Should a Person Making Over $600,000 a Year Pay More Than 18% in income taxes?

Yes, I think we should close all the "loopholes".

Something should stand on it's own merit, not what "tax benefits" you get.

As for the President, he spent much of the last campain castigating all of those "rich people" for having such a low tax rate, even though they were simply obeying the rules and regulations that allow such things. His Low Information Voting Base sees only that Mitt Romney payed 20 percent in taxes on millions, while a construction worker pays 25 percent on $80,000.

And now, it seems, he is doing the same thing.

Of course, this is nothing new. The voting record of Senator Obama is in stark contrast to what President Obama now believes.

I just state facts... Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Then perhaps you might want to take a second look at your previous post:

I thought we were talking about taxes and not charity. What if Bill Gates only paid 2% in taxes would you excuse him if he paid 100 million to charity? This is only about taxes and the Obama's paid a lower rate than Warren Buffet's secretary. You know how bad that is? Then again Romney paid a higher rate. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Actually, Obama's effective tax rate is significantly higher than Romney's.

But significantly lower than the evil President GW Bush..................who paid an effective gross income of 31%.....BTW, Bush paid more than Clinton as well.....

Why is it the democrats are always the ones whining about someone else not paying their fair share ?

............



Actually, Obama's effective tax rate is significantly higher than Romney's. Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

There are two ways for you to make a contribution to reduce the debt:

1. You can make a contribution online either by credit card, checking or savings account at Pay.gov
   
2. You can write a check payable to the Bureau of the Public Debt, and in the memo section, notate that it's a Gift to reduce the Debt Held by the Public. Mail your check to:

Attn Dept G
Bureau of the Public Debt
P. O. Box 2188
Parkersburg, WV 26106-2188

But significantly lower than the evil President GW Bush..................who paid an effective gross income of 31%.....BTW, Bush paid more than Clinton as well.....

Why is it the democrats are always the ones whining about someone else not paying their fair share ? Originally Posted by Whirlaway

Fuck off WW

So did it state how much in addition to the mandated tax he paid so it would be what he felt was his "fair share".
You do know that those that want to pay more are not stopped from doing so.
It makes you wonder why they do not pay more if that is what they truly believe.


I know there are those that bitch about the people that make their money from dividends that are paid to them AFTER IT HAS BEEN TAXED AT THE HIGHEST RATE IN THE WORLD, except for UAE, and still have to pay AGAIN once they get their TAXED share. The effective rate, not including state and local taxes, comes to 60 percent. Is it no wonder why corporations are moving overseas.

Where do you see that? I just state facts and you must be in an acohol induced state. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

And you must be a full time retard. Just because you advocate higher taxes on the so called wealthy does not mean that you will pay higher taxes. So once again you are trying to say that 2+2=9

Those percentages reported are just flat out wrong. They report the tax as a percent of gross income and not taxable income.

Mitt had a reported much lower rate on his 2011 tax return, somewhere around 13%, but that was of gross.

I bet the actual tax rate is somewhere around 30-33% of taxable income.

Why the news agencies report a tax rate based on gross income is just flat out misleading or out and out lying.

There are two ways for you to make a contribution to reduce the debt:

1. You can make a contribution online either by credit card, checking or savings account at Pay.gov
   
2. You can write a check payable to the Bureau of the Public Debt, and in the memo section, notate that it's a Gift to reduce the Debt Held by the Public. Mail your check to:

Attn Dept G
Bureau of the Public Debt
P. O. Box 2188
Parkersburg, WV 26106-2188

Originally Posted by Whirlaway

i'm sure everyone will get right on that.

Those percentages reported are just flat out wrong. They report the tax as a percent of gross income and not taxable income.

Mitt had a reported much lower rate on his 2011 tax return, somewhere around 13%, but that was of gross.

I bet the actual tax rate is somewhere around 30-33% of taxable income.

Why the news agencies report a tax rate based on gross income is just flat out misleading or out and out lying. Originally Posted by KCJoe

All of this is beside the point. What really counts is the political reality that you can sell to an ever increasing "dumbned down" voter.

Much was made during the election comcerning what people actually paid to the government, not what they could have paid, should have paid, or anything else.

It was brought up time and time again that such and such only wrote a check for 15 percent, when his secretary was paying 25 percent. Much was made of "loop holes", and other seemingly dishonest ways that the "rich" avoided paying.

Now, it seems that the President is one of the very people that he warned his block of voters about. He is a guy who makes over $600,000 a year, and only paid 18 percent in taxes.

It was brought up time and time again that such and such only wrote a check for 15 percent, when his secretary was paying 25 percent. Much was made of "loop holes", and other seemingly dishonest ways that the "rich" avoided paying.

Now, it seems that the President is one of the very people that he warned his block of voters about. He is a guy who makes over $600,000 a year, and only paid 18 percent in taxes. Originally Posted by Jackie S

Do you understand that if in fact you closed the loopholes, he (and others) would of had to pay more. He wanted to change the tax law so you would be required to pay more not volunteer to pay more. You are mixing apples with oranges.Are you advocating that we all just volunteer to pay taxes?

Those percentages reported are just flat out wrong. They report the tax as a percent of gross income and not taxable income.

Mitt had a reported much lower rate on his 2011 tax return, somewhere around 13%, but that was of gross.

I bet the actual tax rate is somewhere around 30-33% of taxable income.

Why the news agencies report a tax rate based on gross income is just flat out misleading or out and out lying. Originally Posted by KCJoe

The reason for Romney's effective tax rate (reported to have been about 14% in 2011) is unknown, since few details were released. However, we may reasonably surmise the following:

The vast bulk of his income is almost certainly carried interest, and he may have had some income from capital gains and qualified dividends. Any of those would have been taxed at a 15% top marginal tax rate. (Which rose to 23.8% for the 2013 tax year.) Few people in the VC and private equity industries take any "conventional" salary or fee income exposed to the top-bracket 39.6% rate. You may argue that in a de facto sense, it's reasonable to consider that Romney pays more tax than is reported (even thought not in a direct way) because of what's referred to as "tax incidence," but that's a whole different issue. Many people have written theses and dissertations on the issue of corporate tax incidence without arriving at any clear consensus.

It was brought up time and time again that such and such only wrote a check for 15 percent, when his secretary was paying 25 percent. Much was made of "loop holes", and other seemingly dishonest ways that the "rich" avoided paying. Originally Posted by Jackie S

I don't think the ways Buffett, Romney, and others benefited from lower rates should be considered "seemingly dishonest," since they are simply complying with the law as written. However, I understand why people believe that preferential rates for different types of "income" are unfair, and that some changes in the rules of the game are in order.

Now, it seems that the President is one of the very people that he warned his block of voters about. He is a guy who makes over $600,000 a year, and only paid 18 percent in taxes. Originally Posted by Jackie S

Since he gave about a quarter of his income to charities of various kinds, I don't really have a problem with that (assuming that all the recipients chose deserving sets of beneficiaries).

But there does seem to be a bit of irony connected with his overall body of statements and actions, doesn't there?

I don't think the ways Buffett, Romney, and others benefited from lower rates should be considered "seemingly dishonest," since they are simply complying with the law as written. ? Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

That is not the full story, is it?

President Obama did give away a quarter of his income to charity.

Any way you slice it, giving over a hundred grand is quite generous.

He also took a sizable and voluntary pay cut to show solidarity with folks hit by government cuts.

. . . Let's keep the story balanced and give credit where credit is due.