Should Mitt release his tax returns?

[leftyjace]

He does say really stupid stuff, often, but this quote is not among them. No one will hire a person simply because they have money lying around. You hire people because your current staff can't meet the demand for your product. If you give a CEO a million-dollar tax credit, but there is no increase in the market, he'll just distribute that to the shareholders. That will stimulate a little, but hiring unemployed people directly is a much more effective stimulus.

"Job Creators" implies that those with the money will use it to start new business ventures. Rarely are there instances where new companies are started, functional, and profitable without staff dedicated to that new company's tasks. Hence, with new business ventures come new jobs - in other words, job creation.

While you are correct, those with money don't necessarily need to sink it in new business ventures, well... they wouldn't then be considered to be entrepreneurial, would they? They'd be considered investors, sinking it into existing business ventures.

 

[northeast]

they may eventually take the entire $77,000 *passive income* loss to offset *passive income* gains from this venture. They may also take the entire $77,000 loss in the pants with no offsetting tax deduction. In this regard, their tax benefit from this venture is a negative hurdle compared to many other more traditional investments where it's quite easy to claim a loss to offset gains elsewhere. The Romney's do not have this option with this horse unless this horse makes actual money

OneBrow, this is the issue in bold. The Romney's likely would have been able to write off any loss against other income, because rich people apparently are able to spend a lot of money on their hobbies and social activities and call them businesses, (as evidenced by Franklin's posts elsewhere in this thread.) At this point, the attention on this and Romney's unique situation may influence and alter the eventual outcome IMO. IT appears that they do have this option, although it is not 100% that it will be allowed.

As a whole new subject, even if the horse is not strictly profitable on its own, it seems it would be a ideal tool for someone to launder money from other sources, although I am not saying saying that Romney has done this.

 

[TroutBum]

Wow, that's unfortunate... I just typed up a bodaciously brilliant chapter re: how stupid northriller Dawg is, and I hit the backspace button twice to fix an error, and it launched me two pages back in the thread -- erasing my genius.

Piss on this thread.

 

[northeast]

Turns out Romney (Bain) got some free stuff. It appears that he negotiated for Bain with the FDIC to get $10,000,000 in debt forgiveness from Bank of New England around 1991 to 1993.

Moving on.
Would Romney have such a fortune without $10,000,000 in free money? Highly doubtful.

 

[northeast]

Wow, that's unfortunate... I just typed up a bodaciously brilliant chapter re: how stupid northriller Dawg is, and I hit the backspace button twice to fix an error, and it launched me two pages back in the thread -- erasing my genius.

Piss on this thread.

God is on my side.

 

[Stoked]

Moving on.
Would Romney have such a fortune without $10,000,000 in free money? Highly doubtful.

Isn't that obvious?

Would a poor family have as much food without food stamps?

 

[One Brow]

Let me ask you this One Brow.
At this point in time, do you or do you not believe that the tax law allows someone at some point in time to write off a loss on a passive business against some other business gain or some other income?

From what I have seen so far, the answer to that question is not a simple yes or no. There are multiple other factors involved.

 

[TroutBum]

God is on my side.

If Gordon is on your side, then I'm going over to OneBlow's house. (PBUH)

 

[One Brow]

"Job Creators" implies that those with the money will use it to start new business ventures. Rarely are there instances where new companies are started, functional, and profitable without staff dedicated to that new company's tasks. Hence, with new business ventures come new jobs - in other words, job creation.

While you are correct, those with money don't necessarily need to sink it in new business ventures, well... they wouldn't then be considered to be entrepreneurial, would they? They'd be considered investors, sinking it into existing business ventures.

Who invests in a new business in a time of low demand? You seem to think that, because the money exists, it must be going to new or existing business ventures. I agree that outside of stuffing a mattress, all the money eventually circulates in the economy, but not necessarily in a job-creating way, and certainly not in a way that creates jobs more efficiently than the government directly contracting for infrastructure improvements.

 

[One Brow]

They may also take the entire $77,000 loss in the pants with no offsetting tax deduction. In this regard, their tax benefit from this venture is a negative hurdle compared to many other more traditional investments where it's quite easy to claim a loss to offset gains elsewhere. The Romney's do not have this option with this horse unless this horse makes actual money

OneBrow, this is the issue in bold. The Romney's likely would have been able to write off any loss against other income, because rich people apparently are able to spend a lot of money on their hobbies and social activities and call them businesses, (as evidenced by Franklin's posts elsewhere in this thread.) At this point, the attention on this and Romney's unique situation may influence and alter the eventual outcome IMO. IT appears that they do have this option, although it is not 100% that it will be allowed.

As I pointed out, the language of the law you quoted used "such activity", a clear sign to me tha the activity had to be related in some way.

If Romney has created some sort of horse-buying company (or possibly even if he does not), that I would agree the loss on this horse could be written off from gains on other horses. What I don't see is any guarantee that he will be able to write it off of any gain he chooses.

 

[PearlWatson]

That was the goal. The reality was that 40% of the stimulus went to tax cuts. If you thinkthe stimulus failed, you think tax cuts failed.

Tax cuts ain't an expenditure.

 

[northeast]

As I pointed out, the language of the law you quoted used "such activity", a clear sign to me tha the activity had to be related in some way.

You are misinterpreting the language. For clarification, you must look at other sources, which I have provided. Your "clear sign" is misleading. My interpretation appears to be correct, not yours. Even if you are right, the language stating that it can be used offset one thing, is not the same thing as saying it can not be used to offset something else. You are assuming an implication that is just incorrect in this instance. Don't shoot the messenger. If you have a complaint, take it up with the IRS

If Romney has created some sort of horse-buying company (or possibly even if he does not), that I would agree the loss on this horse could be written off from gains on other horses. What I don't see is any guarantee that he will be able to write it off of any gain he chooses.

You are assuming that such activity limits such activities to horses. This is not determined, just a false assumption.

 

[One Brow]

That was the goal. The reality was that 40% of the stimulus went to tax cuts. If you thinkthe stimulus failed, you think tax cuts failed.

Tax cuts ain't an expenditure.

Hence, the use of "stimulus", not "expenditure".

 

[SaltyDawg]

I agree that outside of stuffing a mattress, all the money eventually circulates in the economy,

Not everyone would agree with that. For example:
https://abcnews.go.com/blogs/busine...n-secret-tax-havens-says-tax-justice-network/

"Super-Rich Hide $21 Trillion in Secret Tax Havens, Says Tax Justice Network"

If Romney has created some sort of horse-buying company (or possibly even if he does not), that I would agree the loss on this horse could be written off from gains on other horses. What I don't see is any guarantee that he will be able to write it off of any gain he chooses.

The Forbes link I posted several pages back disagrees with you.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/janetn...the-taxes-on-the-romneys-olympic-horse-wrong/

"But you don’t forfeit the passive losses you can’t use. Instead they’re “suspended” and can be carried forward and used in future years to the extent you have income from other passive activities. Moreover, when you sell all of a money losing passive investment, any unused losses from it are liberated and can be claimed against non-passive taxable income. If Mitt wins and Ann sells her share of Rob Rom, their suspended horse losses could, for example, be deducted against Mitt’s $400,000 Presidential salary."

 

[One Brow]

Which is my position, not Franklin's. Franklin was the one who guaranteed that he could not write off the loss against other sources.

I didn't read franklin's quote that way at all.

 

[PearlWatson]

Hence, the use of "stimulus", not "expenditure".

You can't count 40% of something you don't have.

 

[One Brow]

Not everyone would agree with that.

The Forbes link I posted several pages back disagrees with you.

Unless the tax havens are stuffing the money into mattresses, it still circulates in the directions they choose.

I read your Forbes quote differently than you, and have no desire to spend 5 pages of back-and-forth detailing why.

 

[One Brow]

You can't count 40% of something you don't have.

Hence, the use of "stimulus" as opposed to "something the Federal government had".

 

[leftyjace]

Who invests in a new business in a time of low demand? You seem to think that, because the money exists, it must be going to new or existing business ventures. I agree that outside of stuffing a mattress, all the money eventually circulates in the economy, but not necessarily in a job-creating way, and certainly not in a way that creates jobs more efficiently than the government directly contracting for infrastructure improvements.

A person with a new product idea or service that is of great value, is not currently being provided, and would have a high chance of success would invest in a new business in a time of "low demand", as you call it. But "low demand" is a relative term. Low demand of what? If his product is new, how can there be low demand?

Keep in mind the iPad was introduced right smack dab in the middle of a full blown Recession. Yet it seemed to do OK for itself. I realize that's not a new company, it's a new product - but the popularity of the iPad did "create jobs" by increasing the size and scope of Apple and its' product line.

You accuse me of thinking that if money exists it always goes to job creating ventures. I accuse you of thinking that if money exists it won't... it will simply sit there and look pretty for rich people and not be utilized to stimulate the economy.

I would bet the truth lies somewhere in between - with a leaning towards my perspective. People with money want to make money with that money if possible. Don't we all? Isn't that why we use interest bearing bank accounts? Isn't that why we invest our 401k funds in various ways - to increase the return on our money and earn as much as possible?

Don't be so jaded that you refuse to believe rich people will use money in ways that will benefit others.

 

[SaltyDawg]

Unless the tax havens are stuffing the money into mattresses, it still circulates in the directions they choose.

Letting it sit in an account in the Cayman Islands is not circulating it in this economy. It might be doing something for the economy in the Cayman Islands, but it isn't doing much (or anything) for the economy in SLC.