IGX

For all Mitt Romney’s touting of his business record, when it comes to his own money the Republican nominee is remarkably shy about disclosing numbers and investments. Nicholas Shaxson delves into the murky world of offshore finance, revealing loopholes that allow the very wealthy to skirt tax laws, and investigating just how much of Romney’s fortune (with $30 million in Bain Capital funds in the Cayman Islands alone?) looks pretty strange for a presidential candidate.

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/2012 ... e-accounts

Don't think that constitutes much of a rape. He isn't breaking any laws and I am thinking of voting for him because of his offshore funds - the current administration doesn't differentiate between terrorists laundering money, people hiding taxable income, and Americans living abroad and it would be nice to have a POTUS that realizes there are grey areas here.

In a country still reeling from the effects of abuse of the financial system there is very little chance that the people will elect a president who makes a lifestyle out of gaming the financial system to protect his fabulous wealth and avoid paying taxes.

Fat Cat wrote:In a country still reeling from the effects of abuse of the financial system there is very little chance that the people will elect a president who makes a lifestyle out of gaming the financial system to protect his fabulous wealth and avoid paying taxes.

In a country still reeling from the effects of abuse of the financial system there is very little chance that enough people are actually paying attention or have any idea what Romney actually does. He's the weakest mainstream candidate that I have ever seen but the Dems haven't exactly highlighted his weaknesses.

That's where this article comes in.

Fat Cat wrote:In a country still reeling from the effects of abuse of the financial system there is very little chance that the people will elect a president who makes a lifestyle out of gaming the financial system to protect his fabulous wealth and avoid paying taxes.

Both candidates are politicians-- regarding gaming the financial system it's Kang v. Kodos.

Fat Cat wrote:In a country still reeling from the effects of abuse of the financial system there is very little chance that the people will elect a president who makes a lifestyle out of gaming the financial system to protect his fabulous wealth and avoid paying taxes.

you think the people pick their President?

Turdacious wrote:

Fat Cat wrote:In a country still reeling from the effects of abuse of the financial system there is very little chance that the people will elect a president who makes a lifestyle out of gaming the financial system to protect his fabulous wealth and avoid paying taxes.

Both candidates are politicians-- regarding gaming the financial system it's Kang v. Kodos.

I'm sure false equivalence will really turn out the base.

It's baffling that this guy is the nominee. Is it too late to sub in Huntsman?

Grandpa's Spells wrote:

Turdacious wrote:

Fat Cat wrote:In a country still reeling from the effects of abuse of the financial system there is very little chance that the people will elect a president who makes a lifestyle out of gaming the financial system to protect his fabulous wealth and avoid paying taxes.

Both candidates are politicians-- regarding gaming the financial system it's Kang v. Kodos.

I'm sure false equivalence will really turn out the base.

Re turning out the base-- SCOTUS already did the work on that one. Democrat turnout and the independent vote will determine the results.

Is there anything new in this article?

I stopped reading at this point:

In 2010 and 2011, Mitt and Ann paid $6.2 million in federal tax on $42.5 million in income, for an average tax rate just shy of 15 percent, substantially less than what most middle-income Americans pay.

This journalist is either intentionally misleading his audience or he simply doesn't know what he's talking about.

Pinky wrote:Is there anything new in this article?

I stopped reading at this point:

In 2010 and 2011, Mitt and Ann paid $6.2 million in federal tax on $42.5 million in income, for an average tax rate just shy of 15 percent, substantially less than what most middle-income Americans pay.

This journalist is either intentionally misleading his audience or he simply doesn't know what he's talking about.

A journalist not understanding what he's writing about? Inconceivable.

Pinky wrote:Is there anything new in this article?

I stopped reading at this point:

In 2010 and 2011, Mitt and Ann paid $6.2 million in federal tax on $42.5 million in income, for an average tax rate just shy of 15 percent, substantially less than what most middle-income Americans pay.

This journalist is either intentionally misleading his audience or he simply doesn't know what he's talking about.

OK, I'll bite. What's the error?

http://money.cnn.com/2012/01/18/news/ec ... /index.htm

What is "effective tax rate," Alec?

johno wrote:http://money.cnn.com/2012/01/18/news/ec ... /index.htm

What is "effective tax rate," Alec?

Effective rate is different. If the guy said Romney's effective tax rate was 15%, he'd be wrong.

What the journalist said Mitt Romney's tax rate is "just shy of 15%" and what Mitt Romney said his tax rate was "closer to 15% than anything" are essentially identical. Weird that Mitt is lying or doesn't know what he pays in taxes.

Thankfully we have johno and pinky as our resident tax policy experts, who are both well versed in "effective tax rate" sophistry. All that nonsense really means is this: Mitt makes way more money than any of us, and doesn't pay all that much in the way of taxes because, like other people who game the system they make a lot of their money from tax-advantaged investments and know how to itemize deductions to the Nth degree.

Grandpa's Spells wrote:

johno wrote:http://money.cnn.com/2012/01/18/news/ec ... /index.htm

What is "effective tax rate," Alec?

Effective rate is different. If the guy said Romney's effective tax rate was 15%, he'd be wrong.

What the journalist said Mitt Romney's tax rate is "just shy of 15%" and what Mitt Romney said his tax rate was "closer to 15% than anything" are essentially identical. Weird that Mitt is lying or doesn't know what he pays in taxes.

I see, Pink was objecting because a middle American's effective tax rate may be lower than 15%.

Fat Cat wrote:Thankfully we have johno and pinky as our resident tax policy experts, who are both well versed in "effective tax rate" sophistry. All that nonsense really means is this: Mitt makes way more money than any of us, and doesn't pay all that much in the way of taxes because, like other people who game the system they make a lot of their money from tax-advantaged investments and know how to itemize deductions to the Nth degree.

Your government thanks you for not taking your mortgage interest deduction.

Fat Cat wrote:Mitt makes way more money than any of us, and doesn't pay all that much in the way of taxes

Voters might want a President who understands business and taxes a bit better than Obama does.

Because this summer doesn't look much better than Obama's 2010 & 2011 "Recovery Summers."

Gotta go with Pinky on this one. I'm joe generic with a mortgage interest deduction and no other hoopla. I paid 11.6%, and 10.7% in federal income taxes over the last two years.

The only thing our economy needs is more of the public sector to be fired and taxes lowered on the Job Creators™.

Stupid Obambi doesn't know this, though.

Mitt Romney was a job destroyer. In fact, that was his job.

Fat Cat wrote:Mitt Romney was a job destroyer. In fact, that was his job.

Even the Washington Post doesn't buy that one.

Fat Cat wrote:Mitt Romney was a job destroyer. In fact, that was his job.

Stupid poor people. Why don't they just buy more money?

While Mitt disgusts me, is the implication by Testiclaw that Obama hasn't been quite possibly the shittiest president ever?

I don't want to vote for Mitt, but I don't want to vote for Obama who has been a disaster in every conceivable way even more.

baffled wrote:While Mitt disgusts me, is the implication by Testiclaw that Obama hasn't been quite possibly the shittiest president ever?

I'd be legitimately interested in reading any case you'd make on that point.