|
|
May 21, 2013
|
|
Inside Romney’s Tax ReturnsPosted on Jan 25, 2012
By Lena Groeger, ProPublica This piece originally appeared at ProPublica. In response to growing pressure from voters and competitors, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney released 550 pages of tax returns Tuesday, covering two years of income. As one of the richest men ever to run for President, Romney’s filings are enormously complex, and the subject of close scrutiny. News organizations are making their way through the returns. Here’s our guide to where to look to make sense of the numbers. The Washington Post, one of the news outlets with early access to the returns, reports that Romney got most of his income—$21.7 million in 2010 and $20.9 million in 2011 — from profits, dividends or interest from investments. As you can see in the Post’s annotated guide, none of that money came from wages or salaries, which is the main source of income for most Americans. Because most of his earnings came from capital gains, Romney paid just under 14 percent of his income in taxes in 2010. In comparison, in 2010 Obama was taxed at 26.3 percent and Gingrich at 31.7 percent. Even these figures understate the difference: Romney paid Medicare taxes on only his speech fees, while most Americans pay the 1.45 percent Medicare levy on nearly all of their income. See more candidate comparisons in this New York Times chart, or this one from CNN. The American Enterprise Institute blog notes that Romney actually pays a higher effective tax rate than 60 percent of Americans (a family making around $45,000 would have an effective tax rate of 7.4 percent). But as Reuters explains, 14 percent is less than half the top rate on ordinary wages, which can be taxed up to 35 percent. Romney paid or will pay a total of about $6.2 million in taxes on his income from 2010 and 2011. Over those two years, he and his wife Ann have given about the same amount in charitable donations, including $4.1 million to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The Salt Lake City Tribune notes that Romney is one of the Mormon Church’s biggest benefactors, and pays about a tenth of his income in tithe. The Times’ Caucus blog is keeping a live blog of findings as reporters comb through the returns. Some of their latest discoveries: Advertisement The top 0.006 percent: According to the IRS, anyone who makes more than $10 million would be in the top 0.006 percent of taxpayers (according to their latest numbers from 2009). With an income of $21 million in 2010, Romney would be even higher. Mortgage? Like Gingrich, Romney doesn’t seem to have a home mortgage, as neither took a deduction in 2010. Obama, on the other hand, took a home mortgage interest deduction of $49,945. Romney’s 2010 tax return indicated he had a “bank account, security account or other financial account” in Switzerland, but the account was closed in 2010, his aides told the Wall Street Journal. The return also reports financial accounts in Bermuda and the Cayman Islands. As noted in Bloomberg Businessweek, the recent release is likely to spark renewed controversy over how the tax code treats the extremely wealthy. The phrase at the center of this debate is “carried interest.” Partners in private equity firms, hedge funds and real estate developments get most of their compensation through carried interest, and since those earnings don’t count as ordinary income, they are taxed much less. In a short primer on the subject, the Wall Street Journal describes it this way: Put simply, carried interest is a share of a partnership’s profits that is taxed as a capital gain as opposed to ordinary income. It is a good deal: The top rate on gains held longer than a year is 15%, so the tax on carried interest is usually less than half the top 35% rate on ordinary income. There aren’t FICA or Medicare taxes, either. Benjamin Ginsberg, the Romney campaign’s chief counsel, disclosed to the New York Times that Romney earned $7.4 million in carried interest from private equity firm Bain Capital in 2010. Obama has repeatedly called the tax code’s treatment of carried interest a “loophole” that’s “just not fair,” and Warren Buffett mentioned it earlier last year when he demanded that the government stop coddling the mega rich. New York Mayor and billionaire Mike Bloomberg told the Wall Street Journal that “If it were up to me, I would end the concept of carried interest.”
1
2
NEXT PAGE >>>
Previous item: Fracking Gets Its Own Occupy Movement Next item: Is a Nuclear Iran Really to Be Feared? New and Improved CommentsIf you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy. |
By American Lion, January 30, 2012 at 2:07 pm Link to this comment
Everyone seems to be dancing around a point of
Report thisinterest. If Mitt brings home $21M annual from 7% to
10% interest, the amount of money that must be laid up
some where to generate this sum must be massive. It
might be reasonable to tax that mountain of moola as
inventory or equipment (with depreciation schedule of
course).
By Blackspeare, January 26, 2012 at 9:02 am Link to this comment
mrfreeze…
Your reply is well taken——the problem is not the numbers, which are used to
Report thisdistort the truth, but rather the tax code. The US Tax Code is an archaic
abstraction, that was once necessary to promote economic expansion, but as out-
lived it value and only serves now to allow the uber wealthy to substantially lessen
their tax burden, while giving the middle class a small piece of that pie. Giving the
middle class a piece of the deductibles makes changing the tax code an onerous
task. It can only be done when a president has both houses of Congress. While a
flat tax may be regressive, it is probably the fairest of all and it will lessen the
bloat of the IRS. I always like argument that the 1 percenters pay about 40% of the
taxes so they are doing their share, will the fact is they should be paying closer to
60% of the taxes collected to have a fair share.
By Morongobill, January 26, 2012 at 8:02 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
I seem to recall the democrats in Congress going along with GWB’s tax cuts.
And with not repealing them.
The usual blame game may not work on this matter.
Ironic isn’t it, that after making billions- WB and MB
now think “coddling the megarich” and “carried interest” is unfair to the rest of us.
WB seems decent enough, MB of course will be scheming to see how he can jump into this race at the end, and sacrifice his fortune so that he can “help the people.”
Impose the WW2 tax rates, that’s the ticket.
Report thisBy mrfreeze, January 25, 2012 at 10:55 pm Link to this comment
Blackspeare - “There are just too many people confusing tax bracket with effective tax rate(%).”
With all due respect, I think you’re not looking at this in the proper light:
Mr. Romney is a “legal tax cheat” who would vilify working Americans who he claims “don’t pay federal taxes” even though both he and many Americans “are paying what they are legally obliged to pay and not one dollar more!” Those are his fucking hypocritical words.
Mr. Romney is a heinous and disgusting human being whose privileged life has warped his sense of reality and common humanity. If he was really serious about “helping Americans” have more opportunity, he might claim that the second he gets into office, rather than repeal Obamacare (which he can’t do….more megalomaniac thinking on his part) he will lower EVERYONE’S capital gain taxes to his 13.9%....Now that might get people’s attention. But of course he’s not going to suggest that because he couldn’t give a shit about you or me.
Report thisBy Blackspeare, January 25, 2012 at 3:45 pm Link to this comment
There are just too many people confusing tax bracket with effective tax rate(%).
Most homeowners having an annual income of less than $100,000 are probably in
the 25-28% tax bracket, but after taking the allowable deductions for mortgage
interest, property tax, medical and dental expenses, charities, education expenses,
etc, and the deduction for dependents, the effective tax rate is around 10%.
I was once told by a retired IRS agent turned tax accountant that no one making
Report thisless that $100,000 should pay no more than 10% of their total income in fed tax.
You should be able to massage the deductions and credits to achieve this, but it
helps to own a home.
By diamond, January 25, 2012 at 2:38 pm Link to this comment
Romney couldn’t do this if George W. Bush hadn’t passed the outrageous tax laws that he did. And when the Republicans say they want no tax increases on the rich they mean they want Georgie’s laws to stay in place -FOREVER. Bill Clinton balanced the budget by raising taxes on the rich and the superich. Wasn’t it around this time that Newt Gingrich shut the government down? Ah, those Republicans: so much to be proud of.
Report this