Revealed: Mitt Romney’s tax returns

posted at 3:31 pm on September 21, 2012 by Erika Johnsen

Mitt Romney’s campaign released his 2011 tax information this afternoon, as well as a notarized letter from PriceWaterhouseCoopers attesting to Romney’s tax rates from 1990-2009, and I must say: Well played, Romney campaign. Well played, indeed. The Democrats have been making a federal case of Romney’s supposed “tax secrecy,” with countless ads and speeches and the voice in Harry Reid’s head making Romney out to be a greedy, tax-evading corporate mastermind of epic proportions, but the Romney camp just let them huff and puff until they wore themselves out, and now they’re releasing the information on their terms. I’m sure the Democrats will find some stupid, populist way to continue to criticize Romney over this, but… BAZINGA:

Regarding the newly-filed 2011 Tax Return:

-In 2011, the Romneys paid $1,935,708 in taxes on $13,696,951 in mostly investment income.

-The Romneys’ effective tax rate for 2011 was 14.1%.

-The Romneys donated $4,020,772 to charity in 2011, amounting to nearly 30% of their income.

-The Romneys claimed a deduction for $2.25 million of those charitable contributions. …

Regarding the PWC letter covering the Romneys’ tax filings over 20 years, from 1990 – 2009:

-In each year during the entire 20-year period, the Romneys owed both state and federal income taxes.

-Over the entire 20-year period, the average annual effective federal tax rate was 20.20%.

-Over the entire 20-year period, the lowest annual effective federal personal tax rate was 13.66%.

-Over the entire 20-year period, the Romneys gave to charity an average of 13.45% of their adjusted gross income.

-Over the entire 20-year period, the total federal and state taxes owed plus the total charitable donations deducted represented 38.49% of total AGI.

During the 20-year period covered by the PWC letter, Gov. and Mrs. Romney paid 100 percent of the taxes that they owed.

So, let’s just take a second here to process this. Mitt Romney, who is ostensibly uncaring, out-of-touch, and disdainful of poor people, gave more than 13 percent of his income (amounting to millions and millions of dollars) over twenty years to charity, and didn’t even always take the full tax deduction. (The bastard!) By at least one count, the average effective federal tax rate for Americans is 11 percent — and Romney’s average annual rate was 20 percent, also amounting to millions and millions of dollars that went into the federal government’s coffers. He has done nothing wrong or shady, unless you consider being a wildly excellent businessman to be a vice, and the finger-pointers now look pretty darn dumb.

If this isn’t it, can somebody please explain to me exactly what it is that a “fair share” is supposed to look like? Are we supposed to detest rich people, or should we admire them? Will the real Barack Obama please stand up?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5

Be calm….Be strong
Just vote R/R on 11/6
Buy food, fuel,guns and ammo…
Have your SHTF plan in good shape…
Best of luck to us all.
III%

dirtengineer on September 21, 2012 at 10:27 PM

“notarized letter from PriceWaterhouseCoopers attesting to Romney’s tax rates from 1990-2009″

ha
ha
ha
ha
ha
ha
ha
ha
ha
ha
ha
ha

Dave Rywall on September 21, 2012 at 10:53 PM

Someone needs to go to Harry Reid’s office, show him the Price Waterhouse paperwork, ask for an apology… and if he refuses it, punch him straight in the face harder than he was ever hit in his boxing career… knock his teeth down his throat.

Figuratively speaking.

Enough is enough. You can’t libel a man, as Reid did to Romney, and just waltz away. Harry Reid needs a schoolyard lesson, and have every inch of his figurative a$$ kicked.

Hard.

cane_loader on September 21, 2012 at 11:02 PM

I have personally experienced malicious libel in the past.

The malicious libeler attacked me and my family with direct, pre-planned lies and false criminal accusations, and organized an Internet lynch mob.

I have no mercy or pity on those who commit malicious libel. They deserve a physical beat-down, to make real to them the consequence of their airy lies.

Figuratively speaking.

cane_loader on September 21, 2012 at 11:04 PM

The “return” isn’t even signed.

ha
ha
ha
ha

Dave Rywall on September 21, 2012 at 11:48 PM

“notarized letter from PriceWaterhouseCoopers attesting to Romney’s tax rates from 1990-2009″

Dave Rywall on September 21, 2012 at 10:53 PM

The “return” isn’t even signed.

Dave Rywall on September 21, 2012 at 11:48 PM

.
I think we should “sic” the IRS on him. They’ll get to the bottom of this, and they have no mercy for tax cheats. Even less mercy for RICH tax cheats.

listens2glenn on September 22, 2012 at 12:02 AM

I think we should “sic” the IRS on him. They’ll get to the bottom of this, and they have no mercy for tax cheats. Even less mercy for RICH tax cheats.

listens2glenn on September 22, 2012 at 12:02 AM
———

In the exact words from Romney’s site:
“Gov. And Mrs. Romney’s complete 2011 tax return is now available below, in addition to their complete 2010 tax return.”

The pile of sh*t he released that he claims is a “complete 2011 tax return” is not signed by him or his wife. It is by no means the return he sent into the government. It’s a work in progress.

Second of all, he didn’t fully claim his charitable donations to ensure that his rate stayed above 13%.
Next year he can simply claim the rest, so he’s just trying to play everyone for idiots. And lots of you are.

Dave Rywall on September 22, 2012 at 12:26 AM

The “return” isn’t even signed.

Dave Rywall on September 21, 2012 at 11:48 PM

The chuckle of the insane.

itsspideyman on September 22, 2012 at 1:03 AM

Dave Rywall on September 21, 2012 at 11:48 PM

Idiot.

Bmore on September 22, 2012 at 1:21 AM

I just looked at the Huffington Post home page and literally screamed with laughter. Libs…you have to love them.

Sharke on September 22, 2012 at 2:31 AM

great tactical move, TERRIBLE strategery. In a week where the focus should be the IG report on Fast & Furious and our murdered ambassabor and the outrageous lies and concealments about those events being shoveled by the administration, the Romney campaign jerks the spotlight back onto themselves.
Missing yet another opportunity to really hammer the Obamunists, out of some misguided establishment-RINO rubric of comity with Evil. ‘don’t say anything harsh about Obama, you’ll scare away the middle’

rayra on September 22, 2012 at 2:33 AM

Dave Rywall on September 22, 2012 at 12:26 AM

stupid goddamned socialists. If you actually paid some serious taxes you might understand that’s THE TAX CODE. And that one takes every advantage of its strictures as one can. Particularly when you are being robbed of millions to pay for a bunch of parasites.

rayra on September 22, 2012 at 2:35 AM

Dave Rywall on September 21, 2012 at 10:53 PM

Yup. It’s all a big conspiracy. PWC is in on it, too. The VRWC strikes back!

You’re no better than a hardcore Birther right now, Davey. Just admit it: you were wrong. Mitt pays taxes, doesn’t cheat on them ala Geithner/Rangel, and is about a billion times more charitable than your average Dem politician.

Good Solid B-Plus on September 22, 2012 at 4:31 AM

“What is Mitt Romney hiding?

chumpThreads on September 21, 2012 at 6:01 PM

A lot less than Obama is hiding. Gee, I wonder why.

Good Solid B-Plus on September 22, 2012 at 4:34 AM

Dave Rywall on September 22, 2012 at 12:26 AM

Bless your heart.

DrMagnolias on September 22, 2012 at 5:36 AM

A few MSM leeches are trying to float the idea that Romney gave so much to charity as part of an evil scheme. Too funny.

SurferDoc on September 22, 2012 at 7:24 AM

Contrary to what some think, this was good timing. Get this nothingburger out of the way for the debates.

If Romney plays his cards right, the debates will sink Obama.

Grace_is_sufficient on September 22, 2012 at 7:42 AM

A few MSM leeches are trying to float the idea that Romney gave so much to charity as part of an evil scheme. Too funny.

SurferDoc on September 22, 2012 at 7:24 AM
——-
Purposely claimed less charity donations to stay under a certain tax % threshhold.

Mittens has been running for prez for years

‘This was all pre-calculated and pre-planned

It’s obvious to anyone with half an objective brain

Dave Rywall on September 22, 2012 at 8:47 AM

You guys seem a bit tired from spinning all this.
Romney managed to deliver a whole new mess
If you need a respite, head over to fox news…where the real news of the day is a ‘White House prostitution scandal!!!’.

verbaluce on September 22, 2012 at 9:18 AM

verbaluce on September 22, 2012 at 9:18 AM

u and your ilk, schmo, were going to make a deal of it no matter what. let’s get back to the pandering liar u call the president who needs to be replaced by a man who can do the job.

gracie on September 22, 2012 at 9:38 AM

If you need a respite, head over to fox news…where the real news of the day is a ‘White House prostitution scandal!!!’.

verbaluce on September 22, 2012 at 9:18 AM

No, schmo, it’s a world at war because your appeaser-in-chief made it so. abject failure like the people who support him.

gracie on September 22, 2012 at 9:42 AM

“notarized letter from PriceWaterhouseCoopers attesting to Romney’s tax rates from 1990-2009″

ha
ha
ha
ha
ha
ha
ha
ha
ha
ha
ha
ha

Dave Rywall on September 21, 2012 at 10:53 PM

Then I assume you feel the same way about the birth certificate Obama released.
You effing tool.

Badger40 on September 22, 2012 at 10:33 AM

I think we should “sic” the IRS on him. They’ll get to the bottom of this, and they have no mercy for tax cheats. Even less mercy for RICH tax cheats.

listens2glenn on September 22, 2012 at 12:02 AM

See Tim Geithner and other Democrats for a Second Opinion on this.

jaydee_007 on September 22, 2012 at 11:59 AM

“notarized letter from PriceWaterhouseCoopers attesting to Romney’s tax rates from 1990-2009″

ha
ha
ha
ha
ha
ha
ha
ha
ha
ha
ha
ha

Dave Rywall on September 21, 2012 at 10:53 PM

Would that be more or less legitimate than Obeyme’s “note from his doctor” in lieu of releasing his medical records?

The quality of troll in this place is very low these days.

JannyMae on September 22, 2012 at 12:15 PM

ha

Dave Rywall on September 21, 2012 at 10:53 PM

The sweet words of lefty impotence. Hey, limp dick – guessing that Romney just pulled a trifecta on you, yes? Not only does he make more money every year than you’ll earn in a lifetime, including your Canadian welfare checks, but he’s given away more than you’ll earn and he’s paid more in taxes than you’ll earn.

Ha, indeed.

Jaibones on September 22, 2012 at 1:33 PM

Dave Rywall, I don’t care how much money Romney made. I care how much money ovomit is stealing from taxpayers and giving to our enemies.

And hey, if the composite pdf bc is good enough for liberals, an unsigned tax return is good enough for me.

sablegsd on September 22, 2012 at 4:12 PM

And hey, if the composite pdf bc is good enough for liberals, an unsigned tax return is good enough for me.

sablegsd on September 22, 2012 at 4:12 PM

I know, it is what is so sad about Republicans these days. They pretty much are willing to throw away any and every degree of values they ever might have had, and I am tending these days to imagine they had very few.

astonerii on September 22, 2012 at 4:49 PM

rayra on September 22, 2012 at 2:33 AM

I don’t think it’s bad strategy, though. Romney doesn’t want to talk about his taxes at all, even though he’s ultimately right about the issue. To that end, it was a Friday news dump. It’s out there without taking tons of the news cycle up, but fulfills the promise he made and will be a handy counter to any time the leftist hacks pull a Harry Reid.

CanofSand on September 22, 2012 at 7:31 PM

Let’s be clear. I’m glad you brought up tithing.

Obama has not tithed 10% to his church. Why not?

faraway on September 21, 2012 at 4:48 PM

Ha.
Now he wasn’t connected enough to Jeremiah Wright’s church.
That is some awesomeness.

verbaluce on September 21, 2012 at 4:52 PM

Neah, he invested in michelle/imelda’ s collection of tacky shoes instead…..

jimver on September 22, 2012 at 8:41 PM

‘This was all pre-calculated and pre-planned

It’s obvious to anyone with half an objective brain

Dave Rywall on September 22, 2012 at 8:47 AM

OOOHHH, my aching sides! That explains everything…you only have half a brain.

Mitsouko on September 22, 2012 at 10:40 PM

Are we supposed to detest rich people, or should we admire them?

Are we talking about a Democrat or a Republican?

We can fill in the blanks from there.

tom on September 23, 2012 at 12:50 AM

Suppose some of those millions that Romney gave to charity had gone instead to pay higher taxes. Would that be a better use of the money? Well, some of that cash would have gone to the military. How can any good leftist endorse that? Some of it would have gone to big oil subsidies. That’s not good either, from the left point of view. Some of it would have disappeared into the IRS agents hired to police Obamacare. Etcetera, etcetera. I daresay that money to charity does more to actually help people than money to the government.

rgeaste on September 23, 2012 at 7:53 AM

For a democrat, “fair share” is always and forever “more than they are currently paying”

Arssanguinus on September 23, 2012 at 9:54 AM

When u electronically file your return there is no signature. When the company I work for gets their financials from the accountant there aren’t any actual signatures on them.

jaimo on September 23, 2012 at 10:18 AM

I don’t want to become an Allahpundit Eeyore, but I’m really beginning to think that way. We have the worst performance by a president since Jimmy Carter. We should run away with this thing. And yet we pick McCain II as our nominee and then he runs around committing gaffe after gaffe. I’m really beginning to think we’re going to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory once again.

Shump on September 21, 2012 at 5:37 PM

And coincidentally he is running ahead of where Reagan was at this point when running against jimmy carter. At this point in the race, if you hop into the wayback machine, carter was leading Reagan 47-39. So please, go away with your concern trolling.

Arssanguinus on September 23, 2012 at 10:44 AM

Slight correction; Reagan was down four in September. He was down eight in the polls two weeks before the election.

Arssanguinus on September 23, 2012 at 10:45 AM

And you do know on those charitable donations … He would have been richer had he not made them. He would have still been taxed on the money … But the remainder not paid in taxes would have still been his, rather than been in the accounts of the charities. So it’s not like he is enriching himself by doing this.

Arssanguinus on September 23, 2012 at 11:03 AM

Then I assume you feel the same way about the birth certificate Obama released.
You effing tool.

Badger40 on September 22, 2012 at 10:33 AM
———–

Awww, look the little potty mouth girl believes the state of Hawaii and a newspaper conspired 40something years ago. How cute!

Dave Rywall on September 23, 2012 at 12:14 PM

Awww, look the little potty mouth girl believes the state of Hawaii and a newspaper conspired 40something years ago. How cute!

Dave Rywall on September 23, 2012 at 12:14 PM

Here, I attempt to explain the math to you:

1. Charitable donations are not tax shelters. A tax shelter is where one places money to both a) reduce taxation and b) retain the original income. Retirement accounts are tax shelters.

2. Charity is fully deductible, but you do not get to keep the money. The end result is as if you never had the money in the first place. This is done because sheltering would turn charity into a tax scheme, and taxing the deductions would completely eliminate the incentive to donate in the first place.

3. For very rich people, this does not reduce their effective tax burden. To get into lower tax rates a rich person (multi-millionaire) would need to donate substantially all of his income.

3a. As an aside, this does mean there is tax advantage for us lower-income people, as it can knock you down a tax bracket if you plan it carefully. This means, for the middle class and below, charity is a tax shelter.

So in summary: charity has no direct financial benefit for him, either through taxation or otherwise. In fact it cause mild financial harm, because that’s money he can’t use for his own purposes.

So, tell me again how this is part of a vast right-wing conspiracy?

ctwelve on September 23, 2012 at 1:10 PM

bla bla bla etc
ctwelve on September 23, 2012 at 1:10 PM
——
He and his wife purposely didn’t claim the full amount that they could SO THEY COULD ENSURE THEIR TAX RATE DID NOT FALL BELOW A THRESHHOLD THAT MITTEN’S HANDLERS AND FART CATCHERS FELT WOULD ENRAGE/ANNOY/TURN OFF THE PUBLIC

This was a wholly calculated move by someone who has been running for president for years and years and years.

While you clowns continue to clap your hands sore over his noble “didn’t even claim the whole amount how awesome is he!” bullsh*t, if he loses the election, he will simply amend his taxes next year and claim the rest. Wake up, fool.

And the bullsh*t list of we-swear-it’s-true tax rates from previous years is meaningless to anyone with a shred of a clue.

Dave Rywall on September 23, 2012 at 1:24 PM

blather blather blather etc.

Dave Rywall on September 23, 2012 at 1:24 PM

So your thesis, then:

1. Ann and Mitt willingly forego millions in personal income, which they cannot recover, as part of a dastardly scheme to look better.

I remind you those millions sent to charity figure into the overall rate, but since they are deducted the net effect is that he never earned the money he gave away (and claims) for tax purposes! Why is this so hard to understand?

2. Ann and Mitt didn’t claim deductions because OMG TAX SHELTER/ADVANTAGE/REFUND!

The net effect IS STILL ZERO. Frequently one does not/cannot deduct charity when the accounting is uncertain, or when you are anticipating a substantial loss of income the following year. This is prudent planning; if he becomes President, he’s likely to experience a temporary loss in investment income for numerous reasons, some ethical, some political, some practical. If he’s planning major financial reforms, for example, as a practical matter he needs to prepare for that.

But I guess prudent planning is alien to you. As is math, apparently.

3. PwC is totally lying about those rates, because they don’t care about their reputation, or false testimony, or something. It’s totally a cover-up, man! DON’T TRUST THE SYSTEM!

Protip: companies are not in the habit of staking out positions like this when they’re false. That’s risk that simply cannot be mitigated. Your accusation means either a) PwC doesn’t know the returns are false, or b) PwC is knowingly providing false testimony. You clearly don’t work in/understand corporate risk. PwC is the last firm on Earth to contemplate such a thing, since they last time they even came close, Enron. Which cost them BILLIONS.

You fail logic forever. Don’t bother soliciting a reply; I’ve given you all the time I feel charitable enough to give.

ctwelve on September 23, 2012 at 1:42 PM

1. Ann and Mitt willingly forego millions in personal income, which they cannot recover, as part of a dastardly scheme to look better.
—–
Yes. They’re such out of touch elitists they need to.

3. PwC is totally lying about those rates, because they don’t care about their reputation, or false testimony, or something. It’s totally a cover-up, man! DON’T TRUST THE SYSTEM!
——-
I never said they were lying. I’m saying they’re releasing these meaningless rates as an attempt to prevent questioning about the content of the returns and the shady cayman/swiss bullsh*t Mittens has been pulling for years. They know that would sink him further.

Dave Rywall on September 23, 2012 at 1:48 PM

You fail logic forever. Don’t bother soliciting a reply; I’ve given you all the time I feel charitable enough to give.

ctwelve on September 23, 2012 at 1:42 PM
——–
ha ha ha if Ignatius J. Reilly had a more stupid and arrogant younger brother, it’d be you.

Dave Rywall on September 23, 2012 at 1:55 PM

Dave Rywall, are you really that stupid, or do you just hope some of us are as gullible as your comrades on the left?

CanofSand on September 23, 2012 at 5:25 PM

The “return” isn’t even signed.

Dave Rywall on September 21, 2012 at 11:48 PM

Most everyone files their returns electronically. There is no signature on the form in this case.

ladyingray on September 23, 2012 at 7:35 PM

Dave Rywall on September 22, 2012 at 12:26 AM

You are a complete idiot. You don’t sign your return when you file electronically. You sign an 8879 authorizing electronic filing.

It would also be stupid to publish your signature on the web.

And by the way, the reason he didn’t deduct all of his charitable contributions is that there’s a cap on what percentage of your income you can deduct. So Romney not only gave 30% of charity, he gave a lot more than he could legally deduct on his return.

In any case, what it shows is that the do pay taxes on investment income that was taxed before they received it AND after. And that they were then very generous to charity.

Every one of Obama’s budgets have removed the charitable giving deduction, for EVERYBODY not just the rich. Since he and Biden don’t really give much to charity, it does them no good, so they want to get rid of it and force people to depend on government. Thank goodness even Democrats rejected Obama’s budgets 100%. Now if Harry Reid would actually let one come to the floor other than Obama’s . . ..

Wonderful people you support there drywall.

PastorJon on September 24, 2012 at 11:24 AM

I never said they were lying. I’m saying they’re releasing these meaningless rates as an attempt to prevent questioning about the content of the returns and the shady cayman/swiss bullsh*t Mittens has been pulling for years. They know that would sink him further.

Dave Rywall on September 23, 2012 at 1:48 PM

Rich people are rich for two reasons:

1) They know how to make money, they are successful at it.
2) They know how to KEEP their money.

That’s the second half of why Obama’s “raise taxes on the richest Americans” class warfare is crap. We’ll never see all 89 billion a year (a tiny, infitesimal drop) because the rich will find ways to get paid and keep their money. Heck, they will give to BOTH Democrat and Republican lawmakers to get exemptions.

And by the way, Obama’s ENTIRE medical release was a ONE PAGE LETTER signed by his doctor that he’s A-Ok. Mitt released more information in this release than Obama has released total in regard to: college transcripts, papers, medical history, passports, etc, etc.

I’m sure it’s just killing you this issue is now settled.

PastorJon on September 24, 2012 at 11:29 AM

Damn ctwelve. I know how satisfying it must be to do burnouts on drywall’s azz, but there’s so much smoke in here now, I can hardly see Rywall’s puckered butt.

But by all means, gas it some more. Leave off the wheelie though, then you’d just be showing off.

44Magnum on September 24, 2012 at 2:00 PM

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5