I think Obama has set a precedent by refusing to release his college records. If he is allowed to hide information that is commonly released by candidates, then I think he will have a hard time not looking hypocritical in this case.

There should be a standard list of documents, which everyone has to release and if they don't, they get disqualified.

Last year it was the Republicans demanding his returns. This is not liberal rich bashing.

Anonymous wrote:When borrowing money I should demonstrate my fitness to repay that money. Tax returns are a reasonably easy way to demonstrate my fitness to repay money I am borrowing.

For what reason should we insist on a Presidential candidate's tax returns? Should we also insist on his college transcripts? His performance records from previous employment?

If the argument is that the President is involved in spending tax money so we want to see what he pays in taxes (which is a peculiar argument. The President is involved in all manner of legislation, using that thin connection we could argue we need to see how much he spends on vegetables, whether he buys wood or metal furniture, and insist we see the difference in spending on automobiles vs bicycles), then surely we should require all of Congress to submit their taxes for our examination as well. We'd have a more sound argument making that demand for the House than we would for the office of President.

If the defense of Ronney is that a candidates tax returns should not matter, then you have lost the debate. Clearly they matter.

Anonymous wrote:Paying what you legally owe is not a crime. There will be no satisfaction for those who want a reason to hate the rich guy.

... well, we don't know that. Did he pay what he owed?
Last time I checked you were not allowed to put money in a cayman bank account and not pay US taxes on that money.

Anonymous wrote:In all likelihood, he paid $0 in taxes in 2009 -- on tens of millions in income. All perfectly legal -- but should it be? Really?

But is that REALLY possible? To pay zero $ taxes?
How???? Even with loopholes, offshoring, and who knows what, $0???

Why would the IRS ever accept that?

Extreme tax avoidance using tax shelters and offshore holding companies may not (always) be a crime, but should nearly be disqualifying for someone who seriously seeks to be President.... of the United States. Perhaps Romney should run for president of Switzerland or prime minister of Bermuda or the Cayman Islands.

This ad says it all:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ud3mMj0AZZk

When borrowing money I should demonstrate my fitness to repay that money. Tax returns are a reasonably easy way to demonstrate my fitness to repay money I am borrowing.

For what reason should we insist on a Presidential candidate's tax returns? Should we also insist on his college transcripts? His performance records from previous employment?

If the argument is that the President is involved in spending tax money so we want to see what he pays in taxes (which is a peculiar argument. The President is involved in all manner of legislation, using that thin connection we could argue we need to see how much he spends on vegetables, whether he buys wood or metal furniture, and insist we see the difference in spending on automobiles vs bicycles), then surely we should require all of Congress to submit their taxes for our examination as well. We'd have a more sound argument making that demand for the House than we would for the office of President.

Paying what you legally owe is not a crime. There will be no satisfaction for those who want a reason to hate the rich guy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He may be so adamant for the same reasons Obama is adamant about not releasing his college transcripts. It's not a critical piece of data.

What would knowing he sheltered money tell anyone? That, like every other wealthy person in the U.S. (everyone in Congress), he takes steps to protect as much of his wealth as possible? Does anyone seriously doubt this? That he has advantages due to his place and position? Does anyone doubt that? To be honest, I'm not sure candidates should release even one year of tax returns, but I think asking for anything more is excessive. We may *want* to know, just like we may want to know about Obama's college record. But we don't *need* to know.

Seriously? You have to give up your tax return to get a home loan, but the people aren't entitled to it when choosing the leader of the free world.

Yeah, last I knew you didn't need your college transcripts to get a home loan either.

Al gores gas returns are highly flammable

Anonymous wrote:He may be so adamant for the same reasons Obama is adamant about not releasing his college transcripts. It's not a critical piece of data.

What would knowing he sheltered money tell anyone? That, like every other wealthy person in the U.S. (everyone in Congress), he takes steps to protect as much of his wealth as possible? Does anyone seriously doubt this? That he has advantages due to his place and position? Does anyone doubt that? To be honest, I'm not sure candidates should release even one year of tax returns, but I think asking for anything more is excessive. We may *want* to know, just like we may want to know about Obama's college record. But we don't *need* to know.

Seriously? You have to give up your tax return to get a home loan, but the people aren't entitled to it when choosing the leader of the free world.

He may be so adamant for the same reasons Obama is adamant about not releasing his college transcripts. It's not a critical piece of data.

What would knowing he sheltered money tell anyone? That, like every other wealthy person in the U.S. (everyone in Congress), he takes steps to protect as much of his wealth as possible? Does anyone seriously doubt this? That he has advantages due to his place and position? Does anyone doubt that? To be honest, I'm not sure candidates should release even one year of tax returns, but I think asking for anything more is excessive. We may *want* to know, just like we may want to know about Obama's college record. But we don't *need* to know.

In all likelihood, he paid $0 in taxes in 2009 -- on tens of millions in income. All perfectly legal -- but should it be? Really?

Anonymous wrote:He's released a tax return. How many years of tax returns should candidates release?

He needs to release one more year, and I will explain why.

A year ago, when he was running for the nomination, he steadfastly refused to turn over 2009. He released 2010 and and estimate for 2011 (his 2011 taxes aren't done yet, for perfectly valid reasons).

So any sane person has to ask, why was he so adamant in refusing to turn over 2009? At the time, it would have only been 2 years of returns. And he fought and fought it. You only fight something like that when there is a reason.

Maybe it's because (as this article states) 2009 includes carried interest from his Bain years, and so dodging his 2009 return prevents the public from seeing this. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/avantgo/2017075534.html

Maybe it's because of the UBS tax evasion case. In 2009, UBS was investigated for offering accounts to US citizens in order to dodge taxes. During this time I am sure a lot of investors dumped the accounts, because by 2010 the government forced UBS to cough up the names of account holders.

And then there are the Cayman accounts.

He's released a tax return. How many years of tax returns should candidates release?