Mitt Romney

User avatar
MsDaisy
Posts: 3150
Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 12:30 pm

Mitt Romney

Postby MsDaisy » Sat Aug 04, 2012 9:01 am

This is very interesting from TPM





“Dem Lawmakers Want Answers About Romney’s Enormous IRA”





BB, do you have any input/thoughts on this? -xx -xx -xx

Well, if he put $6k into his IRA, and invested in one of the companies he "created" at 6000 shares of a special issue at $1 each, then turned them into common a while later at $100 per share, that's a nice return. Lather, rinse, repeat. People made huge returns on Internet stocks until that bubble burst. Romney controlled the financing and the timing, so It seems like a good gig to me.

Something like this crossed my mind too, but I don't know nearly enough to even begin to try and figure this one out. But if he did do something like that it can't possibly be legal can it? If by some seriously convoluted stretch it is legal it's certainly far beyond unethical IMO. This could publicly put him in seriously deep shit.

User avatar
Whatever4
Posts: 8409
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 6:36 am

Mitt Romney

Postby Whatever4 » Sat Aug 04, 2012 9:03 am

I believe that romney had a SEP IRA at Bain, so the input was higher than regular IRAs.

User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 11377
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Mitt Romney

Postby Reality Check » Sat Aug 04, 2012 9:06 am

But if he did receive his pension as a lump, wouldn't rolling a lump that size also violate the legal limit for IRA investments?

No, you can transfer (the correct term if it goes directly and not ever issued as a check) from a tax deferred pension into an IRA outside of the normal annual contribution limits.
“The reality of what we really are is often times found in the small snips, way down at the bottom of things.” – Jean Shepherd

User avatar
Emma
Posts: 3905
Joined: Tue Aug 04, 2009 2:25 am

Mitt Romney

Postby Emma » Sat Aug 04, 2012 9:14 am

edit msg sent

User avatar
Emma
Posts: 3905
Joined: Tue Aug 04, 2009 2:25 am

Mitt Romney

Postby Emma » Sat Aug 04, 2012 9:19 am

[highlight]Is it possible that some of those initial IRA investments were deliberately undervalued, privately held shares in Bain investments?[/highlight]ETA: thanks W4, that's what I'm talking about.

That's what the letter is alleging.

User avatar
TexasFilly
Posts: 14675
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2009 12:52 pm

Mitt Romney

Postby TexasFilly » Sat Aug 04, 2012 11:11 am

Now that some have figured out how to embed the MSNBC clips, I highly suggest watching the first one Foggy embedded. Rmoney's been playing this "hide the tax returns" game since 1994. When his opponent in the 2002 gubernatorial campaign released her federal tax returns, Rmoney whined that her husband hadn't released his! It's a great piece Rachel did. The Obama campaign needs to digest it down to a short spot and run a commercial. It struck me that there's something Rmoney has been doing on his tax returns for a very long time that he doesn't want revealed (not just 2009 as many have speculated). It also struck me that he's a bit of a male chauvinist (surprise!).

User avatar
realist
Posts: 30906
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

Mitt Romney

Postby realist » Sat Aug 04, 2012 11:11 am

If @MittRomney can retroactively file taxes as resident of MA @BarackObama can be retroactively born in Hawaii to 2 citizen parents.

:lol:
ImageX 3 (have met 31 Obots at meetups) Image X 4
Image

User avatar
Butterfly Bilderberg
Posts: 6711
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2009 2:26 pm

Mitt Romney

Postby Butterfly Bilderberg » Sat Aug 04, 2012 11:27 am

BB, do you have any input/thoughts on this? -xx -xx -xx

I do, but as an agency employee I cannot publicly comment. The agency has been asked to comment on the matter and my thoughts cannot be construed as the official position. Also, agency rules prohibit me from commenting on a specific case, Hatch Act prohibits me from commenting on a particular candidate for federal office, and all that.

User avatar
Butterfly Bilderberg
Posts: 6711
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2009 2:26 pm

Mitt Romney

Postby Butterfly Bilderberg » Sat Aug 04, 2012 11:37 am

Can someone help me out:





Do I understand right that a "Tax Return" is actually (at least) two documents: one declaration of income and one tax assessment based on this declaration ?





Is a declaration of income controlled instantly ?





I ask because over here a declaration is usually not controlled, taxes are assessed following the declaration. Only at a later moment the tax authorities may control the truth of your declaration and the legal theories used.





For example: I can - factually - deduct the costs of a horse in my tax declaration. The taxes will be assessed with the deduction, under the reservation of a review. This review can come at any time, in case of tax fraud up to ten years. The deduction of the costs of a horse would be considered as fraud. I would not only have to pay the taxes for the deducted sum but also be punished for tax fraud.





Is there a similarity over there ?

Yes, basically the same. A tax return is a declaration of income AND a self-assessment of the tax owed on the declared income. It is subject to additional assessment based upon a review disclosing errors or upon an examination (a/k/a "audit"). Ordinarily, there is a three-year statute of limitation on the assessment of additional tax, but that is extended to six years for a substantial understatement of tax on the return (25% or more understated) and no statute of limitation on fraud.





The statute of limitation on collection of unpaid tax (not due to fraud) is generally ten years. Additions to tax (i.e., penalties) are collected in the same manner as tax.

User avatar
MsDaisy
Posts: 3150
Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 12:30 pm

Mitt Romney

Postby MsDaisy » Sat Aug 04, 2012 11:43 am

BB, do you have any input/thoughts on this? -xx -xx -xx

I do, but as an agency employee I cannot comment. Hatch Act and all that.

:(( But it sounds from other comments posted that it's not illegal, so I guess we'll just have to wait and see what comes of this and the rest of Mitt's tax issues.

User avatar
TollandRCR
Posts: 15723
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 11:17 pm

Mitt Romney

Postby TollandRCR » Sat Aug 04, 2012 12:30 pm

The other side of Mitt Rmoney and taxes: his tax "plan," such as it is, makes no sense unless he intends to raise taxes on the middle class. His words are only words, and he may understand little or nothing of what he is "proposing." Some of his advisers probably understand the effects of his 20% cut of marginal tax rates very well. Ever since it arose and became powerful, the middle class has been the bulwark against oligarchs.





Washington Post Aug. 4, 2012 [link]"Romney tax plan on table. Debt collapses table.",http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/08/04/romney-tax-plan-on-table-debt-collapses-table/[/link] by Ezra Klein.


...


The truth is that Romney is afraid to put his plan on the table. He has promised to reduce the deficit, but refused to identify the spending he would cut. He has promised to reform the tax code, but refused to identify the deductions and loopholes he would eliminate. The only thing he has put on the table is dessert: a promise to cut marginal tax rates by 20 percent across the board and to do so without raising the deficit or reducing the taxes paid by the top 1 percent.





The Tax Policy Center took Romney at his word. They also did what he hasn’t done: They put his plan on the table.





To help Romney, the center did so under the most favorable conditions, which also happen to be wildly unrealistic. The analysts assumed that any cuts to deductions or loopholes would begin with top earners, and that no one earning less than $200,000 would have their deductions reduced until all those earning more than $200,000 had lost all of their deductions and tax preferences first. They assumed, as Romney has promised, that the reforms would spare the portions of the tax code that privilege saving and investment. They even ran a simulation in which they used a model developed, in part, by Greg Mankiw, one of Romney’s economic advisers, that posits “implausibly large growth effects” from tax cuts.





The numbers never worked out. No matter how hard the Tax Policy Center labored to make Romney’s promises add up, every simulation ended the same way: with a tax increase on the middle class. The tax cuts Romney is offering to the rich are simply larger than the size of the (non-investment) deductions and loopholes that exist for the rich. That’s why it’s “mathematically impossible” for Romney’s plan to produce anything but a tax increase on the middle class.


A Legal Lohengrin
Posts: 10412
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:56 pm

Mitt Romney

Postby A Legal Lohengrin » Sat Aug 04, 2012 12:53 pm

Romney has been caught lying about his taxes over and over again in the past.[/break1]rawstory.com/rs/2012/08/04/maddow-romney-demanded-his-political-opponents-tax-returns-in-2002/]Maddow: Romney demanded opponents’ tax returns and lied about residency in 2002We already all knew Mitt was a scumbag and a hypocrite. That's just par for the course for this worthless bum. He's also a proven liar.

In the 2002 gubernatorial campaign, it was alleged that Romney had gamed his taxes to qualify to run for governor. The Massachusetts Democratic Party said that Romney had lied about filing jointly as a resident of Massachusetts and Utah, a charge that the Romney campaign denied and denied and denied until the very last minute when they were forced to admit that yes, the charge had merit and that Romney had filed retroactively.

In other words, the last time Democrats said there was something hinky about Mitt's taxes, he blustered and lied, demanding the charges were false, only to be nailed to the wall when he was exposed as a blatant liar.

In that instance, as in this one, Romney and his top aide Eric Fehrnstrom said over and over, “You’re just going to have to take our word for it,” while refusing to disclose any proof.

The ordinarily docile Harry Reid doesn't suddenly turn pit bull on something like this unless his source is very credible.I don't believe this Poor Little Rich Boy Who Would Be King has paid any taxes in the tax returns he continues to hide from the public. If he has, there's something way worse in them, something he knows he wouldn't be elected if the public knew. He's trying to commit a fraud on the public by concealing information he knows they'd use in making their choice for President.He didn't lie just once, but over and over again, even demanding you should take his "word" on his abject lies. For a man with no honor, a nasty little maggot like Mitt, his "word" is absolutely worthless. He's hiding something and he hopes he can just bluster and lie his way past it, like last time.

User avatar
Foggy
Posts: 18670
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 12:00 pm
Location: Third Stone from the Sun
Contact:

Mitt Romney

Postby Foggy » Sat Aug 04, 2012 1:12 pm

As the inimitable Bart Piscitello [link]once said,http://www.thefogbow.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=338148#p338148[/link] (conjuring up a wonderfully jarring mental graphic):


[highlight=#aa0000]


Hopefully, this will blossom into a snowball.
[/highlight] :lol:

User avatar
kate520
Posts: 10617
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2009 3:02 pm

Mitt Romney

Postby kate520 » Sat Aug 04, 2012 1:48 pm

Loh raged:In other words, the last time Democrats said there was something hinky about Mitt's taxes, he blustered and lied, demanding the charges were false, only to be nailed to the wall when he was exposed as a blatant liar.

I simply do not understand why he is still on the main stage. He has been busted in public lies sooooo many times. His clownish expressions when cornered - wide open eyes, smile playing on his lips, pretending to hyper focus on his interlocutor - give him away. He has a strategy (or is it a tactic?) he uses every time that somehow works for him - innocence in action. But why does it work? He is robotic, ridiculous and wrong more often than not. Even his "base" (which isn't really his, he's just borrowing it for the campaign and will drop them, too, like hot potatoes) knows he's a fool. Is he more Teflon than Reagan?He truly feels a sense of entitlement, feels above all this, the petty "gotcha games played by the lame stream media." One of the things I like most about Obama as a person and a leader is that you can tell he's given to reflection, a trait not known in businessmen. Rmoney is more a shoot first, question later kinda guy. Like Bush.This was posted about a month ago. For those who missed it I'm posting it again. It's worth a read. [/break1]vanityfair.com/politics/2012/08/investigating-mitt-romney-offshore-accounts]http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/2012 ... e-accounts

User avatar
esseff44
Posts: 9247
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 12:40 am

Mitt Romney

Postby esseff44 » Sat Aug 04, 2012 1:57 pm

What Kate said! Every time he says "Trust me!," I am reminded how untrustworthy he is. I don't think his backers trust him all that much either. They are going to be hedging their bets somehow.

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 31573
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am

Mitt Romney

Postby Sterngard Friegen » Sat Aug 04, 2012 2:05 pm

I suspect what grates many people is Rmoney's fake, dismissive laugh. He does it when he knows he's been caught.There will be a lot of fake, dismissive laughing by Rmoney in the debates. He will be shown to be the liar and spineless hack that he truly is.Of course, he will still get 47% of the vote because so many Americans are both stoopid and frightened.

User avatar
Plutodog
Posts: 9001
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 10:11 pm

Mitt Romney

Postby Plutodog » Sat Aug 04, 2012 3:28 pm

Maybe we should come up with a cutting response that can be quickly expressed at the point of Romney uttering his dismissive laugh... :-k "Caught in another lie, eh?" No, too long."Busted!" Shorter but too trite.
We are not sinners. We are not abominations. We were not born broken, and we do not need salvation. We have embraced our right to think beyond the boundaries of religion. We are living and loving our lives free from faith. -- Sarah Morehead

User avatar
TollandRCR
Posts: 15723
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 11:17 pm

Mitt Romney

Postby TollandRCR » Sat Aug 04, 2012 3:31 pm

How about "There you go again"?

User avatar
verbalobe
Posts: 8406
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 5:27 pm

Mitt Romney

Postby verbalobe » Sat Aug 04, 2012 5:49 pm

I don't believe this Poor Little Rich Boy Who Would Be King has paid any taxes in the tax returns he continues to hide from the public. If he has, there's something way worse in them, something he knows he wouldn't be elected if the public knew. He's trying to commit a fraud on the public by concealing information he knows they'd use in making their choice for President.

To play devil's advocate for one second... haven't we often told the birthers, "Don't you think if there was something wrong with Obama's [papers/eligibility/identity/background] it would have come out in the primary from opposition research?"Of course, there's a world of difference between the experienced and cutthroat Clinton operation, which had the backing of large swaths of the Democratic establishment, and the 5-ring circus of bumbling muppets that was the Republican primary.

User avatar
kate520
Posts: 10617
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2009 3:02 pm

Mitt Romney

Postby kate520 » Sat Aug 04, 2012 5:57 pm

Verbie, the other R candidates would never, evar question one of their own on matters of finance! Especially someone rich as Croesus who might later trickle on them.

User avatar
verbalobe
Posts: 8406
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 5:27 pm

Mitt Romney

Postby verbalobe » Sat Aug 04, 2012 5:58 pm

Verbie, the other R candidates would never, evar question one of their own on matters of finance! Especially someone rich as Croesus who might later trickle on them.

Exactly.





"What would Croesus do?"

MaineSkeptic
Posts: 5295
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 2:48 pm

Mitt Romney

Postby MaineSkeptic » Sat Aug 04, 2012 5:59 pm

To play devil's advocate for one second... haven't we often told the birthers, "Don't you think if there was something wrong with Obama's [papers/eligibility/identity/background] it would have come out in the primary from opposition research?"

I think the speculation about there being "something wrong" in the Romney tax returns may end up being off the mark.





But I think the relevant angle is something else. I think the argument goes:





Q: You made all that money and paid so little in taxes?





A: Yes, and it's perfectly OK under our tax code.





Q: It is? It is? You mean our tax code makes it possible for rich people like you to pay so little in taxes on so much income, at a much lower rate than the rest of us? And what do you think we should do to change that?





And then we see what kind of answer Romney has to offer.

Curious Blue
Posts: 2462
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 7:42 am

Mitt Romney

Postby Curious Blue » Sat Aug 04, 2012 6:32 pm

Good article explaining the Rafalca tax write off here:[/break1]buzzfeed.com/nycsouthpaw/romneys-olympic-dancing-horse-didnt-get-him-much]http://www.buzzfeed.com/nycsouthpaw/rom ... t-him-muchBottom line is that Rmoney wasn't actually able to deduct the $77K under IRS passive loss rules, but they can carry forward the loss in the event that the Rafalca-enterprise ever yields a profit.


Return to “Presidential Election”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests