Thanks to Erika Johnsen at HotAir for teasing out some important details in Mitt Romney’s just-released tax returns.
This past year, he gave $4,020,772 of his $13,696,951 in (“mostly investment”) income to charity. That’s 29.65%. Interestingly, “The Romneys [only] claimed a deduction for $2.25 million of those charitable contributions.”
Romney also provided details on his past 20 years of tax returns, indicating that he paid taxes in each of those years. Do wonder if Harry Reid will now apologize for slurring the good man from Massachusetts. And “Over the entire 20-year period, the Romneys gave to charity an average of 13.45% of their adjusted gross income.”
By contrast in the ten years prior to his nomination to be the Democratic candidate for Vice President of the United States, Joe Biden gave 0.15% of his income to charity. (UPDATE: For comparison purposes, in the 20 years prior to his current bid for the White House, Mitt Romney gave ninety times as much of his income to charitable institutions as did Joe Biden in the 10 years prior to his nomination as the Democratic candidate for Vice President.)
Sounds like Mitt Romney is a most generous man, an empathetic individual.
UPDATE: John Podhoretz looked more closely at the returns than did I and caught this:
As a member of the Mormon church, Romney is instructed to tithe 10 percent of his income. That’s in keeping with most charitable giving: Religious institutions get about one-third of all contributions, according to The American magazine.
In 2011, his tithe would have been $1.4 million — which means in that year alone he gave more than twice as much to other charities through his own foundation and through other means.
Via Instapundit. Romney gave more than his church required him to tithe–and gave to groups other than his church.
UP-UPDATE: Romney Gave 1,000 Times as Much to Charity in a Year as Biden Gave in a Decade
I understand a lot of that charitable donation goes to the Church of Latter Day Saints, which is a huge contributor to the American Red Cross (that’s the good.) Of course, they (Mormon church) is just as big a contributor to things such as Prop 8 in California, the Boy Scouts, and others. (That’s the bad.) He also donates money to horse stables so rich kids can ride horses. So, you know… it all depends where that charitable donation is ending up.
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (i.e., Mormon church) did not give anything to defeat Prop 8, though individual Mormons did.
The House: none of those things are BAD. You just don’t agree with them.
Over the years,I have noted that, in general, when Democrats release their tax returns, charilable giving is almost minuscule. So I´m not surprised that Joe Biden´s charitable giving is about one tenth of a percent. Republicans, in general, give more to non-profit organizations. Most non-profits are more efficient, reach people on the local level, and a portion of their staff members are volunteers. Democrats give less because they want the government to do what non-profit charities do. Except that the government agencies are bloated with staff, wasteful, reach less people, and at times divert funds for personal use, as though their salary is not adequate. Ah yes, redistribution of the wealth. The Gospel according to Joe Biden, that´s patriotic!
What Bastiat said.
The House–which horse stables? A lot of equine therapy is done by independent stables–some of them quite small. I’m going to guess that the donation was not for rich kids, but for kids who have physical handicaps, developmental delays, and emotional problems.
Hey, TheHouse: Until the day comes when you contribute 30% of your income to charity – on top of fully meeting your legal tax obligations – Maybe Romney’s choice of charities is nothing you are in any position to judge? In fact, maybe, just mabe, you should take a flying leap right now?
What this further demonstrates is how “small” and pathetic our “NATIONAL DISGRACE”of a leaderless president is to the fabric of America. One could easily put Joe ‘Bite me” in the same catagory.
Hey “TheHouse” – you are a bit of a “horses ass” there. Before you judge, you might want to do some research. Romney has been a paragon of helping his fellow man. You only wish you could meet his standard. http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2012/sep/21/romney-doubles-obamas-charitable-giving/
Here is some more on his charitable kindness: http://www.glennbeck.com/2012/09/20/watch-the-full-the-real-mitt-romney-special-from-glenn-beck/
Some powerful stuff don’t you think??? OOPS!!!
Damned if you do, damned if you don’t:
“Left (now) outraged Romney paid too MUCH in taxes”
http://twitchy.com/2012/09/21/left-outraged-romney-paid-too-much-in-taxes-gave-30-percent-to-charity-reid-biden-hardest-hit/
1. good luck convincing anyone that the boy scouts are bad. I disagree with their stance on gay scout leaders, but I was a scout as a kid, my friends were scouts as kids and the good far outweigh that issue.
2. prove it that the donation was for rich kids to ride horses. For whatever reason, you need more than your statement.
The Romneys claimed less in charitable donations than they were entitled to (2.25 million vs. closer to 4 million), deliberately to *increase* their tax liability. Per the link Dan gave earlier:
One must understand the left. Individual action is immaterial. It is only collective action which is significant.
Donate money so rich kids can ride horses? Ummm…rich kids, by definition, can afford horses. If Romney is donating money to such things it is either a desire to help horses or a desire to help poor people get horses to ride…because it is a lot of fun and can build up a kid’s confidence.
The main thing – this latest blast of whining about Romney just makes what is going to happen on November 6th that much more sweet. I don’t think Romney will win: I’m certain of it. All the lies and slanders will be seen through and the American people will give a lesson: honest, decent men do prevail in this country.
Keep in mind that Romney was my 6th choice for the GOP nomination – I was not, am not and likely never will be a raging fan of the guy…and I know that we’ll have to watch him like a hawk to make certain he doesn’t stray from the conservative straight and narrow. But he’s vastly better than Obama – and I mean, as a man. It’ll be nice to have honor and decency back in the White House.
My respect for Willard Mittens continues to slowly grow. Seeing him become a better candidate (than in 2008) was one small uptick, the Ryan pick was another, so is his charitable giving… and his comments that Mother Jones revealed recently.
Zero Hedge points out that, in all of the hullabaloo over Romney’s “47%” comment, we have missed a more significant comment:
This tells me something I didn’t know before: that Romney, like Sarah Palin before him, has some understanding of why the Fed’s efforts to manipulate the economy are bad for everyone. His Ryan pick wasn’t an accident, or just a sop to the Tea Party; Romney understands why, from the viewpoint of financial math, we MUST bring down the deficit – which means reforming government spending – and hand-in-hand with that, why we must stop the money-printing.
All that might seem off-topic. Let me try to tie it back to topic: Romney’s tax returns.
Whether Americans realize it or not, this year’s election is a contest between those who understand financial reality – the reality that America is borrowing and spending and money-printing itself into ruin – and those who don’t. Those who don’t, are living in a fantasy world where Magic Government is there to pay for their dreams: whether that means a TARP program, or a research grant, or just a welfare check (that they probably don’t deserve).
Obama represents the people who don’t: those people, be they rich or poor, who live in the fantasy world of Magic Government being there to pay for their dreams. As Upton Sinclair once said, “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.” These people must, must, MUST find ways and reasons to rationalize not voting for Romney-Ryan, to view Romney-Ryan as stupid, etc.
Hence, their unbelievable focus on irrelevancies: what’s in Romney’s tax returns, whether he gave to the right kind of horse charity, whether he did the right thing when he transported his dog 20 years ago, whether he was an empathetic teenager, whether a meaningless unknown (Akin, of the Missouri Senate race) understands how human conception works, how dare Romney criticize the initial (and awful) diplomatic response to the attack in Libya, etc.
My respect for Willard Mittens continues to slowly grow.
Seems like many folk have increasing ‘like & respect’ for Romney. . .
And if he can keep his chin up and make it through the next 10-14 days
He will probably get more folk.
Romney needs to present himself as the candidate for POTUS.
And not the replacement for Obama.
If the strategy turned into ‘I will be a great President’ would be better than ‘replacing O’
Here in Atlanta we have horse stables located at Chaistain Park. They have a riding program designed as therapy for children with Down Syndrome. Naturally, I would not expect TheHouse to be aware of such a program as he/she would have aborted the child before birth. I also can understand his not realizing that an organization dedicated to providing horses for rich children would not qualify for tax exempt status. Liberals are rarely exposed to the practice of giving and cannot be expected to be acquainted with such rules.
ILC- It ain’t off topic to me! I heard that clip early in the week. Romney gets it. You don’t run a hedge fund and a BDC and not understand monetary policy. He gets it I assure you.
I have been educating my clients to the impact of what the FED is doing – you are spot on. BTW – good piece the other day on what Bernanke is doing. Sadly, the average American hasn’t a clue about the impact of the inflation tax on their life. Either to young or unborn during Carter’s disaster.
I read a report this week that this economist said that when it comes, it’s going to come fast. One does not want to be caught in long bonds. His thought was the ten year could move 150 to 200 basis points in a very short period of time. It’s coming, we don’t know when or how much, but it is coming.
Sorry Dan if I went off topic, but this issue ILC is referring to in #16 is one of the top 5 problems we face here and globally.
Those tax numbers bring to mind another candidate lambasted for being uncaring and out of touch — George H. W. Bush. I’m married to a dyed-in-the-wool Bush hater who disliked 41 and despised Barbara Bush as long as i knew her.
Until one night when we went early to the rodeo here in Houston. Down on the floor, when only a handful of spectators were around, was a special event for mentally and physically challenged children, who got to ride some of the rodeo hosts, try to rope a fake cow, and a couple of other rodeo events. at the end of each child’s turn at the events, he or she got a belt buckle and a certificate of participation from an older couple near the exit from the grounds. They also got a picture taken with the couple, who spoke to each child and their parents. At one point the couple turned — and we saw that they were in fact the 41st President of the United States and the former First lady, parents of the sitting POTUS. No pictures appeared in the paper the next day, nor did any article. Later in the week we came early again — and found the couple participating on the second of the two days that special event runs. That second night, even my cynical wife had to admit that their involvement was more than a publicity stunt. Over the course of the next few years, we saw the couple participate whenever the event was held — always early, always without fanfare. And when, a couple of years ago, the couple’s health declined to the point they can not longer participate my wife and I both felt a real sense of disappointment and loss.
My point? We really don’t know how charitable these public figures are or are not unless they let us in on the secret. What the press shows us is often only a small part of the picture — especially when the candidate or officeholder is not popular with the journalists and is an object of scorn and ridicule. Mitt Romney today showed those who have maligned him what sort of man he is — but I’ve no doubt that he and his wife would have just as soon not disclosed their contributions. Those who continue to attack show themselves to be much smaller souls than the Romneys.
To The House:
You are a typical despicable liberal that slimes Romney. Ann Romney has horses so that she could ride them, aiding in her recovery from MS. But I guess a frigging douche bag like you would rather have Ann dependent on the federal govt. You make me sick!
You have it quite right, davinci. One of my colleagues has a severely disabled son. He frequently attends events at a horse therapy program — one which uses rescued race horses to provide physical therapy for the disabled. Trust me — those receiving the services are not rich, and the program itself survives on donations. But what does House care about such realities — if lies and distortions allow him to score a few cheap political points against someone who is a better human being than he is, he does not care.
Exactly.
HE PAID TWO MUCH! NO 1 DOES THAT! UNLESS THEY WANT TO MAKE THEMSELVES LOOK GOOD 4 THEY’RE PREZ CAMPAIGN!!!! HE IS THEY’REFOUR EVIL!!!!!! Also, ignore the fact that he wouldn’t release his tax returns before, so there was no way anyone would know that he paid more than he had to.
Rhymes with Right – your story (and others like it that I have heard over the years) show true charity – giving without expecting anything in return. It is funny how I rarely hear such stories about anyone on the left of the political aisle.
“on top of fully meeting your legal tax obligations ”
“HE PAID TWO MUCH! NO 1 DOES THAT! UNLESS THEY WANT TO MAKE THEMSELVES LOOK GOOD 4 THEY’RE PREZ CAMPAIGN!!!! ”
The Romneys’ effective tax rate for 2011 was 14.1%.
“The Romneys’ generous charitable donations in 2011 would have significantly reduced their tax obligation for the year. The Romneys thus limited their deduction of charitable contributions to conform to the Governor’s statement in August, based upon the January estimate of income, that he paid at least 13% in income taxes in each of the last 10 years,” his trustee Brad Malt said in a note accompanying the return..
The choice to not take the deduction allowed Romney to inflate his tax rate to 14.1 percent. The difference between his charitable giving of more than $4 million and his claimed deductions of $2.25 million increased his tax bill by several hundred thousand dollars, as he paid taxes he didn’t have to on nearly two million dollars.
Luckily for Romney, after the election he can recoup that money. If the American people reject him at the polls in November — and even if they don’t — Romney would be fully within his legal rights to file an amended return, requiring the Treasury to cut him a substantial check.
“It’s noble,” said Boston College tax law professor Brian Galle of Romney’s generous, if temporary, gift to the Treasury. “It also doesn’t prevent him from taking that deduction in an amended return if he were to file it after the election.”
Romney has asserted that he does not believe in paying more taxes than required.
“I don’t pay more than are legally due and frankly if I had paid more than are legally due I don’t think I’d be qualified to become president,” Romney has previously said. “I’d think people would want me to follow the law and pay only what the tax code requires.”
When combined with his charitable contributions, it is much higher. But I guess the only thing that matters is how much money he gave that he was forced to. What he gave volunarily doesn’t count (particularly because he gave it to icky Mormons, who are really weird and homophobic or something).
So, even if the possibility exists that he can recoup it, than he must be condemned (otherwise, what the hell was the point of bringing this up?). This is exactly why he shouldn’t have released his tax returns; dumb liberals act as if utterly inconsequential matters such as this should somehow be an issue. And nothing is ever, ever good enough for them (unless we’re talking about one of them, in which case everything is good enough and then some).
#1: ” So, you know… it all depends where that charitable donation is ending up.”
Oh yes, by all means, TheHouse. Let’s not be hasty. Until we can track down every last penny of the gazillions the Romneys have voluntarily given away over the past two decades and confirm where those donations “ended up,” we can’t possibly assume them to be anything other than the evil, money-grubbing criminals that the Democrats have relentlessly told us they are. So yeah, let’s get right on that.
Tracking the Romneys’ charitable donations over the past two decades to verify that all of THEIR MONEY that THEY DONATED “ended up” at a charity liberals approve of = a reasonable, “trust but verify” endeavor that’s absolutely necessary when you’re dealing with people who are as shady and nefarious as the Romneys.
In contrast, US taxpayers tracking where the TRILLIONS of THEIR MONEY ended up after it was collected by Obama’s IRS = RACISM.
Liberals make me sick. The ignorance, the constant dishonesty, the blazing, shameless hypocrisy…I am really looking forward to enjoying their shattering, collective heartbreak on November 6th, as well as the laughable histrionics that will follow for months and months.
Exacty, Rattlesnake.
Passing By has exposed itself as a blind, hatemongering, irrational bigot who will do and say anything to smear Republicans and Mitt Romney in a most hypocritical fashion.
How do we know?
Because Passing By endorses and supports this.
And this:
And this:
So that’s three examples in which Passing By endorsed and supported blatant and obvious tax dodging and non-payment by its Obama Party.
But wait, there’s even more proof of how Passing By has exposed itself as a blind, hatemongering, irrational bigot who will do and say anything to smear Republicans and Mitt Romney in a most hypocritical fashion.
Such as this:
And this:
And of course, this:
Again, notice how the Obama Party, Barack Obama, and his talking-points repeaters like TheHouse and Passing By are shrieking that Mitt Romney is evil for paying too much — when they endorse, support, elect, and place in leadership roles those who don’t pay at all.
Perhaps TheHouse and Passing By could tell us why they refuse to hold Obama and his supporters to any standards at all when it comes to taxes.
That is, if they were anything other than desperate partisan bigots.
Back to the horses. There are a lot of horseback therapy programs for children with autism. These programs are expensive and are often difficult to get covered by insurance, or insurance only covers a limited number of visits.
Parents of children with autism often have to pay out of pocket for a lot of their children’s therapies or rely on the charity of others to help provide programs and therapy.
I am willing to bet the Romney’s donations to horses are for various therapy for people who are unable to afford it-and it is money well donated. It is much better to donate for this kind of therapy than to the local art museum or shoot the United Way where money is wasted to refurbish an office.
We really don’t know how charitable these public figures are or are not unless they let us in on the secret.
And this in the end is the point of charity. It is to provide help where your passions are and where needed without the expectation of being congratulated for it.
I think the narrative of the DNC and the media is to paint Romney into this cold, rich man who doesn’t care about people category, and to some degree they are succeeding. The sad thing is Romney is probably far more charitable than Obama or Biden, but somehow they get the “caring” label solely because they have a D next to their name.
As for church donations-many churches provide charity in many ways-food pantries, soup kitchens etc. My church also has money set aside to help people who need emergency help with rent, groceries or other essential utilities. Also, I know my church provides excellent disaster relief services, and anyone who has been in a disaster will often tell you the relief services from various church organizations are among the best at providing the most help for the longest time where needed.
I like the way the left’s b–ching about Mitten’s tax returns amounts to “He gave too much to charity” and “He paid more than he had too.”
They thiink nothing of exploiting others by force, to show how much they “care”. So they appeal to the (many) people who are living in a fantasy world where Magic Government is there to pay for their dreams.
I was first introduced to hippotherapy back in 88 in Chevy Chase.
Worked as child specialist/ nanny. Loved going to the horse country outside of the beltway. Was a great experience.
Liberals define compassion in terms of how much money they are willing to confiscate from other people to spend on their constituencies.
That makes Romney evil, he chooses exactly where he wants his money to go instead of giving it to the government to distribute much more fairly.
#34 – Hippotherapy? Is that where Rosie O’Donnell goes to get help?
Sorry, couldn’t resist. 😉
Regards,
Peter H.
The Obama took a $500,000 charitable (non-required) deduction to lower his effective tax rate. Therefore, luckily for Obama, after the election he can recoup that money. When the American people reject him at the polls in November, Obama would be fully within his legal rights to file an amended return, requiring the Treasury to cut him a substantial check. He will need the money for lodgings when Mrs. Obama kicks him out.
Kudos to NDT for exposing the hypocrisy of the Democrats. They are so hot to want to raise taxes on the rich; yet the rich among them don´t pay theirs, or they pay delinquent. Some are tax cheats, one of which is now Secretary of the Treasury. When they say the want the rich to pay their ¨fair share¨ they mean rich Republicans. Warren Buffet, who supports Obama´s plan to raise the tax rate, has the audacity to fight the IRS over back taxes he owes. If he really believed in what says he should write a check for the one billion and that would hold the government over for a few hours. As I stated in my comment above,when Democrats have made public their tax returns, generally speaking, they have been less charitable than Republicans. Although I was surprised by the amount the Obamas gave. I would like to see a list of the recipients, probably, ACORN, ACLU, PETA, Media Matters.org, Socialist International, and Trinity UCC. Is it possible that under Freedom of Information, if the tax returns for George Soros could be made public? I would like to know how much he has paid in taxes over the last couple of years. We know that all his disposable income goes to left wing groups and Democratic candidates.
I believe I saw his name on a list of those with overseas accounts along with Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and Nancy Pelosi.
Leah,
Romney´s money is his money, not the governments. He and all of us who donate to charitable organization do so because they do it better than government, and to those we want to see helped. See my comment # 4.
Government exists for the people, not people for the government.
Roberto,
I think Leah’s being sarcastic.
Though I’d point out the liberals really do put the truth in the old joke of “Gov Romney walks on water, Libs report Mitt can’t swim.”
“So that’s three examples in which Passing By endorsed and supported blatant and obvious tax dodging and non-payment by its Obama Party.”
And Passing By demonstrates typical liberal behavior, which is to revert to tantrums, screaming, and insults when confronted with facts concerning its hypocrisy and bigotry.
Liberals are such childish, helpless individuals. They really are nothing more than malicious toddlers, spoiled by indulgent and incompetent parents.
You know, people who just post some quote from somewhere without actually saying anything (and concern trolls, but that is a different issue) are even more annoying than people who just post idiotic talking points from Daily Kos. Particularly when they use the handle “Passing By” but post here several times over a significant period of time.
If anyone would care for the opinion of someone who isn’t hopelessly brainwashed and is trying mightily to spin some terrible news for their Presidential candidate – I don’t think that how much Mitt Romney gives to charity is the best and most relevant piece of evidence for the man’s empathy. I say that his words about his fellow human beings are far better, and I think it’s hard to detect any bit of empathy in what Romney had to say to his big campaign donors when he thought no one was paying any attention.
Lots of morally reprehensible people that lack empathy give to charities. Insanely rich people that receive preferential tax treatment from the government giving money to charities is nice, but it’s not so impressive that I’m willing to turn my brain off and let some number or percentage be the sole determining factor in my assessment of someone’s character or moral judgment.
Shorter Levi. “Judge Romney by edited video, not by his deeds.”
OH, and let’s not forget Levi’s reaction to another ‘edited’ video.
The difference being that Breitbart didn’t air a video with a several minute break in the middle.
So to our resident lying racist truther, editing video is good as long as the edits serve his goals.
Now hush Levi, the adults are talking.
Levi is just a desperate brainwashed little malicious liar who is trying desperately to spin for his Barack Obama.
We should always remember that. Levi is convinced that Mitt Romney is evil, mainly because Mitt Romney represents he and his family being forced off the welfare teat and actually having to work for a living and pay their own bills. Thus, Levi projects the fact that Levi and his family would never give anything to charity unless it was for the wrong reasons onto Mitt Romney. Since liberals never act on charity and only do so as a means of faking good behavior, Levi assumes that this is the case with Mitt Romney.
Levi is right when he says ¨Lots of morally reprehensible people give to charities.¨ Those morally reprehensibles are usually Democrats; George Soros, and The Kennedys. The charities they support are those with a left wing agenda. As for Ted Kennedy, I wonder how much he gave the Kopechne family for the loss of their daughter, Mary Jo, or to atone for the crime of his nephew, Michael?
Just because you can’t detect it, doesn’t mean it isn’t there. And besides, empathy isn’t the most important thing (it’s somewhere near the bottom in what I look for in a politician). Competence is far more important, and failing to recognize when there is a huge problem (related to someone’s job) is incompetence.
So now the battleground has shifted from “he didn’t pay (what we think is) enough in taxes!!1!” to “We don’t like what he did with the money he didn’t pay in taxes!!1!”.
Dave, that’s always going to be the case.
I’ve a line on my FB page, basically it says “I’m supposed to be more concerned with what Romney does with his money than what Obama does with mine.”
And where are the numbers showing Biden’s income/vs. charitable giving. Also, where’s the breakdown of what Romney gave out? Giving money to a wealthy organization like the Mormon church isn’t exactly the same thing as giving to a charity.
I found this gem:
Maybe that’ why he’s so confused. Romeny’s actions are impossible for him to comprehend.
Kevin
Churches are charities. They do not generate any income, unless you consider bingo and raffles as generating income, which supplements offerings to meet operational expenses, They depend on freewill offerings from members they nourish spiritually. United Way, Red Cross are wealthy organizations. Would you be critical of givers to those organizations? You might counter with, they help people in need. Guess what, so do the Mormans. They trake care of their own, that´s why they are no mormans on the public dole. like maintenance, utilities, staff, secretary, and ministers.
Checkmate, Kevin!!