Elizabeth Warren doesn’t like the way Mitt Romney pays his taxes:
“And that is that Mitt Romney pays 14% of his income in taxes and people who get out there and work for a living pay 25%, 28%, 30%, 33%. I get it. Mitt Romney gets a better deal than any of the rest of us because he manages to earn his income in a way that has been specially protected for rich folks. I think that’s wrong,” Elizabeth Warren, a democratic candidate for U.S. Senate from Massachusetts said on MSNBC’s “The Last Word.”
In 2003 John Kerry paid an even lower rate than Romney.
In a bit of Democratic comeuppance for dinging Mitt Romney for how little he pays in taxes, Wonkblog published this chart of presidential candidates’ tax rates. And wouldn’t you know, John Kerry had a (slightly) lower tax rate than Romney does. In 2003, a year before running for president, Kerry’s tax rate was 13.1 percent, versus Romney’s at 13.9 percent in 2010. As Brad Plumer, who culled together tax returns to make his chart, explains, “John Kerry’s overall rate is so low — lower than Romney’s, in fact — because his return is getting lumped together with that of his (wealthy) wife, Teresa Heinz, who had a lot of investment income.”
That didn’t bother the painfully hypocritical Warren or her hypocritical democrats brethren back then. It’s only a concern when a Republican fall in that group. Moreover, Romney paid more than he owed:
It appears that the return filed by that trust overstated capital gains realized by nearly $300,000, causing Mr. Romney and his wife to pay about $44,000 more in taxes than they owed.
Of course this would also be the year the NY Times notices the tax laws- but not back in 2003:
Mitt Romney’s tax returns tell us some things about him. They tell us a lot more about the sad state of the tax laws in this country.
But it is Warren who absolutely waterboards the truth. On MSNBC Warren made the argument that member of the Senate shouldn’t own stock.
The rhetoric of class and inequality is back in force, and Massachusetts Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren — the standard-bearer for a combative new progressivism — made the case to MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell last night that members of the Senate shouldn’t own stock.
“I realize there are some wealthy individuals – I’m not one of them, but some wealthy individuals who have a lot of stock portfolios” she told him.
She’s not one of those “wealthy individuals”?
…according to the Personal Financial Disclosure form she filed to run for Senate shows that she’s worth as much as $14.5 million. She earned more than $429,000 from Harvard last year alone for a total of about $700,000, and lives in a house worth $5 million.
A $400,000 salary from Harvard for doing nothing, worth $14 million and she claims she’s not wealthy?
It gets better. She said Senators should not own stock. Does she own stock?
Warren spokesman Kyle Sullivan emails, “Elizabeth was making the point that, unlike many members of Congress, she does not have a broad portfolio of stocks in individual companies. If elected, she’ll get rid of the one stock she does own.”
So she only owns stock in one company. She has $8 million in mutual funds, which own broad portfolios of stocks in individual companies. See? If you invest in mutual funds which invest in stocks it’s not the same as owning stocks.
And owning a house worth $5 million, making $500,000 a year and being worth $14 million also makes her part of the 99%. According to Warren, she is not even wealthy.
“I realize that there are some wealthy individuals- I’m not one of them…”
Warren’s dishonesty and contempt for the intelligence of people is breathtaking. What the US government does not need is another utterly dishonest member.