« | »

Obama Paid Lower Tax Rate Than Secretary

From, of all places, the New York Times:

Obama, Like Buffett, Had Lower Tax Rate Than His Secretary

By MARK LANDLER
Published: April 13, 2012

WASHINGTON — For months, President Obama has marveled that the billionaire investor Warren E. Buffett pays a lower tax rate than his secretary, citing it as an egregious example of an unjust tax code. It turns out that another famous and well-compensated American does, too: Mr. Obama.

The president and his wife, Michelle Obama, reported adjusted gross income of $789,674 in 2011, and paid just over 20 percent of it in federal taxes, according to income tax returns and gift-tax returns released by the White House on Friday. The White House confirmed that Mr. Obama’s secretary, Anita Decker Breckenridge, paid a “slightly higher” tax rate than her boss in 2011, on a salary of $95,000.

Bear in mind that the Obamas did not have to pay a 20% rate. They could have easily paid the top 35% rate. Instead, they used various and evil deductions to get their rate lower.

That, said a spokeswoman, Amy Brundage, “is exactly why we need to reform our tax code and ask the wealthiest to pay their fair share.”

There is no law preventing the Obamas from paying their ‘fair share.’ They didn’t have to take these deductions. They could have chosen to pay their fair share.

So we, the American taxpayers, are subsidizing the Obamas. Just like we subsidize Big Oil. At least according to Mr. Obama’s ‘logic.’

But it is clear that the Obamas don’t want to pay their fair share. They want others to his fair share. And isn’t that the textbook definition of ‘sanctimonious’? Sanctimonious people want the rest of us to live under a rule they refuse to live under.

In fact, if it weren’t for the evil Bush Tax Cuts, the Obamas would have had to pay a rate of 39.6%, which would have cost them at least an additional $103,067 in taxes. So, in the interest of ‘fairness,’ they should have paid that money t the US Treasury even if they didn’t have to.

And, as we have pointed out before, the Treasury’s Bureau of Public Debt has an online form at www.pay.gov, which would enable the Obamas to pay that $103,067 “to help reduce the public debt.”

On Monday, at the president’s urging, the Senate will take up the proposed “Buffett Rule,” a minimum tax for the wealthiest Americans. In his references to Mr. Buffett and his secretary, Mr. Obama always notes that like Mr. Buffett, he has done well, does not need tax loopholes, and could afford to pay more.

In fact, the president’s income declined nearly $1 million from the previous year, when he was reaping larger amounts from sales of his best-selling books. Although he is still comfortably in the 1 percent, he has fallen out of the $1 million-a-year bracket that would make him subject to the Buffett Rule…

Maybe Obama-nomics has finally taken their toll even on the Obamas. Though, this $ 1 million dollar drop is probably more due to the fact that the unions have stopped buying his books to help fill the landfills.

The Obama campaign — which posted Mr. Obama’s tax return on its Web site along with his previous 10 returns — assailed Mr. Romney for his refusal to disclose more about his taxes…

Mr. Romney has already disclosed as much about his taxes as any other Presidential candidate, including Obama. Moreover, he has disclosed a lot more about his private life, his past history than Mr. Obama has ever done.

Meanwhile, we still haven’t even seen Obama’s college transcripts.

The campaign has also drawn attention to the tax rates paid by Mr. Romney and his wife, Ann, who derive the bulk of their income from interest on investments, which are taxed at a lower rate than wage income

In January, under pressure from his Republican rivals, Mr. Romney released documents estimating that he had earned $20.9 million in 2011 and paid about $3.2 million in taxes, for an effective tax rate of about 15.4 percent. On a form requesting the extension, he estimated his taxes to be $3,226,623

All of which just means the Romneys paid .4% more than the maximum they should have, since investment income is only taxed at 15%. While the Obamas paid 15% less than the maximum rate for their income, which is 35%.

But somehow The Times doesn’t see it that way.

This article was posted by Steve on Monday, April 16th, 2012. Comments are currently closed.

4 Responses to “Obama Paid Lower Tax Rate Than Secretary”

  1. mr_bill says:

    I think anybody advocating higher taxes should:

    1.) Swear under oath and penalty of perjury that there is no wasteful spending or fraud in government. (see GSA, Medicare, Solyndra, etc. etc. etc.)

    2.) Commit to a legally binding contract whereby they assume personal financial responsibility for any fraud and/or wasteful spending found after the above oath.

  2. Petronius says:

    It’s time to be patriotic. Time to jump in. Time to be part of the deal. Time to help get America out of the rut.

  3. Right of the People says:

    Typical liberal bull-pucky, do as I say, not as I do. After all the rules are for OTHER people, not the chosen ones who rule.

  4. xdannyh says:

    Repubs are so politically stupid it is embarrassing: Romney should immediately adjust his tax return to pay more and have the democraps hung by their own petard. Hello… taking the Bush tax cuts in an elective decision.


« Front Page | To Top
« | »