TLP: Ryan Takes the Bridle


No matter what Mitt Romney tells you about Paul Ryan in the next three months, remember this: Romney made the man he wants you to believe is ready to lead the country wait for the horse that cost American taxpayers (at least) $77,000 to finish dancing at the Olympics.

At least that's what conservatives say. Like William Kristol a week ago in The Weekly Standard:
Almost two weeks ago, I speculated on Fox News Sunday that Mitt Romney would announce his vice presidential pick early next week, on August 6 or 7. It was, if I may say, a reasonably well-informed forecast at the time. But I didn't take into account the existence and importance of the redoubtable Rafalca, the Romneys' equestrian Olympian, who's apparently made it to the final dressage round on August 7 in London.

Ann Romney, understandably, wants to be there to see Rafalca do his thing. But she also, of course, should be at the vice presidential announcement and the subsequent barnstorming with the VP pick and his spouse. So the announcement of Marco Rubio or Paul Ryan (Steve Hayes and I explain why it really needs to be one or the other in this week's editorial, available online early Saturday morning) has been pushed back, and will apparently take place a bit later in the month.

The Lazy Paperboy

Some say he’s half man half fish, others say he’s more of a seventy/thirty split. Either way he’s a fishy bastard.


Anonymous said...

I call horseshit. The Romneys have only deducted $50 of losses so far. At their effective tax rate of 14%, they 'saved' 9 dollars in taxes but probably paid more in CPA fees to take the deduction. If they were to claim the other $77K in deductions, it still would only save them around $10K. Not a trivial amount to you or me perhaps, but only a smidge of the $2M+ in taxes they paid in 2010.

"so far"

That's the point. We don't know what this prancing tax deduction cost in previous years or may in the future. All we've seen is a nice fat number on one return.

Wonder what the Ryan plan would say.

Dave said...

OK, so say I have a really expensive hobby (such as restoring vintage and classic motorcycles, perhaps), instead of just telling people I have "a really expensive hobby," I can classify it as a revenue-losing business and write it all off? Is that how it works?

W.C. Varones said...

Um, no:
In order to make this determination, taxpayers should consider the following factors:

Does the time and effort put into the activity indicate an intention to make a profit?
Does the taxpayer depend on income from the activity?
If there are losses, are they due to circumstances beyond the taxpayer’s control or did they occur in the start-up phase of the business?
Has the taxpayer changed methods of operation to improve profitability?
Does the taxpayer or his/her advisors have the knowledge needed to carry on the activity as a successful business?
Has the taxpayer made a profit in similar activities in the past?
Does the activity make a profit in some years?
Can the taxpayer expect to make a profit in the future from the appreciation of assets used in the activity?

If Mrs. Romney is claiming a business deduction, it's likely because she has offsetting revenue in the form of prize money, endorsements, or horse jizz. Nothing sneaky about that. In America, we are still allowed (for the time being, at least) to pursue business activities that are aligned with our interests.