Sunday, July 22, 2012
Saturday, July 21, 2012
James Holmes, why did you do that?
for whole night i read of his story, I understand his feeling being alienated but I can't understand why he should kill people.....He is an intelligent person..a PhD but also a killer...
Wednesday, July 18, 2012
Romney tax rate might have been close to zero?
via http://news.yahoo.com/why-mitt-romney-wont-release-tax-returns-6-091100509.html?_esi=1
Romney digs in his heels even as some Republicans say it's time for him to give the public a better look at his personal finances
With President Obama's campaign hammering Mitt Romney over his personal finances, even some Republicans have begun calling for the presumptive GOP nominee to release more than two years of his tax returns. Conservative political analysts say Romney is allowing people to assume he has something to hide. "It's crazy" not to release several more years of returns, "tomorrow," says William Kristol, editor of The Weekly Standard. Despite the pressure, Romney said Monday on Fox News that he was releasing his 2010 and 2011 returns, and nothing more. Why won't he turn over documents from other years? Here, six theories:
1. Romney's income might have been extremely high
Romney earned $21.7 million in 2010 and $20.9 million in 2011, says John Cassidy at The New Yorker. That's a lot of money, "but Romney may well have earned considerably more in earlier years." In fact, Romney's 10-year severance agreement with Bain Capital ended in 2009, so going back just one more year might tell a lot about how the mysterious deal "allowed Romney to keep pocketing a substantial portion of the firm's profits. And the years before 2008 were massively successful ones for Bain and other private-equity firms."
Romney earned $21.7 million in 2010 and $20.9 million in 2011, says John Cassidy at The New Yorker. That's a lot of money, "but Romney may well have earned considerably more in earlier years." In fact, Romney's 10-year severance agreement with Bain Capital ended in 2009, so going back just one more year might tell a lot about how the mysterious deal "allowed Romney to keep pocketing a substantial portion of the firm's profits. And the years before 2008 were massively successful ones for Bain and other private-equity firms."
2. His tax rate might have been close to zero
Romney might have done "something that was kind of shady — not in an illegal sense," to bring his tax rate way down, Martin Sullivan of Tax Analysts tells Agence France Presse. Since Romney's income in the return he has already released from 2010 came from investments, not income, it was taxed at 15 percent, less than half what he would have paid for the same income in a paycheck. Let's say he got his effective tax rate to five percent or even to zero. "That would be damning," as it would reinforce Team Obama's efforts to portray Romney as rich and "out of touch."
Romney might have done "something that was kind of shady — not in an illegal sense," to bring his tax rate way down, Martin Sullivan of Tax Analysts tells Agence France Presse. Since Romney's income in the return he has already released from 2010 came from investments, not income, it was taxed at 15 percent, less than half what he would have paid for the same income in a paycheck. Let's say he got his effective tax rate to five percent or even to zero. "That would be damning," as it would reinforce Team Obama's efforts to portray Romney as rich and "out of touch."
3. Romney might actually have something to hide
As conservative commentator George Will and others have pointed out, Romney knows withholding his returns is hurting his campaign, says Daniel Shaviro at Start Making Sense, so it's logical to assume whatever is in the returns is worse. Remember all the talk about Romney's Swiss bank account? "There was an IRS amnesty program in 2009 for fraudulent nondisclosure of offshore income." If Romney came clean that year, "this might be embarrassing." One thing we do know: Romney's 2010 return showed a net capital loss carryforward from 2009, the year when his last windfall of deferred interest came from his "retroactive retirement" from Bain. This suggests Romney might have done some "extremely aggressive tax sheltering" in 2009 that voters might frown on.
As conservative commentator George Will and others have pointed out, Romney knows withholding his returns is hurting his campaign, says Daniel Shaviro at Start Making Sense, so it's logical to assume whatever is in the returns is worse. Remember all the talk about Romney's Swiss bank account? "There was an IRS amnesty program in 2009 for fraudulent nondisclosure of offshore income." If Romney came clean that year, "this might be embarrassing." One thing we do know: Romney's 2010 return showed a net capital loss carryforward from 2009, the year when his last windfall of deferred interest came from his "retroactive retirement" from Bain. This suggests Romney might have done some "extremely aggressive tax sheltering" in 2009 that voters might frown on.
4. Each return provides a reminder of Romney's Mormonism
Romney's tax returns "reveal the extent of his tithing to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints," says Doug Mataconis at Outside the Beltway. His 2010 return, for example, showed that he had given roughly $4.1 million to the LDS Church, all of it tax deductible. Letting the public see year after year of records would "emphasize Romney's Mormon ties at a time the campaign might not want to do so."
Romney's tax returns "reveal the extent of his tithing to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints," says Doug Mataconis at Outside the Beltway. His 2010 return, for example, showed that he had given roughly $4.1 million to the LDS Church, all of it tax deductible. Letting the public see year after year of records would "emphasize Romney's Mormon ties at a time the campaign might not want to do so."
5. Romney is just being arrogant
"There is nothing in those tax returns that is in any way illegal," says Charles P. Pierce at Esquire. Romney's high income and low tax rate won't tell us anything we don't know already. It's no secret that "our tax code — and, indeed, our entire economic system — has been gamed to benefit the folks in Romney's economic stratum." Romney merely has contempt for a process that requires someone of his wealth and privilege to show deference to people who have neither. "The Help" — that's the rest of us — "has no right to go pawing through the family books."
"There is nothing in those tax returns that is in any way illegal," says Charles P. Pierce at Esquire. Romney's high income and low tax rate won't tell us anything we don't know already. It's no secret that "our tax code — and, indeed, our entire economic system — has been gamed to benefit the folks in Romney's economic stratum." Romney merely has contempt for a process that requires someone of his wealth and privilege to show deference to people who have neither. "The Help" — that's the rest of us — "has no right to go pawing through the family books."
6. He won't give in to attempts to divert attention from Obama
There's a perfectly good reason for Romney to refuse to release his tax returns, says Bob Webster at WEBCommentary: They "are none of anyone's business." The U.S. tax code is a mess, and "antagonistic lawyers" could pick apart the personal returns of anyone at Romney's income level. It would be "insane" for Romney to give in. "The whole non-issue is designed to be part of a smokescreen to cover up the gross ineptitude" of President Obama during his four disastrous years in office.
There's a perfectly good reason for Romney to refuse to release his tax returns, says Bob Webster at WEBCommentary: They "are none of anyone's business." The U.S. tax code is a mess, and "antagonistic lawyers" could pick apart the personal returns of anyone at Romney's income level. It would be "insane" for Romney to give in. "The whole non-issue is designed to be part of a smokescreen to cover up the gross ineptitude" of President Obama during his four disastrous years in office.
Lynette Rowe wins class action
via AFP
An Australian woman born without arms and legs after her mother took thalidomide during pregnancy, on Wednesday won a landmark multi-million dollar settlement in her class action against drug firms.
Lynette Rowe, 50, is leading a mass lawsuit on behalf of people born with congenital defects in Australia and New Zealand between 1958 and 1970 whose mothers took the sedative thalidomide, made by German chemical firm Grunenthal.
Rowe claims her condition was caused by her mother's consumption of thalidomide and is suing Grunenthal, defunct British-based distributor The Distillers Company and Diageo.
Distillers is now part of Diageo, which was created through the merger of Grand Metropolitan and Guinness in 1997.
Lawyers told the Supreme Court in Victoria state that Rowe had reached a confidential settlement in her case with Diageo Wednesday, describing it as a "multi-million dollar amount".
"(It) will be sufficient to provide a very good level of care for Lyn for the rest of her life," said Rowe's counsel, Peter Gordon.
Gordon said it was a "fair and consistent" result which showed compassion and understanding for Rowe, who has been cared for by her parents around the clock since she was born.
Diageo also agreed to negotiate with other claimants in the case, in which Gordon's firm said it had been contacted by "over 100 people", including two claims that were now "well advanced".
The case against Grunenthal will continue, but Rowe's lawyers plan to ask for the hearing, slated for October, to be pushed back to August 2013 to allow for settlement negotiations and for any final claimants to come forward.
Rowe's team claims that Grunenthal saw Australia as a priority market for thalidomide and "flooded" it with the morning sickness drug, with eight million tablets on the shelves when investigators finally linked it to birth injuries.
Gordon's co-counsel Michael Magazanik said Grunenthal had made numerous attempts to derail the case and now "refused to contribute to the settlement".
"The facts about Grunenthal and thalidomide need to come out," Magazanik said.
"Grunenthal never tested the drug on pregnant animals or followed up its effect in pregnant women, yet assured doctors the drug was exceptionally safe."
The pharmaceutical giant issued a statement saying it regretted "the consequences of the thalidomide tragedy", but believed it acted responsibly in development of the drug and would "fully defend" any legal action.
"Grunenthal maintains that its actions were consistent with the state of scientific knowledge and the prevailing standards for pre-marketing and testing of the pharmaceutical industry in the 1950s," it said.
Rowe wept as the settlement was announced, saying it proved that "you don't need arms and legs to change the world", while her now elderly parents Ian and Wendy expressed pride in their daughter's fighting spirit.
"Those pills that Wendy and thousands of other women took 50 years ago have caused so much heartache and suffering, but at least something positive is now being done to put some things right," said Rowe's father.
Thalidomide was launched in the late 1950s and was sold in nearly 50 countries before it was withdrawn after babies began showing severe side effects from the drug.
An estimated 10,000 children worldwide were born with deformities, including the absence of arms and legs, as a result of their mothers taking the drug.
Gordon described it as "the greatest pharmaceutical disaster in history".
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)