DJ White House: Obamas Report $1.7M Adjusted Gross Income For 2010

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
You should never violate the rules of the game even if you don't agree with them. This is true even if the violation helps or harms your cause.

For example, just because you might not like a rule in a certain sport, you don't give your opponents points right off the bat. You don't give the Yankees 3 points since you think the player's salaries are unfair. You don't give Danica Patrick 2 laps lead since you think NASCAR is unfair to women. You don't give the Giants a touchdown since you think the kickoff location should be moved 5 yards. No, you play by the rules while trying to fix them for next year.

Same with taxes. It is a morons game to not play exactly by the rules, even if you think the rules are broken. No one person can make a dent in the debt on their own. Thus doing what you say would be a moron's task. Which is why you demand it of democrats (since you want to make them morons). They don't bite on ideas that stupid. The only way to solve the revenue problem is to get millions of people paying more. Just writing one check from one person would do nothing signficant. Obama will gladly pay more taxes, but only if the rest of us join him. That is the key word "shared" sacrifice.
Since by your standards principles are things one forces on others, presumably you have no problem with the Bush tax cuts for high earners, since that was also done using the rules of the game. Or for the ultra wealthy buying politicians and negotiating their own breaks and deductions, also using the rules of the game.
 

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,320
3
0
I'm still surprised that nobody has made a stink about him having about $200,000 in foreign income that is not taxable in the US. This is the exact situation that has evoked calls of unpatriotic, criminal bastards directed at corporations with massive profits.

That's because it is fine when a liberal elite does it.
 

bfdd

Lifer
Feb 3, 2007
13,312
1
0
btw not to sound like a douche, but doesn't that seem rather high of a salary for a public worker? I'm not sure the president making a top 1% salary is the right thing. Public service jobs should be in the name of public service, not fattening your bank account.
 

wayliff

Lifer
Nov 28, 2002
11,720
11
81
btw not to sound like a douche, but doesn't that seem rather high of a salary for a public worker? I'm not sure the president making a top 1% salary is the right thing. Public service jobs should be in the name of public service, not fattening your bank account.

I am pretty sure his income from being the president is, or around, US$400k.
The vice-president is, or around, US$200k.

As for the rest, he surely had other sources of income. Royalties? Investments? I don't know.

I don't believe that politicians run for President so they can get presidential wages.

http://www.lib.umich.edu/node/11736/
This does not have current figures.
 

wayliff

Lifer
Nov 28, 2002
11,720
11
81
I'm still surprised that nobody has made a stink about him having about $200,000 in foreign income that is not taxable in the US. This is the exact situation that has evoked calls of unpatriotic, criminal bastards directed at corporations with massive profits.

And what would be the immediate gain from bringing that up?
Just to prove something?

If Bush or Obama were\are able to do that then good for them. If "The People" doesn't like it, then they should request reform so it does not happen for anyone. Not sure that it would go far anyway...
 

dainthomas

Lifer
Dec 7, 2004
14,954
3,944
136
Maybe Obama should set the example for the rich and write a check to the US government.

The fact that the trolls on here denigrate Obama even when he donates an eighth of his income to charity shows how truly far the level of discourse has fallen.
 

Throckmorton

Lifer
Aug 23, 2007
16,829
3
0
The other way to look at it is that without the standard deduction, your expenses were pretty minimal and you would have itemized far less. So your taxes would have been much higher.

Honestly, what you need to do is to learn tax planning. Suppose itemized deductions are going to be $11,600 for the next 2 years. Suppose you have $8000 in itemized deductions for the next 2 years. You have three options.
1) Take the itemized deduction each year. $8000 + $8000 = $16,000 in deductions. Pretty stupid move to take this route.
2) Take the standard deduction each year. $11,600 + $11,600 = $23,200 in deductions. This is what most people in your situation do.
3) Move your expenses around, take the standard deduction one year and the itemized deduction the next year. For example, if you move your expenses to be $3000 and $13000 (same total amount), you can take the $11,600 deduction one year and a $13,000 deduction the next year. Total $24,600.

In the 30% tax bracket (25% federal + 5% state), you'd save $420 every other year by doing #3.

Medical bills can't often be moved (like an emergency hernia operation), but often they can be (many hernia operations can be delayed for years if you choose). Taxes and interest can often be prepaid. Charity can be saved up for multiple years and donated in the year when you have high medical bills and you prepaid your taxes/interest.

You can deduct things the rich do, but first you need to be as smart about taxes as they are.

Wow, you can do amazing stuff when you don't live paycheck to paycheck...

The standard deduction was $5700 though.
 

wayliff

Lifer
Nov 28, 2002
11,720
11
81
Obviously you haven't read many posts in this forum. The rich must be taxed more because they're not giving their fair share.

I misunderstood your comment. I thought it meant that there had been a political display\comment trying to unmask such evil...I did not remember one and wanted to ask.