Thursday, July 19, 2012

Hey CNN!

You may want to think about hiring some different tax specialists for your crew. The fact that you let silly stuff like this article go through without bothering to correct Mr. Kleinbard and Mr. Canellos says you either need tax specialists, or if you already have them, you need new ones.

The fact that I can read through that article, and without being a tax attorney point out the lies and falsehoods in the article just proves my point. Let's start at the top, shall we?

Yelling at Romney for not releasing more of his tax returns. Guess what, there are only two requirements in order to be President. 1) You must be 35 years of age, and 2) You must be a natural-born citizen of the United States. There is NO legal requirement beyond that. Nothing that says he must release his tax returns. Heck, there is even an entire paper written on the requirements. Oh by the way, the law the Dems are putting through Congress right now, while I may agree with the idea, is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. What they are attempting to do is modify the requirements listed in the Constitution without putting forth an Amendment to that document. Notice it's not in there? The reason they can make those requirements for members of Congress is because of Article 1, Section 5 that says they shall make their own rules for members. You may dislike it, but the requirement isn't there. Get over yourselves.

Going further into speculation about financial skeletons is just asinine. Did anyone bother to read the two years of tax returns that Mr. Romney did release? Those things make my yearly tax returns look like kindergarten assignments. Even if he wanted and planned to release 10+ years of tax returns, it's not something he can just pull out of nowhere and release to the public. The more likely reasoning is that he is reviewing them for possible errors before doing so. Anyone read up on how this man has acted for his entire life? I'm clean, from what I've found this man is spit-shined and polished.

"Romney's 2010 tax return, when combined with his FEC disclosure, reveals red flags that raise serious tax compliance questions with respect to his possible tax minimization strategies in earlier years. The release in October of his 2011 return will at best act as a distraction from these questions." Ummm, yea... if there were red flags the IRS would have been all over him like white on rice. Ask anyone that's been auditted, they'll tell you the same. The IRS doesn't play around when it comes to jacking as much of your money as they can, to hell with how it affects you or your family.

As far as Romney's Swiss bank account, your idiots killed their own assertions in the same paragraph. Notice the part that says "blind trust"? That means he can't touch it, it's under control of the trustee. When it comes to speculating on whether or not the US Dollar will depreciate in comparison to the Swiss Franc, it's a pretty good bet. What you're hitting him on is the fact that he sees reality and is profitting from it... wait, given Obama's recent statement about how business owners didn't build their business, that statement makes complete sense. They're just mad that they aren't profitting from it for doing nothing.

The 2009 Tax Amnesty... guess what, even if he partook of said amnesty program I'm not seeing the problem. After all, it's just money, his money I might add. It's not like he went and dodged the draft by leaving the country or anything. I do seem to recall one president we had that did that though... What was his name again? I think his name was William Jefferson Clinton and they told us it was no big deal because they'd been given amnesty by President Carter.

On to the IRA contributions issue. "An excess contribution that isn’t withdrawn by the deadline is subject to a 6% tax penalty each year that it remains in your IRA." Guess what, if you're willing to eat those taxes, you can keep putting money in. Why you would want to do that I have no idea. I suppose it would depend on how much your IRA was making in interest each year, but it's not illegal to do so if (like I said) you want to eat the yearly tax.

Third item the idiots mention is Romney's family trusts... guess what, if you have no facts to back up your accusations SHUT THE HECK UP! Innocent until proven guilty, remember? Or does that not apply just because Romney is successful and isn't a liberal Democrat?

Fourth item, "the complexity of Romney's one publicly released tax return"; 1) he has released 2 years of tax returns, not one. 2) That complexity might just have something to do with why he hasn't released more, as per my comment above.

Item five, "Finally, there's the puzzle of the Romneys' extraordinarily low effective tax rate.
For 2010, the Romneys enjoyed a federal tax rate of only 13.9% on their adjusted gross income of roughly $22 million, which gave them a lower federal tax burden (including payroll, income and excise taxes) than the average American wage-earning family in the $40,000 to $50,000 range." Hey moron, if you're going to use his adjusted rate, you might want to use the average adjusted rate of someone in the $40-50k range too. I for instance am in that tax bracket. My adjusted federal tax rate is 8.7%, look at that 5.2% less than Romney paid... Idiots.

"The principal reason for this munificently low tax rate is that much of Romney's income, even today, comes from "carried interest," which is just the jargon used by the private equity industry for compensation received for managing other people's money."

"The vast majority of tax scholars and policy experts agree that awarding a super-low tax rate to this one form of labor income is completely unjustified as a policy matter. Romney has not explained how, as president, he can bring objectivity to bear on this tax loophole that is estimated as costing all of us billions of dollars every year."

Here's a clue, if the government isn't spending it IT ISN'T COSTING US ANYTHING!! You see, in order for it to cost us money, first the government has to have it to spend. Since they didn't have the money, it didn't cost us a bloody thing. That's the bull they hand out every time someone talks about tax cuts. See, the way it really works is, they lower taxes and revenue goes up. Even on a static model where the government revenue went down, the lower "income" only means they have less money to spend, so they have to reduce their spending (just like the rest of us when we have less money available). It's that required reduced spending the Liberals can't stand, hard to buy votes when you have no money.

For the highest office in the land a clear and transparent reporting of his transcripts should be nothing more than routine.


On a side note, Romney's tax records for the last TWENTY years were reviewed by the McCain campaign during the 2008 election cycle where Romney was considered as a possible VP pick. Since nothing bad was seen there, this is obviously another of the media's wild goose chases, meant to do nothing more than distract from the fact that Obama has been an absolutely horrible president.

No comments:

Post a Comment