If you want to claim you weren't talking about his tax returns, you shouldn't claim his tax returns are irrelevant in the same post.Thanks for proving my point. I never said his tax forms were irrelevant. I said his lies and flip flops that were brought up were. Sorry you can't tell the difference. Sorry if you think that a politician lying about his personal finances is newsworthy. This may have been interesting if he were trying to dodge taxes given his message on reform but that simply isn't the case.
Thanks again for making it clear.
If you want to claim you weren't talking about his tax returns, you shouldn't claim his tax returns are irrelevant in the same post.
This is your second attempt to claim I have misinterpreted what is in black and white for all to see in this thread. Did cybrsage give you some tips and tricks of the trade?
He has to inflate it because he is so charitable.
Are you suggesting charitable donations should not be tax deductible?
I think the point is that Romney may have decided to not deduct part of his deductible donations, when he could have, in order to raise his tax liability and therefore his tax rate.
There is no question that he did not claim all his deductions. There is no question that he payed more taxes than he should. What is under question is why this is the case.
Nobody claimed he was a tax cheat. You don't even understand the topic at hand. He is a liar. This has been shown in this thread multiple times. He said he always pays the minimum tax he possibly can. His 2011 tax return shows in black and white that that is not true. It is painfully obvious to people in this very thread who are not Democrats that the reason he paid more than the minimum was to avoid being called a liar for his other claim that he never paid less than 13%.There is no question that he did not claim all his deductions. There is no question that he payed more taxes than he should. What is under question is why this is the case.
But I see how this description does not fit with the liberal message to make him out to be a tax cheat, liar, or whatever else so that he could look better in the public eye.
Your explanation could be one of them but its just partisan rumor at this point.
Is overpaying taxes for a political reason wrong in some way? Well, that is on the eye of the beholder because he did not break a law doing that.
I am definitely interested in motive based on the timing.
It's simple, he said that he paid the least amount of taxes he legally had to. He also said he never paid less than 13%.
in 2011 if he paid all he legally had to he would have paid 9%. So he had to make a choice to not take all the deductions to get to the >13% or take all the deductions and pay the least amount of taxes he legally had to.
He chose what he and his advisers thought would be the least harmful.
It's simple, he said that he paid the least amount of taxes he legally had to. He also said he never paid less than 13%.
in 2011 if he paid all he legally had to he would have paid 9%. So he had to make a choice to not take all the deductions to get to the >13% or take all the deductions and pay the least amount of taxes he legally had to.
He chose what he and his advisers thought would be the least harmful.
Your communication skills are atrocious. You used the words "all of this" to refer to the one thing in his post he has no proof of.And of course you have proof of all of this. Waiting for a link, audio, video....
Oh, that was just your opinion. Nevermind.
Your communication skills are atrocious. You used the words "all of this" to refer to the one thing in his post he has no proof of.
And of course you have proof of all of this. Waiting for a link, audio, video....
Oh, that was just your opinion. Nevermind.
I would qualify that as more of an "educated guess" rather than an "opinion". If it looks like a turd and smells like a turd then it's probably a turd. But you're so dense you would need scientific evidence to believe it.
No, what you said you wanted was a link or video showing proof of his position. Now, after he clarified that his position was more of an educated guess rather than an opinion, you are trying to deflect by telling us about your thoughts on shit sandwiches, rather than admit your weak position.No I would just like to know how this turd is different from the next one. Calling a turd a turd doesn't take much effort. What does it determining which turd is going to be tastier in that shit sandwhich without being able to taste it ahead of time.I would qualify that as more of an "educated guess" rather than an "opinion". If it looks like a turd and smells like a turd then it's probably a turd. But you're so dense you would need scientific evidence to believe it.And of course you have proof of all of this. Waiting for a link, audio, video....
Oh, that was just your opinion. Nevermind.
If I seem dense, then perhaps its because I am sort of snobbish when it comes to my shit sandwiches.
Biff, I will continue to call you out on your bullshit as I see fit. Don't like it? Tough.Get a life and stop derailing this thread. I bolded what I addressed. Don't like how I did it, tough.
No, what you said you wanted was a link or video showing proof of his position. Now, after he clarified that his position was more of an educated guess rather than an opinion, you are trying to deflect by telling us about your thoughts on shit sandwiches.
Who is this "we" you are referring to?Reading comprehension, as we have already determined, you suck at. Paul98 made the original comment. MixMasterTang made a comment that perhaps it was an educated guess. The OP clarified nothing. I made a comment back to MixMasterTang with the same metaphoric overtones.
Stop derailing.
Who is this "we" you are referring to?
It's irrelevant, he is responsible for them. Everything done or not done he signs off on.
Cue semantics in 3 2 1 ...
Actually, it's quite relevant.
Reliance upon qualified tax professionals is a virtual guarantee against tax fraud charges etc. The taxpayer would owe the proper amount of taxes and interest, the law demands that.
(The caveat to the above would be in cases where the taxpayer lied to the tax professional. However, that would seem irrelevant here because the tax firm (PWC) is also the firm that does the accounting and taxes for all those Bain partnerships/LLCs. I.e., Romney couldn't lie to them, they're the ones who developed the data that goes into his personal tax return.)
Fern
So he pays them to lie and cheat and he is off the hook.
Sorry I don't buy that. He is probably presented a slew of tax strategies and has to make the decision. He is a politician, he does not always go with the most money saved, as we have already seen. But who cares really.
So you want me to believe that the tax returns of a man who is running on a major platform of tax reform are not relevant? Good luck with that. :thumbsup:
Liability lies with the filer, not the preparer in almost all cases.