Romney in the last debate revealed he would eliminate tax on interest, dividends, and capital gains. What a tax savings for investors. Romney’s plan would let households earning less than $200,000 a year collect capital gains, dividends and interest tax-free. That would encourage more Americans to build cash nest eggs and to own stocks and bonds above and beyond their retirement plans.
Now we know Romney is definitely a crook. Practically all of Romney's income is from interest, dividends, and capital gains. Eliminating tax on this income will just mean Romney can paid 0 in taxes. Middle class will hardly get much benefit from this tax cut since they don't really own much of the gains from interest, dividends, and capital gains.
The Truth-O-Meter Says:
Romney Says Barack Obama has pension investments that include Chinese firms, and "investments through a Caymans trust."
Mitt Romney on Tuesday, October 16th, 2012 in debate comments
Romney says Obama also has investments in Chinese companies and through a Cayman Islands trust : True
One of the many tense moments in the second presidential debate turned on a new topic in the race: President Barack Obama’s pension account.
Here’s how it came up: Early in the face-off, Obama scoffed at Mitt Romney’s pledge to crack down on unfair trading practices by China, saying Romney is currently invested in companies "that are building surveillance equipment for China to spy on its own folks."
Romney later explained that, yes, he understands that his blind trust has invested in foreign firms, including companies in China. Then he confronted Obama.
Romney: "Mr. President, have you looked at your pension? Have you looked at your pension?"
Obama: "You know, I don’t look at my pension. It’s not as big as yours so it doesn’t take as long. I don’t check it that often."
Romney: "Let me give you some advice. Look at your pension. You also have investments in Chinese companies. You also have investments outside the United States. You also have investments through a Caymans trust."
The exchange was a role reversal: An Obama campaign ad in July 2012 claimed Romney had millions in the Cayman Islands, among other "tax havens." We rated that True, noting that nothing illegal or improper about the investments through his blind trust.
We also reviewed an Obama claim from an ad in September 2012 that said, "Even today part of Romney’s fortune is invested in China."
We rated that Mostly True, noting that Romney had money invested in funds that owned shares in two Chinese firms, but that Obama’s claim suggested Romney had more to do with the investment decision than is the case. (We further noted that the New York Times reported that one of the funds had invested in a Chinese video surveillance company that supplies cameras to police for watching public spaces.)
Okay, so what about Romney’s debate description of Obama’s pension investments?
The Romney campaign told us it was referring to investments made by the Illinois State Board of Investment on behalf of the state employees’ retirement system there.
Obama, you may recall, was an Illinois state senator from 1997 to 2004 before winning election to the U.S. Senate. He is a participant in the General Assembly Retirement System in Illinois, said William Atwood, executive director of the Board of Investment, who confirmed that for us.
The Romney campaign pointed us to that pension fund’s holding in an entity that is part of Advent International. Advent has described itself as "one of the world’s most global private equity firms" and has buyout offices in 16 countries.
Atwood confirmed that the pension fund has invested $30 million in one of Advent’s limited partnerships, Advent International GPE VI-A. That partnership was organized in the Cayman Islands, Atwood said. Public filings back that up.
What about Romney’s broader claims, about Obama’s foreign investments?
The Illinois pension fund also has numerous foreign investments, including in Chinese companies, as part of its diversified portfolio, Atwood said.
The Obama campaign has connected Romney’s overseas investments in the Caymans to methods for avoiding U.S. taxes. But there’s no evidence Obama receives any tax advantage from his overseas pension investments.
David S. Miller, a tax attorney with Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP in New York, reviewed public filings by Advent and said it was highly unlikely Obama got any tax advantage from the pension fund’s investment in the Advent partnership.
Atwood went further, saying: "There is no tax advantage to any (pension) plan participant" from that investment.
Miller offered this analysis: "There is no evidence that the fund helped the Illinois pension fund avoid any taxes – in this respect, the Illinois pension fund would have been treated identically had the fund been organized as a domestic (U.S.) partnership. However, the fact that it was organized as a Cayman partnership might have allowed some taxable investors to defer some tax on foreign (non-U.S.) portfolio companies purchased by the Fund."
Atwood emphasized that neither Obama nor any other participant in the retirement system has anything to do with selecting investments for the fund.
Miller concurred with that, and added that Romney legitimately can claim that he has similar distance from foreign investments made through his individual retirement accounts.
It’s "entirely accurate" for Romney to say that Obama’s pension plan has investments in foreign companies and through a Caymans trust, Miller said. Technically, it’s a Cayman-based partnership, but that’s a trivial difference, he added.
Romney told Obama: "You also have investments in Chinese companies. You also have investments outside the United States. You also have investments through a Caymans trust."
It’s an accurate set of statements when you consider investments made by managers of the Illinois pension fund in which Obama has an account.
As we noted in reviewing previous claims about Romney’s investments in China, the investments involved are indirect and -- as far as anybody has said -- made without the knowledge of the account holder.
With that clarification, we rate Romney’s statement True.
Math... simple math. We have people complaining about reduced security in embassies. However, that costs money. And then we have Romney saying he is going to reduce tax revenue. When are you guys going to wake up? Reagan, Bush and Bush all talked about reducing spending but in reality they all increased it by huge %'s. Romney is no different. You can't spend more money and reduce tax revenue. IT IS SIMPLE MATH. You want a military? You want security? You want roads? You want ... you want ... you want. However, you don't want to pay for it. It simply doesn't work that way. WAKE UP PEOPLE.
He can propose it. But it will never pass.
Even the Repubs in congress are intelligent enough to realize that with huge numbers of Americans reaching retirement age, it will be necessary to maintain some level of taxation on "unearned income" if there is a glacier's chance in global warming of attaining a semblance of a balanced budget.
It's a nice idea in concept. But totally unworkable in practice.
The folks who actually have to prepare the country's financial plan will never agree.
From Obama's commission: Over the long run, as the baby boomers retire and health care costs continue to grow, the situation will become far worse. By 2025 revenue will be able to finance only interest payments, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. Every other federal government activity – from national defense and homeland security to transportation and energy – will have to be paid for with borrowed money. Debt held by the public will outstrip the entire American economy, growing to as much as 185 percent of GDP by 2035. Interest on the debt could rise to nearly $1 trillion by 2020. These mandatory payments – which buy absolutely no goods or services – will squeeze out funding for all other priorities. - Report of the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, December, 2010
Eventually, every one of those schemes needs to have a complete overhaul. They need to be reformed to be in line with what we can afford. Eventually, most Americans will have to be weened off of those programs. Those programs, as they are structured now, are clearly not affordable.
And, Barry's "Kill Your Health" scheme needs to be deep-sixed with a stake driven through it!
I'm not an investor. Investors are willing to take risks with their money that I'm not willing to take. Sure,they can and do sometimes make large profits because they are willing to take the risks that many of us are not willing to make. But,in many cases they can also lose large sums of capital if their investments do not work out one way or another. If you're willing to take risk with your own money so should should you be allowed to keep much of that investment. Investing can bring on great risk which many people are not willing to do. Incentives are required to allow for risk. Leave the investors alone.