Mitt Romney’s campaign released details of his federal tax returns on Tuesday morning, showing that he is likely to pay a total of $6.2 million in taxes on $45 million in income over the two tax years of 2010 and 2011.Let's be clear here: there's nothing wrong, or even remotely immoral about the percentage of taxes Romney is paying. It's the law. Money gained from investments (as well as money gained from investing someone else's money!) is taxed at a much lower clip than earned income. Always has been, always will be. It is what it is, and you can't hate the player here. Nor the game for that matter.
The details of the returns, confirmed by a senior campaign official, provide the most detailed view yet of his wealthy family’s finances. The disclosure comes after a barrage of pressure to release his returns — which Mr. Romney has never done, even when he was elected governor of Massachusetts.
The disclosure — reported early Tuesday by The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal and Bloomberg News — showed a vast array of investments, from a recently closed Swiss bank account to holdings in Bermuda and the Cayman Islands, all underscoring the breadth and depth of his wealth, which has become a central issue in his bid for the Republican presidential nomination.
Mr. Romney said last week that his effective tax rate was “about 15 percent,” a figure lower than that of many affluent Americans. But his returns suggested that he paid an effective tax rate of nearly 14 percent.
In addition to his 2010 taxes, Mr. Romney is set to release estimates for his 2011 taxes, which he will file in April. The campaign will report that he will pay $3.2 million in taxes for 2011, for an effective tax rate of 15.4 percent. That is a slightly higher effective rate than he paid the year before, when he paid about $3 million to the Internal Revenue Service.
Mr. Romney also said that there were “no surprises” in his tax returns. Referring to the fact that nearly all of his income is taxed as capital gains at a 15 percent rate, rather than as earned income at rates of up to 35 percent, Mr. Romney questioned a proposal by Newt Gingrich, the former House speaker, to reduce capital gains taxes to zero.
What does piss me off is Mitt's perpetual assertion that people are somehow envious of his success. This line of reasoning comes up in every debate, as well as Mitt's assertion that he is a self-made millionaire who didn't inherit anything. The inference seems to be that practically anyone can pull this off, if they just happen to be smart and resourceful enough. This is obvious bullsh*t.
Romney's Dad was the one-time Governor of Michigan, and CEO of American Motors Corporation. It's fair to say that Mitt's upbringing wasn't that of a typical American, and it's equally fair to say that his father's wealth and influence opened doors that many other Americans aren't privy to.
So, coming from a rich family and becoming rich isn't really all that impressive to me. Sorry. Bragging on your success when you Dad's a millionaire is like starting on third base and bragging about scoring a run. Most of us start at home plate. Hell, some of us start in the dugout.
We don't hate you because of your success, Mitt. We dislike you because you're a jerk.
Question: Is is fair to tax earned income at a far higher rate than investment income? Should Mitt stop running with that "don't hate my success" line, or is it a tailor-made Obama campaign ad just waiting to get made?!?