Create new account | My Profile | My Journal | My Account | My Inbox | Help | Log in

Google search

Advanced search

HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Romney's Un-Artful Tax Do...

Fri Aug 3, 2012, 05:40 PM

Star Member David Zephyr (22,583 posts)

Romney's Un-Artful Tax Dodge Purposely Omits the Word "Income" in His Statement

The standing accusation from Senator Reid (now being corroborated by Dana Bash) is that Mitt Romney did not pay "income taxes" for ten years.

Today, the most rehearsed and well-scripted candidate in American political history, Mitt Romney, responded (again) to the charge with these carefully chosen words:

“Let me also say, categorically, I have paid taxes every year. And a lot of taxes," candidate Romney declared.

Well, EVERYONE pays "taxes every year". We all pay sales taxes and gasoline taxes. Romney did NOT say he has paid INCOME "taxes every year".

Very revealing. Not an accident.

He left the words "income" out of his denial. On purpose. By design.

This guy is sweating like Nixon on this issue and is clearly hiding what he knows would appall Americans of all stripes.

"I have paid taxes every year." Yeah, Mitt. So has everyone in America.

But you didn't pay INCOME taxes every year.

Harry Reid has your game.

85 replies, 9500 views

Thread informationRemove bookmarkTrash this thread

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 85 replies Author Time Post
Reply Romney's Un-Artful Tax Dodge Purposely Omits the Word "Income" in His Statement (Original post)
 David Zephyr Aug 2012 OP
LineReply It was a virtual admission that he'd not paid income tax in some years...
 Bluenorthwest Aug 2012 #1
LineLineReply I hope someone in the media picks up on the carefully selected phrasing in his denial.
 David Zephyr Aug 2012 #4
LineLineLineReply Someone just did
 pscot Aug 2012 #37
LineLineLineLineReply I'm an old guy, I still forget that.
 David Zephyr Aug 2012 #50
LineLineLineLineLineReply I think he'll get what's coming...
 tomm2thumbs Aug 2012 #53
LineReply Unlike Nixon, Romney's Checkers is Seamus and I doubt he would be a witness
 coalition_unwilling Aug 2012 #2
LineReply I thought so too and also noticed McCain not sticking up for him
 K8-EEE Aug 2012 #3
LineLineReply Very interesting observation, K8-EE
 David Zephyr Aug 2012 #9
LineReply This is the same dodge the "elites" use to suggest that Tax cuts on the first $200,000 is not
 Vincardog Aug 2012 #5
LineReply Are we sure that he actually had an income most of those years?
 XemaSab Aug 2012 #6
LineLineReply He must have had
 treestar Aug 2012 #17
LineLineReply You raise an interesting point
 aint_no_life_nowhere Aug 2012 #19
LineLineLineReply There is no factual basis for anyone to believe that capital gains is not income.
 AnotherMcIntosh Aug 2012 #30
LineLineLineLineReply Well said. It is indeed income.
 David Zephyr Aug 2012 #32
LineLineReply He had an income as the governor of Mass unless he declined it.
 beyurslf Aug 2012 #23
LineLineLineReply I think I heard he did decline his income from being Governor
 siligut Aug 2012 #26
LineLineLineLineReply AFAIK he received income from the Olympics in addition to his Bain income.
 LiberalFighter Aug 2012 #55
LineLineLineLineReply compared to what?
 heaven05 Aug 2012 #70
LineLineLineLineLineReply I know Mitt is treacherous
 siligut Aug 2012 #72
LineLineLineLineLineLineReply yeah
 heaven05 Aug 2012 #75
LineLineReply He's probably never had what the IRS calls "ordinary income"
 jmowreader Aug 2012 #38
LineLineLineReply actually he has on occasion had some "earned income"
 magical thyme Aug 2012 #45
LineLineLineReply .
 XemaSab Aug 2012 #49
LineLineReply He had an income
 brush Aug 2012 #66
LineReply Good catch
 Teamster Jeff Aug 2012 #7
LineLineReply It's indeed getting very interesting.
 David Zephyr Aug 2012 #35
LineReply I caught that too...
 JHB Aug 2012 #8
LineLineReply ewww.. burning mental picture right now. n/t
 progressivebydesign Aug 2012 #15
LineReply We all noticed.
 aquart Aug 2012 #10
LineReply Willard rocks the "Fuzzy Math" with the best of them
 tridim Aug 2012 #11
LineLineReply LOL
 Bozvotros Aug 2012 #31
LineReply Good catch DZ !
 kentuck Aug 2012 #12
LineLineReply Thanks, kentuck. I hope someone in the press grills him on the omission.
 David Zephyr Aug 2012 #51
LineLineReply Should it be wordsmithing?
 LiberalFighter Aug 2012 #56
LineReply I wonder how much in property taxes he pays on all his mansions
 aint_no_life_nowhere Aug 2012 #13
LineLineReply True! And it's not tax he should whine about
 treestar Aug 2012 #18
LineLineLineReply And the property tax on rental properties is paid in the rent. The landlord
 JDPriestly Aug 2012 #25
LineReply Good point. He said "Harry needs to put up or shut up"
 Maraya1969 Aug 2012 #14
LineLineReply Maraya1969, you have it.
 David Zephyr Aug 2012 #52
LineReply Excellent point n/t
 ProSense Aug 2012 #16
LineReply FICA, property taxes...
 cthulu2016 Aug 2012 #20
LineReply Absolutely right. Some lawyer wrote the statement!!!
 JDPriestly Aug 2012 #21
LineLineReply If he's paid no INCOME tax because he's HAD NO INCOME, that's all he has to say.
 rocktivity Aug 2012 #33
LineLineLineReply That creates a problem for Romney
 jmowreader Aug 2012 #40
LineLineReply IMO we need to hit Rmoney on how much of his income is exempt from taxes.
 LiberalFighter Aug 2012 #57
LineLineNew Reply This is a very good point
 reflection Aug 2012 #82
LineReply He wouldn't have paid income taxes....
 citizen blues Aug 2012 #22
LineLineReply interesting--and welcome to DU!
 renate Aug 2012 #29
LineLineReply Under IRC §61(a)(7), dividends are included in gross income.
 AnotherMcIntosh Aug 2012 #34
LineLineLineReply Yep.
 David Zephyr Aug 2012 #36
LineLineLineReply My mistake. Thanks for correcting that.
 citizen blues Aug 2012 #46
LineLineLineLineReply "paid far more in taxes on my $42k salary" You probably paid more than the corporations
 AnotherMcIntosh Aug 2012 #47
LineLineNew Reply Exactly!!!!
 JDPriestly Aug 2012 #85
LineReply i heard that on the way home from work
 barbtries Aug 2012 #24
LineLineReply Exactly.
 David Zephyr Aug 2012 #59
LineReply It's Capital Gains!
 elleng Aug 2012 #27
LineLineReply In 1921, the Supreme Court made it clear that capital gains are subject to taxation as income.
 AnotherMcIntosh Aug 2012 #39
LineLineLineReply There's a corresponding tax protestor argument out there
 jmowreader Aug 2012 #41
LineLineLineLineReply IMO, the tax protestors, like the teabaggers, are the strangest people ever.
 AnotherMcIntosh Aug 2012 #43
LineLineLineLineLineReply Probably as strange as the ones that think loans should be forgiven after 7 years.
 LiberalFighter Aug 2012 #58
LineLineLineLineLineLineReply Interesting concept
 quaker bill Aug 2012 #62
LineLineLineLineLineLineReply There's a statute of limitations in the Bible? Who knew? Certainly not the banksters.
 AnotherMcIntosh Aug 2012 #69
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply If I rebut anyone on this it would be to point out that it only applied to the Israelites.
 LiberalFighter Aug 2012 #73
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineNew Reply Loopholes. Always loopholes.
 AnotherMcIntosh Aug 2012 #77
LineReply yep, Mitt is the master of loopholes
 Enrique Aug 2012 #28
LineReply So ironic that the upcoming historic battle over concentration of wealth through biased legislation
 wiggs Aug 2012 #42
LineLineReply Its too bad that the upcoming historic battle is not going to be about job-transferring "free-trade"
 AnotherMcIntosh Aug 2012 #44
LineLineLineReply It is in the sidecar
 quaker bill Aug 2012 #63
LineLineLineLineReply It is in the sidecar? One of the candidates is opposed to job-transferring "free-trade" agreements?
 AnotherMcIntosh Aug 2012 #67
LineReply It would have been VERY easy to be unambiguous.
 bleever Aug 2012 #48
LineLineReply Quite an effort, too, huh, bleever.
 David Zephyr Aug 2012 #60
LineReply SLICK WILLARD
 grasswire Aug 2012 #54
LineReply I just read something about UBITs which apply to IRA and family trust money
 demgrrrll Aug 2012 #61
LineReply he can't pay income taxes technically he is unemployed
 Heather MC Aug 2012 #64
LineReply What Is Not Said Often Says More
 DallasNE Aug 2012 #65
LineLineNew Reply Especially with this cold, calculating politician.
 David Zephyr Aug 2012 #79
LineReply There is a box on the average 1040 that
 bonniebgood Aug 2012 #68
LineReply Will we ever get the chance to see what a complete liar we're dealing with here?
 flamingdem Aug 2012 #71
LineReply Interesting observation. I think this issue touches his Crazy Place.
 DirkGently Aug 2012 #74
LineLineNew Reply "He knows, to the penny, what he's paid."
 David Zephyr Aug 2012 #81
LineNew Reply Yeppers. Less than one second after I read Romney's retort I thought, "Sure, sales taxes!"
 Ian_rd Aug 2012 #76
LineNew Reply "... I have paid taxes every year.
 xxqqqzme Aug 2012 #78
LineNew Reply Sales tax really adds up
 Blue Gardener Aug 2012 #80
LineNew Reply I noticed the phrasing too.
 existentialist Aug 2012 #83
LineNew Reply He's baiting Obama. Obama is not buying it.
 applegrove Aug 2012 #84

Response to David Zephyr (Original post)

Fri Aug 3, 2012, 05:42 PM

Bluenorthwest (24,185 posts)

1. It was a virtual admission that he'd not paid income tax in some years...

nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #1)

Fri Aug 3, 2012, 05:46 PM

Star Member David Zephyr (22,583 posts)

4. I hope someone in the media picks up on the carefully selected phrasing in his denial.

It was as you say "a virtual admission".

His "denial" did not deny Senator Reid's charge regarding income taxes.

Where's the media on this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to David Zephyr (Reply #4)

Fri Aug 3, 2012, 07:51 PM

Star Member pscot (13,931 posts)

37. Someone just did

We are the medium and we have the message.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to pscot (Reply #37)

Fri Aug 3, 2012, 11:35 PM

Star Member David Zephyr (22,583 posts)

50. I'm an old guy, I still forget that.

Well said.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to David Zephyr (Reply #50)

Fri Aug 3, 2012, 11:43 PM

tomm2thumbs (9,189 posts)

53. I think he'll get what's coming...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to David Zephyr (Original post)

Fri Aug 3, 2012, 05:46 PM

coalition_unwilling (14,180 posts)

2. Unlike Nixon, Romney's Checkers is Seamus and I doubt he would be a witness

 

for Romney

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to David Zephyr (Original post)

Fri Aug 3, 2012, 05:46 PM

Star Member K8-EEE (15,667 posts)

3. I thought so too and also noticed McCain not sticking up for him

Like he did for Huma -- b/c he probably was briefed on his zero income tax rate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to K8-EEE (Reply #3)

Fri Aug 3, 2012, 05:52 PM

Star Member David Zephyr (22,583 posts)

9. Very interesting observation, K8-EE

Thanks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to David Zephyr (Original post)

Fri Aug 3, 2012, 05:47 PM

Star Member Vincardog (17,416 posts)

5. This is the same dodge the "elites" use to suggest that Tax cuts on the first $200,000 is not

a tax cut for the rich. Even the people making $20M a year make the first $1 first.
They want a BIGGER cut for those already obscenely rich.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to David Zephyr (Original post)

Fri Aug 3, 2012, 05:47 PM

Star Member XemaSab (57,416 posts)

6. Are we sure that he actually had an income most of those years?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to XemaSab (Reply #6)

Fri Aug 3, 2012, 06:10 PM

treestar (40,494 posts)

17. He must have had

Or how to buy the car elevator? Granted it may not be wages, tips and salaries, but rather dividends, annuities and the like.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to XemaSab (Reply #6)

Fri Aug 3, 2012, 06:13 PM

Star Member aint_no_life_nowhere (18,936 posts)

19. You raise an interesting point

I'm not an accountant but I've heard that Smarmney didn't make an income but only capital gains, which supposedly is not considered income for federal tax purposes. Could it be that both Reid and Romney are playing around with that word "income"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to aint_no_life_nowhere (Reply #19)

Fri Aug 3, 2012, 07:21 PM

AnotherMcIntosh (7,564 posts)

30. There is no factual basis for anyone to believe that capital gains is not income.

Capital gains are either long-term capital gains or short-term capital gains. The distinction is based upon the type of asset giving rise to the capital gain and the holding period.

Capital gains subject to taxation in this country is subject to different tax rates according to whether the capital gain is long-term or short-term. The long-term rates are lower than the tax rates applicable to ordinary income. The short-term rates are equal to the tax rates applicable to ordinary income.

Foreign-source income as capital gains is taxable in the United States, although special rules may be applicable when determining the tax paid on such income.

If you know of anyone who has received capital gains but steadfastly claims that capital gains is not income, report them to the IRS. The IRS pays rewards.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #30)

Fri Aug 3, 2012, 07:25 PM

Star Member David Zephyr (22,583 posts)

32. Well said. It is indeed income.

Thanks, AnotherMcIntosh.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to XemaSab (Reply #6)

Fri Aug 3, 2012, 06:37 PM

beyurslf (6,755 posts)

23. He had an income as the governor of Mass unless he declined it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to beyurslf (Reply #23)

Fri Aug 3, 2012, 07:00 PM

Star Member siligut (11,135 posts)

26. I think I heard he did decline his income from being Governor

I was surprised and wondered if I heard correctly. But, maybe that is true.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to siligut (Reply #26)

Sat Aug 4, 2012, 01:09 AM

Star Member LiberalFighter (31,082 posts)

55. AFAIK he received income from the Olympics in addition to his Bain income.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to siligut (Reply #26)

Sat Aug 4, 2012, 10:57 AM

heaven05 (2,372 posts)

70. compared to what?

Last edited Sat Aug 4, 2012, 10:58 AM USA/ET - Edit history (1)

he didn't need money then or has he ever. Sociopaths will pass on money in exchange for perceived power over others. He's a classic sociopath, just listen to his laugh. creeeeeepy! he's a poisonous snake!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to heaven05 (Reply #70)

Sat Aug 4, 2012, 11:32 AM

Star Member siligut (11,135 posts)

72. I know Mitt is treacherous

I just heard that he chose to forego his salary as Governor. I wonder why, because while, as you say, sociopaths might exchange money for power, I seriously doubt Mitt would ever give up money that he didn't have to.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to siligut (Reply #72)

Sat Aug 4, 2012, 12:08 PM

heaven05 (2,372 posts)

75. yeah

that's seriously funny.lol

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to XemaSab (Reply #6)

Fri Aug 3, 2012, 07:56 PM

jmowreader (23,941 posts)

38. He's probably never had what the IRS calls "ordinary income"

Ordinary income includes wages and salaries.

What Romney has is "capital gains" income, which is taxed differently because the original theory is, when someone invests in a company he helps create jobs and growth, and also takes a larger risk, so therefore should be rewarded with a lower tax rate. (There's also the "double taxation" theory, which is a load of shit: today I bought a set of bicycle tires. I paid taxes on the money I received from my employer, and the bike store paid taxes on the money they received from me. That money was also "double taxed," but no one notices that.) The original theory, in large part, doesn't hold true because most "investment" today is Rich Guy A buying stocks from a brokerage who bought them from Rich Guy B, waiting till they go up in price, then selling them back to the brokerage so Rich Guy C can buy them. The only one who really "grows" from a transaction like that is the brokerage.

When Romney had a real job--being a governor--he refused to accept his state paychecks. So...no, he's never really earned a dollar of ordinary income in his life.

You may be thinking, 'but what about when he ran Bain?' Good point, and I'm glad you brought that up. When you are really rich you can ask to be paid in anything you want--and the way you want to be paid is in something that is taxable as a capital gain.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to jmowreader (Reply #38)

Fri Aug 3, 2012, 08:27 PM

magical thyme (4,101 posts)

45. actually he has on occasion had some "earned income"

That few hundred thousand dollars in pocket change he earned in consulting fees was "earned income."

But his serious income has been in capital gains in one form or another.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to jmowreader (Reply #38)

Fri Aug 3, 2012, 09:35 PM

Star Member XemaSab (57,416 posts)

49. .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to XemaSab (Reply #6)

Sat Aug 4, 2012, 09:21 AM

brush (1,037 posts)

66. He had an income

Last edited Sat Aug 4, 2012, 09:24 AM USA/ET - Edit history (1)

That's kinda cute phrasing (sort of like the Mittster's), but we all know he had at least a six figure income from Bain even when he was running the Salt Lake games and also income from his investments. And we're talking 10 whole years that Harry Reid busted him on, so yeah, he had income. No self-respecting repug is gonna go 10 years without . . . well, you get the picture?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to David Zephyr (Original post)

Fri Aug 3, 2012, 05:47 PM

Teamster Jeff (918 posts)

7. Good catch

This is getting interesting

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Teamster Jeff (Reply #7)

Fri Aug 3, 2012, 07:27 PM

Star Member David Zephyr (22,583 posts)

35. It's indeed getting very interesting.

It's the old saying, "not what they say, but what they don't say"...like "income" taxes.

Harry Reid is a treasure. A treasure.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to David Zephyr (Original post)

Fri Aug 3, 2012, 05:52 PM

Star Member JHB (17,810 posts)

8. I caught that too...

He's been very meticulous in his word usage so far, in the same way as that infamous Newt quote "I like blow jobs because then I can honestly say I didn't sleep with her".

This is a departure with an "escape hatch of interest".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to JHB (Reply #8)

Fri Aug 3, 2012, 06:04 PM

progressivebydesign (19,363 posts)

15. ewww.. burning mental picture right now. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to David Zephyr (Original post)

Fri Aug 3, 2012, 05:53 PM

Star Member aquart (67,538 posts)

10. We all noticed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to David Zephyr (Original post)

Fri Aug 3, 2012, 05:54 PM

Star Member tridim (40,732 posts)

11. Willard rocks the "Fuzzy Math" with the best of them

Welcome to screwsville Mittens, population: You.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to tridim (Reply #11)

Fri Aug 3, 2012, 07:23 PM

Bozvotros (479 posts)

31. LOL

I've never heard that. I like it!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to David Zephyr (Original post)

Fri Aug 3, 2012, 05:56 PM

kentuck (66,230 posts)

12. Good catch DZ !

He is definitely doing a little bit of wordsmithing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to kentuck (Reply #12)

Fri Aug 3, 2012, 11:36 PM

Star Member David Zephyr (22,583 posts)

51. Thanks, kentuck. I hope someone in the press grills him on the omission.

Romney is in the boiler.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to kentuck (Reply #12)

Sat Aug 4, 2012, 01:13 AM

Star Member LiberalFighter (31,082 posts)

56. Should it be wordsmithing?

Or wordshitting? I favor the latter in Rmoney's case.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to David Zephyr (Original post)

Fri Aug 3, 2012, 05:57 PM

Star Member aint_no_life_nowhere (18,936 posts)

13. I wonder how much in property taxes he pays on all his mansions

the giant mansion on the ski slope, the lakeside New Hampshire estate, the beachfront villa in La Jolla and who knows what other real estate he owns must involve some hefty property taxes. But it's not federal income tax.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to aint_no_life_nowhere (Reply #13)

Fri Aug 3, 2012, 06:11 PM

treestar (40,494 posts)

18. True! And it's not tax he should whine about

people with average properties pay their property taxes too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to treestar (Reply #18)

Fri Aug 3, 2012, 06:58 PM

Star Member JDPriestly (37,760 posts)

25. And the property tax on rental properties is paid in the rent. The landlord

does not pay the property taxes from his personal income but rather from the tenant's rent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to David Zephyr (Original post)

Fri Aug 3, 2012, 06:02 PM

Star Member Maraya1969 (10,099 posts)

14. Good point. He said "Harry needs to put up or shut up"

I think he was speaking of himself and made a Freudian slip.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Maraya1969 (Reply #14)

Fri Aug 3, 2012, 11:38 PM

Star Member David Zephyr (22,583 posts)

52. Maraya1969, you have it.

Romney opened this can of worms up. It's THE issue now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to David Zephyr (Original post)

Fri Aug 3, 2012, 06:06 PM

Star Member ProSense (98,258 posts)

16. Excellent point n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to David Zephyr (Original post)

Fri Aug 3, 2012, 06:14 PM

cthulu2016 (7,946 posts)

20. FICA, property taxes...

Last edited Fri Aug 3, 2012, 06:14 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to David Zephyr (Original post)

Fri Aug 3, 2012, 06:26 PM

Star Member JDPriestly (37,760 posts)

21. Absolutely right. Some lawyer wrote the statement!!!

Romney probably pays no income taxes and is trying to talk out of both sides of his mouth about it.

The Republicans like to claim that a lot of (poor) Americans pay no taxes. When they use the word "taxes" in that context, the specifically mean income taxes.

Everybody pays taxes -- sales taxes, property taxes, etc. But only those with at least enough income to live on after taxes pay income taxes.

Romney should be paying a hefty sum in income taxes because he has a very high income. I bet he takes it all in capital gains and therefore pays no taxes. We need to raise the taxes on capital gains and investment income. He is the living proof for that idea.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to JDPriestly (Reply #21)

Fri Aug 3, 2012, 07:26 PM

Star Member rocktivity (36,630 posts)

33. If he's paid no INCOME tax because he's HAD NO INCOME, that's all he has to say.

Last edited Fri Aug 3, 2012, 09:16 PM USA/ET - Edit history (2)

It would probably automatically disqualify him from the U.S. Presidency, but that's all he has to say!


rockivity

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to rocktivity (Reply #33)

Fri Aug 3, 2012, 08:00 PM

jmowreader (23,941 posts)

40. That creates a problem for Romney

Investment income is still income, and Romney has a shitload of it. Romney claiming he has "no income" would be the 2008 equivalent of...I don't know, maybe Clinton's saying he didn't inhale or Nixon saying he wasn't a crook.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to JDPriestly (Reply #21)

Sat Aug 4, 2012, 01:22 AM

Star Member LiberalFighter (31,082 posts)

57. IMO we need to hit Rmoney on how much of his income is exempt from taxes.

Based on his 2010 return he had about $4,650,000 that he did not pay taxes on. It looks like there is about $6 million of his income for 2011 that was not taxed. All of that income except for the two exemptions and between 100k and 350k were deductions that he itemized.

And every time they bring up the ones that don't pay taxes this needs to have more light. On average those with 200k of taxable income have about $64k of itemized deductions. Those itemized deductions is more income than most people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to JDPriestly (Reply #21)

Sat Aug 4, 2012, 02:43 PM

Star Member reflection (4,844 posts)

82. This is a very good point

and I intend to use it. There are many RW folks I hear chattering about poor people paying "no taxes." Thank you for expressing it so articulately.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to David Zephyr (Original post)

Fri Aug 3, 2012, 06:31 PM

citizen blues (169 posts)

22. He wouldn't have paid income taxes....

He made his money off investments and dividends and most of the taxes on those have long since been eliminated.

The type of vulture capitalist Romney is finds a way to have his business "losses" balance out his business "income" so he doesn't have to pay taxes. I worked in finance and saw businessmen with six-figure incomes not pay a dime in taxes because they supposedly didn't make any money last year. Their 50k trucks, the wife's BMW and the 450k house said otherwise. Then they would get enraged and throw a tantrum when I couldn't make them a loan since I couldn't verify their income when the last two years tax returns showed negative numbers.

Romney plays the exact same game, only on a larger scale.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to citizen blues (Reply #22)

Fri Aug 3, 2012, 07:04 PM

renate (7,928 posts)

29. interesting--and welcome to DU!



Funny example about how the six-figure guys couldn't get a loan because of how they manipulated their taxes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to citizen blues (Reply #22)

Fri Aug 3, 2012, 07:26 PM

AnotherMcIntosh (7,564 posts)

34. Under IRC §61(a)(7), dividends are included in gross income.

There is no factual basis for anyone to believe that the taxes on dividends "have long since been eliminated."
See, e.g., http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/61

Taxes on dividends have never been "eliminated."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #34)

Fri Aug 3, 2012, 07:29 PM

Star Member David Zephyr (22,583 posts)

36. Yep.

Capital gains is income and it is taxable...albeit at too low of a rate. Thanks, AnotherMcIntosh.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #34)

Fri Aug 3, 2012, 08:34 PM

citizen blues (169 posts)

46. My mistake. Thanks for correcting that.

It still doesn't change the fact that I saw a lot business men and women earning 6 figures not qualify for $10k personal loan because their tax returns reported a net loss for the year. I thought it was ridiculous then and think it's ridiculous now. I paid far more in taxes on my $42k salary than they did with all their fancy cars, fancy houses and vacation condos. Our tax code is a joke. That's why I have no problem believing that Romney paid nothing for a decade.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to citizen blues (Reply #46)

Fri Aug 3, 2012, 09:21 PM

AnotherMcIntosh (7,564 posts)

47. "paid far more in taxes on my $42k salary" You probably paid more than the corporations

that shipped American manufacturing jobs to foreign countries under the so-called "free-trade" agreements.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to citizen blues (Reply #22)

Mon Aug 6, 2012, 07:32 PM

Star Member JDPriestly (37,760 posts)

85. Exactly!!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to David Zephyr (Original post)

Fri Aug 3, 2012, 06:47 PM

Star Member barbtries (15,011 posts)

24. i heard that on the way home from work

and that was the first thing i thought. yeah, asshole, EVERYONE pays taxes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to barbtries (Reply #24)

Sat Aug 4, 2012, 02:59 AM

Star Member David Zephyr (22,583 posts)

59. Exactly.

The deliberate omission of the word "income" before the word taxes while he feigned outrage at Reid's assertion is very revealing. This is a man with a lot to hide.

I think he's opened this up far more than he ever intended. We must keep this alive.

Polls show that Americans overwhelmingly want him to release his tax returns.

You heard it the same way I heard it, babtries. It was a dodge masked with phony indignation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to David Zephyr (Original post)

Fri Aug 3, 2012, 07:03 PM

Star Member elleng (40,548 posts)

27. It's Capital Gains!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to elleng (Reply #27)

Fri Aug 3, 2012, 07:58 PM

AnotherMcIntosh (7,564 posts)

39. In 1921, the Supreme Court made it clear that capital gains are subject to taxation as income.

No one should rely upon the sometimes argument made by tax protestors that the 1920 Eisner v. Macomber decision issued by the Supreme Court supports a theory that capital gains are not taxable as income. That was not the holding of the Court. Some tax protestors misrepresent that as being the Court's holding.

In contrast to misleading information published or repeated by tax protestors, see the Supreme Court's 1921 opinions in United States v. Phellis, 257 U.S. 156 (1921) and Rockefeller v. United States 257 U.S. 176 (1921).

Tax protestor arguments should not be relied upon. Those who make such arguments to the IRS or the courts are subject to special penalties.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_protester_(United_States)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #39)

Fri Aug 3, 2012, 08:04 PM

jmowreader (23,941 posts)

41. There's a corresponding tax protestor argument out there

It claims that the Congress meant for "income" to only include what we call capital gains, and that wages and salaries are not taxable.

I find it pretty fucking hilarious that tax protestors believe the form of income (cap. gains or ordinary income) they do not receive is the one the Congress "originally intended" to be taxable income and the other is the one Congress "originally intended" to not be taxable. Apparently "from whatever source derived" is something teabaggers and Phil Hart really can't understand.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to jmowreader (Reply #41)

Fri Aug 3, 2012, 08:16 PM

AnotherMcIntosh (7,564 posts)

43. IMO, the tax protestors, like the teabaggers, are the strangest people ever.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #43)

Sat Aug 4, 2012, 01:27 AM

Star Member LiberalFighter (31,082 posts)

58. Probably as strange as the ones that think loans should be forgiven after 7 years.

Because the bible says so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to LiberalFighter (Reply #58)

Sat Aug 4, 2012, 07:07 AM

quaker bill (7,130 posts)

62. Interesting concept

but it would make getting a 30 year mortgage a bit tough....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to LiberalFighter (Reply #58)

Sat Aug 4, 2012, 10:43 AM

AnotherMcIntosh (7,564 posts)

69. There's a statute of limitations in the Bible? Who knew? Certainly not the banksters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #69)

Sat Aug 4, 2012, 11:48 AM

Star Member LiberalFighter (31,082 posts)

73. If I rebut anyone on this it would be to point out that it only applied to the Israelites.

From Deuteronomy 15

1 At the end of every seven years you must cancel debts.

2 This is how it is to be done: Every creditor shall cancel any loan they have made to a fellow Israelite. They shall not require payment from anyone among their own people, because the Lord’s time for canceling debts has been proclaimed.

3 You may require payment from a foreigner, but you must cancel any debt your fellow Israelite owes you.

4 However, there need be no poor people among you, for in the land the Lord your God is giving you to possess as your inheritance, he will richly bless you,

5 if only you fully obey the Lord your God and are careful to follow all these commands I am giving you today.

6 For the Lord your God will bless you as he has promised, and you will lend to many nations but will borrow from none. You will rule over many nations but none will rule over you.

7 If anyone is poor among your fellow Israelites in any of the towns of the land the Lord your God is giving you, do not be hardhearted or tightfisted toward them.

8 Rather, be openhanded and freely lend them whatever they need.

9 Be careful not to harbor this wicked thought: “The seventh year, the year for canceling debts, is near,” so that you do not show ill will toward the needy among your fellow Israelites and give them nothing. They may then appeal to the Lord against you, and you will be found guilty of sin.

10 Give generously to them and do so without a grudging heart; then because of this the Lord your God will bless you in all your work and in everything you put your hand to.

11 There will always be poor people in the land. Therefore I command you to be openhanded toward your fellow Israelites who are poor and needy in your land.


I don't believe the Israelis currently follow this practice. Or Jews in other countries. And I don't believe they restrict their aid to non Jews in this century as they encouraged in Old Testament times.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to LiberalFighter (Reply #73)

Sat Aug 4, 2012, 12:32 PM

AnotherMcIntosh (7,564 posts)

77. Loopholes. Always loopholes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to David Zephyr (Original post)

Fri Aug 3, 2012, 07:03 PM

Enrique (22,641 posts)

28. yep, Mitt is the master of loopholes

never listen to a Mitt speech without a lawyer present.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to David Zephyr (Original post)

Fri Aug 3, 2012, 08:15 PM

wiggs (4,357 posts)

42. So ironic that the upcoming historic battle over concentration of wealth through biased legislation

and tax advantages and predatory practices is going to be sparked by the very candidate who would oppose a fairer system.

Over the last 30 years, the trickle down theory has been supported and catalyzed stealthily, not in plain view of the public (thanks, MSM). Almost all of the wage growth and wealth gains have gone to the upper 1%, not accidentally and not quickly but by an accumulation of factors that have been overlooked by many.

Bush's quote ' Some people call you the elite...I call you my base....the haves and the have-mores' should have ignited a vigorous discussion, but it was quickly forgotten.

This here guy ....a quarter-billionaire (or more) candidate who is as corporatist as they come, who seeks to comfort the unemployed by quipping that he's unemployed too, whose wife says she doesn't feel rich, who clearly believes that America's strength lies in its ultra wealthy, who has thoroughly demonstrated a rarified world view that is alien to the vast majority of Americans.....is going to be the lightening rod that SPARKS the upcoming tax code/inequality/waning middle-class discussion rather than the GOP choice to once again sweep inequality under the rug by distracting Americans with war, social issues, or fear.

Interesting and ironic. Assuming the dems play it right, of course.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to wiggs (Reply #42)

Fri Aug 3, 2012, 08:22 PM

AnotherMcIntosh (7,564 posts)

44. Its too bad that the upcoming historic battle is not going to be about job-transferring "free-trade"

agreements.

If the trickle down theory hasn't worked in this country, there is no reason for anyone to believe that any "free-trade" agreement involving wealth-shifting to foreign countries is going to result in a trickle down of wealth to anyone in the working class in this country.

Since Rmoney made his wealth by transferring jobs to foreign countries, it's too bad that the primary focus cannot be upon that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #44)

Sat Aug 4, 2012, 07:11 AM

quaker bill (7,130 posts)

63. It is in the sidecar

not in the front seat, but it is along for the ride.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to quaker bill (Reply #63)

Sat Aug 4, 2012, 10:41 AM

AnotherMcIntosh (7,564 posts)

67. It is in the sidecar? One of the candidates is opposed to job-transferring "free-trade" agreements?

If it "is in the sidecar," which presidential candidate is opposed to it?

How many people know that Rmoney, like the Chamber of Commerce, is supporting the Obama Administration's pending job-transferring "free-trade" agreement?

Trans-Pacific negotiations have been taking place throughout the Obama presidency. The deal is strongly supported by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the top lobbying group for American corporations. Obama's Republican opponent in the 2012 presidential elections, Mitt Romney, has urged the U.S. to finalize the deal as soon as possible.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/13/obama-trade-document-leak_n_1592593.html

If anyone is going to oppose the pending job-transferring "free-trade" agreement, it may be the Democratic Senators. It is not going to be the presidential candidates. This may be our last chance to influence and vote for Democratic Senators who might vote against the pending job-transferring "free-trade" agreement.

Here's the let's-send-jobs-to-foreign-coutries "free-trade" agreements that have been signed so far:
1994 - NAFTA

2001 - Jordan – United States Free Trade Agreement
2004 - Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement
2004 - Chile - United States Free Trade Agreement
2004 - Singapore – United States Free Trade Agreement
2005 - Dominican Republic–Central America Free Trade Agreement (DR-CAFTA; incl. Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, and the Dominican Republic)
2006 - Bahrain – United States Free Trade Agreement
2006 - Morocco - United States Free Trade Agreement
2006 - Oman – United States Free Trade Agreement
2007 - Peru – United States Trade Promotion Agreement

2011 - Panama - United States Trade Promotion Agreement
2011 - Colombia - United States Trade Promotion Agreement
2011 - Republic of Korea (South Korea) - United States Free Trade Agreement

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to David Zephyr (Original post)

Fri Aug 3, 2012, 09:29 PM

Star Member bleever (20,599 posts)

48. It would have been VERY easy to be unambiguous.

But instead he made the extra effort.

I concur with Mr. Zephyr.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to bleever (Reply #48)

Sat Aug 4, 2012, 03:02 AM

Star Member David Zephyr (22,583 posts)

60. Quite an effort, too, huh, bleever.

All of Romney's feigned outrage against Reid's simple assertion that he hadn't paid income taxes for ten years. And then he "made the extra effort" as you said to be ambiguous. This won't fly. We must keep his feet to the fire on this issue that Romney really wants to go away.

If the heat stays on enough, and there is already a lot of groaning going on over this within the GOP, this could get really interesting.

Thanks for your comments, bleever.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to David Zephyr (Original post)

Fri Aug 3, 2012, 11:56 PM

grasswire (36,705 posts)

54. SLICK WILLARD

Remember how they excoriated Bill Clinton when he answered a question by saying "depends on what the meaning of 'is' is."

That was about consensual sex.

This is about felony tax evasion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to David Zephyr (Original post)

Sat Aug 4, 2012, 06:57 AM

Star Member demgrrrll (3,342 posts)

61. I just read something about UBITs which apply to IRA and family trust money

Apparently you can use a foreign blocker to keep an investment tax free as long as you did not set up the foreign blocker yourself, if he was CEO of Bain he would have had input and might possibly owe 60 million on the IRA. Maybe that is why it is so important for him to have the date of 1999 as the absolute date he left Bain. I am not a tax expert and this is very confusing to me but somehow it makes sense. This was a comment made on an article, not an article I can link to. Maybe someone with some tax knowledge can flesh this out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to David Zephyr (Original post)

Sat Aug 4, 2012, 07:55 AM

Heather MC (4,809 posts)

64. he can't pay income taxes technically he is unemployed

right? well if you don't can't the secret money he gets from being Vain secret CEO

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to David Zephyr (Original post)

Sat Aug 4, 2012, 08:46 AM

DallasNE (2,960 posts)

65. What Is Not Said Often Says More

Than what is said and that looks like the case with Romney here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to DallasNE (Reply #65)

Sat Aug 4, 2012, 01:27 PM

Star Member David Zephyr (22,583 posts)

79. Especially with this cold, calculating politician.

He has to releases his tax returns. It's un-American to refuse to do so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to David Zephyr (Original post)

Sat Aug 4, 2012, 10:42 AM

bonniebgood (215 posts)

68. There is a box on the average 1040 that

ask "any foreign income?. I believe the morman church is a large laundry facility.
and mitt is the ceo there as well. although his title there is bishop.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to David Zephyr (Original post)

Sat Aug 4, 2012, 11:05 AM

flamingdem (22,720 posts)

71. Will we ever get the chance to see what a complete liar we're dealing with here?

No, he'll never let those returns out of his grubby, stealing hands.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to David Zephyr (Original post)

Sat Aug 4, 2012, 12:04 PM

Star Member DirkGently (6,678 posts)

74. Interesting observation. I think this issue touches his Crazy Place.

Last edited Sat Aug 4, 2012, 12:29 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1)

After watching Rachel's piece last night, where she pointed out that he's not only consistently refused to show his tax returns, but has done so while just as consistently demanding everyone else's, including their spouses', I think this income tax thing is a very special obsession of his.

My SO observed that Romney is not a rich guy who just lets accountants handle everything. All these tax shelters and funky business structures offshore are not something that every single rich person does. Many, sure, but this is elaborate. It's a pet project. He is OBSESSED with his income taxes and specifically, trying not to pay them. He doesn't have to "check" for ABC or anyone else. He knows, to the penny, what he's paid. And I think this claim of a $200 million fortune is far short of what he's holding.

And there's something more. That scary, detached glint in his eye. He's got it a lot, to different degrees, whenever "those people" are asking him questions, but when it comes to this tax issue, he is ENRAGED.

There is a plunging dagger behind his eyes, barely restrained from ripping the throat out of anyone daring to "go there."

I had thought before Romney was just kind of an entitled empty suit. But as these little details of his personality have emerged, all of which entail cruelty, I think he's actually a nasty scary piece of work. I think his family is afraid of him. Ha, ha, Daddy shoved your face in butter, but don't think you can do that do Daddy. No one messes with Daddy.

Don't know how it's going to turn out, but I think this is a guy with a serious mask on, and he could do anything if cornered.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to DirkGently (Reply #74)

Sat Aug 4, 2012, 02:37 PM

Star Member David Zephyr (22,583 posts)

81. "He knows, to the penny, what he's paid."

Well said. And true.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to David Zephyr (Original post)

Sat Aug 4, 2012, 12:30 PM

Ian_rd (2,028 posts)

76. Yeppers. Less than one second after I read Romney's retort I thought, "Sure, sales taxes!"

Weak, Mitt. Weak.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to David Zephyr (Original post)

Sat Aug 4, 2012, 12:34 PM

xxqqqzme (13,434 posts)

78. "... I have paid taxes every year.

And a lot of taxes," candidate Romney declared. '

Declared w/ that creepy, annoying, pathological grin/laugh

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to David Zephyr (Original post)

Sat Aug 4, 2012, 02:26 PM

Blue Gardener (3,933 posts)

80. Sales tax really adds up

When you're buying enough cars that you need an elevator for them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to David Zephyr (Original post)

Sat Aug 4, 2012, 03:47 PM

existentialist (2,144 posts)

83. I noticed the phrasing too.

I'm not ready to state that your theory is the complete truth, but I'm closer to that than to saying that you are mistaken.

In any event, if Mitt has paid income taxes his method to prove that he has done so is obvious--and he refuses.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to David Zephyr (Original post)

Sat Aug 4, 2012, 09:53 PM

Star Member applegrove (58,436 posts)

84. He's baiting Obama. Obama is not buying it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread

General Discussion (Forum)
DU Home | Latest Threads | Greatest Threads | Forums & Groups | My Subscriptions | My Posts

About | Copyright | Privacy | Terms of service | Contact

Advertise on DU

© 2001 - 2013 Democratic Underground, LLC. Thank you for visiting.