I highly doubt that Mittens is guilty of tax fraud. I think that it's a matter of using offshore accounts and other accounting tricks to hide his considerable income from taxation. It's not easy, but when you can afford the resources Mitt has at his disposal, it's not impossible.

In addition to destroying his Presidential Ambitions, I hope this will trigger a serious debate about how screwed the tax code really is.

I think the media overstates the fairness sentiment.

People expect rich Americans to pay taxes because it's a GOOD thing to do. It's patriotic. What's the alternative? Hide your money away in foreign banks? "Investing" in foreign companies? Ignoring tax laws?

People know it's a game, but it's one best played by those with largest amounts of money.

Whether conservatives can admit it or not, there's something inherently anti-American and hostile about avoiding taxes.

call to clarify a statement and use that clarification to advance a long-held party platform?

do I care to get involved. Consider this just an "aside", and me wanting to share my two cents from personal experience.

Favorite group: Gun Control & RKBA, 46 posts in the last 90 days (7% of total posts)

1 post every other day puts me on "The Watch List"

interesting

Get some former Bain person to tell Harry that Mitt didn't pay taxes for 10 yrs. Harry puts it out there. We get the reactions we're getting. Then Mitt relents and releases his taxes that are all ok. Just a thought.

that sounds tad too implausible. If Sen. Reid could be so easily reeled-in then he definitely needs to "put-up or shut-up" to avoid being duped. Evidence is a wonderful thing and relying on hearsay is folly.

thought about it all being a set up and RobMe really has paid everything he should and everything is kosher.

But, why wait? The down side is also a Rovian creed. It's the theory that the first thing people hear (in this case, the idea that he's got something to hide) will stick with you.

Rove typically used this by determining his own candidate's weakness and then accusing the other side of the exact same thing. It was a calculation that you gain a whole group of people who will hear the first thing and then never hear the other side. It is more effective than a head to head comparison

But, going back to what you said...I don't think Mitt will ever release them -- just because he is an obstinate asshole

Karl's rep is more from audacity and sheer magnitude of BS his guy puts out than from real Machiavellian scheming. The "I Built This" campaign and the stream of ads that carve Obama quotes out of context with an X-Acto knife are more his style.

I think Mitt just convinced himself this wouldn't be an issue because he beat it in Massachusetts.

Unless they were, like, in the same fraternity or something.

It may look like they are taking the other side of all those bets in Nevada but the truth is they know they can't be beat.

Reid has a sure thing here. We should all relax and enjoy.

"Is the 'No taxes for 10 years' claim a criminal or fairness issue?'"

..."fairness," do you really think paying no taxes for 10 years and then running for President isn't criminal?

the idea that mitt ignored his 1040 for ten years is a bit of a stretch. Let's discuss this because this will make employment go up and millions will get healthcare

the smell of desperation.

I just didn't realize I smell.

"yes I am desperate to find a job...I just didn't realize I smell. "

...not only can't I help you, but Mitt can't either. The fact that people are discussing the possibility that Mitt is a tax cheat doesn't hinder your job search.

Good luck!

not sure I will find a job like the one I lost, but thanks for your support

... just that he didn't pay any taxes. These are very different things. His accountants may well have found perfectly legal ways avoid them.


By the way, if Romney should win this election, millions will lose health care and unemployment will increase, so, yes, it matters.

So this is all about how his accountants found ways to avoid him paying taxes. That makes more sense to me now. I suspect taxes were with held on his pay check, so he didn't get away scott free.

I can't say whether unemployment will increase under Romney or Obama, but my oldest son lives in MA. and he is on mass healthcare. Something Romney put in place. In 2014 Obama care will be in place and millions will have healthcare. It seems both Obama and Romney understand that we all need healthcare.
Which begs the question, how do you know millions will lose healthcare under Romney?

he doesn't have an "employer" - Romney doesn't "understand we all need healthcare"- he isn't happy with "Romney care"- he is constantly distancing himself from it.

He sure as hell doesn't understand that we all need healthcare, and has said quite clearly that he will undo the ACA completely on his first day in office.

Can he do that? probably not, but he would do his damnedest to dismantle and destroy it.

Policies that Romney says he will put into place if elected will cost more people their jobs, that is if we are talking American workers.

Do some research- Romney knows how to earn money for himself. Not so much for the workers in the companies he 'takes over'.

span, then why wouldn't he release more than 7-years to prove to citizens who may vote for him that he would be demanding nothing of citizens that he didn't demand of himself.

We already know that Rmoney encouraged foreign citizens (or corporations) to pay no U.S. taxes, so how Romney felt about his own obligations, to his own country, is currently a matter of national interest.

But in the legal sense unless he actually broke the law then the best argument is the law is skewed and needs to be fixed. I think we have a lot to gain from a tax code reform argument. We could set Romney up as the poster boy of exploitative legalese. It damages him and gives us something positive to run on.

Believe it or not, a lot of voters will be asking, "What do you want to do in the next 4 years?"

Screaming, "Mitt Romney sucks!" will not satisfy them. Saying, "I'd like to grow our economy and reduce our debt by re-examining the tax code, making it friendlier to entrepenuers while ensuring those who propser the most do not exploit our society by paying the least ...just like that Romney fellow has done for the last 10 years. Sure, he did it legally but that's part of what we need to examine."

I may be crazy but that sounds like a winning message and a good message and an accessible message.

The easy way is to put all his money in tax-free municipal bonds. Offshore tax havens and other investments that don't produce any taxable income until sold could add a little variety. Incredibly obnoxious, yes, but not necessarily illegal.

Harry Reid did not say Romney illegally paid no taxes for ten years. He only alleged Romney paid no taxes for ten years. If large corporations making a profit can use the arcane tax code to either pay no taxes or get rebate/refunds - which hey do - I'm sure Romney's legion of tax attorneys and accountants can do the same for him.

I'm addressing those who are playing off of Sen. Reid's comments by hinting at quasi-criminal behavior.

I ran a poll here yesterday and at last check 55% thought there should be a criminal investigation. If they think that then either they have gravely misunderstood the nature of Sen. Reid's comments or something else.

"Hearsay is not admissible as evidence. If the idea is to allege mal-intent then Sen. Reid runs a serious risk of this blowing-up in his face with the possibility of collateral damage. I don't think the electorate will tolerate what appears to be bogus allegations of criminal accusations for political purposes. that would scare them and make them resentful."

Sounds like you're saying Reid is going to take a hit if and when his "bogus allegations of criminal accusations" blow up in his face.

If those who are his political allies are pushing an argument based on his statement that was not within his original intent then he needs to clarify for the sake of his supporters. Otherwise their argument -- which they claim is based on his statement -- will hurt him. The erroneous erstwhile supporters won't pay a political price; Sen Reid will.

for the benefit of business owners not employees. That's why we can claim more deductions. I have small business very very small it's me and an iPod nano. I teach ZUMBA. come tax time I can claim all sorts of legitimate business deductions. and I love the more deductions the better. if course I am not a gazillionaire with money stashed away in caymen islands. But I hope this debate about Romney's taxes doesn't take away my ability to claim my legal business deduction.

Sorry, I know this is off topic, but just got curious.
I have a few on the side things that I do for fun and profit, but I can't really claim it on to anything.

you can find a licensing class near you, and find the cost

I was more curious about how the State handles requirements for things like that.

I guess I'll have to figure it out in mine.

a licensed Zumba instructor. Now some Gyms require that you have a National Fitness Cert like AFAA or ACE.

So far I have not run into that requirement I teach Zumba in Corporate Offices, Government Offices, and Public schools. I don't teach in Gyms or for the public. It just sort of happened I didn't plan it that way but I like it!

The code is very clear on this. The problem is that people cheat like shit (i.e. I will attend a 4 hour seminar in Hawaii and write off the entire family vacation as a business trip). No one would argue that I should not be able to write off the cost of a certification course, but they would have a problem if I found one offered on a cruise ship and wrote off the whole trip (as would the IRS). Yet, you see these very things advertised all the time.

There is no way they would allow us to do anything illegal or in the muttled gray area.

that a man of his capital worth, was able to legally pay zero taxes for 10 years. Why do you think he has all his money offshore, yet claims to know nothing of it?

The man has no respect for the law, at least as it pertains to him and his ilk.

I will defer to your well reasoned wisdom.

How did that happen?

...is the standard limit on contributions:

Nothing says that you can't contribute more but you'll be taxed extra on it and you can't deduct the contribution.

http://www.irs.gov/retirement/participant/article/0,,id=211358,00.html

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/08/mitt-romney-ira-taxes-retirement.php

...and wish they could pay only 6% in federal taxes.

If it's the former, awwwwwesome! But if it is the latter it simply begs the question about how the former could be true. And that's how I want to see that entire discussion framed.

As far as people taking it too far, perhaps a little birther payback might be fun for a while. I fully intend to echo some of the pithier "hard to argue cause it's plain that any fool can see it" local conservatives' birther comments back with:

s/Long Form Birth Certificate/Tax Forms/g

Besides, we've already seen how swiftboating places someone on the defense. Why not get them decrying how unfair it all is for a while. I'm sick of always playing defense.

Ever since Mittwit's father released 12 years of tax returns, over 40 years ago, Presidential candidates have been forthcoming about their personal finances -- until now.

All Harry has done is to pass along some speculation as to why Mitt hasn't. Yes, it's hearsay, but it's reasonable speculation for a public wanting to fill in the blanks.

one more return from the years in question pretty much invite this kind of speculation.

If he was pulled over at a 'sobriety check' and did questionably on some of the lesser 'tests' and REFUSED a blood or Breathalyzer he would be admitting guilt.

I realize that running for president isn't the same as driving a car, but the fact is, if he has nothing to hide- if there is nothing that would cause people to reject him as president based solely on information his tax returns will reveal, then we have every right to know it now.

He's encouraging and promoting suspicion with his actions. Under normal circumstances, he wouldn't have lasted much past the NH primaries with this kind of behaviour, but the climate in this country is anything but normal, and this man is counting on this to get him where he desperately wants to be.


Is what he is hiding criminal? most likely not in strictly legal terms- McCain would not be defending him if it were imo.- He would instead be evasive or quiet when asked about the returns- but there is something there that the public would see as disqualifying or troubling.

The quickest way to stop rumors and innuendo is with truth and facts- right now, Romney holds the answer and refuses to reveal it. Do we really consider people to be innocent when they "take the fifth"?

It is definitely a fairness issue. And, those who can't see that are either blind or choose not to see it. As for being criminal, it all depends on how he got out of paying his taxes. If he evaded them by going offshore or through other illegal activities, then it's criminal. Wesley Snipes can tell you all about what happens to people who evade paying their taxes.

This isn't a criminal trial. Hearsay is fine in real life. Romney can put it all to rest today if he chooses.

if that were true then I would agree with you, but from what I've seen it's all about fairness.

The GOP might push the criminal angle because then they would be right, Harry Reid would be way out of line. But they would be lying because Harry said nothing about crimes.

55% said there should be a criminal investigation. That tells me that those respondents believe the Sen is refering more to criminal wrongdoing as opposed to simply making a fairness argument. If 55% of Sen. Reid's erstwhile political confederates assume he's alleging criminal wrongdoing then we can only wonder how the independents and moderates see it.

From the gist of your post you yourself seem to recognize that pushing a criminal angle would ultimately be detrimental unless something more substantial is forthcoming.

those 55% miss the point, and yes if the GOP could manage to make this about criminality then the whole thing would go away. No democrat, Harry Reid or anyone else, is going to stand by a charge that Romney broke any tax laws.

for taking a moment to accept my argument on its own terms. I know that sounds weird to say but so many fights seem to break-out here because nobody takes the time to read what the other party is writing and give it a fair hearing.

Thank-you again.

is he guilty of anything or not? What are the charges? That his tax returns reveal an aspect of the man and his finances which would make many people feel he is unsuitable for the job of POTUS.

When a person pleads the fifth, are they presumed 'innocent' in the minds of the hearers?

Maybe I'm just a cynic, but if I'm not guilty, I'm gonna prove it- he is hiding something that isn't ok- something criminal? most likely not-

I personally could have cared less what Bill Clinton and Monica did or didn't do. I DID mind his lying to our faces, as much as it was none of our business.

Romney is telling us he has something to hide- we are stupid if we ignore that.

(I posted something close to this on Daily Kos):

Imagine if you are a senator and aware of the following related to a candidate for President:

- a history of evasiveness with Romney on his governor disk drives destroyed, 2002 Olympics docs destroyed , etc
- a history of some shady deals with Bain where Romney got millions in dividends while the government or employees got left holding the bag on pensions or banks and creditors got left holding the bag in bankruptcy
- the Boston Globe and others finding out that what we were told about when Romney left Bain doesn't check out ending with a claim of "retroactive retirement" after 60+ SEC forms (and other press releases and articles) that show Romney still active after 1999
- an untrustworthy candidate as evidenced by probably the longest list of flip-flops in US History:
http://www.mittromneyflipflops.com/
http://mittromneysflipflops.com/
- a long list (volumes and volumes) of Romney's "mendacity"
http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2012/04/20/11309846-chronicling-mitts-mendacity-vol-xiv?lite
- a candidate who had yet to provide a single complete tax return (2010 missing forms on foreign bank accounts)
- a GOP candidate's daughter reports "according to people close to the situation, Romney would drop out of the presidential race before ever releasing further tax returns."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/abby-huntsman/mitt-romney-tax-returns_b_1675711.html
- Romney's own father saying "One (tax) year could be a fluke, perhaps done for show" and Romney's own father released 12 returns showing him paying roughly 37% in taxes
- Romney recently promising ABC on camera he'll check if he paid less than 13.9% and then off camera telling ABC he won't respond
- Rachel Maddow's report of Romney in 2002 saying "You have to take my word for it" only to find out he lied to the media about his tax returns in 2002
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#48454163

A record like that probably couldn't survive a nomination to serve in the cabinet - most certainly without the tax returns as Reid has pointed out.

Yet this is ok because Romney is running for president and it's just politics? That makes no legitimate sense to me. America deserves better.

Now I'm the first to agree there's plenty of circumstantial stuff there in that list and not enough to "convict" Romney of not paying taxes for 10 years (legally or illegally). But that is one heck of a lot of crap that makes one wonder why this man won't produce his tax returns. Something smells pretty darn bad.

And so, as a Senator, knowing the above, more than one person you regard as "credible" approaches you, including someone who worked with Bain, to tell you that presidential candidate Romney didn't pay any taxes for ten years. Are you supposed to shut up? Isn't that what they did at Penn State (not a great comparison but you get the idea in terms of protecting the public).

I think Harry Reid didn't just chime in for his party - though I'm sure that significantly helped motivate him. But I also think it was his duty to say something to the American people about what he had been told by people he regarded as "credible" - fairly leaving the door ajar that Romney could disprove it.

Reid certainly doesn't have the track record of evasiveness, flip-flopping and dishonestly that Romney does.

Ignoring all other aspects of the qualities a president should have, if these allegations have merit, isn't electing someone like that to administer your tax code and the country's finances like putting a fox in the hen house? That's how it strikes me.

"I have nothing to hide. I am not a crook" Richard Nixon.

So hearsay may not be "evidence" but it is one more thing to add to the above list that contributes to justify the request for more tax returns.

They all fall under the heading of secretiveness, which the American people do not appreciate in a candidate. That secretiveness plus the Etch-A-Sketch label are two very easy-to-understand and powerful ways to define Romney as just plain icky.

We will not know until he produces his returns.

As for the tax code. Who, or what is responsible for the length and complexity of the tax code?

It isn't the middle or employees' class. Middle class, working people have several tax deductions that are commonly used -- the student loan interest deduction, the child-care deduction and the mortgage interest deduction. You can deduct a little for charitable donations if you deduct enough to itemize. You may even be able to deduct something for healthcare if you have really high costs. Modest savings in an IRA or 401(K) are tax deferred. So, there are a few minor deductions and deferments for the middle class.

And, of course, if you have a business, you can deduct business costs so that you only pay taxes on your profits, not on your expenditures. That seems fair, I believe.

The tax code for the middle class is pretty simple. No need to change it. Your employer deducts your estimated taxes from your paycheck. And your part of the tax code is not all that long. In fact, if you don't have a business, you probably do your own taxes. Accountants cost money, and who can afford them?

But then there is the tax code for the corporations, the very large businesses, the rich and the very rich -- the special interests. The folks who pay the major lobbyists That's where the complexity enters in.

And it is put in there by the very rich who buy our legislators at all levels to get special favors and tax dispensations for themselves. Guys like Romney and his friends. They get together and complain about the complexity of the tax code in public like all the other Republicans. But in private, they fight for their dispensations, their deductions, the provisions that let THEM keep THEIR money and take YOURS from YOU.

These people buy tax deductions and tax deals like sinners bought dispensations from the Pope back in the 14th century.

We need reformation. Ending the sale to priests of the right to keep a concubine was one of the factors that lead to John Wycliffe, Martin Luther and King Henry VIII. Romney's wielding of the tax code could be an important factor to lead to reformation of our tax system.

Accusing someone of committing a crime based on no evidence can get you into trouble. But, in this case, the question arises, is Romney's unwillingness to publish his tax returns a sign of guilt?

Running from a police officer in California has always supported a presumption of guilt. Does keeping your tax returns from the voters when you are running for president give rise to a presumption of guilt? That's a question for the voters.

Romney is a public figure. He has been given lots of opportunity to answer legitimate questions about his taxes and refused to do so. We should be careful about accusing people of crimes, but . . . . this issue obviously presents itself in Romney's situation. It's up to Romney. Is he going to challenge the presumption of guilt or not????

Changing the tax code to serve personal interests is just one aspect of the terrible corruption that the rich bring to our government. Romney is one of the very rich who benefits from a tax code that was written by the rich for the rich and of the rich.

There will always be a government. If you did away with our democracy, you would end up with an Assad or a Saddam Hussein or a Pol Pot. So, let's try to make our democracy work better.

Romney's tax returns are an excellent example of what happens when our democracy does not work, when wealth rules and not the people. That is why they are important. Whether he has committed a crime we cannot know. But we do know that he takes unfair advantages. If he didn't he would already have produced his tax returns.

people need to be exposed en masse to how the current system is stacked in favor of the uber-wealthy and stacked against most middle-class and lower-income people. As far as transparency goes, he's demanded it before of other candidates in other races and most candidates for POTUS release several, so what's good for the goose is good for the gander, right?

The issue is not whether he should be rich or prudent with his money, the issue is whether he is going to have even a tiny clues as to what is going on in the lives of his fellow citizens.

none of them would endure.

Remember Bush the Lesser "cutting brush" down on his "ranch"?

I don't think his tax attorney's would allow criminal activity, just taking every advantage there is to limit paying

He would be presumed innocent until proven guilty. So, how would Mitt Romney prove he is guilty. Maybe he could show his tax returns. Harry Reid is not in a court of law right now. The laws of evidence don't apply.

If Romney decided that taxes were only for the little people--IOW he refused to pay them because he just figured no one with $25 million in annual income should pay taxes--it's a serious criminal matter. I don't think this is what happened. The guy knows exactly where the limits of the law are.

It's more a moral issue if Romney structured his deductions and credits to eliminate tax liability on $25 million in annual income. It might be totally legal to deduct and credit your way out of taxes, but it ain't right; if nothing else, it proves that the Alternative Minimum Tax needs to be fixed so this eight-ball pays SOMETHING.

He stated that he heard no-taxes-for-10-years from a credible source. He didn't say he had proof. If this is untrue, Romney can prove it's untrue by releasing his returns. Simple. Fair. His failure to release his returns will be taken by most as a confirmation of the allegations against him. This is not a death-penalty case in a court of law- there is no presumption of innocence of the defendant or burden of proof on the prosecution. This is the court of public opinion and the standards of judgment are common sense and common decency.