Mitt Romney has pulled ahead in Florida. However, his long slog hasn’t even begun with the American people.
Romney finally released his tax returns on Thursday, revealing a 2010 income of $27 million and a federal tax rate of 13.9%. What effect, if any, does this information have on the way voters judge Romney? A January 21-24 YouGov national poll, conducted before Romney released the actual figures, reveals a potential liability for Romney: a majority of Americans believe that he is not paying his fair share in taxes. No other candidate elicits views that are so unfavorable. – Mitt Romney’s Tax Problem, by John Sides, Lynn Vavreck and Joshua Tucker
The columns in the graphic above from left to right read: more than fair share; fair share; less than fair share; do not know.
The information is taken from a January 21-24 YouGov national poll, conducted before Romney released the actual figures.
That means it didn’t include the Swiss bank account information, but also that Mr. Romney is amending his financials because it’s complex and some items were inadvertently omitted.
We need to be cautious in interpreting these findings. The information about Romney’s income or tax rate did not affect how respondents evaluated Romney on other dimensions, such as his willingness to stick by his positions, his honesty, or his trustworthiness. It didn’t make respondents more likely to describe him as personally wealthy (most already do so anyway). And it didn’t change whether they believed he cares about the poor or middle class. When the information does move opinions, the shifts aren’t large. Many respondents may already have heard about Romney’s income or tax rate or simply don’t consider those facts germane. The Obama team may find that a campaign that implicitly or explicitly characterizes Romney as a plutocrat isn’t a slam dunk.
Nevertheless, for Romney, there is cause for concern. Just over half of Americans doubt that he pays his fair share in taxes. After hearing about his actual income and tax rate, these people are less likely to think he “cares about people like me”—an attribute on which Romney is disadvantaged relative to Obama and which is a perennial predictor of how people vote. Information about his wealth also leads a larger fraction of Americans to believe he cares about the wealthy, and this belief in turn also reinforces the sense that he does not care about “people like me.” The more Romney’s wealth and taxes are discussed, the more he may seem like someone who cannot relate to ordinary voters. This may explain why, during a time in which his wealth and taxes were in the news, negative views of Romney jumped 20 points among whites with incomes below $50,000.
Romney can’t even take comfort in the distinction that Obama raised in his SOTU address. Americans may not begrudge financial success in theory, but Romney’s wealth leads them to see him as more sympathetic to the wealthy, which could cost him if they then see Romney as less like themselves. Even if Romney were paying a larger share of his income in taxes—what Obama would call his “fair share”—the simple fact of his wealth may be an obstacle.
This is a marketing challenge for Mitt Romney. It puts an extra emphasis and burden on Ann Romney, who is fantastic on the stump and whose personal story is the very definition of courage. His family will be asked to mitigate, through personal stories of their own, the picture of Mitt Romney that’s seen through his inordinate wealth.
In an era of Occupy, which I hope will rev up in the months ahead, the subject of wealth disparity will be in focus.
When you look at the fairness issue juxtaposed against the austerity platform of Mitt Romney, who supports the Paul Ryan budget, it paints a stark picture of a man who wants to be our president, but whose compassion may only be visible through percentages of his charitable giving.
His wealth doesn’t bother me one bit. He followed the tax laws set in place. I don’t believe he has done anything wrong and being rich is not a sin. Plus, Taylor, I appreciate that you noted how much he gave to charity in an earlier post. He gave a lot and that speaks Volumes to me about his character.
He was able to give more to his church because he destroyed people lives working at Bain. I guess those people he put out of work didn’t get to see Prince Romney charitable side.
Bain capital Profited by laying off employees, leveraging companies into huge debt burdens, then pulling out cash bonuses and payouts for themselves and left the companies to die, often raiding their pension funds along the way. This is an example of the “new morality” that became popular during Reagan’s terms- “If It is legal to do it, it is moral to do it”. As opposed to “just because something is not against the law, that doesn’t mean it’s the right thing to do”.
This viewpoint along with “greed is good” and worshipping money as our new religion have contributed mightily to the dire straights we are in today.
Romney drank the cool aid on this. The fact that he gave 10% to his church is meaningless because of the greater harm he caused.
I would never equate giving to church with paying taxes. That church money builds grand temples and fights equal marriage among other things.
That church money builds grand temples and fights equal marriage among other things.
I don’t think that governmnet finds any better use for the money.
I’m not bothered by Mitt’s wealth and do believe he followed all the rules to make and protect it, but I do believe we need tax reform to make the tax code very simple and very progressive with rates from zero to perhaps as high as 50 or 60 percent with gradations as small as perhaps 5,000 or 10,000. We need zero or very few deductions and put something in place to make it very difficult for Congress to monkey with the rules. I want it so simple that nobody (except the self-employed) would have to keep records and file returns. With available technology, just let the government take its share every time I get paid, and if I don’t have deductions to futz with, why would I need to file a return? We could make it easier for self-employed people, too. Paying quarterly taxes is a royal pain in the ass, and many people don’t properly set aside for it. Electronically, let me send the government its share every single time a client pays me. This could be handled by my payment provider (Paypal) or credit card processor. For example, I could instruct Paypal: with every client payment, deposit x% into my account, transmit y% to the IRS, and z% to the state. Boom. Done. If I have a child, I login somewhere online to declare an exemption and get my new rate. Simple.
Instead of income tax, FICA, and Medicare taxes, let’s just have one tax on all income whether that income is from investments or work. There would be a floor for poor people and no caps for rich people. The more you make, the higher your rate goes, and vice versa.
And while we’re talking money, I want to kill all subsidies. All. Of. Them. For sugar, oil, grain, land set asides. All of them. We shouldn’t be in that business. And I’m with Mitt that we shouldn’t be saving car companies and banks. We will never know what innovative, nimble companies would have swooped in to fill the gap left by a failed GM.
Notice that in the above charts under – people like yourself – only 4 percent don’t pay enough. This seems like one of those things like congress and all congressmen/women are bad….except my own. People can talk about taxes; who doesn’t pay; who gets a deduction and who doesn’t etc. just as along as it applies to everyone else but “me”.
I so much enjoy how easy it is to fool people.
In the ABC interview of Ms. Bosanek, she revealed 35.8% of her income goes to income taxes. Granted, Nebraska runs at 6.5% at a fairly modest income level, so we will assume that is her effective state tax rate. Using math I learned at Wharton, that means her effective federal tax rate is 29.3%.
Now, for the astute in the crowd, we know that translates to at least 600K even assuming no deductions and no sheltered income.
If she is one of the “regular people” that need watching out for, then I have some bridges to sell the people who believe this nonsense.
Unless you believe that being poor keeps you honest, I will say that almost everybody lies about money. About how much they do have; and how much they don’t have — and everyone has his/her own story, and it’s carried silently within. My problem with Mitt Romney is his demeanor and how that would translate into his behavior as President (if he were elected). I mean first you have to get past his wealth; then you have to look beyond his chiseled Hollywood face that is almost always stuck in a slightly bemused grin. Of all the candidates, Romney more than the others seems to really be holding a grudge – he surely realizes that people, for the most part, don’t like him. I can’t imagine he would ever want to go before anyone, let alone the people, if he became President. He would run the whole show by himself, quietly and privately. The Oval Office would simply be his boardroom.
All of Romney’s income came from investments, He didn’t report a single dollar of wages which means he didn’t pay a dime in social security and Medicare taxes since only wages are subject ot payroll taxes. He’ll complain about the 47% who pay no taxes (income tax). He’ll call a minimum worker struggling to get buy with two minimum wage jobs as being envious. Doesn’t wear well with students who might work a minimum wage job or a senior with the minimium social security benefit who works part time as a greeter at Walmart,