Obama Paid a Lower Tax Rate Than His Secretary & Shelters Income

[NickTheCage]

President Obama Pays Less In Taxes Than His Secretary According To Report | Mediaite

President Barack Obama made news on Friday after an early information dump which included his 2011 tax filings revealed that the president and his wife paid 20.5 percent on nearly $789,674 of adjusted gross income. President Obama’s secretary, Anita Decker Breckenridge, who makes $95,000 per year paid a “slightly higher rate” than the president.

Obama Family Tax Shelter | Washington Free Beacon

Obama Family Tax Shelter
First family transfers wealth, avoids taxes

President Obama and his wife, Michele, gave a total of $48,000 in tax-free gifts to their daughters, according to tax records made public on Friday.

The president and his wife separately gave each daughter a $12,000 gift under a section of the federal tax code that exempts such donations from federal taxes.

There is nothing illegal about the president’s taking advantage of this tax shelter, but it does raise eyebrows given that he has lamented the myriad tax exemptions used by the wealthy—“millionaires and billionaires” like himself—to pay less in taxes. He has yet to propose a comprehensive plan to reform the byzantine tax code.

Definitive proof The Bamster's are "unpatriotic" America haters. Congress must pass the "Obama rule" so they can pay taxes at the highest level. We also need to get rid of all these 'tax shelters' that allow the Obama's to hide their wealth and avoid paying their fair share.

Whats fair is fair, no?

[Litter Box]

The Obama's gave $172,000 to charity which lowered the tax rate.

Obama’s 2011 Tax Returns Show 20.5 Percent Rate - ABC News

[PhillyTex]

I hate it when journalists and/or politicians talk about this stuff because half the time they either can't comprehend or refuse to acknowledge the difference between the effective tax rate and actual taxes (dollars) paid/owed. At a 20.5% tax rate on $789,684 taxable income, we're talking about nearly $162k in taxes. The secretary was taxed at a higher *rate* but I bet it wasn't a rate of 170%, so she paid less in taxes (dollars.)

The whole "fair share" thing is such BS it sickens me. Simply tweaking the tax code so it appears we are taxing the nation's top earners a little more isn't going to suddenly make everything better. The 1% already have 1000 contingency plans for any concievable way that the tax rules might be changed. In the meantime, the 99% sit around and ridicule each other over "which side" they are on, as if any of the current arguments from either major political party make any sense at all.

[ACretin]

If Obama wants a higher tax rate, why doesn't he simply set a good example and pay more than his current 20% rate? Same with Buffet. Send the money to the Treasury, they will take it.

How about not accepting a salary either, since we have a 19% unemployment rate really in this country, not 8.5%. And our deficit is $2 trillion higher than when he took office. We're losing $30 billion on the auto bailouts, was that a good deal? And for that matter, no pensions either for both federal, state and local politicians. There's pension reform for ya, how about politicos get nothing.

[Four Provinces]

If Obama wants a higher tax rate, why doesn't he simply set a good example and pay more than his current 20% rate? Same with Buffet. Send the money to the Treasury, they will take it.

How about not accepting a salary either, since we have a 19% unemployment rate really in this country, not 8.5%. And our deficit is $2 trillion higher than when he took office. We're losing $30 billion on the auto bailouts, was that a good deal? And for that matter, no pensions either for both federal, state and local politicians. There's pension reform for ya, how about politicos get nothing.

Stop already with your commie class wafare. Taking one extra dime out of the pockets of our rich job creators will only increase the employment rate, dunce.

[FKD19124]

but....but....thats ok......he's a democrat.

President Obama Pays Less In Taxes Than His Secretary According To Report | Mediaite





Obama Family Tax Shelter | Washington Free Beacon





Definitive proof The Bamster's are "unpatriotic" America haters. Congress must pass the "Obama rule" so they can pay taxes at the highest level. We also need to get rid of all these 'tax shelters' that allow the Obama's to hide their wealth and avoid paying their fair share.

Whats fair is fair, no?

[FKD19124]

Exactly. He is fighting a class warfare and yet pays lower taxes. We need to go through all of the democrats...especially liberals taxes and see if they are paying their fair share too.

If Obama wants a higher tax rate, why doesn't he simply set a good example and pay more than his current 20% rate? Same with Buffet. Send the money to the Treasury, they will take it.

How about not accepting a salary either, since we have a 19% unemployment rate really in this country, not 8.5%. And our deficit is $2 trillion higher than when he took office. We're losing $30 billion on the auto bailouts, was that a good deal? And for that matter, no pensions either for both federal, state and local politicians. There's pension reform for ya, how about politicos get nothing.

[BarryG]

Everybody takes advantage of the loopholes available to them. This is not news, just the one million and first reason for tax code reform.

[Colin P. Varga]

President Obama Pays Less In Taxes Than His Secretary According To Report | Mediaite...

Warren Buffet's issue was that he was paying less in PAYROLL taxes than his secretary. Buffet is paid $100,000 dollars for his work at Berkshire Hathaway and pays less in PAYROLL taxes than his secretary who was was paid less but pays more in payroll taxes.

[thegreattwizz]

We're losing $30 billion on the auto bailouts, was that a good deal?

I don't engage in political discussions on public forums, as they lead the same place that my toilet flushes, but when you're wholly incorrect about your facts, it deserves correction.

Don't accept a salary? The President deserves every bit of his 400k salary. Their AGI last year at under $800k is a joke, and Obama is one of the least wealthy Presidents in recent history. If you look at their tax returns from before he took office, they've taken a significant pay cut; their 08 returns show AGI at $2.6M. They were both established attorneys with great careers, and they gave it up for public service. Let me see you give up millions in income to go into public service at a 60%+ pay cut.

Yes, ACretin, our sitting President is entirely responsible for adding $2T to the deficit; it has nothing to do with wars being waged in places we don't belong because the previous President had a personal vendetta. I'm not sure of your age bracket, but I don't appreciate seeing my friends coming home in body bags after our Commander in Chief lied about why we waged the war in the first place.

Cite your source before making blanket statements. The Treasury confirmed in February that the effective 'loss' on Chrysler was $1.3 billion after FIAT completed the repayment of loans and their acquisition of the rest of the Treasury's holdings. $1.3 billion to save 57k+ jobs directly at Chrysler, plus the hundreds of thousands or even millions of jobs at dealers, suppliers, and everyone else in the country that has a job tied to the auto industry which, btw, is estimated at 1 in 5. That's right, 1 in 5 Americans have a job directly related to the auto industry.

GM's loss (or gain) can only be estimated, as the Treasury still owns 500 million shares that they haven't sold. Based on Wednesday closing price ($24.03), that puts the total loss (including Chrysler) at $21.7B.

Terrible investment? The $1.3 billion on Chrysler directly led to Chrysler adding nearly 10k jobs since they entered bankruptcy, and since they've been out of bankruptcy with FIAT at the helm, they've been increasing sales at a rate of 30-40% while making industry leading vehicles. GM is larger, and more bureaucratic, thus the turnaround is taking longer, but they're still on the right path. I wonder how long it will take Chrysler to indirectly feed $1.3B back into the Treasury's coffers that wouldn't have been there without the bailout. Oh, wait, I'm sure it would have cost less than $1.3B to put 45k people on unemployment and public assistance if Chrysler shut down. Plus the suppliers, dealers, car washers, etc. It trickles down, and in simple economics it was more cost effective to 'bail-out' the auto industry then let them collapse. That's not even considering the damage that would have been done to the economy to lose an entire industry.

How come you didn't bring up the bank bailouts? Oh, right, you're probably one of those that has no problem with bailouts to wealthy Republican industries that caused the mess in the first place, but the blue collar, middle class industry that typically votes Democratic gets no support since they're not writing big checks to PACs.

Did you forget the bank bailout was supposed to make it so they could keep lending? They didn't. So when multi-billion dollar companies are looking for financing to support restructuring, and it's not available even with HUNDREDS of billions in bailout money, the Fed stepped in an did the right thing.

So, Bush supports a bailout of $430+ BILLION that reported a loss of nearly $68 billion, that's ok by you, and his family and Halliburton and the rest of their special interests shouldn't be taxed at a higher rate or 'voluntarily' pay more taxes, but Obama and Buffet should?

Again, typical mis-informed right vs. left misinformation. Give the whole story when you want to give a story. You're right, we should have elected Bush for a 3rd term since those 8 years were WONDERFUL.

[Litter Box]

I don't engage in political discussions on public forums, as they lead the same place that my toilet flushes, but when you're wholly incorrect about your facts, it deserves correction.

Don't accept a salary? The President deserves every bit of his 400k salary. Their AGI last year at under $800k is a joke, and Obama is one of the least wealthy Presidents in recent history. If you look at their tax returns from before he took office, they've taken a significant pay cut; their 08 returns show AGI at $2.6M. They were both established attorneys with great careers, and they gave it up for public service. Let me see you give up millions in income to go into public service at a 60%+ pay cut.

Yes, ACretin, our sitting President is entirely responsible for adding $2T to the deficit; it has nothing to do with wars being waged in places we don't belong because the previous President had a personal vendetta. I'm not sure of your age bracket, but I don't appreciate seeing my friends coming home in body bags after our Commander in Chief lied about why we waged the war in the first place.

Cite your source before making blanket statements. The Treasury confirmed in February that the effective 'loss' on Chrysler was $1.3 billion after FIAT completed the repayment of loans and their acquisition of the rest of the Treasury's holdings. $1.3 billion to save 57k+ jobs directly at Chrysler, plus the hundreds of thousands or even millions of jobs at dealers, suppliers, and everyone else in the country that has a job tied to the auto industry which, btw, is estimated at 1 in 5. That's right, 1 in 5 Americans have a job directly related to the auto industry.

GM's loss (or gain) can only be estimated, as the Treasury still owns 500 million shares that they haven't sold. Based on Wednesday closing price ($24.03), that puts the total loss (including Chrysler) at $21.7B.

Terrible investment? The $1.3 billion on Chrysler directly led to Chrysler adding nearly 10k jobs since they entered bankruptcy, and since they've been out of bankruptcy with FIAT at the helm, they've been increasing sales at a rate of 30-40% while making industry leading vehicles. GM is larger, and more bureaucratic, thus the turnaround is taking longer, but they're still on the right path. I wonder how long it will take Chrysler to indirectly feed $1.3B back into the Treasury's coffers that wouldn't have been there without the bailout. Oh, wait, I'm sure it would have cost less than $1.3B to put 45k people on unemployment and public assistance if Chrysler shut down. Plus the suppliers, dealers, car washers, etc. It trickles down, and in simple economics it was more cost effective to 'bail-out' the auto industry then let them collapse. That's not even considering the damage that would have been done to the economy to lose an entire industry.

How come you didn't bring up the bank bailouts? Oh, right, you're probably one of those that has no problem with bailouts to wealthy Republican industries that caused the mess in the first place, but the blue collar, middle class industry that typically votes Democratic gets no support since they're not writing big checks to PACs.

Did you forget the bank bailout was supposed to make it so they could keep lending? They didn't. So when multi-billion dollar companies are looking for financing to support restructuring, and it's not available even with HUNDREDS of billions in bailout money, the Fed stepped in an did the right thing.

So, Bush supports a bailout of $430+ BILLION that reported a loss of nearly $68 billion, that's ok by you, and his family and Halliburton and the rest of their special interests shouldn't be taxed at a higher rate or 'voluntarily' pay more taxes, but Obama and Buffet should?

Again, typical mis-informed right vs. left misinformation. Give the whole story when you want to give a story. You're right, we should have elected Bush for a 3rd term since those 8 years were WONDERFUL.

Very good but remember you cannot fix stupid !

[mixiboi]

Very good but remember you cannot fix stupid !

You can only watch it die(of old age).

[hkp]

Can't anyone donate a significant portion of their income to charity in order to lower their effective tax rate?

[Litter Box]

Can't anyone donate a significant portion of their income to charity in order to lower their effective tax rate?

Sure and that seems to me to be more effective if you give to a cause you believe in. Chances are very high that Mitt will give a lot to LDS.

[thegreattwizz]

Sure and that seems to me to be more effective if you give to a cause you believe in. Chances are very high that Mitt will give a lot to LDS.

Someone has to fund their new project in CC, right?

[Litter Box]

Someone has to fund their new project in CC, right?

Correct but I also think that it is good to target gifts to something that may not get funding from other sources. Mitt has given a lot to LDS in the past, good for him. Obama gave money to the children of veterans, good for him.

[seand]

Mormons don't just give to their church because they like to, its part of their scripture that they have to give 10% of any profits they make to the church as "tithing". Its not a "goodness of your heart" thing, its a "you won't go to heaven if you don't" thing. Which is why the LDS is a relatively wealthy church compared to many denominations.

[Litter Box]

Mormons don't just give to their church because they like to, its part of their scripture that they have to give 10% of any profits they make to the church as "tithing". Its not a "goodness of your heart" thing, its a "you won't go to heaven if you don't" thing.

To give him the benefit of the doubt I say he does it because he believes. If not then ... it's for show and status. I don't have to agree with his politics to give him a pat on the back.

[seand]

I'm sure its a belief thing for Romney. It's not meant as a diss. I'm just saying the culture around "tithing" with Mormons is different from other denominations. Like if you seem like you aren't matching your scriptural requirements church elders can go ahead and supposedly give you an estimated invoice. Tithing is not a "thou really should to be nice", its a "thou must", at least as I understand it. There is some debate within LDS circles whether you can count additional donations to the charity of your choice as part of your tithing requirement, but I believe the standard line is its 10% to the church and if you want to give to your local foodbank beyond that, good for you, but don't think you can count that as part of your 10%.

[Litter Box]

I am someone who does not believe in a god but I don't hold it against others. Just so they don't knock on my door.