Romney says he pays about 15 percent in income tax

[EpyonXero]

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2...y-tax-returns/

January 24, 2012, 8:42 am

Inside the Romney Tax Returns
By FLOYD NORRIS, NICHOLAS CONFESSORE and STEPHANIE STROM

9:16 a.m. |Gift to Bush Library
The Romneys’ Tyler Charitable Foundation made gifts to markedly more organizations in 2010 than it had previously.

While the largest amount paid out of the foundation that year, $145,000, went to the Mormon Church, as in the past, the George Bush Presidential Library received the second largest grant, $100,000.

The foundation made gifts to a variety of well-known Boston charities like the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and City Year, as well as Brigham Young University, which is affiliated with the Mormon Church and received $25,000. For 2010, the foundation made a total of $647,500 in grants, compared to grants totaling $631,000 the prior year.

The Romneys’ blind trust contributed shares valued at roughly $1.5 million to the foundation during the year, bolstering its asset to about $10 million from about $8 million in 2009.

Most of its assets are invested in various types of funds managed by Goldman Sachs, which was paid $48,582 in management fees.

While foundations are tax-exempt, the Tyler Foundation paid $3,048 in foreign taxes on its international investments.

9:05 a.m. |Advantages of Carried Interest

One of the advantages of carried interest is that it does not count as income for Medicare and Social Security tax purposes. People normally pay a tax of 6.2 percent of their earnings for Social Security up to a certain income level (a rate reduced under the payroll tax cut) and 1.45 percent on all their earnings.

In 2010 and 2011 Mitt and Ann Romney reported no W-2 income. But they did report some “self employment” income that effectively is the same as Medicare and Social Security.

In 2010, they reported $593,996 in such income, out of $21.6 million in total income. That produced self-employment tax of $29,151.

In 2011, total income came to $20.9 million, but just $110,500 of that was “self employment income, with a tax of $13,572.

8:56 a.m. |Carried Interest Revealed

In a conference call to discuss the returns, Benjamin Ginsberg, the Romney campaign’s chief counsel, disclosed one piece of information not immediately apparent from glancing at the returns: the amount of profits from Bain Capital, the private equity firm Mr. Romney helped found, that the candidate continues to earn from the company under his retirement agreement.

Mr. Romney, who retired from Bain in 1999, earned $7.4 million in such profits – known as “carried interest” — from Bain in 2010. Mr. Ginsberg said the candidate expected to get $5.4 million in carried interest in 2011.

Private equity executives are taxed at the capital gains rate of 15 percent on most of their earnings, a rate well below the top 35 percent tax on ordinary income.

Thats a pretty nice big loophole right there.

8:55 a.m. |No Home Mortgage

Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich have one thing in common. Neither of them seems to have a home mortgage.

In their 2010 tax returns, neither took a deduction for mortgage interest.

Barack Obama has a mortgage, and a big one. In 2010, he took a home mortgage interest deduction of $49,945.

8:28 a.m. |A Blizzard of PaperworkTax simplification should appeal to the Romney family.

His campaign released five 2010 tax returns on Tuesday. The joint return from Mitt Romney and his wife came in at 203 pages. His blind trust form has 37 pages, while Ann Romney’s has 83. A family trust comes in at 81 pages, and a charitable foundation at 39.

Total pages: 443.

[pauldun170]

Originally Posted by askmrjesus

So to sum up, you're OK with rich people taking advantage of the tax code code, but if welfare fats do it, it's wrong.

Quotable

[Amber Lamps]

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

There's a bit of a difference between not being able to afford to buy something and being able to do something, that would be illegal for the majority of citizens, simply because you've got more money. As stated by others, most have to declare those investments.

It is not illegal. He did it absolutely on the up and up. If the tax laws are "unfair", don't blame those that take advantage of it. Change them!!! We have that power people, vote for a flat tax. What could be more fair than that? Everyone pays the same percentage. Why do people think that it's "fair" for people to pay a higher percentage because they make more money? Why do people believe that it is "fair" for people to pay more taxes if they choose to not have children?

Investment is what built this country and yours for that matter. People invested their life savings, their time, their sweat, their blood and even their lives to make a better life for themselves. They drilled for oil, they dug for gold, they worked the land, they put in the work, they made the sacrifices, they had the ideas, they took the risks and now they have to be demonized when they become rich. It's ridiculous. AGAIN Romney has committed absolutely no crimes and isn't doing anything that any American citizen with the means can do. If you do not have the means, it is YOUR fault, not Romney's. SOUR GRAPES!!!!

[Papa_Complex]

Originally Posted by Amber Lamps

It is not illegal. He did it absolutely on the up and up. If the tax laws are "unfair", don't blame those that take advantage of it. Change them!!! We have that power people, vote for a flat tax. What could be more fair than that? Everyone pays the same percentage. Why do people think that it's "fair" for people to pay a higher percentage because they make more money? Why do people believe that it is "fair" for people to pay more taxes if they choose to not have children?

Investment is what built this country and yours for that matter. People invested their life savings, their time, their sweat, their blood and even their lives to make a better life for themselves. They drilled for oil, they dug for gold, they worked the land, they put in the work, they made the sacrifices, they had the ideas, they took the risks and now they have to be demonized when they become rich. It's ridiculous. AGAIN Romney has committed absolutely no crimes and isn't doing anything that any American citizen with the means can do. If you do not have the means, it is YOUR fault, not Romney's. SOUR GRAPES!!!!

When they're the ones who make the laws, directly or by influence peddling, then I feel free to blame them.

Why do you feel it's fair that they pay LESS?

*EDIT* Oh, and by the way, both of our countries were built when such people were paying orders of magnitude higher taxes

[Amber Lamps]

Originally Posted by askmrjesus

138 companies in the Caymans. One Hundred and Thirty Eight.

How many do you have?

So to sum up, you're OK with rich people taking advantage of the tax code code, but if welfare fats do it, it's wrong.


JC

Um isn't that Bain Capital.....does Romney own that company?

What I am saying is that the millions of welfare rats that get EICs is a hell of a lot more than the taxes we are "losing" because Romney has some money stashed away overseas.

Direct question, do you think that it's "right" for people that already pay nothing in federal taxes and that sponge off the system already, to receive thousands of dollars every year from the federal govt?

[Amber Lamps]

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

When they're the ones who make the laws, directly or by influence peddling, then I feel free to blame them.

Why do you feel it's fair that they pay LESS?

"Less"? Romney paid over $3,000,000 last year in taxes. How in the fuck is that less?

Oh and please with the "less" crap, the average american pays under 10% in federal taxes. I would like to know who comes up with this bullshit....

June 2010
The accompanying tables update annual estimates by the Congressional Budget Office
(CBO) of average tax rates—that is, households’ tax liability divided by their income—
and compare those estimates for 2007 with estimates from 2006. This report’s tables
show average tax rates for various income categories for the four largest sources of
federal revenue—individual income taxes, social insurance (payroll) taxes, corporate
income taxes, and excise taxes—and for the four taxes combined. The tables also present
average before-tax and after-tax household income; the number of households in each
income category; and shares of taxes, income, and households for each fifth (quintile) of
the income distribution and for the top 10 percent, 5 percent, and 1 percent of households.
A page on CBO’s Web site, “Federal Taxes by Income Group,” includes publications on
this topic, CBO’s estimates of average federal tax rates for the years 1979 to 2007, and
other information on household income and taxes.
Estimates for 2007
In 2007, the overall average federal tax rate was 20.4 percent (see Table 1). Individual
income taxes, the largest component, were 9.3 percent of household income. Social
insurance taxes (also called payroll taxes) were the next-largest source, with an average
rate of 7.4 percent. Corporate income taxes and excise taxes were smaller, with average
tax rates of 3.0 percent and 0.6 percent, respectively.
The federal tax system is progressive—that is, average tax rates generally rise with
income. Households in the bottom fifth of the income distribution paid 4.0 percent of
their income in federal taxes, the middle quintile paid 14.3 percent, and the highest
quintile paid 25.1 percent. Average rates continued to rise within the top quintile: The top
1 percent faced an average rate of 29.5 percent.
Higher-income groups earn a disproportionate share of pretax income and pay a
disproportionate share of federal taxes. In 2007, the highest quintile earned 55.9 percent
of pretax income and paid 68.9 percent of federal taxes; the top 1 percent of households
earned 19.4 percent of income and paid 28.1 percent of taxes. The share of taxes paid by
high-income groups exceeded their share of income because average tax rates rise with
income. In all other quintiles, the share of federal taxes was less than the income share.
The bottom quintile earned 4.0 percent of income and paid 0.8 percent of taxes, and the
middle quintile earned 13.1 percent of income and paid 9.2 percent of taxes.

[Papa_Complex]

No comment on the tax rates, when the country was being built? Kinda blows a hole in the whole extreme right wing premise.

[goof2]

Originally Posted by Homeslice

Can an ordinary citizen with under a million bucks to invest obtain the same priviledges in the Caymans that Romney has? Somehow I doubt they'll even bother talking to you for that kind of chump change. If it was so easy, everyone would be doing it, including you, goof.

From the little I have read about it the barriers to entry aren't horrendous. The most common figure is $100k, but some countries require less. The real issue is unless you know you won't need to access that money the costs will outweigh the benefit. I wouldn't do it because my investments are minimal and taxes on them aren't much of a concern. With my normal investment "success" I'd miss out on the chance to deduct my losses.

[goof2]

Originally Posted by Captain Morgan

While I agree with the sentiment of what you posted, I will say the thing that is stopping the average joe from investing in funds housed in the Cayman's is likely two things:

1. Knowing someone who knows how to get the money to the right people or personally doing the research to even discover the loophole and locating the "best" investments.

2. Most likely there is some insane minimum investment amount for those funds even if you DO find them. There are a LOT of funds that have minimum investments for the simple reason that brokers don't want to be bothered with the paperwork for "small" amounts. Even if the minimum is as low as 25 or 50k (which I'd be surprised if it's anywhere near that low), most people can't make even that size of investment because then they'd have too much of their money tied up in just one investment that likely has huge swings the average joe can't stomach.

But yes, I agree that the government has more than overstepped it's bounds in our country. We should be able to spend our money how we see fit, rather than handing a large chunk of it over to the government to spend for us.

You don't have to go offshore to find barriers like that. If you want a single share of that hero of the proletariat Warren Buffett's good stuff, BRK-A, you better have brought six figures.

[goof2]

Originally Posted by askmrjesus

It's the mind set of the ORWG, (Old Rich White Guys). Their legislative focus is on tax cuts for "job creators", which is code for people who would hire lichen if it had thumbs. Romney never met a loop hole he didn't like. Bain had 138 corporate entities registered in the Caymans. We don't know how many they had in Luxembourg, cause they ain't telling.

With a record like that, what would make you think he's had a sudden change of feeling where his heart used to be, and now wants to do right by the little guy?

Bain has 138 corporate entities in the Caymans now, Romney hasn't run Bain since 1999. Whose record is it?

Originally Posted by askmrjesus

I'll admit, that was a rather broad stroke. In truth, he could go either way. I'll get to the bottom of that at the bottom. Vis-a-vis, post wise, as it were.

I'll answer it in the same place

Originally Posted by askmrjesus

The goal may be a stronger company, but from whose perspective, the share holders or the workers?

JC

As the former employees of Circuit City or Lehman Bros. how great it is to work for a weaker company. If it weren't for government largesse you could throw the majority of the financial and automotive industries in America in to that mix. Weak companies eventually fail. There are no complaints from employees of failed companies because there are no employees.