As George Will and many others have noted, there must be something truly damaging in Romney’s pre-2010 tax returns for him to willingly endure the criticism and scrutiny that has accompanied his refusal to release them—a refusal he reiterated on Friday, even as the issue, and the matter of his departure date from Bain Capital, has engulfed the campaign. “The cost of not releasing the returns are clear,” Will said on ABC’s This Week on Sunday. “Therefore, he must have calculated that there are higher costs in releasing them.”

So what could it be that Romney is so determined not to disclose?

Last night I had dinner with some (non-Bain) private equity executives, and I took the opportunity to quiz them on the topic and test my own theories about Romney’s tax returns. Let me emphasize that I have no idea what is in those returns, and neither did anyone I spoke with. What follows is unfounded, though not implausible, speculation. The most intriguing scenario that emerged about what could be lurking in those returns is as follows:

When the stock market collapsed in 2008, the wealthiest investors fared worse than everyone else. (See, for instance, this Merrill Lynch study.) The “ultra-rich”—those with fortunes of more than $30 million—fared worst of all, losing on average about 25 percent of their net worth. “There was really nowhere to hide as an investor in 2008,” Merrill Lynch’s president of global wealth management pointed out in 2009. “No region ended the year unscathed.”

As a member of the ultra-rich, Romney probably wasn’t spared major losses. And it’s possible he suffered a large enough capital loss that, carried forward and coupled with his various offshore tax havens, he wound up paying no U.S. federal taxes at all in 2009. If true, this would be politically deadly for him. Even assuming that his return was thoroughly clean and legal—a safe assumption, it seems to me—the fallout would dwarf the controversy that attended the news that Romney had paid a tax rate of just 14 percent in 2010 and that estimated he’d pay a similar rate in 2011.

The “zero tax in 2009” theory—again, this is sheer speculation—gains further sustenance when you consider it’s the only year for which nobody knows anything about Romney’s taxes. He’s revealed what’s in his 2010 and 2011 returns, and he reportedly submitted 20-some years’ worth of returns to the McCain campaign when he was being vetted for vice president in 2008. Steve Schmidt, McCain’s chief strategist in that campaign, said on MSNBC last night that while he didn’t examine Romney’s returns himself, nothing that McCain’s vetters found in them disqualified Romney from consideration.

That would indicate that 2009 is singularly important and, if there’s anything to this theory, incredibly vexing for Romney because there’s no way he could release additional returns without including that year. And the chaos that would ensue would be bad enough that it’s probably worth enduring significant damage to avoid.


http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-07-17/whats-romney-hiding-in-his-tax-returns

BEST CANDIDATE FOR OUR ECONOMY
Attachments:

Or maybe he just simply doesn't want to play the Obama campaign's game on their terms.

They tried the same thing with her and Hillary didn't play either.

Sound familiar?


"Obama releases tax returns, challenges Clinton to follow suit
TAX RETURNS


March 25, 2008


Sen. Barack Obama is challenging Sen. Hillary Clinton to release her 2006 tax returns.
Barack Obama and his wife released their tax returns from 2000 to 2006 on his campaign Web site Tuesday, and the Illinois senator challenged Sen. Hillary Clinton to release hers.

Later, Clinton said she expected to release her tax returns "shortly, I hope within the next week."

The Obama campaign said Clinton should immediately release her 2006 return, pointing to her decision to lend her campaign $5 million earlier this year.

The Obama camp also cited former President Bill Clinton's $20 million payout from supermarket holding company Yucaipa as a reason why the couple should release the documents.

The Obama campaign said that company invests in tax shelters in the Cayman Islands."

Same old sheet Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sound familiar?
>
>
> "Obama releases tax returns, challenges Clinton to
> follow suit
> TAX RETURNS
>
>
> March 25, 2008
>
>
> Sen. Barack Obama is challenging Sen. Hillary
> Clinton to release her 2006 tax returns.
> Barack Obama and his wife released their tax
> returns from 2000 to 2006 on his campaign Web site
> Tuesday, and the Illinois senator challenged Sen.
> Hillary Clinton to release hers.
>
> Later, Clinton said she expected to release her
> tax returns "shortly, I hope within the next
> week."
>
> The Obama campaign said Clinton should immediately
> release her 2006 return, pointing to her decision
> to lend her campaign $5 million earlier this
> year.
>
> The Obama camp also cited former President Bill
> Clinton's $20 million payout from supermarket
> holding company Yucaipa as a reason why the couple
> should release the documents.
>
> The Obama campaign said that company invests in
> tax shelters in the Cayman Islands."

Result: Obama beat Clinton.

cantargue with results Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Result: Obama beat Clinton.


But not for that reason. He was the 'Golden Child' (OK, golden brown). She didn't have a chance. And that was for a party nomination not a general election.

Romney did the same to Kennedy in their Senate run. Winner: Kennedy.

gettinintresting;


Well I agree with your name, it is interesting. My theory is your 1/2 right. While he may not have paid $0 taxes, I think its likely he saved a bundle in taxes by putting money offshore. So it would make it worse for him at a time where he's defending his offshore accounts.

I can't blame someone like Romney for storing money offshore so he has to pay less in taxes. Its legal after all. The problem I have is that as President, how will he be compromised. It appears he'll look out first for #1, then his buddies, then his collegues at other companies, then the top 1%, then, at some point, get around to worrying about the middle and lower class.

My guess is that Romney received money from TARP in 2008 as part of the bailout.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

He may have gotten money back from the IRS. The bailout included 5-year NOL carrybacks for partnerships such as Bain. A lot of big companies had negative income tax rates in 2009 and 2010.

Lester Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> He may have gotten money back from the IRS. The
> bailout included 5-year NOL carrybacks for
> partnerships such as Bain. A lot of big companies
> had negative income tax rates in 2009 and 2010.


It might explain why it took so long to get his 2010 return. They may have restated everything back into the 2009 return with the hope he wouldn't have to release it.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

Lester Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> He may have gotten money back from the IRS. The
> bailout included 5-year NOL carrybacks for
> partnerships such as Bain. A lot of big companies
> had negative income tax rates in 2009 and 2010.

Several stories are indicating that Romney's returns will show he hid some money in offshore accounts and may have received TARP money as part of a settlement for Bain Capital. Bain was involved in TARP for a couple of companies that were "managed."

Funny how Romney had no problem with taking TARP money then???? Go figure!

At first, I was thinking the tax returns just showed no taxes. But even that wouldn't be devastating. You release, say, 5 years of taxes and show that, cumulatively, he paid maybe $15 million in taxes; he's been averaging about $3 million a year. You spin the 2009 no taxes by point out the huge losses he incurred. And he could ask how many other people paid $15 million in taxes over the past 5 years. Finally, he donates a lot to charity. Over that period, it's likely to be over $10 million. He could ask how many other people--how many other presidential candidates--have donated that much to charity.

And it's all legal. Maybe a bit awkward, but nothing to be ashamed of.

So either he's got this humongous stick up his ass about releasing his returns (such a big stick that he'd make George W look flexible) . . . or there's something worse. And the something worse very likely is that he got money back. Good analysis by WashingTone-Locian and others.

Ten Pennies in a Dime Wrote:
Over that period, it's
> likely to be over $10 million. He could ask how
> many other people--how many other presidential
> candidates--have donated that much to charity.

What if it's not "charities", but The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

Suddenly all the religious right have to confront that:


He believes that Jesus Christ is Satan's brother.
He believes that God lives near a planet called "Kolob."
He believes in baptizing dead people.
He believes that Jesus is married to a goddess wife.
He believes that The Garden of Eden was in Missouri.
He believes that it was impossible for Negroes to go to Heaven before 1978.
He believes that Jesus has children from his wife or wives.
He believes that he is going to become a god.
He believes he will own his own personal planet after he dies.
He believes the real Christian God is not eternal but rather that He was once a man on some other planet besides Earth!
He believes he needs to wear magical underwear created by Mormons and he is never to take it off unless he is bathing.
He believes it is a sin to drink anything containing caffeine. And that even includes True American™ drinks like Coca-Cola!
He believes children between the ages of 18-21 should wear name badges, ride bicycles and always smile.

http://www.landoverbaptist.org/news1207/mittromney.html

That, i think, is the embarrassing detail the tax returns hold. But unitl he releases them, we'll just have to speculate.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/20/2012 11:28PM by trogdor!.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Attachments:

What's Romney's budget look like?

The Thrill is Gone



.
Attachments:

TARPED IT! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Lester Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > He may have gotten money back from the IRS.
> The
> > bailout included 5-year NOL carrybacks for
> > partnerships such as Bain. A lot of big
> companies
> > had negative income tax rates in 2009 and 2010.
>
> Several stories are indicating that Romney's
> returns will show he hid some money in offshore
> accounts and may have received TARP money as part
> of a settlement for Bain Capital. Bain was
> involved in TARP for a couple of companies that
> were "managed."
>
> Funny how Romney had no problem with taking TARP
> money then???? Go figure!

It's already been reported that he kept investments offshore and can indefinitely paying taxes on those investments.

The rich can still borrow against those assets at ridiculously low interest rates (see Facebook's Zuckerberg who recently took out a 30yr loan @ 1.05%).

It's already been reported that he kept investments offshore and can indefinitely defer paying taxes on those investments till he repatriates those investments to the US.

The rich can still borrow against those assets at ridiculously low interest rates (see Facebook's Zuckerberg who recently took out a 30yr loan @ 1.05%).

corrected Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's already been reported that he kept
> investments offshore and can indefinitely defer
> paying taxes on those investments till he
> repatriates those investments to the US.
>
> The rich can still borrow against those assets at
> ridiculously low interest rates (see Facebook's
> Zuckerberg who recently took out a 30yr loan @
> 1.05%).


But remember: There have been "tax holidays" on repatriated funds, such as in 2004. There was an attempt that failed earlier this year. D'you think, just maybe, that if Romney wins, or the Republicans take the Senate, that there just might be another attempt to declare a tax holiday on offshore investments? See http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-04-23/repatriation-tax-lobbying-campaign-said-to-disband.html

And guess who supports such a policy? None other than the Ol' Mittster:
"Two Republican 2012 hopefuls — Tim Pawlenty and Mitt Romney — and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) have all endorsed the idea. Their justification for supporting it is that corporations will use the repatriated money to invest domestically and create jobs." See http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/05/14/173951/repatriation-flashback/

Noise Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


I would like to see the projected GDP under the Ryan plan.





And here is what the "Age of Austerity" is doing to the UK's economy...



Fact is austerity is pretty good at fucking up economic growth while doing little to improve the deficit situation, since a falling GDP impacts tax revenues.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

The UK had very high inflation on and off for the last several years, especially in 2008 and 2011. Their central bank had been raising interest rates to fight the price of oil which had reached an equivalent of around $10/gallon.

I think the high oil price may be one of the reasons why Bernanke chose to Twist while Europe was dealing with the debt crisis. He's temporarily letting the dollar rise to offset the inflationary impact of the European central banks' printing and interest rate reductions. If the market expects more printing, oil may rise sharply as it did the last two weeks.

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> And here is what the "Age of Austerity" is doing
> to the UK's economy...
>
>
>
> Fact is austerity is pretty good at fucking up
> economic growth while doing little to improve the
> deficit situation, since a falling GDP impacts tax
> revenues.


Fact is that it's a dumb argument that uses one selective case (the UK) out of any other context to try to 'prove,' and rather weakly so even then since the difference is fairly small and the 'austerity' has been minimal at best and there are significant country- and region-specific differences, the same old Krugman-esque argument for ever-more spending regardless what you've spent to date and ignoring the fact that you have to borrow and repay the money that you're spending.

Obviously dumping money into the economy will provide some temporary bump if for no other reason than government spending is counted in GDP. But that's exactly what it is - a temporary bump as we see now. Especially when it's largely spent poorly simply to support public-sector union worker salaries. And when you're done you're another +$1 trillion in the hole which will have larger, longer-term negative effects. (Yeah, I know, it just needed to be bigger. lol BTW, that whole argument is about 6 months old and done at this point. Ain't happening since it doesn't even have enough Dem support so you need to update your talking points.)

For a more telling view, compare how well countries which didn't run their debt-to-GDP off the charts to begin with did during the downturn and how much debt-funded 'stimulus' they've had to use. The only thing that's saved us from more significant effects is that we've been lucky so far that we're in somewhat of a unique position and things are even worse elsewhere and we're still able to attract high levels of debt funding at low cost. Once that changes and rates move more toward historical levels and forcing our debt service costs much higher, which it will, then we'll pay the price.

Romney's bigger issue is that he is a clown shoe.

Clown Shoe Blue Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Romney's bigger issue is that he is a clown shoe.


Really? It the latest tried and true tested talking point from the left. Jeebu, you folks are pathetic and desperate. I guess this will keep you going for the next few months when it will end for you in defeat.

I would like to know how Romney feels about these types of business practices,,


http://www.dailyfinance.com/2012/07/24/bankruptcy-bonuses-another-way-execs-cheat-workers-and-taxpaye/
Is it OK to rape America and the American taxpayer in the name of business?

How many jobs are being created in this country by "the job creators" who keep benfitting from our gov't giving them everything and giving NOTHING back in return?

Clearly we need small businesses to save this country,,,the people out there that want to put AMERICA FIRST
Attachments:

You mean like Solyndra? They got half a billion taxpayer dollars from Obama. After going bankrupt the executives awarded themselves a bonus.


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/feb/22/bonuses-given-after-raises-at-solyndra/?page=all

^ And Fisker.

And GE.

And...

Yes, I would like to know where Romney stands on all those corp.s and the benefits they recieve,,,

I have been saying for the last year corporate USA and Wall St have made out like bandits on Obama's watch and their bitching is ridiculous,,,

Good Lord, how many x-Goldman employees are in his administration,,,

Hatemotor Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yes, I would like to know where Romney stands on
> all those corp.s and the benefits they recieve,,,
>
> I have been saying for the last year corporate USA
> and Wall St have made out like bandits on Obama's
> watch and their bitching is ridiculous,,,
>
> Good Lord, how many x-Goldman employees are in his
> administration,,,


One thing is for sure. He knows how to get the most out of something or get rid of it if it's losing money.

I'd like to think instead of printing up more money to give away that he'd let capitalism take care of it's own.

Look at it this way, GW was a terrible businessman. Everyone knew it including his father. Romney evidently is pretty damn good at making money with the amount of people that want to lynch him for it. It's quite apparent he didn't have much use for wasting money. Or for people that wasted his money.

That fine,,,how about as president of the UNITED STATES you figure out ways to make money with AMERICAN workers, and businesses that want to make money in THIS country,,,

,,,AND QUIT GIVING MONEY TO THE SAME TRAITORS WHO TAKE IT AND HIDE IT OFFSHORE

Hatemotor Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That fine,,,how about as president of the UNITED
> STATES you figure out ways to make money with
> AMERICAN workers, and businesses that want to make
> money in THIS country,,,
>
> ,,,AND QUIT GIVING MONEY TO THE SAME TRAITORS WHO
> TAKE IT AND HIDE IT OFFSHORE


Don't know.

He's never been the president before.

Fact is he could give it all away or he could nail shut all the loopholes he knows exist.