Albert Lea Discussion Forum » Printable Version of Topic

Forum: Current Events
Topic: Romney’s IRA
started by: Expatriate

Posted by Expatriate on Jul. 10 2012,7:23 am

Over one hundred million dollars in a tax deferred or exempt account...just how did Mitt manage this?? someone like myself is limited to five thousand dollars a year six if you’re over fifty..
Obviously Romney was able to contribute more, I believe it’s thirty thousand a year for someone in business for themself but even at that thirty thousand a year it would make one hundred million a mathematical impossibility!

What the heck is going on here why are billionaires allowed to tax exempt this type of money in a program that was intended for working class retirement savings!!

Posted by Self-Banished on Jul. 10 2012,7:38 am

So what? Is it illegal? If not, good for him.

Posted by Expatriate on Jul. 10 2012,7:46 am

Al Capone went to prison for less... and you want to put this guy in the White House...

whether it’s illegal or a tax loophole he’s taken advantage of it shows the moral turpitude of this man...

Posted by Botto 82 on Jul. 10 2012,8:48 am

The words 'greed' and 'corruption' just don't have the negative stigma they used to... :frusty:

Posted by Self-Banished on Jul. 10 2012,9:13 am

Ah yes, shady little deals, HEY! How about that litlle real estate deal between Obama and Tony Resko???

Posted by Liberal on Jul. 10 2012,10:55 am

< http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/money.asp >

Posted by bulldog on Jul. 10 2012,11:06 am

When the day comes that the polititions and the people worry more about what they can do to help us the people and not what the other person running did 20 years ago or what they may have said then we will start making progress . politics - its a trash the opponent not heres what I can do to help us world

Posted by Self-Banished on Jul. 10 2012,11:18 am

(Liberal @ Jul. 10 2012,10:55 am)

QUOTE

< http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/money.asp >

Snopes

Posted by Self-Banished on Jul. 10 2012,3:52 pm

(Expatriate @ Jul. 10 2012,7:46 am)

QUOTE

Al Capone went to prison for less... and you want to put this guy in the White House...

whether it’s illegal or a tax loophole he’s taken advantage of it shows the moral turpitude of this man...

So when you file your taxes you don't take advantage of deductions???

Posted by Expatriate on Jul. 10 2012,6:10 pm

Posted by blahblahblah on Jul. 10 2012,11:31 pm

Looks like CNN Money let the cat out of the bag on this evil secret years ago.

< CNN Money Article >

Of course if Romney violated any of this stuff he should be punished.

QUOTE

Important restrictions do apply, which brings us back to those "prohibited transactions." One critical rule governs what the IRS calls "self-dealing," using tax-deferred money for something that benefits you today. "If you get a benefit as a byproduct of a transaction that your IRA is involved in, that would be a violation," says Anderson.

For example, you may buy a vacation house through your IRA and rent it for profit. But if you or your family use the house, that would be self-dealing. You are also forbidden to mix sweat equity with your investment. If you do repairs on the house yourself, you're breaking the rules.

Using IRA funds to start a business can be a minefield. You can legally invest IRA money in a startup, but you can't be a majority owner or pay yourself a salary unless the company is structured so that your salary is not in your control. To stay abreast of the tax codes, seek professional guidance.

Retirement interrupted
"If you file the papers to incorporate and name yourself the sole shareholder," says Anderson, "then you can't put your IRA money into it." Anderson encourages entrepreneurs to put a portion of their retirement money into their company, "particularly a Roth IRA, if you really believe your company [is] going to pay off."

Perhaps this is why Grassman has his own company?

Posted by grassman on Jul. 11 2012,6:00 am

As a matter of fact I did use some of my IRA to start my business. I was taxed up the butt to do so. No longer is it IRA money. I do not get the same "luxury" as money movers like Romney.

Posted by Expatriate on Jul. 11 2012,2:51 pm

How will Romney flip flop this tax evasion IRA scheme...what’s in your IRA... or how about those accounts in Switzerland or Cayman Islands where you keep that secret stash of tax free cash...

$15.5 trillion of National Debt is fairly easy to explain, Romney types not paying tax..

Posted by Self-Banished on Jul. 11 2012,6:56 pm

I'm sure with all the exposure Rummy's been getting over the years that he's probably pretty safe with his investments as far as being legal. There's most Likely a army of lawyers and accounts working on his stuff.

Expat, you seem to have a real "hard on" for Rummy so I figure you either scared or jealous. You seem especially vicious with him. If he's dirty it will be exposed if not, he's pretty savvy business wise.

By the way, Al Capone??? :dunce:

Posted by Expatriate on Jul. 11 2012,9:07 pm

^ Al Capone went to prison for tax evasion that’s how he equates to Romney’s financial behavior.

Posted by hairhertz on Jul. 11 2012,11:09 pm

greed

Posted by Glad I Left on Jul. 12 2012,8:08 am

Why is it greed and/or thought of as illegal for one to keep as much of one's own money as they can?
I don't care if it's Romney or Obama, they have the right to keep as much of their own money as they legally can?
If there are tax shelters, or off shore accounts that they can hold their money in that provides a tax benefit, then why not use it?
I use every tax deduction I can when I file my taxes. Am I greedy too?

What this comes down to is a tax system that is completely F'd up. 76000 pages of tax code, and only to go higher under obamacare says it all.

Posted by Self-Banished on Jul. 12 2012,8:16 am

(Expatriate @ Jul. 11 2012,9:07 pm)

QUOTE

^ Al Capone went to prison for tax evasion that’s how he equates to Romney’s financial behavior.

So when is he going to be indicted :dunce:

Posted by Botto 82 on Jul. 12 2012,12:19 pm

(Glad I Left @ Jul. 12 2012,8:08 am)

QUOTE

I don't care if it's Romney or Obama, they have the right to keep as much of their own money as they legally can?
If there are tax shelters, or off shore accounts that they can hold their money in that provides a tax benefit, then why not use it?

The tax code is written by the same ilk that stands to benefit from it. Then a bunch of minus-minds get around and defend this behaviour as perfectly legit. :dunce:

The burgeoning disparity between the top and the bottom continues, no matter who we elect. Only with a full-on tax revolt (stop paying them) will this even begin to get fixed. After all, they can't afford to lock all of us up...

Posted by Glad I Left on Jul. 12 2012,1:29 pm

QUOTE

Only with a full-on tax revolt (stop paying them) will this even begin to get fixed. After all, they can't afford to lock all of us up...

As much as I agree with you, I don't think it will happen

Posted by Self-Banished on Jul. 12 2012,3:35 pm

(Botto 82 @ Jul. 12 2012,12:19 pm)

QUOTE

(Glad I Left @ Jul. 12 2012,8:08 am)

QUOTE

The tax code is written by the same ilk that stands to benefit from it. Then a bunch of minus-minds get around and defend this behaviour as perfectly legit. :dunce:

You go right ahead and do that tax revolt, let me know how that works out for you. :crazy:

Posted by Expatriate on Jul. 13 2012,10:20 am

Posted by Self-Banished on Jul. 13 2012,10:55 am

Maybe it's none of you f&$k!Łg business

CNN? C'mon!!!

Posted by Self-Banished on Jul. 13 2012,11:40 am

Expat, maybe you and Breeze ought to get together for a battle of the questionable links. :dunce:

Posted by Liberal on Jul. 13 2012,11:47 am

CNN? It's clips from different news organization including FOX?

Posted by This is my real name on Jul. 13 2012,12:36 pm

(Glad I Left @ Jul. 12 2012,1:29 pm)

QUOTE

Only with a full-on tax revolt (stop paying them) will this even begin to get fixed. After all, they can't afford to lock all of us up...

As much as I agree with you, I don't think it will happen

Exactly. And they CAN afford to lock up those who can't afford to fight the charges (and who care enough to revolt).

There won't be a second revolution until there's nothing good on TV. And by "good", I mean marketable to the masses.

Posted by Self-Banished on Jul. 13 2012,4:09 pm

(Liberal @ Jul. 13 2012,11:47 am)

QUOTE

CNN? It's clips from different news organization including FOX?

... and your point is???

Posted by grassman on Jul. 13 2012,6:04 pm

(Self-Banished @ Jul. 12 2012,3:35 pm)

QUOTE

You go right ahead and do that tax revolt, let me know how that works out for you. :crazy:

I quit paying cigarette tax many years ago, so there. Put that in your pipe and smoke it!

Posted by Common Citizen on Jul. 13 2012,7:36 pm

Good lord... Anyone with half a brain knows you can roll a tax deffered account from your employer into an IRA upon separation from service.

I see nothing has changed here.

Nuff said... :rofl:

Posted by Self-Banished on Jul. 13 2012,7:58 pm

(grassman @ Jul. 13 2012,6:04 pm)

QUOTE

(Self-Banished @ Jul. 12 2012,3:35 pm)

QUOTE

You go right ahead and do that tax revolt, let me know how that works out for you. :crazy:

I quit paying cigarette tax many years ago, so there. Put that in your pipe and smoke it!

Me too!

Posted by alcitizens on Jul. 13 2012,11:28 pm

Federal taxes lowest in 30 years under President Obama

< http://www.washingtonpost.com/busines...ry.html >

Posted by pepi-lapew on Jul. 14 2012,9:55 am

Not bad considering 53% didnt pay any at all.
Why dont they pay their fair share?

Posted by Self-Banished on Jul. 14 2012,7:22 pm

^Is it 53% now? That is so depressing if it's true.

Posted by alcitizens on Jul. 14 2012,9:29 pm

Progressive taxes attempt to reduce the tax of people with a lower ability-to-pay, as they shift them increasingly to those with a higher ability-to-pay.

< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_tax >

Posted by Self-Banished on Jul. 15 2012,2:36 am

Unfortunately our progressive tax system has produced a nation of deadbeats and thugs. If you want fair, go with a consumption tax, that everyone pays.

Yeah, "attempt" that's a good word.

Posted by alcitizens on Jul. 15 2012,3:01 pm

Regressive taxes impose a greater burden (relative to resources) on the poor than on the rich — there is an inverse relationship between the tax rate and the taxpayer's ability to pay as measured by assets, consumption, or income.

< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regressive_tax >

A National Sales Tax is a Regressive tax.. The poor get poorer and the rich get richer..

Posted by Self-Banished on Jul. 15 2012,3:09 pm

^ Life's tough buttercup.

Posted by Self-Banished on Jul. 15 2012,3:16 pm

And now our socialist president is going to circumvent the welfare reform of 1996 so that work requirements won't be enforced. :frusty:

Posted by blahblahblah on Jul. 15 2012,10:56 pm

(alcitizens @ Jul. 15 2012,3:01 pm)

QUOTE

A National Sales Tax is a Regressive tax.. The poor get poorer and the rich get richer..

Here you go, this is a quote from your own wiki reference.

"A value added tax or other sales tax on food and other essentials such as clothing, transport, and residential rents can be regressive."

It would depend how a national sales tax was actually set up. If you don't tax items with low income elasticity of demand, which is how the currect state sales tax is kind of set up then it may not be regressive.

Posted by Self-Banished on Jul. 16 2012,4:40 am

^ In other words no tax on food and clothes, I would be all for that but with the libs in government they'd most likely want to tax these too, just like our health care.

Posted by Expatriate on Jul. 16 2012,11:13 am

(Common Citizen @ Jul. 13 2012,7:36 pm)

QUOTE

Good lord... Anyone with half a brain knows you can roll a tax deffered account from your employer into an IRA upon separation from service.

I see nothing has changed here.

Nuff said... :rofl:

To my knowledge IRS code puts contribution limits on all tax deferred retirement accounts no matter how they originate, so exactly how does a rollover explain the hundred million dollar figure?

Posted by Common Citizen on Jul. 16 2012,1:15 pm

You made the accusation. The burden of proof is on you. You can start by researching what kinds of defferred compensation plans he was a participant in since he first started working. I would assume that would take you back some 40 years.

Please share with all of us so we know how you came to your conclusion.

Posted by MADDOG on Jul. 16 2012,1:50 pm

Makes it a little harder than if you had to research Obama. He first started working three years ago. :rofl:

Of course his work records would have been sealed.

Posted by Expatriate on Jul. 16 2012,3:32 pm

(Expatriate @ Jul. 16 2012,11:13 am)

QUOTE

(Common Citizen @ Jul. 13 2012,7:36 pm)

QUOTE

Good lord... Anyone with half a brain knows you can roll a tax deffered account from your employer into an IRA upon separation from service.

I see nothing has changed here.

Nuff said... :rofl:

Expat:
To my knowledge IRS code puts contribution limits on all tax deferred retirement accounts no matter how they originate, so exactly how does a rollover explain the hundred million dollar figure?

QUOTE

·CC Posted on Jul. 16 2012,1:15 pm:
You made the accusation. The burden of proof is on you. You can start by researching what kinds of defferred compensation plans he was a participant in since he first started working. I would assume that would take you back some 40 years.

Please share with all of us so we know how you came to your conclusion.

Romney would have to release his records something he’s refused to do so far...he’s applying for a job working for US I’d like to know more about him!
Why is he so secretive if he’s done no wrong?

Posted by MADDOG on Jul. 16 2012,3:48 pm

I couldn't agree more.

Posted by Common Citizen on Jul. 16 2012,7:57 pm

(Expatriate @ Jul. 16 2012,3:32 pm)

QUOTE

(Expatriate @ Jul. 16 2012,11:13 am)

QUOTE

(Common Citizen @ Jul. 13 2012,7:36 pm)

QUOTE

Good lord... Anyone with half a brain knows you can roll a tax deffered account from your employer into an IRA upon separation from service.

I see nothing has changed here.

Nuff said... :rofl:

QUOTE

Why are you making allegations based on assumptions?

Posted by Expatriate on Jul. 16 2012,8:23 pm

^ Romney will be taxed eventually on the IRA money but I’d like to know how he got that type of money in a IRA, even if it’s a 401k rollover limits on contributions exist 16.500. per year, even if he qualified for a S.E.P. that hundred million dollar figure would take an extreme return rate of return.

On his offshore accounts Switzerland , Bermuda, the Caymans are notorious tax shelters... The less Romney types pay the more working folks like you and me pay...

Posted by Common Citizen on Jul. 16 2012,10:46 pm

You should take a look at ALL the different kinds of deferred comp plans available for highly compensated employees of corporations.

Defined benefit plans have an annual limit of up to $200k alone.

Posted by blahblahblah on Jul. 16 2012,11:02 pm

(Expatriate @ Jul. 16 2012,8:23 pm)

QUOTE

Romney was 37 years old when they started Bain Capital, he was a Harvard grad who worked in management consulting prior to starting Bain Capital. It's safe to say he probably didn't start with an IRA/401K balance of $0. Initial returns in the late 80's for private equity and LBO's were significant. Adding longer term private equity returns on top of that, and potential direct investment in Bain itself, it seems possible to me.

Lets say Mitt started with $500,000
From 1985 to 1990 he earned 50% (good years for LBO's)

$500,000 x (1.50)^5 = $3,800,000

Then from 1990 to 2005 he earned the average (index) private equity return of 18%

$3,800,000 x (1.18)^15 =$45,500,000

That's $500,000 (just his initial balance) to $45,500,000 in 20 years. That does not include any additional contributions, and the 18% returns do not include an ownership stake in Bain Capital (which as I understand he could legally own in his self-directed IRA). If he owned Bain Capital in his IRA, given how Bain Capital has grown that return could be very substantial, well in excess of the 18%.

If the return on Bain Capital was an annualized 30%

$500,000 x (1.30)^20 = $95,000,000

< Performance Source, page 6 exhibit 3 >

The good news for you Expat is that it looks like Bain is hiring.

< Careers at Bain >

Posted by Common Citizen on Jul. 17 2012,6:55 am

When you combine significant contributions early along with company matching funds in addition to maxing out your IRA contributions, then throw in successful investment choices as well as the compounding of your investment over those years it is easy to see how this can occur.

Consider the rule of 72. It would take an investor 6 years to double his money if the average return was 12%, 4.8 years at 15%, 4 years at 18%, etc...

Bottom line, nothing has been exposed here but the ignorance of the investment options available to all (if not the actual salaries and/or benefits to accumulate an equivalent IRA balance).

No loopholes.

Based on his recent article in the NYTimes, Paul Krugman is a freakin' moron who enjoys dumbing down his reader's.

nuff said...

Posted by alcitizens on Jul. 17 2012,11:57 am

Assets offshore raise Romney wealth questions

WASHINGTON (AP) -- For nearly 15 years, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney's financial portfolio has included an offshore company that remained invisible to voters as his political star rose.

Based in Bermuda, Sankaty High Yield Asset Investors Ltd. was not listed on any of Romney's state or federal financial reports. The company is among several Romney holdings that have not been fully disclosed, including one that recently posted a $1.9 million earning - suggesting he could be wealthier than the nearly $250 million estimated by his campaign.

< http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic...DEFAULT >

Posted by Expatriate on Jul. 17 2012,12:13 pm

@ CC & blah

I’m not exactly a stranger to retirement plans, I own a Defined-Benefit Plan, also a Deferred Compensation Plan, at my income level the Traditional IRA rules exclude me so my only option is a ROTH where I pay the tax upfront...Limits on IRA contributions make the Romney number an impossibility, contribution
rules exist on all tax deferred accounts no matter your income level.. If this is a Traditional IRA (earned income tax deferred) how did Romney qualify, he would have to reduce his tax return (income) to squat...

I’ll buy into the rollover and I’ve used the rule of 70 but @ 5% it’s 14 years to double your money, works great for a fixed rate but fluctuations and crashes in the market make it useless, the type of returns you're talking about don’t last long and are balanced out by lows...

So now you’re smarter than a Nobel laureate in Economics!

I don’t think I’d be a good fit for Bain, I actually have a conscience... these guys aren’t Industrialist, I consider this legalized white collar crime...
it’s not how you build a healthy Economy, Company or stable Government...

Posted by blahblahblah on Jul. 17 2012,6:25 pm

(Expatriate @ Jul. 17 2012,12:13 pm)

QUOTE

I’ll buy into the rollover and I’ve used the rule of 70 but @ 5% it’s 14 years to double your money, works great for a fixed rate but fluctuations and crashes in the market make it useless, the type of returns you're talking about don’t last long and are balanced out by lows...

Bain Capital raised $37 million in 1985 for its initial fund offering. Bain Capital now has $66 billion in assets under management.

To get from $37 million to $66 billion in 28 years (1985-2012) requires an annualized increase in assets of 30%

((($66,000,000,000 - $37,000,000)/$37,000,000)^(1/28)) - 1 = 30.65%

If you are willing to use the growth in assets as a proxy for growth in the value of the business it's easy to see how someone who invested in the company when it was only $37 million managed by a handful of people could have an annualized return (including ups and downs) of 30% when the firm now has $66 billion and 400 employees worldwide.

So go back to the equation using an annualized (including ups and downs over time) return of 30%

$500,000 x (1.30)^20 = $95,000,000

I have no idea how Romney did it, and actually agree he should disclose it, but you keep saying its impossible yet it certainly seems possible to me.

As for the little video clip, perhaps Robert is still sore that he lost to Romney in the 2002 race for governor of Massachusetts.

Posted by Expatriate on Jul. 18 2012,10:16 pm

You must have been an accountant for Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities Inc.

seriously, how does Romney even qualify for a Traditional IRA...

Traditional IRA’s came into existence In 1986, are we to believe Romney’s compensation at Bain was low enough for him to qualify?

something's amiss methinks...

Posted by blahblahblah on Jul. 18 2012,11:57 pm

(Expatriate @ Jul. 18 2012,10:16 pm)

QUOTE

You must have been an account for Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities Inc.

If by this, you mean that I understand that if someone invests in a company that grows by an annualized 30% per year for many years their investment would also grow by an annualized 30% per year for many years, then yes. There is no magic involved in the growth calcuation for Bain Capital, that is a fact. We could debate whether an investor in Bain Capital would have the same return but it seems like a reasonable proxy to me.

(Expatriate @ Jul. 18 2012,10:16 pm)

QUOTE

seriously, how does Romney even qualify for a Traditional IRA...

Romney doesn't have to qualify for a traditional IRA, he only needs to qualify for a roll-over IRA. When Bain Capital was started it was not attached to Bain & Company in any way, so if he had a 401(k) at Bain & Company he could have rolled it over from his former employer into a self-directed roll-over IRA.

(Expatriate @ Jul. 18 2012,10:16 pm)

QUOTE

Traditional IRA’s came into existence In 1986, are we to believe Romney’s compensation at Bain was low enough for him to qualify?

Nope, I wouldn't believe that. I would however believe that 401(k)'s existed since the late 70's, and prior to that other tax deferred options existed. And while 401(k) contributions by the employee are limited, that limit does not appear to be reduced by employer contributions, and highly compensated employees could have higher limits. I don't know the rules for the early 80's, but if they are like the rules today this appears to be the case. Romney could have qualified as a highly compensated employee, or Bain & Company could have made employer contributions to his 401(k), either way, if he left with a retirement plan of approximately $500,000, rolled it into a self-directed roll-over and then invested in Bain Capital he could reach $95,000,000 several years later based on the facts and math already detailed in my previous posts.

< 401(k) Contributions >

< History of the 401(k) >

This is not the mathmatical impossibility you believe it to be. It's a return on a very risky investment. Mr. Reich may believe that making money in private equity is easy (hey, they are just cheating people right?), but the reality is that private equity firms often lose money on deals, and firms frequently fail. For Bain Capital to still exist and to have grown to what it is today shows that they made a lot of money. If Romeny put his entire IRA into the firm he also would have made a lot of money.

Posted by Expatriate on Jul. 19 2012,9:47 am

(blahblahblah @ Jul. 18 2012,11:57 pm)

QUOTE

(Expatriate @ Jul. 18 2012,10:16 pm)

QUOTE

Traditional IRA’s came into existence In 1986, are we to believe Romney’s compensation at Bain was low enough for him to qualify?

Nope, I wouldn't believe that.

The Traditional IRA was Established by the Tax Reform Act (TRA) of 1986, (Pub.L. 99-514, 100 Stat. 2085),
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traditional_IRA >

QUOTE

I would however believe that 401(k)'s existed since the late 70's, and prior to that other tax deferred options existed. And while 401(k) contributions by the employee are limited, that limit does not appear to be reduced by employer contributions, and highly compensated employees could have higher limits.

The max on total contributions (employee plus employer) to your 401(k) in 2012 is $50,000 (or 100% of your salary, whichever is less) I’m guessing these rates are progressive throughout the years, meaning Romney’s earlier years of contribution to a company 401(k) would have been less..

I’m not sure how your link to bankrate came up with 110,000 but the IRS seems to make 50,000 the max..
Additional limits. There are other limits that restrict contributions made on your behalf. In addition to the limit on elective deferrals, annual contributions to all of your accounts - this includes elective deferrals, employee contributions, employer matching and discretionary contributions and allocations of forfeitures to your accounts - may not exceed the lesser of 100% of your compensation or $49,000 for 2011 and $50,000 for 2012.
^from last paragraph of IRS rules

< http://www.irs.gov/retirement/participant/article/0,,id=151786,00.html >

Posted by Santorini on Jul. 19 2012,11:38 am

(Expatriate @ Jul. 11 2012,2:51 pm)

QUOTE

Romney-Types :dunno:

Why is it out of the top 12 wealthiest US Senators
4 out of 12 are Republican while,
8 out of 12 are Democrat?? hmmm
Democrats beat out the Republicans 2 to1 !!!
What was the discussion...oh yea...GREED!
Gee, people who live in glass houses....

Posted by Expatriate on Jul. 19 2012,12:20 pm

(Santorini @ Jul. 19 2012,11:38 am)

QUOTE

(Expatriate @ Jul. 11 2012,2:51 pm)

QUOTE

Romney-Types :dunno:

the thread is about Romney’s IRA, how he opened it at his income level and how he accumulated a massive fortune within that tax sheltered account are in question...

you have my sympathy on your loss...

Posted by Gabe on Jul. 19 2012,4:22 pm

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
•The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
•The fifth would pay $1.
•The sixth would pay $3.
•The seventh would pay $7.
•The eighth would pay $12.
•The ninth would pay $18.
•The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20."

Drinks for the ten now cost just $80

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?'

They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay! And so...
•The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
•The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
•The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
•The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
•The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
•The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

"I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got $10!"

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!"

"That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!" The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

Posted by Self-Banished on Jul. 19 2012,5:24 pm

I always loved that story.

Posted by blahblahblah on Jul. 19 2012,7:29 pm

(Expatriate @ Jul. 19 2012,9:47 am)

QUOTE

(blahblahblah @ Jul. 18 2012,11:57 pm)

QUOTE

(Expatriate @ Jul. 18 2012,10:16 pm)

QUOTE

Traditional IRA’s came into existence In 1986, are we to believe Romney’s compensation at Bain was low enough for him to qualify?

Nope, I wouldn't believe that.

The Traditional IRA was Established by the Tax Reform Act (TRA) of 1986, (Pub.L. 99-514, 100 Stat. 2085),
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traditional_IRA >

You asked "are we to believe Romney's compensation at Bain was low enough for him to qualify". And I said I didn't believe that his income would have been low enough to qualify. I wasn't disagreeing about when traditional IRAs were established. I did find the link interesting though, especially when I read in the second paragraph that traditional IRAs were preceded by regular IRAs which were established by the ERISA (act) of 1974.

(Expatriate @ Jul. 19 2012,9:47 am)

QUOTE

Why would you guess that they are progressive? Are you saying congress never passes laws to prevent rich people from avoiding taxes? It's also possible that previous amounts were considered too generous and had to be decreased.

(Expatriate @ Jul. 19 2012,9:47 am)

QUOTE

I’m not sure how your link to bankrate came up with 110,000 but the IRS seems to make 50,000 the max..
Additional limits. There are other limits that restrict contributions made on your behalf. In addition to the limit on elective deferrals, annual contributions to all of your accounts - this includes elective deferrals, employee contributions, employer matching and discretionary contributions and allocations of forfeitures to your accounts - may not exceed the lesser of 100% of your compensation or $49,000 for 2011 and $50,000 for 2012.
^from last paragraph of IRS rules

< http://www.irs.gov/retirement/participant/article/0,,id=151786,00.html >

I am not sure how he came up with $110,000 either, but he is referring to highly compensated employees (HCEs) and your link I believe is for non-highly compensated employees (NHCEs).

The following link will provide more info about HCEs and what they are allowed to receive or contribute. Starts on page 50.

< ERISA Summary >

The following link mentions that the first regular (traditional) IRAs were available in 1975 and that during the early 80's there were no income limitations regarding who could contribute. It also mentions that Simplified Employee Pension IRAs (SEP IRAs) were first introduced in 1978. The limits for contribution amounts are pretty modest for regular IRAs ($1,500) but does not mention limits for SEP IRAs.

< The IRA at age 30 >

The above links discuss defined contribution options. The other issues would be if Bain & Company had a defined benefit plan. When Romney left Bain & Company to start Bain Capital he would have probably had to take his defined benefit funds with him (rolled them over to an IRA)

You started this thread with saying it was a mathematical impossibility, and then somewhat changed to it being a legal impossibility because you believed that IRAs started in 1986. The reality is that IRAs started in 1975, with SEP IRAs being introduced in 1978. The regular IRA alone would not have had enough assets to get to the $500,000 starting point in 1985, but if that regular IRA were combined with either a SEP IRA or a 401(k) for an HCE, or a pension plan rollover, or all three, getting to $500,000 in 1986 would have been much more likely.

I am not a retirement plan expert, or a tax expert, on this part of this subject I am just a guy with Google. I am also not equipped to debate the finer points of late 70's early 80's retirement plan regulations and tax laws. It seems like a mess to me with plenty of gray area. I do however believe that the vehicles existed (regular IRA, SEP IRA, 401(k) for HCE, and pension plan) prior to 1985 for Romney to get to $500,000. Romney has the advantage of coming from a wealthy family and the moment these vehicles became available I have to believe he would have been taking advantage of them.

I get the feeling that you are so disgusted with how much money Romney has, and how he made that money that you just have to see a smoking gun here. As of right now, the IRS however seems to have no issue with it, I am going to defer to their expertise on this subject. Again, I don't know how he did it or that is was legally accomplished, I just believe that it is theoretically possible.

As I said before, I think Romney should disclose his tax returns, and if asked about this IRA balance explain how he did it. There are certainly people who are unhappy about his IRA balance and whether legally obtained or not they are going to be mad...they also are not, and were not ever going to vote for Romney. If he does not disclose his taxes and other financial information then the people in the middle have to listen to the haters tell them how it was all done illegally. It's amazing that his campaign would rather have that than to just own it. It would also help if he had some strong policies so that once the financial interrogation is over he can redirect to some great policy ideas.

I don't really think Romney is all that great of an option. I believe that in 2010 the republicans thought Obama would be impossible to beat and took this election off, therefore Romney is the nominee.

Posted by Expatriate on Jul. 19 2012,11:12 pm

highly compensated employees (HCEs) non-highly compensated employees (NHCEs). seems a little discrimatory , one must own five percent to qualify..he who owns the gold makes the rules...

The Romney’s are a shinning example of what’s wrong with the tax system in the United States, accounts in Switzerland, Bermuda, and the Caymans all notorious tax shelters.
Reportedly if we can believe the Press over 100 million in a Traditional IRA, a program where he never should have qualified for participation.

The 2010 tax return he has released shows a 13.9 tax rate much lower than those of us who actually work.

Posted by Santorini on Jul. 20 2012,8:34 am

(Expatriate @ Jul. 19 2012,12:20 pm)

QUOTE

(Santorini @ Jul. 19 2012,11:38 am)

QUOTE

(Expatriate @ Jul. 11 2012,2:51 pm)

QUOTE

Romney-Types :dunno:

Actually...the poster commented on Romney-types! Not Romney...Romney-types! That opens up a whole new ball game :peaceout:

Question one...question them all.
Alls fair in love, war, and politics!

Please...no sympathy needed!!
We will get the last laugh...just a matter of time.

Posted by Expatriate on Jul. 20 2012,8:49 am

Sarah Connor couldn’t hide long either...you know my sympathy has nothing to do with this forum...

Posted by Expatriate on Jul. 20 2012,12:53 pm

I’d love to hear Romney’s strategy, maybe he thinks he can change the tax laws :rofl:

< http://live.wsj.com/video...03CAEBA >

Posted by Moparman on Jul. 20 2012,5:29 pm

(Gabe @ Jul. 19 2012,4:22 pm)

QUOTE

Except in the real world the bartender gives the $20 to only the tenth guy because he believes he is responsible for bringing in the other nine. And then the tenth guy " forgets" his wallet in Switzerland everyday so the bartender keeps carrying the debt over and over and over again. And when the bar realizes its way underwater it starts to charge a "fee" for the " free" peanuts.

Posted by Self-Banished on Jul. 20 2012,6:21 pm

^Nope, it asks for a bailout from the brewer!

Posted by Self-Banished on Jul. 20 2012,6:23 pm

^ this only works if it's a union bar. :blush:

Posted by blahblahblah on Jul. 20 2012,6:56 pm

(Expatriate @ Jul. 19 2012,11:12 pm)

QUOTE

highly compensated employees (HCEs) non-highly compensated employees (NHCEs). seems a little discrimatory , one must own five percent to qualify..he who owns the gold makes the rules...

I suppose it could be considered discrimatory. In most of what I have read the HCE and NHCE classifications are used to establish ratios in order to limit discrimatory behavior (apparently).

(Expatriate @ Jul. 19 2012,11:12 pm)

QUOTE

Reportedly if we can believe the Press over 100 million in a Traditional IRA, a program where he never should have qualified for participation.

Would you also say that rich people shouldn't be allowed to roll-over their pensions or 401(k)'s into IRAs when they leave a company. They just have to pay a big tax if they want to leave a job? (I suppose that would kind of be the anti-golden parachute)

What does the Expat tax policy look like? What would you do if you were king?

Posted by Moparman on Jul. 20 2012,6:57 pm

Only the 6th, 7th, and 8th guys are union.

Posted by grassman on Jul. 20 2012,9:52 pm

If one cannot see that laws on just about everything have been made of gold for the wealthy, either you cannot comprehend or just don't pay attention. Which is it?

Posted by Expatriate on Jul. 20 2012,11:00 pm

(blahblahblah @ Jul. 20 2012,6:56 pm)

QUOTE

What does the Expat tax policy look like? What would you do if you were king?

Anyone talking tax cuts whether on the right or left has lost touch with reality, when Social Security starts cashing in the 2.7 trillion in treasury notes we’ve borrowed from that program over the years the budget deficits of today will look miniscule!

We should drop the Bush tax cuts and return to Clinton-era tax rates, Corporate subsidies must end phased out along with farm subsidies...$843.5 billion Military spending on a yearly basis needs to be reduced, we’re manning World War 2 bases all over the World, the Maginot Line of 2012...

Afghanistan and Iraqi are on their own no more third world wars, interventions or propping up US appointed leadership..maybe we should invade the Caymans collect all the tax sheltered accounts to pay down the National Debt...

Posted by blahblahblah on Jul. 20 2012,11:21 pm

(Expatriate @ Jul. 20 2012,11:00 pm)

QUOTE

Anyone talking tax cuts whether on the right or left has lost touch with reality, when Social Security starts cashing in the 2.7 trillion in treasury notes we’ve borrowed from that program over the years the budget deficits of today will look miniscule!

We should drop the bush tax cuts and return to Clinton-era tax rates, Corporate subsidies must end fazed out along with farm subsidies...$843.5 billion Military spending on a yearly basis needs to be reduced, we’re manning World War 2 bases all over the World, the Maginot Line of 2012...

Yeah, I think more tax cuts wouldn't do a thing, and I am totally fine with letting the Bush tax cuts expire. But I also don't think taxes are the issue. Going back to the Clinton era tax rates is not going to cover our current level of spending. It's my opinion we have a spending problem not a revenue generation problem.

My biggest thing is to stop allowing deductions. No charitable deductions, no mortgage interest deductions, no deductions for dependants, no IRA contribution deductions for anyone, etc, etc. Simply your income multiplied by your tax rate (I am totally fine with a reasonable progressive tax rate schedule). If you did this, and stopped corporate subsidies the money in politics would dry right up, and I think it would be more difficult to cheat on your taxes. Fewer confusing laws and gray areas.

Posted by Expatriate on Jul. 20 2012,11:34 pm

(blahblahblah @ Jul. 20 2012,11:21 pm)

QUOTE

My biggest thing is to stop allowing deductions. No charitable deductions, no mortgage interest deductions, no deductions for dependants, no IRA contribution deductions for anyone, etc, etc. Simply your income multiplied by your tax rate (I am totally fine with a reasonable progressive tax rate schedule). If you did this, and stopped corporate subsidies the money in politics would dry right up, and I think it would be more difficult to cheat on your taxes. Fewer confusing laws and gray areas.

You've got my vote...

Posted by Expatriate on Jul. 21 2012,12:43 pm

Quote Financial Times: Speculation mounts over Romney's tax records

QUOTE

"He needs to address the valuation issue. It would have been plainly incorrect to use a liquidation or immediate cash out valuation theory ... The question is, did he comply in fact with US tax laws throughout the period when he wasn't actively running for president?"

Theories over what potentially politically damaging revelation lies within Mr Romney's tax records range from the notion that he may have paid little tax in 2009 owing to investment losses from the financial crisis to speculation he could even have been one of thousands of Americans granted a tax amnesty related to a crackdown on Swiss bank accounts.

< http://ibnlive.in.com/news...70.html >

Posted by Expatriate on Jul. 22 2012,10:50 pm

Tax havens: Super-rich 'hiding' at least $21tn
$21tn is actually a conservative figure and the true scale could be $32tn. A trillion is 1,000 billion.

< http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-18944097 >

Posted by Santorini on Jul. 23 2012,10:05 am

(Botto 82 @ Jul. 12 2012,12:19 pm)

QUOTE

(Glad I Left @ Jul. 12 2012,8:08 am)

QUOTE

The tax code is written by the same ilk that stands to benefit from it. Then a bunch of minus-minds get around and defend this behaviour as perfectly legit. :dunce:

< http://blog.heritage.org/2012...-reform >

Posted by Expatriate on Aug. 17 2012,8:40 am

Romney refuses to release his tax returns, what is this guy hiding, the Republicans keep telling US the rich are over taxed..
this guy has the look of a used car salesman the ethics too I dare say..

Posted by Self-Banished on Aug. 17 2012,9:12 am

1. What have you got against car salesman?

2. How about prez. Dumdum letting us take a peek at his college transcripts(what's he hiding?)

3. And I realize number 2 is none of my business but Rummy's tax returns are none of you f'king business. :dunce:

Posted by Expatriate on Aug. 17 2012,9:19 am

(Self-Banished @ Aug. 17 2012,9:12 am)

QUOTE

Rummy's tax returns are none of you f'king business. :dunce:

If Romney is going to work for US we should have as much information on him as possible, same goes for Obama!

Posted by Self-Banished on Aug. 17 2012,9:22 am

So where's O'bama's???

Posted by MADDOG on Aug. 17 2012,10:02 am

(Expatriate @ Aug. 17 2012,8:40 am)

QUOTE

Romney refuses to release his tax returns, what is this guy hiding, the Republicans keep telling US the rich are over taxed..
this guy has the look of a used car salesman the ethics too I dare say..

You talk about ethics, values and 'what's he hiding'? :rofl:

Are you speaking from behind the rock in the Kenyan encampment?

Obama Passport Records in 80′s—Sealed!

Obama--Sealed!

Obama Law Practice Records—Sealed!

Obama—-Sealed!

Obama Selective Service Records–Sealed!

Obama—Sealed!

Obama—Sealed!

Obama Columbia College Records—Sealed!

Obama Occidental College Records—Sealed!

Posted by Expatriate on Aug. 17 2012,10:21 am

^^^The birther jumps in...
Slow day selling those used cars that Grandma only drove to Church on Sundays?

The Debunker’s Guide to Obama Conspiracy Theories
< http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/bookmar...heories >

Posted by MADDOG on Aug. 17 2012,11:26 am

QUOTE

Slow day selling those used cars that Grandma only drove to Church on Sundays?

Nope, sold one already.

I don't think I mentioned anything about a birth certificate.

Obama Student Aid Documents.—Sealed!

Obama Medical Records—-Sealed!

Obama Harvard College Records—Sealed!

Obama Columbia Thesis Papers—Sealed!

Posted by Self-Banished on Aug. 17 2012,7:16 pm

(Expatriate @ Aug. 17 2012,10:21 am)

QUOTE

Is the trupacabra on this site too :dunce:

Posted by hairhertz on Aug. 17 2012,7:35 pm

sealed is wrong, unwilling to reveal basic financial info is wrong

transparency is next to impossible to get from any politician

if you've got something to hide, then don't run

Posted by Self-Banished on Aug. 17 2012,8:52 pm

OK then, a trade of info sounds fair :cool:

Posted by MADDOG on Aug. 18 2012,11:54 am

(Self-Banished @ Aug. 17 2012,8:52 pm)

QUOTE

OK then, a trade of info sounds fair :cool:

agreed.

Posted by Liberal on Aug. 18 2012,2:31 pm

It must suck to be so stupid as to believe everything you read on WND.

Posted by Common Citizen on Aug. 25 2012,1:32 pm

Apparently I am supposed to be more angry with what Mitt Romney does with his own money than what Obama is doing with mine.

Posted by Expatriate on Aug. 25 2012,3:20 pm

Posted by Self-Banished on Aug. 25 2012,5:18 pm

^ it"s a correct statement Expat abeit a little late. So I bet when you formulated your response you did this big, booming retard laugh and couldn't hit the "post button" quick enough. :dunce:

Posted by Common Citizen on Aug. 26 2012,9:04 am

Nice pic expat.

Let me guess...Biden is sucking on the popsicle, Geitner is laying down representing the economy and Obama is riding the bike wondering where he will land.

Posted by Self-Banished on Aug. 26 2012,9:50 am

^!!!?

Posted by Expatriate on Aug. 26 2012,4:00 pm

(Common Citizen @ Aug. 25 2012,1:32 pm)

QUOTE

Apparently I am supposed to be more angry with what Mitt Romney does with his own money than what Obama is doing with mine.

Mitts on the bike, you're on the ground I'm watching...

Posted by irisheyes on Aug. 27 2012,12:13 am

(Common Citizen @ Aug. 26 2012,9:04 am)

QUOTE

Let me guess...Biden is sucking on the popsicle, Geitner is laying down representing the economy and Obama is riding the bike wondering where he will land.

Or...

On the ground with eyes covered is 99% of America (hopefully wearing a nut-guard strong enough to protect from bike tires), on the bike is a combo of Wall Street and capitalists bent on outsourcing or cutting expenses (i.e., the guy laying on the ground, "market issues" they'll say). The guy with the Popsicle, well I'm betting that's Romney, Ryan, or Boehner trying to suck out just a bit more tax cuts and stimulus for the daredevil who wrecked our economy.

:;):

Posted by grassman on Aug. 27 2012,7:46 am

Romney and his fatcats.

Posted by Common Citizen on Aug. 28 2012,11:04 pm

(Expatriate @ Aug. 26 2012,4:00 pm)

QUOTE

(Common Citizen @ Aug. 25 2012,1:32 pm)

QUOTE

Apparently I am supposed to be more angry with what Mitt Romney does with his own money than what Obama is doing with mine.

Mitts on the bike, you're on the ground I'm watching...

I defined the joke. You can't change it now. It's unbecoming.

Posted by Common Citizen on Aug. 28 2012,11:12 pm

(grassman @ Aug. 27 2012,7:46 am)

QUOTE

Romney and his fatcats.

God forbid you build a lawn mowing empire. Maybe you're waiting for the gubmint to do it for you.

Posted by Glad I Left on Aug. 29 2012,10:39 am

Grassman didn't build that. Someone else did. :rofl:

Posted by grassman on Aug. 30 2012,6:00 pm

I built my own empire, it's mine! ALL MINE! :laugh:

I did not have to screw anyone over to get it either.

Posted by Self-Banished on Aug. 30 2012,6:13 pm

Megalomaniac^^^ :rofl:

Posted by Glad I Left on Aug. 31 2012,10:13 am

NICE!

Posted by grassman on Sep. 07 2012,7:18 am

Romney and friends water-skiing week-end. In the Caymans of coarse. :laugh:

Posted by Common Citizen on Sep. 07 2012,7:35 am

God bless him, his success, and all the Americans he has helped keep their jobs.

Posted by grassman on Sep. 07 2012,7:38 am

If you zoom in on the picture, yo would probably see they are mostly Chinese. :;):

Posted by Common Citizen on Sep. 07 2012,7:44 am

I don't get it.

What do Chinese water skiers have to do with Romney?

Posted by Self-Banished on Sep. 07 2012,8:14 am

Chinese water-skiers? Sounds like an Ethiopian buffet.

Posted by grassman on Sep. 08 2012,3:24 pm

WASHINGTON—Spurred into action by the surge of Super PAC donations ahead of November's general election, the American people this week collectively managed to raise $945.23 to offset the influence of corporate spending on politics. "Today we take a stand against big money's stranglehold on the U.S. electoral system and give a voice back to the voters," said spokesman Danny Bader, an unemployed carpenter who scraped together $1.10 as part of the effort to counteract the unlimited number of undisclosed independent expenditures corporations are legally allowed to make. "With these funds, we will print some pamphlets and hopefully get a website up, and we will send a clear message that billions in shadowy spending will not buy this election." At press time, the American people were struggling to raise an additional $65 for another dozen T-shirts. :laugh: