But by all means, gas it some more. Leave off the wheelie though, then you’d just be showing off.

I never said they were lying. I’m saying they’re releasing these meaningless rates as an attempt to prevent questioning about the content of the returns and the shady cayman/swiss bullsh*t Mittens has been pulling for years. They know that would sink him further.

Dave Rywall on September 23, 2012 at 1:48 PM

Rich people are rich for two reasons:

1) They know how to make money, they are successful at it.
2) They know how to KEEP their money.

That’s the second half of why Obama’s “raise taxes on the richest Americans” class warfare is crap. We’ll never see all 89 billion a year (a tiny, infitesimal drop) because the rich will find ways to get paid and keep their money. Heck, they will give to BOTH Democrat and Republican lawmakers to get exemptions.

And by the way, Obama’s ENTIRE medical release was a ONE PAGE LETTER signed by his doctor that he’s A-Ok. Mitt released more information in this release than Obama has released total in regard to: college transcripts, papers, medical history, passports, etc, etc.

I’m sure it’s just killing you this issue is now settled.

Dave Rywall on September 22, 2012 at 12:26 AM

You are a complete idiot. You don’t sign your return when you file electronically. You sign an 8879 authorizing electronic filing.

It would also be stupid to publish your signature on the web.

And by the way, the reason he didn’t deduct all of his charitable contributions is that there’s a cap on what percentage of your income you can deduct. So Romney not only gave 30% of charity, he gave a lot more than he could legally deduct on his return.

In any case, what it shows is that the do pay taxes on investment income that was taxed before they received it AND after. And that they were then very generous to charity.

Every one of Obama’s budgets have removed the charitable giving deduction, for EVERYBODY not just the rich. Since he and Biden don’t really give much to charity, it does them no good, so they want to get rid of it and force people to depend on government. Thank goodness even Democrats rejected Obama’s budgets 100%. Now if Harry Reid would actually let one come to the floor other than Obama’s . . ..

Wonderful people you support there drywall.

The “return” isn’t even signed.

Dave Rywall on September 21, 2012 at 11:48 PM

Most everyone files their returns electronically. There is no signature on the form in this case.

ctwelve on September 23, 2012 at 1:42 PM
——–
ha ha ha if Ignatius J. Reilly had a more stupid and arrogant younger brother, it’d be you.

3. PwC is totally lying about those rates, because they don’t care about their reputation, or false testimony, or something. It’s totally a cover-up, man! DON’T TRUST THE SYSTEM!
——-
I never said they were lying. I’m saying they’re releasing these meaningless rates as an attempt to prevent questioning about the content of the returns and the shady cayman/swiss bullsh*t Mittens has been pulling for years. They know that would sink him further.

blather blather blather etc.

Dave Rywall on September 23, 2012 at 1:24 PM

So your thesis, then:

1. Ann and Mitt willingly forego millions in personal income, which they cannot recover, as part of a dastardly scheme to look better.

I remind you those millions sent to charity figure into the overall rate, but since they are deducted the net effect is that he never earned the money he gave away (and claims) for tax purposes! Why is this so hard to understand?

2. Ann and Mitt didn’t claim deductions because OMG TAX SHELTER/ADVANTAGE/REFUND!

The net effect IS STILL ZERO. Frequently one does not/cannot deduct charity when the accounting is uncertain, or when you are anticipating a substantial loss of income the following year. This is prudent planning; if he becomes President, he’s likely to experience a temporary loss in investment income for numerous reasons, some ethical, some political, some practical. If he’s planning major financial reforms, for example, as a practical matter he needs to prepare for that.

But I guess prudent planning is alien to you. As is math, apparently.

3. PwC is totally lying about those rates, because they don’t care about their reputation, or false testimony, or something. It’s totally a cover-up, man! DON’T TRUST THE SYSTEM!

Protip: companies are not in the habit of staking out positions like this when they’re false. That’s risk that simply cannot be mitigated. Your accusation means either a) PwC doesn’t know the returns are false, or b) PwC is knowingly providing false testimony. You clearly don’t work in/understand corporate risk. PwC is the last firm on Earth to contemplate such a thing, since they last time they even came close, Enron. Which cost them BILLIONS.

You fail logic forever. Don’t bother soliciting a reply; I’ve given you all the time I feel charitable enough to give.

This was a wholly calculated move by someone who has been running for president for years and years and years.

While you clowns continue to clap your hands sore over his noble “didn’t even claim the whole amount how awesome is he!” bullsh*t, if he loses the election, he will simply amend his taxes next year and claim the rest. Wake up, fool.

And the bullsh*t list of we-swear-it’s-true tax rates from previous years is meaningless to anyone with a shred of a clue.

Awww, look the little potty mouth girl believes the state of Hawaii and a newspaper conspired 40something years ago. How cute!

Dave Rywall on September 23, 2012 at 12:14 PM

Here, I attempt to explain the math to you:

1. Charitable donations are not tax shelters. A tax shelter is where one places money to both a) reduce taxation and b) retain the original income. Retirement accounts are tax shelters.

2. Charity is fully deductible, but you do not get to keep the money. The end result is as if you never had the money in the first place. This is done because sheltering would turn charity into a tax scheme, and taxing the deductions would completely eliminate the incentive to donate in the first place.

3. For very rich people, this does not reduce their effective tax burden. To get into lower tax rates a rich person (multi-millionaire) would need to donate substantially all of his income.

3a. As an aside, this does mean there is tax advantage for us lower-income people, as it can knock you down a tax bracket if you plan it carefully. This means, for the middle class and below, charity is a tax shelter.

So in summary: charity has no direct financial benefit for him, either through taxation or otherwise. In fact it cause mild financial harm, because that’s money he can’t use for his own purposes.

So, tell me again how this is part of a vast right-wing conspiracy?

Badger40 on September 22, 2012 at 10:33 AM
———–

Awww, look the little potty mouth girl believes the state of Hawaii and a newspaper conspired 40something years ago. How cute!

I don’t want to become an Allahpundit Eeyore, but I’m really beginning to think that way. We have the worst performance by a president since Jimmy Carter. We should run away with this thing. And yet we pick McCain II as our nominee and then he runs around committing gaffe after gaffe. I’m really beginning to think we’re going to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory once again.

Shump on September 21, 2012 at 5:37 PM

And coincidentally he is running ahead of where Reagan was at this point when running against jimmy carter. At this point in the race, if you hop into the wayback machine, carter was leading Reagan 47-39. So please, go away with your concern trolling.

Are we supposed to detest rich people, or should we admire them?

Are we talking about a Democrat or a Republican?

We can fill in the blanks from there.

It’s obvious to anyone with half an objective brain

Dave Rywall on September 22, 2012 at 8:47 AM

OOOHHH, my aching sides! That explains everything…you only have half a brain.

Obama has not tithed 10% to his church. Why not?

faraway on September 21, 2012 at 4:48 PM

Ha.
Now he wasn’t connected enough to Jeremiah Wright’s church.
That is some awesomeness.

verbaluce on September 21, 2012 at 4:52 PM

Neah, he invested in michelle/imelda’ s collection of tacky shoes instead…..

rayra on September 22, 2012 at 2:33 AM

I don’t think it’s bad strategy, though. Romney doesn’t want to talk about his taxes at all, even though he’s ultimately right about the issue. To that end, it was a Friday news dump. It’s out there without taking tons of the news cycle up, but fulfills the promise he made and will be a handy counter to any time the leftist hacks pull a Harry Reid.

And hey, if the composite pdf bc is good enough for liberals, an unsigned tax return is good enough for me.

sablegsd on September 22, 2012 at 4:12 PM

I know, it is what is so sad about Republicans these days. They pretty much are willing to throw away any and every degree of values they ever might have had, and I am tending these days to imagine they had very few.

And hey, if the composite pdf bc is good enough for liberals, an unsigned tax return is good enough for me.