Bottomline:
Is it really an issue or simply primitive prejudice and false fears of someone "different".
He obeys the law and acts as a rational, prudent financial person.
Look at what he does, where he gets results for all the people, without cronyism or compromising values.
____________________________________________________________________________
People tend to make others wrong, out of pure prejudice or righeousness, especially if someone is "different" or very successful. They create them being heartless creatures. But I've met many successful people, who, with a few exceptions of course, were very gracious, good caring human beings who helped others out and lived good lives with good values.
Of course, one reads about the exceptions and then tends to generalize it into a stereotype - but people themselves do not want to be stereotyped but often don't realize they are doing it to others, though they don't want it done unto them.
And, then, of course, those with an axe to grind, use the prejudice and the stereotype to evilize the other person such as Gingrich has done. And then he capitalizes on "making out the other person to be "different" and not like the common man, so that the "common man" can feel alienated. (Gingrich talks about how Obama uses Alinsky's techniques, but then he goes ahead and uses one of the techniques!) See
HOW MUCH WEALTH SHOULD SOMEONE HAVE?
There is no right answer, except from maybe someone of the status of God, to how much wealth somebody should have. There is only the practical consideration of whether a free enterprise system encourages prosperity and opportunity. Whenever the focus is on "taking away something from another" to equalize wealth more, there is the belief in 'entitlement" - I am here therefore I should have more. Our governing value is that we give people the opportunity, as best we can in practical terms, to earn more and then let them be responsible for creating the results. Of course, for those who are part of the "U.S. family" who are not capable due to disabilities and the like we provide a safety net, so that they can live a decent life, one that is far above that of most of the people in this world.
Identifying the "fat cats" and then saying the 1% should pay their fair share is certainly alienating and, at the least, imprudently encouraging prejudice and judgment of others. Again, only God and the necessity of a balanced budget after appropriate cost cutting can determine the right rate that works for all. If capable, shouldn't people pay for their own benefits, rather than try to get someone else to pay for it. Again, this is a critical thinking matter not a right/wrong issue. If Obama or any other candidate tries to make someone else wrong for it, then it is a political ploy and a divider, leading to dissension and more class warfare.
Rich people are evil. Rich people are taking advantage of us...BS
Though some do, it is the exception, as most don't. Sure, they may not overpay and may make some tradeoffs, but even then they are generally very good people, guility of no more than the rest of us.
The income inequality issue is mostly produced by international competition getting so much better that they can beat us out easily. Plus we Americans at the lower end fail to educate ourselves to do the higher skill items where there is job demand (much of it going unfilled) and where extra value is created, more in the knowledge, science, and service industries. See Inequality, Poverty.
TAXES
Judge Learned Hand: "Anyone may arrange his affairs so that his taxes shall be as low as
possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which best pays the treasury. There is not even a patriotic duty to increase one's taxes.Over and over again the Courts have said that there is nothing sinister
in so arranging affairs as to keep taxes as low as possible. Everyone does it, rich and poor alike and all do right, for nobody owes any public duty to pay more than the law demands."
There is no legitimate criticism for a person complying with the laws to minimize his/her taxes - especially when all citizens try to do so and can't call another wrong for it. (Pot calling the kettle black.)
And he certainly didn't create the laws. The laws are the problem if there is a problem with someone paying "too low an amount of taxes" [as if someone was qualified to judge that].
The argument "he can afford it" is only a pejorative, a "should" which few follow. People who say this often do not act in accordance with the underlying principle and, instead, don't serve others to the extent they could, buy luxuries and indulgences instead of helping the poor (big tvs and big a house as possible, as nice a car as possible, Starbucks coffees, etc. and etc.). No one has the right to judge another, except for intentional unethical acts, of which Romney does not engage. And he contribute 16% to charitable causes, compared to Obama at 1%, Biden at 0.2%, and Gingrich at 2+% - those people say they reall care about others, but only Romney walks his talk there.
Then Gingrich attempts to put a spin on there being accounts in Cayman Islands or Switzerland. He, of course, fails to realize that is a strategy used to diversity the money in a strategy employed by the manager of his "blind trust." And then some politicians try to make Romney wrong for having a blind trust. However, it is quite common for Presidents to have their money in "blind trusts" so that they do not know what the investments are and thus cannot operate with a conflict of interest (to favor their investments while acting as President in a way that could affect them unfairly).
Of course, Romney is a passive investor in some Bain funds, and they are the ones that determine where the accounts are kept. [They use the Caymans because that permits foreign investors to not have to put their money into the US tax system. They're not promoting anything. They are only facilitating the investment of foreign dollars, which ultimately are put to work and benefit Americans and American jobs (on average).]
It doesn't mean anything evil to have money in those accounts, though people often falsely think that it means something funny is going on, because they've "heard about" some people using them for tax dodging.
