Green Room

Who Pays Their Fair Share? A Look at the Numbers.

posted at 3:16 pm on September 21, 2012 by

Harry Reid, foot, meet mouth. It’s time to quit harping about Mitt Romney’s tax returns. Perhaps you should have silenced yourself when your claim that Romney has not paid taxes in a decade was debunked by the extremely right-learning New York Times (Hint: For you dense lefties out there, that’s sarcasm). Too bad. Now that Mitt Romney has released a summary of his 2011 tax returns, perhaps we should talk about “fair share,” “caring about the poor” and all of the class warfare topics Harry Reid and his liberal cohorts are perpetually harping about.

Thirty percent. If you don’t remember anything else from this article, remember that percentage. In 2011, Mitt and Ann Romney made $13,696,951 and paid $1,935,708 in taxes. Here’s the kicker. Romney donated $4,020,772 to charity. That’s 30% of his income. And people say Romney doesn’t care about the poor. In Barack Obama’s defense, he and Michelle donated $172,130 to charity in 2011, 22% of their combined income. The president did not donate more than the biblical 10% to charity until he started running for president, but I digress. Paul and Janna Ryan donated $12,991 to charity, 4% of their $323,416 collective income. Joe and Jill Biden donated a paltry $5,540 to charity in 2011 (1.5% of their income of $379,035). I’d tell you how much Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi donated to charity in 2011, but what do you know, they both neither has released their returns.

While this illustrates the stark differences in charitable donations, the question here is not just one of numbers. When you juxtapose the media narrative about Romney being unaffected by the perils of the poor” and the actual numbers in the tax returns above, the contradiction is clear. He donated 30% to charity for crying out loud. How many politicians can say they’ve given over $4 million to the less fortunate in a single year? Barack Obama’s 2011 donations, political stunt or not, should be commended, but not at the expense of Mitt Romney’s long reputation of large charitable donations.In my eyes, Mitt Romney is a man of character with a large heart. Sure liberals might disagree with his policies. However, when you try to smear the man’s character, the numbers will debunk you every time. Here’s looking at you, Harry Reid.

Recently in the Green Room:

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

Thanks Amy, great post.

There are those who give from the heart with the funds they have to help others and then there are those who give funds from others they take to see to it they get elected.

God bless you Mitt/Ann you give from the heart.
L

letget on September 21, 2012 at 4:42 PM

Important bullet points (ala the MSM):

–Paul Ryan gave 4%, while his nibs gave 22%. Takeaway: Ryan is a cheapskate, Obama the greatest thing since white (make that black) bread.

–Mitt Romney’s charitable contributions are all tax dodges, while Obama’s are from the heart because he cares and Romney doesn’t.

–Mitt Romney has still not released his tax returns for the past umpteen years because he had 0% in charitable contributions and paid no tax.

Howard Portnoy on September 21, 2012 at 5:38 PM

Mitt Romney is a saint when it comes to charity. He is a stand up guy when it comes to backing up his friends, families and sometimes just barely acquainted acquaintances. There is no denying that. I think almost every Mormon is closely similar in all these respects. It is in their character, their families, communities, church and lives.

So, why is it that he wants to thwart the society as a whole from being ore like himself, all those he holds dear and close to himself? The welfare state is a direct destroyer of his philosophy of the individual being responsible enough for themselves to have available extra resources to help those who come to be in need. Because it does, it keeps those who come to be in need to not turn to family or friends or church or community for help and guidance which is frequently needed, but to the state that will just hand the money out with nary a care of whether it is truly needed or even if something more than just money (goods) is needed to help this person.

I don’t get it. He will prop up the failed socialist programs for future degenerations to come.

Romney, awesome man, terrible conservative politician.

astonerii on September 21, 2012 at 6:05 PM

Romney, awesome man, terrible conservative politician.

Guess we agree to disagree? Between the two, who just MIGHT help our Republic? We have seen what bho/team has done and my gosh it isn’t all that wonderful. Can you and others give another a chance to do better? Just gotta ask? If we take the senate, and keep the house, we might keep Mitt’s feet to the fire to help?
L

letget on September 21, 2012 at 6:45 PM

i heard Joe Biden only donated $300 to charity – it was mentioned on the Hammer’s War on Bacon tonight – weak sauce!

Matt Vespa on September 21, 2012 at 11:46 PM

The simple fact is, we will have to step up and help the Precedent pack his bags by voting Not-Obama in. We should not expect Mitt to be what he is not. He is an executive, and I am frustrated because I want a cage-fighter.

BemusedMalkinite on September 22, 2012 at 11:25 PM

Imagine we didn’t know the income of anyone except public employees. Just imagine. It would be a lot easier to obey that “Judge not, lest you be judged” admonition.

J.E. Dyer on September 24, 2012 at 2:11 PM