Mitt had a fundraiser....

[Teatownclown]

15% is, in this case, a LOT more than paying no tax.

Missing paper?  I don't know, I didn't examine all 203 pages. 

I'm willing to bet with all the loss carry forwards and the deductions to the LDS, his taxes should have been 5 times that amount. He paid no tax compared to the %99ers.

[nathanm]

I own my airplane personally, not as a business.  I do not use it for business.  It is a toy.

When has the horse business made a profit? If you called your hobby a business the IRS would disallow the deduction.

The proportion of the deduction to his income is irrelevant. If he made $75,000 a year he could deduct the loss if it were a legitimate business.

[Red Arrow]

The proportion of the deduction to his income is irrelevant.

We will just have to disagree on that point.

I find it amusing that when people talk about how much tax a rich person pays they always point out how low a percentage it is of their income.  When there is a deduction, that is actually a small percentage that would only amount to a couple hundred dollars for most of us, the actual number of dollars is used.   

[nathanm]

I find it amusing that when people talk about how much tax a rich person pays they always point out how low a percentage it is of their income.  When there is a deduction, that is actually a small percentage that would only amount to a couple hundred dollars for most of us, the actual number of dollars is used.   

It wouldn't amount to a small deduction for you. If you lost $74,000 on a business, you could deduct that loss, making your taxable income $74,000 lower, just like Mitt Romney did. (presuming the business isn't actually a hobby)

[Red Arrow]

It wouldn't amount to a small deduction for you. If you lost $74,000 on a business, you could deduct that loss, making your taxable income $74,000 lower, just like Mitt Romney did. (presuming the business isn't actually a hobby)

Since we disagree on

The proportion of the deduction to his income is irrelevant.

your point is irrelevant as presented.

Say I grossed $100,000 (which I don't) and got to deduct $75000.  That would be 75%.   75% of $21,661,344. is $16,246,008., not $75,000.

I get to divert approx 15% of my gross salary to a tax deferred 401K.  That particular instrument is limited to somewhere around $15,000 which is so low on the Romney scale that you can't see it for the noise in the signal.  In this instance, the dollar cap is significant in that it is a limit regardless of your income.  Advantage, little guy.  The standard deduction for single, no dependents is $5800., 11.6% for a $50,000 income.  0.03% for Romney.  Advantage, little guy.  $5800 is to Romney like $13.39 to someone making $50,000.  

I am not going to convince you of anything.  You are not going to convince me of anything.  We are just like congress.  From my view, you are being the obstructionist.  I'm sure the feeling is mutual.

[Red Arrow]

I'm willing to bet with all the loss carry forwards and the deductions to the LDS, his taxes should have been 5 times that amount. He paid no tax compared to the %99ers.

Would you feel better if he gave that money he gave to the LDS to your favorite tax deductible charity?

Since you consider $3,009,766. to be nothing, you must be up there in money.  PM me with your info and we can arrange for you to send me an even  $3,000,000.  You can keep $9,766 for being a nice guy.

[nathanm]

I get to divert approx 15% of my gross salary to a tax deferred 401K.  That particular instrument is limited to somewhere around $15,000 which is so low on the Romney scale that you can't see it for the noise in the signal.

You quote all these supposed advantages to the little guy, but fail to note that Romney gave $100,000,000 tax free to his son. Or that he has an IRA somehow worth $100,000,000? Seems like the advantage goes to Romney. And to Bush, who saved himself $15,000,000 by misclassifying income.

[Red Arrow]

You quote all these supposed advantages to the little guy, but fail to note that Romney gave $100,000,000 tax free to his son.

I don't care.

Or that he has an IRA somehow worth $100,000,000?

I don't care.

And to Bush, who saved himself $15,000,000 by misclassifying income.

You have claimed this.  I have not investigated it.  If the law decides in your favor, Bush will have to pay the tax, penalty, and interest.  You may not believe it or believe that Bush should go to prison regardless but I disagree wtih you, again.  It is possible you don't have the whole story with all the details.  A taxpayer can't even get a binding decision from the IRS regarding tax issues, I don't consider you to be all knowing regarding Bush's taxes.

[Red Arrow]

When has the horse business made a profit? If you called your hobby a business the IRS would disallow the deduction.

Do you know for a fact that the Romney horse business has not made a profit in the required number of years to qualify as a business?  A lot of people set up a business to support a hobby.  It only has to not lose money once in while (I forget the actual number of years of not losing to the number of losing years.) to still qualify as a business.

American Airlines has not made much profit for a while.  Is it just a hobby for the stockholders?  Should they not be able to deduct their expenses in a money losing year?

[nathanm]

I don't care.

I know you don't care, but it still refutes your implied claim that, on balance, the tax code favors the little guy.

You have claimed this.  I have not investigated it.  If the law decides in your favor, Bush will have to pay the tax, penalty, and interest. 

It's not my favor, it's our favor. And it's been far more than three years since the return was filed, so the statute of limitations applies. It was released during the 2000 campaign, as I recall, but nobody bothered to look closely until 2002. I doubt the IRS ever did; they did very few audits at that time. You may recall that was shortly after they were taken to the woodshed by Congress. I doubt Romney wants to be subject to the same public scrutiny of his returns. Who knows what might be revealed? (aside from McCain, who then picked Palin)

I don't consider you to be all knowing regarding Bush's taxes.

Good, because I goofed. It was about $5.75 million. For some reason, I thought Bush's share of the $250 million they got for the Rangers was $80 million, not a little under $30 million. Discoveries like this in other politicians' tax returns probably weigh on Romney's mind when he considers releasing more of his own. How many Congresspeople have been brought down for not paying payroll tax for household employees?

[Red Arrow]

I know you don't care, but it still refutes your implied claim that, on balance, the tax code favors the little guy.

It does not refute my claim since I don't buy into your mix of absolute dollars vs. percentage.

It's not my favor,

"Your favor" meaning you are correct.  Not whether or not Bush should have paid more money.  Why does everyone have to keep records longer than three years if that is the statue of limitations for taxes.  I keep hearing at least 7 years for taxes and forever for some things.

Good, because I goofed. It was about $5.75 million. For some reason, I thought Bush's share of the $250 million they got for the Rangers was $80 million, not a little under $30 million.

Stuff happens.  What else don't you know about his return?  (Obviously you cannot answer that because you don't know.)

Discoveries like this in other politicians' tax returns probably weigh on Romney's mind when he considers releasing more of his own. How many Congresspeople have been brought down for not paying payroll tax for household employees?

Maybe that and intentional misinterpretations that wouldn't be straightened out until after the election.

[nathanm]

It does not refute my claim since I don't buy into your mix of absolute dollars vs. percentage.

We'd be able to calculate the percentage if he released his returns when the relevant transactions took place. I dare say that even for Mitt Romney saving tax on $100,000,000 is a large percentage of income. Are you really going to argue that $70,000,000(ish) is proportionally less tax benefit than you've received in your lifetime? Romney only claims to be worth $200,000,000(ish). And that's just what's been revealed so far.

Why does everyone have to keep records longer than three years if that is the statue of limitations for taxes.

Some states have a different term. For federal taxes, though, it's 3 years after filing. When the tax became due is irrelevant, though. If you didn't file a 1968 return that would have been balance due, they can come after you for the money today should they discover the error. If you did file, they would not be able to do so. I don't know the full history of it, so I can't say that they would have had until April 15th, 1971 had you filed on time with no extension. If you filed on April 17th, 2012 the IRS only has until April 17th, 2015 to get you. (possibly a couple of days difference, depending on how the court decided to count if it came to that)

What else don't you know about his return?

Nothing that can turn ordinary income into a capital gain. That's a pretty simple test in the case of a managing partner of a limited partnership, especially where most of the return was incentive pay.

[Conan71]

One question. How do you give someone a $100,000,000 gift tax free?

Isn't the limit still $10K per year?

[Admin]

Teattownclown, recyclemichael, et al

This is a forum for candid and open discussion, not for attacking other posters and other social groups. Usage of this site is purely at our discretion. As they say; shape up or we'll ship you out.

[Red Arrow]

We'd be able to calculate the percentage if he released his returns when the relevant transactions took place. I dare say that even for Mitt Romney saving tax on $100,000,000 is a large percentage of income. Are you really going to argue that $70,000,000(ish) is proportionally less tax benefit than you've received in your lifetime? Romney only claims to be worth $200,000,000(ish). And that's just what's been revealed so far.

I think you are mixing time basis.

Saving tax on $100M at any rate will be big $ to me.  Depends on how much he saves to what percentage it is. 

You ask about $70,000,000 over my lifetime compared to Romney:
The oldest tax instruction booket I have on file is  1982 and it shows the standard exemption at $1000 and the standard deduction for single, no dependents at $2300 for a total of $3300.
The standard exemption in 2011 was $3700 and the standard deduction for single, no dependents was $5800 for a total of $9500.
I don't feel like looking through each year so we'll do the limits.  1982 to 2011 is 29 years.   During that time I have had a standard deduction and exemption between $95,700 and $275,500.  Even if I cash out everything, I'm sure I'm worth less than $500K or about 1/400th of Romney at $200M.  $70M/400 = $175,000.  Then add in my tax saving due to IRA contributions for a few years, 401K contributions which have been near the maximum allowable since 401Ks were first started, savings on health insurance due to previous law, free life insurance from most of my employers, capital gains rates on stock kept for longer than 1 year that I sold for a profit and maybe some things I was never aware of.   I might come up a few percentage points short on actual reduction in tax but not so much that I'm going to complain about it.