Effectively, Obama pays a much lower rate than Buffet's secretary yet makes almost 800k a year, and the Buffett rule wont apply to him. Is it time to go back to the drawing board and create the Obama rule?
The post isn't about how much he makes, its about how much he pays in taxes. Its about the fact the tax law he is creating would exclude him. In fact, if Obama's secretary isn't cheating on her taxes and she makes 90k a year, Obama is paying less than she is.
Your comment remains off topic... since Obama is the one making a big deal about tax rates while violating the spirit of what he's proposing. Oddly, the Dems didnt raise this objection when they ran that kept poodle John Kerry for office, who not only paid less than half the rate his opponent paid, he paid a lower rate than Romney. But then he made his fortune the hard way... marrying wealthy women.
It remains.... off topic? Who cares how much the president makes? Lets call Obama a well paid auto worker for the sake of argument.What portion of his 800k income should he pay in taxes, according to Obama?
Obama's whole argument suggests he sucks at math and has no understanding of the tax code. The statements that have repeatedly compared rates and then treated the comparison as it they'd just compared amounts are either disingenuous or stupid. Reminds me of people that couldnt figure out that Iran did not fly planes into the WTC. Obama was quoted prior to taking office as saying it would be counterproductive for the economy to raise the capital gains tax, but his proposal ignores his own observation. He's very into "class war"... trying to get people to vote for him because it just isnt fair that someone else is more financially successful than those to whom he is speaking. So much for the guy that made a big deal about not wanting to be the pres of red states or blue states, but of the United States. He's engaged in class warfare ever since taking office, and nothing more. But I suppose if I were Obama I'd be looking for something to run on besides my record too.
LOL... Gotta love how Buffet now starts complaining or comes up with this bright idea $30 + billion later... ;-) Good job, Obama. Another "win"... Terrible.
I've got no problem with ANYONE paying 20%. If someone doesn't have the foresight to work the tax breaks they're entitled, then they deserve what they get or don't get. I'm working toward making more money, and fully intend on taking the breaks when I'm due them. Don't make me pay more because someone who didn't invest or research says I have to.
How much do you think he should be paying and should 'corporate' owned business, as opposed to an individual, be paying more or less? ie: is there a difference between an individual who built his business and a corporation that owns some monopoly?
What I think is unimportant. He thinks "rich" people should be paying 30% while trying to pass legislation that would not classify him as "rich". He complains about not having the option to have Michelle stay at home and raise the kids while making a paltry $500k a year. Firstly, we have government agencies that were created with the charter to prevent monopolies and anti-competitive activities. They sometimes don't do a very good job, but assuming they were working properly, it eliminates the premise of your question. Secondly, corporations, sole proprietorships, and partnerships should be no different from a tax standpoint. Any intelligent individual who has built his business probably incorporated in the first year anyway, so the argument is useless. Thirdly, it seems either the corporate tax or the capital gains tax should be eliminated entirely. There is something very wrong about having your corporation take in 100$ and give 38$ to the government, leaving the remaining 62$ as a capital gain to the share holders, of which they give the government another 15%. It is double taxation, pure and simple. I'd be in favor of a mildly progressive/much flatter tax. I'd clear out 70% of the deductions and 99% of the subsidies. I also like the idea of making any politician who presides over two annual budget deficits in excess of 1 or 2% ineligible for reelection.