Reply With Quote
Lol acting like you don't get emotional when you spend so much time trying to prove yourself to strangers.
Lol striving so hard for fantasy wall street validation.
Lol acting like you don't get emotional when you spend so much time trying to prove yourself to strangers.
Cowboys and millionaires are in Mitt Romney's income-tax-free 47%
In the imaginary universe of Mitt Romney, the 47% of Americans who pay no income tax are loafers, shiftless bums and welfare queens who will all vote for President Obama in November. In the real world, that 47% includes the working poor, the newly unemployed, handicapped people, the elderly, veterans, 4,000 millionaires and the nation's greatest icon, the American cowboy.
A few years ago, I helped move a herd of cattle with some honest-to-God cowboys on a big ranch near White Sulphur Springs, Mont. At the end of the morning as the cows and calves mothered up, the cowboys told me how they loved the life they lived -- the broad land, the wide sky, the days tending animals, even the hard and endless work in all kinds of weather.
One of the cowboys said he knew he would never get rich; he and his wife lived with their kids in a tiny rental house and they would probably never have much more than that. But it was enough for him. He had no interest in being an entrepreneur, a venture capitalist or a king of Wall Street.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average yearly income of a cowboy is around $25,000. Tax laws that were passed under President Reagan aimed to help Americans of modest means by giving them an income tax break. As a result, working people in the income strata below $30,000 a year are likely to pay little or no income tax. That covers a lot of cowboys.
Are they slackers? No, there is no one with a stronger work ethic than cowboys. A willingness to work does not guarantee affluence, though. Among the 47% that Romney disdains are millions of hardworking, poorly compensated people and other millions of retired folk who labored all their lives. But, in a speech to wealthy donors last May, Romney said he would not even try to win the votes of this 47% because they were "dependent on the government" and felt "en led to healthcare, to food, to housing, to you-name-it."
With these comments revealed, it becomes even more obvious that Romney has vast gaps in his understanding of the people he aspires to lead. He speaks as though he is being fed lines by a staff made up of Ayn Rand zealots and Rush Limbaugh dittoheads and has no clue how they are misleading him.
This latest evidence of Romney’s obtuseness appalled credible conservative commentators, such as David Brooks and Bill Kristol. Limbaugh, of course, was ecstatic to have the Republican presidential nominee join him in a world without facts.
The sad reality is that Romney is wrong about one other thing: There are plenty of folks among the 47% who will vote for him -- and not just the millionaires who have found ways to evade the income tax. Working-class men, in particular, have fallen for the Republican call to "take back America" from gays, illegal immigrants, baby-killing feminists, tax-crazy liberals and a president who is just not truly American. They feel embattled and hope Romney will be on their side. But how can he be their champion when he does not even know who they are or how they live?
If Mitt Romney saw a real cowboy, he'd think it was costume night at the country club.
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics...,3473584.story
The Big, Fat Lie Behind Romney's Absurd 47% Argument
According to studies by the Tax Policy Center , six in 10 households that pay no income taxes are working families having a tough year or two. The authors note, “most of these working households... pay federal income tax in other years, when their incomes are higher.” Many take advantage of the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), originally a Republican policy that offers a tax break to low-income working parents. According to the authors, “the majority of households that receive the EITC get it for only one or two years at a time, such as when their income drops due to a temporary layoff, and pay federal income tax in most other years.” We have a social safety net, albeit one of the flimsiest in the developed world, and it is doing what it is designed to do – keeping people's heads above water (before the crash, 39.9 percent of households paid no federal income taxes).
Eighty-two percent of households paid federal payroll taxes last year, which also yield about a fifth of our nation's overall tax revenues (income taxes account for 42 percent of federal revenues and payroll taxes represent 40 percent – same thing).
In 2010, the only year for which Mitt Romney has released tax returns, he and Ann Romney paid around 17.1 percent of their income in federal, state and local taxes combined. According to the Tax Policy Center, in 2011, the poorest 5th of American households paid about 16 percent of their incomes in taxes, on average, and the second poorest 5th paid 21 percent of their incomes – a significantly higher share than the Romneys forked over on over $21 million in income. That the poor don't have enough “skin in the game” – another popular myth on the right – is also just a lie.
There are a good number of rich people among the 47 percent of households that pay no federal income taxes. According to the Tax Policy Center, 18,000 households with incomes over $500,000 – and 4,000 households bringing in over $1 million – paid no federal income taxes in 2011.
Most Americans understand that half the country isn't indolent and doesn't see themselves of victims of anything but the depression in which we find ourselves today. And that's why, according to a Gallup poll released on Wednesday , only 20 percent of registered voters say that Romney's sneering remarks make them more likely to vote for him, while 36 percent say they're turned off by them.
http://www.alternet.org/election-201...ter715062&t=17
The Polynesian Cultural Center is pretty cool.
This stupid mother er is insitant on showing how much money was wasted on his degree. Man, with the type of financial knowledge this kid as shown its amazing he's not working for some huge firm just tearing it up.
http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthre...=1#post6118640
lmfao this is the funniest i've heard all day
How much capital gains tax do you pay when the value of your stock goes up?
you don't pay tax until you sell it stupid
Oh, so then the tax isn't determined by the value then?
lmao this is the funniest i've read all day.
Gee, why would I be smug when talking to you?
it's determined by the value at the time of sale stupid
are you really this dumb, or is just an elaborate troll job? you're quite the unlikable internet character imo
lmfao "capital gains have nothing to do with the value of the asset"
pretty sure the % "gain" is calculated by: new value - old value/ old value
and total gain is simply new - old
not sure how one calculates a capital gain without the value of the asset
Its actually determined by the sell price and the price at the time of purchase either of which may be different form the stock valuation. I know that this is a difficult concept for you to master but the stock valuation may or may not be the price at the time of purchase or sale as there may be other factors involved within the sale such as quan y of stock being purchased and how quickly the money for the purchase is paid. These and other additional factors can cause the price to be different than the actual valuation.it's determined by the value at the time of sale stupid
are you really this dumb, or is just an elaborate troll job? you're quite the unlikable internet character imo
Jesus ing Chirst UTA needs to be ing shut down if this is the kind of education they're handing out.
Valuation of the asset =! sell or buy price
SMH such a simple ing concept and a person with a finance degree has trouble with it.
Oh, and of course you don't like me. You can't even ing argue with me and win when its your own chosen field. Thats ing sad but that says more about you than it does about me.
OMG you are stupid
lol babbling
damn son, you'd better master such basic common sense things such as capital gains before you even think about setting foot in the science department of a graduate school
komg you are stupid
lol babbling
damn son, you'd better master such basic common sense things such as capital gains before you even think about setting foot in the science department of a graduate school
value of the asset is always changing, the value at the time of the sale is the sale price. why are you making this hard on yourself?
who is your handler son, Jane Goodall? she should have never made the leap from sign language to typing on the computer, you weren't ready for that imo
Yeah I'm going to ask her to trade this computer for some more bananas. I get more bananas and I don't get made a fool of by you.
Its win win.
he'll get automatically rewarded a doctoral degree for his skin color imho *no racist*OMG you are stupid
lol babbling
damn son, you'd better master such basic common sense things such as capital gains before you even think about setting foot in the science department of a graduate school
Manny has you on this one. If stock picking were simply applying a model learned in school everyone would make big bucks. individual stocks and the markets in general are heavily influenced by investor sentiment. Many stocks are trading well below their break up value and many others are trading well above. Some companies are trading well above industry P/E and others well below. Neither guarantees the correct choice. If you are legitimately engaged in investing and doing it on a consistent basis that alone puts you ahead of most.
nah it was this that i took issue with
"Capital gains is not determined by stock value."
the amount of gain is entirely dependent on the value of the stock at the time of sale..that shouldn't even have to be explained that's not finance that's life common sense
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
