Tax returns are a deal breaker

[nathanm]

One man's returns are not a discussion of tax policy, it is a witch hunt.

You just said you don't think he's done anything wrong. Why would it be a witch hunt? Hell, if he only wants to release the returns filed more than 3 years ago so he can ensure that even if he did do something illegal he can't be prosecuted, that would serve the public good just as much. The problem with discussing the tax code in the abstract is that we do not know much about how it is used and abused by those who have the money to hire excellent tax attorneys and accountants, thanks to the (proven very necessary by Nixon) tax secrecy laws.

[Hoss]

You just said you don't think he's done anything wrong. Why would it be a witch hunt? Hell, if he only wants to release the returns filed more than 3 years ago so he can ensure that even if he did do something illegal he can't be prosecuted, that would serve the public good just as much. The problem with discussing the tax code in the abstract is that we do not know much about how it is used and abused by those who have the money to hire excellent tax attorneys and accountants, thanks to the (proven very necessary by Nixon) tax secrecy laws.

AND, the fact that he, so far, is the only known US Presidential candidate (I believe I heard this on the news so I can't directly cite it) to have offshore bank accounts to give the appearance of sheltering it from taxes.

Again, like many, I don't care if he did or didn't shelter it.  What's the harm in releasing the tax returns if you've done nothing illegal?

It's kind of like a child...holding his breath.

[Red Arrow]

You just said you don't think he's done anything wrong. Why would it be a witch hunt?

Even though you won't find anything you just have to try anyway.  You appear to think there is a deep dark secret there.  I'm not so sure you don't believe he is a cheat.  There is no other reason to be so adamant about releasing the returns.  Tax law is there for all to see. 

[Red Arrow]

What's the harm in releasing the tax returns if you've done nothing illegal?

The harm is in the distraction from real issues by having to defend every line of every tax return for however many years he would release.  I would say it's pretty clever of the Obama regime but it is really pretty straight forward diversion.

[Hoss]

The harm is in the distraction from real issues by having to defend every line of every tax return for however many years he would release.  I would say it's pretty clever of the Obama regime but it is really pretty straight forward diversion.

If some of your own party during the primaries asked the same question, how do you respond to that?  Was it a diversion?  Because party-mates did it that somehow makes it OK?

This issue will dog Romney until he takes care of it.  One way or the other.

The issue here is getting a candidate who appears out of touch with mainstream (read "middle class") America with some of his financial dealings.  How can you proclaim to be an advocate of the common man when you go around on debates asking a fellow debater to bet him $10,000 on a point he thinks he's in the right on?

[Conan71]

I'm not saying one way or the other.  Did he?  Do his academic credentials make as much difference as a man who says a businessman is good for the country and won't release his tax forms?  Especially if his fellow Republicans asked him to do so as well?

Do I care if he releases them?  No.  But if he doesn't when our sitting President has released 12 years, then what is one to think?  Oh, unless one is a registered (R).

We saw what happened last time we picked a businessman, right?  The same businessman who refused to release his military record.

Once again, my point proven.

The other ten years you want to see are nothing more than a dart board for his opponents to say "He's too rich! He's too rich!"

Nothing more, nothing less.  His returns will look the same for the additional ten years as the 2010 and 2011, he's a retired investor.

But, hey, it's something shiny to keep voters eyes and minds off the real issues.  Four years later, it's still the economy.  I'll take the businessman from Boston over the chump changer from Chicago.

[Conan71]

I'm not saying one way or the other.  Did he?  Do his academic credentials make as much difference as a man who says a businessman is good for the country and won't release his tax forms?  Especially if his fellow Republicans asked him to do so as well?

Do I care if he releases them?  No.  But if he doesn't when our sitting President has released 12 years, then what is one to think?  Oh, unless one is a registered (R).

We saw what happened last time we picked a businessman, right?  The same businessman who refused to release his military record.

Once again, my point proven.

The other ten years you want to see are nothing more than a dart board for his opponents to say "He's too rich! He's too rich!"

Nothing more, nothing less.  His returns will look the same for the additional ten years as the 2010 and 2011, he's a retired investor.

But, hey, it's something shiny to keep voters eyes and minds off the real issues.  Four years later, the real issue is still the economy, only Obama doesn't want people to think about that- just be complacent with the lump of coal you've been dealt.  I'll take the businessman from Boston over the chump changer from Chicago.

[Hoss]

The other ten years you want to see are nothing more than a dart board for his opponents to say "He's too rich! He's too rich!"

Nothing more, nothing less.  His returns will look the same for the additional ten years as the 2010 and 2011, he's a retired investor.

But, hey, it's something shiny to keep voters eyes and minds off the real issues.  Four years later, it's still the economy.  I'll take the businessman from Boston over the chump changer from Chicago.

And that's your prerogative do to so.  But Willard seems to be holding his breath here on this issue.  You'd have to concede that it's a point that is not going away.  As much as the Republicans would like it to.

Sucks when the Dems do this, eh?

How about all that stuff in 08 about Rev. Wright?  Ayres?  Birtherism?

I've been saying now for 13 years or more the Dems have needed to grow a pair when it comes to Presidential campaigning.  Now that they have the Republicans wail like girls with skinned knees on the playground.

Sorry, but that's politics now.

[nathanm]

Even though you won't find anything you just have to try anyway.  You appear to think there is a deep dark secret there.  I'm not so sure you don't believe he is a cheat.  There is no other reason to be so adamant about releasing the returns.  Tax law is there for all to see. 

Tax law is. The interpretations used by tax lawyers are not. The returns would be illustrative of the latter. There is a deep dark secret, but it's not necessarily illegal. The deep dark secret is how the tax code operates for the very rich.  Loopholes aren't written into the text of the tax code as such, they are subtle gaps in its operation, so your suggestion that it's there for all to see is either disingenuous or ignorant. If you'd like to stick your head in the sand, be my guest.  As I said before, I don't really care what Romney did, I just want to know so that we can get some sense of the problem that is the tax code. And as I said before, if he doesn't want to release anything filed after 8/7/2009, that would be quite fine by me.

Conan, the real issue is governance. It is awful, partly because of hidden areas of the law like this. The economy is being hobbled by our shitty governance and will continue to be until we get the stick out of our donkey and stop letting people bribe politicians. It would be nice to know exactly what we're dealing with so that it can be dealt with. As it is all we have to go on is partisan sniping, innuendo, and marginally useful tax statistics.

If Romney wants to build support for his tax plan, such as it is, he needs to show how it would affect him. We can look at our own returns and see how it would affect us. This is important to know because his plan seems to be to eliminate deductions and lower rates. We need to know how much revenue loss we're actually talking about. An example would be very handy to that end. It would be awesome if Romney would come out and challenge other people in his income cohort to release their returns so that we could have this important discussion about the tax code. It's not as if taxation isn't an issue in the campaign. Both candidates propose to change the existing system. Obama by permanently reducing the income tax rates for upper-middle to lower income people, and Romney by radically changing the tax code. The onus is on him to show how it would affect us all, but he hasn't.

[Red Arrow]

so your suggestion that it's there for all to see is either disingenuous or ignorant.

I guess you needed to say that.  We obviously disagree.

[Red Arrow]

If some of your own party during the primaries asked the same question, how do you respond to that?  Was it a diversion?  Because party-mates did it that somehow makes it OK?

I am surprised you hold some of those primary candidates in such high regard.

[Hoss]

I am surprised you hold some of those primary candidates in such high regard.

This is what I love about the Republicans.  Spin the message away from the topic. Did I ever say I held them in high regard?  No. Is it telling that members of his own party were asking the same of him during primary season?  I think it is.  I'm sure others do also.

Maybe even some Republicans. 

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk 2

[AquaMan]

And that's your prerogative do to so.  But Willard seems to be holding his breath here on this issue.  You'd have to concede that it's a point that is not going away.  As much as the Republicans would like it to.

Sucks when the Dems do this, eh?

How about all that stuff in 08 about Rev. Wright?  Ayres?  Birtherism?

I've been saying now for 13 years or more the Dems have needed to grow a pair when it comes to Presidential campaigning.  Now that they have, the Republicans wail like girls with skinned knees on the playground.

Sorry, but that's politics now.

Yes, Hoss, how quickly our local conservatives forget that when those false issues arose, along with the ones I mentioned (Willie Horton, Swiftboating), they screamed that this was just politics, that Dems needed to grow a pair, and that if our candidates couldn't handle this how could they run a country etc., etc. Nixon would be so proud of them.

Now the Dems fight back using successfully using the tactics that pounded them and the wailing begins on the right.  Lots of reaping what was sown going on and those of us old enough to have seen the downward spiral Newt began in the nineties can only look on in horror.

Candidates are just symptoms. Our real problems in this country stem from our lobbying system.  A common enemy of left and right yet untouchable because we are all so personally invested in their success. Yet their success is our demise. (Pogo: We have seen the enemy....and he is us!!)

That is what bothers me so much about Romney failing to disclose through tax returns that "yes, I am rich and you made me this way. If you don't like it, lets face up to our sins and clean up the tax code by eliminating tax loopholes that allow guys like me and Obama to be filthy rich and pay less taxes than a fireman. A tax code that allows a concentration of wealth at the top of our population and 40% of our population to pay no tax at all because they don't make enough money to do so."

This is his opportunity to be a real leader, an innovator in politics and he can't do it. His cowardice is strange to me because he has nothing to lose. His wealth is protected and intact. His own party distrusts him. His opponents suspect his class. For damn sakes man, make note of your time in history!

[swake]

I want to know how he got so much money into his IRA. It doesn't seem legally possible. More than that, if it was legal, I want to know how he did so I can do the same.

[RecycleMichael]

The other ten years you want to see are nothing more than a dart board for his opponents to say "He's too rich! He's too rich!"

Nothing more, nothing less.  His returns will look the same for the additional ten years as the 2010 and 2011, he's a retired investor.

We don't know what the returns will show. I am surprised that you assume the tax returns don't show anything. You trust politicians only if they are republicans?