• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Mitt Romney releases Tax Data

TurtleDude said:
several of us noted that NO MATTER what Mitt's taxes showed, the welfare socialists and taxers would whine no matter what

we were correct
Click to expand...

Yes, you were correct. Your prediction was a pretty easy one, though. Rabid partisans are never, but never ever, happy with anything done by the other party.
 
cpwill said:
I apologize for the source, I'm packing up my house and just happened to see a friend link it on facebook

[/INDENT]
Click to expand...

How does releasing two years of data prove a 20 year trend?

And what actually matters is 2009.

Romney's not releasing it because there's something real bad in it. George Wills himself argued this.
 
TurtleDude said:
several of us noted that NO MATTER what Mitt's taxes showed, the welfare socialists and taxers would whine no matter what

we were correct
Click to expand...

Yeah, you were. I have been suspecting something like this for some time. I also think Romney's campaign will release A BUNCH more full tax returns prior to the election and COMPLETELY debunk the Reid claim. If he had released some time ago it would have allowed a much greater 'pick-a-part'. I also think the campaign's stratigy is to delay any specific positions until much closer to the election, presumably during the debates. This IMHO is to avoid a premature peak as the other candidates did in the primary race. Very cagy...but of course I could be wrong.
 
Dickieboy said:
Read it here:

Letter from PricewaterhouseCoopers | Mitt Romney for President

of course you can argue it was a coordinated 'prepared' release. I'm sure PWC would take a chance on that...;)
Click to expand...

Which frankly means nothing without the returns to prove it.

That said, I don't doubt he paid that much. I just want to see what's in 2009.

Romney could easily refute Reid's claim that he paid nothing by simply releasing returns. But he'd have to release 2009. And 2009 is likely the year he had a UBS voluntary disclosure. So it's better for Romney to have people think he paid nothing then admit he was using an illegal foreign tax shelter. Essentially fueling Reid's rumor about his lack of taxes paid is a huge red flag that 2009 has a real beast in it. Romnney cannot release a block of returns without 2009 without instantly raising even more suspicion.

Campaigns don't fuel their opponent's rumors unless refuting them is worse.
 
I feel like using charity to make up for paying a lower tax rate than several Americans is kind of a weird way to go about things, but it all works out in the end by my observations. I just feel a little bit like his charitable contributions were less an actual charity and sacrifice and more a make up for hiss weave around the upper class tax rate. But honestly, in the end, nobody should really care. Romney's tax returns aren't going to determine how he'll operate in office. Romney has made it clear that Harry Reid is an idiot and we can all calm down now. I think that we can finally start focusing on real issues like policy and such, and I can finally make a decision about who I want to next lead our nation.

Travis007 said:
now we move to have Obama release his college transcripts... it will makes Mitts taxes look like kittens and puppies..
Click to expand...

Right, that's still happening. Screw it, I quit.
 
In each year during the entire 20-year period, the Romneys owed both state and federal income taxes.
-Over the entire 20-year period, the average annual effective federal tax rate was 20.20%.
-Over the entire 20-year period, the lowest annual effective federal personal tax rate was 13.66%.
-Over the entire 20-year period, the Romneys gave to charity an average of 13.45% of their adjusted gross income.
-Over the entire 20-year period, the total federal and state taxes owed plus the total charitable donations deducted represented 38.49% of total AGI.
-During the 20-year period covered by the PWC letter, Gov. and Mrs. Romney paid 100 percent of the taxes that they owed.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I get the significance of this. It smells rather like disinformation. First, here is the actual letter:

Letter from PricewaterhouseCoopers | Mitt Romney for President

Here's why it doesn't say anything:

As you requested, we computer each annual "effective federal personal tax rate" as total taxes owed divided by adjusted gross income as shown on the federal income tax returns as prepared.
Click to expand...

Adjusted gross income can be a small fraction of actual income. Suppose, for instance, Gov. Romney earned 12 million dollars in 2000, but he put 11.98 million in an IRA, a tax-exempt or tax-deferred trust, or other such: his adjusted gross income is now just $20,000, and if he paid 20% on just that, he paid $4,000 on $12,000,000 of actual income.

Now, I'm not saying this is what happened. I am saying this would be consistent with the wording of the letter.

Additionally, focus in on this language:

The average of the annual "effective federal personal income tax rates" as computer based on the returns as prepared during the period is 20.20%.
Click to expand...

The word "average" can do a lot of work here. Suppose, for instance, that Gov. Romney paid the low rate (13.66%) on high income years, and something like 30% in low-income years. The average tax rate would still be 20.20%, but this does not mean that he paid 20.20% of his AGI summed over those years in taxes. With a little help from our byzantine tax code, he might well have claimed losses great enough to reduce his AGI to practically nothing, and paid even 90% on the remainder. Doing that just one or two years over the whole period would be quite sufficient to yield the claimed average.

I'm sure someone will think of more. But the letter reeks of being a snow-job. It's phrased so as to look good, but be able to conceal a lot.
 
Last edited:
obvious Child said:
Which frankly means nothing without the returns to prove it.

That said, I don't doubt he paid that much. I just want to see what's in 2009.
Click to expand...

It means nothing without the returns to prove it but you don't doubt he paid that much...THAT makes sense...what do you expect in the '09 return?


Campaigns don't fuel their opponent's rumors unless refuting them is worse.
Click to expand...

Yeah, they do...remember the 'birther' controversary?
 
obvious Child said:
How does releasing two years of data prove a 20 year trend?

And what actually matters is 2009.

Romney's not releasing it because there's something real bad in it. George Wills himself argued this.
Click to expand...

You consider writing down capital losses to be "real bad" ?
 
People are just hoping there was something bad in that years because that was the year if I recall correctly the IRS allowed people with questionable offshore activity to rectify it penalty/criminal charge free.
 
AdamT said:
No, if he had taken the full deduction it just would have made him consistent with his earlier statement, which in effect was that anyone who doesn't take the full deduction is an idiot. The reason he didn't take it is that he knows it would make him look like an even bigger asshole if his tax rate was around 9%.
Click to expand...

Yeah, what an asshole. Donating millions to charity like that.

What an idiot.
 
frogloe said:
I feel like using charity to make up for paying a lower tax rate than several Americans is kind of a weird way to go about things, but it all works out in the end by my observations. I just feel a little bit like his charitable contributions were less an actual charity and sacrifice and more a make up for hiss weave around the upper class tax rate.
Click to expand...

That doesn't make any sense.

Gee, I made 1 million and have to pay 25% in taxes, so I only will have $750k in take home disposable income. You know what, maybe I'll note $200k to charity, so that I only need to pay 20% in taxes ... so I will end up with $600k in disposable income.

If someone adopts this strategy to maximize their own personal wealth, they have bigger issues and hopefully have health insurance so they can be checked out by a medical professional.
 
Dickieboy said:
It means nothing without the returns to prove it but you don't doubt he paid that much...THAT makes sense...what do you expect in the '09 return?
Click to expand...

Helps to actually read what you quoted: But he'd have to release 2009. And 2009 is likely the year he had a UBS voluntary disclosure.

Already answered.

Yeah, they do...remember the 'birther' controversary?
Click to expand...

I also remember the release of the certificate not to mention articles from the papers back in the day reporting his birth. Does Obama have a time machine?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom