Originally Posted By DDMAN26 <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/romneys-paid-1-94-million-fed-taxes-2011-181548066--election.html" target="_blank">http://news.yahoo.com/romneys-...ion.html</a> So there you go. Personally I could care less about either the President's or Romney's tax returns.
Originally Posted By plpeters70 He only released one more year - 2011. The issue was that he wouldn't release the last 10 years - like other candidates do. <<Romney's taxes have emerged as a key issue during the 2012 presidential race. He released his 2010 tax returns and a 2011 estimate in January but has declined to reveal his returns from earlier years.>>
Originally Posted By TomSawyer He released 2011, and a letter from his accounting firm saying what his tax rates were for the last ten years. He's not releasing the actual returns, though, which still suggests that there is something in them that would damage him.
Originally Posted By DyGDisney Releasing 10 years of tax rates is not the same as releasing his taxes. You should know that DDMAN. I mean, the birthers wouldn't even accept the President's short form birth certificate and birth announcement from a paper in Hawaii as proof of his birth in Hawaii. Do you have your long form birth certificate? I don't. But I have at least my last 7 years of tax records. One of the responses to this news story on Yahoo: "obbummer where is your school records?????????" Wow, I would ask the same of the comment maker!
Originally Posted By skinnerbox <<He's not releasing the actual returns, though, which still suggests that there is something in them that would damage him.>> My money's on the Swiss bank account amnesty program theory: <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2012/07/17/romney_s_tax_returns_is_the_2009_swiss_bank_account_amnesty_what_he_doesn_t_want_us_to_see_.html" target="_blank">http://www.slate.com/blogs/mon...ee_.html</a> <> Did Mitt Romney Take the 2009 Swiss Bank Account Amnesty By Matthew Yglesias Posted Tuesday, July 17, 2012, at 3:12 PM ET When attempting to engage in baseless speculation over what it is that's in Mitt Romney's tax statements that's so embarassing he'd rather take the heat for non-disclosure, I think it's important to remember that he was actively running for president in 2007 and 2008. That means it's relatively unlike he was doing anything during those years that he thought couldn't withstand scrutiny. So why not release a nice even five years of tax data? Perhaps because of something that happened in 2009. Something like this: Wealthy U.S. taxpayers, concerned about an Internal Revenue Service crackdown on the use of secret overseas bank accounts as tax havens, are rushing to meet a Thursday deadline to disclose those accounts or face possible criminal prosecution. The concern was triggered this summer when Switzerland's largest bank, caught up in an international tax evasion dispute, said it would disclose the names of more than 4,000 of its U.S. account holders. The decision shattered a long-held belief that Swiss banks would guard the identities of its American customers as carefully as they did their money, and it raised concern that other international tax havens might be next. Under an amnesty program, the IRS is allowing taxpayers to avoid prosecution for having failed to report their overseas accounts. As a result, tax attorneys across the nation have been besieged by wealthy clients who are lining up to apply even though they will still face big financial penalties. Romney might well have thought in 2007 and 2008 that there was nothing to fear about a non-disclosed offshore account he'd set up years earlier precisely because it wasn't disclosed. But then came the settlement and the rush of non-disclosers to apply for the amnesty. Failing to apply for the amnesty and then getting charged by the IRS would have been both financially and politically disastrous. So amnesty it was. But even though the amnesty would eliminate any legal or financial liability for past acts, it would hardly eliminate political liability. <> Yup. Romney doesn't want us to see his 2009 and 2010 tax returns which would clearly demonstrate he took part in the amnesty program.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 I've always thought that a real possibility. Especially because 2009 was the year of the amnesty and Romney's releases go back to... 2010. He also didn't release the FBAR (Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts) for 2010 that he MUST have filed with the IRS. So even the one year he deigned to release so far wasn't complete. That little piece of it is kind of conspicuous in its absence.
Originally Posted By DyGDisney >>>Like I said none of this is of any concern to me.<<< The person who will run this country for the next 4 years is of no concern to you? Unless you are moving out of the country, it should be.
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 No stupid things like birth certificates, tax returns, Romney said this, Obama said that. Obama's a Kenyan Muslim, Romney was a Kenyan Muslim last week and now he's back to being a Mormon. Little piddly crap like that. That is what I don't give a rat's anus about.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox <<No stupid things like birth certificates, tax returns, Romney said this, Obama said that. Obama's a Kenyan Muslim, Romney was a Kenyan Muslim last week and now he's back to being a Mormon. Little piddly crap like that. That is what I don't give a rat's anus about.>> You're actually comparing the birth certificate nonsense to not releasing tax returns? Wow. Just wow.
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>You're actually comparing the birth certificate nonsense to not releasing tax returns?<< Especially when those returns might reveal that he is a tax cheater? I remember the fuss made over the Clinton's tax returns. I recall that a big deal was made over them taking a deduction for donating old underwear.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< I recall that a big deal was made over them taking a deduction for donating old underwear. >>> That's one deduction we can be certain that Romney has not taken.
Originally Posted By andyll <<He released 2011, and a letter from his accounting firm saying what his tax rates were for the last ten years. He's not releasing the actual returns, though, which still suggests that there is something in them that would damage him.>> This tells me what I suspected. He stashed money overseas to avoid paying taxes. He then took advantage of the amnesty program in 2009. So yes... he paid taxes. And yes... it was only after he got caught cheating. Releasing his 2009 returns would show this. I can't think of anything else. We already know he's rich. We already know he pays a small rate because his income is investment income. We know he has stashed some money overseas. What other then what I proposed could be so damaging?
Originally Posted By SuperDry Although it is pure speculation and I don't know how confident I am that it's true, I would point out that the speculation in #13 above would allow both Senator Reid's claims AND Governor Romney's claims to be true: Romney could have paid no taxes at the time in certain years because his assets were in overseas accounts, and then during the 2009 amnesty program, he retroactively declared those accounts and paid the taxes going back.
Originally Posted By DyGDisney The difference is clear. President's are not typically harrassed into releasing their birth certificates, but it is common for one running to release several years of tax returns. And what's the deal with wanting the President's college transcripts released? How many presidents have done this? People don't want to accept that the president is American by birth because his father was born in Kenya, and because he's black. Romney's father was born in Mexico but, as he has bragged, no one has asked to see his birth certificate.
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 Well if you guys want to care feel free, I don't have the rage for any of this.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< it is common for one running [for President] to release several years of tax returns. >>> In fact, Romney's own father was the one that started the tradition when he ran for President. So it's not as if this is some left-wing trick to embarrass Republicans.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer I don't think it was overseas money. I think it was lying about where he lived, tax fraud and election fraud.
Originally Posted By utahjosh I think he'll have way too many prostitute charges, drug deals, and arms deals with the Iranians on there.
