Skip to main content

Mr. Willard Wigglesworth Mittens Romney, Esquire most recently stepped in it when he said that it is fair to tax capital gains at a lower rate because that money was already taxed once at the corporate level. That is only sometimes true, but probably not even usually true. Many business entities are pass-through entities, meaning the tax is not paid by the business but reported and taxed at the individual level. Businesses organized as limited liability companies (LLC) and partnerships are tax pass-throughs, and Bain Capital is very fond of those kinds of businesses.

What makes Mitt even more wrong is that, in addition to income tax, most workers who made $110,100 or less in 2011 paid about 15% payroll taxes on 100% of their income when the employers share is taken into account.  Additionally, those workers who make more than $110,100 continue to pay an additional 2.9% Medicare tax on an unlimited amount of earned income. Those rates are set to increase next year, too.

Here is how the Republicans have won the war of rhetoric. Notice that when Republicans talk about taxes they only discuss income taxes and how 47% of Americans don't pay them, but when they talk about the Federal budget, they include Social Security and Medicare as if they were funded by income taxes. They ignore that payroll taxes pay for those items.

This trick was very handy throughout the 80s and 90s. In those years, the payroll tax was running a surplus that went into the Social Security and Medicare trust funds. the surpluses allowed the public debt to remain low because the workers' payroll taxes were subsidizing the income tax funded part of the budget thus allowing income taxes to remain low. But now that the payroll taxes are drawing down on the trust fund and adding to the public debt, Republicans want nothing more than to shake up the budget and eliminate the trust funds all-together. That is exactly what Herman Caine's 9-9-9 plan wanted to do by eliminating the payroll tax. Eliminate the separate funding and you eliminate the trust funds.

I never understand why the Democrats have not pushed back on this issue.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  important, big-picture on taxes. tks! nt (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    assyrian64, MartyM, Gorette
  •  I forgot (14+ / 0-)

    Other capital gains that are not double taxed are of course, corporations like GE that make billions but pay no taxes, plus investments like paintings or real estate that gain value and are only taxed when they are sold. (I know they do pay real estate taxes)

    I am a sick man. ... I am a spiteful man. An unattractive man. I think my liver hurts. Fyodor Dostoevky "Notes from the Underground"

    by Roger M on Mon Sep 24, 2012 at 02:03:19 AM PDT

    •  you forgot something else, of equal or (4+ / 0-)

      greater importance, tax wise:

      net operating losses (NOL's) and excess capital losses, can be both carried back/forward (corps. do this by filing an F1139, or an F1120X, depending on the specific circumstances), claiming refunds of taxes paid in prior years, or reducing tax liabilities in subsequent years.

      as a consequence, many, many, many, many corps. paid little, if any, taxes for the bulk of the 2000's, as they carried back ginormous tax NOL's sustained in 2007, 2008 and 2009, either 5, 3 or 2 years.

      many of these tax NOL's were not economic in nature (ie: lower sales, equal or greater expenses), rather, they resulted from the use of specific sections of the code, allowing them to create, basically out of thin air, deductions that only exist for tax purposes, and exist nowhere in GAAP. obviously, the bigger the company, the bigger the created deduction. et voila! no tax liability!

      don't even get me started on transfer pricing!

    •  It is another "3 hour Marathon" Moment (2+ / 0-)

      On Double taxation.

      Virtually all of Bains entities that are organized to harvest the big profits are in non-taxed, pass-through investment vehicles AND kept away from the taxmen of Individual U.S. States - i.e. Mass. & Mich. - by basing them in the Caymans and Bermuda.

      •  ARI - each Bain Capital fund (4+ / 0-)

        is organized into two sister partnerships, one in the US for US taxpayers and one offshore for foreign entities who are not subject to US taxes. This structure is universal for all large private equity fund managers. US taxpayers cannot invest in the offshore partnerships.

        "let's talk about that"

        by VClib on Mon Sep 24, 2012 at 07:28:37 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Why all the foreign investments (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Sharon Wraight

          on Mitt's tax returns then?

          I know that most foreign investments exclude Americans to avoid the FATCA and other financial reporting requirements that come with it. I have had several salesmen call me in Dubai and end the call when they realize I'm an American.

          I am a sick man. ... I am a spiteful man. An unattractive man. I think my liver hurts. Fyodor Dostoevky "Notes from the Underground"

          by Roger M on Mon Sep 24, 2012 at 07:36:57 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Foreign entities that elect to be treated as (0+ / 0-)

            US partnerships.

            •  Actually, the form 8621s we see are (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Sharon Wraight

              the portfolio companies owned by the investment partnerships.  Those partnerships, whether US or foreign, are all treated as US partnerships; the underlying investments, OTOH, often are not.  So Bain sets up a Cayman entity, it elects to be treated as a US partnership, and then it goes out into the world investing in companies that it thinks will perform well.  Some of those will, in turn, be investment companies, and will be treated as PFICs; some will be owned by multiple US partnerships such that they'll be treated as CFCs.  And those are the types of entities that populate all the forms 8621 we see on the return.

          •  Roger - All Bain Capital equity holders, including (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            johnny wurster

            Mitt, have an ownership interest in the offshore partnerships through their carried interest.  That has been the source of  many of Romney's offshore accounts.

            "let's talk about that"

            by VClib on Mon Sep 24, 2012 at 08:43:56 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  Thank you for clarifying this (7+ / 0-)

    It seems to me to be an extremely important point.

  •  Interest on savings. (12+ / 0-)

    When I was so "rich" that I could have a savings account, the interest on that was taxed as earned income, even though I'd already paid tax on the principal.  How is that income different from the income from other investments?

    -7.62, -7.28 "Hold fast to dreams, for if dreams die, life is a broken winged bird that cannot fly." -Langston Hughes

    by luckylizard on Mon Sep 24, 2012 at 02:24:37 AM PDT

    •  ordinary, not earned. (4+ / 0-)

      you didn't pay fica or futa on it, which you'd have to if it were earned.  yes you paid tax on the principal, but not on the interest, which is why double taxation isn't an issue for interest income.

      •  So, how is my interest (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        johnny wurster, Calamity Jean

        different from the money earned by rich people's investments?  We both put money aside and hope it will grow.  I get a percentage or two, they get gazillions.  Mine is taxed and theirs is nibbled at.

        -7.62, -7.28 "Hold fast to dreams, for if dreams die, life is a broken winged bird that cannot fly." -Langston Hughes

        by luckylizard on Mon Sep 24, 2012 at 05:48:33 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  they weren't, unless you have an idiot for (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      luckylizard, VClib, ozsea1

      an accountant (always possible).

      the interest on that was taxed as earned income
      interest, dividends and capital gains are all characterized as "unearned" income, by the internal revenue code of 1986, as amended. if anything, your regular marginal rate equaled the maximum rate on unearned income, so it appeared your interest income was being taxed as ordinary, earned income, even though it wasn't. i would suggest you inquire within, of your tax preparer, who should be able to easily explain it to you.
  •  corporations are persons? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Roger M, semiot, Calamity Jean

    if that's the way it's gonna be, then we count the investor as a second person.  so there. double not taxed.

  •  Double taxation is simply a lie (13+ / 0-)

    Transactions (buying stuff, paying employees, selling stuff, and receiving payment or payroll) are taxed.  The dollars that we spend or earn have been involved in countless previous transactions which involved taxation.  Income from investments is  no different.  Romney's investment income is INCOME and should be taxed as such.  The "double taxation" lie such a tired and transparent bunch of nonsense that I can't believe it hasn't been laughed out of the realm of reasonable discussion.

    "You must be the change you wish to see in the world." -Gandhi

    by Triscula on Mon Sep 24, 2012 at 03:26:23 AM PDT

  •  did you ever hear a right winger (6+ / 0-)

    call the property tax or the sales tax a double tax???

    •  yes, constantly, actually. (3+ / 0-)
      the property tax
      they've been whining about this (real/personal property taxes) for a decade now. the basic contention being that they are being taxed simply for being well off enough to own property, and screw the school systems.

      in va (and many other states) the personal property tax on vehicles was supposed to disappear entirely, but it didn't. the reason? the last republican gov. suddenly realized that, absent the revenue from it, va would have to borrow money, or raise other taxes (can't have that!),  just to cover the basic budget requirements. oopsies!

  •  Low cap gains rates are a hidden pricing subsidy. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    semiot, howd, ozsea1, rivercard

    Many corporations use tax rates as an excuse to raise prices, framing it publicly as 'pass through' issue in order to lower public support for taxation, specifically, and government action/regulation in general.

    Concurrently, many corporations also use their pricing and costs structures as the engines to generate artificially high dividends for financial stakeholders, balancing market-tolerance for pricing and employee/regulatory tolerance for a lack of compensation, safety and/or innovation with a rate of return high enough to support the stock price and keep shareholders sufficiently happy.  These dividend-inflating actions are not so public as are the anti-tax price increases because these corporations don't want to have acknowledge that they are in the business of paying off stockholders, as opposed to creating equity by conducting a quality business of whatever sort.

    If capital gains rates were raised to a reasonable level, corporate management would need to squeeze the stone harder to appease the shareholders, risking  the balance of production and profitability, the public rejection of a higher pricing structure, exposure to the public as money-grubbing whores with no interest in honest commerce, or any combination of the three.

    It seems curiosity has killed the cat that had my tongue.

    by Murphoney on Mon Sep 24, 2012 at 04:31:46 AM PDT

  •  The Argument Applies Only To Income From Dividends (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Eric Twocents, semiot, elmo, ozsea1

    With that you can make the double taxation argument. you can make it. Think it is still bullshit though. Has nothing to do with capital gains realized by the buying and selling of stocks. And the price of stocks has been long divorced from the actual paying out of dividends.

    Kind of wish I was still Christian. Jesus would not only come back and throw the money changers out of the temple. He would have an AK-47.

  •  most sales of stock are of c-corps, (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    VClib, Sharon Wraight

    which are not pass-through entities.  

  •  Roger M: (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    VClib, Sharon Wraight

    do not let dr. krugman read this, as he has a totally different take on the subject:

    But now that the payroll taxes are drawing down on the trust fund and adding to the public debt
    i, on the other hand, am in 100% agreement with you, as should be anyone with even a basic knowledge of the difference between a budget, and an income statement should be. the former being simply a schedule of funds coming in and going out, resulting in either a surplus or deficit, while the latter is a schedule of income and expenses for the period, resulting in either a profit or loss. the two are not the same, and shouldn't be confused with one another. sadly, dr. krugman is an economist, not a cpa, and apparently doesn't realize there's a difference.

    i have attempted, multiple times, on this site and others, to correct dr. krugman's incorrect assertion. not having a nyt's column to my name, i fear i have failed in my efforts.

  •  But don't you see? Money is sacred. (4+ / 0-)

    Taxing it once is sacrilege. Taxing it twice is blasphemy. Or something.

    Except sales taxes. These are taxes that businesses can pass on to worker units. They are given dispensation by the Pope of Almighty Moola.

    Courage is contagious. - Daniel Ellsberg

    by semiot on Mon Sep 24, 2012 at 05:22:23 AM PDT

  •  When I sell a stock, the tax is on the gain and I (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    howd

    fail to see how that is double taxation. As far as I know, Apple, for instance, has no idea I have sold its stock or what my gain would be and does not pay any tax related to said sale. So there is no double taxation. Same if I sold some property. I made the gain and owe the (miniscule) tax; no one else is taxed on it.

    As to dividends, if corporations do pay the tax on that (although I assume it is a write off to them), it is still not double taxation. For an analogy, if I make money, pay tax on it, and then buy groceries with it, the grocer owes tax on the profit amount of what I spent, but no one sees that as double taxation. It seems to me that the same logic applies to dividends. If the corporation is taxed on the dividend amount and then sends me money, I owe tax on it same as the grocer owes tax on his profit (even though the same money was taxed when I received it).

    As to what is double taxed, the main thing is FICA. Why don't they worry about that? Answer: because that would help middle income families. Gasoline taxes, liquor taxes, sales taxes, cigarette taxes, etc. are all double taxed.

    You can't scare me, I'm sticking to the Union - Woody Guthrie

    by sewaneepat on Mon Sep 24, 2012 at 05:23:26 AM PDT

    •  dividends are not a write-off. (4+ / 0-)

      hence the double taxation.  for every other payment by a corp, there's a corresponding deduction.  not so with dividend payments; this is the source of double taxation and, more significantly, the source of the bias in the tax code toward debt over equity.

    •  We're talking dividends here, (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      VClib, Sharon Wraight, Clem Yeobright

      not capital gains from sale of the stock.  That's what people are referring to when the talk about double taxation.  

      It's a little different than the logic you explained because in some technical way the shareholders "own" the corporation.  So money is being paid in to the corp (and thus, to them) and taxed once, and then being taxed again when it's distributed to shareholders.  The difference between that and your grocery store example is that the shareholders "own" the business.  

      •  And let's take the grocery store example. (5+ / 0-)

        Say it's a mom & pop c-corp owned by mom and pop.  Say they make $100,000 in profit on their store.  The corp is taxed at 35%, leaving $65,000.  That $65,000 is dividended to mom & pop, where it's subject to 15% tax, leaving about $55,000 after tax, for an effective rate of 45%.

        •  Thanks for explaining this. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          johnny wurster, Sharon Wraight

          How many small businesses are c-corps as opposed to sole proprietorships or partnerships? Do these c-corp owners then not pay FICA on their profits? That's one heck of a loophole.

          You can't scare me, I'm sticking to the Union - Woody Guthrie

          by sewaneepat on Mon Sep 24, 2012 at 06:20:33 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Though you are leaving out deductions and (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          rmx2630

          exemptions in your example. Mom and Pop would have at least the standard deduction and 2 exemptions to deduct from their $65,000 dividend reducing their taxable income to at most $45,500. This would be at most a tax of $6825, though I believe that the capital gains tax is also a marginal rate so some of it would be taxed at less than 15%. This would make the effective tax rate 41.825 by my calculations.

          You can't scare me, I'm sticking to the Union - Woody Guthrie

          by sewaneepat on Mon Sep 24, 2012 at 06:27:49 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Mom & Pop are idiots (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Phoebe Loosinhouse, rmx2630

          They would be an S-corp, LLP or LLC which are all pass-throughs. Plus the effective tax rate would be much less than the top marginal rate of 35%. Plus small companies who's employees are the owners usually bonus out their profits, so it shows up as compensation. Any small business paying taxes as illustrated needs a new accountant and lawyer.

          But then again, compensation is double-taxed by FICA, as was my original point.

          I am a sick man. ... I am a spiteful man. An unattractive man. I think my liver hurts. Fyodor Dostoevky "Notes from the Underground"

          by Roger M on Mon Sep 24, 2012 at 06:44:47 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  The initial point about the grocery store (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          sewaneepat, Calamity Jean

          is that people are shopping at the store with after tax income, or "money that has already been taxed".  If money can only be taxed once, the store owner should be able to use Mitt's argument and not be taxed on any profit he makes from after tax income.  Which is silly.

          The question isn't if the money has been taxed more than once, but if the individual has.  The argument they seem to be trying to make is that as stockholders, when the corporation is taxed, the stockholders are taxed.  It isn't a ridiculous statement like money can only be taxed once, but I believe the corporation is a separate entity and don't buy the argument.

          Your request has bad syntax or is inherently impossible to satisfy. --httpd_err400form

          by Bob Novak Douchebag of Liberty on Mon Sep 24, 2012 at 08:05:00 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  That was the point of Romney's (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            VClib, nextstep, Calamity Jean

            "corporations are people": the income of the corp is imputed to the people that own it.  If a corp of which I'm 100% owner is taxed, then the value of the company to me is reduced 1:1 by the amount of tax.  

            •  But we can't own people any more. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Roger M, Calamity Jean

              If corporations are people, they should pay their own tax.

              Your request has bad syntax or is inherently impossible to satisfy. --httpd_err400form

              by Bob Novak Douchebag of Liberty on Mon Sep 24, 2012 at 08:24:51 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  If corporations are people, then (0+ / 0-)

                the 13th Amendment applies.

                Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

                Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

                While I would derive great satisfaction from seeing a criminal corporation sentenced to hard labor, I would prefer to see all of them freed from their shackles as chattels of the leisure class, and reconstituted as non-profits.

                America—We built that!

                by Mokurai on Mon Sep 24, 2012 at 10:22:52 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

      •  Romney was talking about capital gains when he (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        gramofsam1, howd

        mentioned double taxation.

        Since corporations cannot write off dividends, then I will accept that technically that is double taxation, but capital gains are not double taxed (as Mr. Romney said) and FICA, etc. are double taxed and that is more of a problem than dividends. And I speak as a retired person who no longer pays FICA and receives most of my income from dividends and interest. I had much rather have a higher tax on dividends, interest, and capital and not have FICA double taxed than the current practice.

        You can't scare me, I'm sticking to the Union - Woody Guthrie

        by sewaneepat on Mon Sep 24, 2012 at 06:14:03 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  FICA Double Taxation (0+ / 0-)

          What do you mean by FICA double taxation?  Do you mean seniors paying taxes on their SS?  Or do you mean something else?

          Poor man wants to be rich. Rich man wants to king. And the king ain't satisifed until he rules everything. B.Springsteen

          by howd on Mon Sep 24, 2012 at 07:52:25 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I mean earned income pays both (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            howd

            Income tax and FICA, where unearned money only pays income tax, either ordinary or capital gains. However, one could also say that people paid after income tax money for fica tax then they are taxed on SS benefits if they have other income.

            I am a sick man. ... I am a spiteful man. An unattractive man. I think my liver hurts. Fyodor Dostoevky "Notes from the Underground"

            by Roger M on Mon Sep 24, 2012 at 08:30:20 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  I mean that you do not get a deduction on your (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            howd

            income tax for your FICA taxes so you pay income tax on the money you paid for FICA.

            Some seniors also pay income tax on their SS benefits, but that is not what I am referring to.

            You can't scare me, I'm sticking to the Union - Woody Guthrie

            by sewaneepat on Mon Sep 24, 2012 at 11:41:23 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  One correction though. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    VClib

    Much of Medicare spending is from the general fund. The trust fund is for Part A. Parts B and D are funded by premiums (25%) and the general fund (75%). Social Security is entirely separate and funded by its trust fund.

    You can't scare me, I'm sticking to the Union - Woody Guthrie

    by sewaneepat on Mon Sep 24, 2012 at 05:26:54 AM PDT

  •  The wet dream of Republicans and the 1% is to some (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    howd, ozsea1

    how get Americans to believe that taxing capital gains is "unfair" because that money was taxed originally by the corporation or the person whose taxed income bought the investment.

    Look at Mitt Romney right now or members of the 1% like the Walton family or anyone else you choose to examine. They have no need to ever actually "work" again, they can live off of capital gains or interest income for the rest of their lives and their children's lives and their grandchildren's lives - which is their dream- to create a plutocracy or aristocracy the likes of which the world has never seen with the vast majority of the world's wealth concentrated into a very very small number of people and families.

    They will buy all the governments and politicians they need to perpetuate this life forever. We are seeing the very beginnings of this with Citizens United. They will find ways to make education private, water private, healthcare private, resources private, roads private, fire departments private, police forces private, armies private, internets private, etc. When I say "private" I mean "for profit". Their profit. When you dismantle state governments and even portions of the Federal government through Austerity, this will be the predictable result.

    I do not think this is science fiction, I believe this is the road ahead. The very first brick on that road is making capital gains and interest income untaxed or barely taxed. They will tell the American public that the Job Creator Masters of the Universe need this money in order to create jobs, which they will only if they must and at only at the most pitiable wages possible.

    The only way to make this clear to people is in easily digestible nuggets. My new slogan is:

    The only one working in the Romney family is the money!

    “Human kindness has never weakened the stamina or softened the fiber of a free people. A nation does not have to be cruel to be tough.” FDR

    by Phoebe Loosinhouse on Mon Sep 24, 2012 at 05:44:59 AM PDT

    •  When people talk (3+ / 0-)

      about double taxation in the corporate context, they're talking dividends, NOT capital gains.  

      •  It took all of 2 seconds to Google this: (4+ / 0-)

        Lower tax rate 'the right way to encourage economic growth

        Mr. Romney was asked on CBS' "60 Minutes" if it was fair that the 14 percent he paid on $20 million of investments last year — the capital gains rate — is lower than the rate for someone who makes $50,000.

        "It is a low rate," Mr. Romney replied. "And one of the reasons why the capital gains tax rate is lower is because capital has already been taxed once at the corporate level, as high as 35 percent.

        Read more: Romney: Lower tax rate 'the right way to encourage economic growth' - Washington Times http://www.washingtontimes.com/...
        Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

        “Human kindness has never weakened the stamina or softened the fiber of a free people. A nation does not have to be cruel to be tough.” FDR

        by Phoebe Loosinhouse on Mon Sep 24, 2012 at 06:05:10 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Dividends (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Phoebe Loosinhouse, howd

        Are a small part of investment. I never knew anyone who bought stock for the dividends. Gains from stock price rise has always been the motivation. Forbes doesn't look measure the richest people by their collected dividends, but by the value of their portfolios.

        I am a sick man. ... I am a spiteful man. An unattractive man. I think my liver hurts. Fyodor Dostoevky "Notes from the Underground"

        by Roger M on Mon Sep 24, 2012 at 06:30:51 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I've bought stock for the dividends. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Calamity Jean

          Utilities are often used as an example of a dividend stock.  They already have a monopoly on the service, so there isn't a lot of room for market growth, but they have a mandated profit that is distributed through dividends.

          Your request has bad syntax or is inherently impossible to satisfy. --httpd_err400form

          by Bob Novak Douchebag of Liberty on Mon Sep 24, 2012 at 07:37:18 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I agree with your exception (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Sharon Wraight, Calamity Jean

            I thought of utilities and many retired people who buy the stock for the dividends, but most stocks are not purchased for dividends. And in the deregulation era we live in, that strategy may not work for utilities much longer either.

            I am a sick man. ... I am a spiteful man. An unattractive man. I think my liver hurts. Fyodor Dostoevky "Notes from the Underground"

            by Roger M on Mon Sep 24, 2012 at 07:50:20 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  Actually the road ahead is (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JeffW
      I do not think this is science fiction, I believe this is the road ahead.
      ecological collapse caused by climate change, which the filthy rich aren't doing much to prevent.  I'm sure that the Romney class would like to make themselves into an aristocracy to rival prerevolutionary France.  

      Renewable energy brings national global security.     

      by Calamity Jean on Tue Sep 25, 2012 at 08:18:08 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Then why tax wages at all? Corp tax already paid. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kenlac, Mokurai, Calamity Jean

    Extend the logic.  Why should any worker have their wages taxed at all.  Why....the corporation....which is the overlord in Romneyland....pays all taxes for the collective so why should we just not tax capital gains, couldn't you extend the same "logic" to the serfs and minions that the Borg Corporation deems worthy to bestow a paycheck to in order to actually crank out whatever shit they sell?  

    Mitt Romney's entire plan is so nonsensical I pray that President Obama attacks him with a LOT of specific numbers in the debates, challenge every figure he tosses out.  Mitt thinks he's the big bidness man with great command of the balance sheet, so Obama should take that from him, be ready to decimate every percentage, forecast, number etc Romney tosses out, because they are all based on his alternate reality.  If you can't even agree on what the facts are you can't have a debate. He will never agree to yours, so destroy his and show why the foundation of his house is made of bullshit.

  •  "Dollars are people, my friends!" (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sharon Wraight

    "And it's not fair that my associate, Mr. Dollar, be taxes so many times just for being passed from Mr. Corporation to Ms. Corporation!"

    You can call it "class warfare" -- we call it "common sense"

    by kenlac on Mon Sep 24, 2012 at 08:19:23 AM PDT

  •  Good catch! (0+ / 0-)

    It probably went unnoticed by 99.9% of the folks listening to his B.S. in the interview.

    "If they're shooting at you, you know you must be doing something right"

    by ayjaymay on Mon Sep 24, 2012 at 10:48:42 AM PDT

Click here for the mobile view of the site