Slog

Slog Music

Music, Nightlife,
and Drinks

Friday, April 13, 2012

Someone Claiming to Be Ann Romney's Nanny Says Ann Romney Really Did Never Work a Day in Her Life

Posted by on Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 12:57 PM

Please, let's do keep this ridiculous narrative going for another day, shall we?

“Juanita” calls into Current TV claiming she worked for Ann's wealthy family as a cook and babysitter. Says she and Mitt were “nice,” but confirms she “never worked a day in her life.”

There's video of the, uh, phone call, right here. Let me state this as plainly as I can: The issue, here, isn't whether anyone works hard. The issue, here, is whether people are paying their fair share. If I pay 20% of my income and Mitt Romney pays 20% of his income, that's a vastly different burden. Just because the numbers are the same doesn't make it fair. And when you throw in the fact that Romney pays far less than 20% of his income in taxes and I probably pay more than 20%, it becomes even less fair.

 

Comments (44) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
Will in Seattle 1
I'm fairly sure she had to clean her dorm room one weekend when the Help was on break.

Mittens pays less than 20 percent. You probably pay more than twice what he and his Comrades pay.

(caveat - my effective tax rate dropped from 8 to 7.5 percent this year, but I'm not a typical person)
Posted by Will in Seattle http://www.facebook.com/WillSeattle on April 13, 2012 at 1:03 PM · Report this
2
When you say "If I pay 20% of my income and Mitt Romney pays 20% of his income, that's a vastly different burden", you're right Paul Constant. Romney's 20% would be more than you will ever pay in your lifetime.
Posted by Spindles on April 13, 2012 at 1:05 PM · Report this
Theodore Gorath 3
Spindles wins today's SLOG message board award for completely missing the point.
Posted by Theodore Gorath on April 13, 2012 at 1:10 PM · Report this
4

Look, I won't go into the hypocrisy of all you 20 something single SLOGgers suddenly developing this tearful case of baby-lust and worrying about how kids are taken care of, when most of the time you just wish they'd shut up when you're taking "transit" somewhere.

That said, in the 21st century, even welfare moms park their progeny in day care centers subsidized by the Government so they can be suitably brainwashed by Agenda-bots. Later on they will be fully formed members of society...unable to laugh at even the slightest rib of the Common Wisdom.

Point being. Anny Romney and Kent East Hill Mom. Yeah. Same thing.
Posted by Supreme Ruler Of The Universe http://_ on April 13, 2012 at 1:33 PM · Report this
TheMisanthrope 5
Paul, its even better when you look at the state level of taxes (which aren't up for consideration). A "Mitt Romney" would only pay about 2.6%, while somebody making 20k and under pay about 17.6% in Washington state. Just in state taxes.
Posted by TheMisanthrope on April 13, 2012 at 1:34 PM · Report this
Allyn 6
@4 you have so much to learn
Posted by Allyn on April 13, 2012 at 1:36 PM · Report this
7
Paul, I think you have it wrong. It is about BOTH.

1. Romney pays a lot less (percentage wise) of his income than the average middle-class American does.

2. Ann Romney as Mitt Romney's advisor says that women are concerned about "economics" because she has had the resources of a multi-millionaire husband to use to raise their five kids.

All mothers work.
But they do not receive a paycheck for that work.
Nor do they receive health coverage for them or their kids.
Posted by fairly.unbalanced on April 13, 2012 at 1:38 PM · Report this
Max Solomon 8
the point Rosen was TRYING to make stands: Ann Romney should not be Mitt Romney's lead advisor on the concerns of American women. she has NO EXPERIENCE in the workplace, let alone being middle or working class.

Willard was merely ducking yet another question with some focus-tested nonsense. But will he duck his use of Just For Men Touch of Grey?
Posted by Max Solomon on April 13, 2012 at 1:43 PM · Report this
Will in Seattle 9
@7 for insightful followup.

Remember, all the "charitable" foundations the rich create do the things that they want them to do, but they get to avoid taxes on the money used for that, whereas a 20-something person in our state pays full tax on all of the money they use for that.

You "could" claim a tax exemption for your first mansion and your second mansion.

You "could" claim a tax exemption for your limo service to drive you to your charity to SprayPaint America.

But, since you don't make enough, it's all taxable. Every last cent.

Part of why you pay more than Mittens and his ultra-rich do.
Posted by Will in Seattle http://www.facebook.com/WillSeattle on April 13, 2012 at 1:44 PM · Report this
12
And this is why Romney favors building a wall at the border --- to prevent immigrants from taking work from hard-working American mothers such as his wife. That job of rearing their children rightfully belonged to her!
Posted by Proteus on April 13, 2012 at 1:59 PM · Report this
Rujax! 13
@4...

I was going to ask incredulously "what the fuck kind of idiot are you?"...

...but then I realized who I was asking about.
Posted by Rujax! http://rujax.blogspot.com/ on April 13, 2012 at 2:02 PM · Report this
pissy mcslogbot 14
From NYT 2007:

"Dressage is a sport of seven-figure horses and four-figure saddles. The monthly boarding costs are more than most people's rent. Asked how many dressage horses she owns, Mrs. Romney laughed. "Mitt doesn't even know the answer to that," she said. "I'm not going to tell you!""

yeah, she has got just lots in common w/ the commoners.
Posted by pissy mcslogbot on April 13, 2012 at 2:06 PM · Report this
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn 15
A country at war cannot afford a lazyass FLOTUS.
Posted by Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn http://youtu.be/zu-akdyxpUc on April 13, 2012 at 2:07 PM · Report this
16
@9
Don't forget that the company that you and your friends work for (really created and owned by you and your friends) can hire a lobbyist.

That lobbyist will lobby for changes to the tax code that specifically benefit you because of the non-average-middle-class way that you will be paid by that company.
Posted by fairly.unbalanced on April 13, 2012 at 2:18 PM · Report this
JF 17
@3 I think he's making a great point. Percentages are one way of measuring things, absolute numbers are another. People like Mitt are already footing the bill for the majority of the nation so I fail to see how he isn't currently paying more than his fair share. He's subject to the same tax codes and is forced to pay the same amount on his various forms of income as everyone else, regardless of what fiscal retards like Paul suggest.
Posted by JF on April 13, 2012 at 2:21 PM · Report this
Hernandez 18
Look, I won't go into the hypocrisy of a 50 something single SLOGger suddenly developing this remarkably detailed knowledge of how all kids are raised, when most of the time you just wish they'd stop making faces at you through the minivan window while you're sitting in freeway gridlock somewhere outside of Kent...
Posted by Hernandez http://hernandezlist.blogspot.com on April 13, 2012 at 2:22 PM · Report this
19
@17
"He's subject to the same tax codes and is forced to pay the same amount on his various forms of income as everyone else, regardless of what fiscal retards like Paul suggest."

You are wrong. As I had posted, Romney (and his companies) have the resources to hire lobbyists to lobby to have the tax code changed.

The average-middle-class American cannot do that.
Posted by fairly.unbalanced on April 13, 2012 at 2:56 PM · Report this
JF 20
@19 That may be true, but whether it is pre or post change, the laws will effect everyone equally.
Posted by JF on April 13, 2012 at 3:01 PM · Report this
JF 21
@19 To clarify, it's complete bullshit that people with more money can influence laws, put the piece of paper in front of me that outlaws that and I'll sign it immediately. That being said, the tax code in regards to earned income tax and capital gains tax (which people refuse to accept as two completely different things) effect everyone. Mitt cannot get out of paying his capital gains tax any more than you and I can.
Posted by JF on April 13, 2012 at 3:03 PM · Report this
22
@21
"To clarify, it's complete bullshit that people with more money can influence laws, put the piece of paper in front of me that outlaws that and I'll sign it immediately."

I hope you realize that that makes no sense at all.

Look up "lobbyist" if you need to.
Posted by fairly.unbalanced on April 13, 2012 at 3:08 PM · Report this
JF 24
@22 Well of course it makes no sense - I was trying to make a point. I'm fully aware of lobbyists and their influence. We also have a process of creating laws in this country, average citizens like me can't just sign them into statute. I was agreeing with your point that those with money can influence laws and expressing my opinion that I think it's bullshit. I apologize if it was unclear, but part of me thinks you're just trying to lock horns.
Posted by JF on April 13, 2012 at 3:18 PM · Report this
keshmeshi 25
@21,

Ever heard of a tax shelter? Do you think average Americans are in the position to take advantage of that completely legal method of lowering their taxes?

Willard is absolutely capable of avoiding taxes that the rest of us have to pay.
Posted by keshmeshi on April 13, 2012 at 3:18 PM · Report this
dwightmoodyforgetsthings 26
@17- "He's subject to the same tax codes and is forced to pay the same amount on his various forms of income as everyone else, regardless of what fiscal retards like Paul suggest. "

Listen, no one is allowed to wear yarmulkes. It's not we're singling out Orthodox Jews, the rule is completely fair because it applies equally to everyone regardless of context.
Posted by dwightmoodyforgetsthings http://www.reddit.com/r/spaceclop on April 13, 2012 at 3:21 PM · Report this
Posted by pissy mcslogbot on April 13, 2012 at 3:29 PM · Report this
28
@24
"Well of course it makes no sense - I was trying to make a point."

So you intentionally decided to skip coherency because coherency would not support your position?

Okaaaaaaaaaaaaay.

"He's subject to the same tax codes and is forced to pay the same amount on his various forms of income as everyone else, regardless of what fiscal retards like Paul suggest."

Yes, I see how coherency would be a hindrance there when Romney (and Bain Capital) had lobbied to have the tax laws changed.

"I was agreeing with your point that those with money can influence laws and expressing my opinion that I think it's bullshit."

And yet you defended the result in your statement that I just quoted. So you're defending the result of a practice that you are opposing?

"I apologize if it was unclear, but part of me thinks you're just trying to lock horns."

So Romney pays his fair share ...
That he got reduced ...
By using his fortune ...
That others do not have ...
To change the tax laws ...
So his "fair share" was no longer as high as it was before.

So by your logic if Romney lobbied to get his rate down to 1% it would still be fair because everyone who has income of that type would pay the same rate while average-middle-class Americans would pay 30x more of their income.

And you're blaming me for that?
Posted by fairly.unbalanced on April 13, 2012 at 3:48 PM · Report this
29
@jf, a little advice: Give up trying to clarify a moderate viewpoint or you're in for a long night with fairly.unbalanced.
Posted by David from Chicago on April 13, 2012 at 3:54 PM · Report this
JF 30
@25 Of course I have. The only reason the average American can't use those loop-holes is because the Average American doesn't make that much money. Sometimes this kind of works in their favor, other times it doesn't. For example: the man who has 100K of earned, taxable income pays a higher percentage that the person making 34K worth of taxable income.

My point is this: The average filthy fucking rich dude has the same access to those same legal means of lowering their taxes.. Mitt, specifically Mitt, is subject to the same rules as everyone else - it's not as if you, Keshmeshi, wouldn't be allowed to lower your taxes through these legal loopholes if you were to win the lotto tomorrow.

@28 Look. There were two points that I clearly made that you cannot refute. One is a fact, the other is an opinion 1) Citizens of this nation are subject to the same tax code whether the code changes or it remains the same.

2) I think it's a little shitty that the rich have the ability to change the rules in this nation.

@26 Exactly.
Posted by JF on April 13, 2012 at 4:29 PM · Report this
32
@30
"1) Citizens of this nation are subject to the same tax code whether the code changes or it remains the same."

What did you say in #21?
"People like Mitt are already footing the bill for the majority of the nation so I fail to see how he isn't currently paying more than his fair share."

Strange how you've left off "more than his fair share" now.

Probably because you're attempting to redefine "fair share" to "minimum legal obligation".

"2) I think it's a little shitty that the rich have the ability to change the rules in this nation."

And yet you've referred to that process as "fair".
Posted by fairly.unbalanced on April 13, 2012 at 6:05 PM · Report this
Free Lunch 33
I'm not sure I want to enter this thread, but
He's subject to the same tax codes and is forced to pay the same amount on his various forms of income as everyone else.
is demonstrably false.

Romney is taking advantage of a loophole that applies specifically to private equity investors and hedge fund managers (which is not "everyone"), and allows them to treat their bonuses as long-term capital gains - taxed at 15% - rather than as earned income.

If you are an engineer at Boeing and you get a bonus, that bonus is taxed as earned income, not as long-term capital gains. You can not take advantage of this loophole because you are an engineer, not a hedge fund manager.

In 2007, Congress tried to get rid of this loophole, but Bain (among others) lobbied Congress, and the loophole lives to this day.
Posted by Free Lunch on April 13, 2012 at 6:47 PM · Report this
34
Michelle Obama got paid $300,000 + for a job that was so critical it went unfilled after she left. Yeah, right. She got hired for being the Senator's wife.

Now she gets an office and a staff to bitch at us for being fat. She should STFU and just focus on her next vacation.
Posted by delbert on April 13, 2012 at 7:07 PM · Report this
35
@33
It makes sense if you think of it in the broadest possible sense of "same".

"Romney is taking advantage of a loophole that applies specifically to private equity investors and hedge fund managers ..."

But those loopholes apply equally to ALL private equity investors and hedge fund managers who make that kind of money.

Here, let me try an analogy to help clarify things.

Back when the USofA was founded, it was legal to own slaves.
The slave owners could have the laws changed to make certain situations more favorable to them.

1. Did these laws apply equally to all slave owners? Pretty much.

2. Was a slave owner who followed those laws (and lobbied to change them when he wanted them changed) contributing his "fair share" as compared to the slaves he owned?

And that is the core of the "problem" here.
"Legal" is not the same a "fair".
"Minimum legal requirement" is not the same as "fair share".

Particularly when some have the ability to have the laws changed in their favor.

Yes, the law will apply equally to all.
But "all" are not in the same legal classification.
Posted by fairly.unbalanced on April 13, 2012 at 7:15 PM · Report this
36
Our tax code is ridiculously fucked up.
Romney is in a 40 some % tax bracket, but his adjusted taxes are more like 15% (by his estimation). His tax return, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/pol…
made my head hurt. I kept thinking there were too many numbers to the right of the decimal, then realized that was a second comma.
On the other hand, with deductions and credits and whatnots, my husband and I, at $85000 per year, get money back every year. Doesn't that put us at a negative % tax bracket? Are we not paying our fair share? Because Mitt is paying (porpotionally) 20% more than we are, is he paying more than his fair share?
I did really well in both macro and micro econ, but how our tax code works is beyond me.

Posted by catballou on April 13, 2012 at 7:22 PM · Report this
Mark in Colorado 37
Why wasn't she on the balcony of that hotel jacking Mitt off?!
Huh?! What a prime example of bad help!!!
Posted by Mark in Colorado on April 13, 2012 at 8:54 PM · Report this
38
catballou: You probably don't get money back. You may get a refund, but you probably still have a positive tax liability (i.e., you paid tax, you just paid more than you owed)
After deductions, your AGI probably is still north of $60K; you also make too much to qualify for a lot of the big refundable credits (EIC and the like).

Check line 61 on your 1040. That's your tax liability (other than the refundable credits listed below in on the form).
Posted by supergp on April 13, 2012 at 10:03 PM · Report this
39
The guy paid all of his tax liability from carry over from the previous year. What does this tell you about his income from previous years? I'm sure the answer to that has much to do with his prior reluctance to produce his 2010 tax records.
Posted by Approaching 40 in LA on April 14, 2012 at 7:29 AM · Report this
40
Not only does Romney make extensive use of tax heavens to hide his income plus use all the legal tricks in the book available to the wealthy to avoid taxation, but Washingtonians of the lowest income bracket pay a greater fraction of their income in sales and property tax (17.3%) than Romney would pay total (fed +state taxes) if he were to live in Washington. People who claim that he's paying his fair share need to pull their head out.
Posted by anon1256 on April 14, 2012 at 7:57 AM · Report this
41
@34 delbert,

Ah yes, those retched thousandaires that shouldn't be as upitty as a true multi-millionaire. You know that sometimes jobs go to make work, and sometimes to the one person that can do them (later to be filled by 2 or 3 persons with portions of responsibiliy split out). I have no idea if Madam Obama was being paid for either possibility, but this thread is supposed to be about Romney's wife, isn't it?

With regard to the first lady trying to energize and promote healthy habits in citizens of our country; if you don't like it, ignore it.
Posted by Married in MA on April 14, 2012 at 8:34 AM · Report this
42
And to all those people that defend the abuses of the rich because, "Hey, I might make it some day!".

No, you won't. Or at least you won't if the ALEC type rich activist can knock out the underpinnings of the middle-class. New super high paying jobs depend upon the infrastructure of this country, just the kind of things ALEC supporters deem excessive (Look at Christie and the new transit tunnels. Talk about a potential huge return on initial investment! Or is the problem that all the funds, including returns, won't be kept from the public?).

Go look at Senator-to-be Warren's first ad to get an explanation of how public funds are crucial to our future.
Posted by Married in MA on April 14, 2012 at 10:19 AM · Report this
43
BREAKING NEWS


Earlier this week, it was again reported that Ann Romney, Daddy Debt-bucks' wifey, once named one of her horses, Gucci.

Today, a member of the Gucci family reported the most amazing of coincidences. Seems a few years back they named one of their horses, Romney, and not only that, but they also named a pet weasel they found on their horse ranch, Mitt.

Incredible coincidences! ! !
Posted by sgt_doom on April 14, 2012 at 11:01 AM · Report this
venomlash 44
@43: Commit sudoku.
Posted by venomlash on April 14, 2012 at 1:27 PM · Report this
45
First of all, Mittens does not pay the same percentage in taxes as lower-income people. Each and every dollar he earns over $106K/year is free from social security taxes, and all capital gains he earns are free from social security taxes taxes. When you make a lot of money, much of it from capital gains, that adds up to a huge tax break (6.2% of income). That cutoff alone represents a huge difference in the effective tax rates between the highest income earners and everyone up to the 10% (starts at around $109K). The argument is that income above that, and capital gains, won't be considered in the SS formula. Okay, fine, but let's not pretend that paying 6.2% more in taxes on every cent you earn doesn't represent a significant burden over paying 6.2% in taxes on less than 100% of your income. Sure, you'll get it back...he will, too, but it's still more money (on a percentage basis) out of your paychecks than his.

Second, his capital gains income is taxed at rates lower than most regular income. Someone who earns all their wages begins to pay the same rate as the capital gains rate at only $8700 of income, and more than that at $34K. Sure, people making less than $34K/year could increase their income and continue to pay the same tax rate (actually, less, since no SS tax) by "earning" more money from capital gains, but...how? If you're not a trust-fund baby or miracle worker, you're not going to be able to do much investing on an income of less than $34K. Same rules for everyone, but not everyone can afford the price of admission.

The same "price of admission" arguments apply to a whole host of other tax breaks. 2% of your income to charity doesn't add up to much...might not even make it worth it to itemize...but that's a lot of income he's not paying taxes on. Same goes for the mortgage interest deduction, the more house(s) you buy, the greater your break. Sure, the rich guy gave the bank more, but it's likely the same percentage of his income or less, and he gets the benefit of real estate appreciation. Such is the problem with having a fixed-dollar standard deduction. Where you make more, you can do things that allow you to deduct a larger dollar amount from your taxes. Where you make less, it might not make sense.

Finally, as was hinted at, sales taxes are the 600 lb gorilla for lower income earners. Everyone needs to buy certain basic necessities, problem is, the (fixed-rate, equally-applied) sales tax represents a much smaller percentage of income for higher income earners.

Sure, the dollar amounts might be greater, but even flat taxers acknowledge it's not fair for some people to pay a lower PERCENTAGE of their income in taxes. It's particularly unfair when you consider that, as our system is currently structured, the people paying a lower percentage of their income in taxes are often the highest income earners (versus the middle class, I don't argue that very-low-income people pay much in taxes, but, really, we're going to tax people who need help providing basic essentials like food, shelter, and clothing?).

FTR, my income had grown substantially each year from the time I got my first "real" job up until about 2 years ago, and slowly since then. Each year, my effective rate of taxation went down (a lot at first, now a little), and I BARELY break out of the middle class now (if you define that as everyone in the 25% to 75%, nationally).
More...
Posted by Ms. D on April 14, 2012 at 3:50 PM · Report this
46
Where is it written life has to be fair? I know we have the right to pursuit of happiness. Glad my mom and dad explained about life not being fair, years ago. That way as I got older I was not disappointed. I am disappointed in the U..S. A.G. Holder and his actions trying tp block the congressional investigation into the absurd Fast and Furious operation run by his subordinates.And his racist response to as to why he failed to prosecute two New Black Panther party members for obstructing a polling place in Philadelphia during the 2008 election. .One would think the self proclaimed 4th smartest president in history would get this loose cannon under control. BTW David Axelrod said the 2012 election will come down to a choice: Do Americans want “an economy that produces a growing middle class and gives people a chance to get ahead and their kids a chance to get ahead?” Or do they want to continue down “the road we’re on”?
Posted by jasper2020b on April 16, 2012 at 12:18 AM · Report this
venomlash 47
@46: Go back to stormfront. Obama did NOT call himself the 4th smartest president in history. He said that only Johnson, FDR, and Lincoln had accomplished significantly more than he had in the first two years in office.
Posted by venomlash on April 16, 2012 at 1:23 AM · Report this
48
@46 jasper,

"On the road we're on", you mean the one where "too big to fail" means letting banks convert their bad investments into U.S. Govt. covered deposits. Do we really have to allow their loses to become ours? Do we have to let our country's infrastrucure fall apart and squander the hard earned payments of our parents and grandparents? Oh, sorry. I guess public investment is too socialist.
Posted by Married in MA on April 16, 2012 at 2:58 AM · Report this

Add a comment

Commenting on this item is available only to registered commenters.
Advertisement

All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy