I don't see that much has changed reporting his 2011 tax return (wow, what a coincidence on the timing of this). He still has paid way less as a percentage in federal taxes than me and most other middle class citizens. And he still has not released his earlier tax returns. And by withholding the tax returns, it still creates the impression that he has even more embarrassing information on those returns.
Would love to see the billable hours Willard's accountants put in to massage this return! LOL!!! Could Willard re-file after the election to recoup deductions he didn't take?
So basically, he paid hundreds of thousands of dollars extra on his taxes for, evidently, the sole purpose of showing a higher rate so he doesn't come off as a plutocrat out of touch rich man job and money exporter? This brought him to about half the percentage most "Middle Class Americans" are paying, showing us 10% of the info most candidates show, 5 months into the discussion, for the last year only, and had to do this after saying he doesn't do that, on ABC news, and that someone who would shouldn't be president? I would agree with newroxfan. Disseminating, in 5 month intervals, this little information that, while generous in nature and appearance, is still questionable regarding issues at hand (really? 13% was the high bar? and why overpay? What did you say about that before?), won't really help this issue go away for him. I know some fighting from the aisles will say that it doesn't matter what he does because detractors won't ever approve. While this sounds all too familiar of a plot, I would say this does little to quell the suspicion of those that were questioning this in the first place. I guess they are in the 47% who don't matter to him. I've said it before, and I'll say it again. How did he not see all this coming? His father was a politician. This isn't his first rodeo. It's like he thinks he's posting facebook comments from an anonymous account or something. Dude. You're on national television. People are listening to you, frighteningly enough. You just might have to answer to some of this contradictory bull you sling. You should have been more ready for this.
So Romney like most top 1% people pay less of a percentage in taxes than the middle class. Yet somehow his plan would raise taxes on the middle class in order to give more of a tax cut to the top 1% and himself. What a guy!
I wish he just hadn't released it if he was going to stick out this far. And I hope he makes a lot more after losing.
Should the charitable deductions that allowed him to do this be eliminated? Romney wants to cut all marginal income tax rates by 20% and eliminate deductions for higher incomes.
None of that changes the fact that his plan would raise the tax rates on middle class while lowering the rates on the top 1%. I'm in favor of policies that will help the middle and lower class. It's better for the nation and our economy.
Exactly. Something's gotta give. You can't reduce the national debt and taxes at the same time without someone losing in that deal...
the left freaking out over Romney voluntarily paying more than he owes in taxes is quite something to watch not a joke: <blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p>Reid on Romney deciding to release 2011 returns: "He's hiding something. He's hiding something! It is so evident he's hiding something!"</p>— Anjeanette Damon (@AnjeanetteDamon) <a href="https://twitter.com/AnjeanetteDamon/status/249227662923558912" data-datetime="2012-09-21T19:24:39+00:00">September 21, 2012</a></blockquote> <script src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script> that's not a fact, all rates would decrease by 20% no, 20% less than what you pay now so if your rate was 25% it would now be (25% * .8) = 20% 1) tax cuts beget growth beget increased employment/income beget more tax revenue 2) elimination of deductions for high earners begets more tax revenue 3) decrease spending all lower the deficit
His plan requires a middle class tax hike. http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/08/29/769401/hanlon-feldstein-middle-class/?mobile=nc
Yes but you're explanation relies so heavily on assumption. You are assuming the whole premise of trickle down economics works. It's like those people at the University who tell me I'm going to hell if I don't accept Jesus, when I ask them what their proof is they say it is a document supposedly written by Jesus. It's circular logic at it's best. I hate to break it to you, trickle down economics doesn't work. Who is to say these Job Creators don't turn around and just keep the money they didn't have to spend? The only thing I know for certain, is that if we need money, and we take the money now we have the money now. If we take the money via indirect means you can't be certain it will ever come.. That's so simple a 6 year old could understand it.
Hey Mitt, repeating a lie over and again doesn't really change that it's a lie. I know the lying and secrecy is a central theme to your campaign but it only works with ignorant people so congrats on carrying Alabama and Mississippi.
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/_AAEp0J_hzU#t=0m16s" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Back in 2000, about 20-25% of people don't pay taxes. After 10 years of Bush tax cuts, 47% of the population don't pay no income tax or get a "refund" on taxes not paid. The deficit is larger than ever and the economy is worse than before the Bush tax cuts were started. The math doesn't work. More tax cuts means a larger deficit, weaker economy, and over 50% tax non-payers.
Interesting. Tax cuts beget growth (to lower the deficit), but decreasing spending lowers the deficit and---doesn't affect growth. Hmm. I think there is an European economy or two that wants to speak with you. You can start with England.
