Romneys staff admits they manipulated his tax returns

[ChoomCzar]

Fact Check: Is Romney's tax rate really lower than yours?

President Obama's campaign, with a good dose of help from the media, is pushing a claim that millionaire Mitt Romney is taxed at a "lower rate" than someone making $50,000 a year.
The claim, though, is open to debate. It only holds up in a particular scenario in which both income and all payroll taxes are counted.
The president's campaign presumably is referring to Romney's release last week of his 2011 tax returns, which showed he paid an effective tax rate of 14.1 percent.
This revelation, as might be expected, fueled a wave of campaign stump speeches and videos. The latest was an Obama Web video blasting Romney's "strange take on tax fairness." It included clips of people accusing Romney of paying a lower rate than "average" Americans. An accompanying campaign email said: "Mitt Romney admitted he thinks it's fair that his $20 million income was taxed at a lower rate than someone making $50,000."
IRS data, though, shows that Romney's effective income tax rate -- that's what he pays as a percentage of his income once deductions and other benefits are factored in -- is actually far higher than what most Americans pay.
And it's certainly higher than what someone making $50,000 pays.
IRS data from 2010 shows someone making between $50,000 and $75,000 on average pays an effective rate of 7.8 percent. Even someone making between $100,000 and $200,000 pays a 12.1 percent rate -- also lower than Romney's.
So what is the Obama campaign referring to? There are a couple possibilities.
The campaign likely is trying to make the point that Romney's income -- at least the huge chunk of it that is derived from investments -- is taxed at a 15 percent rate, while others who earn their money from a paycheck are taxed at marginal income rates going all the way up to 35 percent.
The latter percentage, though, comes down once deductions and exemptions are included. The Tax Foundation estimated in a report in January that Romney's rate in 2010 -- which was also about 14 percent -- was higher than what 97 percent of Americans pay.
The math works out better for the Obama campaign's claims if all payroll taxes are included in the formula.
Since Romney earns most his income from investments and not from a paycheck, he doesn't have to pay much toward Social Security and Medicare taxes. But if both the employee and employer share of those taxes are included, according to a Tax Policy Center chart, the middle tier of earners would be paying a 15.5 percent effective rate. (As pointed out in an earlier report by FactCheck.org.)
That would be slightly higher than Romney's rate.
The Obama campaign, asked about its latest Web video, told FoxNews.com "you can't ignore the payroll tax" considering how big of a hit that is for most middle-class families.
The Obama campaign also referred FoxNews.com to Romney's comments to CBS' "60 Minutes.
In the interview, Romney was asked by reporter Scott Pelley whether Romney's rate is "fair to the guy who makes $50,000 and paid a higher rate than you did?"
Without disputing that claim, Romney said it was fair and explained: "It is a low rate. And one of the reasons why the capital gains tax rate is lower is because capital has already been taxed once at the corporate level, as high as 35 percent."
The claim by Pelley, though, made certain assumptions without explaining them.
Obama used Pelley's phrasing to repeat the claim Monday on ABC's "The View."
"Yesterday Governor Romney on 60 Minutes said -- was asked does he think it is fair that he pays a lower tax rate than somebody that's making $50,000 a year, and he said yes," Obama said.
As the Media Research Center pointed out, an ABC reporter also claimed that Romney's 14.1 percent rate was "lower" than that of an auto mechanic making $75,000.
While Romney may or may not pay less than the average middle-class earner -- depending on how one defines middle class and how one defines tax rate -- one thing is clear: Romney does pay at a lower rate than the typical wealthy person.
IRS data for 2010 showed those making between $1 million and $10 million typically paid at an effective tax rate of more than 25 percent.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by ChoomCzar

Fact Check: Is Romney's tax rate really lower than yours?

President Obama's campaign, with a good dose of help from the media, is pushing a claim that millionaire Mitt Romney is taxed at a "lower rate" than someone making $50,000 a year.
The claim, though, is open to debate. It only holds up in a particular scenario in which both income and all payroll taxes are counted.
The president's campaign presumably is referring to Romney's release last week of his 2011 tax returns, which showed he paid an effective tax rate of 14.1 percent.
This revelation, as might be expected, fueled a wave of campaign stump speeches and videos. The latest was an Obama Web video blasting Romney's "strange take on tax fairness." It included clips of people accusing Romney of paying a lower rate than "average" Americans. An accompanying campaign email said: "Mitt Romney admitted he thinks it's fair that his $20 million income was taxed at a lower rate than someone making $50,000."
IRS data, though, shows that Romney's effective income tax rate -- that's what he pays as a percentage of his income once deductions and other benefits are factored in -- is actually far higher than what most Americans pay.
And it's certainly higher than what someone making $50,000 pays.
IRS data from 2010 shows someone making between $50,000 and $75,000 on average pays an effective rate of 7.8 percent. Even someone making between $100,000 and $200,000 pays a 12.1 percent rate -- also lower than Romney's.
So what is the Obama campaign referring to? There are a couple possibilities.
The campaign likely is trying to make the point that Romney's income -- at least the huge chunk of it that is derived from investments -- is taxed at a 15 percent rate, while others who earn their money from a paycheck are taxed at marginal income rates going all the way up to 35 percent.
The latter percentage, though, comes down once deductions and exemptions are included. The Tax Foundation estimated in a report in January that Romney's rate in 2010 -- which was also about 14 percent -- was higher than what 97 percent of Americans pay.
The math works out better for the Obama campaign's claims if all payroll taxes are included in the formula.
Since Romney earns most his income from investments and not from a paycheck, he doesn't have to pay much toward Social Security and Medicare taxes. But if both the employee and employer share of those taxes are included, according to a Tax Policy Center chart, the middle tier of earners would be paying a 15.5 percent effective rate. (As pointed out in an earlier report by FactCheck.org.)
That would be slightly higher than Romney's rate.
The Obama campaign, asked about its latest Web video, told FoxNews.com "you can't ignore the payroll tax" considering how big of a hit that is for most middle-class families.
The Obama campaign also referred FoxNews.com to Romney's comments to CBS' "60 Minutes.
In the interview, Romney was asked by reporter Scott Pelley whether Romney's rate is "fair to the guy who makes $50,000 and paid a higher rate than you did?"
Without disputing that claim, Romney said it was fair and explained: "It is a low rate. And one of the reasons why the capital gains tax rate is lower is because capital has already been taxed once at the corporate level, as high as 35 percent."
The claim by Pelley, though, made certain assumptions without explaining them.
Obama used Pelley's phrasing to repeat the claim Monday on ABC's "The View."
"Yesterday Governor Romney on 60 Minutes said -- was asked does he think it is fair that he pays a lower tax rate than somebody that's making $50,000 a year, and he said yes," Obama said.
As the Media Research Center pointed out, an ABC reporter also claimed that Romney's 14.1 percent rate was "lower" than that of an auto mechanic making $75,000.
While Romney may or may not pay less than the average middle-class earner -- depending on how one defines middle class and how one defines tax rate -- one thing is clear: Romney does pay at a lower rate than the typical wealthy person.
IRS data for 2010 showed those making between $1 million and $10 million typically paid at an effective tax rate of more than 25 percent.

The Kool Aid swilling morons in this forum don't want to bothered with facts, ChoomCzar. It doesn't bother them one bit that Odumbo and Slick Willie the Sexual Predator Perjurer lie in nearly every campaign TV ad and that Senator Reid has the gall to stand on the Senate floor and perpetuate even greater lies.

[ChoomCzar]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

The Kool Aid swilling morons in this forum don't want to bothered with facts, ChoomCzar. It doesn't bother them one bit that Odumbo and Slick Willie the Sexual Predator Perjurer lie in nearly every campaign TV ad and that Senator Reid has the gall to stand on the Senate floor and perpetuate even greater lies.

I don't post this stuff for the liberal filth....I post it for the patriotic conservatives who enjoy watching the liberal filth being detroyed with the truth....of course, they have as much brains as shame so it means nothing to them.....I just want to provide material and comments to entertain the intelligent posters here.

[markroxny]

Originally Posted by ChoomCzar

I don't post this stuff for the liberal filth....I post it for the patriotic conservatives who enjoy watching the liberal filth being detroyed with the truth....of course, they have as much brains as shame so it means nothing to them.....I just want to provide material and comments to entertain the intelligent posters here.

Oh, is that why you keep coming back to the board even after you are banned Marshall?

Here is a fact for you....you are in violation of the TOS of this board by creating a new ID and coming back on here.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by markroxny

Oh, is that why you keep coming back to the board even after you are banned Marshall?

Here is a fact for you....you are in violation of the TOS of this board by creating a new ID and coming back on here.

More "accusations without proof", marks-rocks-with-pee? Slander must be your specialty, you low-life SOB.

[markroxny]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

More "accusations without proof", marks-rocks-with-pee? Slander must be your specialty, you low-life SOB.

Oh he won't deny it, he practically bragged about it.

You should take care who you carry the water for teapot.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by markroxny

Oh he won't deny it, he practically bragged about it.

You should take care who you carry the water for teapot.

Don't worry your minuscule, pea-brained brain about "who carries whose water", marks-rocks-with-pee. All you need to worry about in a shit-throwing contest is that you'll be scurrying around dodging superior and overwhelming numbers of incoming rounds.

[markroxny]

*Yawn*

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by markroxny

*Yawn*

Fuck you!

[KCJoe]

In case you haven't seen it.

http://www.mittromney.com/disclosure...wmr-adr-return

Looking over it, I can see one blatent error. Mitt has self-employment income, but rather than take the allowed adjustment for self-employed health insurance, he deducted it as an itemized deduction. He had $190k from speaking fees and not one dollar of expenses related to it.


Over 1/3 of his income tax was because of the alternative income tax. Otherwise, he rate would have been about 9%.



Not sure why everyone looks at the percentage of income tax when it is compared to adjusted gross income. It should be as a % of taxable income which would put his rate at a little over 21%.

As far as Mitt leaving off deductions, I can only think back to when he made this statement.

Romney said in a January Republican primary debate, "I pay all the taxes that are legally required and not a dollar more. I don't think you want someone as the candidate for president who pays more taxes than he owes."

[Randy4Candy]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Please cite where you read Romney was considering disallowing a tax deduction for, let's say, home mortgages for the middle class and the poor but not for the rich. You may have a problem generating sympathy for Romney, but it's evident you have no problem generating jealousy.

I wasn't responding to Thurston, InBredHankering. Try, in the future, to keep it between the lines. Good luck, you'll need it.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Randy4Candy

I wasn't responding to Thurston, InBredHankering. Try, in the future, to keep it between the lines. Good luck, you'll need it.

Well Randy4Andy, deflect as you might, you've just admitted you cannot substantiate your assertions with bona fide cites.

[CuteOldGuy]

Dammit, IB! Now you're going to have to explain "bona fide" to RaggedyAndy. He will think it is something Viagra will cure.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Dammit, IB! Now you're going to have to explain "bona fide" to RaggedyAndy. He will think it is something Viagra will cure.

Probably.

[Randy4Candy]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Well Randy4Andy, deflect as you might, you've just admitted you cannot substantiate your assertions with bona fide cites.

Like most of your and COsFb's white noise horse-hockie, your little attempt to lead the discussion down your primsose path to nowhere isn't germane.

I'll see your bona fides (do you know how to pronounce it?) and raise you a germane.