The sole topic of conversation in an election can’t be how the incumbent is doing, well or poorly. Because we’re not just voting whether to keep one guy, we’re voting on which of two guys we want. Even if Romney could prove that Obama’s terrible, it wouldn’t be enough, since he needs to also prove that he wouldn’t be even worse. And if he doesn’t want to prove anything about himself, what does that tell us?
[QUOTE= Little Nemo]
Seriously, when you find yourself being more secretive than Nixon, it should be a wake-up call
[/QUOTE]
Can you imagine if Romney were to give a “Seamus” speech at the convention? Itemizing everything he owes, everything he owns, and closing defiantly with “And we also have an Irish Setter that was given to us by a contributor, that my kids love, called Seamus, and we’re NOT giving that dog back no matter what–what, Ann? I did? Really? No shit. Man I must have been shitfaced-drunk…”
Aside:
The words is “ducats”, as in “O my daughter! O my ducats!”. It’s an old Italian unit of money.
Ya know, that’s one of those things I tend to look up but got lazy. This. One. Time. 
(not that I don’t have atroshus spellign otherwise)
Remember, if the Democrats are the party of envy, the Republicans are the party of jealousy.
Wealth envy and jealousy always plays. I pointed out earlier that there was a lot of sniping at Kerry over his wife’s wealth. Arriana Huffington had her ass handed to her over her “zero tax year” when running for office. This isn’t a republican thing or a democrat thing, its a human nature thing. And while we strive for “fairness” in our tax code, there are a lot of opinions on what is fair - that isn’t new either. Which is why I think this is a failure of strategic planning. Maybe this year tax rates on the wealthy are more front and center, but I really don’t think its significantly so. We’ve been talking tax rates on the wealthy since Reagan, if not before. This isn’t a new point of contention between parties. Nor is releasing tax records a new issue for candidates.
The thing is we’re a democracy. People like Sam can complain about it but if populism and wealth envy play then it’s an issue that should be addressed. The people who support tax cuts for the wealthy need to step up and explain why they’re a good thing for them to pay less taxes than the middle class. If the Republican plan of favoring the wealthy is a good plan then the Republicans should bring it out into the open and sell it on its merits. Then people like Romney wouldn’t need to hide their tax records.
The alternative is that the Republicans can’t make this case. Their tax cuts benefit the wealthy at the expense of the rest of us. And if that’s the case, then the rest of us are fully justified in using democracy to vote for an end to those tax cuts.
But I can’t see any argument that claims our tax policy is right but it needs to be hidden from public view.
About the same way it works for my charitable trust, I suppose, though I have no special knowledge of how Romney’s finances are set up.
My trust has income. Some years taxes are paid by the trust, depending upon investment performance. If investment losses exceed gains then there may be no income to tax for the trust. The trust donates a considerable part of its income. In years when there has been a loss for the trust then principle is paid out to support the trust’s charitable goals. In layman’s speak I consider those donations to be donations I made (though technically that is not quite correct).
YMMV. Consult your financial planner. This does not constitute advice. Do not fold, spindle or mutilate. Investments incur the risk of loss. You may lose your principle and your mind.
That really doesn’t fly, Sam. First of all, he didn’t release his taxes during the primaries, before he was directly engaged with Obama. If he’d done it 8 months ago, they’d be old news by now. Second, by not releasing ten year’s of returns, he’s rejecting the sound bite of “doing what his father did for the sake of integrity and openness in politics”. That’s not an opportunity a campaign strategist would turn down unless there’s something pretty toxic in one of those ten years. The damage that Romney is taking by not releasing the taxes is far worse than if he’d just been taking uncontroversial deductions.
Given that Romney turned down the chance to just release five years of taxes with no further questions from the Obama campaign (which to me, sounds an awful lot like a note slipped under the door saying “I know what you did last summer”), I’m gonna have to go with the tax amnesty guess.
Romney has released his 2010 tax return. It has been out there since January 2012. Romney’s 2010 return in PDF, big 203 page file
He filed a form 1116 Foreign Tax Credit, which is filed when an individual, estate, or trust has paid income tax to a foreign government. It allows the taxpayer to offset his/her US taxes in the amount of taxes paid to a foreign government, within limits. Those limits are the key.
That is a math formula. If US tax liability is zero then so is the foreign tax credit.
Foreign Tax Credit = US Tax Liab X (Taxable foreign income )
(----------------------------------)
(Taxable US + taxable foreign income)
With his 2010 IRS forms Romney filed a supplement to his form 1116 which detailed the amount of foreign tax paid on his passive income each year from 2000 to 2010 and showing these payments were not carried back or forward (excepting 2008 year) - they were used in the year the foreign tax was paid. (Starts at page 165 of the above linked PDF)
**Year Credit**
2000 $ 31,838
2001 $ 25,771
2002 $ 28,875
2003 $ 11,173
2004 $ 87,550
2005 $333,149
2006 $276,386
2007 $275,488
2008 $151,015
2009 $ 62,524
2010 $ 67,173
Ergo, he had US tax liability each year from 2000 through 2010. His financials were not structured to eliminate all taxes owed.
His tax preparer at Price Waterhouse was pretty thorough though he didn’t take a deductionfor health insurance premiums paid by those with self employment income. Might could have saved another $5,000 but that would depend on some particular details. Oh well, that’s $5 grand more in the Treasury.
Just noticed that the percents given in this poll are way off – the total is about 149%!
People can vote for more than one item on the list.
If his investments earned nothing in one year, then it wouldn’t be income and he would have a larger portion of his income subject to the 35% rate.
You realize that he isn’t the first candidate that has been asked to produce tax returns, right?
Didn’t Obama offer to drop all demands for more tax returns if Romney produced the last 5 years?
We have SOME information about his taxes, he did release two (more or less).
Then why hide it?
You make it sound like Obama was on food stamps.
What do the simple folk do?
To help them to keep what is due?
To block a vexing error
They hire a tax peparer
And thats!
What simple folk doooooo…
I voted “paid less than 13%” and “other”. The “other” is that a person with a complicated tax return will almost certainly have some things in his return that look like tax dodges and shenanigans as China Guy suggests.
I voted “other”. Like a couple of people who posted before, I think 2010 is too glaring of a cut off. It points to the 2009 tax amnesty being the embarrassment he wants to hide. I don’t think that I’ve heard of him denying taking it, either. So it seems like a good fit. I’ve been known to be absolutely wrong about politics in the past, though.
This is what I’m betting on, especially when he promised to release more info in October.
Well, he’ll frame it that way, even if the returns show he should be indicted for blatant tax fraud.
I like the argument that this mega-issue shows his poor skills at long-range problem-solving, which I think are crucial in a POTUS. If you can’t figure out that your tax returns are a potential fire-storm when you’re just starting to think about a serious run for POTUS (2005? 2006, maybe?), then maybe you’re not equipped to make long-range decisions for the nation? I’m just saying.
That’s where I’ve been wondering how much it would have cost him to cleanse his tax returns starting in 2004 or 2005 (assuming he started a couple years before the Mcain primaries and never left the idea behind).
By “cleanse,” I mean pull anything in from offshore, etc., to make it as 'Merican as possible and not look like he’s gaming the system. Where that line is is up to you (the proverbial you) to decide.
Are there even back-of-the-envelope guesses out there? Five million a year? Ten? Just a million (heh, “just”)?
I’m curious how the Bain Capitol stuff washes out. I have no doubt it’s all within the law, but this is precisely the sort of tax strategy that should be at issue in this election. Should this sort of tax offset be legal? This is precisely why Romneys taxes are an issue. If we are going to discuss the countries debt, then the countries revenue is as relevant as spending.