Print

[lordfly]

Again, when you have something adult to add, please do.

Why would you assume this is an adult forum? Nothing gets done in this forum except snark, holier-than-thou screeds, and political copypasta. It's a wasteland of ideas. The vast majority of folks here (myself included) are set in their ways, and nothing you or I or Kopke or Frenchfry or Salt or whatever is going to change anyone's minds.

This is what I do to pass the time when my latest Steam purchase is installing, or when I need a break from editing photos. If I wanted real political discourse I'd read a book, not argue with partisan hacks on a local forum. I'm all about the trolling in the politics forum, you should know this by now.

Want my opinion on things? Why? What's my opinion going to do? Change yours? Hardly. Will it affect political discourse in the county, city, state, nation? Not even a bit.

Here's my opinion:

We're ******.

Vote for whoever helps you sleep at night.

The end.

[sammy]

Why would you assume this is an adult forum? Nothing gets done in this forum except snark, holier-than-thou screeds, and political copypasta. It's a wasteland of ideas. The vast majority of folks here (myself included) are set in their ways, and nothing you or I or Kopke or Frenchfry or Salt or whatever is going to change anyone's minds.

This is what I do to pass the time when my latest Steam purchase is installing, or when I need a break from editing photos. If I wanted real political discourse I'd read a book, not argue with partisan hacks on a local forum. I'm all about the trolling in the politics forum, you should know this by now.

Want my opinion on things? Why? What's my opinion going to do? Change yours? Hardly. Will it affect political discourse in the county, city, state, nation? Not even a bit.

Here's my opinion:

We're ******.

Vote for whoever helps you sleep at night.

The end.

What do you suggest for those who cannot sleep no matter who is elected?

[lordfly]

What do you suggest for those who cannot sleep no matter who is elected?

Warm milk.

[Monique]

I do care, and I think that between this issue that illuminates his inherent dishonesty along with his flat refusal to produce his tax information for a relevant period has already done him in.

Obama wins easily in November.

[sammy]

I do care, and I think that between this issue that illuminates his inherent dishonesty along with his flat refusal to produce his tax information for a relevant period has already done him in.

Obama wins easily in November.

I have said  repeatedly what you last said; Obama wins. Easily is still up for grabs, at this point.

[LetsGoWings]

I do care, and I think that between this issue that illuminates his inherent dishonesty along with his flat refusal to produce his tax information for a relevant period has already done him in.

Obama wins easily in November.

Just curious, because I can't get an answer from anyone else about it, what would you consider a relevant period for tax returns?

[Monique]

I would say five years before he decided to run for president. Once he decided to run, I'm sure he got all his affairs in 'proper' order.

[LetsGoWings]

I would say five years before he decided to run for president. Once he decided to run, I'm sure he got all his affairs in 'proper' order.

Thank you for the answer Monique.

So, I am assuming you would be saying somewhere between 2000-2003?

Personally, I do not see the value in people releasing their tax returns because in all honesty they do not tell people a whole lot. The only thing they really tell people are the sources of income and the effective tax rate. The individuals who say he won't release them because he hides  his assets won't be able to prove anything because there is no box on the tax return for that.

[Monique]

Really this issue is about his reluctance. Even if his tax returns didn't tell us anything interesting at all, his refusal and his apparent fear of what we'd glean from his returns is the meat of the matter. He's obviously hiding something.

[LetsGoWings]

Really this issue is about his reluctance. Even if his tax returns didn't tell us anything interesting at all, his refusal and his apparent fear of what we'd glean from his returns is the meat of the matter. He's obviously hiding something.

If I were him I would just release them to shut people up.

You can take whatever I say with a grain of salt. I don't think he is hiding something, but he had a lower than usual tax rate in 2008 and 2009 because of the market crash.

 In 2009 he reported a 3,000 dollar capital loss, and I believe in 2010 and 2011 that number was around 10-12 million. To the casual observer this might look like he is hiding something, but in reality his investments suffered. In addition he had millions of dollars of dividends in 2010 and 2011, but in the preceding years companies potentially faced liquidity problems and might not have paid out dividends, so this could also look like he was offshoring income. So, he would go from approximately 20 million AGI in 2010 and 2011 to somewhere between 5-10 million(my estimates). And I imagine that some casual observer from the media would report this as Mitt did not release these tax returns because it proved he hid money overseas because his AGI jumped somewhere between 10-15 million in one year.

I do not think he is hiding anything, but I think he is taking advantage of tax loopholes and aggressive tax strategy, but how many rich people do not?

[Monique]

His 'taking advantage' and aggressively avoiding taxes is probably what he's trying to hide. His major sticking point with the American people is that he can't possibly be attuned to the needs of the middle class. 'Richie Rich'-like behavior isn't going to endear him to the masses.

[LetsGoWings]

His 'taking advantage' and aggressively avoiding taxes is probably what he's trying to hide. His major sticking point with the American people is that he can't possibly be attuned to the needs of the middle class. 'Richie Rich'-like behavior isn't going to endear him to the masses.

Just to be clear, the examples I mentioned are not taking advantage or aggressive strategies.

I don't think aggressive strategies are something he should hide because he is taking advantage of poorly written tax code, and if he can legally pay less taxes, then there should not be a problem with it. For the most part a financially rational individual is not going to pay more taxes than necessary. I personally do not think this makes them a bad person, just like it doesn't make Warren Buffet or anyone else a bad person.

[Monique]

Maybe not, but it sure doesn't make him a hero in the eyes of the voting majority, either. It paints him as a greedy, self serving person who takes full advantage of all the loopholes he can exploit.

Try and market "but he's only doing what rich people do" to the middle class. Ain't gonna happen. Obama wins.

[Baby Hitler]

Obama wins.

Not so sure about that. Too many people I know are totally against Obama, and disregard any facts that are presented to them that are contrary to their opinion.

This forum is a small sample of a much larger picture, and is unfortunatly quite accurate.

[LetsGoWings]

Maybe not, but it sure doesn't make him a hero in the eyes of the voting majority, either. It paints him as a greedy, self serving person who takes full advantage of all the loopholes he can exploit.

Try and market "but he's only doing what rich people do" to the middle class. Ain't gonna happen. Obama wins.

Oh I agree 100% that he won't do that, I think he could be a poster child for tax reform. I don't think it will make him look greedy either.

I don't think necessarily it would be "he's only doing what rich people do". I am far from rich and I do things to minimize my tax liability, like selling loss stock at the end of the year to generate capital losses.