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.
Buffet's secretary pays a higher effective rate than Warren himself and so does Obama's. But one is used to call attention to a problem in this country, where as liberals have been silent on Obama? What do you think about Obama's secretary paying a higher effective rate?
I think it's the same situation as Buffett's situation. The middle class cannot take advantage of as many deductions that, oftentimes, those in the higher stratosphere of earning can make. The wealthy also have certain income that is taxed at a lower rate (investment dividends) that your average working stiff doesn't have.
There's no contention here. The tax code is written in a way that favors wealthier Americans.
Buffet's secretary pays a higher effective rate than Warren himself and so does Obama's. But one is used to call attention to a problem in this country, where as liberals have been silent on Obama? What do you think about Obama's secretary paying a higher effective rate?
You know that makes absolutely no sense, since Obama is attempting to do something about the problem so why on god's green earth would any "liberal" argue something that we already know and have been pushing to change?
The logic, or better yet, the illogic of these arguments always leave me scratching my head.
Buffet's secretary pays a higher effective rate than Warren himself and so does Obama's. But one is used to call attention to a problem in this country, where as liberals have been silent on Obama? What do you think about Obama's secretary paying a higher effective rate?
Are you crazy? The fact that Obama payed a lower effective tax rate than his secretary is another example of the problem we have been complaining about. We've been silent? Heck... we've been shouting it from the rooftops.
But you know what's even more ironic? I bet you a steak dinner that if we ever get to see Romney's retuns fro this year that he paid an even lower effective tax rate than Obama while making several times more.
I think it's the same situation as Buffett's situation. The middle class cannot take advantage of as many deductions that, oftentimes, those in the higher stratosphere of earning can make. The wealthy also have certain income that is taxed at a lower rate (investment dividends) that your average working stiff doesn't have.
There's no contention here. The tax code is written in a way that favors wealthier Americans.
I would say the tax codes favors those who spend a lot of money in the right places... how would you feel if the tax rate has a fixed 15% income taxes across all incomes... I seriously doubt any liberal would like that either... which is ironic that liberals hate the idea that someone else pays the same tax rate as themselves... the liberals also hate that the tax system is geared towards earned income rather than unearned income... while loving the benefits of investments through technology, entertainment, etc etc...
You know that makes absolutely no sense, since Obama is attempting to do something about the problem so why on god's green earth would any "liberal" argue something that we already know and have been pushing to change?
The logic, or better yet, the illogic of these arguments always leave me scratching my head.
Well, hell.....obamas the prez...he should lead the way, right, that's what leaders do...
I think it's the same situation as Buffett's situation. The middle class cannot take advantage of as many deductions that, oftentimes, those in the higher stratosphere of earning can make. The wealthy also have certain income that is taxed at a lower rate (investment dividends) that your average working stiff doesn't have.
There's no contention here. The tax code is written in a way that favors wealthier Americans.
Are you crazy? The fact that Obama payed a lower effective tax rate than his secretary is another example of the problem we have been complaining about. We've been silent? Heck... we've been shouting it from the rooftops.
But you know what's even more ironic? I bet you a steak dinner that if we ever get to see Romney's retuns fro this year that he paid an even lower effective tax rate than Obama while making several times more.
I believe it was 2010 that Romney paid an effective tax rate of 14%. I don't begrudge anyone: Romney, Obama, Obama's secretary for playing by the rules that are in place. I'm not gonna trash Romeny for it unless he somehow comes out and says our tax code is fair.
If mr. buffet is behind, why has he not paid? Or is mr. buffet going to go to court over his taxes?
DOHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!
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.
