Mitt Romney Would Pay 0.82 Percent In Taxes Under Paul Ryan’s Plan

Commentators have wondered whether the pick of the economically extreme Ryan as a running mate was an error in calculation, but it seems quite pragmatic to me — should Romney win the presidency, and be succeeded by Ryan, Mitt may end up effectively never having to pay taxes again. The Atlantic crunched the figures:

Under Paul Ryan’s plan, Mitt Romney wouldn’t pay any taxes for the next ten years — or any of the years after that. Now, do I know that that’s true. Yes, I’m certain.

Well, maybe not quite nothing. In 2010 — the only year we have seen a full return from him — Romney would have paid an effective tax rate of around 0.82 percent under the Ryan plan, rather than the 13.9 percent he actually did. How would someone with more than $21 million in taxable income pay so little? Well, the vast majority of Romney’s income came from capital gains, interest, and dividends. And Ryan wants to eliminate all taxes on capital gains, interest and dividends.

Romney did earn $593,996 in author and speaking fees in 2010 that would still be taxed under the Ryan plan. Just not much. Ryan would cut the top marginal tax rate from 35 to 25 percent and get rid of the Alternative Minimum Tax — saving Romney another $292,389 or so on his 2010 tax bill. Now, Romney would still owe self-employment taxes on his author and speaking fees, but that only amounts to $29,151. Add it all up, and Romney would have paid $177,650 out of a taxable income of $21,661,344, for a cool effective rate of 0.82 percent.

9 Comments on "Mitt Romney Would Pay 0.82 Percent In Taxes Under Paul Ryan’s Plan"

  1. Bentpyramid | Aug 14, 2012 at 10:37 am |

    JacobSloan, I’m starting to get the impression that you don’t like Republicans, lol.

  2. Liam_McGonagle | Aug 14, 2012 at 11:45 am |

    Ryan is such an unimpressive, runty little fart when you actually look under the hood that I find it hard to blame him as much as the people who vote for him.

    But it’s an argument you can’t win, because support for fossilized turds like Ryan is predicated on the solipistic fallacy that you can simply create reality by political fiat, that there is no meaningful aspect of the human condition independent of political expediency. 

    It doesn’t matter that all of Ryan’s ideas have repeatedly failed and continue to fail in the real world (e.g., Eurozone economies contracted 0.2% again today under a Ryan-like austerity regime).  The only thing that matters to voters is that the fantasies Ryan is peddling are so much more appealing than the challenging realities awaiting anyone willing to admit they’re not the center of the universe.

    I am seriously considering voting for the Romney/Ryan ticket.  Not because I consider them an improvement over Obama/Biden, but because Pol Pot isn’t on the ballot.  Americans are frickin’ insane morons and there’s no chance of them snapping out of it until things get worse than they can possibly imagine.

    • How would someone with more than $21 million in taxable income pay so little? Well, the vast majority of Romney’s income came from capital gains, interest, and dividends.

      • Simiantongue | Aug 14, 2012 at 9:34 pm |

         DO NOT CLICK ON Sara M. Craig’s LINK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

        It’s damn good thing I have shitloads of malware and virus protection installed you asswipe. Shove that advert link straight up your ass. Warnings lit up like a damn christmas tree.

    •  I’ve never voted Republican in my life, but the morbid curiosity to see what would happen would render me incapable of voting for anyone but Sarah Palin if she were her party’s presidential nominee.  So I empathize with you on that one.

    • mannyfurious | Aug 14, 2012 at 5:51 pm |

      I commented on a similar post in a different news topic. This line of thinking is a fallacy. All one has to do is look how badly things have gotten, how far to the right this country has gotten, and see how many people still buy into the idea that moving further to the right will somehow fix things. It’s difficult to see just how extreme this is because we’re living through it. But when I think that Richard Nixon of all people would be a much, much more attractive (and leftist) candidate than either of the two twits running against each other–guess what, this would look like “rock bottom” to a good number of people from Nixon’s period in time. And, yet, no one’s “snapping out of it.” The more to the right we move, the most fucked things become, and yet the more everyone thinks moving further to the right will fix the things that are fucked, even though the things that are fucked are fucked precisely because we moved to the right. It absolutely boggles the mind that this is even possible. 

      The fact remains, no matter how bad things get, there’s a sizable portion of the population who will always blame it on fags, niggers, spics and commie bastards, instead of on, you know, all the shit that actually ruined this nation. 

    • Questionable | Aug 14, 2012 at 6:18 pm |

      Wasn’t provoking an oppressive, reactionary political climate to make conditions more appropriate for revolution what ‘Che’ Guevara talked about doing in Bolivia and the Congo (where he failed)? I know at least Gen. Bayo condoned it.

  3. > Mitt Romney Would Pay 0.82 Percent In Taxes Under Paul Ryan’s Plan

    yeah right
    like he’s not already at .82% income to tax ratio
    (get his Mormon church tithing records & that will be almost the real number)

    The rich write the tax laws and not surprisingly they favor the rich.
    So what is the real story that this story supposed to co-opt?
    What burning issue pertinent to the future of the country is this piece of fluff supposed to obscure?

Comments are closed.