From the archive: This story is more than 10 years old.

Comments on

What we still don't know about Mitt Romney's taxes

Romney released his 2011 tax return and other information recently. So what else is there to know? A lot.

Read the full story »

Comments are temporarily disabled on while we upgrade our system.

have your say   

20 comments on this story

 1 2 >
Oct 1, 2012, 10:43 am
-0 +5

Actually Romney’s Real Rate for 2011 is 10.5%, not 14.1%, because His Voluntary Excess Payments Can Be Easily Refunded to Him Once He Loses the Election

The Washington Post headline published on the day Romney released his tax returns was exactly what Romney wanted it to be: “Mitt Romney releases tax return for 2011, showing he paid 14.1 percent tax rate.” It is also, for all real intents and purposes, deeply misleading. As Romney’s tax return shows, his real tax rate was going to be 10.5% until he voluntarily increased his taxes by more than one third to bump up the rate temporarily to 14.1%

Oct 1, 2012, 11:28 am
-6 +0

I don’t have to guess which way this paper leans, or should I says falls, since it obviously lays at the feet of Obama.
Your article is blatantly anti-American.
First, he’s released 2 years of returns, what is required.
He’s paid taxes, despite a sitting senators ridiculous accusations that ONLY the LIB DEM media would follow up on.
Obama’s message of wealthy envy, class warfare is shameful, and it’s the only message he has, since his sole claim to fame was Community Organizer, never held a job, has a head full of Harvard elite mush, and empty promises, empty suit, empty head.

Oct 1, 2012, 11:43 am
-0 +7


Sorry, but isn’t a “paper.” We’re an online news organization. That aside, why is it you feel reporting facts is somehow “anti-American”?

I don’t know what we might “lay” at the feet of the president; if you believe we “lie” there, you might want to read the Factcheck report we posted today on his statements on the deficit.

By the way, didn’t Romney also attend Harvard?

Oct 1, 2012, 12:07 pm
-2 +0

The “facts” you post are the result of an old fashioned witch hunt, designed by Reid (and others) not to try to find out if he had paid taxes, or even the right amount, it was solely to show his wealth and use of standard business practices knowing that it would feed the class warfare fight.
Romney took his education and worked in the real world.

Oct 1, 2012, 12:16 pm
-0 +3

“he’s released 2 years of returns, what is required.”

First of all… nothing is “required”  Romney’s father when running for President released 12 years of full returns (not summaries) and he said that many should be required.  For your information, here is what recent past Presidents have felt “adequate.”

George Bush ... 19 years
Bill Clinton…....16 years
GW Bush….......13 years
Obama…..........12 years

Willard Romney.. 2 years…and none from “before” he started running for POTUS.

The ONLY reason to hide the returns is that he has something to hide…....period !

Oct 1, 2012, 12:20 pm
-2 +0

Your argument is as silly as the Birther argument. Someone should have asked how often he’s been audited by the IRS, would that make you happy?

Oct 1, 2012, 12:43 pm
-0 +2

The FACT remains that Romney has released only two full tax returns, while the last four Presidents have released at least Twelve. 

When one considers that Romney is reported to have about 110 Million dollars in his IRA account, although the maximum he could have contributed in his working years was $30,00 per year….it is perplexing.  The public deserves to see an “adequate” number of returns…. Two is historically “inadequate”

What is Hiding ?

Oct 1, 2012, 1:02 pm
-0 +2

Romney thinks it is fine for him to get a $77000 tax deduction for a dancing horse.  He pays a lower tax rate than a typical firefighter who risks his life and breaks his guts for his salary.  Some how he has about 110 million dollars in his IRA account, even though the maximum he could have put in for 14 years was $30,000… the math & tell us how that works….

The last four Presidents have released at least 12 full returns…..what’s Romney’s excuse?

Oct 2, 2012, 7:37 am
-0 +0

Mitt Romney submitted 23 years of federal tax returns to John McCain in his quest for the vice president position during the last presidential election, and requested at least 10 years of federal tax returns from his potential running mates this year.

He asks for TEN YEARS from Ryan ....Why?  Because he wanted to see if there were “problems” in his returns.

Why are we, the public not entitled to the same “look see”??

Oct 2, 2012, 8:59 am
-0 +0

I’m not a huge fan of Romney, but I do have to add this…

Where did this whole thing come up that Presidents, and those running for the office, have to share with the world their tax returns?

If I were running, I wouldn’t share mine, either. No, I’m not a tax cheat, and I’ve been following the rules for taxes every year since I reached adulthood. However, I do believe that my finances are my business, and your finances are your business. Presidential candidate Bret Linden would just remind the masses that I am entitled to the same amount of privacy as everyone else and ask that others respect that. My tax returns would not add to nor detract from my qualifications and abilities to do the job. Tax returns are not public record, and in my opinion that’s with good reason.

The constitution says a president must be at least 35 years old and a natural-born citizen. I would like presidential candidates to be required to provide proof that they meet both those criteria. Anything over and above that is their business. If they choose to release or not release anything else then that’s their prerogative.

All that said…if Romney took tax deductions or found loopholes or paid less than someone else, so what? Did he break the law in doing so? This really is “don’t hate the player, hate the game” type of deals. If you got a problem with how much or how little Romney paid, don’t hate him for it, take it up with whomever wrote the tax laws.

Oct 2, 2012, 8:10 pm
-0 +1

Bret…. Well he may very well have broken the law with mistreatment of his Swiss bank accounts .  An amnesty was awarded in 2009 if people fessed up and paid what they should have paid earlier.
I’m not saying Romney received an amnesty, but if he did, it most definitely would be our business.  His secrecy to produce what other candidates willingly do simply makes him appear dishonest, and that’s exactly how I see him.
I simply feel he is still hiding something “big” or else he would do what his Father did.

Oct 2, 2012, 8:33 pm
-1 +1


Thanks for reminding me why we supposedly have the presumption of innocence in this country. An unwillingness to share things that many would consider private is now akin to dishonesty?

This tax thing is quickly becoming the left’s birther issue.

Oct 3, 2012, 5:25 am
-0 +0

“A variety of Bain funds in the Romneys’ portfolio have controlling stakes in foreign companies. Had those funds been set up in the United States, the Romneys and other American investors would probably have been subject to certain federal taxes for their ownership of “controlled foreign corporations.” Setting up the funds in the Caymans allowed them to avoid those taxes.”

Oct 3, 2012, 5:35 am
-0 +0

Read about the Sleazy Tactics Romney used for his IRA….....

A variety of Bain funds in the Romneys’ portfolio have controlling stakes in foreign companies. Had those funds been set up in the United States, the Romneys and other American investors would probably have been subject to certain federal taxes for their ownership of “controlled foreign corporations.” Setting up the funds in the Caymans allowed them to avoid those taxes.

“Individual retirement accounts, as tax-exempt entities, are subject to the “unrelated business income” tax. But people familiar with Mr. Romney’s investments said his I.R.A., which is managed by an independent trustee ... used offshore blockers to avoid the tax. Mr. Romney’s I.R.A., for instance, has millions invested in several Sankaty funds with onshore and offshore investment vehicles. His I.R.A. would have invested through the offshore funds, they said.
Beyond their tax advantages, however, offshore funds controlled by American money managers can also create new tax problems. Those funds are limited in their ability to make loans without triggering corporate income taxes - an issue for Sankaty funds. Therefore, they usually have a parallel domestic fund that makes the loans, holds them for a period before selling a portion to the offshore fund, a practice known as “season and sell.”
The Sankaty offshore funds feature still another layer of complexity, designed to lower the taxes on profits enjoyed by Bain and Sankaty managing directors, as well as Mr. Romney through his retirement agreement. So-called carried interest, the cut of a fund’s investment gains earned by its managers, enjoys a favorable tax treatment. But under I.R.S. rules, carried interest cannot be derived from a corporation, like the offshore blockers used by Sankaty.
To address that, Sankaty sets up offshore partnerships to work in tandem with the blockers, the documents show. The result is a complex plumbing system. Tax-exempt and foreign investors put their money into blocker corporations to avoid certain taxes. Then the blockers feed their money into the partnerships, which distribute the lightly taxed income to Bain and Sankaty executives.”

Oct 3, 2012, 5:45 am
-0 +0


“,,,that many would consider private….”

The “many” you speak of are only the Romney apologists.  His Father offered the public 12 years of full tax returns and stated that all candidates should do so. 

Thus I believe that George Romney would be just as suspicious and distrusting of Willard as are many millions the world over….

 1 2 >

Read more about

bain capital, election, mitt romney, taxes

— 30 —


Best in Internet Exploder