County tax assessment

[CA renter]

[quote=flu][quote=CA renter][quote=EconProf]Actually, I think those are pretty good answers by Romney.
He is obviously rich and has worked hard and long to get there. He now has spread investments into many areas, has managers looking after those investments, and said investments include foreign ones. Given likely world growth trends by area, it is not surprising he has assets in, say, BRIC countries, maybe depressed european countries, etc. He’d be dumb to not diversify his investments and hire smart people to manage them, and I’d rather not have a dumb guy as president. I am also OK that he now hires others to manage his financial affairs and doesn’t know the details of everything–spend time instead on getting ready to be president, should that happen.[/quote]

The vast majority of working Americans have worked harder and longer than Mitt Romney. He was born into wealth and power, and would likely be in a very different place today if not for his family influence, money, and connections.

BTW, I’m not just talking about investing in foreign companies; I’m talking about the fact that he has accounts in well-known tax havens.

Do you think it’s necessary to have accounts in the Cayman Islands, Switzerland, etc. in order to invest in BRIC countries?

It stinks of tax evasion (legal or not, because tax laws are written by and for the wealthy)…and I’ll bet he’d be the first one to cut salaries of people who REALLY work (public workers and others), and are barely making ends meet, in order to maintain his unjustifiably low tax rates.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/romney-cayman-islands-holdings-complicate-tax-return-debate/2012/01/24/gIQAmuvZOQ_story.html%5B/quote%5D

CAR, it’s not tax evasion. It’s legal tax loopholes. Don’t blame romney for it, blame the system…It’s no different than anyone else being offered a cake and eat it too.

I would argue the point about most americans work harder than romney. I would also argue that most overseas people I know work a lot harder than people here and are paid considerably lower. Working “harder” doesn’t entitle someone to make more money. You could work 120+hrs digging a ditch, and let’s face it, it doesn’t entitle the person digging the ditch to make more than say a loan officer that does a few loans in a few minutes. And like so many times people say, if it really is that easy to not work that hard and amass that kinda of wealth romney does, the strawman argument would be then that the dig ditcher should quit being a dig ditcher and just be like romney.[/quote]

Yes, he’s taking advantage of the system that was designed by wealthy people like himself.

I was responding to Econ Prof’s claim that he “worked long and hard,” as if that were justification for his wealth and how he manages it. I’d have far more respect for him if he had WORKED long and hard, but he didn’t.

I’ve met so many people who’ve transitioned from decent, productive work to flipping homes, “investing,” and other non-productive “work” over the past decade or more. It’s because we look down our noses at the people who do the work that makes the world go ’round, while placing the “capitalists” on an altar. Apparently, people can’t grasp the fact that we can’t all be gamblers who bet on the work of other people, or skim a portion of every legitimate transaction as middlemen. Somebody has to do the actual work in order to create the capital.

Our economy is upside-down because of this, and it is behind all of our financial problems as of late, IMHO. Everybody wants to get rich by buying low and selling high, because that’s how the game is set up. Nobody wants to do productive work anymore. In this world, work is for losers.

[EconProf]

Some on this site seem angry at Romney based on his wealth, the way he invests it here and abroad, and on how he made it as a venture capitalist at Bain. The Obama campaign is especially determined to make this an issue and is formenting class envy and anger. I suggest we should instead ask who is most able to pull the economy out of the ditch and raise the nation’s output and employment.
Historically, if we exclude a candidate because they are rich, we’d be omitting a lot of past successful presidents, including darlings of the left, like FDR and JFK. In fact, both these presidents INHERITED their wealth and did not largely make it on their own. I believe Romney did not inherit great wealth growing up, but what is important is that he multiplied it many times over by risking his own money, working hard at salvaging down-and-out companies, and reportedly increasing employment at 78% of them while losing employment (and his own money) at the rest. Venture capital typically goes after mismanaged or otherwise troubled companies that can’t qualify for a bank loan. They need radical shaking up to survive, and only fresh eyes and major changes from an outsider who puts their own money at risk can save them. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t. That’s capitalism folks.
BTW, another great president, George Washington, was one of the richest men in the colonies. He largely married into his wealth, but then built up a huge and varied enterprise, invented several farming innovations, speculated successfully on land investments, and got even richer. Kind of like a venture capitalist.

[ocrenter]

[quote=EconProf]Some on this site seem angry at Romney based on his wealth, the way he invests it here and abroad, and on how he made it as a venture capitalist at Bain. The Obama campaign is especially determined to make this an issue and is formenting class envy and anger. I suggest we should instead ask who is most able to pull the economy out of the ditch and raise the nation’s output and employment.
Historically, if we exclude a candidate because they are rich, we’d be omitting a lot of past successful presidents, including darlings of the left, like FDR and JFK. In fact, both these presidents INHERITED their wealth and did not largely make it on their own. I believe Romney did not inherit great wealth growing up, but what is important is that he multiplied it many times over by risking his own money, working hard at salvaging down-and-out companies, and reportedly increasing employment at 78% of them while losing employment (and his own money) at the rest. Venture capital typically goes after mismanaged or otherwise troubled companies that can’t qualify for a bank loan. They need radical shaking up to survive, and only fresh eyes and major changes from an outsider who puts their own money at risk can save them. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t. That’s capitalism folks.
BTW, another great president, George Washington, was one of the richest men in the colonies. He largely married into his wealth, but then built up a huge and varied enterprise, invented several farming innovations, speculated successfully on land investments, and got even richer. Kind of like a venture capitalist.[/quote]

well, George Romney was in fact quite wealthy. perhaps you meant he did not give any of his wealth to Mitt. Sources please.

I don’t think a person’s wealth should exclude him or her from presidency. But I don’t think running a venture capital firm makes someone more qualified either.

[Author]

Posts