Yes, this, and his use of Cayman Islands for banking, are what the writer calls to our attention. Who wouldn't like to have the choice of being taxed, after all allowable deductions, either at the rates that would be normally be applied to wages, or 15% of their total compensation, whichever is less? This is what the law relating to "carried interest", conceived by a few for the benefit of a few, allows.
Okay V, then let me ask you this question, do think you should be paying taxes today on money you MIGHT make in the future? Really, does that make even a smidgen of sense?
I don't believe you're characterizing the issue, correctly. Here's an example of an effort made in Congress, a few years ago, to amend the law to prevent those who manage funds for a living having the option of choosing how their compensation would be taxed. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-110hr2834ih/pdf/BILLS-110hr2834ih.pdf In light of Romney's poor performance in S.C., this issue may have already begun to weigh on him, as it strikes those who are not given that option as a manifestly unfair way to distribute the burden of supporting our country, financially.
Ben and Lisa, the tax treatment of "carried interest" is an example of what I'm talking about. When those in the most privileged positions get favored tax treatment, it amounts to the government giving away resources to those who need it the least. Romney being in the race has brought attention to this issue, and legislation is being introduced in an attempt to deal with it, once again. Carried interest sparks bipartisan tax debate - InvestmentNews
rdubnpk Well, I actually UNDERESTIMATED how voters might react when the nuts and bolts of how a 1%er became a 1%er was revealed for all to see. I am still baffled by the apparent failing of the mantra that unregulated capitalism is the goal sought by all Republicans when, again, the candidate who would be the Poster Child for that mantra comes in a weak second place........Could it be that there may be a crack in the wall of invincibility that the super rich have enjoyed?? Is average Joe Republican seeing though the propaganda? Next, if eye of Newt was an adviser to Freddie Mac, why did he not advise them to stay away from the high risk mortgages? Was he just a salaried figurehead?
V, the issue of carried interest being earned income or not is pretty technical. There are a number of items that are not considered to be "earned income" that are sketchy to say the least. For example, rental income is not earned income and the same with investment income. Why? Probably because some politician didn't want to pay social security taxes on part of their own income. Should Romney be critiicized for using the tax law to his advantage? If you would like to criticize Romney for using the tax law to his advantage then you might want to not take the foreign income exclusion on your own return this year. Using the tax laws to someone's own benefit is real easy to criticize on someone else's return while taking benefits on our own returns.
I don't think I would use SC as a gauge of the rest of the US. Romney's religion would be a much bigger issue in SC than in other states. I think the media has made an issue of the perceived 1% when what the voters there were more concerned about was his religious views than his political views.
rdubnpk He was (reportedly) leading, according to the polls, until the quasi-details were made public up until the final days before the vote. He made the problem worse by wavering about releasing his tax statements. Religion was not an issue, as far as I could see.
You may be right because he did tank after the tax return issue. My mother was from rural SC and my sister lives there now and I know folks there can be a little bit provincial when it comes to religion. It's a place where if you say God often enough you can pull in some votes. Hey, they had Strom Thurmond for a Senator for something like two centuries or so. I think he may still be there!
