View Full Version : Gingrich tax returns v Romney's

01-15-2012, 02:58 PM
From Politico:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Gingrich to release tax returns Thursday

1/15/12 10:49 AM EST

Newt Gingrich announced Sunday that hell release his tax returns this week.

The former House speaker said he made the decision to release the tax returns after discussing it with his wife, Callista, and said <span style='font-size: 14pt'>hes disclosing the returns on Thursday to give South Carolina voters time to vet his history before they go to the polls on Saturday.</span>

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>I know the country deserves accountability and they deserve transparency,</span> Gingrich said on NBCs Meet the Press. Im going to try to set the example to provide the leadership to do the right thing.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>Gingrichs move is a contrast with Romney, who so far has not planned to release his tax returns.

Hell never get through the fall without releasing his records and its better to do it during the primary season, Gingrich said.</span></div></div>

Is Gingrich right about Romney's tax returns?

Not sure about that myself.

Remember the phrase, 'better to keep your mouth shut and be thought an idiot, rather than open it, and prove you are'?

Something like that may apply to Romney. Better to be thought a tax-reducing zillionaire with Cayman Island accounts than to open up the documents and prove that case.

But now both Gingrich and Sarah Palin have urged this course upon Romney, and the cry for this will increase.

I believe the custom is for the NOMINEES to put out their most recent tax return, not for nomination CANDIDATES to do so prior to winning the nomination, so Willard is seemingly on firm ground to refuse doing so at this time, prior to sewing up the nomination.

As Gingrich implies, however, if he waits until then to do so, it will be too late for the GOP primary voters to weigh what they contain properly, and make a more informed, transparent decision as to whether this would disqualify him, or gravely damage his chances, so as to make it advisable to vote for which ever not-Romneys are still standing.

01-16-2012, 06:39 AM
It's a shame Obama didn't have such a transparency to his campaign.

01-16-2012, 02:15 PM
False deflection, much?

Obama released his prior year's tax returns well before the primaries were decided, just before the PA primary.

Sez here. (http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/04/obama_releases.html)

01-16-2012, 02:31 PM
Tax returns weren't the issue.

But ... you already knew that.

01-16-2012, 02:49 PM
Of course they're the issue-- it's right there in the thread title, and the subject of my post.

But let's play along:

Obama wasn't entirely transparent, of course, but he did release his prior year's tax returns during the primary season.

Is it your position that Romney should be LESS transparent than Obama, although you criticize Obama's transparency?

That seems to be what you're saying. Anything to avoid answer 'yes' to my question? Really, don't you think you should take a consistent view of things on principle instead of taking personalities into the decision?

01-16-2012, 02:55 PM
You are so spoon fed brainwashed that you have no clue what anyone is saying ... unless it's <span style='font-size: 14pt'>"ALL HAIL KING OBAMA!"</span>

01-16-2012, 04:56 PM
We now must deduce that you don't care about transparency at all, unless the candidate or president promises transparency and doesn't do it. If only they said they'd not be transparent, then no problem, eh?

01-18-2012, 02:32 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">WASHINGTON -- Mitt Romney has a new definition of "not much": $374,327.

On Tuesday, the Republican presidential candidate finally admitted that the effective tax rate he has been paying for the last several years is likely below that of middle-class workers, which would also include military servicemembers.

In Greenville, S.C., Romney was asked directly what his effective tax rate is. It was a hot topic of discussion at Monday night's debate, at which Romney repeatedly declined to fully commit to release his tax returns.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'><span style='font-size: 20pt'>"It's probably closer to the 15 percent rate than anything," </span>said Romney on Tuesday. "For the past 10 years, my income comes overwhelmingly from investments made in the past, rather than ordinary income or earned annual income. I got a little bit of income from my book, but I gave that all away. Then, I get speakers fees from time to time, but not very much."</span>

Not very much? According to his personal financial disclosure, from February 2010 to February 2011, <u>Romney earned $374,327.62 in speaking fees. A few months later, Romney joked that he was "unemployed."</u>

His rival, Newt Gingrich, said that he made <span style='font-size: 14pt'>$60,000 per speech</span> -- defending himself against the charge that he served as a lobbyist for Freddie Mac, for which he was paid over <u>$1.6 million for strategic advice.</u>

Romney has an estimated wealth of between $190 million to $250 million, according to financial disclosure reports. Upon leaving Bain Capital in 1999, he negotiated a retirement package guaranteeing him a percentage of the firm's profits.

A single worker who earns more than $35,350 in income pays a 25 percent tax rate on earnings above that amount. </div></div>

Q............. man of the people (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/17/mitt-romney-not-much-definition-speaking-fees_n_1210522.html)

Willard says it on video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MdmeBnZqMkI&feature=player_embedded)

01-18-2012, 02:40 AM

01-18-2012, 02:59 AM
....and the GOP want to lower the tax rate for the elite even more!

Willard pays a lower tax rate than the bus driver. The Q is, is this fair?


01-18-2012, 04:46 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> BAIER: Id like to ask a question about keeping money for all of the candidates down the line. What is the highest federal income tax any American should have to pay? We are looking for a number. [...]

ROMNEY: I would like 25 percent, but right now its at 35, so people better pay what is legally required. But ultimately <u>lets get it down to as low as we possibly can, if its 20, if its 25,</u> but paying more than 25 percent, I think, is taking too much out of our pockets.

BAIER: So the highest you had was 35?

ROMNEY: Well, thats what the law is right now, but 25 is where I would like to see us go. </div></div>

Says the guy paying 'around 15%'.

video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2MZX-jMHpr8&feature=player_embedded)

link (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/01/17/405014/romney-wealthy-taxes-third/)


01-18-2012, 06:31 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">....and the GOP want to lower the tax rate for the elite even more!

Willard pays a lower tax rate than the bus driver. The Q is, is this fair?

Q </div></div>

No, and it's also false ... but I have an unfair advantage in that I understand how this works.

Here's a clue ... for him to be paying 15% on capital gains, the same rate the bus driver pays on capital gains, that means he has capital to invest.

In order to have capital to invest, that capital was earned as income.

When that capital was earned as income it was taxed at a far higher rate.

This means that Romney is effectively paying well in excess of 50%.

Doesn't your internet use the google?

What's that?

You prefer the spoon?

But ... I already knew that.

01-18-2012, 06:57 AM
In order to have capital to invest, that capital was earned as income.

When that capital was earned as income it was taxed at a far higher rate.

Probably at a tax-preferred capital gains rate, which was often at the 'far higher tax rate' of 20%, or a total now if you want to make the double taxation argument of 35%.

01-18-2012, 07:23 AM
LOl. LWW does LOVE to make excuses for his idols. LOL

Poor old Willard.


01-19-2012, 05:55 PM
I don't think even Willard will try to make the 'double taxation applied!' argument in his own defense.

Because it isn't true. (Ok, I admit that its falsity wouldn't prevent his trying to make the claim, but it's such a silly position that he'd be ripped to shreds on such a claim.)

Because the earnings from money are new, and had never been taxed before. The money that he had, from which the new income gets taxed, isn't taxed again, but netted out from the gain (as the basis).

So what had been taxed before was not taxed again. And what was later taxed (the new gains), had not been taxed before.

Simple concept, really. Wonder why LWW can't understand it?

Wait, if he understood it, he'd have no point to make. So, yes, I understand, now.