In a bit of a shell game, the Gomez camp release tax returns and called out Markey for not releasing his returns yet.
But the funny thing is, Gomez, just by chance I guess had his cutoff of tax returns released as 2006. Gomez made headlines with his questionable historic home $281,500 tax dodge in 2005. Funny how that worked out.
The best excuse that Gomez’s team could come up with is that a Senate term is 6 years, so he’s going to release 6 years of returns. See, he’s not trying to hide his bogus, slimy tax filings in 2005 at all.
Gomez did not release his tax return for 2005, a year in which he claimed a tax credit worth $281,500 for maintaining the façade of his historic home in Cohasset, as the Globe has previously reported. Gomez’s campaign aides said he had agreed to provide six years’ worth of tax returns, the duration of a Senate term.
That’s pretty weak.
If Gomez wants to show any credibility at all, he’s going to need to release his 2005 tax returns, playing the public for fools is not a good campaign strategy.
Christopher says
I wasn’t really on board with pressuring Romney to release his either, though I will admit to being curious once suggestions were made about how he manipulated the code for his benefit. If there really is a consensus that this is necessary for candidates to do then require by law a certain number of previous years released. Until then this seems voyeuristic, a manufactured excuse to imply that someone is hiding something, and ultimately none of our business.
johnk says
I agree. But this is not what the post is about.
There was a question which was widely report, now you have a candidate who trumpets exactly what you don’t like (ie. Markey has something to hide), which is pretty much what he is implying.
This same candidate with reported tax issues who made an announcement of releasing his tax returns, as it turns out, didn’t post the year which is in question. They made some bizarre line of 6 years, which worked out to miss his 2005 return.
Now I think you could easily understand that from this post. Why you decided to deflect to something else is your choice, but not what we’re talking about.
Patrick says
http://vps28478.inmotionhosting.com/~bluema24/2012/10/scott-brown-played-the-media-for-chumps-with-his-tax-returns/
fenway49 says
Per Globe.
johnk says
Nice.
stomv says
but I think the context matters. If a candidate is a union bricklayer with a modest house, his tax returns just aren’t very useful or informative. We already have a feel for the candidate’s wealth, income, etc. However, if the candidate makes money by being in the business of being in business making money, then I think it’s fair game. What are your financial interests? How might you personally gain as a politician?
Similarly, if there’s a scandal floating around about a dubious tax maneuver, it’s certainly fair game for folks to ask for the details. The candidate need not comply, but that’s at his or her own peril.
Should we require the release of tax returns? Absolutely not. I do think it’s fair game to ask for them though, and let the voters decide if that’s a big issue or not.
fenway49 says
I do favor asking for tax returns to be released, because we live in an era where a small minority (who make up a huge proportion of GOP and even Democratic candidates for federal office) are running away with all the money, and paying taxes at low levels not seen since the 1920s. Thanks to low rates on carried interest, dividends, and capital gains, and all these deductions the average person could never take.
They’re generally the same people saying we need to cut Social Security and everything else because there’s “not enough money.” Mr. Gomez, for instance, has insisted that Washington has a “spending problem” and not a “revenue problem.” The more light shone on their hypocrisy, the better. It certainly is “our business” if they’re paying an absurdly small percentage of an absurdly high income in taxes, then pleading federal poverty.
stomv says
in fact, it’s kind of my point. If you have a jes’ folks job with a jes’ folks home, it’s not very interesting. If you have a far more complex or extensive financial footprint, then the details of your taxes are far more likely to be relevant to the political discussion.
fenway49 says
I was agreeing with your statement about when it’s appropriate. Disagreeing mostly with Christopher’s statement in the first comment that it’s “voyeuristic, a manufactured excuse to imply that someone is hiding something, and ultimately none of our business.”