What would the reports have to contain to disqualify Romney?

[bengangmo]

I'm not American, but I've been following the debate about Romney's taxes with a fair amount of amusement.

I DON'T want to comment on whether he should, or should not release his taxes. Nor on what the Democrats would do with the info.

Rather, could we keep this very narrowly to the topic.

In your mind, just what would the returns have to contain to effectively disqualify Romney from the election?

A few stipulations here that I would make before starting
1. Let's assume that there is nothing outright illegal in the returns
2. Let's further assume, for the sake of not nitpicking to death (ala, he paid sales tax on a candy bar, so he did pay tax) that "zero taxes" means an effective tax rate below 5%

So what would it be? If he was shown to have used his political position to further his own business goals "unethically" (eg voted for Halliburton to be sole contractor for Iraq after buying their stock, buying Enron then signing an act for more drilling rights) would that do it?

Would a stupidly low tax rate do it?

How about investments that were seen as "unpatrtiotic" - would that be enough?

What do you think - just what would the returns need to contain to disqualify him?

[drewtwo99]

I'm not going to vote for Romney even if these tax returns are eventually released and it shows he paid more than Obama in taxes, so I can't really say what would disqualify him.

I think most Americans who are on the fence between Obama and Romney would be very sick if he actually paid less than 10% effective rate... I can't imagine him winning if he came out with returns that low.

But obviously I'm biased here so I can't really say.

[TriPolar]

I think if it were revealed that Romney had murdered and raped children, and he was arrested, tried, and convicted of those crimes before November, he would still receive a sizable portion of the vote. There are plenty of people who will not vote for Obama no matter what. For some of them, they will vote for anyone else.

[TonySinclair]

I wouldn't go as far as the other fellow (about being convicted of rape and murder), but I agree that probably at least 30% of voters will not be swayed by anything in the returns -- either they think that it's a fine thing to pay the very minimum in taxes legally possible; or they care more about, say, abortion; or they get all their news from Fox and Limbaugh, and will be led into believing this is all some kind of dirty trick.

Since close to half the voters are already going to vote for Obama, that just leaves 20% of mostly independents for whom it will make any difference. Not being one of them, I can only hope that aggressive use of foreign banks and tax shelters would be enough to make them think that Romney's cares more about his wealth than his country.

That said, I don't think we need to see Romney's returns. His extremely disingenuous pretense that he didn't know whether he had paid less than 13% in recent years, combined with reneging on his promise to look into it for ABC, is IMO really all we need to know. I would be amazed if he didn't have several years of single digit tax rates.

[Enkel]

Romney is already 'disqualified' for me personally for issues not related to his tax status.

Technically, if nominated, he wouldn't be disqualified unless it was found out that he was too young or not a natural citizen. I'm pretty sure the rape conviction wouldn't technically disqualify him and he would still get a certain amount of the votes (see statement above).

Things that I believe SHOULD disqualify him that could appear on his tax returns:

(a) Any current investment in Iranian Oil and other similar conflict of interest foreign investments. (he needs to release the rest of his 2010 return and ALL of his 2011 return as a minimum)

(b) Taking advantage of the Swiss bank account amnesty program (so, essentially he was a tax cheat and admitted it in order to get it straight without paying a penalty)

------------

There are plenty of other reasons that I think Romney is an embarrassing choice for POTUS, but they wouldn't show up on his tax return.

[BobLibDem]

It would be most damaging if his tax rate were < 5%. Also, some of the charitable contributions could be damaging- let's say he gave $10K to Planned Parenthood in 2002 or something, that would re-ignite the old flip-flop business. Or maybe some offshore accounts with some disreputable nations. I imagine heavy investments with the Syrians wouldn't play too well.

I echo the sentiment that there are X% (in my estimation 40%) who will vote for him even if he was revealed to be the Zodiac Killer. And there are maybe 45% who will vote against him even if he gave hundreds of millions of dollars to shelters for cute kittens and in his spare time found a cure for cancer. It's that 15% or so that haven't made their selection that would decide if what's in the returns is a dealbreaker.

[bengangmo]

A donation to Planned Parenthood would probably only be bad for his base - there are lots that would like it yes?

Personally, I think the conflict of interest is the most likely - combined with a very healthy dose of extremely low taxes and that amnesty.

I really really hope that there are multiple years of returns released before the election - if for nothing more than so I can point and laugh at him.

[BobLibDem]

Originally Posted by bengangmo

A donation to Planned Parenthood would probably only be bad for his base - there are lots that would like it yes?

Those who would be pleased with such a donation (like myself) aren't voting for him anyway. But there would be legions of right wingers who would cough up hairballs on hearing the news.

[TriPolar]

Originally Posted by bengangmo

A donation to Planned Parenthood would probably only be bad for his base - there are lots that would like it yes?

Not a problem for Romney. He'll just say he didn't make the donation. If it improves his polling he'll say he did make the donation and always was a strong supporter of Planned Parenthood. And he'll say he didn't say that he didn't make the donation. He really is a political guinness.

[drewtwo99]

Originally Posted by TriPolar

Not a problem for Romney. He'll just say he didn't make the donation. If it improves his polling he'll say he did make the donation and always was a strong supporter of Planned Parenthood. And he'll say he didn't say that he didn't make the donation. He really is a political guinness.

IOW, He retroactively didn't pay it until the polls showed it was popular.

[nogravity]

Originally Posted by TriPolar

He really is a political guinness.

I thought he wasn't allowed to drink Guinness.

[TriPolar]

Originally Posted by nogravity

I thought he wasn't allowed to drink Guinness.

I watched The 3 Stooges the other day. Couldn't help using it.

[Iggy]

Strictly speaking Enkel is correct in that technically a candidate could only be disqualified based upon failing to meet the constitutional requirements (natural born citizen, age, and years of residency) for the office of President.

Tax returns do not disclose specific investments, so there would be no detail on which stock(s) he purchased and when. However FBAR filings do contain greater level of detail on overseas accounts. (Filer has $X in account number Y in ACME Financial Institution in Foreign Country Z) The newly created FATCA requirements also delve into overseas account information.

Similarly I don't recall tax returns requiring disclosing to which charity(s) donations were made. Of course Romney would need the paperwork to back it up if he was audited.

[kaylasdad99]

They would have to contain proof that he is not a natural born citizen.

Or that he's not thirty-five years old yet.

Unaccountably, the fact that he's a Republican, even if it was in the reports, would not be sufficient to do the job. That's very odd. That goes beyond odd, in fact. It just ain't right.

[Measure for Measure]

Originally Posted by bengangmo

In your mind, just what would the returns have to contain to effectively disqualify Romney from the election?

I'm not sure I understand. Are you asking what would make Romney unelectable? Or are you asking what I personally might find unacceptable? I assume you're not asking a constitutional question.

[Johnny Bravo]

Yes, the OP means to ask what would be damning enough to ruin his chances of either election or getting the GOP nomination - not what would legally disqualify him from the race.

[Little Nemo]

As others have said, there's not going to be anything in his returns that will actually disqualify him.

What might be in his returns that would cost him votes would be proof that he paid a small enough amount in taxes that it shocked or upset voters.

[bengangmo]

Sorry -

I should have been more careful.

I didn't mean disqualify in terms of legally preclude, more like make such a bad impression that for all intents and purposes the election became unwinnable, OR so bad that he lost the nomination.

[gamerunknown]

I don't think there's any tax avoidance or even evasion that'd put off his voters. For those to whom taxes are an insurmountable burden on the magnanimous man, any scheme is justified in not paying them. The deficit is just a rallying cry for cutting government programs, if they actually considered it an obstacle they'd consider raising taxes. Their real concern is dismantling government in order that they more effectively study transactions, without any remnants of concern for the poor.

To be fair, there's an analogue in the drug legalisation camp. If one is unconcerned with personal drug consumption, the revelation that a candidate in favour of legalisation broke the law in order to consume drugs isn't going to be a deterrent.

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

All they need to do is tell the truth: once the public realizes how little Romney has been able to pay legally, he will lose the vote of some independent voters who would otherwise have voted for him. Game over.

[JKellyMap]

Which seems silly, because it wouldn't be about Romney personally, it would just happen to be the method by which some people learn about the unfairness of existing tax laws.

It's like shooting the messenger, really.

(I'm an Obama supporter, BTW.)

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

Not silly at all. You know how we talk all the time about poor people voting against their own best interests? Well, this will put a face on that abstract concept. "You want THIS fabulously wealthy guy to pay no taxes while you have to cut corners? Really? Or would you rather vote for someone who wants to lower yours and raise his?"

[Enginerd]

Originally Posted by JKellyMap

Which seems silly, because it wouldn't be about Romney personally, it would just happen to be the method by which some people learn about the unfairness of existing tax laws.

It's like shooting the messenger, really.

(I'm an Obama supporter, BTW.)

It's not shooting the messenger as much as it's exposing the message as bullshit. The GOP's tax policy (and, coincidentally, Romney's current stance) is all about how onerous taxes are, especially on the rich who create jobs. If it turns out that Romney's taxes are less onerous than the average voter's (percentage-wise, of course), that message is going to be a tough sell.

[septimus]

Many Romney supporters believe taxes are evil and it is pro-American to evade them. As a Job Creator, the more money he can acquire by cheating, the more Jobs he can create. What's not to like?

In Thailand, obvious criminals get good political support. I've had middle-class Thais patiently explain to me that they want smart leaders ... and who's smarter than a wealthy criminal? U.S. is slow to learn, but may be catching on to what Thailand has known for some time.

Originally Posted by Iggy

Tax returns do not disclose specific investments, so there would be no detail on which stock(s) he purchased and when...

Is this true? When I fill out Form 1040, I follow the instructions and list, on Schedule D, every stock I sold that year. I'm not saying you're wrong -- I've long been aware that U.S. income-tax rules for those who follow the instructions are quite different from the rules for those with expensive accountants and lawyers.

[TriPolar]

Originally Posted by septimus

Is this true? When I fill out Form 1040, I follow the instructions and list, on Schedule D, every stock I sold that year. I'm not saying you're wrong -- I've long been aware that U.S. income-tax rules for those who follow the instructions are quite different from the rules for those with expensive accountants and lawyers.

If he releases anything, I doubt it will include that level of detail even if it's available.

[bengangmo]

Originally Posted by septimus

Is this true? When I fill out Form 1040, I follow the instructions and list, on Schedule D, every stock I sold that year. I'm not saying you're wrong -- I've long been aware that U.S. income-tax rules for those who follow the instructions are quite different from the rules for those with expensive accountants and lawyers.

In all honesty, I wouldn't be surprised if Romney was quite literally unable to provide a complete break down of what stocks he bought when, how much he paid and when he sold them. (I'm just a poor plebeian - would such a break down be provided by a brokerage house?) That must be thousands of trades in a year for someone of his wealth - would it really be expected that he detail each and every one?

[aruvqan]

Originally Posted by bengangmo

In all honesty, I wouldn't be surprised if Romney was quite literally unable to provide a complete break down of what stocks he bought when, how much he paid and when he sold them. (I'm just a poor plebeian - would such a break down be provided by a brokerage house?) That must be thousands of trades in a year for someone of his wealth - would it really be expected that he detail each and every one?

If he [or his business manager] *doesn't* actually KNOW what he has purchased or sold, they are fucking morons. If you don't know what your assets are, you can get ripped off without realizing it. There will be records at least in the brokerage houses of his purchases and sales.

Think of it as handing your ATM card off to someone. Would you or would you not at least require that they give you all the receipts from purchases and withdrawals/deposits? Or would you figure that they won't cheat you?

[bengangmo]

Originally Posted by aruvqan

If he [or his business manager] *doesn't* actually KNOW what he has purchased or sold, they are fucking morons. If you don't know what your assets are, you can get ripped off without realizing it. There will be records at least in the brokerage houses of his purchases and sales.

Think of it as handing your ATM card off to someone. Would you or would you not at least require that they give you all the receipts from purchases and withdrawals/deposits? Or would you figure that they won't cheat you?

I hear you, and I totally would -

BUT if you asked me to compile all of my credit card, ATM and Debit Card transactions for a year, it would be a mammoth task (and my bank does aggregate some ATM transactions) - and while it is technically feasible to do so, it wouldn't be something I'd care to try.

I'm just thinking that with somebody of that wealth, I'd kinda expect that there must be quite literally thousands of transactions that need to be compiled and listed. I'll admit upfront I don't know what sorts of reports his broker is providing, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if some level of detail were lost due to the volume, and there was some aggregrating going on.

[Enkel]

Originally Posted by bengangmo

In all honesty, I wouldn't be surprised if Romney was quite literally unable to provide a complete break down of what stocks he bought when, how much he paid and when he sold them. (I'm just a poor plebeian - would such a break down be provided by a brokerage house?) That must be thousands of trades in a year for someone of his wealth - would it really be expected that he detail each and every one?

All of his sales or trades have to be reported. Brokerage houses provide a 1099-B at the end of the year and then his accountant has to provide the details of the rest of his transactions that weren't covered in the 1099-B.

Since the invention of computers, this sort of reporting is really quite easy, even if the transactions number into the thousands.

The other aspect is that Romney hasn't released his 2010 Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts attachment (oops, he must've forgot).... that would list more than has already been disclosed through the part of the 2010 tax return that he did release. ( description here: http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/...148849,00.html )

[dalej42]

I still wonder if the main issue might be how little of his money he's actually tithed to the LDS church over the years.

I'd imagine Romney is held in extremely high regard in the LDS church. Also, if it turns out that he's tithing far less than 10 percent, that could send the message to the average person who really struggles with that tithe, that if the billionaire doesn't find it necessary to make the tithe, why on earth should the guy making $30,000

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

Originally Posted by bengangmo

if you asked me to compile all of my credit card, ATM and Debit Card transactions for a year, it would be a mammoth task (and my bank does aggregate some ATM transactions) - and while it is technically feasible to do so, it wouldn't be something I'd care to try.

I'm just thinking that with somebody of that wealth, I'd kinda expect that there must be quite literally thousands of transactions that need to be compiled and listed. I'll admit upfront I don't know what sorts of reports his broker is providing, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if some level of detail were lost due to the volume, and there was some aggregrating going on.

The incredible naivete of this post represents Romney's only chance of somehow getting through the PR disaster of his unreleased tax returns.

It's absurd, almost literally unthinkable, that Romney doesn't know and can't easily provide an accounting of his every penny in bank accounts, the stock market, and elsewhere on a daily if not hourly basis.

But if there are enough impossibly naive voters like Bengangmo reasoning, "Well, if I can't list my holdings, then how can Romney, commanding a financial empire, do it?", then maybe he'll get away with this shit.

Never underestimate the stupidity of the American public....

[bengangmo]

Originally Posted by pseudotriton ruber ruber

The incredible naivete of this post represents Romney's only chance of somehow getting through the PR disaster of his unreleased tax returns.

It's absurd, almost literally unthinkable, that Romney doesn't know and can't easily provide an accounting of his every penny in bank accounts, the stock market, and elsewhere on a daily if not hourly basis.

But if there are enough impossibly naive voters like Bengangmo reasoning, "Well, if I can't list my holdings, then how can Romney, commanding a financial empire, do it?", then maybe he'll get away with this shit.

Never underestimate the stupidity of the American public....

I'm not so sure how to take this post.

But do take note, that were I American, Romney would not have my vote. He would have lost it long long long ago. I think his taxes stink, but he hasn't done anything illegal.

My ferverent hope is that, one way or another multiple years of his returns are released that damage him enough to lose embarassingly.

I would love to see the political theatre that would attach to him failing to secure the nomination, but I wonder if that is going a little too far.

[Enkel]

Originally Posted by pseudotriton ruber ruber

But if there are enough impossibly naive voters like Bengangmo reasoning, "Well, if I can't list my holdings, then how can Romney, commanding a financial empire, do it?", then maybe he'll get away with this shit.

Never underestimate the stupidity of the American public....

There are about 30% of voters who would vote for Mitt even if they came home to find him having sex with their dog in the middle of the living room. I'm not sure if it is stupidity or just a rigid ideology that Obama just does not fit into. To me, bigotry would be a more accurate term.

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

Originally Posted by Enkel

There are about 30% of voters who would vote for Mitt even if they came home to find him having sex with their dog in the middle of the living room.

Not on the roof of their car?

[RickJay]

Originally Posted by pseudotriton ruber ruber

Not silly at all. You know how we talk all the time about poor people voting against their own best interests? Well, this will put a face on that abstract concept. "You want THIS fabulously wealthy guy to pay no taxes while you have to cut corners? Really? Or would you rather vote for someone who wants to lower yours and raise his?"

But Republican voters don't respond to that.

If it turns out Romney paid a ludicrously low amount of tax, half the USA will say "Good for him" or "Well, the rules are the rules, and he followed them" or whatever.

Frankly, the whole thing is a ridiculous sideshow.

[babygoat666]

Originally Posted by RickJay

But Republican voters don't respond to that.

If it turns out Romney paid a ludicrously low amount of tax, half the USA will say "Good for him" or "Well, the rules are the rules, and he followed them" or whatever.

Frankly, the whole thing is a ridiculous sideshow.

Republican voters might not respond to it, but some "low-information" voters might. Let people see "trickle-down economics" for the bullshit it is.

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

Yes, Republican voters are going to vote for Romney no matter what. (Well, those who aren't too hateful towards Mormons or former Massachusetts liberals as a group will, anyway.) But perhaps some independents will be disgusted by his epitomizing the 1% and proposing their future tax relief. It's a wedge, though admittedly of a select few, those middle-class independents actually willing to think about their own interests.

[foolsguinea]

Originally Posted by Enkel

There are about 30% of voters who would vote for Mitt even if they came home to find him having sex with their dog in the middle of the living room. I'm not sure if it is stupidity or just a rigid ideology that Obama just does not fit into. To me, bigotry would be a more accurate term.

Let's test this.

[Folacin]

Originally Posted by Enkel

There are about 30% of voters who would vote for Mitt even if they came home to find him having sex with their dog in the middle of the living room. I'm not sure if it is stupidity or just a rigid ideology that Obama just does not fit into. To me, bigotry would be a more accurate term.

I'm not disagreeing with this - but there is an equal percentage of voters who would still support Obama, even if it turned out he was a Kenyan-born goat felcher.

[Enkel]

Originally Posted by Folacin

I'm not disagreeing with this - but there is an equal percentage of voters who would still support Obama, even if it turned out he was a Kenyan-born goat felcher.

The topic of this thread is "What would the reports have to contain to disqualify Romney?" So, I'm not sure how your comment applies

[Enkel]

Originally Posted by foolsguinea

Let's test this.

I'll leave it up to you to propose the 'test' to his campaign staff. At this point, they might actually advise him to at least attempt it.

[jtgain]

I think that if it were shown that he took advantage of the Swiss Bank Account amnesty that he would not receive the GOP nomination at the convention. Enough arm-twisting would make him step aside for "personal reasons."

[ElvisL1ves]

Well, then, who else they got? The runner up was Santorum. Are they gonna nominate him instead?

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves

Well, then, who else they got? The runner up was Santorum. Are they gonna nominate him instead?

I honestly believe that if photos turn up of Romney with santorum all over him in a porno movie with the family dog, Republicans will try to balls it out.

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

So to speak.

[Zakalwe]

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves

Well, then, who else they got? The runner up was Santorum. Are they gonna nominate him instead?

It's just the break the McCain campaign has been waiting for!

[Enkel]

Originally Posted by Zakalwe

It's just the break the McCain campaign has been waiting for!

I wonder how a McCain/Palin repeat or a Santorum/Ron Paul ticket would do.
I never would have thought that a McCain/Palin repeat would sound NOT totally crazy?