Romney, Tax Returns, and the Right to Know

[downtown]

So the chatter in the political class has been all about Mitt Romney's tax returns over the past week or so. Here's what some folks are saying:

As First Read points out, "the central story of the past 10 days in the GOP presidential race has been about Mitt Romney's wealth and his business practices at Bain Capital."

Adam Sorensen: "For Democrats, this is the perfect campaign issue. It lies at the intersection of the personal, professional and political identities they plan to foist on Romney in the general election: the privilege they hope will make it hard for voters to relate to Romney, the erstwhile career in private equity that they hop will taint him as a economic predator rather than a turnaround artist, and the regressive tax policies they hope can drive a wedge between the Republican party and the middle class."

Chris Cillizza: "The political problem for Romney in all of this is not that he's wealthy. (President Obama is quite wealthy in his own right thanks to the success of his books.) It's that the way Romney talks about money can make him seem drastically out of touch with average people -- an issue that is exacerbated by the fact that he is running for president in a time of incredible economic hardship... Being rich isn't the problem. Being unaware that lots and lots of other people aren't (and what that means in real terms) is."

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2012/01/18/why_romneys_tax_returns_matter.html

In case you haven't heard, Mitt has previously mentioned that he pays close to a 15% tax rate, since his income is dominated by investments, rather than wage related income. Like Warren Buffet, this would mean that Mitt like pays a lower federal tax rate than somebody making around 40,000 in wages. There is also speculation that opening up tax returns and other financial records at Bain would show his ties to companies that offshore, or have tax shelters set up...certainly nothing illegal, but it won't endear him to populist leaning voters (of which there are a lot).

The question here is, is any of this our business? Should candidates for office publish their tax returns? If so, for what offices, and why? If not, why not? Does this just open people like Mitt up for populist sucker punches, or are there legit reasons to peer into his income, and where?

Poll coming.

 

[bhsup]

No, and I say this for any candidate regardless of party affiliation. I am not opposed to requiring an audit by the government for high level officials to ensure they adhere to regulations regarding currently owned stock and so forth, but beyond that one's non-governmental fiscal history is nobody else's business.

 

[warpus]

Sure, why not?

We all know how much we pay in taxes, I think it'd be refreshing to find out what our representatives pay as well. After all, they're the ones who make the laws and decide who pays what. This would help us keep an eye on them and make sure they don't pass laws that unfairly benefit them and their rich friends.

 

[luiz]

I think they should release the returns, yes. They should be subject to intense popular scrutiny, after all.

 

[useless]

I wonder if the Romney supporters would deny they exist/deny they're his/claim he wasn't CEO at the time and that someone else was.

 

[downtown]

I wonder if the Romney supporters would deny they exist/deny they're his/claim he wasn't CEO at the time and that someone else was.

I don't know why anybody would?

I honestly have no idea myself. I am open to being persuaded either way!

 

[luiz]

I wonder if the Romney supporters would deny they exist/deny they're his/claim he wasn't CEO at the time and that someone else was.

Why would anyone do that? What did he do that must be denied?

 

[Mise]

I don't think his tax returns should be made public by law, but he'd certainly score points with me if he opened them up to public scrutiny. Transparency is important in politics just by itself, but most importantly, I would LOVE to see how he defends paying only 15% income tax. If he's saying that "he's only doing what he is legally entitled to do", then that's fine if you're not a politician, because you have no responsibility or power to change the law. But if you are a politician, especially in a legislative position, then you have both the ability and the responsibility to change the tax code if you think that it is unfair. If you have no intention on changing the tax code, then you must believe that the tax code is fair. Thus, I would LOVE to hear how he justifies paying 15% tax, since he hopes to be in a position where he can change that tax if he deems it unfair.

 

[useless]

Why would anyone do that? What did he do that must be denied?

If it comes out in a negative way, I have no doubt he'd attempt to downplay, if not deny it.

 

[kochman]

The only thing I get out of the rich pols revealing their tax return is anger that while the tax rate is supposed to be something like 37% for them, they pay more like 15%... That's a 20+% drop in what they are supposed to pay. How would that help the deficit if the loopholes were closed?

My loopholes take me down to... about 11%, and I'm in nowhere near their tax bracket.

Anger rising... must... calm... down...

 

[downtown]

I don't think his tax returns should be made public by law, but he'd certainly score points with me if he opened them up to public scrutiny. Transparency is important in politics just by itself, but most importantly, I would LOVE to see how he defends paying only 15% income tax. If he's saying that "he's only doing what he is legally entitled to do", then that's fine if you're not a politician, because you have no responsibility or power to change the law. But if you are a politician, especially in a legislative position, then you have both the ability and the responsibility to change the tax code if you think that it is unfair. If you have no intention on changing the tax code, then you must believe that the tax code is fair. Thus, I would LOVE to hear how he justifies paying 15% tax, since he hopes to be in a position where he can change that tax if he deems it unfair.

He's a job creator bro. Taxing investments above 15% would make Mitt less likely to invest in US businesses and "create jobs". Plenty of other pols have been defending 15%...in fact, everybody but Mitt is calling for a 15% flat tax, period. (Well, maybe not Santorum).

 

[useless]

It's okay dude, the rich are allowed to engage in tax avoidance because they are rich.

A fair system for all!

 

[kochman]

He's a job creator bro. Taxing investments above 15% would make Mitt less likely to invest in US businesses and "create jobs". Plenty of other pols have been defending 15%...in fact, everybody but Mitt is calling for a 15% flat tax, period. (Well, maybe not Santorum).

Egads! A 15% flat tax would be a hike to everyone BUT the rich...
No flat tax is going to happen, anyhow. It's a Paulestinian pipe dream.

 

[useless]

It's a Paulestinian pipe dream.

Stealing this, thank you!

 

[El_Machinae]

No, and I say this for any candidate regardless of party affiliation. I am not opposed to requiring an audit by the government for high level officials to ensure they adhere to regulations regarding currently owned stock and so forth, but beyond that one's non-governmental fiscal history is nobody else's business.

How does this compare to your previous suggestion?

I expect the leader of the President's Council on Fitness and Sports to look like Schwarzenegger, not Rosanne Barr. I expect the head of the OMB to have a balanced checkbook. And if someone is going to be harping at me about things I need to do differently to "save the world", I most certainly do expect them to walk the walk in addition to talking the talk. So yes, if it is so important to them, they can sacrifice some of those perks.

The leader of the President's councils 'fitness' would be visibly obvious. But the chequebook of the OMB wouldn't be.

 

[luiz]

I don't think his tax returns should be made public by law, but he'd certainly score points with me if he opened them up to public scrutiny. Transparency is important in politics just by itself, but most importantly, I would LOVE to see how he defends paying only 15% income tax. If he's saying that "he's only doing what he is legally entitled to do", then that's fine if you're not a politician, because you have no responsibility or power to change the law. But if you are a politician, especially in a legislative position, then you have both the ability and the responsibility to change the tax code if you think that it is unfair. If you have no intention on changing the tax code, then you must believe that the tax code is fair. Thus, I would LOVE to hear how he justifies paying 15% tax, since he hopes to be in a position where he can change that tax if he deems it unfair.

I don't think Mitt has had a legislative position.

Also, why would he not pay the minimum amount he is legally obliged to, though? I mean, Buffet likes to attract a lot of attention by claiming his taxes should be higher, but he still pays as little as he can.

Taxes on capital gains in the US are lower than taxes on wages. Everyone whose income is primarily composed of investment will thus pay lower taxes than someone with a decent income composed exclusively of wages (your typical upper middle class guy). There's no hypocrisy involved, even if politically he would like to equalise capital and wage tax rates.

Finally, and I am not saying I agree with this, but the rationale behind lower capital tax rates is not only "we must protect the job creators!!!", like some lefties like to pretend. Fact is most of the time capital gains arise from investment that has already been taxed, unlike wages.

 

[Murky]

Sure, why not?

We all know how much we pay in taxes, I think it'd be refreshing to find out what our representatives pay as well. After all, they're the ones who make the laws and decide who pays what. This would help us keep an eye on them and make sure they don't pass laws that unfairly benefit them and their rich friends.

Happens all the time right under our noses. The problem is that politicians can use other issues to sway voters away from voting in their own best interests.

 

[bhsup]

I don't think his tax returns should be made public by law, but he'd certainly score points with me if he opened them up to public scrutiny. Transparency is important in politics just by itself, but most importantly, I would LOVE to see how he defends paying only 15% income tax. If he's saying that "he's only doing what he is legally entitled to do", then that's fine if you're not a politician, because you have no responsibility or power to change the law. But if you are a politician, especially in a legislative position, then you have both the ability and the responsibility to change the tax code if you think that it is unfair. If you have no intention on changing the tax code, then you must believe that the tax code is fair. Thus, I would LOVE to hear how he justifies paying 15% tax, since he hopes to be in a position where he can change that tax if he deems it unfair.

He has never been a politician at the federal level and thus never been in a position to influence the federal tax rates by his elected posts. So what he paid in the past is irrelevant regardless of his views.

 

[Mise]

He's a job creator bro. Taxing investments above 15% would make Mitt less likely to invest in US businesses and "create jobs". Plenty of other pols have been defending 15%...in fact, everybody but Mitt is calling for a 15% flat tax, period. (Well, maybe not Santorum).

Well, it's one thing to defend a 15% tax rate per se, but another to defend having a 10% lower tax rate than your cleaner. I don't think anyone's actually tried to defend that.

I don't think Mitt has had a legislative position.

Also, why would he not pay the minimum amount he is legally obliged to, though? I mean, Buffet likes to attract a lot of attention by claiming his taxes should be higher, but he still pays as little as he can.

I don't mind people paying the minimum tax that they're legally obliged, but if he (a) believes that this rate is too low, and (b) is in a position where he has the ability and the responsibility to change tax rates, then he should actually be raising his tax rate so that it is not unfair. If you believe that something is unfair and you are in a position to do something to rectify it, then you should. If you don't then what kind of person are you? Why should I vote for someone who believes that his tax rate is too low, but isn't willing to do anything about it?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

They don't have to.

If, like Warren Buffet, they do to make a point, power to them.