Romney paid 14.1 percent effective tax rate in 2011
Last edited Fri Sep 21, 2012, 02:32 PM USA/ET - Edit history (2)
Source: NBC NEWS
Mitt Romney paid an effective tax rate of about 14 percent last year, his campaign said Friday while also announcing that the Republican presidential nominee had paid an average annual effective tax rate of about 20.2 percent between 1990 and 2009.
Romney made good on its pledge to release his tax returns from 2011 before the election, and went a step further than was previously anticipated in releasing a certified summary of his tax returns over a two-decade period preceding 2010.
While the full tax documents won't be made available until a little later this afternoon, the Republican's campaign said Romney paid more than $1.9 million in taxes on income of about $13.7 million. That amounts to a 14.1 percent effective tax rate; the tax level is lower because most of the Romneys' income comes from investment, which is taxed at a lower rate than employment income.
Read more: http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/21/14015361-romney-paid-141-percent-effective-tax-rate-in-2011?lite
14. So this means he gave 45 percent of his income.
Last edited Fri Sep 21, 2012, 02:57 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1)
1.9 million taxes(2.5 million deduction)
4 million to charity
This is actually calculated to make him look good but it doesn't because almost nobody in the media emphasizes the charitable giving...
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57517962-503544/romney-paid-14.1-percent-tax-rate-in-2011/
for reference Obama gave away his nobel peace prize winnings so it sort of puts him in the same category...
14. So this means he gave 45 percent of his income.It's clear he didn't give enough to the government.
1.9 million taxes (2.5 million deduction)
4 million to charity
for reference Obama gave away his nobel peace prize winnings so it sort of puts him in the same category...
Uh, no ... not even close.
KC
- From 1990-2009, the Romney’s average effective tax rate 20.20%. Lowest year was 13.66%
- Over that same 20 year period, the Romneys gave an average of 13.45% of their income to charity.
- Their average effective tax rate for state/federal taxes, plus charitable contributions equaled 38.5% of the Romney’s income.
- The Romneys’ effective tax rate for 2011 was 14.1% They paid $2 million in taxes.
- In 2011 the Romneys donated $4,020,772 to charity in 2011, nearly 30% of their income.
They're unhinged over there, and a DUmmie named progressivebydesign appears to be hyperventilating. Another DUmmie is looking for Ed, Rachel, and Lawrence to save the day. :mental:
Star Member grasswire (35,129 posts)
View profile
Dems have Romney's tax returns.
That's what I've been told by an authoritative journalist in Washington, an old friend.
Someone in McCain's camp leaked the returns. Dems have them.
This isn't going away.
Star Member grasswire (35,129 posts)She watched MSNBC.
Dems have Romney's tax returns.
That's what I've been told by an authoritative journalist in Washington, an old friend.
Someone in McCain's camp leaked the returns. Dems have them.Probably the same backstabbers that trashed Sarah Palin. Shitty people tend to hang out together, like at Democrat Underground.
This isn't going away.
I'm fully expecting them to say something like "well, yeah - they paid taxes on what little money they keep in the United States, but there is at least a bazillion dollars in sooper-dooper double probation secret offshore accounts, so - these figures are meaningless, blah-blah-blah."that's exactly what they're saying.
Meanwhile in grasswire's world...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021391784
Meanwhile in grasswire's world...
I'm fully expecting them to say something like "well, yeah - they paid taxes on what little money they keep in the United States, but there is at least a bazillion dollars in sooper-dooper double probation secret offshore accounts, so - these figures are meaningless, blah-blah-blah."
I'm fully expecting them to say something like "well, yeah - they paid taxes on what little money they keep in the United States, but there is at least a bazillion dollars in sooper-dooper double probation secret offshore accounts, so - these figures are meaningless, blah-blah-blah."
Response to Gold Metal Flake (Reply #23)Another.
Fri Sep 21, 2012, 04:00 PM
madinmaryland (49,762 posts)
35. I doubt whether he ever used form 1040EZ. Nowhere to put the Cayman Island accounts!
Response to grasswire (Original post)
Fri Sep 21, 2012, 04:00 PM
DevonRex (17,993 posts)
32. Of course. Reid knew. That's why he said it and wrote it
that Mitt had paid no Federal income tax. Mitt admitted in a debate that for 2 years he had only paid Capital Gains. He exclaimed that he wouldnt have paid any taxes at all for the last 2 years under Newt's plan to do away with the capital gains tax.
His actual earnings are all sheltered somewhere else. That's what Reid has been getting at.
They're unhinged over there, and a DUmmie named progressivebydesign appears to be hyperventilating. Another DUmmie is looking for Ed, Rachel, and Lawrence to save the day. :mental:
that's exactly what they're saying.
That progressivebydesign primitive (love that description of them) is going just apoplectic right now.
I'm loving it.
Here's one.
Romney also released physician letters for Romney and Ryan, which reflected both candidates' excellent state of health.
that's exactly what they're saying.Speaking of whom.
That progressivebydesign primitive (love that description of them) is going just apoplectic right now.
I'm loving it.
Response to Playinghardball (Original post)More...
Fri Sep 21, 2012, 02:33 PM
progressivebydesign (17,860 posts)
1. I'm SO PISSED!! The MSM better say that Mitt tweaked 2011 to actually PAY in that much!!!
Seriously. If the ****ing media doesn't get this, I just give up. He had ALL campaign to tweak 2011 and has NO compunction about paying in the 1.94 million in taxes TODAY, to make him look like he pays a alot.
An the "summary of tax rates" ****ING WORTHLESS!!! Doesn't matter what his ****ing tax rate was, because we all know that guys like that take very single loophole, trick, loss, etc, so that what they're paying on is next to nothing. 13% on nearly nothing is still nearly nothing!!!
And think about it. He made 13 million on his investments last year.... do the math. and how much is he hiding overseas? And did he take the amnesty? I hate that asshole.
Response to Playinghardball (Original post)Absolutely frantic over there. :panic: :panic:
Fri Sep 21, 2012, 02:43 PM
valerief (32,426 posts)
6. Where are the tax returns where he got Swiss bank account amnesty???? nt
Romney tax returns: I like how he averaged 20 years......why not 10?
I really love this. What a load full of obfuscation! To me this further indicates that he is afraid of what it would have looked like if only the last ten years were averaged. This is the element to this tax return release that he is using to shield himself.
Of course we are supposed to trust him. Not! Maddow already exposed how he lied to the authorities in Massachusetts when he was trying to qualify to run for governor. Those lies in Massachusetts need to be further exposed because most of the press has ignored them, and most people have no idea that he lied about his taxes during that time in Massachusetts.
4. Exactly!
They had to include TWENTY years to make it average out in an 'acceptable' number. That, to me, says there is some pretty telling numbers in the 2000 - 2009 years (I'm betting the amnesty plays into those numbers big time) they needed to try and hide by using twenty years.
This "20 year summary" just highlights the tax return issue, it does NOT answer it in any way, imo.
Can you blame them ? They invested so much energy in their tax-cheat fairy tale, that this news has left them in a real bad position politically. This release has officially put the primitives in the same camp as the troofers, birfers, and shadow government Illuminati people.Oh, I know. Hopefully this will drive them even loonier, and those sitting on the fence will realize they don't want any part of the crazy.
-The general population will see those who insist on hanging on to this falsehood as kooks. Too bad, primitives.
Response to Playinghardball (Original post)
Fri Sep 21, 2012, 04:09 PM
ellenfl (7,913 posts)
32. the nail in his coffin if exposed . . .
"Mitt and Ann Romney also donated about $4 million -- about 30 percent of their income -- to charity in 2011, though they only claimed a deduction of about $2.25 million from those donations, according to the campaign.
That means the Romneys voluntarily paid a higher tax rate than they were legally required, which the campaign said they did in order to stay consistent with Romney's pledge to never play less than a 13 percent tax rate."
in other words, he did not take the deduction he took all those prior years which essentially negated his tax liability. kinda stupid to point that out. he just proved what harry reid has been saying. he's been paying little or no taxes!
ellen fl
Wait a minute. Can someone please translate this, or is this simply the stupidest post of the day?
WTF
Wait a minute. Can someone please translate this, or is this simply the stupidest post of the day?
WTF
I'm fully expecting them to say something like "well, yeah - they paid taxes on what little money they keep in the United States, but there is at least a bazillion dollars in sooper-dooper double probation secret offshore accounts, so - these figures are meaningless, blah-blah-blah."
Paulie (4,375 posts)http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021392413
rMoney proves it. The rich can easily absorb higher taxes
A couple million here and there doesn't seem to be a big deal. Especially if you can minipulate it enough to choose your own rate by a percent or two.
or reference Obama gave away his nobel peace prize winnings so it sort of puts him in the same category...
Their wet dream just turned into a nightmare of their own creation. This is like Christmas!
Paulie (4,375 posts)
rMoney proves it. The rich can easily absorb higher taxes
A couple million here and there doesn't seem to be a big deal. Especially if you can minipulate it enough to choose your own rate by a percent or two.
rMoney proves it. The rich can easily absorb higher taxes
A couple million here and there doesn't seem to be a big deal. Especially if you can minipulate it enough to choose your own rate by a percent or two.
If I had to guess, this was the plan all along....
,,,and I'm laughing my ass off. :cheersmate:
Mitt Romney PwC Letter Is Meaningless, Reid Fires BackQuote
Ryan Grim
Mitt Romney PwC Letter Is Meaningless, Reid Fires Back
<...>
But it is a meaningless figure.
According to the letter from PwC avowing the number, it is based on Romney's adjusted gross income. That means that, for instance, if Romney made investment profit of $20 million, but had losses of, say, $19.9 million, his adjusted gross income would only be $100,000. Paying 20.2 percent of $100,000 would cost Romney just over $20,000.
If Reid's comment is interpreted strictly -- that Romney paid literally $0 in taxes over 10 years -- then the PwC letter undermines that charge. But if Romney paid only a very small amount -- say, $20,000 on $20 million -- it would be hard to award Reid many pinocchios for calling that nothing.
Such a low-payment scenario is considered quite plausible by tax experts, who noted that investors can pick which investments to realize each year to maximize their tax benefit. In a year such as 2008, when the global markets tanked, an investor would likely have more than enough losses to offset gains. Indeed, Romney's 2010 tax returns show a carryover capital loss credit, meaning he had more losses than he could use the year before.
In other words, without seeing Romney's actual return -- or at least without knowing what Romney declared as his adjusted gross income -- it's impossible to know if the rate he paid bears any relation to Romney's economic reality.
- more -
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/21/mitt-romney-pwc-letter-reid_n_1904543.html
And who is to say there isn't a zero in one of those years? Also, this still doesn't address the amnesty question.
"The GOP candidate failed to include...Swiss bank account on...personal financial disclosure forms"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021205969
According to the letter from PwC avowing the number, it is based on Romney's adjusted gross income. That means that, for instance, if Romney made investment profit of $20 million, but had losses of, say, $19.9 million, his adjusted gross income would only be $100,000. Paying 20.2 percent of $100,000 would cost Romney just over $20,000.
I guess ProNonsense is going to be asking for the long form tax returns next.... :rofl:Is this close enough? :rotf:
Response to grasswire (Original post)
Fri Sep 21, 2012, 03:56 PM
Gold Metal Flake (13,639 posts)
23. Long forms? We are only accepting long form tax returns.
We want the WHOLE truth.
Is this close enough? :rotf:
Hey asshole, if you have a LOSS you deduct it from your profits. I dont know anyone who would not deduct investment losses, even Harry Reid, Pelosi and Obama would deduct a loss on their taxes. You people are idiots.
Is this close enough? :rotf:
Truthers...Birthers...Taxers?
I wonder how the DUmmies are going to try and spin this.
This out to be better than watching the contortionist at the fair!
"Mitt and Ann Romney also donated about $4 million -- about 30 percent of their income -- to charity in 2011, though they only claimed a deduction of about $2.25 million from those donations, according to the campaign.Those damn republicans want to donate DIRECTLY to charity rather than pay the federal government 50% middle man fee.
nmbluesky (2,197 posts) Fri Sep 21, 2012, 05:53 PM
Are you happy?
Am I? no I am not satisfaction romeny tax release. He releases only in 2011. I want to see his 12 years tax.why he's still refuse.. What does he hide?
nmbluesky (2,197 posts) Fri Sep 21, 2012, 05:53 PM
Are you happy?
Am I? no I am not satisfaction romeny tax release. He releases only in 2011. I want to see his 12 years tax.why he's still refuse.. What does he hide?
Fri Sep 21, 2012, 08:51 PMOn and on they went, doing their best to trash charities. It's full of stupid.
cthulu2016 (4,692 posts)
Charitable giving is NOT equivalent to paying taxes. That parts right, it's better, no government "middleman".
Last edited Fri Sep 21, 2012, 09:13 PM USA/ET - Edit history (5)
There is no categorical difference between giving to charity and buying a jet ski. Really??
It is what you want to do with your money. my bolding
You choose to give to charity for whatever reason you choose to give to charity.
It is what you want to do with your money... an expression of individual priorities. That doesn't mean their is anything wrong with charitable giving, of course. I only means that it is what one chooses to do to manifest their priorities.
So this whole thing of conflating Romney's tax payments and his charitable (sic) giving is demented.
The thing about paying taxes is that it is not an expression of your moral values, your sense of self, your ego, your priorites... your tax money goes to what theAmerican electorate decideslawyers in congesstodo with the money. fixed
If you are handy with that old devil Arithmetic it is easy to see that all taxpayers subsidize the charitable donations of individual taxpayers. It is lost revenue that must be made up by everyone else somehow. Now, I had to pay a little something to invade Iraq. That was awful, but my nation had decided to invade Iraq so I get it.
But why did I also have have to pay a little something to the LDS church's massive $6 billion stock and bond portfolio? All taxpayers do subsidize that portfolio. Again... it is lost revenue that has to come from somewhere.
Giving money to build a gigantic temple of gold that only Mormons of a certain rank can enter is not any sensible sort of charitable giving. Giving money to baptize dead non-Mormon celebrities is not charity. Giving money to fund a political campaign to ban marriage equality in California is not charity. Giving money to convert people in the third world to some particular religion is not charity.
And tithing is no more "required" than paying your annual dues to the NRA is required. It is only "required" if you choose to belong to the NRA.
PearliePoo2 (2,512 posts)
So last year Mittens donated over $4 million to charity, eh?
I'd be interested in seeing what those charities were.
I would be really surprised if there were ANY that weren't LDS related.
Personally, I don't consider the Mormon church a charity case.
The latest spin.This represents their next step in warping the minds of Americans. The last was to make everyone afraid to say they are in any way self-reliant. The next is downplaying the moral significance of voluntary giving.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021393721On and on they went, doing their best to trash charities. It's full of stupid.
DUmpmonkeys don't have a clue what a deduction is, or for.
It is lost revenue that must be made up by everyone else somehow.
Charitable giving is NOT equivalent to paying taxes.
There is no categorical difference between giving to charity and buying a jet ski.
Response to Gold Metal Flake (Reply #23)The Caymen Islands?
Fri Sep 21, 2012, 04:00 PM
madinmaryland (49,762 posts)
35. I doubt whether he ever used form 1040EZ. Nowhere to put the Cayman Island accounts!
Romney paid 14.1 percent effective tax rate in 2011
You know, these DUmmies could have watched Romney sit there with his accountant and go over the long tax forms live, been part of the discussion, and gone over them themselves, asking questions and had Romney's bank statements available to them, and they still would claim he was a crook.They'll never accept the truth. Even when they're shown to be wrong (ie. "Romney paid no income taxes"), they move on to something else equally silly. He may have paid money to Uncle Sugar but he didn't pay "enough".
If something doesn't fit into their world view, they go ballistic.
But that's fine by me.