City Journal Winter 2016

Current Issue:

Winter 2016
Table of Contents
Tablet Editions
Click to visit City Journal California

Readers’ Comments

Nicole Gelinas
Romney’s Stock Market Problem « Back to Story

View Comments (20)

Add New Comment:

To send your message, please enter the words you see in the distorted image below, in order and separated by a space, and click "Submit." If you cannot read the words below, please click here to receive a new challenge.

Comments will appear online. Please do not submit comments containing advertising or obscene language. Comments containing certain content, such as URLs, may not appear online until they have been reviewed by a moderator.

Showing 20 Comment(s) Subscribe by RSS
In all share marketconditions there is
always some way for turning losses into profit but stock market traders tend to ignore what is
called smart trading techniques.Alert stock trader faces losses very less so be a alert trader and start enjoying daily profit from share trading
I don't like the idea of means testing the tax cut. He should make everyone exempt for 5000 in investment income(10,000 for couples). This would Encourage people to invest in the vehicle of their choice, and hopefully end the negative saving rate of US households.
Romney's proposal to eliminate taxes on 'investment income' is a crass attempt to attract more contributions from Wall Street and other financial speculators.

Nicole should recognize it as such and tell us some better ideas for putting the unemployed back to work.
Jeez - I never would have believed that someone actually would fall for the nonsensical notion that it is patriotic to pay taxes. As if there is anything patriotic about handing hard earned money so it can be misused by the government. Besides patriotism isn't the government, it's the land, and the people as well.

Calling paying taxes a patriotic duty is the short way to tyranny since if paying some taxes is patriotic, then paying more taxes must be more patriotic, and paying all your money to the government must be most patriotic. You really want to go down that slippery slope?

In fact, the only people who could connect paying taxes to patriotism are those who benefit from tax money since the more there is of it, the more they make. But that's beside the point.

Besides, anyone is free to pay as much to the government as they wish - the government will never say no to more money. I'd rather pay as little as possible, especially when a substantial part of the money that goes to this government is either wasted or misused. And when the government itself is an instrument of repression as it is these days in so many ways, I would almost consider avoiding paying taxes as patriotic - wasn't there some war protesters some years back who felt the same way? But, really, there is no connection between patriotism and taxes - NONE.

In fact, the assertion that there is a connection between paying taxes to patriotism is a campaign slogan - something to fool the rubes. That connection has never been made before - no one would dare say something so foolish. It doesn't make sense any other way.

But what would you expect from Democrats - the same people who could run the richest man in government, John Kerry, in 2004 and now complain that Romney is too rich to be President. Besides, what do Romney's payment of taxes have to do with whether he would be a good President? Nothing. If he paid more taxes would that somehow make him more qualified? Of course not. In fact, if he paid more taxes than he was legally supposed to he would probably be attacked by Democrats for doing so. And, it isn't as if he doesn't give an enormous sum to charity - should that be counted as taxes?

No the entire connection to paying taxes and patriotism, in fact, the entire tax issue in connection to Romney is meant as a distraction since Obama doesn't want people focusing on his miserable record the last four years. It's sure odd that when Kerry was running against Bush in 2004, all we heard about from Democrats was how bad the economy was (of course that was before Democrats took control of Congress in 2006 and promptly destroyed the housing market). In 2004 we had 5% unemployment, and the deficit was a fraction of what it is today.

Nothing like the Democratic Party - every day we hear about some new outrage committed by these people (is anyone keeping track?) the most corrupt, hypocritical organization on the planet.
Obama offers “Hope and Change” which to his many supporters means you’ll receive the gift of someone else’s money if I can count on your vote. Romney offers tax reductions to the middle class which means we’ll have to borrow the money from somewhere, maybe China, to fund your tax cut without reducing a single government giveaway. Typical promises, typical Democrat vs. Republican ideological play book. Both candidates want to sit in the big chair and neither has a clue towards what would solve our economic woes. There is something deeply wrong with today’s America, maybe the same internal malaise which presently ails Europe. Because, after you take away those faux wealth generating activities paid for out of taxes and foreign borrowings, our estimated accounting GDP of 1.3% would probably hover just above 0% for 2012.

After 4 years of recession, no one, including the young, are fooled in the slightest with hollow promises offered by the small men who aspire to lead us. We can’t tax the rich too much or their political donations might wither away. We can’t tax the poor at all, they’re perpetually “helpless” and need our constant compassion lubricated with our tax dollars. We believe the good times will return, we believe in America but could that hope, could our belief be mistaken?

It will take more than diddling around with the income tax regulations to restore America – something both candidates know and we collectively pretend we believe to avoid acknowledging the dismal alternative.
I'm not sure if I agree with much f what's here:

First, there hasn't been much overall about the proposal, since in my opinion anyway, the news media is biased (protestations to the contrary notwithstanding the old media is still immensely powerful, and is wants the Democrat to win. Period.) and they don't say much about it.

Second, right now people are worried about whether they will have a job in the next few years, not where they put their extra income. More to the point, they worry that Obama will get elected, continue his criminally inept handling of the economy. In short, where they put their extra income is way low down on the list of things that are important.

Third, people know that the game is rigged, but in today's world that's business as usual. Right now there are more important things to worry about.

I hate to join those who are telling Romney he needs to focus his campaign, but this isn't an issue that is going to galvinize anyone.
Yes, because getting reforms of the financial industry passed is so easy. Those fat-cat contributors to so many campaigns are pretty easy going when it comes to new regulations.
Here's another thought to consider: I'm married. Last year, our income was about 20% salary, 40% retirement, and 40% from investments. We paid the 28% rate on the whole shebang.

Level the playing field. If I can pay at that rate for my income, the rich can take the same hit.

If you don't want to shoulder your share of the load to support this country, please move to the Caymans - or where ever. We really don't need or want you.
Last year, I paid at the 28% tax rate on my $150k+ income. Mittens paid at the 14% tax rate on his $M+ income. Level the playing field. Income is income. As to the whine about double taxation, consider the bread on your table and how many times it is taxed before it is consumed. Do your patriotic duty and pay your fair share. Quit saddling others with your due share.
I'd settle for at least indexing capital gains to inflation.

If I buy an asset and sell it years later, yet receive no more than what I paid for it after inflation is considered, why should I be taxed on the "gain"?

And while we're at it, if dividends are to be taxed as ordinary income then can we please reduce corporate taxes to zero? After all, shareholders are the owners of a corporation, and they already "gave at the office," so to speak.

The political reality is that the issue will be endlessly demogogued ("Why do we treat financial capital better than human capital?") to the point where it's unlikely to be politically possible to simply elimiate these taxes.

BUT, they can be made more reasonable in terms everyone can understand by adjusting capital gains to inflation, and balancing corporate taxes against taxes on dividend income.
A breath of fresh air. Well said.
Good thoughts. Thanks for sharing.
Considering that our national accounts are $15-trillion in the debt hole, cutting any federal tax at this point is irresponsible. This particular pandering tax cut, you betcha.

No one takes Mitt Romney's proposals seriously because he has earned a reputation as a liar. Whether it's how many converts he attracted as a missionary in France or concealment of his income tax statements, there is nothing trustworthy about him.

Capitalism's great weakness is criminality. Romney comes across as a sterling example of getting rich playing Wall Street's Liar's Poker. Seemingly, a dishonest ball of greed and ambitions. Worst, he hates 47% of the adults in this country, not knowing who they are. He is a shame on his Church and his father's memory.
This is not just Romney's problem. It is capitalism's problem that will undermine the worst system ever invented apart from all the others.

If Wall Street, the City of London, politicians who recognize capitalism as the force for good that it can be, and businessmen everywhere fail to notice, the world will be in slump and conflict for many years.
Nobody's listening because the media has declared Romney dead and buried. Why investigate a solution when you know it will never happen?
Surely it would be better to eliminate all taxes on business start ups. This tax woudl shift the housing distortion to the stock market, the increased prices would, attract more investment, just like the housing bubble and it would then burst like the housing bubble.
Raise the tax free proportion of income from any source, the market then sorts out allocation. I fear Mitt just wants more stock turnover and investment for his friends to get higher commissions.
Maybe we need to stop putting our cash into someone else's pocket so they can mismanage it, and invest in our own ideas. We need a tsunami of small business, not more IPO's. We need a more independent population, not a public putting MORE money into government pockets through g-bonds.

When will we extract our collective head from our collective BUTT???? Invest in yourself.
We tax capital gains at a lower rate than income to encourage long-term investing that results in new businesses that hire more people. We also tax income from Municipal bonds at a lower rate or no tax at all to lower the costs of education and public infrastructure. Yes, it benefits the rich. They pay lower rates. They also pay lower rates because they are allowed to write off charitable contributions.
Thank God for the rich. May we all earn seven digets!
Of course, the reason why Mittens wants to get people onto the idea of tax-free investment gains is because he wants to eventually (quickly) extend it to everyone. That's Ryan's plan, by the way. And it's the rich who would benefit most -- by far -- from such a plan. And it would be a disaster, fiscally and socially.

And Nicole Gelinas makes no case whatsoever why it should happen. Maybe she's married to a rich guy.
Why do we treat financial capital better than human capital?