eltigrechico:

stepping—razor:

swallowbitchpeoplearestarving:

waiting for free samples in costco

Damn, the loss has really taken a toll on him


Mitt’s just trying to get his ‘47%’ on. 

eltigrechico:

stepping—razor:

swallowbitchpeoplearestarving:

waiting for free samples in costco

Damn, the loss has really taken a toll on him

Mitt’s just trying to get his ‘47%’ on. 

antigovernmentextremist:

»Implying that Mitt Romney’s money isn’t his to begin with.

Tax is when gov’t takes YOUR OWN MONEY so that they can spend it. 
Tax Refund is when the gov’t give you back YOUR OWN MONEY that they took too much of and kept. 
Tax credit is when they let you keep more of YOUR OWN MONEY. 
I don’t like Mitt Romney, but I hate idiots. 

antigovernmentextremist:

»Implying that Mitt Romney’s money isn’t his to begin with.

Tax is when gov’t takes YOUR OWN MONEY so that they can spend it. 

Tax Refund is when the gov’t give you back YOUR OWN MONEY that they took too much of and kept. 

Tax credit is when they let you keep more of YOUR OWN MONEY. 

I don’t like Mitt Romney, but I hate idiots. 

Rand Paul on the Peter Schiff show on why he endorsed Romney

baseballlibertarian:

  • His fathers campaign is over, he isn’t winning
  • He had to endorse Romney to keep up the fight
  • Said he promised before hand that he would support the nominee before the Presidential race
  • Best way to keep the liberty movement going
  • Just trying to work with in the party to influence the party
  • Because his dad endorsed a neo-con here or there it makes it okay to endorse Romney
  • Romney will appoint better people to “manage” the economy 
  • Says he will hold Romney’s feet to the fire and he will “owe” him a favor

All complete bullshit. 

How is endorsing a big government Keynesian war monger going to advance the liberty movement? 

Endorsing Romney is advocating his policies and positions. 

This only helps Rand’s political ambitions.  Like Justin Raimondo from antiwar.com said, Rand will do and say anything to get elected.  I don’t buy this crap for a second. 

Here’s the problem with Rand, he thinks that the GOP or through the GOP is the best way to spread his message. I didn’t say his father’s message because I believe that they have two different messages. Ron saw the GOP as the best way to gain access to a platform but he shares almost nothing in common with them. 

Rand isn’t the same. He agrees with the mainstream GOP message on a couple of issues and he thinks that these issues are binding enough for people that he can work his way up through the GOP and eventually become the nominee, 2020 if he becomes Romney’s VP or 2016 if Romney fails and we get more of Obama. 

Why I think this is a complete misstep for Rand is due to all the work Ron has put in and the direction his movement has gone. Ron’s supporters are likely to leave the GOP base as early as August of this year, if Ron fails to secure the nomination, which is looking more and more like a reality. 

Dr. Paul’s supporters will more than likely venture off into the void that exists between Republicans and Democrats. Most of us, from what I’ve gathered, don’t really find much common ground with either party. A good chunk of us don’t even like the idea of political parties, let alone a slim choice of two. 

The party is bound to split. In fact, I think both parties have a split coming in the near future. The democrats have already begun to lose support and the divide in the GOP is as clear as day. 

We no longer feel like we belong. Correction, we no longer feel like these two parties belong. They have trampled the Constitution, shamed this country and robbed us blind for decades. We’re over it. 

This is Ron Paul’s greatest contribution. More so than bringing the real issues to light, he’s woken up the masses. He’s not only gotten us involved with everyday politics, he’s gotten us to restructure it and change it’s course forever. 

A new party will be formed, it’s inevitable and I believe that Rand has chosen the wrong side of this war. He’s stuck with the establishment because he lacks the foresight to see the change coming. It’s a bit perplexing since it is his own father’s movement. He’s been apart of it from the start. And the more I think about it and the more I read and listen and watch Ron Paul’s speeches and moves over the last 2 or 3 years, the more I realize the goal was never really the Presidency, that was just a bonus, the real goal was to pull the lever on the tracks and redirect American politics forever. 

Rand, unfortunately, just stamped his own ticket for the wrong train. 

newsweek:

think-progress:

#BorrowMoneyFromYourParents trending nationwide, brought to you by ThinkProgress.
Tell us your own.

The artillery in the 2012 campaign will be hashtags.

HAHHAHA. Borrow Money From Your Parents? BWHAHHAHAHA. 
Mitt Romney is CLUELESS! 
We should borrow money from banks and the gov’t (who have STOLEN IT from you parents!). Duh!
Oh, wait. Shit. 
The sad thing is that both the left and right are completely wrong about this. What’s wrong with this picture and America in general isn’t summed up in this war of words, it creates and fosters this situation. 
The issue isn’t that some people can afford to borrow from wealthy parents, or that some people have no parent-fund to borrow from. 
The issue is that we live in a society that encourages constant spending, borrowing and debt. It frowns upon savings and sound money. Poor people are told that they are better off borrowing money at 5% to 10% and sometimes as high as 30% then they are at working extra jobs, spending wisely, not buying unnecessary things for a few months and scraping the money together themselves.
Once that individual is soaked in debt, they carry it forward. They never get to build up a savings, and worse yet, they never THINK of building up a savings. Then they meet someone else who might be smart and attractive and educated, but they’re also waist deep in debt. Together, they form a new, happy family, neck deep in debt. By the time the kids grow up and are ready for school or business, there is no “parent-fund” to borrow from so the kids themselves borrow from high interest, low compassion lenders and the vicious cycle continues.  
Welcome to the American Nightmare. 
@Suga_Shane

newsweek:

think-progress:

#BorrowMoneyFromYourParents trending nationwide, brought to you by ThinkProgress.


Tell us your own.

The artillery in the 2012 campaign will be hashtags.

HAHHAHA. Borrow Money From Your Parents? BWHAHHAHAHA. 

Mitt Romney is CLUELESS! 

We should borrow money from banks and the gov’t (who have STOLEN IT from you parents!). Duh!

Oh, wait. Shit. 

The sad thing is that both the left and right are completely wrong about this. What’s wrong with this picture and America in general isn’t summed up in this war of words, it creates and fosters this situation. 

The issue isn’t that some people can afford to borrow from wealthy parents, or that some people have no parent-fund to borrow from. 

The issue is that we live in a society that encourages constant spending, borrowing and debt. It frowns upon savings and sound money. Poor people are told that they are better off borrowing money at 5% to 10% and sometimes as high as 30% then they are at working extra jobs, spending wisely, not buying unnecessary things for a few months and scraping the money together themselves.

Once that individual is soaked in debt, they carry it forward. They never get to build up a savings, and worse yet, they never THINK of building up a savings. Then they meet someone else who might be smart and attractive and educated, but they’re also waist deep in debt. Together, they form a new, happy family, neck deep in debt. By the time the kids grow up and are ready for school or business, there is no “parent-fund” to borrow from so the kids themselves borrow from high interest, low compassion lenders and the vicious cycle continues.  

Welcome to the American Nightmare. 

@Suga_Shane

threatlevelitalian:

There is a reason for this.

Ron Paul vs. Mitt Romney or shall we call it the Truth vs. Deception. 

threatlevelitalian:

There is a reason for this.

Ron Paul vs. Mitt Romney or shall we call it the Truth vs. Deception. 

(via the-coriolis-effect)

thenewrepublic:

If the new Mitt Romney biography fails to reveal “The Real Romney” could that be because there isn’t one?
“As a married couple, the Romneys say they have never seriously argued—Mitt’s reaction against the sparring between his vivacious but querulous parents, according to Kranish and Helman. And as a business partner, Romney kept to himself and his family—no dallying for drinks after work for him. It is often said that Americans like to elect presidents they would like to have a beer with. But what to make of a candidate who has not only never had a beer, but says he has never so much as quarreled with his wife?”
-Alec MacGillis, “Unreal”
Photo courtesy of The Washington Post

thenewrepublic:

If the new Mitt Romney biography fails to reveal “The Real Romney” could that be because there isn’t one?

“As a married couple, the Romneys say they have never seriously argued—Mitt’s reaction against the sparring between his vivacious but querulous parents, according to Kranish and Helman. And as a business partner, Romney kept to himself and his family—no dallying for drinks after work for him. It is often said that Americans like to elect presidents they would like to have a beer with. But what to make of a candidate who has not only never had a beer, but says he has never so much as quarreled with his wife?”

-Alec MacGillis, “Unreal

Photo courtesy of The Washington Post

theatlantic:

Does the Romney-Ron Paul Pact Make Paul a Sellout?

Ron Paul is helping Mitt Romney. It’s been obvious for months. You’d think Paul’s followers would be outraged by this — but they’re not.
The Paul-Romney alliance means the race’s most ideologically pure fiscal conservative has effectively sold out to the least conservative, least consistent, most establishmentarian candidate in the field. Romney favors the basic concept of progressive taxation and a government’s right to compel citizens to purchase health insurance. It’s unthinkable that he would, if elected, end the Federal Reserve. Alone among the candidates, he insists that there be no cuts to any military spending. All these stances are anathema to Paul’s staunchly absolutist world view.
On paper, you would think Romney would be the chief subject of attacks from the Paul campaign, which has, in its television ads, been more unapologetically negative than any other. Paul has runone ad that slams all three of his rivals — Newt Gingrich (“serial hypocrite”), Rick Santorum (“counterfeit conservative”) and Romney (“flip-flopper). But that’s nothing compared to the attacks he’s unleashed pointed solely at Santorum (“fake,” “a record of betrayal”) and Gingrich (“selling access”).
Romney is the major only candidate Paul hasn’t singled out in an ad. And Paul’s ads against his competitors have been far more brutal than anything Romney or his super PAC have put on the airwaves. In crucial stages of the GOP primary thus far, he’s put hundreds of thousands of dollars behind these ads, helping squelch Santorum and Gingrich when they posed the most danger to Romney’s candidacy.
Helping Romney in his quest to make potential alternative candidates unpalatable to the conservative base is a major assist. But it’s far from the only way Paul has boosted the man who ought to be his biggest nemesis — the embodiment of the sort of soft, big-government Republicanism Paul says it’s his mission to eliminate.
Read more. [Image: Joe Raedle/Getty]


Ron Paul has only run one ad? Ok, then what are these: 
http://youtu.be/B7RaYbToq7Q
http://youtu.be/ExwqY7Wiiig
The truth of the matter is that Ron Paul doesn’t run many attack ads. And if they are, it would be wise not to target Mitt’s campaign from the start seeing as how they have seemingly unlimited funds and can crush the opposition. Politics is a game of timing and strategy. Sometimes you need to avoid opponents instead of attacking them.
I just find it funny that both the left and the right have nothing left to attack Ron Paul with so they are going with the “he’s playing nice, HE’S A SELL OUT!” route.
 @Suga_Shane

theatlantic:

Does the Romney-Ron Paul Pact Make Paul a Sellout?

Ron Paul is helping Mitt Romney. It’s been obvious for months. You’d think Paul’s followers would be outraged by this — but they’re not.

The Paul-Romney alliance means the race’s most ideologically pure fiscal conservative has effectively sold out to the least conservative, least consistent, most establishmentarian candidate in the field. Romney favors the basic concept of progressive taxation and a government’s right to compel citizens to purchase health insurance. It’s unthinkable that he would, if elected, end the Federal Reserve. Alone among the candidates, he insists that there be no cuts to any military spending. All these stances are anathema to Paul’s staunchly absolutist world view.

On paper, you would think Romney would be the chief subject of attacks from the Paul campaign, which has, in its television ads, been more unapologetically negative than any other. Paul has runone ad that slams all three of his rivals — Newt Gingrich (“serial hypocrite”), Rick Santorum (“counterfeit conservative”) and Romney (“flip-flopper). But that’s nothing compared to the attacks he’s unleashed pointed solely at Santorum (“fake,” “a record of betrayal”) and Gingrich (“selling access”).

Romney is the major only candidate Paul hasn’t singled out in an ad. And Paul’s ads against his competitors have been far more brutal than anything Romney or his super PAC have put on the airwaves. In crucial stages of the GOP primary thus far, he’s put hundreds of thousands of dollars behind these ads, helping squelch Santorum and Gingrich when they posed the most danger to Romney’s candidacy.

Helping Romney in his quest to make potential alternative candidates unpalatable to the conservative base is a major assist. But it’s far from the only way Paul has boosted the man who ought to be his biggest nemesis — the embodiment of the sort of soft, big-government Republicanism Paul says it’s his mission to eliminate.

Read more. [Image: Joe Raedle/Getty]

Ron Paul has only run one ad? Ok, then what are these: 

http://youtu.be/B7RaYbToq7Q

http://youtu.be/ExwqY7Wiiig

The truth of the matter is that Ron Paul doesn’t run many attack ads. And if they are, it would be wise not to target Mitt’s campaign from the start seeing as how they have seemingly unlimited funds and can crush the opposition. 

Politics is a game of timing and strategy. Sometimes you need to avoid opponents instead of attacking them.

I just find it funny that both the left and the right have nothing left to attack Ron Paul with so they are going with the “he’s playing nice, HE’S A SELL OUT!” route.

 @Suga_Shane

(via thenewrepublic)

think-progress:

Ron Paul is effectively acting as Romney’s on-stage surrogate during the debates. The key question is: what is Paul getting out of it?

________
Have you Paul-Romney-Alliance pushers ever thought about the possibility that maybe Ron Paul isn’t attaching Romney because Romney has more money than everyone combined and if Paul took a shot at him this early, Romney would do to him what he did to Newt in Florida and point all the guns and open fire? 
You have to pick and choose your battles wisely. And Mitt Romney doesn’t threaten Paul’s voter base the way Rick Santorum does. Rick has been increasingly marketing himself to the Ron Paul voters. He’s been saying he’s a Constitutionalist and a “true” Conservative and that he believes in Liberty. The fact is that he does not do any of those things and Ron Paul is trying to defend the voters that he’s already won over. 
Mitt Romney, on the other hand, is the exact opposite of Ron Paul. Mitt presents absolutely no threat to stealing the voters Paul has already won over. In fact, Mitt and Ron couldn’t be any more different than they are. Polar opposites.  
If you just thought about this strategy for more than 2 minutes, you would have realized this.
Or do people just not think for more than 2 minutes anymore? 
@Suga_Shane

think-progress:

Ron Paul is effectively acting as Romney’s on-stage surrogate during the debates. The key question is: what is Paul getting out of it?

________

Have you Paul-Romney-Alliance pushers ever thought about the possibility that maybe Ron Paul isn’t attaching Romney because Romney has more money than everyone combined and if Paul took a shot at him this early, Romney would do to him what he did to Newt in Florida and point all the guns and open fire? 

You have to pick and choose your battles wisely. And Mitt Romney doesn’t threaten Paul’s voter base the way Rick Santorum does. Rick has been increasingly marketing himself to the Ron Paul voters. He’s been saying he’s a Constitutionalist and a “true” Conservative and that he believes in Liberty. The fact is that he does not do any of those things and Ron Paul is trying to defend the voters that he’s already won over. 

Mitt Romney, on the other hand, is the exact opposite of Ron Paul. Mitt presents absolutely no threat to stealing the voters Paul has already won over. In fact, Mitt and Ron couldn’t be any more different than they are. Polar opposites.  

If you just thought about this strategy for more than 2 minutes, you would have realized this.

Or do people just not think for more than 2 minutes anymore? 

@Suga_Shane
Hacking Democracy 2.0. How the GOP election will be sold to the highest bidder. If you haven’t seen Hacking Democracy, I urge you to watch it. It explains how Diebold and a consortium of corporations and extremely rich individuals paid for and delivered the 2000 and 2004 elections. In this year’s GOP primaries, we are seeing the same thing happen except without the need to hack computers. In Iowa, all of the college towns ballots were lost or took days to reach the vote counters, deeming them expired. In short, the votes that were cast were not counted. These caucuses polled to be overwhelmingly for Ron Paul. So what did Iowa do? They gathered the delegates and had them pick their own winners. Essentially a handful of men decided for an entire state and perhaps an entire country. Now in Nevada we have more voters and votes cast than the total number of eligible registered voters. The end result was a confused voter base, a skewed vote count and the GOP Chairwoman of Nevada, Amy Tarkanian, resigning. But I bet most of you didn’t see this during the Super Bowl. 
The Examiner has a great look at the sham that is the GOP primaries. Lori Stacey, author of the article “It is official: Elections in America are a complete hoax”, writes: 

It is now almost 24 hours after voters in Nevada went to their caucuses to try to cast their votes and we still mysteriously only have results for 71.1% of the caucuses .  The remaining caucuses that are still not reported actually make up the most populated caucuses in the entire state.  We were told late last night that all the votes cast in Clark County had to be recounted to ensure accuracy before they would release any of the numbers to the press.  Excuse me?
Where does one even begin to voice their outrage regarding this complete joke of a corrupt system we are all witnessing?  If you believe the results finally coming out of Nevada, you must be living on Fantasy Island.  How can caucuses that count their votes right there at the precincts have to conduct complete recounts many hours after they are over and almost everyone has gone home before they will even report most of the counts in the entire state to the public?  There is only one explanation for this insanity:  Corruption at its boldest!  It is completely inconceivable in a caucus situation for votes to ever have to be recounted away from the precinct.  The votes are not even cast on ballots like in the primary states, they are usually nothing more than little pieces of paper with a name on them stating the voter’s preference.  .
As I wrote in a previous article, many of the polls leading up to voting have been wrought with deliberate deception.  The only logical conclusion for such disturbingly unfair polling data is that they are being deliberately created to not only deceive voters into believing which candidate can win a particular contest but that they are obviously being used as a precursor to try to later justify completely fraudulent voting results.
The long night was filled with voter intimidation reports of having to prove or declare a religion (see video), countless reports by the media that were harassed or even kicked out of caucuses and told they could not film the events, hundreds of voters being turned away especially if they admitted they supported Ron Paul and then we still do not have a full accounting of the votes.  It is being admitted by party officials that there are precincts in which the amount of votes cast outnumbers the amount of voters present.  In other words, ballot stuffing at its finest. What is going on here and why are we continuing to just put up with it?  

Why are we putting up with it? Simply put, because we aren’t even aware of it. 
Look at Iowa, for example. We had already moved on, nearly two states later, when I first heard of the Iowa issues. I live in California and I tend to think I’ve very actively involved in the political process in America. Unfortunately, I’m the rare minority. 
Most people either don’t care or they think that there’s nothing they can do about it. Then there’s the invisible hand of mass media. How convenient that the two big election fraud charges came to surface right around Super Bowl week. Best way to cover up a scandal is let someone else do it for you. Then there is no cover up for anyone to have to take responsibility for, just a bait-and-switch that the only real responsible party is the public for their unyielding thirst of sports and reality television. 
Here’s a link to the original Hacking Democracy in it’s entirety.
@Suga_Shane 

Hacking Democracy 2.0. How the GOP election will be sold to the highest bidder. 

If you haven’t seen Hacking Democracy, I urge you to watch it. It explains how Diebold and a consortium of corporations and extremely rich individuals paid for and delivered the 2000 and 2004 elections. 

In this year’s GOP primaries, we are seeing the same thing happen except without the need to hack computers. 

In Iowa, all of the college towns ballots were lost or took days to reach the vote counters, deeming them expired. In short, the votes that were cast were not counted. These caucuses polled to be overwhelmingly for Ron Paul. So what did Iowa do? They gathered the delegates and had them pick their own winners. Essentially a handful of men decided for an entire state and perhaps an entire country. 

Now in Nevada we have more voters and votes cast than the total number of eligible registered voters. The end result was a confused voter base, a skewed vote count and the GOP Chairwoman of Nevada, Amy Tarkanian, resigning. 

But I bet most of you didn’t see this during the Super Bowl. 

The Examiner has a great look at the sham that is the GOP primaries. Lori Stacey, author of the article “It is official: Elections in America are a complete hoax”, writes: 

It is now almost 24 hours after voters in Nevada went to their caucuses to try to cast their votes and we still mysteriously only have results for 71.1% of the caucuses .  The remaining caucuses that are still not reported actually make up the most populated caucuses in the entire state.  We were told late last night that all the votes cast in Clark County had to be recounted to ensure accuracy before they would release any of the numbers to the press.  Excuse me?

Where does one even begin to voice their outrage regarding this complete joke of a corrupt system we are all witnessing?  If you believe the results finally coming out of Nevada, you must be living on Fantasy Island.  How can caucuses that count their votes right there at the precincts have to conduct complete recounts many hours after they are over and almost everyone has gone home before they will even report most of the counts in the entire state to the public?  There is only one explanation for this insanity:  Corruption at its boldest!  It is completely inconceivable in a caucus situation for votes to ever have to be recounted away from the precinct.  The votes are not even cast on ballots like in the primary states, they are usually nothing more than little pieces of paper with a name on them stating the voter’s preference.  .

As I wrote in a previous article, many of the polls leading up to voting have been wrought with deliberate deception.  The only logical conclusion for such disturbingly unfair polling data is that they are being deliberately created to not only deceive voters into believing which candidate can win a particular contest but that they are obviously being used as a precursor to try to later justify completely fraudulent voting results.

The long night was filled with voter intimidation reports of having to prove or declare a religion (see video), countless reports by the media that were harassed or even kicked out of caucuses and told they could not film the events, hundreds of voters being turned away especially if they admitted they supported Ron Paul and then we still do not have a full accounting of the votes.  It is being admitted by party officials that there are precincts in which the amount of votes cast outnumbers the amount of voters present.  In other words, ballot stuffing at its finest. What is going on here and why are we continuing to just put up with it?  

Why are we putting up with it? Simply put, because we aren’t even aware of it. 

Look at Iowa, for example. We had already moved on, nearly two states later, when I first heard of the Iowa issues. I live in California and I tend to think I’ve very actively involved in the political process in America. Unfortunately, I’m the rare minority. 

Most people either don’t care or they think that there’s nothing they can do about it. Then there’s the invisible hand of mass media. How convenient that the two big election fraud charges came to surface right around Super Bowl week. Best way to cover up a scandal is let someone else do it for you. Then there is no cover up for anyone to have to take responsibility for, just a bait-and-switch that the only real responsible party is the public for their unyielding thirst of sports and reality television. 

Here’s a link to the original Hacking Democracy in it’s entirety.

@Suga_Shane 

ABC News Gets Feeder Funds Wrong

Not so interested in the ABC News parts, but here’s a good explanation of how most of these investment funds work to protect both income and provide tax shelters for investors. 

thecallus:

ABC News and Brian Ross blows an “expose” on Mitt Romney’s investments and misrepresents US securities law.

Full disclosure: I used to do this. Hedge, Private Equity, and Managed Futures business analysis was my job for 5 years. Everything I say below is based on 5 years of experience building client registration databases, qualification systems, accounting systems, and trading systems exclusively intended to support private placement products. In other words I’ve built this stuff from the ground up.

I’m not only a proud American taxpayer, I’m a political liberal interested in advocating higher taxes for the rich including increases in Capital Gains rates. And ABC News completely botched this report.

Everything ABC News says in their report is some combination of wrong and falsely inflammatory. Ross’s report impugns the character of upstanding Americans that I worked with closely and hold the utmost respect for. I cannot in good conscience fail to rebut their false accusations even if it assists a political figure I dislike and breaks my vow to be silent in protest of SOPA.

ABC News’ report wrongly insinuates that Mitt Romney evades US taxes by investing in master limited partnerships. The individuals quoted in the report don’t understand what Romney’s invested in, falsely suggest that these investments are not taxed like any other investment vehicle, and ignore the point that capital gains are not tax evasion simply because they are at lower statutory rates. 

First: let us explain what Romney’s invested in.

Private investment companies like Bain company are operated as 3(c)(1) investment companies exempt from most SEC registration requirements. They are capped at 99 investors, all of which must qualify under rigorous standards. Clients must be Accredited Investors, Qualified Clients (usually, for PE), and /or Qualified Purchasers. This requires, among other things, that the investors have 5MM in visible, verifiable investible assets that the investment partner pre-qualified prior to the investment in the vehicle. In other words: these small funds are intended to be niche boutiques for rare groups of very sophisticated investors.

3(c)(7) funds are typically then set up as “feeder” funds into the 3(c)(1) vehicles. Say I start a domestic 3c1 hedge fund called The Callus LLC - I can only put 99 investors in it. But one of those investors can be an entity - the 3(c)(7) - which also doesn’t have to register and caps at 499 investors. Add it all up and you can pack up to 49,401 folks into a single 3(c)(1). Maybe that’s a problem, but the government is well aware of this practice and saw fit to leave it be in Dodd-Frank; this practice complies with the 1940 Investment Company Act in full.

So those papers you see with “Bain Capital IX LLC?” Those are feeder funds. They’re legal, and you can only invest in the domestic versions in taxable accounts. The Transfer Agent for the fund must know the client, confirm the client is qualified, and provide the fund’s tax administrator with information about the client’s investment performance. The administrator then reports taxes to the investor via Schedule K1 like any other partnership to be taxed as capital gains or claimed as losses.

But how does Cayman fit in?

Cayman is a popular place to register “tax exempt” vehicles to pair up with the domestic 3(c)(1) and 3(c)(7) funds. Take The Callus LLC and sit The Callus LP next to it - they both would invest in the 3(c)(1) and thus track its performance, rendering them functionally equivalent. Since know-your-client (“KYC”) rules are more lax in Cayman and otherwise abroad, it’s possible to set up limited partnerships there to support an international client base without the expense and frustration of US KYC compliance. American investors must only invest in these in tax exempt accounts and still receive normal partnership tax reporting via Schedule K1. The funds also must limit their tax-exempt assets to 25% of AUM and investor counts - no more than 500 if there are 350 or more TE accounts.

We can feel your eyes glazing over. We once built a system that did this; it took three years. Most of those three years was spent explaining this to people. But it must be said:

Tax-exempt accounts are retirement accounts. Examples: IRA, RIRA, IRRA, SEP, KEOGH. These accounts are all subject to ERISA. ERISA says that if 25% of the feeder fund’s assets are in tax-exempt accounts the fund’s investment activities are reportable. Funds don’t want this, so they keep TE assets down by force-redeeming clients, using wait lists, and / or periodically closing the fund to new investors.

So what’s the big deal? Why does ABC News think Mitt Romney is a tax scofflaw?

Well, part of it’s the mystique of Private Equity. The other part is that a ton of tax lawyers don’t know what they’re doing when it comes to partnership accounting. Private investment vehicles are uncommon and occupy a unique space in securities law; experts area few. There’s also this bizarre perception that the Cayman Islands is a big hub of tax scofflaws hiding in plain sight.

It is possible to hide your money in Cayman. You can lie, first of all - if the TA can’t prove your KYC data false then it’s possible to hide taxable American investment returns in offshore private investment vehicles like Bain or its many feeder funds. You can use a proxy or otherwise launder money. But that’s a problem affecting virtually every investment company that operates overseas, problems that OFAC and its ilk work to solve. Outside America it’s even possible to have fully confidential accounts that don’t disclose the investor’s name or address. These are failures of international regulatory regimes.

But this is silly:

Wilkins agreed, saying the “primary advantage to setting those funds up in an offshore jurisdiction like the Cayman Islands or Bermuda is it helps the investors avoid tax.”

“It helps U.S. investors avoid U.S. tax,” said Wilkins, “it helps foreign investors avoid taxes in their home country, so it’s not illegal or improper to set those funds up in a foreign jurisdiction, but it makes it more attractive to investors because it helps them avoid paying taxes on that income.”

Bullshit. The primary advantage to setting up these funds in an offshore jurisdiction is that it’s drastically cheaper. Believe it or not, we care about investor expenses! The other reason is it helps funds simultaneously take tax-exempt money while avoiding disclosing their “secret sauce” in terms of investing strategies. If the likes of Renaissance or Bain or Partners Group had to report their investing activity like ERISA-registered domestic products the funds would decline to allow investments from those accounts structures.

These funds hire administrators and transfer agents responsible for reporting all tax information concerning their identifiably American customers. These administrators are good people who care about this country and about doing a good job and don’t need know-nothing ABC “exposes” insinuating that they are somehow aiding tax evaders. What helps US investors avoid US tax is lying to brokerage firms and transfer agents about their registration information; these faux-mysterious Cayman LP’s have fuck all to do with it.

This is also a lie that exposes the total lack of insight on the part of ABC News and its sources:

Tax experts agree that Romney remains subject to American taxes. But they say the offshore accounts have provided him — and Bain — with other potential financial benefits, such as higher management fees and greater foreign interest, all at the expense of the U.S. Treasury

First off, there is no law protecting US investors from 3(c)(1) or 3(c)(7) management fees (the infamous 2 and 20) as with mutual funds by very nature of their structure. LLC or LP, domestic or offshore, it doesn’t make a difference. And since Romney no longer manages Bain, such fees have absolutely no relevance to his personal finances or taxes. Regardless, Romney’s management fees and investment performance are all taxed at the capital gains rate of 15%.

Secondly, what the hell is wrong with “greater foreign interest?” Don’t they mean “any” foreign interest, considering you can’t put foreign investors in domestic vehicles because of the KYC and tax rules? Foreign investors don’t want to pay even our paltry tax rates, and shouldn’t have to because it would be double-taxed by their home regimes in most cases. Establishing a Cayman LP is the only way to service international clients if you operate a private placement entity, its feeders, or a brokerage firm selling those products via agreement. What’s inherently wrong with foreign investors?

TLDR: ABC News’ report is riddled with holes and represents a laughable analysis of the modern private placement regulatory environment and marketplace. It unduly tars Mitt Romney and everyone in an industry I worked in. Focus on the facts: the capital gains rate allows investors lower tax rates on investment income, and maybe it shouldn’t.

(via thecallus-deactivated20130520)