What are you even talking about, explain this sentence:

"However, knowingly or willfully valuing stock at liquidation value knowing that such value is significantly less than fair market value in order to take advantage of provisions that were intended to give middle class Americans consumption-tax treatment is dishonest. "

No part of that made sense. I can assure you, I'm a great guy to have a beer with.

This is a confusing statement of fact. How exactly was stock liquidated at a value differently than fair market value and what provisions to doing so make it advantageous?

Are certain provisions only available certain classes of people? If so, where is that stipulation in the tax law?

It seems to me that income and tax treatment are clearly defined with regards to anyone and everyone who fits defined marginal brackets along with the type of income being realized.

Footwedge;1228248 wrote:Most Americans...my guess well over 90% would love to see loopholes closed...especially those that directly hurt Americans.

I've never understood what counts as a tax loophole and what counts as using the tax code exactly as it was designed. I think of a loophole being an unintended bug, not a feature. People complain about all the "deductions" and label them as loopholes for the rich, as though mortgage interest deductions that encourage home ownership or loss carryovers to smooth out volatility were some sort of devious scheme to screw the country.

The rules ARE complicated, and many people do miss out on "loopholes" that they aren't aware of. That isn't a moral question as much as it is the fact that politicians for decades have snuck pet spending into the tax code and made it a complicated morass.

I don't think most people realize the potential impact of closing certain "loopholes".

I personally would have no problems with eliminating all deductions and having all people pay a portion of their income. However, the government has socially engineered society for a long time through tax policy by providing incentives and deterrents. People have come to rely upon those incentives as matter of fact and they have been so powerful that not having those incentives would drastically change the ability of a lot of people to do things that we have come to know as normal and routine.

Mortgage interest deduction is one such example.

If we did not have an onerous, burdensome, incomprehensible, and ridiculously progressive tax code -- albeit complete with perfectly legal loopholes etc... -- then we would not be having a discussion about a candidates properly-filed tax return, or legal tax minimization strategies.

The disastrous economic performance of the obama administration is merely being shielded by the obama regime and the obama state-run media in their smear Romney campaign.

"If you don't have a record to run on, then you paint your opponent as someone people should run from." --Barrack Hussein Obama 8-28-08


My, my ........... change we can believe in .......

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303740704577527200796292034.html?mod=googlenews_wsj


Required reading, especially for the socialists on here .....

QuakerOats;1228972 wrote:If we did not have an onerous, burdensome, incomprehensible, and ridiculously progressive tax code -- albeit complete with perfectly legal loopholes etc... -- then we would not be having a discussion about a candidates properly-filed tax return, or legal tax minimization strategies.

The disastrous economic performance of the obama administration is merely being shielded by the obama regime and the obama state-run media in their smear Romney campaign.

"If you don't have a record to run on, then you paint your opponent as someone people should run from." --Barrack Hussein Obama 8-28-08


My, my ........... change we can believe in .......

We agree the tax code is ridiculous but likely for different reasons.

But Romney has called on his opponents and other candidates to release tax returns in the past and even his father released 12 years of tax returns when he ran for president. Why is it so ridiculous to expect Romney to do the same?

^^^ I think he should, the day after obama releases his college transcripts and financial aid records.

Manhattan Buckeye;1228947 wrote:What are you even talking about, explain this sentence:

"However, knowingly or willfully valuing stock at liquidation value knowing that such value is significantly less than fair market value in order to take advantage of provisions that were intended to give middle class Americans consumption-tax treatment is dishonest. "

No part of that made sense. I can assure you, I'm a great guy to have a beer with.

IRAs were designed to give middle class Americans consumption tax treatment in that people are allowed to contribute a certain amount of money that can grow tax free as would be the case under a consumption tax.

When Mitt Romney was contributing stock into his IRA, in order to stay within the contribution limits and yet also end up with an IRA worth $100 million, it is likely that he was doing something like declaring the value of the stock to be what it would be at liquidation...significantly less than what he would get for it if he would have sold it at the time.

Thus, he was saying to the IRS, "This stock is worth X" when it's fair market value was really Y. That is dishonest

But the reality is, I don't care what is in Romney's tax returns and I don't really care if he was dishonest. He shouldn't get support because his policy proposals will make life worse for the average american than it is right now.

Con_Alma;1228960 wrote:I don't think most people realize the potential impact of closing certain "loopholes".

I personally would have no problems with eliminating all deductions and having all people pay a portion of their income. However, the government has socially engineered society for a long time through tax policy by providing incentives and deterrents. People have come to rely upon those incentives as matter of fact and they have been so powerful that not having those incentives would drastically change the ability of a lot of people to do things that we have come to know as normal and routine.

Mortgage interest deduction is one such example.

I agree with much of this. The fact is that the mortgage interest deduction is just like a world wherein the government sends a check to everyone to pay their mortgage interest...we have all of these tax expenditures because Congress is able to "spend" while being able to call it a "tax cut"

On the other hand, there is no doubt if these are eliminated, middle and lower class americans are going to get what amounts to a tax raise. As we saw with the negative economic effects of Obamacare...these types of reforms shouldn't be enacted during of an unemployment catastrophe...if a plan is agreed to it should be tied to full employment so the federal reserve could attempt to offset any negative consequences.

QuakerOats;1229370 wrote:^^^ I think he should, the day after obama releases his college transcripts and financial aid records.

Presidential candidates haven't historically released their college transcripts so this isn't a great comparison.

And it's not like Obama has been calling on Mitt to release his transcripts while not releasing his own, he hasn't said anything about them. Whereas Romney has in the past called for people to release tax filings and some of his campaign staff even were calling for Kerry to release more tax returns if I remember correctly (and I think Kerry released at least 12 years). I hope you can see the difference there. Romney wants others to release tax info but not him.

What's the point of any Presidential candidate releasing any private forms? What makes them any different than any other government employee? Can we see the SC forms, how about the VP and Sec of State? I don't give a rat's ass either way, it just detracts from the real issues. Who cares how much money they have or where it is invested. All Presidents are either rich or will be rich as soon as they are elected.

I don't care about Willard's tax returns, but I do care that today he said all defense cuts would be off the table in a Romney administration. He wants to increase the Pentagon budget.

He is the alternative to BHO, and yet has laid out a tax and spend plan that would make the debt continue to soar by cutting taxes and increasing spending? What in the world is he thinking?

We did that with Bush in the last decade, and tax cuts coupled with massive military spending increases don't work as far as getting towards fiscal sustainability.

Obama won't touch social programs, and Willard won't touch the Pentagon budget. This country is doomed no matter who we choose.

That's the fallacy of voting. People actually think it matters, that it will make a difference. The truth is it doesn't matter at all. There isn't a candidate on this planet that is votable as President that will do anything different than anyone else. Demcracts won't cut social programs and will spend outrageously, Republicans won't cut defense related expenditures and will spend outrageously. It doesn't matter one bit. I really don't see any point in voting, the result is the same either way. Spending will continue to increase and taxes and expenses for the American public will go up with either party.

tk421;1229394 wrote:What's the point of any Presidential candidate releasing any private forms? What makes them any different than any other government employee?

Well for one, I can't imagine Americans would like the idea of their president failing to report a Swiss Bank Account in a Bank that was known to have helped clients engage in illegal tax evasion not tax avoidance. Reading the TaxProf Blog before bed I came across this:

"3) It's been hard to understand what benefit he thought he was getting from the Swiss bank account, and there was an IRS amnesty program in 2009 for fraudulent nondisclosure of offshore income. If he had to come clean in 2009, this might be embarrassing, especially given that there was an iron fist inside the IRS leniency offer (i.e., if you held out, they might get you without any amnesty)."

We know that Romney had an account at UBS because the guy in charge of his blind trust said so. After the IRS forced UBS to cough up about 4,000 names out of 50,000 in 2009...they then started an amnesty program for people with those accounts to come forward.

I think it would bad if he had to admit that he used the IRS amnesty program for fraudulent non-disclosure of income from an account based in a bank that was prosecuted for illegal tax evasion...

And before I go to sleep here I've got my conspiracy hat on thinking the National Review knows this and thinks Romney's goose is cooked and and because they never really liked him anyway, wants to compel him to release this so as to get him out of the race in time to get a another viable candidate.

I Wear Pants;1229385 wrote:Presidential candidates haven't historically released their college transcripts so this isn't a great comparison.

That's because the vast majority are public info and have been out there for decades to anyone who wants to look them up. Obama's are under lockdown.

Let's face it, Mitt f***ed up. I'm sure that everything he did (taxwise) is perfectly legal. It just that the enormity of seeing his worth (and the possibility that he actually paid no taxes during certain years) will make his credibility go south with everyday working folks. He has been a very successful businessman, but I really believe that many estimates of his (and his wife's) worth are greatly underestimated.

By the way, pension rollovers to an IRA are perfectly legal. If Mitt got a big stock option as his "retirement" from Bain then it could help explain the huge IRA he allegedly has. Of course, without the tax returns it's all speculation anyhow.

IggyPride00;1229404 wrote:I don't care about Willard's tax returns, but I do care that today he said all defense cuts would be off the table in a Romney administration. He wants to increase the Pentagon budget.

He is the alternative to BHO, and yet has laid out a tax and spend plan that would make the debt continue to soar by cutting taxes and increasing spending? What in the world is he thinking?

We did that with Bush in the last decade, and tax cuts coupled with massive military spending increases don't work as far as getting towards fiscal sustainability.

Obama won't touch social programs, and Willard won't touch the Pentagon budget. This country is doomed no matter who we choose.

What? More national debt if Romney is elected? No way! I blame it on the twenty and thirty year olds....who blamed it on the fifty and sixty year olds.

Careful there, I turn 60 this fall.

People are more concerned with the way Romney handles his own private money, but no one seems to be asking about the way Obama has handles our taxpayer money.I don't give a crap about what someone does with their own money, but it would be nice to have someone with a brain handling my tax money. This whole story is just a distraction from Obama and the media to keep the attention off the real issues that should matter for a president. Obama has not done anything to lead this country, he thinks he is still in the ghetto organizing community events for the desperate followers that think his is their savior, he nothing but a sophisticated circus entertainer.

I just look at this as just another class envy ploy by the guy who has made a career pitting one against the other. This is a fishing expedition for more of the same.
IF there is a tax increase, it should be across the board...with all Americans sharing in it in the usual 'progressive' amounts. Moreover, if there is a tax increase that we ALL share, then ALL will share a stake in how Congress spends it. All those free handouts to buy votes will cost everybody.

password;1230595 wrote:People are more concerned with the way Romney handles his own private money, but no one seems to be asking about the way Obama has handles our taxpayer money.I don't give a crap about what someone does with their own money, but it would be nice to have someone with a brain handling my tax money. This whole story is just a distraction from Obama and the media to keep the attention off the real issues that should matter for a president. Obama has not done anything to lead this country, he thinks he is still in the ghetto organizing community events for the desperate followers that think his is their savior, he nothing but a sophisticated circus entertainer.

Gee we all hate black people too....no sense of sticking to the thread topic when we can complain about blacks on every thread.

Footwedge;1230825 wrote:Gee we all hate black people too....no sense of sticking to the thread topic when we can complain about blacks on every thread.

Typical Obama supporter... when anyone voices their opinion against Obama, the first defense is that they are being racist. Where in my post did I say anything about blacks? Was he not a community organizer in the ghetto? Maybe you have not noticed but blacks are not the only ones who live in the ghetto today. My post was on the topic, but you have chose to bring race in to the thread because that is your only way of explaining his failures.

password;1230838 wrote:Typical Obama supporter... when anyone voices their opinion against Obama, the first defense is that they are being racist. Where in my post did I say anything about blacks? Was he not a community organizer in the ghetto? Maybe you have not noticed but blacks are not the only ones who live in the ghetto today. My post was on the topic, but you have chose to bring race in to the thread because that is your only way of explaining his failures.

No. First off all, I didn't vote for Obama. Secondly, I do not support 75% of his policies so far. And thirdly, it is YOU that can't help interjecting race into each and every polititical thread here....even though the threads have nothing to do with race.

I know what you are and what you represent.

Footwedge;1230868 wrote:No. First off all, I didn't vote for Obama. Secondly, I do not support 75% of his policies so far. And thirdly, it is YOU that can't help interjecting race into each and every polititical thread here....even though the threads have nothing to do with race.

I know what you are and what you represent.