Slog
News & ArtsFriday, September 21, 2012
2012 / Breaking News Here Come Mitt's Tax Returns
Posted by Paul Constant on Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 11:16 AM
The Romney campaign just announced that they'll be releasing Romney's 2011 taxes at noon Seattle time today. Some details are already out:
In 2011, the Romneys paid $1,935,708 in taxes on $13,696,951 in mostly investment income. Their effective tax rate was 14.1%.
— Ashley Parker(@AshleyRParker) September 21, 2012
UPDATE 10:45 AM: The details just keep coming out. For instance:.
Romney camp says they could have written off more of their giving but didn’t so that Romney’s tax rate remained over 13%
— Zeke Miller (@ZekeJMiller) September 21, 2012
UPDATE 10:48 AM: The page which will be hosting the returns, mittromney.com/disclosure, is mostly down, probably because people keep refreshing the goddamned thing. This story is not disappearing down the Friday news dump hole.
UPDATE 11:16 AM: The press is already picking up on the fact that Romney reported less in donations than he actually paid. If he reported all of his charitable donations, he'd probably have paid about 9% in taxes. Which brings this little quote to mind:
JERUSALEM — Mitt Romney says that if he paid more taxes than were required, he wouldn't be qualified to be president.
The U.S. presidential candidate tells ABC News that American voters expect candidates to pay "only what the tax code requires."
I'm really interested to find out why they're releasing these taxes now. Are they just dumping all their bad news into one week? Is this to change the subject from Romney's incompetence? Do they think these taxes will exonerate him somehow? Anyway, this underreporting thing is very weird. As Rob Delaney writes:
Mitt Romney has just personally, powerfully stated that taxes for the very wealthy are too low. He just did this, just now.
— rob delaney (@robdelaney) September 21, 2012
1
"Over the entire 20-year period, the Romneys gave to charity an average of 13.45% of their adjusted gross income"
That's actually an important statement. It said his charity this year was at 30%
Which likely means he never gave more than 10% over any of his other years.
Which means he may never have paid anything in charity other than his tithing that is required by the church.
That's actually an important statement. It said his charity this year was at 30%
Which likely means he never gave more than 10% over any of his other years.
Which means he may never have paid anything in charity other than his tithing that is required by the church.
3
Rmoney's had plenty of time to amend those returns, so look closely for the word "amended"
Also, his most important returns should be from 2007 to 2010, and that's important as Bradley Brikenfeld brought this list of American tax dodgers with him from UBS/Switzerland, and then was jailed.
Also, his most important returns should be from 2007 to 2010, and that's important as Bradley Brikenfeld brought this list of American tax dodgers with him from UBS/Switzerland, and then was jailed.
4
congrats, romney dumbasses, you made this another campaign issue by not filing and releasing back in april. 13.9, 14.1, whatever - that's 14%.
at least you're smart enough to release it on friday, which means you're still capable of shame.
at least you're smart enough to release it on friday, which means you're still capable of shame.
5
Was just leaving to grab lunch when I posted @1, but I wanted to explain the reasoning behind why I believe that rather small statement means quite a bit.
Mrs. Romney has pretty much stated that their charitable contributions on their tax returns, are, in fact, tithing related. Like I said, tithing is not an optional thing in the LDS church. For example, to get a temple recommend in the LDS church you need to interview for it. One of the first questions asked will be, “Do you pay tithing in full?”
A “no” answer will likely disqualify you from receiving the temple recommend. Can’t enter the temple for whatever reason (for example, to watch your family members get married)
Essentially the conservative view is that “Yes, charity is a good thing we love the poor, but it shouldn’t be required! People should do good because it’s the right thing to do!”
In this case, in the absence of being required to be charitable, he is not. 3.9% (Most of it seeming to come from the last few years to puff himself up for the elections) is little more than throwing a bone to the unwashed 47%.
This means Mitt Romney is only charitable when he is forced to be charitable.
In shorter words, something many already know. Romney is a douche (or dick or asshole, whichever we chose)
Mrs. Romney has pretty much stated that their charitable contributions on their tax returns, are, in fact, tithing related. Like I said, tithing is not an optional thing in the LDS church. For example, to get a temple recommend in the LDS church you need to interview for it. One of the first questions asked will be, “Do you pay tithing in full?”
A “no” answer will likely disqualify you from receiving the temple recommend. Can’t enter the temple for whatever reason (for example, to watch your family members get married)
Essentially the conservative view is that “Yes, charity is a good thing we love the poor, but it shouldn’t be required! People should do good because it’s the right thing to do!”
In this case, in the absence of being required to be charitable, he is not. 3.9% (Most of it seeming to come from the last few years to puff himself up for the elections) is little more than throwing a bone to the unwashed 47%.
This means Mitt Romney is only charitable when he is forced to be charitable.
In shorter words, something many already know. Romney is a douche (or dick or asshole, whichever we chose)
6
I'd just like to remind everyone reading this thread that every year they work their federal tax burden, including payroll taxes, will be as heavy or heavier than Mitt's even if they are part of the 47% he so despises who don't make enough to owe federal income taxes - and that if they are doing decently well, enough to be well outside of qualifying for the Earned Income Tax Credit for example - they're probably paying twice the federal taxes Mitt is.
Also, they probably can't, like Mitt, give huge parts of their income to "charity" - effectively deciding personally how that money is to be spent, rather than as part of a democratic process - and then decide whether to deduct that sum from their taxable income.
Also, they probably can't, like Mitt, give huge parts of their income to "charity" - effectively deciding personally how that money is to be spent, rather than as part of a democratic process - and then decide whether to deduct that sum from their taxable income.
7
It looks like the Romney campaign has a sense of nostalgia for the times when all they had to worry about was the optics of his income and taxes.
I doubt they've done any strenuous amending; they just decided that the furor over what's in there is preferable to the more recent slams they've been getting from fellow conservatives. The returns will probably serve to solidify the impression he's trying to give his plutocratic backers; I'm one of you.
I doubt they've done any strenuous amending; they just decided that the furor over what's in there is preferable to the more recent slams they've been getting from fellow conservatives. The returns will probably serve to solidify the impression he's trying to give his plutocratic backers; I'm one of you.
8
@6
"Also, they probably can't, like Mitt, give huge parts of their income to 'charity' - effectively deciding personally how that money is to be spent, rather than as part of a democratic process - and then decide whether to deduct that sum from their taxable income."
Exactly.
Charity such as that means nothing more than funding your personal projects.
Remember that the next time you hear about schools needing money.
Or libraries needing money.
Or children needing anything.
"Also, they probably can't, like Mitt, give huge parts of their income to 'charity' - effectively deciding personally how that money is to be spent, rather than as part of a democratic process - and then decide whether to deduct that sum from their taxable income."
Exactly.
Charity such as that means nothing more than funding your personal projects.
Remember that the next time you hear about schools needing money.
Or libraries needing money.
Or children needing anything.
9
I was just thinking the other day, "a damn shame that whole tax return thing went away for Romney. No one is really talking about it anymore, but I guess I should not be surprised."
So either they are getting burned by the "47%" bullshit so badly they will take anything else, or they are just throwing the election now.
Because as stated above, he just proved that the tax burden on the wealthy is laughably small, and now people are going to start asking again why he refuses to release anything before 2010.
So either they are getting burned by the "47%" bullshit so badly they will take anything else, or they are just throwing the election now.
Because as stated above, he just proved that the tax burden on the wealthy is laughably small, and now people are going to start asking again why he refuses to release anything before 2010.
10
@8 Further than that - if, as @5 notes, tithing is essentially mandatory in Romney's church, then his giving isn't charity. He isn't doing it out of the goodness of his heart; he's doing it because he is required by (Mormon) law to do so.
When people give a portion of their income to the government because it is required by law to do so, we don't call it charity; we call it "tax".
Romney pays his taxes - he just pays a bunch of them to the Mormon Church instead of to the government.
When people give a portion of their income to the government because it is required by law to do so, we don't call it charity; we call it "tax".
Romney pays his taxes - he just pays a bunch of them to the Mormon Church instead of to the government.
11
He's doesn't seem to understand that some may expect exceptional behavior from their would-be leader. Simply being a law-abiding citizen isn't exceptional, it's why you're not in federal prison.
In some countries, maintaining his level of wealth practically requires hiring your own private army. Is he a moocher for relying on public law enforcement?
I get how stupid this all sounds, but Romney started it.
In some countries, maintaining his level of wealth practically requires hiring your own private army. Is he a moocher for relying on public law enforcement?
I get how stupid this all sounds, but Romney started it.
12
@10:
I understand your point, but so far as federal tax law is concerned, a donation to a church IS considered a "charitable donation", regardless of whether the donation is voluntary (as it is in most denominations, SFAIA) or mandatory, as it appears to be in CJCLDS. We can quibble about the semantics or Romney's moral/ethical motivations, but in the end, he is taking a legitimate deduction for the donation.
That being said, the question of his overall charitable giving, is of course, another matter entirely.
I understand your point, but so far as federal tax law is concerned, a donation to a church IS considered a "charitable donation", regardless of whether the donation is voluntary (as it is in most denominations, SFAIA) or mandatory, as it appears to be in CJCLDS. We can quibble about the semantics or Romney's moral/ethical motivations, but in the end, he is taking a legitimate deduction for the donation.
That being said, the question of his overall charitable giving, is of course, another matter entirely.
13
(Form 1040, line 61 + Form W-2 box 4 + W-2 box 6) / Form 1040, line 22
If your answer is > 0.141324, congratulations! You paid a higher effective tax rate than the Romneys.
(Obviously, some returns will be more complicated than that. But I bet that's a pretty good first approximation for most people.)
If your answer is > 0.141324, congratulations! You paid a higher effective tax rate than the Romneys.
(Obviously, some returns will be more complicated than that. But I bet that's a pretty good first approximation for most people.)
14
...I haven't been able to find a Form 8938 anywhere in the tax returns, but I didn't really look that hard. Plenty of people will be doing better research than I could possibly do on the tax returns.
While the tax stuff is interesting, but I think its suspicious that they decided to release it at the same time as the physician's letter. Talking about his medical history can lead to health care access/cost issues becoming an issue again.
He doesn't have anything terribly unusual in there (family history of prostate cancer and cardiac issues), but I wonder if he knows how much his 'normal colonocopy, normal PSA blood testing and prostate urological examination' cost, and if he thinks a person without insurance can afford these things that have been deemed *necessary* for him by a physician.
While the tax stuff is interesting, but I think its suspicious that they decided to release it at the same time as the physician's letter. Talking about his medical history can lead to health care access/cost issues becoming an issue again.
He doesn't have anything terribly unusual in there (family history of prostate cancer and cardiac issues), but I wonder if he knows how much his 'normal colonocopy, normal PSA blood testing and prostate urological examination' cost, and if he thinks a person without insurance can afford these things that have been deemed *necessary* for him by a physician.
15
In line with Paul Constant's re-quote of the "wouldn't be qualified to be president" comment, the Trustee's statement has this inane bullet point:
"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."
Um, so Romney, artificially adjusted his tax claims so that someone couldn't call him a liar - and for which statement exactly? The estimate that he had in January was the basis for the claim, which we presume was an honest estimate. And, since he hadn't filed his tax returns yet, he hadn't actually "paid his taxes for 2011" at that point, so the statement wouldn't have been false on any level.
Yet, he still felt compelled to manipulate the numbers just to fit a random campaign statement, which likely was true at the time it was made - just so.......? So, he could still prove that he paid significantly less taxes than the fierce majority of Americans, just not as much less as he could have? And, if he was in control of the number, why 14.1%? Did he need the extra 1.1% so that the averages came out correctly for the claims of the past 10 years?
The other statements in relation to the tax release are rich!
"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."
Um, so Romney, artificially adjusted his tax claims so that someone couldn't call him a liar - and for which statement exactly? The estimate that he had in January was the basis for the claim, which we presume was an honest estimate. And, since he hadn't filed his tax returns yet, he hadn't actually "paid his taxes for 2011" at that point, so the statement wouldn't have been false on any level.
Yet, he still felt compelled to manipulate the numbers just to fit a random campaign statement, which likely was true at the time it was made - just so.......? So, he could still prove that he paid significantly less taxes than the fierce majority of Americans, just not as much less as he could have? And, if he was in control of the number, why 14.1%? Did he need the extra 1.1% so that the averages came out correctly for the claims of the past 10 years?
The other statements in relation to the tax release are rich!
17
And now Ann Romney's plane had to make an emergency landing in Denver. What won't they do to change the topic?
19
Having the late-July iteration of yourself accuse your current self of being unqualified to be President, when you are BOTH RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT AND ARE THE SAME PERSON, has got to hurt. Poor Mitt!
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
It's Spring! Who's Ready for Street Harassment? by Cienna Madrid
-
SL Letter of the Day: Insane Demands by Dan Savage
-
SL Letters of the Day: Just Say No to DSGs by Dan Savage
-
New Gun Enthusiast... by Dan Savage
-
Bigot Florist Files Countersuit by Dominic Holden
-
America Doesn't Care About Black People by Charles Mudede
-
"Bus service shouldn't be optional—it should be a right." by Cienna Madrid
-
"If it goes one inch further, I'm going to start killing people!" by Charles Mudede
-
SL Letter of the Day: Gonna Boil My Laptop After Answering This One by Dan Savage
-
US Military Grants Itself the Power to Police American Streets and "Quell" "Civil Disturbances" by Brendan Kiley
Stranger Personals
The Stranger
RSSSeattle Art & Performance Quarterly
A complete guide to Seattle's current art, film, dance, and theater season.
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (19) RSS