Wow. Is that not a stretch of the imagination. Nothing like blaming someone for closing a plant because your wife dies of cancer.
I find it fascinating how low the Obama campaign is stooping this early in the run-up. Most of the time, incumbents try to behave with a little decorum.
To me - this signals that Obama's groupies are desperate and that could backfire on them.
This was not from the Obama campaign it was from "a pro-Obama super PAC"
How would anyone know that? They don't have to dislose who they contribute to. They probably give to both campaigns, so everyone owes a debt of gratitude.
There is more to that story and it may prove to be a violation of election law.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/20 … er-pac-ad/
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/ … r_pac.html
Cancer or not, the plant was closed by Bane Capital, eliminating the jobs of the people who worked there.
Ralph, should a company close one plant to save the rest of the company, or go completely under?
Will you criticize Obama for the plants GM had to close to stay afloat too?
Of course plants sometimes must be closed sometimes to save jobs at other plants. I have no problem with that. However, from what I've read Romney's claims to have been a job creator are greatly exaggerated if not mostly false.
No I would be more inclined to criticize incompetent GM management. I worked for a brief period for Al Warren, the idiot labor relations VP who agreed to the infamous "Jobs Bank" which was arguably the worst agreement in the history of collective bargaining.
Was it Bane Capital that closed the plant or was it the the poorly managed company during bad steel times? Companies do go broke from bad management or bad economic times, neither which are the fault of the banker or investor.
Let me ask you this Ralph, is President Obama responsible for all those who get ill or die that worked at Solyndra? The US funded Solyndra and it went broke.
Solyndra is just the tip of the iceberg. How many wives have died when these companies went bankrupt despite Billions in loan guarantees.
Solar Trust of America
Energy Conversion Devices
http://www.dividedstates.com/list-of-fa … companies/
How exactly does funding a company make you responsible for it's collapse? Doesn't it do exactly the opposite as in help it?
The government sponsors green technology, because sponsoring scientific advancement is important, just like most modern major scientific discoveries are made on government grants it's an investment, some of those investments will inevitably go wrong, it doesn't mean a thing.
Funneling money to bad ideas - awesome way to fund technological advances - what happened to the shuttle replacement program again?? Solyndra and others were run by Obama allies. Hardly the great R&D investment, especially when Solyndra ( and others) was out sourcing to China. Still, Obama is the Green Industry President responsible for creating millions of jobs yet he couldn't save the lives of all those wives who died of cancer when their husbands lost their Green Jobs.
That's a silly question not deserving of a response.
No more silly than trying to blame Romney
Romney, more than any other single individual is responsible for Bain's successes (making him and other investors very wealthy) and failures--creating many jobs, mostly in China and Mexico and putting thousands of American workers on the street. There's good reason for calling Bain a practitioner of vulture capitalism.
Thank you Howard! Finally, a person with intellect!
Regardless of the exaggerations and innacuracies in the SuperPac ad, Romney became a rich man as a practitioner of vulture capitalism and federal income tax avoidance on his ill gotten gains. He's admitted he's not releasing his tax returns because he knows he they would subject him to irrefutable criticism.
Ralph, do you have a link to proof that Romney did not pay his Capital Gains taxes? I would really like to see that.
I have no information other than what the media have gleaned from the one tax return he's already released which was as thick as a NY City phone book and revealed that he has Cayman, Bermuda and Swiss accounts. He has clearly practiced heavy duty tax avoidance. He's spent a small fortune on tax lawyers and tax accountants who specialize in tax avoidance. Whether or not he's guilty of tax evasion or not I have no idea. He's clearly taken advantage of every loophole and gray area in the tax law and is certainly no Warren Buffett or Chuck Feeney.
No information. Sounding very Harry Reid-ish and you are better than that.
ill gotten gains? Really? Why? Because he took a risk with his own personal money to invest in a business. Is he not entitled to a return on his investment, much like you Ralph. Do you have a savings account, CDs, Stocks? Do you expect value for those investments or are you putting you money out there for free?
How many pages was your tax return? Or did you say oh the hell with the deductions you were entitled to or did you claim them? Does that not mean you practiced heavy tax avoidance?
Romeny has released 2 years of tax returns, at least you acknowledge one of the two of them, that is better than Reid and his informant
Romney has not released two tax returns. He released one tax return and an estimated return for 2011. The one he released was as thick as a NY City phone book.
The secret in Mitt Romney’s tax returns
By Richard Cohen, Published: July 23
To paraphrase Rhett Butler, I don’t give a damn if Mitt Romney releases more of his tax returns. I expect to learn nothing from them, aside from the fact that he is very rich and has paid less in taxes than he has acknowledged. He has probably taken advantage of all the loops and dodges in the tax code, piling trusts on top of trusts, securing wealth for Romneys yet unborn — gelt unto the third generation, little taxed, slightly taxed or taxed not at all.
“Let me tell you about the very rich,” F. Scott Fitzgerald once wrote. ’Scuse me, Scotty, let me tell you about them: They don’t pay much in taxes.
This is what the average person would learn if all of Romney’s tax filings hit the light of day. He has so far divulged just his 2010 return and the estimate for 2011, and the Obama camp, smelling blood, has demanded more. The din has reached such a level that even some conservatives are entreating Romney to reveal additional filings. They are not, however, imploring their candidate to identify his bundlers — for this might actually reveal who has their hooks into him. The filings, I promise you, will show loopholes and financial black holes that make taxable income disappear. What we will not see is anything revelatory or, as some insist, genuine insights into the character of the candidate.
Certainly, this has been the case in the past. Richard Nixon disclosed his taxes preceding the 1968 presidential campaign. He reported hefty earnings averaging $200,000 in his years as a New York lawyer, but there was nothing in the forms relating to occasional bouts of drunkenness, paranoia, excessive self-pity or a proclivity to listen to the telephone conversations of others.
Similarly, Bill Clinton, in his pre-White House filings, showed a gross 1990 income of $268,646, but the box (32a) relating to possible extramarital relations in the Oval Office was left blank. No doubt it was an oversight.
George W. Bush’s tax forms were as vacant as he was of any suggestion that he moved his lips when he read and would, if given the chance, tank the economy and lead the nation into two wars, mismanaging both.
By and large, the tax filings tell you nothing you don’t already know. But the refusal to release them is a different matter. In Romney’s case, this is his one and only stand on principle, an odd example of political bravery. He has flipped on abortion, gun control and, of course, health-insurance reform, his signature achievement as governor of Massachusetts. But not on releasing his taxes. Others have been recalcitrant. Ronald Reagan didn’t want to do it (he charged his daughter Maureen interest on a loan) but ultimately did.
In general, presidential and vice presidential candidates have released their returns. Maybe this was because most of them were public servants whose salaries were already known and whose wealth was modest. Others, though, were persons of considerable wealth — Lloyd Bentsen, John Kerry, John Edwards — who laid it all out on the table. (I wonder if Edwards, if he still had presidential prospects, would have deducted his latest child.)
It’s impossible to know what Romney is not revealing. But it is instructive to contrast him to his father, George, who was an auto executive and governor of Michigan. When George Romney ran for president in 1968, he released 12 years of income tax returns. But he was essentially salaried — his remuneration set either by statute or by a board of directors — and so really he was divulging little. Maybe more important, he actually made something (cars) or did something (governed). His son not only manufactured nothing but earned his wealth the new way — by financial manipulation, leveraging and such. On paper, it could look ugly.
For Mitt Romney, there are no assembly lines, no factories or mines — just back offices and computer terminals and such esoterica as the infinitesimal difference between what the Libor rate should be and what it is. He was loyal to no company, no industry — just to his investors. The making of such money is concealed, based on the exotic manipulation of numbers and the disregard of people. Only a relatively few know how to do this sort of thing, and they don’t much like to talk about it. Romney, as we already know, is one of those people. He hides his taxes not because it would reveal anything new about him, but because it would reveal what he has always known about us: We’re suckers.
Perhaps he thinks people will see how much money he makes, and lose the ability to relate to him?
Obama has holds a lot of ground with those who turned 18 within the past five or so years. These people being college students with debt and certainly not a lot of money, definitely would love to 'stick it to the man'
The man who says he "enjoys firing people" and "doesn't worry about the poor."
Ralph, quit quoting him out of context like that... it's so dishonest.
He wasn't talking about firing employees, and you know it.
He said he wasn't as concerned about the very poor, because we already have cash assistance, job assistance, food assistance, housing assistance, etc... for them, where the middle class don't have anything.
Ralph, if you are so sure about Romney's record at Bain, why haven't you ever discussed it with me when I posted financial reports, employee figures, and the like?
I must have missed your "reports, etc." And I don't have the time or inclination to track down and refute every bit of misinformation you post. I've read enough about Bane to satisfy myself that Romney's claims of how many jobs he created there are bogus. As I recall pointing out to you, that although Staples is a success story that Romney likes to cite as an example of jobs he takes credit for, Staples actually eliminated more jobs at mom and pop small stationery stores put out of business by Staples than were created by Staples. I'm not criticizing Romney or Staples, but I am criticizing Romney's job creation exaggerations. I think what Bane did at Staples is fine. However, Bane also made many acquisitions on borrowed money and put them into bankruptcy, raided the pension plans, closed the businesses down and walked away with a bundle of money.
To be fair he wasn't accused of murder... also it's a legitimate point, I accept the argument that the closure was for the best actually (from my limited knowledge) but that does not make the consequences of it any less real, I think it's a refutable point but a valid one nonetheless not stupid enough to make your speechless Jaxson
True, it's not exactly an example of job creation.
Yeah Bain is not a job creator. Here are just a few of their current investments
Air Medical Group Holdings
International Market Centers
Bombardier Recreational Products
Broder Bros., Co.
Burlington Coat Factory
China Fire and Security Group, Inc.
Clear Channel Communications
Sinomedia Holding Limited
CRC Health Group
Domino's Pizza Japan
The Weather Channel
Toys "R" Us
My criticism is not so much of what Bain has done but rather of Romney's exaggerated claims of being a great job creator.
So these companies did not hire people to work for them?
Some did, but more were put into bankruptcy or had their jobs outsourced to China or Mexico. Staples was quite successful in putting many small stationery and office supply stores out of business, eliminating many more jobs than were created at Staples. I'm not saying that this was wrong, but rather that Romney's citing Staples as a job creator is phony.
Time to stop drinking the Koolaid and do some real reading, First cite a legitimate source how Bain has outsourced to China and Mexico and put companies into bankruptcies? You will not be able too because it is just bogus spewing from the left.
I would debate that has more employees than any small company that you think they put out of business. But do you think the same thing about Burger King, Pizza Hut? Visit there site, there are over 1200 current companies large and small that they are invested in. There are thousands others that have paid Bain back and are successful.
FYI, I do a lot of reading including a wide variety of sources, liberal and conservative, including the Wall Street Journal which is delivered to my house every morning along with the NYTimes and my local paper.
(CBS News) WASHINGTON - It's getting nasty in the presidential campaign with each side accusing the other of lying about Mitt Romney's role at Bain Capital, and Romney demanding an apology. With jobs the number-one issue in the election, the Obama campaign says that Romney was running the private equity firm at a time when it was investing in companies that were sending American jobs overseas. Romney insists he'd already left Bain at the time in question. Here is a look at his role at the firm.
When Mitt Romney was CEO of Bain Capital in the 1990s, Bain invested in a series of companies -- including call centers and manufacturers -- that expanded overseas, sometimes at the expense of American workers.
After those investments were first reported in The Washington Post, the Obama campaign pounced. "Mitt Romney's companies were pioneers in outsourcing U.S. jobs to low-wage countries," according to an Obama ad.
When the Obama campaign then charged that Romney, as a Bain manager, personally shipped jobs overseas, the Romney campaign denied that saying it never happened. Outsourcing is now a crucial issue for Romney, who's running on a platform of American jobs.
"It's because I love jobs," Romney told a crowd in Cincinnati back in June, "I want more jobs for the American people."
Romney says he retired and left Bain Capital in February of 1999 to run the Salt Lake City Olympics, which means he never had control of the companies doing the outsourcing.
Romney: Obama owes me an apology
Watch CBS News correspondent Jan Crawford's interview with Mitt Romney, who responds to the criticisms about his role at Bain:
However, in the years Romney describes himself as on leave from Bain, here's how Bain was describing him in reports filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission: sole shareholder, sole director, chief executive officer, president, and even managing director -- of a firm he says he wasn't managing.
The Obama campaign suggested that Romney might have been lying to the SEC, but several experts told us not so.
"Putting that information on that form does not necessarily mean that you're an active manager of the company," said Tom Sporkin, a former SEC investigator and enforcement attorney. He acknowledged that that it was entirely possible Romney owned the company but didn't run the company.
"He could have been on a leave of absence," said Sporkin.
Romney would have made money if the companies doing that outsourcing sold at a profit. But the SEC documents don't prove that Romney ran Bain after 1999 or that he personally shipped jobs overseas.
© 2012 CBS Interactive Inc.. All Rights Reserved.
Romney has partners at Bain Capital, he could never be the sole share holder as the article claims, therefore making the article suspect at best.
Nobody has accused Romney of a felony, let alone murder. You topic is a bit over the top.
Yes, several people have accused Romney of possibly being a felon. They used a fallacy of a false dilemma saying he was either a liar or a felon. Then an old SEC chairman came out and said 'Or he could be telling the truth, which he was'.
Who accused Romney of a felony, let alone murder?
Axelrod and Cutter, off the top of my head.
Top Obama adviser David Axelrod had this to say about Mitt Romney on CNN’s State of the Union today:
“I’m not suggesting that based on what we know, that he’s done anything illegal… I am suggesting is that he’s taken advantage of every single conceivable tax shelter and loophole that we can see.”
Not what I'd classify as a scathing indictment. Pretty benign, factual statement.
Wouldn't we expect someone with Romney's wealth to practice (as the CPAs so politely put it) "tax avoidance"?
What concerns me is the regular Joes out there who think "Hell, yeah! This guy knows how to get around the IRS legally. Of course that's who I want as MY president. He's gonna do that for ME, too."
Which of course is never gonna happen.
So does Axelrod and if he says he is not he is full of Sh**
I'd be surprised if Axelrod has Swiss, Cayman or Bermuda accounts.
Axelrod explains why Obama's economy is a failure:
"I'm sure he could have a Swiss bank account if he wanted it," Axelrod said. "He could have a Bermuda holding company. He could put tens of millions of dollars in the Caymans. He could use loopholes in the tax law to have a $100 million IRA. The president could do those things, but he doesn't do those things. He looks at this through a different lens."
AND, why Romney's will not be:
"We've learned from the limited disclosure that he's made that Gov. Romney takes advantage of these. He had a Swiss bank account. He has a Bermuda holding company."
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 … he-wanted/
Who would you rather have handling your money, a guy who can't understand how to keep a hold of his or a man who knows how to make his grow?
I prefer a president whose positions on public policy issues are designed to benefit ALL Americans, not just the top 2%.
It is getting closer to every American, each day.
-hard core long term unemployment over 14%
-rising unemployment for women
http://mobile.bloomberg.com/photo/2012- … ce-shrinks
-high teen and young adult unemployment
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 … hits-20-y/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/0 … 64241.html
-shrinking labor pool - invisible unemployed
http://money.cnn.com/2012/05/03/news/ec … /index.htm
http://finance.boston.com/boston/news/r … D=21954226
I would prefer a President who isn't busy doing things TO Americans, but one who does things for America.
Obama's own counsel did and WaPo reviewed all allegation regarding the Bain timeline controversy - that directly relates to this latest flap.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fac … _blog.html
"Indeed, if someone wanted to make a criminal case, why quibble with ancient SEC documents? In 2011, Romney, as a presidential candidate, filed a public financial disclosure form, under pain of perjury, that stated:
“Mr. Romney retired from Bain Capital on February 11, 1999 to head the Salt Lake Organizing Committee. Since February 11, 1999, Mr. Romney has not had any active role with any Bain Capital entity and has not been involved in the operations of any Bain Capital entity in any way.”
You can see Romney’s signature, on the first page, in which he states: “I certify that statements I have made on this form and all attached schedules are true, complete and correct to the best of my knowledge.” If Romney lied on this form, that would be a felony.
That filing would seem to trump these SEC documents. Moreover, there is another document — the 2002 Massachusetts Ballot Law Commission report that certified that Romney could run for governor. The findings in this report were the result of weeks of testimony and investigation. We have embedded the report below."
No mention of murder.
My error, I thought we were addressing the prior absurdity when an Obama Administration member hinted at Romney's felonious past. We do live in the time of absurd and baseless accusations. Romney - tax evader, Romney - felon, Romney - brutal vampire, Romney - baby eater, Romney - automaton, Romney - "whatever scurrilous, baseless, unfounded charge is necessary to keep the rubes from noticing that the economy is horribly damaged and Obama has no notion of how it works let alone any idea how to fix it"
I guess you haven't noticed the nasty names and lies the TeaBaggers have teen telling about Obama for the past three and a half years.
Governor TeaBagger of Massachusetts? I wasn't aware he was running. Is his organization accusing the President of being a felon? I hadn't heard that. I wonder what he has to distract the rubes from noticing? Could it be GDP growth that is equivalent to an inventory adjustment? What a funny name - I am surprised people haven't made fun of his name...TeaBagger, doesn't even sound American - I bet he is from India - lots of tea there.
Various TeaTards have accused Obama of being a Muslim, an Atheist, born in Kenya and therefore not eligible for the presidency, a socialist, a communist, etc.
Yes, and if one Republican does something bad, that means that all Republicans are fair game. Right?
Wrong. Romney's record at Bane and his tax avoidance schemes are fair game.
Lol, you aren't using those as justification for the personal attacks on Romney. You are using the personal attacks that other people levied on Obama.
As to Romney's record at Bain, you won't even discuss the related facts.
I've commented at some length on Bane's alleged job creation record.
I am sorry, i don't recall, is that Mitt Romney's actual name? "TeaTard" Sounds pretty hateful and inflammatory. I thought we were discussing what actual members of an actual presidential campaign accused the other candidate of doing or being. I am unaware of anyone named "TeaTard" involved in either presidential candidates staff. As interesting as name calling can be, I suspect it doesn't do much real good.
Romney has sucked up to the Tea Party throughout his campaign, and with his selection of Paul Ryan he has cemented a Tea Party alliance. Tea Tard is accurate in contrast to the outrageous epithets and cartoons of President Obama.
I have been looking for this "tea party" but there does not seem to be a single "tea party.' I found one with a Haberdasher, a Dormouse and a little girl in a blue dress - but they all appeared to be of normal intelligence. There is nothing more productive than bitterness and contempt.
They are the ones who are responsible for the paralysis in the House of Representatives. Not all of them are ignorant or retarded. Some are clever and devious. All are responding to the Kochs, Roves, Adelsons, Dick Armeys and other pupeteers behind the curtain.
I thought the stall in legislative movement has come from the Senate where all budget bills go to die. The Senate has not passed a budget sent to it since Obama's inauguration. Unless Harry Reid is a Tea Party double agent, it is unlikely that the dreaded Te-azis are really to blame. It is convenient to have a villain.
Romney physically left Bain in 1999.
He continued to be listed as CEO.
He continued to make money from Bain.
Not as a stockholder/shareholder. As CEO.
Is he or is he not where the buck stops on what Bain did after 1999 when he was listed as CEO?
The problem is Mr. Romney wants to cherrypick the Bain actions and timeframes that make him look like a job creating hero while dissociating himself from the Bain actions that closed factories, put American workers on the streets and shipped their jobs overseas.
He was CEO, but he wasn't actively involved with any decisions of the company. Show me a single filing that shows him being involved?
A former SEC chairman explained it, while his future about retiring from Bain was being finalized, he was required by law to be listed on certain documents.
He continued to make money from Bain, yes.
So basically you are saying Romney didn't care one way or the other HOW Bain made the money that paid him during that time.
He didn't directly tell them which companies to raid, which factories to close, which jobs to outsource.
But Bain did those things.
AND Romney made money by their actions.
Being an absentee landlord doesn't absolve the property owner of the responsibility for the property.
To my mind, this scenario actually makes Romney look WORSE not BETTER.
Like the fact that he implemented a successful statewide health insurance plan that included -- gasp -- an individual mandate. And now he refutes his own good work.
The man has no honor.
Romney has a Gemini moon with some interesting aspects to it. I can think of several Gemini Moon people I've worked with over the years, and either they are liars, or have an amazing capacity to massage the truth to fit their circumstances. I plan to write more about both candidate's horoscopes closer to the election, just for giggles.
FactCheck backs Romney.
http://www.factcheck.org/2012/07/romney … onclusion/
FactCheck backs Romney on some counts, not on others.
"And we’ll just note for the record that FactCheck.org has also found numerous instances in which Romney has also strayed from the facts in accusations against Obama. He also claimed that he created 100,000 jobs at Bain Capital — a claim we found lacked support because it took credit for jobs added by companies long after Romney had left the Bain."
When are we going to simply wake up, accept responsibility for our individual selves, then our families, then our communities? Then, if we don't have the time for going further, our communities will then take care of each successive ripple outwards?
Romney is a war criminal wannabe and will be if somehow elected.
More lies and flagrant disregard for anything approaching real and meaningful debate. This crap comes from both sides, and the populace continues not only to allow it, but to act like it matters.
Every time you link garbage like this, you add another cancerous cell to the tumor of ignorance and dishonor that's killing this country.
Here is an interesting little tidbit.
Joe Soptic's wife wasn't covered under his healthcare plan at the plant. She had her own job and own healthcare insurance. She lost her insurance years after the plant closed down because she injured her rotator cuff and couldn't work anymore.
I read that earlier. Dirty politics have always been around, but this level of dishonesty and viciousness is rare. Obama's administration seems to be out of control.
With regard to your comments about corporate taxes in the US, were you aware that the 10 largest corporations in the US paid an average rate of 9 percent last year? EXXON-MOBIL paid 2% and Chevron 4%. (Chevron is the one responsible for dumping millions of barrels of oil in the Gulf of Mexico.)
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/0 … ?mobile=nc
Contrary to GOP claims corporate taxes in the US are second lowest in the developed world.
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/0 … nd-lowest/
The truth about GE's tax bill as reported by Fortune Magazine.
http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2 … -tax-bill/
I only have time for this right now. Corporate tax revenue as a % of GDP has NOTHING to do with the actual tax rate that corporations pay. It has to do with the total economic structure of a society.
The only way to look at corporate tax rates is to look at the tax rates they pay. Even if we taxed 100% of corporate profits, we wouldn't be able to match Norway's taxes as % of GDP.
Are you claiming that the % of taxable income that corporations pay is irrelevant to determining what their tax rate is?
No, I'm claiming that the actual taxes paid as a percentage of profits is low in the United States. EXXON's 2% is a good example. It's probably the most profitable company in the history of the world, thanks to the depletion allowance.
While some of America's biggest corporations may complain that they pay too much in taxes, a recent analysis shows that many are actually getting off pretty easy.
According to the financial site NerdWallet, the 10 most profitable U.S. companies paid an average federal tax rate of just 9 percent last year. The group includes heavyweights Exxon Mobil, Apple, Microsoft, JPMorgan Chase and General Electric. (Hat tip: Barry Ritholtz.)
Some of these companies paid more than 9 percent -- JPMorgan earned $26.7 billion in 2011, for example, and paid $3.7 billion of it, or 14 percent, to the federal government -- and some paid less, like Exxon Mobil, which only sent 2 percent of its $73.3 billion earnings to the IRS.
But the 10 companies all paid much less than the nominal corporate tax rate of 35 percent -- a number that investor and tax-the-rich advocate Warren Buffett has dismissed as "a myth," but one that presidential front-runners Barack Obama and Mitt Romney have both proposed to lower.
The effective corporate tax rate has been on its way down for decades, recently hitting a 40-year low even as corporate profits have reached an all-time high. Many of the companies that have seen their tax rates fall in recent years -- including Exxon Mobil, Verizon, General Electric and AT&T -- are among the biggest spenders when it comes to lobbying, according to a recent analysis by the Sunlight Foundation.
Taxes Of The Ten Most Profitable Companies
1 of 12
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/0 … 46817.html
Ostensibly, the U.S. federal tax code requires corporations to pay 35 percent of their profits in income taxes.
But of the 275 Fortune 500 companies that made a profit each year from 2001 to 2003 and for which adequate information to draw conclusions is publicly available, only a small proportion paid federal income taxes anywhere near that statutory 35 percent tax rate. The vast majority paid considerably less.
In fact, in 2002 and 2003, the average effective tax rate for all of these 275 companies was less than half the statutory 35 percent rate. Over the 2001-2003 period, effective tax rates ranged from a low of -59.6 percent for Pepco Holdings to a high of 34.5 percent for CVS.
Over the three-year period, the average effective rate for all 275 companies dropped by a fifth, from 21.4 percent in 2001 to 17.2 percent in 2002-2003.
The statistics are startling:
Eighty-two of the 275 companies, almost a third of the total, paid zero or less in federal income taxes in at least one year from 2001 to 2003. In the years they paid no income tax, these companies earned $102 billion in pretax U.S. profits. But instead of paying $35.6 billion in income taxes as the statutory 35 percent corporate tax rate seems to require, these companies generated so many excess tax breaks that they received outright tax rebate checks from the U.S. Treasury, totaling $12.6 billion. These companies' "negative tax rates" meant that they made more after taxes than before taxes in those no-tax years.
Twenty-eight corporations enjoyed negative federal income tax rates over the entire 2001-2003 period. These companies, whose pretax U.S. profits totaled $44.9 billion over the three years, included, among others: Pepco Holdings (-59.6 percent tax rate), Prudential Financial (-46.2 percent), ITT Industries (-22.3 percent), Boeing (-18.8 percent), Unisys (-16.0 percent), Fluor (-9.2 percent) and CSX (-7.5 percent), the company previously headed by current Secretary of the Treasury John Snow.
In 2003 alone, 46 companies paid zero or less in federal income taxes. These 46 companies told their shareholders they earned U.S. pretax profits in 2003 of $42.6 billion, yet they received tax rebates totaling $5.4 billion. Almost as many companies, 42, paid no tax in 2002, reporting $43.5 billion in pretax profits, yet receiving $4.9 billion in tax rebates. From 2001 to 2003, the number of no-tax companies jumped from 33 to 46, an increase of 40 percent.
In 2001, the Treasury paid corporations $40 billion in tax refunds, a third more than the 1998-2000 average.
Then in 2002 and 2003, after the law was changed to expand tax subsidies and make it easier for corporations to carry back excess tax breaks to earlier years, corporate tax refunds skyrocketed to an average of $63 billion a year - more than double the 1998-2000 average.
Corporations are now paying the lowest levels of taxes in the post-World War II era. In fiscal 2002 and 2003, federal corporate incomes taxes dropped to their lowest sustained level as a share of the economy since World War II. Only a single year during the early Reagan administration was lower.
In 1986, President Ronald Reagan fully abandoned his earlier policy of showering tax breaks on corporations. The Tax Reform Act of 1986 closed tens of billions of dollars in corporate loopholes, so that by 1988, the overall effective corporate tax rate for large corporations was up to 26.5 percent. That improvement occurred even though the statutory corporate tax rate was cut from 46 percent to 34 percent as part of the 1986 reforms.
In the 1990s, however, many corporations began to find ways around the 1986 reforms, abetted by tax-shelter schemes devised by major accounting firms.
Effective corporate tax rates then plummeted, thanks to Bush administration-backed tax breaks passed in 2002 and 2003, continued corporate offshore tax-sheltering, and the refusal of the Congress and White House to crack down on even the most abusive inherited corporate tax-sheltering activities.
Corporate taxes paid for more than a quarter of federal outlays in the 1950s and a fifth in the 1960s. They began to decline during the Nixon administration, yet even by the second half of the 1990s, corporate taxes still covered 11 percent of the cost of federal programs. But in fiscal years 2002 and 2003, corporate taxes paid for a mere 6 percent of federal expenses.
Billions and billions
Over the 2001-2003 period, the 275 Fortune 500 companies that were profitable each year and for which adequate information is publicly available earned almost $1.1 trillion in pretax profits in the United States. Had all of those profits been reported to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and taxed at the statutory 35 percent corporate tax rate, then the 275 companies would have paid $370 billion in income taxes over the three years. But instead, the companies reported only about half of their profits - $557 billion - to the IRS. Instead of a 35 percent tax rate, the companies as a group paid a three-year effective tax rate of only 18.4 percent.
In 2002 and 2003, the 275 companies sheltered more than half of their profits from tax. They told their shareholders they earned $739 billion in those two years, but they paid taxes on less than half of that, only $363 billion.
Loopholes and other tax subsidies cut taxes for the 275 companies by $43.4 billion in 2001, $60.8 billion in 2002 and $71.0 billion in 2003, for a total of $175.2 billion in tax breaks over the three years.
Half of the total tax-break dollars over the three years - $87.1 billion - went to just 25 companies, each with more than a billion-and-a-half dollars in tax breaks.
General Electric topped the list of corporate tax break recipients, with $9.5 billion in tax breaks over the three years.
Effective tax rates varied widely by industry. Over the 2001-2003 period, industry effective tax rates for the 275 corporations ranged from a low of 1.6 percent to a high of 27.7 percent.
In 2003, the range of industry tax rates was even greater, ranging from a low of -30.0 percent (a negative rate) up to a high of 27.9 percent.
Aerospace and defense companies enjoyed the lowest effective tax rate over the three years, paying only 1.6 percent of their profits in federal income taxes. This industry's taxes declined sharply over the three years, falling to -30.0 percent of profits in 2003.
Other very low-tax industries, paying less than half the statutory 35 percent tax rate over the entire 2001-2003 period, included: transportation (4.3 percent), industrial and farm equipment (6.2 percent), telecommunications (7.5 percent), electronics and electrical equipment (10.8 percent), petroleum and pipelines (13.3 percent), miscellaneous services (14.4 percent), gas and electric utilities (14.4 percent), computers, office equipment, software and data (16.0 percent), and metals & metal products (17.4 percent).
Not a single industry paid an effective tax rate of more than 29 percent, either for the entire three-year period or in any given year.
Within industries, effective tax rates also varied widely. For example, over the three-year period, average tax rates on oil companies ranged from 3.0 percent for Devon Energy up to 31.4 percent on Marathon Oil. Among aerospace and defense companies, three-year effective tax rates ranged from a low of -18.8 percent for Boeing up to a high of 25.0 percent for General Dynamics.
How they do it
There are myriad reasons why particular corporations paid low taxes. The key major tax-lowering items revealed in the companies' annual reports - plus some that are not disclosed - include:
Accelerated depreciation. The tax laws generally allow companies to write off their capital investments considerably faster than the assets actually wear out. This "accelerated depreciation" is technically a tax deferral, but so long as a company continues to invest, the tax deferral tends to be indefinite. In 2002 and again in 2003, Congress passed and President Bush signed new business tax breaks totaling $175 billion over the 2002-2004 period. These new tax subsidies centered on a huge expansion in accelerated depreciation, coupled with rules making it easier for companies with an excess of tax breaks to get tax rebate checks from the Treasury by applying their excess tax deductions to earlier years and still other new tax subsidies.
Atop the list of accelerated depreciation beneficiaries are SBC Communications, with $5.8 billion in accelerated depreciation tax savings, Verizon (with $4.5 billion), Devon Energy ($4.4 billion), ExxonMobil ($2.9 billion) and Wachovia ($2.8 billion).
Stock options. Most big corporations give their executives and other employees options to buy the company's stock at a favorable price in the future. When those options are exercised, corporations can take a tax deduction for the difference between what the employees pay for the stock and what it is worth. But in reporting profits to shareholders, companies do not treat the effects of stock-option transactions as business expenses - based on the arguable theory that issuing stock at a discount doesn't really reduce profits because the market value of a company's stock often has only a very attenuated relation to earnings.
The corporate tax benefits from stock option write-offs are quite large. Of the 275 corporations, 269 received stock-option tax benefits over the 2001-2003 period, which lowered their taxes by a total of $32 billion over three years. The benefits ranged from as high as $5 billion for Microsoft over the three years to tiny amounts for a few companies.
Overall, tax benefits from stock options cut the average effective corporate tax rate for the 275 companies by 3 percentage points over the 2001-2003 period.
http://reclaimdemocracy.org/corporate_w … lummet.php
Except for the fact that Exxon paid 42%, not 2%.
Oh well, might as well clear this one up too. Not that you will bother to look at an SEC filing over your news and thinkprogress sources.
Your link's source claims Exxon paid 2% on 73 billion in earnings.
http://ir.exxonmobil.com/phoenix.zhtml? … htbA%3d%3d
Now, Exxon paid 31 billion in income taxes. Above link, page 56. So sorry, Exxon paid 42% in income taxes. Do I need to go through all the other companies in that link?
Yup, GE paid taxes, glad you finally admit to it. You can see the amount of money they set aside for their taxes in their SEC filing, but you already said you won't look at it.
What counts is not "what they set aside for taxes" but the amount they actually end up paying. Whatever that turns out to be won't be close to the 35% corporate tax rate.
They don't report the exact figure. That only goes on IRS documents.
Face it Ralph, you keep using news articles that aren't based in fact. If a company says on their SEC filing that they paid 42%, then you can't argue against it unless you have something better than an SEC filing.
The 'tax provision' figure is what your sources use to somehow claim these companies don't pay taxes.
Tell us what the income tax filings show, not SEC filings. The figure you are citing as "income before taxes" does not include a number of non-cash "expenses" such as EXXON's $15.6 depletion allowance. Your claims are deceptive. The issues about corporate taxes involve a bunch of special interest loopholes such as the depletion allowance and un-repatriated profits exemption. I don't know how the 2% figure for EXXON was computed. It may well have included the depletion allowance which for years has provided EXXON and other oil companies with a huge amount of un-taxed cash flow. EXXON no doubt also benefits from un-repatriated overseas earnings.
Ralph, companies don't make their tax returns public. All of these studies you quote use figures from the SEC documents.
I know you have no problem purposefully lying about things, as you have admitted with taking Romney's quotes out of context, but you really should try to have a little integrity. If you are allowed to quote sources that use SEC documents, you should accept when I show those claims to be bogus, using the same SEC documents.
Do you want to know how they got the 2% figure? They counted Exxon's worldwide income, and only Exxon's domestic taxes. If you compare their domestic taxes to domestic income, then you find that they had an effective tax rate of 32.6%.
All of your complaining about credits and depreciation is irrelevant. Those are adjusted before we get to pre-tax income.
Don't call me deceptive. I'm the one using primary documents to support my claims. You are the one who admits to purposefully presenting misleading information when it suits you.
Well, why shouldn't they have counted EXXON's worldwide income? The company manipulates its books to declare income in other countries. I'm not a CPA or tax lawyer. Are you? There has been widespread agreement that oil companies are unfairly advantaged by the infamous depletion allowance. The get the huge tax break despite the fact that their oil and gas reserves are increasing, not depleting and despite their record profits year after year.
I haven't admitted anything about taking Romney's quotes out of context, let alone lying. You're the one who is playing with numbers to mislead.
And SEC documents aren't the same as tax returns.
Why would you count worldwide income? Does that really make sense?
Let's say you have a business in London. A huge business. Then you open a store in the US. Should you pay US taxes on all of your income in London, or just on the part that has to do with the US?
And as to 'manipulating'... Does it? Or does it actually have operations in other countries?
Can you provide proof of your claim? You always make claims like this, so how about a little substance?
No, you did admit to it. Remember?
SEC documents are what YOUR SOURCES are using to claim that these companies are paying low tax rates.
You two guys argue on and have your fun. Corporate accounting these days is far too complicated to get the truth of the matter from "public" documents. Why do you think they have dozens (hundreds? thousands, worldwide? how many thousands?) have TAX ATTORNEYS on their payroll?
None of us alone could ever wade through all the documents of any "average" multi-national corporation.
I watched four accountants and a CPA from an accounting firm during an annual audit for a 503c organization for a week and a day doing their job. The 503c only had about 60 employees. And they were only trying to verify a small percentage of transactions to "pass" the org, Not trying to analyze anything, or "Follow The Money" as Tom Cruz screamed.
It was a daunting task,
Movie trivia and nit pick - "Follow the money" is a quote from the movie "All the President's Men"
The Tom Cruise quote from "Jerry McGuire" was "Show me the money." just trivia. Perhaps the people who should be followed are the ones shouting show me the money.
You have a very good point. Through complexities created to circumvent onerous regulation and to conceal the sources and destinations of funding "following the money" is more difficult than ever. One of the most demanding areas of accounting is forensic accounting.
In reality - they should eliminate ALL corporate taxes. Income taxes should be collected ONLY on real income. Corporate taxes are on profits that no one can touch - so they're not income. Only when that money is disbursed should it be taxed and not until. It's a corporate intangibles tax and all corporate and personal intangibles should be dropped. When folks gripe about corporate taxes - I have to wonder if they even know what the term means.
"When folks gripe about corporate taxes - I have to wonder if they even know what the term means."
Eh, income tax should be eliminated on all earned income. Tax passive income instead.
The answer of course is to make taxation a % of turnover, not profit.
First, the Obama Camp lied about knowing the real story on Soptic, but they were outed. Now they admit that the guy was on a conference call with the campaign and appeared in an Obama ad BEFORE he appeared in a PAC ad.
http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012 … 31577.html
The focus of the ad is misplaced, IMHO.
The Super PAC should have tied the loss of this woman's life to losing her health insurance coverage.
Which goes directly to Romney's promise to repeal Obamacare.
No job = no insurance = lose access to health care = get sick and die.
THAT is the stronger and really irrefutable message here.
Alas, neither the Obama campaign nor any of his Super PACS has asked me for my opinion on their ad strategy.
Which I would most gladly give.
Yeah, Romney hasn't asked for mine, either. lol.
MM, I think you and I could do a good job of running the country! But gosh, who'd want THAT job??
We would make a GREAT team, Habee! I bet we could come up with a winning platform that would reach out from the center and pull most if not all of the SANE people in!
However, I don't really want the job of POTUS or Co-POTUS either.
Main reason is that thusfar I have avoided any gray hair. It is a medical miracle, confirmed by my hair stylist who has seen the top of my head for several years.
Don't want to jinx that or tempt fate.
The problem that neither side is addressing is the fact that Obamacare and Romneycare line the pockets of the insurance industry. That's where the plan will eventually fail. Well, that, plus the fact that only the lower-middle class will be negatively impacted by the new health plan. The wealthy who already have Cadillac policies won't feel a thing. This new plan rides on the backs of the folks who can least afford to pay for it. Now that states are opting out of the Medicaid expansion - millions and millions will be told that the only way they will have coverage is if they but it themselves.
This plan is doomed because you can't squeeze anymore blood out of the turnip.
You and Mighty Mom and habee are about all I see of rational folks around here. My faith in this great land might be restored! I mean you guys don't sound like you even want to choke any politicians, or have any fun at all!!!
ROLFing my head off,
So the wringers super pacs can publish racist hate ads, threaten to kill people, make treasonous statements and act like buffoons, but a super pac for Obama can't tell the truth. I can't wait for Romney to be shoved into a sad, dark corner of history.
I think the patent on the Swiftboaters model expired and they're pissed that the Dems have finally figured out that "Mr. Nice Guy" finishes last.
Like the older sister who goads and goads her little brother into hitting her and just then Mom walks in. "But, but, he HIT me! And I'm a GIRL!"
True. But she started it and has been goading little bro with impunity for a long time.
She knew exactly what she was doing and that eventually he'd smack her back.
More on Exxon's profits and taxes-
Exxon Mobil Dodges the Tax Man
Exxon Pays a Lower Effective Tax Rate than the Average American
Gas prices above five dollars a gallon are seen on a sign at a gas station in Washington.
SOURCE: AP/Susan Walsh
By Valeri Vasquez | May 11, 2011
Download full data on Exxon Mobil's effective tax rate from 2008 to 2010 (.xls)
Exxon Mobil Corp.'s robust balance sheets have become a poster child for what The New York Times dubs the “paradox of the United States tax code.”
The company’s large 2010 profits allowed them to lead Fortune 500’s annual ranking of the nations’ most profitable firms for the eighth time in a row. But the oil giant’s average effective tax rates are roughly half the 35 percent tax rate that currently stands as the high-water mark for American corporations. Meanwhile, Exxon Mobil and other big oil companies continue to exploit tax loopholes for nearly $4 billion in subsidies each year. These subsidies include write-offs for drilling costs and a deduction for domestic production that was intended for manufacturers, not big oil producers.
Exxon Mobil registered an average 17.6 percent federal effective corporate tax rate on its annual earnings in the three years spanning 2008 to 2010. Its average domestic profits exceeded $6.8 billion. And as a 2011 Citizens for Tax Justice report points out:
Over the past two years, ExxonMobil reported $9,910 million in pretax U.S. profits. But it enjoyed so many tax subsidies that its federal income tax bill was only $39 million—a tax rate of only 0.4 percent.
Even when Exxon Mobil had a record profit of $40 billion in 2008 due to record oil prices it had only a 31 percent effective tax rate. That’s 13 percent lower than the maximum 35 percent despite being Exxon Mobil's fifth year as the top corporate earner in Fortune 500’s annual listing. The company paid no taxes at all to the U.S. federal government in 2009 on its domestic profits of nearly $2.6 billion. It appears that they avoided the tax man that year by legally funneling their profits through wholly owned subsidiaries in countries like the Cayman Islands, and reinvesting their earnings overseas.
exxon's effective tax rate, 2008-2011
More striking still is the discrepancy between Exxon Mobil's rates and those of most American breadwinners. The company’s effective rate of 17.6 percent is nearly 16 percent below the average individual federal tax rate, which according to the Congressional Budget Office was 20.4 percent as of 2007.
Individuals in the highest quintile pay an average tax rate just over 25 percent in the United States. Exxon Mobil, meanwhile, paid approximately the same effective tax rate as Americans in the fourth income quintile—which includes Americans earning from $62,000 to $100,000 a year.
Exxon Mobil's accounting methods mask its relatively low effective tax rate. According to CNN Money the $3.1 billion in taxes the company claims to have paid since January 2011 includes both federal and state gasoline taxes—that are really paid by drivers—as well as employee payroll taxes.
Think Progress’s Pat Garofalo rightly observes that “Exxon is counting as part of its tax burden [taxes] that it simply does not pay,” making the exorbitant subsidies the company receives even more unnecessary.
These strategic maneuverings have not been lost on congressional Democrats. Rep. Tim Bishop (D-NY) introduced a bill to repeal at least one of these tax loopholes for large oil companies including Exxon. The legislation would result in $12 billion in revenue over 10 years by removing the Section 199 domestic manufacturing tax deduction.
House Republicans successfully blocked Democratic attempts to force a vote erasing this unnecessary oil subsidy on May 5 by passing a motion, 241-171, on two drilling bills.
But this promises to be only a temporary respite for Big Oil tax breaks. And a short one at that. The Senate is expected to vote next week on the Close Big Oil Tax Loopholes Act, legislation introduced by Robert Menendez (D-NJ) and other senators to address oil prices and subsidies for the five biggest oil companies.
Seth Hanlon, Director of Fiscal Reform at the Center for American Progress, explains that the glaring contrast between:
Today’s high gas prices and inflated profits have undermined the industry’s argument that their tax breaks benefit consumers.
Meanwhile, federal budget deficits have sharpened Congress’s focus on eliminating wasteful government spending—of which oil subsidies are one of the worst examples.
Right on cue, Rep. Max Baucus (D-MT), on the morning of May 6, called on executives from Exxon Mobil and its Big Five compatriots—BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, and Shell—to stand before the Senate Finance Committee for a May 12 hearing on "Oil and Gas Tax Incentives and Rising Energy Prices." As of this writing, top-level representatives from each company have confirmed attendance, including ExxonMobil Chairman and CEO Rex Tillerson. He now finds himself with the difficult task of publicly rationalizing Exxon's share of billions in subsidies, despite the company reaping enormous profits and paying relatively little in the way of taxes.
Léalo en español
Download full data on Exxon Mobil's effective tax rate from 2008 to 2010 (.xls)
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/ … _man.html/
Did you know this anti-Romney ad has not run anywhere?
That's what I'm hearing right now.
The Super Pac created the ad but have not actually made any media buys to place it.
Guess it's gotten under some people's skin in a big way.
Here are some facts on the depletion allowance loophole or corporate welfare for oil companies.
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JF … letion.htm
http://money.cnn.com/2011/04/26/news/ec … /index.htm
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Corpo … reaks.html
Even if you take away their depletion allowance, and I haven't bothered to check your figure, they still would have paid a 35% tax rate.
I'm not saying, nor have I ever said, that our tax code is perfect, that all deductions are fair, or that we couldn't use changes. I have been an advocate for changing many parts of our tax code.
So really, either way, what's your point?
My point is that you are full of you know what when you complain that the 35% U.S. corporate tax rate is high compared to other countries. The truth is that many if not most of our big companies don't pay anything close to the 35% rate thanks to all kinds of corporate welfare allowances. EXXON and GE and international corporations work the system to make sure their effective U.S. tax rate isn't anywhere near the 35% nominal rate. The oil companies have been making record profits and have not paying taxes on 27.5% of their revenues thanks to the depletion allowance.
Ralph, I never have said our corporations pay 35% on average.
They do still pay some of the highest effective rates in the world. It depends on the industry, really. Our rates range from 24% to 41%.
Yeah, Exxon didn't pay 35%... they only paid 31%. So sad.
So don't talk to me about being full of you know what. You are the one who won't accept an SEC 10K as a valid source, but instead you accept news reports, based off of those very 10Ks, without a thought.
So who is being honest, the one who will look at the primary source, or the one who won't?
The SEC filing is not an income tax document. Moreover I think the figures cover only U.S. profits. And as I pointed out the real issue is the depletion loophole which reduces oil company profits by 27.5% if memory serves.
Yes, Ralph, 10Ks are not tax documents.
But they are the very forms that your own sources use to make the claims.
You are being hypocritical. It's ok for you to link to a news article that claims the SEC document says Company A paid 2%, but when I link to that document, and give you the page number of the figure, that shows that it is 42%, you claim it's not a valid source.
And no, the figures don't cover U.S. profits only.
And again, even if you didn't give Exxon that depletion loophole, going by your figure, they would have still paid a much higher figure than you claim.
Depletion allowance is a valid deduction. The oil companies are invested in the land and the mineral rights. When they pump the oil out - the land becomes worth less, which is a capital reduction. There are plenty of capital deductions available to all other companies - why go after a valid one just because it's in the oil industry?
Why should the taxpayers give away billions to provide an incentive for EXXON and other oil companies to explore and drill for oil when they are making fantastic profits. No incentive is required when gasoline is selling for $4.09/gallon (I just filled up.) and oil around $100/barrel.
EXXON is the richest, most profitable company in the world. Giving it a giant tax loophole is ridiculous. Especially when the GOP, Romney and Paul Ryan are whining about the budget deficit.
Yup, we subsidize things that we shouldn't, no doubt about it. That's why I like people who want to simplify the tax code and cut down on loopholes.
However, we should also address the international price fixing of the cost of oil.
Exxon's massive - there's no doubt, but we're not allowing them a deduction that we aren't also allowing the small mom and pop drilling company. Taxpayers aren't "giving away" anything, Exxon's profits never belonged to the US govt. in the first place. I know it's tempting to want the wealthy corporations to pay the way for the rest of us - but it doesn't really benefit the rest of us in the long haul.
Exxon is due the same deductions the small drilling firms get. Should we really penalize a company for being successful? That puts a bit of a wet blanket on striving for success. As long as Exxon continues to reinvest in the company - we shouldn't touch the money.
The minute they pull it out in the form of income - we tax it.
The problem with taxing the big boys to death - is that they eventually call our bluff and pull out. As a taxing entity, the US has to be competitive with other nations - especially when it comes to oil, which causes wars.
Exxon is global. Why should they base here at all if the IRS makes it hard for them? Every company has a breaking point.
To get back on the original topic, here's a link to an interesting article which speculates on Romney's un-revealed tax returns.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/11/busin … r=1&hp
On the face of it, Senator Harry Reid’s explosive but flimsily sourced claim that Mitt Romney paid no income tax seems preposterous. Mr. Romney has denied it, and without his returns no one can say for sure. But for someone who makes millions of dollars a year, would it even be possible?
Enlarge This Image
Daniel Acker/Bloomberg News
The I.R.S. disclosed that six of the 400 people in the country with the highest gross income paid no federal income tax at all.
Evidently it is.
It so happens that this summer the Internal Revenue Service released data from the 400 individual income tax returns reporting the highest adjusted gross income. This elite ultrarich group earned on average $202 million in 2009, the latest year available. And buried in the data is the startling disclosure that six of the 400 paid no federal income tax.
The I.R.S. has never before disclosed that last fact.
Not even Mr. Romney, with reported 2010 income of $21.7 million, qualifies for membership in this select group of 400. But the data provides a window into the financial lives and tax rates of the superrich. Since the I.R.S. doesn’t release data for the tiny percentage of Americans at Mr. Romney’s income level, the 400 are the closest proxy.
And that data demonstrates that many of the ultrarich can and do reduce their tax liability to very low levels, even zero. Besides the six who paid no federal income tax, the I.R.S. reported that 27 paid from zero to 10 percent of their adjusted gross incomes and another 89 paid between 10 and 15 percent, which is close to the 13.9 percent rate that Mr. Romney disclosed that he paid in 2010. (At the other end of the spectrum, 82 paid 30 to 35 percent. None paid more than 35 percent.) So more than a quarter of the people earning an average of over $200 million in 2009 paid less than 15 percent of their adjusted gross income in taxes.
How do they do it? [Read on to find out how they do it.]
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/11/busin … r=1&hp
As some are saying - this is Birthers 2: The Sequel. Since he's not required to show additional years, the conspiracy theorists are out in full force trying to make everyone think there's a big dark secret. Didn't we get tired of this song and dance when it over Obama's birth certificate? Do we need to repeat the folly?
Given that there are still Super PAC ads out there questioning Obama's birth certificate, even after he has SERVED 3+ years in the position of President of the United States,
the folly seems to perpetuate itself.
Granted, the folly perpetuates itself. The best we can do is denounce it on both sides and hope logical people will focus on real issues. This kind of thing bothers me because it takes the attention away from the candidates policies and voting records and puts in on a "nanny nanny boo boo" game of tag.
Romney's refusal to reveal his tax returns is hardly "Birthers 2." Of course he's not legally required to release the returns, but previous candidates have including his own father. The issue is hardly a phony one like the Obama birther issue which was pursued by rightwing crazies and basically dishonest, cynical Republican aparachicks and others like Glenn Beck and Donald Trump.
From where I sit - both of these issues are the same. Both focus on something that has no bearing on the actual race and both sides are trying to make it sound as if it does.
Birthers II fits quite well. The Birthers 1 groupies knew Obama was a US citizen but they tried like mad to make a believable conspiracy out of it. Birthers II are doing the same thing. Different sides of the same coin. Each side thinks they've cornered the market on ethics...but in truth...both of those groups are playing loose and fast with the facts.
"From where I sit - both of these issues are the same. Both focus on something that has no bearing on the actual race and both sides are trying to make it sound as if it does."
Wrong, as usual. The birther claims are complete lies. The comments about Romney's wealth and how he accumulated it and his tax returns are real issues relevant to his proposals to give big new tax breaks to the 2%ers.
So it is now the 2%ers? How long before it is the 50%ers? Then how long before it is the Mormons? Then the Catholics? Then the Jews? When they came for the rich I said nothing because I wasn't rich....
When you say come for do you mean suggest raising their taxes and suggest a candidate might favor them over other people, in your mind is that somehow the same as murder or something?
What's your solution for getting us out of the recession AND putting the country on a path to balancing the budget? Romney and Ryan's apparently is tax cuts for the rich paid for by cuts in programs that benefit the poor and middle class. Defense cuts are off limits.
It would be hard for Romney to come up with as large a tax burden on the lower/middle class as Obama has done with Obamacare. Obama's health plan won't affect the wealthy one tiny bit. Only those who can't afford a policy right now will be forced to take food off the table and pay for premiums - or get a higher IRS bill each year. That's the real shame.
Those who will have to get a policy will be people who can afford it. Others will be subsidized. This concept to avoid adverse selection was developed by the Heritage Foundation and implemented successfully by Governor Romney in Massachusetts. Without this requirement people would wait until they need health care before enrolling and insurance companies would either go broke or have to charge premiums nobody could afford. What's your solution?
That's not what the plan specifies. If those folks could afford plans - they'd have them now. I think many folks are in for a big surprise and, frankly, I feel sorry for them.Only the poorest of the poor will be subsidized to a large extent. Why do you think the health insurance companies took such a big jump on the stock market after the plan was passed? Because smart investors know where the money is going.
I would say that more of what Obama has already done will certainly fix us all. I think bitter derision toward those in a grass roots movement will certainly help. A trillion dollars for infrastructure restoration transferred to political allies will also help.
That is it. Let's just do more of what Obama is doing - seems to be working brilliantly. GDP growth of 1.5 % that is an inventory adjustment not a growth rate.
Where exactly are you getting your data from? Real GDP growth for the last QUARTER was 2% expected to be about 1.6 this quarter...
But I have a bigger question, we live in a new economic climate, where in the whole wide world is the political system you suggest working better than the opposite both in terms of growth and/or quality of life.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505123_162- … -just-1.5/
http://www.primerate.com/category/first … -2012-gdp/
Not growing like Mongolia, but then again most Americans have heated water, inside plumping and electricity - hard to grow when you are already mostly grown.
But then again, not really growing like America, either. 1st quarter adjusted annualized growth rate - 1.8% - 2nd 1.5% - pathetic.
I can't believe you are not better informed. This man who claims his wife died of cancer because of Romney is a liar. First she died 5 years after the plant went belly up, and Romney left Bain 2 years prior to that. Secondly, the women was employed and had insurance. Her husband never had her covered under his medical policy according to the news. This whole story makes the Obama campaign look stupid for not stopping the story when the truth came out. I am tired of all of this negative campaigning on both sides. I want to know what they are going to do to fix the major problems in our country. Obama has not lived up to his promises at this time.
It is also a little creepy, morbid and grim exploiting a widower's irrational grief in a political ad.
The ad was created by a SuperPack over which Obama nor his campaign team have no control. Aside from the wife's death, the ad truthfully depicted the misery visited on the steel company's employees and by Bain Capital's closure of the plant which belies Romney's dubious claims of being a job creator.
It's all a cheap ploy to link Romney somehow with the woman's death and, frankly, it reeks of desperation.
But speaking of job creating, I suppose the increased unemployment rate shows that Obama is none too good in that area either. If I were Obama, I don't think I'd bring up the topic of job creation at all.
The TeaParty house is more to blame than President Obama. Ryan and his lemmings in the House of Representatives have followed the lead of Mitch McConnell who stated the GOPs goal of limiting Obama to one term even if it meant running the country's ship on the rocks.
Until 2010, Obama had double-house control and still the unemployment rate rose, even with his stimulus spending. So, that can't logically be blamed on anyone but him.
Some democrats blame Obama for not asking for a bigger stimulus package at the outset. However, Senator Susan Collins of Maine refused to vote for the proposed package until the Dems reduced it by $100k. Three Dems voted in favor of the package--Collins and Snowe from Maine and Scott Brown from Massachusetts. Obama may have gotten some bad advice from his economic advisers on what it took to do the job. However, the only stimulus the ignoramuses in the House believe in is tax cuts for the rich and budget cuts in social programs. They think the federal budget is analogous to a household budget and/or that tax revenues will go up when taxes are cut. That's what Pres. George H.W. Bush called "voodoo economics." No respectable economist, left or right, buys Laffer's supply side economics or the Ryan/Romney Roadmap to Doom.
I'm not sure that's entirely accurate. With the job numbers, if people insist that the "real" unemployment rate is really 20 percent, but that those not getting benefits aren't counted, wouldn't it make sense that a stronger economy at this point would necessarily mean a higher official unemployment number? If more people are looking for good, that is a good sign.
The weird presumption in your comment is that the stimulus impact is instantaneous in full measure, financial policy takes time to work, it's a simple as that.
Repeating a falsehood does not make it true. Obama surrogates are repeating and repeating the lie that Romney was still at Bain when GTS's decline to bankruptcy began. I wonder how many of the millions of long term unemployed have suffered because Obama has stripped the economy of additional trillions of borrowed Chinese money? I wonder how many men have lost their wives because they have lost their homes, insurance, savings, jobs, confidence, unemployment and now languish on food stamps and medicaid.
There is evidence that the Obama campaign has had contact with the messenger for the Super Pac. http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ … story.html
A man who is grieving and seeking answers or even someone to blame over the shocking death of his wife can be forgiven and understood. A campaign that exploits him should not be forgiven and understanding them only makes it worse.
In name only, as the SEC has determined? Or because it is convenient to interpret reality as you wish it to be. Contractual obligations from Bain to Romney does not mean actual operational responsibility. And I bet Romney shoved a needle full of Polonium in that poor woman's arm while feasting on dead babies.
That’s complete crap and you know it. As a gentleman that stays well informed, I’m sure you have heard the telephone interview Soptic had with Obama’s Deputy Campaign Manager Stephanie Cutter, back in May before this Super PAC ad was produced.
Nothing in the ad was true, except the woman’s death, and the denials by the Obama campaign and the DNC claiming to not know anything about the ad or or the super PAC is not true either
This super PAC, Priorities USA, that published the ad was started last year by Bill Burton, an Obama White House spokesman and a 2008 Obama campaign staffer, with Sean Sweeney, an Obama administration political aide.
"Nothing in the ad was true, except the"
Try to be a bit more factual. Everything in the ad was true except the fact that the wife's death occurred 5 years after the plant shutdown. Bane bought the steel company where the man in the ad worked and shut it down. He lost his job and health care insurance and probably his pension. Subsequently his wife died uninsured of cancer. The only misleading thing about the ad so far as I've read is that the wife's death occurred 5 years after the steel plant was shut down. Feel free to correct me if that's not the case. Neither Obama nor Romney are in control of their Super Pacs according to the law, thanks to the right wing axxholes on the Supreme Court.
There you go again, drinking the Kool aid. The steel worker’s wife was not covered under his company insurance policy before or after Bain’s involvement and had nothing to do with it. The couple made the choice for her to be covered by her own employment insurance policy.
The man also admitted in follow up interviews by the news media that the workers of the plant received equitable and even generous severance packages from the Bain deal.
Just more blatant lies from the left that will do anything to stay in power. Ralph I always perceived you as a more honorable guy than to perpetuate this garbage. The DNC is setting you up.
I can understand supporting your party, and politcal beliefs but your party has been hijacked, how far will you go before you take it back.
I would argue that the GOP has been hijacked even worse. I mean seriously, would you ever vote for Palin or Bachmann to represent you?
On the other hand, I wish this race was Obama vs Ryan. I feel like those two actually want to run on issues and solutions. Unfortunately, politics doesn't work in a vacuum.
Bachmann, no. Palin, maybe. The GOP hasn't cornered the market on doofuses. Think back to the Kerry/Edwards ticket.
Yea, all Kerry had to do was say he would do the opposite of W and he would have won the election.
I think he did - and still lost. But, Kerry's big fault, and it wasn't his money, although he had more money than God...and Romney...was that he couldn't make up his mind what to support. "I voted for it before I voted against it." That, coupled with angry veterans who remembered Winter Soldier, and Kerry didn't stand a chance. But we missed a bullet there. Can you imagine if the Edwards/Rayelle affair had come out during a Kerry presidency?
I'll have to find the quotes, but I don't know how many times he just bluntly said "George, I don't disagree, I would do the exact same thing."
It was essentially a reversal of this election. This time the GOP nominee is the flip-flopping liberal from Massachusetts and no one likes the democrat.
by Susan Reid 6 years ago
The Gish Gallup. Who knew?http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/10/0 … ish-Gallop
by edmob1 7 years ago
I am not interested in illegal tax declaration but the aviodance of tax. It seems to me most free market economies have some leeway for this.Also there is the question of what would happen with the accounts and lawyers working in this area.
by Dr Billy Kidd 6 years ago
From several exchanges, I learned why some people are voting for Romney. It is because Romney will launch a war against Iran. Generally, it is said that Muslims will attack the U.S. again. And that Iran will use nukes, maybe suitcase bombs. Muslim, socialist Obama won't stop it from happening.Now,...
by Susan Reid 6 years ago
NJ Governor Chris Christie, who as recently as a week ago was a harsh critic of Obama's leadership has a new BFF: Barack Obama.He's been effusive (some believe TOO effusive) in his praise for the POTUS and his handling of Sandy, going on numerous news shows.So what do you think his motives are?...
by Ralph Deeds 6 years ago
Romney's Lie: Romney told a rally in Defiance, Ohio, that he'd "seen a story--that one of the great manufacturers in this state, Jeep, now owned by Italians, is thinking of MOVING ALL PRODUCTION TO CHINA."The truth: Chrysler is in the process of investing $500 million at a Jeep plant in...
by Holle Abee 6 years ago
McCain released two years of tax returns. Reagan released one. Romney has released two. It wasn't a big deal with McCain and Reagan. Why is it now?http://factcheck.org/2012/07/romney-and … precedent/
Copyright © 2019 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|