PDA

View Full Version : Fair Share???



road kill
04-14-2012, 05:28 AM
I guess that all matters who is paying.
Evidently, the Royal Family paid a lower rate than thier Secretary!




Obama paid lower tax rate than secretary
Published April 13, 2012
FoxNews.com






President, vice president release tax...


The politics of capital gains


Have you filed your taxes yet?
President Obama and first lady Michelle Obama had a combined income of $789,674 in 2011 but paid a lower tax rate than the president's secretary, who made less than $100,000, the White House confirmed Friday.

The Obamas paid an effective rate of 20.5 percent. White House aides would not reveal presidential secretary Anita Breckenridge’s tax rate but confirmed it was higher than the first family's rate. Breckenridge earned $95,000 last year.

The Obamas' rate is less than the 30 percent the president wants millionaires to pay under his proposed Buffett Rule.

“The president’s secretary pays a slightly higher rate ... than the president on her substantially lower income, which is exactly why we need to reform our tax code and ask the wealthiest to pay their fair share,” White House spokeswoman Amy Brundage told Fox News.

The release Friday of the tax returns for the president and the family of Vice President Joe Biden came on the same day in which the Obama campaign in Chicago attacked likely GOP-presidential nominee Mitt Romney for, so far, releasing only his most recent tax returns.

“Did he pay a lower income tax rate than the 13.9 percent he paid in 2010 and is that why he opposes the Buffett Rule to ensure millionaires don’t pay less taxes than middle-class families?” Obama campaign manager Jim Messina asked in a press release from the campaign.

Later in the day, a Romney spokeswoman said Romney has file for an extension and would make public his 2011 returns before the November election.

The Obamas paid more than $160,000 in federal taxes last year.

The president's 2011 federal income tax return shows reported adjusted gross income of about $790,000 last year. About half of the first family's income is the president's salary. The White House says the rest comes from sales of Obama's books.



Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/04/13/president-obama-paid-lower-tax-rate-than-his-secretary/?cmpid=prn_aol&icid=maing-grid10%7Chtmlws-main-bb%7Cdl3%7Csec1_lnk3%26pLid%3D152062#ixzz1s0d6INGI



Do as I say, not as I do.......
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


There is a word for this, what is it???


Just askin'.........


RK

Gerry Clinchy
04-14-2012, 04:05 PM
A caller on talk radio yesterday had a new definition for "The Buffet Rule" ... The Buffet Rule is that you get ten years to pay your taxes :-) [just like Mr. Buffet]

Buzz
04-14-2012, 04:50 PM
I guess that all matters who is paying.
Evidently, the Royal Family paid a lower rate than thier Secretary!



Do as I say, not as I do.......
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


There is a word for this, what is it???


Just askin'.........


RK

I don't get what you mean. He is advocating to increase his own tax rates isn't he? Does he have money in offshore shelters like some other candidate that we know?

huntinman
04-14-2012, 05:15 PM
I don't get what you mean. He is advocating to increase his own tax rates isn't he? Does he have money in offshore shelters like some other candidate that we know?

He is free to VOLUNTARILY pay as much (additional taxes) as he would like. Just like Buffet.

luvmylabs23139
04-14-2012, 05:54 PM
It wold be be nice to see all the loop holes he takes advantage of.
Alll dems should just shut up until they eliminate all refundable credits.
Eliminate the socilaist redistribution and then start talking.
As long as people have zero federal tax liability and then get A SOCIALIST check from the real federal income tax payers I don't want to hear a word!!!!
Fairnesss starts with nobody getting a check from money taken from someone else!!!

Gerry Clinchy
04-14-2012, 06:10 PM
I don't get what you mean. He is advocating to increase his own tax rates isn't he? Does he have money in offshore shelters like some other candidate that we know?
Actually, doesn't O's newest proposal apply only to those who earn $1 million or more?

Guess he sorta had to back down on the $250K since he and Michelle just couldn't make it on that income. She had to add her $300K to his income. They didn't have the "luxury" of her of being a stay-at-home mom, he said.

If that is the only change made to the tax code, then O will continue to pay less in taxes than his secretary. Unless he "volunteers", extra taxes, that is.

road kill
04-14-2012, 07:42 PM
Actually, doesn't O's newest proposal apply only to those who earn $1 million or more?

Guess he sorta had to back down on the $250K since he and Michelle just couldn't make it on that income. She had to add her $300K to his income. They didn't have the "luxury" of her of being a stay-at-home mom, he said.

If that is the only change made to the tax code, then O will continue to pay less in taxes than his secretary. Unless he "volunteers", extra taxes, that is.

He IS volunteering extra taxes.....YOURS, not HIS!!!:cool:


Buzz doesn't get it though.:confused:



I don't get what you mean. He is advocating to increase his own tax rates isn't he? Does he have money in offshore shelters like some other candidate that we know?




What's the word I'm looking for here??

Buehler........anyone???????




RK

HPL
04-14-2012, 08:39 PM
Seems to me that a good start might be for Obama to be a "dollar a year man" like some of the wealthy became in the defense industry during WWII. He could just turn down the presidential salary.

HPL

Gerry Clinchy
04-15-2012, 08:40 AM
Seems to me that a good start might be for Obama to be a "dollar a year man" like some of the wealthy became in the defense industry during WWII. He could just turn down the presidential salary.

HPL
It might be difficult for them to "manage" on less than $500K/year. Although, they do get some perks by living in the White House, so that might be able to balance out somewhat.

Down East Labs 217
04-15-2012, 10:12 AM
It might be difficult for them to "manage" on less than $500K/year. Although, they do get some perks by living in the White House, so that might be able to balance out somewhat.

I hate Obuma as much as the next. But you are wrong on this statement. They have to pay for everything except boarding. They get no perks in there private quarters.

Richard

Gerry Clinchy
04-15-2012, 10:30 AM
I hate Obuma as much as the next. But you are wrong on this statement. They have to pay for everything except boarding. They get no perks in there private quarters.

Richard
I thought maybe that they did not have to pay for transportation for their personal vacations, i.e. like their Christmas holiday trips to Hawaii? Maybe they do? Would they also pay for the staff that prepares their personal (family) meals? Doubt they do their own grocery shopping. Do they pay for the staff that does the shopping for them? I'd think that all of these are "savings" v. personal living expenses when not in the WH.

Just curious ...

Gerry Clinchy
04-15-2012, 12:44 PM
Axelrod explained that the reason the president's tax rate was so low was because he donated 22 percent of his income to charity.


Hmm ... not sure if that is 22% of the $789K or of a larger income amt. Still admirable. So, if they paid 20% to taxes and 22% to charity, they only kept about 58% of their income for themselves?

Axelrod also said that the POTUS would not chip in anything more than the tax system required. He said


"We don't run bake sales. It's not about volunteerism. We all kick in according to the system."


I have a feeling that if the tax rate were higher, his charitable contribution would go downward. However, if his proposal is still 30% on those who earn $1 million or more, he might still remain untouched by such a change?

OTOH, if Obama "volunteered" to kick in his 30%, then would a lot of his wealthy supporters (like the Hollywood crowd & Buffet) follow such a lead?

Down East Labs 217
04-15-2012, 05:10 PM
I thought maybe that they did not have to pay for transportation for their personal vacations, i.e. like their Christmas holiday trips to Hawaii? Maybe they do? Would they also pay for the staff that prepares their personal (family) meals? Doubt they do their own grocery shopping. Do they pay for the staff that does the shopping for them? I'd think that all of these are "savings" v. personal living expenses when not in the WH.

Just curious ...

They pay for any food they eat in their personal quarters, the cook that prepares it and the staff that works in there personal quarters. They pay for their clothes for all functions.

As for transportation, that is free due to the logistics of transporting the POTUS. That would be the only perk I can think of.

Richard

HPL
04-15-2012, 10:53 PM
They pay for any food they eat in their personal quarters, the cook that prepares it and the staff that works in there personal quarters. They pay for their clothes for all functions.

As for transportation, that is free due to the logistics of transporting the POTUS. That would be the only perk I can think of.

Richard
I just read that there is a staff of 95 (everything from butlers and maids to chefs and maintenance people) working at the whitehouse. Can't believe that the pres pays all of them and also would have to say that they could be considered perks. Can the first family simply say "we'll do the cooking and the cleaning ourselves" and forgo paying staff?

mngundog
04-17-2012, 12:17 AM
They pay for any food they eat in their personal quarters, the cook that prepares it and the staff that works in there personal quarters. They pay for their clothes for all functions.

As for transportation, that is free due to the logistics of transporting the POTUS. That would be the only perk I can think of.

Richard
The White House budget covers three full time employees for the Exectutive Quarters on top of the Presidents personnel expense and slush fund budget of over 1 million, so I guess all his food and clothing should be covered unless he's throwing that money in the fireplace.

sandyg
04-17-2012, 08:35 AM
Is this one of the loopholes that need closing?


http://freebeacon.com/obama-family-tax-shelter/
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.

The president and his wife separately gave each daughter a $12,000 gift under a section of the federal tax code that exempts such donations from federal taxes.

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 Obama’s tax return indicates that the gifts, likely for their daughter’s college educations, began in 2007, when the maximum exemptible amount was $24,000 per couple. The maximum exemption has since increased to $26,000 per couple.

road kill
04-17-2012, 08:39 AM
Is this one of the loopholes that need closing?


http://freebeacon.com/obama-family-tax-shelter/
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.

The president and his wife separately gave each daughter a $12,000 gift under a section of the federal tax code that exempts such donations from federal taxes.

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 Obama’s tax return indicates that the gifts, likely for their daughter’s college educations, began in 2007, when the maximum exemptible amount was $24,000 per couple. The maximum exemption has since increased to $26,000 per couple.

There is a word for that, but I can't remember it.

I wish someone, anyone, could help me with it.

I think it starts with an H!!!!


RK

Buzz
04-17-2012, 08:56 AM
Is this one of the loopholes that need closing?


http://freebeacon.com/obama-family-tax-shelter/
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.

The president and his wife separately gave each daughter a $12,000 gift under a section of the federal tax code that exempts such donations from federal taxes.

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 Obama’s tax return indicates that the gifts, likely for their daughter’s college educations, began in 2007, when the maximum exemptible amount was $24,000 per couple. The maximum exemption has since increased to $26,000 per couple.

Good grief! You subscribe to the ideals held by a party that is totally against the "death tax." This is one way for parents to pass some of their wealth on to their kids over the years and avoid taxes on it. But since Obama has taken advantage of the law, NOW YOU'RE AGAINST IT AND THINK IT SHOULD BE REPEALED.

What a freak'in JOKE!

road kill
04-17-2012, 09:03 AM
Good grief! You subscribe to the ideals held by a party that is totally against the "death tax." This is one way for parents to pass some of their wealth on to their kids over the years and avoid taxes on it. But since Obama has taken advantage of the law, NOW YOU'RE AGAINST IT AND THINK IT SHOULD BE REPEALED.

What a freak'in JOKE!
No, we are NOT aginst it, Obama is.
Have you been paying any attention at all to his rhetoric?:rolleyes:

Yet HE uses it to his advantage.

Again, what's the word????


RK

Buzz
04-17-2012, 09:07 AM
No, we are NOT aginst it, Obama is.
Have you been paying any attention at all to his rhetoric?:rolleyes:

Yet HE uses it to his advantage.

Again, what's the word????


RK


I think the word is SMART. He would be an idiot not to take advantage of the laws as written. And has he specifically spoken out agains this loophole? I have not heard it.

sandyg
04-17-2012, 09:15 AM
Good grief! You subscribe to the ideals held by a party that is totally against the "death tax." This is one way for parents to pass some of their wealth on to their kids over the years and avoid taxes on it. But since Obama has taken advantage of the law, NOW YOU'RE AGAINST IT AND THINK IT SHOULD BE REPEALED.

What a freak'in JOKE!

Why is it when big corporations (big oil and GE) take advantage of every tax deduction that was approved by Congress it is considered evil and they aren't paying their fair share and they are going against the spirit of the law but when your guy does it it's OK?

I wonder what your reaction would have been if this was Bush's tax return... And if you say you would have felt the same way, I don't believe you!!!

luvmylabs23139
04-17-2012, 09:15 AM
I think the word is SMART. He would be an idiot not to take advantage of the laws as written. And has he specifically spoken out agains this loophole? I have not heard it.


He constantly claims he wants to pay more well guess what he can write a check to the treasury and leave everyone else alone!:rolleyes:

Ask that SOCIALIST IDIOT why a person should have a negative tax liability and be entitled to what someone else earned!!!!!

road kill
04-17-2012, 09:19 AM
I think the word is SMART. He would be an idiot not to take advantage of the laws as written. And has he specifically spoken out agains this loophole? I have not heard it.

I think the word is;

HYPOCRITE!!!

Do as I say, not as I do!

If he is smart for doing it, then why doesn't that apply to everyone else??


RK

Buzz
04-17-2012, 09:35 AM
Why is it when big corporations (big oil and GE) take advantage of every tax deduction that was approved by Congress it is considered evil and they aren't paying their fair share and they are going against the spirit of the law but when your guy does it it's OK?

I wonder what your reaction would have been if this was Bush's tax return... And if you say you would have felt the same way, I don't believe you!!!

I don't think I ever said that corporations were evil for taking advantage of the laws. However, I think the laws are evil and I know that corporations pay lobbyists to get their loopholes written into law.

luvmylabs23139
04-17-2012, 09:39 AM
I don't think I ever said that corporations were evil for taking advantage of the laws. However, I think the laws are evil and I know that corporations pay lobbyists to get their loopholes written into law.


What about the leaches that pay zero federal taxes and when they file they get a nice check from the real federal income taxpayers?

Are not the leaches evil????

Buzz
04-17-2012, 10:00 AM
What about the leaches that pay zero federal taxes and when they file they get a nice check from the real federal income taxpayers?

Are not the leaches evil????

They are filing according to current tax law. How does that make them evil?:confused:

luvmylabs23139
04-17-2012, 10:11 AM
They are filing according to current tax law. How does that make them evil?:confused:
Let me rephrase. Isn't that tax law evil? After all you and I work hard for our money. Why should the gov't take what we worked for and give it to someone else?
Doesn't that piss you off?

ARay11
04-17-2012, 11:39 AM
There is a word for that, but I can't remember it.

I wish someone, anyone, could help me with it.

I think it starts with an H!!!!


RK


Hip...
Hip hop...
Hiphopannonymus??

ohhhh....

HIPPO... Hippo CRIT !!

sandyg
04-17-2012, 12:19 PM
I don't think I ever said that corporations were evil for taking advantage of the laws. However, I think the laws are evil and I know that corporations pay lobbyists to get their loopholes written into law.

Much like the quid pro quo whereby Democratic politicians make laws that benefit the labor unions in exchange for their campaign contributions and votes. But of course you don't see it that way!

Why am I even debating this with a liberal? It's like trying to pick up a turd by the clean end. I'll go back to work now...