Mr. Romney, have you heard of this thing called "irony"? (Page 3)

You seem to be under the impression that the federal government does nothing but take money from the working man and hand it off to the lazy masses.  All of the federal programs that are combined under the “job and family security” label make up less than 20% of the federal government’s budget.  While I would agree that that cost is too high and most certainly is being abused by many, if you’re not paying any taxes you’re also not paying for the remaining 80% of the government’s costs.  Little things like the funding the most advanced and powerful military in the world, maintaining and improving our nation’s transportation infrastructure, space and science research that improve our lifestyles, etc.  Romney is worth a quarter billion.  He’s reaped the benefits of living in this great country, and has the means to contribute towards the upkeep of it.  And if he found loopholes to get out of that responsibility for 10 straight years, then (whether it was legal or not) in my eyes he flat out stole from the American taxpayers.

Also, you keep referring to a “they”, which I assume you mean Democrats.  Hate to break it to you, but the Republicans have had plenty of opportunities to gut/rewrite/eliminate welfare as they see fit over the years and haven’t done a thing.  Republicans had four straight years under Bush with complete control of both houses of Congress.  And did nothing.  Neither party got us to where we are today, they teamed up to bring us here together.  Which is why I gave up on both parties long ago and became a Libertarian.  Aside from irrelevant social issues, both parties are the same and nothing changes.

And as for whether or not I took any deductions over the last 10 years, I absolutely did not.  And if you heard otherwise, you need to put up or shut up your sources.  But I refuse to release my returns that would put this baseless allegation to rest.

I just want to throw out a few facts on this thread.  It's certainly a valid argument to ask Romney to provide more than two years of taxes, but it bothers me a little when I see statements like the bolded above.  "if he did" kind of statements.

This is exactly what I think Senator Reid was trying to accomplish.  Make up something completely untrue and throw it out there for everyone to "assume" there is something there and put Mittens on defense so he doesn't spend any time talking about the administration.  Sadly, it appears to be working.

Copied from The Washington Post

The Facts

Romney has refused to release more than two years of tax returns, citing a precedent that is not very credible; he earned three Pinocchios for that claim. Most presidential candidates in recent years have released more than two years of returns, so Romney may be paying a political price for failing to release more.

But Romney’s 2010 return and his estimated 2011 return do show that he paid substantial taxes in those years. In 2010, he earned nearly $22 million, including $3 million in taxable interest, nearly $5 million in dividends and more than $12 million in capital gains. He reduced his taxes by giving $3 million in charitable contributions (much of it in appreciated stock, which shielded him from paying additional capital gains.)

In other words, this tax return shows a portfolio that is not structured to yield zero taxes. We spoke to a number of tax experts, all of whom said that, given Romney’s current portfolio, it was highly improbable for Romney to have had 10 years with tax-free returns — though there could have been one or two years with little or no taxes.

(We will lay aside the interesting question of Romney’s individual retirement account, valued at as much as $100 million, which may have benefited from Bain Capital’s practice of allowing employees to co-invest retirement funds in takeover deals.)

Charitable contributions, first of all, could only get Romney so far. Taxpayers cannot eliminate tax liability only through charitable contributions.

Still, Romney at one point could have invested all of his money in tax-exempt bonds, though that is not his investment strategy now. (IRS figures show that 61 percent of high-income returns with no tax liability stemmed from tax-exempt interest.)

Romney also could have timed the sale of stocks or made other investment decisions that would have yielded losses that offset capital gains. Len Burman, a professor at the Maxwell School of Syracuse University, said IRS data show that 5.7 percent of the high-income returns had as a primary reason losses from partnerships and closely-held business. “We know that Governor Romney had a partnership, and it had losses in 2010,” he said. “It’s possible that those partnership losses were large enough to offset taxable income from compensation, rents, interest, dividends, and royalties.”

Romney also could have invested in tax shelters. Edward Kleinbard, a law professor at the University of Southern California and former chief of staff at the Joint Committee on Taxation, noted that Romney chaired the audit committee of Marriott International when it engaged in a highly aggressive tax shelterthat was successfully challenged by the Internal Revenue Service.

But none of this appears to add up to 10 years of tax returns with no taxes paid. “It is theoretically possible, but it seems quite improbable in practice given the portfolio in 2010,” Kleinbard said.  “It is improbable that a man of his wealth would have paid no taxes for 10 years.”

 Robert S. McIntyre, director of Citizens for Tax Justice, said that Romney “probably reported income every year” but that he might have paid as low as a 2 percent tax rate in one year. “That’s close enough to zero for me,” he said.

Still, Reid claims that Romney did not pay taxes for 10 years. Moreover, he claims to base this on information from a Bain investor, without explaining how someone not intimately familiar with Romney’s tax situation would know details of his taxes.

We asked a Reid spokesman for more backup information and for the name of a tax expert who could back up Reid’s claim but did not receive a response.

I disagree.  I made no assumption that what Reid said was true or false, I was only responding to the argument that it's ok to not pay any taxes.  If what Reid said is true and Romney didn't pay taxes for 10 years, then to me that's akin to stealing from the American taxpayers.  Likewise, if Reid lied on the Senate floor, he should be censured. 

Ironically, you claim that Reid made up something completely untrue.  Not necessarily, maybe, you probably should have said "if Reid was...".  The only people who actually know what he paid are Romney, whoever prepared his taxes, and the IRS.  But going back to the OP, if Romney wants to end this distraction, all he has to do is release proof that it's untrue.  He by no means has to, but as long as he refuses this will hang around.  And you can bet that the liberal SuperPACs will keep it alive in every battleground state from here until November.  Thankfully I'm in a little too red of a state to be worth fighting over.

That's exactly what the democrats want us to believe and I couldn't disagree more.  So, you're ok with politicians throwing out baseless lies in order to fish for more information?

I believe the democrats simply want Romney's tax returns public because he makes a lot of money and they think it plays well with their class warfare re-election campaign strategy.  If he simply releases them and proves he paid taxes then they get what they want and they destroy him on making more money or giving money to some charity in South America that suggested guinea pigs should be granted citizenship back in 1937 or something stupid.

I do find the republican response to be a little interesting though.  If the D's can make stuff up for fishing expeditions I guess the R's can do it as well.   College Classmate: 'The Obama Scandal Is at Columbia'...  (this has been all over conservative radio/web today)

From the Author, suggesting the exact same thing to Obama that they're saying to Romney about releasing his tax returns:

Romney should call a press conference and issue a challenge in front of the nation. He should agree to release more of his tax returns, only if Obama unseals his college records. Simple and straight-forward. Mitt should ask “What could possibly be so embarrassing in your college records from 29 years ago that you are afraid to let America’s voters see? If it’s THAT bad, maybe it’s something the voters ought to see.” Suddenly the tables are turned. Now Obama is on the defensive.

happy 5555 post count...

You know that just shy of 50% of those in the USA pay no income taxes correct?

If you believe the following to be true, I have some swamp land in the desert I'd like to talk to you about investing in.

" if Romney wants to end this distraction, all he has to do is release proof that it's untrue"

ETA "income" in front of tax

On topic, unemployment 8.3%, Debt esclating, US Military STILL in Rock City and Iraq, NO Budget in last 3 years.

Did Romney comply with the requirements for disclosure, yes.  Now, back to topic of who has been President the last 3 years.

A leader takes responsibility, is accountable, and brings true solutions to the table.  

If Obama is re-elected America will get what it will deserves.

The Fabric is ripping.

Easy Peasy 

Unemployment -  Bushes fault

Wars - Bushes fault

No Budget - Tea Party obstructionism

Some people say he promised to cut the deficit by 50% and I think in his defense he got the 50% correct except it was to increase the Federal budget by that amount, so he wasn't wrong just had some figures misplaced.

Now if you don't believe that these lies are true, just ask the deaf man, he heard it all too.

Oh right, Bush's fault.  Next.

If either Obama or Romney win, the country is equally screwed. As soon as people realize this, maybe we can fix it. Doubtful.

True, but I'll take the chance that the Romney screwing will be less painful than what I know the second-term Obama screwing will be.

I don't think Romney will be better at all. The biggest issue we have is our debt and he wants to cut taxes 20% while also leaving entitlements alone and increasing defense spending? That sounds like the fast lane to bigger debt problems.

Why not vote for someone else besides the two? Voting D or R is a waste because they both will be doing the same thing. I'll be voting for Gary Johnson.

And he's stated that he would cut programs and make policy changes to make up for the 20% loss.  At this point it's all just talk.  I'm not willing to risk an Obama with nothing to lose.  That's a scary proposition.

I'm still not sure there is ANYONE I'd vote for.