Should Mitt release his tax returns?

[Deleted member 848]

I know from history that Nixon's tax returns were a huge issue.

GHW Bush's taxes were brought up in 1984 during the VP debate and then again in 1988

Clinton's tax retunrs in 1992 were under the microscoped because of White Water.

In 2000 it was discovered that Cheney held some assets in the Cayman Islands via his tax returns

Kerry had a blind trust that was subject to debate in 2004

I can't say I can ever recall a President having to release his long form birth certificate.

Game, set, and match?

 

[The Thriller]

For what it's worth, they seem very, very similar to me.

I don't.

Unlike birth certificates, this whole tax return issue is relevant to the candidates' tax platform.

1. Romney believes that the tax cuts for the rich need to be even lower... To improve the economy and allow the rich aka job creators to create job for us working class joe sixpacks. Instead of Romney running from this issue (which is telling IMO) why not turn it to his own advantage? If he TRULY believes in trick-down economics, why not destroy Obama with his tax returns? By releasing them, he could point out, "if I hadn't paid such an exorbitant x amount in taxes, I could have invested x amount to create x amount of jobs. Or I would have done x with it to help x."

By connecting with the populace in that way, he could easily turn this Democrat attack on its' own head and really hurt the Obama campaign. Instead, he has played this right into Obama's hands.

In reality, if he's too afraid to release his reforms because there really wasn't an exorbitant amount paid in taxes in order to create jobs, then doesn't that actually hurt his own credibility, destroy his own tax cut platform, and ultimately prove the truthfulness in Obama's platform?

2. Obama doesn't believe that these tax cuts for the rich make any sense. Keep the tax cuts on the joe sixpacks and raise them on folks like Romney. The new revenue could be used to either pay down the debt or used to help joe sixpack.

If Romney's returns show that he paid little to no taxes, wouldn't it suggest that Romney's tax cut platform is self-serving (at best)? It also paints him as a rich jerkface cuz many of us are merely struggling to make ends meet. Paying taxes actually hurts.

If Romney's returns show that he did pay a substantial amount in taxes, then it gives credence to his claim that taxes are just too high for the rich. If they would greatly benefit from having some tax relief then perhaps we all will benefit as they'll be able to focus more money into creating jobs.

So again, unlike the birth certificate, I believe the tax returns are relevant to the election.

 

[colton]

In reality, if he's too afraid to release his reforms because there really wasn't an exorbitant amount paid in taxes in order to create jobs, then doesn't that actually hurt his own credibility, destroy his own tax cut platform, and ultimately prove the truthfulness in Obama's platform?

...

If Romney's returns show that he did pay a substantial amount in taxes, then it gives credence to his claim that taxes are just too high for the rich. If they would greatly benefit from having some tax relief then perhaps we all will benefit as they'll be able to focus more money into creating jobs.

I don't get this argument. The tax code is a matter of public record. My views on taxes in general are not at all going to be influenced by Romney's taxes in specific. (And for what it's worth, I think taxes ARE too low for the top tax bracket.)

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

George W Bush (along with others before him) set a precedent by releasing his schools records. Why won't Obama release his? Precedent has been set after all.

Is this a serious question?

There are a variety of things that go into establishing precedents, including, for example, the utility or value of the precedent setting act. Presidential candidates do all sorts of things that don't rise to the level of establishing precedent. I understand that W. also farted before a debate. For some reason, that also didn't become a precedent.

Releasing tax information, as I've now said twice, is widely considered of value by members of both political parties as part of a thorough vetting process for Presidential candidates, because, among other reasons, it reveals whether candidates are potential subject to financial scandals. It also helps shed light on which special interests the candidate may have benefitted from. For some combination of reasons, public opinion has coalesced around the need for Presidential candidates to release tax returns; it has not coalesced around the need to release school records. Dont' blame me for this fact.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

I know from history that Nixon's tax returns were a huge issue.

GHW Bush's taxes were brought up in 1984 during the VP debate and then again in 1988

Clinton's tax retunrs in 1992 were under the microscoped because of White Water.

In 2000 it was discovered that Cheney held some assets in the Cayman Islands via his tax returns

Kerry had a blind trust that was subject to debate in 2004

I can't say I can ever recall a President having to release his long form birth certificate.

Because the people have not called into question the birth origin of prior presidents or candidates. Why does it have to have been done before in your mind for it to be a legit question? I think most of you have your telescopes zoomed in to what you want to see that you fail to look around and think.

The demand for a birth certificate, and the demand for the tax returns are both petty and pointless. You say it has to do with their platform, but it does not. Every last one of them will do whatever they can within the law to save on paying taxes, and every one of you would do the same thing.

Naos, that is a stupid argument that it is not an attack unless he is hiding something. People are attacked all the time when they have nothing to hide. If someone comes at me like that, I will not give them what they want or show them what they are demanding I show them because I will not give in to bullying and nonsense like that. It is an attack, whether there is something to hide or not has nothing to do with it. lame

keep grinding your axes people

 

[northeast]

My guess is that Reid's source was referring to Bain, not Romney. As I said, I'd like to to see those tax returns too.

 

[candrew]

Because the people have not called into question the birth origin of prior presidents or candidates. Why does it have to have been done before in your mind for it to be a legit question? I think most of you have your telescopes zoomed in to what you want to see that you fail to look around and think.

The demand for a birth certificate, and the demand for the tax returns are both petty and pointless. You say it has to do with their platform, but it does not. Every last one of them will do whatever they can within the law to save on paying taxes, and every one of you would do the same thing.

LOL - what the hell are you talking about? To disagree with me is fine; but you're being intellectually dishonest to say there is no relevance in the correalation between someone stating that the rich (more specifically, in Romney's case HE, himself) are over taxed and how much he actually paid in taxes.

That's akin to my wife baking a pie and then cutting it up into 7 pieces. If I eat 6 of those pieces, you're saying if I wanted the 7th piece it is of no relevance that I ate the previous 6? LOL, that's pretty ****ing funny.

 

[colton]

you're being intellectually dishonest to say there is no relevance in the correalation between someone stating that the rich (more specifically, in Romney's case HE, himself) are over taxed and how much he actually paid in taxes.

Please show us a quote where Romney has said that he himself is overtaxed.

 

[candrew]

I never inferred that Romney said quote, "I-AM-OVERTAXED"

He has said on many occasions that the rich are over-taxed. And being his net worth is somewhere in the neighborhoold of 250 million then I would say that he qualifies as rich. Wouldn't you?

 

[colton]

I never inferred that Romney said quote, "I-AM-OVERTAXED"

Perhaps now, but you did imply as much. ;-)

He has said on many occasions that the rich are over-taxed.

OK, please show us some quotes where Romney has said that the rich are over taxed. I'd like to see what the exact context of his words were.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

Perhaps now, but you did imply as much. ;-)



OK, please show us some quotes where Romney has said that the rich are over taxed. I'd like to see what the exact context of his words were.

Could this not be inferred by his support for policies that (1) adamantly oppose raising taxes on the highest income brackets and (2) support lowering taxes even further. If he thought that the rich were under taxed, he wouldn't support these policies, right?

Given all of the rhetoric from the hard right on taxes (which Romney slavishly apes), it seems to me reasonable to infer that Romney and the right indeed think that the rich are overtaxed.

And, no, I don't have quotes available, nor do I care to take the time to find them, so I could well be blowing smoke out my backside. If someone wants to try to find the relevant quotes, be my guest. If quotes are found to the contrary, I'm happy to concede I'm wrong, but from what I've seen, this appears to me to be the more reasonable conclusion.

 

[northeast]

My views on taxes in general are not at all going to be influenced by Romney's taxes in specific.

What if Romney's taxes in specific turn out to demonstrate a dozen or more instances of gross unfairness that you were not aware of as being practiced, involving millions or even hundreds of millions of dollars in just this one instance, and then extrapolated out to 100,000 ultra rich and 100,000 corporations and nonprofits?

 

[UGLI baby]

You guys better not be doing any tax fraud in here.

 

[The Thriller]

Perhaps now, but you did imply as much. ;-)



OK, please show us some quotes where Romney has said that the rich are over taxed. I'd like to see what the exact context of his words were.

Colton, come on. Coming out and saying plainly, "The tax rate for rich people is just too high" isn't something that any candidate is going to say. That's why they're politicians. They know how to "speak" while we ignore their true intentions/actions. He'll hide it by bringing up "small businesses" and "lowering the tax rate for everyone."

Try his own website.

https://www.mittromney.com/issues/tax

Corporations, for their part, are subject to rules and regulations that all too often encourage tax gamesmanship while discouraging reinvestment in the American economy...
To repair the nation’s tax code, marginal rates must be brought down to stimulate entrepreneurship, job creation, and investment, while still raising the revenue needed to fund a smaller, smarter, simpler government.
America’s individual tax code applies relatively high marginal tax rates on a narrow tax base.

Try previous quotes:

https://factcheck.org/2012/08/romneys-impossible-tax-promise/

my view is the right way to do that is to limit them [tax preferences] for high-income individuals because I want to keep the progressivity of the code. One– one of the absolute requirements of any tax reform that I have in mind is that people who are at the high end, whether you call them the 1 percent or 2 percent or half a percent, that people at the high end will still pay the same share of the tax burden they’re paying now. I’m not looking for a tax cut for the very wealthiest. I’m looking to bring tax rates down for everyone, and, also, to make sure that we stimulate growth by doing so and jobs.

Unfortunately, Mitt's plan was found:

https://factcheck.org/2012/08/romneys-impossible-tax-promise/

Our major conclusion is that a revenue-neutral individual income tax change that incorporates the features Governor Romney has proposed – including reducing marginal tax rates substantially, eliminating the individual alternative minimum tax (AMT) and maintaining all tax breaks for saving and investment – would provide large tax cuts to high-income households, and increase the tax burdens on middle- and/or lower-income taxpayers.

And, as the NY Times found about Mitt's plan:

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/02/...e-plan-would-tax-lower-income-households.html

As a result, middle- and lower-income households — the 95 percent of the population earning less than about $200,000 annually — would have to make up the difference, according to the review by the center, which is affiliated with the Brookings Institution.

“It is not possible to design a revenue-neutral plan that does not reduce average tax burdens and the share of taxes paid by high-income taxpayers under the conditions described above, even when we try to make the plan as progressive as possible,” write the study’s authors, Samuel Brown, William Gale and Adam Looney.

I think Americans should be concerned, just as any Washington Post, Factchecker, NY Times, Huffington Post, article about Mitt's plan has stated, Mitt's plan just doesn't work the way he says. It's a tax cut that mostly benefits the wealthy (like himself) while piling onto the rest of us.

The right wing mantra is that the "job creators" aka rich are overtaxed. They need to have tax cuts to stimulate growth. This ideology has been endorsed by Romney as well, in his speeches, attacks against Obama, and tax plan. Sure, I didn't necessarily find ONE DIRECT QUOTE. But it's pretty plain to see what he means when he says,

The president’s announcement that he plans on extending (the tax cuts), just for certain classes of Americans — what he’s really saying is that those that are job-creators and small businesses are going to see a massive tax increase,” Romney said, “and that will kill jobs.”
“The president’s plan is aimed at small business and job creators. It will kill jobs in this country and hurt the middle class,” Romney said.”The right answer is to extend the tax rates as they current exist indefinitely, until we put in place an entirely new and reformed system.”

The “entirely new and reformed system” Romney envisions is little more than the Bush tax cuts on steroids: a 20 percent, across-the-board tax cut that is a massive giveaway to the richest Americans.

https://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/07/10/513561/romney-bush-tax-cuts-indefinitely/?mobile=nc

in other words:

We can't raise taxes now.
We need a new system in place.
The system that Mitt wants to install (mostly) benefits people like himself.

Again, connect the dots. It's not hard to see what Romney desires.

Hence, again, why he should release his tax returns. Explain how a new system, like the one he's suggesting, would be an upgrade over the current one. Show how "overtaxed" he was. Show how if he were taxed less how it would benefit the rest of us.

Finally, don't act like this hasn't been one of the main themes from Romney's party over the past few years. Watch from 4 min to 4:20.

[video]https://video.foxbusiness.com/v/1400006978001/simone-rich-are-overtaxed/

He claims that the rich are overtaxed and that our government has a spending problem not a revenue problem.

Which, if you were to google that quote, you'd find hundreds of websites, blogs, and articles quoting that.

One person who has stated it? Romney:

https://www.usatoday.com/news/opini...-07/romney-balance-budget-no-taxes/53003298/1

"the government does not have a revenue problem; it has a spending problem."

 

[babe]

none of the "progressive" types, like the "progressive" sources cited above, are going to curb the actual problem, which is too much money in government hands, too much power attached to politicians, and too little incentive for folks to roll outta bed and do something worthwhile, and marketable. Meaning since not enough stuff is available for folks to furnish themselves with the necessities of life, let alone tools of productivity, we're all just going to have to make do with less. . . . less medical care, less fun, less convenience, less efficiency, less education, less personal joy.

Romney might be a tool for the elites, but trying to imply Obama isn't is just ignoring the handwriting on the wall. Or at least everything I've tried to say in here. . . .

 

[Stoked]

none of the "progressive" types, like the "progressive" sources cited above, are going to curb the actual problem, which is too much money in government hands, too much power attached to politicians, and too little incentive for folks to roll outta bed and do something worthwhile, and marketable. Meaning since not enough stuff is available for folks to furnish themselves with the necessities of life, let alone tools of productivity, we're all just going to have to make do with less. . . . less medical care, less fun, less convenience, less efficiency, less education, less personal joy.

Romney might be a tool for the elites, but trying to imply Obama isn't is just ignoring the handwriting on the wall. Or at least everything I've tried to say in here. . . .

While you say it in a much more elgant way you are not the only one. Usually it is just a few willingly blind individuals that have that problem.

 

[The Thriller]

none of the "progressive" types, like the "progressive" sources cited above, are going to curb the actual problem, which is too much money in government hands, too much power attached to politicians, and too little incentive for folks to roll outta bed and do something worthwhile, and marketable. Meaning since not enough stuff is available for folks to furnish themselves with the necessities of life, let alone tools of productivity, we're all just going to have to make do with less. . . . less medical care, less fun, less convenience, less efficiency, less education, less personal joy.

Romney might be a tool for the elites, but trying to imply Obama isn't is just ignoring the handwriting on the wall. Or at least everything I've tried to say in here. . . .

What you feel is the appropriate amount of money that the gov should take via taxes is subjective and not relevant to the discussion we're currently having. We're discussing the tax burden itself and how Romney's plan, desires, and intentions demonstrate that he is for lowering the taxes for folks like him while raising them for joe sixpack. The argument being used is that by lowering taxes on folks like him they'll be able to create jobs for folks like you and me. So go ahead Mitt, show us your tax returns. I want to see how I'd benefit by lowering your taxes. I believe you already pay too little in taxes while making a boatload. You are already creating/have created the max amount of jobs possible. I don't feel like lowering your taxes (and raising mine) will do much if anything for me. Prove me wrong Mitty.

 

[Dr. Jones]

Not sure Mitt is a good study for your query. I doubt more than 1% of the wealthy have been as agressive as Mitt with sheltering his income and doing more with the extra.
I, for one, have tons of shelters and still paid more than 35% the past 3 or 4 years. That may not sound like a lot, but it's a hell of a lot more than Mitt paid. Also, I have opened 3 new companies in that time, all with active employees and new revenue (I can almost guarantee it's 'found' monies) for the state. If I had an extra 10% of my income from the past several years, I KNOW, I could have benefitted the state with revenues greater than that amount of money.

 

[northeast]

I doubt more than 1% of the wealthy have been as agressive as Mitt with sheltering his income and doing more with the extra.

So you think this is a man who is in the elite of the elite when it comes to shirking paying his fair share of taxes.

Such aggressive sheltering of his fortune hurts the rest of society , including masses of people who have to make up for the resources he has sucked out of the economy.

 

[Dr. Jones]

So you think this is a man who is in the elite of the elite when it comes to shirking paying his fair share of taxes.

Such aggressive sheltering of his fortune hurts the rest of society , including masses of people who have to make up for the resources he has sucked out of the economy.

Maybe. OR, he may have created enough jobs and/or products that the additional tax revenues are greater than his personal gain. You wnat to be mad? Be mad at the banks that took bail-out money (yours and my tax money) and SAT on the money rather than spurring the economy, as it was intended. At least guys like Romney use their money to CREATE. (I'm not even a Romney supporter, but I am trying to help you understand that the 'rich' are not the problem.)