About 20% if my math is correct.

How do 'charitable donations' work? Is it a tax credit or tax deduction?

deduction.

Pjam Well I guess the IRS would need to verify that if he was audited. We would have heard if Obama claimed a charitable contribution but the charity had no record of it. He proves the proceeds of the book through the publisher records.

I hope these were real questions and that you're not trying to say that Obama didn't really give to charities?

This is only the first page of his tax return. The money he received from his book is totaled on the front page, but you would find the specifics of it on Schedule C.

Does anyone know if this book money Obama received is more of the Rupert Murdoch deals that keep showing up all over the worlds leaders for the last 15-20 years?

A bit of a cross over point- When the President said that they "didn't have the luxury" when speaking about Michelle not staying at home to raise their children, do you really believe that a Harvard professor doesn't get paid enough to cover a family's costs of living?? Really? I absolutely bet that Michelle said that she didn't want to stay home, she wanted a career. You think they didn't have "help" in raising their children? No again, I'm sure that there were plenty of staff helping at home.

On the taxes front- Don't forget that Biden charges the Secret Service huge rent on protecting him. That is, he rents the house he owns next door to his to the secret service for many thousands/month. This is for the detail to protect him. Nice guy.

Schooldog- If Romney has problem with his return I'm sure the IRS will pay him a visit. You don't believe that Romney or Obama actually fills out their tax returns, do you? They've got someone to do that for them so that they each can get all the available writeoffs.

On philanthropy, just look up the numbers. It would be fun to itemize where they gave their money. I'd bet Romney's go to large organizations, Obama's go to large organizations, and Biden bought a raffle ticket for the local drawing.

Just a question. The prez & vp are given free residence & transportation--are they taxed on that? I mean, if the unemployed are going to be taxed on bills they couldn't pay after they lost jobs because those unpaid bills are considered income, why wouldn't a free house & transportation be considered income?

I give the prez props, though, for disclosing his returns, which Republicans shrink from doing.

Romney has his money work for him. I have done the same for 35 years or so. Now that I'm retired I get about 6,000 per year TAX FREE from my TAX FREE Muni Bonds and about $7000 per year dividends from my stocks. This is on top of my SS and my retirement from my job. I making more money now than when I was working! It is easy to do. Just live within your means and DON'T buy anything you can't afford!

I think it is great that President Obama supports veterans and their families and does it with his money and deeds. Great example to follow, maybe some of the Republican candidates still remaining would care to mention how much of their book proceeds benefit American veterans.

Slodan--you said the magic words: "just live within your means and DON'T buy anything you can't afford!"

If EVERYONE in this country lived by that, there would be a lot fewer poor.

Included in that 'axiom' would be "don't have kids you can't afford to DECENTLY feed, house, clothe, educate, and provide medical care for.

LACK of planning on another's part does NOT constitute an emergency on the part of anyone else.

And I know WAY too many people who cry poor, who think NOTHING of spending Friday and Saturday night at the local watering hole, and who have net flix, and an expensive Cell phone plan.

@jonsmith, How is hanging out on golf course hard working? When most go and do an 8 hours of labor to make just enough to pay for things that are needed. You must be rich or just love them.. This is not the first time I've seen you post something like this...

Great.....Mr. Obama PAID his IRS TAXES.

NOW.....How about the 41 Obama White House Staffers and some of their aides, and the HUNDREDS of elected Congressional Representatives and government workers, PAYING THEIR BACK IRS TAXES ?

• http://fromtheleft.wordpress.com/2010/09/10/41-obama-white-house-aides-owe-the-irs-831000-in-back-taxes/

Where is the IRS and DOJ on taking these CROOKS to Federal Court ?

I am going to continue to post this until someone with guts takes care of these PROBLEM crooks.

just another member of the 1% not paying his fair share. I bet Mr Obama's secratery paid at a higher rate. Great example Mr President

Duane, perhaps you missed the part of the article where Obama says he believes he should being paying more. That's the difference between Obama and Republicans: Obama is working to get the rich to pay their fair share, while Republicans want the rich to get all the breaks while soaking the poor and middle class to pay for it.

Model Train Man- What gauge?

marklepew....."I think it is great that President Obama supports veterans and their families..."

Mark...apparently you have not been keeping up with the news on what this administration is planning on doing to the TriCare system, even though Mrs. Obama and Mrs. Biden just recently held a rally supporting Veterans and their families.

Watch what they do and NOT what they say.

Cameron Ford.....better screen name would be "Cameron GM".

The American dream, bust your rump in the early years so you can live off of dividends.

Ido,

Did you have any information about the Republican candidates donating $170,000 or more of their income last year to support veterans? "Watch what they do and NOT what they say."

watt75

I'm not a financier but tell me more about dividends being taxed twice? If that's so, what about the many corporations paying 0 to little taxes? And if your dividends come from one of those corps then they aren't being taxed twice...correct?

Somebody needs to sit Watt in a corner. The tax rate is not even 15%. I guess you get a similar tax rate.

Ruken "That's because Obama's primary source of income wasn't capital gains like Romney, thus he paid a higher rate. If Obama had a primary source of capital gains, he'd most likely be in the same boat."

The problem with taxes on 'capital gains' is that you are paying income taxes on inflation. For example, if you 'invested' $1,000,000 in 1980 and sold the investment for $1,500,000 in 1990, you have a taxable gain of $500,000 on which you have to pay $175,000 of income taxes (at 35%), but the reality is the there was inflation of 37% over those same 10 years, so your net after-tax return after 10 years is actually only $770,000 in terms of the actual value from the original $1,000,000 investment ($1,500,000 proceeds x 67% inflation adjusted value less $175,000 in income taxes) - an actual LOSS of $230,000 - yet the government still taxed it as a GAIN of $500,000. You could take this scenario to any decade over the last 50 years, and the result would still show an actual inflation adjusted LOSS.

That's the reason 'capital gains' are taxed lower - to compensate for inflation.

Hey, everyone.....if you give to a charity, you get a 1099 (or some form like it) that shows how much you paid into the charity, especially if it's over $500. President Obama probably was able to show his donations by this form from the charity itself.

I think that $225,000 for the Vice President of the United States of America is low compared to today's standards for a Vice President of a good corporation. Maybe it is just me, but that job is a dead end road for most. Just saying..........

I think Biden knows the money doesn't value the effort he puts into the job. He does know that this is his swan song as a politician. He has a great deal to be proud of in his career.

Watt, you need to educate yourself.... its not double taxation.... only the gain on investment is taxed... IE if you invest 10,000 and earn 10% annually then sell it... the end result product would be 11,000$ a gain of 1,000$.. ONLY THE 1000$ increase in come is taxed at 15%...the 10,000 he previously earned to invest is not taxed again.... as apposed to 30% like all other income increases are taxed... Its not that "liberals" want what he has its about everyone playing by the same rules...... why should the rich have this special lower tax means of producing income..... do we really want to live in a country wjere... hard work is less valuable than investments by taxing labor more? i don't think so....

I'm very proud that President Obama continues to go to bat for the middle class.

Obama-Biden 2012

This is messed up. The PEOPLE of America do not make near this much money. Only a select few. Shouldn't the PEOPLE vote in leaders who are of the majority of this country? To vote in a leader to represent our government that is only supposed to be "OF the people". Why is it we are only given the choice of the select few? If we get a choice who is "OF" the majority, then the media ignores them... Even if a thousand soilders HAS marched to Washington out of their hearts to support that candidate AS THE MILLITARYS choice.. No coverage.. Why? We have a candidate still standing tall... We are seeing something that has not happened in a very long time... His conventions are packing HUGE crowds in.. For a primary election, that is rare in American history... And they are not bought and they are not there looking for anything to gain but their country.. He has gone from the general candidate size crowd of a couple hundred people... shortly to a THOUSAND... then to 2000... then to 4000,,, 5000, 6000, 7000, and now this week 8500 PEOPLE.. Going to a state primary rally!!! Obama could have only dreamed... I urge you all to check out why.. A couple more months of a trend like this and our great country will be back in the PEOPLES hands...

Check it out. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dxCClY5afbA

Me as an average Joe making less than 100K, paid more to charity than the average Joe Biden!!!ROFL. Wow. Maybe I can be Vice President too.

Schooldog

Again with the apples and oranges. Capitol gains tax vs income tax. If Obama got his "Buffet rule" then all us seniors would lose most of our piddly dividends from our stocks in our retirement accounts. What little is left in those accounts that is. None of the seniors I know make any where near $250,000.00 and many depend totally on social security plus maybe a few hundred dollars in stock dividends. So stop with the bull crap. If you truly want fair taxes, scrap the tax code and all its give aways and go to a flat tax or shut up.

TheOverlord

BS, he just wants to increase the capitol gains tax. That hits us all, and even if we someday get the value back in our homes and are lucky enough to sell at a profit to use the money for retirement, we won't get to because we'll have to pay capitol gains on our house sale price. Stop with the apples and oranges and Obama Narwhal room BS.

ROY good information but one minor detail missing

im not an accountant or anything but if i remember correctly is that with inflation/deflation the value of the dollar rises or falls depending on which way it goes so if you put invested 1,000,000 and the inflation raised 37% then wouldn't that mean i now have 1,370,000 then sold it for more after a few years i would be taxed on what i made from that investment so i would still gain money on my original investment, Now with Deflation i could see where you would start losing money

all this is a fine balance really cause with to much inflation what ever you gained wouldn't really matter because everything else is just also more expensive and with deflation the value of your dollar is less then a dollar and taxes are based on what you make so except with deflation you will still make money

The Key is too invest money in when everything price/inflation is down low and when the price/ inflation of stuff rises you start gaining money. economics simplified

went a bit off topic there d please tell me if and where i am wrong (nicely please)

The real argument is about cutting spending. Even if everyone's tax rate is doubled, we'd still have a $500 billion deficit... Oh, that's a FACT too.

Hmmm, don't buy what you can't afford. Sounds logical? Then throw government into the mix and see what happens.

Luxury taxes, cigarette taxes, alcohol taxes, etc. are disproportionately higher for low income folks based on percentage of their incomes. Maybe it's logical that low oncome folks should not buy jewelry, cigarettes, alcohol, etc. but is it fair?

Then there is dope, which because of the laws, makes low income folks paupers, thieves and convicts.

How about the competition? The president works hard for a living. How much did Romney make this year? Last year? Romney doesn't even need to work for his money and pays fewer taxes than those who bust their backs just trying to live decently!

but the rich DESERVE to make money without working for simply because they are rich!

after all they "work so much harder than the rest of us" collecting all of that interest. they should have their taxes eliminated completely and if we are lucky, they just MIGHT decide to employ a few without jobs.

then we have:

Rich people like Obama and Romney deserve their money. we don't earn as much because we don't work as hard as the rich. if you want to pay less in taxes, you need to work harder.

ROTFLMAFO!

that has got to be both the funniest and most idiotic thing in newsvine history!

Please, oh please tell me you are joking. that has to be brilliant sarcasm because nobody could possibly be that stupid

TheOverlord

Oh please, the difference is obvious. President Obama is not only willing but strongly advocating that HE PAY MORE taxes by fixing the tax system and making it fair. Romney want's to continue his unfair advantage.

For Obama to make some symbolic donation to the treasury to be "fair" would do NOTHING to fix the broken system and only look like a PR gimmick - which it would be. The only way to make a difference is to FIX the tax code.

If "President Obama is not only willing but strongly advocating that HE PAY MORE taxes " then a symbolic donation to the treasury would show true conviction in his ideology. Perhaps he can do it together with his buddy, Warren Buffett.

I have no problems with success. If you work hard to develop your skills or make a solid product, market it well and earn a profit-good for you!

Private equity, Bain Capital, makes money by buying companies and selling them at higher rates. How do they sell them for more than they buy them? Usually by laying off the majority of staff (causing a great increase in unemployment) and often selling the company in parts to its competitors (reducing competition.) Hundreds of people lose their jobs and the few investors make a profit.

Is this the same as hard work?

What about bank executives who knowingly gave loans to people they knew could not pay them back, they purchased credit default swaps against the risk so that they profited when the funds were defaulted on?

Is that the same as hard work?

Firemen walk into burning buildings to save people's lives. Is that "easier" than the above? How about special ed teachers who work with special needs children. Do they work less hard than the above? Soldiers stationed in Afghanastan-have they chosen the easy path?

Success is great and, often well earned. However-we need to recognize that rich does not equal hard working and, more to the point, middle class and poor do not mean less working. It may have meant different choices and priorities, but it does not mean less work.

Also, success is earned and deserved-but all need to do their fair share to support society.

Ruken -

How do 'charitable donations' work? Is it a tax credit or tax deduction?

It seems that if you don't know the answer to this question you either are not qualified to discuss the US tax code, you don't ever contribute to tax exempt organizations, or you are part of the 48% that doesn't pay any income tax.

Slodan--you said the magic words: "just live within your means and DON'T buy anything you can't afford!"

Sort of like 2 wars, Medicare PArt D, and the Bush TAx Cuts

If EVERYONE in this country lived by that, there would be a lot fewer poor.

Included in that 'axiom' would be "don't have kids you can't afford to DECENTLY feed, house, clothe, educate, and provide medical care for.

I agree, contaception should be free and available to women WHEREVER they live or work

LACK of planning on another's part does NOT constitute an emergency on the part of anyone else.

I agree, we shoudnt have to pay your ER because you are exercising your 'fredom' of not having health insurance!

It seems that if you don't know the answer to this question you either are not qualified to discuss the US tax code, you don't ever contribute to tax exempt organizations, or you are part of the 48% that doesn't pay any income tax.

That 48% talking point just isnt going anywhere. You know that right?

Raise Obama's taxes. Raise Romney's taxes. Impose the Buffett rule. Raise income taxes on everyone making <$250,000/year. Raise the capital gains tax. Take away capital investment tax credits to industries (more commonly called 'subsidies'). AND YOU STILL WON'T BALANCE THE FEDERAL BUDGET!!!

This whole idea of making the wealthy "pay their fair share" is merely a distraction to hide the fact that our government is spending way, way, way too much of our money. And people are buying it.

As a side note, I'm making a prediction. When Romney reveals his returns, the media will not make it a point to show how much he donated to charity, but will focus only on his income and tax rate paid. I could be wrong, though.

As further proof that president is serious about everyone paying their "fair share" of taxes, he will have all of his staffers, Cabinet Members, Appointed "Czars" and the remaining Democrats in government to make their tax returns public and to show that they have all actually PAID whether it is their fair share or not. Just that they paid would be an improvement!

And you don't want to know what Warren Buffett's secretary just called the President when she found out that even he paid less in taxes!

You do realize that he only had about $458,000 actual spending cash after taxes and charitable cash donations! If he had not given $172,000 in cash income to this most worthy of charities, his taxable rate would be far higher than the stated 20%. It would be more likely near the top tier of 35%! I applaud the fact that he gave so generously. Most wealthy Americans do not contribute cash equivalent donations and use other non cash tax loopholes to reduce their effective rate. Don't compare his 20% effective rate as a lack of proper taxation.

Give me a break. Obama's check for $75,000.00 won't even pay for the secret service personnel

Aother impotent talking point from the Teabaggers. But I guess thats what you do when you are a rock-throwing Republican sitting on the bench while Obama is on the field trying to win the game.

Got Solutions?

This whole idea of making the wealthy "pay their fair share" is merely a distraction to hide the fact that our government is spending way, way, way too much of our money. And people are buying it.

You cant take down the debt on spending cuts alone either. Prove it to me that you can without crippling the economy. Simpson-Bowles and the President have it right. Balanced, Shared sacrifice madfe up of Spending Cuts AND Revenue.

Even the Romney-Ryan plan adds 4.5 TRillion (chuckle)

OK, so Obama paid his taxes -good for him. When will the tax cheats and tax avoiders in his administration going to pay their fair share? Or when will the IRS come down on Buffett and those military contractors who have a lot of unpaid taxes?

Anyone checking on Tiny Tim and Charlie Rangle this year?

It is good to hear that both the President and the Vice President have been donating to charity. The IRS allows them to overpay their taxes so that their effective rate can be 30% or more as the President is saying it should be. No act of congress is required. Warren Buffet can do the same. They can also go back to past years, amend their returns and voluntarily pay more in taxes to up their effective rate to 30%. It is the patriotic thing to do. Warren Buffet can do the same. It does not take an act of congress for them to put their money where their mouth is. Maybe if the President, the Vice President, and Warren Buffet voluntarily over pay their taxes so that their effective rate will be over 30%, others will do the same because it is the patriotic thing to do to support the the federal government's spending habit and pay over paid government union workers even more in wages and benefits.

The President promised to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term. To do this the 2012 federal deficit cannot exceed 229.27 billion dollars yet according the Obama's own White House the President's limit on deficit spending will be exceeded by more than a factor of 5. With more than 15 trillion dollars of current debt and the White House predicting that huge deficits will continue for at least the next decade, I estimate that any money that the federal government borrows now will end up costing the tax payers 9 times the amount borrowed over a period of 170 years. That also means that federal tax overpayment's will benefit the tax payers in the long run by a factor of 9. So by all means, the President , the Vice President, Warren Buffet, and all other rich Democrats that support the President's Buffet rule should immediately over pay their taxes for this and all past years because it is the patriotic thing to do and the government surely needs the money so they can continue to pay unionized government workers high salaries and benefits and service the debt. Lets turn over payment of taxes into the newest fad. Government workers need more money for lavish parties. The government needs more money to support losing money green energy companies like Solindra and to pay for an expensive high speed rail networks that few will be expected to use. Why should the rich use their money to invest and to buy things in the private sector when instead they can be using it to overpay their taxes and support more government overhead and make work jobs.

kg14051This whole idea of making the wealthy "pay their fair share" is merely a distraction to hide the fact that our government is spending way, way, way too much of our money. And people are buying it.

but just making "budget cuts" doesn't help either we need to do both with in reason

Shaking: BS, he just wants to increase the capitol gains tax. That hits us all, and even if we someday get the value back in our homes and are lucky enough to sell at a profit to use the money for retirement, we won't get to because we'll have to pay capitol gains on our house sale price. Stop with the apples and oranges and Obama Narwhal room BS.

What are you talking about my friend? If you bother to actually look at what Obama and the democrats are proposing you would notice he not just talking about capitol gains. They are talking about closing loopholes for those taking advantage of capital gains (like Romney) laws but also the tax code across the board. There are also, and probably will be more, exemptions on some of the capital gains from selling a primary property (home). If you haven't noticed the Democrats and Obama are trying to repeal the Bush tax cuts that led to the economic crash that Obama inherited from Republicans.

Hey Sheeps (quite appropos), you do realize that he gets ROOM/BOARD and his TRAVEL ALL PAID FOR as well.

Which "most worthy of charities" are you referring to Sheeps?

The White House released a copy of the president's tax return, which also shows charitable donations of more than $172,000.

Obama is donating after-tax proceeds from his children's book to the Fisher House Foundation. The charity helps veterans and military families receiving medical treatment.

Those are 2 separate paragraphs. His combined donations are $172,000, the amount donated to the Fisher House foundation are not listed and they are AFTER TAX so they did not reduce his effective tax rate.

Charities do not care if you give cash/cash equivalents or stocks/bonds/jewelry. They will gladly accept all donations. There are no charities that receive any of the monies from the "Newman"s Own" brand of products that are going to turn down any of the MILLIONS they receive. I am rather glad that he gave as much as he did. The President should probably have a little heart to heart with with the VP and get Biden to loosen his purse strings a bit more. As a percentage of Income, I gave more than the VP and I pay for my own home, food and transportation as well.

While we are at it, where did you see that I said that his 20% rate was due to a lack of proper taxation?

Most of my comment was that the people that he nominated did not pay any of their taxes until it came out publicly.

Referring to comments near the beginning of this thread, President Obama would have gotten a 1099 from his publisher for the royalties on his books. It would be included in the amount on line 12 of his tax return.

So what's the point of this article?? Oh, I see...Obama pays a higher tax rate than Romney, so I should vote for Obama because he can relate better to me or something. Uh, but both are simply paying the rate prescribed by current tax laws. So, I guess I should vote for Obama because he makes less of that evil, filthy money than Romney does. The media are morons.

The point, you dolt, is that the President's income tax is always a matter of public record and always reported every year.

Geeze, paranoid much?

2-Lane-Gypsy said:

I agree, contaception should be free and available to women WHEREVER they live or work

Not the only problem, but the biggest problem with this statement is it takes all personal responsibility out of the equation. Whatever happened to using that lump on top of your neck to make correct and responsible decisions...kind of like "Hey, I shouldn't have a kd if I cant afford it." Not like this, I'm going to have a kid, and since I cant afford it, the government will help me."

That's the problem with most liberals....they dont want to take personal responsibility for themselves, they just want "free stuff".

BTW, who is Obama trying to win the game for?

annoyed and 2-lane -

I agree with you that spending cuts alone are not the answer. But the only thing talked about these days is tax increases, not spending cuts. There has to be gradual but substantial spending cuts. And no one in D.C. has a plan to do it.

annoyedperson,

To answer your question, you do indeed have the way inflation works backwards. Inflation is easier to see if we talk about something tangible. Let us say a loaf of bread. Let us assume that we can buy a loaf of bread today for $1. We earn $10 an hour. So for one hours worth of work, we can buy $10 loafs of bread. Now let us assume that a year goes by and we have 100% inflation. So now a loaf of bread costs $2. If we still earn $10 an hour, we can now only buy 5 loafs of bread - so even though we do not make any less money, the money we make is worth less.

Going back to Roy's stock scenario. Lets say we invest $1,000,000 dollars today. We wait a year, and then sell our stock for $1,200,000. The way profit is defined, we have made a $200,000 profit. However, if there were 100% inflation during that year, our money would only have the same buying power as $600,000 was pre-inflation. So even if we paid 0 taxes, we would have a net loss of buying power.

Roy's scenario is a bit misleading, because that is still not a net loss. We still had a gain - our money is just worth less. This is important though, because it comes into how we save. In order for your savings to be worth anything, they have to outperform inflation. We tend to average about 3% inflation a year. If you look at many bonds and money market accounts, they only result in gains of between 1% and 2%. So even though you appear to be gaining money, your money is actually worth less and less over time. Banks actually know this - that is why they set the rates the way they do. They actually make money during inflationary periods like that.

A good 401k with diversified assets generally averages closer to 6% a year. So you do gain more than inflation. However, if you end up paying 35% in taxes then your buying power is actually only increasing by about 1% a year. This is where the lower tax brackets for capital gains actually comes into play. In a robust economy, businesses often need chunks of money to grow. Especially when they need to respond to a changing market quickly. While this is a massive oversimplification, when you buy stock you are essentially lending companies that money. In return, they promise to give you a percentage of their company (or even a small portion of their profits in the form of dividends). If their move was successful, then you can make a lot of money this way because the company is worth more. If it is not, then you lose all your money.

During the last expansion period, it was harder for companies to get money to make changes, so taxes were lowered to make that option more attractive to people who had money to lend. Hence the low capital gains rate. While people tend to complain a lot about Romney not doing anything to earn his money, you could look at it from the perspective of him paying the salaries of many people by lending companies his money. He lent well, his companies improved, and he made money. There is nothing wrong with that.

Actually, if there is a problem with the current money system, it isn't people who make money like Romney. It is generally the financial markets. People who make money by skimming a bit off the top of the market under the pretext of "advising" or "managing" investments. Don't get me wrong, there are some hard working advisers who are worth their money. There are also a lot of Berney Madoff's out there though.

TheOverlord said:

If you haven't noticed the Democrats and Obama are trying to repeal the Bush tax cuts that led to the economic crash that Obama inherited from Republicans.

That has to be the single dumbest statement I have heard on these boards in a LONG time. What rock have you been living under? He doesnt want to repeal the "Bush Tax cuts". As a matter of fact, they are no longer the "Bush Tax cuts" anymore. For the last 3+ years, he has continued them without fail. They are the "Obama Tax cuts" now.

The tax cuts did NOT lead to the economic crash anyway. It was the unregulated housing market (people buying houses they didnt need or couldnt afford) and 2 wars simultaneously. If you want to speak on something, speak on it intelligently and inform yourself.

Why in the world didn't Mr Big Ears write another check to the good ole US of A to apply directly to the principal of the national debt? Isn't this typical of him: all talk, no walk!!!!!

If POTUS was serious about "fairness" and "equality" why didn't he post his WHOLE return so the truth might be known? This guy is so unbelievable he makes my head ache every time he opens his mouth.

Oh, wait a minute! Will Obamacare pay for my hospital stay to treat my terminal migraine from all his baloney that he pumps out?

TheOverlord

For Obama to make some symbolic donation to the treasury to be "fair" would do NOTHING to fix the broken system and only look like a PR gimmick - which it would be. The only way to make a difference is to FIX the tax code.

Oh please ,, Obama's entire presidency is nothing more than one big PR gimmick.

We do agree on fixing the tax code though,, a majority who pays no federal income taxes shouldn't complain about how much anyone else pays.

Cameron Ford

just another member of the 1% not paying his fair share. I bet Mr Obama's secratery paid at a higher rate. Great example Mr President

Duane, perhaps you missed the part of the article where Obama says he believes he should being paying more. That's the difference between Obama and Republicans: Obama is working to get the rich to pay their fair share, while Republicans want the rich to get all the breaks while soaking the poor and middle class to pay for it.

He said he thought he should, be he is not gonna! That has been his problem all along, he says one thing but does something totally different.

We shouldn't tax Obama more because that would remove his motivation for creating jobs!

Go 1%???

/AMIDOINGTHISRIGHT?

Obama's charitable donation's was $172,000.00, that's around 22 %. The Cheap GOP/TP average charitable donation's are 5% to 10%, so much for brotherly love.

Showed $789,674 but spent aboout $2,500,000.00 on vacations, clothes and golf. Of the citizens - taxpayers money.

All you cry-babies who claim to have so many problems paying your bills, that your tax burden is "outrageous", when your income is more than $80,000 a year should try living on what I raked in last year: $12,000.

Now try living on only 80% of that $12,000.

Okay Barak, time to pony up. I am paying 33% tax and struggling to buy milk and basic food for my family, Gas is through the roof to and that takes a HUGE cut out of my monthly nut.

If you are going to spout off about fair tax rates, you need to put your money where your mouth is.

then a symbolic donation to the treasury would show true conviction in his ideology.

No it wouldn't. It would just be another attack point for the right to use by claiming he is just doing it as a campaign gimmick.

Quacked - Maybe you should get a better job or increase your qualifications so you can do more valuable work. You don't pay 20% of $12k in federal income tax, though, so your whine doesn't make much sense.

How much government assistance did you also have?

Lame Gypsy - This article is about federal income tax, of which 48% don't pay anything. You know that, right?

If you're really paying 33%, might I suggest a different accountant (or stop attempting to do it yourself).

For real! Some of these comments amaze me...I can see why The GOP love some of you people..your just plain stupid!! I wont even give yall the benefit of the doubt of being ingnorant because thats too forgiving,,,just plain downright stupid and the GOP do the happy dance over having such mindless, brainless idiots voting for them..I never seen such outright stupidity in people.

Seems to me if Obama wants rich people to pay more taxs. He would set and example and not take EVERY POSSIBLE TAX EXEMPTION HE CAN FIND! What do you call someone who wants people to do something,But he does everything he can to evade doing that thing himself? What is the word I'm thinking of? Could it be HYPOCRITE! Do as I say not as I do. And Bob-br549 if that aint the pot calling the kettle black. But thats the dem way if you cant think of a good rebuttal just start calling names. Classy.

CheckingNumbers thanks for correcting nice to know some people discuses things peacefully and reasonably

Some Information for you, on where your taxes are being spent:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/2011-taxreceipt

2-Lane Gypsy:

Your comments are -gggrrr-GREAT!!!

Wonder why they didn't show the schedule A? I want to see what he really gave to Charity. I also want to see where all the Vacation expenses paid by his employer (YOU) were included in his income like you & I would have to declare. He sure has alot of right offs or loopholes because his max. allowable charitable deductions are $118k, how did explain the other $160K. AUDIT TIME!

discrepancies like this guy:

http://www.citizensforethics.org/legal-filings/entry/crew-calls-investigation-discrepancies-mitt-romneystax-return-disclosures

That has to be the single dumbest statement I have heard on these boards in a LONG time. What rock have you been living under? He doesnt want to repeal the "Bush Tax cuts". As a matter of fact, they are no longer the "Bush Tax cuts" anymore. For the last 3+ years, he has continued them without fail. They are the "Obama Tax cuts" now.to speak on something, speak on it intelligently and inform yourself.

No need to resort to ad hominem attacks. You have apparently been living under that rock if you think Obama supports the Bush Tax cuts. Repeatedly over the last three years he has made it clear he not only does not support them but wants to repeal them. He simply has not had the votes to do it... that's VERY different than supporting them my friend, as you very well know but cleverly try to spin. FACT is Obama has opposed them from the very start and continues to do so. Stop playing games and at least discuss the actual position of the President rather than making things up.

As has been pointed out above, the problem with libs is that they want to dictate how everyone else lives as long as they are exempt from it. So, Obama thinks he's not paying enough in taxes. The fact is that no one who has half a brain believes that claim because if Obama really believed it he'd have added, "yup, I didn't pay my fair share so here is my check to the government to make it fair!" So, end of that BS discussion.

As for the "Buffett tax," same thing. Buffett says he's not paying enough taxes. So, what is he doing? He's been fighting the IRS to avoid paying over a billion dollars in taxes. Since the Buffett tax would only raise about $4 billion a year, well..... you can see what's going on here.

The real story is that there is absolutely no problems with how much the government is bringing in, except that it is too much, but the real problem is how much they are spending and wasting. The fact is that if anyone of you, lib or conserv. had a spouse who spent like the government did when you didn't have the money to pay for it you'd be slapping them upside the head and screaming for a divorce. That's what we need to do to these politicians, starting at the top. Vote 'em out of office and hope that the next is better. If they aren't, keep voting 'em out until we get people elected who understand that it is not alright to hold a gun to our heads and steal money out of our pockets.

Shaking my head- you have no idea of what you are speaking. What rate would your flat tax be? I paid 9% on a $25,000 income last year. I can't save any money already. So if it's any higher say 15% That puts me in the hole. Those in the lower middle class would get crushed by a flat tax. Thed wealthy would pay even less in many cases. The first 25k of everyone's income should be free of federal tax. There should be NO tax deductions. Then the rates should be 10% on income above the 25K up to 75k, 15% up to 150K, 20% up to 250k then 20% up to 500k then 25% up to 1 million and 30% up to 10 million then 35% after that. It would incresae overall revenues and give the real working class a fighting chance to save for retirement.

To RafftheGreat- True the Bush tax cuts were not a factor in the economic decline but they were a huge factor along with the wars in our soaring debt. Gas prices also contirbute to the economic woes. They are still the BUSH tax cuts and are set to expire at the end of the year if the Rebublicans don't continue them again. They are in no way the Obama tax cuts. He's just had to live with them as he has the wars though they are slowly winding down and Obama was also a victim of the market drop and the housing crash and was left to deal with the mess and according to the facts shown in the USA Today the stimulus/bailout was the only thing Obama was FORCED to add to the debt. Alos as with the Reagan tax cuts for the wealthy and his voodoo trickle down failed economics the only result was the wealthy amassing vast sums of money.

Omaid, actually if everyone lived within their means the economy would crash. Look at all that is bought with credit. Say cars for example. Who can afford $20K for a new car in cash? It is not the use of credit that is bad it is the over use of it that is. The credit card companies/banks have a multitude of tricks to get you to plunk down that credit card. Need a hotel room? Not without a credit card. Need a rental car? Not without a credit card. Need a airline ticket? Not without a credit card. Need gas for your car? No credit card. Then walk in the station and wait in line. Use the credit card and we'll give you 3% back on some of the charges. Never mind we charge to over 15% on the balance you carry. Even if you pay the balance off before the interest is posted the banks still make money because they charge the store a fee. Guess who really pays that fee? Hint it ain't the store. It's all of us whether we use a credit card or not. Pay the airline mileage game? Good luck with that. You might get a flight to some nowhere place after you spent a fortune. The entire game is based on getting you to use that card and when hooked on it to get you to carry a balance. Then they wait for a mistake or a bit of bad luck to befall you and wham fees and late charges that would make a loan shark say WTF.

This article is a mess. It mixes discussions of marginal tax rates with average tax rates. It also appears to compare Obama's taxes against his total income instead of against his income after deductions.

Duane, perhaps you missed the part of the article where Obama says he believes he should being paying more. That's the difference between Obama and Republicans: Obama is working to get the rich to pay their fair share, while Republicans want the rich to get all the breaks while soaking the poor and middle class to pay for it.

Horse pucky. If he believes he should pay more then why didn't he? There's even a website he can go to where he can donate money to the Treasury.

The "I think I should pay more but I won't until I'm forced to." argument doesn't hold any water.

David A Deal

It is pretty obvious why your income was only $25k. You need to have a brain earn more than that. You sound like an Ed Schultz recording.

Beings that you are such a learned individual why don't you tell everybody exactly how the so called Bush tax cuts work and how you are harmed by them, no Liberal BS.

Your tax plan is the same plan that I threw out there when everybody was beating up Herman Cain and his 999 plan. I think it is a great idea maybe it will get you some nods of approval from your liberal counterparts, I received much harassment but that had nothing to do with the plan but that I am a conservative.

Devil's Son

Credit Card abuse is the Democratic way, after all all people are entitled to have what ever they want, no matter who pays for it. Living within ones means doesn't mean they can't rely on credit to make purchases, it means that those purchases should be reasonable with payments that fit the individuals income (hard concept for the liberal mind to grasp). One does not have to have a credit card to make any of the purchases you named, ever heard of a debit card? Oh yea you have to keep some money in the bank to have one of those. Don't have a credit card or debit card, to bad you have to wait in line to pay the cashier. Maybe you should learn some Money management skills.

Devil if people lived within their means the economy would not crash! Fact is it would recover. Ever notice how those evil rich people seem to pay lower interest rates on the things they buy on credit? Why? Because the lenders know they are going to get their money back. I am not rich, I am in the $75K bracket, but I pay my bills on time, buy what I need( with an occasional frill), and still manage to put away $10-15K away a year for a rainy day. Bought a new car a couple of weeks ago, could have payed cash, but the interest rate was 1.8%, my money is getting around 3%, why not use their money, it is called a good credit rating which comes from living within ones means.

SO, don't be coming off with all the liberal BS, you reap what you sow. Sometime we experience setbacks but if we have prepared for them, we only stumble we don't fall.

If you don't like the fact that the IRS charges 15% on capital gains, dividends, ... when they charge 35% on W-2 income, then fix the tax code.

A Snake Oil Salesman!! A married couple earning earning $93,700/yr. pays less than 12% in income taxes. Do the figures , they are available on the Internet or the booklet (which they no longer sends you) Remember, from that $93,700 you have to deduct the standard deduction and the personal deductions which get you to approximately $68,000 in taxable income on which you will pay less than (I'm avoiding minor downward adjustments) $11,100 or 11.86% a far way from Obama's 20%. The Snake Oil Salesman may try to make the figures work by adding in the SS tax, which is irrelevant to the income tax question, however let's assume it's 4.5%. We again get about 17% which is lower than 20%. And, the POTUS doesn't pay into SS. Warren Buffet does have to pay SS tax but that doesn't change his %, as there is a max upon upon earnings (about the first $125,00). So dear Warren's contribution of Approximately $5,625, if he in fact makes it, would not make dent into the tax vs. Income %.

My figures have been approximated, but are highly accurate, as I do not want to fill out a tax form, but if you want - go to the effort. I can't believe people are buying this sh*t while Buffet's been fighting the IRS in court over millions in back taxes and hasn't paid an extra dime to the IRS. You know you can contribute more than you owe -- guess Buffet never heard about that or realized that dropping his fight for $ would save the taxpayers a lot of money in legal fees.

My suggestion is that we establish a new SS trust fund that Buffet and his pals can be taxed into.

Okay, so Bozobama paid his taxes, at a LOWER rate than HIS secretary, so where's the outrage over THAT? And if Bozobama WANTS to pay more, then LET HIM! Just let the rest of us ALONE, MR. Socialist!

gil, all we have to do is pull the cap off of SS and the entire thing will remain solvent. social security problem solved, now we just have to deal wih th rest of the budget.

Let the truth out!

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

Obama paid 20% of his income in taxes.

Romney paid 13-15% of his income in taxes.

Who to vote for in the 2012 presidential election should be clear to the majority of Americans.

A president whose income is $789,674 can economically relate better to the "rest of us."

A corporate puppet whose net worth is $250 million is as far removed from the public as the earth is from the moon.

East coast, giving money to your children is not the same as tax loopholes that millionaires and big businesses use. Seriously, do you really not understand the difference?

Every f^&king moron on here calling Obama a socialist is probably payer a higher tax rate than him.

Capital gains tax, when it was first revamped in 1981, was at 20%. That's where it should stay. Obama's proposed "millionaires tax" is a negotiations jumping-off point. The end result is capital gains should go BACK to 20% because THAT is where it is FAIR and THAT will help the middle class without being "Class Warfare" but rather a FAIR TAX STRUCTURE, putting the ultra-rich on the same playing field as me (who made $100k last year and paid effective tax rate of 19.5%) or Obama who paid at a rate slightly higher than myself.

It's not socialism, its FAIRNESS. You GOP supporting jacka$$es must really be off your rockers (or you all must have millions in hedge funds netting 10% anually, which I doubt) if you want to keep Capital Gains at 15%. Any single person on this forum who makes less than $500k a year in wages (which I bet is 99.9% of people who have the time to post on a forum) should be SCREAMING for the government to return capital gains to 20%!!! By the way, get informed, after 2012, capital gains GOES BACK TO 20%...unless, perhaps, someone who is DIRECTLY AFFECTED GETS ELECTED PRESIDENT.

Morons.

capital gains should go BACK to 20% because THAT is where it is FAIR and THAT will help the middle class without being "Class Warfare" but rather a FAIR TAX STRUCTURE,

It's always "FAIR" when someone else pays higher taxes than you isn't it? If all you envy driven class warfare types were really interested in fair, then there would be a flat tax with no deductions and no handouts that every person in Amerca paid. That includes the rich, the middle class and the poor. Until you cry babies are willing to implement that system, we are tired of hearing about your class warfare version of "FAIR". So STFU until then.

So it takes over 5 Obama's to pay for one GSA party -- Obama didn't add sh*t to the treasury, he just let his tax money go down the drain. Who appointed the director of the GSA? Not Bush!!. Who is the Chief Executive and Commander in Chief? Not Bush!! Who can't control his Secret Service? Not Bush!!! But he'll blame it all on Bush -- can't wait to hear how he does that.

zathrose, please explain how it WAS that the middle class was growing, the percentage of poor was decreasing, and the wealth gap was shrinking, and the economy kept right on growing, UNTIL the banks were deregulated, oil was deregulated, taxes on the wealthy were repeatedly cut, etc.?

once the far right started having its way, all of America except a few wealthy elite have been suffering ever more and more. while right wingnuts keep claiming that that is such a wonderful thing.

hey, don't forget that the GOP also wants to drop the cap gains rate to ZERO, so the richest of all don't have to pay a freaking penny. meanwhile, all of the GOP tax proposals to reduce the budget deficit will ELIMINATE the mortgage deduction for your primary family home, making the middle class pay even MORE taxes

It is explained several times in this thread. Inflation. If you have $100,000 sitting in an investment for 10 years earning about 5% per year, you make about $60,000 in interest. So when you realize that interest, you pay 15% capital gains tax on that $60,000 (about $9000). BUT, in that time, inflation has DEVALUED your money by around 25%, so your $160,000 has the same buying power now as about $125,000 had when you started your investment.

Let's say there is something you wanted to buy 10 years ago, and just to add the visual, let's say it is a big piece of machinery that costs $100,000. Going by the actual inflation from 2000 to 2010, that same piece of machinery would cost about $125,000. By waiting 10 years and investing the money, you gained about $35,000. But that $35,000 still only has the buying power of about $25,000 since something that cost about $25,000 10 years ago now costs about $35,000. So you only gained the buying power of about $25,000 for your 10 year investment. By paying $9,000 in taxes on your $25,000 buying power gain, you are really paying an effective rate after inflation of about 36%.

See, if you do the math, you ARE INDEED paying about the same rate as taxable income, after it is adjusted for inflation. Capital gains are only taxed when you collect on the investment, whereas income is taxed as you make it.

Obama paid 20% on money that has not had a chance to be devalued. Romney paid 15% on money that has devalued due to interest. Who is paying a higher rate? Add to this that Romney's money has been invested, and that means his dollars were put to work. Those dollars paid people's salaries and kept businesses running. Yes, he got a return on his investment, but the money was still put to good use. Obama donated a bunch of his money, but he got a tax BREAK for it. So in the end, who did more good for the economy? Anyone who understands how businesses work and how people get paid (who actually work) understand that banks and investors are the ones who make the economy function, NOT government employees who earn half million dollar incomes paid for by the worker's taxes.

@ DaveK-1110204

Decent analysis, but paying 15% on gains at some point in the future is actually discounted compared to paying right now by virtue of the same mechanic you used to value the future-gain itself.

Thus from a time-value approach, the taxes on ordinary income need to be given a present value adjustment of at least the rate of inflation (if not the average yield its equivalent in cash could get in the market...i.e. your WACC) and you will see that not only is the deferred cost of paying a long-term realized capital gain in the future actually lower than 15% when discounted to today's present-value, but the quarterly assessed taxes on ordinary income is proportionally that much higher!

Take your pick on discount rate, but 20% is both numerically larger than 15%, and paying 20% right now is even higher when you adjust for time-value against 15% out to ANY point in the future!

Also, buying stock in large companies only helps to compensate the executives by virtue of raising the in-the-money likelihood of their options and possibly improve the company's ability to issue more (or more favorable-termed) convertible-preferred shares and or bonds.

Money spent on stock in the secondary market reflects the investor's opinion of the estimated long-term success of the company (ideally), but the company reaps little benefit from that sentiment unless they start a seasoned offering and cash in, or the positive sentiment adds a sort of qualitative benefit to greater executive autonomy in decision-making since the board would be less likely to interfere. But overall, buying stock in a company does NOT put that money to work in said company unless you bought in at the IPO or from a seasoned offering. In 90% of circumstances, when you buy stock on the open market, you are merely buying it from another investor in a speculative game of Round-Robin where they want out of that stock and you want in, and betwixt the twain shall meet.

Never said it was Mandy. Thanks for making an ass out of yourself.

Most don't really rake in the money until after they leave office and make the tours on the lecture circuit.

It's a good thing he doesn't have to report the perks like air, car, hotel, etc. Oh, and free housing! Shouldn't that all be reported under "other compensation?" ~Tongue firmly in cheek.

Yes, the lecture circuit will be very kind to Mr. Obama one day.

pacfun - "You have to love a President that makes less than a million dollars a year!"

Where can you find one of those? Obama made well over $1 million again this year, he just donated the "after tax proceeds" of his book sales so that the hypocrisy of pushing for higher taxes on everyone else earning over $1 million while not paying more himself wasn't so blatant.

"The first family reported income of $1.7 million for 2010, much of it from the sale of the president's books. They paid federal taxes of $453,770.

Their adjusted gross income for 2010 was far below the $5.5 million they reported for 2009, also mostly from book sales. "

The book sales he is making that money on are the two non-fiction books he wrote. Dreams from my Father and the Audacity of Hope. Those have been out for 4+ years so naturally sales are decreasing. The children's books are totally different.

Damn Pjam you are one dimly lit bulb. If you could read and comprehend then you might be able to actually make a point. But you can't read when does 789K equal more than a million.

Stop typing while stoned,you will seem less the idiot.

The ONLY reason why Newt is running is to get free publicity to sell his mindless crap!!!!

pjam09 - perhaps you should be over at Fox where your hate for him will make a better fit. Why are you even here? Hate much?

Tonglen,

Based on the comments here, yours appear to be more hateful. You called one person a racist because they called Michelle "Moochelle". I don't agree with name calling, but I don't think it counts as racism.

As for Pjam09, I see nothing hateful in her comments. Just because you don't agree with someone doesn't mean they're hateful.

I read lots of comments I don't agree with. Some of the posts are downright hateful. However, there are others that I disagree with, but don't sense hatred coming from them.

Where can you find one of those? Obama made well over $1 million again this year, he just donated the "after tax proceeds" of his book sales so that the hypocrisy of pushing for higher taxes on everyone else earning over $1 million while not paying more himself wasn't so blatant.~pjam

I guess by giving the additional $170,000 to support veterans and their families his effective amount taxed and donated almost equals 40% of his income. Pjam how much did you contribute to taxes and charities this year? Your logic is flawed and your hate evident.

Brent.......when you get to see all of pjam's posts you'll realize that he/she is a hater and quite the pubby troll here at newsvine

Tonglen you hate much? BTW what is your favorite news agency?

Your wasting you time Markle the righty trolls don't want you to add charity and taxes together. It doesn't fit the limit viewpoints

Adam--I just LOVE when you stereotype people who don't agree with you. I'm FEMALE, have a gay son, and my home town in central is overwhelmed not only financially, but physically, by illegal aliens.

So I'm a social liberal, in favor of women's rights, gay rights etc, BUT only for people who legally have the 'right' to be here.

I never voted for Shrub, voted both times for Clinton, but because I'm considering not voting for Obama this time (I did last time) I just MUST be a right wing nut job who watches fixed news, right?

Me, I see Obama as a man who promised ME {and everyone else, of course. ;) } to protect a woman's right to choice, and YET, nominated YET ANOTHER Catholic to the Supremes in his first choice, and then signed away POOR women's right to get an abortion under his HCB in order to get his OWN party to vote for it (he did NOT need one single pub vote to pass that clunker, but DEMS held it up in order to get his Exec. Order put in it!)

He's had a history of promising support for (CITIZEN) GAYS, which he has largely sidestepped, while losing NO opportunity to safeguard the "rights" of illegals here, NOT ONLY to get the same things a legal American can get, but in some cases, to get SPECIAL treatment that an American CANNOT get. ALL three of my kids paid "out-of-state" fees in college, to go to the school that fitted each of THEIR needs, and gladly so, since their family had not paid into the tax base of those 'other' states.

and EVERY time Obama waxes eloquent about the Dream Act, he is giving illegal children something MY kids could not get, and he is ALSO enabling them to get GREEN cards to take jobs away from american college students who ARE trying to pay out of state fees.

And when he instructs his 'Justice department' (an oxymoron almost!) to NOT deport illegals unless they have committed a MAJOR crime, I'm wondering why ANY American Citizen has to pay traffic fines, or jail time for shoplifting, etc.?

So, yep--I'm looking at possibly holding my nose and voting for WILLARD--SOLELY based on HIS 'promise' to get tough on ENFORCEMENT. And if HE doesn't follow through, in four years, I'll be voting for someone ELSE until SOMEONE starts putting AMERICAN Citizens (AND LEGAL immigrants, BTW) FIRST.

My hometown of 20K people in podunk central MO is spending over 4 million a year to educate the children of illegals. And that is only PART of the cost they incur in my town.

I am sorry to tell you but Willard hates women and gays as much as the rest of the republicans... Just check out who he supports.... I am gay also and I don't think I could vote for someone who wants to take away my rights completely... Just doen't seem right.

Hi MOmaid....I truly sympathize with you regarding those issues you brought up. The one thing I urge you to consider regarding your main issue (it seems to be illegal aliens) is that we the voters can't believe the rhetoric we hear coming from Willard's camp anymore than we can from the President. I think you might be more satisfied holding your nose and voting for the President again than allowing someone with NO convictions (that would be Willard) to be President soley based on his statement "Vote for me, I'm the most conservative!" He cave on the issue of immigration just like every predecessor (Dem or Rep) has. The only difference being that I can't stand what his political party espouses almost daily. I hope you have a great day!

I know how you feel MOmaid. There are several illegals here where I live as well in eastern NC. I actually had 2 brag to me at work one time while comparing their paychecks to other employees about how they pay NO taxes, get FREE medical treatment, their home was paid for by HUD and their power and phone is paid for by social services. They also receive food stamps and a check from the state every month for their "living expenses".

Funny thing is about a year later my company started to downsize due to the economy. Anyone with over 30 years in the company were targeted to be removed as they were more costly to the company to keep. So all the illegals stayed while legal American citizens were put to the street. Well, 1 lady blew the whistle on the company when they laid her off in favor of an illegal worker. All the illegals were rounded up and fired after that. But not 1 was deported. Hell, 5 of them were using the same social security number yet not one person in human resources noticed this. Yeah...right. I still see many of them working somewhere else in the area now. Just goes to show how it effects America as a cost in welfare to keep them up, a loss in tax revenue as they pay none and a loss of a job to an American who would be working and not on unemployment.

This has been a problem for a long long time yet I have not seen any real deterrent from any president to resolve this issue. Its one thing to have these programs to help citizens on hard times but its another to have so many living off the few who are still employed. Companies will do whatever it takes to save money and as long as the government allows these exploits they will flourish and grow.

And you never will.

Barack Obama is just as pro Big Business as any republican. They own him just like they do Mitt Romney and anyone thinking anything different is deluding themselves.

As long as it's cheap for Big Business either in the US or some 3 world sink hole to grind the labor pool into the ground, government will defend their rights. They will consume every resource on the planet for the sake of greed, completely unchecked.

This is the government "we the people" have allowed to flourish while we've quibbled amongst ourselves over the remaining cookie.

Wake up electorate. It's time to take our government back and put big business on it's knees with a boot at it's throat before it consumes even the very air we breathe.

...

endavor, You need to look at the food stamp website... illegal aliens ARE NOT ELIGIBLE for FOOD STAMPS.

Most of what you said is incorrect and I think meant to stir things up.

We don't need an income tax to do that though. This country worked pretty well for 100+ years without it. What would be better is a consumption and import tax.

Amen to that, oppie. It's very poor logic to say "why don't you just write a check if you don't like it." That would be a voluntary tax system. People who say that are intellecutally lazy or are just plain dishonest for partisan purposes.

oppie - "We need the system to tax everyone appropriately..."

We already have that, it is the U.S. tax code.

", so no one can say others should just write checks for whatever they feel they should pay."

You mean like saying people who earn over a certain amount should pay what you feel they should pay?

TD - " It's very poor logic to say "why don't you just write a check if you don't like it." That would be a voluntary tax system."

That's AFTER paying their REQUIRED taxes, genius. It's called a donation and is always voluntary, you can do it right now.

A consumption tax (VAT) is probably the ONLY way you will get the wealthy to cough up anything toward the cost of running a federal government. And if you do it "right" the federal coffers will get more (proportionally) out of the stuff sold by Tiffany's than Toys R Us.

Of course, that's far too fair.

Yes Alan no income tax worked in the past until the US got into wars and the war bonds couldn't cover it. Also medicaid and medicare were created which require tax dollars.

And pjam how about we just go back to the tax rate under Clinton. You remember when the economy was strong and debt was being reduced.

A VAT (value added tax) taxes a item at every step from producer to wholesaler to retailer plus any others in the middle. The problem is the producer raises the price to the wholesaler, the wholesaler to the retailer and the retailer to the consumer who ends up covering it for everyone. Now that's a fair tax.

oppie, what is fair to you? What percent of taxes do you think is fair for everyone to pay? I would certainly love to hear this. Do you realize that 1% of Americans that pay federal income tax are paying 47% of all the federal income taxes? Do you realize that the top 5% of people paying federal income taxes pay for 67% of all our income taxes? Do you realize that 47% of all Americans pay zero federal income taxes? What is fair? Is it fair that 47% pay nothing? I am middle class and do not feel that is fair. Most of the people not paying income actually receive a refund. Is that fair? Do you realize that by the time you add up federal, state, county, city, property and other taxes, that most of these so called millionaires are paying about 60% of what they make in taxes? Is that fair for the government to take that amount? Is it fair that a person works for 6 or 7 months out of the year for free? Our problem is not that we are taxed too little, but the government spends too much. And that means entitlements.

In the mean time he can just right a check? Beside taking money out of private hands and given to the federal .Gov does nothing but shrink the economy and grow the .Gov. and I think we can all agree that the .Gov does not create wealth of any kind.

Adam

Here is the National Debt by year from 1991 to 2000. Now show me where the debt decreased.

09/30/2000 5,674,178,209,886.86
09/30/1999 5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998 5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 4,411,488,883,139.38
09/30/1992 4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 3,665,303,351,697.03
09/28/1990 3,233,313,451,777.25

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt.htm

Oppie,

I'll state what you're opposed to stating. But let me start by saying that I agree that this country's issues can be solved by a voluntary system.

On the flip side, if you strongly believe in something, prove it. Leaders lead by example. Warren Buffett has thrown down the gauntlet, so to speak. This mentality that I'll do it if you do it doesn't cut it.

And TD, it's not being intellectually lazy. It's a question of trust. Words don't mean much because actions speak much louder. In this case, it feels like a way to win votes, and those kinds of statements, no matter which politician makes it, shouldn't sit well with anyone.

Oppie--I would AGREE with you if it applied to EVERYONE, and not just those in the TOP 50%, who actually pay ALL the taxes while those in the bottom 50% just increasingly COST while contributing NOTHING (unless you count more kids than they can afford.)

For most of the poor people in this country, their own BAD judgement is at the root of their situation, either from dropping out of HS, (or not working, and BARELY squeaking out a diploma) or by having children too soon, or by spending money on things that (contrary to popular opinion) are NOT necessities.

I see too many "poor" folks in the grocery, using the "food stamp" debit card, who are ALSO buying beer. and Cigarettes. Who are on CELL phones. Who have tattoos. who have multiple piercings.

Oh, and who usually have SEVERAL kids.

And THEIR bad decisions should NOT be MY responsibility.

Rich or poor there are going to be people who use the system. It burns me to the core to see people get things they don't deserve on my dime, that being said there are times that people work hard and still have to have assistance because the job available was not the planned job at the time. I have been on food stamps and have tattoos no kids but when i paid for my tattoos i had a job even today a G.E.D. or Masters degree will not assure you a job. So yes some of us poor working folks can get off foodstamps and our butts to get working its just funny that in the eyes of the general public we have to pay more on what we make then the upperclassmen if you will.

Adam-2011718

....how about we just go back to the tax rate under Clinton.

Ahhh yes, Clinton - the sole person responsible for the housing market collapse by entitling anybody to buy a house whether they could afford it or not...ha ha

like this guy:

http://www.citizensforethics.org/legal-filings/entry/crew-calls-investigation-discrepancies-mitt-romneystax-return-disclosures

"demanding the rich not pay anything"

Wow, you clearly have a firm grasp on reality, thanks for the intelligent, truthful, and non-politically owned contribution. (sarcasm)

What? Can I not even congratulate the right-wing without being mocked now?

Man...just exactly what will it take to make you people happy?

As someone stated before, the top 1% pay nearly half of our nations taxes. Sure let's just call that not paying anything.

Meanwhile, there are way too many people not paying a dime, but receiving a few thousand back.

Sure-this all looks fair.

like this:

http://www.citizensforethics.org/legal-filings/entry/crew-calls-investigation-discrepancies-mitt-romneystax-return-disclosures

Idiot pay about 15% in chartible contributions and you'll tax rate will drop too.

I guess you couldn't understand the line "The charity helps veterans and military families receiving medical treatment." Time for you to go back to high school and finish that degree in lawnmower repair.

Yes, DM. Of course, whenever Obama suggests that Congress raise his taxes, they throw a temper tantrum.

DMAZ, is tha a code for dumb a$$. Sure sounds like it from your comments.

Very good point HNL......

Hate to break it to you but the President (nor his family, nor the Vice President and family) get "taxpayer-paid vacations." When the travel is for personal reasons, he pays for travel, lodging, meals, and personal expenses. When the travel involves both personal and official duties, there is a formula that is used to determine the amount owed. It has also been very well publicized that President Obama does indeed pay for his own vacations as all presidents have since these rules were put in place by Ronald Reagan. See HNL, you learn something new every day!

http://www.policyarchive.org/handle/10207/bitstreams/19144.pdf

Shipup Mom--yes, the president "does" pay for his vacations--he pays the same amount as he would if he had traveled business class on a public airline. But on one of his trips to Africa, where he took Michelle and kids plus her mom--Airforce TWO (the spare, that travels WITH AF I) brought her and the kids back separate from Obama, stopping in France and England to shop and sightsee. And THOSE were also paid at the rate a plane ticket would cost, instead of the cost of that plane going out of its way.

PS--this is all true under BUSH, too, but he did not seem to take so many 'vacations' to exotic places, preferring for the most part to go to his HOME in Crawford.

PS--I really doubt if Obama pays the full rate at the hotels he stays at in Hawaii, either. I'd imagine they comp a lot of that, if for no other reason than that the government DOES pay for the expenses of the SS agents who travel WITH the president, and his family. ONE of the reasons the Clintons vacationed in Hyannis Port with the Kennedy's is that the Kennedy compound was already set up for SS security AND living accomodations for those agents.

OK..so you think all presidents should pay their own expenses related to their jobs? Of course, if George Bush or Mitt Romney were president, it would be ok to let the government pay for their expenses, right? How many times did President Bush go to his ranch in 8yrs? You want to bet that cost a whole lot more than President Obama's infrequent trips to Hawaii???

Concerned, Bush vacationed a total of 2 years if you add it all up.

Trudate,

Obama has been saying forever that he should be paying more in taxes. Do research before speaking.

Obama has been saying anything and everything people want to hear, so glad rhetoric works on you, he's reached one idiot at least.

Trudate,

You aren't making sense. Obama is the one who brought this issue into the forefront. He ran his first campaign on this issue...he was saying the same things then as he is saying now. It would be different if he were like Mitt Romney and changed his position to fit the circumstance but thats not the case here.

If your attitude is that Obama lies about everything he says than you can't be helped and you're blind. But if you look at this fairly you would be able to admit that Obama has asked for his taxes to be raised for awhile now because he doesn't think that people making millions of dollars should be paying less taxes than those making 80K, for example. Why you and other Republicans don't agree with that is beyond me.

Youre confusing, not agreeing, with seeing through the BS. You clearly want to believe everything he says, I however, am not that stupid. He is a liar, he is a panderer, he is pretending he wants a tax change that he is completely aware will never happen. That's why it's easy to pretend. It's called rhetoric, he says what you want to hear, he doesnt believe it himself, he just says it. Get your head out of your ass and pay attention.

Maybe he should release his other tax reports, oddly he conviently decided to release this one on an election year that he knew he'd make that play.

So then let Obama and his millionaire buddies who pay 40 grand a plate for his fundraisers to get their checkbooks out and start writing.

I'll be his donations were to his own campaign also. Tax delectable and pay yourself.

Those would be political contributions then and nondeductible.

Trudate,

So you are saying that if congress passed legislation that increased taxes on the wealthy, as Obama has stated he wants, that Obama would not sign the bill?

DMAZ you mean the way Gingrich creates shell companies then pay himself.

Trudat don't sell yourself short you ARE that stupid. He pushed for universal healthcare and got it passed. He is pushing for more tax fairness. You can call in pandering but that is all the other candidates were doing. And as for the other tax reports its listed in the article so they were released.

keep hitting that bong its doing wonders for you

Right, Obama is the only one who has fundraisers.

"he pushed for universal healthcare and got it passed"

Yea thats a good one, he ran on UH, he has only worked on UH and UH is unconstitutional, the majority of citizens dont want UH and it will cost taxpayers billions. But hey, its good for free-loaders.

I wouldnt call every one of his speeches pandering if they werent just proganda filled rhetoric, but thats all your man has, class-warfare is a great thing, almost as good as the lib race card.

trudat6445, Obama patterned his UH on Romneycare...

Agree on MSNBC!

Mitt Romney's Taxes:

http://www.citizensforethics.org/legal-filings/entry/crew-calls-investigation-discrepancies-mitt-romneystax-return-disclosures

need to be fixed, any volunteers?

shhhh.

The President and any other rich folks who feel like they are not taxed enough are free to send as much of their money to the government as they choose. The discussion about "tax fairness" and everyone "paying their fair share" is a scam designed to divide American citizens against each other (class warfare, if you prefer) in a desperate attempt by the President to hold on to power. We should all hope that it is not successful.

Trudat... Keep paying for those FREE LOADERS health care..check with any local hospital near you.. Take a look at how much money the hospitals lose from people with NO INSURANCE.. That doesnt bother me now that Im retired and dont have to pay income taxes. So as long as YOU keep paying for all those FREE LOADERS that dont have insurance at your local hospital,,why make them pay under UHC ????

He's already making millions, he just donated the book proceeds this year to attempt to keep the sheep believing the rhetoric he spews.

I am certain he would love to pay at the same rate as the guy bagging groceries at the stop & shop. That guy is paying at 0% because he is below the poverty level. heck he possibly gets all that was deducted back and then some because of the earned income credit. The President is the King of the Hypocrites!

Chip - If he believes he should pay more why doesn't he? Who is stopping him? Bush???

too late Chip

The nastiness has started. The righties will NEVER give the president credit for anything, NEVER.

President Obama made less but paid a higher tax rate than Romney, but still says he and others in the high income brackets should pay more in taxes. Meanwhile Romney wants to reduce high income tax rates and thus reduce their share of taxes... because his (and that pretentious junior Representative from Wisconsin) budget plan only ALLUDES to reforms in the tax code to increase revenue and we're supposed to believe that? Well if Romney and the Wisconsin Representative are as earnest and courageous as described by the right, why didn't they say WHO are going to lose their tax loopholes! They certainly didn't have a problem chopping the funding for specific programs in the country's social safety net.

The bagger at stop in shop pays no taxes and in fact will likely recieve money back that he never paid in.

What has this president none except Tax and spend us into bankruptcy?

Wait to Obamacare kicks in 2014. Add a another 7% - 10% tax to your paychecks. If you work, most of you liberal losers don't. You just want a free ride.

I have healthcare thru my employer that cost me over 600 a month. Don't sell your home 3% off the top goes to obamacare.

Gas were I live is 416 a gallon. Home fuel oil is 399 a gallon. My effective tax rate is 35%. I make under 70K a year.

So I am not in the 1%. Just a middle class slave to this socialist regime.

Mike...what you are is an angry, ill-informed, most likely uneducated republican. You are lucky your insurance cost only $600 a month and luckier that your employer is kind enough to pay his share. The people you should be railing against are the fat cats who run health insurance companies. They are playing the public by raising rates more than 20% per year IN ADVANCE of the health care act. So, your right wing friends who vehemently support the private insurance industry want to keep that industry just the way it is. In your hatred of all things Obama, you fail to realize that you are going against policies that support your interests. Clearly, you are not a member of the 1% club and yet, by your beliefs, you are a poor, lowly cheerleader for the richest people in the land. THAT's called a feudal society. And, if you are in the 35% tax bracket and only making 70K, I would strongly suggest you hire yourself a competent tax accountant for some help.

The guy bagging groceries is not paying ANYTHING in income taxes. So if that is actually Obama's claim, he is just as out of touch as he claims Romney is.

Concerned citizen--sorry, but as a retired person who didn't fiddle while the Ant's worked, I own STOCK in an insurance company and am DEPENDANT on the dividends from that for my comfort.

SO is nearly every person out there who has a pension, not to mention the ones who actually didn't spend every dime they made, but put some away for a rainy day.

And luck has pretty much NOTHING to do with an employer being willing AND able to pay for part of a worker's insurance. That worker has to be valuable enough to the company to off set that cost, or that employer has to be getting a TAX BREAK to cover that cost.

So which of those are YOU in favor of? Insurance paid for by the employer is NOT free. And a person who only paid $600 is lucky--his boss is probably at least meeting that cost, and that figures out to nearly $4 dollars an hour more in pay. WHERE do you think the boss GETS that money? Yep--he raises prices to cover it.

Then why doesn't he put his money where his mouth is? Maybe because he knows that the Buffet rule will never pass... Looks like he is leading from behind again. Make us proud, Mr. President.

schooldog do you really think these are Obama's complete income taxes? if so you are just a tool.

Because it's None of our G...Damn business that's why .....Do you go around showing everyone yours? I didn't think so.....

schooldog - Because Romney doesn't need media stunts to enthral simple-minded liberals.

Im sure if Romney wanted to make a show of it like Obama just did he could have manipulated the same way to make himself seem so selfless as Obama is pretending. Election years bring out the best ploys dont they.

Pvaldes make sure you walk around with your long form birth certificate. Oh yeah, thats none of your G-damn business. effing hypocrites.

Pjam stick to comparing yourself to blocks of cheese. You don't want to continuously embarass yourself, or maybe you do.

Birth certificate is everyones business when you are running for POTUS. Its called a law dumbass.

Adam....please . Anyone with half a brain did not subscribe to the stupid birth certificate crisis ....I tend to stick to the real issues .....Like his ability to run the Country....or lack there off.

I think having any type of off-shore account in a tax haven should automatically disqualify a candidate for running for the Presidency of the United States of America, until it is closed.

Momus ....I sure would not invest my money in America right now ......Why ? So the Govt. can take it and give it to the "have not's"? Or should I say "do not's" !!!

momus -- why do you say that? i cannot come up with any reason so look to you for your reasoning.

Because the reaction to the staggering actual income that separates Romney, from not only the populace at large but from many of the uber-wealthy as well, will have a chilling effect on voters.

Funny that income or wealth was never an issue when Kennedy or Kerry ran for President. Oh yes they were Democrats.

Bearbryant,

Can you name an author that makes the same money on a book sale every year?

I don't need to. Fact, his books are no longer selling very well. Make of it what you will and so will I.

Most works of fiction do better, hmmm, makes one wonder.

Bearbryant,

You obviously don't understand the point in my questioning. Nobody...Obama or any author sells a book at the same rate every year for as long as they live. Nobody. So your point/statement is stupid because it means nothing.

Bearbyrant Harry Potter books are not selling what they used to either. Make of it what you will.

Your comments shows that you don't read or buy books. Back to the outhouse with you. Thats a good inbred

Vipp and Adam,

It is apparent that simple business ideas like supply and demand and market conditions ellude someone like BearBryant. It is reasonable to conclude talking with him and other pubbies about the economy is going to be fruitless.

Unfortunately, the "supply and demand" economic theory we were taught in high school or earlier is now being manipulated by artifices such as speculators on oil futures. Though demand for oil/gasoline is down in America the price at the pump continues to rise. Also, derivatives that rewarded bundles if they lost value, wrought havoc in areas including the housing market. The theory just doesn't show the consistency of the past.

You people have no idea about finances do you? Capital gains, hon. Also he gave millions in donations/charitable contribution.

Yeah, millions in tithes to the Mormon Church.

Prag, and your point is? Freedom of religion in this country, remember?

Yes, freedom of religion, one of the cornerstones of our country's greatness.

But should people be able to write tithes to their church off their taxes as charitable gifts? Not IMO.

prag -- that is just one of the many deductions / loopholes in the tax code. i say eliminate them all, fill out a half-page form and either send a check or get a refund.

no tax prep fees, no cheating, on the up and up, no favoritism.

Your correct. I know that if I get a check from my broker it is the same as the paycheck I receive in buying power. Capital gains as a way to suggest it's "different" is a bogus argument but most of us don't have the resources to finagle the intricacies of the tax code written by congress with the wealthy's handmaidens right there to word it.

And if Romney is elected you won't have two nickels to rub together. But you will still be ignorant.

I find it funny that he takes the deductions on his tax returns

It's not funny its hypocrisy.

No, here's hypocrisy: the righties hysterically complaining about spending in the Obama's presidency when it was necessary to save the economy and not back when Bush and the Republicans in Congress spent money like water.

Charitable contribution are always deductions. Nothing wrong with Obama or Romney's giving. The issue is the tax rate. Clouding the issue with all the other BS shows your righties have nothing to go on.

Adam -- if there were no deductions, just a flat rate, would that be acceptable to you? seems like everyone paying their fair share would be quite easy.

Yes, the old "One man can solve it..." concept. That's a straw man bit. We're a nation of 300 million. It'll take a lot more than the president's taxes and total earnings to solve our fiscal woes. They were 10 years in the making and won't be solved overnight and will never be corrected if those who fed out of the tax cut trough for all these years don't "kick a buck".

Many of you are missing the point here and I find it hard to believe that you can be that idiotic. If the president and the so called other people who want to pay more but yet don't and take their itemized deductions, what does that tell you about what they truly believe? When I believe in something, I don't force others to do it; I do it because I believe in it. I don't say--"Well I will wait till everyone else has to do it!" In this case, the president took 278,000 in itemized deductions and I figure at 35% that would be an additional $97,300 he could have paid to the government. Yes, I understand it won't fix the deficit caused by both parties and that was not the point. Furthermore I am not a lib or a republican and I actually voted for Obama!

His charitable donations were to labor.

Actually, they are. And by not reporting them as such, Obama is committing tax fraud. Or maybe those are buried in the $400+ business income reported on Sch C which he did NOT release. Is he hiding something? Who knows? I'd sure like to see his WHOLE return and not just two pages.

man you've gotta tell us when you find one.

Willard won't go any further than he has to in releasing the full contents of his tax returns. The president and he should both disclose their income, earned and unearned, in detail and for at least the last three years. Unfortunately, this will be unread by those whose only source of info is from propaganda machines, I'm talking about Fox, Limbo, Hannity et al. Whose income do you thing will be outlandish to all but about 50-70 millionaires?

Soazdan,

God you Republicans are stupid...No author...Not Obama or any author on this earth sells the same book in the same amount every year of their lives. A decline in a book sale happens to every author...everywhere! Jesus Christ.

I wonder if that's why authors write more than one book? o.O hmmmm

Maybe you EXPECT him to aid congress in continuing to support corporations that DO NOT need aid, to give subsidies to "gentlemen farmers" who grow nothing? Or maybe you're all for the tax code that incentivizes shipping jobs to other countries and uses U.S. taxpayer dollars for them to advertise in other countries. NO I know! You are all in for the current trade policy where goods and materials that come IN to the U.S. are not charged one cent of tarrif while our trading "partners" lay a hefty 25to 50 % tarrif on all goods FROM the U.S. so that the few products that are still made here have a lower sales rate on their markets. Yes this is how your wonderful phokuwecan party members protect and defend their own dayam pockets instead of the Constitution they plegded to protect and uphold.

Soazdan,

God you Republicans are stupid...No author...Not Obama or any author on this earth sells the same book in the same amount every year of their lives. A decline in a book sale happens to every author...everywhere! Jesus Christ.

Looks like you may be the stupid illiterate one. To the literate, Dan was commenting on the idiotic, typical liberal excuse made for lower books sales. See how he quoted "fluctuations", those were the idiot libs words, that's called an excuse. Using reading comprehension skills i was able to deduce that when Dan said it's called "decline in sales" that he meant they arent selling because of a decline in sales, not fluctuations, you stupid democrat.

So presumptive.