PDA

View Full Version : What is Mitt hiding?



Qtec
07-17-2012, 02:00 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Meanwhile, speculation over what he’s hiding continues to mount.

From The New Yorker

Romney’s filings indicate that his effective federal income-tax rate in 2010 was 13.9 per cent, and his estimated rate for 2011 is 15.4 per cent. Those figures reflect the fifteen-per-cent tax rate on capital gains and dividend income. But it is perfectly possible that in earlier years he paid even lower rates. Since his 2010 and 2011 returns were prepared during an election campaign, it seems likely that his accountants took a conservative approach to deductions and other aspects of his finances. In prior years, they may well have been more aggressive. And maybe at some point Romney suffered some investment losses that enabled him to reduce his tax burden in subsequent years. Obviously, we don’t know. But there may have been a year in which Romney’s federal tax rate was in the single figures, and possibly even close to zero.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'> This seems pretty unlikely. But, hey, as Matthew Dowd noted, “there’s obviously something there, because if there was nothing there, he would say, ‘Have at it.’ ”
</span>
There may be no way to confirm it, but Abby Huntsman of Huffington Post is reporting that people close to Romney say he would exit the presidential race before he would reveal more tax returns.

<u>Romney has clearly calculated that more financial disclosure would effectively end his candidacy.</u> </div></div>


I wouldn't go that far but this refusal to come clean to the American public won't go down well. A lot of people who voted for Bush did so because they trusted him. How many of those voters really believe the flip-flopping serial liar Willard Romney, who has foreign bank accounts and won't show his tax returns?


Q

LWW
07-17-2012, 02:32 AM
So you are now calling for Obama to come clean?

Soflasnapper
07-17-2012, 10:05 AM
How much more than 10-12 years of tax returns do you want him to disclose, and based on what?

If there was anything to this line of attack, Romney would have already launched it. Or his allies.

Have you seen any of that so far?

LWW
07-17-2012, 01:11 PM
Romney has released what the law requires.

For years the left has bleated that Obama should not releaseone word more than the legal minimum, and he released less.

Now the left bleats incessantly that Romney should release more than theminimum ... I must assume y'all are now wanting Obama to do the same?

LWW
07-17-2012, 02:54 PM
Why won't you taxers just face reality.

Soflasnapper
07-17-2012, 05:00 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Romney has released what the law requires.

For years the left has bleated that Obama should not releaseone word more than the legal minimum, and he released less.

Now the left bleats incessantly that Romney should release more than theminimum ... I must assume y'all are now wanting Obama to do the same? </div></div>

Speaking of tax returns, clearly you now talk out of your hat or nether regions, perhaps.

There isn't any legality to this. It's purely custom. He's breaking with about 30 years of customary practice.

He also could not be confirmed by the Senate to a cabinet post if this is all he was willing to provide.

He also would probably not meet his own muster to be his vp candidate, if that was all he would provide (himself). Well, if he were another person, of course.

I'm guessing that he got caught up in the UBS disclosure situation, and had to go to the IRS and plead entry into their amnesty program for an undisclosed Swiss bank account. Because that all went down in 2009. (Which is why it would have appeared in his 2010 tax filing, and that's the only reason we know of it. It was a secret on any of his prior required filings, so far as I know.

I had to do the same thing for an incapacitated person as their guardian, in that same year, but neither he nor I is running for president, for Pete's sake!

Sid_Vicious
07-17-2012, 05:33 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Romney has released what the law requires.

For years the left has bleated that Obama should not releaseone word more than the legal minimum, and he released less.

Now the left bleats incessantly that Romney should release more than theminimum ... I must assume y'all are now wanting Obama to do the same? </div></div>

Speaking of tax returns, clearly you now talk out of your hat or nether regions, perhaps.

There isn't any legality to this. It's purely custom. He's breaking with about 30 years of customary practice.

He also could not be confirmed by the Senate to a cabinet post if this is all he was willing to provide.

He also would probably not meet his own muster to be his vp candidate, if that was all he would provide (himself). Well, if he were another person, of course.

I'm guessing that he got caught up in the UBS disclosure situation, and had to go to the IRS and plead entry into their amnesty program for an undisclosed Swiss bank account. Because that all went down in 2009. (Which is why it would have appeared in his 2010 tax filing, and that's the only reason we know of it. It was a secret on any of his prior required filings, so far as I know.

I had to do the same thing for an incapacitated person as their guardian, in that same year, but neither he nor I is running for president, for Pete's sake! </div></div>

Good speculation. One thing is for sure,,,this tax returns issue ain't going away. Great fodder, as long as Romney hide. You gotta love it ;-) sid