Do the American People care about Romney's tax returns?

[Lucky]

Sunday talk shows...the Democratic strategist said the American people want to know what's in them. The Republican strategist said the American don't care. Which is it?

I thought about it, and personally I would have to say I'm only mildly curious. And that curiosity is probably no greater than it would be in connection with the returns of any fantastically wealthy guy who rants about taxes being too high, whether they are progressive or conservative. I think it's natural to wonder if the rich are really paying taxes, but I don't see it as a huge campaign issue.

I do wonder why the campaign hasn't just put them out there. Could there be anything that would be more harmful than the secrecy? Even if Romney paid no taxes for some or all of those years, would that be a huge deal (assuming he followed the tax laws?)

At one point I thought the McCain people might be used just to confirm that Romney paid taxes for the years McCain was given. If he did that, wouldn't that pretty much put an end to the controversy?

I don't know whether the American people care or not. As I said, I'm mildly curious, but not to the extent to justify our failure to address other more important issues.

[Hornsby]

I'm curious simply for the reason that I want to know just how much of his income that he's sent off-shore. If a candidate bloviates about job creation and buying American, I want to see if he's putting his money where his mouth is. And I suspect that his NOT releasing his returns are all the answer that I need. Frankly, I couldn't care less if he's a billionaire many time over...if he's the best person for the job, and he's got good ideas, fantastic. But so far, I've see nothing to indicate that he'd be more than mediocre.

[nots]

I would be much more interested in why he supported Romney care but is against Obama care. Seems like we can't get a solid answer on that one.
The tax return stuff is of no interest to me, even if he was found to be having all his investments off shore. As long as he's playing by the rules, I guess I'm ok with it.
Romney care is whole different kettle of fish for me though.

[Moonlight J]

Given how he called out Ted Kennedy for disclosing tax returns when he ran against him and how his father set a standard, yea, I care. I care because only someone who has something to hide would be as evasive as he is being right now with this. Cabinet members have to disclose more financials than he has. Additionally, he gave more returns to McCain in 2008 than he is willing to give to the American people in 2012.

There's a reason why he is doing this and rather than run from it, he needs to defend it.

[hombre]

I would be much more interested in why he supported Romney care but is against Obama care. Seems like we can't get a solid answer on that one.
The tax return stuff is of no interest to me, even if he was found to be having all his investments off shore. As long as he's playing by the rules, I guess I'm ok with it.
Romney care is whole different kettle of fish for me though.

Not to come off like an @ss here.... but if you honestly think Romney hasn't answered that question, than either (1) you're not paying much attention (which is fine, I can't blame you) or (2) you're being deliberately obtuse.

I've heard him say time and again that the main difference for him is an issue of federalism- i.e. that it is much better to handle this at the state level, than federal. He claims that each state has its own unique budgetary restraints/conditions/procedures and the "one size fits all" approach of a sweeping federal mandate is a ticket for bureaucratic chaos, and fiscal doom.

Now, you may not agree w/ or accept that answer- God knows, many do not (again, I couldn't blame you)- but to say that he hasn't answered the question is just plain incorrect.

[nots]

I guess I am being obtuse or maybe just difficult because I think trying to frame the argument as federalism vs states rights is nonsense. I'll submit he has provided AN answer, just not THE answer.
Still don't care about his tax returns though.

[Erik]

I don't care so much about the nuts and bolts of his returns, as long as he didn't do anything illegal. I do care why he is going to great lengths to hide them. It makes you wonder what else he is not telling us. It's an issue of trust.

[Fresno Bob]

Im sure we will find that he didnt do anything illegal, he just did things that only the super rich can do to make a ton of money and pay under 10% on it, sleazy, sure especially if it turns out he offshored it, hypocritical sure when he talks about everyone needing to pay their fair share, but not illegal....

[joncarlos]

I didn't used to care, but the fact that he's being so evasive about it makes me want to see what's really there.

[B-Fly]

Im sure we will find that he didnt do anything illegal, he just did things that only the super rich can do to make a ton of money and pay under 10% on it, sleazy, sure especially if it turns out he offshored it, hypocritical sure when he talks about everyone needing to pay their fair share, but not illegal....

Right. And I'm guessing that he's figured that the failure to disclose while asserting he's paid every dollar he owes is less damaging than allowing his own personal tax returns to be the glaring example of everything that the President is saying is unfair about the tax code.

[Roto Rooter]

I only care that he shows his birth certificate. LoL j/k

Seriously though all these politicians should expose everything they can to the public to be as transparent as possible. This is just like Obama not being forthcoming with all of his skeletons. Show what you have or be subjected to endless questions about what are they trying to hide.

[Lucky]

One thing I really don't like is the tactic of making unfounded allegations and then challenging the other guy to disprove them. I think Harry Reid has been guilty of this. Everyone should stick to the facts.

Almost as bad is trying to justify the failure to release tax returns by comparing it to other situations which are not comparable in a meaningful way. Example...an important issue of the campaign is whether the ultra-rich are paying their fair share, so tax returns are arguably relevant. It is not an important issue of the campaign which guy made better grades in college chemistry. Nobody questions that they are both really smart guys.

[heyelander]

The right doesn't care, the left already is sure that they reveal some crazy nefarious stuff so they don't need to see them and the middles wants jobs without their taxes going up.

[dslaw]

Other than curiosity about his tax rate I don't really care. He is rich, he has very good tax lawyers, his tax rate is probably lower than mine because that is the way the code is written. If he was audited there are probably gray areas in his return as any good tax guy will push the envelope without knowingly breaking the law. Mitt probably knows very little about it which is why he has tax guys doing his returns.

[Cobain's Ghost]

i don't care. i care about his jobs plan. in a perfect world, he would show them, but in a perfect world, there wouldn't be an army of crap-tossing opposition research monkeys digging through them for stupid stuff to use in attack ads, so i can see why he'd tell them to go f themselves.

better to ask him - do you think the current tax code is fair? why or why not? what will you do about it?