• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama, first lady release 2012 tax returns

There is no law that requires you to hire high price tax attorneys to get every possible tax break you can. If you are rich and think the rich are not taxed enough there is a simple solution, don't take tax breaks you don't have to take. This becomes particularly applicable to the POTUS who wants to raise taxes on the rich and even to Buffet who supports that presidents tax ideas. You need a little nappy nap young lady.:lol:

:rofl -- Well, I don't agree with you; but you did give me a laugh!
 
There is no law that requires you to hire high price tax attorneys to get every possible tax break you can. If you are rich and think the rich are not taxed enough there is a simple solution, don't take tax breaks you don't have to take. This becomes particularly applicable to the POTUS who wants to raise taxes on the rich and even to Buffet who supports that presidents tax ideas. You need a little nappy nap young lady.:lol:

Maybe you need to wake up from your nap. Why would anyone pay more than what they legally owe? Maggie is right. Pay what you owe, pay no more, and if you think that the system should be changed, work toward that goal.
 
Maybe you need to wake up from your nap. Why would anyone pay more than what they legally owe? Maggie is right. Pay what you owe, pay no more, and if you think that the system should be changed, work toward that goal.

Leading by example is what usually influences the most effective forms of changing a system...
 
Leading by example is what usually influences the most effective forms of changing a system...

Then, since this is your idea, am I correct in assuming that you did not take the child deduction, the mortgage interest deduction, the mileage deduction the charitable deduction? Or are yoiu intending to file an amended return?
 
Then, since this is your idea, am I correct in assuming that you did not take the child deduction, the mortgage interest deduction, the mileage deduction the charitable deduction? Or are yoiu intending to file an amended return?

He didn't say that people should pay more taxes, and he's not our leader.
 
He didn't say that people should pay more taxes, and he's not our leader.

That's exactly what he said, that the Obamas should not have hired high priced attorneys in order to have taken less deductions, which would result in more taxes. Not sure what being a leader has to do with staying within the law. Are those that make the laws obligated to go above and beyond?

Once again, if you believe that there should be less deductions, you are not obligated to take the allowable deductions.
 
That's exactly what he said, that the Obamas should not have hired high priced attorneys in order to have taken less deductions, which would result in more taxes. Not sure what being a leader has to do with staying within the law. Are those that make the laws obligated to go above and beyond?

Once again, if you believe that there should be less deductions, you are not obligated to take the allowable deductions.

No, he said that they didn't have to hire high priced attorneys and take deductions. Obama believes that wealthy people, of which he is one, should pay more in taxes. It is not required by law that he takes any tax deductions. If he is serious about wealthy people paying more in taxes, then he should lead by example and not take those deductions.
 
But if that's what he wants, then he should lead by example. Show people that he's serious.

And he is doing exactly that, paying what he is legally obligated to do. Why is this complicated to you?
 
I'm with you on this one. This is the same argument people had with Buffett. He called people's attention to how little a percentage he paid in taxes and people thought he should just go ahead and pay them.

And, good Lord! Look what they did to Romney. Same idea.

The law is the law. If the deductions and tax treatments are available for one, they're available for all. No one should be expected to pay more than they have to. That's just not how the system works.

Interestingly, I never made an issue of Romney's taxes either. People on both sides use faulty logic to try and smear those they are opposed to, since it is easier than actually discussing the pros and cons of an issue.

Odd how we every so often end up lining up on something, isn't it?
 
And he is doing exactly that, paying what he is legally obligated to do. Why is this complicated to you?

He's not paying more, like he wants others to. He's taking all of the tax breaks and deductions when he doesn't legally have to. He should lead by example. Why is this so complicated to you?

I don't begrudge Obama taking all legal tax deductions, but he should quit telling people that they should pay more taxes if he's going to do so.
 
He's not paying more, like he wants others to. He's taking all of the tax breaks and deductions when he doesn't legally have to. He should lead by example. Why is this so complicated to you?

He is not advocating for people to pay more than they are legally obligated to. If he was advocating for people to pay more than they are obligated, then it would be hypocrisy. That is not what is happening here.
 
Then, since this is your idea, am I correct in assuming that you did not take the child deduction, the mortgage interest deduction, the mileage deduction the charitable deduction? Or are yoiu intending to file an amended return?

I'm not advocating for others to "pay their fair share"; he is...
 
He is not advocating for people to pay more than they are legally obligated to. If he was advocating for people to pay more than they are obligated, then it would be hypocrisy. That is not what is happening here.

But he IS taking all of the available tax deductions when he's not legally obligated to, while saying that people of his ilk should pay more taxes. Maybe that's not hypocrisy, but it is poor leadership.
 
Last edited:
No, he said that they didn't have to hire high priced attorneys and take deductions. Obama believes that wealthy people, of which he is one, should pay more in taxes. It is not required by law that he takes any tax deductions. If he is serious about wealthy people paying more in taxes, then he should lead by example and not take those deductions.

And my position is that if you do not think legal deductions should be taken, then feel free to start the ball rolling.

I take all I can get, Obama is entitled to do the same. I am not an Obama fan, but I would think even less of his ability to lead if he did not take what is his to take.
 
And my position is that if you do not think legal deductions should be taken, then feel free to start the ball rolling.

I take all I can get, Obama is entitled to do the same. I am not an Obama fan, but I would think even less of his ability to lead if he did not take what is his to take.

We are of opposite thinking on this then. I agree to disagree.
 
Leading by example is what usually influences the most effective forms of changing a system...

Is that why the rightwingers don't cash their Social Security checks, and never apply for Medicare?

Is that why the republicans who voted against the stimulus refused to take any of the stimulus money?
 
Last edited:
No, I mean pay more in taxes. He's not required by law to take any tax deductions, so why did he? He should lead by example. If he wants others to pay more in taxes, he should put his money where his mouth is.

Obama has stated he doesn't have a problem paying more in taxes.
 
Obama has stated he doesn't have a problem paying more in taxes.

Then why didn't he? Why did he take every available tax deduction? He wasn't legally obligated to do so. Why didn't he lead by example?
 
Is that why the rightwingers don't cash their Social Security checks, and never apply for Medicare?

Is that why the republicans who voted against the stimulus refused to take any of the stimulus money?

Are they preaching that people should pay more taxes?
 
So as obama preaches that the rich don't pay enough tax he and the queen take advantage of every tax break they can and get their rate down to 18.4%, what a hypocrite!


"Obama, who renewed his call for higher taxes on the wealthy in the budget he released Wednesday, paid $112,214 in taxes last year, putting his effective federal tax rate at 18.4 percent. The Obamas donated almost one-quarter of their income to charity, according to tax returns released by the White House.
Most of the $608,611 that the Obamas reported in adjusted gross income came from the president's salary, as he reported $394,840 in wages. An additional $258,772 came from royalties from his books, including his 1995 memoir "Dreams From My Father," his 2006 political book, "The Audacity of Hope," and a 2010 children's book, "Of Thee I Sing: A Letter to My Daughters."


"Itemized deductions of $258,385 brought the Obama's taxable income down to $335,026. The first family deducted $45,056 in interest on the mortgage for their home in Chicago, plus $36,554 in state and local taxes and $26,751 in real estate taxes."

Obama, first lady earned less than 2012 than prior years in office, paid $112k in income taxes | StarTribune.com

Hypocrisy is complaining about Obama while accepting Romney's "Around 15%". Man . . . you havea certain kind of tunnel vision that has a little hateful paradigm thrown in for good measure when the subject is anything Obama. Remember . . . it is not patriotic to not take advantage of all of the deductions.
 
Romney said he wanted to close tax deductions, but he never failed to take one that he was able to
 
Then why didn't he? Why did he take every available tax deduction? He wasn't legally obligated to do so. Why didn't he lead by example?

Because that is only what he was required to pay. He's not saying those in higher income should pay more than they are obligated to. If taxes were raised, he and every other taxpayer in his level of income would pay what they are required to. No more, no less.
 
Hypocrisy is complaining about Obama while accepting Romney's "Around 15%". Man . . . you havea certain kind of tunnel vision that has a little hateful paradigm thrown in for good measure when the subject is anything Obama. Remember . . . it is not patriotic to not take advantage of all of the deductions.

Did Romney say the rich don't pay enough tax? Did Romney advocate raising taxes on the rich? Guess I missed that.
 
Because that is only what he was required to pay. He's not saying those in higher income should pay more than they are obligated to. If taxes were raised, he and every other taxpayer in his level of income would pay what they are required to. No more, no less.

So obama will not pay more than current law requires him to pay even though he does not think he pays enough. Interesting logic there or lack thereof I should say. Do you always drive the speed limit no matter what the road conditions? Is the limit the law?
 
Did Romney say the rich don't pay enough tax? Did Romney advocate raising taxes on the rich? Guess I missed that.

Romney said there should be a limit on how much in deductions a person should be able to take, but never placed a limit on the deductions he took
 
Back
Top Bottom