Ann Romney: "We've given all you people need to know."

[_Cicero]

All I know is that I won't be voting Mitt.

His religion has nothing to do with my decision.

I am very much undecided. But I do know that my decision will not be affected one iota by his religion, his tax returns (or lack thereof) or whether a portfolio company Bain Capital invested in outsourced jobs.

[_Kishkumen]

But I do know that my decision will not be affected one iota by his religion, his tax returns (or lack thereof) or whether a portfolio company Bain Capital invested in outsourced jobs.

My decision is very much influenced by his business dealings. I do not buy into the idea that a business executive type is the kind of person the country needs as president. But, having made that argument, Republicans have left themselves open to the scrutiny that comes with doing so.

If a CEO is desirable in the White House, then what kind of CEO do you want there?

I think this is a fair question.

[_Jason Bourne]

Couple quick comments and then I think I am likely done with this thread but who knows. I typically avoid political debate on line mostly because I tend to wave back and forth more these days on political issues than I used to. I guess I am just a damned luke warm NOMER and that way as well politically. I see neither side really as the epitome of evil as so many here do who post on both sides of the issues.

So to answer one more of Kevin's questions re Obama's commments about tthe government helping someone get started on the road to success. When I first heard to comments I interpreted them the way the Romney camp is. But then on a second read of them I disagreed and it seems reasonable to me that when he said "You didn't build that" the president was referring to the roads abd bridges. One point on that, we all sort of did, though, build the bridges, with out tax dollars. However I personally still need to attribute a large part of my success to money I got for school in the form of Pell Grants and a state tuition assistnace program where I live. I qualified for a lot of no pay back financial aid as well as low interest loans because I was married, had kids and not making much money. I think the money was well spent by the government on my because my taxes are fairly high these days and I have more than paid it back. But I understand tha idea that government programs can help launch us and the infrastructure, relative stabilty that comes from the nation where we live, the defense it provides and other such things help us all succeed.

There was another point as well but I forgot so if I remember later today I will post it. Oh yea, Kevin did make some good points that Obama is talking about his reocord. I hope we hear more of this, from both sides as well as details of plans. I guess that is all for now.

[_EAllusion]

Are you sure about this? I have read that most making over a #40k to over a million a year pay an average rate of 31%. Higher earner may see a dip in rates due to cap gains and dividends making up much of their income:

Yes. Why would you make 40k the cutoff point? That's lower-middle class, not filthy rich. The trend you see on the effective tax rate on gross income is little to nothing being paid among the working class, a quick rise around middle class, followed by a very small incline in marginal rate through uppper-middle / lower-upper, then a significant decline at the very wealthy. In the most recent tax return Romney did release, he paid around 15%, which is significantly lower than the 31% number you quote. I believe Buffet famously paid around 11% last year. This is, again, because the wealthy derive a huge portion of their income from investments that exist under a different tax structure and due to the ability to play with reported adjusted gross income relative to actual wealth.

This is then further magnified when you take into account total tax burden because sales taxes are regressive.

Also could you share with me the what the sophisticated accounting technicques the rich use to get lower rates?

What do you mean? It's not getting "lower rates" so much as shielding asset holdings from being taxed.

[_Jason Bourne]

Are you sure about this? I have read that most making over a #40k to over a million a year pay an average rate of 31%. Higher earner may see a dip in rates due to cap gains and dividends making up much of their income:

[Yes. Why would you make 40k the cutoff point? That's lower-middle class, not filthy rich.

Sorry that was a typo. I meant to just say $1 Million

The trend you see on the effective tax rate on gross income is little to nothing being paid among the working class, a quick rise around middle class, followed by a very small incline in marginal rate through uppper-middle / lower-upper, then a significant decline at the very wealthy.

Yes I know this. I see it all the time. I see it personally. I see it with my clients though most my clients are high income earners due to passthrough income from an S Corp or partnership. This can push income rates for to the hghest rates even though they may be investing it all back into the busines. Raise rates from 35% at the top to 39.6% and you add a lot of tax burden to small to medium size businesses.

In the most recent tax return Romney did release, he paid around 15%, which is significantly lower than the 31% number you quote. I believe Buffet famously paid around 11% last year. This is, again, because the wealthy derive a huge portion of their income from investments that exist under a different tax structure and due to the ability to play with reported adjusted gross income relative to actual wealth.

I am not sure what you mean that the wealthy can play around with AGI but there are reasons to tax cap gains and dividends at a lower rate. Cap gains are a result of after tax income and the lower rate reduces investment risk. Dividends are double taxed.

This is then further magnified when you take into account total tax burden because sales taxes are regressive.

Yes and gas taxes and property taxes to e certain extent.

Also could you share with me the what the sophisticated accounting technicques the rich use to get lower rates?

What do you mean? It's not getting "lower rates" so much as shielding asset holdings from being taxed.

Again I am not clear as to what you point is.

[_Cicero]

My decision is very much influenced by his business dealings. I do not buy into the idea that a business executive type is the kind of person the country needs as president. But, having made that argument, Republicans have left themselves open to the scrutiny that comes with doing so.

If a CEO is desirable in the White House, then what kind of CEO do you want there?

I think this is a fair question.

That's fair, but voters should make sure that they are asking the right questions. I voted for Obama in 2008 and given the same choice would do so again without hesitation (mainly to prevent Sarah Palin from being one heartbeat away from the presidency). Having said that, I don't think that Obama has been a very good president and I definitely think that a CEO is generally better qualified to be President than a constitutional law professor.

But to really understand what kind of "CEO" Romney was, you have to understand the private equity business, which I understand much better than I'd like to since I spent several years in hard labor as a lawyer representing private equity firms. Romney has really run only 3 businesses: Bain Capital, Bain Consulting (for a short stint to turn it around when it was near collapse) and the 2002 Salt Lake Olympic Committee (or SLOC). Bain Consulting and SLOC are somewhat similar stories: both involved troubled entities where Romney swooped in and turned things around in a relatively short period of time. In both cases, I think his efforts were impressive. His record at Bain Capital is harder to understand for those that are unfamiliar with private equity.

Bain Capital is an investment fund that that usually invests in privately held companies (i.e., companies that do not have publicly traded stock). Think of it as a mutual fund that has access to riskier deals at potentially much higher returns. Funds like Bain raise money from big investors like university endowments and state pension funds, which they then invest in private companies. Private equity funds like Bain may have a controlling stake in the a company and sit on the board, but they don't run the company day to day. Romney was even further removed from operating the businesses because he was the managing partner (or CEO) of the fund. Therefore, I think it is generally not relevant to look at whether a Bain portfolio company outsourced jobs. Romney wasn't running these companies day to day and I would bet that for the most part he wouldn't have even known whether a portfolio company was outsourcing jobs. I also do not think that it is generally relevant to look at companies that failed and laid off workers. Private equity is a very risky business. Generally, you hope to have a few "home run" deals where the fund makes 4-8x its money in order to make up for the failed deals. As the CEO of a private equity fund, Romney was one of the best. The fund's internal rate of return (IRR) during his tenure was 113%, which is off-the-charts phenomenal, and Bain Capital is now one of the premier funds in the industry.

Now, if you want to criticize the leverage buyout business model itself, then you may be onto something, and that does give me some concerns about Romney. However, my biggest concerns about Romney are (1) that I don't know what the guy really believes and (2) foreign policy. I was living in MA in 2002 when Romney ran for governor. He is a completely different candidate today and so he richly deserves the filp-flopper moniker. I am also very nervous about a potential war with Iran, and I believe Obama will avoid doing that unless absolutely necessary. I can't say the same for Romney.

[Guest]

That's fair, but voters should make sure that they are asking the right questions. I voted for Obama in 2008 and given the same choice would do so again without hesitation (mainly to prevent Sarah Palin from being one heartbeat away from the presidency). Having said that, I don't think that Obama has been a very good president and I definitely think that a CEO is generally better qualified to be President than a constitutional law professor.

I don't. There is little evidence to suggest that you are correct, and all CEOs are not the same.

As for Obama, he entered the presidency in terrible circumstances, and he has accomplished a fair number of things. I fault him for bungling the bailout negotiations and for failing to handle the Republicans better. I am disappointed in Obama, particularly regarding his record on civil liberties.

Having said that, you couldn't pay me to vote for Mitt Romney. Based on what he has said, I have no reason to believe that he would be a better president than Obama. I absolutely will not vote for a man who has all the appearance of willingness to say or do almost anything just to win the election. Would that he possessed the character and forthrightness of his father. My feelings would be different, of course, but then he would be a different man.

Now, if you want to criticize the leverage buyout business model itself, then you may be onto something, and that does give me some concerns about Romney. However, my biggest concerns about Romney are (1) that I don't know what the guy really believes and (2) foreign policy. I was living in MA in 2002 when Romney ran for governor. He is a completely different candidate today and so he richly deserves the filp-flopper moniker. I am also very nervous about a potential war with Iran, and I believe Obama will avoid doing that unless absolutely necessary. I can't say the same for Romney.

Yep. Can't say I disagree with a thing you say here. You have pretty much summed up the most important reasons I won't vote for him, hence my focus on softer issues above. Business experience, yes. But what kind? Flip-flopping into positions I can't agree with. You name it. The more I have seen of Mitt, the less I want to see of Mitt. I don't want Mitt as my president on either a rational or a gut level. I would have loved to see the first Mormon president, but not like this.

I can take 4 more years of Obama. I hope he does better next time around. And he has a better handle on the job, so maybe he will improve. I think he has already.

Am I excited about either candidate? No. They are both so far from what I want in a president in terms of their positions on key issues that I will vote for Obama because I am less worried about him than Mitt. I don't hate Mitt; I just don't know him. Nor am I confident that he has a solid core to know. That may be harsh, but after all this time it is what I
have concluded about him. I wanted to trust him. I just don't.

[_Bond James Bond]

That's fair, but voters should make sure that they are asking the right questions. I voted for Obama in 2008 and given the same choice would do so again without hesitation (mainly to prevent Sarah Palin from being one heartbeat away from the presidency). Having said that, I don't think that Obama has been a very good president and I definitely think that a CEO is generally better qualified to be President than a constitutional law professor.

I don't. There is little evidence to suggest that you are correct, and all CEOs are not the same.

As for Obama, he entered the presidency in terrible circumstances, and he has accomplished a far number of things. I fault him for bungling the bailout negotiations and for failing to handle the Republicans better. I am disappointed in Obama, particularly regarding his record on civil liberties.

Having said that, you couldn't pay me to vote for Mitt Romney. Based on what he has said, I have no reason to believe that he would be a better president than Obama. I absolutely will not vote for a man who has all the appearance of willingness to say or do almost anything just to win the election. Would that he possessed the character and forthrightness of his father. My feelings would be different, of course, but then he would be a different man.

Now, if you want to criticize the leverage buyout business model itself, then you may be onto something, and that does give me some concerns about Romney. However, my biggest concerns about Romney are (1) that I don't know what the guy really believes and (2) foreign policy. I was living in MA in 2002 when Romney ran for governor. He is a completely different candidate today and so he richly deserves the filp-flopper moniker. I am also very nervous about a potential war with Iran, and I believe Obama will avoid doing that unless absolutely necessary. I can't say the same for Romney.

Yep. Can't say I disagree with a thing you say here. You have pretty much summed up the most important reasons I won't vote for him, hence my focus on softer issues above. Business experience, yes. But what kind? Flip-flopping into positions I can't agree with. You name it. The more I have seen of Mitt, the less I want to see of Mitt. I don't want Mitt as my president on either a rational or a gut level. I would have loved to see the first Mormon president, but not like this.

I can take 4 more years of Obama. I hope he does better next time around. And he has a better handle on the job, so maybe he will improve. I think he has already.

Am I excited about either candidate? No. They are both so far from what I want in a president in terms of their positions on key issues that I will vote for Obama because I am less worried about him than Mitt. I don't hate Mitt; I just don't know him. Nor am I confident that he has a solid core to know. That may be harsh, but after all this time it is what I
have concluded about him. I wanted to trust him. I just don't.

I agree Kish. I sport the Obama avatar (mostly to needle Droopy if he's still reading my posts) but I have several problems with him. I think he wasted a couple of years of his first term trying to gain bipartisanship when he had majorities in both houses when he might have accomplished much more. But I can at least stomach Obama; he doesn't make me embarrassed to be an American the way Bush II did. Obama hasn't set the world on fire but he hasn't decided to "bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" or something. America is just plodding along as a country, kicking the debt can down the road, with a do-nothing Republican house and a Super Minority Republican Senate that's intent on cutting Planned Parenthood while they continue do fiscally responsible things like spend seventy-two million supporting a NASCAR team via the defense budget. At least interest rates are low so buying a house isn't too bad for me :D.

[Guest]

Cicero,

Thanks for taking the time to write your post above regarding what you see as Romney's strengths and weaknesses as a candidate for President.

Very informative.

[_Nomomo]

Likely a major reason for Romney to withhold tax returns of the past 10 years is that he being familiar with the use of Son of Boss tax avoidance scams in his position he held with Marriott it is likely he used an S.O.B. scheme to avoid taxes on a gain himself.