Slore, I don't think the world will end....at least I hope not! What I do see is more of the same that we have had for the last four years. Am I better off now than I was four years ago? No, I'm not, but I have a helluva lot of clients who are worse off. Bush's re-election came down to the same thing that may get Obama re-elected. Both of them faced weak candidates that people couldn't relate to. This election may be the same thing and have the same result. I'd love to see some politician come out in favor of term limits for both the House and the Senate. We were never supposed to be a land of career politicians and it is time that many of them on both sides of the aisle were shown the door. Many of the laws passed during Obama's tenure have some scary impact that has escaped the notice of most Americans. A lot of the laws, including Obamacare and the Dodd-Frank Financial Regulations contain many open ended references to regulations as determined to be necessary by the Secretary or words to that effect. We are even seeing that in tax law. What is scary is that it puts way too much power in the hands of the Executive Branch. No matter who wins the election, that is one trend that has to stop.
Twini, I know you're just making an argument here, and you really do see the difference. When an American takes out a mortgage to buy a home, incurs large medical expenses, or pays local taxes, he is doing none of these "to avoid US taxes". Now, imagine a business which need not otherwise exist in the form it is created but, with an eye on U.S. tax laws, a way is seen to make it possible for the super rich to avoid paying taxes on the gains from their wealth, and the head of this business succeeds with it, preventing the collection of billions of dollars in taxes which were sorely needed by his country. Now suppose that same individual offers himself as a candidate for president of that same country, a country that is in financial trouble, yet his receipt for a cure for that trouble is to further reduce the amount of taxes people will be required to pay to support that country, while continuing to own and profit from his tax avoidance business. Is this person someone they could trust?
Sorry V, but anyone who pays taxes and complies with the law is not doing anything wrong. You use the example of someone deducting their mortgage interest as a "valid" deduction while saying that someone who has a business and has been successful in that business should not take advantage of what the law gives them. The tax law allows a business to deduct up to $139,000 of equipment purchases this year. Now If I go out and buy that much equipment for my business, how is that wrong? I am reducing my taxes legally and helping to create jobs but in your definition I'm doing something wrong even though I am in total compliance with the law. If you think Romney should be paying more taxes than what the law allows, why doesn't that apply to Obama? Why should Obama not ignore his itemized deductions and pay more taxes? Let's see, if anyone decides to run for public office, does that mean they should suddenly be paying more in taxes than what they have to? As to your allegation that the business was created solely to take advantage of the tax laws, well, if that is the case that it was created "solely to take advantage of the tax laws" then that would be illegal. If the business has a valid business purpose then there is no problem. Where did you get your information that it was created for tax avoidance, MSNBC? I love how some media type who doesn't know squat about taxes can suddenly pass judgement on what someone else did years ago. V, I don't write the laws, Congress does. And just that you know that equipment deduction that I referred to used to be $500,000 under a Democrat controlled Congress. I think your major argument against Romney is that he has been successful. Maybe we need someone who has been successful in life in the White House instead of someone who has never been successful at anything other than politics.
The readers will notice that I didn't say that. The readers will notice I didn't say that. No, Twini, that information is contained in the filings required of funds of its type. The language quoted is, This is not an issue of whether the candidate for president could theoretically do jail time, or suffer a financial penalty in relation to the operation of his business; it's whether such a person deserves the trust of the American people. You stand too close to the tax laws to notice the larger issue of motive and character which spending a lifetime making money this way raises.
Slore, the apocalypse that I refer to is a country that has overspent and won't curb that spending and increase revenues. That doesn't mean that the world will end, but it does mean that there will have to be some major changes in this country that will be very, very painful.
V, if you really want to go with the issue of character, then you should look at Obama's cronies and those that helped him get to where he is today. Tell me how does a man go to the same church for 20 years and not hear the rantings and ravings? Tell me, how does a man rely on the support of someone who would love to see the US destroyed? V, I don't know if you ever served in the military. If you did, you will notice that our current President doesn't seem to have much respect for a flag that many men and women have died for. If you want to assault character, you had best look at the character of the man who currently occupies the White House.
slore, you mentioned that you support President Obama because you are no worse off than you were four years ago. I can respect that. My perspective is much different. I see things as being worse now than they were. I see a country going deeper into debt that we can't afford. That's the reason I see a need for a change in a nutshell.
Besides, others are worse off than before since 2009. My family particularly. Looking for a change now.
V, obviously you are a fan of our current President. I'd like to know why you support him. I'd like to hear your perspective.
