The USA selection process is interesting in many ways; and the issue
of the release of tax returns has become a feature not ony in the USA
but in other countries.
Mitt Romney makes a good case:
"It is disqualifying for a modern-day presidential nominee to refuse
to release tax returns to the voters, especially one who has not been
subject to public scrutiny in either military or public service. Tax
returns provide the public with its sole confirmation of the veracity
of a candidate's representations regarding charities, priorities,
wealth, tax conformance, and conflicts of interest. Further, while not
a likely circumstance, the potential for hidden inappropriate
associations with foreign entities, criminal organizations, or other
unsavory groups is simply too great a risk to ignore for someone who
is seeking to become commander-in-chief.
Mr. Trump says he is being audited. So? There is nothing that prevents releasing tax returns that are being audited. Further, he could
release returns for the years immediately prior to the years under
audit. There is only one logical explanation for Mr. Trump's refusal
to release his returns: there is a bombshell in them. Given Mr.
Trump's equanimity with other flaws in his history, we can only assume
it's a bombshell of unusual size.
(Anticipating inquiries regarding my own tax release history, I
released my 2010 tax returns in January of 2012 and I released my 2011
tax returns as soon as they were completed, in September of 2012.)"
https://www.facebook.com/mittromney/posts/10153487016861121
Whether it really disqualifies a candidate is of course up to the
rules for the Republican Party; I don't think there is a legal
requirement, but the arguments used may perhaps have more general applicability.
We now have at least one precedent in New Zealand;
perhaps thers will
follow.
On Wed, 11 May 2016 19:41:45 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>effectively public knowledge anyway given his salary is public knowledge. It was therefore an empty gesture.
wrote:
On Thursday, 12 May 2016 14:29:04 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
The USA selection process is interesting in many ways; and the issue
of the release of tax returns has become a feature not ony in the USA
but in other countries.
Mitt Romney makes a good case:
"It is disqualifying for a modern-day presidential nominee to refuse
to release tax returns to the voters, especially one who has not been
subject to public scrutiny in either military or public service. Tax
returns provide the public with its sole confirmation of the veracity
of a candidate's representations regarding charities, priorities,
wealth, tax conformance, and conflicts of interest. Further, while not
a likely circumstance, the potential for hidden inappropriate
associations with foreign entities, criminal organizations, or other
unsavory groups is simply too great a risk to ignore for someone who
is seeking to become commander-in-chief.
Mr. Trump says he is being audited. So? There is nothing that prevents
releasing tax returns that are being audited. Further, he could
release returns for the years immediately prior to the years under
audit. There is only one logical explanation for Mr. Trump's refusal
to release his returns: there is a bombshell in them. Given Mr.
Trump's equanimity with other flaws in his history, we can only assume
it's a bombshell of unusual size.
(Anticipating inquiries regarding my own tax release history, I
released my 2010 tax returns in January of 2012 and I released my 2011
tax returns as soon as they were completed, in September of 2012.)"
https://www.facebook.com/mittromney/posts/10153487016861121
Whether it really disqualifies a candidate is of course up to the
rules for the Republican Party; I don't think there is a legal
requirement, but the arguments used may perhaps have more general
applicability.
We now have at least one precedent in New Zealand;
No we don't. Angry little Andy showed his PAYE details - something that was
A bit more than a PAYE return: http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/78836990/andrew-littles-tax-returns-as-boring-as-he-promised.html
your tax return here. Unless you're just being a hypocrite, that is.perhaps others will
follow.
You show little interest in the privacy of others. How about you publish
Do you agree with the reasons Mitt Romney gives?
". . . . Tax returns provide the public with its sole confirmation of
the veracity of a candidate's representations regarding charities, priorities, wealth, tax conformance, and conflicts of interest.
Further, while not a likely circumstance, the potential for hidden inappropriate associations with foreign entities, criminal
organizations, or other unsavory groups is simply too great a risk to
ignore . . . "
Rich80105 wrote:Any particular reason, Allistar? It's an extension of the register of
On Wed, 11 May 2016 19:41:45 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Thursday, 12 May 2016 14:29:04 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:A bit more than a PAYE return:
The USA selection process is interesting in many ways; and the issue
of the release of tax returns has become a feature not ony in the USA
but in other countries.
Mitt Romney makes a good case:
"It is disqualifying for a modern-day presidential nominee to refuse
to release tax returns to the voters, especially one who has not been
subject to public scrutiny in either military or public service. Tax
returns provide the public with its sole confirmation of the veracity
of a candidate's representations regarding charities, priorities,
wealth, tax conformance, and conflicts of interest. Further, while not >>>> a likely circumstance, the potential for hidden inappropriate
associations with foreign entities, criminal organizations, or other
unsavory groups is simply too great a risk to ignore for someone who
is seeking to become commander-in-chief.
Mr. Trump says he is being audited. So? There is nothing that prevents >>>> releasing tax returns that are being audited. Further, he could
release returns for the years immediately prior to the years under
audit. There is only one logical explanation for Mr. Trump's refusal
to release his returns: there is a bombshell in them. Given Mr.
Trump's equanimity with other flaws in his history, we can only assume >>>> it's a bombshell of unusual size.
(Anticipating inquiries regarding my own tax release history, I
released my 2010 tax returns in January of 2012 and I released my 2011 >>>> tax returns as soon as they were completed, in September of 2012.)"
https://www.facebook.com/mittromney/posts/10153487016861121
Whether it really disqualifies a candidate is of course up to the
rules for the Republican Party; I don't think there is a legal
requirement, but the arguments used may perhaps have more general
applicability.
We now have at least one precedent in New Zealand;
No we don't. Angry little Andy showed his PAYE details - something that >>>was effectively public knowledge anyway given his salary is public >>>knowledge. It was therefore an empty gesture.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/78836990/andrew-littles-tax-returns-as-boring-as-he-promised.html
perhaps others will
follow.
You show little interest in the privacy of others. How about you publish >>>your tax return here. Unless you're just being a hypocrite, that is.
Do you agree with the reasons Mitt Romney gives?
". . . . Tax returns provide the public with its sole confirmation of
the veracity of a candidate's representations regarding charities,
priorities, wealth, tax conformance, and conflicts of interest.
Further, while not a likely circumstance, the potential for hidden
inappropriate associations with foreign entities, criminal
organizations, or other unsavory groups is simply too great a risk to
ignore . . . "
No.
On Thursday, 12 May 2016 14:29:04 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:A bit more than a PAYE return: http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/78836990/andrew-littles-tax-returns-as-boring-as-he-promised.html
The USA selection process is interesting in many ways; and the issue
of the release of tax returns has become a feature not ony in the USA
but in other countries.
Mitt Romney makes a good case:
"It is disqualifying for a modern-day presidential nominee to refuse
to release tax returns to the voters, especially one who has not been
subject to public scrutiny in either military or public service. Tax
returns provide the public with its sole confirmation of the veracity
of a candidate's representations regarding charities, priorities,
wealth, tax conformance, and conflicts of interest. Further, while not
a likely circumstance, the potential for hidden inappropriate
associations with foreign entities, criminal organizations, or other
unsavory groups is simply too great a risk to ignore for someone who
is seeking to become commander-in-chief.
Mr. Trump says he is being audited. So? There is nothing that prevents
releasing tax returns that are being audited. Further, he could
release returns for the years immediately prior to the years under
audit. There is only one logical explanation for Mr. Trump's refusal
to release his returns: there is a bombshell in them. Given Mr.
Trump's equanimity with other flaws in his history, we can only assume
it's a bombshell of unusual size.
(Anticipating inquiries regarding my own tax release history, I
released my 2010 tax returns in January of 2012 and I released my 2011
tax returns as soon as they were completed, in September of 2012.)"
https://www.facebook.com/mittromney/posts/10153487016861121
Whether it really disqualifies a candidate is of course up to the
rules for the Republican Party; I don't think there is a legal
requirement, but the arguments used may perhaps have more general
applicability.
We now have at least one precedent in New Zealand;
No we don't. Angry little Andy showed his PAYE details - something that was effectively public knowledge anyway given his salary is public knowledge. It was therefore an empty gesture.
perhaps others will
follow.
You show little interest in the privacy of others. How about you publish your tax return here. Unless you're just being a hypocrite, that is.
On Wed, 11 May 2016 19:41:45 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Thursday, 12 May 2016 14:29:04 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:A bit more than a PAYE return: http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/78836990/andrew-littles-tax-returns-as-boring-as-he-promised.html
The USA selection process is interesting in many ways; and the issue
of the release of tax returns has become a feature not ony in the USA
but in other countries.
Mitt Romney makes a good case:
"It is disqualifying for a modern-day presidential nominee to refuse
to release tax returns to the voters, especially one who has not been
subject to public scrutiny in either military or public service. Tax
returns provide the public with its sole confirmation of the veracity
of a candidate's representations regarding charities, priorities,
wealth, tax conformance, and conflicts of interest. Further, while not
a likely circumstance, the potential for hidden inappropriate
associations with foreign entities, criminal organizations, or other
unsavory groups is simply too great a risk to ignore for someone who
is seeking to become commander-in-chief.
Mr. Trump says he is being audited. So? There is nothing that prevents
releasing tax returns that are being audited. Further, he could
release returns for the years immediately prior to the years under
audit. There is only one logical explanation for Mr. Trump's refusal
to release his returns: there is a bombshell in them. Given Mr.
Trump's equanimity with other flaws in his history, we can only assume
it's a bombshell of unusual size.
(Anticipating inquiries regarding my own tax release history, I
released my 2010 tax returns in January of 2012 and I released my 2011
tax returns as soon as they were completed, in September of 2012.)"
https://www.facebook.com/mittromney/posts/10153487016861121
Whether it really disqualifies a candidate is of course up to the
rules for the Republican Party; I don't think there is a legal
requirement, but the arguments used may perhaps have more general
applicability.
We now have at least one precedent in New Zealand;
No we don't. Angry little Andy showed his PAYE details - something that
was effectively public knowledge anyway given his salary is public >>knowledge. It was therefore an empty gesture.
perhaps others will
follow.
You show little interest in the privacy of others. How about you publish >>your tax return here. Unless you're just being a hypocrite, that is.
Do you agree with the reasons Mitt Romney gives?
". . . . Tax returns provide the public with its sole confirmation of
the veracity of a candidate's representations regarding charities, priorities, wealth, tax conformance, and conflicts of interest.
Further, while not a likely circumstance, the potential for hidden inappropriate associations with foreign entities, criminal
organizations, or other unsavory groups is simply too great a risk to
ignore . . . "
On Thursday, 12 May 2016 14:49:27 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:effectively public knowledge anyway given his salary is public knowledge. It was therefore an empty gesture.
On Wed, 11 May 2016 19:41:45 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Thursday, 12 May 2016 14:29:04 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
The USA selection process is interesting in many ways; and the issue
of the release of tax returns has become a feature not ony in the USA
but in other countries.
Mitt Romney makes a good case:
"It is disqualifying for a modern-day presidential nominee to refuse
to release tax returns to the voters, especially one who has not been
subject to public scrutiny in either military or public service. Tax
returns provide the public with its sole confirmation of the veracity
of a candidate's representations regarding charities, priorities,
wealth, tax conformance, and conflicts of interest. Further, while not
a likely circumstance, the potential for hidden inappropriate
associations with foreign entities, criminal organizations, or other
unsavory groups is simply too great a risk to ignore for someone who
is seeking to become commander-in-chief.
Mr. Trump says he is being audited. So? There is nothing that prevents
releasing tax returns that are being audited. Further, he could
release returns for the years immediately prior to the years under
audit. There is only one logical explanation for Mr. Trump's refusal
to release his returns: there is a bombshell in them. Given Mr.
Trump's equanimity with other flaws in his history, we can only assume
it's a bombshell of unusual size.
(Anticipating inquiries regarding my own tax release history, I
released my 2010 tax returns in January of 2012 and I released my 2011
tax returns as soon as they were completed, in September of 2012.)"
https://www.facebook.com/mittromney/posts/10153487016861121
Whether it really disqualifies a candidate is of course up to the
rules for the Republican Party; I don't think there is a legal
requirement, but the arguments used may perhaps have more general
applicability.
We now have at least one precedent in New Zealand;
No we don't. Angry little Andy showed his PAYE details - something that was
Now someone like you or Angry little Andy may have such a limited world view asA bit more than a PAYE return:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/78836990/andrew-littles-tax-returns-as-boring-as-he-promised.html
It's not a tax return, dickhead. All it lists is his salary and wage earnings.
Are you such a useless tool that you didn't even read the very first thing on that document: "... it doesn't include income from other sources such as self employed income, rental income, dividends and interest..."union kickbacks and it would would not appear on that document.
FFS Dickbot, Angry little Andy could be receiving millions from investments or
perhaps others will
follow.
You show little interest in the privacy of others. How about you publish your tax return here. Unless you're just being a hypocrite, that is.
Do you agree with the reasons Mitt Romney gives?
". . . . Tax returns provide the public with its sole confirmation of
the veracity of a candidate's representations regarding charities,
priorities, wealth, tax conformance, and conflicts of interest.
Further, while not a likely circumstance, the potential for hidden
inappropriate associations with foreign entities, criminal
organizations, or other unsavory groups is simply too great a risk to
ignore . . . "
No I don't. And the USA is not New Zealand and not comparable in this context anyway.
On Wed, 11 May 2016 20:17:30 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>was effectively public knowledge anyway given his salary is public knowledge. It was therefore an empty gesture.
wrote:
On Thursday, 12 May 2016 14:49:27 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Wed, 11 May 2016 19:41:45 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Thursday, 12 May 2016 14:29:04 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
The USA selection process is interesting in many ways; and the issue
of the release of tax returns has become a feature not ony in the USA >> >> but in other countries.
Mitt Romney makes a good case:
"It is disqualifying for a modern-day presidential nominee to refuse
to release tax returns to the voters, especially one who has not been >> >> subject to public scrutiny in either military or public service. Tax
returns provide the public with its sole confirmation of the veracity >> >> of a candidate's representations regarding charities, priorities,
wealth, tax conformance, and conflicts of interest. Further, while not >> >> a likely circumstance, the potential for hidden inappropriate
associations with foreign entities, criminal organizations, or other
unsavory groups is simply too great a risk to ignore for someone who
is seeking to become commander-in-chief.
Mr. Trump says he is being audited. So? There is nothing that prevents >> >> releasing tax returns that are being audited. Further, he could
release returns for the years immediately prior to the years under
audit. There is only one logical explanation for Mr. Trump's refusal
to release his returns: there is a bombshell in them. Given Mr.
Trump's equanimity with other flaws in his history, we can only assume >> >> it's a bombshell of unusual size.
(Anticipating inquiries regarding my own tax release history, I
released my 2010 tax returns in January of 2012 and I released my 2011 >> >> tax returns as soon as they were completed, in September of 2012.)"
https://www.facebook.com/mittromney/posts/10153487016861121
Whether it really disqualifies a candidate is of course up to the
rules for the Republican Party; I don't think there is a legal
requirement, but the arguments used may perhaps have more general
applicability.
We now have at least one precedent in New Zealand;
No we don't. Angry little Andy showed his PAYE details - something that
earnings. Now someone like you or Angry little Andy may have such a limited world view as to think that's the same thing.A bit more than a PAYE return:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/78836990/andrew-littles-tax-returns-as-boring-as-he-promised.html
It's not a tax return, dickhead. All it lists is his salary and wage
on that document: "... it doesn't include income from other sources such as self employed income, rental income, dividends and interest..."Are you such a useless tool that you didn't even read the very first thing
or union kickbacks and it would would not appear on that document.FFS Dickbot, Angry little Andy could be receiving millions from investments
You only looked at the picture.
It is clear that he released his tax
return, but the paper chose to only show part of it. Here's another
article that explains it was all returns from 2010. http://home.nzcity.co.nz/news/article.aspx?id=224526
and another that is a form from the IRD https://www.scribd.com/doc/308044490/Andrew-Little-s-tax-record
There was also an NZ Herald article, but that appears to have
disappeared.
your tax return here. Unless you're just being a hypocrite, that is.
perhaps others will
follow.
You show little interest in the privacy of others. How about you publish
context anyway.
Do you agree with the reasons Mitt Romney gives?
". . . . Tax returns provide the public with its sole confirmation of
the veracity of a candidate's representations regarding charities,
priorities, wealth, tax conformance, and conflicts of interest.
Further, while not a likely circumstance, the potential for hidden
inappropriate associations with foreign entities, criminal
organizations, or other unsavory groups is simply too great a risk to
ignore . . . "
No I don't. And the USA is not New Zealand and not comparable in this
And the UK? Australia? the need for politicians to demonstrate that
they are being honest is increasing. I understand that our Prime
Minister is not he "Commander inChief", but is there anything else of
Mitt Romneys comments that you disagree with?
The USA selection process is interesting in many ways; and the issue
of the release of tax returns has become a feature not ony in the USA
but in other countries.
Mitt Romney makes a good case:
"It is disqualifying for a modern-day presidential nominee to refuse
to release tax returns to the voters, especially one who has not been
subject to public scrutiny in either military or public service. Tax
returns provide the public with its sole confirmation of the veracity
of a candidate's representations regarding charities, priorities,
wealth, tax conformance, and conflicts of interest. Further, while not
a likely circumstance, the potential for hidden inappropriate
associations with foreign entities, criminal organizations, or other
unsavory groups is simply too great a risk to ignore for someone who
is seeking to become commander-in-chief.
Mr. Trump says he is being audited. So? There is nothing that prevents releasing tax returns that are being audited. Further, he could
release returns for the years immediately prior to the years under
audit. There is only one logical explanation for Mr. Trump's refusal
to release his returns: there is a bombshell in them. Given Mr.
Trump's equanimity with other flaws in his history, we can only assume
it's a bombshell of unusual size.
(Anticipating inquiries regarding my own tax release history, I
released my 2010 tax returns in January of 2012 and I released my 2011
tax returns as soon as they were completed, in September of 2012.)"
https://www.facebook.com/mittromney/posts/10153487016861121
Whether it really disqualifies a candidate is of course up to the
rules for the Republican Party; I don't think there is a legal
requirement, but the arguments used may perhaps have more general applicability.
We now have at least one precedent in New Zealand; perhaps thers will
follow.
On 12/05/2016 2:29 p.m., Rich80105 wrote:
The USA selection process is interesting in many ways; and the issue
of the release of tax returns has become a feature not ony in the USA
but in other countries.
Mitt Romney makes a good case:
"It is disqualifying for a modern-day presidential nominee to refuse
to release tax returns to the voters, especially one who has not been
subject to public scrutiny in either military or public service. Tax
returns provide the public with its sole confirmation of the veracity
of a candidate's representations regarding charities, priorities,
wealth, tax conformance, and conflicts of interest. Further, while not
a likely circumstance, the potential for hidden inappropriate
associations with foreign entities, criminal organizations, or other
unsavory groups is simply too great a risk to ignore for someone who
is seeking to become commander-in-chief.
Mr. Trump says he is being audited. So? There is nothing that prevents
releasing tax returns that are being audited. Further, he could
release returns for the years immediately prior to the years under
audit. There is only one logical explanation for Mr. Trump's refusal
to release his returns: there is a bombshell in them. Given Mr.
Trump's equanimity with other flaws in his history, we can only assume
it's a bombshell of unusual size.
(Anticipating inquiries regarding my own tax release history, I
released my 2010 tax returns in January of 2012 and I released my 2011
tax returns as soon as they were completed, in September of 2012.)"
https://www.facebook.com/mittromney/posts/10153487016861121
Whether it really disqualifies a candidate is of course up to the
rules for the Republican Party; I don't think there is a legal
requirement, but the arguments used may perhaps have more general
applicability.
We now have at least one precedent in New Zealand; perhaps thers will
follow.
Do you want to attract ex postmen, hairdressers, plumbers or trade
unionists to run the country - or would you rather see successful people
who are extended the normal dignity of financial privacy?
On Thursday, 12 May 2016 15:44:42 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:or union kickbacks and it would would not appear on that document.
On Wed, 11 May 2016 20:17:30 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Thursday, 12 May 2016 14:49:27 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Wed, 11 May 2016 19:41:45 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Thursday, 12 May 2016 14:29:04 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:A bit more than a PAYE return:
The USA selection process is interesting in many ways; and the issue >> >> >> of the release of tax returns has become a feature not ony in the USA >> >> >> but in other countries.
Mitt Romney makes a good case:
"It is disqualifying for a modern-day presidential nominee to refuse >> >> >> to release tax returns to the voters, especially one who has not been >> >> >> subject to public scrutiny in either military or public service. Tax >> >> >> returns provide the public with its sole confirmation of the veracity >> >> >> of a candidate's representations regarding charities, priorities,
wealth, tax conformance, and conflicts of interest. Further, while not >> >> >> a likely circumstance, the potential for hidden inappropriate
associations with foreign entities, criminal organizations, or other >> >> >> unsavory groups is simply too great a risk to ignore for someone who >> >> >> is seeking to become commander-in-chief.
Mr. Trump says he is being audited. So? There is nothing that prevents >> >> >> releasing tax returns that are being audited. Further, he could
release returns for the years immediately prior to the years under
audit. There is only one logical explanation for Mr. Trump's refusal >> >> >> to release his returns: there is a bombshell in them. Given Mr.
Trump's equanimity with other flaws in his history, we can only assume >> >> >> it's a bombshell of unusual size.
(Anticipating inquiries regarding my own tax release history, I
released my 2010 tax returns in January of 2012 and I released my 2011 >> >> >> tax returns as soon as they were completed, in September of 2012.)"
https://www.facebook.com/mittromney/posts/10153487016861121
Whether it really disqualifies a candidate is of course up to the
rules for the Republican Party; I don't think there is a legal
requirement, but the arguments used may perhaps have more general
applicability.
We now have at least one precedent in New Zealand;
No we don't. Angry little Andy showed his PAYE details - something that was effectively public knowledge anyway given his salary is public knowledge. It was therefore an empty gesture.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/78836990/andrew-littles-tax-returns-as-boring-as-he-promised.html
It's not a tax return, dickhead. All it lists is his salary and wage earnings. Now someone like you or Angry little Andy may have such a limited world view as to think that's the same thing.
Are you such a useless tool that you didn't even read the very first thing on that document: "... it doesn't include income from other sources such as self employed income, rental income, dividends and interest..."
FFS Dickbot, Angry little Andy could be receiving millions from investments
it doesn't include income from other sources such as self employed income, rental income, dividends and interest..."
You only looked at the picture.
Yes, that's what Little released.
It is clear that he released his tax
No it is not clear.
return, but the paper chose to only show part of it. Here's another
article that explains it was all returns from 2010.
http://home.nzcity.co.nz/news/article.aspx?id=224526
It explains nothing of the sort you liar. Little released his wage and salary details back to 2010. As you would see if you bothered to look.
and another that is a form from the IRD
https://www.scribd.com/doc/308044490/Andrew-Little-s-tax-record
That's the same bloody thing you posted two posts ago. Once again it says "...
Pay attention you imbecile: It is not a tax return. My god I am trying to explain this to you but you are so willfully stupid you just can't grasp it.
There was also an NZ Herald article, but that appears to have
disappeared.
How convenient.
Little has not released his tax returns. All he has released is his wage and salary earnings. Stop making a fucking dick of yourself and just shut up, or alternatively show us the TAX RETURN that he has released. It will have IR3 at the top.
It's quite simple, Dickbot: if you can't find his IR3 then he hasn't released his TAX RETURN.
your tax return here. Unless you're just being a hypocrite, that is.
perhaps others will
follow.
You show little interest in the privacy of others. How about you publish
Do you agree with the reasons Mitt Romney gives?
". . . . Tax returns provide the public with its sole confirmation of
the veracity of a candidate's representations regarding charities,
priorities, wealth, tax conformance, and conflicts of interest.
Further, while not a likely circumstance, the potential for hidden
inappropriate associations with foreign entities, criminal
organizations, or other unsavory groups is simply too great a risk to
ignore . . . "
No I don't. And the USA is not New Zealand and not comparable in this context anyway.
And the UK? Australia? the need for politicians to demonstrate that
they are being honest is increasing. I understand that our Prime
Minister is not he "Commander inChief", but is there anything else of
Mitt Romneys comments that you disagree with?
I don't give a fuck about Mitt Romney - stop asking stupid, irrelevant diversionary questions.
On Thu, 12 May 2016 19:53:26 +1200, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 12/05/2016 2:29 p.m., Rich80105 wrote:
The USA selection process is interesting in many ways; and the issue
of the release of tax returns has become a feature not ony in the USA
but in other countries.
Mitt Romney makes a good case:
"It is disqualifying for a modern-day presidential nominee to refuse
to release tax returns to the voters, especially one who has not been
subject to public scrutiny in either military or public service. Tax
returns provide the public with its sole confirmation of the veracity
of a candidate's representations regarding charities, priorities,
wealth, tax conformance, and conflicts of interest. Further, while not
a likely circumstance, the potential for hidden inappropriate
associations with foreign entities, criminal organizations, or other
unsavory groups is simply too great a risk to ignore for someone who
is seeking to become commander-in-chief.
Mr. Trump says he is being audited. So? There is nothing that prevents
releasing tax returns that are being audited. Further, he could
release returns for the years immediately prior to the years under
audit. There is only one logical explanation for Mr. Trump's refusal
to release his returns: there is a bombshell in them. Given Mr.
Trump's equanimity with other flaws in his history, we can only assume
it's a bombshell of unusual size.
(Anticipating inquiries regarding my own tax release history, I
released my 2010 tax returns in January of 2012 and I released my 2011
tax returns as soon as they were completed, in September of 2012.)"
https://www.facebook.com/mittromney/posts/10153487016861121
Whether it really disqualifies a candidate is of course up to the
rules for the Republican Party; I don't think there is a legal
requirement, but the arguments used may perhaps have more general
applicability.
We now have at least one precedent in New Zealand; perhaps thers will
follow.
Do you want to attract ex postmen, hairdressers, plumbers or trade
unionists to run the country - or would you rather see successful people
who are extended the normal dignity of financial privacy?
Many ex postmen, hairdressers, plumbers or trade unionists are very succesful - many may well earn more than people posting to nz.general,
and more than we pay our Prime Minister. Your blinkers are showing.
And no, at a certain level, trust is important. Where do you think
Mitt Romney got it wrong, Fred?
On Thu, 12 May 2016 15:00:17 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Rich80105 wrote:Any particular reason, Allistar? It's an extension of the register of pecuniary interests in a way.
On Wed, 11 May 2016 19:41:45 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Thursday, 12 May 2016 14:29:04 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:A bit more than a PAYE return:
The USA selection process is interesting in many ways; and the issue >>>>> of the release of tax returns has become a feature not ony in the USA >>>>> but in other countries.
Mitt Romney makes a good case:
"It is disqualifying for a modern-day presidential nominee to refuse >>>>> to release tax returns to the voters, especially one who has not been >>>>> subject to public scrutiny in either military or public service. Tax >>>>> returns provide the public with its sole confirmation of the veracity >>>>> of a candidate's representations regarding charities, priorities,
wealth, tax conformance, and conflicts of interest. Further, while not >>>>> a likely circumstance, the potential for hidden inappropriate
associations with foreign entities, criminal organizations, or other >>>>> unsavory groups is simply too great a risk to ignore for someone who >>>>> is seeking to become commander-in-chief.
Mr. Trump says he is being audited. So? There is nothing that prevents >>>>> releasing tax returns that are being audited. Further, he could
release returns for the years immediately prior to the years under
audit. There is only one logical explanation for Mr. Trump's refusal >>>>> to release his returns: there is a bombshell in them. Given Mr.
Trump's equanimity with other flaws in his history, we can only assume >>>>> it's a bombshell of unusual size.
(Anticipating inquiries regarding my own tax release history, I
released my 2010 tax returns in January of 2012 and I released my 2011 >>>>> tax returns as soon as they were completed, in September of 2012.)"
https://www.facebook.com/mittromney/posts/10153487016861121
Whether it really disqualifies a candidate is of course up to the
rules for the Republican Party; I don't think there is a legal
requirement, but the arguments used may perhaps have more general
applicability.
We now have at least one precedent in New Zealand;
No we don't. Angry little Andy showed his PAYE details - something that >>>>was effectively public knowledge anyway given his salary is public >>>>knowledge. It was therefore an empty gesture.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/78836990/andrew-littles-tax-returns-as-boring-as-he-promised.html
perhaps others will
follow.
You show little interest in the privacy of others. How about you publish >>>>your tax return here. Unless you're just being a hypocrite, that is.
Do you agree with the reasons Mitt Romney gives?
". . . . Tax returns provide the public with its sole confirmation of
the veracity of a candidate's representations regarding charities,
priorities, wealth, tax conformance, and conflicts of interest.
Further, while not a likely circumstance, the potential for hidden
inappropriate associations with foreign entities, criminal
organizations, or other unsavory groups is simply too great a risk to
ignore . . . "
No.
Rich80105 wrote:
On Thu, 12 May 2016 15:00:17 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Rich80105 wrote:Any particular reason, Allistar? It's an extension of the register of
On Wed, 11 May 2016 19:41:45 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Thursday, 12 May 2016 14:29:04 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:A bit more than a PAYE return:
The USA selection process is interesting in many ways; and the issue >>>>>> of the release of tax returns has become a feature not ony in the USA >>>>>> but in other countries.
Mitt Romney makes a good case:
"It is disqualifying for a modern-day presidential nominee to refuse >>>>>> to release tax returns to the voters, especially one who has not been >>>>>> subject to public scrutiny in either military or public service. Tax >>>>>> returns provide the public with its sole confirmation of the veracity >>>>>> of a candidate's representations regarding charities, priorities,
wealth, tax conformance, and conflicts of interest. Further, while not >>>>>> a likely circumstance, the potential for hidden inappropriate
associations with foreign entities, criminal organizations, or other >>>>>> unsavory groups is simply too great a risk to ignore for someone who >>>>>> is seeking to become commander-in-chief.
Mr. Trump says he is being audited. So? There is nothing that prevents >>>>>> releasing tax returns that are being audited. Further, he could
release returns for the years immediately prior to the years under >>>>>> audit. There is only one logical explanation for Mr. Trump's refusal >>>>>> to release his returns: there is a bombshell in them. Given Mr.
Trump's equanimity with other flaws in his history, we can only assume >>>>>> it's a bombshell of unusual size.
(Anticipating inquiries regarding my own tax release history, I
released my 2010 tax returns in January of 2012 and I released my 2011 >>>>>> tax returns as soon as they were completed, in September of 2012.)" >>>>>>
https://www.facebook.com/mittromney/posts/10153487016861121
Whether it really disqualifies a candidate is of course up to the
rules for the Republican Party; I don't think there is a legal
requirement, but the arguments used may perhaps have more general
applicability.
We now have at least one precedent in New Zealand;
No we don't. Angry little Andy showed his PAYE details - something that >>>>>was effectively public knowledge anyway given his salary is public >>>>>knowledge. It was therefore an empty gesture.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/78836990/andrew-littles-tax-returns-as-boring-as-he-promised.html
perhaps others will
follow.
You show little interest in the privacy of others. How about you publish >>>>>your tax return here. Unless you're just being a hypocrite, that is.
Do you agree with the reasons Mitt Romney gives?
". . . . Tax returns provide the public with its sole confirmation of
the veracity of a candidate's representations regarding charities,
priorities, wealth, tax conformance, and conflicts of interest.
Further, while not a likely circumstance, the potential for hidden
inappropriate associations with foreign entities, criminal
organizations, or other unsavory groups is simply too great a risk to
ignore . . . "
No.
pecuniary interests in a way.
What someone earns is entirely their business.
On 12/05/2016 8:55 p.m., Rich80105 wrote:
On Thu, 12 May 2016 19:53:26 +1200, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote:I have no idea about Mitt Romney or what he said. But if he wrote, I'm
On 12/05/2016 2:29 p.m., Rich80105 wrote:
The USA selection process is interesting in many ways; and the issue
of the release of tax returns has become a feature not ony in the USA
but in other countries.
Mitt Romney makes a good case:
"It is disqualifying for a modern-day presidential nominee to refuse
to release tax returns to the voters, especially one who has not been
subject to public scrutiny in either military or public service. Tax
returns provide the public with its sole confirmation of the veracity
of a candidate's representations regarding charities, priorities,
wealth, tax conformance, and conflicts of interest. Further, while not >>>> a likely circumstance, the potential for hidden inappropriate
associations with foreign entities, criminal organizations, or other
unsavory groups is simply too great a risk to ignore for someone who
is seeking to become commander-in-chief.
Mr. Trump says he is being audited. So? There is nothing that prevents >>>> releasing tax returns that are being audited. Further, he could
release returns for the years immediately prior to the years under
audit. There is only one logical explanation for Mr. Trump's refusal
to release his returns: there is a bombshell in them. Given Mr.
Trump's equanimity with other flaws in his history, we can only assume >>>> it's a bombshell of unusual size.
(Anticipating inquiries regarding my own tax release history, I
released my 2010 tax returns in January of 2012 and I released my 2011 >>>> tax returns as soon as they were completed, in September of 2012.)"
https://www.facebook.com/mittromney/posts/10153487016861121
Whether it really disqualifies a candidate is of course up to the
rules for the Republican Party; I don't think there is a legal
requirement, but the arguments used may perhaps have more general
applicability.
We now have at least one precedent in New Zealand; perhaps thers will
follow.
Do you want to attract ex postmen, hairdressers, plumbers or trade
unionists to run the country - or would you rather see successful people >>> who are extended the normal dignity of financial privacy?
Many ex postmen, hairdressers, plumbers or trade unionists are very
succesful - many may well earn more than people posting to nz.general,
and more than we pay our Prime Minister. Your blinkers are showing.
And no, at a certain level, trust is important. Where do you think
Mitt Romney got it wrong, Fred?
sure he would be able to spell successful. I think politics suffers
enough because of the way the spotlight is put on our politicians every
move. It does nothing to encourage talent.
On Fri, 13 May 2016 09:21:13 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Rich80105 wrote:
On Thu, 12 May 2016 15:00:17 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Rich80105 wrote:Any particular reason, Allistar? It's an extension of the register of
On Wed, 11 May 2016 19:41:45 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> >>>> wrote:
On Thursday, 12 May 2016 14:29:04 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:A bit more than a PAYE return:
The USA selection process is interesting in many ways; and the issue >>>>>> of the release of tax returns has become a feature not ony in the USA >>>>>> but in other countries.
Mitt Romney makes a good case:
"It is disqualifying for a modern-day presidential nominee to refuse >>>>>> to release tax returns to the voters, especially one who has not been >>>>>> subject to public scrutiny in either military or public service. Tax >>>>>> returns provide the public with its sole confirmation of the veracity >>>>>> of a candidate's representations regarding charities, priorities, >>>>>> wealth, tax conformance, and conflicts of interest. Further, while not >>>>>> a likely circumstance, the potential for hidden inappropriate
associations with foreign entities, criminal organizations, or other >>>>>> unsavory groups is simply too great a risk to ignore for someone who >>>>>> is seeking to become commander-in-chief.
Mr. Trump says he is being audited. So? There is nothing that prevents >>>>>> releasing tax returns that are being audited. Further, he could
release returns for the years immediately prior to the years under >>>>>> audit. There is only one logical explanation for Mr. Trump's refusal >>>>>> to release his returns: there is a bombshell in them. Given Mr.
Trump's equanimity with other flaws in his history, we can only assume >>>>>> it's a bombshell of unusual size.
(Anticipating inquiries regarding my own tax release history, I
released my 2010 tax returns in January of 2012 and I released my 2011 >>>>>> tax returns as soon as they were completed, in September of 2012.)" >>>>>>
https://www.facebook.com/mittromney/posts/10153487016861121
Whether it really disqualifies a candidate is of course up to the >>>>>> rules for the Republican Party; I don't think there is a legal
requirement, but the arguments used may perhaps have more general >>>>>> applicability.
We now have at least one precedent in New Zealand;
No we don't. Angry little Andy showed his PAYE details - something that >>>>>was effectively public knowledge anyway given his salary is public >>>>>knowledge. It was therefore an empty gesture.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/78836990/andrew-littles-tax-returns-as-boring-as-he-promised.html
Do you agree with the reasons Mitt Romney gives?
perhaps others will
follow.
You show little interest in the privacy of others. How about you publish >>>>>your tax return here. Unless you're just being a hypocrite, that is. >>>>
". . . . Tax returns provide the public with its sole confirmation of >>>> the veracity of a candidate's representations regarding charities,
priorities, wealth, tax conformance, and conflicts of interest.
Further, while not a likely circumstance, the potential for hidden
inappropriate associations with foreign entities, criminal
organizations, or other unsavory groups is simply too great a risk to >>>> ignore . . . "
No.
pecuniary interests in a way.
What someone earns is entirely their business.
As Mitt Romney says:
" There is only one logical explanation for Mr. Trump's refusal to
release his returns: there is a bombshell in them. Given Mr. Trump's equanimity with other flaws in his history, we can only assume it's a bombshell of unusual size."
What a politician tries to keep secret could result in a lost
election.
On Fri, 13 May 2016 08:19:41 +1200, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 12/05/2016 8:55 p.m., Rich80105 wrote:
On Thu, 12 May 2016 19:53:26 +1200, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote:I have no idea about Mitt Romney or what he said. But if he wrote, I'm
On 12/05/2016 2:29 p.m., Rich80105 wrote:
The USA selection process is interesting in many ways; and the issue >>>>> of the release of tax returns has become a feature not ony in the USA >>>>> but in other countries.
Mitt Romney makes a good case:
"It is disqualifying for a modern-day presidential nominee to refuse >>>>> to release tax returns to the voters, especially one who has not been >>>>> subject to public scrutiny in either military or public service. Tax >>>>> returns provide the public with its sole confirmation of the veracity >>>>> of a candidate's representations regarding charities, priorities,
wealth, tax conformance, and conflicts of interest. Further, while not >>>>> a likely circumstance, the potential for hidden inappropriate
associations with foreign entities, criminal organizations, or other >>>>> unsavory groups is simply too great a risk to ignore for someone who >>>>> is seeking to become commander-in-chief.
Mr. Trump says he is being audited. So? There is nothing that prevents >>>>> releasing tax returns that are being audited. Further, he could
release returns for the years immediately prior to the years under
audit. There is only one logical explanation for Mr. Trump's refusal >>>>> to release his returns: there is a bombshell in them. Given Mr.
Trump's equanimity with other flaws in his history, we can only assume >>>>> it's a bombshell of unusual size.
(Anticipating inquiries regarding my own tax release history, I
released my 2010 tax returns in January of 2012 and I released my 2011 >>>>> tax returns as soon as they were completed, in September of 2012.)"
https://www.facebook.com/mittromney/posts/10153487016861121
Whether it really disqualifies a candidate is of course up to the
rules for the Republican Party; I don't think there is a legal
requirement, but the arguments used may perhaps have more general
applicability.
We now have at least one precedent in New Zealand; perhaps thers will >>>>> follow.
Do you want to attract ex postmen, hairdressers, plumbers or trade
unionists to run the country - or would you rather see successful people >>>> who are extended the normal dignity of financial privacy?
Many ex postmen, hairdressers, plumbers or trade unionists are very
succesful - many may well earn more than people posting to nz.general,
and more than we pay our Prime Minister. Your blinkers are showing.
And no, at a certain level, trust is important. Where do you think
Mitt Romney got it wrong, Fred?
sure he would be able to spell successful. I think politics suffers
enough because of the way the spotlight is put on our politicians every
move. It does nothing to encourage talent.
Here is what he said:
" It is disqualifying for a modern-day presidential nominee to refuse
to release tax returns to the voters, especially one who has not been
subject to public scrutiny in either military or public service. Tax
returns provide the public with its sole confirmation of the veracity
of a candidate's representations regarding charities, priorities,
wealth, tax conformance, and conflicts of interest. Further, while not
a likely circumstance, the potential for hidden inappropriate
associations with foreign entities, criminal organizations, or other
unsavory groups is simply too great a risk to ignore for someone who
is seeking to become commander-in-chief.
Mr. Trump says he is being audited. So? There is nothing that prevents releasing tax returns that are being audited. Further, he could
release returns for the years immediately prior to the years under
audit. There is only one logical explanation for Mr. Trump's refusal
to release his returns: there is a bombshell in them. Given Mr.
Trump's equanimity with other flaws in his history, we can only assume
it's a bombshell of unusual size.
(Anticipating inquiries regarding my own tax release history, I
released my 2010 tax returns in January of 2012 and I released my 2011
tax returns as soon as they were completed, in September of 2012.) "
On Wed, 11 May 2016 19:41:45 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Thursday, 12 May 2016 14:29:04 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:A bit more than a PAYE return: http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/78836990/andrew-littles-tax-returns-as-boring-as-he-promised.html
The USA selection process is interesting in many ways; and the issue
of the release of tax returns has become a feature not ony in the USA
but in other countries.
Mitt Romney makes a good case:
"It is disqualifying for a modern-day presidential nominee to refuse
to release tax returns to the voters, especially one who has not been
subject to public scrutiny in either military or public service. Tax
returns provide the public with its sole confirmation of the veracity
of a candidate's representations regarding charities, priorities,
wealth, tax conformance, and conflicts of interest. Further, while not
a likely circumstance, the potential for hidden inappropriate
associations with foreign entities, criminal organizations, or other
unsavory groups is simply too great a risk to ignore for someone who
is seeking to become commander-in-chief.
Mr. Trump says he is being audited. So? There is nothing that prevents
releasing tax returns that are being audited. Further, he could
release returns for the years immediately prior to the years under
audit. There is only one logical explanation for Mr. Trump's refusal
to release his returns: there is a bombshell in them. Given Mr.
Trump's equanimity with other flaws in his history, we can only assume
it's a bombshell of unusual size.
(Anticipating inquiries regarding my own tax release history, I
released my 2010 tax returns in January of 2012 and I released my 2011
tax returns as soon as they were completed, in September of 2012.)"
https://www.facebook.com/mittromney/posts/10153487016861121
Whether it really disqualifies a candidate is of course up to the
rules for the Republican Party; I don't think there is a legal
requirement, but the arguments used may perhaps have more general
applicability.
We now have at least one precedent in New Zealand;
No we don't. Angry little Andy showed his PAYE details - something that
was effectively public knowledge anyway given his salary is public >>knowledge. It was therefore an empty gesture.
perhaps others will
follow.
You show little interest in the privacy of others. How about you publish >>your tax return here. Unless you're just being a hypocrite, that is.
Do you agree with the reasons Mitt Romney gives?
". . . . Tax returns provide the public with its sole confirmation of
the veracity of a candidate's representations regarding charities, priorities, wealth, tax conformance, and conflicts of interest.
Further, while not a likely circumstance, the potential for hidden inappropriate associations with foreign entities, criminal
organizations, or other unsavory groups is simply too great a risk to
ignore . . . "
On Thursday, 12 May 2016 14:29:04 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
The USA selection process is interesting in many ways; and the issue
of the release of tax returns has become a feature not ony in the USA
but in other countries.
Mitt Romney makes a good case:
"It is disqualifying for a modern-day presidential nominee to refuse
to release tax returns to the voters, especially one who has not been
subject to public scrutiny in either military or public service. Tax
returns provide the public with its sole confirmation of the veracity
of a candidate's representations regarding charities, priorities,
wealth, tax conformance, and conflicts of interest. Further, while not
a likely circumstance, the potential for hidden inappropriate
associations with foreign entities, criminal organizations, or other
unsavory groups is simply too great a risk to ignore for someone who
is seeking to become commander-in-chief.
Mr. Trump says he is being audited. So? There is nothing that prevents
releasing tax returns that are being audited. Further, he could
release returns for the years immediately prior to the years under
audit. There is only one logical explanation for Mr. Trump's refusal
to release his returns: there is a bombshell in them. Given Mr.
Trump's equanimity with other flaws in his history, we can only assume
it's a bombshell of unusual size.
(Anticipating inquiries regarding my own tax release history, I
released my 2010 tax returns in January of 2012 and I released my 2011
tax returns as soon as they were completed, in September of 2012.)"
https://www.facebook.com/mittromney/posts/10153487016861121
Whether it really disqualifies a candidate is of course up to the
rules for the Republican Party; I don't think there is a legal
requirement, but the arguments used may perhaps have more general
applicability.
We now have at least one precedent in New Zealand;
No we don't. Angry little Andy showed his PAYE details - something that
was effectively public knowledge anyway given his salary is public
knowledge. It was therefore an empty gesture.
perhaps thers will
follow.
You show little interest in the privacy of others. How about you publish
your tax return here. Unless you're just being a hypocrite, that is.
On Wed, 11 May 2016 20:17:30 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Thursday, 12 May 2016 14:49:27 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Wed, 11 May 2016 19:41:45 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Thursday, 12 May 2016 14:29:04 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:A bit more than a PAYE return:
The USA selection process is interesting in many ways; and the issue
of the release of tax returns has become a feature not ony in the USA >>> >> but in other countries.
Mitt Romney makes a good case:
"It is disqualifying for a modern-day presidential nominee to refuse
to release tax returns to the voters, especially one who has not been >>> >> subject to public scrutiny in either military or public service. Tax
returns provide the public with its sole confirmation of the veracity >>> >> of a candidate's representations regarding charities, priorities,
wealth, tax conformance, and conflicts of interest. Further, while
not
a likely circumstance, the potential for hidden inappropriate
associations with foreign entities, criminal organizations, or other
unsavory groups is simply too great a risk to ignore for someone who
is seeking to become commander-in-chief.
Mr. Trump says he is being audited. So? There is nothing that
prevents
releasing tax returns that are being audited. Further, he could
release returns for the years immediately prior to the years under
audit. There is only one logical explanation for Mr. Trump's refusal
to release his returns: there is a bombshell in them. Given Mr.
Trump's equanimity with other flaws in his history, we can only
assume
it's a bombshell of unusual size.
(Anticipating inquiries regarding my own tax release history, I
released my 2010 tax returns in January of 2012 and I released my
2011
tax returns as soon as they were completed, in September of 2012.)"
https://www.facebook.com/mittromney/posts/10153487016861121
Whether it really disqualifies a candidate is of course up to the
rules for the Republican Party; I don't think there is a legal
requirement, but the arguments used may perhaps have more general
applicability.
We now have at least one precedent in New Zealand;
No we don't. Angry little Andy showed his PAYE details - something that >>> >was effectively public knowledge anyway given his salary is public
knowledge. It was therefore an empty gesture.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/78836990/andrew-littles-tax-returns-as-boring-as-he-promised.html
It's not a tax return, dickhead. All it lists is his salary and wage >>earnings. Now someone like you or Angry little Andy may have such a
limited world view as to think that's the same thing.
Are you such a useless tool that you didn't even read the very first thing >>on that document: "... it doesn't include income from other sources such
as self employed income, rental income, dividends and interest..."
FFS Dickbot, Angry little Andy could be receiving millions from
investments or union kickbacks and it would would not appear on that >>document.
You only looked at the picture. It is clear that he released his tax
return, but the paper chose to only show part of it. Here's another
article that explains it was all returns from 2010. http://home.nzcity.co.nz/news/article.aspx?id=224526
and another that is a form from the IRD https://www.scribd.com/doc/308044490/Andrew-Little-s-tax-record
There was also an NZ Herald article, but that appears to have
disappeared.
perhaps others will
follow.
You show little interest in the privacy of others. How about you
publish your tax return here. Unless you're just being a hypocrite,
that is.
Do you agree with the reasons Mitt Romney gives?
". . . . Tax returns provide the public with its sole confirmation of
the veracity of a candidate's representations regarding charities,
priorities, wealth, tax conformance, and conflicts of interest.
Further, while not a likely circumstance, the potential for hidden
inappropriate associations with foreign entities, criminal
organizations, or other unsavory groups is simply too great a risk to
ignore . . . "
No I don't. And the USA is not New Zealand and not comparable in this >>context anyway.
And the UK? Australia? the need for politicians to demonstrate that
they are being honest is increasing. I understand that our Prime
Minister is not he "Commander inChief", but is there anything else of
Mitt Romneys comments that you disagree with?
On Wed, 11 May 2016 21:01:01 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Thursday, 12 May 2016 15:44:42 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Wed, 11 May 2016 20:17:30 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Thursday, 12 May 2016 14:49:27 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Wed, 11 May 2016 19:41:45 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> >>> >> wrote:
On Thursday, 12 May 2016 14:29:04 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:A bit more than a PAYE return:
The USA selection process is interesting in many ways; and the
issue
of the release of tax returns has become a feature not ony in the
USA
but in other countries.
Mitt Romney makes a good case:
"It is disqualifying for a modern-day presidential nominee to
refuse
to release tax returns to the voters, especially one who has not
been
subject to public scrutiny in either military or public service.
Tax
returns provide the public with its sole confirmation of the
veracity
of a candidate's representations regarding charities, priorities,
wealth, tax conformance, and conflicts of interest. Further, while >>> >> >> not
a likely circumstance, the potential for hidden inappropriate
associations with foreign entities, criminal organizations, or
other
unsavory groups is simply too great a risk to ignore for someone
who
is seeking to become commander-in-chief.
Mr. Trump says he is being audited. So? There is nothing that
prevents
releasing tax returns that are being audited. Further, he could
release returns for the years immediately prior to the years under >>> >> >> audit. There is only one logical explanation for Mr. Trump's
refusal
to release his returns: there is a bombshell in them. Given Mr.
Trump's equanimity with other flaws in his history, we can only
assume
it's a bombshell of unusual size.
(Anticipating inquiries regarding my own tax release history, I
released my 2010 tax returns in January of 2012 and I released my
2011
tax returns as soon as they were completed, in September of
2012.)"
https://www.facebook.com/mittromney/posts/10153487016861121
Whether it really disqualifies a candidate is of course up to the
rules for the Republican Party; I don't think there is a legal
requirement, but the arguments used may perhaps have more general
applicability.
We now have at least one precedent in New Zealand;
No we don't. Angry little Andy showed his PAYE details - something
that was effectively public knowledge anyway given his salary is
public knowledge. It was therefore an empty gesture.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/78836990/andrew-littles-tax-returns-as-boring-as-he-promised.html
It's not a tax return, dickhead. All it lists is his salary and wage
earnings. Now someone like you or Angry little Andy may have such a
limited world view as to think that's the same thing.
Are you such a useless tool that you didn't even read the very first
thing on that document: "... it doesn't include income from other
sources such as self employed income, rental income, dividends and
interest..."
FFS Dickbot, Angry little Andy could be receiving millions from
investments or union kickbacks and it would would not appear on that
document.
You only looked at the picture.
Yes, that's what Little released.
It is clear that he released his tax
No it is not clear.
return, but the paper chose to only show part of it. Here's another
article that explains it was all returns from 2010.
http://home.nzcity.co.nz/news/article.aspx?id=224526
It explains nothing of the sort you liar. Little released his wage and >>salary details back to 2010. As you would see if you bothered to look.
and another that is a form from the IRD
https://www.scribd.com/doc/308044490/Andrew-Little-s-tax-record
That's the same bloody thing you posted two posts ago. Once again it says >>"... it doesn't include income from other sources such as self employed >>income, rental income, dividends and interest..."
Pay attention you imbecile: It is not a tax return. My god I am trying to >>explain this to you but you are so willfully stupid you just can't grasp >>it.
There was also an NZ Herald article, but that appears to have
disappeared.
How convenient.
Little has not released his tax returns. All he has released is his wage >>and salary earnings. Stop making a fucking dick of yourself and just shut >>up, or alternatively show us the TAX RETURN that he has released. It will >>have IR3 at the top.
It's quite simple, Dickbot: if you can't find his IR3 then he hasn't >>released his TAX RETURN.
THree news outlets all separately stated he had released his tax
return - and that it showed zero other income. Perhaps you are right,
but also perhaps the summary from teh IRD is all there was.
perhaps others will
follow.
You show little interest in the privacy of others. How about you
publish your tax return here. Unless you're just being a hypocrite,
that is.
Do you agree with the reasons Mitt Romney gives?
". . . . Tax returns provide the public with its sole confirmation of >>> >> the veracity of a candidate's representations regarding charities,
priorities, wealth, tax conformance, and conflicts of interest.
Further, while not a likely circumstance, the potential for hidden
inappropriate associations with foreign entities, criminal
organizations, or other unsavory groups is simply too great a risk to >>> >> ignore . . . "
No I don't. And the USA is not New Zealand and not comparable in this
context anyway.
And the UK? Australia? the need for politicians to demonstrate that
they are being honest is increasing. I understand that our Prime
Minister is not he "Commander inChief", but is there anything else of
Mitt Romneys comments that you disagree with?
I don't give a fuck about Mitt Romney - stop asking stupid, irrelevant >>diversionary questions.
That's where the thread started. THe issue is whether we shoul know
more about our politicians. The reasons given by Mitt Romney appeared
to me to be quite pertinent. You have not expressed an opinion on
them.
On 13/05/2016 11:21 a.m., Rich80105 wrote:
On Fri, 13 May 2016 08:19:41 +1200, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 12/05/2016 8:55 p.m., Rich80105 wrote:
On Thu, 12 May 2016 19:53:26 +1200, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote:I have no idea about Mitt Romney or what he said. But if he wrote, I'm
On 12/05/2016 2:29 p.m., Rich80105 wrote:
The USA selection process is interesting in many ways; and the issue >>>>>> of the release of tax returns has become a feature not ony in the USA >>>>>> but in other countries.
Mitt Romney makes a good case:
"It is disqualifying for a modern-day presidential nominee to refuse >>>>>> to release tax returns to the voters, especially one who has not been >>>>>> subject to public scrutiny in either military or public service. Tax >>>>>> returns provide the public with its sole confirmation of the veracity >>>>>> of a candidate's representations regarding charities, priorities,
wealth, tax conformance, and conflicts of interest. Further, while >>>>>> not
a likely circumstance, the potential for hidden inappropriate
associations with foreign entities, criminal organizations, or other >>>>>> unsavory groups is simply too great a risk to ignore for someone who >>>>>> is seeking to become commander-in-chief.
Mr. Trump says he is being audited. So? There is nothing that
prevents
releasing tax returns that are being audited. Further, he could
release returns for the years immediately prior to the years under >>>>>> audit. There is only one logical explanation for Mr. Trump's refusal >>>>>> to release his returns: there is a bombshell in them. Given Mr.
Trump's equanimity with other flaws in his history, we can only
assume
it's a bombshell of unusual size.
(Anticipating inquiries regarding my own tax release history, I
released my 2010 tax returns in January of 2012 and I released my
2011
tax returns as soon as they were completed, in September of 2012.)" >>>>>>
https://www.facebook.com/mittromney/posts/10153487016861121
Whether it really disqualifies a candidate is of course up to the
rules for the Republican Party; I don't think there is a legal
requirement, but the arguments used may perhaps have more general
applicability.
We now have at least one precedent in New Zealand; perhaps thers will >>>>>> follow.
Do you want to attract ex postmen, hairdressers, plumbers or trade
unionists to run the country - or would you rather see successful
people
who are extended the normal dignity of financial privacy?
Many ex postmen, hairdressers, plumbers or trade unionists are very
succesful - many may well earn more than people posting to nz.general, >>>> and more than we pay our Prime Minister. Your blinkers are showing.
And no, at a certain level, trust is important. Where do you think
Mitt Romney got it wrong, Fred?
sure he would be able to spell successful. I think politics suffers
enough because of the way the spotlight is put on our politicians every
move. It does nothing to encourage talent.
Here is what he said:
" It is disqualifying for a modern-day presidential nominee to refuse
to release tax returns to the voters, especially one who has not been
subject to public scrutiny in either military or public service. Tax
returns provide the public with its sole confirmation of the veracity
of a candidate's representations regarding charities, priorities,
wealth, tax conformance, and conflicts of interest. Further, while not
a likely circumstance, the potential for hidden inappropriate
associations with foreign entities, criminal organizations, or other
unsavory groups is simply too great a risk to ignore for someone who
is seeking to become commander-in-chief.
Mr. Trump says he is being audited. So? There is nothing that prevents
releasing tax returns that are being audited. Further, he could
release returns for the years immediately prior to the years under
audit. There is only one logical explanation for Mr. Trump's refusal
to release his returns: there is a bombshell in them. Given Mr.
Trump's equanimity with other flaws in his history, we can only assume
it's a bombshell of unusual size.
(Anticipating inquiries regarding my own tax release history, I
released my 2010 tax returns in January of 2012 and I released my 2011
tax returns as soon as they were completed, in September of 2012.) "
i don't care what Romney says about anything.
On Fri, 13 May 2016 09:21:13 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Rich80105 wrote:
On Thu, 12 May 2016 15:00:17 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Rich80105 wrote:Any particular reason, Allistar? It's an extension of the register of
On Wed, 11 May 2016 19:41:45 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote:
On Thursday, 12 May 2016 14:29:04 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:A bit more than a PAYE return:
The USA selection process is interesting in many ways; and the issue >>>>>>> of the release of tax returns has become a feature not ony in the >>>>>>> USA
but in other countries.
Mitt Romney makes a good case:
"It is disqualifying for a modern-day presidential nominee to refuse >>>>>>> to release tax returns to the voters, especially one who has not >>>>>>> been
subject to public scrutiny in either military or public service. Tax >>>>>>> returns provide the public with its sole confirmation of the
veracity
of a candidate's representations regarding charities, priorities, >>>>>>> wealth, tax conformance, and conflicts of interest. Further, while >>>>>>> not
a likely circumstance, the potential for hidden inappropriate
associations with foreign entities, criminal organizations, or other >>>>>>> unsavory groups is simply too great a risk to ignore for someone who >>>>>>> is seeking to become commander-in-chief.
Mr. Trump says he is being audited. So? There is nothing that
prevents
releasing tax returns that are being audited. Further, he could
release returns for the years immediately prior to the years under >>>>>>> audit. There is only one logical explanation for Mr. Trump's refusal >>>>>>> to release his returns: there is a bombshell in them. Given Mr.
Trump's equanimity with other flaws in his history, we can only
assume
it's a bombshell of unusual size.
(Anticipating inquiries regarding my own tax release history, I
released my 2010 tax returns in January of 2012 and I released my >>>>>>> 2011
tax returns as soon as they were completed, in September of 2012.)" >>>>>>>
https://www.facebook.com/mittromney/posts/10153487016861121
Whether it really disqualifies a candidate is of course up to the >>>>>>> rules for the Republican Party; I don't think there is a legal
requirement, but the arguments used may perhaps have more general >>>>>>> applicability.
We now have at least one precedent in New Zealand;
No we don't. Angry little Andy showed his PAYE details - something >>>>>>that
was effectively public knowledge anyway given his salary is public >>>>>>knowledge. It was therefore an empty gesture.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/78836990/andrew-littles-tax-returns-as-boring-as-he-promised.html
Do you agree with the reasons Mitt Romney gives?
perhaps others will
follow.
You show little interest in the privacy of others. How about you >>>>>>publish
your tax return here. Unless you're just being a hypocrite, that is. >>>>>
". . . . Tax returns provide the public with its sole confirmation of >>>>> the veracity of a candidate's representations regarding charities,
priorities, wealth, tax conformance, and conflicts of interest.
Further, while not a likely circumstance, the potential for hidden
inappropriate associations with foreign entities, criminal
organizations, or other unsavory groups is simply too great a risk to >>>>> ignore . . . "
No.
pecuniary interests in a way.
What someone earns is entirely their business.
As Mitt Romney says:
" There is only one logical explanation for Mr. Trump's refusal to
release his returns: there is a bombshell in them. Given Mr. Trump's equanimity with other flaws in his history, we can only assume it's a bombshell of unusual size."
What a politician tries to keep secret could result in a lost
election.
On Friday, 13 May 2016 11:25:15 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Fri, 13 May 2016 09:21:13 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Rich80105 wrote:
On Thu, 12 May 2016 15:00:17 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Rich80105 wrote:Any particular reason, Allistar? It's an extension of the register of
On Wed, 11 May 2016 19:41:45 -0700 (PDT), JohnO
<johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Thursday, 12 May 2016 14:29:04 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:A bit more than a PAYE return:
The USA selection process is interesting in many ways; and the
issue
of the release of tax returns has become a feature not ony in the
USA
but in other countries.
Mitt Romney makes a good case:
"It is disqualifying for a modern-day presidential nominee to
refuse
to release tax returns to the voters, especially one who has not
been
subject to public scrutiny in either military or public service.
Tax
returns provide the public with its sole confirmation of the
veracity
of a candidate's representations regarding charities, priorities,
wealth, tax conformance, and conflicts of interest. Further, while
not
a likely circumstance, the potential for hidden inappropriate
associations with foreign entities, criminal organizations, or
other
unsavory groups is simply too great a risk to ignore for someone
who
is seeking to become commander-in-chief.
Mr. Trump says he is being audited. So? There is nothing that
prevents
releasing tax returns that are being audited. Further, he could
release returns for the years immediately prior to the years under
audit. There is only one logical explanation for Mr. Trump's
refusal
to release his returns: there is a bombshell in them. Given Mr.
Trump's equanimity with other flaws in his history, we can only
assume
it's a bombshell of unusual size.
(Anticipating inquiries regarding my own tax release history, I
released my 2010 tax returns in January of 2012 and I released my
2011
tax returns as soon as they were completed, in September of
2012.)"
https://www.facebook.com/mittromney/posts/10153487016861121
Whether it really disqualifies a candidate is of course up to the
rules for the Republican Party; I don't think there is a legal
requirement, but the arguments used may perhaps have more general
applicability.
We now have at least one precedent in New Zealand;
No we don't. Angry little Andy showed his PAYE details - something
that
was effectively public knowledge anyway given his salary is public
knowledge. It was therefore an empty gesture.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/78836990/andrew-littles-tax-returns-as-boring-as-he-promised.html
perhaps others will
follow.
You show little interest in the privacy of others. How about you
publish
your tax return here. Unless you're just being a hypocrite, that is.
Do you agree with the reasons Mitt Romney gives?
". . . . Tax returns provide the public with its sole confirmation
of
the veracity of a candidate's representations regarding charities,
priorities, wealth, tax conformance, and conflicts of interest.
Further, while not a likely circumstance, the potential for hidden
inappropriate associations with foreign entities, criminal
organizations, or other unsavory groups is simply too great a risk
to
ignore . . . "
No.
pecuniary interests in a way.
What someone earns is entirely their business.
As Mitt Romney says:
" There is only one logical explanation for Mr. Trump's refusal to
release his returns: there is a bombshell in them. Given Mr. Trump's
equanimity with other flaws in his history, we can only assume it's a
bombshell of unusual size."
What a politician tries to keep secret could result in a lost
election.
Like when David Shearer "forgot" he had money in an offshore bank account?
Or like when it was revealed that David Cunliffe had a secret trust to launder his donations?
Hypocrisy the only thing the angry Little union stooge is good at. Much like Dickbot the troll :)
On 2016-05-14, Pooh <rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
Bit stormy in world at the meoment Pooh, no honey?
Hypocrisy the only thing the angry Little union stooge is good at. Much like >> Dickbot the troll :)
On 13/05/2016 11:21 a.m., Rich80105 wrote:
On Fri, 13 May 2016 08:19:41 +1200, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 12/05/2016 8:55 p.m., Rich80105 wrote:
On Thu, 12 May 2016 19:53:26 +1200, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote:I have no idea about Mitt Romney or what he said. But if he wrote, I'm
On 12/05/2016 2:29 p.m., Rich80105 wrote:
The USA selection process is interesting in many ways; and the issue >>>>> of the release of tax returns has become a feature not ony in the USA >>>>> but in other countries.
Mitt Romney makes a good case:
"It is disqualifying for a modern-day presidential nominee to refuse >>>>> to release tax returns to the voters, especially one who has not been >>>>> subject to public scrutiny in either military or public service. Tax >>>>> returns provide the public with its sole confirmation of the veracity >>>>> of a candidate's representations regarding charities, priorities,
wealth, tax conformance, and conflicts of interest. Further, while not >>>>> a likely circumstance, the potential for hidden inappropriate
associations with foreign entities, criminal organizations, or other >>>>> unsavory groups is simply too great a risk to ignore for someone who >>>>> is seeking to become commander-in-chief.
Mr. Trump says he is being audited. So? There is nothing that prevents >>>>> releasing tax returns that are being audited. Further, he could
release returns for the years immediately prior to the years under >>>>> audit. There is only one logical explanation for Mr. Trump's refusal >>>>> to release his returns: there is a bombshell in them. Given Mr.
Trump's equanimity with other flaws in his history, we can only assume >>>>> it's a bombshell of unusual size.
(Anticipating inquiries regarding my own tax release history, I
released my 2010 tax returns in January of 2012 and I released my 2011 >>>>> tax returns as soon as they were completed, in September of 2012.)" >>>>>
https://www.facebook.com/mittromney/posts/10153487016861121
Whether it really disqualifies a candidate is of course up to the
rules for the Republican Party; I don't think there is a legal
requirement, but the arguments used may perhaps have more general
applicability.
We now have at least one precedent in New Zealand; perhaps thers will >>>>> follow.
Do you want to attract ex postmen, hairdressers, plumbers or trade
unionists to run the country - or would you rather see successful people >>>> who are extended the normal dignity of financial privacy?
Many ex postmen, hairdressers, plumbers or trade unionists are very
succesful - many may well earn more than people posting to nz.general, >>> and more than we pay our Prime Minister. Your blinkers are showing.
And no, at a certain level, trust is important. Where do you think
Mitt Romney got it wrong, Fred?
sure he would be able to spell successful. I think politics suffers
enough because of the way the spotlight is put on our politicians every
move. It does nothing to encourage talent.
Here is what he said:
" It is disqualifying for a modern-day presidential nominee to refuse
to release tax returns to the voters, especially one who has not been subject to public scrutiny in either military or public service. Tax returns provide the public with its sole confirmation of the veracity
of a candidate's representations regarding charities, priorities,
wealth, tax conformance, and conflicts of interest. Further, while not
a likely circumstance, the potential for hidden inappropriate
associations with foreign entities, criminal organizations, or other unsavory groups is simply too great a risk to ignore for someone who
is seeking to become commander-in-chief.
Mr. Trump says he is being audited. So? There is nothing that prevents releasing tax returns that are being audited. Further, he could
release returns for the years immediately prior to the years under
audit. There is only one logical explanation for Mr. Trump's refusal
to release his returns: there is a bombshell in them. Given Mr.
Trump's equanimity with other flaws in his history, we can only assume
it's a bombshell of unusual size.
(Anticipating inquiries regarding my own tax release history, I
released my 2010 tax returns in January of 2012 and I released my 2011
tax returns as soon as they were completed, in September of 2012.) "
I'm not interested in what he said. I presume it supports your opinion
but if you are paranoid enough to spend all your time worrying about
trivial matters you will always be able to find one opinion in line with yours; although you're getting pretty desperate when you quote Romney.
On Fri, 13 May 2016 08:19:41 +1200, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 12/05/2016 8:55 p.m., Rich80105 wrote:
On Thu, 12 May 2016 19:53:26 +1200, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote:I have no idea about Mitt Romney or what he said. But if he wrote, I'm
On 12/05/2016 2:29 p.m., Rich80105 wrote:
The USA selection process is interesting in many ways; and the issue >>>>> of the release of tax returns has become a feature not ony in the USA >>>>> but in other countries.
Mitt Romney makes a good case:
"It is disqualifying for a modern-day presidential nominee to refuse >>>>> to release tax returns to the voters, especially one who has not been >>>>> subject to public scrutiny in either military or public service. Tax >>>>> returns provide the public with its sole confirmation of the veracity >>>>> of a candidate's representations regarding charities, priorities,
wealth, tax conformance, and conflicts of interest. Further, while not >>>>> a likely circumstance, the potential for hidden inappropriate
associations with foreign entities, criminal organizations, or other >>>>> unsavory groups is simply too great a risk to ignore for someone who >>>>> is seeking to become commander-in-chief.
Mr. Trump says he is being audited. So? There is nothing that prevents >>>>> releasing tax returns that are being audited. Further, he could
release returns for the years immediately prior to the years under
audit. There is only one logical explanation for Mr. Trump's refusal >>>>> to release his returns: there is a bombshell in them. Given Mr.
Trump's equanimity with other flaws in his history, we can only assume >>>>> it's a bombshell of unusual size.
(Anticipating inquiries regarding my own tax release history, I
released my 2010 tax returns in January of 2012 and I released my 2011 >>>>> tax returns as soon as they were completed, in September of 2012.)"
https://www.facebook.com/mittromney/posts/10153487016861121
Whether it really disqualifies a candidate is of course up to the
rules for the Republican Party; I don't think there is a legal
requirement, but the arguments used may perhaps have more general
applicability.
We now have at least one precedent in New Zealand; perhaps thers will >>>>> follow.
Do you want to attract ex postmen, hairdressers, plumbers or trade
unionists to run the country - or would you rather see successful people >>>> who are extended the normal dignity of financial privacy?
Many ex postmen, hairdressers, plumbers or trade unionists are very
succesful - many may well earn more than people posting to nz.general,
and more than we pay our Prime Minister. Your blinkers are showing.
And no, at a certain level, trust is important. Where do you think
Mitt Romney got it wrong, Fred?
sure he would be able to spell successful. I think politics suffers
enough because of the way the spotlight is put on our politicians every
move. It does nothing to encourage talent.
Here is what he said:
" It is disqualifying for a modern-day presidential nominee to refuse
to release tax returns to the voters, especially one who has not been
subject to public scrutiny in either military or public service. Tax
returns provide the public with its sole confirmation of the veracity
of a candidate's representations regarding charities, priorities,
wealth, tax conformance, and conflicts of interest. Further, while not
a likely circumstance, the potential for hidden inappropriate
associations with foreign entities, criminal organizations, or other
unsavory groups is simply too great a risk to ignore for someone who
is seeking to become commander-in-chief.
Mr. Trump says he is being audited. So? There is nothing that prevents releasing tax returns that are being audited. Further, he could
release returns for the years immediately prior to the years under
audit. There is only one logical explanation for Mr. Trump's refusal
to release his returns: there is a bombshell in them. Given Mr.
Trump's equanimity with other flaws in his history, we can only assume
it's a bombshell of unusual size.
(Anticipating inquiries regarding my own tax release history, I
released my 2010 tax returns in January of 2012 and I released my 2011
tax returns as soon as they were completed, in September of 2012.) "
On Monday, 16 May 2016 08:22:17 UTC+12, Fred wrote:
On 13/05/2016 11:21 a.m., Rich80105 wrote:
On Fri, 13 May 2016 08:19:41 +1200, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote:I'm not interested in what he said. I presume it supports your opinion
On 12/05/2016 8:55 p.m., Rich80105 wrote:
On Thu, 12 May 2016 19:53:26 +1200, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>I have no idea about Mitt Romney or what he said. But if he wrote, I'm >>>> sure he would be able to spell successful. I think politics suffers
On 12/05/2016 2:29 p.m., Rich80105 wrote:
The USA selection process is interesting in many ways; and the issue >>>>>>> of the release of tax returns has become a feature not ony in the USA >>>>>>> but in other countries.
Mitt Romney makes a good case:
"It is disqualifying for a modern-day presidential nominee to refuse >>>>>>> to release tax returns to the voters, especially one who has not been >>>>>>> subject to public scrutiny in either military or public service. Tax >>>>>>> returns provide the public with its sole confirmation of the veracity >>>>>>> of a candidate's representations regarding charities, priorities, >>>>>>> wealth, tax conformance, and conflicts of interest. Further, while not >>>>>>> a likely circumstance, the potential for hidden inappropriate
associations with foreign entities, criminal organizations, or other >>>>>>> unsavory groups is simply too great a risk to ignore for someone who >>>>>>> is seeking to become commander-in-chief.
Mr. Trump says he is being audited. So? There is nothing that prevents >>>>>>> releasing tax returns that are being audited. Further, he could
release returns for the years immediately prior to the years under >>>>>>> audit. There is only one logical explanation for Mr. Trump's refusal >>>>>>> to release his returns: there is a bombshell in them. Given Mr.
Trump's equanimity with other flaws in his history, we can only assume >>>>>>> it's a bombshell of unusual size.
(Anticipating inquiries regarding my own tax release history, I
released my 2010 tax returns in January of 2012 and I released my 2011 >>>>>>> tax returns as soon as they were completed, in September of 2012.)" >>>>>>>
https://www.facebook.com/mittromney/posts/10153487016861121
Whether it really disqualifies a candidate is of course up to the >>>>>>> rules for the Republican Party; I don't think there is a legal
requirement, but the arguments used may perhaps have more general >>>>>>> applicability.
We now have at least one precedent in New Zealand; perhaps thers will >>>>>>> follow.
Do you want to attract ex postmen, hairdressers, plumbers or trade >>>>>> unionists to run the country - or would you rather see successful people >>>>>> who are extended the normal dignity of financial privacy?
Many ex postmen, hairdressers, plumbers or trade unionists are very >>>>> succesful - many may well earn more than people posting to nz.general, >>>>> and more than we pay our Prime Minister. Your blinkers are showing.
And no, at a certain level, trust is important. Where do you think
Mitt Romney got it wrong, Fred?
enough because of the way the spotlight is put on our politicians every >>>> move. It does nothing to encourage talent.
Here is what he said:
" It is disqualifying for a modern-day presidential nominee to refuse
to release tax returns to the voters, especially one who has not been
subject to public scrutiny in either military or public service. Tax
returns provide the public with its sole confirmation of the veracity
of a candidate's representations regarding charities, priorities,
wealth, tax conformance, and conflicts of interest. Further, while not
a likely circumstance, the potential for hidden inappropriate
associations with foreign entities, criminal organizations, or other
unsavory groups is simply too great a risk to ignore for someone who
is seeking to become commander-in-chief.
Mr. Trump says he is being audited. So? There is nothing that prevents
releasing tax returns that are being audited. Further, he could
release returns for the years immediately prior to the years under
audit. There is only one logical explanation for Mr. Trump's refusal
to release his returns: there is a bombshell in them. Given Mr.
Trump's equanimity with other flaws in his history, we can only assume
it's a bombshell of unusual size.
(Anticipating inquiries regarding my own tax release history, I
released my 2010 tax returns in January of 2012 and I released my 2011
tax returns as soon as they were completed, in September of 2012.) "
but if you are paranoid enough to spend all your time worrying about
trivial matters you will always be able to find one opinion in line with
yours; although you're getting pretty desperate when you quote Romney.
A sheep quoting a sheep - there's an appealing ironic symmetry there.
On 16/05/2016 9:43 a.m., JohnO wrote:
On Monday, 16 May 2016 08:22:17 UTC+12, Fred wrote:It's an interesting bit of cherry picking from Rich. I'll bet he could
On 13/05/2016 11:21 a.m., Rich80105 wrote:
On Fri, 13 May 2016 08:19:41 +1200, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote:I'm not interested in what he said. I presume it supports your opinion
On 12/05/2016 8:55 p.m., Rich80105 wrote:
On Thu, 12 May 2016 19:53:26 +1200, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>I have no idea about Mitt Romney or what he said. But if he wrote, I'm >>>>> sure he would be able to spell successful. I think politics suffers
On 12/05/2016 2:29 p.m., Rich80105 wrote:
The USA selection process is interesting in many ways; and the issue >>>>>>>> of the release of tax returns has become a feature not ony in the USA >>>>>>>> but in other countries.
Mitt Romney makes a good case:
"It is disqualifying for a modern-day presidential nominee to refuse >>>>>>>> to release tax returns to the voters, especially one who has not been >>>>>>>> subject to public scrutiny in either military or public service. Tax >>>>>>>> returns provide the public with its sole confirmation of the veracity >>>>>>>> of a candidate's representations regarding charities, priorities, >>>>>>>> wealth, tax conformance, and conflicts of interest. Further, while not >>>>>>>> a likely circumstance, the potential for hidden inappropriate
associations with foreign entities, criminal organizations, or other >>>>>>>> unsavory groups is simply too great a risk to ignore for someone who >>>>>>>> is seeking to become commander-in-chief.
Mr. Trump says he is being audited. So? There is nothing that prevents >>>>>>>> releasing tax returns that are being audited. Further, he could >>>>>>>> release returns for the years immediately prior to the years under >>>>>>>> audit. There is only one logical explanation for Mr. Trump's refusal >>>>>>>> to release his returns: there is a bombshell in them. Given Mr. >>>>>>>> Trump's equanimity with other flaws in his history, we can only assume >>>>>>>> it's a bombshell of unusual size.
(Anticipating inquiries regarding my own tax release history, I >>>>>>>> released my 2010 tax returns in January of 2012 and I released my 2011 >>>>>>>> tax returns as soon as they were completed, in September of 2012.)" >>>>>>>>
https://www.facebook.com/mittromney/posts/10153487016861121
Whether it really disqualifies a candidate is of course up to the >>>>>>>> rules for the Republican Party; I don't think there is a legal >>>>>>>> requirement, but the arguments used may perhaps have more general >>>>>>>> applicability.
We now have at least one precedent in New Zealand; perhaps thers will >>>>>>>> follow.
Do you want to attract ex postmen, hairdressers, plumbers or trade >>>>>>> unionists to run the country - or would you rather see successful people
who are extended the normal dignity of financial privacy?
Many ex postmen, hairdressers, plumbers or trade unionists are very >>>>>> succesful - many may well earn more than people posting to nz.general, >>>>>> and more than we pay our Prime Minister. Your blinkers are showing. >>>>>> And no, at a certain level, trust is important. Where do you think >>>>>> Mitt Romney got it wrong, Fred?
enough because of the way the spotlight is put on our politicians every >>>>> move. It does nothing to encourage talent.
Here is what he said:
" It is disqualifying for a modern-day presidential nominee to refuse
to release tax returns to the voters, especially one who has not been
subject to public scrutiny in either military or public service. Tax
returns provide the public with its sole confirmation of the veracity
of a candidate's representations regarding charities, priorities,
wealth, tax conformance, and conflicts of interest. Further, while not >>>> a likely circumstance, the potential for hidden inappropriate
associations with foreign entities, criminal organizations, or other
unsavory groups is simply too great a risk to ignore for someone who
is seeking to become commander-in-chief.
Mr. Trump says he is being audited. So? There is nothing that prevents >>>> releasing tax returns that are being audited. Further, he could
release returns for the years immediately prior to the years under
audit. There is only one logical explanation for Mr. Trump's refusal
to release his returns: there is a bombshell in them. Given Mr.
Trump's equanimity with other flaws in his history, we can only assume >>>> it's a bombshell of unusual size.
(Anticipating inquiries regarding my own tax release history, I
released my 2010 tax returns in January of 2012 and I released my 2011 >>>> tax returns as soon as they were completed, in September of 2012.) "
but if you are paranoid enough to spend all your time worrying about
trivial matters you will always be able to find one opinion in line with >>> yours; although you're getting pretty desperate when you quote Romney.
A sheep quoting a sheep - there's an appealing ironic symmetry there.
troll through screeds and screeds of Romney's speeches before he could
find something he could use.
On Tue, 17 May 2016 10:30:08 +1200, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 16/05/2016 9:43 a.m., JohnO wrote:
On Monday, 16 May 2016 08:22:17 UTC+12, Fred wrote:It's an interesting bit of cherry picking from Rich. I'll bet he could
On 13/05/2016 11:21 a.m., Rich80105 wrote:
On Fri, 13 May 2016 08:19:41 +1200, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>I'm not interested in what he said. I presume it supports your opinion >>>> but if you are paranoid enough to spend all your time worrying about
On 12/05/2016 8:55 p.m., Rich80105 wrote:
On Thu, 12 May 2016 19:53:26 +1200, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>I have no idea about Mitt Romney or what he said. But if he wrote, I'm >>>>>> sure he would be able to spell successful. I think politics suffers >>>>>> enough because of the way the spotlight is put on our politicians every >>>>>> move. It does nothing to encourage talent.
On 12/05/2016 2:29 p.m., Rich80105 wrote:
The USA selection process is interesting in many ways; and the issue >>>>>>>>> of the release of tax returns has become a feature not ony in the USA >>>>>>>>> but in other countries.
Mitt Romney makes a good case:
"It is disqualifying for a modern-day presidential nominee to refuse >>>>>>>>> to release tax returns to the voters, especially one who has not been >>>>>>>>> subject to public scrutiny in either military or public service. Tax >>>>>>>>> returns provide the public with its sole confirmation of the veracity >>>>>>>>> of a candidate's representations regarding charities, priorities, >>>>>>>>> wealth, tax conformance, and conflicts of interest. Further, while not
a likely circumstance, the potential for hidden inappropriate >>>>>>>>> associations with foreign entities, criminal organizations, or other >>>>>>>>> unsavory groups is simply too great a risk to ignore for someone who >>>>>>>>> is seeking to become commander-in-chief.
Mr. Trump says he is being audited. So? There is nothing that prevents
releasing tax returns that are being audited. Further, he could >>>>>>>>> release returns for the years immediately prior to the years under >>>>>>>>> audit. There is only one logical explanation for Mr. Trump's refusal >>>>>>>>> to release his returns: there is a bombshell in them. Given Mr. >>>>>>>>> Trump's equanimity with other flaws in his history, we can only assume
it's a bombshell of unusual size.
(Anticipating inquiries regarding my own tax release history, I >>>>>>>>> released my 2010 tax returns in January of 2012 and I released my 2011
tax returns as soon as they were completed, in September of 2012.)" >>>>>>>>>
https://www.facebook.com/mittromney/posts/10153487016861121
Whether it really disqualifies a candidate is of course up to the >>>>>>>>> rules for the Republican Party; I don't think there is a legal >>>>>>>>> requirement, but the arguments used may perhaps have more general >>>>>>>>> applicability.
We now have at least one precedent in New Zealand; perhaps thers will >>>>>>>>> follow.
Do you want to attract ex postmen, hairdressers, plumbers or trade >>>>>>>> unionists to run the country - or would you rather see successful people
who are extended the normal dignity of financial privacy?
Many ex postmen, hairdressers, plumbers or trade unionists are very >>>>>>> succesful - many may well earn more than people posting to nz.general, >>>>>>> and more than we pay our Prime Minister. Your blinkers are showing. >>>>>>> And no, at a certain level, trust is important. Where do you think >>>>>>> Mitt Romney got it wrong, Fred?
Here is what he said:
" It is disqualifying for a modern-day presidential nominee to refuse >>>>> to release tax returns to the voters, especially one who has not been >>>>> subject to public scrutiny in either military or public service. Tax >>>>> returns provide the public with its sole confirmation of the veracity >>>>> of a candidate's representations regarding charities, priorities,
wealth, tax conformance, and conflicts of interest. Further, while not >>>>> a likely circumstance, the potential for hidden inappropriate
associations with foreign entities, criminal organizations, or other >>>>> unsavory groups is simply too great a risk to ignore for someone who >>>>> is seeking to become commander-in-chief.
Mr. Trump says he is being audited. So? There is nothing that prevents >>>>> releasing tax returns that are being audited. Further, he could
release returns for the years immediately prior to the years under
audit. There is only one logical explanation for Mr. Trump's refusal >>>>> to release his returns: there is a bombshell in them. Given Mr.
Trump's equanimity with other flaws in his history, we can only assume >>>>> it's a bombshell of unusual size.
(Anticipating inquiries regarding my own tax release history, I
released my 2010 tax returns in January of 2012 and I released my 2011 >>>>> tax returns as soon as they were completed, in September of 2012.) " >>>>>
trivial matters you will always be able to find one opinion in line with >>>> yours; although you're getting pretty desperate when you quote Romney.
A sheep quoting a sheep - there's an appealing ironic symmetry there.
troll through screeds and screeds of Romney's speeches before he could
find something he could use.
What else were you wnting to discuss, Fred? You can always start
another thread with something else Romney has said - I'm not aware of
him saying much i teh current election round.
But what do you think of what he said on this subject? I don't see
this as a party political issue - disclosure is an issue that some in
all parties will feel needs to be done, some will disagree.
On 17/05/2016 11:41 a.m., Rich80105 wrote:
On Tue, 17 May 2016 10:30:08 +1200, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote:The downside of requiring political aspirants to disclose their income
On 16/05/2016 9:43 a.m., JohnO wrote:
On Monday, 16 May 2016 08:22:17 UTC+12, Fred wrote:It's an interesting bit of cherry picking from Rich. I'll bet he could
On 13/05/2016 11:21 a.m., Rich80105 wrote:A sheep quoting a sheep - there's an appealing ironic symmetry there.
On Fri, 13 May 2016 08:19:41 +1200, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>I'm not interested in what he said. I presume it supports your opinion >>>>> but if you are paranoid enough to spend all your time worrying about >>>>> trivial matters you will always be able to find one opinion in line with >>>>> yours; although you're getting pretty desperate when you quote Romney. >>>>
On 12/05/2016 8:55 p.m., Rich80105 wrote:
On Thu, 12 May 2016 19:53:26 +1200, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>I have no idea about Mitt Romney or what he said. But if he wrote, I'm >>>>>>> sure he would be able to spell successful. I think politics suffers >>>>>>> enough because of the way the spotlight is put on our politicians every >>>>>>> move. It does nothing to encourage talent.
On 12/05/2016 2:29 p.m., Rich80105 wrote:
The USA selection process is interesting in many ways; and the issue >>>>>>>>>> of the release of tax returns has become a feature not ony in the USA
but in other countries.
Mitt Romney makes a good case:
"It is disqualifying for a modern-day presidential nominee to refuse >>>>>>>>>> to release tax returns to the voters, especially one who has not been
subject to public scrutiny in either military or public service. Tax >>>>>>>>>> returns provide the public with its sole confirmation of the veracity
of a candidate's representations regarding charities, priorities, >>>>>>>>>> wealth, tax conformance, and conflicts of interest. Further, while not
a likely circumstance, the potential for hidden inappropriate >>>>>>>>>> associations with foreign entities, criminal organizations, or other >>>>>>>>>> unsavory groups is simply too great a risk to ignore for someone who >>>>>>>>>> is seeking to become commander-in-chief.
Mr. Trump says he is being audited. So? There is nothing that prevents
releasing tax returns that are being audited. Further, he could >>>>>>>>>> release returns for the years immediately prior to the years under >>>>>>>>>> audit. There is only one logical explanation for Mr. Trump's refusal >>>>>>>>>> to release his returns: there is a bombshell in them. Given Mr. >>>>>>>>>> Trump's equanimity with other flaws in his history, we can only assume
it's a bombshell of unusual size.
(Anticipating inquiries regarding my own tax release history, I >>>>>>>>>> released my 2010 tax returns in January of 2012 and I released my 2011
tax returns as soon as they were completed, in September of 2012.)" >>>>>>>>>>
https://www.facebook.com/mittromney/posts/10153487016861121 >>>>>>>>>>
Whether it really disqualifies a candidate is of course up to the >>>>>>>>>> rules for the Republican Party; I don't think there is a legal >>>>>>>>>> requirement, but the arguments used may perhaps have more general >>>>>>>>>> applicability.
We now have at least one precedent in New Zealand; perhaps thers will
follow.
Do you want to attract ex postmen, hairdressers, plumbers or trade >>>>>>>>> unionists to run the country - or would you rather see successful people
who are extended the normal dignity of financial privacy?
Many ex postmen, hairdressers, plumbers or trade unionists are very >>>>>>>> succesful - many may well earn more than people posting to nz.general, >>>>>>>> and more than we pay our Prime Minister. Your blinkers are showing. >>>>>>>> And no, at a certain level, trust is important. Where do you think >>>>>>>> Mitt Romney got it wrong, Fred?
Here is what he said:
" It is disqualifying for a modern-day presidential nominee to refuse >>>>>> to release tax returns to the voters, especially one who has not been >>>>>> subject to public scrutiny in either military or public service. Tax >>>>>> returns provide the public with its sole confirmation of the veracity >>>>>> of a candidate's representations regarding charities, priorities,
wealth, tax conformance, and conflicts of interest. Further, while not >>>>>> a likely circumstance, the potential for hidden inappropriate
associations with foreign entities, criminal organizations, or other >>>>>> unsavory groups is simply too great a risk to ignore for someone who >>>>>> is seeking to become commander-in-chief.
Mr. Trump says he is being audited. So? There is nothing that prevents >>>>>> releasing tax returns that are being audited. Further, he could
release returns for the years immediately prior to the years under >>>>>> audit. There is only one logical explanation for Mr. Trump's refusal >>>>>> to release his returns: there is a bombshell in them. Given Mr.
Trump's equanimity with other flaws in his history, we can only assume >>>>>> it's a bombshell of unusual size.
(Anticipating inquiries regarding my own tax release history, I
released my 2010 tax returns in January of 2012 and I released my 2011 >>>>>> tax returns as soon as they were completed, in September of 2012.) " >>>>>>
troll through screeds and screeds of Romney's speeches before he could
find something he could use.
What else were you wanting to discuss, Fred? You can always start
another thread with something else Romney has said - I'm not aware of
him saying much in the current election round.
But what do you think of what he said on this subject? I don't see
this as a party political issue - disclosure is an issue that some in
all parties will feel needs to be done, some will disagree.
would result in far fewer candidates wanting to stand.
On Tue, 17 May 2016 14:52:00 +1200, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote:issue
On 17/05/2016 11:41 a.m., Rich80105 wrote:
On Tue, 17 May 2016 10:30:08 +1200, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 16/05/2016 9:43 a.m., JohnO wrote:
On Monday, 16 May 2016 08:22:17 UTC+12, Fred wrote:
On 13/05/2016 11:21 a.m., Rich80105 wrote:
On Fri, 13 May 2016 08:19:41 +1200, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>
On 12/05/2016 8:55 p.m., Rich80105 wrote:
On Thu, 12 May 2016 19:53:26 +1200, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>
On 12/05/2016 2:29 p.m., Rich80105 wrote:
The USA selection process is interesting in many ways; and the
USAof the release of tax returns has become a feature not ony in the
refusebut in other countries.
Mitt Romney makes a good case:
"It is disqualifying for a modern-day presidential nominee to
beento release tax returns to the voters, especially one who has not
Taxsubject to public scrutiny in either military or public service.
veracityreturns provide the public with its sole confirmation of the
notof a candidate's representations regarding charities, priorities, >>>>>>>>>> wealth, tax conformance, and conflicts of interest. Further, while
othera likely circumstance, the potential for hidden inappropriate >>>>>>>>>> associations with foreign entities, criminal organizations, or
whounsavory groups is simply too great a risk to ignore for someone
preventsis seeking to become commander-in-chief.
Mr. Trump says he is being audited. So? There is nothing that
refusalreleasing tax returns that are being audited. Further, he could >>>>>>>>>> release returns for the years immediately prior to the years under >>>>>>>>>> audit. There is only one logical explanation for Mr. Trump's
assumeto release his returns: there is a bombshell in them. Given Mr. >>>>>>>>>> Trump's equanimity with other flaws in his history, we can only
2011it's a bombshell of unusual size.
(Anticipating inquiries regarding my own tax release history, I >>>>>>>>>> released my 2010 tax returns in January of 2012 and I released my
2012.)"tax returns as soon as they were completed, in September of
will
https://www.facebook.com/mittromney/posts/10153487016861121 >>>>>>>>>>
Whether it really disqualifies a candidate is of course up to the >>>>>>>>>> rules for the Republican Party; I don't think there is a legal >>>>>>>>>> requirement, but the arguments used may perhaps have more general >>>>>>>>>> applicability.
We now have at least one precedent in New Zealand; perhaps thers
peoplefollow.
Do you want to attract ex postmen, hairdressers, plumbers or trade >>>>>>>>> unionists to run the country - or would you rather see successful
nz.general,who are extended the normal dignity of financial privacy?
Many ex postmen, hairdressers, plumbers or trade unionists are very >>>>>>>> succesful - many may well earn more than people posting to
I'mand more than we pay our Prime Minister. Your blinkers are showing. >>>>>>>> And no, at a certain level, trust is important. Where do you think >>>>>>>> Mitt Romney got it wrong, Fred?I have no idea about Mitt Romney or what he said. But if he wrote,
everysure he would be able to spell successful. I think politics suffers >>>>>>> enough because of the way the spotlight is put on our politicians
withI'm not interested in what he said. I presume it supports your opinion >>>>> but if you are paranoid enough to spend all your time worrying about >>>>> trivial matters you will always be able to find one opinion in linemove. It does nothing to encourage talent.
Here is what he said:
" It is disqualifying for a modern-day presidential nominee to refuse >>>>>> to release tax returns to the voters, especially one who has not been >>>>>> subject to public scrutiny in either military or public service. Tax >>>>>> returns provide the public with its sole confirmation of the veracity >>>>>> of a candidate's representations regarding charities, priorities, >>>>>> wealth, tax conformance, and conflicts of interest. Further, while not >>>>>> a likely circumstance, the potential for hidden inappropriate
associations with foreign entities, criminal organizations, or other >>>>>> unsavory groups is simply too great a risk to ignore for someone who >>>>>> is seeking to become commander-in-chief.
Mr. Trump says he is being audited. So? There is nothing that prevents >>>>>> releasing tax returns that are being audited. Further, he could
release returns for the years immediately prior to the years under >>>>>> audit. There is only one logical explanation for Mr. Trump's refusal >>>>>> to release his returns: there is a bombshell in them. Given Mr.
Trump's equanimity with other flaws in his history, we can only assume >>>>>> it's a bombshell of unusual size.
(Anticipating inquiries regarding my own tax release history, I
released my 2010 tax returns in January of 2012 and I released my 2011 >>>>>> tax returns as soon as they were completed, in September of 2012.) " >>>>>>
The downside of requiring political aspirants to disclose their income >would result in far fewer candidates wanting to stand.It's an interesting bit of cherry picking from Rich. I'll bet he could >>> troll through screeds and screeds of Romney's speeches before he could >>> find something he could use.yours; although you're getting pretty desperate when you quote Romney. >>>>A sheep quoting a sheep - there's an appealing ironic symmetry there. >>>>
What else were you wanting to discuss, Fred? You can always start
another thread with something else Romney has said - I'm not aware of
him saying much in the current election round.
But what do you think of what he said on this subject? I don't see
this as a party political issue - disclosure is an issue that some in
all parties will feel needs to be done, some will disagree.
That is certainly one downside, but politicians are fairly well paid
in New Zealand - in the USA they seem to make more money from other activities from their jobs, which is a different problem.
While the opportunity to manage tax liabilities exists, there will be pressure on politicians to prove that they do not have a conflict of
interest in relation to closing loopholes; a tighter system both in
New Zealand and internationally would reduce the calls for
transparency, but those changes do appear to be being resisted.
On Tue, 17 May 2016 14:52:00 +1200, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 17/05/2016 11:41 a.m., Rich80105 wrote:
On Tue, 17 May 2016 10:30:08 +1200, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote:The downside of requiring political aspirants to disclose their income >>would result in far fewer candidates wanting to stand.
On 16/05/2016 9:43 a.m., JohnO wrote:
On Monday, 16 May 2016 08:22:17 UTC+12, Fred wrote:It's an interesting bit of cherry picking from Rich. I'll bet he could >>>> troll through screeds and screeds of Romney's speeches before he could >>>> find something he could use.
On 13/05/2016 11:21 a.m., Rich80105 wrote:A sheep quoting a sheep - there's an appealing ironic symmetry there. >>>>>
On Fri, 13 May 2016 08:19:41 +1200, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>I'm not interested in what he said. I presume it supports your opinion >>>>>> but if you are paranoid enough to spend all your time worrying about >>>>>> trivial matters you will always be able to find one opinion in line with >>>>>> yours; although you're getting pretty desperate when you quote Romney. >>>>>
On 12/05/2016 8:55 p.m., Rich80105 wrote:
On Thu, 12 May 2016 19:53:26 +1200, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>I have no idea about Mitt Romney or what he said. But if he wrote, I'm >>>>>>>> sure he would be able to spell successful. I think politics suffers >>>>>>>> enough because of the way the spotlight is put on our politicians every
On 12/05/2016 2:29 p.m., Rich80105 wrote:
The USA selection process is interesting in many ways; and the issue
of the release of tax returns has become a feature not ony in the USA
but in other countries.
Mitt Romney makes a good case:
"It is disqualifying for a modern-day presidential nominee to refuse
to release tax returns to the voters, especially one who has not been
subject to public scrutiny in either military or public service. Tax
returns provide the public with its sole confirmation of the veracity
of a candidate's representations regarding charities, priorities, >>>>>>>>>>> wealth, tax conformance, and conflicts of interest. Further, while not
a likely circumstance, the potential for hidden inappropriate >>>>>>>>>>> associations with foreign entities, criminal organizations, or other
unsavory groups is simply too great a risk to ignore for someone who
is seeking to become commander-in-chief.
Mr. Trump says he is being audited. So? There is nothing that prevents
releasing tax returns that are being audited. Further, he could >>>>>>>>>>> release returns for the years immediately prior to the years under >>>>>>>>>>> audit. There is only one logical explanation for Mr. Trump's refusal
to release his returns: there is a bombshell in them. Given Mr. >>>>>>>>>>> Trump's equanimity with other flaws in his history, we can only assume
it's a bombshell of unusual size.
(Anticipating inquiries regarding my own tax release history, I >>>>>>>>>>> released my 2010 tax returns in January of 2012 and I released my 2011
tax returns as soon as they were completed, in September of 2012.)" >>>>>>>>>>>
https://www.facebook.com/mittromney/posts/10153487016861121 >>>>>>>>>>>
Whether it really disqualifies a candidate is of course up to the >>>>>>>>>>> rules for the Republican Party; I don't think there is a legal >>>>>>>>>>> requirement, but the arguments used may perhaps have more general >>>>>>>>>>> applicability.
We now have at least one precedent in New Zealand; perhaps thers will
follow.
Do you want to attract ex postmen, hairdressers, plumbers or trade >>>>>>>>>> unionists to run the country - or would you rather see successful people
who are extended the normal dignity of financial privacy?
Many ex postmen, hairdressers, plumbers or trade unionists are very >>>>>>>>> succesful - many may well earn more than people posting to nz.general,
and more than we pay our Prime Minister. Your blinkers are showing. >>>>>>>>> And no, at a certain level, trust is important. Where do you think >>>>>>>>> Mitt Romney got it wrong, Fred?
move. It does nothing to encourage talent.
Here is what he said:
" It is disqualifying for a modern-day presidential nominee to refuse >>>>>>> to release tax returns to the voters, especially one who has not been >>>>>>> subject to public scrutiny in either military or public service. Tax >>>>>>> returns provide the public with its sole confirmation of the veracity >>>>>>> of a candidate's representations regarding charities, priorities, >>>>>>> wealth, tax conformance, and conflicts of interest. Further, while not >>>>>>> a likely circumstance, the potential for hidden inappropriate
associations with foreign entities, criminal organizations, or other >>>>>>> unsavory groups is simply too great a risk to ignore for someone who >>>>>>> is seeking to become commander-in-chief.
Mr. Trump says he is being audited. So? There is nothing that prevents >>>>>>> releasing tax returns that are being audited. Further, he could
release returns for the years immediately prior to the years under >>>>>>> audit. There is only one logical explanation for Mr. Trump's refusal >>>>>>> to release his returns: there is a bombshell in them. Given Mr.
Trump's equanimity with other flaws in his history, we can only assume >>>>>>> it's a bombshell of unusual size.
(Anticipating inquiries regarding my own tax release history, I
released my 2010 tax returns in January of 2012 and I released my 2011 >>>>>>> tax returns as soon as they were completed, in September of 2012.) " >>>>>>>
What else were you wanting to discuss, Fred? You can always start
another thread with something else Romney has said - I'm not aware of
him saying much in the current election round.
But what do you think of what he said on this subject? I don't see
this as a party political issue - disclosure is an issue that some in
all parties will feel needs to be done, some will disagree.
That is certainly one downside, but politicians are fairly well paid
in New Zealand
in the USA they seem to make more money from other
activities from their jobs, which is a different problem.
While the opportunity to manage tax liabilities exists, there will be >pressure on politicians to prove that they do not have a conflict of
interest in relation to closing loopholes; a tighter system both in
New Zealand and internationally would reduce the calls for
transparency, but those changes do appear to be being resisted.
That is certainly one downside, but politicians are fairly well paid
in New Zealand - in the USA they seem to make more money from other >activities from their jobs, which is a different problem.
On 2016-05-14, Pooh <rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
Bit stormy in world at the meoment Pooh, no honey?
Hypocrisy the only thing the angry Little union stooge is good at. Much
like
Dickbot the troll :)
On 16/05/2016 9:43 a.m., JohnO wrote:
On Monday, 16 May 2016 08:22:17 UTC+12, Fred wrote:It's an interesting bit of cherry picking from Rich. I'll bet he could
On 13/05/2016 11:21 a.m., Rich80105 wrote:
On Fri, 13 May 2016 08:19:41 +1200, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote:I'm not interested in what he said. I presume it supports your opinion
On 12/05/2016 8:55 p.m., Rich80105 wrote:
On Thu, 12 May 2016 19:53:26 +1200, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>I have no idea about Mitt Romney or what he said. But if he wrote, I'm >>>>> sure he would be able to spell successful. I think politics suffers
On 12/05/2016 2:29 p.m., Rich80105 wrote:
The USA selection process is interesting in many ways; and the >>>>>>>> issue
of the release of tax returns has become a feature not ony in the >>>>>>>> USA
but in other countries.
Mitt Romney makes a good case:
"It is disqualifying for a modern-day presidential nominee to
refuse
to release tax returns to the voters, especially one who has not >>>>>>>> been
subject to public scrutiny in either military or public service. >>>>>>>> Tax
returns provide the public with its sole confirmation of the
veracity
of a candidate's representations regarding charities, priorities, >>>>>>>> wealth, tax conformance, and conflicts of interest. Further, while >>>>>>>> not
a likely circumstance, the potential for hidden inappropriate
associations with foreign entities, criminal organizations, or >>>>>>>> other
unsavory groups is simply too great a risk to ignore for someone >>>>>>>> who
is seeking to become commander-in-chief.
Mr. Trump says he is being audited. So? There is nothing that
prevents
releasing tax returns that are being audited. Further, he could >>>>>>>> release returns for the years immediately prior to the years under >>>>>>>> audit. There is only one logical explanation for Mr. Trump's
refusal
to release his returns: there is a bombshell in them. Given Mr. >>>>>>>> Trump's equanimity with other flaws in his history, we can only >>>>>>>> assume
it's a bombshell of unusual size.
(Anticipating inquiries regarding my own tax release history, I >>>>>>>> released my 2010 tax returns in January of 2012 and I released my >>>>>>>> 2011
tax returns as soon as they were completed, in September of 2012.)" >>>>>>>>
https://www.facebook.com/mittromney/posts/10153487016861121
Whether it really disqualifies a candidate is of course up to the >>>>>>>> rules for the Republican Party; I don't think there is a legal >>>>>>>> requirement, but the arguments used may perhaps have more general >>>>>>>> applicability.
We now have at least one precedent in New Zealand; perhaps thers >>>>>>>> will
follow.
Do you want to attract ex postmen, hairdressers, plumbers or trade >>>>>>> unionists to run the country - or would you rather see successful >>>>>>> people
who are extended the normal dignity of financial privacy?
Many ex postmen, hairdressers, plumbers or trade unionists are very >>>>>> succesful - many may well earn more than people posting to
nz.general,
and more than we pay our Prime Minister. Your blinkers are showing. >>>>>> And no, at a certain level, trust is important. Where do you think >>>>>> Mitt Romney got it wrong, Fred?
enough because of the way the spotlight is put on our politicians
every
move. It does nothing to encourage talent.
Here is what he said:
" It is disqualifying for a modern-day presidential nominee to refuse
to release tax returns to the voters, especially one who has not been
subject to public scrutiny in either military or public service. Tax
returns provide the public with its sole confirmation of the veracity
of a candidate's representations regarding charities, priorities,
wealth, tax conformance, and conflicts of interest. Further, while not >>>> a likely circumstance, the potential for hidden inappropriate
associations with foreign entities, criminal organizations, or other
unsavory groups is simply too great a risk to ignore for someone who
is seeking to become commander-in-chief.
Mr. Trump says he is being audited. So? There is nothing that prevents >>>> releasing tax returns that are being audited. Further, he could
release returns for the years immediately prior to the years under
audit. There is only one logical explanation for Mr. Trump's refusal
to release his returns: there is a bombshell in them. Given Mr.
Trump's equanimity with other flaws in his history, we can only assume >>>> it's a bombshell of unusual size.
(Anticipating inquiries regarding my own tax release history, I
released my 2010 tax returns in January of 2012 and I released my 2011 >>>> tax returns as soon as they were completed, in September of 2012.) "
but if you are paranoid enough to spend all your time worrying about
trivial matters you will always be able to find one opinion in line with >>> yours; although you're getting pretty desperate when you quote Romney.
A sheep quoting a sheep - there's an appealing ironic symmetry there.
troll through screeds and screeds of Romney's speeches before he could
find something he could use.
On Tue, 17 May 2016 14:52:00 +1200, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 17/05/2016 11:41 a.m., Rich80105 wrote:
On Tue, 17 May 2016 10:30:08 +1200, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote:The downside of requiring political aspirants to disclose their income >>would result in far fewer candidates wanting to stand.
On 16/05/2016 9:43 a.m., JohnO wrote:
On Monday, 16 May 2016 08:22:17 UTC+12, Fred wrote:It's an interesting bit of cherry picking from Rich. I'll bet he could >>>> troll through screeds and screeds of Romney's speeches before he could >>>> find something he could use.
On 13/05/2016 11:21 a.m., Rich80105 wrote:
On Fri, 13 May 2016 08:19:41 +1200, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>I'm not interested in what he said. I presume it supports your
On 12/05/2016 8:55 p.m., Rich80105 wrote:
On Thu, 12 May 2016 19:53:26 +1200, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote:I have no idea about Mitt Romney or what he said. But if he wrote, >>>>>>>> I'm
On 12/05/2016 2:29 p.m., Rich80105 wrote:
The USA selection process is interesting in many ways; and the >>>>>>>>>>> issue
of the release of tax returns has become a feature not ony in >>>>>>>>>>> the USA
but in other countries.
Mitt Romney makes a good case:
"It is disqualifying for a modern-day presidential nominee to >>>>>>>>>>> refuse
to release tax returns to the voters, especially one who has not >>>>>>>>>>> been
subject to public scrutiny in either military or public service. >>>>>>>>>>> Tax
returns provide the public with its sole confirmation of the >>>>>>>>>>> veracity
of a candidate's representations regarding charities,
priorities,
wealth, tax conformance, and conflicts of interest. Further, >>>>>>>>>>> while not
a likely circumstance, the potential for hidden inappropriate >>>>>>>>>>> associations with foreign entities, criminal organizations, or >>>>>>>>>>> other
unsavory groups is simply too great a risk to ignore for someone >>>>>>>>>>> who
is seeking to become commander-in-chief.
Mr. Trump says he is being audited. So? There is nothing that >>>>>>>>>>> prevents
releasing tax returns that are being audited. Further, he could >>>>>>>>>>> release returns for the years immediately prior to the years >>>>>>>>>>> under
audit. There is only one logical explanation for Mr. Trump's >>>>>>>>>>> refusal
to release his returns: there is a bombshell in them. Given Mr. >>>>>>>>>>> Trump's equanimity with other flaws in his history, we can only >>>>>>>>>>> assume
it's a bombshell of unusual size.
(Anticipating inquiries regarding my own tax release history, I >>>>>>>>>>> released my 2010 tax returns in January of 2012 and I released >>>>>>>>>>> my 2011
tax returns as soon as they were completed, in September of >>>>>>>>>>> 2012.)"
https://www.facebook.com/mittromney/posts/10153487016861121 >>>>>>>>>>>
Whether it really disqualifies a candidate is of course up to >>>>>>>>>>> the
rules for the Republican Party; I don't think there is a legal >>>>>>>>>>> requirement, but the arguments used may perhaps have more >>>>>>>>>>> general
applicability.
We now have at least one precedent in New Zealand; perhaps thers >>>>>>>>>>> will
follow.
Do you want to attract ex postmen, hairdressers, plumbers or >>>>>>>>>> trade
unionists to run the country - or would you rather see successful >>>>>>>>>> people
who are extended the normal dignity of financial privacy?
Many ex postmen, hairdressers, plumbers or trade unionists are >>>>>>>>> very
succesful - many may well earn more than people posting to
nz.general,
and more than we pay our Prime Minister. Your blinkers are
showing.
And no, at a certain level, trust is important. Where do you think >>>>>>>>> Mitt Romney got it wrong, Fred?
sure he would be able to spell successful. I think politics suffers >>>>>>>> enough because of the way the spotlight is put on our politicians >>>>>>>> every
move. It does nothing to encourage talent.
Here is what he said:
" It is disqualifying for a modern-day presidential nominee to
refuse
to release tax returns to the voters, especially one who has not >>>>>>> been
subject to public scrutiny in either military or public service. Tax >>>>>>> returns provide the public with its sole confirmation of the
veracity
of a candidate's representations regarding charities, priorities, >>>>>>> wealth, tax conformance, and conflicts of interest. Further, while >>>>>>> not
a likely circumstance, the potential for hidden inappropriate
associations with foreign entities, criminal organizations, or other >>>>>>> unsavory groups is simply too great a risk to ignore for someone who >>>>>>> is seeking to become commander-in-chief.
Mr. Trump says he is being audited. So? There is nothing that
prevents
releasing tax returns that are being audited. Further, he could
release returns for the years immediately prior to the years under >>>>>>> audit. There is only one logical explanation for Mr. Trump's refusal >>>>>>> to release his returns: there is a bombshell in them. Given Mr.
Trump's equanimity with other flaws in his history, we can only
assume
it's a bombshell of unusual size.
(Anticipating inquiries regarding my own tax release history, I
released my 2010 tax returns in January of 2012 and I released my >>>>>>> 2011
tax returns as soon as they were completed, in September of 2012.) " >>>>>>>
opinion
but if you are paranoid enough to spend all your time worrying about >>>>>> trivial matters you will always be able to find one opinion in line >>>>>> with
yours; although you're getting pretty desperate when you quote
Romney.
A sheep quoting a sheep - there's an appealing ironic symmetry there. >>>>>
What else were you wanting to discuss, Fred? You can always start
another thread with something else Romney has said - I'm not aware of
him saying much in the current election round.
But what do you think of what he said on this subject? I don't see
this as a party political issue - disclosure is an issue that some in
all parties will feel needs to be done, some will disagree.
That is certainly one downside, but politicians are fairly well paid
in New Zealand - in the USA they seem to make more money from other activities from their jobs, which is a different problem.
While the opportunity to manage tax liabilities exists, there will be pressure on politicians to prove that they do not have a conflict of
interest in relation to closing loopholes; a tighter system both in
New Zealand and internationally would reduce the calls for
transparency, but those changes do appear to be being resisted.
On Tue, 17 May 2016 15:09:44 +1200, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Why is that a problem?
That is certainly one downside, but politicians are fairly well paid
in New Zealand - in the USA they seem to make more money from other >>activities from their jobs, which is a different problem.
Bill.
On Wed, 18 May 2016 05:33:57 +1200, BR <buggeroff@spammer.com> wrote:
On Tue, 17 May 2016 15:09:44 +1200, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Why is that a problem?
That is certainly one downside, but politicians are fairly well paid
in New Zealand - in the USA they seem to make more money from other
activities from their jobs, which is a different problem.
Bill.
In some countries there have been accusations of "cash for favours" -
or even "cash for access"
We wouldn't want that creeping corruption here, would we?
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11640318
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11640219
On Wed, 18 May 2016 05:33:57 +1200, BR <buggeroff@spammer.com> wrote:
On Tue, 17 May 2016 15:09:44 +1200, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Why is that a problem?
That is certainly one downside, but politicians are fairly well paid
in New Zealand - in the USA they seem to make more money from other >>activities from their jobs, which is a different problem.
Bill.
In some countries there have been accusations of "cash for favours" -
or even "cash for access"
We wouldn't want that creeping corruption here, would we?
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11640318
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11640219
On Wed, 18 May 2016 05:33:57 +1200, BR <buggeroff@spammer.com> wrote:No we wouldn't, thank goodness we don't have it. Phew!
On Tue, 17 May 2016 15:09:44 +1200, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Why is that a problem?
That is certainly one downside, but politicians are fairly well paid
in New Zealand - in the USA they seem to make more money from other >>>activities from their jobs, which is a different problem.
Bill.
In some countries there have been accusations of "cash for favours" -
or even "cash for access"
We wouldn't want that creeping corruption here, would we?
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11640318 >http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11640219
On 18/05/2016 2:17 p.m., Rich80105 wrote:
On Wed, 18 May 2016 05:33:57 +1200, BR <buggeroff@spammer.com> wrote:
On Tue, 17 May 2016 15:09:44 +1200, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Why is that a problem?
That is certainly one downside, but politicians are fairly well paid
in New Zealand - in the USA they seem to make more money from other
activities from their jobs, which is a different problem.
Bill.
In some countries there have been accusations of "cash for favours" -
or even "cash for access"
We wouldn't want that creeping corruption here, would we?
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11640318
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11640219
HTF would looking at someone's tax returns stop that??
On 18/05/2016 2:17 p.m., Rich80105 wrote:
On Wed, 18 May 2016 05:33:57 +1200, BR <buggeroff@spammer.com> wrote:HTF would looking at someone's tax returns stop that??
On Tue, 17 May 2016 15:09:44 +1200, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Why is that a problem?
That is certainly one downside, but politicians are fairly well paid
in New Zealand - in the USA they seem to make more money from other
activities from their jobs, which is a different problem.
Bill.
In some countries there have been accusations of "cash for favours" -
or even "cash for access"
We wouldn't want that creeping corruption here, would we?
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11640318
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11640219
| Sysop: | sneaky |
|---|---|
| Location: | Ashburton,NZ |
| Users: | 31 |
| Nodes: | 8 (0 / 8) |
| Uptime: | 188:32:17 |
| Calls: | 2,082 |
| Calls today: | 5 |
| Files: | 11,137 |
| Messages: | 947,670 |