Mitt Romney releases tax returns: Candidate earned $21.7M in 2010 and $20.9M in 2011

[웃 910]

Mitt Romney releases tax returns: Candidate earned $21.7M in 2010 and $20.9M in 2011

Mitt Romney offered a partial snapshot of his vast personal fortune late Monday, disclosing income of $21.7 million in 2010 and $20.9 million last year — virtually all of it profits, dividends or interest from investments.

None came from wages, the primary source of income for most Americans. Instead, Romney and his wife, Ann, collected millions in capital gains from a profusion of investments, as well as stock dividends and interest payments.

The Romneys gave away $7 million in charitable contributions over the past two years, including at least $4.1 million to the Mormon Church. Romney's family has for generations been among its most prominent members.

They sent somewhat less to Washington over that period, paying an estimated $6.2 million in federal income taxes. According to his 2010 tax return, Romney paid about $3 million to the IRS, for an effective tax rate of 13.9 percent.

For 2011, Romney estimates that he will pay about $3.2 million, for an effective rate of 15.4 percent. That's in line with his earlier estimates, but sharply lower than the rates paid by President Obama and Romney's closest Republican rival, Newt Gingrich.

"You'll see my income, how much taxes I've paid, how much I've paid to charity," Romney said at a debate Monday night in Tampa. "I pay all the taxes that are legally required and not a dollar more. I don't think you want someone as the candidate for president who pays more taxes than he owes."

He said his tax bill is "entirely legal and fair," adding: "I'm proud of the fact that I pay a lot of taxes."

Romney released his tax returns — nearly 550 pages, including the 2010 returns for four personal and family trust funds — in a bid to regain his footing in the Republican presidential campaign after stumbling badly in last weekend's South Carolina primary.

The Romney campaign planned to publicly release the tax documents Tuesday morning but provided a preview Monday night to The Washington Post.

In recent days, Romney's GOP rivals have pressed him to make his returns public, arguing that it is critical for the public to vet his finances before the party settles on its nominee. The revelation that Romney pays a significantly lower tax rate than most wealthy Americans underscores his image as a multimillionaire financier, an image that some Republicans believe would hurt his chances in the general election.

Economic inequality is emerging as a central theme in the battle for the White House, with Obama trying to harness populist anger at Wall Street and corporations against a backdrop of chronically high unemployment. He plans to call for higher taxes on millionaires in his State of the Union address to Congress on Tuesday night, embracing an idea advanced by billionaire investor Warren Buffett and Occupy Wall Street protesters.

"The president believes that it is not fair — inherently not fair — that those who are millionaires and billionaires pay at a lower rate than average Americans who are struggling to get by," White House press secretary Jay Carney told reporters Monday. "This theme about economic insecurity for the middle class . . . is what got this president into politics. So this is a foundational belief for him, and he's happy to have that debate."

http://www.washingto..._washingtonpost

Edited January 24, 2012 by ☠

[웃 910]

[웃 910]

[SMR 368]

I'm really getting sick of this line that Mitt Romney pays a lower tax rate than "average Americans" or "most wage earners" or some such. This keeps getting parroted by the media and nobody seems to be calling them out when it's certifiably factually false. A single person with no deductions but the standard deduction would have to be making almost $100k to be paying 15% in taxes. A married couple with two kids would need to be making about $150k to pay 15%. Add in a mortgage and that number may begin to flirt with $200k. Basically, anyone paying more than 15% is not an "average American" or one of "most wage earners."

And if you want to blame any of the GOP candidates for low taxes on the wealthy, it makes the least sense to blame Romney as he is the only one who hasn't been a member of Congress. As Romney said, why is it his fault if the tax code favors him?

As far as Swiss banks, who really cares, as long as he didn't break any laws?

[mawilson 2,133]

I'm really getting sick of this line that Mitt Romney pays a lower tax rate than "average Americans" or "most wage earners" or some such. This keeps getting parroted by the media and nobody seems to be calling them out when it's certifiably factually false. A single person with no deductions but the standard deduction would have to be making almost $100k to be paying 15% in taxes. A married couple with two kids would need to be making about $150k to pay 15%. Add in a mortgage and that number may begin to flirt with $200k. Basically, anyone paying more than 15% is not an "average American" or one of "most wage earners."

Indeed.

[Dan and Judy 614]

I think Mitt is starting to grow on me

[Leatherneck 693]

And your point is what OP?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I'm really getting sick of this line that Mitt Romney pays a lower tax rate than "average Americans" or "most wage earners" or some such. This keeps getting parroted by the media and nobody seems to be calling them out when it's certifiably factually false. A single person with no deductions but the standard deduction would have to be making almost $100k to be paying 15% in taxes. A married couple with two kids would need to be making about $150k to pay 15%. Add in a mortgage and that number may begin to flirt with $200k. Basically, anyone paying more than 15% is not an "average American" or one of "most wage earners."

And if you want to blame any of the GOP candidates for low taxes on the wealthy, it makes the least sense to blame Romney as he is the only one who hasn't been a member of Congress. As Romney said, why is it his fault if the tax code favors him?

Agree entirely with the first paragraph. Fact is that the average tax rate American taxpayers pay is 11% and if Mitt paid 14%, then it's hard to agrue that he pays at a lower than average tax rate. The average tax rate paid by taxpayers with incomes above 100K but under 200K is 12% which is still below Mitt's tax rate. The math simply does not support the argument that mitt pays taxes at a lower rate than most wage earning Americans.

I somewhat agree with the second paragraph, too. Mitt wasn't in charge or even involved with the creation of the US tax code. He benefits from it but that can't be held against him. The only issue I have here are his tax reform proposals which would favor him and people like disproportionately. He may not have been part of setting the system up to benefit those on the top. But he sure would want to move it further down that path if given the chance. The country and the deficit be damned.

Edited January 24, 2012 by Mr. Big Dog

[slim 1,530]

So the guy pays over 3 MILLION DOLLARS in taxes and he's not paying enough?

What did YOU pay last year?

[웃 910]

So the guy pays over 3 MILLION DOLLARS in taxes and he's not paying enough?

What did YOU pay last year?

I paid about $10 million (Zimbabwe dollars) last year. Does that count?

[Ban Hammer 13,519]

So the guy pays over 3 MILLION DOLLARS in taxes and he's not paying enough?

What did YOU pay last year?

[slim 1,530]

I paid about $10 million (Zimbabwe dollars) last year. Does that count?

It counts... but still doesn't address the fact that Romney paid over three million bucks while most people who are complaining didn't even pay one million. (Or half a million. Or a tenth of a million.)

Entitlement society. Someday tax money will cover liposuction because it's not fair that everyone doesn't scarf down cheeseburgers.

[웃 910]

It counts... but still doesn't address the fact that Romney paid over three million bucks while most people who are complaining didn't even pay one million. (Or half a million. Or a tenth of a million.)

I lied. The government paid me back over $1000

It's an automatic thing. I would care less if they didn't send me the check (although it was nice). But we have a major debt crisis and our deficits would be greatly improved if they removed such policies. We are probably talking about $100s of billions of dollars that could be used to try to balance the budget. Tens of millions of Americans are getting by just fine 364 days of the year, how come we need that 1 day where the government pays us a tax refund?

Combine it with a couple hundred billion in cuts in overseas welfare, a little welfare adjustment here, and increasing retirement ages and we would probably have a balanced budget, maybe even a surplus.

Our debt is so large we are paying about a quarter TRILLION dollars a year ($227 billion) in interest payments. That doesn't seem sustainable. We need to start paying down the debt ASAP.

When we have $15 trillion in debt and are running +1 trillion deficits each year we have a major setup for disaster on the horizon. It takes tax increases and spending cuts. Both together, not just one...

Edited January 24, 2012 by ☠

[slim 1,530]

I lied. The government paid me back over $1000

So you didn't pay them anything?

[Susita 175]

NM

Edited January 26, 2012 by Susita