

"The wealthiest among us can afford to purchase more tv ad time than the rest of us. This is how the Citizens United decision has subverted our democracy."

The utter stupidity of that statement is mind boggling....

Were TV ads banned before 2010 ?

Have Republican polices made you clueless as well as poor?

Bob - there is no stupidity in the statement - just in your idiotic reaction to it. The wealthiest are buying more air time - it's a fact. Citizen's United has allowed our political offices to be bought and paid for. What part do you not understand? Is this above your level of comprehension.

To your last question, "have Republicans policies made you clueless" clearly they have you. The poor part - if you are that's unfortunate. That's your ignorance assumption - again. But, it appears the GOP has made you nothing BUT ignorant!

Obama/Biden 2012 Because there's enough stupid in the GOP - we don't want it in our White House!

ignorant assumption - not ignorance (hard to work and post at the same time)

Lets not forget on the other side of the coin we have the Unions, who are equally involved in getting their guy elected.

Organized labor spends about four times as much on politics and lobbying as generally thought, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis, a finding that shines a light on an aspect of labor's political activity that has often been overlooked.

Previous estimates have focused on labor unions' filings with federal election officials, which chronicle contributions made directly to federal candidates and union spending in support of candidates for Congress and the White House.

But unions spend far more money on a wider range of political activities, including supporting state and local candidates and deploying what has long been seen as the unions' most potent political weapon: persuading members to vote as unions want them to.

unions report to the Federal Election Commission and to Congress, totaled $1.1 billion from 2005 through 2011, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.

The unions' reports to the Labor Department capture an additional $3.3 billion that unions spent over the same period on political activity.

The costs reported to the Labor Department range from polling fees, to money spent persuading union members to vote a certain way, to bratwursts to feed Wisconsin workers protesting at the state capitol last year. Much of this kind of spending comes not from members' contributions to a PAC but directly from unions' dues-funded coffers. There is no requirement that unions report all of this kind of spending to the Federal Election Commission, or FEC.

I can't believe that anyone would even bring up the notion that because, Romney makes more money then Obama that Romney is evil and the Millionaire Obama is a saint. Give me a break!!!

Obama: "We need to be our brothers keeper" Wow he my hero. Wake up Obama Hussien, you have a half brother in a poor country named George that is starving. Liberals will say oh, he has sent money to Kenya. If my brother gave money to my State rather than to me, would I see that money? Apparently not, according to George.

Here is some room for thought. Why do you think that Romney is getting so much more money donated to his campaign than Obama. No, it couldn't be that people are sick of Obama and are giving money to Romney to get Obama and the "Obama I don't care health plan" out.

Liberals/Socialists crack me up (lol), they hate that Romney is a Mormon but, its okay that Harry Reid is a Mormon. They need to do more homework about what things they should attack. They say that Romney has poligamy in his ancestry but, guess what kids, so does Obama in his ancestry.

This is what the Hollywood Liberal/Socialists and the Mr. Obama do not understand. If you are rich and telling other people that are rich, that they are evil, you are a hypocrite but, sorry you probably think this is a commendable human quality. Could a liberal lecture another liberal about traditional values? That would be an interesting conversation. According to liberals/socialist we are not suppose have traditional values its to old world. Why because, if they did they would have to have something to live up to. Oh no, would they have to take on responsibility for what they do like the rest of us?

Okay, I know that was harsh, just go back to your entitlement, mediocrity ideals (lowered expectations), fantasy world and let the real people that worked hard all their lives and fought for this country enjoy being proud of their our traditional values.

WelcomeUSA - I am so sick and tired of you stupid, ignorant far righters who think no one has moral values but you people who have NO morals and NO values whatsoever. You lie, cheat, steal, tell everyone you're Christian but no real Christian would recognize you because of your lack of values of any kind.

You resort to calling our President a socialist because you can't find anything else to scare people. You are the lowest of the filth out there but you talk about traditional values. Well, your values are only traditional if your tradition is the garbage can. You have no values of any kind.

You put anyone down who is less fortunate. When I was growing up my parents taught us it is our responsibility to give a hand up to those less fortunate - those are values you piece of filth. You and your idiotic Republican haters - call anyone who is out of work a freeloader. You idiot - do you know that over 50% of the out of work and homeless are our vets? Where the hell are your traditional values for them - you piece of trash!

Don't talk values - because you and people like you have the values of a snake. You don't have any!

Now, I actually work and need to get back to it. No entitlement, no mediocrity, no fantasy world. See I actually have values - unlike the filth you represent. Go crawl back in the gutter where you belong - because those are the values you show!

Obama/Biden 2012

Totas-

We won't have unions for long if the Republicans Governors of Wisconsin and Ohio have their way. Unions have never been weaker and Republicans now seek the final bullet to their heads. That would kill two birds in their estimation: provide a vulnerable unprotected work force to their corporate executive friends and dry up the last large source of campaign money that goes predominatly to liberal causes. Soon, we can have workers jumping off of balconies in this country. That's just a pesky nuisance when you refuse to hire more workers and seek to squeeze the last drop of blood from your diminishing payroll - the modern corporate model. Yep, work them overtime until they get nasty from the stress - then fire them for the next hungry sap. If a few commit suicide or go postal and shoot the middle managers, the mess will never reach the boardroom. But government must be sure to lower the taxes for the executives who have to move the money around. Lordie, those people are like Gods.

Welcome USA and Seeking Sanity - the wealthy are not Christian, it is stated very clearly in the Bible, the Book of James that you shall not treat the wealthy better than anyone else, lets not forget that in Luke, John, and Matthew there are several verses regarding the rich young ruler not being able to get to heaven, yep it is in there, along with that adultry thing, if you are going to pretend to be a Christian, you should at least read the book. and a Morman is not a Christian.

Union Baby - the far right is doing more to kill Christianity than any group. Their hatred of their fellow man who is suffering is so telling. I love Ghandi's statement, "I love your Christ, it is your Christians I can't stand." Pretty much says it all!

If anyone wants to see "hatred", all they have to do is read your rant at #5.6.

Oh, and all the talk about "Mormon" has come from you so-called "liberals" .... thus revealing your prejudicial and hypocritical mindset.

Re-read your own post at #5.6 and please examine your venom before trying to display your "Christianity".

jim - if anyone wants to see ignorance and desperation all they have to do is read your posts today. You pick out my post only and throw your stupidity at me. Go away or start being objective - my guess is you'll go away since objective is way above you!

rukidding - well, when you speak of fools you would know since you're one of the leaders of fools!

Obama/Biden 2012