I've never seen someone incessantly reminding others that he gave to charity. Mr Romney should know that taxes and charity are two different things. And he should know that the obligation of federal taxes is different from a mandatory tithing levied by the Morman church. And he should also know that no matter how much he believes in the cause of his church, there is a world of difference between tithing and voluntarily giving to charity.

I love when Mitt & Ann open up! They just keep digging themselves in deeper by insulting Americans, proving that being rich entitles you to lie to people's faces (the very same ones you pretend to want to lead, BTW), and that all the poor, elderly, unemployed, uninsured people of this country are nothing but serfs who exist to serve the wealthy and their gluttony.

As for giving to charity? Let's see...I seem to recall a story about a pompous Pharisee who makes a big show out of making his "sufficient" temple gift while a poor widow gives all she has to live on. Sound familiar? Come on, Mitt...you must have learned this one in Sunday school....

His claim is to have paid 13%ish in taxes but he did not say "federal income taxes".

The question is, "How much in federal income taxes did you pay?" This slightly different way of adding up to over 13% could include state sales taxes and even real estate taxes. He has a law degree from Harvard and was taught the value of precision.

His resposnses only create more ambiguity and he knows this fully.

In the words of Ronald Reagan: Trust, but Verify!" Show the returns!

P.S. Ann: So you give 10% of your Income to charity. Big deal! Some people, me included, sometimes give Assets to charity. And I makes less in a year than you write off on your dancing horse. You sound rich, and cheap.

You got it--unlike any other reporter I've heard today...13% of nothing is nothing. This is a smoke screen, and one I hope you don't give up on. "Trust me," when you've shown him to be untrustworthy, should be the end of this campaign.

I'm calling my lawyer (you reading this Diny?) and initiating a lawsuit for political malpractice. What a maroon!

I think it's telling that the lowest amount is the one he has disclosed, implying "hey, I pay more than that", but with no proof. Odd that the lowest rate he paid is the one he'd show, especially since it brought some heat. If you paid more in other years, you'd show those to say "hey, I DO pay taxes like normal people".

Heh, 10 percent tithe to his church is a minimum, not a maximum - he's cheap even to his own church.

Would some damn journalist ask him if by taxes he meant Federal Income Taxes or if he included all the other taxes you might expect him to pay like property taxes, sales taxes and even state income taxes? How hard is it for a "journalist" to ask a follow up anyway?

Ooooookay.

Now I understand.

Apparently, in Romney's world, Taxes and Donations are the same thing. So paying 13% in (unspecified) taxes plus the 10% mandatory tithe donation equals paying 23% of "his" money to somebody/something else other than putting that money to good use in the Cayman Islands or Switzerland or..............

Sheesh, no wonder he doesn't seem to grasp the concept of the separation of church and state thingie.......................................

I will not discuss Harry Reid’s tale-bearing, which he should not do, but my own speculation at this point is that the main thing Romney is hiding is that the Swiss bank account was indeed illegal. Considering the guy’s past, including running for Governor of Mass. while filing as a resident of Utah, then refiling when it is found out, and turning in incomplete FEC disclosures, then refiling when it is found out -- I think the guy does what he likes and then takes care of "problems" as they arise.

People who say Romney has just got to be too smart to have an illegal bank account are walking around with their eyes closed. Someone who is untruthful as much as Romney has been would, if not running for president, widely be assumed to be a practiced criminal.

totally confused about the charity thing. since agi is determined by SUBTRACTING deductions from dividends,interest,and other income wouldn't the charity giving be factored into his alleged 13% rate?

He should post his taxes because many people feel he may have broken the law. We don't want a crook in the White House. They will have to have a special investigation on day one if he wins.

could his tax returns reveal that he claimed a legal residence elsewhere while voting in MA (voter fraud)? could they reveal that he hid money and thus stiffed his church and did not really give them 10%? (and after his church funded the anti-gay marriage proposition in CA, I think they should lose their tax exempt status) Could they reveal that he took all manor of deductions and other actions that were highly questionable. So many possibilities, let me count the ways...

But most importantly, their attitude about paying taxes to the government (ie., the public good like roads, schools, research, that individuals and private industry doesn't do effectively and equitably) sucks! They are not team players, not the type to try to SOLVE the country's problems. These corporation/people hybrids are just out to make money for themselves at our expense. Period.

PS, I wonder when Sheldon or the Koch bros et al will throw up their hands in disgust and appoint one of themselves King and the other 16 their royal court? All that money and they can't seem to get R&R on a sound, consistent message????

Anyone remember Leona Helmsley? Only the little people pay taxes.

Romneyism #203:

Mother gets a call from school where her son is accused of stealing the other kid's lunch money:

Mom: Willard, i can't believe that you are stealing from others!

Little Will: Mother! I am shocked. With all of the serious problems out there: wars, poverty, the economy, joblessness, why in the world would we be talking about something as trivial as lunch money? Really, get some perspective!

I can't believe the media hasn't done more to check on the Romney's expenses for "household help." With all of their properties, they must pay a fortune to maids, gardeners, and so forth. And yet, according to their released tax information, they pay almost nothing on the books. I think that this fact--and the horse, of course--is why Ann is so adamant about not releasing tax returns.

At first this issue was just about an expectation--all candidates release several years of taxes. Then he equivocated. Over that time the issue has become about much more, the rate he pays, his income rate since he left Bain, and on and on. To date he hasn't released a single full year of returns. Add to the mix that we all have to have our taxes into the IRS by April, where are Willard's for 2011?

I'll trust Willard to correct his falsehoods retroactively only if he cannot run because them. Otherwise, he's already earned our skepticism.

Have you ever wondered if Mitt really tithed the percentage that he's claimed to the church? It's a great amount, but if he didn't, would that also explain why he doesn't publicize his returns? In order to gain entry to a temple, a Mormon in good standing must tithe and go through a process of interviews in which he shows his knowledge of Mormon beliefs and that he's living the Mormon life, including character traits like truthfulness. This is done every two years, I believe. Getting into the temple is important for many reasons, but the added benefit for an ambitious person is increased leadership opportunities, admiration by all Mormons and close ties with wealthy and powerful Mormons,which can add to wealth building. If he didn't tithe at least 10%, he'd have a lot of explaining to do to the church, Ann and his family. Remember, his sons are married and I'm sure that they married in the temple. Was this done through lies? That would keep anyone like Mitt from releasing his returns. That could be a more powerful reason, considering the Mormon vote, than just the "privacy" issues that he's raising, but could be devastating to a Mormon family. Just wondering.

I completely believe Ried. The issue is not which is lying. Ried stated a matter of fact. Romney paid nothing in "income" taxes. He paid capital gains and other taxes and kept that at no higher than 13 per cent, because that's what the law allows. That's how it works. It sucks that it works that way, but that's the way it is. Worse, he wants to lower THAT rate even more.

Romney Tax Theory No. 612: Romney and Reid's source are telling the truth about Mitt's taxes.

Basic assumptions: (1) There's more to Mitt's taxes than a low effective rate and the disclosed use of offshore accounts. If Mitt's prior returns looked like the one he released, he would have released the others by now. There might be some cumulative negative impact for multiple years of tax havens and 13-15% effective tax rates, but everyone already assumes his prior tax returns look like that and probably worse re low effective tax rates and the use of offshore accounts. I also think that if he suffered losses that offset most or all of his gains in some years, he would release the prior returns as well. I suspect that most people understand and accept that big losses offset big gains. The man is already the poster boy for tax unfairness anyway, and I don't see how much more damage he suffers by saying his taxable income one year was very low because, although he made a boat load, he also lost an equal or greater amount. My analysis might be different if that carried-interest boondoggle he got to take advantage of allowed him to realize losses associated with someone else's money against his own income, but I don't know how all that works. Regardless, given (i) the chorus from the left and the right re the need to release more returns; (ii) the fact that everyone assumes his returns would look at least similar to the one he's released; and (iii) his current confirmation that he has paid at least a 13% effective tax rate, Mitt must think that there is something more troubling in his returns than low rates and disclosed use of offshore accounts. (2) Harry Reid has a credible source who has reason to believe that Mitt paid no or almost no taxes for ten years. Maybe I'm giving Harry too much credit, but I don't think he would go public with his tax allegations if he really didn't have a source he believed to be credible. The source is allegedly a Bain investor. We know from Mitt's prior explanation of an offshore entity described in his 2010 return that such entities were created by Bain to entice (what he described as) foreign investors into investing in the US ("Psst! Hey buddy, did you know that you can invest in the US without paying US taxes?"). Mitt also invested with these entities but claims to have paid US taxes on his profits (ala his 2010 return). Regardless, there is no dispute that Bain created offshore tax-shelter entities that it then marketed to investors as the means to avoid US taxes and that Mitt was active with/in these entities. Accordingly, there are certainly Bain investors out there who were pitched tax-avoidance schemes associated with Mitt, and I don't think it's a stretch to believe that one of those investors understood (rightly or wrongly) that Mitt was using the offshore entity to realize the exact same tax advantage that Bain/Mitt pitched to sell the investment. I also don't think it a stretch to believe that someone associated with Bain (whether Mitt or an overeager underling) may have hyped the tax benefits by claiming (accurately or not) that the offshore structures were so effective that Mitt hadn't paid taxes in ten years. (3) Mitt was being truthful when he said today that he has paid at least 13% on income for the past several years. Maybe I'm giving Mitt too much credit, but I don't think he'd make such a claim if it weren't true. If he did, he's one leak away from essentially ceding the election, assuming the leak doesn't happen before the convention, which might then cost him the nomination.

The theory: (1) Mitt used a combination of offshore entities and accounts to avoid paying US taxes. He assumed, as many wealthy US citizens did, that the existence of his offshore accounts would remain confidential. His accountants/lawyers advised him that there was a good-faith basis to justify tax avoidance regardless of the IRS's position on the subject and that this basis would protect him from criminal prosecution in the unlikely event that were his accounts ever discovered. My impression is that the risks/rewards of Swiss accounts and the like have been well known in elite circles for decades, and an aggressive use of such accounts would not have been viewed as all that radical a tax strategy to people at Bain and its investors generally or Mitt specifically. Bain pitched Harry Reid's source with the benefits of this strategy, and that source came to believe that Mitt had successfully used it to avoid US taxes for ten years. (2) In 2010, Mitt took advantage of the tax-amnesty program offered by the IRS and disclosed/paid taxes on his offshore holdings. This is why he can't go back farther than 2010. It's one thing to disclose a low (but lawful) effective tax rate. It's quite another to disclose questionable and arguably illegal/inappropriate use of offshore accounts to avoid paying millions in taxes (during war time no less). When it became clear that the Swiss would disclose who held what to the US Government, Mitt and many uber-rich like him freaked and jumped at the amnesty generously offered by the IRS. (3) Mitt's statement that he's paid every dollar owed at a rate of at least 13% is based on the taxes paid as part of the amnesty program. I don't know specifics about that program, but I assume it would have required participants to file amended returns to realize past offshore profits in the year earned. If Mitt did that, then his original returns, which failed to disclose his offshore profits/accounts, might look very similar to what Reid's source says they look like. I don't expect they would show that Mitt paid "no taxes," but I would expect that they could easily show enough tax avoidance to justify Reid's source's understanding. If Mitt trued-up his tax payments in 2009, then he can now say with a straight face that he has paid every dollar owed at an effective rate of at least 13% for each year.

A key, confirming fact: Mitt's refusal to disclose the schedule of his 2010 returns that indicates the highest balance for his Swiss account during the year. This can only mean that the highest balance during the year was significantly higher than the balance disclosed for year-end. But why would this be if Mitt came clean re his offshore account in 2009? The answer is that the 2009 amnesty program concerned tax returns for 2009 but filed in 2010. Until Mitt opted into the amnesty program prior to filing his 2009 return at some point in 2010, he had no reason to move money from an offshore account. It is only when he opted into the amnesty program that the reasons for parking money offshore disappeared. Thus, on January 1, 2010, Mitt had yet to file for "amnesty" and his Swiss account may have held quite a significant amount of money, which would have been disclosed on the one piece of the 2010 return he refuses to disclose. Once he filed his 2009 returns at some point in 2010, there was no reason to keep his money offshore so, since he had now paid taxes on it, he simply brought most of it home.

Questions for Mitt: What about the schedule missing from your 2010 return? Did you opt into the IRS's 2009 amnesty program? Have you ever paid taxes/interest associated with money that came to you via an offshore account or entity? Were you ever required to file amended returns to disclose income omitted from an original return?

You may want to check into the Massachusetts tax code.

It states:

Allocation of the 5.3% and 12% Tax Rates for Taxable Schedule B Income:
Schedule B taxable income will be taxed at the rate of 5.3% to the extent it does not exceed Schedule B interest and dividends, (before any deductions or exemptions are applied). Any remaining taxable income (i.e., any portion which exceeds Schedule B interest and dividends), will be taxed at the rate of 12%. In effect, Schedule B deductions and exemptions are first allocated to 12% income and then, if any deductions or exemptions remain, to 5.3% income.
Optional Tax Rate of 5.85%

Taxpayers have the option to pay a higher tax rate on certain types of income. Taxpayers may pay 5.85% as opposed to 5.3% on the following types of income:

• Form 1 or 1-NR/PY income after exemptions - Form 1, Line 19 or 1-NR/PY, Line 23;
• Schedule B interest and dividend income - Form 1, Line 20 or 1-NR/PY, Line 24;
• Schedule D net long-term capital gains - Schedule D, Line 20

The election to pay tax at the rate of 5.85% does not apply to items of income taxed at 12% (short-term capital gains and gains on collectibles and pre-1996 installment sales.)
Romney could have easily paid 13% in taxes, 12% of that being Massachusetts taxes and 1% Federal. Mitt never said he paid 13% in FEDERAL TAXES. The federal tax question has not been asked.

Do you think he hasn't released his taxes as it will show he paid more to the Mormon church than to the Fed Gov? And the Mormon church is also pressuring him not to release as they don't want that kind of negative exposure.

Under the U.S. Tax Law, there is a major distinction between "tax avoidance" and "tax evasion." The first is legal. The second is not. Tax avoidance is the arrangement of one's affairs under the law to minimize paying taxes. Tax evasion is failure to pay sufficient taxes under the law. There is no penalty for tax avoidance. When one is found guilty of tax evasion, one has to pay the real amount of taxes owed, plus penalties, plus interest on the back taxes and penalties from the date starting when the taxes were owed. What Marriott Corporation did when it participated in the tax scheme known as "Son of Boss," was tax evasion. It was assessed back taxes, and paid penalties and interest. It entered into this scheme under the auspices of Mitt Romney as Chairman of the Audit Committee. He was charged with the duty of knowing the financial condition of the corporation. This scheme shows Mitt Romney's attitude toward the law: He believes in following the Letter of the Law and Not the Spirit of the Law. He believes in creative tax schemes in order to take advantage of tax code loopholes that are available for legitimate purposes but can be conned for advantage by the unscrupulous. The area is one that is not black and white. Legions of tax lawyers and tax accountants and tax consultants are hired to promote corporate and wealthy individual gains by reducing tax burdens. That is tax avoidance. However, too much creativity becomes tax evasion. That is what Marriott did. That is what Mitt Romney oversaw. And that is the kind of man Mitt Romney has declared himself to be comfortable with doing with regard to his business dealings at Marriott as well as with his wife's horse. Looking closer at Bain Capital one would probably find that creative tax schemes were employed there as well, because financial consulting is based in large part upon tax avoidance planning. Hence, we are dealing with a man who is used to skirting the edges of the tax law, and skirting the truth in so many other areas of his policy proclamations.

re: romney's tax return charitable contris: how much of his "charitable contributions" were to the Morman Church. Aren't all good Mormans required to tithe 10 percent, therefore covering what he claims is a 10 percent contribution to "charities."