Skip to comments.Obama: Millionaires should pay at least 30 percent in taxes (Obama paid 25%, Mitt 13%, Buffett 10%)
Posted on 01/25/2012 3:23:15 AM PST by tobyhill
People earning over $1 million per year should pay an effective tax rate of no less than 30 percent, President Obama said in his State of the Union address Tuesday night.
The president laid down one of his most political markers of the annual policy speech by crafting what he called the "Buffett Rule," named after the famous billionaire investor.
"Tax reform should follow the Buffett rule: If you make more than $1 million a year, you should not pay less than 30 percent in taxes," Obama said.
(Excerpt) Read more at firstread.msnbc.msn.com ...
Then, when an investor converted any of his capital to personal income to purchase food, clothing, shelter, charitable donations or services, tax it the same way you tax any other personal income.
And then instead of just millionaires, it would be halfies, then quarters, then tenths. But never would it affect the Obama constituents.
I just posted on another thread that you can go through the “Big 10” and easily demonstrate how the left is opposed to all of them.
10 - Liberal ideology and socialism are based on envy.
9 - “you’ll be better off if we take what the rich have”, “you don’t have because they do have”
8 - And we’ll use violence (ie, government) to steal what they have
7 - Adultery? Have at it! Sex Positive!
6 - Don’t kill the convicted murderer, but that innocent baby in the womb? Go for it, you’ll be better off without it (see 9)
5 - Your parents don’t know as much as you and your teachers do. Pay attention to us, not them.
4 - Sabbath Day? What’s that?
3 - @@#$%@#! @#&$*@!!!
2 - hmmmm... do they worship “graven” images? Movie/TV stars perhaps?
1 - is there anything that DOESN’T come before the one true God with these people?
You simply CAN’T tax the truly wealthy, and that’s not their true target, because they know this fact as well.
They target income earners, who don’t have the means or the information available to avoid getting their income violently confiscated.
Lib/progs mock the meaning of words like “fair” What they want is the opposite of fair.
On the surface people are going to think that this is reasonable and fair. The problem is that a wealthy person should determine how his or her money is spent and not the government. The government can not be trusted with a penny more than what it needs to run only those services that a government should run.
Otherwise the government will waste money and use it to increase and maintain its power (usually by increasing dependency). It will choose winners and losers in the marketplace.
The federal government is totally out of control. More power needs to be returned to the states.
I will continue to invest in my mattress.
Great point, thank you for posting.
30% federal income
7.65% Social Security
8-10% state income
7% state sales
+ property taxes and user fees applied by all levels of government.
The current situation has the wage earning producers taxed at total rates of 50% or more while 48% of the population pays zero taxes. After all, it is only fair.
Since Obama wants to make everything fair, I suggest a retroactive windfall profits tax for book authors. After all, how hard can it be to write, “Dreams from my Father” and the “Audacity of Hope”? Unlike the wealthy investor, the political book author has no capital at risk. His fees are 100% profit unless he is paying a ghost writer. Perhaps a reporter will ask him about the source of his wealth. After all is it fair for him to become a millionaire with none of his personal capital at risk?
Wouldn’t it be much “fairer” to pay him by the page? Let’s say five hours per page. Audacity of Hope is 464 pages so he should be entitled to be paid for 2320 hours. The minimum wage is $7.25 per hour. What is a fair hourly rate. Let’s say 5 times the minimum wage or $36.25. Given 2320 hours at $36.25 per hour, Obama’s “fair” wage for his book would be $84,100. Shouldn’t all income he received in royalties above that amount be taxed away under the logic used by Obama? His book royalties are as much “excess profits” as oil royalties received by other wealthy investors. Can’t the Republicans make this case?
“Give 30 Billion to the Gates Foundation instead of paying the death tax.
So after your death you can change social Polices like Plan Parenthood, Population Control, Open Borders and many other leftist causes like the Ford, Carnegie and Rockefeller have been doing for decades.”
Perhaps we should start taxing these tax exempt foundations and think tanks. Many “nonprofits” make money on their investments or other activities such as leasing property, selling books, consulting, or operating retail stores. Why should “nonprofits” be allowed to generate profits engaging in activities in competition with the private sector but bearing none of the private sector taxation?
Excellent point. You get a credit for ALL taxes paid.
That’s why the fair tax is the only way to go. A consumption tax hits all alike - both rich and poor buy things. The tax is only on new things, so if one buys used, there is no tax. There is no penalty for saving, or for hiring new workers. And to make Obama happy, Warren Buffet pays the exact same tax as his secretary.
Yes, but government believes they are God. Well, certain politicians do, for sure!
On the other hand, a small business owner sells stuff, goods or services, for money. That money is considered income by the government. Even if he uses that income to restock items, pay staff, buy equipment, replace faulty equipment, pay insurance, etc, its still all income. Make a million on your small business but pay out $950,000 in expenses?
Guess what? Youre a millionaire
I don't see the hyper-rich in Sears buying clothes, in Home Depot buying carpet, in Publix buying groceries.
So any tax that uses existing tax structures needs to be scrapped and started from scratch.
Perhaps eliminating trust funds (which exist to protect wealth form taxes) would be a start.
Better yet (or BEST), have the government stop spending so damn much so we don't need to tax so damn much in the first place. Don't get me started! This overspending is--and we all REALY know this, dems and Pubbies alike--the root of the problem. They sell their votes, which burns through OUR collective cash. They NEVER stop spending, but keep coming to us with their hands held out for more, with the power of the state as a jack booted thug backing them up.
Well, true, but you’re still out those expenses. And the tax reduction you get is often not a $1 for $1 offset, but rather a portion.
For a small business, the difference in a a couple of hundred dollars increase in taxes might not seem like a lot, but can be the final straw, when you’re already barely breaking even in a struggling economy.
That’s true, but Obama and the Dems are not referring to taxable income when they demagogue the wealthy. Just like the report that Romney “only” paid 14% of his income as federal tax. They are comparing his tax paid to his gross income. They do not take into account the different tax rates for investment income or the deductions for charitable giving. They want to make it look like the wealthy are getting away with something, rather than playing by the existing rules. If the Dems don’t believe that certain deductions are justified, then put those on the table and let’s have a debate. But enough of the fraudulent claims that the rich are somehow getting a preferential income tax rate on their employment income.
Just because they don’t buy them at sears, the super rich still buy clothes. I think the consumption tax is best, followed by a flat tax as second choice. Our current system is rotten to the core. While far from a millionaire, I am sick and tired of paying a 50%+ marginal tax rate while being told I am not paying my fair share to support the 50% who pay nothing...
I hate the soak the rich mentality of too many people in this country; world even.
I'm not wealthy, but I have aspirations!
Obama's adjusted gross income = $1,728,096
Federal income tax paid = $453,770 (26.3%)
Wages = $395,188 (22.9%)
Investment income = $15,063 (0.9%)
Business, S-Corp & Trust Income= $1,384,212 (80.1%)
Charitable donations = $245,075 (12.4%)*
Romney's AGI = $21,646,507
Federal income tax paid= $3,009,766 (13.9%)
Wages = 0 (0%)
Investment income = $20,792,324 (96.1%)
Business = $314,112 (1.5%)
Charitable donations = $2,983,974 (12.1%)*
Gingrich's AGI = $3,142,066
Federal income tax paid = $994,708 (31.7%)
Wages = $450,245 (14.3%)
Investment income = $35,547 (1.1%)
Business = $2,567,308 (81.7%)
Charitable donations = $81,133 (2.5%)*
It ain't rocket science. Newt paid the highest rate because 96% of his income came from wages and business (including trust and S-Corp) income which is taxed at the highest rate.
Mitt paid the lowest rate because 96% of his income came from investments which is taxed at the lowest rate because it was already taxed before it was invested.
It is also worth noting that Obama has business and wage income exceeding 100% of his adjusted gross income. This may be because he donates a slightly higher share to charity than does Romney. It is more likely because he is able to avoid tax on more of his business income through creative loopholes which make certain types of earned income exempt from taxes.