Omitted statement shows true intent of giving money

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Esquire Springville, UT
    Sept. 1, 2012 8:22 p.m.

    Hey Alfred, I'm not the one using tithing for my political benefit. Why attack me for Romney's actions. Do questions about his inconsistent behavior bother you?

  • HaHaHaHa Othello, WA
    Aug. 29, 2012 10:53 a.m.

    Lets keep this DA argument going a little longer! Romney has released more then he is legally obligated to release as far as tax returns go. I'm sure this disclosure is only for the purpose of reducing conflicts of interest, and he will also be required to maintain his investments in a blind trust, just as other presidents have, for the same purposes. If anyone believes otherwise, consult the IRS with some evidence. I personally hope "Rich guy" Romney has gone a year or two, using legal but tricky accounting methods, that got him out of paying taxes. There is NO bigger rat hole to pour money down the drain, then the Federal budget.

    The constitution doesn't stipulate anything about Presidents and their finances, however it does stipulate a requirement about presidents being legal residents. So comparing Obama and his birth certificate with Romney and his tax returns, is an argument that only flies with airheads! Besides, are Birth Certificates really private documents like tax return. I think they are public documents, with public information available to anyone. but I could be wrong?

  • Twin Lights Louisville, KY
    Aug. 29, 2012 12:37 a.m.


    Please allow me to address something in your first post. You said “Asking to see someone's private birth certificate in order to hold public office is wrong. You no more have the right to see Obama's birth certificate as a citizen then you have to see Romney's taxes.”

    As someone who NEVER thought the whole birther thing was anything but idiocy (and was a surefire loser for the Republican Party) allow me to respectfully disagree.

    Citizenship from birth is a constitutional requirement. Release of taxes is not.

    If there was a credible question of citizenship, examination of birth records is reasonable from a constitutional standpoint. If folks want to see a candidate's tax returns, that is simply an issue of whether the candidate should or should not satisfy the voters.

    One meets a constitutional test. The other is simply a hoop voters ask a candidate to jump through.

    That said, I don't think Romney will shake this question. Voters are curious and they make the rules about what they care about.

  • Bifftacular Spanish Fork, Ut
    Aug. 29, 2012 12:27 a.m.

    I never thought I'd see the day when becoming successful in America would be viewed by many as unattractive, an embarrassment...horrible. The hue & cry from the the left about Romney's success and wealth is astonishing. They don't want their leaders to be successful - no, they want their leaders to be mediocre, perhaps even unsuccessful. I don't believe for a second that the cry for Romney to release his taxes is because people believe he's a tax cheat - no, what they want to pounce on AGAIN is the fact that Romney is wealthy and the release of his taxes would give them yet another opportunity to babble on about the 90 vs 10% crapola and how out of touch he MUST be. Since Obama has taken office, achieving the American dream has become more and more of an embarrassment to some people. It is now more fashionable to be on welfare than to be a hard working person that has risen about great odds to become someone.

  • JoeCapitalist2 Orem, UT
    Aug. 28, 2012 10:10 p.m.

    atl: Who said the goal of a flat tax is to remain "revenue neutral"? I certainly didn't. Yes I would love to see government revenues (i.e. taxes) reduced dramatically.

    I am also in favor of a balanced budget which means that while revenues are cut, spending must be cut even more. The federal government is at least 3 times as big as it needs to be.

    And yes, I believe that we can cut the government by that much without orphans starving and granny freezing to death. (Just trying to head off the inevitable comebacks by big government liberals.)

  • Hellooo Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 28, 2012 9:00 p.m.

    Hope Romney does not capitulate to these request. He has released exactly what the last Republican candidate for the office did. It is enough. I am sure the kind President has his minions at the Treasury going over every part of Mr. Romney's tax filings if there is something they will bring it up at the exact time to influence the vote. Nixon was pilloried for what this Presidency does as an everyday activity.

  • Alfred Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 28, 2012 5:02 p.m.

    @liberal larry:

    "As a long time landlord I thought I'd heard it all, but Mitt's latest excuse for not releasing his tax returns takes the cake."

    What takes an even bigger cake is Obama's secreting his college/university papers... to the extent that, if anyone releases the documents they will pay dearly with a lawsuit.

    What is Mitt hiding? Likely how much he's made in profits. What is Obama hiding? Most likely that he registered in school as a foreigner. We'd love to hear hid feeble answer for that one.


    "Unfortunately, the Romneys use tithing as a political tool."

    They say nothing about their charitable giving unless someone demands to know.

    "What does that tell you?"

    I tells me you must be one of those liberal democrats.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 28, 2012 4:48 p.m.

    "I would love to see a 10% flat tax enacted."

    Analysis of the flat tax suggests that the necessary tax rate to use for it to achieve the revenue we currently get is roughly a 23% flat tax rate. (The federal gov't takes in 15-20% of GDP in revenue on average, the reason for the 23% is that money that is in bank accounts and isn't spent wouldn't be taxed so the rate has to be higher to achieve the normal revenue amounts. A 10% flat tax would take current revenue from 15% to something like 9% of GDP and cutting revenue by 40% like that (9% being a 40% reduction of 15%) would yield a deficit increase of about 700-800 billion a year.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 28, 2012 4:38 p.m.

    "I never said you weren't free to say whatever you wanted and implying that I did isn't civil "

    When you said "Tactics like those you are using here to intimidate and coerce private citizens into releasing private information about themselves and by extension those associated with them are extremely inappropriate." the use of the words "extremely inappropriate" suggested to me something beyond mere disagreement but reaching closer to "this shouldn't be allowed". My apologies for taking it the wrong way.

    "It makes sense to me but since it doesn't make sense to you everyone else must be either stupid, lying or wrong since you are right?"

    No, I just think you're too trusting of a man who has lied about his tax returns in the past (residency matter when he was running for Governor, he claimed they were filed for Massachusetts when they were filed for Utah). I'm skeptical of this new claim from him since he has strong incentive to find reasons/excuses for not releasing his tax returns that don't make him look like he's just hiding something negative (I assume it'd be something legal, just unpopular).

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Aug. 28, 2012 3:34 p.m.

    According to the Constitution, citizenship carries with it a burden to pay taxes. ALL Americans must pay taxes, not just the wealthy. Not just Obama's "rich guy", but all of us. (Look at Article 1 and study it until you realize that it was written to assure that ALL of us would pay taxes.)

    What does "equally apportioned" mean? Does it mean that the "rich" pay an "unequal" share? Does it mean that the "poor" stand idly by while the "rich" pay for everything? We ALL are under obligation to pay equally for the duties that we have asked the Federal Government to perform.

    Obama doesn't believe that. He believes in class warfare. He believes in pitting the "rich" against the "poor". He believes in disharmony. He believes that the only way he will ever win is to cause those who will not create jobs covet the wealth of those who can create jobs.

    To further his class hatred, he demands that Romney PROVE HIS INNOCENCE. What AMERICAN demands that? The only reason is to advance his class warfare and class envy protocol.

    Who needs a President that divides? I don't. Do you?

  • 4601 Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 28, 2012 2:37 p.m.

    As the New York Times says, "All the news that fits, we print." WC Fields had it right, "Never give a sucker (In this case, the truth.) an even break."

  • JoeCapitalist2 Orem, UT
    Aug. 28, 2012 1:06 p.m.

    I am outraged that nearly 50% pay zero federal income taxes. I am also outraged that there are a ton of special interest rules written into the tax code that allow rich people to legally avoid paying taxes on income.

    I want to see the laws changed so that we have fair, simple rules with regards to taxes.

    What I don't want is an attempt to demonize or to go back and try and confiscate money from people who followed the rules in place during the past. I would love to see a 10% flat tax enacted. If it is, we shouldn't try to get everyone who only paid 5% last year to pay more.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Aug. 28, 2012 12:49 p.m.

    TO "UtahBlueDevil" wow, you sound really arrogant. Who cares if somebody in your ward knows how much you make? Are they going to make you pay more for the friends of Scouting drives?

    If you were asked to speak on finances, why wouldn't you want to be known as somebody who understands finances? Don't you think that others could use some advice when they are struggling with their own finances? Why do you want to "hide your light under a bushel"?

  • Shaun Sandy, UT
    Aug. 28, 2012 12:37 p.m.

    @Mountainman & Mike Richards. You guys both have stated in the past that 50 percent of taxpayers do not pay any federal income tax and in the same breath will state that Mitt Romney has paid all taxes legally required of him. Those 50 percent have done everything legally, tax wise, as well. But you guys are outraged at that fact that they have done everything legally.

    Would you guys be outraged if Mitt happened to pay no tax but did everything legally? Are you outraged that those fifty percent still pay FICA taxes which is around seven percent but Mitt does not because his money comes from "investment" income? And please do not argue he made money that was taxed at ordinary income and then he invested it. That never happened. He is the beneficiary of a special loophole in the tax code lobbied by him and others that benefit from carried interest.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Aug. 28, 2012 12:36 p.m.

    "gnat-squinting fault-finders"

    RAB, regardless of whether or not I agree with your post, that term made me laugh out loud.

    I have no idea what it means, but I gotta give you a "like" just for that.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 28, 2012 12:05 p.m.

    "Tactics like those you are using here to intimidate and coerce private citizens into releasing private information about themselves"

    This is a comment forum on a newspapers' website. My comments have 0 influence on Romney campaign decisions and I have the option, per the rules of this moderated comment forum, of criticizing what I think is an unlikely excuse being used to try and justify refusing to release more tax returns. It would seem you're interesting in coercing silence, however.

    "It doesn't matter what the Romney's reasons are for picking and choosing what they wishes to reveal to the public"

    It just does not make political sense to have "unwillingness to disclose charitable giving" be a reason not to release more tax returns when it's openly clear they donate large sums to their church and they openly state as much themselves that they give plenty to their church and other charities. Heck, it'd be a positive to disclose that and his advisors would be pushing for him to release his returns if that was all he was worried about... but it's not. It can't be. It makes no sense.

  • RAB Bountiful, UT
    Aug. 28, 2012 11:46 a.m.

    It is obvious what Mitt is hiding. He is hiding his pearls from the swine. He his hiding ammunition from the gnat-squinting fault-finders who will do anything to distract attention from Obama's failed presidency. He knows (as we all do) that any new information, regardless of what it is, can and will be used against him by his desperate opponents.

    Personally, I enjoy watching Romney's enemies panic in their desperation to find fault in an obviously good, honest and sincere human being. Every anti-Romney post I read merely exposes unwarranted hate and prejudice. Romney could give a billion dollars to starving children and they would find a way to twist it into something dishonorable and unworthy of praise. Their criticism is hardly worth acknowledging anymore.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Aug. 28, 2012 11:28 a.m.


    You believe that my post was uncivil? Really?

    And it is because I believe that people do things for purely partisan reasons?


  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 28, 2012 10:42 a.m.

    I thought it was pretty clear in the article that she was happy to give it. Hence Mitt's joke of "crying, but for another reason".

    The problem is... both Mitt and Ann have been upfront and open about giving 10% to their church and plenty to charity. Both noted that if you add that to their tax rates it goes well over 20%. It's readily available that Mitt's charity has donated millions. So he can't possibly want to keep charitable contributions hidden as an excuse for not wanting to disclose taxes... unless there was something problematic for him in there like maybe a dozen years ago when he was seeking out support from Planned Parenthood...maybe he gave them a donation.

    Fact is Mitt is just using charitable giving as an excuse to hide something else in his tax returns. This is just a way to try and seem like the reason to not disclose more is modesty but that's false since he and Ann have been perfectly willing to disclose their charitable giving numbers.

  • NedGrimley Brigham City, UT
    Aug. 28, 2012 10:33 a.m.

    Hmmmm. Maybe Obama is holding something back. What is HE hiding? Goose...gander

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    Aug. 28, 2012 10:15 a.m.

    I think it would be very interesting to find out how all the churches in the U.S. disperse/use the money donated to them.

    Tax experts are now seeing questionable, possibly illegal, ways Bain has structured its finances to lessen its U.S. tax liability. While this probably wouldn't affect Mitt financially because he is beyond the statute of limitations it would show the extent he was willing to go to protect his wealth.

    The most important issue is what policies Romney is proposing. He is proposing "doubling-down" on Bush era policies which will further lessen taxes for those at the top and increase taxes for those at the bottom. Several churches, which see poverty as a moral issue, have come out against these proposals. The LDS church is silent.

    We can't admit Romney is an honest man because we see the many gyrations on issues and even blatant lies about his opponent in his campaign ads and speeches.

  • Moderate Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 28, 2012 9:57 a.m.

    His excuse would make sense if he hadn't released ANY tax returns, but he's released one already. That showed a tithing amount didn't it? What more "damage" could be done by releasing more returns? I suspect tithing is the least of his worries.

    Maybe Julian Assange could release the rest of Mitt Romney's tax returns...

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Aug. 28, 2012 9:10 a.m.

    "Releasing tax returns in not a qualification to run for office"

    Last I checked, neither was releasing birth certificates or school records but that does not preclude people from asking.

    Do you respond to those people the same way? Consistency is all I ask for.

    That said, people can choose to vote for or against a candidate for any reasons that they choose.

    I believe that Romney is an honest man that has paid all of the taxes that he legally owed.
    But then, I believe GE probably paid all of their legally owed taxes.

    GE has used tax loopholes to get out of paying taxes. While probably legal, that surely has riled those on the right. I would like to see those loopholes closed. You?

    Why is this different? Partisanship perhaps?

  • JoeCapitalist2 Orem, UT
    Aug. 28, 2012 9:03 a.m.

    Mitt is very rich. He earned his money legally. He is entitled to spend it any way he sees fit. He paid his taxes by following all the rules set forth in the tax code.

    Too many people feel entitled to criticize rich people because they buy nice things or decide that they may be able to make better use of it than to give more of it to some government bureaucrat. They buy stuff at WalMart made in China because they feel that is where they get the best value for their dollar, but go wild when they hear rich people invest some of their money overseas.

    I doesn't matter to me if Mitt uses HIS money to buy a dozen houses or blows it all on luxury items. Like most rich people, he may spend a small portion of his wealth on personal items, but the bulk of it will be put to productive use building stuff.

    Give a dollar to the Mormon church = bad. Give that dollar instead to Barney Frank = good. Only the "Occupy Wall Street" crowd actually believes such actions will lift people out of poverty.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Aug. 28, 2012 9:03 a.m.

    What is he hiding?

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Aug. 28, 2012 8:53 a.m.

    Releasing tax returns in not a qualification to run for office.

    Just like most of the things that liberals demand, their demand that Romney release his tax returns is based on their hot air. If they think that he owes taxes, then let them prosecute; otherwise, they show contempt for a citizen who HAS PAID ALL TAXES OWED.

    They can't admit that Romeny is an honest man. They want us to believe otherwise, but because they know he is honest, they know that if they try to prove that he is dishonest, it will hurt their candidate, so they just continue to insinuate.

    Cutting off Ann Romney's comment totally reversed its meaning. That was just one more deliberate attempt from the liberal media to change the meaning of something. The media can't handle the truth, so they make up their own and then pretend that they're innocent of wrong-doing. Is it possible that Dan Rather is teaching "ethics" to the liberal media?

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Aug. 28, 2012 8:23 a.m.

    Maybe mitt's holding back a bit...

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    Aug. 28, 2012 8:10 a.m.

    It doesn't tell me much of anything. I too keep my tithing a secret. I pay mine directly to the church in SLC because I don't want people in my ward to know how much I make. I recently was asked to talk in church on financial issues, and I refused because I don't want people associating that topic with me. I make a good amount of money because I do what I love to do... not because I set out to be financially better than my neighbor.

    So while I am no where a "comfortable" as is Mitt, I understand his logic here. Problem is, when you run for President of the United States, you elect to give up your right to that sort of privacy. If is for that reason, and about a million more, I would not put myself into a the position Mitt Romney has.

    You sacrifice far too much to win the office of President. I don't see how it is worth it.

    And I appreciate the further clarification of Ann's comments - makes more sense.

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    Aug. 28, 2012 7:57 a.m.

    Unfortunately, the Romneys use tithing as a political tool. When it helps them, they scream it from the rooftops, but when not, they want to hide it. What does that tell you?

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Aug. 28, 2012 7:56 a.m.

    Does anyone actually believe that giving the government more money will actually improve their lives? Giving the government more money is like giving an alcoholic more booze to cure their addiction!

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Aug. 28, 2012 7:34 a.m.

    Have to agree Larry. The reasons given just dont pass the "smell test"

  • liberal larry salt lake City, utah
    Aug. 28, 2012 7:06 a.m.

    As a long time landlord I thought I'd heard it all, but Mitt's latest excuse for not releasing his tax returns takes the cake. Everyone knows Mitt's zillionaire status allows him to give millions to the LDS church, and it's an admirable act of charity, but to play the religion card as a reason to avoid revealing his "creative" tax returns strains credulity!