Hillary Clinton would have been president if these standards were applied in 2008 (democrat would have won regardless being assumed).
Should Mitt release his tax returns?
- Thread starter northeast
- Start date
Hillary Clinton would have been president if these standards were applied in 2008 (democrat would have won regardless being assumed).
billyshelby
Well-Known Member
I don't know how this topic generated 40 pages. Just turn over the tax records. If he doesn't, the Dems will beat him to death on it, Mitt's rebuttals will look weaker and weaker no matter what type of ideological spin he puts on it, and the question of what's actually in the returns will loom larger and larger.
If it's gone this far, my guess it goes deeper than simply being a rich guy who evaded a few taxes or who was guilty of a few improprieties. But there's an easy way to convince me my suspicions are unfounded.
If it's gone this far, my guess it goes deeper than simply being a rich guy who evaded a few taxes or who was guilty of a few improprieties. But there's an easy way to convince me my suspicions are unfounded.
This post reminds me of northeast, but in a non-annoying way.
billyshelby
Well-Known Member
Annoying or non-annoying, Mitt has nothing to gain and everything to lose by taking a foolish ideological stand on this. If there's no significant fire under the smoke, then his operatives should have gotten out in front of this much sooner. But if what's there is actually bad, I admit his best play is this transparent invasion of privacy defense that nobody believes, Democrat or Republican. He can deflect it and go on the attack so long as what's in it never comes out.
I disagree. My take is that it doesn't matter what his tax returns say, DNC operatives will make hay out it somehow. Mitt's tax returns are about all Obama has left to sink him with, or so they think. If Mitt did everything by the law it will end up being Mitt's a horrible person for not paying his fair share.
He's better off resisting and not publishing them. After all, hiding personal records has worked very well for Obama...
InGameStrategy
Well-Known Member
In the one year of taxes that Mitt Romney has reported, he received a $77,000 reduction in tax liability thanks to this dancing dressager.
Was it legal within the US tax code? Boo hoo... go cry in France where they might care.
InGameStrategy
Well-Known Member
"Between the years 1973 and 2007, the study found that wage inequality rose 40 percent. In this same period, private sector union membership plummeted 34 to 8 percent among men and 16 to 6 percent among women. These drops explain one third of the increase of wage inequality among male workers and one fifth of the increased inequality among their female counterparts, the study concludes."
https://jobs.aol.com/articles/2011/08/10/declining-union-power-to-blame-for-rising-wage-inequality/
In other words, unions are not only not out of control, their power has continued to weaken.
A study found that the decline in union power accounted for a full one-third of wage inequality from 1973 to 2007.
From 2008 to 2012, corporate contributions via PACs to Republicans have more than tripled union contributions to Democrats (and Democrats + Republicans combined). More than 60% of corporate contributions have gone to Republican causes.
https://www.opensecrets.org/overview/blio.php
The United States is more un-Socialist now than in decades, as the income and wealth inequality continues to widen.
https://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
InGameStrategy
Well-Known Member
Yes, it was legal. While nobody would expect Romney (or anyone else) to not take advantage of tax breaks such as this one, "legal" doesn't mean that it's good for the country.
The reason that it is relevant is that it is a sign that tax deductions are a significant part of why the U.S. deficit is so high. Mr. Romney has given lip service to reducing tax deductions, while in the same breath outlining further tax cuts that have been estimated to put the country trillions further into debt, even when accounting for any uptick in business activity from even lower taxes.
Your mention of France is irrelevant, except to bolster my point. France's deficit was a mere $140 billion in 2010, and they just passed a "Golden Rule" amendment for a balanced budget. Their tax brackets range from 0% to more than 50% for individuals and an effective tax rate of 34%, far higher than the 11% to 20% effective individual income tax rate and 12.1% effective corporate tax rate in the U.S. (despite the feeble claims from businesses and mostly Republicans that low tax rates would translate into jobs).
https://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/Europe/France-TAXATION.html#b
https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=456
https://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/taxes/story/2012-01-19/romney-tax-rate/52682372/1
As for Romney's dressage deduction stimulating the economy, it probably boosted the income for a few caretakers and feed companies. And now that tax deduction is being put to work overseas with more spending in Great Britain, which doesn't help the U.S. much.
Even if Rafalca wins gold.
So if your issue is not with Romney, but is with all the rich folks and the government tax rules why are you not asking to see the tax records for ... for instance...
Barack Obama - net worth 11.8 million
Nancy Pelosi - net worth 26 million
Al Gore - net worth 100 million
Chelsea Clinton - nw 5 million
Bill Clinton - nw 80 million
It seems to me like people are looking for any reason to attack people and disguising it like they really want to know about some issue, when it's really just an attempted attack on a person. If you care about the tax issue, ask for the taxes to be released for your rich democrat friends who did nothing to change the tax code when they had full control. If they really wanted to make that change they would have.
He has nothing to gain by doing it. If he did so the only thing that would happen is the same people would nit pick stupid things to death and if they found nothing they would find something else to attack and demand. The attackers will not go away when they get what they are asking for, because the taxes they are asking for is just a blind for what they are really doing. They are trying to attack and discredit Romney in any way they can and they will not stop. If you are too blind to see this tactic then you can go ahead and assume what you want, but you know nothing. You are saying there is smoke, but anybody with a little knowledge of taxes and tax code know there is not even smoke. If there is smoke it is because your face is on fire and that is why you see smoke.
If there is a precedent for making known private information like taxes, how is that much different than making known a birth certificate? So now that there is a precedent set for releasing birth certificates, should all presidents and/or candidates release their own birth certificates? How do precedent's get set? Someone for the first time decides to do something... are we lemmings that we all now must follow that example? Oh no, someone just jumped off a bridge, the precedent has been set, we must all now jump off a bridge? It is possible that even if someone has done something in the past that it is not the best thing for me to do right now.
Can you tell from my rant that your precedent "argument" holds no water with me? I think your argument was first made by a bunch of irrational looney toons, and the precedent was set so you had to follow suit.
jimmy eat jazz
Well-Known Member
Yes it is obvious that my precedent argument holds no water with you. Just as it should be obvious after my reply that I couldn't care less. I don't expect everybody to agree with me, so it is not surprise that you, or other people here don't.
I would also reply that precedent is in fact a well-established basis in law and other areas governing human and institutional behavior, notwithstanding your desire to render it as something frivolous. I would also reiterate the point that there are legitimate reasons for presidential candidates to disclose their finances, reasons that have wide-spread bi-partisan agreement. There are, on the other hand, no legitimate reasons to disclose birth certificates, now in the past and not now. The 'movement' (if that's what you want to call it) to get Obama to disclose his birth certificate was lead by a gaggle of irrational, paranoid, conspiracy mongers. Hardly a legitimate basis in my opinion to establish a precedent in this case.
I assume you'll disagree with this too, but I'll do my best to live with that knowledge.
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.
Not that I cared about him releasing the birth certificate, because I was not on that wagon, but both are in the same category to me no matter how you try to say it is different.
How can you say there is no legitimate reason to disclose birth certificates, but there is for their finances? Double standard?
These are the requirements to be US President.
I don't see anything about finances in there, but I do see something about being born in the U.S. or having both parents citizens if born abroad.
Food for thought.
NAOS
Well-Known Member
they aren't even close to the same 'category'. Nice fail.
Oh yea, I'm going to take your word for it... or anything.
They are both people trying to attack someone else and find some way to discredit them. There is no substance to either and both sides are in the wrong. They are almost exactly the same in approach, 'category', and the point behind it. It consists of enemies on the attack, period.
If they are different it is because the constitution requires the president to basically be born here, and does not require a candidate to publish their financial records. Edge to the birth certificate group if you want them separated.
Nice to see when you say fail, it is really a win. Tell me which music you like, movies you like, and stocks you invest in so I can stay far away from them. Please also tell me what music you hate, movies you hate, and stocks you stay away from so I can invest my time and money in them. TIA
NAOS
Well-Known Member
I haven't been following this "controversy", but how is it an attack to ask Mitt to divulge what he makes and how he has declared that on his taxes? If I were running for office, I'd have nothing to hide.
I can't see this as an "attack" unless he's hiding something.
The birther stuff was pure nonsense. It belongs in the "pure nonsense" category of things. The tax issue does not.
(Nice to see you bow to the law again, though. Got a good giggle out of that. Again.)
I can't see this as an "attack" unless he's hiding something.
The birther stuff was pure nonsense. It belongs in the "pure nonsense" category of things. The tax issue does not.
(Nice to see you bow to the law again, though. Got a good giggle out of that. Again.)
For what it's worth, they seem very, very similar to me.
candrew
Well-Known Member
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.