• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."
  • Community Question: What makes a good motherboard?

Obama's Share

2timer

Golden Member
Apr 20, 2012
1,803
0
0
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324240804578418842282798284.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsThird

He and Mooch pay a mere 18% on over half a million in income. So if you pay more than 18% you should be good.

I consistently pay in the 20's and I don't make jack shit compared to them. :mad:

Enough of the rich need to pay their fair share BS already.
Fucking hilarious. Obama has been fighting Republicans for a higher tax rate on the most wealthy, and now you are mad at Obama because, well, he's getting a Republican tax rate.

You are not so smart.
 

chucky2

Lifer
Dec 9, 1999
10,038
36
86
Waaaahhh???? You are telling me they did not back up their desires with action and lead the way by paying what they feel their "fair share" really should be? You mean they pulled a Warren?

Say it ain't so...
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
28,182
7,997
136
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324240804578418842282798284.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsThird

He and Mooch pay a mere 18% on over half a million in income. So if you pay more than 18% you should be good.

I consistently pay in the 20's and I don't make jack shit compared to them. :mad:

Enough of the rich need to pay their fair share BS already.
Did you vote for Romney? Did you vote for any republicans?

Only one party was against raising taxes on the top earners. Only one presidential candidate said he should pay more in taxes.

It's good that you see the issue with taxes and income levels, the question then becomes what are you doing about it? Are you voting for those that agree with you or are you voting against them.
 

Annisman*

Golden Member
Aug 20, 2010
1,827
63
91
Pretty sure he got massive deductions for all his charitable expeditures, otherwise it would be a much higher percent correct ?
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
28,182
7,997
136
Waaaahhh???? You are telling me they did not back up their desires with action and lead the way by paying what they feel their "fair share" really should be? You mean they pulled a Warren?

Say it ain't so...
Stupid dictator needs to learn to dictate, am I right!?




/s
 

Fern

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 30, 2003
26,916
172
106
Pretty sure he got massive deductions for all his charitable expeditures, otherwise it would be a much higher percent correct ?
Yes.

(I dislike using AGI to determine the effective rate for this reason.)

Also, the new higher rates only began 1/1/13.

Fern
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,876
460
126
Fucking hilarious. Obama has been fighting Republicans for a higher tax rate on the most wealthy, and now you are mad at Obama because, well, he's getting a Republican tax rate.

You are not so smart.
Given that no one is twisting Obama's arm to force him to claim those deductions, I'd say it's abundantly clear that he believes that other people should pay higher rates, not him. An equivalent would be saying "I believe that premarital sex is wrong - but since everyone else is doing it I'm gonna get me some too, while arguing that other people should not be allowed to do the same."
 

marincounty

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2005
3,236
4
76
No, he's paying what is required by law. And arguing for higher taxes for the rich, including himself. Hypocrisy not found.
If the resident righties object to Social Security, unemployment, disability insurance, etc.., then they should refuse to accept these govt services.
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
28,182
7,997
136
Given that no one is twisting Obama's arm to force him to claim those deductions, I'd say it's abundantly clear that he believes that other people should pay higher rates, not him. An equivalent would be saying "I believe that premarital sex is wrong - but since everyone else is doing it I'm gonna get me some too, while arguing that other people should not be allowed to do the same."
It's kind of like those that are against government spending or want it reduced but then take government money for their pet projects and pork.

I'm sure you felt the same way about that, right?
 

lotus503

Diamond Member
Feb 12, 2005
6,502
1
76
No, he's paying what is required by law. And arguing for higher taxes for the rich, including himself. Hypocrisy not found.
If the resident righties object to Social Security, unemployment, disability insurance, etc.., then they should refuse to accept these govt services.
/thread
 

bozack

Diamond Member
Jan 14, 2000
7,913
12
81
Always find this argument is rather lame as it has come up in the past with others....

If you want to lead by example you become that example, in this case he could have volunteered to pay more, and gotten others who are wealthy to also do the same, but instead he takes all the deductions he can and lemmings like you come out and argue that this is his right because it is what the current rules allow for.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
66,489
3,250
126
Always find this argument is rather lame as it has come up in the past with others....

If you want to lead by example you become that example, in this case he could have volunteered to pay more, and gotten others who are wealthy to also do the same, but instead he takes all the deductions he can and lemmings like you come out and argue that this is his right because it is what the current rules allow for.
So true, and had it been Romnesia we would never know at what rate he'd have paid, I would wager.
 
Last edited:

marincounty

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2005
3,236
4
76
Always find this argument is rather lame as it has come up in the past with others....

If you want to lead by example you become that example, in this case he could have volunteered to pay more, and gotten others who are wealthy to also do the same, but instead he takes all the deductions he can and lemmings like you come out and argue that this is his right because it is what the current rules allow for.
He just gave up 5% of his pay, I call that leading by example.
What govt benefits are you going to voluntarily refuse?
 

Charles Kozierok

Elite Member
May 14, 2012
6,762
0
0
Given that no one is twisting Obama's arm to force him to claim those deductions, I'd say it's abundantly clear that he believes that other people should pay higher rates, not him.
No, actually, it's not. That's a complete logical fallacy. So much so that I'm surprised you said it.
 

IronWing

No Lifer
Jul 20, 2001
60,190
12,693
136
People here are so jealous of Obama's success. You guys need to apply yourselves a bit and make better life choices.
 

nextJin

Golden Member
Apr 16, 2009
1,848
0
0
It's kind of like those that are against government spending or want it reduced but then take government money for their pet projects and pork.

I'm sure you felt the same way about that, right?
Not really there are alot of cases where that happens.

- Pork spending for instance has congressmen putting funds into their districts, if they didn't the government would spend the money elseware. At least this way taxpayers get something back that they put in as opposed to the federal government spending it on whatever it wants. Everyone should do this tbh, congressmen might call for less taxation but if they can not implement change they might as well give it back to their districts as opposed to letting the federal government spend it anyway.

- I want to abolish the income tax but still pay, I also pay for SS yet when it comes time to draw I am not simply going to not take money back.
 

boomerang

Lifer
Jun 19, 2000
18,897
638
126
People here are so jealous of Obama's success. You guys need to apply yourselves a bit and make better life choices.
I'd love to but Bill Ayers won't let me into his living room. I have thought of writing some books based in pure bullshit but I need a ghostwriter.
 

IronWing

No Lifer
Jul 20, 2001
60,190
12,693
136
I'd love to but Bill Ayers won't let me into his living room. I have thought of writing some books based in pure bullshit but I need a ghostwriter.
You've already written that book, just consolidate your P&N posts and add a Randian style action hero to narrate.
 
Feb 6, 2007
16,439
1
81
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324240804578418842282798284.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsThird

He and Mooch pay a mere 18% on over half a million in income. So if you pay more than 18% you should be good.

I consistently pay in the 20's and I don't make jack shit compared to them. :mad:

Enough of the rich need to pay their fair share BS already.
Hmmm. Let's read a little farther along in that article, shall we?

As in recent years, the Obamas made significant contributions to charity. In 2012, they gave $150,034—or about 24.6% of their adjusted gross income—to 33 different charities. The largest reported gift to charity was $103,871 to the Fisher House Foundation, a group that provides free housing to family members of injured military veterans.
So they paid out 18% in taxes and a further 24% in charitable donations. By my calculations, that's over 40% of their income that is not being used on themselves. Or are you saying that we shouldn't give tax breaks for charitable donations?
 

lotus503

Diamond Member
Feb 12, 2005
6,502
1
76
Always find this argument is rather lame as it has come up in the past with others....

If you want to lead by example you become that example, in this case he could have volunteered to pay more, and gotten others who are wealthy to also do the same, but instead he takes all the deductions he can and lemmings like you come out and argue that this is his right because it is what the current rules allow for.
Nope its the same argument when we were discussing Romney's effective tax. what Romney paid was the bare minimum he needed to pay by law so how could he be faulted for doing what he was legally required to do.

Paying more than one is legally supposed to pay is sheer stupidity. Wanting to change the law so the legal requirements are higher for higher earners and what an individual pays are mutually exclusive. The leading by example in this case is trying to have the tax on higher earners raised, even if that means he pays more.

I'm a lemming? fuck Obama and fuck you, I don't have to be a lemming to point out the stupidity of an argument.
 

chucky2

Lifer
Dec 9, 1999
10,038
36
86
Stupid dictator needs to learn to dictate, am I right!?

/s
Er, what? It's quite simple: Obama feels that "the rich" need to be paying far higher Fed tax rates - regardless of what their charitable contributions are. 'The rich" who have income at far greater levels than Obama and give far greater amounts in charitable contributions are the same "rich" that Obama wants to tax at a higher rate.

Given that the Obamas are not destitute, that they have quite a nice house over their heads, quite nice and reliable (when someone doesn't misfuel it that is) transportation, a quite generous food allowance, a very nice healthcare package, oh, and are, you know, pretty rich by our societal standards...

...it would seem to me that a.) giving up a (meaningless 5%) pittance of your salary as a meaningless gesture, and b.) not voluntarily choosing to give to the IRS the amount of money you feel "the rich" should be paying (you know, leading by example, not by excuse, especially when you can easily afford to like the Obamas can), would not make one a dictator as you allege, but rather, a hypocrite. A cheap hypocrite more accurately.

I mean, the Obamas feel the rich need to pay more because the Fed Gov needs mo munney. The IRS has a mechanism that lets them do exactly that. They're rich. Shouldn't they be showing the other rich how its done? No need to wait for the other Politicians to pass a tax raise, Lead! Hmmm.....now, why would 'Ol Warren and Obama want others to pay more but won't ante up themselves and lead by example... :hmm:

Chuck
 

Brovane

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2001
3,960
33
91
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324240804578418842282798284.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsThird

He and Mooch pay a mere 18% on over half a million in income. So if you pay more than 18% you should be good.

I consistently pay in the 20's and I don't make jack shit compared to them. :mad:

Enough of the rich need to pay their fair share BS already.
So I take it if you are consistently paying in the 20's you are making over six figures then? For 2012 the 25% bracket didn't kick in until your income got over 70k. I just hit up a estimated Federal Income Tax estimator for 2012 and basically single $100k standard deduction and I am seeing around 18% in taxes. I ran the numbers for a $200k income single and standard deduction I got around 23% federal income tax rate. So what you are single and getting around $200k a year in income?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY