Romney’s tax returns—just the break the Obama camp was waiting for?

[SenorBeef]

Do you disagree that he uses the rhetoric that the rich are overtaxed? Do you not think that he himself serving as a prime example of that not being true is relevant to his position on the issue?

[Steve MB]

Originally Posted by Ca3799

Seeing as how he's only considering releasing this last years tax return, can you imagine the frantic calls he's making to his accountants right now- "Make sure you figure my taxes to have me paying as much as possible this year!!!" I bet his accountants don't get many calls like that.

Followed by "PS -- What's the deadline for filing an amended return?"

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by SenorBeef

Do you disagree that he uses the rhetoric that the rich are overtaxed?

I haven't listened to him enough to have an opinion. Perhaps you can give us some quotes of him saying that the rich are overtaxed.

[Dag Otto]

Is Romney going to explain how funds sitting in the Cayman Islands creates jobs in the USA?

[Martin Hyde]

Originally Posted by SenorBeef

This isn't one of those "yeah so what, he smoked dope in college" type "doesn't really matter, just a stupid election news thing blown up by the 24 hour news cycle" type of irrelevant stories. This is at the very heart of the policy they're trying to inflict upon the American people. How you can possibly see criticism of this as irrelevant or illegitimate is quite baffling to me, except a knee jerk indoctrination to never question any policy that favors the people that truly run the republican party.

I don't disagree that Mitt Romney's opinion on taxes aren't a "so what he smoked dope in college" thing. But what I'm saying is, his tax returns aren't going to be what determines how people vote on that issue. Some people are going to support Republican tax policy, some people aren't. Period. The way they make that decision will almost certainly have nothing to do with the personal income tax percentage paid by Mitt Romney in FY 2011.

Originally Posted by John Mace

Martin: If you think taxes on the wealthy isn't going to be an issue in this campaign in a way that it hasn't been for some time, then I'd say it's your opinion that is the naive one.

Taxes have been an issue in every election in my lifetime, and to a degree the share of taxes paid by the wealthy versus the poor and middle class has always factored in. Is it likely to be a bigger factor this time? Sure. But probably not as big a factor as the job market is on Nov. 2012.

Simple observers of politics like narratives and they like "politics as a basketball game", narratives tell a story of the rise and fall of a candidate, and looking at political campaigns as basketball games you can pretend that particular points made, fouls committed, shots missed, culminate in a "score" that produce a winner and a loser.

I don't think that is how elections work because I don't think that is how voters work. David Brooks wrote an excellent article some years ago for the New York Times, in which he said:

In reality, we voters — all of us — make emotional, intuitive decisions about who we prefer, and then come up with post-hoc rationalizations to explain the choices that were already made beneath conscious awareness. “People often act without knowing why they do what they do,” Daniel Kahneman, a Nobel Prize winner, noted in an e-mail message to me this week. “The fashion of political writing this year is to suggest that people choose their candidate by their stand on the issues, but this strikes me as highly implausible.”

There is even evidence that you can make a reasonable prediction about how people will vote based on the facial expressions of the candidates.

No, in America we let everyone vote. What that means is mostly idiotic non-issues will determine who wins and who loses. That would put Romney's tax rate at least in the running, being both idiotic and a non-issue. But it will probably pale in comparison to whether granny thinks he looks like an upstanding citizen or a used car salesman, and whether Fred thinks Obama sounds inspiring or patronizing.

Aside from certain massive and scandalous things which can totally torpedo an election, it's rarely the case that random facts about a candidate that come out almost a year prior to the election are going to be important enough in the minds of addled voters to actually influence who they vote for--and of course some huge portion won't vote for a party different than the last one they voted for, and really aren't in play at all.

[Martin Hyde]

Originally Posted by SenorBeef

Do you disagree that he uses the rhetoric that the rich are overtaxed? Do you not think that he himself serving as a prime example of that not being true is relevant to his position on the issue?

His positions don't really line up with that. He isn't in favor of reduced marginal income tax rates on top earners, he's in favor of maintaining the current tax brackets and eliminating the estate tax as well as eliminating the capital gains tax on dividends and interest for persons making less than $200,000 a year.

[Dangerosa]

Originally Posted by Martin Hyde

His positions don't really line up with that. He isn't in favor of reduced marginal income tax rates on top earners, he's in favor of maintaining the current tax brackets and eliminating the estate tax as well as eliminating the capital gains tax on dividends and interest for persons making less than $200,000 a year.

Honestly, his positions regarding this are not unreasonable when compared to a lot of conservatives (I'd do it differently, but I'm more moderate - perhaps even a liberal) - its one of the reasons he's suspected of being a RINO and the "Anybody but Mitt" ticket has been so much fun to watch. However, he is going to have to do quite a dance to avoid getting painted by the brush being waved around by the party.

[Rhythmdvl]

Originally Posted by Martin Hyde

But what I'm saying is, his tax returns aren't going to be what determines how people vote on that issue.

Clearly nothing is dispositive, but there are two factors being discounted.

First, the galvanization of a human face to a currently debated topic. Whether it's a groundswell of grass-roots activism or Democratic machine astroturfing, if his tax situation matches what has a generally negative connotation at the moment, it's the mythical undecideds that will be moved.

Again, this has nothing to do with rich or whether he pays what he owes. It's that right now, thanks in large part to Occupy Wall Street's effect on shifting the conversation, low taxes on investment (or non-labour) income is a hot-button issue. Had he been in manufacturing or other situation, this would not be a significant negative to his chances of election (as opposed to how you or I personally feel about the policy).

Second, you haven't addressed (I don't think) the massive enthusiasm gap that this could lead to. Romney is already going in with grudging support of his party. He will be the nominee, but barring a Palin-like entrance of a firestarter, his phone banks will not be as full as McCain's were in 08. There are other factors (positive and negative), but he is going in with a slight uphill climb to get the vote out.

The tax returns--and what they represent--could spur enough people to get involved in the summer relatively early in the election.

[China Guy]

Sorry if I missed this during the thread skim.

Romney also said he "had a little speaking income" which turns out to be more than $300k. That's a little out of touch if you're "speaking income" is greater than what most Americans can ever hope to hit in their best year.

[mack]

Originally Posted by Fiveyearlurker

If the Obama administration doesn't rebrand this as the "Romney loophole" or the "Romney tax rate" then they have learned nothing from the Republicans.

Romneyfare!

[kaylasdad99]

Originally Posted by mack

Romneyfare!

Quick, send that one to the DNC!

[Lantern]

I have read some commentary suggesting that the tax story will be old news by November and Romney would have gotten it out of the way. That is not how these thing work. If a negative story feeds into the central narrative about a candidate it doesn't just go way, it becomes a running sore that becomes worse over time. This tax story fits perfectly into the emerging narrative about Romney as a fat cat who lives in a completely different economic universe from the average American.

It's true that many Presidential candidates including Obama are rich. However:
1)Romney is vastly richer than anyone else who has run recently
2)His manner of gaining wealth has itself become controversial even in a Republican primary
3)He continuously makes gaffes, like the 10,000 bet, which draw attention to how rich he is

The tax issue just makes all this worse. Romney probably pays a lower effective tax rate than many middle-class Americans. Furthermore his tax plan will make big cuts which will benefit himself enormously. Obama by contrast is a rich guy who wants to raise his own taxes to close the deficit.

I am not saying Romney is doomed or anything but he does have a lot of baggage which the Democrats are going to exploit to the hilt. I expect Obama to stay above the fray for the most part but his surrogates and Democratic PAC's are going to pound Romney week after week and it will hurt him.

[Marley23]

Right - the question here isn't really whether anyone is scandalized by Romney's tax rate, it's whether or not this catches on and has a significant effect on how people see him. In combination with talking about $374,000 like it's not a lot of money and the possible tax shelters issue, it's probably not going to help.

[Wesley Clark]

Originally Posted by Cosmic Relief

One thing I'm looking forward to in the general election is watching evangelicals kneel down and lick the boots of a Mormon. The other is watching rural middle-class voters happily swallow the line "Yeah, it's true people like me have a tax rate that is 10 percentage points lower than yours. But don't you think it should really be 15 points lower, because of the creating jobs and stuff?"

A guy whose opinions are all over the place.

http://www.redstate.com/erick/files/.../FLIPFLOPS.pdf

this will be an amusing election cycle.

I agree with other posters, Romney has really prepared himself for running for president. Even in 2008 when McCain had it locked up I assumed he was just staying in the race to build his name recognition for when he ran again in 2012. And it worked, that was his strategy and he was more or less coronated the nominee this time around due to his 2008 run (some comparisons to his 2008-2012 run were the Reagan runs in 1976-1980. But this tax issue seemed to blindside him, he stuttered a lot when asked about it at the last debate. How could he not see that coming?

Also I'm sure he is only releasing his 2011 tax info (if he releases any, he is just saying he might right now) the tax info before 2011 was even worse. So what all is he hiding that he tried to clear up in 2011?

[Rhythmdvl]

I wonder how much the presidency is worth to the super-rich? Knowing it might be a potential issue, could he have had the conversation Ca3799 referred to four years ago? It would clearly be a gamble (whether he'd make it in the primaries and whether he'd be asked), but what's a few million here or there to a bazillionaire--especially when there's a presidency to be had.

Further down the rabbit hole (hey look, tinfoil!), he could have worked with his partners to structure income in such a way that it would not necessarily hit as largely from 2008 to 12. Partners get a share of the interest, Romney isn't exactly hurting for liquidity, and it allows him to release the returns and say "look at that, I am a regular Joe!"

Clearly that's kookie, but with the kind of money we're talking about not wholly plausible. Mostly, perhaps, but not wholly

[Rhythmdvl]

Originally Posted by Wesley Clark

A guy whose opinions are all over the place.

http://www.redstate.com/erick/files/.../FLIPFLOPS.pdf

this will be an amusing election cycle.

Wow. What's astounding about that is both the longevity of flippityflopping and how major reversals are within the past five to ten years. Unbelievable.

[Little Nemo]

Originally Posted by Rhythmdvl

There’s his choice to all but declare rates to be 15 percent now but actually release them in April. Reneging on the promise will be costly by handing the Democrats a What-Is-He-Hiding commercial. Through the timing of the eventual release he’s ensuring that it will be a news-cycle event, not just an issue raised by the Obama campaign. That means it will have come up twice, keeping it alive longer than necessary. And it will be coming up in the midst of the general. He has a it’s-mine-to-lose-it lock on the primary; weathering the same storm twice and during the general seems to have no gain and all risk.

There are other reasons, but the last one I’m mentioning is potentially the most damaging to his electoral aspirations. April. Spring. Occupy. There’s no sign that the Occupy movement is fading into yesterday’s news, and lots of reasons to think that as spring arrives (and school ends) it will reach another peak. Even if the protestors (not just students) do not rejoin the ‘occupy’ part of Occupy, they will still be charged with its underlying themes—themes that are particularly unfriendly to an astronomically wealthy candidate who paid less taxes then they did. And all this is happening as the climate gets warmer, when putting activists in the field is easier. Romney already faces an enthusiasm gap within his own party; this will both hurt that and bolster the passions of the anti-Romney/pro-Obama side of the equation.

Aside from a hastily written OP, is there some political strategy I missed? Or is obvious OP obvious?

The April release date isn't aimed at Obama. It's aimed at the other Republican candidates. At this point, Romney is still working on being the nominee. So by delaying his tax return releases a few months, he's hoping he'll have the nomination sewed up by the time he has to deal with it - that way he'll only have Obama using it against him instead of having Gingrich, Perry, Santorum, and Paul using it against him.

I'm sure this will be an issue in the general election (assuming Romney is the nominee). Surprisingly, it's almost going to hurt Romney worse if everything he did was legal. In that case, Obama will be able to use it as a club to say that the Republicans are writing tax laws that favor the rich and make middle class families pay higher tax rates than millionaires.

[garygnu]

I think it's stuff like this that the Obama camp is salivating at. The GOP is thinking they will be hammering him on whatever wedge issue of the day is, but I foresee a relentless negative mudslinging campaign directed at a Romney unprepared for being on the defensive.

[Little Nemo]

Originally Posted by garygnu

I think it's stuff like this that the Obama camp is salivating at. The GOP is thinking they will be hammering him on whatever wedge issue of the day is, but I foresee a relentless negative mudslinging campaign directed at a Romney unprepared for being on the defensive.

I agree. The economy is obviously going to be a major issue. Obama will use this as an argument - "Sure our economy has problems. You want to know where those problems come from? Look at my opponent - the problems come from people like him."

[BobLibDem]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

I agree. The economy is obviously going to be a major issue. Obama will use this as an argument - "Sure our economy has problems. You want to know where those problems come from? Look at my opponent - the problems come from people like him."

Not to worry, Bain Capital saved America!

The guy has been running for president for six years now. And just before he sews up the nomination is the time to start vetting him?

[BigT]

Originally Posted by Rhythmdvl

Wow. What's astounding about that is both the longevity of flippityflopping and how major reversals are within the past five to ten years. Unbelievable.

Yeah, it's a nice list, but I don't get why favorite book and favorite movie are on there. Opinions change. People get exposed to things they haven't been before, and decide that the new (to them) thing is better.

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by John Mace

Hey, when you make $50,000,000/year and you have to tithe, what's a fella to do? It's just math, dude!.

Wow, I was just joking about the tithing thing, but it was reported on NPR last night that he does give at least 10% to the LDS Church. Not sure that will really hurt him. It will be worse if the LDS Church is involved in one of the Super PACs, which I assume they are smart enough not to do.

[Damuri Ajashi]

Originally Posted by John Mace

Is he still a partner or a fund manager? If not, he can't be doing it. He may be getting dividends as an investor, but that's not carried interest. Carried interest is way of treating what would be ordinary income is long term capital gains. But you can't be getting ordinary income if you're not on salary.

I don't remember the exact rules to qualify for the 15% dividend tax rate but I'm pretty sure that it cannot be applied to "special dividends" that are only paid to one of the shareholders. I am also pretty sure that it can only be claimed on dividends paid by corporations that pay a corporate level tax. I doubt Bain is a corporation paying a corporate level tax but I could be wrong.

Carried interest frequently throws off ordinary income and short term capital gains as well. its whatever sort of income or loss that is created within the fund.

Originally Posted by Martin Hyde

Wow, the SDMB looks almost buffoonish here...

Originally Posted by Martin Hyde

I don't disagree that Mitt Romney's opinion on taxes aren't a "so what he smoked dope in college" thing. ...No, in America we let everyone vote. What that means is mostly idiotic non-issues will determine who wins and who loses. That would put Romney's tax rate at least in the running, being both idiotic and a non-issue. But it will probably pale in comparison to whether granny thinks he looks like an upstanding citizen or a used car salesman, and whether Fred thinks Obama sounds inspiring or patronizing.

You probably wish you hadn't said this. This is a central issue in this election cycle. The issue of taxes on the rich and the wealth disparity are kind of big this year.

Originally Posted by Ludovic

Let's parse this statement:

Perhaps those funds are funds that are not required to provide yearly capital returns. So, technically they ARE, present tense, taxed in the same way they would be in the United States, since they wouldn't be taxed until he sells or liquidates them. However, once he sells them, they might have tax advantages galore.

I'm not saying that's the case, I'm just trying to think like a weasel.

If you want to parse it. Romney is taxed on the income from those funds the same way any other income would be taxed but the fund itself is subject to a different set of tax rules than a fund that was set up in Boston.

Originally Posted by John Mace

As it is, all he did that was "bad" was pay the taxes he owed.

Noone is saying he did anything wrong. They are saying that this reinforces the notion that the deck is stacked heavily in favor of the ultra wealthy. Romney might be to capital gains taxes what Paris Hilton was to the Estate Tax or at the very least to carried interest.

Originally Posted by Steve MB

Followed by "PS -- What's the deadline for filing an amended return?"

Usually September. A lot of people who have partnership income end up filing in September every year.

BTW, if Romney manages to get away with only releasing one year's tax return then I think he will have achieved his goal.

[Damuri Ajashi]

Originally Posted by John Mace

Wow, I was just joking about the tithing thing, but it was reported on NPR last night that he does give at least 10% to the LDS Church. Not sure that will really hurt him. It will be worse if the LDS Church is involved in one of the Super PACs, which I assume they are smart enough not to do.

LDS probably cannot be involved in a SuperPac, I don't think they can spend their money politcally. They can however spend money on issues.

Why do I recall LDS being influential in the California gay marriage referendum? I think they do in fact get invoved in issue advocacy

[Rhythmdvl]

[possible GQ]
What does "releasing his returns" mean? Have past presidents given the IRS authority to release the records or is it self reporting? Will we get to question the veracity of the 1040 (you know, the long form) he releases?

[Little Nemo]

Originally Posted by BigT

Yeah, it's a nice list, but I don't get why favorite book and favorite movie are on there. Opinions change. People get exposed to things they haven't been before, and decide that the new (to them) thing is better.

It's the retconning that's bad. Romney doesn't just change his position as circumstances warrant - he also claims that whatever his current position is is the position he's always held.

[Rhythmdvl]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

It's the retconning that's bad. Romney doesn't just change his position as circumstances warrant - he also claims that whatever his current position is is the position he's always held.

Holy shit--he's always been at war with Eurasia!

[Dangerosa]

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi

LDS probably cannot be involved in a SuperPac, I don't think they can spend their money politcally. They can however spend money on issues.

Why do I recall LDS being influential in the California gay marriage referendum? I think they do in fact get invoved in issue advocacy

Because they were.

[Dangerosa]

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi

I don't remember the exact rules to qualify for the 15% dividend tax rate but I'm pretty sure that it cannot be applied to "special dividends" that are only paid to one of the shareholders. I am also pretty sure that it can only be claimed on dividends paid by corporations that pay a corporate level tax. I doubt Bain is a corporation paying a corporate level tax but I could be wrong.

Carried interest frequently throws off ordinary income and short term capital gains as well. its whatever sort of income or loss that is created within the fund.





You probably wish you hadn't said this. This is a central issue in this election cycle. The issue of taxes on the rich and the wealth disparity are kind of big this year.



If you want to parse it. Romney is taxed on the income from those funds the same way any other income would be taxed but the fund itself is subject to a different set of tax rules than a fund that was set up in Boston.



Noone is saying he did anything wrong. They are saying that this reinforces the notion that the deck is stacked heavily in favor of the ultra wealthy. Romney might be to capital gains taxes what Paris Hilton was to the Estate Tax or at the very least to carried interest.



Usually September. A lot of people who have partnership income end up filing in September every year.

BTW, if Romney manages to get away with only releasing one year's tax return then I think he will have achieved his goal.

His previous returns may be his "long form birth certificate."

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi

LDS probably cannot be involved in a SuperPac, I don't think they can spend their money politcally. They can however spend money on issues.

Super PACS can advocate for issues. Issues like SSM (prop 8). If they try something along those lines in the 2012, it will be bad for Romney.

[Voyager]

Originally Posted by John Mace

Wow, I was just joking about the tithing thing, but it was reported on NPR last night that he does give at least 10% to the LDS Church. Not sure that will really hurt him. It will be worse if the LDS Church is involved in one of the Super PACs, which I assume they are smart enough not to do.

He used to be a bishop - I would be shocked if he hadn't tithed. I know a good number of Mormons here, and they all seem to do it, best I can tell.

[Voyager]

Originally Posted by BobLibDem

Not to worry, Bain Capital saved America!

The guy has been running for president for six years now. And just before he sews up the nomination is the time to start vetting him?

But he has never run against Democrats for president, only other Republicans. The interesting thing here is that this is coming up during the primaries, which I never expected.

Thanks to OWS, income inequality is now a bigger concern of the public than immigration, and I doubt too many voters are for it. Romney is making himself a poster child for the cluelessness of the rich right. Remember all the rightwingers who moaned and groaned about how raising the tax rate on the rich would make them not want to work. It is going to be hard to sell how raising tax rates from 15% to what the average guy pays is going to cause problems. This is the number everyone will remember when searching for tax rate for the rich internally.

Marketplace yesterday noted that equity fund managers now are really pissed at Romney. There income is considered as investment income and taxed at the capital gain rate, and there was a move to wipe out this loophole a while ago. Romney's income from Bain is taxed this way, so it is in the news again, where these greedy bastards don't want it. I hope legislation to eliminate this loophole gets introduced and Republicans are forced to vote for Romney's loophole.

[Dangerosa]

And Romney hasn't really worked (other than running for office) for several years. Isn't he the one who quipped last year about being among the long term unemployed?

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by Dangerosa

And Romney hasn't really worked (other than running for office) for several years.

Except for the speaking gigs that gave him six-figure income on their own.

Isn't he the one who quipped last year about being among the long term unemployed?

Yes. Gosh, that was charming.

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by Marley23

Except for the speaking gigs that gave him six-figure income on their own.

Yeah, but that's "not much".

[elucidator]

Couldn't come at a better time, what with so many people pissed at Obama for shutting down the intertubes.

[Damuri Ajashi]

Originally Posted by John Mace

Super PACS can advocate for issues. Issues like SSM (prop 8). If they try something along those lines in the 2012, it will be bad for Romney.

Yeah I know but I'm not sure that a 501(c)(3) religious organization can donate to a SuperPAC.

Originally Posted by Voyager

I hope legislation to eliminate this loophole gets introduced and Republicans are forced to vote for Romney's loophole.

There was legislation proposed to close this loophole back when the Democarats controlled the house and had an almost filibusterproof majority in the senate. It was killed I believe by Chuck Schumer (who might have also been the senator who proposed the legislation) when he was informed by his hedge fund donors that it would affect them, perhaps make them all move to the Cayman Islands or some bullshit like that.

[elucidator]

You remember the Clintonista reform of Dem leadership? Make the Democrats more "business friendly"? They won.

[Mr. Moto]

Originally Posted by John Mace

I'm wondering if Kerry had a problem any different from that, or do he and his wife file separately, allowing him to mask it?

The Kerrys paid an effective rate of 13% in 2003, according to the tax forms released during his campaign.

[Jas09]

Yeah, Kerry's wife got a low tax rate by having over half of her income be from tax-exempt municipal bonds. It's possible that Romney has some of that going for him too.

Kerry himself paid something like 23% from what I can find, on $395k.

[Damuri Ajashi]

Originally Posted by Mr. Moto

The Kerrys paid an effective rate of 13% in 2003, according to the tax forms released during his campaign.

Yeah and if was running as a tax cutting Republican this year, it would hurt him too.

[Marley23]

I don't recall Kerry's taxes being a topic of much discussion, but he was definitely seen as an out-of-touch rich guy based on the number of houses he and his wife owned, the ski trips, and so on and so on.

[elucidator]

Yeah, especially next to a down-to-Earth, working class guy like GeeDubya....

[Dangerosa]

Originally Posted by John Mace

Yeah, but that's "not much".

Can I get a part time job that pays that well? It would motivate me to work....and I'd create jobs because I'd hire someone to mow my lawn, clean my house, and finish my basement.

[Rhythmdvl]

Ohh ohh! Hire me!

I'll be happy to mow your basement.

[Dangerosa]

Originally Posted by Rhythmdvl

Ohh ohh! Hire me!

I'll be happy to mow your basement.

And they say there are plenty of jobs for qualified applicants, the issue is lack of good people.

[Little Nemo]

Originally Posted by elucidator

Yeah, especially next to a down-to-Earth, working class guy like GeeDubya....

Whose "real world" experience was owning a professional sports team. You know you're out of touch with the average person when even your employees are millionaires.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Originally Posted by Voyager

He used to be a bishop - I would be shocked if he hadn't tithed. I know a good number of Mormons here, and they all seem to do it, best I can tell.

I could be wrong, but I suspect his tithing can only help Republicans, especially if some Dems are foolish enough to try to turn it into an issue. In the same respect that only you get to be a jerk to your brother and everyone else better back off, an attack on someone tithing to their church, especially if made by a Godless Liberal (TM), would only serve to circle the wagons.

[Brainiac4]

How common is tithing, though? I'm seriously asking - as a life-long atheist, I have no idea if tithing is considered to be ordinary or weird. Catholics tithe as well, right? Is it common in the Protestant denominations?

[Chronos]

Catholics do generally contribute to their church, but it's not usually 10%. The guidelines I've seen have generally been along the lines of "an hour's wage each week".