Romney's tax returns provide ammo for his opponents
Jonathan Jones 3:40pm
Finally, grudgingly, Mitt Romney has released his tax returns for the last two years. After much um-ing and ah-ing — and a lot of prodding from Democrats, Newt Gingrich and the media – he has disclosed that he paid $3 million in tax on his 2010 income of $21.7
million, and $3.2 million on the $20.9 million he made in 2011. Romney hoped that releasing this information would allow him to move past the focus on his financial affairs, but his rivals –
both inside and outside his own party — don’t seem prepared to let that happen.
The Democrats are naturally keen to emphasise both Romney’s large investment profits – they show he’s ‘out of touch’ with average Americans, they say – and the relatively low rate of tax he pays on them. The latter provides them with a perfect opportunity to keep the former in the spotlight while pushing Barack Obama’s long-held policy aim of raising taxes on high earners. Obama called his proposed tax-hike on those with incomes over $1 million the ‘Buffett Rule’, after billionaire Warren Buffett who said he shouldn’t be paying a lower tax rate than his secretary’s.
Already the point’s being made that Romney’s effective tax rate of less than 15 per cent is probably lower than his own personal assistant pays. And — unsurprisingly — the
Buffett Rule will feature heavily in Obama’s State of the Union speech tonight. Asked about Romney’s taxes this morning, White House adviser David Plouffe said:
Indeed, Buffett’s secretary will be joining Michelle Obama in her box to watch the speech.‘I do think it raises a general point about our tax system here. One of the things that the president is going to talk in the State of the Union tonight is something what Warren Buffett famously talked about — that he should not pay less in taxes than his secretary does. The president, as you know, has talked about something called the Buffett Rule. We’re going to outline that specifically tonight — what that would mean, so that we make sure everybody in this economy is doing their fair share.’
It’s a gift for Team Obama: they can make the case for a very popular policy while simultaneously reinforcing their favourite caricature of Romney as a Gordon Gekko-style Wall Street millionaire — without even mentioning his name.
And Romney’s troubles don’t end with the Democrats. Newt Gingrich isn’t exactly running a typical ‘defend the rich’ Republican campaign — having already heavily attacked Romney’s investment career — and is trying to make as much hay as he can out of all this. But then, as Romney pointed out in the debate last night, Gingrich’s proposal to eliminate capital gains tax would reduce Romney’s tax bill to zero.
Previous
Frank P
January 24th, 2012 3:46pm Report this commentChrist - another four years of Obama? Ugghh.
Pot Head
January 24th, 2012 3:53pm Report this commentRomney paid his Mormon buddies 15% of his income and paid America only 14.0%. . And that's without the offshore bank accounts.. He's SO F****ED
Pot Head
January 24th, 2012 3:55pm Report this commentAlso LOVE that he was investor in Freddie/Fannie. He was paying Newt's lobbying salary! No wonder he wants Newt to give the $$ back
Tim Johnson
January 24th, 2012 4:30pm Report this commentSurely the returns are pretty much what was expected and indeed what should be expected if one had much idea about Romney and US tax.
Indeed Kelly Phillips Erb (on Twitter as @taxgirl)a US Tax lawyer and well known tax commentator headed up her piece on his returns: "Romney's Tax Returns are Remarkably... Unremarkable ".
There is also something of a misconception about US tax rates. The amount of US Federal Income tax that Americans typically pay is really rather low by UK standards. Yes the top rate of (Federal) income tax is 35% - however the Tax Policy Centre shows that the median tax payer (actually middle quintile) is paying about 12.8% of their income in all Federal taxes.
Will Obama try to score points on this one - I'm sure he will, but equally I suspect this will die away before long.
DavidDP
January 24th, 2012 4:52pm Report this commentHang on, I though the official GOP position was to lower taxes on the wealthy?
Jupiter
January 24th, 2012 5:06pm Report this commentRomney hasn't been fiddling his taxes so I don't see what all the fuss is about.
Surely people can't expect him to pay more tax than he has to.
Tariq
January 24th, 2012 5:07pm Report this commentWhat a godsend these two are for the incumbent! And thanks to the Citizens United decision, there's nothing to stop Democrats from contributing money to both anonymously, in the hope of prolonging the contest until the convention and destroying the winner's ability to unite his party.
Who knows, maybe the losing candidate will have enough money and support to run as an independent. From what we've seen of Romney and Gingrich so far, neither has the humility to accept defeat.
Augustus
January 24th, 2012 6:22pm Report this comment"Surely people can't expect him to pay more tax than he has to."
No, but they don't expect him to equivocate about releasing his tax returns either. But the real reason he can’t gain traction with voters is that they suspect he's concealing some unnameable private doubt.
It seems that American voters are instinctively beginning to prefer the idea of an entertaining Newt-Obama contest — the aspiring Caesar versus the failed Redeemer —over a dreary Mitt-Obama one.
tom jones
January 24th, 2012 6:33pm Report this commentOne man can save the Republicans from an even heavier defeat than last time. His name's Ron Paul.
Moriarty
January 24th, 2012 9:38pm Report this commentThis shouldn't even need saying.
It's tax paid on investment. In other words it's tax on money that's already been taxed.
It really isn't difficult.
David H
January 25th, 2012 2:14am Report this commentThere's nothing to see here, move along folks. Romney paid his taxes and was foolish not to release the figures earlier. (Unless there's still something he's hiding...) The Democrats can make a point of this but for Republicans it should not be an issue between them.
And Ron Paul to save the Republican party? He's so much not a Republican on several major issues - defense being the biggest - it's amazing they even let him in the party. He should be standing as a third party.
David H
January 25th, 2012 3:12am Report this comment@ Moriarty: "It's tax paid on investment. In other words it's tax on money that's already been taxed."
Well, if somebody invested their money in a factory and started making things (God forbid) then the income or profit from that would be taxed. I don't think we are talking about taxing Romney's whole investments here, just the income or profit derived thereof. The distinction that needs to be made is between people who invest as personal savings (perhaps should not be taxed) and people who invest as a business (perhaps should be taxed the same as any other business owner).
Back to top