Mitts Millions

FluffyMcDeath

FluffyMcDeath

Active Member
Member
Joined
May 17, 2005
Messages
12,259
Reaction score
2,693
Mitt isn't exactly raking it in. Like, for example, from Feb 2010 to Feb 2011 he made only a bit over a third of a million dollars for speaking, and as he admits, that's not much. He gets most of his income from not working - and since interest and investment income is taxed differently, he pays around a 15% effective rate.

And what's such a meager income like? Well, thanks to this online calculator you can now see how you compare to Mitt. If it takes you about a year to earn what Mitt earns in a year then you know that he is a man who can represent your interests. If you think his income is a bit out of line with the reasonable needs of comfort then that's just envy.
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
Mitt isn't exactly raking it in. Like, for example, from Feb 2010 to Feb 2011 he made only a bit over a third of a million dollars for speaking, and as he admits, that's not much. He gets most of his income from not working - and since interest and investment income is taxed differently, he pays around a 15% effective rate.
Click to expand...

I'm clearly not a Mitt supporter, but let me point out to the none Americans about Capital Gains taxes when it's applied to Corp profits. Prior to cutting the shareholders or investors checks, the company has to pay 35% taxation first. So that 15% is what Mitt had to pay AFTER the Corp paid 35%. So $1.00 of profit minus 35% Corporate Tax = $.065 profit that went to shareholders/whatever. From there the US Government double dips and taxes that same post 35% Corporate taxed profit again, this time by 15%. So Fluffy, %15 of $0.65 is $0.0975 of additional taxes. So out of every $0.5525 that Mitt sees after taxes, $0.4475 went to the US Government.

So you are saying that 44.75% taxation rate on every dollar of profit given to the shareholders is too low for your Progressive ideaology?

This whole US income tax thing is a Progressive tax, why aren't we in Nirvana yet? Answer is, because it doesn't work.
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
It's not like he earned it.
Click to expand...

I think Romney is a dirtbag and a vulture capitalist, so no love lost for him. Then again I think capital gain taxes are a joke and affect more than the rich. Lower to middle income people who try to get ahead by saving or investing get nailed again with capital gain taxes. I'm far from rich, but I have held small dividen paying stock in the past. No way I should be double taxed, really tripple taxed. I am taxed when I earn it, taxed when I save it or invest it and then taxed yet again if/when I spend it.

What a racket.
 
That's not all Red. If you earn enough after all that, they're going to tax it again when you die. Just the way Fluffy likes it!
Funny thing though, I think Fluffy takes every tax deduction he can. Whyzzat?:confused:
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
It's not like he earned it.
Click to expand...

Risking money is indeed earning a ROI. If there wasn't those throwing capital around for investing, we would be living like peasants in old Soviet union. If you think the government can do that all by itself, just wait for about 10 to 14 months and see what that's is a bad thing. Yes, the fecal matter will hit the rotating air foil soon enough, world wide.
 
Dammy said:
Risking money is indeed earning a ROI.
Click to expand...
Risking money is gambling and is not the same thing as earning. However, gambling money but making the taxpayer cover the downside isn't earning it or even taking a risk.
 
Dammy said:
Life is a gamble. Taxpayers covering what downside? You mean like the car industry?
Click to expand...

No, I mean like in finance. One of the big problems with the car industry is that they were getting out of making cars and getting into finance. The government estimates a loss of less than a hundred billion for the auto-industry bailout. That is significantly less than the more than 1 trillion the government has put into bailing out the finance sector and when they went in to the auto industry they were at least able to get some concession - not so with finance who basically wrote the terms of their own rescue (and are still doing it).
 
Fade said:
Fluffy do you have life insurance?
Click to expand...
I know I'm taking a gamble in having them honour their end of the deal, but yes, I do. I lend them money, they use it to make money and if I die during the time they are gambling with my money then my kids supposedly win - but they didn't earn it.
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
Risking money is gambling and is not the same thing as earning.
Click to expand...
Although semantically correct, there's more to it than that. People do earn a living doing just that, ever hear of professional poker players? The thing is, there's more to it than just luck. Those who don't know what they're doing usually end up losing big. Those who do know what they're doing can earn a living playing the odds. And in fact, risk level is often associated with remuneration levels. Those crab fishermen risk their lives and they do so not because they love the taste of crab but because it pays so damn well.

However, gambling money but making the taxpayer cover the downside isn't earning it or even taking a risk.
Click to expand...
On that we agree, the government is taking away the risk in some cases in which case there's no incentive to gamble wisely. That needs to be fixed. Risk should never be removed from the equation.
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
I know I'm taking a gamble in having them honour their end of the deal, but yes, I do. I lend them money, they use it to make money and if I die during the time they are gambling with my money then my kids supposedly win - but they didn't earn it.
Click to expand...

Depends, is it Term or Whole Life? If it's Term, does the policy end at a certain date or does the policy continue on after it's fully paid off? If it just ends, you ain't lending them anything, nothing is coming back to you for living that long and paying the premiums. Now lets talk about family, you think the kids should see 50% taxation rate on their inheritance, including the insurance policies? Or doesn't the Canadian government steal the coppers out of your pockets after you die?

That's one thing I don't get why Progressives hate people with money, even if it's left to the survivors. Excluding insurance policies for a minute, but even that is paid for by post taxed dollars, the person who died already paid taxes on it when they earned it (by sweat or investment), why should the government tax it yet again? Oh that's right, it's not the government issuing the money, Progressives don't like the fact it's not government money, so it's evil. IMO, that is a sick type of control factor that Progressive dream of their never attainable socialistic Utopia.
 
Dammy said:
That's one thing I don't get why Progressives hate people with money, even if it's left to the survivors.
Click to expand...
Money is power. Inherited wealth propagates and centralizes power within families. The Founding Fathers themselves were against inherited wealth as they feared it'd create a feudal type of system, one of the reasons people fled Europe. The other thing is I think people should gain by fruits of their own labor. Something inherited wealth goes against.
 
Tripe!

And to whom is your property and assets willed to, in case of your death? The DNC?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top