Active Users:402 Time:17/09/2025 03:22:21 PM
Back to Messageboard Post New Thread Search Help Stats Rules
the question of legality has already been covered by the offshore accounts though.... moondog Send a noteboard - 19/09/2012 05:44:28 AM
... I'm kind of curious why he hasn't just released everything. Not doing so suggests that there's something in there that his campaign feels would be more damaging than the unproven perception that he's hiding something. I mean, I dunno, but after all the fuss, why wouldn't he just release them? It's strange enough to make me mildly curious, anyway.


An example of something totally legal and ethical that could get someone into trouble politically would be Obama investing in a Coal Mine or Romney in a Solar Start Up. The left is just fishing, there's always a chance in someone with as much investment as Romney has of some tax error but more there's a chance of a legal action that might be turned into a political issue.


we already know for a fact that romney has offshore tax havens and the fuss about that has been very minimal at best. if the law allows for whatever is in those returns, i'm pretty sure most people are going to just shrug and move on. the fact that it was his own father who began the tradition of releasing multiple years of returns speaks more to me than whether or not he is using legal loopholes to get out of paying taxes. the longer it gets drawn out, the more the conspiracies around them will grow.

look at the birther movement -- obama dragged it out longer than he should have and now we have actual elected officials trying to pretend he can't qualify for the ballot (e.g. -- kansas, arizona). assuming everything is legit and legal, the maelstrom surrounding these mystery returns is going to blow over quite quickly once people go through them. the fact that romney is perceived as trying to hide his personal wealth is just going to feed the rumors more than actually having the returns will.
"The RIAA has shown a certain disregard for the creative people of the industry in their eagerness to protect the revenues of the record companies." -- Frank Zappa

"That's the trouble with political jokes in this country... they get elected!" -- Dave Lippman
Reply to message
what does it mean to "pay no federal income tax"? moondog - 18/09/2012 06:30:28 PM 1083 Views
Wrong Dark Knight - 18/09/2012 06:37:07 PM 640 Views
Additional categories Jragghen - 18/09/2012 06:51:46 PM 750 Views
SS income is very much taxed, my friend Dark Knight - 18/09/2012 06:59:28 PM 624 Views
Re: SS income is very much taxed, my friend Jragghen - 18/09/2012 07:22:35 PM 612 Views
The wealthy get their income from investments Dark Knight - 18/09/2012 07:33:55 PM 683 Views
ok moondog - 19/09/2012 05:46:49 AM 718 Views
Is that true? Sareitha Sedai - 18/09/2012 06:54:33 PM 661 Views
No, it's not. See my post (you should really have read it first ) *NM* Dark Knight - 18/09/2012 07:00:07 PM 259 Views
No Roland00 - 18/09/2012 06:56:43 PM 641 Views
Looking at that chart you linked, I have some questions. Nate - 18/09/2012 07:05:24 PM 602 Views
Payroll taxes are for Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid Dark Knight - 18/09/2012 07:11:57 PM 599 Views
I think the reasoning is that since they go to entitlement programs, it's not entirely a tax. Tom - 18/09/2012 10:55:12 PM 572 Views
Does that mean the correct number is that 27.6%? Legolas - 18/09/2012 07:17:46 PM 616 Views
That is correct - some folks have such negative income taxes, it offsets payroll as well. Anonymous2000 - 19/09/2012 05:28:07 AM 619 Views
If it helps, here's a graph of effective federal tax rate by quintile, all taxes (data from 2007) Jragghen - 19/09/2012 08:30:37 AM 848 Views
While we're talking about taxes, am I the only one who doesn't give a rat's ass about Romney's? nossy - 18/09/2012 10:37:12 PM 594 Views
That sort of thing does matter to me snoopcester - 18/09/2012 10:48:30 PM 567 Views
Ah, yeah, not so much for me. nossy - 18/09/2012 11:16:56 PM 543 Views
You gave that away with your first post snoopcester - 18/09/2012 11:49:28 PM 534 Views
No way! nossy - 19/09/2012 01:41:04 PM 562 Views
Yuh huh! snoopcester - 19/09/2012 08:56:01 PM 590 Views
I am a BIT curious whether he took the IRS amnesty for tax dodging in 2009. Joel - 18/09/2012 11:32:31 PM 523 Views
As an outside observer ... Nate - 19/09/2012 01:28:13 AM 616 Views
Re: As an outside observer ... Isaac - 19/09/2012 04:45:11 AM 571 Views
the question of legality has already been covered by the offshore accounts though.... moondog - 19/09/2012 05:44:28 AM 590 Views
Different situation then the Birther stuff Isaac - 19/09/2012 07:02:09 AM 542 Views
Eh, those already exist, if people bothered to look Jragghen - 19/09/2012 08:08:35 AM 771 Views
Those are toothless examples, no bite to them and old news so no shock value aspect Isaac - 19/09/2012 08:44:01 AM 529 Views
It's a conflict of interest. Aeryn - 21/09/2012 09:52:58 PM 548 Views
The stat is valid, because of tax credits the GOP created/expanded for the overtaxed middle class. Joel - 18/09/2012 11:22:13 PM 596 Views
I think you got it wrong: Narg - 19/09/2012 01:52:30 AM 563 Views
+1 - you are correct, moondog screwed the pooch with this post. *NM* Anonymous2000 - 19/09/2012 05:18:19 AM 244 Views
Easier to read/understand - WSJ data on the 47% Anonymous2000 - 19/09/2012 05:25:01 AM 713 Views
Washington Post similar to Anonymous', but shows how many people get each credit. Joel - 19/09/2012 06:45:08 PM 651 Views
Back to Messageboard Post New Thread Search Help Stats Rules

Reply to Message

Block Quote Paragraph Quote
Formatting
Smiley Codes