I don't think that is it at all. The fact is his rate would have been <10% unless he fudged his deductions to make his rate look higher. So he gave some extra cash to LDS (not a real charity IMO) and didn't claim it, why should his tax rate be 9% or 14% when most middle class people pay >20%?
Coupled with the fact that Romney can later (ie, after the election) file an amended return to claim his full itemized deduction. So he is perfectly able to evade the truth on his representation that he never paid less than 13% on his taxes and no one will ever know.
Given his tax avoidance history it's almost certain in my mind that he will file such an amended return.
What penalties?Wow, you are unreal. Let me know when you don't try to pay as little as possible come tax time. Also, let me know when you plan on paying more than the legal amount. You liberals are a sick bunch. Always trying to apply your insane ideals and then defiling people when they actually go along with it because its politically expedient.
The penalties alone would stop anyone from doing that.
You missed the point. Romney himself said:ROFLMAO!
People complain he didn't pay enough taxes. Now the same people are complaining that he didn't take enough deductions so that he could pay more taxes. Now he is evil for paying more than the legal amount. So those same people are now saying he should have payed less taxes. Wow.
Liberal mental gymnastics once again.
Yet, he didn't pay the legal minimum for 2011. He didn't pay the minimum because if he did, he wouldn't have payed more than 13%....
-He always pays at least 13% in taxes
-He always pays the legal minimum in taxes (doesn't intentionally pay more)
-He isn't fit to be President if he didn't pay the minimum
...
Wrong, as usual.
Romney: "I don’t pay more than are legally due and frankly if I had paid more than are legally due I don’t think I’d be qualified to become president. I’d think people would want me to follow the law and pay only what the tax code requires."
Yet, that is exactly what he did. He paid more than legally due in order to make it above 13%.
So he is disqualifying himself.
The man is going off the rails, and spidey mistakes it for brilliance.
Wow, you are unreal. Let me know when you don't try to pay as little as possible come tax time. Also, let me know when you plan on paying more than the legal amount. You liberals are a sick bunch. Always trying to apply your insane ideals and then defiling people when they actually go along with it because its politically expedient.
The penalties alone would stop anyone from doing that.
Wow, you are unreal. Let me know when you don't try to pay as little as possible come tax time. Also, let me know when you plan on paying more than the legal amount. You liberals are a sick bunch. Always trying to apply your insane ideals and then defiling people when they actually go along with it because its politically expedient.
The penalties alone would stop anyone from doing that.
Let's see, Romney is being bashed for not paying enough tax, for paying too much tax, and for having the legal right to amend his tax return in the future to pay less tax.
It's always hilarious when proggies pretend to have principles beyond "GIMME!"
Agreed, but it also raises the basic fairness of capital gains rates. Why is the man whose investments earn his bread taxed at a lower rate than the man whose labor earns his bread? True, his money is at risk, but most of us (who don't work for government) also take a risk when we take a job that our means of earning a living will go tango uniform, especially in today's economy.
I don't want the wealthy taxed at a higher rate, but I fail to see why they should be taxed at a lower rate.
Because a person who earns money an hour at a time reaps the profit (income) almost immediately. A person who earns money through investment does so over years or possibly decades.
Want to immediately destroy any and all capital investment in the US? Tax all capital gains as taxes.
I see a definite need for far more nuanced tax rules for cap gains than less-then-one-year and more-than-one-year, but there must be different rules for LTCG. If not, inflation will eliminate any desire for anybody to invest in anything longer than a couple years. Rates of return vs inflation simply wouldn't allow it, and all investment would move overseas.
Coupled with the fact that Romney can later (ie, after the election) file an amended return to claim his full itemized deduction. So he is perfectly able to evade the truth on his representation that he never paid less than 13% on his taxes and no one will ever know.
Given his tax avoidance history it's almost certain in my mind that he will file such an amended return.
I doubt you really think any of this is "hilarious," since Romney's tax issues will, together with the other numerous indicators that he is not fit to serve as President, guarantee the re-election of President Obama. He himself said that a person who would intentionally overpay his taxes would not be qualified as President, and it's now clear he not only did so, but did so for political purposes. I don't believe you find this funny, since I gather you are serious about wanting President Obama out of office.
And Obama said that if he couldn't fix the economy, he'd be a one term president. Looks like we now have our top 2 candidates disqualify themselves by their own words. So where do we go from here?
By tax avoidance history you mean donating to charity?
You missed the point. Romney himself said:Yet, he didn't pay the legal minimum for 2011. He didn't pay the minimum because if he did, he wouldn't have payed more than 13%.
Should my savings account be done the same way? Should I get to subtract the inflation rate from my savings rate to arrive at the "real" rate? After all, the money in the bank is being invested by the bank back into the US/world/etc. in the form of loans.
Edit: Not that I'm marking jack squat on my accounts right now but the the question still stands...
What would be an equitable solution to this dilemma? Is it fair that people who have investment portfolios of hundreds of millions or billions of dollars can earn tens of millions in a given year, live very comfortably off of that money, and pay a significantly lower rate than a solidly middle class wage earner? Is it fair that a CEO who earns 10,000,000 in salary is taxed at over double the rate of an investor who earns 10,000,000 in capital gains? I understand that there is risk involved in investing, but to a lot of us poor salaried employees, there seems to be a distinct lack of equality in millionaires and billionaires paying a lower percentage on the money they earn in a year.It would seem that you don't understand this issue. You realize those capital gains in the form of interest every month. You get a statement from the bank saying you earned $XX.XX in interest that month, and it was added to your account. If the gains from an investment are realized constantly, then yes, it should be taxed as income. But if I buy a piece of land and sell it thirty years later, how much money did I make on that land each month? Those capital gains were realized in one year, but in actuality the earnings took place over 30 years.
What would be an equitable solution to this dilemma? Is it fair that people who have investment portfolios of hundreds of millions or billions of dollars can earn tens of millions in a given year, live very comfortably off of that money, and pay a significantly lower rate than a solidly middle class wage earner? Is it fair that a CEO who earns 10,000,000 in salary is taxed at over double the rate of an investor who earns 10,000,000 in capital gains? I understand that there is risk involved in investing, but to a lot of us poor salaried employees, there seems to be a distinct lack of equality in millionaires and billionaires paying a lower percentage on the money they earn in a year.
Interesting point, giving money to the useless LDS or just have more going to the fed. Seems like the fed needs it more.
Gary Johnson!And Obama said that if he couldn't fix the economy, he'd be a one term president. Looks like we now have our top 2 candidates disqualify themselves by their own words. So where do we go from here?
By tax avoidance history you mean donating to charity?
I think he refers to that it's highly suspected that Romney had money in tax haven Swiss bank accounts and received amnesty in 2009. However unless Romney releases his 2009 federal returns it's not possible to confirm or discount this suspicion. Personally I would like to see his federal 2009 returns to verify the validity of that claim and his state 2010 returns to determine if he did indeed commit voter fraud by voting for Scott Brown when he wasn't a legal resident of the state.
but voter fraud does not exist