Should Mitt release his tax returns?
- Thread starter northeast
- Start date
I agree with that .. which is why I've always liked the idea of a flat-tax.
Colton, he might not use those words....
but he seems consistent with the broad republican themes.
He has said that he would want to reduce loopholes, but has given no specifics as to what loopholes he would eliminate, so I think that is just hot air.
He has specifically said that he favors not having an estate tax, which is about as clear an example of a position that favors the wealthy as there is.
I'm pretty sure I've heard him give speeches talking about the importance of the job creators, which to me is code for subsidies or tax savings for rich people. You'd have to find and quote some speeches if you want more details, I've wasted too much time on this already today.
but he seems consistent with the broad republican themes.
He has said that he would want to reduce loopholes, but has given no specifics as to what loopholes he would eliminate, so I think that is just hot air.
He has specifically said that he favors not having an estate tax, which is about as clear an example of a position that favors the wealthy as there is.
I'm pretty sure I've heard him give speeches talking about the importance of the job creators, which to me is code for subsidies or tax savings for rich people. You'd have to find and quote some speeches if you want more details, I've wasted too much time on this already today.
Colton, I think that seeing Romney's and Bain's tax return over a long period would likely awaken the general public to the realization that some of the rich get the benefit of far more extensive tax loopholes than they were aware of. It would be an education about what the tax code actually is, in practice, not just in theory.
I agree that it would be very educational. (Or maybe not; I guess Kerry released a lot of his returns, and he's nearly as rich as Romney. More rich, if you include his wife. And it didn't seem to teach the country very much.) But "Romney should release his tax returns so that it will be educational for the country" is not the argument being made, nor is it a valid argument.
the devil is in the details....
i could be enthused about a flat tax too, but there is no way all the loopholes will be eliminated, so really the flat tax is just a way to justify lowering the tax rates on wealthy people and raising the rates on everyone else.
Get rid of all the loopholes, allow people to get one standard deduction of say 50k inflation adjusted, and I would probably be thrilled with that. but there are 10,000 details to work out, and what we'd get would be nothing like what I'd want.
[ changes that would make a good flat tax, but won't happen, follow:
INDIVIDUALS
No deductions for charities , education, medical expenses, mortgages, etc....
CORPORATIONS
What about corporations and small businesses. As long as we are going to eliminate loopholes for individuals, we ought to put in equal effort to eliminate loopholes for businesses too, right?
Eliminate tax savings for vacations., entertaining clients, ... hiding profits overseas, writing off medical expenses,
Certainly cracking down on hiding assets in tax havens and cutting out the Romney treatment of income as deferred interest would be high on the list , probably a hundred other things I am not thinking of right now,
How about taxing unrealized capital gains yearly
Bringing back profits from overseas as OB talks about.
RETIREMENT
Doing away with retirement savings accounts past a certain amount.
and of course, bringing back the estate tax, and taking away the loopholes for getting around that that employ armies of high priced accountants and lawyers and trust planners and lobbyists whose sole purpose is to help wealthy people avoid taxes instead of do anything useful for society
You put all of these things on the table, and I'll help design a flat tax that'd be a real improvement.]
Last edited:
My stance is that it is legal and should be allowed. However! If the Muslim copmmunity truly wanted acceptance and to make a olive branch type of statement they would have moved their mosque. They can build there and should if that's what they want. Just stop with the phony "woe is me" crap when people are offended and protest.
I was responding to this.
You make a good point about Kerry, however, what we know about Romney already suggests to me that a complete look at his financial past would be a super eyeopener. Of course, if i am wrong, he could just turn around and use his tax records to demonstrate to us how wrong I am. How many years did Kerry release? If Kerry did, why won't Romney? This issue seems extremely relevant to me.
I think it'd be great if the public knew more about the reality of our tax system. The IRS could do this with the names redacted to protect people's privacy. Just focusing on people who run our government would be a decent compromise.
It'd be nice if people in comparable situations paid comparable taxes, and there was not a large variability according to how aggressively different people chose to take advantage of grey areas and loopholes.
SaltyDawg
Well-Known Member
For the record, my stance was that the mosque was totally legal, but it was in poor taste and shouldn't have been built.
The Romney tax thing is similar. It's totally legal if he doesn't, but he should still release them. There is at least a well established precedent of presidential candidates releasing tax records, even if it isn't technically required by law.
Yeah he probably should. But I also agree with the notion that he is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. DNC operative will pick him apart. That's their jobs.
It just fits with the precedent of government and everything involved truly being as obscure and hidden as possible. That is not an attack on Romney but the entire government culture of which Romney and Obama are a part.
SaltyDawg
Well-Known Member
Oh yeah, they will without a doubt eat him alive after he releases them. But they are eating him alive right now anyway, so I don't see how hiding them will be any better.
If he gets eaten alive either way, he might as well be open and honest with the American people instead of being secretive. Especially on something like this that presidential candidates have traditionally been pretty open about.
I mean, this tradition of presidential candidates being so open about tax returns was started by Romney's father, so it's pretty weird that he is going to be the presidential candidate to go against it. Even worse when his whole campaign is basically "Vote for me because I'm a business man who knows how to make money, so I can help the country more than the current president who just lead us out of a recession." If he is campaigning on his successful business record, he should have no problem showing us his tax returns.
Whatever he is worried about the DNC picking him apart over must be pretty bad if he thinks it's the worse of the 2 evils.
Which is why Romney released two years of returns.
According to this site, https://www.taxhistory.org/www/website.nsf/web/presidentialtaxreturns, McCain only released two years for the 2008 election. Why should Romney be held to a different standard than McCain?
I'm not sure how seriously or comparable I should take enclosures as it relates to this topic.
We are not talking about a supreme elite vs. peasants, with no middle. We are not talking about the supreme elite forcing the peasants into what equates to slave-labor. We're not talking about taking anything FROM the poor. We are not talking about having a 'state' that is fully controlled by the rich and that perpetuates awful atrocities on the poor.
We were discussing what is fair and what is not as it relates to over-taxing those that are large earners.
col
Because he has 20 - 100 mil in his retirement account?
Because he had overshore accounts in Switzerland and the Caymen Islands?
Because he work for a private equity firm?
Because he takes deductions for his horse?
Because the Republicans want to lower taxes for people like Romney?
Because the Dems released more?
Because he has 20 - 100 mil in his retirement account?
Because he had overshore accounts in Switzerland and the Caymen Islands?
Because he work for a private equity firm?
Because he takes deductions for his horse?
Because the Republicans want to lower taxes for people like Romney?
Because the Dems released more?
This seems to be a fundamental difference between conservatives and liberals. I actually WANT a President to do for our country what he has proven he can do for himself. I mean, make the country richer, create more opportunities, and capitalize on them. You know, take more time being smart and strategic, and less time pandering to all sides for the sake of popularity. (that wasn't a jab at Obama, but politicians as a whole)
More than you'd care to know.
SaltyDawg
Well-Known Member
Romney has only released 1 year, and from what I have read that wasn't even a complete return (some forms were missing). He has promised to release another year at some point but has not yet done so.
Also, McCain, being a Senator, released many more financial records than just the tax documents he released as a presidential candidate. And you can bet it would have been an issue if McCain was campaigning on "please ignore my record as a Senator, and vote for me because I am a good businessman." And if McCain's own father was the person who established the tradition of releasing tax records, then it would have been an even bigger issue.
**** it. Let's just elect a broke dick that we can all identify with .. and please make them unwilling to take adavantage of opportunities that could make our country more profitable .. so we can give the extra money to those that have less .. so we can all be more economically equal, regardless of our circumstances. Sounds like a plan, Stan.