• 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

megaprogman said:
My assumption is that they are not lying. So I would go with a "they probably are"



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.
Click to expand...


They didn't claim legitimate deductions on their taxes? Uh...yeah...right!
 
apdst said:
They didn't claim legitimate deductions on their taxes? Uh...yeah...right!
Click to expand...

If one is going to make assumptions and ask leading questions, like Barb did, then it leaves the field wide open for anyone to ask any sort of question as a substitute for actual logic and reasoning. So, my question still stands ...
 
apdst said:
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"?
Click to expand...
Your impression of what current rate is and how it relates to Obama's 26%flawed is what I am trying to tell you.

The 35% rate applies only to some of a person's money. The article you supplied listed two different kinds of tax rates. One that applies to only part of an individual's income--35%--and another number which was the over all amount of taxes paid relative to Obama's total income--26%.
They are two different things. It doesn't mean anything to take one and subtract it from the other.


Someone who uses the highest tax rate, the 35%, doesn't pay 35% of their total income--only 35% of income that is greater than a certain amount. The rest of their income is taxed at other rates. All of these different rates together are used to generate a total amount of taxes owed. Then you can take that total and compare it to the total amount of income. The percentage of total income that's paid will always be lower than the highest percent of taxes that paid on only part of it. That's just how the math works.
 
Last edited:
megaprogman said:
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.
Click to expand...

Leading by example helps in getting people to do what you want. Leading by opinion is shallow and won't inspire anyone to what you wish.
 
Henrin said:
Leading by example helps in getting people to do what you want. Leading by opinion is shallow and won't inspire anyone to what you wish.
Click to expand...

Lets look at leaderships and all its type
leadership by physical strength or intimidation
leadership by fear
leadership by blackmail
leadership by trickery
leadership by inspiration
leadership by example
leadership by social heirarchy or organizational structure
leadership by convention
leadership by influence
leadership by consensus
(other types I am sure)

In the end, the leader is getting people to do something. People are responding to Obama's requests due to any number of those mechanisms mentioned (in the case of diplomacy, it may be one group of things, in the case of domestic politics, it may be another, etc). In the end, people are doing stuff they otherwise would not be doing because of him, therefore he is a leader.
 
Last edited:
apdst said:
The top rate for people making over a million dollars is 35%.
Click to expand...
But note that the 35% doesn't apply to someone total income--only the part that is over whatever amount. The other parts of a person's income are taxed at different rates.
 
megaprogman said:
My assumption is that they are not lying. So I would go with a "they probably are"



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.
Click to expand...

Why would they claim them some years and not others? Not sure what they gave recently. For charity sake, I hope they tried to catch up with the Bush's and Cheney's. I doubt it though, since Obama doesn't seem all that generous, when he used the loopholes and only paid what he legally owed in taxes.
And Biden....what a tight wad.
 
megaprogman said:
Lets look at leaderships and all its type
leadership by physical strength or intimidation
leadership by fear
leadership by blackmail
leadership by trickery
leadership by inspiration
leadership by example
leadership by social heirarchy or organizational structure
leadership by convention
leadership by influence
leadership by consensus
(other types I am sure)

In the end, the leader is getting people to do something. People are responding to Obama's requests due to any number of those mechanisms mentioned (in the case of diplomacy, it may be one group of things, in the case of domestic politics, it may be another, etc). In the end, people are doing stuff they otherwise would not be doing because of him, therefore he is a leader.
Click to expand...


I think Obama possesses two of the qualities, but that's all.

Leadership Traits – The Five Most Important Leadership Qualities

The five leadership traits/leadership qualities are:

Honest
Forward-Looking
Competent
Inspiring
Intelligent

These five qualities come from Kouzes and Posner’s research into leadership that was done for
 
apdst said:
The top rate for people making over a million dollars is 35%. So, obviously, they didn't pay the top rate.
Click to expand...
Well, at least we cleared up that you don't know how a progressive income tax works. The only part of President Obama's income that is subject to the 35% is anything above $350,000. Everything else is subject to the corresponding tax brackets. For example, excluding deductions, he would pay the same amount on his first $50,000 as someone who only made $50,000.

apdst said:
No proof, just doing my duty by questioning my president.
Click to expand...
I am glad to see that all it would took for you to do your duty is for a Democrat to be in the White House. Keep up the good work!
 
dontworrybehappy said:
I was going to say maybe he lost his job, but he's the only one in the country with a guaranteed job for 4 years.

Damn it must be nice. Fyck up the country royally and get paid for it.
Click to expand...

His job isn't guaranteed
 
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...

Does believing in God lead a person to become a Republican or are they Republicans first and then led to God?

Besides, not long ago someone said most liberals are also Christians. If that's the case, then it must be their liberalism that keeps them from giving more.
 
apdst said:
No problem. It's a fact that Obama only paid 26%. There's your proof.
Click to expand...

Are you going to complain about all the millionaires abusing tax loopholes or just assume Obama does it, and only complain about him?
 
Badmutha said:
Nobody forced Obama--The President of Hypocrisy..... to take all the Deductions that he did.........nothing stopped him from paying the Clinton era tax rates.
.
.
.
.
Click to expand...

Do you have proof that he took every deduction he could?
 
SheWolf said:
Are you going to complain about all the millionaires abusing tax loopholes or just assume Obama does it, and only complain about him?
Click to expand...


It has been explained that no one pays the top rate on some of their income-only when they hit a certain level.

The main evil of a progressive income tax is that it caters to politicians pandering to those in the lower brackets to use rate raises only on the top brackets
 
TurtleDude said:
the rich who "want to pay higher taxes" is really a case of dem elites wanting to raise taxes so dems can win more elections by pandering to the envy of the many or convincing some less than sharp middle class people who do worry about the deficit that tax hikes on the rich will pay for the buying of the middle class's votes through handouts
Click to expand...

If you want to play it like it's rich vs non rich, there are a lot more non wealthy so who do you think will lose?
 
apdst said:
You're absolutely right. However, I question the hell out of a president that decries rich people, all the while he's rich and playing the same games.
Click to expand...

It's not a game... taking deductions is legal and legit. Rich people are not the only people doing it, and btw... this doesn't really mean he avoided paying taxes, it just means he most likely lowered the amount he paid to the IRS. As long as he is paying his taxes and not trying to avoid doing so or throwing a fit and whining that he shouldn't have to owe anything, I'll consider him an honest tax payer.
 
Wiseone said:
I got a feeling if he had paid more, you'd be saying something about how he must think we are all dumb, how else would he think we'd all follow the 'messiah' and do something as idiotic and give more money than we had to to the government.

That or some other BS.
Click to expand...

If he paid more, he'd go off that the president was a socialist pig, and that whatever amount he overpaid he'd be trying to make all Americans pay... Then he go full fledge into "I am so scared of Barrack Hussein Obama" mode.
 
SheWolf said:
If you want to play it like it's rich vs non rich, there are a lot more non wealthy so who do you think will lose?
Click to expand...

quantity usual loses to quality. most of the rich can move. that will cause a serious problem for the dependent needy and even more problems for the pimps who pander to them. One of the main reasons why I despise the democrats' destruction of federalism is that welfare socialism should be a state program not a federal program. and of course, if a state is overly generous to the unproductive, that state will quickly become full of the takers. and of course that means the producers would depart such states as their taxes went up and up. That would be a rational control on such income redistribution-the handouts would have to be restricted of the state would go bankrupt.

By ignoring or actively destroying the proper boundaries on federal action, the democrats have created a situation where our nation is headed to bankruptcy. Dem politicians promise more and more spending. when they are in power they try to jack up taxes on the wealthy for two reasons

1) to appeal to class envy

2) to claim that they are able to pay for their handouts

of course this scheme fails because it only encourages their constituents to want more and more handouts which the pimps have to provide or lose the next election. Plus the rich start avoiding taxes or the economy slows and the tax increases do not bring in enough

When the GOP is in power deficits climb because that party understands that putting the addicts on cold turkey will cause them to lose the next election so deficit spending increases

both parties are guilty but it was the democratic party that created the system that has us headed towards bankruptcy

only when the average voter will retaliate against a politician who promises more spending will the system right itself and the only way for that to happen is to get rid of the current tax system that allows the many to put the duty of taxation on the shoulders of the rich.
 
SheWolf said:
If you want to play it like it's rich vs non rich, there are a lot more non wealthy so who do you think will lose?
Click to expand...

You are blind if you think you will win this war of yours.
 
Barbbtx said:
[/B]

Sorry, anyone who gets on national TV and says he is not paying enough in taxes has an obligation to voluntarily pay more. He's worse than Al Gore flying around in private jets.
Click to expand...

If he honestly thinks that paying more in taxes will improve America, I'd suspect that if only he were paying more in taxes, it wouldn't solve or improve anything given the size of the budget. He'd be one man sacrificing for America, while nobody else would be willing.

If nobody else is going to do something for their country, then one person doing it alone won't make a ****ing difference.

If our founding fathers wanted to fight the British and establish a nation, then maybe the 39 who signed the Constitution should have just went out there alone and fought the British themselves... :roll:
 
Barbbtx said:
I'd say, Damn! I'm shocked. Good for him. Now can we get Gore out of his mansions and private jets?
Click to expand...

You guys really misunderstand liberals if you think they hate wealth... No rich liberals expect to forfeit their wealth..
 
Henrin said:
If you feel you are getting paid too much feel free to give some back to your employer.
Click to expand...

So but no... If I ever felt I were overpaid for my job, I'd go with it and I'd be thankful.
 
SheWolf said:
So but no... If I ever felt I were overpaid for my job, I'd go with it and I'd be thankful.
Click to expand...

You are greedy according to Obama and friends.
 
Last edited:
SheWolf said:
You guys really misunderstand liberals if you think they hate wealth... No rich liberals expect to forfeit their wealth..
Click to expand...
good point

its like guns-liberals don't hate either-they just hate guns and wealth they don't control
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom