[The Final Dakar]

Some real interesting conspiracy theories being floated now since Reid's aide gave some hints about the source.

I'll give you a clue:

[andi*pandi]

The source is hot? Good with sharp objects? Has a weakness for princesses?

[sek929]

Huntsman

[The Final Dakar]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...c106_blog.html

The internet is alive with speculation that the secret source Harry Reid claims to have on Mitt Romney’s tax returns is Utah industrialist Jon Huntsman Sr. He is the founder of Hunstman Corporation and the father of the former GOP presidential candidate — and the speculation is based on the fact that his profile fits with much of what we publicly know about Reid’s presumed confidante.

“I feel very badly that Mitt won’t release his taxes and won’t be fair with the American people,” Huntsman told me. In a reference to Romney’s father, who pioneered the release of returns as a presidential candidate, Huntsman said: “I loved George. He always said, pay your taxes for at least 10 or 12 years.”

Edit: Whoops, I left this out.

But I just got off the phone with Huntsman, and he confirmed to me that he is not Reid’s source.

[OAW]

Ahhhh .... the plot thickens.

OAW

[The Final Dakar]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...-more-attacks/

"We have been very transparent to what’s legally required of us,” Ann Romney told NBC’s “Rock Center” in an interview scheduled to air Thursday evening. “There’s going to be no more tax releases given.”

Good god, why would you bring this up again?! It had just fallen off the news cycle.


Also: "We have been very transparent to what’s legally required of us"

Well la-dee-freakin'-da! If you hadn't been transparent, you couldn't have done what was legally required, duh. So congratu-****in'-lations. We're all very impressed at how you did what you had to do.

(Also, aren't we still due the 2011s? Or are they not legally required to release them?)

[hyteckit]

Not only did Mitt Romney retroactively retired from Bain; He retroactively file his taxes in a different state just so he can be eligible to be governor.

http://www.pensitoreview.com/2012/08/08/romney-hid-his-returns-in-2002-mass-governors-race-too/

One way to tell for sure would be to see which state, Massachusetts or Utah, Romney listed as his primary residence on his IRS forms. Romney and his adviser, Eric “Etch-A-Sketch” Fernhstrom vehemently denied that Romney had filed as a full-time resident of Utah. It was later revealed they were lying — Romney had amended his returns to change his claim of full-time residency in Utah to full-time residency in Massachusetts — retroactively.



Mitt Romney - The retroactive man. He can change the past.

[The Final Dakar]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1790411.html

The presumptive Republican nominee was taking questions in Greenville, S.C. with the design of defending his Medicare plan against attacks from Democrats. But the questions gradually turned elsewhere, with the final one going back to the issue that’s vexed Romney for more than a month.

From the pool report of the event:

I just have to say, given the challenges that America faces – 23 million people out of work, Iran about to become nuclear, one out of six Americans in poverty – the fascination with taxes I’ve paid I find to be very small-minded compared to the broad issues that we face. But I did go back and look at my taxes and over the past 10 years I never paid less than 13 percent. I think the most recent year is 13.6 or something like that. So I paid taxes every single year. Harry Reid’s charge is totally false. I’m sure waiting for Harry to put up who it was that told him what he says they told him. I don’t believe it for a minute, by the way. But every year I’ve paid at least 13 percent and if you add in addition the amount that goes to charity, why the number gets well above 20 percent.

I guess we'll have to take your word for it, eh?

BTW, Mitt, one of the broad issues we face (at the behest of your party) deals with taxes, revenue, and the deficit, and if it were to be demonstrated that those up top were evading the system effectively – effectively neutering the intent of our progressive tax system – I think it would be a valid topic.

[Chongo]

According to Turbo Tax, my effective tax rate for 2011 was 9.6% So I paid less that Mitt and Warren Buffet! (and I'm just a lowly worker in a microcontroler fab)

[The Final Dakar]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1796291.html

With the spotlight back on Mitt Romney's tax returns, Obama campaign manager Jim Messina reached out to the Romney campaign on Friday pledging a deal: If Romney releases five more years of tax returns, the Obama campaign will no longer criticize the presumptive GOP presidential nominee for his refusal to disclose more information.

But Democrats will probably continue to press on and perhaps look to seize on the selection of Paul Ryan as Romney's running mate. According to the Atlantic, Romney would have paid an effective tax rate of 0.82 percent in 2010 under Ryan's budget proposal, a point the Obama campaign will try to highlight as the race moves forward.

Obama campaign be trollin'


---

For fans of The Wire:
http://davidsimon.com/mitt-romney-pa...oud-to-say-so/

Can we stand back and pause a short minute to take in the spectacle of a man who wants to be President of The United States, who wants us to seriously regard him as a paragon of the American civic ideal, declaiming proudly and in public that he has paid his taxes at a third of the rate normally associated with gentlemen of his economic benefit.

Stunning.

Am I supposed to congratulate this man? Thank him for his good citizenship? Compliment him for being clever enough to arm himself with enough tax lawyers so that he could legally minimize his obligations?

Thirteen percent. The last time I paid taxes at that rate, I believe I might still have been in college. If not, it was my first couple years as a newspaper reporter. Since then, the paychecks have been just fine, thanks, and I don’t see any reason not to pay at the rate appropriate to my earnings, given that I’m writing the check to the same government that provided the economic environment that allowed for such incomes.

I can’t get over the absurdity of this moment, honestly: Hey, I never paid less than thirteen percent. I swear. And no, you can’t examine my tax returns in any more detail. But I promise you all, my fellow American citizens, I never once slipped to single digits. I’m just not that kind of guy.

God.

This republic is just about over, isn’t it?

He responds quite a bit in the comments, too.

[ebuddy]

Dearest Romney:

Shut him down now. If you had been paying attention, you could've gotten out in front of the "let's make a deal" game. Now you have to defend yourself against Obama's deal for a couple of news cycles and come out swinging. Forget 5 years of tax returns; offer to release 10 years of them in exchange for lifting EP on Fast and Furious.

String fiber from your campaign headquarters to Issa's office and make it so. Spend your campaign loot. If you have so much as one dollar left over on election day, I swear to all that is good and green on this earth I'll write in Touré.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

For fans of The Wire:
http://davidsimon.com/mitt-romney-pa...oud-to-say-so/
He responds quite a bit in the comments, too.

Like I keep saying, it's a fncking moral outrage that the idle rich like Romney, who hasn't had a job in years, pays half the tax rate of the working rich. Income is income. There is no valid reason to tax capital gains income differently than salaried income.

If I made $1 million dollars a year as a heart surgeon, I'd be pissed that I was paying twice the taxes of someone who was earning the same $1 million a year in capital gains but did no work at all.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

offer to release 10 years of them in exchange for lifting EP on Fast and Furious.

Do you really think Executive-level decisions should be made on the basis of election jockeying? Or perhaps they should be made with the public interest as the motivating factor?

[subego]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Do you really think Executive-level decisions should be made on the basis of election jockeying? Or perhaps they should be made with the public interest as the motivating factor?

That's his point. He's claiming (not unreasonably) Obama is invoking EP on Fast and Furious as political cover.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Like I keep saying, it's a fncking moral outrage that the idle rich like Romney, who hasn't had a job in years, pays half the tax rate of the working rich. Income is income. There is no valid reason to tax capital gains income differently than salaried income.
If I made $1 million dollars a year as a heart surgeon, I'd be pissed that I was paying twice the taxes of someone who was earning the same $1 million a year in capital gains but did no work at all.

EXACTLY!

A dollar earned is a dollar earned is a dollar earned. Everybody knows why Romney refuses to release more taxes. It's not because he's rich and successful. We all already know that. It's because those returns will show that a man that's worth $250M or so ROUTINELY pays an EFFECTIVE TAX RATE that is far below the average American. And of course, there is something that is just FUNDAMENTALLY UNFAIR about that. So Romney doesn't want to expose that any further than he already has. I mean let's keep it real here. How could he release more returns that will undoubtedly drive the nail in deeper on this front ... and then turn around and advocate for a tax plan that eliminates all taxation on capital gains and dividends? A tax plan that will essentially eliminate the tax burden on guys like Romney altogether? There are those who have allowed their Obama Derangement Syndrome (ODS) to get so bad that they turn a blind eye to the logical conclusion of what this man is telling you. If you think it's a good idea to eliminate all taxation on those who make money off of money as opposed to labor then by all means vote for Romney. Because that's EXACTLY what his economic policy is all about. And don't be mad when they don't live up to this "job creators" fairy tale that you've bought into because Fox News keeps repeating that BS over and over again. Guys like Romney who make millions in hedge funds investing overseas don't create jobs IN AMERICA. So go ahead and eliminate their tax obligations entirely because you are so caught up in ideology that you don't have sense enough to pay attention to the facts on the ground.

OAW

[Chongo]

Enact the Fair Tax and that won't be a problem anymore.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OAW 

EXACTLY!
A dollar earned is a dollar earned is a dollar earned. Everybody knows why Romney refuses to release more taxes. It's not because he's rich and successful. We all already know that. It's because those returns will show that a man that's worth $250M or so ROUTINELY pays an EFFECTIVE TAX RATE that is far below the average American. And of course, there is something that is just FUNDAMENTALLY UNFAIR about that.

Why is that fundamentally unfair? Anyone who buys something and sells it for a profit has a taxable, capital gain OAW. The capital gains tax rate is payable on a progressive scale based on income with those at the lower percentile income paying 0% in capital gains and those at the top paying 15%. Everyone has the opportunity of realizing a capital gain. The ones at the top also invest a great deal on domestic businesses BTW, something our economy desperately needs right now with everyone holding back their dollars. Everyone knows you're going to need way more than an additional 15% on rich people to pay the debt. It's a ruse. So unless you're suggesting we just print or borrow more dollars for your grandkids to pay back because of course that's much more FUNDAMENTALLY FAIR, I don't really see how you can make the argument you're making. Your progressive tax and stimulus panacea isn't working and making the tax code slightly more progressive so you can pander to your classist base certainly isn't going to cut it. Time to try something new, starting with the POTUS.

So Romney doesn't want to expose that any further than he already has. I mean let's keep it real here.

Make no mistake my friend, that's exactly what I'm doing here -- keeping it real. You see, the real problem is an Administration that unilaterally determines which laws of the land it will uphold and which ones it won't in spite of an oath made to the American public. Those keeping it real would notice that one is sheltering their own money overseas and the other is sheltering your tax dollar overseas. Keeping it real would mean acknowledging that Obama's cabinet appointments and two economic/business panels are riddled with tax cheats, tax shelterers, dodgers, job-cutters, and outsourcers. Keeping it real would require one to admit that the only purpose of this financial voyeurism is to divert from the well-documented failures of our current Administration.

In other words, you're using a fire cracker to distract from the oncoming locomotive full of explosives.

How could he release more returns that will undoubtedly drive the nail in deeper on this front ... and then turn around and advocate for a tax plan that eliminates all taxation on capital gains and dividends? A tax plan that will essentially eliminate the tax burden on guys like Romney altogether?

It would eliminate a tax burden on a great many. Again, this is a rate that is repeatedly tweaked for its potential stimulus. We need stimulus. Some are arguing to print or borrow more for government stimulus, others are advocating we free up the dollars already out there.

There are those who have allowed their Obama Derangement Syndrome (ODS) to get so bad that they turn a blind eye to the logical conclusion of what this man is telling you. If you think it's a good idea to eliminate all taxation on those who make money off of money as opposed to labor then by all means vote for Romney. Because that's EXACTLY what his economic policy is all about. And don't be mad when they don't live up to this "job creators" fairy tale that you've bought into because Fox News keeps repeating that BS over and over again.

First of all, logic follows that the more contentious a figure's policies and hostile the rhetoric -- the more engaged that figure's detractors will be. This is not derangement, it's human nature. There is absolutely nothing unique about the degree of opposition to this leader that is not due in equal measure to the contentious policies and actions of his Administration.

Guys like Romney who make millions in hedge funds investing overseas don't create jobs IN AMERICA.

With all due respect my friend, this is far too simpleton for you and the sum of evidence just does not support your theory. First of all, if your overseas investment does swimmingly well, you'd have to conclude that zero of those dollars are spent in the US which of course would be a very dubious claim. You're also suggesting that Romney has not invested in US companies or created jobs IN AMERICA. I'm sorry man, this is all heart, no head. Besides, if we didn't need these fat-cats and their companies to help thrust our agenda-du jour, we wouldn't be pitting losers against winners to begin with. A child and four cats are standing over a sandbox with cat feces in it; you're going to blame the child?

So go ahead and eliminate their tax obligations entirely because you are so caught up in ideology that you don't have sense enough to pay attention to the facts on the ground.
OAW

I don't know OAW, you seem just tainted enough that I'm not sure you're necessarily qualified to make this statement. I think you're coping with conflicting facts in much the same way any ideologically-rigid person would and projecting that problem onto others.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

That's his point. He's claiming (not unreasonably) Obama is invoking EP on Fast and Furious as political cover.

Has this been challenged in the courts yet?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Dearest Romney:
Shut him down now. If you had been paying attention, you could've gotten out in front of the "let's make a deal" game. Now you have to defend yourself against Obama's deal for a couple of news cycles and come out swinging. Forget 5 years of tax returns; offer to release 10 years of them in exchange for lifting EP on Fast and Furious.

I've said it a million times and still not have heard justification, but that's apples-to-oranges. Doing what the american people generally expect in exchange for completely unrelated papers is not an equitable trade. Taxes for taxes is, and Romney is only interested in following the letter of the law in that regard, his father be damned.

I have no problem with Romney banging away on Obama for evoking EP (Bang on him for transparency! – even though he'd likely do the same), but tax return hostage taking in response to a possibly (unlikely?) valid exercise of executive powers sets a bad precedent as far as I'm concerned.

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Has this been challenged in the courts yet?

No idea, but I can almost guarantee you, without even looking, that any such proceeding would take at least a year.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I've said it a million times and still not have heard justification, but that's apples-to-oranges. Doing what the american people generally expect in exchange for completely unrelated papers is not an equitable trade. Taxes for taxes is, and Romney is only interested in following the letter of the law in that regard, his father be damned.
I have no problem with Romney banging away on Obama for evoking EP (Bang on him for transparency! – even though he'd likely do the same), but tax return hostage taking in response to a possibly (unlikely?) valid exercise of executive powers sets a bad precedent as far as I'm concerned.

I'm not sure Romney would do the same thing, particularly if the operation had a political motive which cannot be determined from tampered, blacked-out pages of "evidence".

I've already explained on several occasions how these two scenarios equate and I've yet to hear a good argument against it. Both illustrate integrity or lack there-of and both are a matter of potential impropriety. Romney has already released tax returns. The proper Federal oversight authority has access to all the documents they need to make that decision in one case, scant-few of the documents they need to make that decision in another case due specifically to obstruction of justice. The American people generally don't expect their President to uphold the law? Even in matters where we're operating inside neighboring countries without their consent and rendering hundreds of their citizens among our own dead?

The problem here is one of exposure and understanding. The majority of the American public understands cheating on taxes. I mean... hell, a lot of them are actively cheating on their own taxes because they don't have a lot of numbers to consider otherwise. Illegal gun-running operations and subsequent cover-ups from the executive branch down is generally a little more complex. This is an opportunity for the Republican ticket to bring this issue to light for the American public while leveraging the affair against a disingenuous administration trying desperately to hold onto power. The only thing different about these scenarios is how much more egregious one is than the other. So yes, it is comparing apples to oranges because they're both fruits. The difference is, one is rotten and needs to be thrown out.

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Has this been challenged in the courts yet?

The precedent here is "separation of powers" and these things typically don't get to the courts because political negotiations are usually made to avoid the hearing. We'll see how that piece pans out.

[subego]

It seems to me you've amply demonstrated the hypocrisy on display here, but I'm not sure that's the metric by which we should judge Romney's choice to play things close to the vest.

Isn't one's obligation towards transparency an individual matter and not one predicated on how others behave?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I'm not sure Romney would do the same thing, particularly if the operation had a political motive which cannot be determined from tampered, blacked-out pages of "evidence".

I'm sure, because if the claim is illegitimate and there is evidence of wrong doing, no president will go down willingly, and if the claim is legitimate, well then, the president is doing his job.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Romney has already released tax returns.

Romney has released one tax return. One. He's hoping the other will be done by the mid-October.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

The proper Federal oversight authority has access to all the documents they need to make that decision in one case, scant-few of the documents they need to make that decision in another case due specifically to obstruction of justice.

Releasing tax returns isn't about Federal oversight. It's about showing the people you have nothing to hide.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

The only thing different about these scenarios is how much more egregious one is than the other.

That's exactly why they aren't comparable. Personal integrity vs. incompetent or corrupt govt. operations are not equal. Not by a long shot.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

The difference is, one is rotten and needs to be thrown out.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

The precedent here is "separation of powers" and these things typically don't get to the courts because political negotiations are usually made to avoid the hearing. We'll see how that piece pans out.

I guess the republicans don't want it enough? I'm under the impression the big reveal is game changing.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I'm sure, because if the claim is illegitimate and there is evidence of wrong doing, no president will go down willingly, and if the claim is legitimate, well then, the president is doing his job.

Why is precedent important to you with regard to Presidential candidates' tax returns, but not in how the President invokes executive privilege? The White House claims it didn't know anything.

The tax returns don't matter and I maintain folks calling for them the loudest already know this. You already know that tax returns couldn't possibly have told you anything useful about a Presidential candidate. Certainly not in W's case right? Not in Clinton's case, Carter, Nixon, etc.

What you're missing here IMO, is that this is an election year and essentially a decision between one of two candidates. Both candidates have a potential indiscretion that reflects on their character. One has demonstrated a far more destructive capacity for political expediency than has the other. And it doesn't matter. That's how I know for certain Romney's tax returns don't matter, particularly to those most concerned. Conservatives like Kristol and a few other republicans bugging Romney about his returns don't believe the Obama administration can make too much of them. Their motives are different. While they support Romney regardless (because tax returns don't matter), they think it matters to the general public. It doesn't. I believe they're wrong. While most folks when asked will say that a candidate should submit their tax returns to the public, this issue just doesn't rate on the list of voting concerns.

Romney has released one tax return. One. He's hoping the other will be done by the mid-October.
Releasing tax returns isn't about Federal oversight. It's about showing the people you have nothing to hide.

Why should Romney assume this is important enough that he would give the Obama campaign fodder to try running the reputation of every corporation Romney ever associated with into the ground? Knowing what the Obama campaign can do with a man's deceased wife who passed away 7 years after Romney left a company the man used to work for; imagine what they can do with a Swiss bank account.

That's exactly why they aren't comparable. Personal integrity vs. incompetent or corrupt govt. operations are not equal. Not by a long shot.

Right. If one doesn't matter, the other sure as hell doesn't matter. In short, one voter must be more dissociative than the other on election day.

I guess the republicans don't want it enough? I'm under the impression the big reveal is game changing.

What makes you think they've given up? I just don't think Romney should stay away from it.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

It seems to me you've amply demonstrated the hypocrisy on display here, but I'm not sure that's the metric by which we should judge Romney's choice to play things close to the vest.
Isn't one's obligation towards transparency an individual matter and not one predicated on how others behave?

Absolutely. The problem is, we have a decision between two flawed candidates... as usual. Ignoring policy differences entirely, one IMO has breeched the public trust in a much more egregious manner than the other. In this, the merit of Romney's choice to play this close to the vest will be judged by whether or not he won the election.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Why is precedent important to you with regard to Presidential candidates' tax returns, but not in how the President invokes executive privilege?

I think this goes to my perceived election issues/issues facing the country.

Four years ago, it was Obama's citizenship. He presented his short-form, proving his legal ability to run for office.

Eight years ago, it was military record. John Kerry and his several medals (including three purple hearts) were turned into an unpatriotic coward, while the sitting president refused to release his military service record when he conspicuously avoided service in Vietnam. (I believe early in his second term Bush released those records and nothing came of it).

I have no problem if you disagree with his taxes not being important to your issues, but I do take issue with the implication that he shouldn't release them given all past precedent. But we've been through that.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

The White House claims it didn't know anything.

I'm not sure if I've made my position on this clear before, but I'm fine with any reasonable legal action the Republicans take to challenge the veracity of Obama invoking executive privilege. And should it uncover wrong-doing and derail Obama's election campaign, dems the breaks. I don't consider a President above the law just because he sides with me on more issues. I'm sure I could talk myself into Romney not being the worst case scenario, having seen the primary debates this year.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

The tax returns don't matter and I maintain folks calling for them the loudest already know this. You already know that tax returns couldn't possibly have told you anything useful about a Presidential candidate. Certainly not in W's case right? Not in Clinton's case, Carter, Nixon, etc.

See above. I contend a candidate's income and taxes are more important this election given all the focus on business and taxes.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

What you're missing here IMO, is that this is an election year and essentially a decision between one of two candidates. Both candidates have a potential indiscretion that reflects on their character. One has demonstrated a far more destructive capacity for political expediency than has the other. And it doesn't matter. That's how I know for certain Romney's tax returns don't matter, particularly to those most concerned.

If I'm reading this right, smart voters don't care about his taxes. Yes / no?

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Conservatives like Kristol and a few other republicans bugging Romney about his returns don't believe the Obama administration can make too much of them. Their motives are different. While they support Romney regardless (because tax returns don't matter), they think it matters to the general public. It doesn't. I believe they're wrong. While most folks when asked will say that a candidate should submit their tax returns to the public, this issue just doesn't rate on the list of voting concerns.

Why should Romney assume this is important enough that he would give the Obama campaign fodder to try running the reputation of every corporation Romney ever associated with into the ground?

So they don't matter, unless he releases them, in which case they'll matter. I don't agree. Ugh, I can't reply to latter part without playing politics because what you bring up is politics. I guess the answer that makes feel cleanest is, don't run for President if you're afraid of politics being played.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Knowing what the Obama campaign can do with a man's deceased wife who passed away 7 years after Romney left a company the man used to work for; imagine what they can do with a Swiss bank account.

That wasn't the Obama campaign, but hey, dems da breaks with Citizen's United, eh?

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

What makes you think they've given up? I just don't think Romney should stay away from it.

Because Issa (I think) wouldn't shut up about it and now it's fallen off the news cycle. If it were live, I'd expect they'd be beating the drum like the dems have been beating one for Romney's taxes.

[andi*pandi]

Well then:

http://www.mittromney.com/blogs/mitts-view/2012/09/note-trustee-brad-malt

http://www.mittromney.com/disclosure
Hmm, access denied... do I really want to create an account to see this... or is it just not up yet? Hmm.

[The Final Dakar]

I'm cynical enough to think that it's politically wise that if they're having a shit time just to get this over with, if there will be any fallout from it.

[The Final Dakar]

Oh god. Reading the early back and forth on these things on a another forum. I feel dirty already.

[Chongo]

here ya go 2011 data
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/romneys-release-taxes_652850.html

In 2011, the Romneys paid $1,935,708 in taxes on $13,696,951 in mostly investment income.
The Romneys’ effective tax rate for 2011 was 14.1%.
The Romneys donated $4,020,772 to charity in 2011, amounting to nearly 30% of their income.
The Romneys claimed a deduction for $2.25 million of those charitable contributions.
The Romneys’ generous charitable donations in 2011 would have significantly reduced their tax obligation for the year. The Romneys thus limited their deduction of charitable contributions to conform to the Governor's statement in August, based upon the January estimate of income, that he paid at least 13% in income taxes in each of the last 10 years.


Additionally, the Romney campaign is releasing a summary of 20 years of taxes, between 1990-2009, detailing their tax expenditures during those years

Mitt Romney's presidential campaign is releasing a brief summary of 20 years of tax returns on Friday, and his accountant says it will show he gave 13.45 percent of his adjusted gross income to charities.

That's nearly twice the rate of President Obama, who according to his tax returns from 2000 through 2011 donated just less than 7 percent of his adjusted gross income to charities.

Mr. Romney's campaign did not release his returns, but instead had his trustee, Brad Malt, write a blog post giving some details of returns from 1990 through 2009.

The campaign has released Mr. Romney's 2010 return and, later Friday, will release his 2011 return, which he filed with the IRS earlier in the day.

That return will show Mr. Romney and his wife Ann paid $1.9 million in taxes on income of $13.7 million, for a rate of 14.1 percent, Mr. Malt said. Most of that income is from investments, which are usually taxed at a lower rate than salary or wages.

Mr. Malt said the Romneys would have had an even lower tax burden if they'd claimed the full deduction for all of their charitable giving in 2011, but said they "limited their deduction of charitable contributions to conform to the governor's statement in August, based upon the January estimate of income, that he paid at least 13 percent in income taxes in each of the last 10 years."

When charitable contributions and federal and state taxes are combined, it amounted to 38.5 percent of the Romneys' income, the trustee said.

Mr. Malt said the Romneys have owed taxes in each of the years in question — which contradicts a charge Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, issued earlier this summer.



Read more: Romney doubles Obama's charitable giving - Washington Times http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2012/sep/21/romney-doubles-obamas-charitable-giving/#ixzz278lDPPNV
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

here ya go 2011 data
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/romneys-release-taxes_652850.html

He intentionally skip tax deductions to avoid low rates.

We all know Mitt Romney is the retroactive man.

Next year, Mitt Romney will retroactively change his 2011 tax returns so he'll pay like 5% taxes.

It's not the first time Mitt Romney has retroactively change his tax returns.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/21/mitt-romney-tax-return_n_1904573.html

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

here ya go 2011 data
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/romneys-release-taxes_652850.html

I think we need to see a non-Photoshopped scan of the original, long-form-equivalent, documentation.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

I think we need to see a non-Photoshopped scan of the original, long-form-equivalent, documentation.

[Chongo]

When Barry releases....

[Dork.]

Here's something interesting....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/romneys-paid-194-million-in-federal-taxes-on-137-million-income-_-but-could-have-paid-less/2012/09/21/5c26ec0a-0462-11e2-9132-f2750cd65f97_story_1.html

The Republican presidential nominee, whose wealth is estimated as high as $250 million, seems hemmed in by a comment to reporters in August that he had never paid less than 13 percent in taxes in any single year over the past 10. Had he taken the full charitable deduction last year, it would have pushed his tax liability below 13 percent.
...
Romney probably also will be reminded by the Democrats by something else he said in August. Defending his right to pay no more taxes than he owed, he said, “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 find it amusing that Democrats are about to get on Romney's case for paying too much in taxes....

[Mrjinglesusa]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

Here's something interesting....
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/romneys-paid-194-million-in-federal-taxes-on-137-million-income-_-but-could-have-paid-less/2012/09/21/5c26ec0a-0462-11e2-9132-f2750cd65f97_story_1.html
I find it amusing that Democrats are about to get on Romney's case for paying too much in taxes....

It's not about that.

The issue is that Romney had to manipulate his deductions in order to comply with his previous statement that he always paid at least 13%. Then, we have to reconcile this with his statement in July where he said "“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 now, we have a man who paid more than "legally due" by manipulating his tax deductions so he could say he paid more than 13%, which in his OWN WORDS makes him unqualified to become president.

Just wait, whether he becomes President or not, he will eventually amend his 2011 return to take EVERY deduction he can.

I SIMPLY DON'T TRUST THIS GUY.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Mrjinglesusa 

It's not about that.
The issue is that Romney had to manipulate his deductions in order to comply with his previous statement that he always paid at least 13%. Then, we have to reconcile this with his statement in July where he said "“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 now, we have a man who paid more than "legally due" by manipulating his tax deductions so he could say he paid more than 13%, which in his OWN WORDS makes him unqualified to become president.
Just wait, whether he becomes President or not, he will eventually amend his 2011 return to take EVERY deduction he can.
I SIMPLY DON'T TRUST THIS GUY.

Exactly.

He is going to retroactively amend his tax returns to get every deduction after the election.

He has done it in the past.

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

here ya go 2011 data
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/romneys-release-taxes_652850.html

The Romneys donated $4,020,772 to charity in 2011, amounting to nearly 30% of their income.

do we know who the charities he donated to?

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

do we know who the charities he donated to?

Mostly to the LDS, pretty much what I would expect

[Chongo]

Ronmey gave 1000 times as much to charity as Biden

I guess Romney didn't want to show Biden up as well.

The release of Mitt Romney’s 2011 tax returns shows that he freely gave away more than $4 million to charity last year (about 30 percent of his income). In comparison, when Joe Biden was first running for vice president, his tax returns showed that he had given away just $3,690 to charity over the previous ten years (about 0.2 percent of his income). In other words, Romney gave away a thousand times as much to charity in one year as Biden gave in a decade.
Mitt Romney

That’s despite the fact that the Bidens earned well over $2 million over that decade. In fact, their income was $320,000 in 2008, thereby putting them comfortably over the $250,000-a-year line that marks the entry point for “millionaires and billionaires” in Obama-speak.

Last year, Romney freely gave away more than $10,000 a day to charity — an impressive sum by nearly any standard. Of course, it’s not too hard to beat Biden’s tally. Over the span of that decade, or 3,650 days, he gave away $3,690 — an average of $1.01 a day.

[lpkmckenna]

So yet again, Romney's own words come back to bite him. He's not fit to be President by his own standard.

In other Romney news, he says it's completely fair to pay a lower tax rate than people who make much less money than he does.

Making $50,000 a year? Mitt Romney thinks you ought pay higher tax rate than him.

Romney's new slogan for prosperity is "What's good for Romney is good for America." He really believes that.

[Chongo]

Between my wife and I we make ≈58k a year and my effective tax rate has never been above 7.5% (2011 was 6.86%), so I pay less tax than Romney and Warren Buffet

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Ronmey gave 1000 times as much to charity as Biden

I guess Romney didn't want to show Biden up as well.
Quote:
The release of Mitt Romney’s 2011 tax returns shows that he freely gave away more than $4 million to charity last year (about 30 percent of his income). In comparison, when Joe Biden was first running for vice president, his tax returns showed that he had given away just $3,690 to charity over the previous ten years (about 0.2 percent of his income). In other words, Romney gave away a thousand times as much to charity in one year as Biden gave in a decade.
Mitt Romney

That’s despite the fact that the Bidens earned well over $2 million over that decade. In fact, their income was $320,000 in 2008, thereby putting them comfortably over the $250,000-a-year line that marks the entry point for “millionaires and billionaires” in Obama-speak.

Last year, Romney freely gave away more than $10,000 a day to charity — an impressive sum by nearly any standard. Of course, it’s not too hard to beat Biden’s tally. Over the span of that decade, or 3,650 days, he gave away $3,690 — an average of $1.01 a day.

well romney must pay 10% of their income to the mormon church... and made more money

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

well romney must pay 10% of their income to the mormon church... and made more money

Biden makes way more than I do and I manage to donate at least $25 a week. (Biden $7.07 a week)

[subego]

That's pretty weak on Biden's part.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Between my wife and I we make ≈58k a year and my effective tax rate has never been above 7.5% (2011 was 6.86%), so I pay less tax than Romney and Warren Buffet

Anecdotal evidence, how does it work?

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Max tax rate of 7.5% on about 60k?? Is that federal portion only, you mean?

[Chongo]

That's what the summary from Turbo Tax says. Effective tax rate for 2011 was 6.86% I don't know if that includes state taxes as well.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Interesting. I can't imagine that it does...but who knows I suppose.

[Chongo]

Arizona's income tax rates
If your income range is between $0 and $10,000, your tax rate on every dollar of income earned is 2.59%.
If your income range is between $10,001 and $25,000, your tax rate on every dollar of income earned is 2.88%.
If your income range is between $25,001 and $50,000, your tax rate on every dollar of income earned is 3.36%.
If your income range is between $50,001 and $150,000, your tax rate on every dollar of income earned is 4.24%.
If your income range is $150,001 and over, your tax rate on every dollar of income earned is 4.54%.

I got back twice as much from AZ than the federal.