So really not too concerned with any the source is biased claims, because the meat of the facts are likely being pushed because of a bias, however they are true.
This was how you payed 0 taxes for many years. And while legal, certainly was dubious morally.
So this would show as well that any claims of large charitable donations for years prior to 2009 when he was actively considering a presidential run his charity was largely in name only as payments from the trust were shrinking it.
The left already tried the “he didn’t pay taxes” attack. Didn’t work before, not going to work now.
Mostly amused that he was part of the 47 percent.
[quote]groo wrote:
Mostly amused that he was part of the 47 percent.[/quote]
haha, okay that was a good one.
[quote]groo wrote:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-29/romney-avoids-taxes-via-loophole-cutting-mormon-donations.html
[/quote]
This article has a lot of words without really saying anything. A lot of ‘weasel words and phrases’.
Important sentences (all emphasis mine):
Fact:
“While Romneyâ??s tax avoidance is legal and common among high-net-worth individuals, it has become an issue in the campaign.”
Weasel:
“At the same time he is benefiting, the trust will probably leave the church with less than what current law requires …”
Weasel:
“As the Romneys have received these payments, the money that will potentially be left for charity has declined from at least $750,000 in 2001 to $421,203 at the end of 2011.”
Fact:
“The trust has operated in accordance with the law,” Michele Davis, a campaign spokeswoman, said in an e-mail.
Weasel:
“Paul Comstock, a financial adviser to LDS Philanthropies, an arm of the Mormon Church, said that while he wasnâ??t familiar with the trust, Romney and his trustee might arrange to compensate the church for the dwindling amount with other gifts.”
Weasel:
“It may be that theyâ??ve made provisions for the charity someplace else that will make up for what this isnâ??t going to give them,â?? Comstock said.”
Weasel:
“Nevertheless, â??whatâ??s going to go to charity is probably close to nothing,” Hesch said.
This reminds me of the ‘logic’ behind gun control laws:
“It looks scary, so it COULD be used to terrorize people”
“It fires big bullets that COULD pierce a window”
“Some COULD use this to kill someone”