Harry Reid and Romney's Tax Returns

[Jim Raynor]

Anyone keeping up with this? Harry Reid's been making some huge statements about Romney lately, and claiming that he has a source who says that Romney "hasn’t paid any taxes for ten years." Reid hasn't named the source yet, allowing Romeny to tell him to "put up or shut up." However, CNN's Dana Bash says that she has her own anonymous source to back up Reid.

I'm just amazed at what is being said here. If what Reid says is proven true, it could be game over for Romney. But he's taking a huge risk with these allegations, and shows no signs of backing down. If it turns out to be untrue, there could be some serious consequences for Reid and the Democrats. At the very least, Bash's career as a journalist could be on the line.

[Sea Skimmer]

Wording gets important for this, it appears Reid means that a ten year period existed in which he did not pay taxes. We know he paid them in the last ten as the one and only return he released showed him paying a mere 13.9% for 2010. I'm skeptical, I can totally believe that Romney doesn't want to release his federal taxes because in a few years he did pay very little or nothing, capital losses can easily evaporate tax bills before we even hit active tax evasion, but nothing for ten years seems very unlikely.All the more so since Reid is asserting zero taxes, as opposed to zero federal taxes. Its pretty damn hard not to pay your home state something.

[General Zod]

Wording gets important for this, it appears Reid means that a ten year period existed in which he did not pay taxes. We know he paid them in the last ten as the one and only return he released showed him paying a mere 13.9% for 2010. I'm skeptical, I can totally believe that Romney doesn't want to release his federal taxes because in a few years he did pay very little or nothing, capital losses can easily evaporate tax bills before we even hit active tax evasion, but nothing for ten years seems very unlikely.All the more so since Reid is asserting zero taxes, as opposed to zero federal taxes. Its pretty damn hard not to pay your home state something.

When you're talking Mittens type money avoiding taxes through loss gets to be a numbers game. Ask GE how much they've paid in taxes for the past ten years. Maybe this is why he's reluctant to release more detailed tax records?

[Sea Skimmer]

The trick to GE paying nothing is that because unlike so many US corporations GE actually still owns big physical factories, as opposed to outsourcing every last thing to Chinese owned plants, they can and do aggressively write off the deprecated value of every last nut and bolt in said factories. Its a little harder to accomplish in other businesses.

[Lord MJ]

On one hand this plays and somehow vindicates Romney's decision to not release his taxes. So what if he paid no taxes, if he used perfectly legal means to avoid paying taxes. Using legal tax avoidance schemes to avoid paying tax on money he earned isn't a problem with him per se. And the reason Romney cites for not releasing his taxes is because the democrats will distort what is there and use it to distract from "Obama's failed economic policies."

On the other, it would bring up a good debate on whether it should be legal for people like Romney to be able to use such tactics to avoid paying tax. A debate that Romney probably does not want to get into.

From the dem perspective it basically means, "well we don't need to give the rich tax cuts because of things like this".

From the Repub perspective it's "taxes on the rich force them to use tactics like this and stifle the ability for them to create jobs, so lets eliminate taxes on the wealthy!"

Probably not a debate that the GOP wants to engage in, when they have a much clearer shot at the White House by focusing it on the state of the economy over the last 4 years.

[Pelranius]

Perhaps Romney was one of the people who took advantage of the "Swiss bank account amnesty" program by the IRS in 2009?

*The Cliff notes' version is that the IRS found a bunch of Americans who had salted untaxed assets in Switzerland and offered amnesty if they would pay the taxes back (from 2006 to 2009, IIRC).

[Vympel]

I'm just amazed at what is being said here. If what Reid says is proven true, it could be game over for Romney. But he's taking a huge risk with these allegations, and shows no signs of backing down. If it turns out to be untrue, there could be some serious consequences for Reid and the Democrats. At the very least, Bash's career as a journalist could be on the line.

There won't be any consequences, that's why its brilliant - Reid has said that an anonymous Bain guy told him this. If it turns out not to be true, then so what? The Bain guy was wrong. Whoopdeedoo. Romney is an unlikeable douchebag and Reid isn't running for President- nor is he going to be running in any election until 2016. He's safe. In the meantime, the press is still talking about Romney's refusal to release his tax returns. Its hilarious, especially watching the Republicans fake outrage and pearl clutching and calling Reid a liar. If only there was some way to prove he was a liar

Washington Post:-

It was a coordinated Sunday morning display of righteous indignation, a pageant of scenery-chewing. But in making such a show of denouncing Dirty Harry’s foul calumny, all Republicans succeeded in doing was draw attention to Romney’s stubborn refusal to release more than a year’s worth of tax returns (okay, one year and sort of a second) — and guarantee more coverage of Reid’s claims.

[Knife]

There is still a huge resentment, simmering just under the surface, of people who either caused, or perceived to have caused, the crash 5 years ago. GOPers have distracted a bunch of those people with the Tea-Party, or blaming the the government. Others have just grown tired of Occupy and other things 'representing' that outrage. Something like proof, tax records, of Romney not paying taxes on his millions would/could provide a catylst for that resentment to come out again, dooming the GOPers this election cycle. Hence them tripping over themselves to down play the thing.

Unfortunately, I don't think Reid bloviating about it will ignite any outrage either, at least not any more than hard core Democrats would do regardless. The Dems are probably just trying to keep it in the news hoping something comes out to ignite a firestorm. Personally, I hope it does, while I'm not a Democrat and while Occupy got old and stale, I do believe in the underlying message of the 99%ers.

[TheHammer]

On one hand this plays and somehow vindicates Romney's decision to not release his taxes. So what if he paid no taxes, if he used perfectly legal means to avoid paying taxes. Using legal tax avoidance schemes to avoid paying tax on money he earned isn't a problem with him per se. And the reason Romney cites for not releasing his taxes is because the democrats will distort what is there and use it to distract from "Obama's failed economic policies."

On the other, it would bring up a good debate on whether it should be legal for people like Romney to be able to use such tactics to avoid paying tax. A debate that Romney probably does not want to get into.

From the dem perspective it basically means, "well we don't need to give the rich tax cuts because of things like this".

From the Repub perspective it's "taxes on the rich force them to use tactics like this and stifle the ability for them to create jobs, so lets eliminate taxes on the wealthy!"

Probably not a debate that the GOP wants to engage in, when they have a much clearer shot at the White House by focusing it on the state of the economy over the last 4 years.

Legal or not, it would be very bad for his election chances. If you recall there was quite a backlash when he mentioned that he paid "around %14" on his taxes a few months back. If it shows he paid no taxes its only going to make the whole "Romney Hood" thing seem much more valid. I happen to think that it is valid anyway.

[JLTucker]

Politifact says the claim is "Pants on Fire." Make of that what you will. It's too long to quote.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... -mitt-rom/

[Flagg]

Politifact says the claim is "Pants on Fire." Make of that what you will. It's too long to quote.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... -mitt-rom/

Politifact is a fucking joke. I'd like to see them prove Ried is lying, since he's simply said someone told him something.

[Terralthra]

Politifact says the claim is "Pants on Fire." Make of that what you will. It's too long to quote.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... -mitt-rom/

Politifact is a fucking joke. I'd like to see them prove Ried is lying, since he's simply said someone told him something.

They're saying pants-on-fire because he has given zero evidence, and his claim is unlikely to be true.

[Flagg]

Politifact says the claim is "Pants on Fire." Make of that what you will. It's too long to quote.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... -mitt-rom/

Politifact is a fucking joke. I'd like to see them prove Ried is lying, since he's simply said someone told him something.

They're saying pants-on-fire because he has given zero evidence, and his claim is unlikely to be true.

Translation: They think he's lying, so they are lying about him.

[JLTucker]

They're saying pants-on-fire because he has given zero evidence, and his claim is unlikely to be true.

It's not Reid's job to present evidence. It's Romney's onus to show he paid the taxes. Here are Reid's words that the Politifact ruling links to and refers to:

'"He didn't pay taxes for 10 years! Now, do I know that that's true? Well, I'm not certain," said Reid. "But obviously he can't release those tax returns. How would it look?"

"Not a chance in the world. It's a lot more than that. I mean, you do pretty well if you don't pay taxes for 10 years when you're making millions and millions of dollars."

"As we know, he has refused to release his tax returns. If a person coming before this body wanted to be a Cabinet officer, he couldn't be if he had the same refusal Mitt Romney does about tax returns. So the word is out that he has not paid any taxes for 10 years. Let him prove he has paid taxes, because he has not."

"I was told by an extremely credible source that Romney has not paid taxes for 10 years."

The burden of proof is on Romney.

[Azazal]

They're saying pants-on-fire because he has given zero evidence, and his claim is unlikely to be true.

It's not Reid's job to present evidence. It's Romney's onus to show he paid the taxes. Here are Reid's words that the Politifact ruling links to and refers to....

The burden of proof is on Romney.

Reid is lucky he's not here then, DR5 would screw him over:

Back Up Your Claims. If you make a contentious statement of fact and someone asks for evidence, you must either provide it or withdraw the claim. Do not call it "self evident", restate it in different words, force the other person to prove your claim is not true, or use other weasel techniques to avoid backing up your claim

But since Romney is a Republican, fuck him, right?

Now I have to go take a shower, I feel dirty for defending Romney.

[Terralthra]

They're saying pants-on-fire because he has given zero evidence, and his claim is unlikely to be true.

It's not Reid's job to present evidence. It's Romney's onus to show he paid the taxes. Here are Reid's words that the Politifact ruling links to and refers to:

[quotes excised]

The burden of proof is on Romney.

Do you even know what burden of proof is? The person making a claim has it. Reid made a claim.

[TheHammer]

Regardless of who has to prove what, as long as Romney refuses to release his tax returns the assumption will be that he has something to hide. Its not as if he is being asked to do something past presidential candidates didn't do. Why then would you not release your returns UNLESS there is something in there you know would make people not want you as President.

[Mr Bean]

Terralthra is correct, Reid is making a claim without evidence. It's literal on the evidence level of "something my invisible insubstantial dragon in my garage told me". His claim is that Romney payed zero taxes and he offers no evidence to support this claim.

However Romney's statement that he payed taxes during the same period is equally without merit since he has refused numerous times to offer any evidence when pressed and those who have seen his taxes are also equally unwilling to make any statements demonstrating a rough number of what Mitt Romney payed during this time. Which is the problem with Politifact and their ranking of Reid's statement as pants on fire false as they literally in their own ranking admit they have zero evidence either way. You can't rank a statement true or false without some biases in evidence. You can say "you have no evidence to back up your statement, therefor your statement is meaningless" but you can not say "you have no evidence to back up your statement, therefor your statement is false". Lack of evidence does not mean falsehood without some evidence to the contrary already existing.

At best one can make an argument that because Mitt Romney has not been arrested by the IRS then he must have payed his taxes. But because of the American tax code his effective rate might in fact have been zero if his losses with great enough or his accountants skilled enough in claiming deductions. This might lead to the situation where Mitt Romney payed no taxes yet payed all the taxes he owed. Unless he refund was great enough I suspect he might have payed some form of taxes because it's very hard to make money off of paying taxes but some companies manage it but I've never heard of a individual person managing it.

[JLTucker]

I guess I was misinformed through my various readings of the concept of burden of proof when it is stated that the onus is on those making a positive claim. I saw Reid's claims as being negative. That's why I pasted those quotes because they demonstrated negative claims. You learn something every day.

[Serafina]

The burden of proof on the claim "Romney didn't pay taxes" is on Harry Reid.
The burden of proof on the claim "Romney did pay taxes" is on Romney.
The burden of proof on the claim "Harry Reid is a liar" is also on Romney.

Why? Well the first two should be obvious - both are positive statements. But so is the third - in order to show that someone is lying, i have to show that his statement is false. Which Romney can't do without showing that he did pay taxes.

[Elfdart]

If Reid had the knack for political combat, this line of attack would be a full-force kick in the balls rather than a flimsy brush with a feather duster.

He and every Dem hack needs to repeat theses lines any time they appear on TV or radio, no matter what question is asked:

"Romney says he paid his taxes -let him prove it!"

"What is Romney hiding?"

"I remember one racist Tea Bagger after another demanding to see President Obama's birth certificate, and not one Republican has denounced these racist thugs. Yet the President released his birth certificate anyway. Why can't Mitt Romney do likewise?"

[Max]

Where are all the lunatics who hounded President Obama about proving he was U.S. citizen with a copy of his "real" birth certificate? Why aren't they jumping on Mitt about this?

While that's slightly rhetorical, I find it increasingly interesting that the uber patriotic "obama's tanking the econony" teapublicans wouldn't jump on a politician for (the possibility of) not paying taxes. Granted, I may just be missing some blatantly obvious reason for this other than the republican party will do anything to get Obama out of office at this point, even overlook huge issues like not paying taxes when you're worth 250 million dollars...

[PhilosopherOfSorts]

Where are all the lunatics who hounded President Obama about proving he was U.S. citizen with a copy of his "real" birth certificate? Why aren't they jumping on Mitt about this?

While that's slightly rhetorical, I find it increasingly interesting that the uber patriotic "obama's tanking the econony" teapublicans wouldn't jump on a politician for (the possibility of) not paying taxes. Granted, I may just be missing some blatantly obvious reason for this other than the republican party will do anything to get Obama out of office at this point, even overlook huge issues like not paying taxes when you're worth 250 million dollars...

Mitt's skin is the right color, and he has an appropriately Anglo-Saxon name, that's a big part of why he's not being hounded by the likes of the birthers.

As far as the Teabaggers go, why would Romney not paying taxes bother them? Thier viewpoint is that taxes are stealing, so Mitt simply avoided having his hard-earned money stolen by the evil government and given to less deserving poor people who didn't work for it.

[Max]

Where are all the lunatics who hounded President Obama about proving he was U.S. citizen with a copy of his "real" birth certificate? Why aren't they jumping on Mitt about this?

While that's slightly rhetorical, I find it increasingly interesting that the uber patriotic "obama's tanking the econony" teapublicans wouldn't jump on a politician for (the possibility of) not paying taxes. Granted, I may just be missing some blatantly obvious reason for this other than the republican party will do anything to get Obama out of office at this point, even overlook huge issues like not paying taxes when you're worth 250 million dollars...

Mitt's skin is the right color, and he has an appropriately Anglo-Saxon name, that's a big part of why he's not being hounded by the likes of the birthers.

As far as the Teabaggers go, why would Romney not paying taxes bother them? Thier viewpoint is that taxes are stealing, so Mitt simply avoided having his hard-earned money stolen by the evil government and given to less deserving poor people who didn't work for it.

Good point. I tend to just lump birthers and teabaggers together in my mind since they're both completely ridiculous.

[PhilosopherOfSorts]

There is a lot of overlap between the two, and yes, they are all recockulous.