If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Daily Kos)   CNN reporter confirms on-air that Mitt Romney paid NO taxes for the past decade   (dailykos.com) divider line 596
    More: Interesting, Mitt Romney, Dana Bash, CNN, Health Care, International, CNN Capitol Hill, CNN AC360, Swiss bank accounts, romney  
•       •       •

8861 clicks; posted to Politics » on 03 Aug 2012 at 9:55 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



596 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-08-03 11:52:55 AM  

Lord Dimwit: Y'all went crazy about Obama's "long-form birth certificate" - something that no prior President had ever released publicly.

Now, Mitt won't release his tax returns - something that every Presidential candidate back to Mitt's father has done - and y'all are saying that it's okay.,

So...yeah. I would be flabbergasted if just once a Republican would admit that maybe their side is doing something just a teeny bit hypocritical.


I'm a Republican. I think birtherism is nuts, the manifestation of an irrational hatred of Obama and liberals. If you hate a person or group enough, you can believe any conspiracy about them.

This strain of thinking isn't limited to Obama. Irrational conspiracies regarding Bill & Hillary Clinton abounded in the 1990s. The only difference now is that Fox News, partisan blogs, and email are catapulting the misinformation more efficiently.

The Romney tax issue is as conspiratorial and politically insular as Birtherism. All it lacks is a catchy name.
 
2012-08-03 11:53:14 AM  
Well, retroactively, sure.
 
2012-08-03 11:54:13 AM  

Captain Dan: Halli: It won't change the fact that Romney is secretive about something that every presidential candidate has released for decades.

That is factually incorrect (McCain released 2 years, for example). Moreover, it betrays a lack of understanding about politics.

Q: Why did George Romney release 12 years of tax returns?

Hint: It wasn't because he was a nice, upstanding guy.

A: Because it was to his political advantage to do so. He was running against Lyndon Johnson, one of the most financially corrupt politicians in American history (LBJ used his political influence to amass ~$100 million while in the Senate, without any side business ventures), and wanted to highlight an issue that he perceived to be to his advantage.

Mitt Romney obviously feels that it's not to his political advantage to release the same number of tax returns. The outcome is different, but the reasoning is the same.


Too bad it has become the norm and Romney comes off as secretive. He's been running for president since 2006 and should have known this.
 
2012-08-03 11:54:19 AM  

StanleyPuff: What if it is a lesson he learned from the Obama birth certificate days...
Let high profile politicians and/or celebrities work themselves into a nice, sudsy froth and then:

BLAMMO!


10 years of Romney's tax returns, sans reason for poutrage.

/Mitt's been too high profile for too long...


And been caught doing exactly the sort of stuff that is being speculated on.
 
2012-08-03 11:54:29 AM  

Captain Dan: That is factually incorrect (McCain released 2 years, for example). Moreover, it betrays a lack of understanding about politics.


I believe the point was that:

For decades, presidential candidates have released multiple years of tax returns, dating back to when Mitt's own father started the tradition. Not that all candidates have released decades worth of transcripts.

It's a misplaced modifier, but you actually reinforce the intended assertion - McCain released multiple years of tax returns. Romney has released an impartial 2011 tax return. So he's the first in decades to not release more than 1 tax return, despite turning over years worth of tax returns to the McCain campaign in 2008. This does raise the question as to why?

This is not a new behavior like asking for someone's birth certificate. This is something that candidates have been doing since before my mother was eligible to vote.

You can spin it however you want that it was political advantageous for George Romney, but it has since become a standard practice which Romney is intentionally choosing to ignore. And that makes people curious especially when you compound it with Romney flat out saying it would give the Democrats ammo to use against him.
 
2012-08-03 11:55:06 AM  

tenpoundsofcheese: Maybe the same reason 0bama doesn't release his transcripts?


Straight to the birther talking points. Classic.
 
2012-08-03 11:55:06 AM  

odinsposse: sprag: So where are his 2011 returns? As I recall, they were due mid-April.

If he filed them and not released them, then he's hiding something that would hurt his campaign.
If he hasn't filed them, then he's paying penalties which are worth less than what he's getting out of delaying. Either there's something that would hurt his campaign or he's reworking the numbers to pay even less in taxes.

No matter what the situation is, I can't imagine this behavior entices the undecideds which end up deciding the election.

/deadlines are for poor people.

You can file for an extension in which case your return isn't due until, IIRC, Oct. 15. Surprise!


Even with an extension you have to pay on time. You just have until Oct. 15 to file the paperwork...
 
2012-08-03 11:55:21 AM  

odinsposse: sprag: So where are his 2011 returns? As I recall, they were due mid-April.

If he filed them and not released them, then he's hiding something that would hurt his campaign.
If he hasn't filed them, then he's paying penalties which are worth less than what he's getting out of delaying. Either there's something that would hurt his campaign or he's reworking the numbers to pay even less in taxes.

No matter what the situation is, I can't imagine this behavior entices the undecideds which end up deciding the election.

/deadlines are for poor people.

You can file for an extension in which case your return isn't due until, IIRC, Oct. 15. Surprise!


I see what you did there, and I approve.
 
2012-08-03 11:55:33 AM  

More_Like_A_Stain: Rann Xerox: I wonder if anyone out there who wanted to be Romney's VP pick is suddenly having a change of heart.

You're assuming that anyone wanted to be his VP pick. I'm reminded of the old Firesign Theater bit about a kamikaze training session. After a detailed description of just exactly how the mission will be performed, the Commander asks "are there any questions?". A hand goes up in the back of the room, and a pilot asks "are you farking crazy?".


LOL!!!! ♪ Geor-gie Tirebiter..... ♫

Good times!
 
2012-08-03 11:56:00 AM  
From what I can tell, I don't think that Romney did anything 'illegal'.

From what I can gather and from what I can see, he's setting the stage for an eventual reveal that has him using the loophole-ridden tax code to avoid paying considerable amounts of 'intended' taxes. So while he didn't break the law, his integrity and moral standing is going to take a massive hit.

In short, it's hard to call yourself an upright citizen if you're bending and twisting your finances to a ridiculous degree in order to avoid paying taxes that you really really wouldn't miss if you actually paid them.

It's like watching a lil old miser in a custom tailored Italian suit jump out of a Bentley and wrestle some kid for a quarter that's lying in the gutter.

That's what Romney is afraid being seen as. It's a shame he doesn't realize that 'that' would be a step-up from how he's perceived currently.
 
2012-08-03 11:56:16 AM  

Captain Dan: The Romney tax issue is as conspiratorial and politically insular as Birtherism. All it lacks is a catchy name.


Heh do you really think anyone is going to buy that?
 
2012-08-03 11:56:17 AM  

Captain Dan: Lord Dimwit: Y'all went crazy about Obama's "long-form birth certificate" - something that no prior President had ever released publicly.

Now, Mitt won't release his tax returns - something that every Presidential candidate back to Mitt's father has done - and y'all are saying that it's okay.,

So...yeah. I would be flabbergasted if just once a Republican would admit that maybe their side is doing something just a teeny bit hypocritical.

I'm a Republican. I think birtherism is nuts, the manifestation of an irrational hatred of Obama and liberals. If you hate a person or group enough, you can believe any conspiracy about them.

This strain of thinking isn't limited to Obama. Irrational conspiracies regarding Bill & Hillary Clinton abounded in the 1990s. The only difference now is that Fox News, partisan blogs, and email are catapulting the misinformation more efficiently.

The Romney tax issue is as conspiratorial and politically insular as Birtherism. All it lacks is a catchy name.


taxers and taxerism

right next to the truthers and trutherism and whatever we call the florida election butthurters
 
2012-08-03 11:56:31 AM  

Skleenar: Since we're playing the "college transcripts = tax returns" game, what precedent is there for the release of presidential college transcripts?


why does precedent matter? this isn't a legal issue.

Besides, 0bama broke precedent when he decided to opt out of public funding of his campaign in 2008. That had huge implications beyond any whining about Mitt's taxes.
 
2012-08-03 11:56:34 AM  
According to my anonymous sources, the rumors about Mitt Romney paying no taxes for ten years are totally true. In fact, it is even worse than that. Mitt used the earned income tax credit from 1999-2007 in such a way that his refunds exceeded the amount of money the IRS had collected from him.

My anonymous source also tells me that Mitt donated millions to Planned Parenthood with the condition that his money only be used to abort minority babies.

You can totally trust me on this.
 
2012-08-03 11:58:18 AM  

FishStampede: I also think it's not far fetched that this could sink his campaign before it even gets out of the dock. I don't think they'll do a brokered convention, the GOP establishment is losing control but they haven't lost it yet and still are pretty canny. Instead, what I see happening (if he doesn't just crawl his way to November) is we'll start seeing a narrative of his wife's battle with MS becoming more prominent, then following the convention he will drop out to deal with her health issues and his VP will take over (with another VP already lined up). If the MS narrative starts coming up more often, and he chooses a charismatic dark horse VP like one of his former opponents from the primary, bet money he'll drop out before November.


Could you imagine that?

We already know that a generic republican wins in the polls, so why can't they have one? Take somebody bland like Portman and make him the new candidate, you know, after the convention when it's too late to seriously attack him. That might actually be a path to victory.

I just don't think ol' Mittens ego would let it happen. He'd rather go down in flames than see another republican in the race... and he will.
 
2012-08-03 11:58:32 AM  

CPennypacker: You have one share of apple you bought at 200. Right now its 190. Sell it, then 30 days later buy it back. Ideally the stock hasn't moved or it has gone down. Now you have the same position you had before, a $10 realized loss and you didn't actually lose any money


Could you explain to me why there's no actual loss of money? At the time of buyback, aren't you repurchasing the share of Apple with $10 less than if you had never sold the stock?
 
2012-08-03 11:59:28 AM  

Halli: Captain Dan: The Romney tax issue is as conspiratorial and politically insular as Birtherism. All it lacks is a catchy name.

Heh do you really think anyone is going to buy that?


keep the change


/yes i think romney is hiding something and should release the same records as his opponent has
 
2012-08-03 11:59:39 AM  

skullkrusher: CPennypacker: You still keep your gains. The losses are paper losses only. At the end of the day you still have your realized losses and the positions you had before. The only other thing you have to account for is any movement in the stocks you sold to harvest losses.

hmmm... assuming you can get back in near the price at which you sold, I suppose that would work. It's not a strategy that grows wealth over time though nor is it likely to be reproduceable for a decade. Your net worth remains stagnant at best - it just allows you to take some profits for income and live off of them while avoiding. In order to have no reportable taxable income, you'd have to always have your losses offset your gains. That sort of accuracy is virtually impossible so you'd likely wind up losing money year over year in terms of net worth


Eh its not that hard. Its actually common practice to harvest losses this way. Romney's taxable income is a fraction of his net worth. Someone with that much in assets could easily find enough unrealized losses in their portfolio to harvest and offset their investment income. There's no iron clad way of saying thats what he did or thats how he got to pay no taxes, but even if thats not the whole picture I guarantee you he did it.
 
2012-08-03 11:59:43 AM  

Skleenar: What is the big deal about Obama's college transcripts? Why would anyone (besides a GOP shill, I mean) care what was in them? How could you make the leap there there is some sort of equivalency here (or did I parenthetically answer my own question?)?.


Minority Affirmative Action getting Obama into college == Bad.

Mormon Affirmative Action getting a Mass. businessman the 2002 Olympics job == Good.
 
2012-08-03 12:01:27 PM  

Captain Dan: A: Because it was to his political advantage to do so. He was running against Lyndon Johnson, one of the most financially corrupt politicians in American history (LBJ used his political influence to amass ~$100 million while in the Senate, without any side business ventures), and wanted to highlight an issue that he perceived to be to his advantage.

Mitt Romney obviously feels that it's not to his political advantage to release the same number of tax returns. The outcome is different, but the reasoning is the same.



Granted, during Romney Sr's run, it was a gimmick designed to gain an advantage over a shady appearing rival . But in the subsequent decades, it has become SOP. There may no longer be an advantage to be gained by releasing the records, but there is definitely a disadvantage to withholding them. Now, he appears to be the shady one. For someone that has been campaigning for as long as he has been, he's not very good at it.
 
2012-08-03 12:02:00 PM  

The Dog Ate The Constitution: CPennypacker: You have one share of apple you bought at 200. Right now its 190. Sell it, then 30 days later buy it back. Ideally the stock hasn't moved or it has gone down. Now you have the same position you had before, a $10 realized loss and you didn't actually lose any money

Could you explain to me why there's no actual loss of money? At the time of buyback, aren't you repurchasing the share of Apple with $10 less than if you had never sold the stock?


CP left out 1/2 of the equation. Say you own 1 AAPL at $200 and 10 MSFT at $30. If MSFT goes to $31 and you sell it, you've realized $10 in cap gains. At the same time assume AAPL has gone to $190. If you sell it you have offset your gain (which has been liquidated and is ready for spending) and owe nothing in taxes. If you wait 30 days and AAPL is still at $190, you buy it back and are in the same position you started but with the $10 in tax free spending money from the MSFT sale.

It is certainly something that can be done but I just don't think it is a likely candidate for avoiding paying taxes for 10 years. It's difficult to pull off and more likely a move of opportunity rather than design
 
2012-08-03 12:02:20 PM  

The Dog Ate The Constitution: CPennypacker: You have one share of apple you bought at 200. Right now its 190. Sell it, then 30 days later buy it back. Ideally the stock hasn't moved or it has gone down. Now you have the same position you had before, a $10 realized loss and you didn't actually lose any money

Could you explain to me why there's no actual loss of money? At the time of buyback, aren't you repurchasing the share of Apple with $10 less than if you had never sold the stock?


You bought the stock for 200. You sold it for 190

Now you have $190 and one less share of stock

Now you buy it back for the $190. You have the same cash you had before and the same number of shares.

But you get to claim a $10 loss against your gains

Awesome, isn't it?
 
2012-08-03 12:02:31 PM  

The Dog Ate The Constitution: Could you explain to me why there's no actual loss of money? At the time of buyback, aren't you repurchasing the share of Apple with $10 less than if you had never sold the stock?


Because capital gains/losses are only realized when you sell them. If you buy a stock for $10, and it skyrockets in value to $100, you don't pay gains on that. Vice versa, if you buy a stock for $100 and it plummets to $10, you don't get to claim losses on it.

This strategy is to take stocks that have gone down, sell/rebuy them and get the loss actualized while keeping the same stock. You buy for $100, it plummets to $10, you claim $90 in losses against income elsewhere. Without the selling/rebuying, the $90 in losses doesn't exist.
 
2012-08-03 12:02:56 PM  

skullkrusher: The Dog Ate The Constitution: CPennypacker: You have one share of apple you bought at 200. Right now its 190. Sell it, then 30 days later buy it back. Ideally the stock hasn't moved or it has gone down. Now you have the same position you had before, a $10 realized loss and you didn't actually lose any money

Could you explain to me why there's no actual loss of money? At the time of buyback, aren't you repurchasing the share of Apple with $10 less than if you had never sold the stock?

CP left out 1/2 of the equation. Say you own 1 AAPL at $200 and 10 MSFT at $30. If MSFT goes to $31 and you sell it, you've realized $10 in cap gains. At the same time assume AAPL has gone to $190. If you sell it you have offset your gain (which has been liquidated and is ready for spending) and owe nothing in taxes. If you wait 30 days and AAPL is still at $190, you buy it back and are in the same position you started but with the $10 in tax free spending money from the MSFT sale.

It is certainly something that can be done but I just don't think it is a likely candidate for avoiding paying taxes for 10 years. It's difficult to pull off and more likely a move of opportunity rather than design


I dunno. If you've got the money to hire the people, and the assets to make it cost-effective...
 
2012-08-03 12:03:13 PM  

CPennypacker: skullkrusher: CPennypacker: You still keep your gains. The losses are paper losses only. At the end of the day you still have your realized losses and the positions you had before. The only other thing you have to account for is any movement in the stocks you sold to harvest losses.

hmmm... assuming you can get back in near the price at which you sold, I suppose that would work. It's not a strategy that grows wealth over time though nor is it likely to be reproduceable for a decade. Your net worth remains stagnant at best - it just allows you to take some profits for income and live off of them while avoiding. In order to have no reportable taxable income, you'd have to always have your losses offset your gains. That sort of accuracy is virtually impossible so you'd likely wind up losing money year over year in terms of net worth

Eh its not that hard. Its actually common practice to harvest losses this way. Romney's taxable income is a fraction of his net worth. Someone with that much in assets could easily find enough unrealized losses in their portfolio to harvest and offset their investment income. There's no iron clad way of saying thats what he did or thats how he got to pay no taxes, but even if thats not the whole picture I guarantee you he did it.


I don't see it as a long term strategy for wealth building but yeah, it can work.
 
2012-08-03 12:03:15 PM  
Release your tax records already, biatch!

Everyone is doing it, you're the only asshole that hasn't, Mittens!

You can whine, biatch, piss and moan all you want. At the end of the day, all that matters is whether or not you released your tax records.
 
2012-08-03 12:03:48 PM  
I didn't just make this up its standard practice
 
2012-08-03 12:04:28 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: Skleenar: Since we're playing the "college transcripts = tax returns" game, what precedent is there for the release of presidential college transcripts?

why does precedent matter? this isn't a legal issue.


Interesting. If it isn't because this is a normal expectation of a president, you can surely provide me with the special reason for this special concern in Obama's case.

Besides, 0bama broke precedent when he decided to opt out of public funding of his campaign in 2008. That had huge implications beyond any whining about Mitt's taxes.

So....another unrelated thing is somehow equivalent? Are you sure you have enough potassium in your diet to ensure proper synapse firing?
 
2012-08-03 12:04:45 PM  

Captain Dan: Lord Dimwit: Y'all went crazy about Obama's "long-form birth certificate" - something that no prior President had ever released publicly.

Now, Mitt won't release his tax returns - something that every Presidential candidate back to Mitt's father has done - and y'all are saying that it's okay.,

So...yeah. I would be flabbergasted if just once a Republican would admit that maybe their side is doing something just a teeny bit hypocritical.

I'm a Republican. I think birtherism is nuts, the manifestation of an irrational hatred of Obama and liberals. If you hate a person or group enough, you can believe any conspiracy about them.

This strain of thinking isn't limited to Obama. Irrational conspiracies regarding Bill & Hillary Clinton abounded in the 1990s. The only difference now is that Fox News, partisan blogs, and email are catapulting the misinformation more efficiently.

The Romney tax issue is as conspiratorial and politically insular as Birtherism. All it lacks is a catchy name.


I was with you up until the last part. There are several important differences here:

* The President had released his state-certified birth certificate, which was legally sufficient for all purposes, but people kept freaking out. Romney has not released tax returns for years in which there are legitimate questions (such as whether or not he was employed at Bain when he claimed not to be). With his SEC filings, there are actual questions about this period of time. There is no contradictory evidence about Obama's birth (and tons of corroborating evidence), while there is contradictory evidence of Romney's employment status and income.

* The releasing of major-party Presidential candidates' tax returns has become standard practice - a practice which Romney is flouting. He has released fewer years' returns than any Presidential candidate in modern history. The complaints about how Kerry's wife didn't release her returns is pure deflection, by the way, since no one is asking for Romney's wife's returns.

* No one is saying that Romney legally must release his tax records - they are his private information and it is certainly his right to keep it private. However, considering taxes - especially his supposed high rates - are a fundamental piece of his candidacy, it seems a bit hypocritical to not illustrate the point. When the President released his birth certificate, it could have been argued that he was legally obliged to do so. He did it, but he was still harassed for years, even now, by the Republican establishment.
 
2012-08-03 12:04:58 PM  

qorkfiend: skullkrusher: The Dog Ate The Constitution: CPennypacker: You have one share of apple you bought at 200. Right now its 190. Sell it, then 30 days later buy it back. Ideally the stock hasn't moved or it has gone down. Now you have the same position you had before, a $10 realized loss and you didn't actually lose any money

Could you explain to me why there's no actual loss of money? At the time of buyback, aren't you repurchasing the share of Apple with $10 less than if you had never sold the stock?

CP left out 1/2 of the equation. Say you own 1 AAPL at $200 and 10 MSFT at $30. If MSFT goes to $31 and you sell it, you've realized $10 in cap gains. At the same time assume AAPL has gone to $190. If you sell it you have offset your gain (which has been liquidated and is ready for spending) and owe nothing in taxes. If you wait 30 days and AAPL is still at $190, you buy it back and are in the same position you started but with the $10 in tax free spending money from the MSFT sale.

It is certainly something that can be done but I just don't think it is a likely candidate for avoiding paying taxes for 10 years. It's difficult to pull off and more likely a move of opportunity rather than design

I dunno. If you've got the money to hire the people, and the assets to make it cost-effective...


anyone can do it. It's a pretty simple thing in terms of tax filing. TurboTax will even calculate it for you :)
If it were a sound strategy and an easily reproducable method for generating tax free income, there would be no super-wealthy people paying income taxes.
 
2012-08-03 12:05:07 PM  

qorkfiend: Yes, but there's clearly no advantage to keeping the returns hidden, either. So Romney believes there is a greater advantage to keeping them hidden than releasing them; this inevitably leads to speculation as to why it is more beneficial for Romney to keep them hidden.


Mitt Romney is a very smart guy, smarter than anyone posting on Fark at the least. He's obviously calculated that the speculation over his tax returns is less harmful than what might happen if he did release them. [He might decide to release that information, but not because "it's the right thing." He'll do so only if it's the smart move.]

My guess is that he paid very little income tax, because like most wealthy people the majority of his earnings came from capital gains. Any educated person would understand this, but most people are financially illiterate, and could be swayed by misleading Democratic claims that "Romney paid less [income] taxes than you did!"

You might scoff, but some dipshiat undecided voter would eat it up.
 
2012-08-03 12:05:16 PM  

skullkrusher: friday13: Dimensio: As I have stated previously: until President Obama releases his complete educational transcripts from kindergarten through college, admission applications for the same, his entire medical history, the entire medical history of his mother, the microfilm of his birth certificate and every passport that he has ever used ever, then requests for Mr. Romney's tax returns are not reasonable and hypocritical.

To THIS DAY I STILL have no idea if you are a troll or not...

would be a bold quid pro quo on Mittens' part. Tax returns in exchange for BO's college transcripts and scholarly publications. Though, I suspect that Mitt's returns are quite a bit more damning than BO's transcripts so it won't happen.


Romney hasn't released either. 2-for-1 is hardly fair. Romney would have to release his tax returns *and* his own college transcripts to catch up.
 
2012-08-03 12:06:20 PM  

CPennypacker: The Dog Ate The Constitution: CPennypacker: You have one share of apple you bought at 200. Right now its 190. Sell it, then 30 days later buy it back. Ideally the stock hasn't moved or it has gone down. Now you have the same position you had before, a $10 realized loss and you didn't actually lose any money

Could you explain to me why there's no actual loss of money? At the time of buyback, aren't you repurchasing the share of Apple with $10 less than if you had never sold the stock?

You bought the stock for 200. You sold it for 190

Now you have $190 and one less share of stock

Now you buy it back for the $190. You have the same cash you had before and the same number of shares.

But you get to claim a $10 loss against your gains

Awesome, isn't it?


sprawl15: The Dog Ate The Constitution: Could you explain to me why there's no actual loss of money? At the time of buyback, aren't you repurchasing the share of Apple with $10 less than if you had never sold the stock?

Because capital gains/losses are only realized when you sell them. If you buy a stock for $10, and it skyrockets in value to $100, you don't pay gains on that. Vice versa, if you buy a stock for $100 and it plummets to $10, you don't get to claim losses on it.

This strategy is to take stocks that have gone down, sell/rebuy them and get the loss actualized while keeping the same stock. You buy for $100, it plummets to $10, you claim $90 in losses against income elsewhere. Without the selling/rebuying, the $90 in losses doesn't exist.


Interesting, thanks.
 
2012-08-03 12:06:34 PM  

Skleenar: Captain Dan: Romney should offer to release his tax returns in exchange for Obama releasing his college transcripts. It would be an instant Great Moments in Politics.

/they're both probably mildly embarrassing but innocuous

What is the big deal about Obama's college transcripts? Why would anyone (besides a GOP shill, I mean) care what was in them? How could you make the leap there there is some sort of equivalency here (or did I parenthetically answer my own question?)?.


I think it is an offshoot of the 2004 election.

The talking point was that Bush was an idiot and Kerry was a New England intellectual elite.

Bush's transcripts get leaked....see, see, we were right, look at those terrible grades.

Kerry's transcripts get leaked...oops, he did slightly worse in college than Bush.

Oh, same with Gore also, when people saw that his grades didn't fit the narrative of how smart he was supposed to be.
 
2012-08-03 12:06:42 PM  

Captain Dan: Lord Dimwit: Y'all went crazy about Obama's "long-form birth certificate" - something that no prior President had ever released publicly.

Now, Mitt won't release his tax returns - something that every Presidential candidate back to Mitt's father has done - and y'all are saying that it's okay.,

So...yeah. I would be flabbergasted if just once a Republican would admit that maybe their side is doing something just a teeny bit hypocritical.

I'm a Republican. I think birtherism is nuts, the manifestation of an irrational hatred of Obama and liberals. If you hate a person or group enough, you can believe any conspiracy about them.

This strain of thinking isn't limited to Obama. Irrational conspiracies regarding Bill & Hillary Clinton abounded in the 1990s. The only difference now is that Fox News, partisan blogs, and email are catapulting the misinformation more efficiently.

The Romney tax issue is as conspiratorial and politically insular as Birtherism. All it lacks is a catchy name.


You sir, are delusional.

Birthers say there is no proof they can accept. That no matter what proof they are given, it won't be enough to convince them, because they know in their heart of hearts that TaxFarta is a Kenyin Mooslim.

People who want to see the tax returns just want to see them. We'll accept that they are real if he says they are. What we won't accept is Romney's word that there is nothing in there we deserve to see.
 
2012-08-03 12:06:42 PM  

Captain Dan: qorkfiend: Yes, but there's clearly no advantage to keeping the returns hidden, either. So Romney believes there is a greater advantage to keeping them hidden than releasing them; this inevitably leads to speculation as to why it is more beneficial for Romney to keep them hidden.

Mitt Romney is a very smart guy, smarter than anyone posting on Fark at the least. He's obviously calculated that the speculation over his tax returns is less harmful than what might happen if he did release them. [He might decide to release that information, but not because "it's the right thing." He'll do so only if it's the smart move.]

My guess is that he paid very little income tax, because like most wealthy people the majority of his earnings came from capital gains. Any educated person would understand this, but most people are financially illiterate, and could be swayed by misleading Democratic claims that "Romney paid less [income] taxes than you did!"

You might scoff, but some dipshiat undecided voter would eat it up.


And it's irrelevant as to whether or not that's a 'good' thing or not. Paying little in taxes sorta cuts the legs out from underneath your assertion that 'taxes are too high!'
 
2012-08-03 12:07:47 PM  

Linoleum_Blownapart: skullkrusher: friday13: Dimensio: As I have stated previously: until President Obama releases his complete educational transcripts from kindergarten through college, admission applications for the same, his entire medical history, the entire medical history of his mother, the microfilm of his birth certificate and every passport that he has ever used ever, then requests for Mr. Romney's tax returns are not reasonable and hypocritical.

To THIS DAY I STILL have no idea if you are a troll or not...

would be a bold quid pro quo on Mittens' part. Tax returns in exchange for BO's college transcripts and scholarly publications. Though, I suspect that Mitt's returns are quite a bit more damning than BO's transcripts so it won't happen.

Romney hasn't released either. 2-for-1 is hardly fair. Romney would have to release his tax returns *and* his own college transcripts to catch up.


and birf certificates from a real state like Michigan and not a bullshiat one like Hawaii
 
2012-08-03 12:07:53 PM  

More_Like_A_Stain: But in the subsequent decades, it has become SOP.


The guy who got 19% of the vote in 1992 would disagree with you.
 
2012-08-03 12:08:20 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: I think it is an offshoot of the 2004 election.


Except that Obama graduated with honors from Harvard Law. So I don't think he has the same problem as those guys.
 
2012-08-03 12:08:44 PM  
Also, for the record, I still haven't seen Romney's long-form birth certificate.
 
2012-08-03 12:09:20 PM  

Rann Xerox: LOL!!!! ♪ Geor-gie Tirebiter..... ♫

Good times!



You sound old. At least you would if I could get this damned hearing aid to go loud enough to hear you. Bel-Tone my ass.
 
2012-08-03 12:09:35 PM  
 
2012-08-03 12:09:40 PM  
As much as I would like to believe this story, it can't possibly be true. Here's why. Let's assume for a moment that the story about McCain seeing Mitten's returns and rejecting him is true. A secret like this, if true, was bound to come out eventually. I find it very hard to believe that McCain himself, wouldn't have said to RNC leaders, "Listen, this guy will be a disaster if you let him get close to the nomination." There is just no way he paid zero taxes for 10 years. No way.
 
2012-08-03 12:10:41 PM  

skullkrusher: The Dog Ate The Constitution: CPennypacker: You have one share of apple you bought at 200. Right now its 190. Sell it, then 30 days later buy it back. Ideally the stock hasn't moved or it has gone down. Now you have the same position you had before, a $10 realized loss and you didn't actually lose any money

Could you explain to me why there's no actual loss of money? At the time of buyback, aren't you repurchasing the share of Apple with $10 less than if you had never sold the stock?

CP left out 1/2 of the equation. Say you own 1 AAPL at $200 and 10 MSFT at $30. If MSFT goes to $31 and you sell it, you've realized $10 in cap gains. At the same time assume AAPL has gone to $190. If you sell it you have offset your gain (which has been liquidated and is ready for spending) and owe nothing in taxes. If you wait 30 days and AAPL is still at $190, you buy it back and are in the same position you started but with the $10 in tax free spending money from the MSFT sale.

It is certainly something that can be done but I just don't think it is a likely candidate for avoiding paying taxes for 10 years. It's difficult to pull off and more likely a move of opportunity rather than design


I didn't see your post until just now, otherwise I would have included it in my previous "Thanks" I also just realized I didn't follow the conversation from the start, otherwise I would have seen the mention of offsetting. Thanks.
 
2012-08-03 12:11:45 PM  
so what laws are we asserting that Romney broke?
 
2012-08-03 12:11:59 PM  

Close2TheEdge: As much as I would like to believe this story, it can't possibly be true. Here's why. Let's assume for a moment that the story about McCain seeing Mitten's returns and rejecting him is true. A secret like this, if true, was bound to come out eventually. I find it very hard to believe that McCain himself, wouldn't have said to RNC leaders, "Listen, this guy will be a disaster if you let him get close to the nomination." There is just no way he paid zero taxes for 10 years. No way.


Of course he didn't. BUT, that doesn't matter. For Romney to disprove it, he'll have to release his tax records.
 
2012-08-03 12:12:12 PM  
As to the claim (offered by multiple posters) that releasing tax returns is S.O.P.:

So what? If following S.O.P. if harmful to Romney's campaign, he'd be a fool to do so. There's no legal requirement to release tax returns, and there's nothing intrinsically good about "following procedure" except for the vague conservative comfort it instills.
 
2012-08-03 12:12:45 PM  

Captain Dan: qorkfiend: Yes, but there's clearly no advantage to keeping the returns hidden, either. So Romney believes there is a greater advantage to keeping them hidden than releasing them; this inevitably leads to speculation as to why it is more beneficial for Romney to keep them hidden.

Mitt Romney is a very smart guy, smarter than anyone posting on Fark at the least. He's obviously calculated that the speculation over his tax returns is less harmful than what might happen if he did release them. [He might decide to release that information, but not because "it's the right thing." He'll do so only if it's the smart move.]

My guess is that he paid very little income tax, because like most wealthy people the majority of his earnings came from capital gains. Any educated person would understand this, but most people are financially illiterate, and could be swayed by misleading Democratic claims that "Romney paid less [income] taxes than you did!"

You might scoff, but some dipshiat undecided voter would eat it up.


Kinda like "OBAMA IS GONNA TAKE AWAY ALL YER' GUNS!"

You mean bullshiat like that?
 
2012-08-03 12:13:02 PM  

The Dog Ate The Constitution: skullkrusher: The Dog Ate The Constitution: CPennypacker: You have one share of apple you bought at 200. Right now its 190. Sell it, then 30 days later buy it back. Ideally the stock hasn't moved or it has gone down. Now you have the same position you had before, a $10 realized loss and you didn't actually lose any money

Could you explain to me why there's no actual loss of money? At the time of buyback, aren't you repurchasing the share of Apple with $10 less than if you had never sold the stock?

CP left out 1/2 of the equation. Say you own 1 AAPL at $200 and 10 MSFT at $30. If MSFT goes to $31 and you sell it, you've realized $10 in cap gains. At the same time assume AAPL has gone to $190. If you sell it you have offset your gain (which has been liquidated and is ready for spending) and owe nothing in taxes. If you wait 30 days and AAPL is still at $190, you buy it back and are in the same position you started but with the $10 in tax free spending money from the MSFT sale.

It is certainly something that can be done but I just don't think it is a likely candidate for avoiding paying taxes for 10 years. It's difficult to pull off and more likely a move of opportunity rather than design

I didn't see your post until just now, otherwise I would have included it in my previous "Thanks" I also just realized I didn't follow the conversation from the start, otherwise I would have seen the mention of offsetting. Thanks.


farking ingrate :)
 
2012-08-03 12:13:06 PM  

skullkrusher: It is certainly something that can be done but I just don't think it is a likely candidate for avoiding paying taxes for 10 years. It's difficult to pull off and more likely a move of opportunity rather than design


Romney didn't take a salary as governor, he even paid for his own travel. After he left Bain, besides capital gains, not sure where his income would come from. I doubt he was paid for his work on the Olympics. It isn't as if he needed the money.

Any good money manager would make sure that any sales of stocks would not result in a tax bill.
 
Displayed 50 of 596 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report