The real 47 percent: GOP candidate with a Ferrari pays no federal income taxes for third year

[Galraedia]

A wealthy Republican candidate who owns a vintage Ferrari and a fighter jet effectively paid no federal income tax for the third year in a row.

Investor Thomas C. Foley hopes to defeat Connecticut’s Democratic governor, Dannel P. Malloy, in the upcoming Nov. 4 election. His campaign released summaries of the candidate’s 2013 federal income tax returns to reporters on Friday, and both the New York Times and the Hartford Courant noted his total federal tax liability was just $673.

“The campaign released his 2010, 2011 and 2012 tax summaries last month; 2013 was the third year in a row that Mr. Foley effectively paid no federal income tax,” the Times reported.

Foley spent $11 million of his own money seeking to become governor of Connecticut in 2010, and the Malloy campaign has been eager to point out Foley’s lavish lifestyle.


Read more: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/10/the-real-47-percent-gop-candidate-with-a-ferrari-pays-no-federal-income-taxes-for-third-year/

[Skink]

1. they like that

he might cut taxes for everybody

[pa28]

2. His total tax obligation was $600 and I'm sure that's too much for him.

Placing the tax burden entirely on labor and exempting capital gains is the whole idea.

[indepat]

3. Bingo and for lagniappe, exempt higher incomes from labor from those pesky payroll taxes

that lower income earners from labor pay on ever dollar earned, the right-wingers' wet dream.

[Downwinder]

4. Did he deduct the $11 million as a job hunting expense?

[Curmudgeoness]

5. He is an idiot

for releasing the tax returns. With that amount of tax liability, he would have been smarter to weather the storm of accusations about his not releasing them. Glad I am not the one who advises him, since the person who is advising him is doing such a good job.

[Unknown Beatle]

6. So you don't think

that mitt romney refusing to release his tax returns didn't hurt him at the polls? I really think that mitt refusing to release his tax returns most definitely hurt him with voters. He would have lost big time anyway because mitty is an idiot, a liar and a cheat and people knew it.

[Curmudgeoness]

8. I suggest that if Mittens only paid $600 in taxes for a full year

it would have been worse than not releasing them at all. I am not saying that it would not hurt either way, but the risk is worse when an extremely wealthy person pays less than most of the people in the country.

[malthaussen]

9. It's an interesting question,

... but I dunno. The voters will reliably elect people who abuse the system for as much money as they can. Hell, the voters will elect criminals if they hear what they want to hear. One would think, a priori, that the exploited class would be outraged to know exactly how much they're being exploited, but it does seem that facts have little impact on a certain type of voter.

-- Mal

[Curmudgeoness]

10. I guess the question is

How many of those "certain type of voters" are out there?

My opinion is that there are a lot of them, but not enough of them. But I have no basis of fact regarding that opinion.

[malthaussen]

11. Me, I'm outraged.:)

I suspect you are too. But oh, I remember so well Sarah Palin going on a shopping spree with more money than most people spend on a house, and the reaction of the ruling class (Tom Ridge in particular) was along the lines of "Can't we talk about something that interests grownups?"

-- Mal

[Curmudgeoness]

12. Oh, I'm pissed all right.

I have been pissed for years, since I had worked for a CPA firm where we spent all our time finding ways to beat the taxman. And it is amazing how much people with money can do to avoid paying taxes. I was shocked then, but now I am just pissed.

Note: McCain and Palin did not win....but I don't know how much things like your example helped that. Mittens did not win, but I don't know how much things like not releasing/half releasing his tax returns affected that. I like to think that enough people were also just as outraged as we are.

[malthaussen]

13. Yeah, me too.

But in all those cases, there was so much more to be outraged about than their peculations. Some university should do a serious study about how much the underclass resents the ruling class's privileges. But they'd probably attribute it to "envy," anyway, which is the usual rich man's reaction when someone tells him he has too much.

-- Mal

[Curmudgeoness]

14. Sure, it's always envy.

As if I would want to lose my soul to have more money than I could ever spend. Yep, that's it. An easy cop-out.

[malthaussen]

15. I think it's the rich who envy the poor.

They want all those "handouts" they see the poor getting.

-- Mal

[Curmudgeoness]

16. Touche. nt

[Bandit]

17. If there wasn't "enough" of them the House would be controlled by Democrats and there would be no

worries about losing the Senate.. There are more than "enough" of the type of voter that will vote Republican no matter what sort of crime their candidate has committed. They have no problem voting for and endorsing Torturers.

[Curmudgeoness]

18. It was a question of income and taxes paid.

I think that there are a lot of reasons why people vote for or against candidates, but I think that many people would be turned off by a candidate who made millions and paid something like $600 in income taxes. That is what my comment was relating to.

I do know people who believe that they will be struck by lightning if they were to press the ballot button on a Democrat, but they are not the people who put the candidates in office. They are the die-hards, and to be honest, I am die-hard on the other side. I would never vote for a Republican. The only effect either of us on the hard line sides have is if we don't go to the polls.

[DocMac]

7. Effing criminal! nt

[blkmusclmachine]

19. Rmoney

Offshore