If the Romney campaign thought that their Vice-Presidential selection would take the heat off their candidate’s refusal to release more than two years of tax returns, that was laid to rest when Bob Schieffer asked Paul Ryan last night on 60 Minutes how many years of tax returns he had to give to the campaign. “Several years” was the reply, followed by the statement that he would only release two years, keeping in line with the top of the ticket. Ryan added that this is not what voters care about on the campaign trail.
That may be the case, although the discrepancy between what the Romney campaign asked of their Vice Presidential candidates and what the Presidential nominee sees fit to deliver to the public for vetting cannot be overlooked. But where this all connects together, at the level of policy, is when you look at the impact of Paul Ryan’s tax plan on Mitt Romney’s taxes.
Under Paul Ryan’s plan, Mitt Romney wouldn’t pay any taxes for the next ten years — or any of the years after that. Now, do I know that that’s true. Yes, I’m certain.
Well, maybe not quite nothing. In 2010 — the only year we have seen a full return from him — Romney would have paid an effective tax rate of around 0.82 percent under the Ryan plan, rather than the 13.9 percent he actually did. How would someone with more than $21 million in taxable income pay so little? Well, the vast majority of Romney’s income came from capital gains, interest, and dividends. And Ryan wants to eliminate all taxes on capital gains, interest and dividends [...]
Romney did earn $593,996 in author and speaking fees in 2010 that would still be taxed under the Ryan plan. Just not much. Ryan would cut the top marginal tax rate from 35 to 25 percent and get rid of the Alternative Minimum Tax — saving Romney another $292,389 or so on his 2010 tax bill. Now, Romney would still owe self-employment taxes on his author and speaking fees, but that only amounts to $29,151. Add it all up, and Romney would have paid $177,650 out of a taxable income of $21,661,344, for a cool effective rate of 0.82 percent.
Romney has not called for the elimination of capital gains and dividend taxes, though he would eliminate them for couples making less than $150,000 and individuals making less than $100,000 in income. And in last night’s interview, Romney said that “the highest-income people should pay the greatest share of taxes.” But Romney’s across-the-board reduction of tax rates would have a similar effect of lowering the tax burden on the rich and raising them on the middle class, because the deductions are simply not there to do anything else and remain deficit-neutral. Romney’s sleight-of-hand here is to say that “the highest-income people will continue to pay the largest share of the tax burden,” which they could still do while getting a massive tax cut.
Then there was this awkward moment:
At one point, Ryan interrupted the man who had just made him the presumptive vice presidential nominee. “What we are saying is: Take away the tax shelters that are uniquely enjoyed by people in the top tax brackets,” he said, “so they can’t shelter as much money from taxation, so that you can lower tax rates for everybody to make America more competitive.”
Of course, what we already know of Romney’s taxes is that he’s sheltered plenty of money, in addition to agreeing to the massive “Son of Boss” tax shelter for Marriott when he headed their audit committee. So he might have something to say about taking away those tax shelters.
The larger point is that the conversation will not change to the extent Romney wanted it. He’ll still face questions on his personal tax situation through to the election, I would imagine.




11 Comments

Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
This morning there was a replay from 60 Minutes that I had not seen. But Romney said it will be his tax plan that they endorse/advocate….implying they had had that discussion, I think.
From Fatster’s News Roundup this morning:
Romney is a Tax shelter and not much else from what I can see. Ryan is geeky looking pecker wood.
These two clowns are a waste of time. The election is over, Obama won. So please vote for Dr Jill Stein, as we need to build a new 2nd party. The Republicans are done!
Quayle, Palin and now Ryan. It looks as if the GOP presidential nominees are just buying life insurance. Is it just me???? THis guy is 1 42 year member of the house, not generally considered the best experience for president/vice president,IMO. I’d bet he can’t fine Myanmar on a map.
romney show now, even more, that he is unfit to run this country pandering to the TEA party as he did. THey say this was a bold move. I think it stupid anbd desperate.
I’m with YOU on Jill Stein. Several of my friends, former Obama supprters are too. In Texas, we can safely vote third party.
Just wehn you thought thinsg were “dulling down”, Romney comes through again.
The republican party is so pathetic, I was gonna say it’s not funny. But, let’s be honest…..IT REALLY IS!
And fifty percent of the people will vote for him bc Obama sucks?
It’s tough to go back and plug in numbers to determine what tax rate Romney would’ve paid if Ryan’s tax plan had be the law of the land, but I see a few errors with your calculations.
$593,996 of income and $177,650 paid in taxes is very close to a 30% effective tax rate, not 0.82%.
All that other “income” would’ve been non-taxable income.
To be fair, I doubt Mitt would’ve taken payment in taxable income as shown on his 2010 return, so it’s tough to figure what his effective tax rate would’ve been, but when you take away loopholes it makes it tougher to hide income.
The Devil is in the details. What Romney means by “share of taxes” is that, in aggregate, he believes that the rich should pay more taxes than the poor. What he absolutely does not believe in is percentage fairness. To him, paying 13.8% of his income in taxes while a middle class person has an effective 20% rate is fair, because the total dollar value of what he paid is more.
For Romney and Ryan, it really depends upon what your definition of a “fair share” is.
Most people are generally wrong, you’re specifically wrong.
I doubt any middle class person has an effective 20% rate.
Effective is the key word.
Romneys rate was his effective rate, about $2.8M on $20M in income or some-such gets him an effective rate of 13.8%.
An average middle class worker making $50K with standard exemptions and deductions pays a “Marginal Rate” of 15% (sounds like more than 13.8%) but an “Effective Rate” of about 4.25%.
You’re right about his total amount being more than the average guy (by almost 3 million dollars), but so is his “rate” if you compare the same rate in both cases.
Here’s a fun little tax calculator to help you understand.
http://www.cpasitesolutions.com/content/calcs/TaxMargin.html
Start with $50K base, subtract $11,900 standard deduction for a married couple, subtract $4800 for kids under 17, subtract itemized deductions like home mortgage interest, etc. Then the first $17,400 gets taxed at 10%. Anything beyond that gets taxed at 15%.
Nothing is taxed at or above 20%, so how could the effective rate (tax paid/total income) approach 20%? Not possible.