The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

What’s In Mitt’s Wallet?

Posted on | January 17, 2012 | 10 Comments

by Smitty

Perry cut right to income taxes at his first opportunity during the debate last night. Apparently, Mitt’s campaign has never heard of the Streisand Effect, where topics that really are of no interest (her house, his cash) become endlessly fascinating because people are so adamant about evading them.

Why was the otherwise firm and confident Mitt doing such a fine Fred Astaire on the tax topic?

First of all, I really don’t care. Private property should remain such. From that standpoint, I actually support Mitt’s reluctance. Again, though, the Streisand Effect: the fact that he’s hemming and hawing, draws attention to the question. His motives for evasion, far more than the details, are very much a question for the Dude Who Would Be POTUS.

What might Romney’s income tax returns reveal? I’ll do what Stacy hates, and speculate:

  • He might be in a tussle with the IRS, and legitimately need time to sort some legal issues.
  • If you’ve read Throw Them All Out, we might discover that he has made quite the pile o’ cash in various legal, but politically challenging ways. For example, Senator John Kerry was cited in TTAO for hauling in cash from legislative knowledge of health care stocks. I’m confident nothing like that could have possibly occurred in Mitt’s case, for all he must know quite a bit about the companies in the field as a result of RomneyCare. But releasing tax returns would help dispel such concerns.
  • It could be that Romney just, through no illegal action of his own, wound up within the 1% of the 1%, NTTAWWT, IYKWIMAITYD. I repeat: I don’t care, and class warfare sucks. But why not just go for some transparency on the point?

I guess if he locks in the delegates before disclosure, it’s all good.

Update: Daily Pundit wants transparency in exchange for his vote, which makes sense.

Category: Mitt Romney

Comments

10 Responses to “What’s In Mitt’s Wallet?”

  1. Anonymous
    January 17th, 2012 @ 9:31 am

    We know what’s in there, just need to hear how much

  2. richard mcenroe
    January 17th, 2012 @ 10:30 am

    Well, for one thing, a lot of Mitt’s private property seems to have come at the expense of the public purse, if Bain is any indication.  Be nice to know how deeply this defender of capitalism has suckled at the state’s teat..
     Politicians want an extraordinary power & authority over the public purse. They have less reasonable expectation of privacy than decent folk.  It’s not like we’re demanding he unseal his divorce records, we’re asking how much  money this self-described career politician has made and from whom.  That is an eminently reasonable demand from an electorate that wishes to be an informed electorate.
    If Mitt wants us to trust him, he shouldn’t act like Pelosi w/Obamacare (“We have to pass the bill to see what’s in it”) or Kerry & Nixon with their ‘secret’ plans to end their wars (“You have to vote for me to find out what it is.”Mitt can’t behave like a snake-oil salesman and not expect folks to start calling him ‘Slick.’

  3. richard mcenroe
    January 17th, 2012 @ 11:11 am

    Heck, you can’t even apply for any decent job these days without them running a credit check on you; why should a political candidate get a pass?

  4. ThePaganTemple
    January 17th, 2012 @ 11:22 am

    I’ll tell you what’s in his wallet, the condom he’s going to put on before he fucks us all.

  5. Adjoran
    January 17th, 2012 @ 1:23 pm

    If you really don’t care, why do a post on it?

    Where does it end?  Does the public have a “right” to any information the media and opponents demand, at the moment they demand it?

    Oh, I guess you’re “just asking questions” like the 9/11 Truthers, right?

  6. Anonymous
    January 17th, 2012 @ 1:27 pm

    And there he goes, over the shark. Adjoran needs a bigger motorcycle….

  7. ThePaganTemple
    January 17th, 2012 @ 3:11 pm

    We have as much right for the same information from him that we expect from all the other candidates, let’s just put it thataway.

  8. ltw
    January 17th, 2012 @ 4:21 pm

    Mitt Romney would have to explain “carried interest” to explain what’s in his wallet…

    Why not explain capitalism and the tax code as it is.  He’s in a position and well versed on what it is.

    pg 1 “A general partner of a private equity or hedge fund typically receives two types of compensation: a management fee tied to some percentage of assets under management and “carried interest” tied to some percentage of the profits gener- ated by those assets. The management fee is taxed as ordinary income to the general partner. Taxation on the carried interest is deferred until profits are real- ized on the fund’s underlying assets, and any resulting profits to the general partner are taxed at the capital gains tax rate to the extent the fund’s profits reflect capital gains.”

    http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/83xx/doc8306/07-11-CarriedInterest_Testimony.pdf
    Interesting reading…and eye-opening is the Table 1 “Capital Investment in Private Equity by Type of Limited Partner”

    pg 8 “It is worth noting that deferral of taxation on carried interest generates a tax benefit to the general partner (who does not recognize income initially) but a tax cost to the limited partners (who do not enjoy a deduction or other reduction in taxable income at that point). Many limited partners are either tax-exempt entities in the United States or foreign institutions (see Table 1), however, so they may be largely unaffected by the lack of an immediate U.S. tax benefit. The net result is, there- fore, the overall deferral of a net tax liability.”

  9. No Secrets | Daily Pundit
    January 17th, 2012 @ 6:30 pm

    […] Secrets Posted on January 17, 2012 3:30 pm by Bill Quick What’s In Mitt’s Wallet? : The Other McCain First of all, I really don’t care. Private property should remain such. From that standpoint, I […]

  10. smitty
    January 17th, 2012 @ 7:10 pm

    I think the post is self-explanatory.