What’s the standard in Canada for the Prime Minister or elected officials? No income tax disclosure? inquiring minds want to know.
I don’t believe Canada has any disclosure laws of this sort. At least I don’t remember it being an issue in any recent elections, and a quick Google search turned up nothing.
I haven’t been around the Dope for that long. Doubt I’ve posted anything about Birthers.
For the record, the only thing I could offer to prove the circumstances of my birth is a state issued birth certificate provided by the competent state authority in charge of maintaining and attesting to the validity of those records… kinda like Obama. How the hell else could he or I “prove” it?
People complaining this is a “distraction” or “dirty scoundrel politics” are ignoring the fact that in reality, this is the CRUX of this election cycle.
This recession has seen many people loose money on homes, loose jobs, pentions, benifits, 401K
ect, while some have gotten even more wealthy: namely CEO’s and upper management.
It’s looking more and more like the system is gamed for a privileged few. And Romeny is looking like their poster boy.
The age of information isn’t going to be the friend of those who are gaming the system. Deductions and loopholes, off shore accounts, are the tools used. Exposing this “process” could help save our economy.
Didn’t we have the same go-around with Obama and his college records and birth certificate?
Really. I’d expect better from the Obama campaign.
If you want to get angry about the tax code, don’t blame it on Romney.
The crux of this election cycle is the incumbent’s performance in office.
And the issue you bring up is one that could be fixed by tax reform. and I blame democrats for ruining the last tax reform. Every time they raise rates, they also add loopholes. And then act outraged that a Republcian rich guy takes advantage of the loopholes meant for Democratic Congressmen and their political allies.
Oh right like Republicans aren’t responsible for any of the loop holes in our tax code.
And another speculator throws his hat in the ring…
They certainly are. But in 1986, both parties committed to tax reform. It was very successful. Then in 1993, Democrats and Bill Clinton recomplicated the tax code, which increased calls for more loopholes. Tax rates go up, everyone who gets hit calls their Congressman and makes the case for why they deserve to be exempt. And congressmen of course don’t want to pay higher taxes, so putting exemptions in for investment income is a no-brainer for them.
Information on wealthy investment capitolist’s tax returns, especially information that clearly illustrates how they find ways to minimize their tax obligations, isn’t availabe to the average Joe.
It’s not, “don’t like it? Change it”, because it’d be hard to know what financial gymnastics they take advantage of when we’re never allowed a glimps into their ‘oh so private’ affairs.
A man’s running for president and he’s too…ashamed…to lay it out on the table. Says it’s all too complicated for us to understand and we’ll take it the wrong way.
FWIW, Obama, as a Senator and now President, has had more to do with controlling what is in the tax code than Romney has.
The IRS code is, IMHO, confusing at best. All I can expect from any citizen is an honest effort to comply. But when a taxpayer tries to understand the rules and even gets conflicting advice directly from the IRS (my personal experience) then it says more about the system than the taxpayer.
Unfortunately the tax code is so complex that I think some people may choose to pay more than they really owe rather than go to the time and effort to wade through the regulations and document their deductions. It just doesn’t make sense for a small business owner to pay an accountant $7000 to save $2000 in tax.
With more on the line the wealthier people may be able to justify paying that accountant.
Who knew the tax code allows a wealthy guy like Romney would only be paying 13%? And not just for one year but year after year, and at the same time accumulate close to half a billion?
Let’s compare: We’ll call the Koch brothers, and the Walmart airs, and a couple of dozen other millionaires that pay 13% or less in taxes and have them show us just what loopholes and deductions enabled them to pay such a low rate. Then if any unethical, unjustifiable, or unprincipled
deductions/loopholes/manuvers are glaring they can be rectified. Yea, right.
Face it, the only reason we know diddly about Romney’s ‘special low tax rate’ is because of the transparency required to be president. If the millionaire president can manuver deductions and loopholes and pay 13%, you know ALL of them are. And Romney’s whole premise is that the poor are parasites sucking on the teat of the rich.
I don’t follow your train of logic. If I think the tax code sucks and serves only to funnel money away from working and poor people to the Rich, why would I NOT be angry at Romney for taking advantage of a broken system, who has proposed a series of tax cuts to save himself EIGHTEEN MILLION DOLLARS from going to our cash-strapped government?!? 
He didn’t break the system, but he’s glad it’s broken because he’s personally profiting from it, and he will fight for that status quo. Why the FUCK wouldn’t we take it out on Romney at the ballot box???
The US doesn’t have disclosure laws either. But it has been accepted practice since the time Romney’s father ran for president - a father who released his tax returns before it became common.
I don’t buy that the reason is Obama would dribble out deductions. The return he did release disclosed a deduction for the horse, but that story didn’t have legs, and just resulted in a few jokes. (I wish I knew how to deduct a horse when I owned one.) It would wind up hurting Obama, and the story would get old really fast.
Among other things in there is how he managed to get millions of bucks in his IRA, something with strict limits on deposits. There are plenty of legal things in US tax law which smell to high heaven, especially when applied to someone complaining the rich pay too much.
Romney’s economic plan involves more tax cuts for the rich to be paid for by closing loopholes which he refuses to identify. If he were an honest, successful businessman perhaps people would trust him, but if he were a slimy businessman people would tend not to. Plus, I think he is definitely smart enough to know that the Republican economic plan is crap. He never comes across as really believing in it. I’ve had the misfortune of having to make some sales pitches when there was a big hole in the product I had to work around. He sounds just like that.
I would take it out on those who put the loopholes into the law. But that is just me.
And since Romney has never been in Congress or held the Presidency then he was no more responsible for the existance of the loopholes in the tax code than anyone else.
He wasn’t responsible for tax policy and responsible citizens should ensure he never is.
Oh, his hypocrisy goes much deeper than that. Maddow had more on this Friday night.
When Romney was running for governor of MA in 2002, his three Democratic opponents released their tax returns (multiple years’ worth), even before one of them became the nominee. Romney did not.
Eric Fehrnstrom, a name Dopers should admire because it has six consonants in a row, is one of Romney’s top advisors. He went on Fox News this week to play the McCarthy card, asking Harry Reid, “Have you no decency, sir?”
But in 2002, after all his Democratic opponents for governor released their tax returns and he did not, Romney demanded in a televised debate that Shannon O’Brien (by then the nominee) release her HUSBAND’s tax returns. And this same Eric Fehrnstrom, who in 2002 was Romney’s deputy campaign manager, elaborated for the press:
“Her hands aren’t clean. She can’t claim to be disclosing anything until she discloses the returns of her husband…
WHAT IS SHE HIDING?”
People in this very thread have argued that Romney may not want to release his returns for family privacy reasons. His children are adults, so presumably family privacy means the privacy of his wife. But in 2002, Romney was demanding that his opponent release her husband’s tax returns, even while refusing to release his own (and he never did).
Bonus: Eric Fehrnstrom was also the guy who, in 2002, assured the MA voters that there was no truth to the charges that Romney had not filed his taxes as a MA resident. He was lying. He is now the guy who is assuring the public that there is no truth to Reid’s claims.
I think this is going to stick.
It’s his accountants’ job to make sure he pays as less as possible in the most legal way possible. We’d all do the same thing if we had a billion dollars. Hell, we do it without a billion dollars…this is what TurboTax is for.
You don’t have to see his tax returns to have a reason to vote for Obama. You already know where he stands on the issue.
edit: If Obama had a billion dollars, you guys would be citing his right to privacy.
.
There is no right to privacy. For anyone. This isn’t about legal rights–Romney is perfectly to run on a platform of “I won’t tell you a damn thing about me, other than I’m not my opponent.”
Disclosing anything–one’s policies, one’s background, one’s religion, one’s birth certificate, one’s tax returns–is simply a matter of whether the public needs to know about it to vote for you, or whether they’re okay not knowing. It’s simple risk-assessment.
Personally, I hope Romney clings to his pathetic “You people have no right to pry into my business dealings” defense. That can become the central issue in this campaign, more prominent than the current economy.
You are mistaken. Rich people are not all the same. Warren Buffet wants to help the country by raising taxes for the rich. Mitt Romney wants to cut taxes for the rich, and pay for it by eliminating several popular deductions for the middle class.
I honestly don’t understand how people can think it’s more important that they have $101 million in the bank instead of $100 million, than that poor Americans can have decent health care. There is not a chance in hell that Romney will ever be down to his last million. There is an excellent chance that being able to get some simple screening tests will save many lives.