Obama pays 18 percent in taxes; liberal outrage ensues.

[Sooner98]

Just kidding (about the liberal outrage, not Obama's tax rate).

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/politics/130412/obamas-tax-return-reveals-drop-pay-18-percent-tax-rate

[cleller]

Pretty low for a guy who made $5.5 million. Now, he is giving back 5% of his presidential salary, which is low relative to his other income, right? What about all the icing from his books deals? Giving any of that to the treasury?

[SanJoaquinSooner]

Pretty low for a guy who made $5.5 million. Now, he is giving back 5% of his presidential salary, which is low relative to his other income, right? What about all the icing from his books deals? Giving any of that to the treasury?

I think you misinterpreted the information. He made 5.5 million back in 2009. The 18% average (not marginal) tax rate on adjusted gross income (not taxable income) was for 2012.

Why would you observe that 5% return of salary is "relatively low" and not observe that they donated nearly one-quarter of their earnings to charity?

I'm sorry, your analysis earns a D -- and I didn't even vote for the guy.

[cleller]

Yeah, yeah. He still raked it into his pockets when it was convenient for him, then tries to earn goodwill buy paying back 5% of a $400 salary. We all know that is small potatoes compared to the money he will be seeing.

I'm not out to analyze anything, or score grades from a internet message board. Just pointing out that he's just like all the fat cats he criticizes, he's out to get what he can. Giving false tribute when its convenient.

He's doing a good job of charming the suckers, though.

[sappstuf]

I think you misinterpreted the information. He made 5.5 million back in 2009. The 18% average (not marginal) tax rate on adjusted gross income (not taxable income) was for 2012.

Why would you observe that 5% return of salary is "relatively low" and not observe that they donated nearly one-quarter of their earnings to charity?

I'm sorry, your analysis earns a D -- and I didn't even vote for the guy.

Well it is certainly better than John Kerry, who is worth $184 million dollars, giving up $9K....

[SCOUT]

The Buffet rule was based on his secretary. In fact the news line read:

Bosanek pays a tax rate of 35.8 percent of income, while Buffett pays a rate at 17.4 percent.

So Obama pays the Buffet rate and expects the secretaries to pay the higher rate, all while railing against the people that are doing the same thing he is.

[Midtowner]

Well then, you should be in favor of us fixing this disparity immediately and making capital gains taxes more progressive.

[Soonerjeepman]

So Obama pays the Buffet rate and expects the secretaries to pay the higher rate, all while railing against the people that are doing the same thing he is.

and this is shocking? I know you don't mean that, but it is amazing his supporters think he is a god.

[Midtowner]

This is a dumb argument. He's seeking systemic change which will force him and many more to pay more taxes. Unless he plans on cheating on those future taxes, it's hard to argue he's any kind of hypocrite here.

[sappstuf]

Of
Well then, you should be in favor of us fixing this disparity immediately and making capital gains taxes more progressive.

History has shown time and again that raising capital gains taxes decreases revenue. Do you want less revenue to the federal government?

[SanJoaquinSooner]

The Buffet rule was based on his secretary. In fact the news line read:

Bosanek pays a tax rate of 35.8 percent of income, while Buffett pays a rate at 17.4 percent.

So Obama pays the Buffet rate and expects the secretaries to pay the higher rate, all while railing against the people that are doing the same thing he is.

I think you are comparing different types of rates: Marginal tax rate can't be compared to effective (average) tax rate.

[Midtowner]

Of

History has shown time and again that raising capital gains taxes decreases revenue. Do you want less revenue to the federal government?

This just isn't true. For one thing, these things don't happen in a vacuum. When tax rates have been hiked, there were other things going on in the world besides the tax rate being hiked. Secondly, historically, we don't have a great deal of examples, but to take a few, 1969-1972, we saw a phasing in of a 10% hike. Of course 69 was pretty big because there was a sell-off. Folks held on to their portfolios in 1970 hoping to ride out the storm. Finally, in 1976-1977, we saw the revenue more than double, it dropped back in '78 and grew steadily into the 1980s.

If you'll look at the patterns, the rates don't seem to have much to do with revenue apart from the fact that uncertainty of tax issues causes runs on the market and folks seem to try to outlast tax hikes which slows things down for a bit, but things normalize. Also, most of the sources I found who were anti-reform didn't adjust any of their numbers for inflation, so comparing revenue in 1960 vs. 2013 isn't exactly apples to apples.

[jkjsooner]

Whether or not raising capital gains decreases revenue is a separate issue. This thread is about Obama's tax rate.

I don't understand why anyone would think that it's hypocritical for someone to pay the rate the government defines but think that their income bracket should be higher.

[badger]

You might hate the guy that cuts in front of the rest of you in line when you're all trying to merge into one lane, but he just got to the front of the line while you complained. Sucker.

[Sooner98]

If Obama can get away with paying an 18 percent tax rate, as long as it is done within the bounds of what our laws allow, then good for him. The hypocrisy here lies with all the Dems who angrily demanded Mitt Romney release his tax returns last year during the campaign, made a huge issue out of it when he did, but are now completely silent when it is revealed Obama pays a similar rate.