<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!-- generator="FeedCreator 1.7.3" -->
<rss version="2.0">
	<channel>
		<title>Mitt Romney's Income Was Not Taxed at the Corporate Level</title>
		<description>Comments for Mitt Romney's Income Was Not Taxed at the Corporate Level at http://www.cepr.net , comment 1 to 12 out of 12 comments</description>
		<link>http://www.cepr.net</link>
		<lastBuildDate>Tue, 18 Jun 2013 20:32:28 +0100</lastBuildDate>
        <generator>FeedCreator 1.7.3</generator>
		<item>
			<title>Doesn't the term &quot;Income Tax&quot; say it all?</title>
			<link>http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/mitt-romneys-income-was-not-taxed-at-the-corporate-level#comment-19252</link>
			<description>Perhaps I'm missing something in the samantics and jargon, but isn't it income tax? Doesn't it mean that if your income is taxed, that any income, repeat: any income should be taxed? Don't think all the capital lying fallow now makes the case for &quot;gambling / speculation&quot; winnings being a spur to our economy.
 - Mark Standiford</description>
			<pubDate>Tue, 02 Oct 2012 12:09:02 +0100</pubDate>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>I agree with beezer</title>
			<link>http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/mitt-romneys-income-was-not-taxed-at-the-corporate-level#comment-19155</link>
			<description>&quot;...capital has already been taxed once at the corporate level...&quot;

But gains to the individual investor (new income) has not been taxed.  Hence, capital [b]gains[/b] tax.  Just like corporate gains were once-upon-a-time the after-tax income of consumers. 

Or am I missing something? - Nick</description>
			<pubDate>Thu, 27 Sep 2012 04:47:41 +0100</pubDate>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Don't understand the double tax argument.</title>
			<link>http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/mitt-romneys-income-was-not-taxed-at-the-corporate-level#comment-19136</link>
			<description>To me the double taxation position implies that once a dollar is taxed, it need never be taxed again.  Which I think is a silly position to take. - beezer</description>
			<pubDate>Wed, 26 Sep 2012 08:42:16 +0100</pubDate>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>retained earnings </title>
			<link>http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/mitt-romneys-income-was-not-taxed-at-the-corporate-level#comment-19135</link>
			<description>To everyone above.  
1. Retained earnings are taxed and they are a major contributor to stock price growth.  
2. Also capital gains are taxed without regard to inflation.  
3. It is better to spend today than wait.  Let's say it is 3% better to spend now than a year from now.   - Floccina</description>
			<pubDate>Wed, 26 Sep 2012 08:40:50 +0100</pubDate>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Consumption tax</title>
			<link>http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/mitt-romneys-income-was-not-taxed-at-the-corporate-level#comment-19134</link>
			<description>Allowing people put all their investments in a before tax IRA and progressively taxing all withdraw + income not put in the IRA each year would solve all these problems.  It would tax all consumption the same.  - Floccina</description>
			<pubDate>Wed, 26 Sep 2012 08:09:38 +0100</pubDate>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Everyone is double-taxed anyway</title>
			<link>http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/mitt-romneys-income-was-not-taxed-at-the-corporate-level#comment-19129</link>
			<description>The whole argument is absurd anyway. Workers paid wages are paid from companies that are taxed as well. Does that make them double-taxed? Public employees are paid from taxes that are collected on the income of workers already taxed in several other ways.. does that make them triple-taxed?

All income that comes from outside to a person should be taxed at the same rate, and company income should be separately taxed as well. Every level needs to give up its cut for a fair system. - Burk</description>
			<pubDate>Wed, 26 Sep 2012 06:20:20 +0100</pubDate>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ferragamo Handbag</title>
			<link>http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/mitt-romneys-income-was-not-taxed-at-the-corporate-level#comment-19119</link>
			<description>Buy handbags is not as easy as it sounds. There are some tips that you should keep in mind to ensure that you. The right [url=http://www.ferragamobagsale.com][b]Ferragamo Bag[/b][/url] that you are looking for To begin, you must. A special day in your mind that you are interested in. If it right more than one label, then, all these brands interested Do you know what you want, it's always better when you are shopping for Ferragamo Handbag. 
 - ann</description>
			<pubDate>Tue, 25 Sep 2012 22:15:06 +0100</pubDate>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>...</title>
			<link>http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/mitt-romneys-income-was-not-taxed-at-the-corporate-level#comment-19117</link>
			<description>So poor Mittens is over taxed now. Pretty sure everyone learned during the dot com bubble that a stock's price can go through the roof even when there are no profits and no taxes. The idea that a stock's price moves in lock step with profits is hogwash. A smaller than expected loss can send the price up. 

Bottom line no matter how hard they spin it is that Mittens faces no tax burden. Even if he was paying a 50% tax, he would still have plenty of money to invest and spend. Capital gains subsidy is a waste of tax payer dollars and simply welfare for the top .1%. - jacko</description>
			<pubDate>Tue, 25 Sep 2012 21:13:31 +0100</pubDate>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>...</title>
			<link>http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/mitt-romneys-income-was-not-taxed-at-the-corporate-level#comment-19115</link>
			<description>Art is right about capital gains. To the extent that the corporate tax depresses asset prices it does so not only at the point of sale but also at the point of purchase. Without it the stock would have cost more to buy and the return would be the same, unless elimination of the tax affects the growth and not just the level of post-tax earnings. One can make a growth argument but one can't just mechanically add the two tax rates.  - Rajiv Sethi</description>
			<pubDate>Tue, 25 Sep 2012 20:11:46 +0100</pubDate>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>...</title>
			<link>http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/mitt-romneys-income-was-not-taxed-at-the-corporate-level#comment-19113</link>
			<description>I dont care what tax rate romney payes,under obama I pay no tax...I dont have a job! - david j michel jr</description>
			<pubDate>Tue, 25 Sep 2012 15:13:04 +0100</pubDate>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>double taxation</title>
			<link>http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/mitt-romneys-income-was-not-taxed-at-the-corporate-level#comment-19112</link>
			<description>I can understand (tho don't agree with) the double taxation argument for dividends. But Romney said that capital gains is taxed at the corporate level. Huh? I buy stock (from another stockholder) for $100/share. I sell it (to another individual) for $200/share. I realize a capital gain. That is not paid from corporate profits, which may be subject to corporate income tax. The capital gain comes because I was a smarter gambler (investor) than the other sucker. So Romney's argument is doubly spurious. Or am I missing something. - Art Perlo</description>
			<pubDate>Tue, 25 Sep 2012 15:10:37 +0100</pubDate>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>romney's answer</title>
			<link>http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/mitt-romneys-income-was-not-taxed-at-the-corporate-level#comment-19110</link>
			<description>romney supposedly is a religious person being a mormon &amp; all. i'm not, but one of the 10 commandments is (in the king james version), &quot;thou shalt not bear false witness&quot;. so what is it mitt, are you a hypocrite, a liar or both? i lean toward the last one.    - mel in oregon</description>
			<pubDate>Tue, 25 Sep 2012 10:57:41 +0100</pubDate>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
