What Message Do You Want To Hear At The Democratic National Convention?

[erfalf]

IRS employees can't leak them without being fired.

I think you just answered your own question. There's nothing to see.

[DolfanBob]

Exactly, thousands of IRS employees have seen them and have nothing to report.

The only thing likely in those returns is that Romney is handsomely wealthy, which to date is still perfectly legal.

We have the Mother Teresa syndrome. Our President can be somewhat wealthy, just not to much.
He would still be POTUS. Just the P would stand for Pauper.

[Gaspar]

IRS employees can't leak them without being fired.

He was required to file SF278 with the FEC to be approved for candidacy. This lists all assets, liabilities, and valuations including tax liabilities.  It also requires him to list all business dealings, assets and liabilities outside of the United states.  The FEC seems to have approved the guy.

I think asking a candidate to splay his tax returns or medical records or college records is quite discriminatory, and is not a requirement for candidacy. As long as his dealings, and filings deemed ethical and legal by the FEC, thats good with me.  

The requirement for public biopsy of a candidate would only serve to eliminate many good candidates from the field though public discrimination.  I think that anyone who feels a candidate is unworthy of office because they choose not to disclose private information should probably not vote for that candidate.

Ultimately when you are voting, your responsibility is to vote your conscious.

[Hoss]

He was required to file SF278 with the FEC to be approved for candidacy. This lists all assets, liabilities, and valuations including tax liabilities.  It also requires him to list all business dealings, assets and liabilities outside of the United states.  The FEC seems to have approved the guy.

I think asking a candidate to splay his tax returns or medical records or college records is quite discriminatory, and is not a requirement for candidacy. As long as his dealings, and filings deemed ethical and legal by the FEC, thats good with me.  

The requirement for public biopsy of a candidate would only serve to eliminate many good candidates from the field though public discrimination.  I think that anyone who feels a candidate is unworthy of office because they choose not to disclose private information should probably not vote for that candidate.

Ultimately when you are voting, your responsibility is to vote your conscious.

Which is why I say he probably didn't do anything illegal.

However, what is (and what was in the past) his effective tax rate?  For someone who is running on his business record, he's being awfully secretive about his taxes.

[erfalf]

Which is why I say he probably didn't do anything illegal.

However, what is (and what was in the past) his effective tax rate?  For someone who is running on his business record, he's being awfully secretive about his taxes.

Again, the two have nothing to do with each other. A personal tax rate and a person's business savvy are not linked in any way. Trust me, I know tons of business savvy types who couldn't find their way around a 1040 without a map.



Edit: Besides, do you think Romney prepared his own tax return. His tax return is more an indications of PWC's competence than of Romney's.

[Gaspar]

Which is why I say he probably didn't do anything illegal.

However, what is (and what was in the past) his effective tax rate?  For someone who is running on his business record, he's being awfully secretive about his taxes.

If he's paid over 20% I'll be disappointed and probably not vote for him.  With all of the deductions, loop-holes, and shelters in the 6,000 pages of tax code we have, I would expect a good business man to do his best to take advantage of that.

[swake]

When someone who is very wealthy is calling for tax cuts to the tax rates on the wealthy when as a wealthy person he's already paying a rate lower than many in the middle class, his taxes are an issue. Period.

When I apply for a job I have to agree to a credit check, this is no different. He should show his taxes with all the tax dodges only the very wealthy have access to. He's obviously ashamed of these tax dodges, he should be. And shame on him for largely running on lowering his own taxes even more.

Worse than that, Romney wants to finance those cuts on the wealthy by removing tax deductions. There are only two deductions anywhere close to large enough to help close that gap. Charitable giving and Mortgage Interest Paid. Those will directly increase my taxes. Will increase taxes on most of the middle class. By a large amount.

Romney is apply for a job. If he gets this job he wants to decrease his taxes by raising mine. On a personal level, screw him. From an economic perspective, screw him and the horse he rode in on.  Removing the mortgage interest deduction will increase the cost of owning an existing home and will drive thousands, maybe millions more people into foreclosure by making existing home loans much more expensive. It will create the environment for another Great Depression. Make no mistake, that's what we were staring at four years ago, and his plan would take us there again.

[Gaspar]

Lets break that down. . .

When someone who is very wealthy is calling for tax cuts to the tax rates on the wealthy when as a wealthy person he's already paying a rate lower than many in the middle class, his taxes are an issue. Period. He's proposing tax breaks for everyone.  He pays the exact taxes that the law requires him to. Why should he pay more than what he is legally responsible for?

When I apply for a job I have to agree to a credit check, this is no different. He should show his taxes with all the tax dodges only the very wealthy have access to. He's obviously ashamed of these tax dodges, he should be. And shame on him for largely running on lowering his own taxes even more. When he applied to be a candidate he filed SF278 and supplied all of that information.  Again, he's running on lowering taxes for everyone because it preserves capital in the private sector.

Worse than that, Romney wants to finance those cuts on the wealthy by removing tax deductions. There are only two deductions anywhere close to large enough to help close that gap. Charitable giving and Mortgage Interest Paid. Those will directly increase my taxes. Will increase taxes on most of the middle class. By a large amount. Way to cherry pick, he's proposing a general simplification of the over 6,000 page tax code, something that needs to be done.  His plan calls for across the board reduction in taxes of 20% Eliminate the death tax, and the alternative minimum tax. Our 35 percent corporate tax rate is among the highest in the world, and he intends to lower that to 25% to make American business more competitive.  Additionally, if you make less than $200,000 a year, under his plan you wouldn't' be taxed on intrest and dividends.  That is designed to encourage the middle class to invest more.  As for your comment on charitable giving, that's not part of his platform.

Romney is apply for a job. If he gets this job he wants to decrease his taxes by raising mine. On a personal level, screw him. From an economic perspective, screw him and the horse he rode in on.  Removing the mortgage interest deduction will increase the cost of owning an existing home and will drive thousands, maybe millions more people into foreclosure by making existing home loans much more expensive. It will create the environment for another Great Depression. Make no mistake, that's what we were staring at four years ago, and his plan would take us there again.That is of course quite ridiculous, his plan calls for no tax increases on you.  It does however promise a 20% tax decrease.  Unless you file a long form taking advantage of hundreds of deductions, shelters, and loop holes, your taxes will go down. 

Here is the text of his proposed plan:
Reducing and stabilizing federal spending is essential, but breathing life into the present anemic recovery will also require fixing the nation's tax code to focus on jobs and growth. To repair the nation's tax code, marginal rates must be brought down to stimulate entrepreneurship, job creation, and investment, while still raising the revenue needed to fund a smaller, smarter, simpler government. The principle of fairness must be preserved in federal tax and spending policy.

Individual Taxes

America's individual tax code applies relatively high marginal tax rates on a narrow tax base. Those high rates discourage work and entrepreneurship, as well as savings and investment. With 54 percent of private sector workers employed outside of corporations, individual rates also define the incentives for job-creating businesses. Lower marginal tax rates secure for all Americans the economic gains from tax reform.

• Make permanent, across-the-board 20 percent cut in marginal rates
• Maintain current tax rates on interest, dividends, and capital gains
• Eliminate taxes for taxpayers with AGI below $200,000 on interest, dividends, and capital gains
• Eliminate the Death Tax
• Repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT)

Corporate Taxes

The U.S. economy's 35 percent corporate tax rate is among the highest in the industrial world, reducing the ability of our nation's businesses to compete in the global economy and to invest and create jobs at home. By limiting investment and growth, the high rate of corporate tax also hurts U.S. wages.

• Cut the corporate rate to 25 percent
• Strengthen and make permanent the R&D tax credit
• Switch to a territorial tax system
• Repeal the corporate Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT)

[Hoss]

Lets break that down. . .

Here is the text of his proposed plan:
Reducing and stabilizing federal spending is essential, but breathing life into the present anemic recovery will also require fixing the nation's tax code to focus on jobs and growth. To repair the nation's tax code, marginal rates must be brought down to stimulate entrepreneurship, job creation, and investment, while still raising the revenue needed to fund a smaller, smarter, simpler government. The principle of fairness must be preserved in federal tax and spending policy.

Individual Taxes

America's individual tax code applies relatively high marginal tax rates on a narrow tax base. Those high rates discourage work and entrepreneurship, as well as savings and investment. With 54 percent of private sector workers employed outside of corporations, individual rates also define the incentives for job-creating businesses. Lower marginal tax rates secure for all Americans the economic gains from tax reform.

• Make permanent, across-the-board 20 percent cut in marginal rates
• Maintain current tax rates on interest, dividends, and capital gains
• Eliminate taxes for taxpayers with AGI below $200,000 on interest, dividends, and capital gains
• Eliminate the Death Tax
• Repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT)

Corporate Taxes

The U.S. economy's 35 percent corporate tax rate is among the highest in the industrial world, reducing the ability of our nation's businesses to compete in the global economy and to invest and create jobs at home. By limiting investment and growth, the high rate of corporate tax also hurts U.S. wages.

• Cut the corporate rate to 25 percent
• Strengthen and make permanent the R&D tax credit
• Switch to a territorial tax system
• Repeal the corporate Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT)

Your new avatar is quite appropriate.  It appears to be spinning...sheesh.

[swake]

Lets break that down. . .

Here is the text of his proposed plan:
Reducing and stabilizing federal spending is essential, but breathing life into the present anemic recovery will also require fixing the nation's tax code to focus on jobs and growth. To repair the nation's tax code, marginal rates must be brought down to stimulate entrepreneurship, job creation, and investment, while still raising the revenue needed to fund a smaller, smarter, simpler government. The principle of fairness must be preserved in federal tax and spending policy.

Individual Taxes

America's individual tax code applies relatively high marginal tax rates on a narrow tax base. Those high rates discourage work and entrepreneurship, as well as savings and investment. With 54 percent of private sector workers employed outside of corporations, individual rates also define the incentives for job-creating businesses. Lower marginal tax rates secure for all Americans the economic gains from tax reform.

• Make permanent, across-the-board 20 percent cut in marginal rates
• Maintain current tax rates on interest, dividends, and capital gains
• Eliminate taxes for taxpayers with AGI below $200,000 on interest, dividends, and capital gains
• Eliminate the Death Tax
• Repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT)

Corporate Taxes

The U.S. economy's 35 percent corporate tax rate is among the highest in the industrial world, reducing the ability of our nation's businesses to compete in the global economy and to invest and create jobs at home. By limiting investment and growth, the high rate of corporate tax also hurts U.S. wages.

• Cut the corporate rate to 25 percent
• Strengthen and make permanent the R&D tax credit
• Switch to a territorial tax system
• Repeal the corporate Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT)

Paying for his tax cuts by simplifying the tax code means removing deductions.  That's what makes the tax code complicated, all the deductions. The problem is that there are only two deductions that are large enough to come anywhere close to closing the gap in the budget his tax cuts create. Interest Tax Deduction and Charitable giving deduction.

He would cut my taxes by 20% while taking away these important deductions. That will raise my personal taxes, by a lot. And I am far from alone in that.

The next biggest deduction is retirement savings. That would probably have to go too. No more 401k, no more Roth IRA. Combine that will a voucher system for in place of Medicare and retirement is going to be fun. 

Even if you removed all these deductions from the code his tax cuts will still blow a $5 trillion hole in the budget. How exactly is that conservative again?

[RecycleMichael]

When someone who is very wealthy is calling for tax cuts to the tax rates on the wealthy when as a wealthy person he's already paying a rate lower than many in the middle class, his taxes are an issue. Period.

They are not listening.

They keep changing the topic to tax laws and not on Romney and his obligation to be open about what he pays the government. The standards are different when you run for President.

This issue will cost him the election. Period.

[Gaspar]

Paying for his tax cuts by simplifying the tax code means removing deductions.  That's what makes the tax code complicated, all the deductions. The problem is that there are only two deductions that are large enough to come anywhere close to closing the gap in the budget his tax cuts create. Interest Tax Deduction and Charitable giving deduction.

He would cut my taxes by 20% while taking away these important deductions. That will raise my personal taxes, by a lot. And I am far from alone in that.

The next biggest deduction is retirement savings. That would probably have to go too. No more 401k, no more Roth IRA. Combine that will a voucher system for in place of Medicare and retirement is going to be fun. 

Even if you removed all these deductions from the code his tax cuts will still blow a $5 trillion hole in the budget. How exactly is that conservative again?

He's not paying for his tax cuts by simplifying the tax code.  He is paying for his tax cuts by cutting spending.  Simplifying the tax code is mutually exclusive and simply needs to be done for a multitude of reasons that both political parties can agree on.

This is how he intends to "pay for" his tax cuts:

Mitt's Plan
         

After three years of President Obama, many now question whether we can ever return to fiscal sanity, let alone fiscal strength. A point of no return may well be approaching — a decade of huge deficits could drive our principal payments and interest rates beyond our reach while starving the economy of the capital it needs to grow.


Fortunately, the American economy's tremendous capacity for growth gives the country one more chance to correct course. Mitt Romney has spent his career executing turnarounds in the private sector, the Olympics, and state government. He will bring to Washington the turnaround philosophy it so badly needs.


Set Honest Goals: Cap Spending At 20 Percent Of GDP


Any turnaround must begin with clear and realistic goals. Optimistic projections cannot wish a problem away, they can only make it worse. As president, Mitt's goal will be to bring federal spending below 20 percent of GDP by the end of his first term:

• Reduced from 24.3 percent last year; in line with the historical trend between 18 and 20 percent
  
• Close to the tax revenue generated by the economy when healthy
  
• Requires spending cuts of approximately $500 billion per year in 2016 assuming robust economic recovery with 4% annual growth, and reversal of irresponsible Obama-era defense cuts
  

Take Immediate Action: Return Non-Security Discretionary Spending To Below 2008 Levels


Any turnaround must also stop the bleeding and reverse the most recent and dramatic damage:

• Send Congress a bill on Day One that cuts non-security discretionary spending by 5 percent across the board
  
• Pass the House Republican Budget proposal, rolling back President Obama's government expansion by capping non-security discretionary spending below 2008 levels
  

Follow A Clear Roadmap: Build A Simpler, Smaller, Smarter Government


Most importantly, any turnaround must have a thoughtful, structured approach to achieving its goals. Mitt will attack the bloated budget from three angles:

• The Federal Government Should Stop Doing Things The American People Can't Afford, For Instance:
  
  
  
  • Repeal Obamacare — Savings: $95 Billion. President Obama's costly takeover of the health care system imposes an enormous and unaffordable obligation on the federal government while intervening in a matter that should be left to the states. Mitt will begin his efforts to repeal this legislation on Day One.
    
  • Privatize Amtrak — Savings: $1.6 Billion. Despite requirement that Amtrak operate on a for-profit basis, it continues to receive about $1.6 billion in taxpayer funds each year. Forty-one of Amtrak's 44 routes lost money in 2008 with losses ranging from $5 to $462 per passenger.
    
  • Reduce Subsidies For The National Endowments For The Arts And Humanities, The Corporation For Public Broadcasting, And The Legal Services Corporation — Savings: $600 Million. NEA, NEH, and CPB provide grants to supplement other sources of funding. LSC funds services mostly duplicative of those already offered by states, localities, bar associations and private organizations.
    
  • Eliminate Title X Family Planning Funding — Savings: $300 Million. Title X subsidizes family planning programs that benefit abortion groups like Planned Parenthood.
    
  • Reduce Foreign Aid — Savings: $100 Million. Stop borrowing money from countries that oppose America's interests in order to give it back to them in the form of foreign aid.
    
  
  If pursued with focus and discipline, Mitt's approach provides a roadmap to rescue the federal government from its present precipice. But that respite will be short-lived without a plan for the looming long-term threat posed by the unsustainable nature of existing entitlement obligations. Learn more about Mitt's proposals for entitlement reform: Medicare and Social Security.
  
  
• Empower States To Innovate — Savings: >$100 billion
  
  
  
  • Block grants have huge potential to generate both superior results and cost savings by establishing local control and promoting innovation in areas such as Medicaid and Worker Retraining. Medicaid spending should be capped and increased each year by CPI + 1%. Department of Labor retraining spending should be capped and will increase in future years. These funds should then be given to the states to spend on their own residents. States will be free from Washington micromanagement, allowing them to develop innovative approaches that improve quality and reduce cost.
    
• Improve Efficiency And Effectiveness. Where the federal government should act, it must do a better job. For instance:
  
  
  
  • Reduce Waste And Fraud — Savings: $60 Billion. The federal government made $125 billion in improper payments last year. Cutting that amount in half through stricter enforcement and harsher penalties yields returns many times over on the investment.
    
  • Align Federal Employee Compensation With The Private Sector — Savings: $47 Billion. Federal compensation exceeds private sector levels by as much as 30 to 40 percent when benefits are taken into account. This must be corrected.
    
  • Repeal The Davis-Bacon Act — Savings: $11 Billion. Davis-Bacon forces the government to pay above-market wages, insulating labor unions from competition and driving up project costs by approximately 10 percent.
    
  • Reduce The Federal Workforce By 10 Percent Via Attrition — Savings: $4 Billion. Despite widespread layoffs in the private sector, President Obama has continued to grow the federal payrolls. The federal workforce can be reduced by 10 percent through a "1-for-2" system of attrition, thereby reducing the number of federal employees while allowing the introduction of new talent into the federal service.
    
  • Consolidate agencies and streamline processes to cut costs and improve results in everything from energy permitting to worker retraining to trade negotiation.
    

         
   

[Red Arrow]

They keep changing the topic to tax laws and not on Romney and his obligation to be open about what he pays the government.

Do you have a legal reference for that "obligation"?   I understand tradition but tradition does not make an obligation.

[RecycleMichael]

Do you have a legal reference for that "obligation"?   I understand tradition but tradition does not make an obligation.

ob·li·ga·tion   
NOUN:

The act of binding oneself by a social, legal, or moral tie.

A social, legal, or moral requirement, such as a duty, contract, or promise that compels one to follow or avoid a particular course of action.

A course of action imposed by society, law, or conscience by which one is bound or restricted.

He wants people to trust him...look at that first example each time.

[Red Arrow]

He would cut my taxes by 20% while taking away these important deductions. That will raise my personal taxes, by a lot. And I am far from alone in that.

Have you actually done the math?  I use the standard deduction.