• 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 only paid a 26% income tax rate for 2010

TacticalEvilDan said:
I will never ever understand why the First Family's taxes are anybody's business. I can sort of understand our interest in the President's health, but not his finances.
Click to expand...

Of course you wouldn't.
 
Are you going to explain to me what you mean by that, or do you consider being too cowardly to insult me directly a legitimate debate tactic?
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
Are you going to explain to me what you mean by that, or do you consider being too cowardly to insult me directly a legitimate debate tactic?
Click to expand...

What I mean, is that you're a Liberal and you would never question The One.
 
apdst said:
Probably? Care to back that up?
Click to expand...
The article you posted referred to two different kinds of tax rates one that applies to money over a certain amount [with the money that was less than that amount being taxed at different rates] and the overall total amount paid in taxes. They are not the same things.

So, given the info presented, it's quite possible that he did pay the 35% on the money that was taxed at that amount and had the total tax liability be 26%.

I don't think I am interested enough to go through his return:
Obamas Report $1.7 Million in Income for 2010 - Interactive Feature - NYTimes.com

But, I can tell that given the info provided, there's no reason to believe that he didn't pay the taxes that were due in a regular way.
 
Morality Games said:
I can't speak for Obama's conscience, but given his high profile Ivy League background I doubt he finds irrational actions personally meaningful. Why would you hurt your family to make a point nobody cares about? Given his duties as a father and husband, that would be irresponsible.

Making a statement like that gets his point across to the extent it has to be get across, actually giving back his money would be over the top.



People can't be consistently expected to act against their economic self-interest.

That's why he's appealing to society to act on their economic self-interest and pass the burden of taxes to the wealthy.
Click to expand...

Well if higher taxes are going to hurt him and his family so much that he's not even going to step up to the plate, then he should just ditch the idea of raises taxes. Other people have families to you know.
 
Amazed said:
Well, other than the fact that your post is not completely coherent (or I am having trouble with your odd grammar), if one wishes to change the tax code, than that is a separate issue from paying taxes.

How is Bammy "leading" on this issue, that should help you.
Click to expand...

He is leading because he is advocating for a cause and people are buying in. All that is required to be a leader is to have someone to lead. (cue the "all liberals are sheep" retort)

Amazed said:
Ultimately one issue is about the structure of something while the other issue would be about adherence to that structure. So given that, I still do not see a good basis for your complaint, only accusations that seem to bare little connection, as far as I can tell.

Try looking at it in a linear manner and not through an emotional lense, the structure is a side issue.....my statement stands Obama, and the majority of the Left are hypocrites.....IF they want to Lead why don't they give EVERYTHING they earn beyond their Public Servant salaries to "help" with the programs they want EVERYONE else to pay for...if they do not their cries of someone not paying "their fair share" ring holl and pathetic.
Click to expand...

I am looking at it logically, in fact, I have given you the basis for my view and the reasoning when stems from that basis. From my perspective, you are going at it emotionally due to your use of hyperbole. Also the structure is not a side issue as changing the tax code is one of the basis for this thread, which makes it relevant. Perhaps if you addressed my points about the efficacy of doing what you suggest we would get somewhere.

Amazed said:
But then again, a lot of people on this forum seem to suffer from a lack of coherence in their arguments (and its generally the ones who think their arguments are always a slam dunk, its odd that those two things are often correlated), so I guess its to be expected.

Yes of course we could all learn so much from you folks who simply "know" better....sorry, no...:)
Click to expand...

Well, I know we could learn if you would actually address my reasoning.
 
Last edited:
Badmutha said:
The numbers are coming in..........

.......Obama, Pelosi, Reid and every other Multi-millionaire Democrat paid exactly $0.00 extra in taxes.


.......the rich want to pay more.....but apparently not if your a rich greedy Democrat........
.
.
.
Click to expand...

They also give less to charity.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
Um, no, wrong on both counts. It just looks that way when you lean as far to the right as you do.
Click to expand...

And, you don't lean far left? What right wing positions do you take?
 
Henrin said:
Which means nothing and should hardly be considered leading.
Click to expand...

If he has a following, he is leading. People listen and agree to his advocacy, which gives him a following, given that all that is required to be a leader is to have someone to lead. So yes, it is quite meaningful.
 
Badmutha said:
Truer words were never spoken........

Biden gave average of $369 to charity a year - USATODAY.com

Yet Democrats are so very generous.....when it comes to other people's money.....
.
.
.
.
Click to expand...

Yeah, there's been a thread about this a while ago, the results of the study were that religiosity was what was the biggest factor in being charitable, not being a liberal or conservative.

So Barb never really had a valid point.
 
apdst said:
Why didn't he voluntarily pay the top percentage rate?
Click to expand...
President Obama and Michelle did pay the top percentage on all income earned over $349,000. Maybe if you actually understood how a progressive income tax works, then you would not have to ask such questions.

apdst said:
Another big question I have, is how did his income drop 4 million bucks, in a year? I'm betting that someone is hiding some serious jack...through tax loopholes.
Click to expand...
Had you taken the time to read the article you posted, then you should not even have to ask this. But I assume that was too much work for you.

Do you have any proof that President Obama is hiding money, or is this just a claim of ours that has no merit to support it?
 
megaprogman said:
Yeah, there's been a thread about this a while ago, the results of the study were that religiosity was what was the biggest factor in being charitable, not being a liberal or conservative.

So Barb never really had a valid point.
Click to expand...

Religious people tend to give more.

Many republicans are religious.

Therefore Republicans give more.

How does that negate the fact that Democrats are selfish with their own money
and Republicans are more generous? Is the devil stopping the Dems from donating.:)

Here, lets just look at this and the last administration.

American Thinker: Obama's Charity Problem

According to their tax returns [notes Coulter], in 2006 and 2007, the Obamas gave 5.8 percent and 6.1 percent of their income to charity. I guess Michelle Obama has to draw the line someplace with all this ‘giving back' stuff. The Bidens gave 0.15 percent and 0.31 percent of the income to charity.

Meanwhile, in 1991, 1992 and 1993, George W. Bush had incomes of $179,591, $212,313 and $610,772. His charitable contributions those years were $28,236, $31,914 and $31,292. During his presidency, Bush gave away more than 10 percent of his income each year. For purposes of comparison, in 2005, Barack Obama made $1.7 million -- more than twice President Bush's 2005 income of $735,180 -- but they both gave about the same amount to charity.

That same year, the heartless Halliburton employee Vice President Dick Cheney gave 77 percent of his income to charity.

 The following year, in 2006, Bush gave more to charity than Obama on an income one-third smaller than Obama's.(For those who reject everything that Ann Coulter says because she is a "flamethrower," I commend to you a book on the subject by Professor Arthur Brooks, aptly titled, "Who Really Cares?")

Studies have shown that giving away personal wealth to charitable causes doesn't help donors to get elected to government office.

It turns out that promising to help the poor and middle class with tax money from the "wealthy" does, in fact, win elections. In an attempt to provide some "fairness doctrine" balance, there is a silver lining for President Obama in the comparisons: Compared to Joe Biden Obama is rather generous.
Click to expand...
 
Barbbtx said:
Religious people tend to give more.

Many republicans are religious.

Therefore Republicans give more.
Click to expand...

Yes, but it does not negate the fact that the primary controlling factor is Religion, not political ideology, thus making your point moot.
 
megaprogman said:
If he has a following, he is leading. People listen and agree to his advocacy, which gives him a following, given that all that is required to be a leader is to have someone to lead. So yes, it is quite meaningful.
Click to expand...

If you aren't leading by example, you are only leading by opinion, and in that case its meaningless.
 
Henrin said:
If you aren't leading by example, you are only leading by opinion, and in that case its meaningless.
Click to expand...

Nope, the fundamental basis of leading is getting people to do what you want, further qualifying it by linking it to character traits (which may be useful in identifying what kind of leader a person is), like you are doing, muddles the point. Now if you were to say that Obama is an adjective leader, you would probably have a point.
 
apdst said:
Why didn't he voluntarily pay the top percentage rate?

Another big question I have, is how did his income drop 4 million bucks, in a year? I'm betting that someone is hiding some serious jack...through tax loopholes.
Click to expand...

His book was the reason his income was higher last tax year.
Sales aren't that high for it anymore.
 
megaprogman said:
Yes, but it does not negate the fact that the primary controlling factor is Religion, not political ideology, thus making your point moot.
Click to expand...

Aren't Obama and Biden Christians?

Why don't they give more?
Maybe because they are liberals? :)
 
Simon W. Moon said:
The article you posted referred to two different kinds of tax rates one that applies to money over a certain amount [with the money that was less than that amount being taxed at different rates] and the overall total amount paid in taxes. They are not the same things.

So, given the info presented, it's quite possible that he did pay the 35% on the money that was taxed at that amount and had the total tax liability be 26%.

I don't think I am interested enough to go through his return:
Obamas Report $1.7 Million in Income for 2010 - Interactive Feature - NYTimes.com

But, I can tell that given the info provided, there's no reason to believe that he didn't pay the taxes that were due in a regular way.
Click to expand...

I never said that he didn't pay the taxes that he legally owed. The problem that I have, is that he insists that millionares don't pay enough taxes, all the while, he's a millionare paying about 9% under the current rate. Can you say, "hypocrite"?
 
Spaceman_Spiff said:
President Obama and Michelle did pay the top percentage on all income earned over $349,000. Maybe if you actually understood how a progressive income tax works, then you would not have to ask such questions.

Had you taken the time to read the article you posted, then you should not even have to ask this. But I assume that was too much work for you.
Click to expand...

The top rate for people making over a million dollars is 35%. So, obviously, they didn't pay the top rate.

Do you have any proof that President Obama is hiding money, or is this just a claim of ours that has no merit to support it?
Click to expand...

No proof, just doing my duty by questioning my president.
 
Barbbtx said:
Aren't Obama and Biden Christians?
Click to expand...
My assumption is that they are not lying. So I would go with a "they probably are"

Barbbtx said:
Why don't they give more?
Maybe because they are liberals? :)
Click to expand...

Or maybe they didn't claim it on their taxes? Or maybe any other number of other things. Maybe, asking leading questions shouldn't replace real analysis.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom