• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Mitt Romney, liar.

I really wonder if they realize how stupid this argument sounds. "The wife of the guy who ran for president eight years ago and lost didn't release all her tax returns! Therefore Romney doesn't have to release all of his now!"

There are elementary school playground fights going on right now that have better arguments than that.
 
varwoche said:
Can someone explain why one would establish a company in the Caymans if not for a tax advantage?
Click to expand...
Romney offers this:
Romney said:
the so-called offshore account in the Cayman Islands, for instance, is an account established by a U.S. firm to allow foreign investors to invest in U.S. enterprises and not be subject to taxes outside of their own jurisdiction
Click to expand...
lol
 
Romney said:
the so-called offshore account in the Cayman Islands, for instance, is an account established by a U.S. firm to allow foreign investors to invest in U.S. enterprises and not be subject to taxes outside of their own jurisdiction
Click to expand...
Even if true, it still means the off-shore company was used to deny the US tax revenue for the specific purpose of enriching Romney.

The only positive thing about this laughable explanation, from Romney's perspective, is that it's too technical to become an anti-Romney soundbite.
 
varwoche said:
Even if true, it still means the off-shore company was used to deny the US tax revenue for the specific purpose of enriching Romney.

The only positive thing about this laughable explanation, from Romney's perspective, is that it's too technical to become an anti-Romney soundbite.
Click to expand...

No, if true it means that he still paid taxes in his own jurisdiction (the US).
 
Newtons Bit said:
No, if true it means that he still paid taxes in his own jurisdiction (the US).
Click to expand...
No, even if you're right here, you missed the point. The Cayman company (1) permitted foriegn investment free of US taxes and (2) enriched Romney in the process.

Take it up with Romney if you disagree.
 
varwoche said:
No, even if you're right here, you missed the point. The Cayman company (1) permitted foriegn investment free of US taxes and (2) enriched Romney in the process.

Take it up with Romney if you disagree.
Click to expand...
huh? So we don't want to encourage foreign investment in the USA? That's news to me.

The first responsibility of a citizen of a country is to pay taxes to that country. Regarding investments outside of a citizen's country, there are wide variations. I think it's true to say that generally, offshore income is taxed at home, and to the extent it is not taxed, it may be taxed by the offshore country.

There have been many changes in these rules since the 1999-2002 time period.

So, varwoche, I don't know exactly what point you are trying to make, but it doesn't seem to hold much water.
 
varwoche said:
No, even if you're right here, you missed the point. The Cayman company (1) permitted foriegn investment free of US taxes and (2) enriched Romney in the process.

Take it up with Romney if you disagree.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that seems correct to me too.

Nobody does business with Caribbean banks for fun. It is all because of the mandatory banking secrecy and ability to shelter assets.

Anybody who tries to tell you otherwise shouldn't be trusted.
 
mhaze said:
huh? So we don't want to encourage foreign investment in the USA? That's news to me.
Click to expand...

What does US citizen Romney putting money in a bank account in a foreign country have to do with encouraging foreign investment in the USA?

Oh, and you still haven't addressed your previous odd statements about Obama. Since Obama never attended any "Muslim schools", and he wouldn't have had any classes in "Muslim theology", can you please explain what you were referring to in this post?
 
Last edited:
BenBurch said:
I tend to agree. But until we see the return, we don't know what is there, and there might be dragons.
Click to expand...

Indeed. But we were addressing the specific claim that Romney accidentally admitted that he's got something to hide. That only comes from ignorance of his allusion to the "mountains out of molehills" cliche.
 
varwoche said:
Romney offers this: lol
Click to expand...


I find even more damning the fact that he owned two nearly identically named companies (one ending in Ltd. the other in LLC)--one in Bermuda, and one incorporated in the U.S. and he "accidentally" wrote the U.S. company's name on disclosure forms.

It might have been a perfectly innocent mistake (and it was later corrected in amended forms), but I wonder why the hell he set up 2 companies with the same name to begin with if not precisely for the reason of confusing the two?
 
mhaze said:
huh? So we don't want to encourage foreign investment in the USA?
Click to expand...

Yet another non sequitur. You wrote this in response to posts about Romney's offshore investment.

Or are you now creating a Birther CT that casts Mitt Romney as a foreigner? :p
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
Yet another non sequitur. You wrote this in response to posts about Romney's offshore investment.

Or are you now creating a Birther CT that casts Mitt Romney as a foreigner? :p
Click to expand...
No, I wrote it about Romney's island based investment company that encouraged foreigners to invest in the USA.

JoeTheJuggler said:
I find even more damning the fact that he owned two nearly identically named companies (one ending in Ltd. the other in LLC)--one in Bermuda, and one incorporated in the U.S. and he "accidentally" wrote the U.S. company's name on disclosure forms.

It might have been a perfectly innocent mistake (and it was later corrected in amended forms), but I wonder why the hell he set up 2 companies with the same name to begin with if not precisely for the reason of confusing the two?
Click to expand...
It's pretty common to see 2 companies with the same name but different corporate stylings, actually. You can check this by going to your secretary of state's home page and going through the corporation and business entity listings. Since it is common, your innuendo that there might be something fishy about it fails. And as you note, the mistake he made that you cynically call "accidentally" was corrected.

So, Joe. you got anything left over there? Any arguments that work?

:)
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
Yet another non sequitur. You wrote this in response to posts about Romney's offshore investment.

Or are you now creating a Birther CT that casts Mitt Romney as a foreigner? :p
Click to expand...
Here's the interview snip that I was referring to.

From a political perspective, a lot of pundits wonder why you haven’t gotten rid of your offshore accounts. Can you explain why you have not done that?

Well, first of all, all of my investments are managed in a blind trust. By virtue of that, the decisions made by the trustee are the decisions that determine where the investments are. Secondly, the so-called offshore account in the Cayman Islands, for instance, is an account established by a U.S. firm to allow foreign investors to invest in U.S. enterprises and not be subject to taxes outside of their own jurisdiction. So in many instances, the investments in something of that nature are brought back into the United States. The world of finance is not as simple as some would have you believe. Sometimes a foreign entity is formed to allow foreign investors to invest in the United States, which may well be the case with the entities that Democrats are describing as foreign accounts.​

Frankly I think looking at Romney's offshore investments would be a learning experience in how and why some types of investments are placed in one place or another, and also regarding the nature of countries' boundaries in the world of investments.

I'm not seeing that in this thread, but just something that appears to be 19th century mystical thinking that "offshore === BAD AND EVIL".

Whatever.
 
Last edited:
mhaze said:
Here's the interview snip that I was referring to.

From a political perspective, a lot of pundits wonder why you haven’t gotten rid of your offshore accounts. Can you explain why you have not done that?

Well, first of all, all of my investments are managed in a blind trust. By virtue of that, the decisions made by the trustee are the decisions that determine where the investments are. Secondly, the so-called offshore account in the Cayman Islands, for instance, is an account established by a U.S. firm to allow foreign investors to invest in U.S. enterprises and not be subject to taxes outside of their own jurisdiction. So in many instances, the investments in something of that nature are brought back into the United States. The world of finance is not as simple as some would have you believe. Sometimes a foreign entity is formed to allow foreign investors to invest in the United States, which may well be the case with the entities that Democrats are describing as foreign accounts.
Click to expand...

Why is US citizen Mitt Romney investing in an offshore account intended to be used by foreign investors?
 
Last edited:
mhaze said:
No, I wrote it about Romney's island based investment company that encouraged foreigners to invest in the USA.
Click to expand...
But what we're talking about is Romney's offshore investment, and the fact that any profits he made from that company were sheltered from U.S. taxation.

It's pretty common to see 2 companies with the same name but different corporate stylings, actually. You can check this by going to your secretary of state's home page and going through the corporation and business entity listings.
Click to expand...

Woops--you missed the boat again. It is not common to found a company in Bermuda and one in the U.S. with similar names [ETA: except, of course, for the purpose of creating a tax haven], and Bermuda corporations aren't something I can find in my secretary of state's home page.

So, Joe. you got anything left over there? Any arguments that work?
Click to expand...

Yep, all the ones made in this thread you've ignored or failed to refute.

Primarily, the one that is the topic of this thread. Romney's statement that he "left any role" with Bain in 1999 is a flat out contradiction of the statement made in SEC filings (and signed by Romney acting as CEO) saying "Mr. W. Mitt Romney is the sole shareholder, sole director, Chief Executive Officer and President of Bain Capital and thus is the controlling person of Bain Capital."

Also the fact that he drew a 6 figure salary from Bain during the period in question. He complains that people who like Obama care (such as the people in the NAACP audience who booed him) want "free stuff" while he would have us believe he got this salary for doing absolutely nothing.

[ETA: Also Romney thinks he can claim credit for any job creation achieved by Bain even after he "left" the company because he founded it, and it was largely his vision at work, but for some reason he can't be held responsible for decisions by the company to offshore jobs after he "left" the company, even though he was certainly aware of the decisions and had the authority to stop them and was ultimately the guy responsible for them.]

Also, as I've pointed out, Romney is arguing against a strawman when he falsely complains that the Obama campaign called him a felon, since, of course, they did no such thing.
 
Last edited:
mhaze said:
Here's the interview snip that I was referring to.

From a political perspective, a lot of pundits wonder why you haven’t gotten rid of your offshore accounts. Can you explain why you have not done that?

Well, first of all, all of my investments are managed in a blind trust. By virtue of that, the decisions made by the trustee are the decisions that determine where the investments are. Secondly, the so-called offshore account in the Cayman Islands, for instance, is an account established by a U.S. firm to allow foreign investors to invest in U.S. enterprises and not be subject to taxes outside of their own jurisdiction. So in many instances, the investments in something of that nature are brought back into the United States. The world of finance is not as simple as some would have you believe. Sometimes a foreign entity is formed to allow foreign investors to invest in the United States, which may well be the case with the entities that Democrats are describing as foreign accounts.​
Click to expand...

Yeah, and his campaign has already admitted that the "blind trust" isn't a blind trust. (And it's already been pointed out that the "blind trust" just coincidentally invested millions in a company founded by Mitt's son and one of Mitt's campaign donors.)

And I think he's lying when he claims that he held the Cayman Island account for the good of the U.S. rather than as a tax shelter.

Actually, I think he'd be lying if he made that claim, because he seems to be saying only that it's a possibility (as if he himself has no way of knowing what his intention was--or that he doesn't know which accounts the Democrats are talking about --I suppose meaning that he has some that are tax shelters and some that are for the good of the U.S., which is a silly defense).
 
Unabogie said:
Speaking of tax shelters, I wonder when the Obama people will start asking about Romney's IRA account which used a max 6k a year contribution to balloon to its current worth of $100M?

Does that qualify as a tax shelter, being, you know, tax free?
Click to expand...

R.Mackey said:
Yeah, no kidding. I'd really like to know about this, as my own IRA is worth quite a bit less. Obviously Romney is some kind of super-genius, which is why he's qualified to lead us.
Click to expand...
Retirement accounts are often rolled over into IRAs when someone leaves a company. Nothing to see there.

Daredelvis
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom