Karl`s PC Help Forums

Why Romney won't release his tax returns
Redwolf5150 - 31-10-2012 at 01:07

And you won't believe WHY!


Redwolf5150 - 31-10-2012 at 15:18

Apparently the web into Manhattan is still wonky.

The gist is, Mitt "rented" the tax exempt status of the Mormon church, and in doing so, pays NO capital gains taxes whatsoever for FIFTEEN YEARS!

When asked about it, the Romney campaign said "it's all legal" even though the IRS did away with this several years ago.

As a consequence of what he's doing, Mitt is ALSO draining funds from his own church!

So, Sen. Harry Reid was right. Romney is paying NO taxes!

HOPEFULLY I can find another link that works.


Redwolf5150 - 31-10-2012 at 17:12

Salon has now picked up the story.

Expect more "mainstream" outlets to start covering this as the Romney Campaign implodes under the weight of its many, MANY lies.

Quote:
The trust essentially lets someone “rent” the charity’s tax-exemption while not actually giving the charity much money. If done for this purpose, the trust pays out more every year to the donor than it makes in returns on its holdings, depleting the principal over time, so that when the donor dies and the trust is transferred to the charity, there’s often little left. The actual contribution “is just a throwaway,” Jonathan Blattmachr, a lawyer who set up hundreds of CRUTs in the 1990s, told Bloomberg. “I used to structure them so the value dedicated to charity was as close to zero as possible without being zero.”

Indeed, this appears to be the case for Romney’s trust as well. Bloomberg obtained the trust’s tax returns through a Freedom of Information Request and found that Romney’s CRUT started at $750,000 in 2001 but ended 2011 with only $421,203 — over a period when the stock market grew. Romney’s trust was projected to leave less than 8 percent of the original contribution to the church (or another charity that he can designate). This, along with the trust’s poor returns — it made just $48 in 2011 — suggest the trust is not designed to grow for the LDS church but just serve as a tax-free holding pool from which annual payments can be disbursed to the Romneys.


marymary100 - 31-10-2012 at 18:00

Ooopsie


giron - 31-10-2012 at 18:28

I've heard rumours that Romney hides the cash from his numerous tax avoidance schemes in his magic underpants and assumes the IRS would never think of looking there.


marymary100 - 31-10-2012 at 18:29

Isn't it ironic that the IRS came down so heavily on scholar and yet let off his hero when their income levels are so disparate.


giron - 31-10-2012 at 18:37

Romney has probably got a better lawyer than the charlatan scholar used.


Redwolf5150 - 31-10-2012 at 18:43

Quote:
Originally posted by marymary100
Isn't it ironic that the IRS came down so heavily on scholar and yet let off his hero when their income levels are so disparate.


I've been very careful not to use this argument against the wielder of the "Knowledge of Ages" because I don't like engaging in cheap shots in an argument, letting my FACTS make my case.

However, since YOU threw it out there...

:clap):clap):clap):clap):clap):clap):clap):clap):clap):clap):clap)


marymary100 - 31-10-2012 at 19:01

I was getting at Romney not scholar. waggyfinger


giron - 31-10-2012 at 21:13

Yes, but in the case of the IRS, they were getting at scholar but, seemingly, not Romney, so you were quite right to mention this important issue in your previous post.


scholar - 4-11-2012 at 02:18

Let's review--

President Obama appointed an admitted tax cheater to be his Secretary of the Treasury--so, a man who did not follow the law with respect to his own tax filing was put in the position of enforcing all others to do so. The Sec. of the Treasury did, belatedly, pay what he had lawfully owed, since it looked so bad, so crooked, for him not to do so. Previously, he was letting the taxes go unpaid, because the cheating was not discovered early enough to require his compliance.

Another Cabinet member broke the tax laws when she did not pay taxes or file required tax records for an employee in her house. This is a crime.

Another planned appointment to the Cabinet was required to withdraw when he was discovered to have broken the law by not declaring car services provided free to him as a taxable beneift.

This year, an investigator discovered that when President Obama himself purchased a piece of property in Chicago, adjacent to his home, from his friend and fundraiser Tony Rezco, who is now in prison, Obama did not pay the required taxes.

This is the origin of the popular remark--"No wonder Democrats are in favor of raising taxes. They don't follow the laws to pay taxes, anyway!"

Compare this gang of tax cheats and crooks to Gov. Romney, who has paid huge amounts of lawful taxes, given millions of dollars to chariity, and who uses a lawful means to conserve some of his income by means of a trust which falls under the umbrella of the tax-exempt status of his church. (No, he does not rent the tax-exempt status--that is why the word "rent" is in quotes in the original article, even though ii is not a quote.)

It is also worth noting that Gov. Romney paid more in taxes this last time than was necessary. He did not deduct the full allowable amount for his charitable contributions.


It doesn't say much for Romney's opponents that any of them make a big fuss when Romney follows the law.


Redwolf5150 - 4-11-2012 at 02:26

Don't try to misdirect the discussion away from the fact that Mitt Romney isn't even following the example set by his OWN FATHER when HE ran for President.

His tax returns from 2000-2010 would show all kinds of irregularities that would expose him to CRIMINAL PROSECUTION!

At the very least, the fact that he had to pay a penalty to the IRS in exchange for amnesty for trying to hide money overseas -- which has been widely speculated on by even some members of his own party -- would be confirmed.

I don't give a rodent's rump if he "has paid huge amounts of lawful taxes, given millions of dollars to chariity, and who uses a lawful means to conserve some of his income by means of a trust which falls under the umbrella of the tax-exempt status of his church" if he is not paying what he legally owes because he has the bulk of his money hidden offshore!

Sorry, but your Malarkey here doesn't wash with me, or the majority of the people here who are looking at the issue from a neutral viewpoint.

The man is a crook, and his tax returns would prove it!

Why else has he refused to release them?

If he has NOTHING TO HIDE, why is he HIDING THEM?


Redwolf5150 - 4-11-2012 at 04:54

And while I'm at it From The New Republic:

Quote:
Not only that, Romney has—unlike candidates Barack Obama, George W. Bush and John McCain—refused to identify his “bundlers,”the hundreds of people who have each raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for him. This has, among other things, spared him the sort of stories that Obama's had to contend with, looking at the unsavory connections and interests of his fundraisers. And, of course, Romney has provided exceedingly scant detail on basic elements of his platform, such as how he proposes to replace the Affordable Care Act and the Dodd-Frank law, both of which he says he will do away with, and how he plans to make up the revenue lost from cutting tax rates by 20 percent across the board. The candidate has not answered any questions from reporters in the past three weeks.

In essence, Romney has managed to make it through an entire presidential campaign having openly flouted longstanding norms of disclosure by candidates. This raises some important questions, ones I'm surprised are not being asked more widely in the campaign’s closing days (among the few to do so was veteran political correspondent Tom Edsall, with this sharp critique last week). For the campaign press: how could it have allowed Romney to get away with stiffing it, and has it allowed him to establish a damaging precedent for future candidates? For the Obama campaign: could it have done a better job of prodding Romney into disclosure? And for Romney himself: was the secrecy really worth it?


Redwolf5150 - 5-11-2012 at 22:25

BREAKING:

ANOTHER Romney tax dodge uncovered, this time in the Neatherlands!

Looks like the only way he's going to avoid being audited by the IRS is to WIN tomorrow.

And even then, he has to worry about being impeached if the democrats can hold the senate and take back the house.

:D


delanti - 6-11-2012 at 01:03

Quote:
Originally posted by Redwolf5150
BREAKING:

ANOTHER Romney tax dodge uncovered, this time in the Neatherlands!

Looks like the only way he's going to avoid being audited by the IRS is to WIN tomorrow.

And even then, he has to worry about being impeached if the democrats can hold the senate and take back the house.

:D


Dreams.

Dream dream


scholar - 7-11-2012 at 00:57

Quote:
Originally posted by Redwolf5150
Don't try to misdirect the discussion away from the fact that Mitt Romney isn't even following the example set by his OWN FATHER when HE ran for President.

His tax returns from 2000-2010 would show all kinds of irregularities that would expose him to CRIMINAL PROSECUTION!

At the very least, the fact that he had to pay a penalty to the IRS in exchange for amnesty for trying to hide money overseas -- which has been widely speculated on by even some members of his own party -- would be confirmed.

I don't give a rodent's rump if he "has paid huge amounts of lawful taxes, given millions of dollars to chariity, and who uses a lawful means to conserve some of his income by means of a trust which falls under the umbrella of the tax-exempt status of his church" if he is not paying what he legally owes because he has the bulk of his money hidden offshore!

Sorry, but your Malarkey here doesn't wash with me, or the majority of the people here who are looking at the issue from a neutral viewpoint.

The man is a crook, and his tax returns would prove it!

Why else has he refused to release them?

If he has NOTHING TO HIDE, why is he HIDING THEM?

I see your reply doesn't dispute any of my remarks about the gang of tax cheats that is running the country right now.;)


Redwolf5150 - 7-11-2012 at 01:31

And I see you still think misdirection is the way to win an argument.

I won't dignify your tripe with a response because you don't back it up with verified links.

Haven't you realized that your word is MEANINGLESS to me yet with out PROOF?


Redwolf5150 - 7-11-2012 at 01:32

Bring your weak stuff to Twitter. I got an itty bitty Kitty Cat I'd like you to meet from Florida.

nananana


marymary100 - 8-11-2012 at 20:26

.