Harry Reid Was Right: Mitt Romney Paid No Taxes for 15 Years by Kwicko

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Harry Reid Was Right: Mitt Romney Paid No Taxes for 15 Years

POSTED BY: KWICKO
UPDATED: Friday, November 2, 2012 13:02
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 1121
PAGE 1 of 1

Friday, November 2, 2012 6:56 AM

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:
If you're on the fence and still not sure whether to vote for Obama or Romney, perhaps this latest piece of information might help you make up your mind. Remember when Harry Reid claimed that he had solid proof that the GOP hopeful hadn't paid taxes for many years? Remember how some folks were skeptical about that, believing Reid was just grandstanding for show? Turns out he was right.

Bloomberg broke the story late Sunday night, with a story published around 11pm Central Time which gives an in-depth explanation of Romney's legal tax evasion since 1996. His tax avoidance was completely legal, although most hardworking Americans might question its ethical qualities. As President Obama said in the second debate, the GOP candidate paid less money in taxes than people earning less than $30,000 per year. How can that happen? Well, up until 1997, if you were rich, you could "rent" non-profit status from your favorite charity.

Huh? How can an individual rent tax-exempt status from a charity? It's pretty intricate, but the way it worked was, in Mitt's case, he used the Mormon church as a tax shelter by setting up a Charitable Remainder Unitrust (CRUT), that paid him a specific amount of money per year from dividends while also donating the smallest amount possible to the church.

http://politics.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=28147498173020
0

Discuss.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 2, 2012 7:06 AM

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Kwicko,

How much extra tax did you pay that you were not legally obligated to?

ETA: What exactly is legal tax evasion or legal tax avoidance?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 2, 2012 7:14 AM

STORYMARK

Well, now we know why he was so intent on hiding his taxes. Probably one of the reasons McCain('s campaign) passed on him, too.

Hopefully, this'll get more press in the next few days - but I don't know if it'll change anything. Most prognosticators are calling it for Obama at this point anyway.

Just because it's technically legal doesn't make it right, BDN. But I think you understand that, and why he was hiding this - but you can't pass up the opportunity to take partisan swipes.

Note to anyone - Please pity the poor, poor wittle Rappyboy. He's feeling put upon lately, what with all those facts disagreeing with what he believes.

"We will never have the elite, smart people on our side." -- Rick "Frothy" Santorum

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 2, 2012 7:27 AM

KWICKO

Quote:
Originally posted by BIGDAMNNOBODY:
Kwicko,

How much extra tax did you pay that you were not legally obligated to?

Thousands, apparently. I did not have myself declared tax exempt. I also take no charitable deductions, nor any deductions at all aside from the standard one for myself.

Why do you ask?

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 2, 2012 7:38 AM

WISHIMAY

Us either... I thought the basic principle was you have to HAVE money to be able to hide it from the Government...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 2, 2012 7:45 AM

STORYMARK

Yeah, I doubt many folks can afford to rent a religion.

Note to anyone - Please pity the poor, poor wittle Rappyboy. He's feeling put upon lately, what with all those facts disagreeing with what he believes.

"We will never have the elite, smart people on our side." -- Rick "Frothy" Santorum

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 2, 2012 8:11 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
Yeah, I doubt many folks can afford to rent a religion.

LOL! Best line of the year.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.
A warning to everyone, AURaptor is a known liar.
...and now a Fundie!
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=53359

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 2, 2012 8:25 AM

KWICKO

Quote:
Originally posted by m52nickerson:
Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
Yeah, I doubt many folks can afford to rent a religion.

LOL! Best line of the year.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.
A warning to everyone, AURaptor is a known liar.
...and now a Fundie!
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=53359

Indeed! Well played, Story; well played indeed.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 2, 2012 8:28 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Yup, they'll never get it and you'll never make them get it. To people like Romney and our righties, any tax is bad and any tax exemption is good. The fact that tax exemptions were written to give the rich the edge is good; the fact that it makes the not-rich pay MORE as a percentage of what they earned has no validity. The fact that taxes are written specifically TO give the rich ways not to pay an equivalent share means nothing--they're "legal" (because guess who MADE them legal?), so they're okay.

Sad, sad world--I don't know if Romney paid "none", tho' I understand where that comes from, but he had the legal ability to pay FAR less than the rest of "us". That's why when righties laud to the sky how much "charity" he paid, it pisses me off because the vast majority of that "charity" was actually written into his "contract" with the church...it wasn't done out of the goodness of his heart, and it wasn't "charity". It was a contractual obligation.

As to paying more than he's required to, he did that most recently because he's running for Prez (just like "I can't have an illegal working for me!"); he didn't take some deductions he could have because it would have lowered his tax rate to under 13%, which he'd claimed he never paid less than. Pure political expediency, absolutely nothing more.

Nonetheless, you're pssing into the wind, any of you who try to get through to them about it. He paid what's "legal", that's all that matters. Just like corporations who not only paid nothing but got money BACK are viewed as being in the right. 'Cuz they paid or didn't pay what was "legally" required of them. WHY they can't grasp that a corporation which profits by billions of dollars shouldn't pay little or no taxes (or get money back!) has always eluded me, but I accept that it is, and that no debate will change what is.

Tit for tat got us where we are today. If we want to be grownups, we need to resist the ugliness. If we each did, this would be a better reflection on Firefly and a more welcome place. I will try.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 2, 2012 9:19 AM

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
Originally posted by BIGDAMNNOBODY:
Kwicko,

How much extra tax did you pay that you were not legally obligated to?

Thousands, apparently. I did not have myself declared tax exempt. I also take no charitable deductions, nor any deductions at all aside from the standard one for myself.

Why do you ask?

So is your problem with the tax code itself or the fact that you were not as savvy as Romney to take advantage of it?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 2, 2012 9:57 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
So is your problem with the tax code itself or the fact that you were not as savvy as Romney to take advantage of it?

BDN I'm pretty tax-savvy, and I recognize there are certain tax breaks that are far beyond us. First of all, I earn my money by working rather than "investment", so... ooops! My tax doubles right there. Then, there are the investments that are available (literally) only if you're worth a (net) million dollars ... or more. And who at my income is going to pay a tax lawyer $100,000 to shelter the same amount? Because you have to set up the trusts and the bank accounts (did you know that in order to open a Swiss bank account you have to deposit a million dollars?) and all of that takes far more money than most people make in a year.

I know you're not stupid, so why do you say such silly things? The truly wealthy live in a far different world than you (unless you're one of the truly wealthy).

MY problem is with the tax code, but since the corporations and the wealthy get to write it, it will never change. And of course, you and rappy and geezer will be cheerleading things as they are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 2, 2012 10:10 AM

STORYMARK

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:

I know you're not stupid,

I think you may be wrong. Im beginning to think BDN is as deluded and devout as rappy.

Note to anyone - Please pity the poor, poor wittle Rappyboy. He's feeling put upon lately, what with all those facts disagreeing with what he believes.

"We will never have the elite, smart people on our side." -- Rick "Frothy" Santorum

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 2, 2012 10:27 AM

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
BDN I'm pretty tax-savvy, and I recognize there are certain tax breaks that are far beyond us. First of all, I earn my money by working rather than "investment", so... ooops! My tax doubles right there. Then, there are the investments that are available (literally) only if you're worth a (net) million dollars ... or more. And who at my income is going to pay a tax lawyer $100,000 to shelter the same amount? Because you have to set up the trusts and the bank accounts (did you know that in order to open a Swiss bank account you have to deposit a million dollars?) and all of that takes far more money than most people make in a year.

I know you're not stupid, so why do you say such silly things? The truly wealthy live in a far different world than you (unless you're one of the truly wealthy).

Mitt Romney is wealthy, this is not in dispute. Mitt Romney was able to benefit from existing legal loopholes in the tax code. So ultimately, is Kwicko suggesting that people should not vote for Romney because he is wealthy IYO?

Quote:

MY problem is with the tax code, but since the corporations and the wealthy get to write it, it will never change. And of course, you and rappy and geezer will be cheerleading things as they are.

So what exactly does Romney have to do with the existing tax code besides the fact that he is wealthy?
Will the wealthy be any less better off under Obama in your opinion?
If there was a tax break that you qualified for, would you not take it?

ETA: And while I am sure you earn most of your money by working. I do seem to remember you mentioning in the past several "timely" investments that you were savvy enough to make. Am I mistaken in this regard?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 2, 2012 10:43 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

I would not vote for Romney because he is wealthy. His interests and my interests have very little to do with each other. The government is already made up of (mostly) wealthy people, many of them millionaires- why add one more? Most of them have no experience working for a living, and some of the fabulously wealthy (Romney is one of them) see the average person as somewhat less than human; less deserving of respect and less deserving of compassion- the infamous 47% who are slackers and whiners. And because our Senators and Representatives are mostly wealthy, there will be very little interest in what happens to the vast majority of people who happen NOT to be wealthy.

Now, if Romney were to do something stunningly ethical AND also legal ... like voluntarily pay the maximum tax rate that $100,000+ get to "enjoy", then I would consider voting for him, because he has obviously thrown his lot in with the rest of us.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 2, 2012 10:48 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Quote:
Mitt Romney was able to benefit from existing legal loopholes in the tax code. So ultimately, is Kwicko suggesting that people should not vote for Romney because he is wealthy IYO?

No, he's saying quite clearly--and anyone who's paying the SLIGHTEST bit of attention knows--that the wealthy get in power, then write the tax code to give themselves the biggest bite of the apple.

In reply to "So what exactly does Romney have to do with the existing tax code besides the fact that he is wealthy", I get the "existing" dodge. What does he have to do with the tax code in general, however? How about the fact that if he's elected, Romney's also said that he'll lessen taxes on the rich EVEN MORE, thus making it even easier for him and others like him to pay zero in taxes?

"Will the wealthy be any less better off under Obama in your opinion?" What does that have to do with the title or content of the thread? To respond, however, since apparently you haven't been paying attention: The wealthy would pay more taxes under Obama's plans. Ergo: "Yes".

"If there was a tax break that you qualified for, would you not take it?" How does the inequaly of the tax code have anything to do with that? If we qualified for the same tax breaks they do, sure we'd take 'em, but that has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion.

Make it the same for everyone, take away ALL the tax breaks only the rich can afford, take away subsidies and GOVERNMENT SUPPORT that ultra-rich corporatinos get, leave the rest, then we'll talk.

Tit for tat got us where we are today. If we want to be grownups, we need to resist the ugliness. If we each did, this would be a better reflection on Firefly and a more welcome place. I will try.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 2, 2012 10:50 AM

KWICKO

Quote:
Originally posted by BIGDAMNNOBODY:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
Originally posted by BIGDAMNNOBODY:
Kwicko,

How much extra tax did you pay that you were not legally obligated to?

Thousands, apparently. I did not have myself declared tax exempt. I also take no charitable deductions, nor any deductions at all aside from the standard one for myself.

Why do you ask?

So is your problem with the tax code itself or the fact that you were not as savvy as Romney to take advantage of it?

Why on Earth would you think I have a problem with it?

True, I don't have an entire accounting firm working for me, or an entire church, but I also don't have a problem paying my fair share. I'm one of those Americans who think that taxes are the price we pay for civilization and society.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 2, 2012 10:55 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Quote:
So is your problem with the tax code itself or the fact that you were not as savvy as Romney to take advantage of it?

My answer: The tax code itself.

"I also don't have a problem paying my fair share. I'm one of those Americans who think that taxes are the price we pay for civilization and society." Which obviously, from every damned thing he's said, from Obamacare to the 47% to cutting safety-net programs and on and on, Romney does NOT believe.

His philosophy, on the other hand, is patently obviously "I got mine, fuck you (and I'll continue to get just as much of mine as I can, BY fucking you)."

Tit for tat got us where we are today. If we want to be grownups, we need to resist the ugliness. If we each did, this would be a better reflection on Firefly and a more welcome place. I will try.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 2, 2012 1:02 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
How about the fact that if he's elected, Romney's also said that he'll lessen taxes on the rich EVEN MORE, thus making it even easier for him and others like him to pay zero in taxes?

That.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE