<<<(CNN) -- Mitt Romney's refusal to release tax returns in the critical years of his income accumulation has done little to dispel the legitimate concern that arises from hints buried in his scant disclosure to date: Did he augment his wealth through highly aggressive tax stratagems of questionable validity?>>>
Read the details:
http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/08/...ney-taxes/index.html
Replies sorted oldest to newest
Appears he takes advantages of all tax breaks. Just like most Americans. Interesting that his VP choice is a champion of income tax reform. In particular, of eliminating tax breaks for the wealth, while keeping the effect revenue neutral by adjusting rates.
Appears he takes advantages of all tax breaks. Just like most Americans. Interesting that his VP choice is a champion of income tax reform. In particular, of eliminating tax breaks for the wealth, while keeping the effect revenue neutral by adjusting rates.
___
Ahem--did you not notice that the "tax break" described in the attachment was found to be illegal? The Marriott Corporation entity that was found guilty of violating the tax code was fined over $200 MILLION dollars for its illegal action. Romney (an old Marriott buddy) was chairman of the company's AUDITING board that found nothing out of order with that illegal action. It is illegal to "take advantage " of illegal "tax breaks."
Now--is there anything about "illegal" here that escapes you this time around?
From the article:
"In his key role as chairman of the Marriott board's audit committee, Romney approved the firm's reporting of fictional tax losses exceeding $70 million generated by its Son of Boss transaction. His endorsement of this stratagem provides insight into Romney's professional ethics and attitude toward tax compliance obligations."
Did a bit more digging on this. As usual, its not as simple as liberals portray. For details of the scheme see http://www.son-of-boss.com/
Of more importance was that the accounting firm Price Waterhouse, now PWC, recommended approval. Romney, who is not a tax lawyer, accepted their recommendation.
Perhaps, if they had a 1,000 man crew of lawyers, accountants and lobbyists like GE they would pay no taxes, like GE. Remember Obama's good buddy, GE Chairman and CEO, Jeff Immelt whom Obama appointed to a new position as Chairman on the Council on Jobs and Competitiveness.
nice attempt at DEFLECTION! i don't recall seeing immelt running for potus. i must have missed that.
I wonder what he is hiding. He wants to become our President, where he will have access to any information he wants about anyone in this country (if not the world) Yet he refuses to release his tax returns to the very people he is asking to give him that power.
If Geithner can't do his taxes using Turbo Tax and Obama might have entered college as a foreign exchange student, then why care about Romney's tax returns? Did the IRS audit him? Has he been fined, gone to jail, arrested for tax evasion? Anything?
So it OK to take the advice of a huge accounting company when it comes to the ridiculously convuluted tax laws, and you would *******ize the man for it, but when it comes to something as simple as being a crook, you reward that behavior???
LEts look at why the current POTUS and his first lady no longer hold their law licenses..what are they hiding???
1. President Barack Obama , former editor
of the Harvard Law Review , is no longer a "lawyer". He
surrendered his license back in 2008 in order to escape charges he lied on his
bar application. A "Voluntary Surrender" is not
something where you decide "Gee, a license is not really something I need
anymore, is it?" and forget to renew your license. No, a "Voluntary Surrender"
is something you do when you've been accused of something, and you
'voluntarily surrender" your license five seconds before the state suspends
you.
2 Michelle Obama "voluntarily surrendered"
her law license in 1993. after a Federal Judge gave her the choice between
surrendering her license or standing trial for Insurance fraud!
Still more digging on son of BOSS (bond and option sales strategy). This was a tax avoidance scheme advocated by the CPA firm Price Waterhouse (now PWC). Ruled illegal by the IRS, about 1,800 people were involved.
The worst Romney did was take the word of one of the big three CPA firms that it was legal. Whereas, Geithner took the word of a computer program. Typical liberal smear campaign -- rather like a left wing version of the birthers. And, just as crazed.
Please you guys are all over Romney to release his tax info when Obama refuses to release his school grades or papers, birth certificate etc and Harry "dufus" Reed will not release his tax returns. Romney apparently did nothing wrong as the IRS accepted his tax returns.
Harry Reid is now Crazy Harry. And, we thought the birthers were nuts!
You guys are right. I don't need to see his tax return to know that he paid less (percentage) in taxes than I did. Even though his net income far exceeds mine. That he used every available tax break and scheme to make sure he did not pay into the system that supports the wars, and corporate subsidies that he and his business buddies have profited from. While they squeezed every penny out of the middle class. I don't have to see his returns to know that he has taken advantage at every opportunity to hide as much of his income in off s**** bank accounts.
I don't have to see his tax returns to know that he will do everything within his power as President to ensure he and others like him continue to rake in billions of tax free dollars while the rest of us pay a percentage that is more than double for a fraction of what his income is.
He is a Milton Friedman and the Chicago school boys follower. Capitailism in its most strictest form will be the death of America. Look at the countries of South America in the 70's and 80's to see what Romney's form of government would look like.
And we don't have to see yours to know that you could have used the same deductions available to him, probably more so than any avaialble to him, to prevent paying a higher proportion of your taxes to the government. All the while you will cast doubts about his truthfulness and integrity when he probably followed the laws just exactly as you did.
What you want to see is that he pays a much higher percentage of his income to taxes than you, and are fully conveniced that if someone else will pay more all of the probelms we have in this country will go away.
If I am not mistaken it is your honorable Obama who is the graduate of Chicago style polticis. This man has picked a running mate who was even exhalted by Obama and Clinton as someone who had come up with a decent plan to save this country. Look for the soundbites soon coming to a commercial near you.
You guys are right. I don't need to see his tax return to know that he paid less (percentage) in taxes than I did. Even though his net income far exceeds mine. That he used every available tax break and scheme to make sure he did not pay into the system that supports the wars, and corporate subsidies that he and his business buddies have profited from. While they squeezed every penny out of the middle class. I don't have to see his returns to know that he has taken advantage at every opportunity to hide as much of his income in off s**** bank accounts.
I don't have to see his tax returns to know that he will do everything within his power as President to ensure he and others like him continue to rake in billions of tax free dollars while the rest of us pay a percentage that is more than double for a fraction of what his income is.
He is a Milton Friedman and the Chicago school boys follower. Capitailism in its most strictest form will be the death of America. Look at the countries of South America in the 70's and 80's to see what Romney's form of government would look like.
Most of the South American nations that tried capitalism were under a form of crony capitalism for a time -- pretty much what Obama is doing now. Argentina, once one of the wealthiest nations, is going downhill, again. Fascism brought her down. Then, rule by three presidential bimbos delivered the death blow.
Only Chile came close. But, socialists have ensured that will not continue.
And we don't have to see yours to know that you could have used the same deductions available to him, probably more so than any avaialble to him, to prevent paying a higher proportion of your taxes to the government. All the while you will cast doubts about his truthfulness and integrity when he probably followed the laws just exactly as you did.
What you want to see is that he pays a much higher percentage of his income to taxes than you, and are fully conveniced that if someone else will pay more all of the probelms we have in this country will go away.
If I am not mistaken it is your honorable Obama who is the graduate of Chicago style polticis. This man has picked a running mate who was even exhalted by Obama and Clinton as someone who had come up with a decent plan to save this country. Look for the soundbites soon coming to a commercial near you.
************************************************
I can tell you that I in no way can get the same tax rate as Romney. I do not have stocks in companies anywhere near what he has. I have to actually work for a living and when you actually work in this country your income taxes are much higher. If I could just draw the interest from my investments to live on then I could get away with paying 13% or so instead of 28%. That is what actual working folks pay. I never said he broke any laws. He didnt' have to. The system is set up perfectly for him to continue to profit and pay very little back into that system. Legally. The rich benefit at the expense of the middle class. In the 40's CEO's made about 20 times what the workers in their companies made. We are now at around 400 times what the average worker makes, and climbing.
I don't want to see him pay MORE percentage wise than I do. I want him to pay equal in percentage that I do. That's fair right? If you say no, then why is it not fair. Why should I pay a higher percentage of my income to taxes than he does? You mistakenly thought that I wanted him to pay more than me and you felt that was wrong, so why do you think *I* should pay more than him?
Educate yourself on who Milton Friedman and the Chicago Boys are. Your reference to Chicago politics is ridiculous in this discussion and something entirely different.
You guys are right. I don't need to see his tax return to know that he paid less (percentage) in taxes than I did. Even though his net income far exceeds mine. That he used every available tax break and scheme to make sure he did not pay into the system that supports the wars, and corporate subsidies that he and his business buddies have profited from. While they squeezed every penny out of the middle class. I don't have to see his returns to know that he has taken advantage at every opportunity to hide as much of his income in off s**** bank accounts.
I don't have to see his tax returns to know that he will do everything within his power as President to ensure he and others like him continue to rake in billions of tax free dollars while the rest of us pay a percentage that is more than double for a fraction of what his income is.
He is a Milton Friedman and the Chicago school boys follower. Capitailism in its most strictest form will be the death of America. Look at the countries of South America in the 70's and 80's to see what Romney's form of government would look like.
Most of the South American nations that tried capitalism were under a form of crony capitalism for a time -- pretty much what Obama is doing now. Argentina, once one of the wealthiest nations, is going downhill, again. Fascism brought her down. Then, rule by three presidential bimbos delivered the death blow.
Only Chile came close. But, socialists have ensured that will not continue.
_____________________________________
So hundreds of thousands of citizens in Chile who "went missing" and others that were tortured and killed to bring about the capitalist ideals of Milton Friedman is what you believe Obama is doing in our country today? Wow..... I thought you guys believed that Obama is a socialist. When did he become a president who takes away all welfare and turned this country into a pure free market society? If he has done as you say and is governing in the same way Chile did in the 70's I would think you Republicans would be happy. No welfare for anyone. No regulations for banks. What happened in Chile in the 70's is what Romney and Ryan have planned for the US. Reagan would have done it if he thought he had the support, but that was then and this is now. Corporations are way stronger and have control of our government. It can be done today. It will be done if Romney is elected.
You guys are right. I don't need to see his tax return to know that he paid less (percentage) in taxes than I did. Even though his net income far exceeds mine. That he used every available tax break and scheme to make sure he did not pay into the system that supports the wars, and corporate subsidies that he and his business buddies have profited from. While they squeezed every penny out of the middle class. I don't have to see his returns to know that he has taken advantage at every opportunity to hide as much of his income in off s**** bank accounts.
I don't have to see his tax returns to know that he will do everything within his power as President to ensure he and others like him continue to rake in billions of tax free dollars while the rest of us pay a percentage that is more than double for a fraction of what his income is.
He is a Milton Friedman and the Chicago school boys follower. Capitailism in its most strictest form will be the death of America. Look at the countries of South America in the 70's and 80's to see what Romney's form of government would look like.
Most of the South American nations that tried capitalism were under a form of crony capitalism for a time -- pretty much what Obama is doing now. Argentina, once one of the wealthiest nations, is going downhill, again. Fascism brought her down. Then, rule by three presidential bimbos delivered the death blow.
Only Chile came close. But, socialists have ensured that will not continue.
_____________________________________
So hundreds of thousands of citizens in Chile who "went missing" and others that were tortured and killed to bring about the capitalist ideals of Milton Friedman is what you believe Obama is doing in our country today? Wow..... I thought you guys believed that Obama is a socialist. When did he become a president who takes away all welfare and turned this country into a pure free market society? If he has done as you say and is governing in the same way Chile did in the 70's I would think you Republicans would be happy. No welfare for anyone. No regulations for banks. What happened in Chile in the 70's is what Romney and Ryan have planned for the US. Reagan would have done it if he thought he had the support, but that was then and this is now. Corporations are way stronger and have control of our government. It can be done today. It will be done if Romney is elected.
Mass murder is the one thing collectivists seem to manage well. Free marketers don't like to get rid of potential customers. Crony capitalism occurs in when the state tries to pick and chose winners -- its a practice usually found among collectivists. Fascist Italy was a prime example. As was India before they adoped free market ideas.
"No welfare for anyone. No regulations for banks. What happened in Chile in the 70's is what Romney and Ryan have planned for the US. Reagan would have done it if he thought he had the support, but that was then and this is now." Typical liberal hysteria, you guys really should modernize your playbook. This is just sad. No, conservatives would not remove all regulations from banks. We wouldn't saddle them with thousands of pages of regulations, but keep the regulations fairly simple and bright line. Most important would be reminding banks of they wanted help from the government, they must accept de facto bankruptcy. That means all compensation if on the table -- bonuses, pay and continued employment. Once they realize that, they would be much more careful how they cavort with other people's money. Wish we could do the same with government. Also, stop the incestuous migration of people from private sector banks and investment houses to the SEC, Treasury and DoJ and back. Put Fannie/Freddie slowly out of business. Their interjection of a trillion dollars into the housing market drove up the price of houses and cause the speculation.
So Jank,
You would be happy with a flat tax rate that is not a progressive tax system that penalizes those who make more?
Say it ain't so.
Finally you are making some sense. It does not take a genius to know that 20% of $20K is still a helluva lot less than 20% of $250K, but the majority of the Liberals and Dems feel like a progressive tax system is the ONLY way to go. As far as living off of their investments, I do think that a certain amount of money from investments (401K, annuities, etc) should be taxed at alower rate since a large number of retirees do live off of this money and it is no different than a fixed income. There should be al imit to it, and it is not for me to say, but I would think $1M is a little excessive.
