Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsNYT editorial: The 1% and That 15%
Editorial
The 1% and That 15%
<...>
Lets be clear: despite Mr. Romneys claim that people will want to see the most recent year, his 2011 taxes would not be enough. Voters have a right to know how presidential aspirants made their money not just in the year before the election. That is especially true in Mr. Romneys case because he says his business success qualifies him to be president.
As for that 15 percent rate, its all completely legal. Mr. Romney didnt even need a sharp accountant. If Mr. Romney has done one good thing with his partial disclosure although it clearly wasnt his goal he has reminded Americans of the fundamental unfairness of the current tax code and of how determined Mr. Romney and his party are to keep it that way.
<...>
Worse, an egregious loophole in the law lets private equity partners pay the lower 15 percent rate on much of their income known as carried interest even though those earnings are not typically gains from investing their own money, but rather a share of profits from investing someone elses money.
<...>
President Obama has repeatedly, and correctly, called for ending the carried interest loophole. It is morally indefensible because it asserts that the efforts and risks of private equity partners are worthier than those of workers who pay regular tax rates. It also makes no sense. The rationale for keeping the capital gains rate lower than the rate on wages and salaries is to encourage and reward investors for taking risks with their own money. Private equity partners are, by and large, managing other peoples money risk.
- more -
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/19/opinion/the-1-and-that-15.html
The 1% and That 15%
<...>
Lets be clear: despite Mr. Romneys claim that people will want to see the most recent year, his 2011 taxes would not be enough. Voters have a right to know how presidential aspirants made their money not just in the year before the election. That is especially true in Mr. Romneys case because he says his business success qualifies him to be president.
As for that 15 percent rate, its all completely legal. Mr. Romney didnt even need a sharp accountant. If Mr. Romney has done one good thing with his partial disclosure although it clearly wasnt his goal he has reminded Americans of the fundamental unfairness of the current tax code and of how determined Mr. Romney and his party are to keep it that way.
<...>
Worse, an egregious loophole in the law lets private equity partners pay the lower 15 percent rate on much of their income known as carried interest even though those earnings are not typically gains from investing their own money, but rather a share of profits from investing someone elses money.
<...>
President Obama has repeatedly, and correctly, called for ending the carried interest loophole. It is morally indefensible because it asserts that the efforts and risks of private equity partners are worthier than those of workers who pay regular tax rates. It also makes no sense. The rationale for keeping the capital gains rate lower than the rate on wages and salaries is to encourage and reward investors for taking risks with their own money. Private equity partners are, by and large, managing other peoples money risk.
- more -
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/19/opinion/the-1-and-that-15.html
Flashback: Mitt Romney defends top 1%
http://upload.democraticunderground.com/1002185625
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
2 replies, 1321 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (9)
ReplyReply to this post
2 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
NYT editorial: The 1% and That 15% (Original Post)
ProSense
Jan 2012
OP
And Newt's 'tax plan' would lower Romney's taxes to almost zero. He'd only pay on his
sinkingfeeling
Jan 2012
#1
sinkingfeeling
(51,274 posts)1. And Newt's 'tax plan' would lower Romney's taxes to almost zero. He'd only pay on his
speaker fees. All investment, captial gains, and carried interest would not be taxed at all.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)2. Good point.
They both suck!