Democrats & Liberals Archives

Romney: Tax Havens are Perfectly Legal

Mitt Romney on the campaign trail boasts that he is a successful businessman. He offers this as one reason why he’d be a successful president. If he means that he would be sure to make the trains run on time, he’s no doubt right. If he means that he would be sure to keep tax havens perfectly legal, Big Business would call him successful. But the rest of us, who would see our taxes increase, would not.

The L.A. Times reports today:

While in private business, Mitt Romney utilized shell companies in two offshore tax havens to help eligible investors avoid paying U.S. taxes, federal and state records show....

Kevin Madden, Romney's campaign spokesman, said there was nothing improper about the Bermuda arrangement, or in Romney's investment in the Cayman fund. In neither case, Madden said, did Romney gain the ability to defer or avoid paying U.S. taxes.

"I would disagree that these could be described as tax loopholes," he said. "These are perfectly normal and perfectly legal arrangements that American companies put together to be successful in the market."

Mitt Romney and other stalwart Republicans see nothing wrong in establishing a shell corporation represented by nothing but a post office box, in Bermuda or Cayman Islands, solely for the purpose of saving taxes. Romney's spokesman says that Romney did not use these loopholes to save on his own taxes. I believe this. However, he arranged for others - investors - to use these havens to save on taxes. As far as the U.S. government is concerned, the net result was the same: it received less tax money.

If these are not "tax loopholes," I guess there are no such loopholes in the tax code.

Of course, these are "perfectly normal and perfectly legal." But how come they are legal? They are legal because fatcats like Mitt Romney and other laissez faire politicians have made it so. Ask any of the Republican candidates for president whether they would throw out tax-haven loopholes, and see what they say. They are for these loopholes because they want to be "friendly" to Big Business.

Democrats know that because of these tax havens, the rest of us pay more in taxes. This is why if you ask a Democratic candidate for president, he or she will come out four square against tax havens.

While Romney and most Republicans want foreign tax havens to remain legal, most Democrats want to make our tax system fairer by getting rid of these tax havens.

Posted by Paul Siegel at December 17, 2007 6:20 PM
Comments
Comment #240891

What Democrats also know is that taxation on corporations get passed off to the consumer at determined rate of about 23% on average. That means for every dollar you purchase something you are paying 23% of that in taxes, though you can’t see it.

They just don’t care because it works out in their favor atm.

They also know that by focusing on taxing US corporations and businesses, they are the real reasons that jobs go overseas and our trade deficit is so large. Nevermind that fewer (meaning almost no) businesses will operate in the US because of the taxation we are putting on the businesses (that we end up paying anyway).

Democrats want to be able to tell you they are anti-business, they don’t want you to know that that really means they are anti-middle-class and poor. Which is why they ensure those taxes are hidden from your sight. Any attempts to bring them out in the open are met with calls of facism and anger, hatred and bile.

If they really wanted people to pay less in taxes they would stop enacting or supporting programs that increase them…

Posted by: Rhinehold at December 17, 2007 7:25 PM
Comment #240892

Paul, you’re critizing Romney here but the blame, if any is due, belongs to Congress. Presidents don’t write legislation and their wishes don’t become law without the consent of congress. These loopholes didn’t just pop-up recently. When the dems ran congress for 40 years they didn’t change a thing and neither did Clinton or Carter. There is not one Dem candidate for president that, if elected, will change a damn thing either no matter their rhetoric to the contrary. What about individual tax loop-holes? As an individual you can take advantage of legal tax-breaks on your home interest, 401(k), IRA, health insurance premiums and costs, casualty losses, stock losses, educational expenses, union dues etc. Since when is this considered a bad thing? Liberals are fond of beating up on business but you would have no job and we would have no economy without business. Get rid of the excesses at the ballot box and stop blaming one person or party.

Posted by: Jim at December 17, 2007 7:38 PM
Comment #240896

Jim
The Clinton economic plan,passed with a Dem congress, raised taxes slightly on the wealthy leading directly to a balanced budget and later a surplus. That was a major change,was it not?
There are Dem candidates that WILL make some big changes if elected wether you believe it or not.From your comments I suspect you will not believe it even after it becomes historical fact.


Rhinehold
Companies ALWAYS charge exactly what the market will bear. The idea that they pass on an individual expense is a myth. How many times have you heard of a company lowering its prices, not as a response to market forces, but because they got a better tax break?
Furthur ,the main reason companies move off shore is to get around American labor cost,not taxes.The tax breaks are just gravy.

Posted by: BillS at December 17, 2007 9:43 PM
Comment #240897

BillS,

Companies ALWAYS charge the highest price they can get away with, not what the market will bear. If they can’t make a profit on it, no matter what price the market will bear, they won’t make it or sell it.

Only competition keeps prices down. If one company can undersell another company they will. If they didn’t have to pay the taxes it would lower the price because competition will bring the price down.

Finally, when asked where the next plant a company would build would be if the US got rid of their insane income tax rates and corporate taxes that get passed onto purchasers, all of them said the US.

Of course, I’m just going by what Harvard, Boston University and other economic professors have discovered in their reseach, I suppose your view that corporations actually pay the taxes they are assessed could be right too…

Posted by: Rhinehold at December 17, 2007 9:50 PM
Comment #240898
How many times have you heard of a company lowering its prices, not as a response to market forces, but because they got a better tax break?

Happens all of the time with the rise and fall of fuel costs, labor costs, etc. Why would taxes they have to pay be any different?

Of course, this is why a market free of monopolies is crucial. Why the US Government supports monopolies is beyond me…

Posted by: Rhinehold at December 17, 2007 9:53 PM
Comment #240923

Mitt Romney is a corporatist politician. His father was a politician and he walks in his father’s path. His father was married to the Big 3 auto lobbyists. Mitt’s claim to surpassing his father is his ability to amass a fortune and be a politician. Being a politician for Mitt means presenting whatever public image is necessary to achieve powerful office.

His defense of Pres. Bush in the last 24 hours demonstrates his abiding loyalty to powerful figures. If common folk are looking for a President who will represent them, they will need to look far past Mitt Romney. He is not their candidate despite what they may believe. Of course, those common folk who now support Romney are undoubtedly the same folk who voted for Bush, twice, and now berate the man’s performance in the polls. Rather humorous, actually, from this perspective.

One partial reason America is still alive and kicking today is because the 10’s of millions of Brittney Spears and Dawg Rappers out there, don’t vote. Thankfully!

Posted by: David R. Remer at December 18, 2007 10:35 AM
Comment #240932

Jim
“The Clinton economic plan,passed with a Dem congress, raised taxes slightly on the wealthy leading directly to a balanced budget and later a surplus. That was a major change,was it not?
There are Dem candidates that WILL make some big changes if elected wether you believe it or not.From your comments I suspect you will not believe it even after it becomes historical fact.”
Posted by: BillS at December 17, 2007 09:43 PM

BillS, what does your comment have to do with corporate taxes and tax loop-holes? Do you recall Clinton’s comment after raising taxes? He said, “I may have raised them too much.” And, he was correct. By the time he was leaving office the economy was beginning to tank and was rescued by President Bush’s tax relief proposals endorsed by Congress. Liberals never seem to understand that raising taxes is not the solution, reducing spending is the answer. Members of Congress of both political parties have been irresponsible with their spending. I usually give generously to the Republican National Committee but they have not gotten a dime from me this year. I have made it clear that I am unhappy with our big spending legislators and will choose to help only those running for congress who have conservative credentials.
Your leading candidate for president, Hillary Rodham, is already promising spending that is stratospheric. She admits she has even more spending plans but “we can’t afford it.” Liberals wring their hands over our national debt and salivate over the hope that, when elected, they can spend even more. Oh, wait, they promise to steal only from the rich and give to the middle class and poor. When Hillary nationalizes our nations largest publically owned corporations we will all suffer. Who does she think owns the oil, insurance, banking, automobile, etc. companies? Stockholders own these companies and millions of Americans have their savings and retirement funds invested in the companies she intends to loot. Wake up, and smell the manure.

Posted by: Jim at December 18, 2007 11:12 AM
Comment #241031

Paul:

Perhaps you would like to comment on Bill Clintons new found love. No, not the bimbos but his new found love of Cayman Island bank accounts. In case your geography is a little rusty, the Cayman Islands are OFFSHORE! Just google it and THERE IT IS!

Your professions of virtue for all democrats running for president now seems to ring very hollow. Since Bill and Hill are still married, anything that is his, is also hers and vice versa.

Better luck next time

Posted by: Beirut Vet at December 19, 2007 12:23 PM
Post a comment