Quantcast

Foley pays no income taxes in 2013

The general election is Tuesday, Nov. 4.
The general election is Tuesday, Nov. 4.

HARTFORD, Conn. – For the past three years, Republican gubernatorial candidate Tom Foley has paid no income taxes, according to records Foley allowed reporters to inspect Friday.

Foley, who filed was given an extension on his 2013 taxes, allowed them to be viewed Friday at a law office in Hartford. He had previously allowed inspection of his taxes for 2010, 2011, and 2012.

Like 2011 and 2012, the 62-year-old private equity entrepreneur lost income in 2013, but his campaign was unable to say exactly where the losses originated.

The two pages of the 1040 form Foley’s campaign allowed reporters to view showed he lost $67,679 on “rental real estate, royalties, partnerships, S corporations, trusts, etc.” He also lost $49,712 in “other income.”

See the complete story at CT News Junkie.

Comments

11 responses to “Foley pays no income taxes in 2013”

  1. Lifelong Teacher

    Read and decide, voters. I know that both while working and now retired, I pay plenty of income taxes.

  2. One and Done

    Foley probably paid more in property taxes last year than the average person makes. This is our progressive tax system created by liberal Democrats like Malloy. Passive income is rewarded and labor is taxed.

    The whole thing is a diversion from the fact that Malloy is a miserable failure and the only thing more bankrupt than this state is his ideas on how to move it forward.

    If Foley fails to do the job he will be fired in four years. But the Malloy era must end if this state is ever going to rebound.

    CT deserves more than a campaign about how evil and rich republicans are.

  3. Suzanne

    That we all should have the same privilege, still run for office, have no clue as to the financial pressures for most of CT’s population (I mean the one’s that don’t own companies and private jets) and call ourselves a governor.

  4. Wineshine

    Isn’t it time for voters to understand that it’s better for all to elect a shrewd businessperson who understands how to be fiscally successful, than a lying politician who says one thing and does another? People should be wary of resentment clouding their judgement.

  5. John Hamliln

    This should be a non-issue, and the resentment against the one percent is irrelevant. We should all be paying less in taxes. If the one percent were excluded from holding political office, the following, among others, would not have been permitted to run for office: George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Teddy Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson. (Not that either candidate for governor is comparable to any of these examples!) The problem is with our screwed up tax system, which has needed reforming — but our Congressmen, senators, and president won’t support meaningful tax reform. And if you are looking for tax reform, I don’t think running to support Malloy is going to get you very far — look how that worked out for us in his first term. Supreme irony in rejecting Foley and running to Malloy on the issue of taxes! There are other issues on which we should be making a decision between these two candidates.

  6. piberman

    Relevant information on qualifications for running one of the nation’s most mismanaged states ? Over a successful lifetime Mr. Foley has likely paid more in taxes than most of us ever earn.

  7. srb1228

    The issue isn’t whether Foley is one of the 1%, I’d presume Malloy is in the top 5%, the question is whether the income tax system is horribly skewed so that a multimillionaire pays virtually nothing. Both candidates are character challenged, the question is who can bring us forward. Malloy did a great job in Stamford and in difficult economic times has done a good job here. Best of all he passed gun control. Should we all be paying less taxes? No. Government cost $$$. Good schools, good infrastructure and safe and healthy communities cost $$$.

  8. John Hamliln

    If progress depends on raising taxes, then why is it that the only states that appear to be making progress economically — lowering deficits, lowering unemployment, increasing tax revenues, and enhancing government services — are the ones that have reformed and lowered taxes, reduced regulation on business, reduced the influence of public employee unions, and reduced government obligations for public pensions? It is so true that Connecticut needs more than a Wisconsin moment — it needs a Wisconsin decade — to bring the state back from the current political dysfunction and economic crisis.

  9. Jeff

    Success should be celebrated not shunned. Can we say the same for the last four years? Class envy/warfare gimmicks should not be used to detract from the severity of problems facing the state.

  10. WOW just WOW

    Typical republican

  11. srb1228

    The State that was the most draconian in cuts and taxes is Kansas which is a basket case. Progress doesn’t depend upon raising taxes, reiterating progress depends on strong education, good roads, bridges and public transportation, and a sense of stability and safety. As for Walker, saying there’s a Wisconsin Miracle doesn’t necessarily mean there is, http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/promises/walk-o-meter/promise/526/create-250000-new-jobs/
    On the other hand the private job market for the US as a whole has been remarkably strong
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/adamhartung/2014/09/05/obama-outperforms-reagan-on-jobs-growth-and-investing/
    As for Walker
    http://www.jsonline.com/business/wisconsins-private-sector-job-growth-ranks-33rd-in-us-quarterly-report-shows-b99354089z1-275599241.html

    As for Walker

Leave a Reply


Recent Comments