Obama takes advantage of tax code... to pay lower rate than his secretary?

[cpwill]

:lol:

and also took advantage of the ability to give tax-free to their children, thereby unfairly advantaging their daughters against other kids who weren't the kids of multi-millionaires. When will Obama's trust-fund-baby-protecting ways end?

President Obama and his wife, Michele, gave a total of $48,000 in tax-free gifts to their daughters, according to tax records made public on Friday...

There is nothing illegal about the president’s taking advantage of this tax shelter, but it does raise eyebrows given that he has lamented the myriad tax exemptions used by the wealthy—“millionaires and billionaires” like himself—to pay less in taxes. He has yet to propose a comprehensive plan to reform the byzantine tax code...

The Obamas paid a total federal tax rate of 20.5 percent on a gross adjusted income $789,674, which would typically fall within the top federal rate of 35 percent. According to an analysis of the president’s tax return, he may have paid a lower rate than his secretary despite making more than eight times as much money as she did.

His most recent tax proposal—the so-called “Buffett Rule”—would increase taxes on about 4,000 millionaires and raise about $4.7 billion in new revenue per year, enough to cover about 0.4 percent of the projected budget deficit in 2012. Though the rule would apparently not hit the president himself.


Supporters of the rule have acknowledged that the projected revenue from the “Buffett Rule,” which the Democratic-led Senate is expected to vote down, is “not even a meaningful small amount.”..

remember. taxes. they're for the suckers.

 

[Josie]

But he said the other day that he should be paying more. So... why doesn't he?

 

[Your Star]

So? I don't blame rich people for taking advantages of those things, because anyone here would do the exact same thing. I blame the government for letting those things be allowed in the first place. The whole we need to raise taxes on the richest of us is not about demonizing the rich, it's about the need for more revenue. And the complaints about the way the tax laws are not are not complaints on the rich, or successful, but a complaint against the government.

 

[Josie]

So? I don't blame rich people for taking advantages of those things, because anyone here would do the exact same thing. I blame the government for letting those things be allowed in the first place. The whole we need to raise taxes on the richest of us is not about demonizing the rich, it's about the need for more revenue. And the complaints about the way the tax laws are not are not complaints on the rich, or successful, but a complaint against the government.

But any person can pay MORE taxes - just write a check. Those rich people who say they should be paying more.... why don't they?

 

[Your Star]

But any person can pay MORE taxes - just write a check. Those rich people who say they should be paying more.... why don't they?

Rather pointless unless everyone is doing it.

 

[Chiefgator]

The fact that the President used the same tax shelters that he has railed against is very telling IMHO.

However, the analysis is pretty flawed. That is the President's net tax rate after adjustments. They used the secretary's gross income. Apples to oranges and all that.

 

[Josie]

Rather pointless unless everyone is doing it.

It's not pointless at all. It's more money than the government would've had.

 

[Your Star]

It's not pointless at all. It's more money than the government would've had.

But that's like adding a gallon of water to a field during a drought and think that's going to help. It's not.

 

[cpwill]

Rather pointless unless everyone is doing it.

unless, of course, you publicly argue that the wealthy have a moral duty to pay more......


But if your argument here is that Obama is a hypocritical cynic who pushes an agenda that he believes will increase revenues, I'd buy that.

 

[cpwill]

But that's like adding a gallon of water to a field during a drought and think that's going to help. It's not.

....I think you meant to be describing the Buffet Rule overall.

 

[Your Star]

....I think you meant to be describing the Buffet Rule overall.

Which is why I support ending the Bush era tax cuts all together.

 

[Your Star]

unless, of course, you publicly argue that the wealthy have a moral duty to pay more......


But if your argument here is that Obama is a hypocritical cynic who pushes an agenda that he believes will increase revenues, I'd buy that.

He also did pay 20% of his income to charity :shrug:

Like I said it's not a personal responsibility issue, it's a policy issue, that one could argue has a moral component. It's not hard to see unless you want to be angry at something.

 

[TurtleDude]

So? I don't blame rich people for taking advantages of those things, because anyone here would do the exact same thing. I blame the government for letting those things be allowed in the first place. The whole we need to raise taxes on the richest of us is not about demonizing the rich, it's about the need for more revenue. And the complaints about the way the tax laws are not are not complaints on the rich, or successful, but a complaint against the government.

we don't need more revenue, we need disincentives for people to reward politicians with votes when those politicians promise more spending.

the only way to do that is to make those who currently reward politicians with votes for more spending pay more taxes. ie the middle and lower classes

 

[cpwill]

He also did pay 20% of his income to charity

that is true. he started doing that when he ran for the Presidency. Prior to that, he looked more like Vice President Biden.

Like I said it's not a personal responsibility issue, it's a policy issue, that one could argue has a moral component

the problem being that he does, and then he takes the exact same action that he decries in others.

 

[TurtleDude]

Rather pointless unless everyone is doing it.

why are you in favor of just taxing the rich more when the increased revenues

1) will not pay down the debt at all

2) will encourage the dems to spend even more

3) and will suggest to many of the masses that its not their duty to demand less spending or pay more taxes

 

[TurtleDude]

Which is why I support ending the Bush era tax cuts all together.

Everyone should pay the same rate for two reasons

1) then the masses cannot be seduced into voting for politicians based on the promise that only OTHER PEOPLE will pay a higher rate

2) so that everyone suffers when taxes are raised and thus everyone will be pissed off at those who raise taxes.

 

[cpwill]

Which is why I support ending the Bush era tax cuts all together.

well kudos on you for willingness to raise taxes on everyone, at least (though I note you aren't yet a taxpayer ).


But what makes you think that raising nominal rates will cause the Government to collect more revenue?

 

[Your Star]

we don't need more revenue, we need disincentives for people to reward politicians with votes when those politicians promise more spending.

the only way to do that is to make those who currently reward politicians with votes for more spending pay more taxes. ie the middle and lower classes

Saying we don't need more revenue with our debt is silly.

And I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to that if it could be done in a way which doesn't harm the quality of life, and living standards of the poor, and middle classes. As long as it is matched with tax increases on the wealthy, realistically at a higher rate then the increases on the lower classes. Because you can't deny that the rich can pay at higher rates than the middle and lower classes without hurting their quality of life.

 

[Chiefgator]

Everyone should pay the same rate for two reasons

1) then the masses cannot be seduced into voting for politicians based on the promise that only OTHER PEOPLE will pay a higher rate

2) so that everyone suffers when taxes are raised and thus everyone will be pissed off at those who raise taxes.

These are the only reasons that a Flat Tax makes sense.
The issue is that a flat tax is much more painful to the poor. If it were not, I would support it for reason #1 alone.

 

[Your Star]

Everyone should pay the same rate for two reasons

1) then the masses cannot be seduced into voting for politicians based on the promise that only OTHER PEOPLE will pay a higher rate

2) so that everyone suffers when taxes are raised and thus everyone will be pissed off at those who raise taxes.

This is a horrible idea, because a flat tax rate hurts the poor, and middle class far more than it does the rich. It hurts their quality of life, and provides for a less mobile society in terms of being able to be born poor, and die rich, or middle class, or any other variation of that. While a progressive tax eases the burden on the poor, and does not hurt the quality of life of the rich as a flat tax rate does to the poor.

 

[Your Star]

that is true. he started doing that when he ran for the Presidency. Prior to that, he looked more like Vice President Biden.

The point is he did it.

the problem being that he does, and then he takes the exact same action that he decries in others.

He's not really demonizing others about the action, he is just demonizing the policy, and the people who are in favor of said policy.

 

[TurtleDude]

Saying we don't need more revenue with our debt is silly.

And I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to that if it could be done in a way which doesn't harm the quality of life, and living standards of the poor, and middle classes. As long as it is matched with tax increases on the wealthy, realistically at a higher rate then the increases on the lower classes. Because you can't deny that the rich can pay at higher rates than the middle and lower classes without hurting their quality of life.

the top few percent are the only group that pays a higher portion of the income tax burden than their share of the income. When everyone else starts paying at least their share of the income then we can talk about raising taxes on the one group that is clearly paying more of the tax burden than they should. and you know that every study has shown that even if your tripled taxes on the "rich" it would hardly dent the deficit. the only way the tax code can help rid us of the deficit is to change the attitudes of the masses towards government over spending

and the only way to do that is to make most people upset with more government spending

and that won't happen under dem soak the rich schemes

 

[jimbo]

Rather pointless unless everyone is doing it.

Why would it be pointless? I am not one who believes that I am paying less taxes than I should. It is Buffet, Barry, and a couple of others. I am not going to send the gummint a check. If anyone believes that they are undertaxed, feel free.

And, no, I don't buy into the notion that because you believe something, that I should have to believe, or do, the same thing.

 

[TurtleDude]

This is a horrible idea, because a flat tax rate hurts the poor, and middle class far more than it does the rich. It hurts their quality of life, and provides for a less mobile society in terms of being able to be born poor, and die rich, or middle class, or any other variation of that. While a progressive tax eases the burden on the poor, and does not hurt the quality of life of the rich as a flat tax rate does to the poor.

if the tax rates hurt the poor and middle class-guess what-then they will go to the polls and punish big spending politicians. Right now the current tax system encourages politicians to spend too much on the masses because the masses don't pay a proper rate for what they want

Look I realize you think the rich can pay more and more and more but right now even if the government were to take 100% of all income over 200K (which of course would result in a lot of dead people) it is not enough to pay for all the spending that is currently on the table

 

[Your Star]

the top few percent are the only group that pays a higher portion of the income tax burden than their share of the income. When everyone else starts paying at least their share of the income then we can talk about raising taxes on the one group that is clearly paying more of the tax burden than they should. and you know that every study has shown that even if your tripled taxes on the "rich" it would hardly dent the deficit. the only way the tax code can help rid us of the deficit is to change the attitudes of the masses towards government over spending

and the only way to do that is to make most people upset with more government spending

and that won't happen under dem soak the rich schemes

In actuality I remember seeing a vast number of studies saying if we returned to the Clinton era tax rates that our deficit by a significant number. The fact is this is a quality of life issue, we have to raise revenue, and doing so on the poor and middle class hurts their quality of life much more than it does on the rich. A fact you can't escape, and hurting the quality of life of the majority of the country is just bad for the country. It's never good to have a majority of the population in massive debt, and in poverty, and it is better for the wealthy to bite the bullet and pay a bit more, then to have our quality of life, and strength as a country go down. And the extra taxes won't hurt the wealthy, there doing just fine, no wealthy person is not going to be able to put food on the table because of taxes, which could happen to poor people if the things you propose happens.

It's also a little disingenuous the way you bring up these arguments. I talk about the quality of life of people, and I've never said I want to take an outrageous number of money from the rich, just a few more percent than they pay right now. And all you can counter with is "it's not fair, and people get elected that I don't like, and I want more, I want more." I would not be shocked that if the shoe was on the other foot you would be one of the people that you are complaining so much about.