Jason Bourne wrote:His comment was asinine. Sorry but it was. He knows how IRAs work and that tax will be paid at ordinary rates when it is taken out. To argue that his gain in his IRA makes his effective tax rate lower is not respectable.
So you read the article, then. Is that right? Or are you commenting without having done so? Without any idea of what the context or point of his comment was?
Sorry, Jason, but that just doesn't cut it.
ETA: Oh, and "idiot" Brian Galle agrees with you about Reid's comment:
Back in July, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid told the Huffington Post that a "Bain investor" confided to him that Romney "didn't pay any taxes for 10 years." Reid's allegations put Romney on the defensive for refusing to release more than two years of tax returns, but based on what we know now they're most likely false, Galle says. "If Harry Reid had said something like he paid 'like no taxes,' that might be accurate," Galle says. "It might be a quite small number potentially, but he didn’t pay nothing."
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
DrW wrote:IMHO - refusal to release tax returns is still a big red flag. The guy is hiding something. If he were not, he would release. His failure to do so is damaging his what is left of his credibility big time, and he must know that.
I don't know if Romney is hiding something or not, but I don't think it's as simple as you state. The birthers said the same thing about Obama and his birth certificate ("If Obama's not hiding something he would release it").
I also don't think Romney thinks it hurts his credibility to not release more. I think Romney is thinking about potential voters and has calculated that the people demanding he release more information won't vote for him anyway and the people who can be persuaded to vote for him will be satisfied with what he has released. Whether his calculation is correct or not remains to be seen.
Jason Bourne wrote: That he can turn around and call hardworking, low-income families moochers whom he can't convince to be self-reliant is despicable.
DrW wrote:IMHO - refusal to release tax returns is still a big red flag. The guy is hiding something. If he were not, he would release. His failure to do so is damaging his what is left of his credibility big time, and he must know that.
I don't know if Romney is hiding something or not, but I don't think it's as simple as you state. The birthers said the same thing about Obama and his birth certificate ("If Obama's not hiding something he would release it").
I also don't think Romney thinks it hurts his credibility to not release more. I think Romney is thinking about potential voters and has calculated that the people demanding he release more information won't vote for him anyway and the people who can be persuaded to vote for him will be satisfied with what he has released. Whether his calculation is correct or not remains to be seen.
It is more than a mere calculation on his part, he has sure knowledge. He is not releasing the last 10 years returns because he has no doubt whatsoever the tax avoidance shenagins he employs that would be exposed would kill any chance he has of winning the election.
The reason that Romney has given for not releasing more returns is that the amount of tithing he gives to the Church is a private matter is totally rediculous! What a sleazeball he is to use the Church for a lying ass lame excuse like that to shield his shenagins from scrutiny.
DrW wrote:IMHO - refusal to release tax returns is still a big red flag. The guy is hiding something. If he were not, he would release. His failure to do so is damaging his what is left of his credibility big time, and he must know that.
I don't know if Romney is hiding something or not, but I don't think it's as simple as you state. The birthers said the same thing about Obama and his birth certificate ("If Obama's not hiding something he would release it").
I also don't think Romney thinks it hurts his credibility to not release more. I think Romney is thinking about potential voters and has calculated that the people demanding he release more information won't vote for him anyway and the people who can be persuaded to vote for him will be satisfied with what he has released. Whether his calculation is correct or not remains to be seen.
The difference is that Obama did make his long form Birth Certificate available (and it was exactly as he had maintained.)
I agree with you in one sense though; people who want to see Romney's tax returns don't like or trust Romney in the first place.
Fortunately, there appear to be enough such people in the US that the chances of Romney getting elected decrease with every passing day.
David Hume: "---Mistakes in philosophy are merely ridiculous, those in religion are dangerous."
DrW: "Mistakes in science are learning opportunities and are eventually corrected."
Kishkumen wrote:So you read the article, then. Is that right? Or are you commenting without having done so? Without any idea of what the context or point of his comment was?
Sorry, Jason, but that just doesn't cut it.
ETA: Oh, and "idiot" Brian Galle agrees with you about Reid's comment:
Back in July, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid told the Huffington Post that a "Bain investor" confided to him that Romney "didn't pay any taxes for 10 years." Reid's allegations put Romney on the defensive for refusing to release more than two years of tax returns, but based on what we know now they're most likely false, Galle says. "If Harry Reid had said something like he paid 'like no taxes,' that might be accurate," Galle says. "It might be a quite small number potentially, but he didn’t pay nothing."
Yes Kish, this is the second time I read the article, the entire article. It does not excuse the professors IRA comment. He know damn well gains in IRAs have no basis in computing someone's current effective rate. He knows that ALL this income will be taxed at much HIGHER ordinary rates when it is removed from the IRA. He know is must start being removed when Romney turn 70.5 and that the annual amount that Romeny will have to remove form the IRA will likely be large due the the minimum distribution rules. He knows this. To use gains in an IRA as an example that Romney really paid a lower rate than 15% or 20 % is disingenuous at best. I am surprised that you see it some other way. If I made this argument my associates would think I was rather foolish. By the way I will likely have to drop out of this thread today and possibly tomorrow as my work schedule is very tight for the next few days.
Last of perhaps the use of idiot was to strong. I typically don't call people that even when I disagree with them unlike some other poster here. So I will apologize to Galle for that. But it seems he must have had some other motive for using such a poor illustration. I am hard pressed to see it some other way.
DrW wrote: The difference is that Obama did make his long form Birth Certificate available (and it was exactly as he had maintained.)
I agree with you in one sense though; people who want to see Romney's tax returns don't like or trust Romney in the first place.
Fortunately, there appear to be enough such people in the US that the chances of Romney getting elected decrease with every passing day.
Perhaps Romney will release the tax records in question on the same timeline as Obama released his long form birth certificate—over 2 years after he was elected President. If he elected. I don't think his loss is as foregone a conclusion as it appears you think it is. I think Obama has an edge at the moment, but I don't think he's out of the woods yet.
Nomomo wrote:It is more than a mere calculation on his part, he has sure knowledge. He is not releasing the last 10 years returns because he has no doubt whatsoever the tax avoidance shenagins he employs that would be exposed would kill any chance he has of winning the election.
The reason that Romney has given for not releasing more returns is that the amount of tithing he gives to the Church is a private matter is totally ridiculous! What a sleazeball he is to use the Church for a lying ass lame excuse like that to shield his shenagins from scrutiny.
It may be there is something in his taxes that would be a huge issue. Or it may be that he that he wants as much privacy as he can maintain. Or it may be purely a calculation based upon what he thinks will get him the most votes. Or maybe it's a combination of a few reasons. I don't think any of us really know for sure.
Kishkumen wrote: It does not excuse the professors IRA comment. He know damn well gains in IRAs have no basis in computing someone's current effective rate. He knows that ALL this income will be taxed at much HIGHER ordinary rates when it is removed from the IRA. He know is must start being removed when Romney turn 70.5 and that the annual amount that Romeny will have to remove form the IRA will likely be large due the the minimum distribution rules. He knows this. To use gains in an IRA as an example that Romney really paid a lower rate than 15% or 20 % is disingenuous at best. I am surprised that you see it some other way. If I made this argument my associates would think I was rather foolish.
Jason is absolutely correct on the facts here. The professor is twisting the facts in a manner he knows is irresponsible to score political points and that bothers me.
Look, there are many things to criticize Romney for, but he didn't break the law and implying that he somehow cheated and should have paid more taxes than he was obligated to pay is ridiculous. I certainly don't pay a dime more than I am obligated to pay and I don't know anyone eager to pony up more for the government.
Now, if you want to talk about the fairness of the tax code, then we can have some legitimate arguments. The reason Romney does not want to release prior tax returns is because they so clearly highlight many existing inefficiencies in the tax code (especially cap gains treatment for carried interest). Romney (and his party) does not want to highlight or fix any of these rules, or have them become part of the debate this year. Again, the point is not that Romney violated the law or cheated the government. The point is that the tax code is bloated, inefficient and in my opinion simply unfair in many respects. But I don't begrudge anyone or call them a cheater for following the letter of the law as it currently stands.