Top Leaderboard, Site wide
July 28, 2014
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Help us grow by sharing
and liking Truthdig:
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed

Newsletter

sign up to get updates


Republican Lawmakers on Strike
Paul Ryan’s New Clothes




The Sixth Extinction
War of the Whales


Truthdig Bazaar
The Brothers Karamazov

The Brothers Karamazov

By Fyodor M. Dostoevsky; Constance Garnett (Translator)

The Republican Playbook

The Republican Playbook

By Andy Borowitz
$16.95

more items

 
Report

Inside Romney’s Tax Returns

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Jan 25, 2012
World Affairs Council of Philadelphia (CC-BY)

Tax records show that Mitt Romney made $21.7 million in 2010.

By Lena Groeger, ProPublica

(Page 2)

Yet James Stewart, a Pulitzer Prize winning reporter who writes a business column for the New York Times, doesn’t see it that way. Last year he wrote that carried interest is “indistinguishable from nearly all other forms of compensation that are treated like capital gains, such as stock options, deferred stock grants for corporate executives and many forms of incentive compensation, which is widespread across many industries. Like all capital investments, carried interest entails risk, since there’s no way of knowing what it will be worth until long after the labor is performed, often years later.”

In a political climate characterized in part by the Occupy movement and “99 Percent,” these concerns aren’t likely to disappear any time soon. In fact, as Politico notes, the Romney tax returns are fodder for the White House, which plans to tackle precisely this issue of economic fairness at [Tuesday night’s] State of the Union.

Advertisement

Square, Site wide

New and Improved Comments

If 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
interest. 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).

Report this
Blackspeare's avatar

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
distort 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.

Report this

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 this
mrfreeze's avatar

By 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 this
Blackspeare's avatar

By 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
less 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.

Report this

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
 
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Publisher, Zuade Kaufman   Editor, Robert Scheer
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.