Romney the giver

[Big Don]

[h=1]Romney the giver[/h] By JOHN PODHORETZ
Last Updated: 12:35 AM, September 22, 2012

Posted: 11:23 PM, September 21, 2012

Excerpt:




We learned yesterday that last year Mitt Romney paid $1.9 million in taxes on an income of $14 million — and gave $4 million to charity.
The year before, he made $21.6 million, paid $3 million in taxes and gave $3 million to charity.
So, to recap: Mitt Romney has, in the past two years, paid almost $5 million in taxes while giving away $7 million. And, as he said, he has paid the taxes he was supposed to pay according to the laws of the United States, which is all that is required — legally, morally and practically — of anyone.
If you’ve been reading my columns for the past couple of years, you know I’m perfectly capable of being critical of Romney. I did so the other day, and radio host Mark Levin called me a “trash-mouther” who was “giving aid and comfort to Obama.”
But the release of these tax records leaves no doubt about one thing: Mitt Romney is an extraordinarily, remarkably, astonishingly generous man. A good man. Maybe even a great man.
That is all. There is no “but.” Anyone who says otherwise is ignorant, stupid or a liar.
It’s important to talk about how charitable deductions work, because there is great confusion about them and their effect on the amount people pay in tax as a result.
You will hear it said, by people who are either ignorant or have an axe to grind, that the charitable deduction is a tax shelter. It is anything but.
Shelters are investments that work to protect money from being taxed by the government. In effect, every dollar in them is put there either so that it can earn money or so that it can be used to lower a person’s tax burden.
Now consider the dollar given to charity. If you’re Mitt Romney, your dollar would be taxed at a rate of 35 percent by the federal government — the highest rate. When you give that dollar to charity, you are, in effect, excused from paying 35 cents of it to the government.
But here’s the key: You don’t get the other 65 cents back.
If you simply kept that dollar for yourself and paid tax on it, you’d still have 65 cents of it in the bank.
By giving that dollar away to charity, you lose that 65 cents entirely. It goes to the charity, as does the 35 cents you’d have paid to the IRS.
It’s likely, given these numbers, that over the past 20 years the Romneys have donated more than $50 million to charity. Do the math: Under current tax law, if he’d kept the money, he’d have $30 million more than he has now. (That’s extremely inexact, but you get the idea.)


END EXCERPT
That uncaring bastard

 

[billc]

Thanks for the article Big Don...

So, to recap: Mitt Romney has, in the past two years, paid almost $5 million in taxes while giving away $7 million. And, as he said, he has paid the taxes he was supposed to pay according to the laws of the United States, which is all that is required — legally, morally and practically — of anyone.

Hmmmm...who out there can say that Mitt Romney hasn't paid his fair share? Who out there can say they have given as much to charity as Mitt Romney? Who out there can say they will, in their lifetime give as much as he has given to this country in taxes and as much to private charity as he has in just the last two years?

 

[Big Don]

Paraphrasing our friends on the left:
It matters not, how much you give to charity, if you aren't paying confiscatory tax rates, you are a bad person.

 

[WC_lun]

Nice way to muddy up the waters there. Caymen Islands and Swiss bank accounts are indeed ways of sheltering your money. Guess who has accounts in both countries? As an Elder of his church he is expected to give money to charities. Good for him that he does. Mitt Romney also has a history of finagling taxes for political gain, even up to lying about them. His effective tax rate in 2011, was 14.1%. It could have been lower, but then it would have contridicted what he had said in interviews earlier so he did not take deductions he normally would have, this according to HIS campaign. By the way, what is your effective tax rate? Odds are it is much higher than Mr Romney's. Mr Romeny is a prime example of two different sets of rules, one for the rich which benefit the rich, and then another set of rules for everyone else.

That he would say 47% of people don't pay income taxes so they aren't responsible people who just wants hand outs just further highlights how out of touch this man is with everyday America. It is true that 47% of people do not pay the income tax. Most of those people are students, elderly, disabled, military in war zones, and the working poor. Those people still pay taxes, such as the Federal payroll tax. 7.2% of people Mr Romney so denigrate pay no Federal taxes whatsoever. Most of the makeup of that demographic is students not working, military personel returning wounded, and the disabled. On top of all this, he makes these claims against that 47% while not releasing the amount of tax returns normally given. These are facts which make his comments and behaviours stink.

While I doubt Mr Romney is a bad man, he is the living caricature of the fat cat bussinessman who cares for his and his cronies own wealth beyond anything else. To characterize him as a great man, well he hasn't shown any proof of that in his political or bussiness life.

 

[arnisador]

Given that he's supposed to give 10% to his church to maintain its Utah Vatican-style headquarters, I won't be impressed until he separates that out of the 'charity' part.

Meanwhile:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...sterous_explanation_for_overpaying_them_.html

 

[GetOntheGoodFoot]

First they accused and complained because he wouldn't release it, now that he has they complain that he is over paying. There's just no pleasing them, its looking more and more like 4 more years of Obama. :soapbox:SHAM2012:soapbox:

Not to mention the country is so far in debt you would think overpaying should be acceptable.

 

[billc]

Caymen Islands and Swiss bank accounts are indeed ways of sheltering your money.

He still paid...

So, to recap: Mitt Romney has, in the past two years, paid almost $5 million in taxes while giving away $7 million. And, as he said, he has paid the taxes he was supposed to pay according to the laws of the United States, which is all that is required — legally, morally and practically — of anyone.

Sooooo...Cayman Islands and Swiss bank accounts aside, he still paid 12 million dollars to the fed and private charities, I would have to guess that is more than anyone here on the study will ever pay, ever, in taxes alone to the U.S. treasury, not to mention the 7 million dollars to charity. ( if I am mistaken about the charitable giving of some who post on the study, I demand to see your tax returns to show us that you indeed gave more than Romney...or can Harry Reid claim someone told him you cheated on your tax returns? ) Wow, he may have given it because the church says give it...there are a lot of people who don't give it even when their religion asks them to...he did. It still goes to help the poor, even if it is Mormons overseeing it, as opposed to greedy, corrupt politicians, overseeing it into the hands of cronies and political friends. Are people upset that more of the 7 million dollars probably actually made it into the hands of the poor it was intended to go to as opposed to the "handling tax" that is lost when greedy, corrupt politicians oversee the disbursement of tax money?

Given that he's supposed to give 10% to his church to maintain its Utah Vatican-style headquarters, I won't be impressed until he separates that out of the 'charity' part.

Hmmm...considering the fact that the mormons can't throw you in jail if you don't surrender that 10% so any money given to them is by free will, have you ever seen the Vatican style headquarters the "servants," of the American people inhabit in Washington D.C. The House and Senate have quite the lavish lifestyle provided by the American tax payers, and they can throw you in jail if you don't pay...more than 10% in taxes. So, of the two, there is a lot less to complain about the Mormon church receiving voluntary donations...and using that money to help people vs. greedy, corrupt politicians who go to Washington poor, and come out millionaires...on our dime.

And the still simple comparison between him and obama...

1. Bill Ayers
2. Bernadine Dorhn
3. Rashid Khalidy
4. Frank Marshal Davis
5. Reverend Jeremiah Wright

 

[billc]

Hmmm...the Vatican style lifestyle of our "public servants,"/greedy, corrupt politicians, in the House and Senate on our dime...

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/09/29/benefits-members-congress-shabby/

they'll tap into a mountain of perks that most Fortune 500 companies couldn't begin to rival.
A little-known benefit drew some attention Wednesday after it was reported that the family of the late West Virginia Sen. Robert Byrd will be paid his $193,000 salary next year. That's just the tip of the benefits iceberg that comes with being a venerable member of Congress.
For those entering any of the 535 seats in Congress next year, here's a glance at the world of juicy perks coming their way:

Fun Money: The base salary for a member of Congress is $174,000. But all members enjoy access to a separate piggy bank known as their "allowance." This funding generally goes toward maintaining their offices and building up a legislative entourage. In the House, representatives are allowed to spend more than $900,000 on salaries for up to 18 permanent employees. They get about a quarter-million dollars more for office expenses, including travel, and additional funding for a well-known congressional perk known as "franking." Franking is the term for the mass constituent mail sent out by members of Congress and paid for courtesy of the taxpayer.
Senators enjoy the same privilege but get a much bigger allowance for their office expenses. According to a Congressional Research Service report, the average allocation for fiscal 2010 was more than $3.3 million. Personnel money varies depending on how big of a state a senator represents -- a senator from New York is going to get more than a senator from Montana. But for starters, each senator is given a $500,000 budget to hire up to three legislative assistants.

Nice Digs: A seat in Congress comes with office space -- lots of it. Not only do members move into an office on Capitol Hill, they maintain space in their home districts and states too. For senators, this benefit has a pretty high cap - up to 8,200 square feet. The CRS report said there is "no restriction" on the number of offices they can open in federal buildings in their home states. Plus senators get to shop at the equivalent of Congress' IKEA -- furniture supplied through the Architect of the Capitol. Every senator gets $40,000 -- and potentially more -- for furniture in their home-state offices.

Bonus Tax Deduction: Members of Congress can deduct up to $3,000 for expenses while outside their home districts or states.
Insurance/Retirement: All members of Congress can sign up for the same health plan and life insurance policy available to other federal workers. But there's more. In an age when the 401(k) often becomes a substitute for a pension, representatives and senators enjoy access to both. First, members of Congress can sign up for a 401(k)-style "Thrift Savings Plan," a tax-deferred investment in which members' contributions are matched up to 5 percent.
Then there's Social Security. Then there's the pension plan. The pension payments and eligibility vary -- in a nutshell, members are eligible for an immediate, full pension at age 62 if they've served five years or more; they're eligible at age 50 if they've served 20 years; and they're eligible at any time after they've served 25 years. The annual amount of the pension depends on a lawmaker's salary and the number of years he or she served -- typically the amount is considerably less than a lawmaker's outgoing salary.

Down Time: Perhaps there's no such thing as down time for a member of Congress, what with the constant shuttling back and forth between Washington and their districts, media appearances and constituent meetings. But the work week lately has been relatively sparse. The Senate has averaged about three working days on Capitol Hill - three-and-a-half if you count Monday nights. Plus there are several breaks, which Congress calls "work periods," penciled in the calendar throughout the year. This year, members of Congress returned to their districts for a Presidents Day break, a spring break, a Memorial Day break, an Independence Day break and a summer break. Congress is about to adjourn again until early November so members can campaign. Of course, that's good old-fashioned time off for senators not up for re-election this year.

And some more perks...

http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/ntu-vault/congressional-perks/congressional-perks.html

[TABLE="width: 990"]
[TR]
[TD]

Wheeled perks, including limousines for senior Members, prized parking spaces on Capitol Hill, and choice spots at Washington's two major airports.
· Travel to far-flung destinations as well as to home states and districts. Despite recent attempts to toughen gift and travel rules, "junkets" are still readily available prerogatives for many Members.
· A wide range of smaller perks that have defied reform efforts, from cut-rate health clubs to fine furnishings.
But the very nature of public office itself demands a more comprehensive definition of a "perk" than that normally applied to corporate America. Members of Congress can also wield official powers that allow them to continue to enjoy the personal benefits outlined above, such as:
· The franking privilege, which gives lawmakers millions in tax dollars to create a favorable public image. Experts across the political spectrum have labeled the frank as an unfair electioneering tool. In past election cycles, Congressional incumbents have spent as much on franking alone as challengers have spent on their entire campaigns.
· An office staff that performs "constituent services" and doles out pork-barrel spending, providing more opportunities for "favors" that can be returned only at election time.
· Exemptions and immunities from tax, pension, and other laws that burden private citizens -- all crafted by lawmakers themselves.
​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/members-house-gym-subsidized-taxpayers/story?id=13839542#.UF7Kt45dWFI

the members-only House gym.
ABC News was not allowed to enter either the House or Senate workout facilities, but those who have say they're both equipped with flat screen TVs, workout machines and a swimming pool.
House reps and senators justify the perk by saying important work gets done there.

Plus, they have their own private train that their employers, the people who pay their salary, can't use without their permission...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Capitol_Subway_System

The systems are open to public insofar as members of the public must be escorted by a staff member with proper identification. This is usually during a tour of the Capitol Complex. However, during votes, the House subway is restricted to Congressional members only. The Russell subway is restricted to members and staff only during times when the Senate is voting.
Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, restrictions have been placed on visitors using the Senate subway between the Hart and Dirksen buildings.

 

[WC_lun]

"He still paid..."

Since Mr Romney will not release his taxes as a normal canidate would, you don't know that. All you know is that his taxes were paid for 2011 and 2010.

As far as him paying more, given his statements in the past about a man paying more taxes than he has to should not be president, doesn't ring well. He did what he did on the 2011 return for politics. That his effective tax rate could have been much lower, I imagine on those other returns it is. That is why he doesn't want to release them. Not that he did anything illegal, though he has been guilty of that in the past, but that those tax returns show the different set of playing rules the rich get in this country. Maybe it would help to understand my point if you pretend he's a democrat for a few minutes.

 

[Josh Oakley]

Some of you guys are reaching at this point. The guy paid 14.1% of his income on taxes, and an additional 30% of his income on charity.

So unless somebody has some hard facts for why anyone should still care about it, then this topic is about as useful as the birther BS was four years ago.

(Aaaand STILL voting for Gary Johnson)

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

 

[Touch Of Death]

I did so the other day, and radio host Mark Levin called me a “trash-mouther” who was “giving aid and comfort to Obama.”

Dude! That had to hurt, deep down. LOL

 

[granfire]

Some of you guys are reaching at this point. The guy paid 14.1% of his income on taxes, and an additional 30% of his income on charity.

So unless somebody has some hard facts for why anyone should still care about it, then this topic is about as useful as the birther BS was four years ago.

(Aaaand STILL voting for Gary Johnson)

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

well, our effective tax rate is 18%.

And as for the 30%...maybe with the untaxable income he has in of shore accounts it more like the 10% his faith requires.

 

[Tgace]

Good old American politics...pursue the American dream, but then be branded if you achieve it.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

 

[granfire]

Good old American politics...pursue the American dream, but then be branded if you achieve it.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

Nah.
He can achieve the dream and keep it.
But he should have the decency and not talk out of both sides of the mouth.

 

[Master Dan]

Nice way to muddy up the waters there. Caymen Islands and Swiss bank accounts are indeed ways of sheltering your money. Guess who has accounts in both countries? As an Elder of his church he is expected to give money to charities. Good for him that he does. Mitt Romney also has a history of finagling taxes for political gain, even up to lying about them. His effective tax rate in 2011, was 14.1%. It could have been lower, but then it would have contridicted what he had said in interviews earlier so he did not take deductions he normally would have, this according to HIS campaign. By the way, what is your effective tax rate? Odds are it is much higher than Mr Romney's. Mr Romeny is a prime example of two different sets of rules, one for the rich which benefit the rich, and then another set of rules for everyone else.

That he would say 47% of people don't pay income taxes so they aren't responsible people who just wants hand outs just further highlights how out of touch this man is with everyday America. It is true that 47% of people do not pay the income tax. Most of those people are students, elderly, disabled, military in war zones, and the working poor. Those people still pay taxes, such as the Federal payroll tax. 7.2% of people Mr Romney so denigrate pay no Federal taxes whatsoever. Most of the makeup of that demographic is students not working, military personel returning wounded, and the disabled. On top of all this, he makes these claims against that 47% while not releasing the amount of tax returns normally given. These are facts which make his comments and behaviours stink.

While I doubt Mr Romney is a bad man, he is the living caricature of the fat cat bussinessman who cares for his and his cronies own wealth beyond anything else. To characterize him as a great man, well he hasn't shown any proof of that in his political or bussiness life.

Again rich people and criminals have been paying firms like Price Water House to supply fraudulant facts to investors and the IRS for decades so what Mitt and under the Amnesty deal with IRS to bring 35,000 tax frauds under control Mitt may very well be one of them that is why he dose not want his actual details released he is a felon who thinks the 90% of people are just stupid and beneath him and regardless of his charity giving his oath is for 10% of gross but if he does not reveal his true gross by diverting offshore then he is a lier to God as well

 

[arnisador]

Hey, good for him for getting rich. No problem. He's paying only what he legally has to--same as me. But he didn't claim all of his charitable deductions so he overpaid so he'd look better in his ads. From the article I posted above:

But as much as it reveals the absurdities of Mitt Romney, his voluntary overpayment underscores the absurdities of the current tax system. Romney owes so little because of the tax code’s favoritism toward the rich. Whereas the top rate on salary, wages, and tips is 35 percent, the top rate on interest, dividends, and long-term capital gains is only 15 percent. This is economically inefficient, because it encourages businesses and individuals to structure their affairs to take advantage of the differential. It is also instinctively unfair, because it privileges a hedge-fund manager’s carried interest over a factory worker’s wages.
Romney’s charitable contribution to the Treasury concedes this unfairness. The real reason Romney is overpaying is that it simply feels wrong to most people, if not also to him, for someone who earned $13.7 million to be paying less than 13 percent of his income in taxes when working people face a payroll tax of 15.3 percent on their first dollar of income (temporarily reduced to 13.3 percent). By yielding to political criticism and moral pressure about how little he pays, Romney implicitly accepts that under a fairer tax system, people like him would be required to pay more.

It's the hypocrisy. He is effectively admitting that the low tax rates on the rich are unseemly while still arguing they should be lower.

 

[Master Dan]

Hey, good for him for getting rich. No problem. He's paying only what he legally has to--same as me. But he didn't claim all of his charitable deductions so he overpaid so he'd look better in his ads. From the article I posted above:


It's the hypocrisy. He is effectively admitting that the low tax rates on the rich are unseemly while still arguing they should be lower.

Yes and he is still paying based on what income he reveals or claims while sheltering much of it off shore. Also his claim to blind trust is outright lie his personal attorney in charge of that and it has already been said obviously they have conversations related to his investments but its covered under client attorney privilege. I have sat in on many meetings with the rich and thier CPA's Attornies planning how to avoid paying higher taxes some legal some not. Fake corporate minutes back dating fake loans differed income. Bottom line the premise good for him he made it rich from hard work yes hard work at taking unfare advantage of those less fortunate you want that for president you deserve him Don