Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Soul Crusher on April 15, 2013, 10:00:53 AM
-
http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-tax-rate-joe-scarborough-class-warfare-2013-4
F obama
-
F you and Morning Dope
Obama didn't write the tax code so how exactly would is he supposed to pay higher taxes
He didn't criticize Romney for paying the legal tax rate
He criticized the tax code itself that allowed him to pay so little in taxes
-
F you and Morning Dope
Obama didn't write the tax code so how exactly would is he supposed to pay higher taxes
He didn't criticize Romney for paying the legal tax rate
He criticized the tax code itself that allowed him to pay so little in taxes
How about this ghetto thief and lying pofs lead by example just once?
Ghettobama never holds himself to the same standard he wants everyone else held to.
-
F you and Morning Dope
Obama didn't write the tax code so how exactly would is he supposed to pay higher taxes
He didn't criticize Romney for paying the legal tax rate
He criticized the tax code itself that allowed him to pay so little in taxes
Gee! Poor Obama! He tried his BEST to pay more taxes. But, CURSE that blasted tax code.
Of course, if he hadn't taken some of the deductions, he could have easily paid more in taxes.
How about this ghetto thief and lying pofs lead by example just once?
Good luck with that!!
Ghettobama never holds himself to the same standard he wants everyone else held to.
PRECISELY!! But, why let that little aspect stop Straw's excuse-making and kneepadding?
-
Gee! Poor Obama! He tried his BEST to pay more taxes. But, CURSE that blasted tax code.
Of course, if he hadn't taken some of the deductions, he could have easily paid more in taxes.
Good luck with that!!
PRECISELY!! But, why let that little aspect stop Straw's excuse-making and kneepadding?
here is a link to his tax returns: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/complete_return_president_obama_2012.pdf
tell us which deductions he shouldn't have taken
I'm not a CPA but it looks to me that his primary deduction (outside of mortgage interest and property taxes) is charitable contributions
Also note this his income in 2012 (before any deductions) is not even 1 million so he's not even in the millionaire category in regards to his income this year (not net worth). As you know many millionaires and billionaires pay close to ZERO taxes through various schemes and loopholes
-
here is a link to his tax returns: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/complete_return_president_obama_2012.pdf
tell us which deductions he shouldn't have taken
I'm not a CPA but it looks to me that his primary deduction (outside of mortgage interest and property taxes) is charitable contributions
Also note this his income in 2012 (before any deductions) is not even 1 million so he's not even in the millionaire category in regards to his income this year (not net worth). As you know many millionaires and billionaires pay close to ZERO taxes through various schemes and loopholes
So? He thinks govt is so great - why not givt to the govt instead of a charity? Second - this idiot was classyifying everyone over 250k as rich so he fits in the evil group he hates so much. F O-twink.
-
So? He thinks govt is so great - why not givt to the govt instead of a charity? Second - this idiot was classyifying everyone over 250k as rich so he fits in the evil group he hates so much. F O-twink.
when did he "classify" everyone making over 250k as "rich"
please provide the quote where he says that
-
when did he "classify" everyone making over 250k as "rich"
please provide the quote where he says that
Every plan of O-TWINK had taxes going up on millionaires and billionaires making over 250k a year.
-
when did he "classify" everyone making over 250k as "rich"
please provide the quote where he says that
He referred to them as among the "wealthiest among us". And 250K has been his minimum threshold for years.
You know this. Yet, your blatant excuse-making kneepadding clouds your thinking again.
As for charitable deductions, Romney's deductions for charity make those of Obama look miserly.
Did Obama mail checks to the IRS and have them send them back or something?
-
He referred to them as among the "wealthiest among us". And 250K has been his minimum threshold for years.
You know this. Yet, your blatant excuse-making kneepadding clouds your thinking again.
As for charitable deductions, Romney's deductions for charity make those of Obama look miserly.
Did Obama mail checks to the IRS and have them send them back or something?
The Obama's contributed almost 25% of their income to charity
what % did Romney contribute and did it all go to his church?
Feel free to post the quote where Obama calls people making 250k "the wealthiest among us"
-
The Obama's contributed almost 25% of their income to charity
what % did Romney contribute and did it all go to his church?
Feel free to post the quote where Obama calls people making 250k "the wealthiest among us"
Twink please - every plan of O-Twink had taxes going up on those at 250k
-
Absolute hypocrite.
-
The Obama's contributed almost 25% of their income to charity
what % did Romney contribute and did it all go to his church?
Feel free to post the quote where Obama calls people making 250k "the wealthiest among us"
"Asking the wealthiest among us to pay a little more will close the deficit. - Barack Obama.
or,
"I say that at a time when the tax burden on the wealthy is at its lowest level in half a century, the most fortunate among us can afford to pay a little more. I don't need another tax cut. Warren Buffett doesn't need another tax cut."
And how has he been defining his tax hikes from his first campaign until now? $250,000.
Now, feel free to quit playing dumb and see the hypocrisy for what it is.
-
love Morning Joe; Mika will be back shortly and set the MoJo str8 about his rant.
he did return part of his salary; since he gets paid by the govt he gave it back to the govt.
-
"Asking the wealthiest among us to pay a little more will close the deficit. - Barack Obama.
or,
"I say that at a time when the tax burden on the wealthy is at its lowest level in half a century, the most fortunate among us can afford to pay a little more. I don't need another tax cut. Warren Buffett doesn't need another tax cut."
And how has he been defining his tax hikes from his first campaign until now? $250,000.
Now, feel free to quit playing dumb and see the hypocrisy for what it is.
in other words
you can't find a quote where he says people making 250k are wealthy
now how about you tell us what % of his income Romney donated to taxes....since you are the one who brought it up
-
in other words
you can't find a quote where he says people making 250k are wealthy
now how about you tell us what % of his income Romney donated to taxes....since you are the one who brought it up
LMFAO!!!!
You really are the biggest obama dildo I have ever met.
-
in other words
you can't find a quote where he says people making 250k are wealthy
In other words, you are kneepadding to the point where your sense goes bye-bye. Obama's agenda has been about taxing the rich. What was the minimum amount for those hikes again and why?
now how about you tell us what % of his income Romney donated to taxes....since you are the one who brought it up
How about you answer why Obama wants to hike taxes on those making that amount, if he doesn't think those folk are "rich".
-
In other words, you are kneepadding to the point where your sense goes bye-bye. Obama's agenda has been about taxing the rich. What was the minimum amount for those hikes again and why?
How about you answer why Obama wants to hike taxes on those making that amount, if he doesn't think those folk are "rich".
Let me show you how this works
here is a quote where Obama is talking about "millionaires and billionaires" paying tax rates as low as 1%
Now all you have to do is show me a quote where Obama says something to the effect of "people making 250k are wealthy" or something like that
http://money.cnn.com/2011/12/07/news/economy/obama_taxes/index.htm
"A quarter of all millionaires now pay lower tax rates than millions of middle-class households. Some billionaires have a tax rate as low as 1%," Obama said in a speech in Kansas.
Here are some of the facts behind the claim: In 2006 roughly 25% of those with adjusted gross incomes over $1 million paid a smaller portion of their income in federal taxes -- income, payroll and corporate -- than 10% of those with AGIs below $100,000, according to a recent study from the Congressional Research Service.
Still waiting for you to tell us what % of his income Romney donated to charity
-
All the neocons on GB turned into socialists in this thread.
Love it.
-
Twink please - every plan of O-Twink had taxes going up on those at 250k
?
-
?
Obama lied his ass off again.
-
http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-tax-rate-joe-scarborough-class-warfare-2013-4
F obama
How can he do that? I thought he was on MSNBC? ???
-
Obama lied his ass off again.
you got something you want to get off your chest Nancy ?
-
All the neocons on GB turned into socialists in this thread.
Love it.
Hardly, Whork.
The issue isn't merely Obama taking the deductions and paying 18% in taxes. That's fine with us, as long as it's done within the law.
The issue IS Obama doing so, WHILE FLAPPING HIS GUMS about the rich (which included HIM) should be paying more in taxes.
Let me show you how this works
here is a quote where Obama is talking about "millionaires and billionaires" paying tax rates as low as 1%
Now all you have to do is show me a quote where Obama says something to the effect of "people making 250k are wealthy" or something like that
I'll go you one better: You forget, kneepadding one, that Obama REJECTED a regurgitated version of Pelosi's plan from Boehner for tax hikes, which started at minimum incomes of A MILLION DOLLARS.
He even made a snide remark toward Boehner, to the tune of, "If you're making $900,000, somehow he thinks that you can't afford to pay a little more in taxes. But the principle that rates are going to need to go up he's conceded.
That was his shot at Boehner, in defense of HIS take that taxes go up for those making at least $250K
Try that on for size.
http://money.cnn.com/2011/12/07/news/economy/obama_taxes/index.htm
Still waiting for you to tell us what % of his income Romney donated to charity
Still waiting for you to explain WHY Obama wants to hike taxes on those making $250K, if he doesn't consider that to be "rich".
-
Free Republic
Browse · Search Pings · Mail News/Activism
Topics · Post Article
Skip to comments.
Obama to raise upper-income seniors' Medicare premiums
CBS News ^ | April 12, 2013 | SCOTT APPLEWHITE
Posted on April 12, 2013 10:09:27 PM EDT by Steelfish
April 12, 2013 Obama To Hike Upper-Income Seniors' Medicare
SCOTT APPLEWHITE
WASHINGTON President Barack Obama's plan to raise Medicare premiums for upper-income seniors would create five new income brackets to squeeze more revenue for the government from the top tiers of retirees, the administration revealed Friday.
First details of the plan emerged after Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius testified to Congress on the president's budget. As released two days earlier, the budget included only a vague description of a controversial proposal that has grown more ambitious since Obama last floated it. (snip)
Obama's new budget calls for raising $50 billion over 10 years by increasing monthly "income-related" premiums for outpatient and prescription drug coverage. The comparable number last year was $28 billion over the decade.
Currently, single beneficiaries making more than $85,000 a year and couples earning more than $170,000 pay higher premiums. Obama's plan would raise the premiums themselves and also freeze adjustments for inflation until 1 in 4 Medicare recipients were paying the higher charges. Right now, the higher monthly charges hit only about 1 in 20 Medicare recipients.
(Excerpt) Read more at cbsnews.com ...
-
HEHEHEHEH!!!
I love seeing all the libtards melting all over the place in this thread.
So it's fine for Obama to pay only what he is required by the current tax laws, but not for Romney.
He vilified Romney, yet here he is doing the same damn thing.
What's next? An account in the Cayman Islands?
The clown in chief is a hypocrite. The only ones who don't see it for what it is or they see it but don't want to admit it are the morons on the left.
-
Hypocrite, sure... but I have no issue with it.
I had no issue with Romney's tax rate... He paid what was legally required.
Sounds good to me.
-
F you and Morning Dope
Obama didn't write the tax code so how exactly would is he supposed to pay higher taxes
He didn't criticize Romney for paying the legal tax rate
He criticized the tax code itself that allowed him to pay so little in taxes
I don't blame Obama personally for the tax code at large (except for the things which he voted for and/or championed).
HOWEVER, if he really believes what he says, he would have paid the difference between what he thinks he ought to pay and what he paid directly to the Treasury. Same with people like Warren Buffett.
It's easy to argue against the tax system that, you claim, charges you too little because you can feel pretty secure in the knowledge that it won't change and you'll keep your "low" tax rate while, at the same time, you become one of the "good" guys, not another evil millionaire.
If Obama feels he should be paying 25% or 35% or 45% then he can do it. Today. For more information he can check out http://www.fms.treas.gov/faq/moretopics_gifts.html. If he wants the extra money to help with the debt – something he claims to be concerned about – he can check out http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/gift/gift.htm instead.
-
like i said during the election about 20 times. it's all smoke and mirrors. the only sad part of all of this is not Obama's tax rate. it's the spreading of the misinformation by young, liberal idiots that the rich do not pay the super majority of the taxes in this country. if you were to walk down to any college campus and ask 100 students who pays the lion's share of the taxes in this country they would tell you that the poor and middle class do. because for some reason its OK for news stations to lie to its viewers and insinuate that they do. and we're still arguing about this because most simply do not understand tax policy or how a tax return works. and they have no interest in finding out.
a perfect example is how CNN handled the Facebook tax situation. CPA's sit around and laugh at it because it's such a joke. i went to a CPE conference and we spent about 30 minutes on it. in reality its really not funny. its scary how much they pander to the liberals and how they refuse to tell the truth. they don't lie exactly either. they just say what they can to mislead without lying.
-
I don't blame Obama personally for the tax code at large (except for the things which he voted for and/or championed).
HOWEVER, if he really believes what he says, he would have paid the difference between what he thinks he ought to pay and what he paid directly to the Treasury. Same with people like Warren Buffett.
It's easy to argue against the tax system that, you claim, charges you too little because you can feel pretty secure in the knowledge that it won't change and you'll keep your "low" tax rate while, at the same time, you become one of the "good" guys, not another evil millionaire.
If Obama feels he should be paying 25% or 35% or 45% then he can do it. Today. For more information he can check out http://www.fms.treas.gov/faq/moretopics_gifts.html. If he wants the extra money to help with the debt – something he claims to be concerned about – he can check out http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/gift/gift.htm instead.
did Obama ever say that millionaires and billionaires should voluntarily overpay taxes
If so, then one might be able to call him a hypocrite (even though he didn't even make 7 figures last year)
Obama (and others like Buffet) have criticized the SYSTEM that allows the super wealthy to often pay little or no taxes.
-
Hardly, Whork.
The issue isn't merely Obama taking the deductions and paying 18% in taxes. That's fine with us, as long as it's done within the law.
The issue IS Obama doing so, WHILE FLAPPING HIS GUMS about the rich (which included HIM) should be paying more in taxes.
I'll go you one better: You forget, kneepadding one, that Obama REJECTED a regurgitated version of Pelosi's plan from Boehner for tax hikes, which started at minimum incomes of A MILLION DOLLARS.
He even made a snide remark toward Boehner, to the tune of, "If you're making $900,000, somehow he thinks that you can't afford to pay a little more in taxes. But the principle that rates are going to need to go up he's conceded.
That was his shot at Boehner, in defense of HIS take that taxes go up for those making at least $250K
Try that on for size.
Still waiting for you to explain WHY Obama wants to hike taxes on those making $250K, if he doesn't consider that to be "rich".
how many more times do you need your fallacy explained to you
-
did Obama ever say that millionaires and billionaires should voluntarily overpay taxes
If so, then one might be able to call him a hypocrite (even though he didn't even make 7 figures last year)
Obama (and others like Buffet) have criticized the SYSTEM that allows the super wealthy to often pay little or no taxes.
STFU already w the kneepadding. Its embarassing. Obama is a hypocrite - leave it at that
-
Twink please - every plan of O-Twink had taxes going up on those at 250k
Hey Nancy - do you actually talk like this in real life or do you only let your queer side out when you're online?
-
did Obama ever say that millionaires and billionaires should voluntarily overpay taxes
If so, then one might be able to call him a hypocrite (even though he didn't even make 7 figures last year)
Obama (and others like Buffet) have criticized the SYSTEM that allows the super wealthy to often pay little or no taxes.
they don't OFTEN pay little or no taxes. there ARE situations that in a given year the very wealthy pay little to no taxes. but that doesn't mean that they haven't or will have years where they pay an ungodly amount of taxes. you're being misled........purposeful ly to believe that the ultra wealthy ALWAYS pay little or no taxes. and you're spreading that misinformation here. and you're the type of people CPA's laugh at during our CPE conferences. yeah a bunch of nerds who never get laid are laughing at you.
-
i mean the top 1% pays roughly 35-40% of the entire tax income tax bill, the top 10% pay roughly 70%, and the bottom half pay ZERO income tax. what more do you fucking want?
-
they don't OFTEN pay little or no taxes. there ARE situations that in a given year the very wealthy pay little to no taxes. but that doesn't mean that they haven't or will have years where they pay an ungodly amount of taxes. you're being misled........purposefully to believe that the ultra wealthy ALWAYS pay little or no taxes. and you're spreading that misinformation here. and you're the type of people CPA's laugh at during our CPE conferences. yeah a bunch of nerds who never get laid are laughing at you.
hey dumbass, when did I say ALWAYS?
there are plenty of wealthy people who pay a lot of taxes but there are plenty of people who don't either
I'm not going to bother cutting and pasting this as I doubt you'll even bother to read it
http://wweek.com/portland/article-17350-9_things_the_rich_dont_want_you_to_know_about_taxes.html
edit - sorry to hear that you never get laid. My CPA is married and he's never mentioned that he and his friends don't get laid so maybe it's just you
-
hey dumbass, when did I say ALWAYS?
there are plenty of wealthy people who pay a lot of taxes but there are plenty of people who don't either
I'm not going to bother cutting and pasting this as I doubt you'll even bother to read it
http://wweek.com/portland/article-17350-9_things_the_rich_dont_want_you_to_know_about_taxes.html
hey fucktard, your comment was that the wealthy OFTEN pay little or no income tax. you're WRONG.
-
hey fucktard, your comment was that the wealthy OFTEN pay little or no income tax. you're WRONG.
Yes Often
Often is not Always
and I said the SUPER WEALTHY not Wealthy
Fucktard
maybe if you got laid once in awhile you'd be able to focus better
-
hey fucktard, your comment was that the wealthy OFTEN pay little or no income tax. you're WRONG.
LOL - you have no idea what you are in for hear. He is not known as Straw Man for anything.
-
Yes Often
Often is not Always
and I said the SUPER WEALTHY not Wealthy
Fucktard
maybe if you got laid once in awhile you'd be able to focus better
and if you knew the first thing about tax you would be able to argue with me on this. and are you serious with that article? did YOU read it?
-
Yes Often
Often is not Always
and I said the SUPER WEALTHY not Wealthy
Fucktard
maybe if you got laid once in awhile you'd be able to focus better
and OFTEN is still wrong. i'm not even going to start in on that article because its honestly a day long discussion on why its misleading. and you're obviously not up to the discussion because you know NOTHING about tax.
-
did Obama ever say that millionaires and billionaires should voluntarily overpay taxes
If so, then one might be able to call him a hypocrite (even though he didn't even make 7 figures last year)
Obama (and others like Buffet) have criticized the SYSTEM that allows the super wealthy to often pay little or no taxes.
Criticizing a system that you claim makes you underpay (while knowing full well that the system won't change) makes you a hypocrite if you don't take advantage of the opportunity to pay what you actually think is fair.
Talk is cheap... If Obama believes he pays too little, let him pay what he thinks is fair by donating the difference to the United States. And the same goes for Warren Buffet. If you want to prove you mean what you say, act don't just talk.
-
and if you knew the first thing about tax you would be able to argue with me on this. and are you serious with that article? did YOU read it?
what point would you like to debate?
-
Criticizing a system that you claim makes you underpay (while knowing full well that the system won't change) makes you a hypocrite if you don't take advantage of the opportunity to pay what you actually think is fair.
Talk is cheap... If Obama believes he pays too little, let him pay what he thinks is fair by donating the difference to the United States. And the same goes for Warren Buffet. If you want to prove you mean what you say, act don't just talk.
knowing full well the system won't change?
didn't it change for this year?
again, if you'd like to show me a quote where Obama says the rich should voluntarily overpay income tax then you will have legitimate reason to call him a hypocrite
-
knowing full well the system won't change?
didn't it change for this year?
again, if you'd like to show me a quote where Obama says the rich should voluntarily overpay income tax then you will have legitimate reason to call him a hypocrite
LOL - deeds not words.
This is why the shithead in the WH has not an ounce of credibility on any issue whatsoever other than to his cult of drones.
-
knowing full well the system won't change?
Yes.
didn't it change for this year?
Depends on what you mean by change. The changes, such as they are, are not really substantial. You can keep on painting over shit from now until the end of time. You'll just end up with paint-covered shit.
again, if you'd like to show me a quote where Obama says the rich should voluntarily overpay income tax then you will have legitimate reason to call him a hypocrite
Obama believes that the rich - a category in which he voluntarily includes himself - don't pay their "fair share." If he really believed that and in the ideology he claims to believe, he wouldn't wait for tax reform. He would lead the way and pay the difference today, and urge other rich people to do the same. This would not only be a powerful gesture but also provide the impetus for real change towards reforming the tax code to further the goal of the rich paying "their fair share."
-
Yes.
Depends on what you mean by change. The changes, such as they are, are not really substantial. You can keep on painting over shit from now until the end of time. You'll just end up with paint-covered shit.
Obama believes that the rich - a category in which he voluntarily includes himself - don't pay their "fair share." If he really believed that and in the ideology he claims to believe, he wouldn't wait for tax reform. He would lead the way and pay the difference today, and urge other rich people to do the same. This would not only be a powerful gesture but also provide the impetus for real change towards reforming the tax code to further the goal of the rich paying "their fair share."
I'm curious how you know what Obama "knows"
He frequently included himself when talking about millionaires and billionaires
Did he make a million dollars last year? Did he ever say that HE or anyone should voluntarily over pay
There are certainly issues where one could legitimately call Obama a hypocrite but I don't see it on this one.
-
what point would you like to debate?
um... maybe the fact that the author included things like Social Security and unemployment insurance, which are payroll taxes in order to inflate his numbers to spin it in the direction he wanted it to go. Do you even know what social security is? it's YOUR money for retirement. It's NOT a tax. Unemployment insurance is money that is there to insure YOU against unemployment. it's NOT a tax. and i'm just gettiong started. again, it would take me teaching you basic tax policy and showing you how a tax return works for you to understand any further points that I may have.
so the author is picking and choosing what he wants to include in his numbers so that he can trick fucking idiots like yourself into buying into this shit. the sad fact is you just browse the internet for articles that reek of liberalism and it empowers you to go spread that misinformation elsewhere. now stop posting about this. you're out of your element.
-
I'm curious how you know what Obama "knows"
He frequently included himself when talking about millionaires and billionaires
Did he make a million dollars last year? Did he ever say that HE or anyone should voluntarily over pay
There are certainly issues where one could legitimately call Obama a hypocrite but I don't see it on this one.
Every plan put forward by Obama applies to millionaires and billionaires who make 250k (or as obama puts it 'a quarter million dollars a year') a year remember?
-
I'm curious how you know what Obama "knows"
Everybody knows the tax system is extremely unlikely to change - and everybody acts like that's a big secret. We might cut taxes a bit here while raising them a bit there. We might raise a tax rate here and add a loophole there. And so on...
He frequently included himself when talking about millionaires and billionaires
Did he make a million dollars last year? Did he ever say that HE or anyone should voluntarily over pay
I've no idea if he made a million dollars or not - it's irrelevant. If he really believes he's undertaxed (he said he is) and is rich (he said he is) and he believes that the rich ought to pay their fair share (he has) then he should prove it by voluntarily overpaying.
The argument "Well, I feel like I ought to pay more and make the argument that it's my moral duty to pay more, but I'm not required to under the current tax code so I won't" doesn't hold water. Either you believe what you say and stand by your convinctions, or you either don't believe what you say or don't stand by your convictions.
There are certainly issues where one could legitimately call Obama a hypocrite but I don't see it on this one.
It's hypocritical to argue that you don't pay enough in taxes and to not lead by example by choosing to pay enough today even if the law doesn't mandate it.
-
and don't any of you even get me started on the articles written on Facebook. It's authors like this who answer the question, "why is journalism dead?"
-
Do you even know what social security is? it's YOUR money for retirement.
No. It's money taken from me by force today, in lieu of future payments I may not want and may not collect. It's money that is unavailable to me to use or otherwise invest. Why should I be forced into such a system, instead of being able to plan my own retirement how I want to?
It's NOT a tax.
What you choose to call it is irrelevant. It's a tax in the sense that I'm forced to pay it at the point of the Government's proverbial gun.
Unemployment insurance is money that is there to insure YOU against unemployment.
No. It's money taken from me by force today, to insure me for an eventuality that may never materialize and against which I may not wish to be insured. It's money that is unavailable to me to use or otherwise invest. Why should I be forced into such a system, instead of me being able to insure myself against risks I consider important?
it's NOT a tax.
Again, what you choose to call it is irrelevant. It's a tax in the sense that I'm forced to pay it at the point of the Government's proverbial gun.
-
Everybody knows the tax system is extremely unlikely to change - and everybody acts like that's a big secret. We might cut taxes a bit here while raising them a bit there. We might raise a tax rate here and add a loophole there. And so on...
I've no idea if he made a million dollars or not - it's irrelevant. If he really believes he's undertaxed (he said he is) and is rich (he said he is) and he believes that the rich ought to pay their fair share (he has) then he should prove it by voluntarily overpaying.
The argument "Well, I feel like I ought to pay more and make the argument that it's my moral duty to pay more, but I'm not required to under the current tax code so I won't" doesn't hold water. Either you believe what you say and stand by your convinctions, or you either don't believe what you say or don't stand by your convictions.
It's hypocritical to argue that you don't pay enough in taxes and to not lead by example by choosing to pay enough today even if the law doesn't mandate it.
I don't "know" that the tax code won't change.
I posted a link to Obama's taxes on the first page of this thread (which is about Obama's 2012 taxes)
Again, If Obama had ever said people should voluntarily overpay then I would agree with you but since he didn't I don't. I also have a strong suspicion (though I won't say I "know") that if Obama did choose to voluntarily overpay that we'd see even MORE criticism from the right. They would probably say it's all a show or a gimmick or that it's easy for him to do that since he is POTUS's and his living expenses are covered etc...
All I see in this thread is a bunch of phony outrage (not from you)
-
No. It's money taken from me by force today, in lieu of future payments I may not want and may not collect. It's money that is unavailable to me to use or otherwise invest. Why should I be forced into such a system, instead of being able to plan my own retirement how I want to?
What you choose to call it is irrelevant. It's a tax in the sense that I'm forced to pay it at the point of the Government's proverbial gun.
No. It's money taken from me by force today, to insure me for an eventuality that may never materialize and against which I may not wish to be insured. It's money that is unavailable to me to use or otherwise invest. Why should I be forced into such a system, instead of me being able to insure myself against risks I consider important?
Again, what you choose to call it is irrelevant. It's a tax in the sense that I'm forced to pay it at the point of the Government's proverbial gun.
can't help but agree. but what you're doing is making a case against the taxation system as a whole. thats a whole other subject for another day. and you most probably share the same opinion as myself.
-
um... maybe the fact that the author included things like Social Security and unemployment insurance, which are payroll taxes in order to inflate his numbers to spin it in the direction he wanted it to go. Do you even know what social security is? it's YOUR money for retirement. It's NOT a tax. Unemployment insurance is money that is there to insure YOU against unemployment. it's NOT a tax. and i'm just gettiong started. again, it would take me teaching you basic tax policy and showing you how a tax return works for you to understand any further points that I may have.
so the author is picking and choosing what he wants to include in his numbers so that he can trick fucking idiots like yourself into buying into this shit. the sad fact is you just browse the internet for articles that reek of liberalism and it empowers you to go spread that misinformation elsewhere. now stop posting about this. you're out of your element.
social security is not "your money"
you don't get out what you put in
I hope you know this (I have to assume you do)
If you want to make specific point about the article I posted then make a specific reference.
Why don't you start with the section titled: "Many of the very richest pay no current income taxes at all". since that corresponds to my statement (which you chose to change yet pretend it was the same) which said "Obama (and others like Buffet) have criticized the SYSTEM that allows the super wealthy to often pay little or no taxes."
-
social security is not "your money"
you don't get out what you put in
I hope you know this (I have to assume you do)
If you want to make specific point about the article I posted then make a specific reference.
Why don't you start with the section titled: "Many of the very richest pay no current income taxes at all". since that corresponds to my statement (which you chose to change yet pretend it was the same) which said "Obama (and others like Buffet) have criticized the SYSTEM that allows the super wealthy to often pay little or no taxes."
do you get out 100% of what you put in? no. still doesn't change the fact that the author is picking and choosing numbers that fit his argument and discarding all others so that lemmings like you will read it. again. what the politicians are debating relates to INCOME TAX. Buffett and Obama are talking specifically about INCOME TAX. and you're pulling out an article that is talking about something other than INCOEM TAX and using it in a debate on INCOME TAX. what about this don't you get? seriously. stop. put down the shovel.
-
do you get out 100% of what you put in? no. still doesn't change the fact that the author is picking and choosing numbers that fit his argument and discarding all others so that lemmings like you will read it. again. what the politicians are debating relates to INCOME TAX. Buffett and Obama are talking specifically about INCOME TAX. and you're pulling out an article that is talking about something other than INCOEM TAX and using it in a debate on INCOME TAX. what about this don't you get? seriously. stop. put down the shovel.
that's exactly what I said
way to ignore the specific point that I made earlier in this thread
payroll tax (aka social security) IS an INCOME TAX and not a deposit into an individual retirement account ( I know that you know this)
If you want to talk about something specific to the article I posted then cut and paste the exact point you disagree with so I know exactly what you're referring to
I'm more than happy (and contrary to your belief quite capable) of having this discussion with you
-
that's exactly what I said
way to ignore the specific point that I made earlier in this thread
payroll tax (aka social security) IS an INCOME TAX and not a deposit into an individual retirement account ( I know that you know this)
If you want to talk about something specific to the article I posted then cut and paste the exact point you disagree with so I know exactly what you're referring to
I'm more than happy (and contrary to your belief quite capable) of having this discussion with you
um...social security and medicare taxes are not income tax you fucking idiot, it is a payroll tax. two different things. again. all you're doing is taking a debate on INCOME TAX and using arguments regarding payroll taxes in the debate. the author of the idiotic article you posted is simply diluting the issue by bringing in arguments (valid though they may be) and using it in the debate on INCOME TAX. you simply do not get it. i can't help you.
-
here is a link to his tax returns: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/complete_return_president_obama_2012.pdf
tell us which deductions he shouldn't have taken
I'm not a CPA but it looks to me that his primary deduction (outside of mortgage interest and property taxes) is charitable contributions
Also note this his income in 2012 (before any deductions) is not even 1 million so he's not even in the millionaire category in regards to his income this year (not net worth). As you know many millionaires and billionaires pay close to ZERO taxes through various schemes and loopholes
oh also since you are the consummate pragmatist with regards to your Obama's tax return why don't you share with us some of the "tax loopholes" (i fucking hate this expression because 99% of the people who use it have no idea what the fuck it even means) that those evil millionaires take advantage of that you think are unfair. go ahead give it a whirl.
-
the bottom line is this article is all smoke and mirrors aimed at lemmings like straw. The math is rigged for the article. I can throw numbers at you all day long and twist them in any way to prove a point.
It seems to me in this article, anyone who is not in the top 4% is considered poor. Of course 96% of the population would have a higher tax burden than the top 4%...Could it be the additional 92% of the population contributing to the total?
Fact is it's statistically inaccurate. It mixes samples and popuation sizes and tries to compare them. Then show correlation as a cause and effect and just because items are correlated, does not mean one causes the other.
and people like Straw take articles like this and give it to other impressionable asshats who browse the internet looking for ammunition as opposed to information and they accept it as bible when if you take a step back and look at the info with an unbiased and informed angle, you would see that this is simply a guy vomiting numbers until the vomit resembles something that makes his point.
-
um...social security and medicare taxes are not income tax you fucking idiot, it is a payroll tax. two different things. again. all you're doing is taking a debate on INCOME TAX and using arguments regarding payroll taxes in the debate. the author of the idiotic article you posted is simply diluting the issue by bringing in arguments (valid though they may be) and using it in the debate on INCOME TAX. you simply do not get it. i can't help you.
if you want to split hairs go right ahead
payroll tax is paid for by both empoyee and employer (unless you're self employed) but it's calculated based on INCOME
now how about actually addressing the subject you claim to object to which is that the SUPER RICH often pay little or no income taxes (and often that means no payroll tax either)
-
oh also since you are the consummate pragmatist with regards to your Obama's tax return why don't you share with us some of the "tax loopholes" (i fucking hate this expression because 99% of the people who use it have no idea what the fuck it even means) that those evil millionaires take advantage of that you think are unfair. go ahead give it a whirl.
already cited in the article I posted and I've asked you twice now to address it
-
how many more times do you need your fallacy explained to you
You haven't explained jack. All you've done is your standard kneepadding. The simple fact is Obama campaigned BOTH times on raising taxes on those making $250K or more.
And, he rejected Pelosi's/Boehner's plan that hiked them on those making at least $1 million.
-
Oh yeah with regards to social security, it's true that the rich pay the same amount of s.s. tax as someone earning exactly $106,800. However, he also receives the same s.s. benefits as the person earning $106,800 since the benefits are also capped. So, they both pay the same social insurance premiums for the same social insurance benefits. and they both receive fewer benefits per dollar paid than those at lower income levels due to the way benefits are determined, at least in terms of retirement benefits.
so the author's entire premise is faulty to begin with.
look there are so many problems with this article its tough to do it all in one day. but i can assure that his assertions regarding the social security and medicare tax are flat out idiotic and actually detract more from his argument than help it. but he knows his readers don't care.
-
if you want to split hairs go right ahead
payroll tax is paid for by both empoyee and employer (unless you're self employed) but it's calculated based on INCOME
now how about actually addressing the subject you claim to object to which is that the SUPER RICH often pay little or no income taxes (and often that means no payroll tax either)
no its not dumbass!!!! it's calculated based on a companies gross payroll expense. if a company has a loss of $500,000 in a year they still have to pay payroll taxes you fucking idiot!!! YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT!!!
and i've refuted your statement that the super rich OFTEN pay little or no income tax. are there years where they don't? yes!! most years do they pay a shit ton of tax yes!!! do you think that over a lifetime YOU pay more taxes than a guy with a net worth of $50,000,000!!! no you fuckien dumbass you don;t. and the author of the article you posted is trying to make you think that you do.
-
no its not dumbass!!!! it's calculated based on a companies gross payroll expense. if a company has a loss of $500,000 in a year they still have to pay payroll taxes you fucking idiot!!! YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT!!!
and i've refuted your statement that the super rich OFTEN pay little or no income tax. are there years where they don't? yes!! most years do they pay a shit ton of tax yes!!! do you think that over a lifetime YOU pay more taxes than a guy with a net worth of $50,000,000!!! no you fuckien dumbass you don;t. and the author of the article you posted is trying to make you think that you do.
You should give up now - arguing w Straw is like talking to a rock
-
You should give up now - arguing w Straw is like talking to a rock
i do give up. its like arguing with my 6 year old.
-
no its not dumbass!!!! it's calculated based on a companies gross payroll expense. if a company has a loss of $500,000 in a year they still have to pay payroll taxes you fucking idiot!!! YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT!!!
and i've refuted your statement that the super rich OFTEN pay little or no income tax. are there years where they don't? yes!! most years do they pay a shit ton of tax yes!!! do you think that over a lifetime YOU pay more taxes than a guy with a net worth of $50,000,000!!! no you fuckien dumbass you don;t. and the author of the article you posted is trying to make you think that you do.
damn, doesn't take much to set you off
yes, I conceded that "payroll" and "income" are different but i was referring to income as earned by the employee as the "income" it's calculated against. As I said, the employer pays their share of this tax based on the employees INCOME and has nothing to do with the profit of loss from the company. You seem to have just decided that when I said "income" I mean the net profit of the company which is clearly not what I was referring to
did you actually address anything in section 4 of the article I posted
I didn't see it but I'll go back and look
-
You haven't explained jack. All you've done is your standard kneepadding. The simple fact is Obama campaigned BOTH times on raising taxes on those making $250K or more.
And, he rejected Pelosi's/Boehner's plan that hiked them on those making at least $1 million.
Boehner's Plan B was not supported by Pelosi
Pelosi proposed a similar plan in May 2012 prior to Boehner Plan B(to leave the Bush tax cuts in place for everyone making less than 1 million)
Quote from Steny Hoyer regarding Plan B
Democratic leadership, he told reporters Tuesday, was not in favor of the plan.
“The Leader [Nancy Pelosi] and I both agree that we’re not for this,” he said.
Pelosi authored a letter to Speaker Boehner in May, calling for an identical proposal that extended tax cuts for those making less than $1 million. Hoyer dismissed that, saying he believed that had also been a “political ploy.”
“She wanted to show that Republicans wouldn’t even vote for a million,” he explained.
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/12/18/democrats-reject-boehners-plan-b/#ixzz2QfQi4uMX
-
LOL its hillarious to see straw silver line so much to defend his main man.
what issues do you feel obama has been hypocritical on straw?
-
LOL its hillarious to see straw silver line so much to defend his main man.
Indeed!
Now Here's The Irony Of Boehner's New Fiscal Cliff Plan.
Earlier Tuesday morning, House Speaker John Boehner announced a "Plan B" to avert the so-called fiscal cliff. The plan, which he intends to bring to the House floor for a vote, includes tax hikes for incomes above $1 million, while the Bush-era tax cuts would remain in place for all other income brackets.
The irony of Boehner's plan is this: Six months ago, he would have had the support of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi — but not his own caucus.
In May, Pelosi sent a letter to Boehner demanding immediate consideration of a vote on a Bush tax cut extension for incomes below $1 million.
"It is unacceptable to hold tax cuts for the middle class hostage to extending multi-billion dollar tax breaks for millionaires, Big Oil, special interests, and corporations that ship jobs overseas," Pelosi wrote.
Of course, that is the exact plan that Boehner plans on bringing to a vote soon. It was a plan that Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) loosely proposed as far back as 2010.
But circumstances have changed, and today Democrats, not Republicans, stand firmly opposed to the plan. President Barack Obama won re-election and has claimed a mandate to increase taxes on incomes above $250,000, a campaign pledge. (He backed off that pledge on Monday with a new offer to Boehner that would increase rates on incomes above $400,000.) Fresh off Obama's victory, Democrats are viewed more favorably, in general, in than Republicans in fiscal-cliff polls.
House Democratic Minority Whip Rep. Steny Hoyer told Politico on Tuesday that Pelosi was making a "political ploy" with her May letter to Boehner. He also said Boehner was doing the same thing with the new "Plan B" vote.
In a statement, Pelosi echoed Hoyer's thoughts, saying it served as a tacit admission that Republicans have conceded on raising tax rates.
“Earlier this year, I put forward a plan to smoke out the Republicans’ true position: a proposal to raise taxes on those making over $1 million per year in context of a big, bold, and balanced plan," she said.
"Republicans said ‘no’ six months ago; the President took his case to the American people to use $250,000 as a threshold for higher tax rates, and the public supported him. With the fiscal cliff just two weeks away, Republicans’ so-called ‘Plan B’ is nothing more than a cynical ploy that is harmful to the middle class and the economy."
Boehner's plan also differs in details from the Democratic-led plan in the summer, and it does not address the mandatory spending cuts set to kick in as part of the fiscal cliff.
Nevertheless, it puts Democrats in an awkward political position.
"For years, Washington Democrats — led by Sen. Schumer and Rep. Nancy Pelosi — have been calling for a bill to stop the tax hikes except on millionaires," Boehner spokesman Michael Steel said in a statement. "They even voted in favor of it. To oppose it now would make them entirely responsible for the tax hikes that tens of millions of Americans face in less than two weeks. They know that, and the President knows that.
http://www.businessinsider.com/boehner-fiscal-cliff-millionaire-tax-plan-obama-pelosi-reid-schumer-2012-12#ixzz2QgG8Js9T
what issues do you feel obama has been hypocritical on straw?
This ought to be good.
Of course, Straw has YET to answer why Obama campaigned TWICE on hiking taxes on those making at least $250K, if that minimum ain't considered to be "rich".
-
Straw would kneepad obama raping a dog on the WH lawn if need be
-
damn, doesn't take much to set you off
yes, I conceded that "payroll" and "income" are different but i was referring to income as earned by the employee as the "income" it's calculated against. As I said, the employer pays their share of this tax based on the employees INCOME and has nothing to do with the profit of loss from the company. You seem to have just decided that when I said "income" I mean the net profit of the company which is clearly not what I was referring to
did you actually address anything in section 4 of the article I posted
I didn't see it but I'll go back and look
straw. let me explain somehting to you. a person can have a year where their tax return shows a net loss. meaning they have negative income. meaning they spent more money then they made. THEY STILL HAVE TO PAY PAYROLL TAXES on their wages. so NO. it's not dependent on the individual's income.
-
it's just mind boggling how you can't see that article for what it is. a guy playing with numbers until he gets to the conclusion that he wants.
-
straw. let me explain somehting to you. a person can have a year where their tax return shows a net loss. meaning they have negative income. meaning they spent more money then they made. THEY STILL HAVE TO PAY PAYROLL TAXES on their wages. so NO. it's not dependent on the individual's income.
I'm talking about an employee or wage earner. His portion of SS is calculated based on his income (salary) and his employer will pay the other half regardless of whether the company is profitable or not.
What does any of that have to do with a super wealthy person who makes millions or billions and pays zero taxes?
Isn't that what you were originally arguing about?
-
I'm talking about an employee or wage earner. His portion of SS is calculated based on his income (salary) and his employer will pay the other half regardless of whether the company is profitable or not.
What does any of that have to do with a super wealthy person who makes millions or billions and pays zero taxes?
Isn't that what you were originally arguing about?
you're not capable of having this discussion. you have no idea what you're talking about. you will get no further response from me.
-
you're not capable of having this discussion. you have no idea what you're talking about. you will get no further response from me.
No you have reached your senses. ;D
-
lol. Funny thread. :)