Print

[sammy]

Seems you agree with Harry Reid that Romney paid no taxes, but perhaps you forgot your advice on this forum: "I'd advise against anyone contemplating sullying the reputation of any of the candidates without solid proof. "

I guess your advice only applies to Democrats, but it is fair to have open season on Republicans. Questioning whether Romney's taxes is OK accusing Romney, or anyone, of committing a felony without solid proof is extremely wrong, and even you know that. However, you will continue to parrot Harry Reid and the Democrats that Romney paid zero taxes for ten years because you are extremely biased and do not believe in having solid proof to accuse a Republican of wrong doing.

Wow! someone in this thread actually wrote something out of  his own head. How weird  is that? Maybe, just maybe Romney DIDN"T pay any taxes in the last ten years.  If not, I give great kudos to his accountants, since they would be the ones finding all those loopholes in the tax code, which obviously needs no changes. IF Harry can prove his charge, Mitt is already dead in the water, BUT ,if he can't, then it's just another baseless charge. BTW Harry is not running for re-election, so he has absolutely nothing to lose!

[LetsGoWings]

It is nice that you can argue "legally", yet it is still possible, is it not, that he could have LEGALLY paid nothing?  I am not saying that is or is not the case.  Personally, I think the idea of average people getting messaged about how many ways that the wealthy can LEGALLY pay less taxes is the biggest threat.

I would say there is an extremely small chance that he legally paid taxes over the past 10 years simply because of his wealth, especially with all his dividends and interest he has. I would be willing to bet that anyone with that wealth and income listed on the tax returns returns paid taxes in the last 10 years, and if they did not they would have evaded taxes.

I have said on this forum multiple times that I would like to see them close the larger loopholes and raise taxes.

Do you not agree that it is a little out of hand to accuse someone of a felony without solid proof? It is one thing to question, but a completely different scenario to blatantly accuse an individual of a felony without solid proof. I believe someone should have solid proof to accuse an individual of a felony regardless of wealth or political preference. The ironic thing is FF champions innocent until proven guilty for the common man, but is ready to convict Romney without solid proof, and you fail to see that because you do not like Romney.

[Flanders]

It is nice that you can argue "legally", yet it is still possible, is it not, that he could have LEGALLY paid nothing?  I am not saying that is or is not the case.  Personally, I think the idea of average people getting messaged about how many ways that the wealthy can LEGALLY pay less taxes is the biggest threat.

Please show me a few democrats that have voluntarily paid more taxes than what was required of them, so as to not use any loopholes on their part.

[ducksoup]

I would say there is an extremely small chance that he legally paid taxes over the past 10 years simply because of his wealth, especially with all his dividends and interest he has. I would be willing to bet that anyone with that wealth and income listed on the tax returns returns paid taxes in the last 10 years, and if they did not they would have evaded taxes.

I have said on this forum multiple times that I would like to see them close the larger loopholes and raise taxes.

Do you not agree that it is a little out of hand to accuse someone of a felony without solid proof? It is one thing to question, but a completely different scenario to blatantly accuse an individual of a felony without solid proof. I believe someone should have solid proof to accuse an individual of a felony regardless of wealth or political preference. The ironic thing is FF champions innocent until proven guilty for the common man, but is ready to convict Romney without solid proof, and you fail to see that because you do not like Romney.

Show my words stating that Romney committed a felony.  I very clearly said LEGALLY didn't I.  That precludes felony as a factor, doesn't it?

A small chance of paying little to nothing is more than most of us get. 

Please show me a few democrats that have voluntarily paid more taxes than what was required of them, so as to not use any loopholes on their part.

Did I say that only Republican's use tax loopholes?  Geesh, I said that he and other wealthy people (democrat, republican, and giraffe party)would not like the level and scope of tax loopholes getting to the average people to see how extensive it is... and just for you Flanders FOR DEMOCRATS TOO.

[Flanders]

Did I say that only Republican's use tax loopholes?  Geesh, I said that he and other wealthy people (democrat, republican, and giraffe party)would not like the level and scope of tax loopholes getting to the average people to see how extensive it is... and just for you Flanders FOR DEMOCRATS TOO.

My bad, for a second there I thought the thread was called "Mitt Romney".

[Frenchfry]

Looks like Romney will say anything to change the subject:

The Romney campaign has a new ad that falsely alleges President Obama wants to "gut" the welfare reform signed by President Clinton. Former Clinton Chief of Staff John Podesta spoke with his former boss today about the Romney attack. In an exclusive interview, he tells Alex Wagner about President Clinton's reaction. NY Magazine's John Heilemann and The Boston Globe's Callum Borchers also join.

The Last Word - Romney wades into Welfare politics

[LetsGoWings]

Show my words stating that Romney committed a felony.  I very clearly said LEGALLY didn't I.  That precludes felony as a factor, doesn't it?

A small chance of paying little to nothing is more than most of us get. 

I was pointing out in general of accusing a felony, but yes you are correct and did say legally.

I would say most of us have a larger, but still extremely small, chance of paying nothing than he does.

I should have quantified the small amount better, my apologies. If I am not mistaken you are a Tigers fan. Do you remember back when they were absolutely terrible and flirting with the all time loss record (I know all of us Tigers fans don't want to think about that). The chance he legally paid zero taxes was about the equivalent chance of the Tigers making the playoffs a few games before they were officially eliminated. With the amount of interest and dividends Mitt had he almost certainly paid taxes on that, maybe not a lot though.

And not calling you out at all DS, but to the other people here questioning him is great, but accusing him, or anyone, of a felony without strong evidence is a horrible thing to do. Now if he legally paid no taxes then hopefully that would jump start tax reform.

[ducksoup]

I was pointing out in general of accusing a felony, but yes you are correct and did say legally.

I would say most of us have a larger, but still extremely small, chance of paying nothing than he does.

I should have quantified the small amount better, my apologies. If I am not mistaken you are a Tigers fan. Do you remember back when they were absolutely terrible and flirting with the all time loss record (I know all of us Tigers fans don't want to think about that). The chance he legally paid zero taxes was about the equivalent chance of the Tigers making the playoffs a few games before they were officially eliminated. With the amount of interest and dividends Mitt had he almost certainly paid taxes on that, maybe not a lot though.

And not calling you out at all DS, but to the other people here questioning him is great, but accusing him, or anyone, of a felony without strong evidence is a horrible thing to do. Now if he legally paid no taxes then hopefully that would jump start tax reform.

I guess that is my point.  Whether he paid none, which I agree isn't as likely, it is very possible it was a small percentage.  What if (notice the IF) he only paid 3% to 8% over those years because of LEGAL loopholes?  Wouldn't that bring attention (unwanted attention) about how many loopholes exist solely for the very wealthy? 
I know, all of it is a big question, and mostly because Romney refuses to release his taxes.  Yeah, he doesn't HAVE to but seems pretty injurious at this point not to.  So, the next logical question is "why not" and that is what people are doing.  Asking themselves what he has in them that he would take such injury politically to hide.  Legal stuff of course.

[LetsGoWings]

I guess that is my point.  Whether he paid none, which I agree isn't as likely, it is very possible it was a small percentage.  What if (notice the IF) he only paid 3% to 8% over those years because of LEGAL loopholes?  Wouldn't that bring attention (unwanted attention) about how many loopholes exist solely for the very wealthy? 
I know, all of it is a big question, and mostly because Romney refuses to release his taxes.  Yeah, he doesn't HAVE to but seems pretty injurious at this point not to.  So, the next logical question is "why not" and that is what people are doing.  Asking themselves what he has in them that he would take such injury politically to hide.  Legal stuff of course.

I agree it would bring attention, unwanted on his part and on the wealthy individuals. I would love to see all the loopholes, then there could be a discussion on how to close the egregious ones.

I guess another question is how do people determine the percents he paid. Effective tax rate is almost always the Tax liability/Taxable Income. It seems most people, understandably, are using Tax Liability/AGI. I would like to point out when people say they pay a higher tax rate than Mitt most likely are assuming their marginal rate is their total tax rate.

As to what is in them I am not too sure, the only thing I know for sure is in the 2009 tax return he reported a 3,000 capital loss. Most likely had the same for 2008. Compared to, I believe, around 12 million in 2010 and 2011. Now, not trying to make you seem unintelligent or anything, but to the average Joe/Jane would that not seem extremely fishy to have 12 million capital gains in one year and the previous year have a 3000 capital loss?

The world may never know about the rest of those returns.

[Frenchfry]

Republicans and Democrats love Paul Ryan

Aug 8, 2012
With only 90 days to go until election day, both Republicans and Democrats want Congressman Paul Ryan as Romney's VP pick. Democratic strategists Keith Boykin and Michael Murphy, and Republican strategist Susan Del Percio weigh in on the Pros and Cons of a Romney, Ryan ticket.

The ED Show - Republicans and Democrats love Paul Ryan

[Frenchfry]

The ED Show - Conservatives fume at Romney Camp over health care defense

[Frenchfry]

The Last Word - Ann Coulter demands Romney fire spokesperson

[Frenchfry]

The ED Show - Romney flip-flops again

[Frenchfry]

The ED Show - New low for Gingrich?

[Frenchfry]

"Stretch" - Obama for America TV Ad