CO-04 (Special Election)
See Full Big Line
(R) Greg Lopez
(R) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
President (To Win Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Biden*
(R) Donald Trump
80%
20%↓
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
90%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
90%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(D) Adam Frisch
(R) Jeff Hurd
(R) Ron Hanks
40%
30%
20%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(R) Deborah Flora
(R) J. Sonnenberg
30%↑
15%↑
10%↓
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Dave Williams
(R) Jeff Crank
50%↓
50%↑
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
90%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) Brittany Pettersen
85%↑
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
(R) Janak Joshi
60%↑
35%↓
30%↑
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
September 21, 2012 10:53 PM UTC
62 Comments
Except now that it’s 7/24 news cycle, there will be plenty of eyeballs pouring over that return tonight and over the weekend for what his favorite tax shelters were in 2011.
Should also renew calls for at least 8 prior years’ returns.
Still waiting for his “detailed” policy plans too. Simply asserting that “I’ll do” this or that is meaningless, but then, that’s his essential campaign strategy.
Where’s the beef?
it’s not likely to make Mitt look that good. They apparently did not take all the deductions they could have. They paid about 14% of their income in taxes but could have whittled it down all the way to 9%. They’re making the case for increasing taxes on the wealthy.
It’s already being reported that after Willard loses this campaign, he can still take those additional unclaimed 2011 deductions in the next tax year. (Willard is nothing, if not Retroactive Man.)
Now, I want to see not only his last ten years tax returns, but next year’s also . . .
Gotta love the optics there.
Mitt specifically chose not to take the deductions he normally takes (not doing so, he’s said in the past, would make him unfit to be President), just so that his tax returns didn’t look so bad when he presented them to the public.
But he gets to have it both ways as usual; next year he claims the deductions and all is well with the world – he gets a 9% tax rate, and he gets to say he had a 14% tax rate.
Yes, he may have been paying less in taxes but he was out creating American jobs…unlike some presidential candidates I know
…and the continuing income from a job he quit in 1999…or 2000 or 2001…or whatever…, that all those years he was running for President while living off his wealth, he was “out creating American jobs”? That’s your argument?
Joe Coors didn’t start at the top. He worked his way up to success and wealth. AND remember in all those years of “retirement” he was busy spending money at golf courses and on aircraft like a GOOD American should!
I don’t play golf and the few occasions I fly it is commercial on the cheapest ticket I can find. I am so sorry I am not creating more jobs.
Don’t drift off message! Mitt ‘left’ Bain in 1999. If he wants to keep up that pretense he can’t claim to have been creating jobs after he left. I mean other than his incompetent campaign staff, be specific about what jobs Romney created in the last decade.
Mitt was an integral part of the economy in the 90’s and even now look at how many people are employed by Mitt Romney for President!
If Romney were only paying 9% in taxes, our side would be saying “OH MY GOD HE ONLY PAYS 9% PER ANNUM IN TAXES.”
It turns out that he didn’t take all of his deductions, so now we’re criticizing him for that.
Look, this is a no-win situation for the Romney camp – you’re never going to silence the critics. The strategic decision would’ve been to release the records months ago so that the attention given to them would never reach a critical mass (just like President Obama should’ve made his birth certificate available as soon as the lunatic questions about his citizenship came up).
I don’t think the interesting story here has anything to do with Romney. As always, it’s the lesson that you can’t compete seriously in a twenty-first century presidential contest unless you’re making over $1M in personal income.
I’m pretty sure. His books may have upticked in that year, but 2007 would def be way under $1M.
Romney wouldn’t have this problem if he was one of the multi-millionaires who signed on with Warren Buffet and Bill Gates Sr. saying that their tax rates should come up to the level of their secretaries, if he supported Ronald Reagan’s repeal of the capital gains tax…
The real problem is that Republicans have proposed eliminating capital gains tax altogether. Romney’s effective tax rate under Paul Ryan’s budget would be about 2% – maybe lower.
Romney is getting a negative look because he’s lost the trust of the media, but in the end this comes back to the 99% wondering why it is that Romney could even get to a 9% tax rate when they can’t.
he’ll file an amended return
he can have his goddamned precious returns anyway. He’s not going to be President.
First, before Arap gets all huffy, yes it’s admirable to give so much to charity and no, there is nothing wrong with filing for less than the the charitable deduction amount you deserve but…
1) Romney asked for an extension on his 2011 taxes so he has had plenty of time (they aren’t due until Oct. 15) to tweak them to bring his tax rate up to where he said it was. It would be interesting to see if past years’ returns, already in the books and no longer subject to tweaking, also show that he generously declined to take his full deduction. If not it would be pretty obvious that this was just tinkering to get the rate he wanted for this particular year for political purposes.
2) Not decades ago or even 5 years or one year but months ago this past January, Mittens stated that he pays all the taxes he is required to by law and not a penny more and that he thinks a person who chooses to pay more than what he owes is not qualified to be President. Naturally the clip of him making that statement during the primaries is now in constant rotation, generally accompanied by laughter. This right on top of the clip of him saying Washington can’t be changed from the inside immediately after his tirade against Obama saying the same thing.
It’s a regular routine now. Romney shoots off mouth. Clip of Romney contradicting his own latest comments appears, sometimes only weeks old.
Is he so stupid that he thinks he can keep saying things that directly contradict his recent former self and no one will notice or is he so contemptuous of the electorate that he thinks that even if these clips do get a lot of play most voters will remain in the dark so they can just stick with the Rovian create your own reality strategy endlessly?
He may not be qualified by his own standards but for me he is disqualified by being either too stupid or too contemptuous of ordinary people to be our President.
Another thing a occurs to me. They claim he averaged about 20% for most of the past twenty years. if that’s true and he’s averaged much less than that in more recent years, doesn’t that show that since the very rich are paying so much less already than they were before the Bush cuts yet everyone else is doing worse, then cuts for the rich aren’t good for general prosperity or reducing debt? If so why should anyone believe that more of the same is the answer to economic woes, debt and deficit reduction or jobs, jobs, jobs?
No wonder they released it Friday afternoon.
but even if the law says giving to a church is the same, I don’t view tithing as charity, especially when the church in question is very involved in politics (CA’s prop 8, anyone?)
If I give to a church charity fund, that’s charity. If I drop my offering in the box where it pays for church expenses, it’s not charity. Perhaps under the theory that churches aren’t taxable it deserves its own category called “religious donations”, but it’s not charity.
Charities provide services that would be otherwise unavailable to people who need them – that’s a reasonable definition of “charity,” right?
Temples (churches, synagogues, mosques, insert your favorite word for “religious building” here) provide an invaluable spiritual service to people who believe that service is important. For instance, Christianity teaches that attending a church service on Sunday is something you need to do. If I’m a Christian, and that service isn’t available, then I’m lacking something I need (and would hope that a charity would provide it). For many people, having a place to worship is as important as (or more important than) having food, water, shelter, etc – the things that other “charities” provide.
When you give to Catholic Charities or the Salvation Army, they use the funds to help people in the community and elsewhere.
When you give money to a church, they might use it for something similar, or it might increase the pastor’s salary, or it might be used for mission work.
The LDS mandates all good Mormons tithe ten percent. I’ve never seen much community based care giving from the LDS, not saying I could be wrong. It certainly does build huge temples and probably helps pay for those annoying young men in black pants and white shirts converting the gullible.
…or what religious people, in general, believe.
If one believes that introducing someone to her religion can liberate that person’s soul from eternal damnation, then “those annoying young men in black pants and white shirts” offer much more important community assistance than a biweekly soup kitchen – and, as such, constitute a much better allocation of charitable contributions.
Now, I don’t believe that. But if I did, I hope that I would put my money where my mouth is.
….because if you believe fairy tales about non-extent beings and that a soul needs to be “saved,” whatever the fuck that means, we have no common ground to dialogue on.
I would garner that you think it is important for Christian religious bodies to proselytize while they are subsidized by tax payers as a charitable deduction. Would you say the same for Jewish, Muslim, or Shinto faiths?
the views in the above post aren’t my own. I’m religious in the sense that I go to church on Sunday, but that’s because I value being a part of a group of people that cares about the well-being of the community writ large. I don’t live my life with attention to what will happen to my soul after I die.
That said, most Christians do precisely that, and most Americans are Christians. If you can’t dialogue with someone who believes in god(s), then your opportunities for dialogue must be pretty limited (though you might consider moving to China; people here find American religious persuasions amusing).
As for taxpayer subsidies: my argument is that donations to religious institutions – Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Shinto, Baha’i, whatever – should be categorized as charitable contributions insofar as the religious institution in question provides a free service that people believe they need and would not otherwise be able to access.
by taxpayers is what we have. I would be in favor of a revision of tax code which does NOT allow for deductions to churches to be deductible. Non-profits need better regulation and rules that distinguish genuine education from proselytizing. Churches should not be tax exempt either income or property.
Why not? Because you don’t think that scripture has any factual basis, so you don’t think that proselytizing is educational (am I right?).
So then you get into an argument about theology on the floor of whatever legislative body is considering your revision to the tax code. Sorry, I think that’s a debate that’s better avoided.
….mid 90’s? The proposed amendment to void church property taxes got shot down at about 70:30, IIRC.
by taxpayers is what we have. I would be in favor of a revision of tax code which does NOT allow for deductions to churches to be deductible. Non-profits need better regulation and rules that distinguish genuine education from proselytizing. Churches should not be tax exempt either income or property.
“Temples (churches, synagogues, mosques, insert your favorite word for “religious building” here) provide an invaluable spiritual service to people who believe that service is important.”
Believe is the key word here. I believe that music enriches the soul more than any religion, but no one is providing me free tickets to Peter Gabriel next month. (I have a chance to win some, but that’s promotion, not charity.)
You could try looking there…
Romney gave about $4 million to charity on an income of $14 million. Tithing would be just 1.4 million. So, even by your standard, he gave $2.6 million to charity even above the level of the tithe. Romney would be a poor president for many reasons. But give the devil his due. He does take the idea of giving to charity very seriously. I commend him for that, even as I send my own modest contributions to President Obama.
But any time a wealthy individual who demonstrates a basic contempt for ordinary people gives to charity, I tend to wonder if tax deductions are the primary motive. And I’m sure you’ve seen people point out that Romney is free to amend his return in the future and get those deductions he didn’t claim.
I don’t trust the man. If he shows some actual compassion for the needy, I’ll amend my view.
If the combined top federal and state rate is, say, 40 percent, then it still costs you a net 60 cents on the dollar. As a liberal Mormon, yes they do exist, said on MSNBC the other night, the church does preach caring for the needy.
and can be used to lower one’s overall tax bracket. People can come out ahead in the long run, which of course is akin to running a successful business. Pay now, earn later.
There may well be other less than altruistic reasons for giving to charity, running the gamut from ego gratification to bragging rights (the wealthy are pretty competitive there) to religious compulsion. I won’t speculate about whether Romney is motivated by anything of the sort, but I reserve the right to remain cynical in my view of the man and anything he does that happens to benefit others.
In fact, it just reduces the value of the deduction. You’re confusing charitable giving with depreciation of assets, etc., which is an entirely different game.
To repeat, under the current tax code, giving a dollar to charity still costs you at least 60 cents. But as Diogenes notes, it does get you into heaven at a discount;-)
it’ll only cost you 60Вў to get a whole $1.00 worth of in-good with the Creator. Who wouldn’t want to get more heavenly treasure bang for their buck? — thank you US tax code.
Anyway, I agree about it not being rational . . . and, having said that there’s probably a comment, or sixty-four, to be made here about “rational” vis-a-vis “believers,” . . .
he mentioned around $20 million in income. His accountants used the extension time period to whittle down his income by a third to a paltry $13.7 million.
Wish my accountants were that creative.
(Not that I make $20 million a year, mind you.)
Willard’s “More Tax Cuts Fund” didn’t pay the full dividends his brokers had promised . . .
Pension mining in 2011 was way off — owing to the fact that there’s almost no pension reserves left to plunder . . . .
And, the market for fancy dancing horse sperm also seems well past it’s peak . . .
Pity Team Rmoney — short of Willard finally getting his ass back to work (and, that ain’t looking too rosy, huh?) they’re just going to have to find a way to hunker down and manage on a paltry budget of $1.2M per month for the duration of this damn recession.
You know, the earlier years he’s not telling us about, even though he’s the guy who got all sanctimonious about how Ted Kennedy should disclose his tax returns.
the full deduction for charitable contributions to which he is entitled except on that one 2011 return, a return completed and filed Friday, that would make it pretty obvious that he wasn’t voluntarily refraining from taking the complete amount this time out of a desire to be extra generous to the government.
And if he’s paid nothing in actual income tax most years since he claims to have left Bain, will he apologize for calling the majority of the 47% who, like him, do pay other than income taxes to the federal government, often at a higher percentage of their income than he does, dependent and irresponsible? Or does he believe paying no income tax but paying capital gains tax is being responsible while paying no income tax but the full amount of all of your payroll taxes is being a lazy freeloader?
Hope he gets asked about that in the debates and that he is instructed to answer without conflating income tax with other taxes.
Also hope someone points out that the inheritance he gave up had nothing to do with starting out as a young man. It was a million he was left in 1995 when he was already very wealthy and probably preferred a nice fat deduction.
The man can’t open his mouth without saying something false, stupid, wrong, hypocritical or all of those at once. Neither can his wife. It almost (not quite) makes me nostalgic for GW and certainly Laura is a class act, unlike Ann shut-up-and-realize-how-lucky-you-are-to-have-Mittens-condescend-to-run-for-president Romney.
From Alternet
By His Own Words His Tax Returns ‘Disqualify’ Him From the Presidency
Romney paid less in taxes than the 47% of America he accused of being moochers
Clearly there are too many people who are too successful.
you’ll never have that burden
You’re lucky Mitt wants to be your president.
The point is that the argument that American workers aren’t paying their fair share while the poor wealthy elite is so overburdened is total bull. So is the argument that if only the very wealthy paid even less the economy would boom since the trajectory of the rich paying less and getting ever more separated from the rest of us perfectly matches the trajectory of everything going to hell for everyone else.
The idea that Dems think there is something wrong with successful people attaining wealth is just a baseless straw dog argument. We just don’t think that the rest of us doing OK is going to cause the rich all that much suffering and that a lot of people doing pretty well and buying a lot of ordinary stuff is a lot better for the economy and the country than only a very few doing stunningly well while the rest struggle. And all you have to do is look at where our economy and country are today to see that we aren’t wrong.
that taxes are of no value to the rich. Maintaining a healthy society is kind of symbiotic to their own health. When their taxes are used to improve our society through investments in our people and our infrastructure, they also receive the benefit of a stable and prosperous culture.
It is the Marie Antoinettes of the world who think that the wealthiest owe nothing to the masses.
it isn’t even as if the 47% who pay no federal imcome taxes, but lots of other taxes, is the same 47% that is going to vote for Obama no matter what.
By and large the reddest states that will absolutely not go to Obama are poor southern states with the nation’s lowest median incomes and plenty of white working folks who zero out on income tax. Ditto with plenty of grumpy seniors, vets and serving military who are part of that 47% and wouldn’t be caught dead voting for Obama. Same goes for some of Romney’s friends who zero out on income taxes with incomes far into the millions.
On the other hand we have solidly middle class, affluent and very wealthy Dems who do pay federal income taxes and will certainly vote for Obama.
Mittens has got his demos and stats all muddled. Wasn’t the message in the last few elections that Dems were the latte liberal elitists who disdained ordinary working Americans? Remember Palin and all the flack Obama got over the masses clinging to God and guns gaffe? So which the hell is it? Dems are elitists or Dems are all dependent parasites who don’t want to take care of themselves? With Mittens it’s sort of an if-it’s-Tuesday-this-is-what-I-think-my-message-should-be sort of thing.
I was simply highlighting the interesting point of the article. The 47% nonsense is being debunked plenty by all the media, but they seem to be buying this 14% tax rate gambit. Most of them, including the Denver paper, are reporting the information in the return exactly as it was given to them from the campaign.
It’s important that we head that off early and point out that he is already paying less than the very poor and the centerpiece of his campaign is to give himself (and people like him) a bigger tax break. The voters want the rich to pay more and will be appalled at how little he pays, especially since he had to artificially inflate his taxes to get them into the double digits.
contradiction of anything you said. In fact, thanks for pointing out how even more muddled this crap gets the more you look into it.
It’s just that it drives me nuts that even some very progressive media voices keep talking about the 47% incorrectly. They mean well, talking about how so many are hard working or seniors or people who have served our country but often leave out the most glaring inconstistency: They aren’t an Obama voting block. Not by a long shot.
today’s GOP/WillardWorld you can now become a latte liberal elitist just by being a dependent moocher parasite . . . Is this a great f’n country, or what???
Once Romney stuck his foot in it (and how!) with the 47% comment, he was going to get relentlessly hammered for not releasing tax returns.
Now he is going to get hammered for paying lower tax rate than middle class folk.
But at least this gives him the option to counter with some bs like he wants everyone to pay as low tax rate as he has enjoyed etc.
I see this as attempt to limit self-inflicted damage from the 47% disaster.
But he is going to need very adroit rhetoric/policy proposals to make lemonade out of these lemons.
ruh-roh
all week for an opening for this . . . “adroit rhetoric” seems a good as any:
but where are we going to get a goat and a hose at this hour?
hey buddy. We want to see the returns. We want to know how you made your millions/billions, who you are indebted to. A statement from a notary doesn’t cut it. My dogs are more reliable and I guarantee they will act like I have never left them alone
Communist err I mean criminals will not be happy till progressive tax rates are such that every person brings home the same.
Hearing voices again? Like those same claims every since FDR got the rich to pay for what they benefit from? A stable population with good work skills, the military and the courts to protect them from the riff-raff.
The decline of the middle class coincided with Reagan’s two tier taxation. Sadly, it was a Democratic congress that went along with it.
Yeah and the only voice you here is, “we must commandeer the guns of government then punish success via progressive taxation.”
herehearherehear
….was wanting another man’s wife or his ass. Ummmm….. 🙂
Forget craven coveting. Society is better off when the rich forego more of their wealth than the less rich.
Of course, if you believe we should have lords and serfs, then I can’t argue with you.