Saturday, September 22, 2012

Ten is a Good Number for Romney, but the Rest of Us Only Rate a Two

Mitt Romney has finally released a second year of his tax returns. The latest release shows he paid a rate of 14.1% for the year ending on December 31, 2011. The return also shows that he only claimed a portion of his actual charitable contributions for tax deduction purposes. Claiming the full amount of his charitable contributions would have reduced his taxable income to around 10%, well below the 14.1% rate that he paid last year.  And well below the 13% he insists is the lowest rate he paid.

what eye thynk:    Before we congratulate Mr. Romney on choosing to limit his deductions for 2011, let us remember that Mr. Romney has every right to file an amended tax return next year that will allow him to claim the balance of the charitible donations he chose not to claim in 2011 thus reducing his 2012 tax liability to...zero? 

I know Mr. Romney keeps saying we should trust him on that minimum of 13% rate, but "trust" and "politician"--any politician--are not words that sit well together.   I just can't keep from wondering what it is he's hiding.

So, for my own peace of mind, I’d like to see another eight years to know if, in previous years, he claimed 100% of his very commendable donations and reduced his earlier tax bills to below the 13% mark. It seems obvious that he manipulated last year’s tax return to make himself look as good as possible during his run for the White House; but what about the years when he didn’t plan ahead for closer scrutiny?

I’d like to see another eight years of tax returns to know if he used tax sheltered accounts in the Cayman Islands, Bermuda or Switzerland to avoid paying taxes to the country he wants to lead.

I’d like to see another eight years of tax returns to know if he used any of the questionable income switching techniques that some private equity firms like to use…the same techniques currently under investigation by the I.R.S.

I’d like to see another eight years just because it seems fair. After all, he required those he was considering for his running mate to disclose ten years of their tax returns to him.

I'd like to see another eight years because, if I’m going to enter into a four year contract with someone who can't seem to stay on the same side of any issue long enough to form a shadow, I feel I deserve to see more than two measly tax returns. After all, it was Mitt’s dad, George, who, after releasing twelve years of tax returns during his run for the presidency, said “One year could be a fluke, perhaps done for show.” Of course, George Romney’s returns showed that, over that twelve year period, he had paid an average tax rate of approximately 50%…which looks a lot better on a presidential candidate than the 14.1 and 13.9 percents that Mitt has produced.

On Friday, CNN quoted Romney as saying that the obsession with his tax returns is “small minded”. I prefer to think of it as due diligence.

3 comments:

  1. and I think he's hiding some skull duggery. It may be small minded of me but without anything to alter my thinkin' I'm thinkin' I'll not vote for that skull duggerous devil.
    Kidding aside, I'll not vote for him because he is against everything I stand for.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Interesting. I am more interested in the economy improving than I am in what Romney pays in taxes. Barack Obama has had three and one half years, and he hasn't succeeded. I suppose some people may think he needs more time, but I think time has run out. I can't vote for Barack Obama, even if Romney pays less in taxes. If I earn zero, I pay much less in taxes, but I also can't afford a good lifestyle. Better to get a job than a tax rate reduction.

    ReplyDelete
  3. But can you really believe that Romney can do any better? The Republicans have done nothing for 3 1/2 years but obstruct anything that may help job creation. Will they suddenly change course if Romney is President? Possibly, but the Tea Party will most likely stop any "free-thinkers" from actually acting on job creation. As for Obama's jobs record: the jobs bill to rebuild our infrastructure would have created tons of jobs...good jobs, but the House wouldn't even debate it. More jobs = more taxes paid + more money spent in local economies = more secondary jobs created with even more taxes being paid; but if Republicans refuse to even talk about starting the ball rolling, there can be no progress. More recently, congressional Republicans have refused to consider a jobs bill for our veterans. Private sector jobs are being created today at a decent pace; but the private sector can't fix the economy by itself. We need good government jobs and we need both Democrats and Republicans to agree on that.

    ReplyDelete