From anyone other than the IRS I would hope for as long as he wants. I really don't like judging candidates based on their wealth; Nixon had probably the hardest and humblest childhood of any Presidents in his era, Jefferson, the Roosevelts and Kennedys were (and still are) steeped in privilege.
No one is judging Romney on his wealth, but when a politician starts complaining about the deficit (caused in part by people gaming the system) and saying the tax code is too complicated (while hiding money in tax havens), he must realize people are going to question his motives.
Question his motives? No, I question his ethics, integrity, and moral compass. I want a president I can trust with my dog on a long car trip.
Hmm... you seem to believe DWS is doing something immoral/dishonest/unethical, yet you seem to not have any problem with Romney. I'll make you a deal... I won't vote for DWS. I won't ever vote for her. In fact, I will publicly say no one should vote for her. Your turn...
I'm cynical to the bone about politicians....on a national level at least. I believe they are for the most part self serving crooks, so I just expect the worst from them and try to concentrate on whether the advancement of their self interests will be to the betterment of the country...or some times to the betterment of my own selfish interests:grin:
Not rly (at least not in hiding her tax infomration). I find her demands for Romney's tax information when she won't release her own to be hypocritical. Nobody in this thread has given an explanation as to why it is proper for her to hide her information but not Romney (both are high lvl elected officials). I asked QDoubleA , but he kept dodging. Though the following matters little to me, it might to others I am sure DWS hired some accountant to maximize the return on her money and he/she did just that in a legal fashion (same with Romney), but should her constituents demand Romney's tax information and not hers?
I didn't dodge a thing son, I answered why she does not have to show her taxes. I did that right after I made you look stupid, and before you made yourself look like an idiot. I was trying to be as kind as possible, run along now fool or I shall taunt you a third time (and try to stick with the topic of the thread, I know that's kind of hard to do after I proved you were wrong and that got you butthurt, but try your best lolkthxbai
Hmm... perhaps you didn't see the question I posed back to you. So let me try again... I already said I not only wouldn't vote for Wasserman, but I would tell others to not not vote for her. So I am being entirely consistent by also not voting for Romney and telling others to also not vote for him because he is ducking US taxes by hiding large sums of money overseas and for not coming clean with his tax records. You are the one that seems to be dodging this. It certainly seems important to you since you brought up Wasserman. So please don't dodge this question. Otherwise you appear to be a hypocrite. I await your response.
MY response to what? What is your question? I alrdy said Romney should release his tax info for political strategy purposes and I have alrdy said I could careless if someone puts money in overseas accounts. WIll I still vote for Romney over Obama? Of course because I don't care about overseas accounts. What other questions are you trying to ask me? I brought up DWS because QDoubleA claimed it was unprecedented for someone in Romney's 'position' which was wrong or stupid for reasons you alrdy pointed out (elected high lvl government officials often hide their tax info). 'I await your response'. haha. you sound like an *******.
Wow, you sound butthurt that I called you out for hypocritical behavior. But I guess I understand how having your integrity questioned can cause you embarrassment. Perhaps if you worried less about what other posters post ("... because QDouble A claimed...") and more about what you post you would not have to be so pretzel-like in defending Romney. In any event, I know you will vote for Romney regardless of whether he hides money overseas, avoids reporting his taxes, and even ducks paying his fair share of taxes. So just say that...
What was I hypocritical about? you mean because I just told you in the previous post....... You say 'hides', but what you mean is 'attempts to give as little as possible to a federal government that everyone agrees is wasteful'
Seems you agree with Lindsey Graham Lindsey Graham: ‘It’s Really American To Avoid Paying Taxes’ "Mitt Romney shouldn’t be criticized for using off-shore tax havens because “it’s really American to avoid paying taxes, legally,” You guys are great Americans!
I wouldn't say it's 'American', I just wouldn't call it unethical. Nothing wrong with trying to keep as much of your earned money as legally allowed. You know Republicans and Romney have demanded a simpler tax code for quite some time....... I would also point out Romney gives far more to charity than Biden or Obama
It is so nice for those law makers to make loop hole that only the rich can take advantage of. Maybe this country should just get rid of tax, we do not need public infrastructure, defense, education, etc. Greece is a great example of where the rich do not pay their fair share, we should follow in its footsteps.
That's why Republicans demand a simpler tax code (Fair Tax, Flat Tax, etc....). No loopholes. Who advocates getting rid of all taxes? That's not even remotely close to what's wrong with Greece. Are you criticizing Romney for being charitable?
You people have no idea what you are talking about. Many investment funds that Calpers (California Retirement Plans), University endowments and other large investors are 'offshore' funds based in the cayman. That is because they are tax-exempt institutions. Some US individuals invest in these off shore funds but still pay taxes on any interest, dividends or capital gains off of these investments as they are US individual and must file with the IRS. This is just a complete lack of understanding of how people and large institutions invest their money.
That GOP talking point would be compelling, if it were accurate: "The problem with this attack is that the contrast is not all that interesting, at least not in the way that Sununu suggested. As a percentage of gross income, Barack and Michelle Obama gave 14% of their income to charity in 2010. That happens to be the same percentage that Mitt and Ann Romney gave to charity in the same year. The Romney charity number ($2,983,374) is a lot bigger than the Obama charity number ($245,075), but that is simply because the Romney family made 12.5 times as much as the Obama family in 2010." The charitable giving rates matter to the Romney campaign because Romney paid just 14% of his income in federal taxes in 2010, much lower than many other wealthy individuals. The reason is that most of his income comes from investments, which are generally taxed at a lower rate. (By contrast, the Obamas paid about 26% in federal taxes in 2010, and the Bidens paid 23%.) At a debate earlier this year, Romney argued that he should not be judged for his federal tax rate, but by the combination of his federal tax rate and his charitable giving rate. “My taxes, plus my charitable contributions, this year, 2011, will be about 40 percent,” Romney said. It is too early to compare that figure to Obama’s or Biden’s, since they have not yet released their 2011 returns. But we can do the comparison for 2010, and it is not a favorable one for Romney. By my calculation, the Obamas paid 40% of their money in both federal taxes and charitable giving in 2010, while the Romneys paid a combined rate of 28%. The Bidens paid a combined rate of 24%. http://swampland.time.com/2012/04/13/is-mitt-romney-really-more-charitable-than-barack-obama/ And gee... that re-raises that question about Romney's investments...
