A woman unfortunate enough to get pregnant should have the right to terminate her pregnancy by any means until the complete expulsion of the fetus. Then, for a minimum of three days afterwards, she should have a right of rescission and be able to demand and have carried out her wishes that the expelled product be terminated.

How uncommon is it in nature for an animal to eat its young? For starters, there are hamsters, hippopotamuses, hyenas, polar bears, wolf spiders, wolves, and all sorts of fish and insects.

When realizing a capital gain, the value of the underlying asset (what you get paid) IS reduced according to the corporate taxes paid. To think otherwise shows a lack of understanding.
Anytime you remove capital from a corporation the value of the corporation is reduced by a similar amount.
Doesn’t matter if it is taxes paid or dividends paid. Watch the price of stocks that pay dividends before and after the ex-div date. Or when the IRS gets a judgement against them.
EBITA and EBITDA are methods used to provide reliable valuation across differing types of business entities. It is necessary because sole-proprietors pay at one rate, pass-throughs like S-Corps and LLCs a different rate and C-Corps yet another rate.
By using before tax earnings a potential buyer can calculate the after tax earnings based on his or her own personal rate. It is accounting short-hand to make comparisons easier.

There can be no question that taxes reduce the potential capital gain by reducing the value of the corporate shares. So indirectly the income is double taxed. Since capital is what makes the economy go around, taxing it makes it go slower. Or, as currently happens, the business moves as much as possible of its business operations to low tax jurisdictions. And naturally the jobs follow. There is your outsourcing primer for today.

Yes, there are other types of capital gains that do not appear to suffer double taxation like perhaps real estate. But capital follows profit, whether you like it or not. Tax this type differently and investors will act accordingly. In addition it would give corporations a larger price advantage over an individual private property owner who can’t shield all of the expenses the same way.

What do you think about how much his secretary makes? Seems north of $300K according to estimates, some gig, huh? I feel sorry for her being pimped out by her boss this way. Will they release her tax returns?

PS, I can’t stand Mitt but I do know what makes America work and it isn’t demogoguery and class warfare.

In addition, you fail to point out that the bulk of Romney’s and Buffett wealth was never taxed higher than 15%. They have a loophole called carried interest which converts what would be income for the rest of us over to capital gains. what a deal? the tax code does favor the ultra rich and poor, and hammers those of us in the middle to upper class.

Mike Haltman

The coments at this article at The Political Commentator suggests differently however: http://politicsandfinance.blogspot.com/2012/01/no-more-electoral-college-presidential.html

Presidential candidates concentrate their attention on only the current handful of closely divided “battleground” states and their voters. There is no incentive for them to bother to care about the majority of states where they are hopelessly behind or safely ahead to win. 9 of the original 13 states are considered “fly-over” now. In the 2012 election, pundits and campaign operatives agree already, that, at most, only 12 states and their voters will matter. They will decide the election. None of the 10 most rural states will matter, as usual. About 76% of the country will be ignored –including 19 of the 22 lowest population and medium-small states, and 17 medium and big states like CA, GA, NY, and TX. This will be more obscene than the 2008 campaign, when candidates concentrated over 2/3rds of their campaign events and ad money in just 6 states, and 98% in just 15 states (CO, FL, IN, IA, MI, MN, MO, NV, NH, NM, NC, OH, PA, VA, and WI). Over half (57%) of the events were in just 4 states (OH, FL, PA, and VA). In 2004, candidates concentrated over 2/3rds of their money and campaign visits in 5 states; over 80% in 9 states; and over 99% of their money in 16 states.

More than 2/3rds of the states and people have been merely spectators to presidential elections. That’s more than 85 million voters ignored. When and where voters are ignored, then so are the issues they care about most.

Policies important to the citizens of ‘flyover’ states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.

Because of the state-by-state winner-take-all electoral votes laws in 48 states, a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide. This has occurred in 4 of the nation’s 56 (1 in 14 = 7%) presidential elections. The precariousness of the current state-by-state winner-take-all system is highlighted by the fact that a shift of a few thousand voters in one or two states would have elected the second-place candidate in 4 of the 13 presidential elections since World War II. Near misses are now frequently common. There have been 6 consecutive non-landslide presidential elections (1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, and 2008). A shift of 60,000 voters in Ohio in 2004 would have defeated President Bush despite his nationwide lead of over 3 million votes.