Skip to comments.Romney Says He Pays About 15 Percent in Income Tax
Posted on 01/17/2012 12:37:34 PM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
After weeks of stalling, Mitt Romney did an about-face on Tuesday and said he will release his tax returns in April and that they will show he pays close to 15 percent of his income in taxes.
Romney, a multimillionaire, has been under pressure from his rivals for the Republican presidential nomination and others to release the information. He'd previously said he wouldn't release it. He suggested Tuesday that he would make public only one year's worth of information, for 2011.
Speaking to reporters after a campaign stop in South Carolina, Romney said most of his income comes from investments, not regular wages and salary. The tax rate on investment income is 15 percent, much lower than the 35 percent rate applied to wages for those in the highest tax bracket.
"What's the effective rate I've been paying? It's probably closer to the 15 percent rate than anything," Romney said. "Because my last 10 years, I've ... my income comes overwhelmingly from investments made in the past, rather than ordinary income or rather than earned annual. I got a little bit of income from my book, but I gave that all away. And then I get speaker's fees from time to time, but not very much."
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
Richard A. Viguerie: Romneys Real Bain Capital Problem is His Hypocrisy ....."Among the insiders who received the no-strings-attached cash were Goldman Sachs Group Inc, Deutsche Bank AG, Merrill Lynch, Societe Generale, Calyon, Barclays Plc, Rabobank, Danske, HSBC, Royal Bank of Scotland, Banco Santander, Morgan Stanley, Wachovia, Bank of America, and Lloyds Banking Group.
Not surprisingly, just a cursory examination of Federal Election Commission campaign finance reports shows Romney banked over $798,000 from employees of TARP recipients.
*********Romney's Disclosure Form**********
How can that be? We’re paying 35%?
So? I work for a bank, therefore I am an "employee of a TARP recipient." Does that mean I, as a rather lowly employee of a financial institution who is simply working whatever job he can get to feed his family, have no right to participate in the political process?
I'm not a Mitt guy, but c'mon.
They call me “poor boy, poor boy, poor boy”
Isn’t this the creep who wants the “wealthy” to pay 35%?
THAT my friend is one of the problems with the tax code. All us little folks are being taxed at a higer rate because we get paid on income; the rich make their money from dividends and capital gains, so they pay a lower rate. This is why people like Buffett says he pays less taxes than his secretary. Stricly speaking, it’s not true, but he’s taxed at a lower rate than she is because of the way she receives her income.
Newt & The Rick Twins will nail Willard Thursday night on THAT!
I made 12k last year.
I pay 300/month in taxes due to SS and whatnot from just federal taxes.
That’s the same as what Mitt Romney is paying. FUMR!
Nov. 13, 2011: Pelosi fires back at 60 Minutes report on soft corruption
Pelosi and her husband participated in an initial public offering of Visa in 2008, according to CBS. They bought 5,000 shares at the initial price of $44; two days later, shares were trading at $64, CBS said........... Source
Obama will get another 4 years unless an alternative party comes in now. The Republican race for the White House is done. Tea Party where are you at?
How can that be? Why incorporation. The elitists knew exactly what they were doing when they duped people into supporting an income tax. Abolish the income tax altogether, and return us to duties, excises and tariffs. Taxation of productivity stifles productivity. People don’t care if they’re sheared if the shearing comes out of the income before they ever even see it. Have them see a tax on every receipt and they’re more inclined to care. (Even them, some will baaa and turn back to the TV/Sporting event).
“How can that be? Were paying 35%?”
Wage income, like from doing work, is taxed at around 35%, depending on where you are in the tax tables.
Interest income or capital gains from stocks is taxed at 15%.
More than half of Congress and the president and VP are millionaires, and they write the tax laws.
This is one of the major complaints of OWS and was the basis for Warren Buffet’s rant some months ago.
If you work, save, and invest, the fruits of that investment is taxed less. It’s a great incentive to invest your dough so other people can work with it (grow the economy). As Eisenhower found out, raising that rate makes people hide their stash so nobody gets the benefit. Kennedy drastically cut taxes on “the rich” and increased Federal revenue significantly, as well as investment and growth in general as “the rich” could now make a buck by spreading their wealth around in the form of investment via stocks and bonds.
You can see the result in Buffet’s letter, when he complains about how much people make and how much they are taxed, do the math and you’ll see that Buffet proves the point that lower taxes on The Wealthy results in higher federal revenue (to pay for federal stuff).
Oh I would love to see a repeal of the republic-killing 16th Amendment.
Step One: A flat tax RATE system.
Step Two: A per capita flat tax AMOUNT system.
Why do “the rich” owe any more in pure dollars to support the government?
“THAT my friend is one of the problems with the tax code. All us little folks are being taxed at a higer rate because we get paid on income; the rich make their money from dividends and capital gains, so they pay a lower rate. “
Last time I heard this argument I heard it coming from President Obama in a class warfare argument to raise the capital gains tax to 28%. Are you suggesting we raise the capital gains tax and discourage capital investment to achieve growth?
35% is for people making $379k and up....taxable income.
Keeping Romney’s name out of this argument, I refuse to fall for this class baiting.
I’m in the 25% bracket, if you look at my raw income...but I don’t pay 25%. Last year, I paid 6.6% - a very common outcome after standard deductions, etc lower the taxable income.
This whole class baiting argument pits the stated and collected cap gain rate (15%) against the stated (but certainly not collected) income tax rates. Its not a valid comparison.
And why are we comparing income tax to gains tax anyway? Presumably, somebody somewhere earned money as income, in the first place, before investing it and realizing gains.
I know spicing up the argument with Romney’s name clouds the issue...but this ‘argument’ is at the heart of the OWS crowd. The sheeple really believe they pay more in taxes than the ultra wealthy...and it really is just not true.
Problem is...it would affect millions of middle-class Americans too and bar the way to greater wealth as one climbs the ladder.
Classic class warfare.
@#^#&!! I wish...........!!! I pay cap gains near 40% to the Feds every year!!
Of course lets be a bit clearer....Long Term Cap Gains are taxed differently than Short Term Cap Gains....of which I an referring to.
............”One lucrative deal for Bain involved KB Toys, a company based in Pittsfield, Mass., which one of the firms partnerships bought in 2000. Three years later, when Mr. Romney was the governor of Massachusetts, the company began closing stores and laying off thousands of employees. More recently, Bain helped lead the private equity purchase of Clear Channel Communications, the nations largest radio station operator, which resulted in the loss of 2,500 jobs.
Much information about Mr. Romneys wealth is not known publicly. Federal law does not obligate him to disclose the precise details of his investments. He has declined to release his tax returns, and his campaign last week refused to say what tax rate he paid on his Bain earnings.
But since Mr. Romneys payouts from Bain have come partly from the firms share of profits on its customers investments, that income probably qualifies for the 15 percent tax rate reserved for capital gains, rather than the 35 percent that wealthy taxpayers pay on ordinary income. The Internal Revenue Service allows investment managers to pay the lower rate on the share of profits, known in the industry as carried interest, that they receive for running funds for investors.
These are options that are not available to the ordinary taxpayer, said Victor Fleischer, a law professor at the University of Colorado who studies financial firms. You continue to take your carried interest a return on labor, not capital invested and youre paying 15 percent on it instead of high marginal income rates.....................
Amen! And lets shrink the size of Government to meet the revenue, rather than match revenue to the size of Government while we’re at it.
I don’t begrudge Romney for only paying 15%. He invested well.
I am 100% against the income tax. It needs to be abolished.
I didn’t do research before I posted, so maybe cap gains should not be there (I get nailed on cap gains every year too), maybe “dividends” is a better term.
If everyone who told me that I need to pay more in taxes, paid taxes at the same rate I’m paying, there would be no need to tell me that I need to pay more in taxes.
They didn’t ask him how much he paid his tax attorneys.
Carlyle Group, Bain Capital, And The Tax Treatment Of 'The Carry' ......."That story is much more complicated than Romneys opponents suggest. Nonetheless, it has lots of people thinking about what private equity does.
Also this week, Carlyle disclosed its executive compensation in some detail, providing a rare glimpse into how investment firm managers are paid. Combined with the Bain flap, it will surely reopen the five-year old debate over the special tax treatment these partnerships receive through a mechanism known as carried interest or, in short, the carry.
The carry allows general partners in investment deals to receive compensation in the form of tax-advantaged capital gains, which are taxed at 15 percent, rather than as salary, which would be taxed as ordinary income with a top rate of 35 percent. This happens because the managers are paid with a fee (up to 2 percent) plus 20 percent or more of their investors profits. Those profits are taxed as capital gains even though the general partners may have little or no money of their own at risk in the deal.".......
There are many reasons the two can be very different, you may have tons of kids, or an unusually large mortgage or other unusual itemized deductions. You may derive most of your income from investments which are taxed differently than earned income or maybe you earn far more than the point at which you stop having deductions for social security and medicare.
Any of these or many other things can lower your effective tax rate. In Romney's case, he is probably getting most of his income from investments, and probably also has a large percentage of his money kept in off shore investments and banks to avoid US taxes.
Not at all, see my subsequent posts. I wasn’t making an argument either, just pointing out that capital gains and salary are taxed at a different rate; that is the reason for the disparity. I do think its unfair and absurd, but I favor a massive slashing of the federal budget, a concomitant reduction in all tax rates and/or a repeal of the income tax altogether - not a rate increase on investment capital, surely not.
Yep, but then they have no concept of investment capital, and have a static view of wealth; they’re fighting for their sliver of the pie, not trying to make the pie larger.
Impossible that you pay a full 35% on your income via federal income taxes (ie not payroll taxes). 35% may be your top marginal but all your income is not subject to the top marginal rate. The margins start at 10%.
“Not at all, see my subsequent posts. I wasnt making an argument either, just pointing out that capital gains and salary are taxed at a different rate; that is the reason for the disparity. I do think its unfair and absurd, but I favor a massive slashing of the federal budget, a concomitant reduction in all tax rates and/or a repeal of the income tax altogether - not a rate increase on investment capital, surely not.”
In that case, I agree with you on all points.
“one of the problems with the tax code. All us little folks are being taxed at a higer rate because we get paid on income; the rich make their money from dividends and capital gains, so they pay a lower rate”
Not exactly. They pay a lower rate on income, yes, because their income is lower. Not that the general public realizes it, but those dividends and capital gains are double taxed. When you consider our federal VAT tax, known as the corporate tax, “the rich” are taxed at a rate higher than you and I.
The problem with the tax code, in addition to how it manipulates the market, is that it deliberately twists and turns to hide things from people. So that Warren Buffet can pay himself less in nominal income than his secretary, and pretend the tax burden is somehow unbalanced. So that Democrats, progressive Republicans, and idiots everywhere can pretend the rich don’t pay their fair share, when we all know, deep down, they pay the lion’s share.
By the way, nevermind double taxation and tricks of the tax code. Does anyone else think it’s ridiculous that we refer to Buffet’s secretary as if she’s a just your regular, old neighborhood secretary? As if she doesn’t get paid way, way over market rate. I have no doubt she’s a one percenter. The only reason Buffet’s specious argument kinda, sorta, almost makes sense is that he uses her as an example, rather than your average secretary.
Then this very same guy wants people to pay more in taxes while he dodges taxes and pays a lower rate then the middle class.
When conditions are good, a large number of them do use their capital.
I’m not sure how you can paint them the same way with such a broad brush.
“Interest income or capital gains from stocks is taxed at 15%.
@#^#&!! I wish...........!!! I pay cap gains near 40% to the Feds every year!!”
Do not confuse interest income with capital gains.The long term capital gains rate is 15%.Interest income is a totally different category and is taxed at whatever your marginal tax rate is.
“Thats the same as what Mitt Romney is paying. FUMR!”
Don’t be naive. Your income may be taxed at the same rate, but there’s income and then there’s “income.” One is the popular notion of how much money you make, while the other has a very specific legal meaning. Believe me, Mitt’s income in the popular sense is taxed at a rate that would make your head spin.
Which of course is robbery....They risk NOTHING...and I pay them. It's BS.....
Just think about it.....let's say I risked 10 millon bucks. And I made 2 million by trading some stock...and took that profit. And the Government "makes" nearly half of what I make??????
THEY did nothing....I DID everything!!!
You didn’t read my post.....very well.
“So Mitt the Socialist fired employees at Bain in order to put more money in his back pocket under the Trojan Horse of trying to save money for the company.
Then this very same guy wants people to pay more in taxes while he dodges taxes and pays a lower rate then the middle class”
Have you ever considered taking a job as a speechwriter for President Obama?
How did you” pay cap gains near 40% to the Feds every year” if the long term cap gains rate is 15%? Am I losing something in the translation?
Are you self employed?
Of not, you should only be paying about $70.00 in SS monthly, and zero in fed income taxes (or getting it all back at the end).
If you’re self employed, then double the SS amount. That’s still not $300.00. Are your figures right?
As far as MR, I have no use for him, but I support his (or anyone’s) absolute right to pay only taxes actually owed. If he paid more, that would be cause for a mental exam. :-)
Now, if he proposes raising your taxes while keeping his low, then F him.
“If you work, save, and invest, the fruits of that investment is taxed less.”
Not really. As no one seems to remember in this mad age of the Buffet Argument, we have a national VAT tax, which eats away at potential return. Because said tax is paid by the fictional personage of the corporation, people forget it affects actual people’s income. Of course, corporations are not the only means of investing, but you know what I mean.
“Buffet proves the point that lower taxes on The Wealthy results in higher federal revenue”
Can I stop you right there and ask whether you really think the wealthy are taxed less? I agree with the general drift of your argument, but that’s not the world we live in. I can’t believe Buffet has managed, against the plain truth, to con people into thinking the rich pay less. Except that I know, per some writer whose name eludes me, “the Credulous Man finds most delight in believing strange things, and the stranger they are, the easier they pass with him.”
All because some silly semantic trick with the word “income.”
“And why are we comparing income tax to gains tax anyway?”
Because without doing so Buffet couldn’t proffer his false argument.
“rather than match revenue to the size of Government while were at it.”
We don’t do that, either. Whenever the feds raise more revenue, they feel free to spend that much more.
I’m a private contractor for tax purposes. So yes I’m ‘self-employed’.
Seeing as my refund hasn’t shown up, then yes, I’m paying effectively 15 percent, which is the same as Romney.
“Why do ‘the rich’ owe any more in pure dollars to support the government?”
They are squeezed more because they can be. More people vote who aren’t rich than are. Every argument about their fair share, no matter how gilded with big moral words, is pure rationalization.
There’s more money in the middle class, but at some point they’ll snap back at the polls. Which is why Obama, et. al. are always talking about “tax cuts for the middle class,” etc.
What you can’t handle the facts that your flip flopping, gun grabbing, Socialized Health Care pusher Mitt Romney is complete hypocrite???
Here this guy wants tax payers to pay higher taxes for Socialized Health Care. At the very same time Mitt loots a company and then dodges taxes (that he THINKS we should pay) and pays a lower tax than the middle class?
Oh but you think that’s okay right????
Texas does just fine without an income tax. I don’t see why the feds require one.
Tax consumption. Say they put a 5 percent tax on every purchase, rather than 300/month that I’m effectively paying, I’d see 300+ net on my check at the end of the month. As my expenses are not 6k a month spending, my expenses come out around 200 a month.
I’d net 280 every single month, and around 3k a year. That’s big, big money for someone like me.
Please disregard my earlier post to you. I see by your subsequent post you were referring to short term capital gains rather than long term. You are correct.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.