Thursday, January 26, 2012

Why Are The Rules Always Different For Democrats?

The Liberty Bell's old home, before 1976.

Why are the Rules always different for Democrats? It doesn't matter if its Charlie Rangle not paying his taxes and just getting a slap on the wrist reprimand in the House, and not prison time. Or, IRS Chief ,Tim Geitner, forgetting to pay his income taxes, and being appointed Treasury Secretary. Maybe even Barney Frank's boyfriend running a prostitution ring from the apartment they shared, and it not reflecting negatively on him because, "He was unaware of it?" Or, Ted Kennedy, Mary Jo Kopechne, and Chappaquiddick. No one complained about Ted's and the Kennedy family's huge fortune. Nor, were they worried in the least how much Ted Kennedy paid in taxes.  

Now, Mitt Romney, an "Anybody But Obama" candidate is being ripped to shreds by the Democrats because of claims of Romney's destroying companies, his success in investing, his using capital gains laws in calculating his income taxes, in addition to the fact that he paid what the law required in income taxes. But, in the real world, how many companies have Democrat regulation and policies actually destroyed or economically crippled?

What about Democrat Senators and Representatives who made millions on their own investments, insider trading notwithstanding. We wager that an examination of their tax returns will show their income being taxed as capital gains at 15% or less, if anything. That certainly is not their "Fair Share" according to Obama. Have they been admonished and taken to the woodshed by the Organizer in Chief or his sidekick, Joe Biden?

Why aren’t Democrats and Obama attacking those on this list of Democrat lawmakers by name who made millions from Investments?

1. Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) $188.37 million- Married it- Teresa inherited the Heinz fortune. 
This man lives in Massachusetts and even bought a yacht in a neighboring state to avoid his state taxes.
He was eventually shamed into paying Massachusetts the $500,000/  
2. Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.) $152 million- Investments
3. Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) $70 million- Investments
4. Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.) $56 million-Investments
5. Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) $49 million- Investments
6. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) $46 million- Investments
7. Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) $21 million- Husband’s Investments
8. Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) $15 million- Husband’s Investments
9. Rep. Nita Lowey (D-N.Y.) $14 million- Husband’s Investments
10. Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) $10 million- Wife’s Investments- Has home in Abaco Bahamas
What are the chances of him having an offshore account there?
11. Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) $9 million- Inherited from former Husband + New Husband’s investments
12. Rep. Shelley Berkley (D-Nev.) $8 million- Husband’s Investments
13. Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas) $8 million- Businessman
14. Rep. Bill Foster (D-Ill.) $7 million- Businessman- Investments
15. Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) $6 million- Investments
16. Sen. Kay Hagan (D-N.C.) $6 million- Husband’s investments
17. Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) $6 million- Investments
18. Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) $5 million- Husband’s Investments
19. Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) $5 million- Investments
20. Rep. Jackie Speier (D-Calif.) $5 million- Investments


Starbucks Targeted For Another Anti Firearms Rights Boycott


Anonymous said...

Nobody is attacking Romney, they're attacking the system. It's a fair question to ask whether the the country is better served by raising capital gains taxes or by cutting things like education budgets or programs for the poor. It's a sad reflection on the state of politics in our country when even raising the question elicits shouts of "class warfare" and "socialism" from the right.

It's not like those democrats are proposing a tax on republicans only. Mitt Romney and Warren Buffet are just being held up as concrete examples of the consequences of the tax code.

jgh said...

Its not as black and white as Obama portrays. Its a political election Gimmick. People holding assets subject to capital gains taxes will just hold on to them and not sell, which would make them subject to a higher tax rate.

Here's what The Congressional Budget Office has to say about an increase in the Capital gains tax rate. "How much additional revenue will be obtained by increasing tax
rates on capital gains is uncertain.

Taxpayers can defer the payment
of capital gains taxes by not realizing the gains-that is, by holding onto assets instead of selling them; they can avoid taxation of gains entirely by passing on their assets to others at death.

If realizations decline by a greater percentage than the tax rate increases, revenues from capital gains taxes could fall instead of increasing."

This is just one reason why increasing the capital gains rate will cause loss of tax revenue.

Anonymous said...

Its the way its portrayed in the media. Some of the ridiculous tax maneuvers from the political left, that ARE ILLEGAL, or get ignored. This article was about the difference in perception. One does something within the law, the other against the law. One gets lambasted, but if people were doing things ethically and legally, we would have far less shortfalls, would we not?