Romney's Tax Problem- it's back

whistlelock said:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-...es-via-loophole-cutting-mormon-donations.html



Some of the more liberal partisan sites are going so far as to say that his actual tax rate from 1996 to 2009 was 0.

Something like that would make sense with Romney's "I paid all taxes legally required" statement earlier.

The Romney campaign has only responded via email with that the setup is perfectly legal.

Click to expand...

Perhaps that's just the sort of loophole Romney is going to get rid of.

whistlelock said:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-...es-via-loophole-cutting-mormon-donations.html

Some of the more liberal partisan sites are going so far as to say that his actual tax rate from 1996 to 2009 was 0.

Something like that would make sense with Romney's "I paid all taxes legally required" statement earlier.

Click to expand...

Not to mention Harry Reid's...

I'd be really surprised if that turned out to be true after all this, but a) there's not enough info for me to figure it out, and b) I don't see it mattering at this point.

At this point, no, it doesn't really matter.

Let's hope it continues not to matter after the election.

This isn't tax avoidance, as many people seem to assume, IME. Romney didn't pay the tax up front, because he didn't get the cash up front. That's what "tax-deferred" means. The tax is paid later because the cash is received later. It's like an installment sale of stock. You pay tax on the portion you receive each year.

Big whoop.

The way the article is written makes it sound like something evil is going on, only "it's legal according to the tax code" *cough*yeah, right*cough* This makes the average reader feel suspicious and then, of course, hateful towards "those greedy rich people."

I'm sick of it, personally. But then again, I seem to always find myself defending the wealthy. *shrug* They pay me well.

This story came out in the Dutch press today. Apparently, Romney piped some of his money through the Netherlands to dodge taxes.

http://www.rnw.nl/english/article/dutch-tax-dodge-mitt-romney

Too bad I can't find a translation of the original article.

Thank god we are focusing on the important things in this election. Romney's taxes are far more important than the complete lack of a photo of President Obama in the White House Situation Room at any point during the seven hours our Consulate was under attack and our Ambassador was being raped and murdered.

Really. It is.

Richard Paolinelli said:

Thank god we are focusing on the important things in this election. Romney's taxes are far more important than the complete lack of a photo of President Obama in the White House Situation Room at any point during the seven hours our Consulate was under attack and our Ambassador was being raped and murdered.

Really. It is.

Click to expand...

wut

No seriosly, what? I can't recall where he was, but there is a possibility that he was seven hours away from the Situation Room. From which point, he would be communicating through phone and laptop.

Xelebes said:

wut

No seriosly, what? I can't recall where he was, but there is a possibility that he was seven hours away from the Situation Room. From which point, he would be communicating through phone and laptop.

Click to expand...

He was in D.C. during the entire incident.

We have seen photos of Obama in the Sit Room during the Bin Laden raid and during Hurricane Sandy.

But oddly enough, no photo of Obama in the Sit Room at any point during the seven-hour attack.

Now, I wonder, why is that?

Well, due to the decentralized nature of a country with a fairly healthy info-tech base - like ours - I don't see any particular reason why Obama needs to be in the Situation Room...especially when he's a politician, not an actual soldier.

What he needs to do is be given the information through whatever means he prefers - most likely a combination of advisers, PDF files and so on - and then delegate decisions to the people who actually know what they're doing in an incredibly dangerous situation.

And even if Obama screwed the pooch as badly as you insinuate - which I'm fully willing to believe, once more information comes out - that doesn't negate the fact that Romney is...well, kind of acting pretty sketchy.

Which could mean that NEITHER of them has the chops to run the country, but...well, those are the two choices.

(Unless you want to vote for one of the third party people)

EDIT: Of course, this is just supposition. I don't actually know how emergencies are handled by the President, because...well, I'm not the President. But I assume that he delegates most of the military stuff after making the big picture decisions.

Do you have a source for that?

Anyways, the Situation Room is for the president to oversee the execution of a planned attack. The attack in Benghazi was not planned. What feeds would he have had in the Situation Room that he did not have through his phone (Blackberry)?

Richard Paolinelli said:

He was in D.C. during the entire incident.

We have seen photos of Obama in the Sit Room during the Bin Laden raid and during Hurricane Sandy.

But oddly enough, no photo of Obama in the Sit Room at any point during the seven-hour attack.

Now, I wonder, why is that?

Click to expand...

This is just silly.

Richard Paolinelli said:

Thank god we are focusing on the important things in this election. Romney's taxes are far more important than the complete lack of a photo of President Obama in the White House Situation Room at any point during the seven hours our Consulate was under attack and our Ambassador was being raped and murdered.

Really. It is.

Click to expand...

Welcome to my ignore list...

Richard Paolinelli said:

Now, I wonder, why is that?

Click to expand...

It's because he is a secret Muslim and he was personally directing the attack himself. It's the only explanation.

Richard Paolinelli said:

Thank god we are focusing on the important things in this election. Romney's taxes are far more important than the complete lack of a photo of President Obama in the White House Situation Room at any point during the seven hours our Consulate was under attack and our Ambassador was being raped and murdered.

Really. It is.

Click to expand...

Don't be impatient. Everyone knows they're saving that pic for the White House Christmas card this year.

Yes, I am being sarcastic.

Richard, this is OT and you might not be hanging around here, but the whole 'ambassador raped and murdered' line was disproved weeks ago.

To go back to Romney and the tax dodge: sure, it's not illegal. Everything was more than likely done within the letter of all applicable laws. Please recall, said laws were sculpted by lobbyists, businesses, and legislators who stood to gain from them. This is the same thinking which keeps promising the rest of us a trickle-down economy that never really manifested, while playing accounting games that led to the financial meltdown.

Richard Paolinelli said:

He was in D.C. during the entire incident.

We have seen photos of Obama in the Sit Room during the Bin Laden raid and during Hurricane Sandy.

But oddly enough, no photo of Obama in the Sit Room at any point during the seven-hour attack.

Now, I wonder, why is that?

Click to expand...

Oh, God. Thanks. I needed a laugh. Good satire is hard to come by these days.

Chrissy said:

This isn't tax avoidance, as many people seem to assume, IME. Romney didn't pay the tax up front, because he didn't get the cash up front. That's what "tax-deferred" means. The tax is paid later because the cash is received later. It's like an installment sale of stock. You pay tax on the portion you receive each year.

Big whoop.

The way the article is written makes it sound like something evil is going on, only "it's legal according to the tax code" *cough*yeah, right*cough* This makes the average reader feel suspicious and then, of course, hateful towards "those greedy rich people."

I'm sick of it, personally. But then again, I seem to always find myself defending the wealthy. *shrug* They pay me well.

Click to expand...

Since the financial crisis began, the personal wealth of the 1000 wealthiest Britons has increased by £155bn. The deficit we're cutting public services to the bone to pay off - leading to real hardship for millions - is about £120bn. They could pay off the whole lot out of their own pockets and still have thirty five million quid each as their profit over that period. They could bail us out, but instead we tend to be bailing them out. It seems deeply unfair.

There's a real sense that we're not all in it together, and that money's just being sucked out of our pockets and concentrated in the tax haven bank accounts of a very few.

On the whole tax planning issue, well, of course people will take advantage of this kind of stuff if they can; but I can't even afford the advice I'd need from a specialist to show me what I could do. Hell, the one time I met with a financial adviser, the best strategy he could come up with was for me to die earlier. (That may well be Romney's secret tax plan, ha ha.) If you've already got a lot of money, you'll pay more money in taxes than I do, but you'll pay less as a proportion of your income. This also feels deeply unfair.

I just think it looks vulgar and grasping, a man exploiting his privilege in order to reinforce it. It's not a good look for a politician.

I agree with Filigree's point that the tax laws (which are perfectly legal) were sculpted by Congress, et al in bed with the wealthy-- sometimes. Also, sometimes, things like, for example, tax breaks for charitable contributions are put in place to promote charity, when in fact they end up having more negative unintended consequences than positive. Like, non-legit charities and convuluted schemes such as the one in the OP.

What I don't agree with is singling out wealthy people as somehow being greedy for using the tax laws to their benefit. Although, in Romney's case, I'll make an exception. He is running for office, after all. (And hopefully losing right about now )

I just can't get on board with "those wealthy people could save us" because they can either (A) dump massive amounts of personal funds into a corrupt government or (B) be required to pay proportionately more than the average person (remember: the top 1% of Americans pay 37% of the tax revenue; the top 5% pay 60%, and the top 50% pay 97%).

I think the best way for the government to earn more revenue is to leave everyone the hell alone and let them earn money and pay taxes--fairly. Which would mean, imo, dismantling the entire Internal Revenue Code at this point.

So I said a lot of stuff there, but the bottom line is I'm against villifying the wealthy because "they have" what "we need." FedGov? Whole nother story.

Chrissy said:

(B) be required to pay proportionately more than the average person (remember: the top 1% of Americans pay 37% of the tax revenue; the top 5% pay 60%, and the top 50% pay 97%).

Click to expand...

The US had had much more steeply progressive taxation in the past, and it's also been in much better fiscal shape than it is now. It's possible the two are connected, and also that the big tax cuts to the rich in recent times aren't actually helping.

I don't really mean to imply that the rich should just get their wallets out and pay off the deficit, but I do think that someone like Mitt Romney ought to be paying at least the same share of his income as I do. I also think that when we're getting our libraries closed, and people with terminal illnesses are being forced to work, and the whole safety net is developing gaping holes - then when you find out that corporations and individuals are using their ingenuity mainly to minimize what they give back to society - well, that's how you get Occupy.

A couple of weeks after George Osborne announced billions in public sector spending cuts, we found out that Vodafone had skated on an even bigger tax bill as a result of a handshake deal made over an agreeable lunch with the head of the Inland Revenue. The next thing you know, there are actual riots on the streets. People aren't going to put up with that kind of crap much longer.

It does add insult to injury when people are suffering, I agree.

I feel it would be extremely fair to have a flat tax on all forms on net income, with a zero federal rate for low-income taxpayers. Forget itemized deductions.

But then so many IRS agents and lobbyists would lose their jobs... and politicians would have nothing to bargain with.... and who would the government villify when they ran out of money?

Despite what Steve Forbes and Fox News tell you, a flat tax would be crushing to the middle and lower classes, especially given how the dollar has been weakened over the past 12 years. Unless food, housing, and utility bills are also going to be lowered to a proportionally equal rate, so that the low and middle class are paying a similar small % of total income on basic necessities as the rich do, then a flat tax is a horrible idea.

I'm also unsure of how taxing people on their net income would work, since net income, in terms of a paycheck, is what is left after income and payroll taxes (and 401k, if applicable) have been deducted. So, you want to tax people on the amount of money they get after they've been taxed?

Opty said:

Despite what Steve Forbes and Fox News tell you, a flat tax would be crushing to the middle and lower classes, especially given how the dollar has been weakened over the past 12 years. Unless food, housing, and utility bills are also going to be lowered to a proportionally equal rate, so that the low and middle class are paying a similar small % of total income on basic necessities as the rich do, then a flat tax is a horrible idea.

Click to expand...

That's why I said net, but get rid of itemized deductions.

I'm also unsure of how taxing people on their net income would work, since net income, in terms of a paycheck, is what is left after income and payroll taxes (and 401k, if applicable) have been deducted. So, you want to tax people on the amount of money they get after they've been taxed?

Click to expand...

No. Net income = revenue minus expenses.

For individuals, there would be a flat tax on disposable income. Disposable income would be gross revenue minus expenses -- the expenses would be an amount determined by family size and region. Sort of how the exemptions and dependent allowances work now, only the amounts are way too small and don't factor in the different COLs. If you have no disposable income, you pay no tax. If you have very little, you pay very little. If you have more, you pay more, but not proportionately more than those who have less, because the tax rate is flat.