Let us hypothesize... If Mitt gave 10 years of returns, and nothing was found, would you believe he was clean?

Cheney was in Romney's wealth league and when Cheney ran from VP in 2000 he paid the max of the time: 39.6. I recall that he voluntary paid the max because he made so much money and was concerned about how it would look. Here's an old newspaper article that describes his rate (but doesn't say anything about paying more than he owed):

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1314&dat=20010414&id=K2ZWAAAAIBAJ&sjid=r_IDAAAAIBAJ&pg=4916,2206608

I certainly don't think Romney (or Cheney for that matter) should be paying more than they owe, but I do find it interesting that Cheney decided to pay the max while Romney only what he owes.

freeman2 wrote:Meaningless. If his tax returns were that squeaky clean he would have released them. He asked for 10 years of tax returns from his running mate, but only wants to release two years of his records to the American people. He is hiding something and he thinks we are so gullible that we think some letter from an accounting firm will suffice. It does not suffice. After his 47% comment, there is even more need to see those tax returns.

Right. So, Pricewaterhouse Coopers is on par with Billy's Bar, Grille, and Accounting?

In other words, a top-flight accounting firm would lie?

If that's what you believe, you're crazy.

Who says they lied? I'm sure whatever they stated in the letter is true. But that doesn't mean their letter covers everything. In fact, it certainly does not cover everything or Romney would have released those returns.

freeman2 wrote:Who says they lied? I'm sure whatever they stated in the letter is true. But that doesn't mean their letter covers everything. In fact, it certainly does not cover everything or Romney would have released those returns.

Hmm, let's see:

In each year during the entire 20-year period, the Romneys owed both state and federal income taxes.
Over the entire 20-year period, the average annual effective federal tax rate was 20.20%.
Over the entire 20-year period, the lowest annual effective federal personal tax rate was 13.66%.
Over the entire 20-year period, the Romneys gave to charity an average of 13.45% of their adjusted gross income.
Over the entire 20-year period, the total federal and state taxes owed plus the total charitable donations deducted represented 38.49% of total AGI.
During the 20-year period covered by the PWC letter, Gov. and Mrs. Romney paid 100 percent of the taxes that they owed.

What exactly do you suppose he's hiding?

I know this is hard to believe, you know, since Democrats would never stoop to such a thing as, well, lying on the Senate floor about a rumor they "heard," but have you EVER considered the idea that he's telling the truth? You know, the whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing?

Why not release everything?

Really? Is it so difficult to fathom?

Release 20 years of returns so you can answer every ridiculous charge that will come up about them? It's got to be hundreds of pages.

You're being absurd.

Five years would suffice. No one is going to make anything of these tax returns if there is nothing there. That is Romney's justification for not releasing his returns--ridiculous on its face.

Doctor Fate wrote:Right. So, Pricewaterhouse Coopers is on par with Billy's Bar, Grille, and Accounting?

In other words, a top-flight accounting firm would lie?

If that's what you believe, you're crazy.

well, PWC and other 'top-flight' accountant firms have indeed been economical with the truth and less than 100% diligent in the past, and it doesn't take a crazy person to realise that tax accountants will do what the client wants and get as close to the line as possible (including trying to bend the line and sometimes crossing it). I take that report with a large pinch of salt - he still has not reached the standard his father set of releasing 12 full years.

geojanes wrote:Cheney was in Romney's wealth league and when Cheney ran from VP in 2000 he paid the max of the time: 39.6. I recall that he voluntary paid the max because he made so much money and was concerned about how it would look. Here's an old newspaper article that describes his rate (but doesn't say anything about paying more than he owed):

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1314&dat=20010414&id=K2ZWAAAAIBAJ&sjid=r_IDAAAAIBAJ&pg=4916,2206608

I certainly don't think Romney (or Cheney for that matter) should be paying more than they owe, but I do find it interesting that Cheney decided to pay the max while Romney only what he owes.

Did Cheney pay more than he owed? Or did he just eschew tax avoidance strategies? Their incomes may have been different anyway, Romney's is largely from investments rather than employment.

freeman2 wrote:Five years would suffice. No one is going to make anything of these tax returns if there is nothing there. That is Romney's justification for not releasing his returns--ridiculous on its face.

Patently false. The Dems were lying before this release. Since it, I've watched liberals lie and even criticize him for paying too much.

Funny, they call for higher taxes on the rich. When it is done voluntarily, it's a bad thing.

You do have to ask the question of who is advising Romney. Releasing this letter from his accountant poses more questions than it answers. The most obvious of these is 'so why not just release the full tax returns ?'. This is not going to park the issue, it's just going to keep it running. He should have either released the full returns or maintained his previous refusal to do so.

Dan:

Did Cheney pay more than he owed? Or did he just eschew tax avoidance strategies? Their incomes may have been different anyway, Romney's is largely from investments rather than employment.

The Cheneys apparently paid more in federal income taxes than the law requires.

The portion of their income paid in federal income taxes was 39.6 percent, a rate that applies only to earned income of more than $250,000. Because some of their income was long-term capital gain, taxed at 20 percent, their tax bill could have been lower.

Mr. Cheney would not be the first nationally elected official to, with his spouse, pay more in taxes than the law required.

In 1997 and 1998 President Bill Clinton and his wife, Hillary, paid more than twice as much in federal income taxes as the law requires because they took as income royalties from Mrs. Clinton's first book, paid taxes on the money and gave away the difference.

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/14/us/cheney-income-at-36-million-bush-894880.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

Sassenach wrote:You do have to ask the question of who is advising Romney. Releasing this letter from his accountant poses more questions than it answers. The most obvious of these is 'so why not just release the full tax returns ?'. This is not going to park the issue, it's just going to keep it running. He should have either released the full returns or maintained his previous refusal to do so.

I think it's a dead issue. Only nonsensical people will think it worth probing further.

Wait. That means it's sure to get raised in the debates! When the Obama stage manager, er, moderator starts asking questions will they be about the economy, the debacle in the Muslim world, Fast and Furious, or . . . Romney's tax returns?

I think he struck the perfect balance and only blinded, partisan Democrats will care about the matter.

Well, if the Romney campaign thought this was such a powerful response to the demand for his tax returns he would not have released it on Friday, which minimized the press coverage.

Romney had to take less deductions so that he could meet his prior pledge that he never paid less than 13%.. If he had taken the deductions he would have had a tax rate of 12%. Interesting that he had to manipulate his taxes to get up to 14% and that that letter said he had never paid less than 13.66% in 20 years. Really?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-gong ... f=business

It is not as if major accountant firms have had a great reputation lately for integrity:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/francinemck ... c-snoozes/

At the end of the day, it is absurd that Romney is paying such a low tax rate. You can say that he just complied with the tax rules, but Romney belongs to the class of people who lobbied to get those low tax rates. I don't thiink that people really understood that by lowering capital tax rates to 15% you would effectively lower the tax rate for the rich to 15%. I don't think that plays too well on main street and probably the upper-middle class (who pay a lot of taxes) resents it. It is kind of funny when you think about it when Romney proposes cutting the rates from 35 to 28%. That is for the upper-middle class person who works for a living--no rich person wouldn't structure his income so it all comes from investments. That is how Romney shows he is for the middle-class--you know, those making $200-$250K!

The fundamental question shouldn't be whether Romney has some unnamed solution to our nation's economic problems. The fundamental question is what solution does he have for the fact that the wages for the average American worker are stagnating (if not falling) whereas the wealthy are just getting rich (and paying lower taxes). The simple economic problem our country faces is that we have American workers competing with hundred of millions of low-wage workers. This is a new problem, it is driving down the wages of American workers and it raises returns on investment. We need solutions for that problem, not cutting taxes on the rich who are living in a golden age. Clearly,given his 47% comment, Romney will do nothing about that problem.

freeman2 wrote:At the end of the day, it is absurd that Romney is paying such a low tax rate.

True dat!

And really that's the most important thing about this tax return business. It is absurd that such a rich person pays so little while so many working people pay so much more as a percentage income to say nothing as a percentage of wealth. It's feudalism American-style.

That's not Romney's fault, but it is absurd and everyone who actually cares about America should be outraged.

What percentage is acceptabe Geo? Freeman?