Otherwise, he needs a new accountant.
Herald calling this a huge gaffe:
“The implication was stunning and crystal clear: Romney, who has been trying to dodge his image as a ruthless corporate raider, or his accountant would have known about any tax break for outsourcing — and would have taken advantage of it.
“The idea that you can get a break for shipping jobs overseas is not the case,” Romney added.
Again, the Republican’s implication was clear: I ought to know.”
Please share widely!
…than the President who claims he’s currently working to reform it a BAD thing?
and lying about not taking advantage of it:
From Bloomberg, July 19:
The Senate blocked a Democratic tax proposal designed to make it more difficult for companies to move jobs out of the country and easier to bring jobs to the U.S.
The 56-42 vote today, with 60 needed to advance the measure, was largely along party lines as most Republicans voted not to allow Senate consideration.
The bill would have prevented companies from deducting the cost of moving operations out of the U.S. It offered a 20 percent tax credit for companies’ expenses in moving investments from another country to the U.S.
The current policy is “the height of insanity,” said Senator Richard Blumenthal, a Connecticut Democrat.
Compared with the $15.5 trillion U.S. gross domestic product or the $2.5 trillion the government is collecting this year in tax revenue, the bill would have a relatively small budgetary effect.
Eliminating the tax deduction would raise revenue by $168 million over 10 years and the tax break would cost $255 million, according to the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation, said Cullen Schwarz, a spokesman for Senator Debbie Stabenow, a Michigan Democrat who sponsored the proposal.
Democrats scheduled the vote on the bill as President Barack Obama and Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney are trading accusations about outsourcing and the effects of their proposals on job creation.
The outsourcing bill is S. 3364.
And why it failed from ABCnews Juy 19:
Under existing law, employers may take tax deductions for the costs associated with moving jobs out of the country. The proposed legislation would have eliminated that, and used the resulting new revenue to fund a 20 percent tax credit for the costs companies run up “insourcing” labor back into the U.S.
The bill failed by a 56-42. A count of 60 was required to end discussion and move to a final vote.
To further push the issue, Democrats held a conference call with employees from Sensata Technologies, an electronics hardware manufacturer that plans to close its Freeport, Ill., plant at the end of the year and move those operations to China. Democrats say 150 people will be laid off in the process. Sensata, formerly known as the Sensors and Controls division of Texas Instruments, was spun off to Bain in 2006 for a reported $3 billion.
The call was held after the vote.
“There is no reason in the world this would not have passed except for so many of the Republican senators have other interests,” said Tom Gaulrupp, a 33-year veteran of the company.
Of course, the former Governor could clear up this whole thing by simply releasing his tax returns 🙂
and he does.
to another country, or state, or another city?
Yes (see Subpart D of part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986).
What the proposed law would do is amend the current law so that the tax deduction could not be taken if the move was a “re-location” to another country. It also would apply a new 20% deduction (on top of existing law) for expenses associated with a “re-location” from another country.
Are you suggesting this somehow means there is not a “tax deduction for outsourcing jobs”? Or that this bill wouldn’t end end that deduction?
and I get the new bill would prohibit it.
Why not prohibit tax deductions for moving to another state? In this manner industries in high cost states like MA would not get a benefit for moving to other states like in the South.
We should also eliminate the tax benefits associated with buying equipment, because often new equipment means reduction of jobs (at least it has in my company).
We also need to prohibit “every day low prices” at Walmart. I was working with some companies that supplied WalMart and it was really their instance on paying their vendors lower prices that drove those vendors to switch manufacturing to China. If it wasn’t them WalMart was just going to buy from foreign suppliers.
but i think they were referring the implication that if there was one he would have taken it. I think it requires a considerable bit of connecting the dots by voters to take that one line and assume that’s what he meant. I don’t think they meant gaffe = lie.
I heard “I don’t know about it because I hear these things from the Finance (Tax) department and they have never told me about it” In the course of the post-debate analysis I don’ think anyone keyed on it in the manner the Herald implied.
He said:
What I heard:
“The second topic, which is you said you get a deduction for getting a plant overseas. Look, I’ve been in business for 25 years. I have no idea what you’re talking about. I maybe need to get a new accountant…. the idea that you get a break for shipping jobs overseas is simply not the case.”
is a lie.
that it’s been totally devalued. I think BMG has pointed out the fact checker sites are worthless as well.
So it’s not exactly a gotcha.
.