What about his AGI? Isn't that what you and I pay taxes on?

I know there are many deductions available - all legal - like charitable donations. How much did Willard donate? These deductions help make taxes "fair", right? They make the tax code ridiculously complicated, right?

The exceedingly complicated tax code provides billion$ in "stimulus" for preparers, CPA's and others, right?

You pay tax on your taxable income. The number I've given is the Romneys' adjusted gross income.

In 2010, the couple gave about $3 million to charity. About half of that was cash given to the Mormon church; the other half was the value of stock given to something called the Tyler Foundation. The deductions did reduce the couple's tax.

The stock gift probably involved the typical situation in which the stock had appreciated in value in the years leading up to the gift. The gift is deductible at its full fair market value, even though the donor has never been taxed (and isn't taxed) on the gain.

A significant part of the Romneys' money is parked offshore.

The New York Times's first cut picks up a number of things, but they don't get it all right:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/25/us/politics/romneys-tax-returns-show-21-6-million-income-in-10.html

Willard? He's toast.

But did he tithe 10%?

He's a Willard in Mitt's clothing, huh? Brings to mind the 2003 movie of that name, with the namesake character being one Wilalrd Stiles, a social misfit who bonds with a colony of rats living in his home and uses them for very sociopathic deeds. Both Willards leave a big chill.....

A significant part of the Romneys' money is parked offshore

You'd think that would be the prime target - "Mitt Romney. Invested Overseas. Not in America. Do you want a President who is more concerned with what happens overseas than in his homeland?"

Throw that up against Newt...and we'll welcome back Obama for a few more years in the White House. At least he's faithful to one woman, doesn't spend his money overseas...even if he doesn't do a heck of a lot back home.

"His tax compared to his gross was 13.75%."

How does that compare to what GE paid in taxes vs. their income. I'm not a Romney fan, but jeez, at least he paid some taxes.

If I may lobby, I'd really like a flat tax exempting the first $30K (or whatever). The problem with the tax code is that every rich guy has an exemption (and expensive tax acct) to take advantage of all the holes.

Mitt's tax statement is why the tax code needs to be chucked and redone. If you have primarily investment income, there are so many loop-holes an acrobat would get dizzy.

His two kids both are set up in a tax-free blind trust to the tune of 100's of Millions of dollars, but we can only pass on a paltry amount of inheritance before being taxed to death, while dead.

"But did he tithe 10%?"

Romney gave 15% of his income to charity.

Obama gave 1%.

I've wondered about the tithing question myself. Don't Mormons tithe 10% of their income? I'm not sure Romney would consider religious tithing "charity" but what do I know?

It would be telling if his tithing amounted to more than the taxes he paid on his income to the government he expects to lead.

Unless I've been misinformed, he paid more in federal taxes than 95% of us.

Random:
You are making up numbers. Obama gave 14% to charity in 2010. In earlier years he gave 18-20% to charities. If you are curious, he was taxed at a 26% rate.
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/incometaxandtheirs/a/Obama-2010-Tax-Return.htm

Obama gave 1%.

Nice try, Random:

http://money.cnn.com/pf/taxes/storysupplement/candidates-tax-returns/?iid=Lead

oops, was wrong about that 18-20%... looks like Obama gave closer to 6% in previous years. Still 14% in 2010.

Well David, he amassed more income through investments, etc. than 95% of us.

If his tax filings are legal, why should he apologize? I don't think as governor of Mass. he had much to do with making IRS tax codes. That he took advantage of a system that is in place is fine with me. What would you do in his position? If you say that you would voluntarily give more to the government, then you can do that without making $21m. On the other hand, it is nice to hold onto one's money to be able to give more to one's choice of charities that has a better chance of helping people than the federal government.

It would be telling if his tithing amounted to more than the taxes he paid on his income to the government he expects to lead.

What would it "tell"?

Maybe, like some, (on both sides of the aisle) he would prefer to send his money where he thinks it does what HE considers to be the most good. Or, he doesn't want his money to go toward war, or corporate welfare or Solyndra or - pick your own bete noir.

Tax money goes to people like, oh, say, Randy Leonard or Sam Adams to p*ss away.

What does that "tell"?

PS - He doesn't lead the government now - why would you think he would agree with those who do about what they're doing with his taxes?

This is much to do about nothing. A farce. There are no surprises, No "got ya!!". Move on, a boring story.

A few things interested me:

- return was typed rather than using a program like TurboTax
- I like that he had charitable contributions
- lots of shorthand notations, like "various dates" on Sched D

The focus on percentage he paid in federal taxes is class warfare. Sure, percentage-wise he paid less than many; dollar-wise, he paid quite a bit.

Did he do anything illegal? Nothing obvious. Did anyone pay this close attention to previous candidates? Not that I can recall.

There will be many debates as to what is a "fair shar", but there won't be many answers. Wherever the line is drawn, someone will find fault with it.

I am kind of surprised there is not more muni interest on the return. Seems like he could lower the effective tax rate further by investing in his resident state.

I am probably thinking to small for the likes of a PWC client. Why promote simple muni's when you can sell him an off-shore UBIT blocker?

Wished they would have itemized the tax preparation fee cost. Clearly no tax benefit to the deduction, but would be curious to know.

Mitt just isn't nasty enough. He needs to get a meme out there of him dressed like Count Dracula, with some nice elegant long fangs and a sweeping cape. Get Almodovar involved in the costuming. Later show him stalking a sleeping Newt. He could look quite eye-catching, much better than Barack in the bathing suit, and CINCH the nomination.

Then he can work on persuading us that he would be better than Obama. That shouldn't be too hard, in spite of the morass of donkeys grazing the land.

Ralph Woods -

Doesn't Romney have at least 4 sons, and maybe 5?

Are only two trust beneficiaries?

"...much better than Barack in a bathing suit..."

Yes, but can he sing???

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/01/22/1057198/-Get-yer-red-hot-Barack-sings-Al-Green-ringtone-now!-Free!?via=siderecent

"I grew up on the streets of America."

That would be Bloomfield Hills, Michigan. Average home price in Bloomfield Hills is $523k - down from $740K in 2008. The median family income is over $200k/yr.

Hey, but it is in America, right?

I grew up only 25 miles away... on the lower east side of Detroit. My streets were in America also. But, they looked a bit different than Willard's streets.

They make the tax code ridiculously complicated, right?

Actually, cc...Senator Bob Packwood spearheaded "simplification" in the 1980's - even subsequently campaigned with a brag about "putting more money in your jeans".

What actually happened:

Elimination of the deduction for fuel taxes paid at the pump.

Elimination of the deduction for interest paid on credit cards.

And a host of other deductions previously available to the average American.

Interest earned in savings accounts became taxable income; politicians and pundits subsequently whined that "Americans aren't saving".

I'd gotten fairly good at playing the game, which is exactly how I treated it: they already have my money; how much can I legally recover? Suddenly the rules no longer applied, and rather than "putting more money in my jeans", I was paying more.

I don't know what others may have done, but I closed my savings accounts and transferred the funds into tax-exempt/tax-deferred instruments. Haven't had a savings account at a bank or credit union for 25 years or so.

Begging for "tax simplification"? Be careful what you wish for.

You mean if I vote for you, you will TAKE from that selfish successful guy and give it to me? Can you get my dope delivered too? How do I vote?

Romney's response to the State of the Union:

"Instead of carrying bricks, you should be carrying interest."

If anyone knows a tax attorney...ask him IF OBAMA'S (and others) plan for taxing capital gains as ordinary income does someday become law...

...would short term losses and gaming losses (without off setting gains) then be allowable deductions?

Fair is fair, right?

Did anyone pay this close attention to previous candidates? Not that I can recall.

Probably because y'all were too busy trying to find his birth certificate to care about his tax returns.

Hey, mr. pingree - pay attention to the news, much?

ORDER ON MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENAS
Defendant, President Barack Obama, a candidate seeking the Democratic nomination for the office of the President of the United States, has filed a motion to quash the subpoena compelling his attendance at the hearing on January 26, 2012. In support of his motion, Defendant argues that “if enforced, [the subpoena] requires him to interrupt duties as President of the United States” to attend a hearing in Atlanta, Georgia. However, Defendant fails to provide any legal authority to support his motion to quash the subpoena to attend. Defendant’s motion suggests that no President should be compelled to attend a Court hearing. This may be correct. But Defendant has failed to enlighten the Court with any legal authority. Specifically, Defendant has failed to cite to any legal authority evidencing why his attendance is “unreasonable or oppressive, or that the testimony… [is] irrelevant, immaterial, or cumulative and unnecessary to a party’s preparation or presentation at the hearing, or that basic fairness dictates that the subpoena should not be enforced.” Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. r. 616-1-2-.19(5). Defendant further alludes to a defect in service of the subpoena. However, the Court’s rules provide for service of a subpoena upon a party, by serving the party’s counsel of record. Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. r. 616-1-2-.19(4). Thus, the argument regarding service is without merit.

Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to quash is denied.

SO ORDERED, this the 20th day of January, 2012.

MICHAEL M. MALIHI, Judge

The two scions are Willard's grandsons. He's set the boys up plenty well, but the real dough is skipping a generation.

And, by the way, very telling graphic, a la Tufte

http://visualizingeconomics.com/2012/01/24/comparing-tax-rates

Looking at the asset list attached to the trust returns for 2010 was interesting.

Thee are A LOT of Greek Central Bank bonds.

It will be interesting when the final 2011 returns of the "blind" trusts are filed to see if those assets have been sold and if at a gain or loss.

I expect that a lot of other "smart", "rich", and well connected folks were in similar positions.

Might explain the great concern o by the financial grey beards in Europe and elsewhere about the un desireability of a Greek default on its soverign debt. Some well connected folks could get badly burned.

Also interesting to see the investments by one of the "blind trusts" in the Goldman Sachs Commodities funds. Looking at that fund's on line prospectus for 2009 - 2010 says that it was 75% in "energy" (ya think that means crude oil and refined gasoline?) and 15% in basic food stuffs ( wheat, rice, corn?)

The "blind" trust seems to have been a player in the speculation which jerked crude and gasoline prices, as well as grain prices, all over the place in 2010.

Max,

So Mike(one of the many) contends that past candidates didn't receive this kind of tax scrutiny and I counter that that was because they were to concerned with his birth certificate.

You counter, I guess, by point out they are STILL concerned with his birth certificate????????