HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » No, Virginia, Mitt Romney...

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 02:03 AM

 

No, Virginia, Mitt Romney Did Not Pay 14.1% in Taxes in 2011 - he paid less

Tax maven Lee Sheppard has a new piece up at Forbes on Romney’s tax returns, which I suggest you read in full.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/leesheppard/2012/09/25/east-of-eden-mitt-romneys-2011-returns/

It has juicy discussions of Romney’s investments, and the sus-looiking grantor trusts (which appear to be making investments in funds that are taking the tax position that they are engaged in a trade or business, which seems really unusual, to put it politely). And Sheppard looks to have scored a personal win. She flagged Ann Rommey’s horse Raflaca as not credible as a business, and lo and behold:

Expense for Raflaca didn’t show up on the Romneys’ 2011 return. The campaign admitted that the expenses were regarded as personal.

But her discussion at the top really caught my eye. Mitt did not pay 13.7% in taxes in 2011. He paid a lower rate and made a voluntary contribution, which tax law does not consider an extra tax. Yet he’s been characterizing this donation as a tax. This is a misrepresentation.

And if he chooses to, he can change his mind about that voluntary contribution. He has three years to amend his returns. What do you bet he won’t take that gimmie back if he loses his Presidential bid?

Read more at http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/09/no-virginia-mitt-romney-did-not-pay-14-1-in-taxes-in-2011-as-he-claims-he-paid-less.html#aAbX5EVu0OhUmtqR.99


A taste of the forbes link:

Investments. Apparently the trading addiction never goes away. Romney is a ballsy investor. Romney’s politically sensitive investments were sold off in 2009 in preparation for his presidential run.

His appetite for risk is so large that one plausible theory of what he might be hiding for the years 2007, 2008 and 2009 is a winning bet against the housing market with his friend and fundraiser John Paulson, chief of the hedge fund Paulson & Co...

Romney has been accused of betting against the United States, most famously with the Swiss bank account. The Ann Romney blind trust’s 2001 return shows a $1.7 million currency bet in the form of some Goldman Sachs structured notes.

These securities do not pay interest. Instead, their payoff is based on the performance of a basket of currencies, including the Russian rouble, against the U.S. dollar. That is, the Romneys profit if the dollar depreciates against these currencies. If the dollar appreciates, the Romneys could lose al or part of their investment. This investment clearly is a bet against America.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/leesheppard/2012/09/25/east-of-eden-mitt-romneys-2011-returns/

8 replies, 818 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 8 replies Author Time Post
Reply No, Virginia, Mitt Romney Did Not Pay 14.1% in Taxes in 2011 - he paid less (Original post)
HiPointDem Sep 2012 OP
HiPointDem Sep 2012 #1
HiPointDem Sep 2012 #2
madokie Sep 2012 #3
Laura PourMeADrink Sep 2012 #4
HiPointDem Sep 2012 #5
Laura PourMeADrink Sep 2012 #6
bluestate10 Sep 2012 #7
HiPointDem Sep 2012 #8

Response to HiPointDem (Original post)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 02:15 AM

1. I'll add -- I bet his entire class of "job creators" pays less too.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #1)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 06:31 AM

2. and i'll kick this for am

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Original post)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 06:38 AM

3. It can't be said

that mitt rmoney is a good American citizen

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Original post)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 07:36 AM

4. Wow, this statement is HUGE. Master Tax Manipulator. Kick this thread !!

But her discussion at the top really caught my eye. Mitt did not pay 13.7% in taxes in 2011. He paid a lower rate and made a voluntary contribution, which tax law does not consider an extra tax. Yet he’s been characterizing this donation as a tax. This is a misrepresentation.

Amazing...the only reason he did this was for political purposes !!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Laura PourMeADrink (Reply #4)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 07:43 AM

5. and he has three years to amend, so when he loses the election he can get the money back.

 

neat trick.

even more interesting stuff in the main report.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #5)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 06:24 PM

6. Yikes...he should be a case study for new accountants and IRS agents. Interesting about

giving stocks away to charity. Never heard of that before. I'd like to see who the recipients were - when I get a second I'll look it up

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Original post)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 08:31 PM

7. The issue that kicks me.

Are the right-wing nuts that add back in Romney's charitable donations in with what he paid in taxes to say, look Romney paid an effective rate of 30%. No wonder those fucking dumb-asses vote for Romney. If I added my charitable contributions back with my tax payments and then called that my effective tax rate, my tax rate would go up significantly. But, we don't get to add in our charitable donations with our taxes paid to create a new tax rate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluestate10 (Reply #7)

Sat Sep 29, 2012, 01:05 PM

8. +1. Pete Peterson's personal foundation to destroy social security counts as 'charitable giving'.

 

no way should charitable giving be counted as 'taxation'.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread