Did Romney pay NO federal taxes in 2009?

[Avenger]

If you have a net loss, you have no taxable income. What is the crime?

[lafinfil]

Might not have appeared so bad except for the write offs of quarterly trips to the islands to visit his money.






: - )

[Avenger]

And you know that how?

[Lemon Drop]

Avenger wrote:
If you have a net loss, you have no taxable income. What is the crime?

You're oversimplifying the (speculative) situation here. Because of the amount of money he has, Romney has ways of avoiding taxes and minimizing losses that are not available to mere mortals.
As we've said several times before, it's legal, but it's political poison.

[Avenger]

You are struggling Lemon Drop. Just tell me how it is done. The tax code is not secret. He fills out exactly the same forms you and I fill out. Show me the line on Form 1040 where he gets that big break.

[Lemon Drop]

He fills out exactly the same forms you and I fill out.

Not even close. What forms do you use for your carried interest? Losses carried forward? Offshore accounts?

[hal]

Lemon Drop wrote:
It's safe to assume you're not an accountant.

"And it’s possible he suffered a large enough capital loss that, carried forward and coupled with his various offshore tax havens, he wound up paying no U.S. federal taxes at all in 2009."

This does not mean he had no income.

It means he had no TAXABLE income, but plenty of losses - at least that was what the biz week article was saying.

"The “ultra-rich”—those with fortunes of more than $30 million—fared worst of all, losing on average about 25 percent of their net worth."

to romney, that's way over $50m in losses. I assume that even in good years he doesn't make that much...

"Romney has ways of avoiding taxes and minimizing losses that are not available to mere mortals."

Yeah, like a $50m loss - that's a great way to avoid paying taxes... and tax havens - they call them that for a reason...

I think you've completely misinterpreted that article...

[Lemon Drop]

Also not an accountant I take it.

The point is the political damage of a Mitt Romney paying no taxes.

Taking big investment losses does not equate to zero income.

[decay]

yeah, and Steve Jobs was "only" paid $1 a year.

how the heck could he afford to live?

[Black]

Lemon Drop wrote:
Also not an accountant I take it.

The point is the political damage of a Mitt Romney paying no taxes.

Taking big investment losses does not equate to zero income.

Or possibly worse-- the political damage of Mitt "losing" 50 million dollars. Lose-lose.