• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Bloomberg mag. claims Harry Reid was right

These stories really are not about Romney's taxes--they are about trying to attack him for being a devout Mormon by proxy since the left would be nailed to the cross if they got caught overtly playing the God card, so this is how they remind people of that. Ever notice how the LDS Church is always brought into everyone of these stories?
 
Always. Blame Congress.

Remember that the next time the President is held responsible for everything that happens in this country. :tongue4:
 
These stories really are not about Romney's taxes--they are about trying to attack him for being a devout Mormon by proxy since the left would be nailed to the cross if they got caught overtly playing the God card, so this is how they remind people of that. Ever notice how the LDS Church is always brought into everyone of these stories?

The 10% tithing to the LDS church goes to building churches, temples, etc. People who donate above this get to select where the money goes and is usually designated to the welfare program that is much like the red cross in helping those in need around the world. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints has no paid clergy except a few full time employees who get paid modest, market related salaries. It is an all volunteer organization. If Romney is donating a large perentage to the welfare program of the church then it is charity.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x3ymga_mormons-help-during-hurricane-katri_news
 
Last edited:
As far as I am concerned there is no difference between one non-profit or the other.
 
You have to wonder what kind of sick mind would accumute $250M and worry about stiffing the US government via a CRUT.

It's greed to the nth power.
I wonder, too. Sounds like something Timothy Geithner would come up with...
 
Predominantly by declaring the Mormon Church a charity... Bloomberg says Mitt didn't paid taxes in 15 years.

Romney Avoids Taxes via Loophole Cutting Mormon Donations

In 1997, Congress cracked down on a popular tax shelter that allowed rich people to take advantage of the exempt status of charities without actually giving away much money.

Individuals who had already set up these vehicles were allowed to keep them. That included Mitt Romney, then the chief executive officer of Bain Capital, who had just established such an arrangement in June 1996.

In this instance, Romney used the tax-exempt status of a charity -- the Mormon Church, according to a 2007 filing -- to defer taxes for more than 15 years. At the same time he is benefiting, the trust will probably leave the church with less than what current law requires, according to tax returns obtained by Bloomberg this month through a Freedom of Information Act request.

In general, charities don’t owe capital gains taxes when they sell assets for a profit. Trusts like Romney’s permit funders to benefit from that tax-free treatment, said Jonathan Blattmachr, a trusts and estates lawyer who set up hundreds of such vehicles in the 1990s.

Near Zero

“The main benefit from a charitable remainder trust is the renting from your favorite charity of its exemption from taxation,” Blattmachr said. Despite the name, giving a gift or getting a charitable deduction “is just a throwaway,” he said. “I used to structure them so the value dedicated to charity was as close to zero as possible without being zero.”​

... and much much more at the link.

Do you really think it's time to resurrect your taxer rhetoric? I mean, you crazy taxers already shot your wad and it failed. Now, a few days before the election, do you REALLY think you'll change anyone's mind?
 
Do you really think it's time to resurrect your taxer rhetoric? I mean, you crazy taxers already shot your wad and it failed. Now, a few days before the election, do you REALLY think you'll change anyone's mind?

So you think I wrote this story? I'm flattered. It's a brand new Bloomberg story. The story I linked is the topic and you could address it if you like.
 
So you think I wrote this story? I'm flattered. It's a brand new Bloomberg story. The story I linked is the topic and you could address it if you like.

shrug...

I've already expressed myself in regards to the article: It's crazy taxer talk. So, tell me...do you ascribe to this article's view?
 
Bloomberg magazine is the most bigoted publication in the USA. Last month it ran as their cover story a multi-page smear against ALL Mormons akin to a Hitler-style accusation against Jews. Bloomberg and his magazine are the top of the list of American bigots.
 
Yeah, don't blame Romney, a centimillionaire, for stiffing the treasury with obscure tax schemes. I mean if he had to pay some extra taxes he'd go broke, right?

So Romney is supposed to ignore a perfectly legal and compliant "tax scheme", and pay more in taxes, because you've decided he can afford it. Neat.

How much extra in taxes did Obama pay last year? How about Biden? Nancy Pelosi? Warren Buffet? I missed the parts about them bringing their checkbooks down to the IRS saying "I'll write you a check for more than I owe because, well, I can afford it!"
 
shrug...

I've already expressed myself in regards to the article: It's crazy taxer talk. So, tell me...do you ascribe to this article's view?

If it were a blog or other such biased site, it'd cast some serious doubt. I've no reason to doubt this reporting. Do you have any reason to doubt the facts in the article's reporting?
 
If it were a blog or other such biased site, it'd cast some serious doubt. I've no reason to doubt this reporting. Do you have any reason to doubt the facts in the article's reporting?

The only fact in the whole story pertaining to Mitt Romney is that he has a Charitable Remainder Trust. The author of the article hasn't even seen it. It is full of assumption and spin. It's crap.
 
If it were a blog or other such biased site, it'd cast some serious doubt. I've no reason to doubt this reporting. Do you have any reason to doubt the facts in the article's reporting?

What she said.
 
Apparently I am the only one who read the entire OP article. I agree that it was a legal loophole. The issue here is he is getting more money from the trust than the trust is earning, which is dwindling the principle down to nothing. How charitable is this?
Romney’s trust was projected to leave to charity an amount with a present value of a little less than 8 percent of the initial contribution, according to an analysis by Friedman. Thus, the specifics of Romney’s trust wouldn’t have passed legal muster if it had been set up 13 months later, he said.
Because the trust’s investments have been earning a return far below its annual payouts to the Romneys, its principal has dwindled rapidly.
In 2001, five years after it was established, the trust had a value of between $750,000 and $1.25 million. Since then, it has pursued a conservative investment strategy -- regardless of the ups and downs of the stock market -- buying a mix of money- market funds, federally-backed bonds and federal bond funds. Since 2007, it has moved its assets entirely into cash. By 2011, its investments earned a return of $48, down from between $60,001 and $100,000 in 2001. It paid $36,696 to the Romneys in 2011.
 
Reid has some ethical issues of his own to deal with. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.





Senator Harry Reid's Ethical Scandals

Over the course of his political career, Reid has been implicated in several serious ethics scandals:
In a 1998 real estate deal engineered by Jay Brown (a former casino lawyer and a longtime friend of Reid), the senator purchased two undeveloped residential-property lots on Las Vegas’ rapidly growing outskirts for approximately $400,000. Reid bought one of the parcels on his own, and the second one jointly with Brown. One of the sellers was a developer who was benefiting from a government land swap supported by Reid. In 2001 Reid sold both of his lots for $400,000 to a limited liability corporation created by Jay Brown, but he never disclosed the sale on his annual public ethics report. Nor did he inform Congress that he held any stake in Brown's company. As far as Congress knew, Reid was still the owner of the two lots he had purchased three years earlier.

In 2004 Brown's company, having negotiated with local officials to rezone the property for a shopping center, sold the land to other developers in a deal that earned Reid $1.1 million -- a $700,000 profit on his initial investment. Reid falsely reported the transaction to Congress as a personal land sale.
In 2001 Reid paid cash for a $750,000 condominium at the Washington, D.C. Ritz-Carlton where he resides. When he subsequently gave Christmas bonuses (in 2002, 2004, and 2005) to the doorman and other support staff at his building, he used $3,300 in campaign donations rather than his own separate funds -- in contravention of federal election law. Reid’s campaign falsely listed the bonuses as campaign “salary” expenditures for two of the years in question, and as a “contribution” for the other year. When news of Reid’s misappropriation of campaign funds became public in 2006, the senator’s office said the listing as salary had been a “clerical error.” Added Reid: “I am reimbursing the campaign from my own pocket to prevent this issue from being used in the current campaign season to deflect attention from Republican failures.”
In a $286 billion federal transportation bill passed by Congress in 2005, Reid secured $300 million in earmarks for projects in his home state, including $18 million to fund the construction of a bridge spanning the Colorado River. On the Arizona side of that bridge, Reid owned 160 acres of undeveloped land around which many new housing units were being built. Noting that the new bridge would cause the value of Reid’s property to skyrocket, Norman Ornstein, co-author of a book that examines earmarking, said: “It's a really bad idea for lawmakers to earmark projects when they have a financial interest that could in any way be affected by it.” Steve Ellis, vice president of Taxpayers for Common Sense, noted: “Unwittingly, the taxpayer may have helped inflate the value” of Reid's land.
Between 2002 and 2006, Reid intervened to gain monumental government concessions on behalf of a powerful Nevada land developer, Harvey Whittemore, who wished to build thousands of homes and numerous golf courses on 43,000 acres of barren land in an area called Coyote Springs, an hour northeast of Las Vegas. This land had a number of federal restrictions on its use: One-fourth of it was off-limits to developers because of federal protections for an “endangered” species of desert tortoise that dwelt there; another one-fourth was government-owned and was subject to a federal power-line right of way; and the territory overall was rife with streams and washes that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) had designated as crucial to the health of the desert’s ecosystem, and was therefore generally off-limits to construction.

Thanks to Senator Reid’s intercession, however, the Bureau of Land Management agreed to relocate the tortoises to an adjacent federal preserve, thereby opening that portion of Coyote Springs to developers.

In 2002 Reid inserted some obscure provisions into a land-management bill that relocated the aforementioned power corridor, thereby apparently freeing Whittemore to build on the 10,500-acre parcel he coveted. But the Senate's Energy and Natural Resources Committee balked at the deal, and Reid in turn negotiated an alternate arrangement where Whittemore was permitted to purchase the land at a fair market rate while the government relocated the corridor.

Finally, in 2005 Reid and fellow Nevada Senator John Ensign used their influence with the EPA to eliminate the environmental-impact obstacle.

In return for Reid’s efforts, Whittemore gave tens of thousands of dollars to the senator’s political campaigns and to his leadership fund (which Reid used to help bankroll the campaigns of fellow Democrats). In addition, Whittemore gave $5,000 to each of Reid's two sons, to finance their efforts to win local political offices. The developer also hired one of those sons as his personal lawyer to represent him in his dealings with federal officials.
Between 2001 and 2004, Reid wrote at least four letters pressing the Bush administration to take action on certain issues of importance to Indian tribes that were clients of the lobbyist Jack Abramoff. Abramoff, whose staff was in regular contact with Reid’s office, lobbied on behalf of tribes involved in the gambling casino industry; he would later be convicted in federal court for defrauding those tribes. Each time Reid wrote a letter on behalf of the Indian tribes, he collected donations from Abramoff and his lobbying partners and clients around the same time period. All told, these donations totaled nearly $68,000. Also between 2001 and 2004, Reid received more than $50,000 directly from four Indian tribes that were clients of Abramoff.


Copyright 2003-2006 : DiscoverTheNetwork.org
 
Back
Top Bottom