After being hounded by Democrats and Republicans for refusing to and then hedging about releasing his federal tax returns, Mitt Romney released his 2010 tax return early Tuesday morning. They show that Romney paid an effective tax rate of 13.9% on $21.6 million in income.
Romney’s total wealth is estimated at $190 million to $250 million.
The returns also show that over 2010 and 2011 Romney donated more money to charity, $7 million, than he will pay in taxes, much of that going to the Mormon church. The campaign stressed that Romney’s low tax rate was based on the fact that much of his income comes from 15% tax rate on capital gains, rather than the 35% rate on earned income as well as charitable deductions. They also note that much of the money comes from interest from Romney’s blind trust.
Key Takeaways From Romney’s Tax Returns
—Mitt Romney paid a 13.9 percent tax rate on $21.6 million in income last year.
—Most of the income came from dividends and interest on investments, which are taxed at a much lower rate.
—Romney raked in America’s median adjusted gross income of $33,048 in “less than a day,” Bloomberg notes. His income over a one-week span puts him in the top 1 percent of annual earners.
—Romney, who files jointly with his wife Ann, expects to pay a 15.4 percent rate on $20.9 million in income this year.
—His campaign said he had $7.4 million in carried interest last year; this year the figure is $5.5 million.
—Romney contributed $7 million in charitable donations in the last two years, at least $4.1 million of which was to the Mormon Church.
Sahil Kapur contributed to this post.
Pema Levy
Pema Levy is a News Writer at TPM covering the 2012 election. Before coming to TPM, Pema was an assistant editor at The American Prospect where she wrote about politics and the economy.
Could we stop pretending that donations to the Mormon Church count as "charitable"?
Its rare to see the inequities in taxation laid out so graphically. Anyone paying a higher rate than Mitt ought to be voting Democratic and demanding return to a real graduated tax structure. We could eliminate the national debt pretty fast if Mitt and his ilk paid their fare share.
Outing myself as a geek here, I'll admit to having in the past played roleplaying games a time or two. One game "Space Opera" had players taking the parts of various science fiction characters. I played a merchant, with the skill, luck and ruthlessness to quickly amass a huge fortune. Then, having "enough" money, I stopped that and did other stuff, living off the considerable interest and investment income. We called it the "Slot in the Wall" from which money poured with no assistance from me. Pretty much as much as I wanted just showed up with no effort on my part.
Who knew that I was playing a SciFi version of Mitt Romney? Well, not entirely. My character was smarter 'n stuff, but with no advantages to birth and name. More selfish, I suppose, since I don't recall anything about giving to charity, let alone churches. I probably mostly bought weapons and military vehicles, but that's neither here nor there, and not relevant to the anecdote.
another proof that tax cuts do not go to creating jobs. they go to the caymans.
very hard for him politically to get out of this. he is paying a rate lower than those who risk life and limb to protect his right to put his money in the caymans.
It is amazing when the left makes money AND doesn't pay to charities that is OK. But when a Republican makes money and pays big money to charity that is somehow wrong. Check out what Clinton made in 2010 and this was just for speeches. Romney at least made money creating businesses... Staples, Sports Authority, etc.. Don't get me wrong... Bill Clinton can make all the money he wants and do with it what he wishes... I just don't like the left's hypocrisy.
Oooops... forgot the Clinton story.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/07/11/cl...
Clinton surpasses $75 million in speech income after lucrative 2010
Posted byCNN Political Research Director Robert Yoon
Washington (CNN) - Former president Bill Clinton enjoyed his most lucrative year ever on the speaking circuit in 2010, capping a decade of paid speaking events that has earned him $75.6 million since leaving office in 2001, according to a CNN analysis of federal financial records.
Clinton received $10.7 million for 52 paid speaking engagements last year, a sizable increase from the 36 paid speeches he delivered in 2009 for a total of $7.5 million. The most the former president had previously earned in one year was in 2006 when he earned $10.2 million for 57 events. His 2010 speaking fees were detailed in Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's annual financial disclosure report released Monday.
jaeastin Good for him, what was his tax rate?
jaeastin As I recall, the Clintons had enormous legal bills after the knock down drag out impeachment cheered on by the serial adulterer Newt Gingrich. If they couldn't impeach him, the GOP thought they had destroyed him financially and he would never again have any power on the world stage.
Speaker's fees, plus book advances for both BIll and Hillary helped them pay off the legal bills, and now Clinton's foundation accounts for what you are calling a gap in his charitable contributions record.
Plus, Bill Clinton is a very effective speaker. Romney???
jaeastin Mitt didn't "create businesses." Staples? You know his firm only had a 10% stake in that, right?
And at least Bill Clinton does something resembling work to make his money. When's the last time mittens got up and went to work? He famously claimed to be "unemployed" yet he made millions last year. For literally doing nothing. and paid a lower tax rate than a person who actually worked for his money.
jaeastin did not realize romney created staples, sports authority etc. wow. what a dude!
Masha Manningjaeastin Most of the successes Romney touts are from his time at Bain *before* they established Bain Capital, or from the early years of Bain Capital when most of its portfolio was venture capital investment, rather than private equity investment. Staples, for example, was a venture capital investment with a minority stake and a substantial consulting component. Later, Bain Capital under Romney shifted to being nearly all Private Equity (Leveraged Buy Out) based. He doesn't talk about most of the companies bought that way because most don't exist anymore.
Masha Manningjaeastin He didn't create them. He was one of many venture capital who invested in it.
"The venture capital syndicate was led by William Blair Venture Partners and included First Chicago Venture Partners, Bain Capital, Phillips-Smith Venture Partners, Marquette Venture Partners, and Bessemer Securities."
Jaeastin, A great deal of Romney's charitable contribution goes to his church as tithing and for mission charities. I never particularly saw Mormon missionaries roughing it too hard in the Yucatan compared to missionaries from other faiths. They had more of a compound than a single mission home and looked like they were going to the movies in America than anything else. In France when he was a missionary, Romney had a chef and houseboy at his spacious mission home. I guess that's where money like Romney's comes in handy. Can't have your missionaries spreading a gospel of wealth and prosperity if they don't look the part. As for those great jobs at Staples, Sports Authority, etc. Well, maybe if Romney ever became president, he'd pass a "living wage" bill to increase pay for workers so they could earn a salary that would allow them to be able to make ends meet. Working at the checkout counter at those places or in stock and inventory probably pays a good $8.00 and hour without many benefits. But, hey, someone's got to be a peon to make our economy go round.
jaeastin The charity thing is nice but it is voluntary and not the point. The rate on capital gains should be closer to the tax on wages. Bill Clinton should pay a higher rate on capital gains as well.
tonnybjaeastin The rate on capital gains should be the same as wages, as it was in the closing years of the Reagan Administration.
There is no evidence of any benefit to the economy of this rich-man's free ride. Higher taxes on capital gains actually encourages leaving the money in the investment rather than cashing out as soon as the arbitrary holding date has passed.
The right has keep repeating the notion that it MUST be lower or calamity will ensue has corrupted the national dialog, even among liberals and progressives, when this issue comes up.
jaeastin That 75+ million of speaking fees was the total for 10 years. Plus, since that would be "income" rather than "capital gains" or the fake-capital-gains-that-should-be-income of "retained interest", Clinton probably paid an income tax rate on it. He did make speaking fees internationally, and I expect that's what was paid into international accounts like in the Caymans.
jaeastin
I wouldn't consider donations to the LDS Church, which uses its money for such things as promoting discrimination (see Prop 8 in California), to be "charity". And no, Romney did not create Staples and Sports Authority. Bain was a minority investor in those companies, that's all. Most of his money came from destroying businesses and stripping them of their assets.
It's true that the American tax code is riddled with loopholes that should be eliminated. But it is not true that the wealthy pay less federal tax than the poor, neither in absolute terms nor as a percentage of total income. Federal taxes in America are progressive.
couriermike "In 2009, taxpayers who made $1 million or more paid on average 24.4% of their income in federal income taxes, according to the IRS." That's 10% more then Romney paid in 2010. Wonder what happened from 2000-2010?
couriermike The rich do absolutely pay less taxes overall (the total cost of government at all levels) than the middle class - above the 95th percentile total tax burden drops consistently and the higher you go the more it drops. See: http://www.ctj.org/pdf/taxday2009.pdf
Mitt Romney is worth about 250 million dollars. Ted Turner five billion, George Soros eight billion and Warren Buffett 50 billion. Just to put in perspective that wealth does not determine political preferences.
couriermike We're very thankful for such exceptions.
couriermike Tokens.
couriermike
Your point? Nobody has a problem with the fact that Mitt Romney is rich. We have a problem with him not paying his fair share in taxes, and wanting to rig the tax code so he pays even less.
Capitalism has been good to my family. A retired Army Maj. General, my husband had his own business renting small aircraft and did some teaching. We've done well and are one of the 1% with my own Army pension, too. But, we might as well be paupers. All our money goes to medical bills, trying to keep our daughter-in-law from losing her legs to brittle diabetes and to help our little granddaughter with Goldenhar Syndrome. My husband could have had a great job lobbying with a defense contractor, but he just wasn't willing to go to the Dark Side with the Darth Vaders. I'm proud of him. There's such a thing as capitalism and predatory capitalism. Today's millionaires aren't using their money to start businesses that hire workers and that put money back into the economy. They're speculating on the stock market, using other people's money, not just their own. They're using 401K's from workers and pensioners to roll the dice on Wall St. and partying just like 2008. After all, didn't Uncle Sugar bail them out once? Capitalism, in and of itself, isn't evil. But, there's always been an unspoken contract between the capitalist and the worker that they would both cooperate for the benefit of both. Once that contract is broken, injustice occurs. Our workers have been afflicted the greatest injustice. And as Thomas Carlyle said, " O tyrannous man, injustice breeds revolution." He was talking about King Louis XVI.
rosaleewells Its unfortunate that we no loner have a draft. Use to be that wealthy and working class serving together in the military helped to create a relationship between the two. All you ever hear from the wealthy youth today is that the poor are in their condition because they are lazy. But how can you have such extreme wealth in the hands of so few if you don't have the poor.
Tonnyb, if we had the draft, there would be no more popular support for wars and any attempt to bring it back will be shot down really quick. The powers-that-be want to keep the public pliable enough to always be willing to sacrifice other peoples children on the battlefield. Besides, even when there was a draft, the well-connected always managed to keep their kids from frontline duty. I'm sure Sarah Palin's son, Trick, never got out of his forward.
How in the world can anyone 'earn' $21.6 million in one year? It boggles the mind, and the idea that he can have even a remote inkling of what life is like for the vast majority of human beings is ludicrous. That is 4 years of the total budget for the school where I work. Nothing better illustrates the income inequality that is driving the descent of the US. No wonder he didn't want to release them - regardless of how he made it or what he paid, it is an obscene amount of money for one person.
Powkat Now you know what the term "Privileged Few" refers to...it isn't working for a living, that's for sure...
Powkat Fact is upward mobility in the US is greatly diminishing since Reagan. Who your father is has a great effect on how well you can do. Hard worker isn't enough. Connections are key to success.
couriermike Liar.
FICA is absolutely not a wash for employees. There's absolutely no basis whatsoever to that claim, it's a bare-faced lie. In fact, the employer's contribution is factored in when your employer calculates your salary, so the distinction between the employer contribution and the employee contribution is arbitrary and meaningless. You should consider the full amount for comparison against Mitt, since one doesn't pay FICA on unearned income.
That more or less puts a floor of 10.4% on a working American's effective tax rate. Already most of the way to matching Mitt.
401(k)s aren't tax-free, they're tax-deferred. This is entirely reasonable, because the income is also deferred. What's more, one in three working Americans has no retirement account; the median balance in 401(k)s is just $2,000, so the value of this deduction to the average working stiff is minimal.
The source you cite for the lying claim that 40% of Americans have a negative effective tax rate directly contradicts your claim. Look at the final column, "All federal taxes", and notice that it's positive for all quintiles. Now notice how the fourth quintile pays an effective rate over 15%. Thank you, and good night.
It was guaranteed that the tax rate would come in well under 15% when Romney vaguely admitted that his rate was "around 15%". He just couldn't bring himself to admit that it was "less than 15%".
Pure, unregulated capitalism leads to (among other things most people might consider harmful) redistribution of wealth upward. Money leads to more money. The current spin on any attempts to *slow* that redistribution, to protect the bulk of the population, especially those most vulnerable, from the worst depredations of this natural centralization of capital, is to claim that it is a "redistribution" of wealth downward, and that it is a Bad Thing.
We (the vast bulk of the country's population) don't want to drag the rich down; we just want to protect ourselves from getting ground into the mud *too* much. We're just saying that there are limits to rapacious greed which need to be applied in the best interests of the country and its people. Further, those limits, because they are in fact in the best interest of the health of the country, are also in the long-term best interests of the rich.
Those limits take the form of taxes and regulation.
2009, 2008, 1007, 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002, 2001, 2000
This is the question we should ALL ask (and I am being quite literal - every Romney event, everywhere, every forum
WHAT WAS ROMNEY DOING DURING THE BUSH YEARS?! He isn't going to cheat while he is actively running for office for Pete's sake!
Actually thoughtful I'm not sure cheat is the right word but I get your point. Romney's would less likely avoid taxes during the running years.
tonnyb Correct. I was exhibiting some hyperbole to tie it in to his debate line. How about "I'm not going to utilize creative tax avoidance schemes - I am running for office for Pete's sake!"
The point it - if Newt doesn't pick this up and release his tax returns, and demand Romney does the same - it is an issue for the Democrats (the Republican counter: show us your college records! - B-1 bomber, meet flyswatter).
tonnybActually thoughtful Think of it this way "Hey, I can't do that, I'm running for office". He used the argument to his people when made aware that he had illegals working on his landscaping.
Don't you miss 9-9-9? It was such a simpler time, back then.
MyLastSerenade Mitt's traveling on the one after 999. Move over once, move over twice, no need to be cold as ice…
Why isn't anybody asking for the years prior to 2010? Romney has only released 1 year tax returns. We need to see multiple years so that we can see what his pattern is.
Moreover Romney's contention that the reason he had a Swiss bank account was not to save on taxes is hogwash. The only reasons to have a Swiss bank account are to save on taxes or to finance an illegal activity.
Darrius - Not true. When the Bank of Geneva began offering a free swiss cheese wheel to open an account, how could a rat like Mitt resist?
Darrius "The only reasons to have a Swiss Bank account are to save on taxes or to finance an illegal activity."
Or to hide things -- from creditors, investors, spouses, etc.
Conversation from Twitter
peedropaula Still more than Steve Jobs had donated in the last 10 years...
edshow Here's the heart, center core & mentality of today's #Republican Party.."Judge orders #Obama to appear at Georgia birther hearing"
edshow did you know newts middle name is LEROY!! :) uhh thats a african american name wow thats funny TheRevAl
ImAnyelina An analysis of the Income/tax returns of all the 4 remaining nominees since 9/11,should be demanded.could be very insightful.
edshow Mitt "I like America so much I put all my money in foreign accounts" Romney is pathetic and a legal tax cheat. Mofo GOP!!!
theseantcollins "His income over a one-week span puts him in the top 1 percent of annual earners." We should all be so unemployed.
so wait, by donating to the Mormons, and by making that tax deductible, he can basically say: Screw you, American poor, I'm giving to my rich Mormon friends!
- spam
- offensive
- disagree
- off topic
Like