Someone might want to take their own advice. All of the facts regarding Romney's retirement plan and industry information above that I have posted was easily found in seconds doing Google searches.You "read heard somewhere" but were too lazy to check facts?
Is This Why Mitt Won't Show His Tax Returns?
Re: Is This Why Mitt Won't Show His Tax Returns?
Re: Is This Why Mitt Won't Show His Tax Returns?
Rube has made very clear that's simply not something he is capable of doing.All of the facts regarding Romney's retirement plan and industry information above that I have posted was easily found in seconds doing Google searches.
He also cannot read anything that's more than a few sentences long, especially if it's not in bold. It's some sort of learning disability.
Long Run, I can see from your earlier post that you are attempting to convey to rube some information that is way too complicated for him to understand. Believe me, you're going to get nothing but frustrated trying to do that. (I know, I've been there.)
Re: Is This Why Mitt Won't Show His Tax Returns?
As to the original "issue" of Romney's tax returns....
There was a time I thought he should release more, but the tactics of those who have attempted to bully and badger him into doing so (including that disgraceful McCarthyite performance by the odious Harry Reid) have convinced me he ought to hang tough and just say screw 'em....
This shiny object "issue" isn't costing him one single vote that he could otherwise get....The only people who give a shit about this are the Dems and their allies in the liberal press....Why should he just hand them stuff that they'll just take out of context to try and beat him over the head with? That's the only reason they've got any interest in this....
Lord knows the man has enough problems without handing the opposition any more weapons for them to try to use on him....
There was a time I thought he should release more, but the tactics of those who have attempted to bully and badger him into doing so (including that disgraceful McCarthyite performance by the odious Harry Reid) have convinced me he ought to hang tough and just say screw 'em....
This shiny object "issue" isn't costing him one single vote that he could otherwise get....The only people who give a shit about this are the Dems and their allies in the liberal press....Why should he just hand them stuff that they'll just take out of context to try and beat him over the head with? That's the only reason they've got any interest in this....
Lord knows the man has enough problems without handing the opposition any more weapons for them to try to use on him....
Re: Is This Why Mitt Won't Show His Tax Returns?
The avg VC return being over 18% does not show that a particular VC made 20% every year for 26 years and we are discussing the increase in value of their sep-ira assets not the VC overall.Long Run wrote:On page 5 you can see the average VC return is above 18% over the last 25 year paid to the limited partners (i.e., after fees): http://www.cambridgeassociates.com/pdf/ ... 0Index.pdf Hence, investors in above average VCs do better, often much better, than 18%.
http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2007/11/venture-fund--3.html (from a VC manager)My last thought on this topic is that venture capital is a manager selection problem. If you'd been in the top quartile over the entire period [he is looking at the period 1981 to 2003], including the ugly years, the average Net to LPs IRR is about 25%, about twice the median return.
Your typical response is to find something that 'sounds' like it relates without actually turning it into a factual response which concretely addresses the argument you are trying to make.
Here you assert that that the "average annual" across funds (although still less than 20%) is mathematically the same as the "average over time" for 1 fund. And you ignore the 2000 - 2003 period when nearly all VC funds lost a lost a lot of money. And we are not talking about the VC profit but the increase in value of their 401k funds.
The financial press has said that the "20% per year every year" assertion does not pass the stink test.
You have still not shown how Mitty could honestly have amassed that 401k even taking the very lowest value ($22M)
A more plausible mechanism (which I suggested elsewhere) is that he deferred a part of his partnership income into the 401k (you can legally defer up to 100% of your regular partnership income and 100% of any bonus income earned in year x and paid in year x + 1 with certain conditions*).
But while this is legal it will look really BAD to the average taxpayer and will tell the sharks that Bain has a huge fund of cash which is avail. to plunder with lawsuits.
yrs,
rubato
* The deferral is an 'at-risk' asset of the partnership until it is distributed. You have to declare before the beginning of any calendar year what percentage you will defer and you have to state how and when it will be distributed (all at once or in equal installments over 5 years).
Re: Is This Why Mitt Won't Show His Tax Returns?
The more logical view is that Romney has been frantically filing amended returns and paying back taxes for prior years. This is why his income 'magically' dropped by 7 million dollars.:
___________________________
http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/rick-n ... tax-return
"
Romney's campaign has begun to focus on the "personal" tax rate paid by Romney, rather than the tax rate that might be associated with the trusts and his total income from all sources.
This matters because Romney is subject to a very low tax rate as it is, since most of his earnings come from investments, which are taxed at a lower rate than wages. Romney hasn't released tax documents prior to 2010, but some tax experts think his overall tax rate could have been very close to zero during at least a couple of years, possibly because of capital losses suffered during the stock-market wipeout of 2008, which zeroed out earnings for many investors.
[See a collection of political cartoons on the 2012 campaign.]
The Romney campaign now says that since 1990, "the lowest annual effective federal personal tax rate" Romney paid was 13.66 percent. In other words, the rate on what might be characterized as his personal income never fell below that threshold.
But that doesn't account for the three trusts, or other investment vehicles that may have existed prior to 2010. And it's unusual to limit the claim to "personal" taxes when Romney has acknowledged other types of income. So it's possible that the effective tax rate on the trusts was very low at some point—and maybe even zero, which would have indicated a net loss for the year.
... "
_____________________________
___________________________
http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/rick-n ... tax-return
"
Romney's campaign has begun to focus on the "personal" tax rate paid by Romney, rather than the tax rate that might be associated with the trusts and his total income from all sources.
This matters because Romney is subject to a very low tax rate as it is, since most of his earnings come from investments, which are taxed at a lower rate than wages. Romney hasn't released tax documents prior to 2010, but some tax experts think his overall tax rate could have been very close to zero during at least a couple of years, possibly because of capital losses suffered during the stock-market wipeout of 2008, which zeroed out earnings for many investors.
[See a collection of political cartoons on the 2012 campaign.]
The Romney campaign now says that since 1990, "the lowest annual effective federal personal tax rate" Romney paid was 13.66 percent. In other words, the rate on what might be characterized as his personal income never fell below that threshold.
But that doesn't account for the three trusts, or other investment vehicles that may have existed prior to 2010. And it's unusual to limit the claim to "personal" taxes when Romney has acknowledged other types of income. So it's possible that the effective tax rate on the trusts was very low at some point—and maybe even zero, which would have indicated a net loss for the year.
... "
_____________________________
-
oldr_n_wsr
- Posts: 10838
- Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 1:59 am
Re: Is This Why Mitt Won't Show His Tax Returns?
Back in the early 1980's my wife worked for an accounting firm that did some of Donald Trumps tax returns. Iasked her how many pages his returns were and she said a good 200 pages for any given year and that always the extension was filed and always there were ammended returns from years past.
When your money comes from dozens of different sources and your returns are som complex, there is 99.9999% chance that there is an error and there will be an amended return. Heck I have had 5 amended returns and all I had was investments, stock options, college accounts, regular employment, consulting work, side jobs, the wife working and the regular deductions (mortgage interest, children, wife, IRA, etc) in my history.
When your money comes from dozens of different sources and your returns are som complex, there is 99.9999% chance that there is an error and there will be an amended return. Heck I have had 5 amended returns and all I had was investments, stock options, college accounts, regular employment, consulting work, side jobs, the wife working and the regular deductions (mortgage interest, children, wife, IRA, etc) in my history.