Should Mitt release his tax returns?

[jazzfan1971]

I'm of the opinion that all candidates -should- give up any records requested. Tax, school, legal, whatever. They are running to lead this nation for hell's sake, I think the people are due a complete disclosure.

I wouldn't make it mandatory, just customary.

 

[PearlWatson]

Yes, a tax credit is getting something free from the government. It's money that they are giving you.

Only in a libtard world.

 

[SaltyDawg]

Romney didn't get a $77,000 tax credit for any horse. You might want to reconsider where you get your information from.

Where should I be getting my info from?

 

[northeast]

It appears maybe that for the one year we have knowledge of , they took a deduction (not a credit) for the dancing horses which will be carried over to other years.

 

[SaltyDawg]

Only in a libtard world.

So when all the right wing nutjobs were blasting earned income tax credits as government handouts, you also called them libtards?

 

[franklin]

Where should I be getting my info from?

You should probably start (and end) somewhere other than facebook.

It appears maybe that for the one year we have knowledge of , they took a deduction (not a credit) for the dancing horses which will be carried over to other years.

It resulted in a $49 loss on their return, so about $17 whopping dollars out of Tax Cheat Timothy Geithner's dirty fingers. Boo ****ing hoo.

And before ****ty Dawg gets his panties wadded even tighter over faulty information, yes, they may eventually take the entire $77,000 *passive income* loss to offset *passive income* gains from this venture. They may also take the entire $77,000 loss in the pants with no offsetting tax deduction. In this regard, their tax benefit from this venture is a negative hurdle compared to many other more traditional investments where it's quite easy to claim a loss to offset gains elsewhere. The Romney's do not have this option with this horse unless this horse makes actual money, and in that scenario, there's no practical reason to disallow them to deduct valid business expenses.

So OMG Facebook! Romneys recorded a $77,000 expense and received a $17 dollar tax benefit from it. That's like 2.5 double whopper meals at out favs resty besties!!!

 

[northeast]

In this regard, their tax benefit from this venture is a negative hurdle compared to many other more traditional investments where it's quite easy to claim a loss to offset gains elsewhere. The Romney's do not have this option with this horse unless this horse makes actual money.

I question that. I would think a passive loss could be counted against any passive gain. I could be wrong. What is your source?

 

[SaltyDawg]

I question that. I would think a passive loss could be counted against any passive gain. I could be wrong. What is your source?

Yes, Romney can and probably will claim that passive loss against whatever passive gain he so chooses. My source is Forbes:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/janetn...the-taxes-on-the-romneys-olympic-horse-wrong/

"But you don’t forfeit the passive losses you can’t use. Instead they’re “suspended” and can be carried forward and used in future years to the extent you have income from other passive activities. Moreover, when you sell all of a money losing passive investment, any unused losses from it are liberated and can be claimed against non-passive taxable income. If Mitt wins and Ann sells her share of Rob Rom, their suspended horse losses could, for example, be deducted against Mitt’s $400,000 Presidential salary."

None of the semantics franklin is arguing are even relevant to my original point. If you take a $77,000 credit for a horse (or deduction, same difference as far as this point is concerned) you should not be bitching about poor people getting $1000 worth of food stamps to help feed their kids. Your tax credit or deduction or whatever you want to call it took money out of the federal coffers just like the food stamps did. Even if you don't see the full benefit of that $77,000 for another year or 2, it doesn't change the fact that you are getting free "money" from the government.

 

[Gyp Rosetti]

I might have exaggerated just a little to make a point. So what?

As to your first link, I have such disdain for red state farm socialism that I would neuter the entire Cargill family and mount their sacks on a wall inside the Library of Congress.

Take emotion out of it. You don't see that data and subsidies in general as a problem?

 

[northeast]

Yes, Romney can and probably will claim that passive loss against whatever passive gain he so chooses. My source is Forbes:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/janetn...the-taxes-on-the-romneys-olympic-horse-wrong/

"But you don’t forfeit the passive losses you can’t use. Instead they’re “suspended” and can be carried forward and used in future years to the extent you have income from other passive activities. Moreover, when you sell all of a money losing passive investment, any unused losses from it are liberated and can be claimed against non-passive taxable income. If Mitt wins and Ann sells her share of Rob Rom, their suspended horse losses could, for example, be deducted against Mitt’s $400,000 Presidential salary."

None of the semantics franklin is arguing are even relevant to my original point. If you take a $77,000 credit for a horse (or deduction, same difference as far as this point is concerned) you should not be bitching about poor people getting $1000 worth of food stamps to help feed their kids. Your tax credit or deduction or whatever you want to call it took money out of the federal coffers just like the food stamps did. Even if you don't see the full benefit of that $77,000 for another year or 2, it doesn't change the fact that you are getting free "money" from the government.

Game set and match. Romney's were looking to get a big tax writeoff for what looks to be a fancy pet, or hobby, or social activity. Libtard rag Forbes to the rescue.

 

[northeast]

Tomorrow we can talk about Swiss bank accounts.

 

[franklin]

I question that. I would think a passive loss could be counted against any passive gain. I could be wrong. What is your source?

26 USC Section 469.

And I see ****ty Dawg is still confusing himself with his own big words. Apparently his Facebook doesn't distinguish between a credit, a deduction, or a write-off. You're really worthless to a discussion if you don't understand the basics.

Take emotion out of it. You don't see that data and subsidies in general as a problem?

Not in general or in principle, no. But I was agreeing with that article about the abuse the program has turned into. It's nothing more than another government-industrial complex.

 

[SaltyDawg]

26 USC Section 469.

And I see ****ty Dawg is still confusing himself with his own big words. Apparently his Facebook doesn't distinguish between a credit, a deduction, or a write-off. You're really worthless to a discussion if you don't understand the basics.

You're the one who doesn't seem to get it. You're so busy arguing the semantics that you're missing the overall point. It doesn't matter if you call it a credit, deduction, write off, illegal tax evasion, or any other term that may have been floated around in this thread. In all instances, the end result is the same: the federal government had less money because Romney got some sort of discount.

If this is acceptable to you then that is fine. I have no problem with it either. But if you think it's acceptable for this to happen, and you have a problem with people getting "free stuff" from the government (meaning food stamps for the poor) then it is you who is worthless to this discussion

 

[Gyp Rosetti]

Do we know if Mitt filed via his laptop online or through the U.S. Postal Service? Or are both methods now obsolete?

 

[franklin]

Is semantics your facebook word of the day? Psssst, you're using it incorrectly, just like you're using discount, write-off, credit, deduction, and worth incorrectly.

 

[Gyp Rosetti]

Is semantics your facebook word of the day? Psssst, you're using it incorrectly, just like you're using discount, write-off, credit, deduction, and worth incorrectly.

And obsolete!

 

[northeast]

franklin, you were checkmated already, it looks to me like you are backtracking with obfuscation and trying to waste my time.

Show us where that reference supports what you say, and not what Forbes says.

and don't fall back on the credit / deduction distinction, we moved past that a while ago.

 

[northeast]

I wasted time skimming through "26 USC Section 469".

Looks to me like Forbes is correct, Salty is correct, my intuition is correct, and Franklin is misleading us. The code indicates that a passive loss can be used sooner or later to offset other gains, even non-passive. Franklin, if there is some condition in there I missed that changes this, (other than the IRS deciding that the whole thing was a cheating tax dodge), feel free to be more specific.

Damn you F for making me read though that drudgery instead of just quoting what you were talking about.

 

[Scat]

If this is acceptable to you then that is fine. I have no problem with it either. But if you think it's acceptable for this to happen, and you have a problem with people getting "free stuff" from the government (meaning food stamps for the poor) then it is you who is worthless to this discussion

Apples and oranges. On one hand you have someone preventing the government from taking. On the other, someone is getting "free stuff" from the government.

 

[One Brow]

How so?

And honestly... does anyone here truly believe that Romney did his OWN taxes? Other than give general guidance like "pay as little as possible using any legal means available", don't you think it's a moot point?

I understand the argument of seeing what loopholes are exploited for the purposes of understanding the tax code. But... how about looking at the tax code? Why do we need to invade someone's privacy to understand the tax code? We can go actually... I don't know.... LOOK at the tax code.... novel concept....

The questions missed the point becasue focused on the likely legality of Romney's tax strategies, which as I said earlier, is probably not the purpose of the calls for releasing his taxes to begin with.

I think it is naive to to put forth the idea that Romney is not actively involved in tax avoidance strategies throughout the year. Low taxes don't just appear from an accounting department, you have to manage your money carefully.

Reading a tax code is like reading the plans for a machine to make sausage. Seeing how they are used is like watching thagt machine make sausages.