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
click here to read article
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.
That might be an interesting line for Newt to use in the general election. It certainly looks like he is going to be the nominee at this point.
Corporate profits are taxed at 35% in America. As a shareholder your companies profits are taxed at 35%. Then your dividends are taxed at an additional 15% as a shareholder. As an example:
Buffett is the sole owner of a corporation. That corporation makes a million dollars in profit. The corporation pays 350,000 dollars in federal taxes. 650,000 is distributed to Buffett in dividends. Buffett is taxed at 15% and pays an additional 97,500 in federal taxes. Total to the fedguv in taxes is 447,500 an effective federal tax rate of 44.75%.
Yes this ignores loop holes and subsidies but it is simplified to demonstrate how fos Buffett, Obama and the pseudo conservative sect here at FR really are.
“So if investment income, cap gains, and ordinary income are taxed at the same rate, what effect would that have on investment in the US?”
Probably none. We should remember that Reagan’s landmark Tax Reform Act of 1986, a bill that Reagan says required a “herculean effort” to get to his desk, taxed capital gains and ordinary income at the same rate, 28%. Did the economy suffer? No, it grew prodigiously. If a man sees an opportunity to make a winning investment, he generally won’t turn it down because he has to pay tax on it.
That’s why many tax policy experts recommend taxing capital gains at the same rate as ordinary income and using that additional revenue as a way to eliminate corporate taxes altogether. Eliminating corporate taxes would do much more to stimulate growth and investment.
“The bonanza of untapped revenue is the poor who pay no taxes.”
Well, if you’ve got no income, you pay no taxes. Fair enough? But if you have a small business and earn $10k a year, you pay $1,530 a year in taxes, at least, because the payroll taxes start with the first dollar earned.
And where does this money go? It goes into the vast hole in the ground where all taxes go, paying for bureaucrats’ salaries, helicopter rides for the President, various wars, and social security until we decide we can’t afford it with all our other bills.
Taxes should not be punitive. A person should not be penalized for making money.
"They can afford it" is absolute brainwashing; anyone who honestly acquires anything ought to be able to keep it without some outside party assessing whether or not that individual has too much of any one thing.
America, land of the free and home of the brave; remember her?
The rules need to change drastically, and we need to demand it. They should cut at least half of the ridiculous crap they spend, and everyone should pay the same percentage. EVERYONE.
This whole idea of "revenue neutral" makes me vomit. They do NOT need that much of your money.
If there is one subject that sends me through the rage roof it is taxes. Those assholes waste so much and give so much to their buddies that it makes me want to go tasmanian devil on all of them.
People accept this convoluted IRS thievery for the same reason that audience sat unresponsive when some talking head told them to do so...zombies who will obey because their brains have lost that freedom spark.
I agree that deductions are a separate issue and that we should therefore be looking at taxable income. I believe that the 14% figure for Romney may have been based on AGI as shown in post 60. However, Buffett's numbers are based on taxable income. I researched and posted an explanation of his numbers at this link.
It might be clearer to concentrate on the marginal tax rate. On an additional dollar of wages, Buffett's secretary will pay 25% (or somewhat more, depending upon her taxable income) plus payroll taxes. However, a millionaire investor will pay 15% on an additional dollar of long-term capital gains or dividends. I think that the current debate chiefly centers around whether or not that is "fair". But I agree that we should look at taxable income and treat deductions as a separate issue.
My daughter (8th grade) was replying to the news article regarding Romney’s taxes. (Are “muckrakers” good or bad). She said good, but then went on to agree how the rich should be taxed the same as the rest of us. (And not less, as was implied by the article).
I explained the thing to her, and how she was confusing income tax with capital gains tax, etc. (Which is what the article intended to do). And yes - they DO pay more in income taxes. Why is THAT fair that they pay 35% and I “only” have to pay 15% - they should pay the same as me!
So, she still agreed that “muckrakers” are good, but also that they need to tell the truth and not be biased. (And explained about the capital gains vs. income, etc.) I just explained it (investments, taxed already, taking a risk, putting money in to make the economy grow, etc.), so hope she wrote it down in a coherent manner. Oh dang. I have told them NUMEROUS times before how don’t get sucked into the trap that the liberals play on how there is only a certain amount of wealth and it needs to be divided evenly. But investments helps to INCREASE wealth all the way around.
I did tell her that there is plenty else for the “muckrakers” to look at with Romney, but this isn’t it. And I completely forgot to mention that Obama would be a much easier target what with forged birth certificates, several Soc. Security numbers, no college records, etc.
I had to remind her “Now remember, in all of this stuff - your teacher is a commie. And the newspapers and tv are commies. Come to your old man when you have stuff like this!” (Although a few years ago she did debate the finer points against manmade global warming all on her own!)