I'm kinda intrigued about this whole accusation by Harry Reid that Mitt Romney paid no taxes for ten years. Let's stipulate first that it sure sounds like it ain't true and if I had to bet, that's how I'd bet. Fortunately, I don't have to bet.
Reading the online articles about it all, I'm still not clear as to whether Reid's charge is that Mitt Romney paid $0.00 for ten years or if the charge is somewhat more approximate than that. If it came out that Romney paid a few grand in tax on an income of many millions, a lot of us would say, "He paid nothing." Is that what Reid means? Google just paid a fine of $22.5 million for some infraction. Some people would say that was nothing. Or does he mean absolute zero?
And what kind of source could Reid have had that had access to Romney's tax data over a decade? Even assuming there was a source at all — and that part sounds kinda fishy — I've heard false information from folks you'd assume would be in a position to know. Reid is not running for another term (at least not now) so he may not be worried about sullying his own rep and may figure the damage to the Romney campaign is worth it. Or he may figure that if it pressures Romney into releasing his taxes, there'll be revelations there that will make it worth it.
A lot of fact-checking sites are rushing to brand Reid a pants-on-fire liar and he may well be, though I think that verdict may be premature. Some of them consulted experts to ask if it was possible that Mitt Romney could legally have paid no taxes for ten years. (And they're all assuming, let's note, that if he did that, he would have done so legally.) Apparently, it's unlikely but remotely possible.
But this gets back to the question I asked of whether we're talking here about paying zero or about paying what seems like zero to a man with Romney's income. If it came out that Romney had paid $500 a year, I think a lot of people and fact-checkers would owe Harry Reid at least a partial apology. I don't expect any part of that to happen, however.