Amazed
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2011
- Messages
- 1,001
- Reaction score
- 159
- Location
- North of Dorothy's Home.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
Personally, I fail to see why something like this is even considered an issue.
I wonder how much extra the other "Tax Me More" crowd paid?
.
Because Bammy and the Left keep making it an issue.
It's called Class Warfare.....and they've been using it since the turn of the Century.
The people that use it the most have Old Money.
Personally, I fail to see why something like this is even considered an issue.
Because people like Obama think everyone that is rich like himself should pay more taxes, but he is just got done avoiding it.
So, the lack of an extra contribution to taxes, that is so small, compared to the total numbers as to be meaningless is somehow evidence of a lack of morality/character/whatever it is you happen to be complaining about?
The practical utility of paying a small tax rate for a single individual is so meaningless that this is a nonissue.
Ahhh, here we go...your Leaders are supreme hypocrites.....as someone else said....for them its ALWAYS do as I say...not as I do.
I am still waiting for one LEFTY to show where they have EVER sent anything "extra" in.
Sorry, the true "nonsense" lies in the incessant whine that the "Rich" don't pay their "fair share".
....and that the ONLY answer anyone on the Left make the rich pay for everything....sorry....but it's true.
Now let Bammy GIVE everything but his Presidential Salary to the IRS and perhaps I'll listen to him when he is crying about the "other" rich folk.
I can't speak for Obama's conscience, but given his high profile Ivy League background I doubt he finds irrational actions personally meaningful. Why would you hurt your family to make a point nobody cares about? Given his duties as a father and husband, that would be irresponsible.
Making a statement like that gets his point across to the extent it has to be get across, actually giving back his money would be over the top.
People can't be consistently expected to act against their economic self-interest.
That's why he's appealing to society to act on their economic self-interest and pass the burden of taxes to the wealthy.
You obviously seem to be missing the point of what I am saying.
Here is a hint, its about the practical effect of an action.
No...sorry, it's youwho seem to be missing the point
Leadership.....not whining....and Bammy's ONLY action is to blame others for everything...you give the Bamster a pass as he decries other people for doing the same thing he does within the Rules of the Tax Code...it ain't the "revenue" skippy...it's the spending.
Econ 101.
Why did you just bring up his Ivy League background? What difference does that make? Does it take a ivy league education to see that he should act according to his beliefs?
As for the parent issue, he feels the money is extra, not needed, it wouldn't be irresponsible to pay more on that ground.
So paying the legal tax rate is avoiding it?
He's acted consistently with his beliefs. If he believed people would voluntarily pay more taxes, then he wouldn't be demanding a law to force them. If people gave what was needed to society willingly, then welfare programs wouldn't exist.
Obama partakes of the same self-interest as everyone else in society, because neither he nor anyone else has strong personal incentive not to. Doesn't mean that self-interest should be allowed to continue if it compromises the continuation of the nation.
I bring up his Ivy League education because that background can foster a certain attitude about irrationality.
As opposed to leading by "giving" more himself....you are making an assumption about him you can't support.
He's acted consistently with his beliefs. If he believed people would voluntarily pay more taxes, then he wouldn't be demanding a law to force them. If people gave what was needed to society willingly, then welfare programs wouldn't exist.
Obama partakes of the same self-interest as everyone else in society, because neither he nor anyone else has strong personal incentive not to. Doesn't mean that self-interest should be allowed to continue if it compromises the continuation of the nation.
I bring up his Ivy League education because that background can foster a certain attitude about irrationality.
You'll have to elaborate on that one.
what is stopping him is a tax code laden with tax loopholes. the ones he wants closed
it appears you ignored the statement of Judge Learned Hand
You are assuming the he would take the step to "give" more himself, that is an assumption on your part...
If he believed people would voluntarily pay more taxes, then he wouldn't be demanding a law to force them. If people gave what was needed to society willingly, then welfare programs wouldn't exist.
As to your second point.....it does not recognize that the "programs" themselves are failures, nor that that they are out of control spending wise....it simply "assumes" that we as Americans "don't give enough".
You are assuming the he would take the step to "give" more himself, that is an assumption on your part...
I got a feeling if he had paid more, you'd be saying something about how he must think we are all dumb, how else would he think we'd all follow the 'messiah' and do something as idiotic and give more money than we had to to the government.
That or some other BS.
Are there not enough debates about welfare programs without bringing their efficiency or lack thereof to bare here? This is about the personal ethics of demanding tax increases on an income bracket when you are capitalizing on all the tax breaks you can under the current tax code.
Why didn't Obama pay 100% taxes?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?