Does Mitt Romney have a right to hide his income from the American people?

[kentuck]

Democrats need to present this message in a very straightforward way. It is not good enough to ask, "What is he hiding?" or " "Mitt Romney doesn't want the people to see what is in his income tax returns". By talking about what he is hiding or that he doesn't want the people to see his tax returns diminishes the true issue.

The actual issue is "Does he have a right to hide his income from the American people?" Even if he were not running for President of the United States, he does not have the right to hide his income from the government. That is not legal. That is income tax evasion. That is why they put Al Capone in jail.

Yes, he may be only using legal loopholes. Still, we have a right to know what "loopholes" he is using. He does not have the right to hide his income, regardless of whether he is running for President or not? He must report it with the IRS.

Once again, we are lacking in the way we frame this issue. We know he is "hiding" the information. There is no dispute about that. The point that we must make is that he does not have the right to hide his income from the American people. It is important how we frame this issue. It is not about "tax returns" per se. It is about the people's right to know.

[pinto]

1. Yeah he does. Makes him unelectable, though.

Trust and transparency are key here, imo. He fails on both points.

[Wounded Bear]

2. This....

Sure, he has the right, but if he wants that kind of privacy, he should stay out of the public sector.

[pinto]

3. Precisely.

[kentuck]

4. Are you saying?

That he has a right to hide his income and not pay taxes on it and not report it to the government or the IRS in any manner? There are loopholes but we have a right to know what the loopholes are. Otherwise, there is no law.

[msongs]

5. he has an absolute right to not release his tax records as a candidate for higher office unless you

can show us any law or statute requiring him to do so. Releasing tax returns is just a matter of behavior of previous candidates.

Any issues relating to fraud against the IRS is a legal matter not related to public release of tax returns.

If you want to know "what the loopholes are", you can read the tax code and/or hire an accountant/attorney. The loopholes are not secret lol

[kentuck]

6. "The loopholes are not secret"??

Then what loopholes is Romney taking advantage of?? If you don't know what the loopholes are and you don't know what his income is, how can we say it is legal??

[randome]

10. That's what the IRS is for.

[kentuck]

15. And if the IRS doesn't know...?

..or hasn't been informed, is it illegal?

[chknltl]

52. It is not like we can narc him off to the IRS

The IRS can likely bring in its own law enforcement but first it needs credible allegations. Unless you know something the IRS doesn't....

Just the fact that Romney's taxes are currently invisible to us doesn't make them invisible to the IRS. Odds are I suspect, someone down there has already gone over them and found nothing illegal. Unethical by the electorate's point of view is a whole other matter. Imo, it is 'We the Voter' who romney fears, not the IRS.

[kentuck]

53. I don't think he fears, 'We the Voter' at all...

That is why he is sticking his finger in the voters eye. We need transparency and no one can hold him accountable. Just like Nixon.

[chknltl]

64. Yep, we agree there for sure.

Now we need the rest of the electorate onboard and just like Nixon we can send him packing but this time before he gets the chance to screw around with stuff.

[savannah43]

56. You are so wrong. If he wants to be president of this country,

Last edited Sun Aug 5, 2012, 04:55 PM - Edit history (1)

then he should hide nothing relating to his ability to run the country. If he's committed a crime, he's not fit. Tax fraud is a crime. He certainly isn't worried about people knowing how much money he has. How can he be so self-righteous that he thinks that he doesn't have to reveal his returns? We're not talking about whether he's had hair implants or whether that other self-righteous member of his family bleaches her hair. What law school did you go to? Same one Bachmann went to? Or not--you're not really a lawyer, but you try to play one on the internet. That your game?

[JDPriestly]

63. Romney may have the "right" to privacy with regard to his tax returns,

but, the people's right to know the truth about a presidential candidate's honesty and patriotism as reflected in his tax returns, supersedes the candidate's right to privacy.

If you apply to join the military, you have to answer a lot of questions about your life and undergo a medical examination. Romney has never even done that.

The president is not a king. The president is just another citizen. He has to prove that he deserves our trust.

Romney's unwillingness to shows that there is something in his tax returns that he is ashamed of.

That's the whole of it. There is something in Romney's tax returns that he is ashamed of. Something that would either deeply embarrass him or suggest criminal or immoral activity.

That is why the American people need to see Romney's tax returns.

I recall when President Eisenhower had a heart attack while in the White House. There was quite a controversy about whether he had a right to privacy with regard to his medical condition and his medical records.

Since that time, we expect our presidential candidates to be transparent when it comes to medical conditions that could prevent them from serving a full term.

Where Romney gets his vast fortune, who his investors are and were and what he does with his income are matters that would affect how he might serve us if elected president. Does he make a lot of money from the fossil fuel industry? What banks might he favor? Does he gamble? To whom does he owe favors? Is he invested (as Cheney was) in major defense contractors? We need to know where he has his money. In foreign accounts? Did he at any time take advantage of a penalty forgiveness program when he repatriated money he held overseas?

All of these and many more questions bear upon Romney's fitness to lead our country. Romney cannot escape this issue. He has to put up or shut up.

Romney, release ten years of tax returns or quit the race.

[kentuck]

65. Or has he invested in countries like Iran or Syria?

We don't know.

[pinto]

9. No. He has the right to hide it from the public at large, not the IRS. And has to pay applicable tax

My point is more about ethics. I'm guessing his returns were skillfully parsed by a legal team to be *technically* legal.

Yet he's running for public office, as mentioned above. Ethically, and traditionally, he needs to disclose. I'll add ethics to my trust and transparency points.

And, as you say, we'll probably find out a lot about legal loopholes used in the tax code.

[kentuck]

23. Do our elected representatives not have the right?

..to look at IRS files of private citizens if it is in the public interest to do so? Do people at the IRS have families that they talk to? What if there was a whistleblower from the IRS that had the information? How many days would it take for them to hang him or her?

[pinto]

34. ? Missing your point kentuck.

[kentuck]

37. Sorry...

I was suggesting that there are several ways this information could come out? I agree it is about ethics and I'm sure he has his own legal team. He doesn't get his taxes done at H&R Block or the little place down on the corner, for sure.

We need trust and transparency but do candidates for public office have a right to hide that information from the voters?

As for loopholes, if they are legal, do we have the right to know what loopholes people like Romney are using? Is it enough for them to simply say, I'm using a loophole, and all the legal requirements are met? I think there are legal questions involved.

[elleng]

28. Right pinto, you've got it.

[kentuck]

33. How does that make him unelectable?

If enough people vote for him, he will be the next President of the United States. There seems to be no legal requirement for trust and transparency?

[pinto]

35. Unelectable on the ethics of it all. How folks vote is another matter. Go figure.

[kentuck]

39. In other words, it should make him unelectable...

but not necessarily so.

[gulliver]

7. Pig in a poke

Romney is like a car salesman who won't let you pop the hood like all the other car sales folks do. You just don't buy a car from that kind of salesman. It would be dumb.

Romney's not the only one hiding, by the way. A whole lot of Republicans want Americans to buy a pig in a poke this time. The privacy issue is nonsense. They just know they have a lemon and want to gull the rubes.

[kentuck]

12. Don't the rubes have a right not to be stuck with a lemon?

Or do we simply accept what the "cons" give us? And how come Al Capone was not able to hide his money and say he was using a loophole? Nobody had to know what the loophole was - we just took his word for it. What is Mitt Romney doing differently from Al Capone?

[gulliver]

22. Ronald Reagan said it best.

"Don't blow a fellow Republican's sale." Maybe not an exact quote, but something like that.

I guess someone has to buy the lemons. The question is whether the American people want it to be them again, like with George W. Bush. It's the same car company, and the pitch is the same. How dumb are we going to be this time?

[pinto]

36. Better lawyers.

[catbyte]

8. not if he expects to be president

He can hide it all he wants just as long as he slinks back to his McMansions and leaves the rest of us alone.

[randome]

11. He has the right but he should not have.

It should be a law that all candidates release 10 years of tax returns.

[cthulu2016]

13. Yes, he does have that right.

And if the people want to vote for him despite not releasing the information then that is on the people.

The people *should* vote against anyone who refuses to disclose pertinent information.

[SDjack]

14. rMoney and his buddies bought those legal loopholes, they have the right to use them fair-and-

square, he has the right not to show his tax files and loopholes to us, and we have the right to refuse to vote for him because of it.

[kentuck]

16. But if other morons vote him into office...?

...then we have no recourse? Even if he is a criminal, there is no law that can prosecute him? We, as citizens, do not have a right to transparency in our government and if the guy has a billion dollars that he got on the sly, then that is just the way it is?

[B Calm]

17. I think the IRS should audit him immediately!

[Zoeisright]

18. No.

Public office means you have very little privacy.

[rocktivity]

19. Yes -- and the American people have a right to hold it against him.

We need to be confident that our political leaders are making decisions in everyone's best interests socially, not in their own best interest financially.

In other words, his right to hide his financial status ends where our right not to vote for him for it begins.

Elections DO have consequences.


rocktivity

[WillowTree]

20. Of course he has the right to refuse to make his income public if he so chooses.

Whether it costs him in November remains to be seen.

[WI_DEM]

21. When he went into 'public service' he gave up certain rights.

[WillowTree]

25. That isn't one of them.

[cthulu2016]

31. What?

He's a private citizen. He holds no public office.

[bhikkhu]

24. As a person, yes; as a candidate, no

People have a right and a duty to know the character and substance of anyone running for public office. Any businessman's financial dealings is a big part of what we need to know.

[kentuck]

30. I agree.

We have a need to know. Do he have the right to keep the information from the voters, both Democrats and Republicans?

[southernyankeebelle]

26. Hey Mittens one word: Transparency Please.

[liberalmuse]

27. Yes. And we have the right...

...not to vote for him because of it.

[tritsofme]

29. I don't understand your conflation of releasing the tax returns and IRS enforcement activity

Whether or not he releases his tax returns to the public is a matter for politics. The public will either embrace his secrecy or they won't.

It is not at all relevant to the ability of the IRS to enforce tax laws.

[kentuck]

32. The IRS cannot enforce tax laws if...

they don't have factual and accurate financial records. We don't know what loopholes are being used? Just how much information can be withheld from our government and the IRS and still be legal? How much does the government need to know about your financial dealings? Why do we have to sign a form when we hit a big jackpot at a casino? Why is that anybody's business?

[tritsofme]

38. I still don't follow. If Romney misrepresented himself that is a matter for the IRS.

His refusal to release the returns to the public doesn't inhibit the IRS from auditing/penalizing him.

[kentuck]

41. The IRS would be inhibited from auditing him...

...because of political pressures. I doubt that it would ever happen. I suppose it would be a gamble to make returns public because the information may conflict with what was given to the IRS and give them a reason to audit? Obviously, secrecy in finances is not sufficient reason to audit?

Your are right that the responsibilities of the IRS are different from the responsibilities of the voting public. In my opinion, if a candidate has secret accounts all around the world and is running for President of our country and he refuses to be transparent about his income and his wealth, then the IRS should work for the people and audit his butt.

[Buns_of_Fire]

46. Tax LAWS are between him and the IRS.

There, I have no doubt that every applicable T has been crossed and every I dotted. If he's paid zero taxes for the last ten years, and there's nothing illegal, the IRS has no beef with him.

But if he's used every legal loophole and trick in the book to avoid paying taxes, the perception would be that he's just another slimy, greedy disaster capitalist.

In politics, perception is reality. That's where the electorate comes in, and hopefully would deal with the coy little bastard accordingly. That's what scares him to death.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/07/18/1111253/-Romney-says-releasing-his-tax-returns-would-hurt-him-politically

[deaniac21]

40. His income isn't hidden from the government. Do you not

think the IRS has his returns? I wish we would concentrate on what we will accomplish. RoMoney will destroy himself.

[kentuck]

43. Yes, he has already made an amendment to his 2010 filing...

He seemed to have forgotten that he had all that money in an account in Jamaica? When you lie, even on IRS forms, it's hard to remember what you said before.

[Motown_Johnny]

42. Yes he has that right but we also have the right to not vote for him

This should be a lesson for future candidates. You need to release your tax returns and if you plan on running for President you had better have your affairs in order years before you run.

[kentuck]

44. It is my opinion that...

we should have that information before he is sitting in the White House. It's not enough to trust the ill-informed voters to make the right decision. That is too much to gamble.

[Motown_Johnny]

47. I agree, but there is no law to force that issue. Therefore he has the right

to not release the information.

[kentuck]

48. So, he has a right to hide his income from the people?

We have no transparency. The people have no right to demand anything from their candidates. Whatever they pull over the eyes of the voters is perfectly legal. Yep.

[Motown_Johnny]

50. Yes, that is how the law is. If we want transparency then we need to legislate it.

As of right now he has the same rights as you and I. We can't be forced to make our private financial information public and neither can he.

[kentuck]

51. So, if we don't need to know the income of candidates...?

Then I guess it doesn't matter whether or not he has a birth certificate? Or if he was born in another country? Or if he belongs to the Communist Party? Why should any of that information be relevant?

[WillowTree]

54. Well, where a candidate was or wasn't born is a matter of constitutionality.

Don't get me wrong, the whole birth certificate thing was insane, but the constitution does mandate that one must be a natural born citizen in order to be President. There is no such requirement to release tax returns, no matter how much you want there to be.

[Motown_Johnny]

55. The laws are what the laws are. We can wish they were different but it does no good.

It does matter if he/she is a natural born American because that is a Constitutional requirement. Belonging to the Communist Party is not any reason to disqualify someone for the Presidency.


Sometimes we need to vote with our dollars, this time we need to vote with our votes. If enough of us reject the candidate who won't release tax returns then future candidates will understand that it is unlikely they will ever win unless they give us the information we want.

[ProfessionalLeftist]

45. IMO, he shouldn't have that right

Release of prior 10 years of tax returns ought to be mandatory for a US presidential candidate, along with a thorough medical exam, complete psychiatric exam, criminal background check, credit check, drug test, birth certificate, complete employment history, the works. Some or all of these things are required of many job applicants, especially those applying for other types of government jobs - so why not this one? I'd think we'd expect such thorough screening especially for this one. It just might weed out some riff-raff, like GWB, who was most likely a sociopath, along with Rmoney. We don't need those types running the country.

Edit: "We the People" are (allegedly) the President's employer. As such we have as much right as any other employer to demand any or all this info as a condition of employment and to refuse the applicant based on any of it. I'm surprised every bit of this isn't absolutely mandatory for any applicant for the job. Especially since our OWNERS love "business" so much and want to run the gov't like it is one. But they'd hate this idea. It would make it more difficult for Koch to plop one of their chosen cronies into the running, which is probably why it isn't required. WE don't choose our President. They do. That's what Citizen's United was meant to ensure. Anyone who thinks the US is still anything remotely resembling a representative Democratic Republic is seriously deluded.

These corprat assholes have bought themselves a governor in almost every state, and quite a few legislatures, too. They intend to buy themselves a "President" (ie: puppet). Whoever thinks it will take anything less than a national monumental effort to stop them is fooling themselves. It will take a Bigger movement thn in 2008. In 2008 we didn't have Citizens United. If you can't donate to OFA, then volunteer. Make phone calls. Stuff envelopes. Knock on doors. But for God's sake DO something. It's our last chance to save this country for ourselves. Seriously.

[WillowTree]

57. But it isn't and would take a constitutional amendment to require it.

[RB TexLa]

67. These are human beings, not dogs, you have NO right to their private medical information

I don't care how high and how mighty you think you are, you DO NOT have any right to another person's private medical information no matter what office they may run for.

[kentuck]

68. That the way it should have been when Tom Eagleton was disqualified...

from the VP for medical reasons. My, how times have changed.

[ProfessionalLeftist]

69. You've obviously never applied for a gov't job

Some require a full physical. In fact when I worked at a chemical company, it was the same. So obviously, employers do have such rights - not to past medical records, but to examination results done as a condition of and part of pre-employment screening.

[tritsofme]

70. There are only three requirements of presidential candidates.

That you are a natural born citizen, 35 years old, and a US resident for the last 14 years.

These are constitutionally proscribed, there would need to be a constitutional amendment make the qualifications more restrictive.

[onenote]

72. do you think that the tax returns of every person employed by the government should be public?

They all work for the "people" too. But see how far you get with that argument.

Under the law as exists today he is under no obligation to make his returns public. He won't any obligation to do so if he is elected either. Its a political issue -- if he chooses not to releases its up to the voters to decide what that means to them.

Frankly, I'm not sure how a law requiring a candidate to reveal his/her tax returns would work: would it apply only after the nomination is officially made or prior to that point. Should it apply to the Vice Presidential nominee? The Speaker of the House? Everyone in the line of succession to be president?

I think Romney should be punished for not releasing his returns....by the voters.

[ProfessionalLeftist]

82. Only presidential candidates. n/t

[ananda]

49. Mitt can do whatever the hell he wants..

.. or doesn't want to do in this election.

Certainly he does not have to release his tax records.

The voters will let him know what they think about
his refusal to release his records.

Me: I could care less whether he releases them or not.
I was never going to vote for him anyway.

[Historic NY]

58. It not about income as it is the source of that income....

go for a job interview with a major defence company or a federal or state civil service job, like a cop or fireman, etc...they do background checks and they want a look...

[Avalux]

59. Sure. He can do whatever he wants. But we all need to remember this -

Romney is in the middle of a long interview process; he's asking the American people to 'hire' him to run the country. If he doesn't pass the interview, he doesn't get the job. The burden is on him.

[RevStPatrick]

60. You've been going on about this all week...

...and you've been comparing Mittens not voluntarily releasing his taxes to crimes being committed.
You need to stop doing this.
You are sounding quite Freeperish.
Please stop.
You are better than that.

He's over 35.
He was born in this country.
He's lived here for more than 14 years.
That is all that is legally required of him.
Period.
End of story.

If he committed tax fraud, that is between him and the IRS.
Unfortunately, we don't get to know about that.
And it wouldn't legally disqualify him, if he had committed tax fraud.
Period.
End of story.

So, to answer your question: "Does Mitt Romney have a right to hide his income from the American people?"
Abso-fucking-lutely!!!
We don't have the "right" to know anything.
Of course, his dodginess means he most likely won't get enough independent voters to vote for him to win the presidency. He's a rich fuckwad who uses every trick in the book to avoid paying taxes. We all know that, as it is glaringly obvious.

Stop with the Al Capone shit.
It's petty, it's silly and it's wrong.

[kentuck]

61. Thank you for your clarification.

I hope you will be happy with your next President, Mitt Romney. With your lackadaisical attitude and seemingly lack of concern, I would not be surprised. I am flattered that you would follow my posts for a week. If they bother you so, why don't you hit the little ignore button?

And if this is not a problem for anyone, why do you think so many other people are commenting about it? It is only a trivial matter to you.

[RevStPatrick]

62. Mitt Romney is not going to be our next president.

And one of many reasons why is because he won't release his taxes.

But none of us has the "right" to demand that he release them.
And you don't have the "right" to keep conflating his not releasing them with crimes being committed.
(actually, you do have that right, as silly as it is)
It's Freeperish. It's Birtherish. He's not Al Capone.
And my attitude is not "lackadaisical," it's realistic.
The man will never be POTUS...

[kentuck]

66. That's your opinion.

I disagree with you. I think we should be discussing this issue in all its forms and possibilities. I don't think it is "conflating". I think it is helping to keep it in perspective.

[ecstatic]

71. If we ask for it, then he should answer

Once a large portion of us ask for it, and there's a good reason why the question should be answered (his Bain claims, residency issues, etc.), then we deserve an answer.

In what other scenario is an employer (in this case, we the people) forced to hire a person without basic vetting? He has every right not to answer, and we have every right to tell him to either answer or f(ck off! I just hope Americans aren't stupid enough to let this tool win the presidency despite all his secrets, lies, and general disrespect of us voters.

[99Forever]

73. From the American people?

I suppose.

From the IRS?

Hell no.

But more importantly, we have the right to not hire him for the most powerful job on the planet.


Sounds fair and reasonable to me.

[Marr]

74. Of course. As a private citizen. If he wants a fucking job from us, however,

he can go through the fucking interview process like everyone else.

[w8liftinglady]

75. rich Democratic candidates HAVE released theirs,though... right?

John Kerry is the first that comes to mind

[Politicalboi]

76. If he gets arrested

For tax fraud, we need to know if that is a possibility. They need to change the rules for running for President. And the first thing should be comprehension tests. That will knock out most of the GOP in 20 minutes. And then taxes. Make it a rule that you MUST show 10 years of income tax.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

77. I want to know if there are any personal conflicts of interest

Will his tax, banking, and financial policies not only represent Republican ideology but also contain hidden motives as President to enrich himself first and foremost, whatever the effect on the American people? Will his foreign policy also involve him in a conflict of interest where he will be motivated to promote laws that favor nations and institutions in which his money is invested abroad in order to enrich himself? I want to know if he will violate his oath of office if elected when he swears to faithfully execute the Office of POTUS. Any conflict of interest placing self-enrichment above the good of the people would not involve faithful execution in my opinion.

[mysuzuki2]

78. Sure he does.

And the rest of us have the right to think he's hiding something and mot vote for him.

[ibegurpard]

79. not if he's running for President he doesn't

[madrchsod]

80. no

[mrmpa]

81. NO, NO, NO............

as a job applicant an employer will check my credit report. So if Romney wants hired, then we (his employers) have the right to see his tax records.