Mitt Romney Tax Returns Released: Paid Just 13.9% Rate In 2010, Had Swiss Bank Accoun

squarepush3r

Well-Known Member
Mitt Romney Tax Returns Released: Paid Just 13.9% Rate In 2010, Had Swiss Bank Account

[url]http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/ou40v/mitt_romney_tax_returns_released_paid_just_139/


[/URL][h=1]Mitt Romney Tax Returns Released: Paid Just 13.9% Rate In 2010, Had Swiss Bank Account[/h]




By Steve Holland and Kim Dixon
TAMPA, Fla./WASHINGTON, Jan 24 (Reuters) - Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney released tax records on Tuesday indicating he will pay $6.2 million in taxes on a total of $42.5 million in income over the years 2010 and 2011.
Bowing to increasing political pressure to provide more detail about his vast wealth, the former private equity executive released tax returns indicating he and his wife, Ann, paid an effective tax rate of 13.9 percent in 2010. They expect to pay a 15.4 percent rate when they file their returns for 2011.
Romney's tax rate is below that of most wage-earning Americans because most of his income, as outlined in more than 500 pages of tax documents, flows from capital gains on investments.
Under the U.S. tax code, capital gains are taxed at 15 percent, compared with a top tax rate of 35 percent for wage earners.
Romney released the tax returns after a week in which his chief rival for the Republican presidential nomination, former House of Representatives Speaker Newt Gingrich, questioned whether Romney was hiding information about his finances and cast him as being out of touch with most Americans.

Gingrich's attacks on Romney helped him upset the former Massachusetts governor in the South Carolina primary on Saturday.
Since then, Romney has vowed to be more aggressive in returning fire.
He has launched a series of attacks questioning Gingrich's character, judgment and lucrative work as a Washington consultant, and released his tax returns to try to nullify Gingrich's criticisms on that front.
The tax rates Romney reported paying could add fuel to a national debate over the fairness of the tax code, and coincides with broader concerns about income inequality symbolized by the Occupy Wall Street movement.
Romney's campaign officials stressed that his tax rate is based mostly on income from investments that are held in a blind trust. Romney's holdings include an undisclosed amount in funds based in the Grand Cayman Islands and other overseas entities.
Romney advisers stressed that the holdings in the Caymans - along with those in a Swiss bank account that was closed in 2010 after an investment adviser decided it could be politically embarrassing to Romney - were reported on tax returns and were not vehicles to avoid taxes.
They also stressed that Romney, whose holdings are in three blind trusts, makes no decisions as to how his money is invested.
Regardless, the emerging picture was of a man of great means who contributes mightily to charity. The documents showed he and his wife contributed $7 million in charity over the two years, much of it going to his Mormon church. That represents more than 15 percent of the Romneys' income for those years.
Romney, whose estimated net worth is $190 million to $250 million, is among the wealthiest Americans ever to seek the presidency.
Top campaign officials and the director of Romney's blind trust, Brad Malt, briefed Reuters on the details ahead of a more general release of the information Tuesday morning.
Campaign counsel Ben Ginsberg, asked why Romney was not releasing tax records for the years in the 1980s and 1990s in which Romney made his fortune at private equity firm Bain Capital, said the two years covered by the tax returns should give a broad picture of Romney's financial situation.
"We're not going to get into the game of once you give them something, they demand more," Ginsberg said. "This is a fulsome release and we're proud of it."
The tax issue may have been a factor in Romney's loss to Gingrich in South Carolina. It became a distraction to Romney's campaign, and Romney's fuzzy answers on when and if he would release his records aggravated the problem.
First he said he might release them, or might not. When the questions kept coming, he said he would put them out in April, after his 2011 forms were completed. Only after he was defeated in South Carolina did his aides say he would release them this week. Gingrich has released his returns for 2010, but has not released an estimate for last year, as Romney did.
Long considered the front-runner for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination, Romney was staggered by Gingrich's lopsided win in South Carolina, and is looking to regain enough momentum to defeat Gingrich in Florida, which votes on Jan. 31. (Editing by David Lindsey and Paul Simao)
Copyright 2012 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions.
Earlier on HuffPost:


 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
back when i used to work for $15-$20 an hour, i would pay an effective tax rate of 22-25%.

when you figure in the taxes on gasoline, property taxes, sales taxes, and more, i was taxed at a much higher effective rate.

when you make millions, those other taxes i've named don't add up to much more of a percentage at all.

how is it fair that i paid 25% or more of my income in taxes, and the millionaire pays 14%?

next time someone says the tax code is fair, i will tell them to suck my fucking cock.
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
let's look at it another way: a person on unemployment insurance pays 10% in taxes. when you figure that most or all of their money goes to basic living things like gas, rent (property taxes), and food and necessities like diapers or laundry detergent (sales taxes), that person is paying an effective tax rate of well over 14%.

but mitt romney makes $20 million and pays less than 14%.

QUICK! i need a conservative to tell me why this is fair and/or accuse me of inciting class warfare.
 

Catchin22

Well-Known Member
They make money at an exponential rate and yet pay less... They have more to lose and yet pay less percent value to protect it. We need to go back to a 50% tax rate on the wealthy.
 

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
let's look at it another way: a person on unemployment insurance pays 10% in taxes. when you figure that most or all of their money goes to basic living things like gas, rent (property taxes), and food and necessities like diapers or laundry detergent (sales taxes), that person is paying an effective tax rate of well over 14%.

but mitt romney makes $20 million and pays less than 14%.

QUICK! i need a conservative to tell me why this is fair and/or accuse me of inciting class warfare.
If you count that he gave 10% to tithe he almost paid as much.
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
If you count that he gave 10% to tithe he almost paid as much.
yes, i am so happy that he gives so much to the mormon church so that they can go on crusades like they did against prop 8 in california. because gay people are not real humans and should not be treated as such.
 

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
yes, i am so happy that he gives so much to the mormon church so that they can go on crusades like they did against prop 8 in california. because gay people are not real humans and should not be treated as such.
Yeah the Mormon church will use it better than the IRS, and then the IRS will give him a deduction right. So he actually pays less than the 13.9% right? Secular Guvmint at it's finest.
 

Canna Sylvan

Well-Known Member
back when i used to work for $15-$20 an hour, i would pay an effective tax rate of 22-25%.

when you figure in the taxes on gasoline, property taxes, sales taxes, and more, i was taxed at a much higher effective rate.

when you make millions, those other taxes i've named don't add up to much more of a percentage at all.

how is it fair that i paid 25% or more of my income in taxes, and the millionaire pays 14%?

next time someone says the tax code is fair, i will tell them to suck my fucking cock.
How can you say such uniformed comments. Mitt knows about the economy. He knows how jobs are created, fire thousands so one makes millions. Without him lots of companies would continue to exist without those millions of created dollars put all over the world. Instead they money would be in the hands of ungrateful twats supporting their families. Mitt was able to change that. He took away thousands of homes, to buy 15 multi-million dollar homes. With all that tax saving he could possibly buy up more unworthy businesses and put more people on the street who are too stupid to understand his vision of destructive creation. I would expect a pot head not to understand.
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
They make money at an exponential rate and yet pay less... They have more to lose and yet pay less percent value to protect it. We need to go back to a 50% tax rate on the wealthy.
something like that would be fair.

i mean, when you count taxes on gasoline, sales taxes, property taxes and the like, that really eats into a normal income of $30 or $40k, possibly up to about 40 or 50%. those same things don't effect a millionaire as much on a percentage basis because they buy about the same amount of living necessities but have millions behind that they don't need to spend just to get by.

so not only is the millionaire taxed at a much lower rate, they are also hurt less by normal taxes that i have named.

please, i need a conservative to get in here and tell me why this is fair. NLXSK, please help here.
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
How can you say such uniformed comments. Mitt knows about the economy. He knows how jobs are created, fire thousands so one makes millions. Without him lots of companies would continue to exist without those millions of created dollars put all over the world. Instead they money would be in the hands of ungrateful twats supporting their families. Mitt was able to change that. He took away thousands of homes, to buy 15 multi-million dollar homes. With all that tax saving he could possibly buy up more unworthy businesses and put more people on the street who are too stupid to understand his vision of destructive creation. I would expect a pot head not to understand.
dammit, you are a conservative! you were supposed to help me understand why romney paying less taxes than me is fair!

:cuss:
 

NLXSK1

Well-Known Member
let's look at it another way: a person on unemployment insurance pays 10% in taxes. when you figure that most or all of their money goes to basic living things like gas, rent (property taxes), and food and necessities like diapers or laundry detergent (sales taxes), that person is paying an effective tax rate of well over 14%.

but mitt romney makes $20 million and pays less than 14%.

QUICK! i need a conservative to tell me why this is fair and/or accuse me of inciting class warfare.
Because Mitt Romney paid income tax (likely of the highest bracket) when he earned his investment money. Therefore it had likely been taxed 28-35%.

Then he took the money and invested it in stocks or a company (this is known as risk). That company paid income tax on the profits they made from his money.

THEN, after all of that, when he gets his money back (if he ever does) he gets taxed another 15% on any capital gains.

So, that money has been taxed 3 times by that point...

And they call this unfair...

Money goes where it makes the most money. If you tax capital gains at double or more the rate you do now then the rich will find some other way to make money such as buy tax free municiple bonds. And while the government would love for more Americans to do that it removes more investment money from the private sector, which means lower job growth, more malaise, etc..

This is just another attempt by Obama to use class warfare to attempt to confiscate more wealth from the rich and the private sector and divert it into his ballooning welfare programs such as 2 years unemployment benefits, foodstamps, etc...
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Because Mitt Romney paid income tax (likely of the highest bracket) when he earned his investment money. Therefore it had likely been taxed 28-35%.

Then he took the money and invested it in stocks or a company (this is known as risk). That company paid income tax on the profits they made from his money.

THEN, after all of that, when he gets his money back (if he ever does) he gets taxed another 15% on any capital gains.

So, that money has been taxed 3 times by that point...

And they call this unfair...

Money goes where it makes the most money. If you tax capital gains at double or more the rate you do now then the rich will find some other way to make money such as buy tax free municiple bonds. And while the government would love for more Americans to do that it removes more investment money from the private sector, which means lower job growth, more malaise, etc..

This is just another attempt by Obama to use class warfare to attempt to confiscate more wealth from the rich and the private sector and divert it into his ballooning welfare programs such as 2 years unemployment benefits, foodstamps, etc...
don't try to shit on my face and tell me it's shitting outside.

using your same argument, i could say the wages paid to me by my former employer had been taxed seventeen times before they got to me.

income is income, whether it is made by working with your own two hands and creating/producing things like i would do, or whether you invest money and sit back making money off of other people's work like mitt did.

all you did was make a case for why capital gains should be at some number or the other.

you did not explain why it was fair that i am taxed at 25% on my meager wages while mitt is taxed at 14% on his millions of dollars.

you did accuse me of class warfare for simply asking a question, as a partisan hack is wont to do.

:clap:
 

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
don't try to shit on my face and tell me it's shitting outside.

using your same argument, i could say the wages paid to me by my former employer had been taxed seventeen times before they got to me.

income is income, whether it is made by working with your own two hands and creating/producing things like i would do, or whether you invest money and sit back making money off of other people's work like mitt did.

all you did was make a case for why capital gains should be at some number or the other.

you did not explain why it was fair that i am taxed at 25% on my meager wages while mitt is taxed at 14% on his millions of dollars.

you did accuse me of class warfare for simply asking a question, as a partisan hack is wont to do.

:clap:
He thinks it IS fair.
 

Catchin22

Well-Known Member
Oh, how horrible it must be to be a millionaire. Why on earth should we make them pay more, they have such shitty lives already! Making them pay more so that others have a better chance? That's absurd! We should make the poor do more for them I think, picking thier fruit and vegetables, taking care of their lawns and removing their garbage... clearly this is not enough! I am sure if we put our heads together we can think of more ways to honor these fine people.

Naaah but really. The wealthy are pathetic.
 

Blaze Master

Well-Known Member
Because Mitt Romney paid income tax (likely of the highest bracket) when he earned his investment money. Therefore it had likely been taxed 28-35%.

Then he took the money and invested it in stocks or a company (this is known as risk). That company paid income tax on the profits they made from his money.

THEN, after all of that, when he gets his money back (if he ever does) he gets taxed another 15% on any capital gains.

So, that money has been taxed 3 times by that point...

And they call this unfair...

Money goes where it makes the most money. If you tax capital gains at double or more the rate you do now then the rich will find some other way to make money such as buy tax free municiple bonds. And while the government would love for more Americans to do that it removes more investment money from the private sector, which means lower job growth, more malaise, etc..

This is just another attempt by Obama to use class warfare to attempt to confiscate more wealth from the rich and the private sector and divert it into his ballooning welfare programs such as 2 years unemployment benefits, foodstamps, etc...
wow it must really suck being rich. we all need to cut the rich some slack. they do so much for the rest of us, we should be thanking them
 

Catchin22

Well-Known Member
It's just like the rich supporters to use the "class warfare" and "wealth distribution" talking points. It's like when somebody does something wrong and then gets mad at YOU and you are like... woah wait a minute YOU'RE the one doing the wrong! The wealthy have been waging warfare on the middle class for decades and it's the middle class who is distributing their monies to the wealthy.
 
Top