Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by MattSepeta, Apr 29, 2011.
Keep in mind, this author is about as liberal as I'll get out.
so your issue it that he is following the current tax law.. thats bad?
At the same time he is trying to pass tax laws that will cost him more money. I fail to see how that is selfish.
I see a lot of top tier tax returns and trust me, few of them pay much, they have crazy amounts of deductions and lawyers and offshore money ect...
I agree. It's time the people in power started leading. If Obama wrote that check, the flood gates would open. I could see politicians, Hollywood, other rich doing it. It might even get Congress to do something meaningful.
if the top rate is 35% and he paid 26%, he must be making use of some loopholes no? ie going against the intent of the law possibly?
I can't stand hearing rich "left of center" voters whining about republicans trying to "kill old people and babies" then turn around and pay the minimum in taxes and buy their coffee everyday.
If someone, anyone feels that the government needs more of our money, then give them more! There is NOTHING stopping all the democratic voters from contributing 30% more than required.
Obama, like all politicians, pays his taxes with money taken by force from productive people. If there were no taxes his income would drop to zero while most of the beleaguered masses would have have their income go up. That is how you tell a taxpayer from a tax eater.
No. At least as far as this article is concerned, he's following the tax code (i.e., the author is going straight off the numbers from Obama's tax returns). He's simply applying the deductions that he's entitled to.
I'm not certain what your tax rate would be, but you likely pay considerably less than that based on the deductions you get.
What the author is saying is that Obama should screw the deductions and pay the full amount anyway. An interesting thought.
Actually read the tax return, the bulk of his income came under the "business income" section, not wages.
His wages come from taxpayer dollars, yes, but the business income comes elsewhere.
If there were no politicians you wouldn't be able to be productive.
I find this logic slightly flawed. It might be a good plug for the cause, but by supporting the increase in taxes for the wealthy he's already voicing that he's willing to pay more. Unlike the wealthy people who are against it and want their loopholes and subsidies to continue.
Why should you pay more for your taxes than you have to? If the government needs more money they can raise taxes or remove the loopholes.
This thinking is along the lines of when politicians or political parties support something, they should pay for it out of their own pockets. For instance, particular politicians should pay for the billions in yearly oil subsidies.
Or with wars or invasions. Only those citizens who were for the Iraq invasion should pay for all the costs. You may idealistically agree with that because you're a libertarian, but it's unfeasible.
A) What does buying coffee have to do with any of this?
B) I'm talking a bit out of my ass here, but I'm pretty sure there's something like the "freerider theory" that explains a bit of this. People are less inclined to be productive if someone else is going to take all of the benefit and contribute nothing.
There are plenty of people who said they are more then willing to pay more in taxes than they do now. The reason that they don't act on it is because there's someone out there who makes just as much as they do who won't contribute extra.
The author seems to be under the impression that your overall tax is the same as your marginal income tax rate.
Many Americans think their marginal rate is their tax rate.
If you're gonna argue it's virtuous for Democrats to do things congruent with what they're advocating for even though it's not yet law, you should be doing that for every single policy issue, not just taxes.
Maybe Republicans should voluntarily give up their govt subsidized health care and pay 100% of their medical bills out of pocket. Since they want small government, they should also take the lead by firing some of their staffers, selling all the crap in their offices that they don't need, and refusing to use government fleet vehicles.
Otherwise, according to that article's logic, they must not be serious about what they're advocating
He should, because of Gates!
Banks are running out of money!
Can't wait to see Matt try and argue this!
Why did it take this long to say this?
Besides, I'm sure if you looked at those who make income near the Obamas, you'd find it's much lower due to all of the capital gains tax taking place instead of actual income tax.
Taken by force huh? Could you provide a link for that? You're new here so you might not have read the sticky at the top. If you're just voicing your opinion, then that's fine, but if you are claiming "force" as fact then you need to back up your claim with a reputable source.
Hmmm, the business income assumably comes from his book sales. Are the people who are buying his books not taxpayers as well?
Some are, some aren't. Presumably not everyone who has bought his book owe taxes to the US Government.
If there were no taxes, there would be no public transit, no military, infrastructure will crumble, etc.
Want to revise that statement?
I agree that Obama should lead and pay that 35% tax like everyone else does in his tax bracket.
It's literally impossible to pay the max tax rate.