HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Mitt appears to have paid...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 01:20 PM

Mitt appears to have paid far LESS in taxes in 2009.

Is that because he earned far less, or did he have a similar income but paid at a much lower rate?

Two years of tax releases is not enough.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/24/inside-the-romney-tax-returns/?hp

While he did not release his 2009 tax returns, there is a hint of much Mr. Romney and his wife paid in taxes that year.

The 2010 return shows the Romney's made estimated tax payments that year of $1,369,095. (He then paid a lot more when he sought an extension of the April 15 filing deadline.)

To avoid penalties, estimated tax payments must be at least 110 percent of the taxes owed the prior year. Assuming that is what he paid, his tax bill for 2009 would have been $1,244,632.

There is no easy way to estimate his reported income from that figure. The 2009 income presumably included large amounts of dividends, taxed at a 15 percent rate, and of interest income, taxed at full marginal rates. And of course we have no way of knowing how large other deductions, such as for charitable contributions, were in that year.

6 replies, 1209 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 6 replies Author Time Post
Reply Mitt appears to have paid far LESS in taxes in 2009. (Original post)
pnwmom Jan 2012 OP
unblock Jan 2012 #1
Bok_Tukalo Jan 2012 #2
pnwmom Jan 2012 #3
Bok_Tukalo Jan 2012 #4
onenote Jan 2012 #5
pnwmom Jan 2012 #6

Response to pnwmom (Original post)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 01:23 PM

1. too early!!!

drip, drip, drip!

save some for laters!

ehh, whaddamisayin? this guy's the gift that keeps on giving -- without even paying gift tax!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Original post)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 01:31 PM

2. Makes sense. 2009 was not a good year.

Probably was even less in 2008.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bok_Tukalo (Reply #2)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 01:36 PM

3. Lots of wealthy people made lots of money while the market was crashing.

I wouldn't assume anything about Mitt's finances. We need to see more returns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #3)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 01:39 PM

4. He appears to have made lots of money too

Just not as much as 2010 and 2011.

I'm not even going to get into the weeds with regards to carried losses from 2008.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #3)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 02:07 PM

5. He reported a loss carryover from 2009

which suggests that his net income for 2009 probably was significantly less than in 2010 or 2011. That doesn't mean that he didn't make a lot of money in 2009 or that he shouldn't be pressured to release additional returns. It just means that as between his making the same amount of money (net) and paying less taxes on it and paying less taxes because he had lower net income, the latter seems more likely.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onenote (Reply #5)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 04:06 PM

6. Maybe he was using one of those tax shelters that cause large paper losses.



Without more tax returns, we'll never know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread