Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We all know he is not poor.

But very few of "us" realize how much the tax code has contributed to his wealth.

I guarantee he paid $0 in taxes in 2009. And much less than 15% in the years prior.

That is what this is ALL about.

I still don't know how he could possibly have paid $0 taxes legally, unless he had $0 income that year!?
Even with declaring losses you still have to pay taxes!

However, I think you are right that this is what it is all about.
A very very low tax rate (or nothing if that is possible).

His income comes from a financial partnership. Most partnerships suffered devastating losses in 2008. You remember the financial crisis, don't you? In businesses, losses carry forward (and sometimes they carry back). If he had a lot of losses from 2008, they very well might have wiped out any income in 2009 and his tax rate would be zero. This would be a total non-event in the tax world. Businesses don't pay taxes like individuals, and they were never intended to. But politically, the optics would be very, very bad.

I still think he participated in the voluntary disclosure program the IRS had and declared a previously hidden Swiss bank account.

Anonymous wrote:Romney will release his taxes when Obama opens up all his college and passport records. Seems fair.

Of course it's fair to ask one guy to do what has never been asked before in order for the other guy to do what has been standard ever since his father decided it was the right thing to do. It's not only fair, it's balanced. As only a Fox viewer can be fair and balanced.

Romney will release his taxes when Obama opens up all his college and passport records. Seems fair.

Anonymous wrote:Basic common sense dictates that there MUST be a fatal flaw bontained in his returns which, if viewed by the public, would seriously damage the viability of his candidacy. If the returns are not damaging he would have released them rather than continuously have the subect dominate the conversation.

Then again, Obama delayed for years on the long form birth certificate, only because he didn't want to give into racist assholes and because the short form birth certificate was valid. But then again such a principled reaction would require a spine, and we know he had that removed years ago.

I think he's hiding the fact that he's a polygamist.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We all know he is not poor.

But very few of "us" realize how much the tax code has contributed to his wealth.

I guarantee he paid $0 in taxes in 2009. And much less than 15% in the years prior.

That is what this is ALL about.

I still don't know how he could possibly have paid $0 taxes legally, unless he had $0 income that year!?
Even with declaring losses you still have to pay taxes!

However, I think you are right that this is what it is all about.
A very very low tax rate (or nothing if that is possible).

Basic common sense dictates that there MUST be a fatal flaw bontained in his returns which, if viewed by the public, would seriously damage the viability of his candidacy. If the returns are not damaging he would have released them rather than continuously have the subect dominate the conversation.

He provided 10+ yrs to mccain when being vetted for VP.

I know. And I'm starting to wonder if what was in those returns looked so bad that it made Sarah Palin a better VP candidate.

Romney is so squeaky clean, B O is gonna look insane trying to throw mud. Obama is way weirder and has horrible associations, plus the economy, world events and national mood suck.

He provided 10+ yrs to mccain when being vetted for VP. He also provided tax returns when running for Gov.This is a non issue. Who cares ... He is rich and the guy is so "mayberry" I hardly think hes a tax cheat. Move on to real issues

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Do you not trust the IRS to handle any illegalities? We know politicians and political appointees lie (excuse me, make mistakes) on their tax returns all the time. So far, it's just been something people fix.

Are you kidding??? Do you have any idea how many politicians have been convicted of tax evasion?

Very few, compared to the number who lie (again, excuse me, make mistakes).

So, what, we care now? How many of Obama's appointees lied (*cough* there I go again)? And now, since Romney's initial tax return doesn't show anything actionable, we have to go back further? So, what, he can amend? Pay a fine? Do what All The Other Elites in Congress do?

Anonymous wrote:But it is up to me if I vote for him

That's absolutely true regardless of how much information Presidential or Congressional candidates release. Ultimately, I'll support their right to limit the release of information to things that the public might need to know regarding the candidates. If the public feels everything up to and including their blood type is required in order to be an informed voter, then the tide will shift as only those candidates willing to release that information will be elected.

I am against employers (even the people of the U.S.) demanding information about things that are irrelevant to a persons ability to effectively do a job.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The 2010 return shows evidence of a recently closed Swiss bank account. The earlier returns will shed more light on that. And, I do think that's germane.

Do you not trust the IRS to handle any illegalities? We know politicians and political appointees lie (excuse me, make mistakes) on their tax returns all the time. So far, it's just been something people fix. Except perhaps for Spiro Agnew. But it wasn't him releasing information to the public that caused him problems.

If this outcry comes from people not trusting the IRS, then I'd suggest that's a problem that needs to be fixed. Candidates releasing 1, 2, 3 ... ? years of tax returns won't solve that problem.

Yes, I trust the IRS to handle it. As a voter, I still want to know whether the IRS had to handle it and whether or not the man seeking the highest office in the land cheated on his taxes (which is a disqualification for office since it means he hates America). And, now, this is not a Geithner-Rangel sitch.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The 2010 return shows evidence of a recently closed Swiss bank account. The earlier returns will shed more light on that. And, I do think that's germane.

Do you not trust the IRS to handle any illegalities? We know politicians and political appointees lie (excuse me, make mistakes) on their tax returns all the time. So far, it's just been something people fix. Except perhaps for Spiro Agnew. But it wasn't him releasing information to the public that caused him problems.

If this outcry comes from people not trusting the IRS, then I'd suggest that's a problem that needs to be fixed. Candidates releasing 1, 2, 3 ... ? years of tax returns won't solve that problem.

Are you kidding??? Do you have any idea how many politicians have been convicted of tax evasion?

I find it incredible that a bunch of people who disliked Romney so much are now shameless apologists, to the point of saying "Do you not trust the IRS...". Precious.

Anonymous wrote:
The 2010 return shows evidence of a recently closed Swiss bank account. The earlier returns will shed more light on that. And, I do think that's germane.

Do you not trust the IRS to handle any illegalities? We know politicians and political appointees lie (excuse me, make mistakes) on their tax returns all the time. So far, it's just been something people fix. Except perhaps for Spiro Agnew. But it wasn't him releasing information to the public that caused him problems.

If this outcry comes from people not trusting the IRS, then I'd suggest that's a problem that needs to be fixed. Candidates releasing 1, 2, 3 ... ? years of tax returns won't solve that problem.