http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/richard-cohen-the-secret-in-mitt-romneys-tax-returns/2012/07/23/gJQAVwbI5W_story.html?socialreader_check=0&denied=1
The secret in Mitt Romney's tax returns
By Richard Cohen, Published: July 23
To paraphrase Rhett Butler, I don't give a damn if Mitt Romney releases more of his tax returns. I expect to learn nothing from them, aside from the fact that he is very rich and has paid less in taxes than he has acknowledged. He has probably taken advantage of all the loops and dodges in the tax code, piling trusts on top of trusts, securing wealth for Romneys yet unborn — gelt unto the third generation, little taxed, slightly taxed or taxed not at all.
"Let me tell you about the very rich," F. Scott Fitzgerald once wrote. 'Scuse me, Scotty, let me tell you about them: They don't pay much in taxes.
This is what the average person would learn if all of Romney's tax filings hit the light of day. He has so far divulged just his 2010 return and the estimate for 2011, and the Obama camp, smelling blood, has demanded more. The din has reached such a level that even some conservatives are entreating Romney to reveal additional filings. They are not, however, imploring their candidate to identify his bundlers — for this might actually reveal who has their hooks into him. The filings, I promise you, will show loopholes and financial black holes that make taxable income disappear. What we will not see is anything revelatory or, as some insist, genuine insights into the character of the candidate.
Certainly, this has been the case in the past. Richard Nixon disclosed his taxes preceding the 1968 presidential campaign. He reported hefty earnings averaging $200,000 in his years as a New York lawyer, but there was nothing in the forms relating to occasional bouts of drunkenness, paranoia, excessive self-pity or a proclivity to listen to the telephone conversations of others.
Similarly, Bill Clinton, in his pre-White House filings, showed a gross 1990 income of $268,646, but the box (32a) relating to possible extramarital relations in the Oval Office was left blank. No doubt it was an oversight.
George W. Bush's tax forms were as vacant as he was of any suggestion that he moved his lips when he read and would, if given the chance, tank the economy and lead the nation into two wars, mismanaging both.
By and large, the tax filings tell you nothing you don't already know. But the refusal to release them is a different matter. In Romney's case, this is his one and only stand on principle, an odd example of political bravery. He has flipped on abortion, gun control and, of course, health-insurance reform, his signature achievement as governor of Massachusetts. But not on releasing his taxes. Others have been recalcitrant. Ronald Reagan didn't want to do it (he charged his daughter Maureen interest on a loan) but ultimately did.
In general, presidential and vice presidential candidates have released their returns. Maybe this was because most of them were public servants whose salaries were already known and whose wealth was modest. Others, though, were persons of considerable wealth — Lloyd Bentsen, John Kerry, John Edwards — who laid it all out on the table. (I wonder if Edwards, if he still had presidential prospects, would have deducted his latest child.)
It's impossible to know what Romney is not revealing. But it is instructive to contrast him to his father, George, who was an auto executive and governor of Michigan. When George Romney ran for president in 1968, he released 12 years of income tax returns. But he was essentially salaried — his remuneration set either by statute or by a board of directors — and so really he was divulging little. Maybe more important, he actually made something (cars) or did something (governed). His son not only manufactured nothing but earned his wealth the new way — by financial manipulation, leveraging and such. On paper, it could look ugly.
For Mitt Romney, there are no assembly lines, no factories or mines — just back offices and computer terminals and such esoterica as the infinitesimal difference between what the Libor rate should be and what it is. He was loyal to no company, no industry — just to his investors. The making of such money is concealed, based on the exotic manipulation of numbers and the disregard of people. Only a relatively few know how to do this sort of thing, and they don't much like to talk about it. Romney, as we already know, is one of those people. He hides his taxes not because it would reveal anything new about him, but because it would reveal what he has always known about us: We're suckers.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on July 25, 2012, 07:48:46 AM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/richard-cohen-the-secret-in-mitt-romneys-tax-returns/2012/07/23/gJQAVwbI5W_story.html?socialreader_check=0&denied=1
The secret in Mitt Romney's tax returns
By Richard Cohen, Published: July 23
To paraphrase Rhett Butler, I don't give a damn if Mitt Romney releases more of his tax returns. I expect to learn nothing from them, aside from the fact that he is very rich and has paid less in taxes than he has acknowledged. He has probably taken advantage of all the loops and dodges in the tax code, piling trusts on top of trusts, securing wealth for Romneys yet unborn — gelt unto the third generation, little taxed, slightly taxed or taxed not at all.
"Let me tell you about the very rich," F. Scott Fitzgerald once wrote. 'Scuse me, Scotty, let me tell you about them: They don't pay much in taxes.
This is what the average person would learn if all of Romney's tax filings hit the light of day. He has so far divulged just his 2010 return and the estimate for 2011, and the Obama camp, smelling blood, has demanded more. The din has reached such a level that even some conservatives are entreating Romney to reveal additional filings. They are not, however, imploring their candidate to identify his bundlers — for this might actually reveal who has their hooks into him. The filings, I promise you, will show loopholes and financial black holes that make taxable income disappear. What we will not see is anything revelatory or, as some insist, genuine insights into the character of the candidate.
Certainly, this has been the case in the past. Richard Nixon disclosed his taxes preceding the 1968 presidential campaign. He reported hefty earnings averaging $200,000 in his years as a New York lawyer, but there was nothing in the forms relating to occasional bouts of drunkenness, paranoia, excessive self-pity or a proclivity to listen to the telephone conversations of others.
Similarly, Bill Clinton, in his pre-White House filings, showed a gross 1990 income of $268,646, but the box (32a) relating to possible extramarital relations in the Oval Office was left blank. No doubt it was an oversight.
George W. Bush's tax forms were as vacant as he was of any suggestion that he moved his lips when he read and would, if given the chance, tank the economy and lead the nation into two wars, mismanaging both.
By and large, the tax filings tell you nothing you don't already know. But the refusal to release them is a different matter. In Romney's case, this is his one and only stand on principle, an odd example of political bravery. He has flipped on abortion, gun control and, of course, health-insurance reform, his signature achievement as governor of Massachusetts. But not on releasing his taxes. Others have been recalcitrant. Ronald Reagan didn't want to do it (he charged his daughter Maureen interest on a loan) but ultimately did.
In general, presidential and vice presidential candidates have released their returns. Maybe this was because most of them were public servants whose salaries were already known and whose wealth was modest. Others, though, were persons of considerable wealth — Lloyd Bentsen, John Kerry, John Edwards — who laid it all out on the table. (I wonder if Edwards, if he still had presidential prospects, would have deducted his latest child.)
It's impossible to know what Romney is not revealing. But it is instructive to contrast him to his father, George, who was an auto executive and governor of Michigan. When George Romney ran for president in 1968, he released 12 years of income tax returns. But he was essentially salaried — his remuneration set either by statute or by a board of directors — and so really he was divulging little. Maybe more important, he actually made something (cars) or did something (governed). His son not only manufactured nothing but earned his wealth the new way — by financial manipulation, leveraging and such. On paper, it could look ugly.
For Mitt Romney, there are no assembly lines, no factories or mines — just back offices and computer terminals and such esoterica as the infinitesimal difference between what the Libor rate should be and what it is. He was loyal to no company, no industry — just to his investors. The making of such money is concealed, based on the exotic manipulation of numbers and the disregard of people. Only a relatively few know how to do this sort of thing, and they don't much like to talk about it. Romney, as we already know, is one of those people. He hides his taxes not because it would reveal anything new about him, but because it would reveal what he has always known about us: We're suckers.
The writer fails to catch his own irony:
That last paragraph could apply just as easily to President Obama, describing his loyalty to his large donors. After all, they are his "investors" and expect a return. Many of them got a financial return on their investment.
Yes. I have communicated from the beginning that it is not what is in his taxes, but his failure to divulge them that defines the guy. Using his wife on TV to defend his decision who then attacked "you people" was also instructive. He is what we called in business school, a "benevolent paternalism" leader. Characterized by patience and condescension, "You little people express yourselves, then we'll make the hard decisions that are best for you". It works well for some businesses but isn't so great in leading democracies. That and his refusal to give details on his plans for economic recovery and health care reform, then implying that war may be the answer to Iran shows an empty suit. There are no specifics.
Here's an interesting take. A friend of mine who is very familiar with Mormon theology and practices assures me that he is not releasing his tax forms because of the strong insistence by his religion that you return 10% of your wealth to the church. When it becomes clear that he not only did not pay taxes but also did not pay his real tithe, he'll be embarrassed and lose considerable support from them. If he did pay more in tithe to the church than he did in taxes to the government, he loses again. The only answer is to not divulge more than the last two years when this may have become apparent to him.
For a guy whose been running for president for over a decade, that indicates a failure to perceive the future impact of his decisions and to the general public an affirmation that his only interest is in creating and retaining his own wealth at the expense of others.
edit: paternalism is the correct word. As opposed to Paternolism which is different altogether.
Quote from: AquaMan on July 25, 2012, 09:09:39 AM
He is what we called in business school, a "benevolent patriarchal" leader. Characterized by patience and condescension, "You little people express yourselves, then we'll make the hard decisions that are best for you".
I am surprised that you don't see that in the present administration. Well, maybe not too surprised but not because it isn't there to see. Would you like the name of an optician?
Quote from: Red Arrow on July 25, 2012, 09:29:15 AM
I am surprised that you don't see that in the present administration. Well, maybe not too surprised but not because it isn't there to see. Would you like the name of an optician?
No, I don't see that in a president whose been more often characterized as a team manager. The Osama raid was a good example of his management style. He made it clear it would be his decision but solicited the input and advice of others before deliberating, considering them and acting. That style of management is in contrast to one that says, "we'll have a fair trial, then we'll hang the sob".
You guys continue to define Obama quite often but fail to address Romney's character. I guess that's to be expected. Since you won't and he won't, others will and that is what he is facing nationally as well. The arguments defending Romney's behavior so far are really just a case of "you did it too" or "all the kids are doing it" or "your guy did it worse" etc. without making note of who and what this guy is about.
If you want something different, then by your own descriptions, this guy isn't.
Quote from: AquaMan on July 25, 2012, 09:59:38 AM
No, I don't see that in a president whose been more often characterized as a team manager. The Osama raid was a good example of his management style. He made it clear it would be his decision but solicited the input and advice of others before deliberating, considering them and acting. That style of management is in contrast to one that says, "we'll have a fair trial, then we'll hang the sob".
You guys continue to define Obama quite often but fail to address Romney's character. I guess that's to be expected. Since you won't and he won't, others will and that is what he is facing nationally as well. The arguments defending Romney's behavior so far are really just a case of "you did it too" or "all the kids are doing it" or "your guy did it worse" etc. without making note of who and what this guy is about.
If you want something different, then by your own descriptions, this guy isn't.
If the OBL operation is considered a major victory for Obama, realize that OBL's death has had ZERO impact on the millions of people still under-employed and unemployed in the country right now.
Quote from: Conan71 on July 25, 2012, 10:28:06 AM
If the OBL operation is considered a major victory for Obama, realize that OBL's death has had ZERO impact on the millions of people still under-employed and unemployed in the country right now.
Is everything about money with you?
Quote from: Conan71 on July 25, 2012, 10:28:06 AM
If the OBL operation is considered a major victory for Obama, realize that OBL's death has had ZERO impact on the millions of people still under-employed and unemployed in the country right now.
I hear that he didn't actually kill OBL. . ."Somebody else did that."
Quote from: RecycleMichael on July 25, 2012, 10:42:00 AM
Is everything about money with you?
You know better than that. Though I love the irony since you started the thread with an op-ed about Romney's millions. If McCain were in office you would be assailing him over his failed economic policies resulting in nearly four years of unemployment sustained at over 8%. It's a horrible record. Every other president gets credit or blame for the unemployment rate in their term, President Obama should be no different than any of his predecessors, nor whomever follows him.
I've given a tip of the hat to Obama for giving the orders to carry out the mission on Bin Laden. It was a great moral victory at the time to all Americans, especially those who lost someone they loved on 9/11/2001.
However, killing OBL rings hollow today to someone who lost their home who now lives in subsidized housing or is relying on TANF to feed their family while working two minimum wage jobs when they were self-sufficient and making a good wage four or five years ago. It's done nothing to create new jobs, has it?
The economy is a far bigger issue to the majority of Americans than killing a terrorist leader who was already pretty well marginalized.
Our right leaned posters have confirmed the hypothesis.
Any time the name Mitt Romney comes up in any conversation, they talk without mentioning him or even defend him. They just talk about Obama.
Quote from: Conan71 on July 25, 2012, 10:28:06 AM
If the OBL operation is considered a major victory for Obama, realize that OBL's death has had ZERO impact on the millions of people still under-employed and unemployed in the country right now.
The discussion is about the two differing management/leadership styles. How they make decisions and what that says about them. The effects of those decisions is a different matter. I appreciate your effort to change the topic to one where Obama is vulnerable, yet no one knows how Romney's leadership would change the economy right now other than to repeal everything Obama has championed the last three years creating even more confusion and animosity.
I also believe that not eliminating Osama, whose plans included more operations against our country, would have had a tremendous impact on under-employed and unemployed in the country right now had he effected any of those plans.
Quote from: AquaMan on July 25, 2012, 09:59:38 AM
No, I don't see that in a president whose been more often characterized as a team manager.
Triad, near 61st and Memorial.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on July 25, 2012, 10:42:00 AM
Is everything about money with you?
You don't care about the economy? That might explain a few things.
Quote from: AquaMan on July 25, 2012, 11:07:53 AM
I also believe that not eliminating Osama, whose plans included more operations against our country, would have had a tremendous impact on under-employed and unemployed in the country right now had he effected any of those plans.
By reinstating the draft?
Quote from: AquaMan on July 25, 2012, 11:07:53 AM
The discussion is about the two differing management/leadership styles.
You tried to point out a difference. I see the Obama administration (not just the President himself) as paternalistic. Maybe they both are. We can probably agree that the decisions arrived at by Obama and Romney will be different.
Quoteyet no one knows how Romney's leadership would change the economy right now other than to repeal everything Obama has championed the last three years creating even more confusion and animosity.
Kind or reminds me of 2008 and a (somewhat) new guy that promised hope and change. You can guess that Romney would create even more confusion and animosity but that is an opinion, not a known fact.
If he does release them, I hope they show all kinds of shelters, charities, and investment strategies designed to shield him from overpayment. I would hope that a man as successful and resourceful as Romney could at least maintain an effective rate below 30%, if not, he'd be worthless. I would also like to see most of his estate set up under trusts so that he would be partially shielded from death taxes and would be able to pass the fruits of his success to his boys.
As a requirement to be a candidate for president, Mr. Romney had to release them to the FEC for audit along with Government Ethics Form 278. He has no obligation to release them to anyone else. They are his personal records, and as long as they are deemed to be legal and ethical by the FEC, there is no need for Chris Matthews et. al. to whine about horses, Mormon missions, or investments in waterproof shoelace companies.
After looking at his 2010 return, what a bag of excitement that was, I would assume that he will probably release several more, but most likely wants to wait until the libs work themselves up into a good froth. This is an excellent diversion for them. Out of our 535 members of congress only 17 have agreed to release any tax returns. It's simply not a requirement of office. Public disclosure of financial records as a requirement of elected office is considered discriminatory, just as personal health records are.
I am confused as to why Democrats seem so bent on discriminatory action against a political candidate. . .oh yeah, never mind. ;)
Quote from: Gaspar on July 25, 2012, 01:27:58 PM
I would hope that a man as successful and resourceful as Romney could at least maintain an effective rate below 30%, if not, he'd be worthless.
If that is your measure of a man's worth, I feel sorry for you.
No, Mike. I actually agree with part of what he says. I hope he does release them and they are full of what he describes. I remember what a former city councilor told me when I complained that the street in front of the mayor's home was smooth and well maintained while mine just a few blocks away was crumbling and rippled. He said, "My gosh Steve, if a mayor can't get the roads and sidewalks repaired in front of her own home, what kind of mayor is she?" It will be a wake up alarm for many people who have no idea that besides being able to buy justice, the wealthy also buy zero taxation. It will perhaps precipitate a change in tax law that reflects what the public considers fair and reasonable.
As far as his lib, media concerns and the rest of his funny little beliefs, well ...tell it to Fox baby! I would imagine that those 17 congressmen are either running for president, are planning to in the future or (gasp) understand that the public is justified in asking. What a red herring. They also aren't obligated to take English tests or loyalty oaths. So what.
No one in their right mind thinks a wealthy democrat running for president (especially one who sings God Bless America and bases his campaign on his business ability and integrity) could get away with not disclosing their taxes 'cause the press might criticize them" or because the public doesn't understand what the wealthy have to go through to not pay taxes. Talk about whiny.
Quote from: AquaMan on July 25, 2012, 02:10:55 PM
No, Mike. I actually agree with part of what he says. I hope he does release them and they are full of what he describes. I remember what a former city councilor told me when I complained that the street in front of the mayor's home was smooth and well maintained while mine just a few blocks away was crumbling and rippled. He said, "My gosh Steve, if a mayor can't get the roads and sidewalks repaired in front of her own home, what kind of mayor is she?" It will be a wake up alarm for many people who have no idea that besides being able to buy justice, the wealthy also buy zero taxation. It will perhaps precipitate a change in tax law that reflects what the public considers FAIR and reasonable. Bingo!
As far as his lib, media concerns and the rest of his funny little beliefs, well ...tell it to Fox baby! I would imagine that those 17 congressmen are either running for president, are planning to in the future or (gasp) understand that the public is justified in asking. What a red herring. They also aren't obligated to take English tests or loyalty oaths. So what.
No one in their right mind thinks a wealthy democrat running for president (especially one who sings God Bless America and bases his campaign on his business ability and integrity) could get away with not disclosing their taxes 'cause the press might criticize them" or because the public doesn't understand what the wealthy have to go through to not pay taxes. Talk about whiny.
Except for Jimmy Carter. He also only released one return and refused additional requests.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on July 25, 2012, 01:54:52 PM
If that is your measure of a man's worth, I feel sorry for you.
Oh goodness why?
I spend a great deal of time every year figuring out how to pay as little income tax as possible. I bet you do as well.
It would be fiscally irresponsible of any business person not to employ every measure legally possible to reduce the taxes paid on a corporate or individual level.
I have yet to meet anyone who seeks ways to pay additional taxes? Even when Warren Buffett speaks out of one side of his mouth about not paying enough, the other side is cheering his attorneys who are battling to keep him from over a billion in unrealized tax benifits that the government is currently suing him for.
Only a very silly person would stand up and say "look at me, I payed the maximum amount of taxes and took no deductions!" That would be like paying sticker price for a car or a house. What kind of idiot does that?
Quote from: Gaspar on July 25, 2012, 02:33:32 PM
Jimmy Carter? Well, there you go. Our man Romney is just like Jimmy!
Quote from: AquaMan on July 25, 2012, 02:47:02 PM
Jimmy Carter? Well, there you go. Our man Romney is just like Jimmy!
Awesome non-sequeter. Run with it.
I'll go ahead and submit it to Troof Team, and perhaps it will make it on-prompter sometime.
Quote from: Gaspar on July 25, 2012, 02:43:56 PM
It would be fiscally irresponsible of any business person not to employ every measure legally possible to reduce the taxes paid on a corporate or individual level.
So obviously, you would thus feel that anybody who didn't take advantage of food stamps or welfare would be equally as silly.
Why would anyone not file for the maximum unemployment benefits they day they lose their job?
Who would hire any unemployed person who is not doing that? They would be worthless in your mind.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on July 25, 2012, 03:24:19 PM
So obviously, you would thus feel that anybody who didn't take advantage of food stamps or welfare would be equally as silly.
Why would anyone not file for the maximum unemployment benefits they day they lose their job?
Who would hire any unemployed person who is not doing that? They would be worthless in your mind.
No, that would be the opposite of what I would feel.
The rich should take advantage of the system, but the poor shouldn't.
Got it.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on July 25, 2012, 04:01:12 PM
The rich should take advantage of the system, but the poor shouldn't.
Got it.
Unrelated. You purposefully misinterpret. Both the rich and the poor should have the same advantages when it comes to taxation. No wealthy person should be able to pay a smaller percentage of his/her income to the government than a less successful person. In fact, everyone should be taxed fairly and equally. In an ideal society, the tax rate would be constant, and either usage based or flat. There would be NO deductions, shelters, or exemptions. No tools, or slings for politicians to grapple.
To address the other side of your unrelated analogy, entitlements should be made available to those that NEED them, with the goal of graduating people off of them rather than expanding them. Dependence is the enemy, attractive as it may be to politicians to acquire votes, it harms people. The purpose of these programs should be to promote sustenance and personal development, not comfort.
You're off your mark today Gas. First you relate how Romney is similar to Jimmy Carter in that they both refused to release more than a couple years of tax returns (you brought it up on re-direct so to speak), now your own logic is used against you on the cherished business principle of avoiding taxes. Some days it just don't pay to post!
FWIW, I find fault with that cherished principle. Many companies go to great lengths, expensive lengths, to eliminate taxes. It becomes a mantra that impedes or adversely affects their operations. Tax strategies have to be considered in terms of larger goals. There is a cost/benefit analysis for every business practice. Romney is finding that out.
The lower demos figure that out when they draw unemployment, workers comp or join a union then find employers consider them poisonous.
Quote from: AquaMan on July 25, 2012, 05:01:40 PM
You're off your mark today Gas. First you relate how Romney is similar to Jimmy Carter in that they both refused to release more than a couple years of tax returns (you brought it up on re-direct so to speak), now your own logic is used against you on the cherished business principle of avoiding taxes. Some days it just don't pay to post!
FWIW, I find fault with that cherished principle. Many companies go to great lengths, expensive lengths, to eliminate taxes. It becomes a mantra that impedes or adversely affects their operations. Tax strategies have to be considered in terms of larger goals. There is a cost/benefit analysis for every business practice. Romney is finding that out.
The lower demos figure that out when they draw unemployment, workers comp or join a union then find employers consider them poisonous.
you haven't seen his "the new acorn" post yet....