Harry Reid: Mitt Is Not The Face Of Mormonism

[_Tim the Enchanter]

It's not quite that simple Tim, in fact it is very slippery. The PWC letter is basically meaningless. > Mitt Romney PwC Letter Is Meaningless, Reid Fires Back > http://www.huffingtonpost.com/blackberr ... id=1904543

I'm not convinced it's as slippery as HuffPo makes it out to be.

For one, it says that using Romney's AGI is meaningless because that doesn't tell us what losses he may have claimed thus reducing his AGI, thus reducing his taxes, thus making Harry Reid maybe not a liar. The article uses the hypothetical case where Romney would have gained 20 mil, but claimed a 19.9 mil loss so he was only paying taxes on 100k. I think this example is absurd for someone like Romney who has earned hundreds of millions of dollars in his life. He didn't get hundreds of millions by losing almost as much as he earned over the years.

Furthermore, the article complains that Romney hasn't paid taxes on his IRA gains. What is Romney supposed to do? Not take the benefits of an IRA? I don't know what kind of IRA Romney has, but if he has a ROTH IRA his contributions were not tax deductible (meaning he paid taxes on those already) and if he has a traditional IRA his IRA distributions will be taxed as gross income when he pulls money out of the IRA. Either way, he's going to pay tax. Right? What am I missing here?

The letter certainly doesn't reveal everything, but I don't think it's fair to call it meaningless. Unless Romney is secretly losing almost as much as he has gained (in other words, unless he is secretly poor), he's not avoided paying a ton in taxes over the years. There are only two certainties in life, and while I certainly have no inside knowledge Romney's situation, thus far, he has avoided only one of those two certainties.

[_Jason Bourne]

Just to be clear:

I like Harry Reid and have a lot of respect for him and his staff. They do a great job.

Mitt Romney?

Not so much.

I think Reid is pure scum.

[_Jason Bourne]

There you go again, why me.

There is no evidence whatsoever that Reid was fibbing about Romney's taxes. And there will not be any evidence until Romney releases his returns for the ten years before Reid claimed the Bain Capital executive had told him about Romney's taxes (say 1999 to 2009).

This is highly unlikely because, well, seems pretty clear now that Romney has not been paying anything close to his claimed 15% tax over the last 10 years. If the best Romney could do when his feet were to the fire on his 2011 tax return was to give the Treasury a gift and still not make the 15% he claimed, why should the American people believe him?

Romney not releasing his tax returns is a big red flag. Most Americans can see that. You apparently cannot.

Was Romney not the one who said that his tax rate was at least 15%?

Based on the evidence, who is really fibbing?

Think, why me - think.

According to Romney's accounting firm his average rate over 20 years was 20% and he paid taxes every year:

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/po ... out-romney

[_sock puppet]

Just to be clear:

I like Harry Reid and have a lot of respect for him and his staff. They do a great job.

Mitt Romney?

Not so much.

I think Reid is pure scum.

I agree. Even if I can't share your hope for Romney.

[_Kishkumen]

I think Reid is pure scum.

Whereas the joker who said that nearly half of the country is a bunch of leeches is a swell guy.

Sure.

[_Jason Bourne]

It's not quite that simple Tim, in fact it is very slippery. The PWC letter is basically meaningless. > Mitt Romney PwC Letter Is Meaningless, Reid Fires Back > http://www.huffingtonpost.com/blackberr ... id=1904543

From your link:

According to the letter from PwC avowing the number, it is based on Romney's adjusted gross income. That means that, for instance, if Romney made investment profit of $20 million, but had losses of, say, $19.9 million, his adjusted gross income would only be $100,000. Paying 20.2 percent of $100,000 would cost Romney just over $20,000.

To which I reply so what? If he paid 20% of a net taxable income of $100k he paid 20%. Losses are deductible against gains. Why is this bad? In this case Romney would still have paid tax. Reid claimed he paid no tax. Zero. Reid is a bald face liar and the letter proves it. And a CPA firm stating such things in a letter means something. CPA firms that lie in such letters could be in deep professional trouble.

Oh and then this gem from the article:

Romney's claimed rate is misleading in another way. Boston College tax law professor Brian Galle noted that Romney's IRA has grown since 1999 at a rate of roughly $9 million to $10 million per year. Yet he pays no taxes on those gains. Adding $10 million to his 2011 income of $13.8 million, for instance, nearly doubles it, meaning his tax rate is roughly half of what his real gain was.

Uh and this guy is a tax professor? Really? He should be fired. News flash teacher! All gain in everyone's IRAs are sheltered from tax until they withdraw it. That is the purpose of an IRA. And when Romney starts taking this money out, which he must start doing at 70.5 years of age, it all gets taxed at ordinary income tax rates. This tax professor is an idiot.

[_Kishkumen]

Reid is a bald face liar and the letter proves it. And a CPA firm stating such things in a letter means something. CPA firms that lie in such letters could be in deep professional trouble.

So when Romney says that half of the people in this country do not want to be self-sufficient, what do you call that?

Lying?

Or something else?

[_Jason Bourne]

So when Romney says that half of the people in this country do not want to be self-sufficient, what do you call that?

Lying?

Or something else?

What has this got to do with what Romney said? I am talking about Reid. That is the topic of this thread.

But for what it is worth I think Romney's remarks were foolish. Does that make Reid's lies about Romney's taxes ok?

[_Kishkumen]

Uh and this guy is a tax professor? Really? He should be fired. News flash teacher! All gain in everyone's IRAs are sheltered from tax until they withdraw it. That is the purpose of an IRA. And when Romney starts taking this money out, which he must start doing at 70.5 years of age, it all gets taxed at ordinary income tax rates. This tax professor is an idiot.

The odd thing about Romney's IRA is the way he has taken a retirement tool for working people and stuffed it with millions of dollars in order to avoid taxes.

"The maximum for an IRA contribution in years 2006 and 2007 was $4,000 for an individual under the age of 50. Individuals aged 50 and older could contribute up to $5,000. For 2008 through 2011, the limit was $5,000 for those under age 50, and $6,000 for those over 50. All contributions must be from income."

You don't find anything odd about that, Jason?

[_Jason Bourne]

Whereas the joker who said that nearly half of the country is a bunch of leeches is a swell guy.

Sure.

Kish I know you loathe Romney. Am I defending his foolish remarks by saying Reid's accusation against Romney and now his current comments were scummy? What's the deal with you on this? Really?