It seems the Mitt payed only a 13.9% effective income tax rate in 2010 on $21.6 MILLION. And all I can say to that is so what? I know 30 “people” who paid no US income taxes between 2008 and 2010 and they made a lot more money than Mitt did:
Thirty large and profitable U.S. corporations paid no income taxes in 2008 through 2010 …
Pepco Holdings Inc, a Washington, D.C.-area power company, had the lowest effective tax rate, at negative 57.6 percent, among the 280 Fortune 500 companies studied. […]
Their report also listed General Electric Co, Paccar Inc, PG&E Corp, Computer Sciences Corp, Boeing Co and NiSource Inc as among the 30 that paid no taxes.
By the way, what was GE’s income in 2010? Well according to the financial statements its 2010 annual report it had over $11 BILLION in net earnings. And for those of you who say Mitt is a person, well, so is GE (at least according to the US Supreme Court)! And GE can spend a lot more money on promoting Mitt’s campaign (assuming they like Mitt over the Newt or whomever) than he can because money = free speech and GE has a lot more money than Mitt does.
So what’s the Big Deal? Mitt paid his taxes. That’s better than General Electric.
I care. Because our ridiculous tax code rewards investment over working. I’m unemployed and can’t find a job that pays just a teeny bit over minimum wage. But my kids all work in the service industry and pay almost 30% of their meager incomes. Fuck that.
You realize this was snark I hope.
Why can’t GE run for president?
A good question. Maybe there’s a birth certificate issue?
GE did run for, and win, the presidency. It governed from 1981-1989.
For the same reason the Koch brothers don’t run for president. It’s easier for a rich “person” to buy politicians than it is to become one. Witness Mitt Romney’s problems with his vanity campaign.
Well, Mitt paid some taxes, but we wouldn’t want a president who paid his fair share, would we? They’d be too stupid.
I was delighted by the Newt surge because I thought Newt would be a disaster in a general election and because I get bored with all these “experts” who claimed Romney, a very weak candidate, was a shoo-in and a lock. Nobody bothered to ask whether a Newtsplosion would turn the race in South Carolina, the very state most likely to be receptive to him. Plus Romney himself is so so boring.
Anyway, now that this tax stuff has gone on and on, and I’ve thought more about it, I’m starting to think it really would be better if Romney were the nominee. As a candidate he really sucks, but more importantly I’d love to have an election all about his taxes and wealth and how he got it. Whereas, with Newt it’s going to be driven, for cycles at a time, by the crazy shit that comes out of his month. Newt is to Sarah Palin the way like Pearl Jam is to Creed. So, even if the results would be roughly comparable, I’m starting to think I’d rather have a badly damaged Romney with a divided and unmotivated base than a crazy Newt and all his drama.
Seems to me if Romney had paid even 30% that the wages of say more than 100 happy workers could be paid out of that IRS check.
.
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."So I notice that Mitt closed out his Swiss Bank Account. Wasn’t 2010 about the time that we saw the UBS scandal complete with FBI investigations?