It's a bad thing because he's misrepresenting himself by doing so. After realizing that the American people do not look kindly on a tax system that unfairly favors the extremely wealthy like himself, he decides to send a few extra million to the IRS for the sole purpose of influencing the electorate. We're not stupid. Show us the tax returns, Mitt. Stop polishing the turd.
Not even remotely true that he paid over 38% with state taxes, that would assume ridiculous, super high state taxes of over 50%. Just not true. The mistake you made/lie you are trying to tell is that his 3-4 remaining supporters are claiming that if you add in all the magic underwear/baptizing holocaust victims money it equates to over 38%. " Sure I didn't pay taxes, but I bought a bunch of other stuff! so if you count that as taxes, it's a lotta taxes!"
If he HADN'T given that money, and paid less than 13 percent LEGALLY, you would be b****ing about how he lied.
Since we're counting deductions etc as taxes now not sure why you don't want to add in the Rafalca funds into his total taxes paid - even though that stupid horse failed in London and embarrassed its country.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p>Scandal: Romney only paid 1/250th of a Solyndra in 2011 taxes</p>— David Burge (@iowahawkblog) <a href="https://twitter.com/iowahawkblog/status/249239687330426880" data-datetime="2012-09-21T20:12:26+00:00">September 21, 2012</a></blockquote> <script src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
alright I found it - I recant. When things get posted with no source it takes a while...especially when they come across as accusatory like that tweet. Looks like he didn't take all the deductions he could have. So its a no-win situation for him. He takes the deduction he pays less taxes. He doesn't take the extra deduction the Left accuses him of "fudging" his taxes. Sorry, but there was nothing legally he could do to satisfy some people. My personal opinion is that he paid probably more than any one of us would have in this situation - we would have all taken the deduction. I wouldn't blame anyone, not Obama, not you, not anyone for taking the deduction or for not taking it. But thats the nature of politics these days. For What its Worth - I support getting rid of most deductions and letting the Bush Tax Cuts expire.
Here is one question I have: what would Romney's federal tax rate be if he made $0 in charitable contribution instead of $4 million? My guess is around 16%-- given that $4 mil deducted would have resulted in about 12% and $2.25 mil deducted resulted in 14.1%.
Actually, if he hadn't have given that money, he would have paid more in taxes than he did. He deducted 1.8mil of the 4mil he gave away. So he would have paid taxes on the 1.8 million.
He would have paid less in taxes if he claimed MORE of his charitable donations. Is that not what I said?
Should have wrote: If he HADN'T claimed that money, and paid less than 13 percent LEGALLY, you would be b****ing about how he lied. Or maybe it makes more sense to say: If he HAD claimed all the donations, and paid less than 13 percent LEGALLY, you would be b****ing about how he lied. Either way you should get the point.
yes. With No deductions - The middle class would pay less and most of the rich would end up paying more. I don't have a problem with this - the biggest downfall would be that it puts a large amount of tax consultants out of work.
Why not? He gives nearly 40% of his income away in taxes and charities. That means he keeps only 60% of his money. I think that is very relevant, it's just not for you because it makes him look better than you'd prefer.
