For the sake of appearances, Romney skipped some 2011 deductions

[Mike Sellers]

decay wrote:
how was he allowed to file his 2011 return just NOW?

we peons have to file by April 15th w/o an extension.

You answered your own question. Six month extension. He had until October 15 so maybe he didn't want it released so close to the election.

[(vikm)]

SDGuy wrote:
[quote=(vikm)]
[quote=swampy]
The Romney's donated 29+% od their income to charity....For Romney it was over $4M in donations.

...It's pittance for Romney and is meaningless.
I don't particularly care for Romney, but unless YOU have also personally donated over $4M to charity, I don't think you're in a position to criticize...
Pffft, I can assure you the money I do donate isn't done for the sole means of presentation or write off purposes.

That amount for him is the equivalent of me giving a quarter to the guy in line in front of me because he's short payment for whatever he's buying. I'm not asking the guy for a receipt so I can write it off as a charitable donation. Romney could lose track of that money and not know where or how much it was and not think twice about it (he's already admitted as much). You'll forgive me if I'm a little less than impressed with his "generosity".

[swampy]

Like the charitable deduction the Clinton's took for their donation of used under ware to Good Will? I'll let you research that factoid for yourself.

[August West]

swampy wrote:
Like the charitable deduction the Clinton's took for their donation of used under ware to Good Will?

swampy, it's heartening to know that your mind wanders inside BIll's pants. It humanizes you. :tongue:

[$tevie]

I donate and shop at the local Goodwill and at the local Lutheran Thrift and they both sell used underwear. And used bathing suits. I have always found that totally bizarre and kind of disgusting but it seems that it is something that some people do. Icky, yes. Peculiar only to the Clintons? No.

[Lemon Drop]

And it was LONG underwear, which is very much in demand at thrift shops and homeless shelters in the winter months. Where I volunteer, that is one the top requested items.


Also, back then the Clintons had incomes of around $40K for him as governor, Arkansas is the lowest paid in the nation, and $46K for her as partner in Rose Law firm. They were not exactly Romneys. Anyone at that income level will take all the deductions that they can.

[Lemon Drop]

August West wrote:
[quote=swampy]
Like the charitable deduction the Clinton's took for their donation of used under ware to Good Will?

swampy, it's heartening to know that your mind wanders inside BIll's pants. It humanizes you. :tongue:
Bless you.

[Ted King]

I think this thread needs another reminder of this:

$tevie wrote:
I feel like you all missed the point=Knowing that his return would be made public since he was a candidate for President, Romney did not claim all the deductions he could have for his charitable contributions, in order to keep his rate above 14%. Hence the mockery of his July quote: "Frankly, if I had paid more than are legally due, I don't think I'd be qualified to become president." Because, you see, he did pay more than was legally due.

In spite of swampy's efforts to make this thread about how much and what kind of things Romney was deducting, that never was the point in the OP.

[BCam]

Romney is all about "the deal".

I have no problem with that at all. That's the mark of a good, successful businessman.
However, Mitt and his supporters, don't seem to get the idea that he's not running to get a Job, he's trying to occupy the Office of President of the United States. Two different things. Government has never, at any time nor in any place, run with the cold, efficient norms of business. Point of fact, should Romney win, he'll have more staff working for him in the West Wing than Bain ever had.

So what's the Deal, Mitt? This Tax release is just another example of constructing a reality for yourself. Yes, you publicly stated everyone should always take every legal advantage of the Tax Code. You didn't. Why? Simple.

You had to make your 2011 Taxes conform to your statements about never paying less that 13%. Interestingly, win or lose the election, Mitt can legally file an Amended Return, and get a full refund from the IRS for those deductions he chose not to take the first time around. Pretty good deal. We, the public, get to finance this false reality deal, too!

So Mitt, trying to be a good businessman here, before I hire you as the CEO of America, I need to see your financials. I need to see how you really work as a manager. You'd demand the same thing if you were trying to take over my company (which is, in fact, what you are trying to do).

And Mitt, please understand that you didn't build it yourself. Every dollar you "saved" by legally using every loophole you could use on your taxes, is a dollar I had to give you. Although I get the added burden of paying interest on that dollar you kept in the Caymans via the National Debt.

Steve Jobs was famous for his "Reality Distortion Field". Only thing is, Steve backed it up (see Apple's stock quote). Given the choice, I would prefer the user experience of "it just works" rather than parsing words and lawyer approved public statements that dance on the knife edge of truth and accuracy.

So, bottom line, Mitt is running on the Microsoft business model.

Come November 6, when Mitt looks at the media's electoral map of the US, with Blue states and Red states, he's probably going to see the dreaded Blue Screen of Death because being President and being a CEO are two different things. One requires patience, wisdom, the long view and inclusion of the many in the common wealth. The other thrives in the dark spaces of loopholes, power and profits.

[$tevie]

Nobody loves a good charitable contribution more than a liberal -- the search for tax deductions keep symphonies and operas and art museums and colleges open, and feeds and clothes poor people, and all sorts of other wonderful things.

SO it's silly to defend Mitt's charity. We all love charity. Rich guys like Mitt are a boon to charity.

This is about how he chose to declare those contributions. The whys and wherefores have been covered several times on this thread, so at this point any defense of Mitt's giving is really just an effort to change the subject.