EPTIt just begs the question of what he has to hide or be ashamed of? If he's such a great, successful businessman that he's running as, why not show everyone how it is done?
President Obama Re-Elected - Page 179
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Hey guys! We'll be closing this thread shortly, but we will make an American politics megathread where we can continue the discussions in here. The new thread can be found here: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=383301 | ||
|
Adila
United States874 Posts
It just begs the question of what he has to hide or be ashamed of? If he's such a great, successful businessman that he's running as, why not show everyone how it is done? | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On July 15 2012 02:03 Lightwip wrote: Of course what Romney is doing is technically legal. It certainly doesn't make it moral though. What is he doing that you consider to be "immoral"? | ||
|
Lightwip
United States5497 Posts
On July 15 2012 02:35 JonnyBNoHo wrote: What is he doing that you consider to be "immoral"? Foreign assets to avoid taxation? | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15392 Posts
On July 15 2012 02:35 JonnyBNoHo wrote: What is he doing that you consider to be "immoral"? All we know is what what he's doing would ruin his credibility. He's only releasing 2 years of tax returns, but many before him have given much more. Its basically him saying "I know I'm hiding something, but there's no fucking way I'm letting that change!" | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
As soon as he brings it back to the US he'll pay the taxes. I'm not sure how that's more immoral than any other legal tax deferment, credit or exemption. You are supposed to take advantage of legal tax breaks. | ||
|
smarty pants
United States78 Posts
There is nothing immoral about not wanting to pay taxes... | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On July 15 2012 02:52 Mohdoo wrote: All we know is what what he's doing would ruin his credibility. He's only releasing 2 years of tax returns, but many before him have given much more. Its basically him saying "I know I'm hiding something, but there's no fucking way I'm letting that change!" He has a right to privacy and his tax return releases are comparable with other presidents. Some release more than others. http://www.taxhistory.org/www/website.nsf/Web/PresidentialTaxReturns/ Opponents are just mad that they can't use extra years of tax returns to find more irrelevant mud to sling. | ||
|
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
On July 15 2012 03:01 JonnyBNoHo wrote: As soon as he brings it back to the US he'll pay the taxes. I'm not sure how that's more immoral than any other legal tax deferment, credit or exemption. You are supposed to take advantage of legal tax breaks. Yes and no. He can siphon that cash into low/no tax local investments, and then collect on that investment. Without doing so, he can still bring it back in chunks and face lower taxes than if he didn't divert it there in the first place. | ||
|
Dapper_Cad
United Kingdom964 Posts
On July 15 2012 03:04 smarty pants wrote: There is nothing immoral about not wanting to pay taxes... The British prime minister disagrees: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18521468 | ||
|
Lightwip
United States5497 Posts
On July 15 2012 03:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Opponents are just mad that they can't use extra years of tax returns to find more irrelevant mud to sling. It's certainly relevant and they get plenty from simply knowing that he has information to hide. Hell, some Republicans are bashing Romney for not releasing his taxes. | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On July 15 2012 03:23 aksfjh wrote: Yes and no. He can siphon that cash into low/no tax local investments, and then collect on that investment. Without doing so, he can still bring it back in chunks and face lower taxes than if he didn't divert it there in the first place. I could be wrong, but I think the only advantage is the deferment. Once the money hits US shores (repatriated) you have to pay taxes. It shouldn't matter where the money goes post-tax nor should it matter on the amount since Romney is in the highest tax bracket regardless. If I'm missing something let me know. I'm certainly not an expert on this issue. | ||
|
Dapper_Cad
United Kingdom964 Posts
On July 15 2012 04:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote: I could be wrong, but I think the only advantage is the deferment. Once the money hits US shores (repatriated) you have to pay taxes. It shouldn't matter where the money goes post-tax nor should it matter on the amount since Romney is in the highest tax bracket regardless. If I'm missing something let me know. I'm certainly not an expert on this issue. I've heard that every so often the tax rate for the repatriation of capital is dropped for a period under the banner of increasing investment. But I'm no expert either. | ||
|
RCMDVA
United States708 Posts
Most of his money is in his IRA and the trust for his sons. He's probaly got a Walton/Walmart family style GRAT trust, and some kind of IRA scheme where he put stock/options into his IRA from his Bain days at a cost of next to nothing. Evey .com millionaire/billionaire is doing the exact same thing. All the Facebook folks have either set up trusts or paid income tax up front and put all their stock into a Roth IRA before FB went public. http://www.forbes.com/sites/deborahljacobs/2012/03/20/how-facebook-billionaires-dodge-mega-millions-in-taxes/ | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
On July 14 2012 12:00 Defacer wrote: You got to hand it to Biden, he's always good for a snappy one-liner (even if it's a bit of a cheap shot). + Show Spoiler + The more I see of Biden, the more I like him. He's actually pretty damn combative and straightforward, which is what I like to see in a politician. Badass. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15392 Posts
On July 15 2012 03:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote: He has a right to privacy and his tax return releases are comparable with other presidents. Some release more than others. http://www.taxhistory.org/www/website.nsf/Web/PresidentialTaxReturns/ Opponents are just mad that they can't use extra years of tax returns to find more irrelevant mud to sling. A right to privacy does not mean his tax returns aren't relevant. Right to privacy can be used to argue against almost any type of dirt to dig up on someone. Fact is, tax returns can tell us a lot and its relevant information going into an election. | ||
|
CajunMan
United States823 Posts
On July 14 2012 03:47 RCMDVA wrote: Condolezza.... I love her. I'd want a Rice/Romney ticket more than a Romney/Rice ticket. But IMO "independent" women voters won't vote for a woman who isn't married and never had kids. That may be brutal. But it's what I feel. Funny thing is all the polls I've seen of her say Women support her more than any other woman because she doesn't try to play up being a woman. She is just extremely smart and experienced doesn't play up being a mom and stuff like Palin or Baccman(w/e her name is). I think she would be a great pick but it won't happen or Alan West I'd give my ass for him to pick West. Neither will happen though. | ||
|
biology]major
United States2253 Posts
On July 15 2012 04:48 Mohdoo wrote: A right to privacy does not mean his tax returns aren't relevant. Right to privacy can be used to argue against almost any type of dirt to dig up on someone. Fact is, tax returns can tell us a lot and its relevant information going into an election. combined with the fact that he is going against the norm + he has a shady buisness history, it only puts more eyes on the issue. This will be a decisive issue, and imo ruined his chances of winning the independent vote. It was a terrible political decision, unless ofcourse he had no choice in the matter because his buisness ethics would only create more of a disconnect between him and the middle class. He is fucked either way | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On July 15 2012 04:16 Dapper_Cad wrote: I've heard that every so often the tax rate for the repatriation of capital is dropped for a period under the banner of increasing investment. But I'm no expert either. Possibly. I always assumed that only worked corporation to corporation though. Here's to hoping that tax reform and simplification becomes a big issue  | ||
|
forgottendreams
United States1771 Posts
On July 15 2012 03:04 smarty pants wrote: There is nothing immoral about not wanting to pay taxes... This is not entirely surprising, most of the freeloaders I've encountered in life are blind to the immorality of many things. You avail yourself to the City, State and the Fed, and in turn they avail themselves to you with protection and services (although you may disagree to the type and extent of services provided which can be executed by electing officials who share your dislike). | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On July 15 2012 04:54 biology]major wrote: combined with the fact that he is going against the norm + he has a shady buisness history, it only puts more eyes on the issue. This will be a decisive issue, and imo ruined his chances of winning the independent vote. It was a terrible political decision, unless ofcourse he had no choice in the matter because his buisness ethics would only create more of a disconnect between him and the middle class. He is fucked either way What's the "norm"? Isn't two years the norm which is what he'll have released once his 2011 is done? And I'd argue that Romney's business history is far less "shady" than Obama's use of public money. | ||
| ||
