Do the American People care about Romney's tax returns?

[OaklandA's]

If Romney didnt break any laws, I dont care if he paid negative taxes.

Fresno - hombre is right, you should be mad at congress for not changing the tax code. Didnt the dems have complete control of the fed govt for a while recently? They could have adjusted the tax code, right?

I don't think the problem is that Romney took advantage of the tax code. I think the issue is that he is still stating that taxes are too high, and he wants to lower them even further for high income earners, even though he is already paying a lower rate than most of the middle class.

[Hornsby]

My characterization of your comments was accurate. It is utter speculation on your part to suggest that he paid 13%, 14%, 15% or any specific amount in those years for which he has not released information. You and I and everyone else just don't know.

And I'm lol at Hornsby's comment about Romney's 2010 return, being "one of the few he's released". No offense, Horns, but since when does two become a few? I know, it's just semantics, but if you're trying to defend Romney calling two a "few" is a good strategy, I guess.

These last few posts are excellent examples of the approach being taken by Romney's campaign. "He's released parts of two years, so we should simply extrapolate from that." Are we supposed to go along with that sort of logic?

As I said, and as I continue to maintain, those who speculate that he paid close to 15% are as bad as those who speculate that he paid nothing. Until information is released, we just don't know.

And just for the record, I'm not claiming he's sleazy.

Lucky, I'm on your side, but on this one, you were just plain wrong. Sometimes you just have to acknowledge the facts. And hell, I thought that using the term "one of the few" was pretty damning...live and learn.

[Judge Jude]

Ok, I was confused by Lucky's response, but the Hornsby followup made sense to me.
"one of the few" is not high praise here.

[Lucky]

I've obviously missed something here, but I trust my colleagues enough to admit that I was off base somewhere.

What I was trying to say was that having tax information from only the last couple of years isn't enough to be certain about what he did the other years. And that we shouldn't speculate that he paid a lot or a little without more information. And, less importantly, that two is a little short of few. To the extent anything else came out, please disregard.

[Hornsby]

I've obviously missed something here, but I trust my colleagues enough to admit that I was off base somewhere.

What I was trying to say was that having tax information from only the last couple of years isn't enough to be certain about what he did the other years. And that we shouldn't speculate that he paid a lot or a little without more information. And, less importantly, that two is a little short of few. To the extent anything else came out, please disregard.

Well, again, not really...

few, noun, pronoun,
adjective
1.
not many but more than one: Few artists live luxuriously.

[hombre]

even though he is already paying a lower rate than most of the middle class.

Fresno used this same talking point earlier- IMHO it is misleading, at best.

It is not true that Romney PAYS a lower rate than most of the middle class. His effective rate (taxes he pays as a percentage of his gross income) will be much higher in almost all cases.

And I submit to you, at the end of the day, the effective rate is what most people care about- especially middle class people. You can tell them their marginal rate is 10% or 15% or 25%..... I believe that what most people care most about is how much tax they are paying, as a % of their income.

[B-Fly]

It is not true that Romney PAYS a lower rate than most of the middle class. His effective rate (taxes he pays as a percentage of his gross income) will be much higher in almost all cases.

It's not? If he hasn't had a wage paying job in a while, which he hasn't, then isn't most of his income treated as capital gains, in which case isn't his effective tax rate (taxes he pays as a percentage of his gross income) lower than many/most middle class wage earners?

[Fresno Bob]

If eveything is all hunky dory, why wont he release them....im willing to avatar bet that he paid zero taxes in 2008 or 2009 thanks to capital losses

[OaklandA's]

It is not true that Romney PAYS a lower rate than most of the middle class. His effective rate (taxes he pays as a percentage of his gross income) will be much higher in almost all cases.

And I submit to you, at the end of the day, the effective rate is what most people care about- especially middle class people. You can tell them their marginal rate is 10% or 15% or 25%..... I believe that what most people care most about is how much tax they are paying, as a % of their income.

OK, I exaggerated a little by saying middle class, but his effective rate is quite low for his income. The effective rate for the Top 1% was 24.0% (in 2009, the first numbers I found), 20.9% for the Top 5%, and 18.0% for the Top 10%. So for a person with his income, an effective tax rate of 13-15% is very low.

[hombre]

OK, I exaggerated a little by saying middle class, but his effective rate is quite low for his income. The effective rate for the Top 1% was 24.0% (in 2009, the first numbers I found), 20.9% for the Top 5%, and 18.0% for the Top 10%. So for a person with his income, an effective tax rate of 13-15% is very low.

Not true- the way our tax codes are set up, that is to be fully expected: http://accounting.smartpros.com/x72959.xml

I call your attention to the last paragraph: "the very highest income group- the top one-tenth of 1%- actually has a lower average effective income tax rate than the rest of the top 1%... because these extremely high-income returns are more likely to have income from capital gains and dividends, which are typically taxed at lower rates."

[B-Fly]

Not true- the way our tax codes are set up, that is to be fully expected: http://accounting.smartpros.com/x72959.xml

I call your attention to the last paragraph: "the very highest income group- the top one-tenth of 1%- actually has a lower average effective income tax rate than the rest of the top 1%... because these extremely high-income returns are more likely to have income from capital gains and dividends, which are typically taxed at lower rates."

I don't think anyone is arguing that him paying lower taxes isn't to be expected. It's absolutely expected. I don't think any of us believe he hasn't paid what he owes under the law. We just suspect that given his wealth and income he pays lower than what's "fair" because the tax code "unfairly" favors the extremely high income earners who are more likely to have income from capital gains and dividends. I don't think that Romney is withholding his returns because he's done anything nefarious. I think he's withholding them because most Americans would intuitively view his effective tax rate as unfairly low, while taking note of the fact that he and his party are the ones who have worked hardest to ensure that this level of unfairness in the tax code is sustained, and that they still complian that the wealthy are overtaxed. It's a position that doesn't sit well with a lot of potential voters, and Romney's own tax filings would probably hammer that point home in the voters' consciousness.

[OaklandA's]

Not true- the way our tax codes are set up, that is to be fully expected: http://accounting.smartpros.com/x72959.xml

I call your attention to the last paragraph: "the very highest income group- the top one-tenth of 1%- actually has a lower average effective income tax rate than the rest of the top 1%... because these extremely high-income returns are more likely to have income from capital gains and dividends, which are typically taxed at lower rates."

Look at the actual data. Not significantly lower, and sometimes not at all. In 2009, the Top 0.1% paid an effective tax rate of 24.28%, and the Top 1% paid an effective rate of 24.01%. In other years, sometimes the Top 0.1% pays a slightly lower rate, but it is always within 1% of the Top 1%. Romney's rate of 13-15% is very low for his income.

http://taxfoundation.org/article/summary-latest-federal-individual-income-tax-data-0

[hombre]

It's not? If he hasn't had a wage paying job in a while, which he hasn't, then isn't most of his income treated as capital gains, in which case isn't his effective tax rate (taxes he pays as a percentage of his gross income) lower than many/most middle class wage earners?

Again- like many in here, you seem to be equating/confusing marginal tax rates with effective tax rates.

We're already established Romney pays 14-15% effective. For the "typical" middle-class American family (the Joe/Jane Schmoe mentioned by Fresno earlier) making 50K a year, their effective rate is often zero, or close to it:
(simplified example)
Gross $50k
less: standard deduction (13,900)
less: exemptions (4X3700= 14,800)

Taxable income- 22,300
Tax liability- 2,600

less: child credits (2X1000= 2000)

Total taxes paid: $600

So this typical 2-kid family making 50K a year pays an effective rate of 1.2% (600/50,000). Put another way, Romney's effective tax rate is 12.5 times that of this household (15 vs 1.2)

If they own a home, they will benefit from mortgage interest deductions, in which case their net Federal tax liability might be less or zero.

I am not a tax accountant.... but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night

[cardboardbox]

If eveything is all hunky dory, why wont he release them....im willing to avatar bet that he paid zero taxes in 2008 or 2009 thanks to capital losses

what would be wrong with that?

[OaklandA's]

Again- like many in here, you seem to be equating/confusing marginal tax rates with effective tax rates.

Trust me, we all understand the difference. And the effective tax rate for the Top 0.1%, or the Top 1%, is around 24%. The effective tax rate for the Top 10% is around 18%. In the two years where Romney has released some info, he has paid a rate between 13-15%. That is significantly lower than average for his income.