IggyPride00;1227237 wrote:Which is why he should have never been allowed to buy the nomination when anyone with half a brain saw this onslaught was coming. It was always going to be a liability that had the potential to be demagogued to hell and back.

It also doesn't help that his father set the precedent in modern American politics by being the first candidate (he lost the nomination fight) to release 12 years of tax returns while seeking the presidency.

Willard also needs to stop saying that releasing them would give Democrats "ammunition" against him (what he told the National Review today).

While it is true, the wording plays into the liberal narrative he has something to hide. Find a better way wording wise to justify not doing it. The guy is the gift that keeps on giving.

And yet he's still tied. Interesting.

This is what Romney told National Review today:

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/309673/romney-tax-returns-i-m-simply-not-enthusiastic-about-giving-them-hundreds-or-thousands

For much of this week, you’ve been asked about your tax returns. What’s the downside to releasing your pre-2010 financial records?
My tax returns that have already been released number into the hundreds of pages. And we will be releasing tax returns for the most current year as soon as those are prepared. They will also number in the hundreds of pages. In the political environment that exists today, the opposition research of the Obama campaign is looking for anything they can use to distract from the failure of the president to reignite our economy. And I’m simply not enthusiastic about giving them hundreds or thousands of more pages to pick through, distort, and lie about.

Romney shouldn't release anything. If the leftists in the media and the Democrat party tell him to do something, he should do the opposite and then punch back. His lack of aggressiveness in punching back is what bothers me. We should've learned that in 2008, when McCain said Rev. Wright and all the other losers surrounding Obama were not campaign fodder. Since the media set the standard for ignoring an unknown candidate's past, let them follow the same standard now.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/obama-has-investments-in-companies-that-ship-jobs-overseas/article/2502361

pot calling the kettle black

The entire conversation is beyond ridiculous. Does anyone actually think that someone as rich as Romney doesn't have their returns audited? What is the point of all of this? That he might make 90% of his income in off-shore gains rather than earned income? 3 words. Big &%^$ing deal. 80% of our income was in offshore income in FY2011, and Deloitte & Touche prepared a 150 page report for us that I've read through 5 times and I don't even understand it. Would I be disqualified for running for public office if I wouldn't want to dig it up a few years from now. The entire argument is a red herring.

What is simple is a college transcript, $15 or so and anyone can get a sealed copy from Occidental, Columbia or Harvard, yet for some reason that has never been produced.

It's all part of Obama's plan to shame people for being successful. He's apparently been reduced to campaigning on strawmen now.

I think that Mitt has to produce the tax returns simply because it will show, once and for all, how he made all that money and what his tax rates were during this period. It's similar to all the outcry by the right for Obama to produce the birth certificate. Mitt can make this whole situation disappear. It's up to him.

As for Bain and the whole outsourcing/offshoring argument, it should be explored simply because Mitt is hanging his proverbial hat on his business experience, and that means Bain. All we ever hear from him regarding his successes are Staples and the Olympics. Surely there were more success stories from all those years. I mean, how does a man amass such a fortune and only have one or two successes to call on for examples?

I think that Mitt has to produce the tax returns simply because it will show, once and for all, how he made all that money and what his tax rates were during this period.

The speculation has been that there are years he may have paid no tax period through the use of various loop holes and other gimmicks. That would be devastating politically if it is the case, which I tend to think is probably what the problem is.

It is not that he cheated or did anything illegal, but the optics of him paying a few percent in taxes (much below the 15% he usually pays) would be terrible. He and his campaign know this, which is why they are being kept under lock and key.

I mean, how does a man amass such a fortune and only have one or two successes to call on for examples

Easily. Buy a distressed company, sell off the good assets, and borrow to the hilts using the company's credit line pay yourself a massive "management" fee before you head for the hills with your pockets stuffed when things go belly up.

That is usually the way it works at least to assure that you get paid handsomely whether it is good for the company or not.

" Surely there were more success stories from all those years. I mean, how does a man amass such a fortune and only have one or two successes to call on for examples?"

Because he's rich and has access to capital, which none of us will ever be in a Democrat-led scheme where success in earned income is punished with near 50% tax rates, unless you are a Hollywood/rock start or professional athlete.

Why are we talking about Romney's successes in business and not the current POTUS's success, or even participation? Criminy, this board feels like a dinner with my German and French friends. "Why are you electing a Mormon?" "I don't like religion.", etc. My response: "If you don't like religion why are you worshiping under the church of Obama - WTF has he ever done in his life? And by the way why do you care so much about American politics?"

That usually ends the conversation. If it wasn't for alcohol I wouldn't have European friends because they're such idiots.

IggyPride00;1227580 wrote:The speculation has been that there are years he may have paid no tax period through the use of various loop holes and other gimmicks. That would be devastating politically if it is the case, which I tend to think is probably what the problem is.

It is not that he cheated or did anything illegal, but the optics of him paying a few percent in taxes (much below the 15% he usually pays) would be terrible. He and his campaign know this, which is why they are being kept under lock and key.

Devastating? That would actually make me respect him a little...an indication of someone who effectively uses that which is made available to him.

Con_Alma;1227598 wrote:Devastating? That would actually make me respect him a little...an indication of someone who effectively uses that which is made available to him.

Everything needs to be looked at from the view point of Joe Sixpack who doesn't have a team of high paid accountants that can help them avoid paying their taxes. It would not play well politically.

Remember the uproar about him only paying 14% on the year he did release? Imagine what a field day the media would have if there were years he was paying between say 0-6% while earning millions. It would be a nightmare for his campaign.

IggyPride00;1227604 wrote:Everything needs to be looked at from the view point of Joe Sixpack who doesn't have a team of high paid accountants that can help them avoid paying their taxes. It would not play well politically.

Remember the uproar about him only paying 14% on the year he did release? Imagine what a field day the media would have if there were years he was paying between say 0-6% while earning millions. It would be a nightmare for his campaign.

I didn't speak for Joe Sixpack. I spoke for myself. That would make me respect him a little. That would be impressive to have that much wealth and manage in a way that his effective tax rate was between 0-6%.

I don'tcare what Joe Sixpack thinks. I am trying to determine who I am voting for.

I'm not surprised that the Obama campaign is attempting to use Romney's wealth as "proof" that he's just another rich white guy. In other words it's just a spin-off of the tired class warfare mantra from the left.

It never ceases to amazed me at the obvious hypocrisy in that. Even Obama didn't become POTUS by being "born a poor Kenyan black child."

Just more obfuscation from the Obama camp. They know that they are in deep trouble and that they cannot really run on their record. The economy is still in shambles, Obamacare is wildly unpopular, Barry's arrogant narcissism is beginning to turn people off, etc.

Once this latest barrage on Romney's eeeevil wealth subsides we'll begin focusing on how angry white males don't want Obama re-elected because he's black (IE: the race card).

It's like clockwork.

believer;1227617 wrote:I'm not surprised that the Obama campaign is attempting to use Romney's wealth as "proof" that he's just another rich white guy. In other words it's just a spin-off of the tired class warfare mantra from the left.

It never ceases to amazed me at the obvious hypocrisy in that. Even Obama didn't become POTUS by being "born a poor Kenyan black child."

Just more obfuscation from the Obama camp. They know that they are in deep trouble and that they cannot really run on their record. The economy is still in shambles, Obamacare is wildly unpopular, Barry's arrogant narcissism is beginning to turn people off, etc.

Once this latest barrage on Romney's eeeevil wealth subsides we'll begin focusing on how angry white males don't want Obama re-elected because he's black (IE: the race card).

It's like clockwork.

So what are you doing about it? IIRC you live in either PA or OH, one of the handful of swing states that could pull the election one way or another. I live overseas but will vote in the Virginia ballot, another swing state that has become more DEM as our irresponsible government largesse invaded Fairfax and Loudon Counties, Arlington and Alexandria and we have more rent-seekers or to better put it better teat-suckers.

We can't just gripe on internet forums, obviously we need to vote but we have to be more aggressive. In '08 I was a naive idiot. I had a young associate co-worker that flat-out told me in fall '08 that anything would be better than Obama (smart girl, summa cum laude at University of Richmond, law review at William & Mary), I laughed it off. I laughed off the hippies that knocked on my doors to try to convince me to vote for a person that never had a real job in their life (in hindsight I would have poured boiling oil on them). That isn't happening again. Our economy may not survive another 4 years of this crap, so what are you going to do?

My step-father-in-law (the EEEEvil CEO of a Honeywell subsidiary) has written several articles to the local newspaper about the ills of the Obaconomy and how his administration's policies have stalled hiring and growth, I've written one (working on the second) and made it very clear to our rental agent that I don't want to see an Obama/Biden (ugh, how the heck did a grade A moron like Biden become Veep?) flag in our front stoop of our house in the US - no political messages.

Most importantly, it is time to stop being polite (at least by my definition), no more tolerance for stupid millennials and aging hippies that think that this country is going in the right direction because a want-to-be progressive is in office. It isn't working. our country is in a state of suck. We need a healthy dose of reality for once, or else the country might go down a road we won't recover from. "Hope and Change" was the worst decision of this country in my lifetime. "Blame and Excuse" will surpass that if Obama wins in November.

Manhattan Buckeye;1227618 wrote:Most importantly, it is time to stop being polite (at least by my definition), no more tolerance for stupid millennials and aging hippies that think that this country is going in the right direction because a want-to-be progressive is in office. It isn't working. our country is in a state of suck. We need a healthy dose of reality for once, or else the country might go down a road we won't recover from. "Hope and Change" was the worst decision of this country in my lifetime. "Blame and Excuse" will surpass that if Obama wins in November.

Reps.

Manhattan Buckeye;1227618 wrote:So what are you doing about it? IIRC you live in either PA or OH, one of the handful of swing states that could pull the election one way or another. I live overseas but will vote in the Virginia ballot, another swing state that has become more DEM as our irresponsible government largesse invaded Fairfax and Loudon Counties, Arlington and Alexandria and we have more rent-seekers or to better put it better teat-suckers.

We can't just gripe on internet forums, obviously we need to vote but we have to be more aggressive. In '08 I was a naive idiot. I had a young associate co-worker that flat-out told me in fall '08 that anything would be better than Obama (smart girl, summa cum laude at University of Richmond, law review at William & Mary), I laughed it off. I laughed off the hippies that knocked on my doors to try to convince me to vote for a person that never had a real job in their life (in hindsight I would have poured boiling oil on them). That isn't happening again. Our economy may not survive another 4 years of this crap, so what are you going to do?

My step-father-in-law (the EEEEvil CEO of a Honeywell subsidiary) has written several articles to the local newspaper about the ills of the Obaconomy and how his administration's policies have stalled hiring and growth, I've written one (working on the second) and made it very clear to our rental agent that I don't want to see an Obama/Biden (ugh, how the heck did a grade A moron like Biden become Veep?) flag in our front stoop of our house in the US - no political messages.

Most importantly, it is time to stop being polite (at least by my definition), no more tolerance for stupid millennials and aging hippies that think that this country is going in the right direction because a want-to-be progressive is in office. It isn't working. our country is in a state of suck. We need a healthy dose of reality for once, or else the country might go down a road we won't recover from. "Hope and Change" was the worst decision of this country in my lifetime. "Blame and Excuse" will surpass that if Obama wins in November.

Con_Alma;1227598 wrote:Devastating? That would actually make me respect him a little...an indication of someone who effectively uses that which is made available to him.

I don't know. Nobody I know of in my profession has heard of a client with such a large amount of money in an IRA. The only way he could have pulled that off was with B.S. valuations. I don't care about Romney's wealth because we know that contractionary fiscal policies are bad in economic slumps and that is what he wants and that is what matters. Ben Bernanke has all but begged the government to do something but there is even less chance of that with a Romney Presidency. But, I can't imagine you would respect purposefully undervaluing an asset knowing it is worth more. Not based on your other posts anyway.

BoatShoes;1227740 wrote:I don't know. Nobody I know of in my profession has heard of a client with such a large amount of money in an IRA. The only way he could have pulled that off was with B.S. valuations. I don't care about Romney's wealth because we know that contractionary fiscal policies are bad in economic slumps and that is what he wants and that is what matters. Ben Bernanke has all but begged the government to do something but there is even less chance of that with a Romney Presidency. But, I can't imagine you would respect purposefully undervaluing an asset knowing it is worth more. Not based on your other posts anyway.

IRA??

WHO said anything about IRA?



The speculation is that he didn't pay tax or paid very little on significant dollars. How does an IRA come into that equation?

How does an IRA come into that equation?

He is referring to the controvery of how Romney could have an IRA value of $100 million dollars as has been reported when the yearly contribution limit was only $30,000. Even with compounding interest there had to be some fancy accounting gimmicks done along the way to reach such a level with such a low contribution limit (relatively speaking).

IggyPride00;1227774 wrote:He is referring to the controvery of how Romney could have an IRA value of $100 million dollars as has been reported when the yearly contribution limit was only $30,000. Even with compounding interest there had to be some fancy accounting gimmicks done along the way to reach such a level with such a low contribution limit (relatively speaking).

Ahhh, Thank you. I'm not sure why he quoted my post.

Most anything can be held in an IRA and IRA's don't always have to be funded directly so the contribution limitation won't apply if tax qualified dollars were rolled into it In addition, most any invest-able asset can be held in an IRA including the rights to things such as real estate, commodities and such. It can even be a managed account with derivatives that short or hold long securities with multiples on them. It's very possible to purchase options on something and have it perform significantly with the right moves.

Con_Alma;1227786 wrote:Ahhh, Thank you. I'm not sure why he quoted my post.

Most anything can be held in an IRA and IRA's don't always have to be funded directly so the contribution limitation won't apply if tax qualified dollars were rolled into it In addition, most any invest-able asset can be held in an IRA including the rights to things such as real estate, commodities and such. It can even be a managed account with derivatives that short or hold long securities with multiples on them. It's very possible to purchase options on something and have it perform significantly with the right moves.

I quoted your post because you said you would respect him if he was able to skillfully avoid taxes within the law. I mentioned that in order to get an IRA worth $100 million it's not going to come from choices that "perform significantly with the right moves." Between 1984 and 1999 he could've contributed no more than 480,000. To get to $102 million he would have had to have a 27% or so return compounded! That is twice the rate of Bernie Madoff's scam returns! He had to be using liquidation value or something on the shares he was contributing knowing they were worth significantly more which is absurd! It is deceit. The guy won't drink tea but he will do this? Like I said, in the big picture I don't really care but I quoted your post because this certainly doesn't warrant "respect."

BoatShoes;1227798 wrote:I quoted your post because you said you would respect him if he was able to skillfully avoid taxes within the law. I mentioned that in order to get an IRA worth $100 million it's not going to come from choices that "perform significantly with the right moves." Between 1984 and 1999 he could've contributed no more than 480,000. To get to $102 million he would have had to have a 27% or so return compounded! That is twice the rate of Bernie Madoff's scam returns! He had to be using liquidation value or something on the shares he was contributing knowing they were worth significantly more which is absurd! It is deceit. The guy won't drink tea but he will do this? Like I said, in the big picture I don't really care but I quoted your post because this certainly doesn't warrant "respect."

Sure it does....if, and the if was important, it was done within the law. At least it garners my respect, no matter who does it.

Con_Alma;1227802 wrote:Sure it does....if and the if was important, if it was done with in the law. At least it garners my respect, no matter who does it.

In the state of Ohio it would be legal for Mitt Romney to divorce his wife and engage in a sexual relationship with a girl who is 16 years old. Suppose she then gets pregnant and Romney then pays for her abortion and a company he invested in eviscerates the remains but all in all the value of his stock in the company goes up because of the publicity from the event and he gets richer and is a net winner off of knocking up the high school cheerleader and paying for the abortion; also legal.

Now we know that because this type of behavior is all legal, it garners the respect of Con_Alma.

BoatShoes;1227819 wrote:In the state of Ohio it would be legal for Mitt Romney to divorce his wife and engage in a sexual relationship with a girl who is 16 years old. Suppose she then gets pregnant and Romney then pays for her abortion and a company he invested in eviscerates the remains but all in all the value of his stock in the company goes up because of the publicity from the event and he gets richer and is a net winner off of knocking up the high school cheerleader and paying for the abortion; also legal.

Now we know that because this type of behavior is all legal, it garners the respect of Con_Alma.

Not necessarily. What would and does, however, garner my respect is if someone within the laws creates the type of wealth being referred to and minimizes taxes on that wealth. Now that's impressive.

While buying equity in a privately held company is highly unusual for an IRA, it's not really a tax dodge. Anyway you slice it, that's a long-term gain taxed at capital rates and when he takes distributions it is most likely taxed at capital gains rates. I'm sure Obama would try to spin it as a tax dodge, claiming it was "earned income" he didn't pay taxes on, eventhough in an IRA it's essentially deferred income and the taxes are deferred to match.

Big deal. Romney saw a company or two or three or more, really liked the potential, and put his own capital at risk and realized big gains.