Romney's Taxes
 

14.1 % effective rate and an astonishing $4 million on $13.7 million in income given to CHARITY! That's 29% of total income given to charity. :tro:

Surely a far cry from the President's 4 tenths of one percent given when he thought no one was looking. Con-man to the bone.

And then we look at Biden.

Sure is fun to stand tall and dole out other people's money though...

Reminds me, I should dig up some old underwear to donate and write off.

What's the news here? Didn't he release his 11 Return sometime back?

During an interview with Radio Iowa last night, Ann Romney had a message for the growing ranks of Republicans who have criticized her husband in recent days.


"Stop it. This is hard. You want to try it? Get in the ring," she said. "This is hard and, you know, it’s an important thing that we’re doing right now and it’s an important election and it is time for all Americans to realize how significant this election is and how lucky we are to have someone with Mitt’s qualifications and experience and know-how to be able to have the opportunity to run this country."

From Price-Waterhouse

"In 2011, the Romney's adjusted their charitable giving to be consistent with statements Mr. Romney has made in the past regarding his maximum tax rate".

That's right - the Romney's gave less to charity, so their tax rate wouldn't be outrageously lower than it already is.

Dell - are you aware that the amount of charitable giving by the Romney's (generous, yes) has absolutely zero, nothing, nada to do with why candidates releasing taxes is important, and particularly what is desirable to see in Romney's income tax returns as a candidate for president?

Tweets

Only a true liberal sheep like Riot could spin someone giving $4 million to charity as something bad. Riot that is why you have no credibility as you instinctively go to your liberal websites so that you could cut and paste the spin from some liberal nutjob.

:tro::tro::tro:

:D


yeah, i almost snorted coffee (with chocolate creamer, YUM!) thru my nose when i read that.

lol

probably almost as hard as deciding what nanny to hire to take care of your kid.

Zig to be fair she was talking about the process of running for President.

Just image yourself running for President and the sh*t in your past the media would dig up and twist.

No thanks,

Vote for geeker2 The Degenerate Gambler.

Not sure that would sweep me into the oval office :D

yes, i know. which is why i'd never run. but he's not new to the process, and knows what running entails. and i doubt many feel much sympathy. i don't. he chose to run and put himself in the position he's in.

yeah, it's hard being in their shoes. :rolleyes: poor things, having to work sooo hard. :D talking to folks, flying to different cities, explaining things. way harder than having a job and having to do everything on your own, with no hired help.

True - does seem like you get to play a lot of rounds of golf hummmmm maybe I will run.

I didn't say that, fool. I said the opposite. In fact, I used the word "generous" to describe their charitable deductions.

If you can't read, stop trying to comment.

The Romney's charitable deductions are not the issue here.

She and the President believe government can do a far better job than charity except planned parenthood, which should no longer be needed once Obamacare kicks in and everyone is insured. Another savings from Obamacare. As well as all the community/county hospitals and free clinics that will no longer be needed.

So what is Romney's net worth?

If I had his money I'm pretty sure i would donate that much too. What the hell else would I do with it...take it with me?

How rich is rich enough?

Planned Parenthood takes people with insurance. Why would a health care provider - one of the top health care providers for women's health in the country - close because more people have insurance and are insured? That's looney.

And why do you repeatedly attack Planned Parenthood? That's like attacking the Mayo Clinic.

No. I don't. Neither did I complain about Romney's charitable deductions. That's false. In fact, I praised them.

Black. White. Superficial. Shallow. Opinion unsullied by fact or reality. That's clearly the extent of some folks understanding of the world and politics. Very sad.

i saw a figure yesterday of 250 million.

and he tinkered with his deductions so as to make sure he stayed at 13%, when in fact his percentage should have been lower. odd...he's right around the same total tax as someone making about 25k a year. amazing.

and yes, i know that investments are taxed at 15%, in order to 'encourage investment'. (which means he's part of the 47%, who get breaks from the fed :D )
but, i think they need to re-write the rates. give them 15% on money invested here, in things that help create jobs here. as soon as it goes to a foreign investment, the rate should be higher.

and i agree, donations are a good thing.

don't forget lots of travel, and a private chef at your mansion-rent free.

but there are plenty of negatives as well....i'm not in the least tempted. and that's the problem-many who could do good don't want the hassle.

thought i'd paste that in this thread, since it's about romney's taxes.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...ing_them_.html


“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. I'd think people would want me to follow the law and pay only what the tax code requires.”

By his own standard, then, he is not qualified to become president. But as much as it reveals the absurdities of Mitt Romney, his voluntary overpayment underscores the absurdities of the current tax system. Romney owes so little because of the tax code’s favoritism toward the rich. Whereas the top rate on salary, wages, and tips is 35 percent, the top rate on interest, dividends, and long-term capital gains is only 15 percent. This is economically inefficient, because it encourages businesses and individuals to structure their affairs to take advantage of the differential. It is also instinctively unfair, because it privileges a hedge-fund manager’s carried interest over a factory worker’s wages.

I read it correctly, you repeated one of the Democrats spins that Romney purposely gave less to charity to keep his tax rate above 13%.

Is that why the Clintons took used underwear (Willy's) as a deduction and the Gore's reason for donating less than 1% like Obama and Biden?

Support for America's waste! Fukk charity!

I'm hoping one of the smarter members here can explain something to me about Romney's taxes.

How is Romney going to respond when the democrats bring up the fact that Romney in fact paid a lower effective tax rate than Obama last year, despite earning so much more? Isn't that what Obama's point about taxes has been all along?

How is he going to explain not turning over the returns but rather a carefully worded Auditors report citing averages. What is he hiding in the details?

I'm sure thepaindispenser will straighten it all out for us.

i was talking to someone at the gym earlier, and mentioned that something was wrong in having romney have to leave off some of his deductions in order to pay around 13-14%, and ryan paid an effective rate of 20%. a guy walking by said 'yeah, but how much money did romney pay?' then he said there should be a flat tax. i asked how those two comments could be reconciled with each other, as the man is obviously at odds with himself. if he thinks there should be a set percentage for everyone, how can he than defend a lower rate for a richer man? yeah...he couldn't.
there is NO earthly reason why romney should be paying that effective rate. it's absolutely ridiculous, indefensible, obscene and unconscionable that a man worth a quarter of a billion dollars should be paying a lower effective rate than most of us do.
as i said before, i get that we want to get people to invest...but in this case (and probably in many others), it seems romney in fact is part of the 47% that is taking the govt for a ride.

many have said for years the tax code needs reworking-but knowing who pulls the strings, what are the odds of that happening?

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slate..._returns_.html


note where it talks about what tax rate he'd have paid had he taken the full deduction on charitable donations, rather than what he claimed in order to remain around 13%.....and where it would put him in relation to the 47% that it won't be 'his job to worry about'.

So, what would his rate been if he just "gave at the office" like Uncle Joe and let the Feds take care of the redistribution?

The guy gave millions to charity that lowered his Federal Tax bill. Should we do away with deductions for charitable contributions?

If Romney pays too little as an effective rate, the only real discussion on this topic should be how capital gains, dividends and interest should be taxed and what are the implication are of jacking those rates to a high level for those who invest the most.

Yes. Close corporate loopeholes, consider thoughtful tax reform, but the implications of somehow sticking it to those that are "rich enough" is not so simple... And even if you do, it's no budget balancing solution.

i don't recall saying anything negative about his charitable contributions. matter of fact, i said either a bit further back, or in another thread, that those are a good thing.
however, in mentioning his effective tax rate is lower than most-exactly how does suggesting a change mean i want to 'stick it to him'? rather, i would suggest that his rate should probably be higher than most of us, not lower-that right now, we are the ones getting stuck. he's worth 250 million, i'm worth a fraction of that. so why is my rate higher? how does that make sense? and yes, having the highest income folks paying a higher effective rate than the rest of us would absolutely have an effect on the budget. how could it not?
he paid about half his running mates effective rate, with ryan also having a fraction of romneys worth. why?


what would his effective rate have been? his income is taxed at 15%, because it's investment income instead of employment income. in other words, the govt is in effect allowing him tax breaks. you know, like the 47% he was attacking as being moochers.

serious reform is needed. but it won't happen. and why is romney taxed at 15% regardless of where he invests? money leaving the country gives him the same rate as money that stays in country. why? also, it seems we give them breaks so as to encourage these investments-but exactly where is the return for that? we don't have the job growth that is supposed to go with that. perhaps we need to study what we'd done in the past that did generate job growth, and get back to that system? wouldn't that make sense?

Sorry point about contributions not directed at you personally. Point is, that impact should be removed when talking about effective rate.

I'm not so sure you can consider how dividends and cap gains are treated purely as a "tax break". What's the net impact of raising capital gains taxes to 35%?. Is it an overall positive for the economy? I seriously doubt it.

I would love to see tax reform addressing loopholes, that limited minimum Federal tax liability to zero, addressed the AMT in a sensible manner, committed to keep the mortgage deduction to give housing some additional confidence for now. Logically phase out the bush tax expiration, paired with some very serious committments on spending. Of course, this will never happen.

sure, it's a tax break. income from investment is taxed at a lower rate than income from employment.
and yeah, we need real reform. but it won't happen, since the people benefitting from the current system are in charge. just like term limits for congress- why would congress institute that? i'd like to see it, but who would make it happen?

Seeing as how a large chunk of RMoney's charitable contributions is his church tithe, which he is REQUIRED by his church to give, I am not as astounded by his generosity as some. Especially because the Mormon church was the major funder of the amendment that deprived gay and lesbian couples of civil rights in California. RMoney's "charitable" contributions went towards taking the right to marry the person of their choice away from citizens of this nation. Not cool, dude.

Of course, any church that is going to get that involved in politics should lose its tax-exempt status, in my opinion.

how the roman catholic church still has tax exempt status, i don't know. and i think many churches ask for a tithe, the trick is getting it.

No,you didn't read it correctly. And that is not "Democratic" spin, the bolded part is a direct quote from Price-Waterhouse, Romney's accountant , in the tax release document.

Please - get a clue.