Should Mitt release his tax returns?

[Jazz Spazz]

I haven't read much on this thread and I'm not sure how many directions its morphed in to; but being Romney's platform is highlighted by the assertion that the rich in this country are over-taxed, then considering that he's rich, shouldn't the amount he's actually paid in taxes be subject to examination? Especially during his chief earning years before he entered public service?

And if he has been hiding his money in Swiss Bank Accounts and off-shore accounts, AND if he did in fact apply for Tax Amnesty for the income he's attempted to hide from the government (as has been alleged) -shouldn't that be something the public should know about a person who is running for President?

How is it hiding it if it's reported in his tax forms? Check out his taxes yourself, all 200+ pages.

If Deloitte and Touche and the IRS have signed off on his taxes as completed properly, what makes "ordinary americans" that know very little about tax law think they are going to find something wrong with the taxes, let alone actually know what they are talking about.

I would like to have the taxes of each person posting in this thread made public. I would like to see the tax rate of the ordinary Americans that post here.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

I didn't even bother to read your entire post.

But I think I got the point of it.

Here's the thing. Mitt's whole campaign hinges on his claim that the rich are "job creators" and need to have their taxes decreased or else this country's economy will never recover. If he truly believes this, then he shouldn't have any hesitation in showing how "overtaxed" he and his ilk are in order to prove that we need to lower taxes further.

Instead, he has run away from it.

That says a lot.

I didn't bother reading your post, and I am fairly certain it was dumb and agenda driven.

It makes for very meaningful conversation when we don't actually listen to each other, think about what we will say next, and then continue on with our agenda.

Good stuff, keep spouting.

 

[Stoked]

I bring home just over 50% of every check...Yeah taxes

 

[One Brow]

I didn't vote for either. Both choices were horrendous. Nice try however.

Fair enough.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

I bring home just over 50% of every check...Yeah taxes

How much of a tax return do you get at the end of the year?
You don't have to tell me, but if you get a return, maybe you can adjust your W-4.
Just curious, but yea, I agree on the absurdity of how high the taxes are, and add to that the sales taxes, use taxes, and all the other taxes.

While I hate taxes, I think it is just smart to understand how taxes work and make sure you are legally paying as little in tax as possible.

 

[franklin]

I bring home just over 50% of every check...Yeah taxes

You don't claim your daughters and are in the over $388,351/yr. bracket huh?


I just calculated my rate at 16.9% of gross, including employer paid benefits, social security taxes, unimployment insurance & workers comp into gross pay and as taxes. I also overpay by 3-4% every year. This calculation fails to account for the future ss&m benefits I will get, which should be at least 50% of what I pay into it.

So I'm somewhere in the 12-13% effective rate now, which is equivalent to Mitt Romney's reported rate. Subtract out the disproportionate ss&m benefits and I'm probably 5% lower than Mitt Romney.

 

[franklin]

BTW, SaltyNortheast, Mitt Romney has chosen to forgo social security benefits, which is about 45,000 times the amount you're bitching at him for gaining from writing off his horse investment.

 

[SaltyDawg]

Vladimir Putin rides horses with his shirt off on hunting excursions.

That certainly doesn't mean he understands the average American. Very few average Americans (as a percentage) do that. We wear orange when we hunt, lol.

Putin may or may not relate well the average Russian. I honestly have no idea. And how we feel about him as Americans is totally irrelevant. If the Russians like him (and I assume they do, all of the numbers I've seen over the years have been good) then that is all that matters.

 

[SaltyDawg]

BTW, SaltyNortheast, Mitt Romney has chosen to forgo social security benefits, which is about 45,000 times the amount you're bitching at him for gaining from writing off his horse investment.

And probably an even smaller percentage of the money he is hiding overseas. And that 45,000 times figure is debatable.

 

[candrew]

If Deloitte and Touche and the IRS have signed off on his taxes as completed properly, what makes "ordinary americans" that know very little about tax law think they are going to find something wrong with the taxes, let alone actually know what they are talking about.

I'm not saying he did anything illegal - but I kind of like to think we hold the people we vote for to a somewhat higher standard than just determining whether or not what they did before they ran for office was just legal or illegal.

As far as I know it's perfectly legal to hold money in Swiss Bank Accounts or the Cayman Islands or wherever; but if he did, don't you think that's relevant to the election especially considering tax loopholes for the rich and class warfare are such hot button topics right now?

 

[The Thriller]

I didn't bother reading your post, and I am fairly certain it was dumb and agenda driven.

It makes for very meaningful conversation when we don't actually listen to each other, think about what we will say next, and then continue on with our agenda.

Good stuff, keep spouting.

I guess it's always easier to put your head in the sand while repeating ideological mantra.

The point is, for 12 years we've seen record low tax rates, the upper class benefiting the most, CEO pay go through the roof, all while job creation sucked and the middle-class disappeared. That is what has happened. And exactly what you and folks like Mitt Romney seem to ignore.

On paper, CEOs should be creating tons of jobs because "ideologically" they are the job creators. Unfortunately, in the real world this isn't happening.

"Job Creators" aren't creating jobs because they don't have to. The other classes lack purchasing power enough to warrant job creation.

Trickle-down economics have failed. Even one of their greatest advocates, Bruce Bartlett, has admitted this.

The true job creators are the other classes. CEOs will be forced to create jobs once the other classes have enough buying power to force job creation. Hence, why these handouts to the rich need to expire and we all need to get serious about what to do about the disappearing middle-class.

 

[PearlWatson]

 

[One Brow]

You don't claim your daughters and are in the over $388,351/yr. bracket huh?

I think he is outside the USA.

 

[Stoked]

How much of a tax return do you get at the end of the year?
You don't have to tell me, but if you get a return, maybe you can adjust your W-4.
Just curious, but yea, I agree on the absurdity of how high the taxes are, and add to that the sales taxes, use taxes, and all the other taxes.
While I hate taxes, I think it is just smart to understand how taxes work and make sure you are legally paying as little in tax as possible.

i do get a return but not as much as I put in. No I do not claim my daughters. I am not able to claim one of them at all. I let her claim the other.

 

[Stoked]

I guess it's always easier to put your head in the sand while repeating ideological mantra.

The point is, for 12 years we've seen record low tax rates, the upper class benefiting the most, CEO pay go through the roof, all while job creation sucked and the middle-class disappeared. That is what has happened. And exactly what you and folks like Mitt Romney seem to ignore.

On paper, CEOs should be creating tons of jobs because "ideologically" they are the job creators. Unfortunately, in the real world this isn't happening.

"Job Creators" aren't creating jobs because they don't have to. The other classes lack purchasing power enough to warrant job creation.

Trickle-down economics have failed. Even one of their greatest advocates, Bruce Bartlett, has admitted this.

The true job creators are the other classes. CEOs will be forced to create jobs once the other classes have enough buying power to force job creation. Hence, why these handouts to the rich need to expire and we all need to get serious about what to do about the disappearing middle-class.

In regards to the first sentence. Hi pot

 

[northeast]

If Deloitte and Touche and the IRS have signed off on his taxes as completed properly, what makes "ordinary americans" that know very little about tax law think they are going to find something wrong with the taxes, let alone actually know what they are talking about.
.

The IRS does not sign off on anyone's taxes as proper.
For that matter, Deloitte and Touche probably does not either, beyond their own calculations.

 

[northeast]

I'm not saying he did anything illegal - but I kind of like to think we hold the people we vote for to a somewhat higher standard than just determining whether or not what they did before they ran for office was just legal or illegal.

As far as I know it's perfectly legal to hold money in Swiss Bank Accounts or the Cayman Islands or wherever; but if he did, don't you think that's relevant to the election especially considering tax loopholes for the rich and class warfare are such hot button topics right now?

YES YES YES !! Sing it sister! (or man, whichever.)

 

[PearlWatson]

the middle-class disappeared.
"Job Creators" aren't creating jobs because they don't have to.

You say really stupid stuff.

 

[northeast]

. And that 45,000 times figure is debatable.

Franklin is a cheater.

 

[northeast]

At least twice, your quote referred to "such activity", which reads to me as being activity of the same type (such as buying another horse). That seems to correspond with what franklin said.

I did not find any part of his entire reference clarifying this point. Without getting into it, "such activity" could mean "any such passive activity", and likely does.
This is just an example of what I mean when tax code is poorly written. I believe you would have to find other sections of the code to clarify this issue, or more precisely, other explanations of the code. I am pretty sure I have read it in other IRS publications. I have given a different reference which does clarify. Franklin has not, because he knows I am right. I believe that my position is common knowledge.

I get no credit for finding out that Romney can write off the deduction against any income sooner or later? This supersedes the other point.

Once again, you are getting me to do more work to satisfy you on this tiny and settled point. and Franklin has not lifted a finger on the issue.

Why don't you read the many pages of Franklin's reference, and quote where it says that someone can not write off a loss from one passive activity against a gain from another passive activity? Because that is what needs to be done to prove that Franklin is not a liar.