Harry Reid is a dirty liar

[Unforgiven]

Stewart had some fun the other (Weds. I believe) night with Romney's dealings on the "Italian phone company" deal (forgive me if my labeling of the matter as such is off).

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-august-7-2012/that-s-a-mormon

[JMS]

I'm not 100% certain that the "10 straight years" caim is BS. But if I were betting, that's how I'd bet.

I do know that it's theoretically possible. But I would think it really unlikely

I would not think it possible to not pay any taxes over 10 years. If that's your litmus test then Romney is safe. If that were the case the IRS would have had him gift wrapped and in the super max years ago. They tend to do that to high profile tax cheats...

Whatever he did must have been pseudo legal. I think it's very possible that Romney sheltered a huge portion of his profits offshore avoiding taxes. I also think proportionally if you can shelter 50 - 70 - 90% of your income off shore to avoid that steep 13.9% income tax he pays; it's devastating politically and he knows it..

[Tulane Skins Fan]

When the fringe and tea party were demanding to see Obama's birth certificate, how many dems came to his defense and stated that there was no legal requirement to reveal his birth certificate? Well, Romney is not required by law to reveal his tax returns. But now you want him to to "quiet" the accusers.

I don't think there was outcry about there being "no legal requirement." I think the dems said "you birthers are nuts. He's given you his birth certificate, the paper from 50 years ago said he was born that day." Essentially, I think the response was "you're all crazy."

Romney may not have a legal requirement to release tax returns, but its become protocol. I think the information is relevant to any individual running for office, and i don't see it as particularly intrusive.

---------- Post added August-9th-2012 at 02:32 PM ----------

Typical Liberals playing the class warfare card. "Don't vote for the rich out of touch white guy who doesn't pay a lot of taxes!! He can't relate to you as well as I can (even though I'm almost just as rich, have sold millions of copies of my books and am probably just as out of touch)!!"

Everyone said Obama was an elitist in 2008 because he went to Harvard. In 2004, Kerry was the rich out of touch white guy. That line is nothing unusual.

[JMS]

Stewart had some fun the other (Weds. I believe) night with Romney's dealings on the "Italian phone company" deal (forgive me if my labeling of the matter as such is off).

I'm going to assume you saw it, Larry.

the one where Romney flipped an Italian company, made 50 million in profits, filtered the money through Luxemburg; and avoided both US and Italian taxes?

[Jumbo]

Yes. Being an uber-successful businessman in the U.S. can be tricky. Such men know how to work the system (even if it costs the motherland in revenue) but are also providing jobs (and revenue helping the motherland) and they trickle down on the rest of us. Life is complicated.

[JMS]

Yes. Being an uber-successful businessman in the U.S. can be tricky. Such men know how to work the system (even if it costs the motherland in revenue) but is also providing jobs (and revenue helping the motherland) and they trickle down on the rest of us. Life is complicated.

Yes something "trickles down" on the rest of us, certainly not the revenue which is legally restricted from entering the country. I'm sure Luxemburg's employment is soaring.

[NavyDave]

I don't have any problem with Reid's charge. I think Romney's silence is deafening. I think Reid should continue to press. It is frankly incomprehensible what we are being asked to swallow from Romney.

Why do I get the feeling that Romney is letting this non story linger, to attract more political nitwits on the left in Congress and among the media hitmen, before he finally shows his returns to disprove the story and then offer bacon to go with the egg on their faces?

[ncr2h]

For the people who are on the "he probably had 0 taxes in 2008":

I am a CPA - not a tax accountant, but I have familiarity in that area. A couple of things:

(1) Net losses on capital assets (i.e. investments in just about anything that you don't use) can only be deducted up to $3K against your active income. You can read more about it here: http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=106799,00.html

(2) Losses from passive activities (i.e. businesses you own but are not involved in on pretty much a daily basis) can only offset gains from passive activities. This is known as a Passive Activity Loss Limitation. There are certain exceptions for real estate professionals. You can read more about it here: http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/industries/article/0,,id=98881,00.html

He probably generated some nice losses in 2008, but for a guy who is rubbing shoulders with so many insiders who are getting in on great deals, he might not even have generated a net capital loss in 2008. I would suspect that the real reason he doesn't want to release his returns is he knows it will make him look too wealthy and give credence to Democrats' "rich don't pay their fair share" meme, never mind that 13% of Romney's yearly income is more than I will pay in taxes over the next 10 years.

[TNSkinsFan]

Hmm... a politician who lies. If you started ticking off the lies that the Dems and GOP have told in the last ten years, you'd spend the next ten years doing it. I'm going to write in my vote in November.

[Larry]

He probably generated some nice losses in 2008, but for a guy who is rubbing shoulders with so many insiders who are getting in on great deals, he might not even have generated a net capital loss in 2008. I would suspect that the real reason he doesn't want to release his returns is he knows it will make him look too wealthy and give credence to Democrats' "rich don't pay their fair share" meme, never mind that 13% of Romney's yearly income is more than I will pay in taxes over the next 10 years.

Yeah, the thought has also occurred to me, about his supposed losses in 08, to think about the old rule of "it's only a loss if you sell at that price".

I have no doubt that Romney loas a ****load of money on paper. But it does occur to me that he's probably comfortable enough (subtlety, there) that he didn't have to sell when the market tanked.

It's possible that he didn't really lose that much, simply because he didn't sell when it was down.

[JimboDaMan]

He probably generated some nice losses in 2008, but for a guy who is rubbing shoulders with so many insiders who are getting in on great deals, hn e might not even have generated a net capital loss in 2008. I would suspect that the real reason he doesn't want to release his returns is he knows it will make him look too wealthy

You might be right, but if all Romney has to hide is how much money he makes then he (and his advisors) are incomparably stupid. Everybody knows the man is extremely wealthy. Sure, seeing the actual figures might give a bit more substance to the "he's too rich to understand the common man", but could it possibly be any worse then Romney himself dismissing over $300K in income as "not much", hardly worth even mentioning?

and give credence to Democrats' "rich don't pay their fair share" meme, never mind that 13% of Romney's yearly income is more than I will pay in taxes over the next 10 years.

Which counts for exactly nothing, which as CPA I'm sure does not elude your understanding. If he paid 1% in taxes it would still be more than you will pay in the next decade, because his income is so huge. But you alerady know that.

[greenspandan]

this is not to defend Romney (because he's a hilariously bad candidate for president) but the game is pretty obvious -- accuse the guy of murder, so that in exxonerating himself he is forced to admit to kicking a puppy. Reid doesn't know what Romney did tax-wise. But he knows Romney's hiding some really really ugly (if legal) stuff.

[Larry]

You might be right, but if all Romney has to hide is how much money he makes then he (and his advisors) are incomparably stupid. Everybody knows the man is extremely wealthy. Sure, seeing the actual figures might give a bit more substance to the "he's too rich to understand the common man", but could it possibly be any worse then Romney himself dismissing over $300K in income as "not much", hardly worth even mentioning?

Yeah, logically, at least, it seems pretty obvious that if Romney's taxes for the last five years consisted of $40M income, and 14% taxes, then he would have just released all five years at once. The publicity for five would have been identical to one, and it would be over now.

(Or, if his previous five were identical to the one he released, then he'd release them now. Yeah, he'd take another hit comparable to when he released the first one. But if the previous five were identical, the public's reaction would be "So what? We already knew this.")

[Thiebear]

So were back to "He should just show 10 years, and we should talk about that vs. unemployment and housing and growth problems".

When someone repeats a lie he has told before on a policital adversary ignore is the better bet if the Media would do a better job at reporting it.

[ncr2h]

You might be right, but if all Romney has to hide is how much money he makes then he (and his advisors) are incomparably stupid. Everybody knows the man is extremely wealthy. Sure, seeing the actual figures might give a bit more substance to the "he's too rich to understand the common man", but could it possibly be any worse then Romney himself dismissing over $300K in income as "not much", hardly worth even mentioning?

I think you can chalk this up to Romney being really insecure. Everything about his campaign has come straight out of the textbook. He doesn't want to rock the boat - he just thinks if he can stay on the economy message he will win. I think he's scared to let the conversation veer off that point.

Which counts for exactly nothing, which as CPA I'm sure does not elude your understanding. If he paid 1% in taxes it would still be more than you will pay in the next decade, because his income is so huge. But you alerady know that.

I would have to be the most arrogant person in the world to tell a guy who pays 100X more than me for the same exact thing that he is not paying his fair share.

[JMS]

this is not to defend Romney (because he's a hilariously bad candidate for president) but the game is pretty obvious -- accuse the guy of murder, so that in exxonerating himself he is forced to admit to kicking a puppy. Reid doesn't know what Romney did tax-wise. But he knows Romney's hiding some really really ugly (if legal) stuff.

I'm sure even if Reid is right, what Romney did is legal. That won't help him any with voters though.

[alexey]

I would have to be the most arrogant person in the world to tell a guy who pays 100X more than me for the same exact thing that he is not paying his fair share.

In the end I think it comes down to who works and who does not, who benefits society, etc.

Some people pay 100x more than you in taxes even though they never worked a day in their lives. Some people pay little or no tax even though they perform hard work 12 hours a day. Clearly your argument does not work - it is based on emotion and not on reason.

Shady particles on Wall Street almost brought down the world economy. Fair share for some of those fat cats is ****ing jail time even though they did pay millions in taxes from their golden parachutes. How about that perspective.

Personally, I do not like the term "fair share". It is too vague. Let's talk about what practices are beneficial for our overall well being and the economy. Let's discourage dangerous practices and encourage good ones.

[Thiebear]

Alexey,

The people on wall street were lying and cheating and got caught. I don't base normal reality on the worst debacle in 100 years.

How bout we reign that back in to say 99.99% of every other day.

Wouldn't you want us out of a womans life when it comes to contraception and abortion and doctor related etc. 'as long as they are legal'

Wouldn't you want us out of a Gay persons life when it comes to power of attorney and what is done in the bedroom and marriage. 'as long as they are legal'

Wouldn't you want us out of a 310k person life when it comes to what they do with their money, where they go, how they spend it. 'as long as they are legal'

Nobody should have to give up 10years worth of IRS forms that nobody could come up with the same numbers for any of those years.

We make the process of doing your civic duty and volunteering to help save this country such a burden if you disagree with the person politically.

And he is about as close to President Obama as you can get from a republiclan side. It's simply amazing that we went from the most liberal to the most extrems guy in a matter of 3 months.

In this topic 'we do unto others as we would not want them to do to us' if they disagree on random federal policies.

[Burgold]

Did you hear that Tea Party members are now demanding to see Robert Griffin III's birth certificate? They claim he isn't a natural born citizen and needs to be deported.

[Thiebear]

Burgold: Yes: They were out of the Texas, Philidelphia and New York groups.

[Burgold]

Burgold: Yes: They were out of the Texas, Philidelphia and New York groups.

I think you are right. They were saying. That kid ain't natural. Where's his birth certificate!

[JMS]

New Obama Add Supports Reid, alludes to No Tax allegation, And ties Romney to Son of Boss scandal..

New Obama ad suggests Romney paid no taxes

President Obama's campaign is out with a new ad hitting Mitt Romney on his ongoing refusal to release more than a single year of his tax returns — going so far as to hint that Romney paid no taxes.

That theory — recently floated by Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid based on an anonymous source — has drawn denials from the Romney campaign and skepticism from independent fact-checkers.

"Did Romney pay 10% in taxes? 5%? Zero? We don't know," the ad's narrator says.

The ad also raises the issue of the "Son of Boss" tax avoidance scheme used by the hotel giant Marriott while Romney was on the board, calling it "one of the largest tax avoidance schemes in history."

The ad is set to air in Virginia, North Carolina, Florida and Ohio, according to the campaign.

RNC cries No Maas!!

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/79554.html

Reince Priebus: I'm done talking Mitt Romney's tax returns

RNC Chairman Reince Priebus is so tired of talking about Mitt Romney’s tax returns, he said Friday he’s done discussing them.

“Oh boy, we’re going down this road again?” he said, when asked about the returns on CNN’s “Starting Point.”

“We’re going down this road, friend,” anchor Brooke Baldwin replied.

“C’mon, Reince, it’s a perfectly valid question,” Baldwin said, after playing part of a new Obama campaign ad that raises the possibility of Romney not paying any taxes some years. “We deserve to see them.”

“It’s ridiculous,” Priebus said in response. “He’s released two years of taxes, he’s releasing 2011, he released 500 pages of documents.”

“Americans say that’s not enough,” Baldwin said, citing a CNN/ORC poll released Thursday showing 63 percent of Americans want Romney to release additional tax returns.

“Any second we spend not talking about how this president failed in his mission, the mission to fix this economy, he campaigned on this economy, he hasn’t accomplished a darn thing,” Priebus said. “We’re worse off. That’s the issue, and I’m not spending any more time talking about this issue.”

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Ok, what is son of boss?

[HOF44]

Ok, what is son of boss?

Son-of-Boss.com

Here is the basic pattern contained in the son of Boss type tax shelters. These transactions reduce or eliminate capital gains by creating artificial capital losses. Although the pattern is simple, it is obfuscated with mounds of paperwork, intricate financial instruments and virtually incomprehensible tax code provisions.

Tax shelter promoter sets up two companies, Company A and Company B and funds each company with $50. Company A buys a briefcase for the $50.

Client comes to promoter and says, "I have a $1.0 million capital gain." Promoter says, "No problem, I can eliminate that gain for you by generating a $1.0 million loss to offset your gain."

Promoter devises the following plan:

Client purchases the $50 briefcase from Company A by paying Company A $1,000,050!

Client pays $50 in cash. In addition (here's the tax shelter part), Client "pays" another $1.0 million by signing a promissory note (a promise to pay) payable to Company A for $1.0 million in 30 years . For tax purposes, Client purchased the briefcase for the cash payment and the promissory note, so the tax cost for Client's briefcase is $1,000,050.

Client then sells the briefcase to Company B for $50. Thus, economically, Client is made whole; Client paid $50 for the briefcase and sold the briefcase for $50. However, Client's tax basis in the briefcase was $1,000,050 and by selling the briefcase for $50, Client incurred a $1.0 million loss! That loss will then be used to offset Client's $1.0 million capital gain, effectively zeroing out his tax liability.

Assume that Company B then sold the briefcase back to Company A for $50. Promoter is ready for his next client now that Company A has the briefcase and Company B has $50, and the pattern can be repeated.

[JMS]

Ok, what is son of boss?

It was a take off of a previous tax dodge called BOSS standing for "bond and option sales strategy.", which was outlawed... Hense the refined revised dodge was called "Son of Boss".

A fraudulent classification of tax shelters which folks employed to reduce there capital gain taxes, by creating paper losses to offset real gains when selling companies...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Son_of_BOSS

The term was coined by Treasury officials to describe a variety of tax shelters that sought to wipe out taxes on capital gains from the sale of a business or other appreciated asset, for example, by artificially inflating the cost of an asset to make the profit from its sale appear smaller. The shelters involved creating paper losses to offset real gains. All resembled an earlier shelter marketed as "BOSS," short for "bond and option sales strategy." The Son of BOSS transaction was marketed in various forms by advisers at some accounting and law firms beginning in the late 1990s. Several thousand taxpayers likely used the shelter before the Treasury and Congress took steps to block its tax benefits, beginning in 2000.[1]

The "Son of BOSS" schemes involved 1,800 people and cost the government $6 billion in lost revenue, according to Internal Revenue Service (IRS) estimates. Of that total, the government has recovered more than half. The IRS started cracking down on "Son of Boss" in 2000. By 2005, 1,165 people had settled Son of BOSS cases with the IRS, but the complex structures used in the schemes were hard for the IRS to unravel and it was losing some court challenges to its crackdown.[2]

Romney, Marriott And Son Of Boss ---- For Dummies

Now that the question of Mitt’s knowledge of Son of Boss deals has been raised by CNN, I thought it might be a public service to explain Son of Boss deals. A lot of commentators seem to think that they are too hard to understand, but I don’t think so. I’ve told my friends at Dogs Against Romney that they might not want to bother filling in the beagles and the mastiffs , but I think the border collies and the poodles are ready for it.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterjreilly/2012/08/08/son-of-boss-for-sons-of-you-know-if-marriott-did-it-did-romney/