I guess that is my point. Whether he paid none, which I agree isn't as likely, it is very possible it was a small percentage. What if (notice the IF) he only paid 3% to 8% over those years because of LEGAL loopholes? Wouldn't that bring attention (unwanted attention) about how many loopholes exist solely for the very wealthy?
I know, all of it is a big question, and mostly because Romney refuses to release his taxes. Yeah, he doesn't HAVE to but seems pretty injurious at this point not to. So, the next logical question is "why not" and that is what people are doing. Asking themselves what he has in them that he would take such injury politically to hide. Legal stuff of course.
I agree it would bring attention, unwanted on his part and on the wealthy individuals. I would love to see all the loopholes, then there could be a discussion on how to close the egregious ones.
I guess another question is how do people determine the percents he paid. Effective tax rate is almost always the Tax liability/Taxable Income. It seems most people, understandably, are using Tax Liability/AGI. I would like to point out when people say they pay a higher tax rate than Mitt most likely are assuming their marginal rate is their total tax rate.
As to what is in them I am not too sure, the only thing I know for sure is in the 2009 tax return he reported a 3,000 capital loss. Most likely had the same for 2008. Compared to, I believe, around 12 million in 2010 and 2011. Now, not trying to make you seem unintelligent or anything, but to the average Joe/Jane would that not seem extremely fishy to have 12 million capital gains in one year and the previous year have a 3000 capital loss?
The world may never know about the rest of those returns.