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

[Jas09]

Originally Posted by 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".

Really? That seems rather low. The evangelical churches I belonged to back in my religious days were pretty solid on the 10% thing if you had the means. I'm quite surprised that Catholics don't expect the same.

[Jas09]

And back to the OP - could Romney have been more flustered and wavering about the tax returns at tonight's debate? I have the feeling there is something more than just the 15% issue in there. Either he's using carried interest or doing some major tax avoidance. That or it's the Mormon issue... but surely everybody knows that he gives to his church. Maybe it's just the magnitude of the donation that is shocking?

[Brainiac4]

Maybe he's flustered because he truly does not want to release them - it is, after all, something that most people think of as private information.

Which is still no excuse for why he hasn't prepared for this after six years of continuously running for president, but does make him just a bit more human, if true.

[Little Nemo]

Originally Posted by Jas09

And back to the OP - could Romney have been more flustered and wavering about the tax returns at tonight's debate? I have the feeling there is something more than just the 15% issue in there. Either he's using carried interest or doing some major tax avoidance. That or it's the Mormon issue... but surely everybody knows that he gives to his church. Maybe it's just the magnitude of the donation that is shocking?

He's only promised to release his most recent tax returns. As others have speculated, there may be a time bomb in previous years. It'll be a big explosion if it turns out there was a year when he made a six-figure income and was able to pay no taxes on it.

[Ca3799]

If it's too much trouble to release this year's returns, he could just release some previous year's returns pretty quickly and easily.

But my money says he won't.

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by Jas09

Really? That seems rather low. The evangelical churches I belonged to back in my religious days were pretty solid on the 10% thing if you had the means. I'm quite surprised that Catholics don't expect the same.

I could be wrong, but I seem to remember from my Catholic days that "tithing" was viewed as a very Protestant thing, and something Catholics looked down on. Or at least looked askance at. Giving was encouraged, but not so arithmetically proscribed.

[BobLibDem]

My parish suggests "one hour for God" per week, i.e. one hour's wages, before taxes. God gets about 20 minutes out of me, but He hasn't got my bills, either.

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by BobLibDem

My parish suggests "one hour for God" per week, i.e. one hour's wages, before taxes.

Proof that God does not like taxes, else he'd settle for after tax income.

[Dangerosa]

Originally Posted by John Mace

I could be wrong, but I seem to remember from my Catholic days that "tithing" was viewed as a very Protestant thing, and something Catholics looked down on. Or at least looked askance at. Giving was encouraged, but not so arithmetically proscribed.

Former catholic. Hadn't heard of the idea of tithing in any of the half dozen churches I've been a member of

[Regallag_The_Axe]

Originally Posted by Jas09

Really? That seems rather low. The evangelical churches I belonged to back in my religious days were pretty solid on the 10% thing if you had the means. I'm quite surprised that Catholics don't expect the same.

They make up for it in volume.

[Simplicio]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

He's only promised to release his most recent tax returns.

He said he'd release more then one year during the debate, but it was part of a flustered word-spew, so I'm not sure if it really counted as a "promise".

In anycase, its sort of bizarre he hasn't planned for this. It seems that every recent Prez has released at least a few years worth of returns, but its obvious team-Romney didn't think out how they'd respond to being requested to do the same.

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by Simplicio

In anycase, its sort of bizarre he hasn't planned for this. It seems that every recent Prez has released at least a few years worth of returns, but its obvious team-Romney didn't think out how they'd respond to being requested to do the same.

Yes, that's the puzzling part. He's been running for president for about 8 years now, and he hasn't, during that time, developed a plan for what to do about his taxes? Something doesn't seem right...

[BrainGlutton]

The Obama camp was not waiting for a break.

[Lamar Mundane]

In addition to his low tax rate, people are really not going to like it if they see he has given as much or more to the LDS Church than the U.S. Gov't. That's why he won't release anything until the primaries are done and he has the nomination. As long as there are members of more palatable (to the Republican base) Christian denominations still in the field, anything related to Mormonism stays under wraps.

Guys like James Carville are cackling with glee as to how this is shaping up for Democrats. The amount of negative material they have to work with is a gift from Heaven. Whether Obama allows his affiliated groups to use it is the question.

[Jack Batty]

I'm not sure this deserves its own thread, so I'll ask here:

I didn't watch the debate last night, but I did see the slew of clips on the morning news shows. What I'm wondering is in regard to what Romney said about being successful. As far as I know, his father was pretty much stinking rich, but he said something along the lines of, "I didn't inherit anything from my parents; what I have I earned."

How true is that? Did his parents send him on his way at age 18 with nothing but a request to write if gets work? I find it hard to believe that he didn't benefit from his wealthy parents.

[a35362]

Originally Posted by Lamar Mundane

In addition to his low tax rate, people are really not going to like it if they see he has given as much or more to the LDS Church than the U.S. Gov't. That's why he won't release anything until the primaries are done and he has the nomination. As long as there are members of more palatable (to the Republican base) Christian denominations still in the field, anything related to Mormonism stays under wraps.

Guys like James Carville are cackling with glee as to how this is shaping up for Democrats. The amount of negative material they have to work with is a gift from Heaven. Whether Obama allows his affiliated groups to use it is the question.

You really think he wouldn't be the nominee if it turns out that he gave a lot of money to his church? Hmm.

So... what if he is the nominee and then it turns out he did in fact give a lot of money to his church? Republican voters stay home, or suck it up and vote for him anyway, just to keep Obama from being re-elected?

How much "negative material" is there for Obama to work with, really? I think most Republican voters aren't ever going to vote for Obama anyway, so the campaign is just going to be a matter of Obama saying to Democrats and independents, "Here's what I've accomplished" and at most "You don't want to vote for Romney because..." He doesn't do negative campaigning.

[Dangerosa]

Originally Posted by a35362

How much "negative material" is there for Obama to work with, really? I think most Republican voters aren't ever going to vote for Obama anyway, so the campaign is just going to be a matter of Obama saying to Democrats and independents, "Here's what I've accomplished" and at most "You don't want to vote for Romney because..." He doesn't do negative campaigning.

SuperPACs will though, and can't be controlled (as the Republican candidates have discovered). And an election isn't won by people who will vote for their candidate regardless - its won by getting the independents and keeping the other side unenthused and at home.

The questions are....will Romney, who the "base" has never been excited about, be able to get enough excitement to not only bring out the vote, but drive the volunteers who make the phone calls? Will Obama be able to motivate his base the way he was able to three years ago? What role will PACs play? Will the independents be receptive to negative ads, or will they balk and those ads backfire? And, of course, dozens of other questions, some current, some which will come up between now and then.

Strange things happen - I'd have never guessed the birth certificate thing would be taken seriously by anyone with two brain cells - but I know intelligent people who think that there is something there.

[Lamar Mundane]

Originally Posted by Jack Batty

"I didn't inherit anything from my parents; what I have I earned."

How true is that? Did his parents send him on his way at age 18 with nothing but a request to write if gets work? I find it hard to believe that he didn't benefit from his wealthy parents.

Since his parents are still alive, he technically hasn't "inherited" anything from them. That's not to say that they haven't set him up in his own cozy lifestyle, with money and property and a nice job.

Originally Posted by a35362

You really think he wouldn't be the nominee if it turns out that he gave a lot of money to his church? Hmm.

So... what if he is the nominee and then it turns out he did in fact give a lot of money to his church? Republican voters stay home, or suck it up and vote for him anyway, just to keep Obama from being re-elected?

How much "negative material" is there for Obama to work with, really? I think most Republican voters aren't ever going to vote for Obama anyway, so the campaign is just going to be a matter of Obama saying to Democrats and independents, "Here's what I've accomplished" and at most "You don't want to vote for Romney because..." He doesn't do negative campaigning.

If it's the Mormon Church, yes. The Republican base are conservative Christians, and they don't have warm fuzzies for Mormons. Many Pastors have called it a cult, and the American Family Association's Brian Fischer has =said it is a "false Religion." Fischer is a kook, but a kook who has 2,000,000 listeners a day in 37 states.

If the Den SuperPacs want to go there, they can create all sorts of havoc with his Mormon views. There is also his tax returns, his silver-spoon life, and his cash parked in Cayman Island banks, and that's just the obvious stuff we already know about.

[Ca3799]

The seems to be some uncertainty about NBC's debate scheduled for next Monday (Jan 23) in Florida. The uncertainty stems from Mitt Romney not confirming that he will be there. That seems like a strange turn of events. Maybe Romney is really, really not wanting to release those tax records!

[Little Nemo]

Originally Posted by a35362

How much "negative material" is there for Obama to work with, really? I think most Republican voters aren't ever going to vote for Obama anyway, so the campaign is just going to be a matter of Obama saying to Democrats and independents, "Here's what I've accomplished" and at most "You don't want to vote for Romney because..." He doesn't do negative campaigning.

It's more a matter of taking weapons away from the Republicans. It's like Osama bin Laden being killed - that means the Republican nominee won't be able to accuse Obama of being soft on national security issues. And if Romney is the nominee, he's now going to have a much harder going after Obama on the economy because Obama will be able to throw it back at him. He'll just say that he's been trying to fix the economy but the Republicans in Congress care more about protecting rich people - like Romney - than they do about fixing the economy.

[Damuri Ajashi]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

You know you're out of touch with the average person when even your employees are millionaires.

That also applies to Romney's employees at Bain Capital.

[Farmer Jane]

I have a stupid question: When people talk about "tax rate" like this, are they taking into account all deductions? Or just some generalized bracket?


>meek<

[jsgoddess]

Originally Posted by CitizenPained

I have a stupid question: When people talk about "tax rate" like this, are they taking into account all deductions? Or just some generalized bracket?


>meek<

A tax rate is the entire amount of tax paid divided by the entire income. So, if you paid 10 dollars total in tax and your income total was 100, you'd have a 10% tax rate.

Brackets show what the rate would be for specific levels of the income. The first X dollars at 10 percent, X +1 through Y at 15, etc.

[Damuri Ajashi]

Originally Posted by Jack Batty

I'm not sure this deserves its own thread, so I'll ask here:

I didn't watch the debate last night, but I did see the slew of clips on the morning news shows. What I'm wondering is in regard to what Romney said about being successful. As far as I know, his father was pretty much stinking rich, but he said something along the lines of, "I didn't inherit anything from my parents; what I have I earned."

How true is that? Did his parents send him on his way at age 18 with nothing but a request to write if gets work? I find it hard to believe that he didn't benefit from his wealthy parents.

I am pretty sure that he had opportunities in life that he would not have had if he hadn't been so good at picking his parents. With that said, there are plenty of guys born with just as much if not more advantage in life that don't make it nearly as far as he has. But if he is claiming that he has not had some serious advantages in life by virtue of having powerful and wealthy parents then he is full of shit.

Originally Posted by a35362

Obama saying to Democrats and independents, "Here's what I've accomplished" and at most "You don't want to vote for Romney because..." He doesn't do negative campaigning.

Yeah but the Democrat superpacs might not be as reluctant.

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

It's more a matter of taking weapons away from the Republicans. It's like Osama bin Laden being killed - that means the Republican nominee won't be able to accuse Obama of being soft on national security issues. And if Romney is the nominee, he's now going to have a much harder going after Obama on the economy because Obama will be able to throw it back at him. He'll just say that he's been trying to fix the economy but the Republicans in Congress care more about protecting rich people - like Romney - than they do about fixing the economy.

And there's that.

[Martin Hyde]

Originally Posted by Rhythmdvl

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.

I think you're missing a significant part of my point, that only a small part of our electorate is really at play in any case. How many people who are part of, or identify with, or even agree with, the OWS movement Republicans? How many of them have ever voted Republican for President? I imagine the number is very, very small.

I'd be interested to find out how many of them don't vote at all, since they are predominantly in an age bracket that doesn't vote very much, I imagine at least a large portion of OWS people themselves won't even vote in November.

I agree with the rest of your analysis of Romney, he isn't a great candidate. But no one on the slate was this year. FWIW I've already said on multiple occasions I suspect Obama will be reelected (cite, cite,cite), I think we're in an election cycle similar to 2004. The incumbent isn't especially popular, and in many ways you might expect a change, but then the actual candidates have to be looked at and that is when you see what's going to happen. It's just very unlikely any of the GOP crop could beat Obama head to head. In 2004 George W. Bush wasn't unbeatable, he was just unbeatable by John Kerry (he was also unbeatable by the guys who John Kerry beat in the primary.) If you look at the Democratic primaries in 2004 it really is the bottom of the barrel of Democratic politicians. You have a tepid John Kerry, a totally inexperienced sleaze in John Edwards, a New England radical with virtually no national electability in Howard Dean, and a guy like Wesley Clark who had been touted as a potential Presidential candidate for years but who ended up being an empty suit with no real personality or political acumen.

I think a lot of more savvy politicians don't want to go up against an incumbent unless they look like they're on their last legs, and despite all the exaggeration neither Bush in 2004 or Obama in 2012 was/is similar to Jimmy Carter in 1980.

[Martin Hyde]

Originally Posted by 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.

I don't actually disagree with any of this, but all of this was just as true before he released his effective tax rate. Will the Dems use his tax rate against him (if he even wins the nomination, let's not put the cart before the horse)? Absolutely. The effective tax rate thing is "part" of that, but it's not really the stick of dynamite I think people are making it out to be. John Kerry was successfully portrayed as aloof and out of touch, but that's just a general thing about a candidate. I don't think Romney is going to be portrayed as an out of touch elite millionaire because of his tax returns, I think that's going to be part of the story but the fact that he really is an elite out of touch multimillionaire is probably a lot bigger than anything that comes out in his returns.

[Martin Hyde]

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi

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.

No, I've explained quite clearly that you guys are confusing the general issue with a specific piece of data. The specific piece of data, unless truly outstanding (like having a running mate that spent time under psychiatric care) are rarely very important at all. I've never said taxes on the wealthy aren't going to be important in this election cycle. I think they'll be important come November, and that they would have been whether Mitt Romney paid 30% in taxes or 15%, and even if Gingrich or Santorum won the nomination.

It's like when John Kerry ordered a philly cheesesteak the wrong way. No one really cared about that, but the fact that it even was being talked about on the news for a few days shows how throughout an election cycle lots of little things get focused on that really aren't important at all.

It was important that John Kerry had an out of touch personality, it hurt his appeal to "common man swing voters" who probably are why he lost in Ohio and thus the Presidency. But the fact that he didn't know how to order some shit sandwich in a shit hole like Philadelphia was truly irrelevant. I hate to break it to people from Philly, but in the rest of the country fucking minimum wage ass clowns that make sandwiches are expected to make it exactly how we tell them to and not to have an attitude about it, they are doing a low-wage job because they are too stupid and unskilled to have a good job and normal consumers won't put up with BS from people like that. Because of the monumentally backwards attitudes in the entire city of Philadelphia, people for some reason find rude service staff to be endearing.

[Martin Hyde]

Originally Posted by John Mace

I could be wrong, but I seem to remember from my Catholic days that "tithing" was viewed as a very Protestant thing, and something Catholics looked down on. Or at least looked askance at. Giving was encouraged, but not so arithmetically proscribed.

Historically tithing has meant different things at different times in the Catholic Church. Up until the French Revolution the Catholic Church had rights to collect a share of the produce from many plots of land. They would refer to the portion of a farmer's crop they took as the "tithe" but in practice it actually often amounted to 14-18% of the farmer's production. It was actually typically worse for you to farm on land where you owe a share of your produce to the church, because church owned land tended to have higher "taxes/tithes" attached to it than land just owned by ordinary nobles or land owners.

[a35362]

Originally Posted by Martin Hyde

...It's like when John Kerry ordered a philly cheesesteak the wrong way....

How exactly...?

[kaylasdad99]

I looked that up because I was confused myself. Apparently he asked for it with Swiss cheese.

Everyone knows that a Philly cheesesteak sandwiches are made with Philly cheese. I've never eaten steak with cream cheese myself, but there ya go.

[Dangerosa]

Originally Posted by Martin Hyde

I think you're missing a significant part of my point, that only a small part of our electorate is really at play in any case. How many people who are part of, or identify with, or even agree with, the OWS movement Republicans? How many of them have ever voted Republican for President? I imagine the number is very, very small.

.

First, its the independents you are going for. Not the loyal GOP base. The best you hope for from the other party's base is that they get so fed up or disappointed that they just stay home. Secondly, you don't need to be part of the OWS movement to be exposed to it, any more than you have to be a Tea Partier to be exposed to their ideas on smaller government. You just need to not cherry pick your news.

I've voted Republican for President, am an independent (fiscally conservative, socially liberal, big business 'friendly' compared to most liberals), and while I think much of the OWS movement is naive and simpleminded, I think the wealthy paying 15% is shameful while we hold our economy hostage and we don't learn anything from Europe burning. For me, it IS the decisive issue this election.

[Frank]

Originally Posted by kaylasdad99

Everyone knows that a Philly cheesesteak sandwiches are made with Philly cheese. I've never eaten steak with cream cheese myself, but there ya go.

Philadelphia Cream Cheese is a brand name. I've never had (or heard of) a Philly cheesesteak with cream cheese on it. Cheesesteaks, depending on where you go, could have Cheez Whiz, Velveeta, or provolone. If I was in a place that offered either of the former two, I too would ask for swiss.

And jalapenos.

[Martin Hyde]

My understanding from various cultural references and Food Network shows is in Philly most people say you have to order it with Cheez Whiz, which is basically a brand of processed cheese food in liquid form that comes out of a squirt bottle.

However the "real purists" in Philly will point out that Cheez Whiz was just an adaptation to selling the sandwiches out of carts on the street because it was fast and easy. The "original" cheese from the 1920s or whenever it started was provolone, and among purists it is still the preferred cheese.

I'm almost positive I learned that on the History channel, because aside from seeing documentaries about Nazis who were involved in the Occult the best thing on there is history of food documentaries .

[Martin Hyde]

Also, it's always been a tradition that politicians get a cheesesteak in Philadelphia. Both Obama and Hillary passed up on it, though. Obama apparently sampled some $100/pound specialty ham.

I actually have far more respect for that. I'm assuming that Obama, having earned over $1m/year for awhile now from book sales and such probably had a decently refined palate in 2008. Anyone with a decently refined palette is probably just being patronizing when they go order some sandwich on nasty bread with nasty cheese made with crappy cuts of beef that is heavily diced and all thrown together.

[Chronos]

An ordinary schmo who didn't know how to order a cheesesteak, I'd think nothing of it. But the whole reason politicians do things like order cheesesteaks is to show how in tune they are with the local customs. Politicians have people in their campaign whose job it is to tell them how to order a proper cheesesteak and the like. Kerry ordering one with Swiss might not have been a big deal in itself, but it shows tremendous political ineptitude.

And for the record, I've never seen nor heard of a cheesesteak made with Velveeta, and I doubt most steak joints would even have it in the kitchen. American and Velveeta are not synonymous.

[amarone]

Originally Posted by Martin Hyde

Anyone with a decently refined palette is probably just being patronizing when they go order some sandwich on nasty bread with nasty cheese made with crappy cuts of beef that is heavily diced and all thrown together.

You left out "overcooked".

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

Originally Posted by Lamar Mundane

Since his parents are still alive, he technically hasn't "inherited" anything from them.

Where did you get that particular piece of information from?

[Fear Itself]

Originally Posted by Chronos

And for the record, I've never seen nor heard of a cheesesteak made with Velveeta, and I doubt most steak joints would even have it in the kitchen. American and Velveeta are not synonymous.

The most famous cheesesteaks are made with Cheez Whiz, which is just a spreadable form of Velveeta. Both are made by Kraft.

[Chronos]

Velveeta and Whiz are both highly-processed Kraft products, but that's about as far as the similarity goes. And besides, Frank, who brought it up, listed Whiz, Velveeta, and Provolone as the options. I'm not trying to be elitist here, incidentally: Whiz is certainly a standard choice for a steak, and it's just as "common" or whatever as Velveeta.

[BrainGlutton]

Mods, please move thread to Cafe Society.

[a35362]

I wonder if Romney eats arugula and drinks bottled water?

[Measure for Measure]

Originally Posted by a35362

I wonder if Romney eats arugula and drinks bottled water?

Romney is the embodiment of all the bogus claims flung at John Kerry back in 2008. Ironically.

You can't hang out with Romney: his small talk has a car salesman feel. He's a serial flip flopper. He's an out of touch elitist. He's a glad-handling robot without the warmth. Romney also has solid analytic skills and reportedly runs focused meetings. But he's not really running on the basis of his strengths, because the base doesn't want high fallutin' analysis of the nation's problems. Romney knows this: so for example he never found it necessary to bone up on his foreign policy, like GWBush did. He just practiced his talking points and applause lines.

[Simplicio]

He obviously needs to buy a ranch in Texas, ASAP.

[BobLibDem]

Originally Posted by Lamar Mundane

Since his parents are still alive, he technically hasn't "inherited" anything from them. That's not to say that they haven't set him up in his own cozy lifestyle, with money and property and a nice job.

No they aren't. Lenore Romney died in 1998, George in 1995.

[Little Nemo]

Originally Posted by Measure for Measure

Romney is the embodiment of all the bogus claims flung at John Kerry back in 2008. Ironically.

You can't hang out with Romney: his small talk has a car salesman feel. He's a serial flip flopper. He's an out of touch elitist. He's a glad-handling robot without the warmth.

And don't forget, he speaks French.

[jsgoddess]

Originally Posted by BobLibDem

No they aren't. Lenore Romney died in 1998, George in 1995.

Makes me wonder what Lamar Mundane knows and when he knew it!

[BigAppleBucky]

Mittford has a load of overseas stashes. That may be why we won't see his old tax returns.

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/2...shore-accounts

Even so, these provided a lavish smorgasbord for Romney’s critics. Particularly jarring were the Romneys’ many offshore accounts. As Newt Gingrich put it during the primary season, “I don’t know of any American president who has had a Swiss bank account.” But Romney has, as well as other interests in such tax havens as Bermuda and the Cayman Islands.

To give but one example, there is a Bermuda-based entity called Sankaty High Yield Asset Investors Ltd., which has been described in securities filings as “a Bermuda corporation wholly owned by W. Mitt Romney.” It could be that Sankaty is an old vehicle with little importance, but Romney appears to have treated it rather carefully. He set it up in 1997, then transferred it to his wife’s newly created blind trust on January 1, 2003, the day before he was inaugurated as Massachusetts’s governor. The director and president of this entity is R. Bradford Malt, the trustee of the blind trust and Romney’s personal lawyer. Romney failed to list this entity on several financial disclosures, even though such a closely held entity would not qualify as an “excepted investment fund” that would not need to be on his disclosure forms. He finally included it on his 2010 tax return. Even after examining that return, we have no idea what is in this company, but it could be valuable, meaning that it is possible Romney’s wealth is even greater than previous estimates. While the Romneys’ spokespeople insist that the couple has paid all the taxes required by law, investments in tax havens such as Bermuda raise many questions, because they are in “jurisdictions where there is virtually no tax and virtually no compliance,” as one Miami-based offshore lawyer put it.

**snip**

These, plus the mandatory financial disclosures filed with the Office of Government Ethics and released last August, raise many questions. A full 55 pages in his 2010 return are devoted to reporting his transactions with foreign entities. “What Romney does not get,” says Jack Blum, a veteran Washington lawyer and offshore expert, “is that this stuff is weird.”

The media soon noticed Romney’s familiarity with foreign tax havens. A $3 million Swiss bank account appeared in the 2010 returns, then winked out of existence in 2011 after the trustee closed it, as if to remind us of George Romney’s warning that one or two tax returns can provide a misleading picture. Ed Kleinbard, a professor of tax law at the University of Southern California, says the Swiss account “has political but not tax-policy resonance,” since it—like many other Romney investments—constituted a bet against the U.S. dollar, an odd thing for a presidential candidate to do. The Obama campaign provided a helpful world map pointing to the tax havens Bermuda, Luxembourg, and the Cayman Islands, where Romney and his family have assets, each with the tagline “Value: not disclosed in tax returns.”

************

***********

Willard's IRA is said to be worth $105,000,000. That's a heck of a sum considering the maximum contribution is $30,000 and he only worked for ten years. The guess is he stashed assets into the fund worth far more than $30K each year, the valuations being numbers he himself picked. Of course, he'll do his utmost to keep this all secret.

[CJJ*]

Originally Posted by BigAppleBucky

Willard's IRA is said to be worth $105,000,000. That's a heck of a sum considering the maximum contribution is $30,000 and he only worked for ten years. The guess is he stashed assets into the fund worth far more than $30K each year, the valuations being numbers he himself picked. Of course, he'll do his utmost to keep this all secret.

I also heard this figure. It seemed unbelievable, so even though I generally trust Vanity Fair I had to find out more. The Wall Street Journal reported on this last January and stated that Romney "has between $20.7 million and $101.6 million in it, a big chunk of his fortune":

Experts on estate planning said it is highly unusual to accumulate such a considerable sum in an IRA, an investment vehicle restricted by annual contribution limits. It appears that Mr. Romney's grew so large mostly because it holds investments in Bain Capital, the private-equity firm he helped start.

Under federal law, Mr. Romney isn't required to pay annual taxes on the account's investment gains, and the bulk of his contributions to the fund are likely to have been pretax dollars, IRA experts say. As such, the Romney IRA has enabled the current Republican front-runner to defer paying taxes on a sizable portion of his wealth—although he could face high tax bills when he eventually withdraws the money.

So, this is a tax deferment strategy. Any chance this "unfair" taxation of IRA's jumps to the top of his domestic agenda if he wins the election?

I also like the quote from a Romney aide who said the tax treatment for his IRA "is the same for Gov. Romney as it is for every citizen of the U.S." Someone once said that the law. This reminds me of something Anatole France once said: "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."