HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Politics 2014 (Forum) » So just WHY did the MittT...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 05:42 PM

So just WHY did the MittTwit refuse to release those elusive tax records??? PLEASE RESPOND.

We never did see the tax returns. WHY?? As I understand it, it was most likely to HIDE the overseas investments from scrutiny and to HIDE the exact rates he paid in given years because they were so much lower than what the average middle class person pays. Is there anymore particular insight into this I may have missed? THANKS.

32 replies, 3280 views

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 32 replies Author Time Post
Reply So just WHY did the MittTwit refuse to release those elusive tax records??? PLEASE RESPOND. (Original post)
RBInMaine Nov 2012 OP
hrmjustin Nov 2012 #1
doc03 Nov 2012 #2
RBInMaine Nov 2012 #4
doc03 Nov 2012 #12
mikekohr Nov 2012 #15
cleanhippie Nov 2012 #16
Ken Burch Nov 2012 #31
oldhippydude Nov 2012 #3
RBInMaine Nov 2012 #5
NewJeffCT Nov 2012 #23
BlueMTexpat Nov 2012 #6
RBInMaine Nov 2012 #7
BlueMTexpat Nov 2012 #9
brush Nov 2012 #8
BlueMTexpat Nov 2012 #10
DeschutesRiver Nov 2012 #17
Princess Turandot Nov 2012 #21
brush Nov 2012 #22
dhpgetsit Nov 2012 #25
dvhughes Nov 2012 #11
Mr.Bill Nov 2012 #18
zbdent Nov 2012 #13
Gman Nov 2012 #14
CTyankee Nov 2012 #19
hexola Nov 2012 #20
RBInMaine Nov 2012 #30
Arkana Nov 2012 #24
mzteaze Nov 2012 #26
longship Nov 2012 #27
ernie60 Nov 2012 #28
hrmjustin Nov 2012 #29
Sunlei Nov 2012 #32

Response to RBInMaine (Original post)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 05:44 PM

1. He hid them to prevent people from knowing that the system is geared to protect

the rich. If people had seen what he did with his money he never would have gotten the margin he got.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RBInMaine (Original post)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 05:52 PM

2. Well there is obviously emarasing information in them. It's like who shot JFK we will probably

never know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to doc03 (Reply #2)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 06:10 PM

4. Oswald and ONLY Oswald shot JFK. Absolutely NO credible evidence at all to suggest otherwise.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RBInMaine (Reply #4)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 07:37 PM

12. I don't beleive it never have n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RBInMaine (Reply #4)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 08:23 PM

15. That would be correct.

One loser with a gun can bring down a great man. That scares people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RBInMaine (Reply #4)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 08:48 PM

16. I think you forgot the sarcasm tag...

But if not, to each his own, I guess.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleanhippie (Reply #16)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 07:12 AM

31. JFK wasn't shot...he drowned!

There was a flash flood on the motorcade route...it was hidden by the camera angles...

(that's what the Warren Commision REALLY didn't want you to know).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RBInMaine (Original post)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 05:59 PM

3. my take.. and only a gut feeling..

is that Harry Reid had it exactly right he paid no taxes for over a decade... in fact i'm betting he openly bragged about it.. comments From Harry Reid as well as Abby Huntsman, suggest a possible "Mormon connection"..

the fact that it was an open secret, fits well with his entitled personality.. and the idea that one year of doctored returns would stop the criticism, was par for the course of the campaign..

that such a man came that close to the presidency bothers me..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oldhippydude (Reply #3)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 06:12 PM

5. He claims his summary paperwork shows he paid on average about 14% a year. BUT, I think there were

most likely certain years that he paid much less. Moreover, the SHELTERS and INVESTMENTS were what he really wanted to hide, so I would guess.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RBInMaine (Reply #5)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 08:55 AM

23. I think you're right

there are probably a few years where he paid under 10%.

Maybe some questionable deductions as well (maybe he took even bigger deductions for dressage horses before last year?). I'm sure they were technically legal deductions, but things that probably wouldn't look good if publicized.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RBInMaine (Original post)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 06:22 PM

6. It leads quite persuasively to the conclusion that whatever was in

the tax returns would have looked worse to potential voters than his not releasing them at all. There are a lot of good guesses here as to what that "worse" would have entailed and it's entirely possible that most, if not all, are correct.

So he gambled that he could win even without releasing them. Fortunately for us all, he was wrong.

The sad thing is that 47% of the voting public proved that there are some people that you can fool all the time. Refusing to release his tax returns was, after all, a pretty BIG red flag. Especially when his own father had set a high standard and had explained why several years' worth should be required.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueMTexpat (Reply #6)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 06:28 PM

7. Well said. Just what do you think he was afraid of us seeing?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RBInMaine (Reply #7)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 06:42 PM

9. Take your pick:

- accounts in the Caymans/other tax sheltered locations
- actual manipulations of stock in his so-called "blind" trusts
- paying no income taxes at all because of the way his "income" was structured and defined (it may have been legal, but it would not have looked good to John Q. Public)
- other

And I am sure that putting the tax returns out there would have alerted the LDS Church that Mitt may not have been as forthcoming about his required tithing as the Church would have liked. That would have been a real gotcha moment for him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RBInMaine (Original post)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 06:39 PM

8. It's like Harry Reid said

It came out a week or two before the election that he used Mormon church's tax exempt status to avoid/defer taxes for 15 years -- from 1996 to 2007. Here's the link from a Bloomberg News story:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/10/29/bloomberg-news-romney-rented-mormon-churchs-exemption-to-defer-taxes-for-15-years/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brush (Reply #8)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 06:43 PM

10. That is one of the most logical stories that I have read.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brush (Reply #8)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 09:36 PM

17. He doesn't pay taxes; he is just a "taker", as he puts it. Mr. Lucky Sperm Donor's

Club member - a dimwit who truly believes that the breaks HE gets are things to which he is "entitled" by virtue of the class to which he was born. That is what Anne Romney thought us little people might have a hard time understanding - Mitt is a taker of entitlements. Just of a different kind.

I read a list from Bernie Sanders, found it here at DU, naming some of the many weathly corps/peeps that don't pay a dime in taxes, and in fact, get rather substantial refunds - and these are companies with huge profits. Our tax code allows it. They lobby to make sure it works for them this way.

It is a scandal - and I knew exactly why Mitt wouldn't show his the minute he refused. I've heard that he is aggressive with the kind of tax shelters his people use for him, and the tax scheme he did use with the Mormon church was one of those. I believe you can't do that now. But there are others out there, and neither he nor others like him will quit using these tax vehicles - the goal is to pay nothing towards the common good and defense. Nothing.

And he did succeed at that. I believe that the only year he showed a partial of, which had him paying what, like roughly 13%, is probably being amended as we speak now that he has lost. And for that year, he will try hard to get that 13% back....and pay nothing, like the other years. That's how he operates.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brush (Reply #8)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 02:14 AM

21. FYI That gimmick *only* impacts income on assets he gave to the Mormon church...

'Gave' not 'invested with'.

This tax avoidance vehicle worked something like this: Someone donates money to a qualifying charity, which in turn would agree to pay the donor an annuity based on the value of the donation until the donor died. Upon the death of the donor, the money would then completely belong to the charity. IIRC, the money donated was a deduction for the donor in the year it was made and the subsequent annuity was not subject to taxes.

I don't recall what the limit was on the donation under this vehicle but Romney is worth $100's of millions. This would not have been the bulk of his income.

BTW It's not only a Mormon church 'thing'. Before the gimmick was abolished, I used to get invitations from seemingly any charity I'd made a donation to, even $25, inviting me to consider this option.

As to why he didn't release his returns: my look-warm guess is that he took advantage of the 'Swiss Bank' amnesty program a few years back to declare that hidden income. If he had released the returns, someone would have wondered why they were all amended returns submitted in the same year.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Princess Turandot (Reply #21)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 03:02 AM

22. I think there was more to it than in your post

There was a huge advantage to Romney other than drawing the annuity. He got a deduction for the amount that of course, he did have to pay to the IRS. And I read also that Romney and his accountants had it figured the value of his holdings donated to the church would be down to almost nothing by the time he passed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Princess Turandot (Reply #21)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 09:31 AM

25. I agree. He took advantage of tax amnesty in 2009.

We would have seen he was a tax cheat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RBInMaine (Original post)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 06:43 PM

11. Here is more info. Harry Reid was right.

Reid claimed through an unnamed source that Romney actually pain ZERO taxes for at least ten years.
It was generally smirked off and ignored by an enabling, lazy msm.

But Bloomberg.com seemed to corroborate his claim late in the election.

The Bloomberg story here

And a nutshell here in Kos


Oops...didn't see brush's post up there. Yes, read that too!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dvhughes (Reply #11)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 09:50 PM

18. If Reid was lying/wrong,

It would have been very easy for Romney to make a fool out of him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RBInMaine (Original post)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 07:37 PM

13. maybe some "put" options in September 2001?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RBInMaine (Original post)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 07:40 PM

14. Releasing his returns would have been tons worse

Than the flack he took for not releasing them. As it turns out it was a good gamble. He lost anyway.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gman (Reply #14)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 01:02 AM

19. That was my sense, also, otherwise he would have relented and put them out there.

It had to be pretty damning for several reasons.

I think his refusal actually fed into his political demise in the long run. People were suspicious, and rightly so, of anyone who would go to such lengths to hide his true financial picture.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RBInMaine (Original post)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 01:05 AM

20. Yes...here's my insight...Romney LOST - WFC!!!

Who
Fucking
Cares????

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hexola (Reply #20)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 05:30 AM

30. Many of us care because we are interested in truth, how these 1%ers get away with this shit, how the

the game is rigged to favor them at the expense of everyone else, and how we should fix the tax system and the financial disclosure system so that the rich pay their fair share and so that future candidates can not pull the same secrecy crap. There is a MUCH bigger picture here and a lot of reform that needs to happen. Imagine, we live in a country where a multi millionaire can almost become President and doesn't even have to disclose his tax returns anywhere near to the extent that he should, let alone a country that allows these kinds of scandalous tax breaks and tax shelters for the rich. This is a VERY important story and one that should be followed up on so as to educate the American people once and for all about how rigged the game is in favor of the rich and we can finally have a real conversation about what needs to be done to reform the system.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RBInMaine (Original post)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 09:24 AM

24. Who cares? We know now that any candidate who decides to follow

the Romney formula of "stonewall until you're blue in the face" is a sure loser.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RBInMaine (Original post)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 10:52 AM

26. Actually

this was a calculated gamble based on his actions when he ran for governor. He decided back then to resist putting out his tax returns besides a very small, heavily edited return. It worked then because despite the pressure from the Boston Globe (?), the people largely overlooked the issue of his returns.

My friends and I have discussed this ad nauseum but we have concluded that what worked successfully on a state level would not translate as well on a national level. Thank goodness for that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RBInMaine (Original post)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 10:58 AM

27. He lost. The issue is irrelephant now.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RBInMaine (Original post)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 11:57 AM

28. here's what I think

I think the reason is that he received amnesty in 2009 for hiding income in his swiss account. The amnesty avoided criminal
charges and prosecution. This would have been very devastating as it would be absolute proof of illegal non payment of taxes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ernie60 (Reply #28)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 08:36 PM

29. Welcome to DU!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ernie60 (Reply #28)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 10:03 AM

32. yes, you're probably right. In addition after rom. weighted the average over *20 years*!! to prove

he paid min. income taxes..to me that shows he didn't pay any income taxes at all for 10 or so years.

You know all those 250k tax deductions for 20 or so investment horses add up to years of a tax free life.

doesn't matter now, Romney Scissorhands is history.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread