Will Tax Issue Mortally wound Romeny?

[JFK-Democrat]

Just curious if you guys think that Mitt's refusal to release his tax returns cost him the election? I imagine that this will come up in the debates and most ordinary Americans are going to think he is hiding something if he still refuses to provide his tad returns.

Would it be better for him to take the hit now by releasing the returns and hope for the economy to tank of him to have a chance or should he just continue to old out.

[stegosaurus]

The answer is no. The economy sucks and that's what the average voter cares about at the moment.

[NHI]

No.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

If taxes hurt Romney at all this time, it won't be because of his returns but because of his "plan".

[Penelope]

Won't cost him the election, probably, unless it's 2000 levels of close. Will definitely hurt his chances.

[Fritz]

Romney will lose the election.  This issue may contribute to said loss, but will not be the determining factor.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

I'm going to have to echo True Federalist, the real liability for Romney is his tax plan. The media will go after him on it once the public starts paying attention and he'll be hammered for responding to them with non-specific platitudes while Obama's is very concrete.

[Torie]

I'm going to have to echo True Federalist, the real liability for Romney is his tax plan. The media will go after him on it once the public starts paying attention and he'll be hammered for responding to them with non-specific platitudes while Obama's is very concrete.

Yes I agree Mittens needs to get more specific on his tax plan. Just saying the revenue lost from cutting rates will be replaced by reduced deductions, is too vague. The "problem" of course is that the big ticket deduction items are just too popular, such as the home mortgage and charitable deduction. Obama of course is vague about a host of stuff too, or just makes ludicrous promises/predictions, or ignores the elephant in the room. That's politics baby.  

As an aside, the first deduction that I would consign to the ash heap of history is the one for state and local taxes. Just why should the Feds subsidize the high taxing states?  It is just bad public policy. An added bonus of exorcising that deduction, is that it would drive Chuck Schumer nuts. What could be better than that?  

[morgieb]

If there are dodgy tax returns, maybe.

Right now I doubt it though. But yeah, this tax plan could potentially hurt, but not kill him.

[Napoleon]

Literally no one cares to see Romney's tax returns.

[Oakvale]

Literally no one cares to see Romney's tax returns.

No, not unless there's some kind of scandalous, damaging information in there. Which, given the bizarre reaction of the Romney campaign, there may well be...

[RogueBeaver]

What Napoleon said.

[All Along The Watchtower]

No, because the dumbs that are the population of 'Murka really don't care.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

I'm going to have to echo True Federalist, the real liability for Romney is his tax plan. The media will go after him on it once the public starts paying attention and he'll be hammered for responding to them with non-specific platitudes while Obama's is very concrete.

Yes I agree Mittens needs to get more specific on his tax plan. Just saying the revenue lost from cutting rates will be replaced by reduced deductions, is too vague. The "problem" of course is that the big ticket deduction items are just too popular, such as the home mortgage and charitable deduction. Obama of course is vague about a host of stuff too, or just makes ludicrous promises/predictions, or ignores the elephant in the room. That's politics baby.  

As an aside, the first deduction that I would consign to the ash heap of history is the one for state and local taxes. Just why should the Feds subsidize the high taxing states?  It is just bad public policy. An added bonus of exorcising that deduction, is that it would drive Chuck Schumer nuts. What could be better than that?  

Cutting any rates on corporations, capital gains or the top tax brackets is the liability, it doesn't really matter which deductions he plans to eliminates. It will look incredibly irresponsible. There is no getting around this for Romney.

[mondale84]

Literally no one cares to see Romney's tax returns.

Yeah because they're probably so hideous from distortions, lies, and dishonest overseas accounts. At this point, I wouldn't  be surprised had ties to human trafficking.

[Torie]

I'm going to have to echo True Federalist, the real liability for Romney is his tax plan. The media will go after him on it once the public starts paying attention and he'll be hammered for responding to them with non-specific platitudes while Obama's is very concrete.

Yes I agree Mittens needs to get more specific on his tax plan. Just saying the revenue lost from cutting rates will be replaced by reduced deductions, is too vague. The "problem" of course is that the big ticket deduction items are just too popular, such as the home mortgage and charitable deduction. Obama of course is vague about a host of stuff too, or just makes ludicrous promises/predictions, or ignores the elephant in the room. That's politics baby.  

As an aside, the first deduction that I would consign to the ash heap of history is the one for state and local taxes. Just why should the Feds subsidize the high taxing states?  It is just bad public policy. An added bonus of exorcising that deduction, is that it would drive Chuck Schumer nuts. What could be better than that?  

Cutting any rates on corporations, capital gains or the top tax brackets is the liability, it doesn't really matter which deductions he plans to eliminates. It will look incredibly irresponsible. There is no getting around this for Romney.

Most support cutting rates on C corps, including Dems, and it is not clear if that tax is even progressive (much of it is passed on in the form of higher prices, akin to a regressive sales tax). Whether it is progressive or not, the US has the highest rate in the world, hurting competitiveness. Mittens does not support cutting the already low capital gains rate. So no, it does not look "incredibly irresponsible" to me.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

I'm going to have to echo True Federalist, the real liability for Romney is his tax plan. The media will go after him on it once the public starts paying attention and he'll be hammered for responding to them with non-specific platitudes while Obama's is very concrete.

Yes I agree Mittens needs to get more specific on his tax plan. Just saying the revenue lost from cutting rates will be replaced by reduced deductions, is too vague. The "problem" of course is that the big ticket deduction items are just too popular, such as the home mortgage and charitable deduction. Obama of course is vague about a host of stuff too, or just makes ludicrous promises/predictions, or ignores the elephant in the room. That's politics baby.  

As an aside, the first deduction that I would consign to the ash heap of history is the one for state and local taxes. Just why should the Feds subsidize the high taxing states?  It is just bad public policy. An added bonus of exorcising that deduction, is that it would drive Chuck Schumer nuts. What could be better than that?  

Cutting any rates on corporations, capital gains or the top tax brackets is the liability, it doesn't really matter which deductions he plans to eliminates. It will look incredibly irresponsible. There is no getting around this for Romney.

Most support cutting rates on C corps, including Dems, and it is not clear if that tax is even progressive (much of it is passed on in the form of higher prices, akin to a regressive sales tax). Whether it is progressive or not, the US has the highest rate in the world, hurting competitiveness. Mittens does not support cutting the already low capital gains rate. So no, it does not look "incredibly irresponsible" to me.

You're evading the topic at hand: how this will effect Romney's electability.

Torie, why are you ignoring the major public policy institutes on this one? I don't understand how anyone could believe that this plan is feasible, especially if they believe that America is in the middle of a fiscal crisis (I don't).

[opebo]

To say that the voters don't understand a tax return or care about Romney's isn't precisely the same thing as to say this issue will fail to wound him at all.  Keep in mind that the vast majority of voters are voting in a simple emotional way - yes, they are indoctrinated in such a way by the capitalist system that they cannot think critically or understand simple things like a tax return, but they will see Romney bumbling along, looking weak, dodgy, and less-than-masculine about this, and probably several other issues.  

It is this that hurts him - the attacking and the failure to respond effectively.  For most voters, this  back-and-forth makes sense only in the same way two groups of dogs barking at each other makes sense - there is no 'content' for them other than who is loudest and most confident, and who dominates the other with facial gestures, body language, and tone of voice.

So, I would say this could have a very mild negative effect in this fashion, but nothing remotely mortal.

[Torie]

I'm going to have to echo True Federalist, the real liability for Romney is his tax plan. The media will go after him on it once the public starts paying attention and he'll be hammered for responding to them with non-specific platitudes while Obama's is very concrete.

Yes I agree Mittens needs to get more specific on his tax plan. Just saying the revenue lost from cutting rates will be replaced by reduced deductions, is too vague. The "problem" of course is that the big ticket deduction items are just too popular, such as the home mortgage and charitable deduction. Obama of course is vague about a host of stuff too, or just makes ludicrous promises/predictions, or ignores the elephant in the room. That's politics baby.  

As an aside, the first deduction that I would consign to the ash heap of history is the one for state and local taxes. Just why should the Feds subsidize the high taxing states?  It is just bad public policy. An added bonus of exorcising that deduction, is that it would drive Chuck Schumer nuts. What could be better than that?  

Cutting any rates on corporations, capital gains or the top tax brackets is the liability, it doesn't really matter which deductions he plans to eliminates. It will look incredibly irresponsible. There is no getting around this for Romney.

Most support cutting rates on C corps, including Dems, and it is not clear if that tax is even progressive (much of it is passed on in the form of higher prices, akin to a regressive sales tax). Whether it is progressive or not, the US has the highest rate in the world, hurting competitiveness. Mittens does not support cutting the already low capital gains rate. So no, it does not look "incredibly irresponsible" to me.

You're evading the topic at hand: how this will effect Romney's electability.

Torie, why are you ignoring the major public policy institutes on this one? I don't understand how anyone could believe that this plan is feasible, especially if they believe that America is in the middle of a fiscal crisis (I don't).

Why don't you give me a link to one of the public policy institutes to which you refer, and I will read it, and comment?  Fair enough?

As to the electability matter on the lucunae of tax policy, as opposed to the public policy merits, that just bores me, and I find it ludicrously speculative, so no, I don't wish to comment on that. Thanks.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

Here you go: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/url.cfm?ID=1001628

I find this analysis to be the most credible and least biased. Have at it.

[Torie]

Here you go: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/url.cfm?ID=1001628

I find this analysis to be the most credible and least biased. Have at it.

Thanks for taking the effort to link it. I shall.

[Lincoln Republican]

The average American is more concerned about their own taxes than Romneys'.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The average American is more concerned about their own taxes than Romneys'.

If true then they'll vote against Romney's tax plan which will raise the taxes of an average American if it truly is revenue neutral as he claims.

[5280]

Nah....

[AmericanNation]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iejCicOmYYo

Boom.  Reince  just "caterpillared" (ended) yet another fake issue engineered by the dems.  Boy is it refreshing to hear the truth.