Active Users:1181 Time:22/11/2024 11:33:34 PM
No way! nossy Send a noteboard - 19/09/2012 01:41:04 PM
Recent, maybe? :P

I meant what I said. Jerk.

:D

I don't think it is the same thing at all. Firstly, he did supposedly ask Ryan for ten years for returns, so why does he deserve more from his prospective VP than the voters deserve from a prospective president? He's standing on his record as a money maker (I would say job creator but I believe it is a matter of debate if he actually created more than he destroyed and where jobs he created were) - how he got it is relevant.

Really, why is he unwilling to show his tax returns - isn't he proud of his financial success and keen to show people how smart he is in looking after his money? Apart from that, I'm not sure what else he actually stands on. Though that might now have changed, with the release nearly an hour of him speaking in private on his views...

I agree with Isaac on this - it could be that there is nothing major, but might be something that would *gasp* make him look like he favored a democrat "cause." Or there could be perfectly legal things that people like me don't understand, that we then spend the rest of the election cycle squabbling over, like "Look at all that offshore money he has!"

also, in terms of the IRS - it is worth remembering how limited they are. They're never going to be close to being able to carefully check even a fraction of the tax returns that come in... and someone like Romney is likely to be employing a number of accountants on higher salaries than the best the IRS has is on (kinda like someone owning 50 acres in which they might have buried a chest of gold, how long do you spend ignoring the rest of your job to look in case it is there?) - under those circumstances it is a lot easier to get away with tax evasion than get caught. Not that I'm saying he has been guilty of tax evasion, just the idea the IRS would have caught it doesn't hold that much water with me.

I would agree with you in general, but, you know, this isn't just another guy. Do you think that in the current situation, there aren't people looking into these things? Especially given the hesitation over sharing them publicly?
Reply to message
what does it mean to "pay no federal income tax"? - 18/09/2012 06:30:28 PM 961 Views
Wrong - 18/09/2012 06:37:07 PM 533 Views
Additional categories - 18/09/2012 06:51:46 PM 624 Views
SS income is very much taxed, my friend - 18/09/2012 06:59:28 PM 502 Views
Re: SS income is very much taxed, my friend - 18/09/2012 07:22:35 PM 500 Views
The wealthy get their income from investments - 18/09/2012 07:33:55 PM 572 Views
ok - 19/09/2012 05:46:49 AM 605 Views
Is that true? - 18/09/2012 06:54:33 PM 547 Views
No, it's not. See my post (you should really have read it first ) *NM* - 18/09/2012 07:00:07 PM 213 Views
No - 18/09/2012 06:56:43 PM 524 Views
While we're talking about taxes, am I the only one who doesn't give a rat's ass about Romney's? - 18/09/2012 10:37:12 PM 486 Views
That sort of thing does matter to me - 18/09/2012 10:48:30 PM 456 Views
Ah, yeah, not so much for me. - 18/09/2012 11:16:56 PM 428 Views
You gave that away with your first post - 18/09/2012 11:49:28 PM 412 Views
No way! - 19/09/2012 01:41:04 PM 452 Views
Yuh huh! - 19/09/2012 08:56:01 PM 478 Views
As an outside observer ... - 19/09/2012 01:28:13 AM 502 Views
Re: As an outside observer ... - 19/09/2012 04:45:11 AM 455 Views
the question of legality has already been covered by the offshore accounts though.... - 19/09/2012 05:44:28 AM 485 Views
Different situation then the Birther stuff - 19/09/2012 07:02:09 AM 429 Views
It's a conflict of interest. - 21/09/2012 09:52:58 PM 433 Views
I think you got it wrong: - 19/09/2012 01:52:30 AM 444 Views
+1 - you are correct, moondog screwed the pooch with this post. *NM* - 19/09/2012 05:18:19 AM 198 Views
Easier to read/understand - WSJ data on the 47% - 19/09/2012 05:25:01 AM 593 Views

Reply to Message