Mitt Romney's tax returns hacked & selling for 1 Mil Bitcoin

[rancor]

Mitt Romney's tax returns are allegedly no longer secret. An unidentified group claims to have stolen Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney's tax returns from PricewaterhouseCoopers' Tennessee offices.

Mashable is reporting a hacker group claims to be in possession of "all available 1040 tax forms for Romney." The group, which is yet unidentified, posted on the text-hosting site PasteBin that they had illegally entered PricewaterhouseCoopers' Nashville office on Aug. 25, 2012, accessed the computers, made copies of the returns and escaped. PasteBin is popular with the hacker group Anonymous.

The unnamed group is threatening to release the returns to the public unless a ransom is met. They're asking for $1 million USD in Bitcoins. The Bitcoin is a peer-to-peer electronic currency with no central banking authority -- thus, it's very difficult to track.

If PricewaterhouseCoopers pays by Sept. 28, the information the hackers claim to hold will "remain a secret forever." However, a statement addressed to PricewaterhouseCoopers, again on PasteBin, states that "other interested parties will be allowed to compete," for the release of the tax returns. The second statement also admits that the returns will be sent to "all major media outlets."

As reported by The Tennesseean, the Williamson County Republican Party in Tennessee notified local police when a suspicious package arrived at their offices last Friday. The package allegedly includes, "copies of Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney’s tax returns hacked from an accounting office." The local Democratic party office admits to receiving a package as well. Both contain a thumb drive and a letter matching the details on PasteBin.

If PricewaterhouseCoopers fail to act before Sept. 28, "the entire world will be allowed to view the documents with a publicly released key to unlock everything," reads the hacker's statement.

lulz.

[Friendly]

Pretty funny. Considering the guy wants to be president, his returns should be made public no matter what. This should be law.

[Ed Oscuro]

Dumbass hackers. Yeah, let's demand $1M ransom, that'll show everybody how upright and responsible we are

The ironic thing about Romney's failure to disclose is that his father, George Romney, released his own tax returns and advocated that everybody else should do the same.

[EmperorIng]

First, I doubt this is real.

If it is, I bet you the government can spend a whole lot more money tracking these guys down than the hackers can ever hope to ransom.

[njiska]

It's funny, the more I pay attention to US politics, the more I'm reminded of the political absurdity in Rik Mayall's The New Statesman. Though that was satire and comedy, whereas US politics are reality and a hilariously absurd one at that. First of all, who the fuck really cares about his taxes? I mean honestly, I know the concerns, but those should not be a damn election issue. Why does anyone need to know the tax information of their elected members? Hell if someone tried to start a debate like that here, they be laughed at by everyone, including the media.

That's not counting this completely ridiculous tax ransom. This isn't politics, this is the kind of shit you see on bad television. It's a fucking soap opera. And the best part is that this is yet another sideline debate that distracts from actually debating real issues.

[DragonInstall]

Lulz people giving a shit over someones tax return instead of focusing on the real problems in America.

In before people start saying Rich people are the reason America is in a recession.

[Friendly]

Rich people are the reason America is in a recession.

(Or did you think it was the poor who decided policy regarding economics, distribution of wealth, educational system, foreign policy, corporate law, the way the goverment is organized and who profited from the aforementioned?)

[njiska]

Rich people are the reason America is in a recession.

Classism at it's finest folks.

[EmperorIng]

You should have said "A classic case of classism"

[Friendly]

Rich people are the reason America is in a recession.

Classism at it's finest folks.

LOL, English.

[njiska]

Rich people are the reason America is in a recession.

Classism at it's finest folks.

LOL, English.

class·ism   [klas-iz-uhm]
noun
a biased or discriminatory attitude based on distinctions made between social or economic classes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class_discrimination

[Friendly]

I'm sorry, I thought you meant to imply I was a classist/in favor of classism, which is why I thought you didn't understand the meaning. Instead you were agreeing with me, oops.

Of course the current system of the USA is an extreme case of plutocracy. This isn't really up for debate.

[njiska]

I'm sorry, I thought you meant to imply I was a classist/in favor of classism, which is why I thought you didn't understand the meaning. Instead you were agreeing with me, oops.

Of course the current system of the USA is an extreme case of plutocracy. This isn't really up for debate.

Not exactly. I don't dispute that classism exists in the United States, however, I feel that you and the vast majority of people who speak out on this debate are attempting to take something that is very complex and reduce it to mere classism. In essence you are being classist by trying to blame only the reich, when in reality members of all economic classes are to blame. Rich guys = bad, Poor guys = good, was a stupid concept when the Occupy movements tried to use it and it's a stupid concept now.

Are rich people responsible for the current economic situation in the US? Mostly, but solely by virtue of being the ones in charge of the organizations at fault. The poorer classes, however, are not fully absolved from guilt. Over spending and buying beyond your means are also large contributors. And let's not forget that rich or poor, you all have votes.

[DragonInstall]

Government is to blame also(all the waste and corruption), and just people in general with their entitlement mentality.

California is a great example of government waste and corruption, which is no surprise it's going bankrupt. Government workers retiring at age 55 with life time healthcare benefits for them and their family. Yearly retirement pension income of 36,000 to up to 250,000. All that paid from the tax payers.

Now that US is in a recession of course Cali can't pay for something that ridiculous anymore. Rather than cut down on those benefits, the politicians are trying to raise taxes to keep paying for that(because government unions pay for their election). Taxes don't get passed because the republicans refuse to raise them, so the democrats in Cali found a loop hole. By charging fees rather than taxes, they don't need the republicans to get them passed.

Here's one extra fee that started last year. Building safety inspection fee. Some government worker came out and checked out my business for 1-2 min. My bill came out to 465 dollars.

There are plenty more, and I hope to god the voters here aren't stupid enough to vote for more taxes that the governor is trying to pass in this years ballet.

Also... why do government workers have Unions? To protect them from government?

[BobbyNewmarkiii]

If true it was silly of them to reveal the date of the grab, gives the investigators a good head start.

[Hagane]

Government is to blame also(all the waste and corruption), and just people in general with their entitlement mentality.

California is a great example of government waste and corruption, which is no surprise it's going bankrupt. Government workers retiring at age 55 with life time healthcare benefits for them and their family. Yearly retirement pension income of 36,000 to up to 250,000. All that paid from the tax payers.

Now that US is in a recession of course Cali can't pay for something that ridiculous anymore. Rather than cut down on those benefits, the politicians are trying to raise taxes to keep paying for that(because government unions pay for their election). Taxes don't get passed because the republicans refuse to raise them, so the democrats in Cali found a loop hole. By charging fees rather than taxes, they don't need the republicans to get them passed.

Here's one extra fee that started last year. Building safety inspection fee. Some government worker came out and checked out my business for 1-2 min. My bill came out to 465 dollars.

There are plenty more, and I hope to god the voters here aren't stupid enough to vote for more taxes that the governor is trying to pass in this years ballet.

Also... why do government workers have Unions? To protect them from government?

This way of thinking is exactly what lead the US and every other country who follows neoliberal policies into ruin. The State spending less won't solve the problem; absent governments are precisely the cause for the recession.

[Drum]

Government is to blame also(all the waste and corruption), and just people in general with their entitlement mentality.

California is a great example of government waste and corruption, which is no surprise it's going bankrupt. Government workers retiring at age 55 with life time healthcare benefits for them and their family. Yearly retirement pension income of 36,000 to up to 250,000. All that paid from the tax payers.

Now that US is in a recession of course Cali can't pay for something that ridiculous anymore. Rather than cut down on those benefits, the politicians are trying to raise taxes to keep paying for that(because government unions pay for their election). Taxes don't get passed because the republicans refuse to raise them, so the democrats in Cali found a loop hole. By charging fees rather than taxes, they don't need the republicans to get them passed.

Here's one extra fee that started last year. Building safety inspection fee. Some government worker came out and checked out my business for 1-2 min. My bill came out to 465 dollars.

There are plenty more, and I hope to god the voters here aren't stupid enough to vote for more taxes that the governor is trying to pass in this years ballet.

Also... why do government workers have Unions? To protect them from government?

hahahahaha

[DragonInstall]

hahahahaha

You may find it funny that many business in Cali now have to pay 465 extra dollars a year for nothing, but I look at it as another reason why California is going broke.

"Pay the protection money or else." Great way to invite business to this great State.

[louisg]

Yes, we only have nearly the entire computer and movie industries here. Clearly, California is anti-business and people are moving out in droves

[Acid King]

Yes, we only have nearly the entire computer and movie industries here. Clearly, California is anti-business and people are moving out in droves

The state also seems unable to get its budget in order and 3 cities have declared bankruptcy in the past year. We'll see how things look in 10 years.

[DragonInstall]

Yes, we only have nearly the entire computer and movie industries here. Clearly, California is anti-business and people are moving out in droves

My mistake for thinking California's unemployment rate was the second highest in the nations with the second highest taxed state. Also my bad in thinking business were closing down, when in fact it was booming.

Have you ever setup a business, or even ran one before? If not, maybe you should stfu. Every year more and more fee's and taxes are applied, while the economy is in a recession.

This state is in bad shape.

[Ed Oscuro]

Classism at it's finest folks.

LOL, English.

class·ism   [klas-iz-uhm]
noun
a biased or discriminatory attitude based on distinctions made between social or economic classes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class_discrimination

Maybe he took umbrage at that extraneous apostrophe in your reply

And yes, lol at English. When we use words like "statist" and "classist" the Bard and George Orwell turn in their graves.

This way of thinking is exactly what lead the US and every other country who follows neoliberal policies into ruin. The State spending less won't solve the problem; absent governments are precisely the cause for the recession.

I agree with your first sentence, but I do not agree "absent governments" caused the recession. That was primarily a financial crisis. What absent governments, or too cautious and slowly-unfurled stimulus (i.e. Obama's and Bernanke's plans at times) do is cause the pain to be prolonged later. In 2009, the Democrats were doing everything they could to fight the problem and do it quickly. But in the intervening years, the pace of stimulus and other measures was greatly reduced, and sunny optimism repeatedly appeared when it wasn't warranted. Of course, this is not good for Republicans, who fought Democrats and the Fed Chairman every reasonable step of the way, and who would not have done anywhere near as much to fight the crisis. McCain apparently only had a stronger plan versus Obama on housing. If he had become President, he might have ended up personally preferring measures like Obama, but that would be the reverse of what the Republican Party's tendencies were.

Unfortunately, at least part of the dishonesty in financial markets behind the recession is bipartisan in nature. Jon Corzine, former Democratic Senator from New Jersey, presided over the speedy meltdown of MF Global, one of the world's oldest financial firms (with roots in the 1700s in England). One of the biggest mistakes, although one that was entirely invisible to most at the time (except some reputable economists, primarily students of the Great Depression although many "liberal" economists might have gone along with it), of the Clinton Administration was in deregulating financial markets. The Glass-Steagall act of 1933, which I believe segregated commercial (i.e. traditional) banking from investment (i.e. crazy) banking (so that both could not be done under the same roof), has not been restored yet. I don't think the [Paul] Volker Rule has been instituted either. The bottom line is that the financial markets and laws currently are set up in a way that allows great rewards for taking great risks at virtually no expense to the trader making the bets. If the bets pay off, they gain very handsome rewards packages. If they lose, they can always find another job; it's not their money. Jon Corzine's MF Global is worse than the usual because funds which were supposed to be segregated were being used to cover losses, and they were lost with the house of cards. That was illegal but unfortunately you don't need to go quite that far to ruin lives with bad bets. The fix for this mess is not to wire a shotgun to day traders that goes off when they get a stupid investment idea (at the end of the day only Warren Buffet and a few others would still be standing), but the money talks to the politicians. Investment money is especially influential in the politics of the places that host the country's financial markets, as with New York Democrats.

That said the modern Republican Party does encompass some very fast-and-loose ideas about what works in economics, and this is ultimately just as important - and, going forward, more important day-by-day because the Republicans have regurgitated the "are you better off today than four years ago" question Reagan asked voters in 1980, despite having been adamantly against measures that would have eased the crisis and reversed it more quickly and effectively. So while I think that people from both parties have been to blame, at the same time the record indicates that only in the Democratic Party is there a real commitment to a reasonable plant that would get us out of a recession.

The Republicans make a similar sort of long-term bet when they say that lost productivity today will be made up "down the road" by the lower tax burden, but this is backwards - it ignores the fact that the Democratic (or Keynesian) plan, which does add to the debt, grows the economy so that it can be paid off in the future. On top of this, the Democrats have vowed to raise revenue (i.e. taxes) to help pay off the debt; Reagan himself wanted to raise revenue to battle the debt and get it gone faster, especially if you care about not completely gutting all government services (incidentally, Romney would like to magically gift the department of defense 2 trillion dollars over some period - I think over 4 years of a Presidential first term; no explanation about where the money would come from is given). Since the second Bush Administration, the Republicans have stopped caring about funding things, like huge wars, and that is a problem which only exacerbates their getting recovery backwards. You have all this debt to begin with, so they can't really claim smooth sailing for future growth along that reason, and they don't want to use proven measures to get people back to work, instead focusing on the "magic of the markets" which are basically "I already have all the people I need to hire...it's not my job to beat back unemployment." I do sympathize with the critique that this doesn't look like the best time to raise taxes - at least on small business owners and especially not the poor - although it should be noted that the Democrats are only pushing to repeal the Bush Administration's tax cuts for quite wealthy persons, but maintain them for people making less. This seems like a reasonable burden. Even if you have lost most of your value, having enough taxable income to fall into the Democrats' preferred top bracket probably means that you're well off enough to survive. The only real heartache would come if a person loses so much from one year to the next that, despite having taxable income that puts them in the top bracket, they still lose enough that they cannot maintain current investments or ownership, and so must give up or sell properties. But this seems not only to be a rather rare circumstance, but also one in which some kinds of deductions should be taken so they do not lose everything. Probably shouldn't say anything more about this other than that I do agree with this particular idea being a problem, but it is on the whole just a hypothetical problem. It doesn't compare well to people who don't have enough money or assets, even if they scrape everything together in a crisis, just to eat well or take care of other basics.

[louisg]

Yes, we only have nearly the entire computer and movie industries here. Clearly, California is anti-business and people are moving out in droves

My mistake for thinking California's unemployment rate was the second highest in the nations with the second highest taxed state. Also my bad in thinking business were closing down, when in fact it was booming.

Have you ever setup a business, or even ran one before? If not, maybe you should stfu. Every year more and more fee's and taxes are applied, while the economy is in a recession.

This state is in bad shape.

The *economy* is in bad shape, outside of the valley which is mysteriously immune. And I have known what is probably a disproportionate number of small business owners. Most of them got reamed by large businesses, and-- aside from having trouble competing because of their inability to offer massive discounts-- in some cases landlords and distributors colluded with these larger businesses to force the smaller ones out. That's I'm sure a much bigger threat than some new fee. The $500 fee sounds like crap, but frankly (and I'm not defending the fee), if $500 is going to sink you, then the business wasn't doing very well.

[Lordstar]

Have you ever setup a business, or even ran one before? If not, maybe you should stfu. Every year more and more fee's and taxes are applied, while the economy is in a recession.

This state is in bad shape.

the sefton region (where i work in the UK) is broke. They are making us feel it also. crazy thing is so many people are going bust they have a back log that we are actually getting a little breathing space with the local regions rates. 20% tax is also fucking insane but i dont think decreasing it like they did a few years back to boost spending is also the answer.

cant comment on the USA but in the UK its getting harder and harder to run a valid business. in the UK everything is taxed. its hard to make money when you have to apply 20% to almost everything. Just little things like trying to explain to a customer yeah it cost me 1GBP to send that parcel to you and you are complaining because i charge you 130? Well the packing costs twice that and everything I charge you for I have to pay 20% to the Gov. So yeah im loosing money. but its like this with just about everything. Its a constant battle to break even and shake hands with people who will potentially bring in that dream piece of work which is going to bring in the cash which will hopefully keep food on the table and if your super lucky let you pay off some of that debt which has been accumulating.

Problem is not that he may be getting out of millions in taxes its the law and legal loop holes which allow him to do these things. Our prime-minister has been naming and shaming famous people for doing the same thing setting up bank accounts on an island off the coast of GB called Jersey and other magical loop holes which make paying as little as 1% tax a doddle (its where Amazon is based in the UK and why the prices are so good) . Now this is all pretty bad but when you have four homes and you are not paying tax on them and your farther is 'guilty' of off shore banking practices you cant really go around pointing fingers at famous people who are raking in a couple of million quid a year (before taxes) now is it.

[Lordstar]

The $500 fee sounds like crap, but frankly (and I'm not defending the fee), if $500 is going to sink you, then the business wasn't doing very well.

if your new to bizz 500USD out of the blue could royally screw you specially if you dont have backing or investment from the bank and you are working from personal savings.

[DragonInstall]

if $500 is going to sink you, then the business wasn't doing very well.

Of course that won't sink me. Make more than that in a day, but it's the fact that shit like that is being pulled of is not right.

Because the democrats can't increase tax(Cali is the second highest already), they go through the 2/3 majority vote needed for a tax increase by saying it's a fee. So now they are throwing fee over what would be called tax. It's a sneaky bypass that really shows have corrupt politicians are. Tons of things are being called fees which is total bs.

That gov worker that came to do the 1 min inspection even said, "Yeah this is bullshit. But Cali need's money and you know how they are." The guy next door to me said the guy didn't even check shit, just gave him papers he had to pay $465 fee.

Then I hear about top government workers being paid 250k a year and retiring at 55. So those people are probably going to live till 80 some years and we the tax payers have to pay 250k a year for this retired pension asshole. Not to mention the life time health care benefit for him and his family. Now think about all the other government workers, who retire at age 55 with a life time of health care and 90% retirement pension.

You cannot sustain that kind of government waste, especially now. They need to reform the way government workers are paid, pension, and health care.

Teachers in Cali are by far the most paid for their profession in the entire nation, yet they perform so poorly compared to the states. As long as the teacher gets tenure(2 years no fuck ups) and is part of the union, they cannot be fired. Only way is if they molest some kid, and even then they could get paid his retirement fee.

Government jobs needs to be treated like the regular folks who work. They should not be given such a handsome benefit just because they work for the government. It's a insult to all the tax payers out there to pay for stupid shit like that.

Please don't associate me as Republican because I find California government to be total bs. I'm myself, and when I see bullshit like that, I think it's bullshit.

Mindless sheep who only vote on party lines is the worst kind of people. Sadly this is probably 95% of the USA as of right now, which is why nothing is being solved.

[RNGmaster]

doop de doo

[Ganelon]

You can't blame just the rich because if we got rid of all the federal assistance programs that the rich don't use much of, then our balance sheet and esp. economic outlook would be much improved.

You can't blame just the poor because the rich under the guise of big government have made some really contemptible decisions over the past decade, such as wasting resources on an irrelevant war and helping their wealthy financial corporate backers when the latter made boneheaded greedy decisions.

You can't blame just the government because plenty of selfish but ignorant individuals tried to speculate on property, despite Greenspan's warnings, and completely misjudged.

In each case, I sure don't want to pay for the problems of others who didn't handle their finances soundly. That said, in principle, it could be argued that the government is ultimately to blame. The government is responsible for the success of the state and has all power to do so.

I'm not a fan of government stimulus for economic recovery. I prefer the more conservative method of giving slack to growing businesses. But cutting taxes for the well-to-do at a time like this? The lack of middle ground in each party's ideological platforms is part of the reason why conspiracy theorists are so prevalent nowadays.

As for California, correct me if I'm wrong but all I see going for the state is the coast and weather. Sadly to say, all the things wrong with the state may still be worth the amazing SoCal climate.

And for Romney, I'm very curious what he's hiding in his tax statements. Uncovering the secret would probably make my day.

[BulletMagnet]

That said the modern Republican Party does encompass some very fast-and-loose ideas about what works in economics

That's gotta be a contender for Understatement of the Year.

Seriously, just for starters, would one of the conservative faithful out there give me an example or two of an instance wherein the cutting taxes for rich people will increase government revenue fairy tale has actually, you know, happened? Or even come close to happening? If you'll recall, Saint Reagan slashed taxes deeply right after being elected, but before long the coffers were (gasp!) pretty much empty, so he was forced to (gasp!) raise them back up (though not enough to repair the fiscal damage he'd done, which we still deal with to this day). By the way, the "prevailing wisdom" seems to suggest that the lower taxes are the better things will be, so why didn't Reagan, or Bush Sr., or Bush Jr., cut taxes even lower than they did? Hell, why pay any taxes on anything, ever? It's just holding us back!

And for Romney, I'm very curious what he's hiding in his tax statements. Uncovering the secret would probably make my day.

Honestly, as much as I'd like to see what Romney's so afraid of in there, methinks that anyone paying the least bit of attention has already seen enough, just in the handful of recent returns that he's released and his platform for the election: in short, Romney, like many rich people who derive most of their income from capital gains and have people actively working for them to get out of as many tax obligations as possible, pays much less percentage-wise than most people poorer than him do, and would like to pay even less than that, whilst gutting social services to (partially, not even close to completely) make up the difference. Seriously, what else does anybody even remotely interested in this election need to know before making a decision as to whether or not the Reps have their vote?

[Mischief Maker]

California is a great example of government waste and corruption, which is no surprise it's going bankrupt.

Proposition 13.