2012 Elections in the USA

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye; 425055]You are a joke. Obama and his puppet masters use proxies to do all of their dirty work and they have absolutely no quams about breaking the law. They do it all the time, with absolute impunity. Just look at the clear violation of federal election law whereby the WH, the campaign and the PAC colluded on the "Romney Killed My Wife" ad. The campaign and the PAC shot ads, both starring Joe Soptic on the same day, wearing the same clothes. Keep in mind that Obama and Holder are very likely to have been complicit in more than 300 murders, in Mexico. 2,400 felonies for knowingly shipping illegal arms across international borders (there are no exceptions to the law for the president or for law enforcement) and the deaths of two federal agents. Leaking IRS information is small potatoes. I guarantee you that Axlerod's henchmen have personally reviewed all of Romney's tax returns.

They can't release 'it' because they didn't find anything to leak. Therefore, they do it all with smears.

It hasn't worked so far. I'm perfectly happy to have the Obama campaign waste its time and money on things that repulse the American public.

The first truthful, factual thing that you have posted.

OK, Mr. Axlerod. If SOS / MOPD didn't beat his wife, he would have already proven it. Ergo, SOS / MOPD must be a wife-beater.

Of course, if he would just release the records, Obama, his campaign and the PACs that he illegally controls would drop the only issue his campaign has ever had.

Run a poll to see who the likely voters think is a bigger scumbag and I suspect that you will see an overwhelming majority who are sickened by what a lowlife Obama is. So much so that many people, who up to this point have been afraid to say anything against Obama, are starting to vocalize their displeasure.

After you post something about a chica (that isn't just regurgitated material from other APers' posts) , we can continue this discussion. Otherwise, time for you to go.[/QUOTE]The latest Fox News (who would have ever thought?) poll has Obama leading by 9 percentage points, so clearly the Obama campaign strategy of portraying Romney as the greedy Wall Street weasel is working. Face it, WW, you are simply so far out of touch with the US voting public that your thoughts and analysis on this election are completely irrelevant.

[QUOTE=Big Boss Man;425061]For me there is a huge difference between equity participation and founder's stock. The hedge fund founder is not risking capital and the founder of a company is. If the hedge fund manager fails he or she just closes up shop and starts a new fund without any personal loss of capital.[/quote]I disagree. A hedge fund is like any other business. Founders have capital, opportunity costs and their reputations - which can severely inhibit their ability to make a living, in the future - at risk. I have yet to meet a landlord, utility company, administrative assistant, computer networking company or any other vendor that will provide their goods and services free, just because the business is a hedge fund. However, those costs and investments are part of the management company, which is a legal entity distinctly different and separate from the legal entity that is the "fund." Without an interest in the fund, managers would have to sell the management company in order to participate in "equity" upside. Since the management is generally what attracts investors to hedge funds, that would have a deleterious effect on AUM and in many cases is not allowed, anyhow.

[quote=]I think that the activities involved in running a hedge fund.raising funds, analyzing financial statements, trading and writing reports. Should all be considered as labor same as they are in other businesses. As such I think it should be taxed as income rather than a special category as carried interest.[/quote]This past year, I started a new company. I paid for it and incorporated it. On "day one" it had no assets and $450 in liabilities and $450 in equity. In every possible way, that entity had next to zero value. I owned 100%, which if I sold it after 18 months (assuming the tax rates don't go up) , I will be taxed at 15% on my profits. The same is true of a newly created hedge fund. On "day one" it has next to zero for a value. Therefore, the carried interests have zero value upon its creation. The reason that they are 'carried interests' and not straight equity is out of deference to the investors capital and potential phantom tax issues. Additionally, the management fees pay for "doing the job" while the participation compensates for outperforming the status quo.

[quote=]As Tiny says it distorts economic activity.[/quote]The fact that it is a financial business does not exclude it from being an entrepreneurial pursuit, replete with lots of risk. If starting a hedge fund, in your opinions, distorts economic activity, so too must all entrepreneurial pursuits and small businesses.

[quote=]Many of my favorite sell-side analysts at Morgan Stanley left to start there own hedge fund. Suspiciously now you are seeing some of them return.[/QUOTE]You are proving my point. If starting a hedge fund was riskless and a guaranteed path to riches, why then are they returning to relatively safe positions at large institutions?

[QUOTE=SnakeOilSales;425068]The latest Fox News (who would have ever thought?) poll has Obama leading by 9 percentage points,[/quote]A poll of "adults" (not likely voters, not even registered voters, adults?) which over sampled democrats by 9%.

[quote=]so clearly the Obama campaign strategy of portraying Romney as the greedy Wall Street weasel is working.[/quote]You can believe whatever you want.

[quote=]Face it, WW, you are simply so far out of touch with the US voting public that your thoughts and analysis on this election are completely irrelevant.[/QUOTE]OK, I'll face it. On November 7th.

Meet you at Archibald's for a drink, after you get out of work. I imagine your cubicle isn't too far from there.

[QUOTE=Dccpa;425064]Again, this administration leaks like a sieve when it is convenient and they have not even insinuated this issue through any of their regular mouthpieces. MR has released his 2010 return. There has been no mention of a 2010 amended return as would have been done in such a situation. So, I am 99. 999999% sure that he was not in the IRS amnesty program. And as opposed to the guy in the commercial, that does mean I am sure.[/QUOTE]I read one analysis today that said one plausible explanation among 4 offered is that Romney paid no taxes in 2009 because of large capital gains losses. It is hard to figure why he is not releasing tax returns given the harm it has done him in publicity. According to the article, Obama is using the Romney tax campaign tactic to target uncollege-educated white male voters in swing states. He knows that they will not vote for him but it is just as good if they do show up to vote.

It seems realistic in my experience. I have not paid capital gains tax since 2009 and still have a large capital gain loss carry forward. I am very religious about harvesting my tax losses. I always seem to make one dumb ass move. VALE is my dumb ass move for this year.

In 2009 I sold everything to harvest the capital gains loss, stayed out of the market for 6 months, then leveraged back in at the end of the year. Harvesting capital losses is fairly simplistic well-known strategy but I think if you are not in the market or all your money is in an IRA people may not be aware of it. I could see Romney using this strategy.

The blog article is from a liberal magazine so consider the source.

[url]http://www.tnr.com/blog/plank/105974/unified-theory-romney-tax-stubbornness[/url]

[QUOTE=Toymann;425028]You can be such an assh$ole Esten. I will save you the 2000 pesos and call off the bet. Period. End of story! Would not want to hamper your precious vacation time."Another condition from Toymann", Hit the road idiot! Thought we might have some fun with this BUt you are just not up to it! By the way be*tch, loved your post on top 10% earners should pay 100% of the taxes! IALOTFLMAO! I don't hang with your're kind, EVER! You just want out of the bet little girl, and I will let you off the hook. From the sounds of things you can't afford the bet anyway. Doubt we will see you in BA anytime soon. You so dissapoint me! Toymann[/QUOTE]As far as I'm concerned. Any attempt by you to cancel the bet, will just confirm you're a chickensh*t, who can't back up his words with action.

My only concern is you not paying up. The point of the expiration date was to avoid having to track this thing for years until we are in town at the same time (your requirement) , not for me to avoid paying. Rather self-serving you want me to adjust my travel schedule to yours, isn't it? And while you only propose ONE method of payment (in person) , I have proposed TWO (in person or not). Seems I am the one trying to make the bet work, while you're trying to make it difficult or cancel it.

Let me re-state to say I will not put an expiration date on my obligation. If I win, I'll let you off the hook if I haven't collected after 2 years. If you win, I am 100% certain I will get you the funds one way or another, and soon. So either way there will be closure.

Don't be a chickensh*t, Toymann.

[QUOTE=SnakeOilSales;425067]Toymann, do you have an undiagnosed case of Aspergers Syndrome?[/QUOTE]No, he is just an immigrant from a former socialist country. If you ever had to queue alongside them at the airport, you know what I mean!

Just joking, Toymann, don't get a seizure.

[QUOTE=Tiny12; 425029]Esten, In 2009, the latest year for which data is available, the top 10% made $3. 314 trillion, before paying federal income tax. (1)

In 2009 the federal government spent $3. 517 trillion. (2)

If your idea were implemented, how would the top 10% manage to pay rent and put food on the table? How could they afford to pay state income taxes, property taxes, and sales taxes?[/QUOTE]Tiny, income tax is only one component of federal tax revenues:

Sources of Federal Tax Revenue, FY2010
3% Excise taxes
6% Other
9% Corporate income tax
40% Payroll taxes
42% Individual income taxes

42% of 3.5 Trillion = 1.5 Trillion. That still leaves plenty for the top 10%.

Anyhow, back in 2010 I also qualified my response to Jackson, that while I believed my answer to be fair, it is not something I would actually propose. I believe there is value to having skin in the game, paying income tax if you can afford to, and there are plenty of folks below the top 10% that can afford to.

Good Point Esten. Federal revenues in 2009 were only 2.1 trillion though. And the top 10% do pay payroll taxes too.

Without going into detail, the top 10% actually only paid about $830 billion to the federal government, instead of the $1.5 trillion you calculated. The federal deficit in 2009 was 3.5 trillion - 2.1 trillion = 1. 4 trillion, which you can confirm on the usgovernmentrevenue.com web site.

If the top 10% were to have picked up the slack in 2009 so the government wasn't running a deficit, they would have paid 0.83 trillion + 1.4 trillion = 2.2 trillion. And their adjusted gross income, again, was 3. 3 trillion. They just can't do it. My point was not only the inequity of having the 10% pay everything, which you apparently recognize, but also that the size of federal government expenditures isn't sustainable. That the top 10% just don't have the money to fund government at it's current level. While 2009 was a difficult year, 2030 and 2040 and 2050 are going to be much worse, with massive increases in Medicaid and Medicare on the horizon.

When you're deciding what you think is fair, please remember the state and local income, sales and property taxes that people pay. The average 25% federal tax rate for the top 10% can morph into 40%+, depending on where they live. I also wish you realized that savings and investment in the hands of businesses and individuals do much more to promote economic growth than expenditures by the federal government on whatever it is that the federal government does.

Walleye, I hope you don't get pissed. I actually do get a kick out of your posts and agree with you most of the time. But this was too good to pass up.

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye;425069]I disagree. A hedge fund is like any other business. Founders have capital, opportunity costs and their reputations - which can severely inhibit their ability to make a living, in the future - at risk. I have yet to meet a landlord, utility company, administrative assistant, computer networking company or any other vendor that will provide their goods and services free, just because the business is a hedge fund. ?[/QUOTE]I understand now. Actually I always understood, honestly, that capital gains and dividends from businesses, including public corporations, should be subject to no or low rates of tax, for reasons of fairness and so capital will be allocated efficiently. But now I understand that the work of hedge funds and private equity funds is so important that part of the fees they charge should be taxed at lower rates than landlords, utility companies, administrative assistants, computer networking companies, and all other vendors. George Soros, for example, when he almost broke the Bank of England. I always hated those Limey Bastards. What they did to us in the War of 1812. Not to mention what they did to the Irish. They should pay. And how would we have ever pricked the mortgage bubble without John Paulson? Algorithmic trading, commodity speculation and trading collateralized default swaps are some of the highest of mans' callings.

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye;425069]This past year, I started a new company. I paid for it and incorporated it. On "day one" it had no assets and $450 in liabilities and $450 in equity. In every possible way, that entity had next to zero value. I owned 100%, which if I sold it after 18 months (assuming the tax rates don't go up) , I will be taxed at 15% on my profits. ?[/QUOTE]This is fantastic financial engineering! I don't think even old Bernie* could have come up with something like this. It's money for nothing! Now if we can only get the chicks for free.

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye;425069]The same is true of a newly created hedge fund. On "day one" it has next to zero for a value. Therefore, the carried interests have zero value upon its creation. The reason that they are 'carried interests' and not straight equity is out of deference to the investors capital and potential phantom tax issues. ?[/QUOTE]Can I do this too? If I pay off a few Congressmen, will they change the law so that part of the income generated from the sweat equity I'm putting into my new business will be treated as capital gains?

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye;425069]The fact that it is a financial business does not exclude it from being an entrepreneurial pursuit, replete with lots of risk. If starting a hedge fund, in your opinions, distorts economic activity, so too must all entrepreneurial pursuits and small businesses.[/QUOTE]This is so true. Loopholes, government subsidies, different tax rates applied to different businesses, these are the sorts of things that drive the economy and help all the tax lawyers and accountants working for the large corporations that know how to take advantage of these things.

*Pick your Bernie, Madoff, Cornfield or Sanders. Assets = Liabilities + Equity. You can't create an entity with +$450 in equity and no assets. FYI, if you've been waiting 18 months for long term capital gains treatment you don't need to. You only have to hold for 12 months and one day.

I like this ticket for what it says! Romney-Ryan = the Romney crowd must figure Florida is in the bag (I also agree with this) , no need for Rubio (he's too green anyway and the latino vote is meanless anyway). Wisconsin is now in the bag. I am liking what I see. BIG TIME. Monger On All Toymann

[QUOTE=Esten;425076]My only concern is you not paying up.[/QUOTE]You really dissapoint me Esten! Unlike you and your precious vacation, I am self employed, and can come to Argentina whenever I want. Thought this was a friendly bet! Ok. Game on. You are sadly a classless jerk! I have only met you once and thought that you were an ok guy. Ooops. My bad! We are ON B*TCH! Let me make it really simple for you! You are supposedly coming to BA in the fall. I am coming at the end of September. We are both coming to BA before the election. I suggest we both give either Jackson or El Queso 2000 pesos when in BA. I would hate you to think that I don't have the means of paying or the credibility of following through on my word. I will be in BA first, so you can determine that I have fullfilled my part of the deal before you cough up your stake in the bet. You pick the money holder (El Queso or Jackson). Does this make you happy? After your last comments I wouldn't have dinner with you if you were the last american left in Argentina. Hope this makes you happy. You really dissapoint me dude. BUT we are on like Donkey Kong. Just pick the stake holder (El Queso or Jackson). I assume we are ON you sad socialist fool. Taking your pesos is like taking candy from a baby! I hope this now clears up any concerns you might have! Toymann

[QUOTE=Black Shirt; 425077]No, he is just an immigrant from a former socialist country. If you ever had to queue alongside them at the airport, you know what I mean!

Just joking, Toymann, don't get a seizure.[/QUOTE]That was funny BS. Us republicans do have a sense of humor. Wish the prickly wild-ass liberals followed suit. Monger On BS. Toymann

[QUOTE=Toymann;425083]You really dissapoint me Esten! Unlike you and your precious vacation, I am self employed, and can come to Argentina whenever I want. Thought this was a friendly bet! Ok. Game on. You are sadly a classless jerk! I have only met you once and thought that you were an ok guy. Ooops. My bad! We are ON B*TCH! Let me make it really simple for you! You are supposedly coming to BA in the fall. I am coming at the end of September. We are both coming to BA before the election. I suggest we both give either Jackson or El Queso 2000 pesos when in BA. I would hate you to think that I don't have the means of paying or the credibility of following through on my word. I will be in BA first, so you can determine that I have fullfilled my part of the deal before you cough up your stake in the bet. You pick the money holder (El Queso or Jackson). Does this make you happy? After your last comments I wouldn't have dinner with you if you were the last american left in Argentina. Hope this makes you happy. You really dissapoint me dude. BUT we are on like Donkey Kong. Just pick the stake holder (El Queso or Jackson). I assume we are ON you sad socialist fool. Taking your pesos is like taking candy from a baby! I hope this now clears up any concerns you might have! Toymann[/QUOTE]It looks like undiagnosed Aspergers Syndrome AND complete disconnect from reality!

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye; 425070]A poll of "adults" (not likely voters, not even registered voters, adults?) which over sampled democrats by 9.

You can believe whatever you want.

OK, I'll face it. On November 7th.

Meet you at Archibald's for a drink, after you get out of work. I imagine your cubicle isn't too far from there.[/QUOTE]I don't know of any place called Archibald's in Buenos Aires, but you can easily find me while I'm working at the Burger King on the corner of Santa Fe and Ayacucho (usually the first shift). There is a bar a block and a half down the street called The Spot where you can buy me a drink after my shift is over. I might be a little greasy and smell of fast food but I'll be more than happy to let you tell me how wrong you were about your anticipated results of the election.

[QUOTE=SnakeOilSales;425067]Toymann, do you have an undiagnosed case of Aspergers Syndrome?[/QUOTE]Just what is the point that you are trying to make with this question? One of my family members has Aspergers and I don't see how it could possibly be relevant to the discussion. If you mean that as an insult to Toymann, it is further confirmation of your intellectual dishonesty and hypocrisy. I guess I would have to hope that people like you are not appointed to Obama's death squads, I mean death panels.