Jones On Romney Tax Returns: 'I Don't Think This Will Go Away' - Ryan Shows His

[CeeKay]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/03/mitt-romney-tax-returns_n_1737260.html?utm_hp_ref=politics

GOP Rep. Walter Jones (R-N.C.) said Thursday that Mitt Romney's refusal to release more than two years of tax returns could hurt him in the presidential election.

"I don't think this will go away," Jones told The Hill. "And if we're still talking about this in September, he's in deep trouble."

Many Republicans have called on Romney to release more than two years of tax returns to make the issue go away, including his former rivals Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Rick Perry and Jon Huntsman. Conservative pundits Bill Kristol and George Will, as well as the editors of the National Review, have also called on Romney to release the returns.

Romney has steadfastly refused to do so.

whatcha hiding Mitt?

[Eco-Logic]

How the hell is this any worse than the birth certificate fiasco.

Just curious.

The media will spin how much he paid/pays in taxes as if some how it's illegal.

[Pyperkub]

Because Romney's tax platform is to cut his own taxes.  If he hasn't had any income tax due/hasn't owed anything it says a lot about why more tax cuts for the wealthy aren't needed.

Sent from my SPH-D700 using Tapatalk 2

[CeeKay]

Ryan is showing a couple of his tax returns:

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/17/13340853-paul-ryan-releases-2-years-of-tax-returns?lite

Presumptive Republican vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan released two years of tax returns late Friday.
Follow @AlexNBCNews

They are posted on the Mitt Romney campaign’s website.

Ryan and his wife, Janna, paid an effective tax rate of 15.9 percent in 2010 and 20 percent in 2011, the returns show.

Ryan’s release matches what Romney has pledged to release, not what he’s actually released.

Romney filed for an extension on his 2011 returns, but hasn't yet released them. He has said he would do so before the election. Romney’s estimated 2011 return is posted along with his 2010 return.

The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel was first with the news that the Ryans’ released the information Friday night, a week after news broke that the Wisconsin congressman would in fact be tapped the next day as Romney’s running mate.

According to his financial disclosure statements, Ryan’s overall net worth is estimated between $2 million and $7.7 million.

In 2010, the couple paid $34,233 in federal taxes on $215,417 of adjusted gross income, the returns show. In 2011, they paid $64,764 in federal taxes on $323,416 of adjusted gross income. Both years include five personal exemptions for the Ryans and their three young children.

No 2012 taxes are ready yet, but Romney and Ryan have vowed to release those returns too. Presumably they would release them if elected.

[Ironrod]

Another interesting tidbit

Although Ryan’s income is more than what the average person makes, his tax returns are fairly straightforward and would be familiar to most Americans, unlike Romney’s returns, which illustrate the complexities of the US tax system. Ryan’s 2010 tax returns are 59 pages, for example, about the same number in which Romney deals with just his transactions with foreign entities.

So he's a regular guy, more or less. Our federal return runs 30 pages for income that's comfortably below six figures.

[Canuck]

How the hell is this any worse than the birth certificate fiasco.

Just curious.

The media will spin how much he paid/pays in taxes as if some how it's illegal.

Because this isn't racist? The media won't spin it into something illegal, they'll spin it into being unethical which it is.

[Eco-Logic]

The birth certificate or lack thereof is racist?

If a majority of Romney's income comes from interest/dividends and are taxed at 15%, the media and many of you for that matter would likely spin that as if it's "unethical" or worse.

That's horse shit.

[Ironrod]

How the hell is this any worse than the birth certificate fiasco.

Just curious.

The media will spin how much he paid/pays in taxes as if some how it's illegal.

Because this isn't racist? The media won't spin it into something illegal, they'll spin it into being unethical which it is.

It's not so much whether Romney is ethical (although the Dems would love to leave the impression that he is not) as whether the tax system is fair. That's a legitimate question (unlike the birther flap) given that the centerpiece of Romney's economic plan is reducing his own taxes even further. If his returns show that he's paying a punitive sum, that's one thing. If his returns show that he is already paying a rate lower than yours and mine, then what exactly is cutting that rate even further supposed to accomplish?

The Dems are doing a lousy job of phrasing the question, though.

[Wargus]

On a slightly different subject, were you all aware that he used to invest in a medical waste company that, as part of its business, disposed of aborted fetuses?

Stericycle 13D 11-22-1999

He controls the Bain, BCIP, and Sanaky shares, as well as has direct interest. I put that at about 47% total control by Romney, with 12.76% in his name.

I don't care - somebody has do it (and somebody has to be the investor), I just think its funny given he is a republican.

[Scraper]

How the hell is this any worse than the birth certificate fiasco.

Just curious.

The media will spin how much he paid/pays in taxes as if some how it's illegal.

Because this isn't racist? The media won't spin it into something illegal, they'll spin it into being unethical which it is.

It's not so much whether Romney is ethical (although the Dems would love to leave the impression that he is not) as whether the tax system is fair. That's a legitimate question (unlike the birther flap) given that the centerpiece of Romney's economic plan is reducing his own taxes even further. If his returns show that he's paying a punitive sum, that's one thing. If his returns show that he is already paying a rate lower than yours and mine, then what exactly is cutting that rate even further supposed to accomplish?

The Dems are doing a lousy job of phrasing the question, though.

There's also the thought that he may be utlizing every loophole he can to avoid paying any taxes at all. Which then leads to  questioning his patriatism. How can a man who doesn't believe in his country enough to pay his share of taxes be expected to then lead the country in a fair way? It will show that he is more about himself and his businesses than he is about the country, which can easily be spun to say that he doesn't care about the middle class.

And this is different than the birth certificate. In that case we had the State appointed representative following state rules saying that Obama was in fact born in the US. A State's rules and rights were upheld. (But that wasn't good enough for the conspiracy people). In the Romney case we simply have one side trying to create negativity based off of tax returns, and the Romney side doing a great job of falling into the trap with no real justification other than the fact that Romney doesn't want the middle and lower class to know how much he actually makes. 

[CeeKay]

well Romney has released his 2011 tax returns:

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 his 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.

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.

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.

[Eco-Logic]

And nothing is wrong or unethical about it.

[Ironrod]

His 2011 return is less informative than one from when he wasn't running for president would be. Certainly he was already on his best behavior by last year. But one would have to go back a lot of years to find a time that Romney wasn't running for president.

If the "certified summary" of his earlier returns is accurate, I wonder why he resisted releasing them for so long and let the questions fester.

[Knightshade Dragon]

And nothing is wrong or unethical about it.

It's not unethical for Romney to pay 14% but his housekeepers pay closer to 30?

[Eco-Logic]

Nope, not at all Ron.

It's the law like it or not.

[Eco-Logic]

And I'm all for the fair tax by the way.

[USMC Kato]

Nope, not at all Ron.

It's the law like it or not.

There have many laws in the past that have been unethical, just because its a law doesn't mean it's right.

[Eco-Logic]

Point taken, kind of irrelevant in regard to taxes though.

[Knightshade Dragon]

Point taken, kind of irrelevant in regard to taxes though.

Ethics have little to do with law.  It is fairly indefensible to stand in front of anyone with any level of compassion and say "Yes, from my multimillion dollar home I make the following statement - I should pay LESS taxes than my housekeeper that is scraping to get by and had to take a bus to get here to hear my statement."    Don't take this as any sort of alignment to any party, as I don't, but there is a point where you have to say "Yes, I have the ability to pay a little more - perhaps I owe it to the people I stepped on to get here to do exactly that."   I'm all for self-made millionaires and all that, but can you honestly say that you see more value in a politician than a teacher?  Teachers pay far more taxes than any politician does and get paid infinitely less.   I went to college, I paid my own way, and I'm semi-successful at this point.  I don't even worry that I might "move into the next tax bracket" as I take it as a personal victory that I CAN move into that next bracket.  Sure, I'll pay a little extra, but I should. 

[gellar]

Point taken, kind of irrelevant in regard to taxes though.

Ethics have little to do with law.  It is fairly indefensible to stand in front of anyone with any level of compassion and say "Yes, from my multimillion dollar home I make the following statement - I should pay LESS taxes than my housekeeper that is scraping to get by and had to take a bus to get here to hear my statement."    Don't take this as any sort of alignment to any party, as I don't, but there is a point where you have to say "Yes, I have the ability to pay a little more - perhaps I owe it to the people I stepped on to get here to do exactly that."   I'm all for self-made millionaires and all that, but can you honestly say that you see more value in a politician than a teacher?  Teachers pay far more taxes than any politician does and get paid infinitely less.   I went to college, I paid my own way, and I'm semi-successful at this point.  I don't even worry that I might "move into the next tax bracket" as I take it as a personal victory that I CAN move into that next bracket.  Sure, I'll pay a little extra, but I should. 

We are being slightly intellectually dishonest here. 

First, assuming your previous posts figures are correct (14.1% versus 'closer to 30'), he is not paying less than his housekeeper, he is paying a smaller percentage.  Overall he's paying VASTLY more in sheer dollars.

Second, 'closer to 30%' is an impossible figure using our tax rate system.  Assuming said housekeeper does pretty damn well for a housekeeper and makes $30K a year.  Let's assume this person is single and has literally zero other deductions (children, head of household, etc...).  Their marginal tax bracket is 15% and their effective tax rate is below 9%.  To be 'closer to 30%', you'd be earning north of $500K per year at all regular income with zippo in deductions. 

Let's not forget what our tax system is designed to do (in addition to pay for stuff our government does).  It's designed to incentivize behavior amongst citizens.  The reason that home buyers get tax breaks and renters don't is that it is in the government's best interest to have home owners versus people who have less barrier to leave their city/state/country.  Capital gains are taxed at a lesser amount than regular income because the government wants its citizens in long term investments of US assets.  This makes for a more predictable income stream and economy.  If you remove that incentive, its possible those investments are removed and lots of bad shit happens. 

[gellar]

Oh and lastly, did we completely ignore the point that they voluntarily donated 30% of their income to charity?  So based on 'but there is a point where you have to say "Yes, I have the ability to pay a little more - perhaps I owe it to the people I stepped on to get here to do exactly that."' they are effectively giving 44.1% of their income to something other than themselves.

[CeeKay]

Oh and lastly, did we completely ignore the point that they voluntarily donated 30% of their income to charity?  So based on 'but there is a point where you have to say "Yes, I have the ability to pay a little more - perhaps I owe it to the people I stepped on to get here to do exactly that."' they are effectively giving 44.1% of their income to something other than themselves.

sure, they paid 30% in the year where he knew people would be paying attention to his returns.  the years before?

In 2011, the Romneys donated about 29% of their income to charity – $4 million out of their total $13.7 million in income. For 2010,  they donated about 13.8% of their income, $2.98 million out of $21.6 million. Over a 20-year period, the Romneys gave to charity an average of 13.45% of their adjusted gross income, according to an accountants’ letter they provided on Friday.

The information released by the Romney camp Friday also made a point of noting that in combination the Romneys have paid close to 40% on average of their adjusted gross income to various taxes and charities. By any measure, that’s a big number.

Mr. Obama and wife Michelle gave $172,130, or roughly 21.8% of their income, to charity in 2011, and about 14.2% in 2010. That was up from 5.9% in 2009. The Obamas gave between 4.7% and 6.5% of their income to charity between 2005 and 2008. The Obamas’ income shrank in 2011, to about $790,000, compared to earlier years, helping to boost their percentage.

[Knightshade Dragon]

Well, I stand corrected.  He WILL stand in front of people and say that people who make 50k should pay more in taxes than he should:

http://freakoutnation.blogspot.com/2012/09/making-50000-year-mitt-romney-thinks.html

[Gratch]

Well, I stand corrected.  He WILL stand in front of people and say that people who make 50k should pay more in taxes than he should:

http://freakoutnation.blogspot.com/2012/09/making-50000-year-mitt-romney-thinks.html