Steve is quite right to dismiss all this as speculation because that's exactly what it is, but it could easily be cleared up by the simple expedient of releasing the tax returns. I don't think it's unreasonable to infer from Romney's refusal that there's some kind of information in there which he doesn't want exposing.

Sassenach wrote:It isn't necessarily a fairness thing. He's already come out and declared that his effective rate is around 14%, which is obviously lower than the average family pays.

A family of four in the exact middle of the income spectrum will pay only 5.6 percent of its 2011 income in federal income taxes, according to a new analysis by the Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center.

My guess, which is entirely speculative and based solely on a hunch, is that he's hiding one of two things. The first would be that for at least some of the years in question his effective rate was substantially lower than that thanks to careful manipulation of legal but ethically dubious loopholes and he doesn't want it to be revealed because it would reveal him to be part of an insulated elite and lay him open to the (not entirely unreasonable) charge that he doesn't understand the struggles of ordinary voters. The other thought which crossed my mind is that it's quite possible that Romney, utilising his contacts in both Wall Street and government, managed to make a killing during the financial crash of 2008-09. He certainly wouldn't be the only canny investor who managed to buck the market during this period, but he's the only one running for elected office and it would look very bad to those Americans who lost their homes and jobs during this period. Again, if this is true it wouldn't be illegal, but it wouldn't exactly look good either and I can see how he'd not want it in the public domain.

Steve is quite right to dismiss all this as speculation because that's exactly what it is, but it could easily be cleared up by the simple expedient of releasing the tax returns. I don't think it's unreasonable to infer from Romney's refusal that there's some kind of information in there which he doesn't want exposing.

danivon wrote:There ought to be substantial monies going to the LDS - they do 'tithing', don't they? If he gives a bit more, that's not suspicious either - who can begrudge donations to a church, especially if it's for charitable purposes like helping poorer members.

Sassenach wrote:Actually, I did read recently a bit of speculation that Romney may be wanting to conceal his tax returns from the Mormon church. The theory here is that he may not have been tithing the full 10% that he's supposed to be doing. I don't really buy this theory, but I guess it's plausible.

"It creates a tension for those who maybe received the generosity of those donations. That doesn’t necessarily need to be part of this campaign."

But if they aren't sincere about their plan - then the budget offered is a farce. It has no chance of a mathematical conclusion that doesn't result in massively increased debt.

Doctor Fate wrote:Let's say his income is $20M and he gives $2M to the church. You don't think that there would be even more scrutiny of the Church? You don't think there would be SuperPac ads about him giving away enough for 'x' number of families?

You guys are either naive or not quite honest about this.

From the 1970s until recently, Congress allowed and encouraged a great deal of financial market deregulation – allowing big banks to become larger, to expand their scope, and to take on more risks. This legislative agenda was largely bipartisan, up to and including the effective repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act at the end of the 1990s. After due legislative consideration, the way was cleared for megabanks to combine commercial and investment banking on a complex global scale. The scene was set for the 2008 financial crisis – and the awful recession from which we are only now beginning to emerge.