Mitt Romney - Tax Dodger

24 posts / 0 new
Last post
Thom Hartmann A...
Thom Hartmann Administrator's picture

Mitt Romney has avoided paying hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxes through some creative accounting practices.  As the Huffington Post reports, Romney received more than $170,000 in stock after his company, Bain Capital, took over Sensata Technologies – a manufacturing company in Illinois.  Sensata has been in the news recently because it plans to lay off 170 workers in November, when it moves its last remaining American plant to China – a decision made by Bain Capital.

But Romney got HIS money – and rather than paying taxes on it, he transferred the $170,000 to a non-profit entity that he created known as the Tyler Charitable Foundation.  In doing so, Romney avoided $25,000 in capital gains taxes and was able to trim $50,000 off his tax bill by deducting his so-called charitable contribution.

Romney did a similar move in 2010, when he transferred $1.3 million in stock from Domino’s Pizza to the same non-profit – cutting $600,000 off his tax bill.  According to IRS law, Romney’s charity – which has assets of $10 million – must spend 5% of its assets each year to maintain tax-exempt status.  Over the past few years, Romney has done the bare minimum to meet that threshold – distributing nearly 8% to charity – mostly to the Mormon Church.

Romney’s not doing anything illegal here, but it shows that the man is willing to do whatever it takes to avoid investing back in the nation that made him so rich.  And it’s more evidence that Romney needs to release his tax returns so the people can see what else he’s been doing with his money and what other taxes he’s been avoiding.

Comments

Commonsense461
Charge him with something or

Charge him with something or shut up.

 

rigel1
rigel1's picture
Commonsense461 wrote: Charge

Commonsense461 wrote:

Charge him with something or shut up.

 

Selective outrage is fake outrage. When was the last time any progressive complained about a democrat cheating on taxes? It ain't never gonna happen. They couldn't care less. A little consistency would be appreciated.

douglaslee
douglaslee's picture
The US is like Greece, it

The US is like Greece, it can't collect taxes from the plutocrats, they write the laws, and will lead the US to the same Grecian formula. Bankrupting the country and privatizing it afterwards is bane 101.

rigel1
rigel1's picture
douglaslee wrote: The US is

douglaslee wrote:

The US is like Greece, it can't collect taxes from the plutocrats, they write the laws, and will lead the US to the same Grecian formula. Bankrupting the country and privatizing it afterwards is bane 101.

Really? Where did you find this info? It sounds like douglaslee 101. Otherwise please provide me with a link.

drc2
Let me put it back to you.

Let me put it back to you.  When will a conservative begin to object to the financial fraud being committed in the name of conservative capitalism?  When will conservatives really stand up to Empire and demand fidelity to the Constitution on the grounds of "the republic/democracy?"  There are no "checks and balances" in Empire.  There is no legislative decision left on war when foreign policy is about the global projection of power.  Empires cannot be democracy, so we cannot expect this Constitution to work in Empire.

Commonsense461
drc2 wrote: Let me put it

drc2 wrote:

Let me put it back to you.  When will a conservative begin to object to the financial fraud being committed in the name of conservative capitalism?  When will conservatives really stand up to Empire and demand fidelity to the Constitution on the grounds of "the republic/democracy?"  There are no "checks and balances" in Empire.  There is no legislative decision left on war when foreign policy is about the global projection of power.  Empires cannot be democracy, so we cannot expect this Constitution to work in Empire.

what are you babbling about ?

anonymous green
Commonsense461 wrote: drc2

Commonsense461 wrote:

drc2 wrote:

Let me put it back to you.  When will a conservative begin to object to the financial fraud being committed in the name of conservative capitalism?  When will conservatives really stand up to Empire and demand fidelity to the Constitution on the grounds of "the republic/democracy?"  There are no "checks and balances" in Empire.  There is no legislative decision left on war when foreign policy is about the global projection of power.  Empires cannot be democracy, so we cannot expect this Constitution to work in Empire.

what are you babbling about ?

Common Sense would dictate that, understanding the history of Mormon religion, you'd have to expect the legacy of cheating the Government out of money would become apparent in a Mormon's tax returns.

If you don't understand this fact, you've obviously been taught the history designed to make you misunderstand history and repeat the same mistakes.

Commonsense461
So now your sterotyping a

So now your sterotyping a whole religion classy.

drc2
oh, probably nothing, other

oh, probably nothing, other than Democracy or what Franklin meant when he said, "a Republic, if you can keep it."

The basic idea is that empires cannot be democracies.  All this huffing and puffing about the Constitution really misses the point of the coup.  What the Empire needs, the Supremes will give it.  You cannot make the Constitution stop them, and they have fixed the game of democracy with money.

For you economic fundamentalists, the argument would be that "capitalism" asserted its "free market" ideologies in the guarantee that it would be the best friend of democracy.  Remember all that war against godless Communism and how capitalism was the freedom alternative?  Well, let us remember that Supply Side was supposed to lift all boats then.  If you want to defend this pathological morphology from honest business to bankster/casino financialism as "capitalism," you will do a lot of evangelical work for socialism.  I would want to have something worth my honor were I defending it.

Summary, cons need to deal with what has been done to democracy and to capitalism in their name before they get stupid about Progressives and what we are supposed to believe and support.  Nobody is putting the hate on capitalism more than the banksters, and the pious defenders of the Constitution are shilling for imperialists.

Commonsense461
drc2 wrote: oh, probably

drc2 wrote:

oh, probably nothing, other than Democracy or what Franklin meant when he said, "a Republic, if you can keep it."

The basic idea is that empires cannot be democracies.  All this huffing and puffing about the Constitution really misses the point of the coup.  What the Empire needs, the Supremes will give it.  You cannot make the Constitution stop them, and they have fixed the game of democracy with money.

For you economic fundamentalists, the argument would be that "capitalism" asserted its "free market" ideologies in the guarantee that it would be the best friend of democracy.  Remember all that war against godless Communism and how capitalism was the freedom alternative?  Well, let us remember that Supply Side was supposed to lift all boats then.  If you want to defend this pathological morphology from honest business to bankster/casino financialism as "capitalism," you will do a lot of evangelical work for socialism.  I would want to have something worth my honor were I defending it.

Summary, cons need to deal with what has been done to democracy and to capitalism in their name before they get stupid about Progressives and what we are supposed to believe and support.  Nobody is putting the hate on capitalism more than the banksters, and the pious defenders of the Constitution are shilling for imperialists.

So would u agree to a flat tax then?

workingman
workingman's picture
I do not think he would agree

I do not think he would agree with a flat tax as a progressive they say they want it fair as long as the government has total control and the rich are punished for being successful.

Think more along the lines of stalin or mao without the hope the death camps are not involved.

douglaslee
douglaslee's picture
rigel1 wrote: douglaslee

rigel1 wrote:

douglaslee wrote:

The US is like Greece, it can't collect taxes from the plutocrats, they write the laws, and will lead the US to the same Grecian formula. Bankrupting the country and privatizing it afterwards is bane 101.

Really? Where did you find this info? It sounds like douglaslee 101. Otherwise please provide me with a link.

Neoliberal Playbook or a Vulture's Picnic

The cities first will declare bankruptcy, then the states, I think it's chapter 10 bankruptcy. All the services will be privatized, including the police and fire departments, their pensions nullified. The super rich enclaves already have their own security forces, so the rest will be victims of Flinticide. Police will collect the bodies, maybe. Mexican cartel towns don't even do that.

Leveraged buyouts do not save anything, they prefer healthy companies with little debt so they can load them up, take their money out and exit completely before the collapse. The US was healthy before W, and a ripe target for LBO strategy.

 Path: pDisable rich-text

  • Web page addresses and e-mail add

ula

rigel1
rigel1's picture
drc2 wrote: Let me put it

drc2 wrote:

Let me put it back to you.  When will a conservative begin to object to the financial fraud being committed in the name of conservative capitalism?  When will conservatives really stand up to Empire and demand fidelity to the Constitution on the grounds of "the republic/democracy?"  There are no "checks and balances" in Empire.  There is no legislative decision left on war when foreign policy is about the global projection of power.  Empires cannot be democracy, so we cannot expect this Constitution to work in Empire.

You make my point. We all point fingers at the alleged sins of the other party completely ignoring the sins of our own. Both parties are loaded with hypocrites. Am I right? I trust neither. Anyone who puts his faith in man is a fool. Especially blind faith in some self serving politician.

workingman
workingman's picture
rigel1 wrote: drc2 wrote: Let

rigel1 wrote:

drc2 wrote:

Let me put it back to you.  When will a conservative begin to object to the financial fraud being committed in the name of conservative capitalism?  When will conservatives really stand up to Empire and demand fidelity to the Constitution on the grounds of "the republic/democracy?"  There are no "checks and balances" in Empire.  There is no legislative decision left on war when foreign policy is about the global projection of power.  Empires cannot be democracy, so we cannot expect this Constitution to work in Empire.

You make my point. We all point fingers at the alleged sins of the other party completely ignoring the sins of our own. Both parties are loaded with hypocrites. Am I right? I trust neither. Anyone who puts his faith in man is a fool. Especially blind faith in some self serving politician.

Yet you want to turn over your health care to the governmen.

Kerry
Kerry's picture
workingman wrote: Yet you

workingman wrote:

Yet you want to turn over your health care to the governmen.

And, the other option is what, workingman?   Insurance companies with CEO's making millions--to hundreds of millions--of dollars without seeing, and before financing, one patient.   Is that the choices 'we' have, workingman?   What happened to those who actually take care of patients in that mix, workingman? 

camaroman
camaroman's picture
AG, "Common Sense would

AG, "Common Sense would dictate that, understanding the history of Mormon religion, you'd have to expect the legacy of cheating the Government out of money would become apparent in a Mormon's tax returns."

Oh, really? When did the Mormon religion write the tax code, so that only mormons can "cheat" the government out of money? Not to defend romney, but did he break any of the rules set established for, by and of his ilk?

rigel1, " When was the last time any progressive complained about a democrat cheating on taxes?"

Rangel did not report $75,000 in income from rental property he owns in the Dominican Republic. And Timmy cheated on his taxes, but, no we can't mention them. Kennedy avoided the very inheritance taxes, he ranted so much about the rich not paying, with his Fiji trust. Nope, no hypocisy there. Rigel1 is right, "both parties are loaded with hypocrits".

chilidog
workingman wrote: I do not

workingman wrote:

I do not think he would agree with a flat tax as a progressive they say they want it fair

I've posted several times that I support a flat tax, 52% of income or 3% of net worth.

What are we waiting for?

camaroman
camaroman's picture
What are you going to do

What are you going to do about family trusts, like the Kennedy's, that allow them to avoid income and inherirance taxes?

miksilvr
from The Daily Kos

from The Daily Kos : 

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/08/11/1119135/-Under-Romney-Ryan-plan-Mitt-Romney-would-pay-0-82-tax-rate

anonymous green
camaroman wrote: What are you

camaroman wrote:

What are you going to do about family trusts, like the Kennedy's, that allow them to avoid income and inherirance taxes?

"Who gives a damn?"

From the Thesaurus of Useful Responses to Right Wingnuts

Phaedrus76
Phaedrus76's picture
miksilvr wrote: from The

To be clear, that is 0.82%. 

Phaedrus76
Phaedrus76's picture
workingman wrote: I do

workingman wrote: I do not

 

workingman wrote:

 

I do not think he would agree with a flat tax as a progressive they say they want it fair

 

 

I've posted several times that I support a flat tax, 52% of income or 3% of net worth.

What are we waiting for?

camaroman wrote:

What are you going to do about family trusts, like the Kennedy's, that allow them to avoid income and inherirance taxes?

Well, 52% of income would be applied to all income, and 3% of net worth would be applied to all assets. Whether it is paid by Mr Kennedy, Kennedy Trust, or Kennedy Inc, we would not care.

MrsBJLee
MrsBJLee's picture
PUNISH THE RICH FOR BEING

PUNISH THE RICH FOR BEING SUCCESSFUL? GIVE ME A BREAK AND STICK THAT SAYING WHERE THE SUN DON'T SHINE!