Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So please, then, spin this for me. How is all of this making big, bad Obama a hypocrite? He is filing with the tax code, just like me, and I assume just like you. He wants to change it so that his secretary pays less tax than him. Please tell me your point because I haven't seen it yet aside from "nanny, nanny boo boo Obama paid less tax than his poor down-trodden secretary." Again, this would be hilariously funny had Obama gone out and said the tax code was fair.
I notice when the right brings up that the "rich" pay more in total dollars, the left replies with percentages.
Now they want to frame the discussion with percentages.
Actually, it's not all I have, it's simply the simplest thing I feel that you will comprehend?
I am not changing subjects, you asked a question, and I answered. If you don't like the answer, don't ask the question.
It is all you have and now, in sentence one above you are going to underhandly attack my intelligence. Because you still cannot comprehend that your first post was idiotic.
YOU still haven't come back and answered the question as to what the big deal is with this. It's expected, it's known, and they will probably use it as a campaign issue with regard to the tax code.
You thought you were posting something SO clever that would disparage your enemy president and you failed to do that with your fascinating intelligence.
Also, the WH is pointing out that this is EXACTLY the problem with the tax code, they aren't dodging the issue, they are making a point with it (which is the only reason you are hearing about it in the first place)
But Obama's proposed "fix" for this problem is his Buffet rule. But even if it was the law today, it wouldn't have applied to Obama, so it wouldn't have mattered, even though they have income approaching $1 million. We've also learned that the Buffet rule would produce very little revenue so it is not effective to reduce the deficit. It's simply a political ploy to support his us vs them election year theme.
If its really all about fairness, the hypocrit in chief is not required to take every single deduction available to him under the tax code. Neither is Buffet (who is litigating tax issues with the IRS I'm told).
Isn't this exactly what Obama was fighting against -- The top 1% (which includes HIM) paying less in taxes than their secretary?
Is this the part where we pretend Democrats controlled the entire federal government for two full years and simply forgot to raise taxes on millionaires?
If its really all about fairness, the hypocrit in chief is not required to take every single deduction available to him under the tax code. Neither is Buffet (who is litigating tax issues with the IRS I'm told).
Anyone who doesn't take every deduction available to them is not very wise and probably not a very good money manager. I don't care if you make $35,000 a year or $35,000,000 per year, you should be taking care of your money like it was your baby and doing everything you can to insure that you pay the taxes you should based on today's current tax code. If you want to give back because you feel like you've made too much money, do it by way of charitable contributions. The way for correcting tax code injustices is through reform and not through donations.
Is this the part where we pretend Democrats controlled the entire federal government for two full years and simply forgot to raise taxes on millionaires?
Clever to wait until the 2010 election results were in before screwing the next generation.
Wasn't he held hostage on that in order to get buy off on extension of unemployment benefits that so many needed after losing so much when everything crashed?
And from your article:
Quote:
Had Congress not acted to address the expiring Bush-era tax cuts, all Americans would have seen a tax increase on January 1st. (The average tax increase per family, the White House said, would have been $3,000.) Mr. Obama, who had long opposed extending the Bush tax cuts for America's highest-earners, has argued he had no choice but to agree to GOP demands to do so in order to avoid a tax increase on the middle class
.
If my memory serves me, he only wanted to repeal the Bush cuts for those over $250,000 but the lovely GOP would not agree. It was all or nothing.
As I said in another thread, this is the usual stupid comeback posted when you can't admit the truth. At my salary, I probably have a lower tax rate than Obama's secretary. I happen to think that the tax code needs to be rewritten. That doesn't mean that I am going to start paying more just because I disagree with the tax code. You work to change the code, the laws, the regulations. Cutting a check to the treasury does nothing about the inequities in the tax system. Speaking out about and trying to make changes does.
At least as a wealthy person, he has the guts to come out and state that there is unfairness in the system toward working middle class people. But you go ahead and defend the other wealthy folks who couldn't give a crap about them and want to destroy them further.
"Speaking out about and trying to make changes does. At least as a wealthy person, he has the guts to come out and state that there is unfairness in the system toward working middle class people."
Has no one ever told you that talk is cheap?
He has been in office more than three years.
Democrats have proven with Obamacare that they can enact even very unpopular laws IF THEY WANT TO, so now as the election approaches we are told we need to raise taxes on the wealthy?
OK, but I was really expecting to hear something about our record deficits and out of control spending.
If they p*ssed away what they were given before, is giving them even more a practical solution?
"Speaking out about and trying to make changes does. At least as a wealthy person, he has the guts to come out and state that there is unfairness in the system toward working middle class people."
Has no one ever told you that talk is cheap?
He has been in office more than three years.
Democrats have proven with Obamacare that they can enact even very unpopular laws IF THEY WANT TO, so now as the election approaches we are told we need to raise taxes on the wealthy?
OK, but I was really expecting to hear something about our record deficits and out of control spending.
If they p*ssed away what they were given before, is giving them even more a practical solution?
Let's see the spending cuts first.
I am in favor of massive spending cuts as well as increases in taxes in some areas by way of closing loopholes. I don't disagree with what you have stated.
What I have trouble with in this thread is someone being in shock and awe that a wealthy person as a lower effective tax rate than an unwealthy person. To me, it is expected. I certainly don't think the president is a monstor because his effective taxes paid were lower than a much less paid individual. It think it just highlights what is wrong with the system.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
