Romney Releases 2011 Tax Returns

[maxiep]

Grasping... at... straws.

The point remains. Those calling Romney a selfish, greedy, asshole trying to screw over the middle and lower class should be ashamed of themselves.

I was going to make this point in another way: I think we can all agree that Mitt Romney--whatever you may think of his politics--is a very generous man.

 

[STOMP]

Because he seems reluctant to release them which causes speculation that he has something to hide (which he doesn't)

He doesn't??? How can you make that claim?

Romney's father George's political legacy is that politicians running for national office release 12 years of tax returns... it's become a standard practice for every Presidential candidate since as it gives the American people a chance to see who it is that they're considering. George's famous quote... "One year could be a fluke, perhaps done for show." I don't see much of a difference with 2 years and I truly hope that Mitt's feet are continued to be held to the fire on this. I want more transparency not less and do not want to see George's legacy fade away

btw...here's a link to Obama & Biden's returns

STOMP

 

[The_Lillard_King]

I'm with pp on this . . . there is a huge difference between income and adjusted gross income.

Having said that, I don't think these tax returns can be read to show Romney cares about the lower middle class and poor or not. I don't know if he does and his opinion about the lower economic class is certainly disturbing. But I would like to think that if you become the president of the United States that you would have to consider and care about that cross section of America.

As far as capital gains tax. . . this is my beef. The rich get richer as they invest their money into wall street and make more money at a lower tax rate and without working. I'm sure wall street loves the low capital gains tax but I think it is creating a bigger divide among this country. It takes money to make money AND you don't really get taxed much on that new money . . . now you just need investment money to get into this great US situation . . . which of course many lower middle class don't have that

 

[D-Rock]

I'm with pp on this . . . there is a huge difference between income and adjusted gross income.

Having said that, I don't think these tax returns can be read to show Romney cares about the lower middle class and poor or not. I don't know if he does and his opinion about the lower economic class is certainly disturbing. But I would like to think that if you become the president of the United States that you would have to consider and care about that cross section of America.

As far as capital gains tax. . . this is my beef. The rich get richer as they invest their money into wall street and make more money at a lower tax rate and without working. I'm sure wall street loves the low capital gains tax but I think it is creating a bigger divide among this country. It takes money to make money AND you don't really get taxed much on that new money . . . now you just need investment money to get into this great US situation . . . which of course many lower middle class don't have that

I was going to say this earlier, but chose not to since I didn't think anyone else would actually think income vs. adjusted gross income made much difference when the man donated over $4MM, but I guess I was wrong. Tithing in the LDS church is 10% of your increase. So at least 10% of that 13.45% has nothing to do with deductions on his house, dependents, or even Ann's horse.

I see the point you're trying to make about capital gains tax, but it's not like the tax only benefits people worth $1MM or more. Also, how did these people get their money to invest? At some point, whether it was an ancestor or themselves, someone had to work to obtain that money. Furthermore, it's not like there isn't any risk involved in investing. People can and do end up worse off than if they hadn't invested at all. Yeah, the people with money benefit from the rule and those who don't have expendable cash don't, but it's not like the rule takes money out of the pocket of the financially needy.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

I was going to say this earlier, but chose not to since I didn't think anyone else would actually think income vs. adjusted gross income made much difference when the man donated over $4MM, but I guess I was wrong. Tithing in the LDS church is 10% of your increase. So at least 10% of that 13.45% has nothing to do with deductions on his house, dependents, or even Ann's horse.

I see the point you're trying to make about capital gains tax, but it's not like the tax only benefits people worth $1MM or more. Also, how did these people get their money to invest? At some point, whether it was an ancestor or themselves, someone had to work to obtain that money. Furthermore, it's not like there isn't any risk involved in investing. People can and do end up worse off than if they hadn't invested at all. Yeah, the people with money benefit from the rule and those who don't have expendable cash don't, but it's not like the rule takes money out of the pocket of the financially needy.

There is a big difference in income and AGI no matter what he donated to charity.

If I understand this right, we know he donated about 14% of his AGI. I'm not here to say 4 million is little just that it isn't correct to say he donated 14% of his income. Who knows what his real income is, we know his AGI . . . or does his tax returns show his total income and I missed that?

With regard to capital gains tax . . . the rule doesn't take out of others pockets unless you lower income tax and raise capital gains tax. But we know that isn't going to happen because that is how so many politicians make their money. I mean 13 million in AGI with most of it being generated by investment income . . . man, that is the way to do it in the US.

 

[DaLincolnJones]

you do realize that CG taxes are getting taxed on dollars that have already been taxed, and that the econemy needs investment to grow and create jobs?

 

[barfo]

you do realize that CG taxes are getting taxed on dollars that have already been taxed

How do you figure?

, and that the econemy needs investment to grow and create jobs?

Yes. If we increase the capital gains tax rate, investors will take their money and.... do what, exactly? Bury it in the yard?

barfo

 

[DaLincolnJones]

well its pretty simple any money earned is taxed, CGs are wealth gained using existing capital (said taxed dollars) the percentage is lower to compensate for this

No they invest elsewhere, like other countries with more favorable tax structures and less intervention from the gov

 

[The_Lillard_King]

you do realize that CG taxes are getting taxed on dollars that have already been taxed, and that the econemy needs investment to grow and create jobs?

You pay taxes on Capital "Gains" not on capital investment. In other words you get taxed on new money, not on the taxed money you invested.

 

[DaLincolnJones]

You pay taxes on Capital "Gains" not on capital investment. In other words you get taxed on new money, not on the taxed money you invested.

yeah, thought I explained it better in the follow up post, but well put

 

[The_Lillard_King]

yeah, thought I explained it better in the follow up post, but well put

I understand the value of American investing. But too me, it seems extreme. You work your ass off to make say 500K in a year and you are probably paying at least twice in much in taxes (percentage wise) than the person who made 10 million on investments. Just doesn't seem right to me . . . but I'm not an economist and I'm guessing all those politicians who make their fortune in investments can explain to us why it is valuable to have a much higher income tax than capital gains tax.

 

[DaLincolnJones]

I understand the value of American investing. But too me, it seems extreme. You work your ass off to make say 500K in a year and you are probably paying at least twice in much in taxes (percentage wise) than the person who made 10 million on investments. Just doesn't seem right to me . . . but I'm not an economist and I'm guessing all those politicians who make their fortune in investments can explain to us why it is valuable to have a much higher income tax than capital gains tax.

great post on all levels, repped

the only thing we can do is structure the tax laws to encourage investment in this country, ot you get shit like the steel mills that no longer exist here, or te chineese buying paper production plants and demoing them here to enshure zero compitition

 

[Denny Crane]

How do you figure?



Yes. If we increase the capital gains tax rate, investors will take their money and.... do what, exactly? Bury it in the yard?

barfo

Bury it in the yard in some other country where the tax rates are more favorable.

And short term capital gains are taxed at regular income tax rates.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

Another thing, as I dig myself in a hole because I'm probably all wet about this capital gains tax, but wouldn't you feel that if you did make your fortune by investing in America, that you should pay a higher portion of that back to the country that allowed you the opportunity to invest and make all that money.

I mean when you work, that is you working hard for money. When you make it through investments, you really aren't working that hard and only because of this country and investing it that you made money. it seems logical to me that you give more of the money to the gov't in that situation than when your busting your butt everyday at work. I can see being underemployed having a bad attitude about paying taxes,I don't get investing money in American companies or whatever and then bitching about paying taxes on that even if it was 20-40%.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

great post on all levels, repped

the only thing we can do is structure the tax laws to encourage investment in this country, ot you get shit like the steel mills that no longer exist here, or te chineese buying paper production plants and demoing them here to enshure zero compitition

Thanks for the rep (right back at you) and more importantly the civil discussion about capital gains tax. As stated, I really don't understand the economics behind it and you are right, investing in America is important.

OK group hug

 

[Denny Crane]

Another thing, as I dig myself in whole because I'm probably all wet about this capital gains tax, but wouldn't you feel that if you did make your fortune by investing in America, that you should pay a higher portion of that back to the country that allowed you the opportunity to invest and in make all that money.

I mean when you work, that is you working hard for money. When you make it through investments, you really aren't working that hard and only because of this country and investing it that you made money. it seems logical to me that you give more of the money to the gov't in that situation than when your busting your butt everyday at work. I can see being underemployed having a bad attitude about paying taxes,I don't get investing money in American companies or whatever and then bitching about paying taxes on that even if it was 20-40%.

No.

Encouraging investment here in our markets keeps a lot of jobs here. If we have less a chance of companies going IPO because nobody wants to pay the tax after taking the risk, there will be a lot fewer companies formed. They ARE investing in America.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

No.

Encouraging investment here in our markets keeps a lot of jobs here. If we have less a chance of companies going IPO because nobody wants to pay the tax after taking the risk, there will be a lot fewer companies formed. They ARE investing in America.

We definitely see the world and our obligations to our country differently.

I don't think raising capital gains will kill investing . . . Romney and Obama and many other rich people will continue to invest and make money that way, even if the overall percentage is lower, IMO.

Of course it's a good thing I'm not president because I agree it would not be good to kill investing in America. But with your philosophy, if we lower personal income tax, maybe a lot more of these entitled self proclaimed victims will go back to work . . . wait a minute, I think I understand Mitt's reasoning.

 

[PapaG]

Another thing, as I dig myself in a hole because I'm probably all wet about this capital gains tax, but wouldn't you feel that if you did make your fortune by investing in America, that you should pay a higher portion of that back to the country that allowed you the opportunity to invest and make all that money.

I mean when you work, that is you working hard for money. When you make it through investments, you really aren't working that hard and only because of this country and investing it that you made money. it seems logical to me that you give more of the money to the gov't in that situation than when your busting your butt everyday at work. I can see being underemployed having a bad attitude about paying taxes,I don't get investing money in American companies or whatever and then bitching about paying taxes on that even if it was 20-40%.

I think you have it backwards, but I'm not flaming you. Keeping capital gains taxes reasonable allows the "middle class" to invest in our markets without paying high rates if they find a solid investment. Now, if you're talking about restructuring the capital gains tax based on net worth, that's a different argument, but as somebody is "middle class" and has investments, I'm a bit upset that the capital gains tax is increasing under ObamaCare, and the dividends tax is set to skyrocket. I'll be pulling my money immediately out of the market and into gold if the Dems get majorities in this election, and Obama wins. If Obama wins, and the GOP gains the Senate and keeps the House, I think that the Dems in the Senate will be wise enough to extend the tax "cuts" that are still somehow "cuts" 12 years after they took effect.

Right now, the maximum federal income tax rate on long-term capital gains and dividends is only 15%. Starting in 2013, the maximum rate on long-term gains is scheduled to go up to 20% and the maximum rate on dividends is scheduled to increase to 39.6% as the so-called Bush tax cuts expire.

But that's not all. Also starting in 2013, all or part of the net investment income, including long-term capital gains and dividends, collected by higher-income folks can get socked with an additional 3.8% "Medicare contribution tax." Therefore, the maximum federal rate on long-term gains for 2013 and beyond will actually be 23.8% (versus the current 15%) and the maximum rate on dividends will be a whopping 43.4% (versus the current 15%).

http://www.smartmoney.com/taxes/income/what-obamacare-may-mean-for-taxes-1335896160486/

 

[Denny Crane]

We definitely see the world and our obligations to our country differently.

I don't think raising capital gains will kill investing . . . Romney and Obama and many other rich people will continue to invest and make money that way, even if the overall percentage is lower, IMO.

Of course it's a good thing I'm not president because I agree it would not be good to kill investing in America. But with you philosophy, if we lower personal income tax, maybe a lot more of these entitled self proclaimed victims will go back to work . . . wait a minute, I think I understand Mitt's reasoning.

Obama paid 19% effective tax rate last year on ~$1M in income. Fair?

In any case, when capital gains tax was 40% in 1977, the IRS raised $27B in inflation adjusted dollars compared to the $122B it raised when the tax was 15% in 2007.

And capital gains are not a one-time thing. If you buy 100 shares of stock in a company today at $10 and 100 shares next year at $20, and the stock goes to $100 and you sell 100 shares, which stock are you selling? How much is the gain, in other words. And the lower gains rate is designed to encourage people to realize their gains, which encourages the capital to move to newer and better investments.

If you buy a stock in company A for $1 and it goes to $100 and you sell, you make $99. But you buy a stock in company B the next year for $100 and it goes to $1, you've paid tax on the $99 gain, but you don't get a refund for the $99 loss the following year. The tax is not exactly fair in that case, eh? You have effectively been taxed on your net worth, not on your actual income.

 

[PapaG]

We definitely see the world and our obligations to our country differently.

I don't think raising capital gains will kill investing . . . Romney and Obama and many other rich people will continue to invest and make money that way, even if the overall percentage is lower, IMO.

Of course it's a good thing I'm not president because I agree it would not be good to kill investing in America. But with your philosophy, if we lower personal income tax, maybe a lot more of these entitled self proclaimed victims will go back to work . . . wait a minute, I think I understand Mitt's reasoning.

You do realize that many "middle class" people have their 401ks tied into markets, and also that many of us invest in the markets outside of the 401k tax shelter for additional income, right?

Obama has even talked about taxing income prior to it going into a 401k, which is troubling.

 

[Denny Crane]

In 1996, I bought a 1972 VW Bus for $2800. This is 24 years later. It originally sold for about $2800 in 1972, so it must be one of those rare vehicles that kept its value (today one would cost $8K or more).

Anyhow, over the years, every time that Bus was sold, someone paid sales tax to the DMV. No question in my mind that the thing made the state way more than $2800 in taxes. The same thing happens to a share of stock (gets taxed over and over again).

 

[The_Lillard_King]

I think you have it backwards, but I'm not flaming you. Keeping capital gains taxes reasonable allows the "middle class" to invest in our markets without paying high rates if they find a solid investment. Now, if you're talking about restructuring the capital gains tax based on net worth, that's a different argument, but as somebody is "middle class" and has investments, I'm a bit upset that the capital gains tax is increasing under ObamaCare.

http://www.smartmoney.com/taxes/income/what-obamacare-may-mean-for-taxes-1335896160486/

Well there is investing like we do (extra income and 401K or deferred comp) and then there is investing like the rich folks do who make millions a year in investing.

Sadly enough, even if they raised capital gains tax on me (as a middle income earner), it would not raise my taxes much (obviously don't get taxed on our 401K). I think the rich have a lot more to lose, even percentage wise, than the typical middle class earner. In fact my other beef is us middle class earner invest our money blindly into wall street. Yes there is a risk in investing, but somehow I think the rich have a lot less risk or at least understand what they are investing v. middle class that blindly trust the rich to guide them.

 

[Denny Crane]

I'll make the math really simple for everyone.

Romney made ~$14M. He paid ~$2M in taxes and another $4M to charity. $14M - $2M - $4M = $8M. That's what he made, net, at the end of the day on his $14M income.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

In 1996, I bought a 1972 VW Bus for $2800. This is 24 years later. It originally sold for about $2800 in 1972, so it must be one of those rare vehicles that kept its value (today one would cost $8K or more).

Anyhow, over the years, every time that Bus was sold, someone paid sales tax to the DMV. No question in my mind that the thing made the state way more than $2800 in taxes. The same thing happens to a share of stock (gets taxed over and over again).

Thanks, that helps me understand one reason for the low tax rate . . . generate more buying and selling and thus more money going to gov't. Still wonder what would happen if they raised the tax as i don't see it curbing the rich addiction to capital gains. Once you go soft and can rely on invest money to live . . . it's like crack.

Besides I'm sure wall street, with all their investment advisors will get people buying and selling with some kind of news about why one should buy or sell. Can you tell I'm a little jaded about wall street.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

I'll make the math really simple for everyone.

Romney made ~$14M. He paid ~$2M in taxes and another $4M to charity. $14M - $2M - $4M = $8M. That's what he made, net, at the end of the day on his $14M income.

So Romney's gross income was 14M?

 

[Denny Crane]

So Romney's gross income was 14M?

Yep. And Obama made $1.8M in 2009, ~$850K in 2008, ~$6M in 2008, $2.7M in 2007, $4.2M in 2006.

Romney made ~3x what Obama did in his best year.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

Yep.

Wow. So he made a flat 14M and didn't have any losses or deductions. I take it back about the percentage he donated.

Or is that net income I'm talking about?

 

[Denny Crane]

Wow. So he made a flat 14M and didn't have any losses or deductions. I take it back about the percentage he donated.

Or is that net income I'm talking about?

His adjusted income was $14M - $4M, in theory. He didn't deduct the maximum of $4M like he should have. He is allowed to amend his prior tax return and can get a refund if he's due one.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

His adjusted income was $14M - $4M, in theory. He didn't deduct the maximum of $4M like he should have. He is allowed to amend his prior tax return and can get a refund if he's due one.

Well there is income in the total amount he made this year vs adjusted income after he takes deductions and the like.

I get he didn't take the charitable deduction (that I thought was limited). But being a very small player in the tax and investment world, and owning a couple of rentals, I know how to take in income and how to create temporary losses.

I'm wondering if Romney made a bunch more than 14M, but by the time he factors in deductions including "losses" that it ended up at 14M. Do his tax returns show this? Personally my gross income was much more than my adjusted income.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

The Romneys paid $1,935,708 in taxes on $13,696,951 of mostly investment income for an effective tax rate of 14.1 percent.
The Obamas paid an effective tax rate of 20.5 percent in 2011 . . . a lower rate than the president's secretary, according to the White House.

This is what is wrong with our system