Why Won't Romney Release His Tax Returns?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
181

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
If the wealthy would pay their fair share , rates could go down for ALL
[/quote]

The top 10% of income earners pay 37% of all income taxes. The top 10% pay 70% of all income taxes. The bottom 48% pay nothing.

You are correct (for a change) the wealthy are not paying their fair share their paying far, far more!

You made more sense when you were at least acting like you wanted Ron Paul to be President. At the time you said that you wouldn’t vote for Obama again. But I guess you’ve had a change of heart. Why toss Obama out (and give someone else a chance) when he can continue to keep the gravy train going for those who don’t want to work?

16 trillion and counting…You democrats won’t be happy until we’re busted.

NICE![/quote]

The problem with you Zeb is you think I am against you.[/quote]

I have more problems than that. I also feel that I pay too much in income tax.

Yep.

I need nothing from the government except perhaps the standard police and fire departments and so far I’ve not needed them either (knock on wood).

Romney has paid so much more than you in taxes that you’d have to live about 200 lifetimes to catch him. Remember all of the crap aside, he made 300 million in the real world and paid the top rate on it. He then paid again (15% capital gains) when he invested it. The rich pay far more than their fair share, they carry the economy on their backs! And that’s why Obama must be defeated, if goes after the rich and the small business person he will break the back of this economy.

I like you Pitt…but you are one very confused individual when it comes to politics.

182

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Look at that. Just what I’ve been saying. Lower the rate and that cash comes back to America.

Shit man.[/quote]

From the article:

[i]" keeping the money overseas limits what Apple can do with it. It means, for instance, that Apple can’t use it to buy another U.S. company, or give it to shareholders.

To get the money home without paying full U.S. taxes on it, the company advocates a change in U.S. tax law. It’s a member of Working to Invest Now in America, or WinAmerica. The coalition is lobbying for two congressional bills that would temporarily reduce the tax rate on such earnings to 5.25 percent. That would encourage the repatriation of some of the $1.4 trillion in cash that U.S. companies have sitting in overseas accounts, the group says.

The temporary tax amnesty enacted in 2004, resulted in hundreds of billions being brought home to the U.S. But according to the Congressional Research Service, it didn’t create jobs or stimulate the economy, as had been hoped."[/i]

So, assuming said capital belonged to publicly listed companies, I would suspect the repatriated capital just served to increase the dividends paid out to the shareholders. This is at least for me totally acceptable.

Now help me a little on this:

Why should I think that a law (which Romney supports) reducing fed taxes on overseas profits would create more jobs, if it didn’t in the past? Or should I just believe that if this capital flows back into the US, it will be used for domestic investments?

And secondly, why should Apple give up 10 billion in tax liabilites, just too have to pay about 4 billion (give or take the tax credits for foreign taxes paid) in taxes on the repatriated capital, when they could use this capital for foreign acquisitions, and never have to pay a dime of US taxes on it again?

Or does Apple just want a lower tax rate when they bring the money home, so they can pay out higher dividends?

This is not a flame, just a couple of friendly questions posed to the person most likely to answer correctly.

183

[quote]Cuso wrote:

Why should I think that a law (which Romney supports) reducing fed taxes on overseas profits would create more jobs, if it didn’t in the past?[/quote]

It may or may not create jobs. I can’t tell you, with any sort of certainty what companies will do with that money.

But there is a significant difference between lower rates and a temporary amnesty program. One is temporary and good for one-time influx, the other is good for free flowing capital.

This, I can say, is the most likely event. People aren’t going to bring this money back and sit on it in savings accounts that earn 1%, that I can promise you.

Whether they put it in PE, stocks, bonds, whatever, they aren’t going to bring it home just to sit on it.

The article does what many many many journalist do, and confuses the reader by not delineating between tax basis income and financial basis income.

Look there are 3 types of income:

  1. Cash
  2. Tax
  3. Financial

Cash & financial will eventually catch up to each other, tax will have permanent differences.

You don’t want giant liabilities sitting on your books, although you can use them to normalize earnings, ones like tax liabilities have no real tangible benefit associated with them, which is bad.

They could certainly continue to do what they and many others are doing right now and keep profits in places that aren’t taking as much away in tax.

I have no idea what they will do with the money. But higher dividends is good for everyone. Better for some than others, yes, but good for everyone.

[quote]This is not a flame, just a couple of friendly questions posed to the person most likely to answer correctly.

[/quote]

No worries.

184

At CB,

Thanks for the great answer. I pay someone much wiser than myself to do my books and taxes.

So Obama who’s defending a higher fed tax on repatriated capital, is basing his decision on the historical results of a one time amnesty. Through his reluctance to change the law reducing the tax on repatriated capital, in effect he is granting companies the right to “balance out” their domestic taxable “cash income” against book liabilites, or as you like: against possible future taxation of foreign earned profits.

Romney on the other hand is saying: Lets give them a lasting tax break, which could cause some companies to repatriate their capital, which causes a liquidation of the carried forth book liabilites. So effectively we’re not talking about a reduction down too 5.25%, but something less than that. Everybodies happy and maybe something good comes out of it.

Whats the old saying? A bird in hand is worth 2 in the bush?

185

[quote]Cuso wrote:
At CB,

Thanks for the great answer. I pay someone much wiser than myself to do my books and taxes.[/quote]

Good move.

You are sort of mixing up two different issues.

Assume the rate gets dropped to 10%, the thought is the following:

  1. The government gets 10% tax revenue on the billions that should flow back into the states, rather than 35% of nothing.
  2. The tax liablities on the FS’s of these companies go down, which boosts the value of the company, which in turn boosts the value of the stocks, which in turn should boost market investment in the stocks
  3. The capital that comes both from increased market investment and foreign capital, shouldn’t sit idle. It will get ditributed out to investors (dividends, the market, your 401k, etc), distributed out to employees (bonues, raises, etc), and re-invested in the company in the form of expansion etc.
  4. The reinvestment in the company should spark an uptick in domestic spending, increases in durable goods, and all that shit, which should translate into investment in human capital.

That is the theory anyway.

186

Thanks again, I get it. Please excuse the derail.

187

Personally… I think Romney should hold a press conference and release a ton of financial documents like his taxes and say - “Breaking News - I am RICH!” I worked hard and built a business not because the government helped me, but in spite of government regulations and taxes and burdens.

And that business helped other businesses do the same thing. Can we all agree that I am rich? So what? Let’s move on to fixing the economy. I know more about it than President Obama could ever hope to learn between now and the election. Haven’t we had enough of his on the job training?"

188

[quote]Nman wrote:
Personally… I think Romney should hold a press conference and release a ton of financial documents like his taxes and say - “Breaking News - I am RICH!” I worked hard and built a business not because the government helped me, but in spite of government regulations and taxes and burdens.

And that business helped other businesses do the same thing. Can we all agree that I am rich? So what? Let’s move on to fixing the economy. I know more about it than President Obama could ever hope to learn between now and the election. Haven’t we had enough of his on the job training?" [/quote]

What I would really like to see is him saying “Yeah, I think we can all agree that I am loaded to the gills. And you know what? I dont need this shit. Yeah, you heard me, being a Mormon and all is somewhat restraining, but I wanted yall to know that I am off to my own tropical island in my own goddamn jet , you ignorant, dumb fucks. Laterz taterz, any boat that comes nearer than 500 yards will be sunk. Yeah, I own the waters around my island too and my very own native tribe that worships me as a god. Have fun, for most of you that is no more than a cheap bottle of whiskey and reruns of American Idol anyway. John fucking Smith, what was I thinking.”

I would tape it and watch reruns, including the slo mo of Bill Matthews head exploding.

189

[quote]Nman wrote:
Personally… I think Romney should hold a press conference and release a ton of financial documents like his taxes and say - “Breaking News - I am RICH!” I worked hard and built a business not because the government helped me, but in spite of government regulations and taxes and burdens.

And that business helped other businesses do the same thing. Can we all agree that I am rich? So what? Let’s move on to fixing the economy. I know more about it than President Obama could ever hope to learn between now and the election. Haven’t we had enough of his on the job training?" [/quote]

yeah I would like to see him tell the truth, The flip flops are called lying. It is really the only thing I have against him.

190
191

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]Nman wrote:
Personally… I think Romney should hold a press conference and release a ton of financial documents like his taxes and say - “Breaking News - I am RICH!” I worked hard and built a business not because the government helped me, but in spite of government regulations and taxes and burdens.

And that business helped other businesses do the same thing. Can we all agree that I am rich? So what? Let’s move on to fixing the economy. I know more about it than President Obama could ever hope to learn between now and the election. Haven’t we had enough of his on the job training?" [/quote]

yeah I would like to see him tell the truth, The flip flops are called lying. It is really the only thing I have against him.[/quote]

Or he’s giving the people what they want. And when the people change their minds he also changes his.

On the one hand we want our leaders to be responsive to our every whim. Yet, on the other hand we want them to stand for something and never waiver.

Ultimately we as a people get what we deserve.

192

@ Zeb I have nothing against changing your mind but when you deny you ever had a different opinion that is blatant lying

@ Beans great documentaqry.

http://vimeo.com/25491676

It’s a free version . I doubt you will get many to watch it because it is easier to act like you understand all and blame Barney Franks and Bill Clinton

Thanks for the heads up :slight_smile:

193

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
@ Zeb I have nothing against changing your mind but when you deny you ever had a different opinion that is blatant lying[/quote]

Well, of course politicians lie but we’ve already discussed that to death. You draw a fine distinction between Romney’s lies and Obama’s lies and I say there is really no difference. I’m not against Obama because he lies…as I said they all do. I’m against him because he is a tax hiking big spender.

Simple really.

194

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
@ Zeb I have nothing against changing your mind but when you deny you ever had a different opinion that is blatant lying[/quote]

Well, of course politicians lie but we’ve already discussed that to death. You draw a fine distinction between Romney’s lies and Obama’s lies and I say there is really no difference. I’m not against Obama because he lies…as I said they all do. I’m against him because he is a tax hiking big spender.

Simple really.

[/quote]

I have broken down my analysis of the type of lies failing to keep a promise is in a different league than denying an action or point of veiw that was well documented. My reservations of Obama are also of telling truth but Obama has an uncooperative Congress. He also has trouble putting Eric Holder on a leash

195

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

@ Beans great documentaqry.

http://vimeo.com/25491676

It’s a free version . I doubt you will get many to watch it because it is easier to act like you understand all and blame Barney Franks and Bill Clinton

Thanks for the heads up :)[/quote]

NP man. The government has been stealing from the people and giving it to their buddies for 30+ years, and even today, it is business as usual.

No change, no hope.

196

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
@ Zeb I have nothing against changing your mind but when you deny you ever had a different opinion that is blatant lying[/quote]

Well, of course politicians lie but we’ve already discussed that to death. You draw a fine distinction between Romney’s lies and Obama’s lies and I say there is really no difference. I’m not against Obama because he lies…as I said they all do. I’m against him because he is a tax hiking big spender.

Simple really.

[/quote]

I have broken down my analysis of the type of lies failing to keep a promise is in a different league than denying an action or point of veiw that was well documented. My reservations of Obama are also of telling truth but Obama has an uncooperative Congress. He also has trouble putting Eric Holder on a leash
[/quote]

I am thankful that Obama has an uncooperative Congress. He passed the biggest government take over of private industry which included the biggest tax hike in history to go along with it when Congress was cooperating.

You see these are the things that are important to me. Trying to decide whose lies are worse is a waste of time.

I vote to keep more of my hard earned money and there is no question that Romney will help me do that.

197

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

@ Beans great documentaqry.

http://vimeo.com/25491676

It’s a free version . I doubt you will get many to watch it because it is easier to act like you understand all and blame Barney Franks and Bill Clinton

Thanks for the heads up :)[/quote]

NP man. The government has been stealing from the people and giving it to their buddies for 30+ years, and even today, it is business as usual.

No change, no hope.[/quote]

Speaking of “hope and change” I expect that the Romney people will make Obama eat that slogan at some point during, and well after, the Republican National Convention. I think a good many people will recount how optimistic they were when Obama was spreading this particular lie. And then contrast that with the lack of hope and change that they are feeling now.

198

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
@ Zeb I have nothing against changing your mind but when you deny you ever had a different opinion that is blatant lying[/quote]

Well, of course politicians lie but we’ve already discussed that to death. You draw a fine distinction between Romney’s lies and Obama’s lies and I say there is really no difference. I’m not against Obama because he lies…as I said they all do. I’m against him because he is a tax hiking big spender.

Simple really.

[/quote]

He also has trouble putting Eric Holder on a leash
[/quote]

LOL WUT??

AG Holder serves at the leisure of the President…if you don’t think Obama was dictating Justice Department policy to the AG…you might be cray.

199

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
@ Zeb I have nothing against changing your mind but when you deny you ever had a different opinion that is blatant lying[/quote]

Well, of course politicians lie but we’ve already discussed that to death. You draw a fine distinction between Romney’s lies and Obama’s lies and I say there is really no difference. I’m not against Obama because he lies…as I said they all do. I’m against him because he is a tax hiking big spender.

Simple really.

[/quote]

I have broken down my analysis of the type of lies failing to keep a promise is in a different league than denying an action or point of veiw that was well documented. My reservations of Obama are also of telling truth but Obama has an uncooperative Congress. He also has trouble putting Eric Holder on a leash
[/quote]

I am thankful that Obama has an uncooperative Congress. He passed the biggest government take over of private industry which included the biggest tax hike in history to go along with it when Congress was cooperating.

You see these are the things that are important to me. Trying to decide whose lies are worse is a waste of time.

I vote to keep more of my hard earned money and there is no question that Romney will help me do that.[/quote]

I have no problem making up my mind , who the bigger liar is . And maybe you deserve a big LIAR for a president I do not feel that I do

200

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
@ Zeb I have nothing against changing your mind but when you deny you ever had a different opinion that is blatant lying[/quote]

Well, of course politicians lie but we’ve already discussed that to death. You draw a fine distinction between Romney’s lies and Obama’s lies and I say there is really no difference. I’m not against Obama because he lies…as I said they all do. I’m against him because he is a tax hiking big spender.

Simple really.

[/quote]

He also has trouble putting Eric Holder on a leash
[/quote]

LOL WUT??

AG Holder serves at the leisure of the President…if you don’t think Obama was dictating Justice Department policy to the AG…you might be cray.[/quote]

I may be CRAY :slight_smile: not sure ? HAA HAA I would be happy to see Holder fired