Romney releases 2010, 2011 tax returns
Mobile posting test

Comparing presidential -- and presidential wannabe -- 1040s

Not to run this Mitt Romney tax return thing into the ground, but I just ran across a nice 1040 comparison graphic by the Washington Post.

That's a snippet of it below.

Tale of the 1040s Washington Post graphic_edited-1Click image for full version view.

So how did the prez and two of the guys who want his job do on their 2010 taxes?

Barack and Michelle Obamas' tax effective rate was 26 percent.

Newt and Callista Gingrich paid almost 32 percent in taxes.

And Mitt and Ann Romney, as noted (and noted and noted) were the big tax winners, with an effective tax rate just a smidge under 14 percent.

Of course, even with that low tax rate, the Romneys ended up writing the biggest check -- around $3 million -- to the U.S. Treasury.

Paper chase: But what really caught my eye was the number of tax return pages filed by each couple.

The Gingriches sent the IRS a 46-page tax return for 2010.

The Obamas' 2010 filing took 59 pages.

And the Romneys 2010 tax returns (not counting their charitable foundation's filing) covered 203 pages.

I know taxes are not A to B to C much of, OK most of, the time, but I couldn't help but notice that the duo who had the lowest tax rate <cough, Romneys, cough> filed more than four times the paperwork than did the pair with the highest tax rate <cough, Gingriches, cough>.

Sure looks like that sometimes complicated does pay off, at least for some folks ... not to mention for their tax advisers.

You also might find these items of interest:


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


Joe, not petty, observant. I'm generally against all this baring of personal financial info on right to privacy grounds. I know, I know; privacy is an outdated concept in this day and age. But I do agree that the charitable donations listed on a tax return can give us an idea of the person behind the paperwork ... so long as donations weren't made just to be noticed. But no politician taxpayer would be that cynical, would they?


May I be petty for a moment?
Romneys gave 13.7% of their gross to charity, the Obamas, who had a much lower income, 19%.

But, the Newts, 2.5%?

I don't know if there's a correlation to anything here, if nothing else, the Romneys' generosity should be noted.

The comments to this entry are closed.