I liked this little snippet from the article on CNN’s page today:
As opposed to what? Paying 50% of the federal and state income taxes they owed?
Of course they paid 100% of what they owed. But the whole controversy is that the rich can have their team of accountants and lawyers manipulate what they owe to be a lower value. They can shelter income, make assets look like expenses, etc. I want to know what his stated income was for those years. I have a feeling his stated income those years is really low even though he made a lot of money.
Interesting that he intentionally overpaid in 2011 to conform with his “always paid at least 13%” claim. If he had made full use of the deductions available to him his effective tax rate would have been something around 9%.
I’m reminded of what a candidate for POTUS once said:
[QUOTE=Mitt Romney]
“Frankly, if I had paid more than are legally due, I don’t think I’d be qualified to become president,” he said. “I’d think people would want me to follow the law and pay only what the tax code requires.”
[/QUOTE]
Weren’t tax rates generally higher in the 90s? I am just curious what his rates have been lately, like since 2000.
Yeah, they’re playing a little game here by making it 20 years worth of taxes, including those years when Mitt was not getting most of his income from investments (and presumably also not making quite enough to take advantage of fancy off-shore tax havens).
So, let’s say that in 1992, Mitt made $200K and paid 30% interest on it. Today he makes $13.7M and pays 14%, more or less. If you average out the interest from those two years, it looks like 22%. But that’s a far cry from paying 22% on $13.7M.
I’m a bit torn between admiration at the chutzpah and annoyance at the thought that they think that they’re fooling anyone.
I also find it statistically unlikely that the one tax return that we’ve seen all of is the one in which Mitt has paid his lowest taxes. Unless that’s the one where he ramped up his charitable giving because he knew it would go public.
Right, but that makes the the defense that the campaign puts forth that the Romney’s “paid 100% of the federal and state income taxes they owed” pretty weak. It’s like asking John Doe if he paid his bill at a restaurant, including a reasonable tip, and Doe responds “I did not stab or assault the waiter in any way.”
Yeah. It’s like saying you always tip 20% of the bill, but fail to mention you always have a 75% off coupon.
The Washington Post has some questions about how that average of 20% taxes paid was calculated:
Well, it’s nice to see at least one person trotted out the “Well, those charitable contribution don’t count!” card. As it stands, Romney pays a higher effective tax rate-- which would be higher if not for his charitable contributions-- than about 80% of Americans. Pretty hard to argue the rich don’t pay their fair dues.
Live long enough and you’ll see everything. Like a political suicide note formatted as a tax return.
Yeah, that’s crazy. Only Obama administration officials fail to pay the taxes they owe.
Why do you think Romney did not deduct all of his charitable giving for 2011, thus paying a higher amount of taxes than required by law?
Or, you know, he’s smart enough to not play along with the Democrats’ obvious fishing expedition. He’s providing the absolute minimum information required to show that he paid a reasonable share of tax, and that’s it.
In my country, we have the option of carrying charitable deductions forward. You might do that if you’ve maxxed out your charitable deductions, or if you think you’re going to be in a higher tax bracket in the next year, or for many other reasons. Why don’t you ask PriceWaterhouseCoopers? They’re the ones doing his taxes. Or are they in on the Romney evil rich conspiracy?
Really, the hay you guys are trying to make out of this is incredible. Despite having no evidence that Romney has ever done anything illegal with his taxes, and despite having two full returns to pour over and a certified summary of his previous taxes from a respected firm, all you can see is mysteries, malfeasance, and cockamamie theories for rather straightforward tax strategy.
No wonder Romney isn’t going to give people like you 10 years of line item tax information to pour over. If he did, the rest of the time between now and the election will be spent constructing conspiracy theories and assigning bad motives to every one of them.
So let me make sure I understand this correctly. You guys clamored and cried for Romney to release his tax returns and levied accusations of being a tax evader against him. He said he would earlier this year and he does-- which shows him paying a higher effective tax rate than the majority of Americans-- yet somehow he’s engaging in political suicide? I’m obviously missing something.
You should go ask Romney. Though I should say that maybe he’s not as greedy and heartless as some have said.
If the $4 million in contributions would have been taxed at the 15% rate for capital gains, he would have paid an additional $600k in taxes. That would have been an 18% tax rate for him overall. That is roughly the average tax rate paid by the income quintile that averages $84,500 a year.
Yeah, it’s really fair that he pays lower taxes than the top 20%, but earns more than 99.7% of Americans. Fair. Right.
We don’t have to ask, they told us themselves why they did it.
Or in other words, they fiddled with his taxes so that he was not shown to be obviously lying right before the election. After the election, he can claim those charitable deductions, and lower his tax rate to 9% or so.
Of course, if he would have given nothing to charity, he would have come out ~$3M ahead after paying taxes. Ergo my last post; apparently he’s not as greedy and heartless as some make him out to be.
So you’re complaining that he (probably) pays more than you in taxes but less than others in his tax bracket? Again, I feel like I’m missing something here.
What, you’re saying that Romney’s charitable deductions shouldn’t count? You realize that charitable deductions are tax-free for a reason, right? It’s because we like to encourage philanthropy.
And why are you assuming that if he didn’t make them that income would be taxed at the capital gains rate? Why wouldn’t it have been applied against the highest-tax income he had, which would be closer to 30%? What does that do to your assumed overall rate then?
As for why he didn’t declare all his charitable deductions - my guess is because his accountants are assuming that there will be a big tax hike on the rich next year, so they’re carrying forward some of his deductions to apply against next year’s income.
Again, you do realize that Romney has hired PriceWaterhouseCoopers to do his taxes, right? He probably doesn’t have a clue about the details of exactly how they’re divvying up his various income and deductions. Their job is to save him as much in tax as they can while complying with the law.
But this whole kerfuffle illustrates why Romney isn’t going to give you a mountain of information to dissect - you’ve already declared him guilty, and your job would be to simply weed through all of it and build a case for ‘guilt’ that could hold together until the election and distract the people from the current administration’s many failures.
If Romney hadn’t given that much to charity, you guys would be in a tizzy about how it proved he was the evil rich, and that he wasn’t giving his share to the Mormon church. It turns out he gave a lot, so now your angle is that he’s up to no good because he didn’t declare all of it.
There is no information Romney could possibly release that the Democrats won’t try to spin in a negative way, so the smart thing to do is to release only the minimum required. Sorry if he’s not willing to play the game by your rules.