Should Mitt release his tax returns?

[franklin]

I wasted time skimming through "26 USC Section 469"...Damn you F for making me read though that drudgery instead of just quoting what you were talking about.

Are you really crying about educating yourself and having an informed opinion?

Looks to me like Forbes is correct, Salty is correct, my intuition is correct, and Franklin is misleading us. The code indicates that a passive loss can be used sooner or later to offset other gains, even non-passive. Franklin, if there is some condition in there I missed that changes this, (other than the IRS deciding that the whole thing was a cheating tax dodge), feel free to be more specific.

Good. Now that you're a section 469 expert you're capable of explaining where I misunderstood. Go.

You're the one who doesn't seem to get it. You're so busy arguing the semantics that you're missing the overall point. It doesn't matter if you call it a credit, deduction, write off, illegal tax evasion, or any other term that may have been floated around in this thread. In all instances, the end result is the same: the federal government had less money because Romney got some sort of discount.

If this is acceptable to you then that is fine. I have no problem with it either. But if you think it's acceptable for this to happen, and you have a problem with people getting "free stuff" from the government (meaning food stamps for the poor) then it is you who is worthless to this discussion

Are you stating that 1) we should get rid of corporate profit and loss taxes, or 2) profits should be socialized and expenses privatized?
Are you going to cry when the Romneys pay taxes on the $25,000 per shot of sperm they get from this horse?

 

[SaltyDawg]

Apples and oranges. On one hand you have someone preventing the government from taking. On the other, someone is getting "free stuff" from the government.

The obvious answer here has to be something about 1/3 of Obama's stimulus being tax cuts, and it not being considered apples and oranges in that case...

 

[SaltyDawg]

Are you stating that 1) we should get rid of corporate profit and loss taxes, or 2) profits should be socialized and expenses privatized?
Are you going to cry when the Romneys pay taxes on the $25,000 per shot of sperm they get from this horse?

I'm stating neither. I'm merely stating that if you are super rich and don't need the money anyway, and you're still getting discounts on your taxes for your pet horse, then you shouldn't be bitching about poor people getting free stuff from the government (food stamps so they don't starve).

 

[franklin]

I'm stating neither. I'm merely stating that if you are super rich and don't need the money anyway, and you're still getting discounts on your taxes for your pet horse, then you shouldn't be bitching about poor people getting free stuff from the government (food stamps so they don't starve).

There are no tax discounts for pet horses.

Again: Are you going to cry when the Romneys pay taxes on the $25,000 per shot of sperm they get from this Olympic class horse?

 

[Stoked]

There are no tax discounts for pet horses.

Again: Are you going to cry when the Romneys pay taxes on the $25,000 per shot of sperm they get from this Olympic class horse?

Of course not because they want to pile as many taxes on the rich as possible. They want to bleed them dry so they can fund their entitlement society.

 

[northeast]

Why isn't it a pet horse if they lose money on it, and it is more a hobby than a source of income?
Why did you try to trick us into thinking that loses on this would not be used to offset other gains?
Why did you make that tax code reference when it did not support your statements?
Why did you not make a specific reference to the part of the section that supposedly supported your statements instead of wasting my time with fancy horse ****?

Franklin ?

 

[northeast]

Are you really crying about educating yourself and having an informed opinion?

No , I'm pissed off because you lied to us, were a hypocrite with your rant on sources, pretended to give us a source that supported your statements when it did exactly the opposite, and were too lazy to highlight what part of the reference you were referring to , thereby making me read through that crap to figure out you are just full of horse excrement,.

 

[Stoked]

No , I'm pissed off because you lied to us, were a hypocrite with your rant on sources, pretended to give us a source that supported your statements when it did exactly the opposite, and were too lazy to highlight what part of the reference you were referring to , thereby making me read through that crap to figure out you are just full of horse excrement,.

hahahaha, you make me smile Northeast. You really do. Thank you for reaffirming my beliefs in regards to humanity.

 

[SaltyDawg]

There are no tax discounts for pet horses.

Again: Are you going to cry when the Romneys pay taxes on the $25,000 per shot of sperm they get from this Olympic class horse?

The Forbes link I posted says this horse is a female. So, again, I won't answer your stupid question as it makes no sense.

 

[leftyjace]

Tomorrow we can talk about Swiss bank accounts.

OOOH! Let's do it! I think now is probably a fairly decent time to do so... so i can start moving some money into them before the "fiscal cliff".

 

[PearlWatson]

So when all the right wing nutjobs were blasting earned income tax credits as government handouts, you also called them libtards?

Oh you're talkin bout credits. I hate those friggin' things.

My bad. I thought we were talking about deductions.

Carry on with your Rmoney hate.

 

[leftyjace]

The questions missed the point becasue focused on the likely legality of Romney's tax strategies, which as I said earlier, is probably not the purpose of the calls for releasing his taxes to begin with.

I think it is naive to to put forth the idea that Romney is not actively involved in tax avoidance strategies throughout the year. Low taxes don't just appear from an accounting department, you have to manage your money carefully.

Reading a tax code is like reading the plans for a machine to make sausage. Seeing how they are used is like watching thagt machine make sausages.

I'm not sure I would agree. Romney is an executive, and is used to delegating liberal authority to various departments of his staff. They basically need to report back to him the success of their functions. If they were to simply say "we saved you an additional 0.3% below the level you paid for federal taxes last year", he probably won't say "how?" He'll say "COOL!" and take it.

And if they say "Mitt, you can still do that, but do it THIS way because it will be better for your taxes", I'm not sure he's going to ask why, or go into the details, or ask what particular method is being exploited, etc. His purpose is not to know tax avoidance strategies very well. His purpose is to allow his people to do their job, and then trust in their judgment so he can focus on other things like... winning elections... or something.

 

[franklin]

No , I'm pissed off because you lied to us, were a hypocrite with your rant on sources, pretended to give us a source that supported your statements when it did exactly the opposite, and were too lazy to highlight what part of the reference you were referring to , thereby making me read through that crap to figure out you are just full of horse excrement,.

You're now an expert on it so tell me where it doesn't support what I said. GO.

The Forbes link I posted says this horse is a female. So, again, I won't answer your stupid question as it makes no sense.

Is this your chauvinistic way of claiming Olympic class mares have no economic value?

Are you going to cry when the Romneys pay taxes on all the money they get from this Olympic class horse? Are you going to thank them for selflessly donating their horse services to represent the country as best as possible?

 

[Scat]

Why isn't it a pet horse if they lose money on it, and it is more a hobby than a source of income?
Why did you try to trick us into thinking that loses on this would not be used to offset other gains?
Why did you make that tax code reference when it did not support your statements?
Why did you not make a specific reference to the part of the section that supposedly supported your statements instead of wasting my time with fancy horse ****?

Franklin ?

How about the horse is a medical expense. Physical therapy.

 

[franklin]

Why isn't it a pet horse if they lose money on it, and it is more a hobby than a source of income?

Animal breeding is by-and-large a middle class owned enterprise. Why are you trying to shoulder hard working Americans with more red tape so the millionaires and billionaires can gobble up their businesses? Taking away business expenses for US breeders is heartless and unethical, and will probably push more jobs overseas as you strap our small businesses with high costs and effectively subsidize foreign production.

****in commies.

 

[SaltyDawg]

Is this your chauvinistic way of claiming Olympic class mares have no economic value?

Are you going to cry when the Romneys pay taxes on all the money they get from this Olympic class horse? Are you going to thank them for selflessly donating their horse services to represent the country as best as possible?

Stop putting words in my mouth. At no point did I say or imply that Olympic class mares have no value. I simply refused to answer your nonsensical question about paying taxes on shots of sperm dished out by the mare.

As to your new question, as the Forbes article states, they will likely sell that horse and then claim the $77,000 against whatever gains they have in the year they sell it.

 

[Stoked]

How about the horse is a medical expense. Physical therapy.

Doesn't matter. They are rich and should just shut up and pay.

 

[franklin]

As to your new question, as the Forbes article states, they will likely sell that horse and then claim the $77,000 against whatever gains they have in the year they sell it.

You mean expenses offset revenues? Oh the humanity! Who invented all this accounting and tax bull **** in the first place? I think small businesses should invest everything and not get to write off a single dime. It'll be so risky to start a business that nobody but government subsidized industries will try. Hell yeah, commie, that's the way to go.

 

[SaltyDawg]

You mean expenses offset revenues? Oh the humanity! Who invented all this accounting and tax bull **** in the first place? I think small businesses should invest everything and not get to write off a single dime. It'll be so risky to start a business that nobody but government subsidized industries will try. Hell yeah, commie, that's the way to go.

You keep trying to turn this into a "Salty wants to tax rich people" or "Salty doesn't know as much about taxes as me" argument. The reality is, this is a "don't bitch about poor people getting food stamps when you are deducting your pet horse" argument.

As I said, I have no problem with Romney deducting what the law will legally allow him to deduct. I do, however, have a problem with him bitching about poor people getting food stamps while he does this.

Romney could wipe his *** with $77,000 and it wouldn't make him change his lifestyle at all. He'd still have so much money he wouldn't even miss it in his day to day activities or any of his future plans. So for him to take that deduction, which I have no problem with him taking, is actually worse to me than the guy who got laid off during the recession who gets $100 per month in food stamps so his kids can eat.

 

[leftyjace]

You keep trying to turn this into a "Salty wants to tax rich people" or "Salty doesn't know as much about taxes as me" argument. The reality is, this is a "don't bitch about poor people getting food stamps when you are deducting your pet horse" argument.

As I said, I have no problem with Romney deducting what the law will legally allow him to deduct. I do, however, have a problem with him bitching about poor people getting food stamps while he does this.

Romney could wipe his *** with $77,000 and it wouldn't make him change his lifestyle at all. He'd still have so much money he wouldn't even miss it in his day to day activities or any of his future plans. So for him to take that deduction, which I have no problem with him taking, is actually worse to me than the guy who got laid off during the recession who gets $100 per month in food stamps so his kids can eat.

Salty, I may have missed it, but did you ever provide a source for the $77,000 deduction?