Mitt Romney has promised throughout the campaign that he would eventually release his 2011 tax returns, in addition to the 2010 materials he made available earlier in the year. Apparently, today's the day.
At the surface, we learned this afternoon that Romney had an income of about $13.7 million last year -- not bad for a guy who hasn't had a day job at any point in the last six years -- and paid roughly $1.9 million in taxes, for an effective tax rate of 14.1 percent.
That means Romney, despite vast wealth and no job, pays a lower effective tax rate than most of the middle class. But in this case, there's more to the story.
Mitt and Ann Romney also donated about $4 million -- about 30 percent of their income -- to charity in 2011, though they only claimed a deduction of about $2.25 million from those donations, according to the campaign.
That means the Romneys voluntarily paid a higher tax rate than they were legally required. The full documents, which only cover the 2011 tax returns, will be posted online at 3 p.m. today.
This can get a little complicated, so let's be clear about the details. If Romney had simply filed normally, taking all of the deductions to which he's legally entitled, he would have paid an effective tax rate of about 9 percent.
But that would have proven politically problematic, so purely for show, he deliberately overpaid the IRS, in order to increase his tax rate, on purpose. Romney was in the rather extraordinary position of selecting his own preferred tax rate, and then working backwards from there.
In other words, Romney chose to under-deduct and overpay his tax bill because he's running for office for Pete's sake. That's not my argument; that's the Romney campaign's argument.
In January, Romney insisted, "I don't pay more than are legally due and frankly if I had paid more than are legally due I don't think I'd be qualified to become president."
By this standard, Romney has now effectively disqualified himself.
Asked about the conflict between his statement in January and his actions in September, the Romney campaign said he "was in the unique position of having made a commitment to the public that his tax rate would be above 13%."
So, Romney said he'd be unqualified to be president if he paid more than is legally due, and then he paid more than is legally due, because of a "unique position." (In this context, it appears that "unique position" is now synonymous with "behind in the polls.")
As Jamison Foser added, even after paying more than he had to, and effectively picking his own rate, Romney still enjoyed a lower rate than much of the middle class.
All of this, of course, only refers to 2011. What about the previous years and the returns Romney has but won't disclose? They'll remain hidden for reasons the Republican campaign won't explain, but as part of today's release, Romney sought to prove he never paid zero percent -- as Harry Reid claimed -- by releasing a letter from his tax advisers summarizing his tax bills from 1990 to 2009. According to the letter, Romney also paid at least 13.66 percent over the two-decade period.
But much of this is still based on a "trust me" premise -- we don't have any proof to substantiate the summary, and the letter offers no information about various tax shelters and overseas investments.
Leave a Comment:
While I realize that it is a "real" tax deduction, I would be interested in knowing how much of Romney's charitable deductions were to the Mormon Church. I am not against the Mormon church, but am against any religious exemptions. At his level, it might amount to quite a bit since I understand that tithing is expected of Mormon members.
Why doesn't anyone care to closely examine the OBAMAS' taxes??? They make a ton of money, and give very little to charity!! Seems almost Un-American....or, maybe, they just expect the Government (taxpayers) to do all the giving.
last year obama paid about 160k in tax and about 170k in charity. they gave a combined amount of about 40% away in tax and charity. The Romney;s gave a combined amount of about 45%. nominally it's not even close.
A. Because red herring arguments are fallacies, not valid points of contention
B. Because the issue here isn't what people paid on their taxes inherently. The issue is that Romney believes the system is set up unfairly against him so he wants to lower the rates that affect him. Obama, on the other hand, feels that the system is unfairly biased towards him and wants to raise his own taxes. You do understand the difference?
C. ....because the two made two different sets of income....how does this comment make any sense????
There you go again Mike and Captain - I swear you two are the same person!!
What a WHINE!!!!
First of all, Obama is probably like me! I give to various non-profits like Salvation Army and United Way but I don't claim that on my taxes. Seems to me people like Romney who "brag" about how much they give to "charity" don't really understand that it is to help others, NOT THEMSELVES!!
brag? taxes are private and the only reason for the release is law and complaining liberals.
you make my point. some people only give to charity if they can get a receipt so they can potentially write it off, so do not care. i have learned a few things since i was broke in life, they more money you make the more you need to keep track of it. i would imagine at Romney's level he needs to be very careful about what he does. what difference does it make if you have a receipt and don't claim it or if you claim it but don't deduct all of it?
all in all this is a non-issue. 4 more people have left the job maket than have found work.
1. Red herrings are still not legitimate arguments...this doesn't change from post to post
2. No your point was that Obama's charitable donation doesn't compare to that of Romney's so let's attack Obama on the basis of his less charitable donations even though that wasn't the argument being presented to you. You cannot retroactively argue a different point than the initial one claimed
3. Presidential candidates have a precedent, set in place by Mitt Romney's father, of releasing tax returns as running for office. His refusal to do so is a break from this precedent and he is doing so for reasons that do not make sense.
Please, somebody....let's talk about how much the Obamas give to charity.....how dare you attack the Romney's for giving so much, while the Obamas give so little! Who do you want to lead this country?
Obama! GObama!!
Nobody is attacking the Romney's for giving money to charities although some people do beg to differ over whether or not a church counts as a charity. You do understand the difference, yes?
Hi, "Grumpy"....you probably are, literally, a bastard. Anyway, who cares?....are you, yourself, an idiot, taking massive handouts from the government? If so, you sound like your mentor, Obama.
I can tell that not a single one of you DUMBASSES have looked at Obama's return. How ignorant can one be? Oh, sorry....I forgot that all of you are Democrats on a mission.
No prose for you. No, siree. It's all poetry.
You should be a speech writer.
Tom51: You don't seem to get it. Anyone that has investment income ALREADY paid taxes on their earned income BEFORE they invested what was left over after their income taxes!! So your plan is to more-than-double overall taxes on anyone that invests?
Take an ECON course and come back to us in a few months!
I generally agree with you but in this case you can be wrong. it's called "carried interest" basicly, I get you to invest your money in a fund I manage and I get a 2 and 20 for my service. 2% of the amount you invest and 20% of the profit. so, i'm using your money but paying cap gains rate.
But your right. People who watch this show clearly missed their econ courses. I guess they were too busy making trail mix and packing bongs for their next hunt for bear scat!
Oh, fellas. Stop embarrassing yourselves:
Warren Buffett Is Right, the Wall Street Journal Is Wrong | The Tax Justice Digest
...right, and then they made money off their investment which was new earned income. So next year they need to pay taxes on the new earned income. It's like if you go from a job paying 50,000$ a year to one that pays 100,000$ a year. The next year you have to pay the higher tax rate since you made more money. This isn't rocket science.
Mike and Captain (actually they are probably the same person) are passing around an old "saw" that the rich feed the stupid to gain some sympathy. Not now nor in the past has there ever been "double taxation".
If you earn $1M, you are taxed on the $1M you earned. If you then put that $1M you earned in the bank and earn 2%/per year, you are taxed ONLY on the $20K you earned each year, NOT THE ORIGINAL $1M. If you DON'T want to pay taxes on the $20K, then give it away and pay nothing!! You ARE allowed to do that!!
I totally LOVE it that they claim some "economic knowledge" because they are stupid enough to believe this crap. They don't even get it that by "believing" this crap they totally lose the respect of the people feeding it to them. When you are greedy and without morals and can get another person's property by "trickery", do you REALLY have any respect for that person? Would you REALLY DO anything for that person, other than laugh at him behind his back - kind of like those rich people did at that Romney dinner?
When I was in college, before you could claim "economic knowledge" you needed four years of study! These stupidos believe because they were gullible enough to BELIEVE something (no matter HOW STUPID), they now have "economic knowledge". No one needs to study anymore, all anyone needs to do is BELIEVE!
Is it no wonder that we now have the biggest disparity in incomes in this country since the robber baron days?
Belief =/= fact
Maybe we should just copy and paste that in response to right wing bloggers? It seems to generically fit virtually every posting, and comically so if I might add.
You must be someone who is experienced in and studies the area of X in order to be considered an expert. You must produce work for peer review in the area of X in order to be considered an expert. There are no "if's," "and's," or "but's," here. Otherwise you aren't an expert; you are either a pundit or a gullible lackey.
But what I enjoy the most is that we liberal hippie heathens are supposedly also simultaneously wealthy and elitist. Well as it just so happens this "elitist" went to a state school (a public one at that! egads! and on public loans!) for a bachelor's degree. And like most bachelor's degrees I was required to take general education courses among which were basic civics, philosophy, ethics, history, microeconomics, macroeconomics, and economics as they pertain to my particular industry. I even had the option of taking several business and management related courses as a minor (which I did).
But no, really, I'm a stooopid liberal who is also simultaneously elitist and smart (remember Rick Santorum says elitist smart people are the ones who don't vote Republican!). I also love the fact that until recently I wasn't the one bragging about how awesome I am; it's always the other guy who brags about his accomplishments and then calls everyone else a name afterwards. In this case I only bring up my accomplishments as a means of saying "you're not better than the rest of us, now get off your damn high horse." Speaking of which, I'll get off mine now ;-)
Thank you to those that had my back. To the rest, read some Abe Lincoln, he had some nice thoughts about earned income vs. investment income.
well, i actually have a degree in economics you morons! this country really has some problems with communist like msnbc running around.
this is why i discussed carried interest. well if you are so stupid to say that there is not double taxation in the us then you must be high on crack!
I make $1. I then pay federal income tax. so i have (lets say) $.70 remaining. then I buy 1 share of xyz tech stock for $.70. this 1 share provides $.30 cent in Earning before interest and taxes. Then we write off intest paid and account for corp tax. let say we have $.20 remaining that gets returned to shareholder in the form of dividends. Those dividends are then taxed again at the personal level. so i have $.17 in disposable income. so i go to my local gasoline collective and buy some fuel, where i pay a bunch of other taxes again.
my question to the world is. "what difference does it make how someone earns there income? if it be from the use of capital or labor shouldn't it all be taxed the same? end the discrimination America! choose to tax everyone at the "long term" capital gains tax of 15% or some earned income rate. The amount of wealth and jobs that would be created in the us if everyone paid the same rate of 15% would be amazing!
am i s still stupid? or is this still just some made up lie? please wake up see that you are being led down the path of communist ruin. please!
"It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a 'dismal science.' But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance. "
....if you have a degree in economics then you are well aware the flat tax theory is a debunked notion that has been proven to be impossible since the 1940's
The fact that you pay taxes for things not directly related to the income you earned is irrelevant. You can't say that because you then use your net income to purchase something that this therefore means the net income shouldn't be taxed.
If you start out with 1$ and you earn 30cents in profit then that profit needs to be subjected to a tax. You do not refute this in your argument which makes it mind boggling as to why you presented it in the first place. The argument here is that the 30 cents should be taxed at the same rate as your earned income and not at a different rate simply because of the nature of it's earning.
This is not double taxation and your own argument proves that it is not double taxation. I sincerely doubt you thought this through before posting.
what are you talking about? debunked what is that the hot political term of this elections year? this was debunked, that was debunked? i proved double taxation exists and instead of accepting the world as it is you choose to claim i can't say something. the fact is government governs by the conset and the will of the people. If, the people want to follow Karl marx off the cliff than that is their choice. And i know many economist that will not only do nothing to stop it but will welcome it. An economist is best at when he/she makes every attemp to be objective. No economist that cares about their fellow citizen will advocate increasing taxes at this time.
you see on the demand side of the macro equation C+I+G+(X-IN) when G grow then Demand should grow holding everything else constant. so reducing taxes is in fact back door government spending. i see no difference between Obama;s stimulus and tax cuts but for the fact that tax cuts give consumers choice and increase C as apposed to the same $ being subject to political favors.
let me know if i'm going to fast for you, and your briliant "debunked" socialist agenda!
we've had 4 years of growing G threw direct government spending and it hasn't worked. the reason for this is due to a reduction in C and I.
you see if double taxation didn't exists than the governments revenue would not increase like it does when GDP grows.
If you want socialism, then say that. don't try to convince others that somehow a progressive tax is not a step in that direction.
all of this has nothing to do with mitt Romney giving $ to charity and paying more in taxes than required. what Romney said about not being fit for the presidency is silly but should not sway anyone's decision.
what theory of flat tax? 1 tax rate is 1 tax rate? what needs or can be "debunked"? as far a possibility, you are correct. if there was a flate tax of 100% than yes it's not possible to pay off the national debt but it is certainly possible for congress to pass a flat tax.
I hope you found this enlightening. please respond if you would like to talk about the velocity of money, QE's effect on inflation and Obama's plan to inflate the debt away.
As I said on the other page your thought process is so convoluted. I don't even know where to respond. You advocate for something and then in the next post act like you don't know what you advocated for. You contradict yourself blatantly from post to post. Sigh. It's either that you can't communicate through the internet, you don't care what it is that you're saying so you're not paying attention to the statements you make, OR you just don't realize what you are saying.
For the record nothing in your rebuttal addresses the initial subject matter or argues against it or refutes it. Sigh again.
I can't argue with people who clearly have no idea what they are talking about. because you can't understand the facts does not mean an answer is convoluted. My suggestion to you and anyone who reads this is to buy a intro to macro book. read it cover to cover. apply what you learn to the current state of affairs, then make a selection for who you think will be the best person for the job of president.
Mike in Ga.
You must make a truck load of money and have to deal with capital gains every year. You see, this whole argument about taxes is for those who invest in brokerage accounts and trade on a regular basis. Most people save in the qualified plans like 401k's and IRA's and that money has no consequence on capital gains because it is taxed as ordinary income. The second largest share of most people's wealth is in the equity in their home. But that is no big deal because a married couple has a $500k exemption on capital gains when they sell their home. So the question is money at work vs. people at work and how it is taxed. I am sure you feel he is taking a risk by investing and therefore shouldn't pay taxes on money at work. Well I think his risk in infinitely smaller than the fire fighter going into a burning building. So if the fire fighter pays payroll taxes and federal income taxes and state and local income taxes probably totally 20-25% then money at work should pay 25% too.
But you wont see it that way.
THANK YOU!!!
Sure there is risk in investing in the stock market, but think of which situation is worse, the loss of earned income or investment income.
If your company quits you and you are without a job and have no earned income, think about the risk you took when you signed that home mortgage, car loan, college tuition, got married, or had another child.
Once I heard Bill O'Rielly say the reason dividends and capital gains are taxed less is because of the risk involved. I believe that's a statement intended for the ignorant.
"The blind trust is an age old ruse, if you will, which is to
say, you can always tell a blind trust what it can and can not do. You
give a blind trust rules"
the gop are too dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it -- that that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. (They vote on their own raises, healthcare, and pension plans, and we are left with the bill. ,Members of Congress sleeping in the office are thus playing on the edge to eek out even more compensation from the taxpayer. They convert use of a space -- that we have paid for -- intended for work into living space as they avoid rent)
I pay all the taxes that are legally required and not a dollar more. I don't think you want someone as the candidate for president who pays more taxes than he owes.
Do you have something to hide?
in a Romney world. Life is taxless. It's fantastic. Silver tip your hair, tax shelters everywhere, Outsource nation, Bain is his creation.He's a boss, millionaire, with accounts everywhere Won't disclose, all the dough, that he's banking You can't see, Ann agrees, we hate transparency If you knew, we'd be screwed, spanky-spanky. He is rich, you are poor, If he wins, you're uninsured
I would like to know how much of Mitt's personal income is invested directly in "job creation" rather than more oblique investments like real estate, short term-stock/bond trading, etc. So much of the discussion has been about how the wealthy will invest in America if they are taxed less. Let's see if their leader walks the talk, then look at how many of them follow.
I've heard 2 different pundits say that if Romney loses, he can file an amended tax return to get the refund he's due for those charitable contributions he didn't claim. Actually, he can do that even if he wins.
There's a reason he literally cannot release his tax returns, and a reason that the 2011 return information was just released.
For the current one, I'd say he got an extension on his filing, which allowed him to file in August, and would just recently have been accepted by the IRS. This was obviously a "show" return, designed from the beginning to make him look like a good taxpayer.
But...It also does not represent his prior returns, some of which probably show that he participated in the 2009 tax Amnesty program set up by the IRS to encourage those hiding income in foreign accounts(which Mitt has) to turn themselves in, effectively plead "no contest" to tax fraud charges, and create amended returns for a number of years.
The reason this is a logical and probable assessment is that when he was head of Marriott Hotel's tax audit committee, he approved participation in scams such as the "Son of Boss" scheme, and the Hotel Chain(after Mitt had conveniently left his post) had to pay back taxes and penalties of over $220 million dollars. If he was confident enough to recommend that plan to Marriott, he would be confident enough to use it himself.
When UBS and other banks in Switzerland turned over 52,000 names of Americans with accounts in Switzerland as a result of an IRS lawsuit, he may have been forced to 'fess up and pay the price, which would then be reflected on his amended returns, probably for several years. Why no significant media reporter has asked about this is becoming a disgrace to the reporting profession, present company excepted, as I'm sure Rachel, or anyone appearing on the show would ask this question.
Obviously, he has accepted the attacks of democrats, the media, many Republican's, and refused to honor his father's example because to do so would be worse than the heat he is taking for his lame refusals. He avoided major fines and the threat of Jail and public hearings and filings by participating in the Amnesty program, but if he made them public now, he would be branded as the tax cheat he is. If this is not true, he can refute the charge easily enough by releasing his FULL, not partial returns for the last 10 years. Interestingly enough, his earlier released returns were partial, and the parts left out were regarding his foreign accounts.
There is really only one reason to base corporations and scores of accounts in the Cayman Islands and Switzerland, and that is to avoid paying owed US taxes. It may be common to do so among the rich and powerful, but it is not something you can do and be elected President of the United States!
Breaking news: Upon the release of his 2011 tax returns and listing his profession as "executive", scientist around the world have been attempting to get interviews with Romney. When asked what all the stir was about, a leading scientist in space travel said" well you know Romney retroactivally retired from bain, but now we see he is still an executive, which conclusively proves our therories on time travel". Yes folks Romney is the first time traveling presidential canidate in modern times, hey in any times.
12 REASONS TO VOTE DEMOCRAT IN 2012
When your family or friends cannot explain why they voted Democrat, give them this list. Then they can then pick a reason from this "TOP 12".
1. I voted Democrat because I love the fact that I can now marry whatever I want. I've decided to marry my German Shepherd.
...
2. I voted Democrat because I believe oil companies' profits of 4% on a gallon of gas are obscene, b...
ut the government taxing the same gallon of gas at 15% isn't.
3. I voted Democrat because I believe the government will do a better job of spending the money I earn than I would.
4. I voted Democrat because Freedom of Speech is fine as long as nobody is offended by it.
5. I voted Democrat because I'm way too irresponsible to own a gun, and I know that my local police are all I need to protect me from murderers and thieves.
6. I voted Democrat because I believe that people who can't tell us if it will rain on Friday can tell us that the polar ice caps will melt away in ten years if I don't start driving a Prius.
7. I voted Democrat because I'm not concerned about millions of babies being aborted so long as we keep all death row inmates alive.
8. I voted Democrat because I think illegal aliens have a right to free health care, education, and Social Security benefits, and we should take away the social security from those who paid into it.
9. I voted Democrat because I believe that businesses should not be allowed to make profits for themselves. They need to break even and give the rest away to the government for redistribution as the Democrats see fit.
10. I voted Democrat because I believe liberal judges need to rewrite the Constitution every few days to suit some fringe kooks who would never get their agendas past the voters.
11. I voted Democrat because I think that it's better to pay billions to people who hate us for their oil, but not drill our own because it might upset some endangered beetle, gopher or fish.
12. I voted Democrat because my head is so firmly planted up my ---, it's unlikely that I'll ever have another point of view.
I voted Republican because I lack the originality to come up with anything besides regurgitating information spoon fed to me by chain e-mails and conspiracy websites on how FDR was really killed by Jesus' half brother Ho-say
So articulate... How's this for originality? 4 years ago, I too was brainwashed by a man and his promises to "save America", "unite us all", "lower our nation's debt", and "do it all in 4 years or don't re-elect me". Now I'm hearing "I need more time". Even to the point of using a man (Clinton) to seal the deal. In regards to Bill, oh how we have forgotten the disrespect this man too brought upon our Presidential (oval) office. Nevertheless, his convention speech was interesting, especially the part when he was going on and on about Obama's successes and Romney's failures. There was one job count I missed hearing him talk of: Clinton 1- Romney 0. That was pretty original wouldn't you have to admit? All stuff we can't change, just remember when necessary! Here's some additions in my lack of originality defense: I am just one very concerned with this America we live in. I fear of the impact that the "regurgitating information spoon fed to me" by the media such as; Maddow, Matthews, especially O'Donnell, will be allowed to falsely distort the reality of our nation's situation and someone that could possibly improve it. Enough said for now, but a pinch for the road.. I am registered as a Democrat, not as an fool!
I don't think articulate means what you think it means. When you say that a person is articulate you are saying that the person explains things clearly, that the person enunciates himself/herself in a clear manner, and that the person uses language that is easy to follow by people unfamiliar with the subject matter. When you say inarticulate (as you did here) you are implying that the person is hard to understand, does not enunciate his/her words, and speaks in a manner that is not easy to follow. Unless there was something in my response that made it impossible for you to understand what I said my post would be "articulate." What you probably meant to say was that you did not find my comment helpful, but since your comment was irrelevant blathering why should I be held to a different standard? Mirroring is fun.
So you're registered as a Democrat even though you believe all the things you regurgitated from your chain e-mail?
Please tell me what did Maddow distort? You make the claim that she's lying, yet I don't see you proving the claim. Very, very interesting.
Cartoon - your comments not only tend to be very articulate, but fact-based, informative, accurate and often entertaining as well! I'm sure I'm not the only one who'd love to see you write some "articles" for the vine...
Get Enraged and Engaged:
Mooch the Vote 2010
;-)
@ cartooneynews:
Since you have so challenged me to a duel of wits regarding my comments, let's go.
First; my original post made some very strong and factual points, but yet you failed to address any of them. In using a word from your spill that most people would never use unless inebriated, you chose to "blather" on like a child about FDR with hopes of impressing others on this forum. Perhaps you should adopt a pet to calm the emotions and ease your low self-esteem issues.
Second; after my first reply to your attack at me, you chose to fire up your 4 cylinders and attempted to scold me again. Although it was a valiant effort, you left me feeling as if I was back in grade school being lectured in the subject of English by a substitue Drama teacher.
Third; since you also feel it necessary to gig me regarding my original post, the info did not originate thru a "chain e-mail" but, maybe it should become one now. Thanks for the suggestion.
Finally; regarding your curiously interesting concern about Ms. Maddow, pay close attention now.. It is humanly impossible to watch her program and not become sickened by her neverending attacks against Republicans (or anyone else that won't agree with her views).
I'm somewhat curious now...Is this Rachel???
Oh well, whatever your identity is, I guess it's your turn now: Ready! Set! Go!
Simple,
Not that I want to get between you and Cartoon - Cartoon can certainly handle you on his/her own, but you stated:
Huh? I read and reread your posts, and I have yet to see a "factual point" - there's a lot of FoxNews "anecdotes" but no "facts". Do you know what a fact is???
Definition of fact from dictionary.com:
@ big brother (or sister)
Thanks for not getting between me and cartoon...
Also appreciated is the copy and paste lesson in Dictionary Use 101. Webster, etc. would be proud of your efforts.
Guess I hit a nerve and caused an artery to swell with cartoon.
By the way, thanks for the confirmation of her identity.
Wow! Is this all I can get from the close-minded leftist educators? I'm becoming bored.
oncearepublican, if you're gonna interpose into another's conversation, please make it interesting or just be quiet.
Simple:
ROTFLMAO!
Shoo troll!!
....you copy and pasted a chain letter to the blog spot trying to be humorous so I responded being humorous and now you're attempting to "fact check" (doesn't mean what you think it means, but I digress) the humor by saying that since I brought up FDR it must be because I have low self-esteem. Even on teh funny scales this is just weak. For the record FDR wasn't assassinated...surprised you didn't "fact check" that. By your own logic by not refuting any of the facts I claimed in my post you are admitting they are factually correct. The cognitive dissonance is strong in this one...
opie
Shoo Troll...Wow! Admirable!!
ROTFLMAO...Impressive use of your three brain cells!
Perhaps you too should get a pet too, or is that where I upset you? Reason #1? Na, I'm convinced it's #12
ShifferBrains!!!
cartooney
True about FDR... Wasn't assassinated, but I didn't claim it. You used the logic example.
Fact is: It's still up in the air. Cancer? Polio?? Brain hemmorage??? none of the above... must have been lightning...? Whatever it actually was, he didn't want those that were voting for his last term to know about. Deception about a President, Imagine that. Sounds like another dem in the running!
You use so many words, but, yet say nothing!
To my testy post challengers:
Think I'll take an exlax now, let it work, and then flush your memories down the john.
Shoo troll!
.......so now you're disputing that FDR suffered and died from polio....
Good lord
Better trolls please
Highly "unlikely", but... that there was pretty funny though.
@Shooter242 You are trying to deflect from the real issue here just like Romney would do! He taught you well, I can see that, and you swallow all that he says! Say, I have a bridge I would like to sell you! The issues here is a tax cheat - and that is what Romney did - it may not be illegal, but, being ethically and morally bankrupt, he thinks this will appease his detractors! NOT! What is he hiding? Must be a lot worse than this, and, he is not qualified to be president! He cooks his own books and the voters will cook his goose!
Actually, Maggie - it IS illegal, potentially prosecutable as a felony. The available evidence suggests that Willard may have taken advantage of the IRS tax "amnesty" program in 2009, if only because the documentation that would show that is part of what he conspicuously refuses to divulge to the public (even for the recent returns he supposedly has "released").
For example, here are some items you may find of interest:
Willard's missing FBAR (must read, especially for anyone not already familiar with this item)
What an FBAR is
IRS FAQ page re FBAR
I found this next one very interesting - FBAR Penalties Just Got Even Worse
Willard's mising 990T
990-T related to Willard's $100 million IRA
Is a 990-T required to be disclosed?
IRS notes re 990-T
Remember in May, when Ann Rawmoney got some public flac for wearing an expensive designer t-shirt? The widely reported cost of which was $990? In other words, a "990-T"? I swear, it's like they're rubbing our faces in it!
Willard makes me sick!
Get Enraged and Engaged:
Mooch the Vote 2010
;-)
One silly correction - I belatedly realized a few minutes ago that I've been propagating a copy/paste typo in my sig line all danged day. Eyeroll. Spell check doesn't catch everything, unfortunately.
Get Enraged and Engaged:
Mooch the Vote - 2012
;-)
Hey Rachel and staff, have you seen this yet?
Final 2011 return:
Adjusted gross income: $13,696,961
Preliminary 2011 return (released in January):
Adjusted gross income: $20,901,075
From http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/rick-newman/2012/09/21/the-mysteries-in-mitt-romneys-tax-return
Some of you are miss the point that Rachel Maddow made:
Tricky Mitt UNDER PAID his taxes. Donated about $4 million to charity in 2011, but claimed only $2.25 million as a deduction.That means the Romneys voluntarily paid a higher tax rate than they were legally required.
In January, Tricky Mitt insisted, "I don't pay more than are legally due and frankly if I had paid more than are legally due I don't think I'd be qualified to become president."
So, Tricky Mitt said he'd be unqualified to be president if he paid more than is legally due, and then he paid more than is legally due, because of a "unique position."
Why did Tricky Mitt UNDER PAY his taxes?
1. Tricky Mitt claimed he'd always paid only what was due, and not a dollar more and that his tax rate was no less than 13%.So with this statement on the RECORD, he was able to manipulate his tax rate by only claiming a portion of his donations to charity; 2.25 out of 4.
*If Tricky Mitt would have claimed the total $4 million in deductions, he would have an effective tax rate of ***8%***, not the 13% he'd previously claimed he paid. Do the Math!
2. Tricky Mitt has 3 yrs to amend this 2011 tax return. If you believe that his lawyer will not file an amended tax return the day after the election in order to collect the extra $225,000 and use the $1.75 million in deductions,I have a bridge in Tacoma to sell U!
Tricky Mitt lives up to his pseudonym; he will bend the facts, mislead the masses, and he is in fact a LAIR! Just like his VP choice Lyin' Ryan!
Vote in Nov!
***Tricky Mitt Show US Your Papers!******¡Muéstrenoslos!***Lyin' Ryan Had to Show U 10 Yrs of His Returns!
Apparently the Romney campaign thinks us ordinary citizens are stupid enough not to call him on this. They are wrong.
r u going to call Obama on his promise to cut the debt in half be the end of his first tem too?
Saying he overpaid is an insult. He paid half what everbody else does and makes three hundred percent more. Let's see the other nine years. No cliff notes.
I will be very disappointed if Romney's quote about overpaying taxes disqualifying himself to be president doesn't come up as a debate question, particularly since he deliberately overpaid in 2011.
Just finished watching the show online, and I have to say, this is a little disingenuous. I don't doubt what was said, but the tone with which Mr. Romney said it implied if he had unknowingly paid more in taxes. This would obviously make him incompetent in matters of tax, and by extension, the economy.
I support Obama, but fair is fair.
Is it legal to intentionally manipulate and misrepresent information provided on a tax return? Regardless of whether the false information lessens or increases the taxpayer's liability to the government, purposefully misstating a charitible deduction has to violate some tax law, no? Shouldn't Mitt's 2011 return be audited and compared to actual receipts? Maybe all his returns for the last 10 yrs should be audited!
Memo to inane politician -- weeing in my boot and telling me it's raining will not get you my vote.
When does the curtain get pulled aside and we get to see the real Mitt Romney? Perhaps the "47,000 truth speech" is as close to seeing Mitt's core as we will ever come.
I would also think that Republicans who think they are still the party of Eisenhower, Dirkson, even Reagan should be very worried. You gotta have more than hatred and prejudice in your quiver to think you will win elections -- the old tactics simply aren't working this year.
Everyone has a right o take full advantage of the tax laws that are available to them - Romney has done just that and more. He used those laws to ensure that his tax liability for 2011 is above the 13% average that he previously quoted. Whoever prepared his returns needs a bonus! Creative math that allows him to be 'truthful' yet still gives him the chance to get that money when he loses the election. Brilliant.
Here is my problem with the tax returns: Romney has effectively been running for office for the last 6/7 years depending upon your source. He lost the primary to McCain in the last go round so he should have already had the returns for that year and the previous year available for review. Where are those returns? When he lost the primary and decided that he would try again in 2012 did he not think that he would need to provide tax returns for all those interim years? AND if he did not think that far in advance, do we really want a president that cannot implement an action plan designed to at the very least give the 'appearance' of openness?
Romney needs to be sent packing back to his cushy lifestyle. He is out of touch with the American public and he lacks the ability to plan strategically. Case in point: his tax returns. In his own words he cannot speak 'elegantly' and his less than stellar skill set will land the US in hot water with our international allies. Send this man packing!