Will Ship Romney sink in the Caymans?

[Lincoln Republican]

Evidently Mitt Romney has money deposited in Cayman Islands accounts.

With his vast wealth, it is possible that he has considerable funds deposited there.

For wealthy Americans, this is actually a smart financial move for tax purposes.

But given the fact that Romney is running for President, will Americans resent this and do you believe this will sink the Romney candidacy?

[Joe Republic]

Evidently Mitt Romney has money deposited in Cayman Islands accounts.

With his vast wealth, it is possible that he has considerable funds deposited there.

For wealthy Americans, this is actually a smart financial move for tax purposes.

"When they do not pay their taxes, someone else does... you and me."  -- Ronald W. Reagan

Tax evasion, whether legal or otherwise, is the direct opposite of patriotism.

[Lincoln Republican]

On Jan 20 a forum member wrote a very fair analysis of this matter.  I wanted to read it again only to find he had deleted it.

Very disappointed.

[Simfan34]

Evidently Mitt Romney has money deposited in Cayman Islands accounts.

With his vast wealth, it is possible that he has considerable funds deposited there.

For wealthy Americans, this is actually a smart financial move for tax purposes.

"When they do not pay their taxes, someone else does... you and me."  -- Ronald W. Reagan

Tax evasion, whether legal or otherwise, is the direct opposite of patriotism.

[Lief 🗽]

If Romney is avoiding paying his fair share of taxes then not only is he not fit for the presidency but he should be thrown in jail.

[anvi]

Winfield,

Here is what I wrote, hopefully in slightly shorter form.

I don't think Romney's candidacy will be sunk just because he has money in the Caymans.  So long as his assets there are legally held, and weren't made in a corrupt fashion, he'll weather the present attacks.  The attacks of Romney's primary opponents on these holdings really aren't that convincing, especially in Gingrich's case, since he wants to actually lower Romney's cap gains rate, do the repatriation holiday thing, and so on.  Presidential candidates are wealthier than most Americans anyway, and in the end, so long as Romney's assets are legally clean (if they're somehow not, he is toast), his image as a wealthy businessman probably helps him more than in hurts in people's minds in bad economic times.

Recent polls, especially the big one done by PEW, appear to clearly indicate that Americans don't, on the whole, resent wealthy people because they are wealthy, nor because of how they got that way.  What they do care about is the feeling that they're being left behind themselves, that in bad downturns, they are the ones that suffer the most, and even in good times that they are not seeing their incomes and wealth grow enough.  They will vote, in the end, for whomever they believe will offer them the best chances for improvement.

So, if Romney is nominated, the line of attack Obama will run against Romney is that the latter's wealth is a symptom, not the cause, of the present structure of the tax system, social inequality and so on.  If the labor market and the economic situation in the country remain bad, and if Romney can knock back these attacks, he could win.  If the economy and job growth continue to improve, or if Obama can successfully "label" Romney as the creation of a presently bad socio-economic framework that holds back the middle-class, then Romney will lose.  But at least the overall debate will be about tax policy, which, in fact, is what the debate should be about anyway.  

[Lincoln Republican]

Winfield,

Here is what I wrote, hopefully in slightly shorter form.

I don't think Romney's candidacy will be sunk just because he has money in the Caymans.  So long as his assets there are legally held, and weren't made in a corrupt fashion, he'll weather the present attacks.  The attacks of Romney's primary opponents on these holdings really aren't that convincing, especially in Gingrich's case, since he wants to actually lower Romney's cap gains rate, do the repatriation holiday thing, and so on.  Presidential candidates are wealthier than most Americans anyway, and in the end, so long as Romney's assets are legally clean (if they're somehow not, he is toast), his image as a wealthy businessman probably helps him more than in hurts in people's minds in bad economic times.

Recent polls, especially the big one done by PEW, appear to clearly indicate that Americans don't, on the whole, resent wealthy people because they are wealthy, nor because of how they got that way.  What they do care about is the feeling that they're being left behind themselves, that in bad downturns, they are the ones that suffer the most, and even in good times that they are not seeing their incomes and wealth grow enough.  They will vote, in the end, for whomever they believe will offer them the best chances for improvement.

So, if Romney is nominated, the line of attack Obama will run against Romney is that the latter's wealth is a symptom, not the cause, of the present structure of the tax system, social inequality and so on.  If the labor market and the economic situation in the country remain bad, and if Romney can knock back these attacks, he could win.  If the economy and job growth continue to improve, or if Obama can successfully "label" Romney as the creation of a presently bad socio-economic framework that holds back the middle-class, then Romney will lose.  But at least the overall debate will be about tax policy, which, in fact, is what the debate should be about anyway.  

Thanks.  You had made some very definitive points which I wanted to further reference.