3 ms·

Eh, I'm not sure. It's pretty clear what's in Romney's returns at this point (a lower than average income tax rate, though it's hard to say whether it's closer

by scarmig 14y ago

Eh, I'm not sure. It's pretty clear what's in Romney's returns at this point (a lower than average income tax rate, though it's hard to say whether it's closer to 5% or 15%), so I don't see a huge downside risk for him in them being released. If they upped their demands to, say $10 million, we're talking about real money, even for Mitt. Enough to get an extra percent of the vote or so in a moderate sized state. Unless there's something genuinely illegal in the returns, a couple days of renewed interest in them might be preferable to giving up a bit of money at the margin (though, paid media is fairly well saturated now, so it might not be that useful). From Romney's point of view, too, there'd be no guarantee that paying 10 million would prevent them from being released. There's no accountability for the Anonymous. With 1 million, though, it's just a no brainer. That said, I doubt they have anything. Reeks of BS to me.

MartinCron 14y ago
He has recently insisted that he's never paid less than 13%, so if it comes out as less than that, he might have a huge political problem. For the record, I don't think he's lying about that, he seems far too smart to set up a trap like that for himself.
- scarmig 14y ago
  I recall it being couched in words about overall tax rate, though, not income tax rate. Which would give him enough wiggle room if push comes to shove.
evan_ 14y ago
paying the ransom is just as bad, since it confirms that there's something worth covering up.
twoodfin 14y ago
A quick point and a theory: First, it's not true that the average American pays 15% in income taxes. An typical family in the middle of the income spectrum pays about 5.6%.[1] As far as Romney's returns go, I have a hunch that the political problems wouldn't be in the numbers, but in something like his charitable giving, of which there's an awful lot. What if one of the church programs he gave to turns out to have had some politically incorrect pamphlets, for example? Suddenly he'd be in a position to have to defend everyone he'd ever given $1 (or more likely, $10,000). [1] http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3151 http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3151
- scarmig 14y ago
  I misspoke: it's not that Romney pays a lower average income tax rate, but pays a lower average federal tax rate, including payroll. For most people, income taxes make up a negligible part of that total tax burden. I doubt the charitable giving would be a problem, and I'm also skeptical of the "Romney took a tax amnesty in 2009" theory. At this point I think it's mostly bull-headedness: Romney thinks no one has a right to see his private financial information, and he's sticking by that, come hell or high water.
  - twoodfin 14y ago
    For most people, income taxes make up a negligible part of that total tax burden. Ignoring the employer "contribution" sleight-of-hand, payroll taxes in 2012 are 4.2% SS + 1.45% Medicare, or 5.65%. Adding in the income tax burden, and you're still looking at a total Federal tax burden of under 12%.
    - rayiner 14y ago
      The average American is barely getting by. Meanwhile, doctors, engineers, etc, are paying 20-25%. That's just non-sensical.
    - debacle 14y ago
      You're missing the point. If you spend most of what you earn, that's an additiona 10% (in my state) on sales tax. Most very wealthy don't spend nearly what they earn, so the effect of sales tax is negligible.
      - twoodfin 14y ago
        How am I missing the point? First the claim was that Mitt Romney pays a "lower than average income tax rate", which is demonstrably untrue. Then the claim was that he pays a "lower than average Federal tax burden" and that the income tax as a burden on the average American was "negligible" relative to their payroll tax burden. I didn't even bring up the fact that Bain pays corporate income taxes on its profits before they're disbursed to owners like Romney. Even discounting that, the average person's Federal tax burden is still lower than Romney's, assuming he's being truthful when he says his income rate was never lower than 13%. And the average American's income tax burden is not "negligible" relative to the payroll tax burden: it's about 50/50. Now you're trying to bring state taxes into it. Guess what: Romney makes most of his money off of capital gains and is a Massachusetts resident, where long term capital gains are taxed at 5.3%. Yes, Romney could "afford" a much greater tax burden. He could "afford" a tax burden of 95% and still live comfortably. That's not an argument (or at least a good one) for such a thing. It's also not the point under debate (that somehow the rate of taxes he pays is lower than the average American's).
ForrestN 14y ago
I think it stands to reason that if the release were no big deal, if it was just something like low-paying taxes, he wouldn't be so resistent. He's taken a lot of egg to the face to keep these things secret, so there has to be a reason why.
wpietri 14y ago
I think the downside risk is in the details. I use a serious accountant for my taxes, and the organizer they send me every year asks for maybe 75 pages of information, and encourages me to add extra sheets as needed. Personally, I leave 98% of it blank, but I can imagine someone at Romney's level being very reluctant to release everything a serious accountant considers necessary to persuade the IRS to cut me a break. The real problem for them isn't the bottom-line numbers. It's a dozen news cycles as people dig into detail after detail. E.g., the tax deduction for Ann Romney's horse that's larger than the US median annual income. All that detail is a PR nightmare, because each item will highlight to voters how incredibly wealthy he is compared to them.

by scarmig 14y ago

MartinCron 14y ago

He has recently insisted that he's never paid less than 13%, so if it comes out as less than that, he might have a huge political problem. For the record, I don't think he's lying about that, he seems far too smart to set up a trap like that for himself.

scarmig 14y ago
I recall it being couched in words about overall tax rate, though, not income tax rate. Which would give him enough wiggle room if push comes to shove.

evan_ 14y ago

paying the ransom is just as bad, since it confirms that there's something worth covering up.

twoodfin 14y ago

A quick point and a theory: First, it's not true that the average American pays 15% in income taxes. An typical family in the middle of the income spectrum pays about 5.6%.[1] As far as Romney's returns go, I have a hunch that the political problems wouldn't be in the numbers, but in something like his charitable giving, of which there's an awful lot. What if one of the church programs he gave to turns out to have had some politically incorrect pamphlets, for example? Suddenly he'd be in a position to have to defend everyone he'd ever given $1 (or more likely, $10,000). [1] http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3151 http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3151

scarmig 14y ago
I misspoke: it's not that Romney pays a lower average income tax rate, but pays a lower average federal tax rate, including payroll. For most people, income taxes make up a negligible part of that total tax burden. I doubt the charitable giving would be a problem, and I'm also skeptical of the "Romney took a tax amnesty in 2009" theory. At this point I think it's mostly bull-headedness: Romney thinks no one has a right to see his private financial information, and he's sticking by that, come hell or high water.
- twoodfin 14y ago
  For most people, income taxes make up a negligible part of that total tax burden. Ignoring the employer "contribution" sleight-of-hand, payroll taxes in 2012 are 4.2% SS + 1.45% Medicare, or 5.65%. Adding in the income tax burden, and you're still looking at a total Federal tax burden of under 12%.
  - rayiner 14y ago
    The average American is barely getting by. Meanwhile, doctors, engineers, etc, are paying 20-25%. That's just non-sensical.
  - debacle 14y ago
    You're missing the point. If you spend most of what you earn, that's an additiona 10% (in my state) on sales tax. Most very wealthy don't spend nearly what they earn, so the effect of sales tax is negligible.
    - twoodfin 14y ago
      How am I missing the point? First the claim was that Mitt Romney pays a "lower than average income tax rate", which is demonstrably untrue. Then the claim was that he pays a "lower than average Federal tax burden" and that the income tax as a burden on the average American was "negligible" relative to their payroll tax burden. I didn't even bring up the fact that Bain pays corporate income taxes on its profits before they're disbursed to owners like Romney. Even discounting that, the average person's Federal tax burden is still lower than Romney's, assuming he's being truthful when he says his income rate was never lower than 13%. And the average American's income tax burden is not "negligible" relative to the payroll tax burden: it's about 50/50. Now you're trying to bring state taxes into it. Guess what: Romney makes most of his money off of capital gains and is a Massachusetts resident, where long term capital gains are taxed at 5.3%. Yes, Romney could "afford" a much greater tax burden. He could "afford" a tax burden of 95% and still live comfortably. That's not an argument (or at least a good one) for such a thing. It's also not the point under debate (that somehow the rate of taxes he pays is lower than the average American's).

ForrestN 14y ago

I think it stands to reason that if the release were no big deal, if it was just something like low-paying taxes, he wouldn't be so resistent. He's taken a lot of egg to the face to keep these things secret, so there has to be a reason why.

wpietri 14y ago

I think the downside risk is in the details. I use a serious accountant for my taxes, and the organizer they send me every year asks for maybe 75 pages of information, and encourages me to add extra sheets as needed. Personally, I leave 98% of it blank, but I can imagine someone at Romney's level being very reluctant to release everything a serious accountant considers necessary to persuade the IRS to cut me a break. The real problem for them isn't the bottom-line numbers. It's a dozen news cycles as people dig into detail after detail. E.g., the tax deduction for Ann Romney's horse that's larger than the US median annual income. All that detail is a PR nightmare, because each item will highlight to voters how incredibly wealthy he is compared to them.