Hurricane Sandy is not the October surprise. Mitt Romney's tax records, on the other hand, are.
If you're on the fence and still not sure whether to vote for Obama or Romney, perhaps this latest piece of information might help you make up your mind. Remember when Harry Reid claimed that he had solid proof that the GOP hopeful hadn't paid taxes for many years? Remember how some folks were skeptical about that, believing Reid was just grandstanding for show? Turns out he was right.
Bloomberg broke the story late Sunday night, with a story published around 11pm Central Time which gives an in-depth explanation of Romney's legal tax evasion since 1996. His tax avoidance was completely legal, although most hardworking Americans might question its ethical qualities. As President Obama said in the second debate, the GOP candidate paid less money in taxes than people earning less than $30,000 per year. How can that happen? Well, up until 1997, if you were rich, you could "rent" non-profit status from your favorite charity.
Huh? How can an individual rent tax-exempt status from a charity? It's pretty intricate, but the way it worked was, in Mitt's case, he used the Mormon church as a tax shelter by setting up a Charitable Remainder Unitrust (CRUT), that paid him a specific amount of money per year from dividends while also donating the smallest amount possible to the church.
Estate and trust attorney Jonathan Blattmachr told Bloomberg that he had set up many of these for clients prior to the 1997 law banning them: "I used to structure them so the value dedicated to charity was as close to zero as possible without being zero."
Romney got lucky in that he and other wealthy individuals who took advantage of this loophole were grandfathered in so he was permitted to keep his "charitable" status.
So, when did Romney actually start paying taxes again? Well, since he hadn't paid any taxes at least since 1996, it's easy to discern that he began when he decided to run for president. Forethought. He knew his tax returns would be an issue, so he paid in 2011 and used that return as "proof" that he'd paid what was "legally required" of him.
So, here you see a man who made a conscious effort to evade taxes by using his own church as a tax shelter, you see a man who morphs into whatever hero it takes for him to get people on his side, a man who purchased the eHart InterCivic voting machines being used in Ohio and elsewhere, and you start to get a much more clear picture of the kind of man Mitt Romney is.
So, do you want a tax evader as president? Do you want a man who ships jobs overseas while pocketing profits to be your president? Do you feel comfortable not knowing where your president stands on issues because he's flip flopped whenever the occasion demanded it? Do you feel comfortable with a president whose whole goal in life is to make as much money as possible using whatever means it takes, even if it means ruining others? If so, Romney's your man. If not, then there are several other candidates out there just waiting for your vote.
Photo Credit: mittromney.com
©2012 Reno Berkeley for Gather News. Berkeley can be found on Tumblr, Google+, and Twitter.
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 164
I told her I do. That's why I support Obama. So those little babies won't starve or be denied medical care.
Not to feel alone, most all Americans families this time around, have at least one relative or close family member who has expressed their intention to vote their religious ideals or personal pet peeves in the upcoming general election. It's unfortunately symptomatic and problematic of an election being held which has religious overtones and a pronounced religious candidate.
We find ourselves preplexed and bewildered by our relative's personal reason(s) for voting for their chosen candidate and not doing so, by an informed and knowledgable understanding of the candidate himself. Unfortunately, there is little, if anything, which can be said to change their minds.
At least we can take solace in the fact that they do intend to cast their ballot and are not planning to sit at home, complaining that their vote would not count anyway.
I'm going to check out that link. Unfortunately, even if it's true, it won't matter to the people who think he's great. They'll just yell that it's a lie.
My sister, Jill - the "babies" remark girl - is what I call a "faux" Christian - when it suits her. She is so artificial it pains me to think I chose her for my daughter's Godmother. I'll never forget when we got our mother admitted to St. Joseph's in order to get her then admitted to a care facility (that's how it had to be done under medicare) - anyway, when they admitted her to the hospital - they had her dress in one of those hospital gowns. The first thing my sister said was, "Doesn't she look soooo cute?!".
I couldn't believe it. This was an 81 year old woman, naked under a hospital gown - who looked "cute"?
Just an idea of what kind of person she is.I'm so glad she didn't see my husband in the hospital t hese past three weeks.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2012/10/how-i-lost-faith-in-the-pro-life-movement.html
It was that, but I believe more so, because Sen McCain being the proud American that he is known to be, simply refused to disrespect himself, his military service and the American people, by choosing a draft dodging, tax evader for a runnng mate.
Please, please, please, Republicans: nominate Palin for president in 2016. Please.
McCain soon regretted picking Palin, though he's too much of a sort of a gentleman to admit it publicly. You need to read between the lines and interpret his facial expressions, body language, and carefully constructed statements when asked about this.
"...the thriving and effective Tea Party that y'all said was dead a couple of years ago..."
Few people, if anyone, said the Tea Party was dead two years ago. That's when it scored its seats in Congress and in many state legislatures. It's NOW that people are saying the Tea Party is on its way to becoming a marginal force, due to the ever-greater nonsense it's spewed while standing in those seats.
"...Sarah Palin too, is very much alive, and a thorn in the side of every un-American liberal leftist. No amount of your petty picking and cheap jokes will diminish Palin's effectiveness."
As others ask here, in what sense is she effective? Most people just ignore her these days, including many major media figures not usually considered "un-American liberals". Simply being able to convince someone to set up a camera in front of one's face to whine about something isn't a measure of effectiveness.
Any money paid TO Romney, he pays taxes on.
The Capital Gains in the trust (if any) is money that USED TO BE HIS, and HE GAVE AWAY! Excpet for the funds it distributes to him.
You people wouldnt know the difference between a Crut and a Totten, a Revocable and Blind. I have had business with people with at least 15 different Kinds of trusts.
And Bloomberg will say whatever it needs to to make Obama look better than Romney.
EEEEE Gawd!
Grab more straws. LOL
Dont bother attacking me, you people arnt worth arguing with - just wanted to point our how uniformed you are.
A lie.
You people wouldnt know the difference between a Crut and a Totten, a Revocable and Blind. I have had business with people with at least 15 different Kinds of trusts."
Clearly, not many of us are tax attorneys. The point is not what tax shelters he used, as Reno rightly points out, HE USED TAX SHELTERS, legally by way of his friends passing laws that allow him to do so, or not, it's ethically wrong to avoid paying taxes. Romney & his GOP buddies love to point out the supposed takers, how is it right to take advantage of the American economic system to take & take & take some more, including corporate welfare funds from the taxes paid by others, but intentionally avoid paying his fair share to a country that allowed him to become as wealthy as he is? He's the definition of a TAKER.
Mitt Romney is hiding the fact that he hid much of his vast fortune from taxation using loopholes not available to the rest of us.
Romney MUST release his taxes and do so today. Otherwise he disqualifies himself from holding the office he seeks.
My understanding is that Romney's oldest son, purchased a company which already owned second smaller company, which also owned a third company which makes the voting machines. All three companies being purchased as a single entity contractual sale.
Since the company which produces the voting machines is twice removed from the original business purchase by Romney, it is considered not to be of any consequence or having any bearing on the machines being used in the upcoming election.
I guess that's one way (not mine) to view the scenario by those concerned.
http://www.salon.com/2012/10/30/romneys_lax_regulation_fueled_meningitis_outbreak/
Our current Gov. Deval Patrick(D) has called for a full investigation into this matter, & the pharmacy remains closed. Even if Romney wins, this could spell trouble for him~I have no doubt heads are gonna roll on this one!!!
But in a letter dated Nov. 11, 2004, Paul Cirel, an attorney for NECC, argued that such disciplinary action would be “potentially fatal” to NECC’s business. In a footnote, he asserted, “Once disclosed, the reprimand will surely result in investigations/inquiries/investigations in those other jurisdictions. Regardless of the derivative actions taken, the attendant legal and administrative costs will be devastating.”
Hence, the reprimand against this pharmacy was dropped, & they were allowed to proceed "business as usual." Like I said, heads will roll~I can't wait...
- James from 4insure
http://www.theblaze.com/blog/2012/08/27/nytimes-yes-mitt-romney-pays-his-income-taxes/
For everyones' consideration, I'd like to particularly advance the notion of "less", as I consider him a primary competitor of mine here on Gather.
S'O.K., Pete - I can handle being labeled pedagogical. Despite the mandatory 15-year minimum sentence - in solitary confinement for my own safety.
But you'd think Bloomberg would be safe from such attacks? No?
Sigh.
There is a lot of crap here from people who probably take full advantage of every deduction and also probably under-report their earnings.
There is no one reading this column that stands so morally pure that they can claim to be feeling righteous indignation because of the actions of another. Especially when no laws are violated.
That's a lot of "probably's". We're not working with any such vague unknowns here - Romney's ethical malfeasance is right out in the open.
Srusly, you now want to talk about ethical malfeasance. Hahahahahaha.
.
I'll take the undisciplined philanderer any day.
I'll take the undisciplined philanderer any day.
Spoken like a low integrity supporter of low integrity politicians.
Keep watching Faux News, and you'll continue to be spoon fed your beliefs.
Not every straight person CAN get married. Only about 45% of straight people can get married. 50% are already married, and can't get married again. 5% are too young. If it is a RIGHTS issue, then you can do it as often as you want. I have the right to free speech. Once I speak, I can speak again. And again. And again, ad infinitum. I have the right to assemble. Once I go to one rally, I am not banned from going to another. I can even go to two rallies in the same night! You get the picture.
Finally, marriage is governed by the states, not by the fed. If the state wants to say "yes" fed should not say "no." And Vice versa. So it SHOULD be a moot issue for a President. Of course, that is only if we follow the Constitution, instead of trying to force agendas on the entire nation.
You can't have it both. Either he only donated a little and he got a bit of a break (which is true of almost every national-level politician, BTW), or he donated SO MUCH that he paid almost no (or even no) taxes.
You are trying to paint the (completely inaccurate) picture that he donated $1000 and as a result got out of paying $250,000 that he should have.
He proves to us with what happened in Bengazi, that he doesn't care about our military, by lying to us Americans that it was all caused by the video that made fun of the muslim religion, when there is now proof that he knew it was a terrorist attack all along and decided to do nothing about it, and let those 4 people die. And, what still really urks me is that there is no proof that Obama was born on U. S. soil, and the coverup concerning his birth certificate is so blatantly obvious. Once there is proof that he is not a U. S. citizen then all of what he has written into law would be voided out, except for all the bail-out money that is already gone!
Why don't you people who support Obama just WAKE UP and smell the coffee???
He wants to see America fail and become dependent on the government in order to control the masses, just look at any communist country, and the people there have no rights and freedoms, such as we do now. Four more years of Obama and his cronies will push this country into another Great Depression, we will have no more freedoms, we won't be able to own our own guns, or own our own homes, or own our own cars. The government that Obama wants will have all of us, dressing the same, talking the same, and any complaints about the controls we are under will land us in prison.
I feel sorry, as I said before, for all you who think Obama is going to be the saviour of us all. Just so you know, I am a Vietnam Veteran, and I love this country and I believe we should not let it go down the 'crapper' just because Obama is promising us 'bama phones' and whatever else HE thinks we need to be beholding to him.
Romney's a business man, a good Christian, believes in the principles of what this country was founded on, and he was born in the United States. He has the right plan to get us back on track, and not necessarily the track that Bush had us on, but a more
feasible plan to get our economy back to prosperity and that gives everyone, who wants to apply themselves (barring any physical disabilites) the chance to make a good living and receive the fruits of their labor. In other words, be successful in their life. Some, and only some, of the people on the government's dole, are there because they know how to use the system, and suck it dry because they think they deserve it. They think the government owes them something, and will probably never try to get a job, or at least a job that pays enough to keep them out of the qualifications for welfare. I feel sorry for them, in a way, but that attitude has been passed down through the generations and when they see great-grandpa, and grandpa, and dad, great-grandma, and grandma, and mom, all who have been receiving food stamps and other government benefits, then they say "Why not me?".. "Why should I make an effort to do more and improve my situation?"
That's another thing that Romney will do is reform the programs that will make the welfare system more fair and more free from abuse.
Just new to this forum, and I've already written to much at one time. Thanks for your time.
Like that - see how easy that was?
I'll try to do better in the future---.
But some on this blog are just 'anal-retentive' about how one posts on a blog.
I do see the advantage of making it easier to read, but aren't there bigger things at stake that we people on this forum? Thanks Clay M. for the words of wisdom
1. Romney's CRUT is a trust fund that makes "investments" or is simply a bank account that gains tax exempt status. When Romney dies, the balance of the account goes to the Mormon Church, which is how the trust gains tax exemption.
2. It pays 8% of it's net worth to Romney as an annuity. If Romney survives long enough, it pays peanuts to the LDS. Which is kind of slimy, and the 97 law says that a minimum of 10% of the original investment has to be donated. Pre-97 that didn't apply.
3. Romney still pays taxes, but they've been deferred. He pays capital gains on the 8% annuity every year. In this case it was a savings for him. Federal capital gains rate was like 28% at the time. So most of that money caught a tax break of like 13% or so. This article implies/explicitly states that Romney hasn't paid any taxes in 15 years or so, which isn't true.
4. In 2001 the CRUT that Romney owned was worth $750,000 dollars. At 8% a year and taking into account interest that the account made (according to Bloomberg, 100k in 2001), I'm just guess-timating going back in time to '96, but I doubt that the trust was worth more than 1.5-2 million dollars. NOT Romney's total wealth like this article implies.
As I said, I hate Romney, but I like the truth more than I like zingers. Let's get our facts straight on this one. We have *plenty* to vote against Romney on without resorting to gross hyperbole.
George Lucas. Donating over 4 billion dollars to education. That's more money than Romney's ever had or will probably ever see.
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/11/05/dutch-source-confirms-romney-paid-zero-taxes/