Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Does Romney's tax return indicate he paid no SS or Medicare?

Posted 2 years ago on Sept. 22, 2012, 11:36 a.m. EST by alterorabolish1 (569)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

A news show showed the first page of Romney's tax return and it showed no wages, but over 13 million in investment income.

Capital Gains does not require payroll taxes. Romney may have not contributed to SS or Medicare for many years!

54 Comments

54 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by yobstreet (-575) 2 years ago

Could we talk about Pelosi's returns for a while; this Romney stuff is getting really boring.

[-] 2 points by marvelpym (-184) 2 years ago

I hate this kind of politics, so lets move on. At least he didn't do anything illegal or stupid, like Geithner or Rangel. Remember, when those two broke the law but claimed stupidity was to blame. If those three were accountants, who would you trust to do your taxes?

[-] 0 points by alterorabolish1 (569) 2 years ago

There are plenty of people that hate this kind of politics because it may turn out to not benefit them in the future as much as it does now.

[-] 2 points by Shayneh (-482) 2 years ago

It amazes me how little any of those who replied to this post know about business.

Some of the lame answers to the lame pose is indicitive of just how little anyone here knows about how businesses pay taxes and what constitued a profit.

Give it up will you, you are embarassing yourselves.

[-] 1 points by alterorabolish1 (569) 2 years ago

Most of my employees have paid SS and Medicare taxes on 100% of their income. Sadly, they are not aware that others with different forms of income do not.

They should be aware of this fact.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

Mitt Romney Releases The One Tax Return We Don't Care About Mark Gongloff

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-gongloff/mitt-romney-tax-return-2011_b_1904659.html?igoogle=1

[-] 0 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

By his own statement, his manipulation disqualifies him for the presidency.

[-] 1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 2 years ago

His manipulation was to make good on the "estimate" he gave earlier when asked what he THOUGHT his current tax rate was. Since the man does NOT do his own taxes, all he could do was ESTIMATE what he anticipated it to be. He paid MORE THAN HE OWED in order to keep his word. Guess it didn't matter in the long run-now he's being called a "liar" and a "cheat" for different reasons.

AND-you wanna get all technical in YOUR arguments-he did NOT pay more in Taxes than he owed-he simply didn't take ALL OF THE DEDUCTIONS that he COULD have taken to LOWER "what he owed".

The lack of knowledge regarding current US Tax codes in this forum is very telling considering all the finger pointing DONE here about who pays taxes and how they are paid. Good grief.

[-] 0 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

Manipulation is manipulation. Making the estimate was stupid in the first place. Disclosure, as McCain required of him or even as he required of his potential VP's would have avoided the estimate which was an attempt to avoid disclosure in the first place. It would have saved him a couple of million dollars (if he actually is so stupid as to not file an amended return to get it back, after his "need" for manipulation is over). Truth is seldom a technicality. Manipulation almost always is. Your manipulation of the facts is.

[-] 2 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 2 years ago

And you assumptions aren't manipulations at all. Riiight.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

Assumptions? Examples?

[-] 1 points by alterorabolish1 (569) 2 years ago

Do you think it's possible that he contributed nothing to SS and medicare for several years? Would that fact gall many Americans?

[-] 2 points by yobstreet (-575) 2 years ago

Doesn't bother me.

[-] 1 points by thoreau42 (595) 2 years ago

Obama has assassinated American citizens, indefinitely detained people, maintained the war on drugs, prosecuted a record amount of whistleblowers, increased Bush's drone policies, attacked more countries, aaaaaaaaaaaaand brought the chocolates and wine to the date where the Federal Reserve continued to date rape the public! Would any of those facts gall many Americans? Doesn't seem like it.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

Some no doubt. But what if the tax returns showed he was part of the settlement over Swiss tax avoidance accounts that the whistle blower just got paid for? What if he invested in the Mariana Island sweat shops, Adelson's Macau Casino, or Iran money laundering?

[-] 1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 2 years ago

"What if..."??? What if they showed he pooped cupcakes with pastel sprinkles and sold them for a profit? What if they showed he was a completely honest and upright tax payer? Would you then retract EVERY assumption and accusation against him you have posted so far???

Do you have any idea what a "blind trust" is? If you do, then even if the returns showed a return upon (or penalty paid for) any kind of the investments you are hungry to discover, he could not be faulted for any of it.

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

I know a blind trust is not one managed by one's personal attorney, who of course, can refuse to answer whether he is being directed by his client by claims of attorney client privilege?

"[...] government ethics experts and election lawyers told ABC News that Romney's trust might not be quite as blind as he has long maintained. That's because Romney placed his quarter-billion dollar family fortune in the hands of his personal lawyer and longtime associate Bradford Malt."

If you believe that is a blind trust, you are being willfully ignorant. Now, aren't you? Hmmmm? Are you one of those who are reborn every minute? I'll bet Barnum calls you, "Bet.".Do you have any idea what a "sucker" is?

"Rucker, Washington Post Fred Goldberg, a former commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service, said in a statement released by Romney’s campaign that the couple fully satisfied their responsibilities as taxpayers? That’s good to know, but the question remains: When, exactly, did they satisfy their responsibilities as taxpayers for the years preceding the 2009 IRS amnesty program for anonymous holders of Swiss (and other foreign) bank account holders? Might it have been retroactively, like, maybe, in 2009? And, there is no indication or suggestion of any tax-motivated or aggressive tax planning activities? That’s good to know, too. But is Goldberg limiting his statement to what Romney revealed in summaries? Or does Goldberg have privy to the records of the $20 million-to-$102 million IRA account held in a Cayman Islands account? And to the mysterious fund, or bank account, or whatever, in Bermuda? Just wondering.
Malt, by the way, was the trustee of the UBS account that was disclosed in the tax return for 2010. The tax return indicated that Malt had closed the account in early 2010."

Read more: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/Hzoh/~3/xQCBxTqdjD4/a-couple-of-questions-for-romney.html#ixzz27M5K4InJ

"There is a suggestion that there is some tax haven aspect to these investment that result in a reduction of taxes. Again, this is flatly wrong," Mr. Malt said, while he acknowledged that the Swiss bank account he closed in 2003 was done in part for political reasons.

So, "manipulation for political reasons" is something that Romney has done in the past.

Isn't Google grand?

Here's a lovely quote from Mr. Melt: "Some people characterize it as a winner-take-all economy. And we're benefiting from that," said Brad Malt, chairman at Ropes & Gray in Boston. "(But) we certainly see uncertainty in the marketplace. If there is a recession strategy, it would be to do what strong firms do, which is to believe in themselves and invest in themselves."

More recently: Law firm Ropes & Gray LLP has cut 106 non-legal staff members, or 10 percent of its non-lawyer staff, the firm’s chairman Brad Malt confirmed Thursday.

In a memo to the firm, Malt blamed the cuts on a host of economic pressures affecting the Boston-based firm’s clients.

“Our clients and marketplace have been seriously affected by the continuing global economic downturn, and the recession is now widely seen as the most serious since the 1930s,” wrote Malt.

“As a result, we have reluctantly decided to eliminate 106 staff positions across all departments in the firm, or 10 percent of non-lawyer staff. While I know this is painful news, I felt it was important to share with all personnel as soon as appropriate,” wrote Malt.

Law firm Ropes & Gray LLP has cut 106 non-legal staff members, or 10 percent of its non-lawyer staff, the firm’s chairman Brad Malt confirmed Thursday.

In a memo to the firm, Malt blamed the cuts on a host of economic pressures affecting the Boston-based firm’s clients.

“Our clients and marketplace have been seriously affected by the continuing global economic downturn, and the recession is now widely seen as the most serious since the 1930s,” wrote Malt.

“As a result, we have reluctantly decided to eliminate 106 staff positions across all departments in the firm, or 10 percent of non-lawyer staff. While I know this is painful news, I felt it was important to share with all personnel as soon as appropriate,” wrote Malt.

How about gift taxes:

"So when Mitt Romney released the family’s 2010 tax return last week, I went looking. I found a hint on pages 132 and 134 of the return. It showed that the value of property placed that year into another family trust, the Ann D. Romney Blind Trust, was, for tax purposes, zero. The Ann Romney trust is not the same trust as the one that holds the Romney sons’ $100 million, but I wondered if the Romneys used the same approach in prior years when it came to valuing property placed into the sons’ trust.

Reuters emailed the Romney campaign spokeswoman to ask how much the Romneys paid in gift taxes on assets put into the sons’ trust over the last 17 years. The spokeswoman, citing Brad Malt, the Romney family tax lawyer, answered: none.

The idea that someone could pay zero gift taxes on contributions to a $100 million trust fund may surprise people who have heard arguments that the wealthy are overburdened by gift and estate taxes. But the Romneys’ gift-tax avoidance strategy is perfectly legal.

Under tax rules, wealthy people must pay a gift tax of 35 percent on gifts above a lifetime limit known as the “unified estate tax credit.” That limit was $1.2 million for a married couple in 1995 when the sons’ trust was created and $2 million in 2009, but is now $10 million.

So, if the limit is, at most, $10 million, how did the Romneys create this $100 million fund without paying gift taxes?

The explanation may stem from how the Romneys were able to value the assets put into the trust. If I’m right, it involves a special tax deal that Congress gives to people who manage investment partnerships, as Romney did at Bain Capital from 1984 to 1999." Or 2003.

The system is rigged. And yes, Virginia, I do know what a blind trust is, and isn't.

[-] 0 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

Romney never said his trust was a Federal Blind Trust. And you still have zero evidence that Romney lied or broke any laws or have any unpaid taxes owed. You do know what a fact is, and isn't don't you?

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 1 year ago

"In his 1994 Senate campaign against Ted Kennedy, Romney scoffed at the idea that blind trusts are actually blind, calling it "an age-old ruse." And it seems that when Romney, in 2003, set up his own blind trust, he went into it with the view that he was pulling off a ruse." He did say it was "blind."

So, it isn't Federal, or blind, but it is a hypocrisy trust fund.

No comment re the previous manipulation of his taxes for "political purposes" from his poor, blind trust fund manager? So doing it again was just doing it again. I have plenty of evidence that he is withholding material evidence that may disclose a record of settlements of previous unpaid taxes or breaking of laws. If there aren't any he could just authorize, the Swiss, the IRS, the Irish, the Germans and the, Oh wait, he hasn't disclosed the countries he prefers to invest in to create jobs, has he? Seems like all of this is more relevant than long forms of birth certificates, isn't it? I know that candidates need to disclose facts rather than assertion from liar's, for the voters of any persuasion to vote for them. The burden is on the candidate to show they are clean, until we get enough evidence that they will need to plead their 5th Amendment rights. That is a fact.

[-] 2 points by Builder (4202) 1 year ago

Mittens has insulted the intelligence of the American people with his 47% speech.

He'll need to be a magician to overcome that gaffe.

[-] 0 points by podman73 (-652) 1 year ago

If a frog had wings he wouldn't bump his ass when he hops.........

[-] 0 points by alterorabolish1 (569) 2 years ago

Many people would find discussing the legitimate questions you propose "getting into the weeds", basically not easily explainable to the masses. I hope he is forced to release more tax returns and has to explain whether he will "amend" his current return as he is legally allowed to do, to use the deduction for charities that he didn't use.

Why do you answer "some no doubt" concerning his contributing to SS and medicare? Only wages, (in Romney's case was $0), are subject to SS and medicare taxes.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

One good thing about the masses. Their apparent ignorance is not homogeneous, so there are still plenty who can sort the weeds and save the valuable crop.

There does seem to be 25% who care nothing for facts and therefore would not be galled even by genocide.

[-] 1 points by yobstreet (-575) 2 years ago

It depends, who were you planning on killing?

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

Killing, not stated nor implied. Only imputed by you. The reference was regarding the degree of callousness related to the plight of some fellow Americans that is required to ignore the facts.

That certain facts "are not easily explainable to the masses" does not mean they can't understand them, clearly presented. If it isn't "easy " is the responsibility absolved? Why is it easier to explain, as Romney proposes, what loopholes would be closed, after the election than before. Truth delayed, like justice, is truth denied.

[-] 1 points by yobstreet (-575) 2 years ago

Your words:

There does seem to be 25% who care nothing for facts and therefore would not be galled even by genocide.

I agree, very valid point... who or whom do you want to kill? I tell you what, I'll start: I propose we remove the Cape Codians and keep the Cape Annians; done. Now it's your go... who do you want to remove?

I fully understand that it is far easier for some to relate to a moocher... I also understand that Pelosi needs her taxes thoroughly examined, as does Read, Rangel... and everybody with the DNC.

Are you so stupid as to not realize that there are reasons politicians do not take such a personal approach?

[-] 0 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

My words "the 25% who care nothing for..." I specifically am not in that 25% nor do I say that they (or anyone) else plans to commit genocide, as you well know. To take any word mentioned and ascribe it as a plan advocated by a person is intellectual dishonesty at its worst. This alleged conversation is over. Go log in under another of your aliases. Your "true" troll colors are showing.

[-] 1 points by yobstreet (-575) 2 years ago

"would not be galled even by genocide."

25% of the population do not care about facts - specifically your "facts," right?

That thought probably would never have occurred to me but I agree, that makes them genocidal, definitely.

What is it about your words that you do not understand?

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

Galled: Make (someone) feel annoyed: "losing galled him".

Facts: tested by the scientific method are THE facts, the best answer available, owned by no one, available to everyone, not revealed, always open to improvement where improvement is possible, often attacked and ignored for nefarious purposes. Accept no substitute.

[-] 1 points by yobstreet (-575) 2 years ago

There does seem to be 25% who care nothing for facts and therefore would not be galled even by genocide.

Your words... now I ask is this a fact?

Or, is your statement factual?

If it's factual, then I want you to prove it to me - and you sound ignorant enough to me - who were you planning on eliminating? So that you can prove that this 25% is ignorant enough to be not galled?

Only the insane admire sanity - so I ask you - do you consider yourself "sane"?

[-] 0 points by alterorabolish1 (569) 2 years ago

Many of the masses are so busy they have little time for keeping up with the politicians. Millions will not even bother to vote. There are plenty of interesting people that have no interest in politics. They feel powerless and apathetic believing ultimately that the rich need the middle class to buy their products.

Give these people a reason to vote and they will come thru

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

That is the job those of us in the weeds.

[-] -1 points by thoreau42 (595) 2 years ago

It doesn't matter who you vote for. If you consent to vote, you consent to being a slave. If you want to voice your distaste, the best thing you can do is go improve your life. Voting is for slaves and suckers.

[-] 0 points by alterorabolish1 (569) 2 years ago

I still believe voting is important and possible to be saved from only being for slaves and suckers. The only thing needed is for the idea to spread that voting for the lesser evil is still evil. Somehow get out the voters that would not normally come to vote. Vote radically, not for D's and R's.

[-] 0 points by thoreau42 (595) 2 years ago

The church of the State has many followers, as illustrated by your "belief" in voting..even though historical evidence is aligned VERY MUCH against voting having any impact, except a bad one.

Look, the USA has gone from one of the smallest governments in the history of the world, to the LARGEST THE WORLD HAS EVER SEEN, all through 200 years of voting. And more voting is going to reverse the trend? mmmhmmmmmm

But it's hard for facts to overcome belief and faith.

[-] 1 points by alterorabolish1 (569) 2 years ago

I can see that belief in voting may one day register to me as useless, but I continue to cling to the hope that it's not. It is recognized as legitimate even though the process is currently just a show. Voting radically, (not for D's and R's), and encourage others that normally wouldn't bother because it makes no difference, to make an easy effort to vote for Love. Years later we could be proud of our protest.

[-] 0 points by thoreau42 (595) 2 years ago

Clinging to hope? my gosh....

[-] 0 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 2 years ago

Under current US tax laws it is entirely possible that he contributed nothing to SS and Medicare for several years. That would depend on what KIND of "income" he had. If that galls many Americans, those Americans have no idea how taxes work in this country and THAT is not Mitt Romney's fault.

That same fact makes it entirely possible that MANY rich people-which does in FACT include a hell of a lot of Democrats and Liberals-contribute NOTHING to SS and Medicare as well!!! That should "gall" many Americans just as much if they are "fair and just" right?

[-] 0 points by alterorabolish1 (569) 2 years ago

You are exactly right. Do you mind if those that are unaware of the way US Tax Laws work learn these things? Some people fear that happening because it would cause much unhappiness to the people finally understanding.

How do you feel about the Robin Hood tax on trades, or perhaps raising the cap gains rate 1% with the proceeds going to the needy?

[-] 1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 2 years ago

I think people who are uninformed should GET informed. The information is not HIDDEN and any generic tax payer who has actually filled out more than a 1040 EZ is made AWARE of the different categories of income and their tax rates unless they are morons who cannot do basic math. Every single tax booklet printed by the US Government OUTLINES how taxes work and you can get them for FREE almost anywhere. So the whole idea that there are people who "fear" other people learning about taxes (and are therefor keeping such information from them) is ridiculous.

You know the first reaction SOME people make when they find out? They think "wow...I wish I had some of that lower taxed income....I need some capital gains...I'm going to learn how to get some"! And then they find ways to DO just that. In America, at least for now, it is possible.

The capital gains tax IS going up in January by much more. Watch what it does to the economy and then we'll talk about how much it really "helped" the needy. OK?

[-] 0 points by alterorabolish1 (569) 2 years ago

Having a debate on whether the cap gains tax is high enough or not is actually useless until we get the money out of politics. I couldn't expect you to understand why small businesses will not be hiring in the future, although I could attempt to explain it for you. Corporations are not only greedy, but relentless.

I disagree that the idea of millions of unaware Americans learning how taxes work in this country does not put fear in many people.

The people you say should be finding info and be informed are doing everything they can to survive, and do not have time to search for the info. Some of them have time to watch the local tv news, why not tell them on the news? What I also understand is their trust in America's leaders to do the right thing for everyone is a sad situation right now.

[-] 1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 2 years ago

I see. But prompting a debate on SS and Medicare tax IS USEFUL before we get the money out of politics.

I know why small businesses won't be hiring in the future-the tax rates and regulations are killing them, and they are increasing as of Jan 2013 due to Obamacare.

When people are actually taught how taxes REALLY work in this country they have no reason to be afraid at all. In fact, they realize how much the tax dollars paid by OTHER PEOPLE benefit them. Did you tell the employees that are going on unemployment how many government programs they qualify for? Did you tell them how much MORE they will collect than they have so far put into the programs?

What I don't get it why someone would want to LIE to his employees in order to make them afraid/mad when they are already suffering....

P.S. If you REALLY want to scare/anger them-find the FULL audio of Romney's speech about the 47% and listen to the part the MSM and Dems are NOT crowing about...the part about what they are doing with the FED!

[-] 0 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 2 years ago

First, you seem to be assuming what your employees are aware, or unaware of. Current US Tax codes, and how the US Government views and taxes different forms of income differently are not a secret and are readily available to anyone who wants to know.

Are your employees aware that you have a problem with other people complying with current US Tax laws?

[-] 2 points by alterorabolish1 (569) 2 years ago

Unfortunately we are working so much we don't have much time to discuss these things. However, I have made it a point to ask these people if they are aware that others have income where they don't have to pay payroll taxes, and almost all of them are surprised to learn that they don't. These people bring home less than $300 per week and are able to go to the grocery store only when their paycheck arrives. I wish everyone could actually understand the stress on their lives.

My employees are aware that I'm for complying with current US Tax laws. They're also aware that I don't believe the current Tax Laws are fair and should be changed.

[-] 1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 2 years ago

You're paying your employees only $300 per week? Why the hell aren't you paying them MORE??? Is what you pay them FAIR? Or do you just comply with the current US wage laws?

And your posts reveal you are a liar. You first said that your employees "are not aware that others with different forms of income do not." And now you're saying "I have made it a point to ask these people if they are aware that others have income where they don't have to pay payroll taxes, and almost all of them are surprised to learn that they don't."

Maybe instead of wasting time attacking people you don't know without any evidence-you put that time and effort into changing US Tax laws?

[-] 1 points by alterorabolish1 (569) 2 years ago

My employees will soon be getting unemployment checks instead of $300 per week from me. My apologies for not being clear about my employees, (all pay SS and medicare on 100% of their income), understanding that others do not have to pay these taxes. My point of asking them became the point when they first learned that the Tax Laws are different than they thought.

These are real people and they are many. I, myself was unaware of their suffering until I got into my current business.

I intend to put much time into changing US Tax Laws.

[-] 0 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 2 years ago

EVERYONE-and I mean EVERYONE who earns their income in the form of wages/salary pays SS and Medicare taxes. EVEN Mitt Romney when wages/salary were his income.

NOW-SS and Medicare taxes are ONLY collected on EVERYONE's income UP TO $110,000. SO...even if Mitt's ENTIRE income right now was coming from wages/salary-he would ONLY have to pay SS and Medicare taxes on the first $110,000 of it. You might want to work on THAT change as well.

Millionaires and billionaires are ALSO required by LAW to collect SS and Medicare payments-if they paid into the programs during their lifetimes-even if they are still filthy rich. That's "the law". Even if they don't WANT the money-the government sends out those checks.

As a business owner, you KNOW that you pay for a large portion of your employees SS and Medicare benefits ASIDE from what THEY pay towards them. Without "rich" business owners paying into such programs...what would happen to those programs?

The "RICH" also pay for the vast amount of money that is collected and put INTO the SS and Medicare programs both through their own payroll taxes and those they PAY on behalf of their employees, and those benefits are OFTEN given to people who have often paid very LITTLE into, or anything into, either system. Children and spouses of deceased taxpayers, the disabled, those who make very little and must be supplemented.

The MONEY taken in the form of TAXES is what fuels government welfare programs. Who pays the most in actual tax dollars? The wealthy. Who benefits the most from the MONEY collected by the government from it's taxpayers? THE POOR AND NEEDY.

[-] 0 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

Legal has no correlation with what is right. Rigged laws are, well, "rigged." Do you have a problem with bribery? His release doesn't say he "paid", just that he "owed." Does anyone ever fail to pay what they owe? What about penalties? ". .... settled claims for ____ without admitting guilt..." Was that owed? Was he part of the Swiss bank settlement that the whistle blower just got paid for rolling up?

[-] 1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 2 years ago

You're admitting that Romney paid what he owed. If the tax laws are rigged-then CHANGE THE DAMN LAWS. ALL people take advantage of tax credits and deductions-Democrats and "the poor" too. I don't see ANY politicians handing more money over to the government than they are legally obligated to! Why are you holding Romney to a standard you refuse to hold everyone else to? Is that JUST? Is that FAIR?

When you have taken every other President (current included) and politician (Harry Reid as well) to task in the exact same manner and with the exact same expectations that you are Romney-you'll be a credible, unbiased, fair, just person. Until then-just admit that you want DIRT on him and him alone.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

No, I'm not admitting any such thing. Neither one of us has nearly enough information to conclude that he paid what he owed or that he owed what he paid. What we know, is that he was involved with some tax shelter schemes with, or like, the Marriott's who paid major penalties. We know that the laws are rigged and that the carried interest loophole he used is still being investigated by the IRS for abuse even beyond what the loop hole actually allows. Apparently you don't read the news, because handing over more than was owned is exactly what Romney claims to have done on his 2011 tax return. He can, and no doubt will, file an amended return about November 7 to get that back.

I hold Romney to exactly the same standard I hold everyone else to, presidents or otherwise. That is just and that is fair, and you have zero evidence that I do otherwise. So, thank you for the compliment.

[-] 1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 2 years ago

"What we know, is that he was involved with some tax shelter schemes with, or like, the Marriott's who paid major penalties."

Well clearly you have full confidence in the Obama ad that said quote: "But we do know that Romney personally approved over $70 million in fictional losses to the IRS as part of the notorious "Son of Boss" tax scandal, one of the largest tax avoidance schemes in history."

Funny....even politifact determines that Romney's involvement in the "Son of Boss" scheme during the Marriott years is unclear at best. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/aug/13/barack-obama/obama-links-romney-infamous-tax-shelter/

As far as carried interest as a loophole goes: http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterjreilly/2012/01/20/blame-obama-for-carried-interest-not-romney/

"Over and over again courts have said that there is nothing sinister in so arranging one’s affairs as to keep taxes as low as possible. Everybody does so, rich or poor; and all do right, for nobody owes any public duty to pay more than the law demands: taxes are enforced exactions, not voluntary contributions. To demand more in the name of morals is mere cant."

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

To demand more of a politician (with a record of uncounted lists of lies and reversals of supposedly principled positions) is just sound practice. You may find what you crave in this

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/greed-and-debt-the-true-story-of-mitt-romney-and-bain-capital-20120829

Even Republicans are smart enough to ask him for what he demanded from potential VP candidates. Did you miss that? HHmmmm? Maybe you were wrapped up in a flag of some else's making.

[-] 1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

I missed where you demanded more of Obama due to his lies and reversals. If Rolling stone constitutes a factual source of information for you, your demands are incredibly low. Here's a response to good ol Matt's blatherings: http://spectator.org/archives/2012/09/04/taking-down-taibbi

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 1 year ago

See the post title, this conversation is supposed to be about Romney.

Truth is truth no matter where. Ross Kaminsy (a Senior Fellow at the Heartless Institute, a Koch oligarchy funded propaganda arm) starts his attack with a page of name calling and ad hominem attacks, just to let you know where he is going, and instead of starting in with a correction of any of the claimed facts and proceeding with an re analysis based on them, he starts with building a straw man and attacking it, weakly. Then instead of demonstrating the relevance of his straw man and drawing conclusions he is back to name calling and on to the next.

There is no refutation of any of Tiabbe's reporting and analysis. So unless you want to take on the task, you have been shown to be intellectually dishonest, one of your hero, Ayn's favorite targets. And I knew one of her proteges, Nathaniel Brandon, well. Otherwise this sorry excuse for conversation is over.

If you want to learn something about private equity, read their trade magazine, "The Deal" and the Special September Edition, editorial titled,"Transactions" by Teitelman, editor in chief. I am a subscriber and it is especially relevant. If you have questions, he usually finds time to answer them, if they are clearly stated.