You know, this is probably a wise thing for them to do. Even his accountants know that Romney is toast, and will never see the Whitehouse.
Um, he’d have investment income regardless of whether or not he becomes President. It just goes into a blind trust.
But then again, how come Brad Malt, head of Mitt’s blind trust had another reason:
So it was done only for political reasons. I tend to believe Brad malt, rather than you Sam.
It was a joke son. A joke.
As in: If they’re worried about a big tax hike for rich folks, it must mean that they’re pretty sure that Obama will re-take the Whitehouse, since if Romney got in, there would be no worries about a big tax hike for rich folks, now would there?
The issue is not that he had done anything illegal. The issue is that he’s hypocritical with regards to him saying taxes are too high on the wealthy.
I totally believe his returns are 100% in line with the IRS guidelines. The outrage comes from the fact that he’s the one saying the taxes are too much of a burden on the rich and he wants to reduce them, yet he won’t show his tax returns to demonstrate how that burden is affecting him. The outrage come from normal people thinking the rich are able to exploit loopholes to reduce their tax burden.
The reality is that the rich can do things like take $10 million in profits from stocks and invest it in a “Coconut Farm” on Hawaii, which consists of a mansion on a cliff overlooking the ocean with a few coconut trees in the back. They get a fancy house and don’t have to pay taxes on the $10 million. Totally legal, and totally slimy.
- Mitt Romney, 1994
Or perhaps he (like many of his faith) are committed to giving a significant amount of money to the Mormon Church. I think that it’s not a terrific surprise that Romney gives a lot to the Mormon Church. In fact, it would be pretty shocking if he did not.
What do you mean, charitable contributions should “count?” Count for what? You seem to be implying that charitable contributions are an offset for taxes, but you know full well they aren’t. They are an offset for income.
Because Romney’s website says, “In 2011, the Romneys paid $1,935,708 in taxes on $13,696,951 in mostly investment income.” In taking a five-second look at the actual returns, it appears that half of his income is from interest and half from capital gains.
That means that the taxes that would have been due on that $4 million in contributions would have been closer to $1 million rather than $600,000. Which means that absent the deductions, he would have paid $2.9 million in taxes on $13.7 million in income, or a 17% rate.
It is stated on his website that he didn’t take all the deductions so that he would pay at least 13% of his income in taxes.
I’m not claiming he’s a tax cheat. I’m saying it is unfair that millionaires pay less in taxes than their secretaries.
I thought this would be a win for Romney until I saw the part about how he didn’t take a full deduction “so he would pay at least 13%”.
What, you’re saying the public doesn’t love guys who keep their promises only by technicalities?
I’ll be willing to bet that Mitt Romney paid more in federal income tax last year than every poster in this thread COMBINED. Yet he still didn’t pay his “fair share.”
Yes, I know about the progressive tax system, but we should be truthful about the words. We should “soak more out of him” instead of bitching about how “little” he pays.
Do we think that about any other aspect of society? I’ll bet Mitt could stimulate the local economy if he paid $3490 for a Big Mac instead of $3.49 like I pay. And if he “only” pays $2k for a Big Mac, he would be “robbing” McDonalds according to some posters, I’m sure.
Please define your terms, here. Do you mean all federal taxes combined, or only income tax? Either way, you’re wrong. If you mean only income taxes, then Romney only paid less than a percent of his income that way, since almost all of his income is capital gains. And if you’re lumping in all forms of federal tax, then the payroll tax that almost everyone pays already puts them ahead of Romney’s typical rate of 13%.
So you’re aware the rest of this post was composed of strawmanning and empty words?
So charitable contributions only count if they go to an organization you deem acceptable?
Well, unless their secretaries make more than the millionaires who employ them, this is highly unlikely.
I take it you mean effective individual tax rate? If so, this is untrue. The following chart is only up to 2007, so I don’t know what the effective tax rate is now for the highest quintile, but then it was 14.4%, about where Romney is paying. I’m not so sure how much a secretary makes, but the effective individual tax rate for one would be somewhere between 3.3% and 6.2%.
This is absurd. It doesn’t cost McDonald’s any more to make Mitt a Big Mac than it does to make one for Joe Sixpack. However, it costs local, state and federal governments much more to protect and otherwise provide for him.
WTF??? Mitt, who pays the feds $2 million per year is more of a burden on the government than, let’s say, a prisoner? The cost of his “protection” (I’m assuming in the form of national defense) is the same as it is for you and I. They don’t “provide” for him in any way.
If Romney thought it was going to be a win, it wouldn’t have been released on a Friday afternoon.
“Reasonable share of tax”? Yeah, see, this whole kerfuffle, as you call it, is in large part due to his definition of “reasonable” being at odds with many people’s. Some people ask, “Hey, why’s Mitt paying a lower tax rate than construction workers and receptionists?” to which he responds, smugly, “Hey, it’s all legal, folks.” That’s fine, but doesn’t really answer the question or address the real issue. His adamant refusal to pony up his tax records has made some question whether or not he’s hiding anything illegal, but let’s ignore that and go along with the premise that he’s done nothing legally wrong. So he now, at long last, after being painted as a rich bitch using millionaire tax hocus pocus to pay less than working class people, after asking to see years’ worth of records for possible VP choices, releases his own tax records, except he doesn’t. He just has his arsenal of attorneys reiterate the same damn thing: “Hey guys, I didn’t break any laws.” Yeah, we get it, asshat.
This “revelation” really hasn’t done anything at all. We’re exactly where we were six months ago. What was even the point of this? If anything, it just draws more attention to his refusal to show people what he paid. Can’t see how that helps him.
I made no comment on whether or not the Mormon Church is acceptable or not, nor did I imply this in any way. I will thank you not to put words in my mouth. It is rude and offensive.
On another note:
Now that we know that in 2011, Romney paid more taxes than were required, does Romney himself think that he is still qualified to be president? Does Romney still believe that American voters expect candidates to pay “only what the tax code requires.”?
Why has he changed his stance since late July’s talk with ABC News?
The figures being quoted by the Romney campaign are his overall rate, not individual income tax rate. See here.