• 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

PeteEU said:
Yes, but you forgot... people with money will seek out ways to minimize their tax exposure... normal Americans dont have that luxury.
Click to expand...

the more money you have the better your ability to minimize your tax exposure. but regular normal Americans do as well -we take deductions for charitable giving, mortgage interest... whatever Turbo Tax (or the equivalent) tells us we can do to lower our tax bill, we do.

No that is false. Raising taxes WILL increase revenue.
Click to expand...

I almost wish it was true - it would make life much simpler. but the unfortunate reality over the past 50 years has been that there is little if any connection between tax rates and the amount of income we get in revenue. the main effect tax rates seem to have on revenue appears to be indirect; via it's ability to alter growth in GDP.

Problem is the US tax code is filled with loop holes put in place on behave of the rich and big business, so that these can avoid paying taxes.
Click to expand...

that is indeed one of the many, many problems with our current tax code.

The Ryan budget right? Stripping loopholes is commendable... the rest of the House Budget on the other hand is so pro big business and the rich that it is not even funny.
Click to expand...

really. considering that it collects just as much in taxes from them, but cuts their benefits, how do you figure that?
 
apdst said:
What have I failed to prove? Are you saying that Obama didn't only pay a tax rate of 26%?
Click to expand...

Its not so much that you failed to prove something, you just failed to make a point. What is the problem with paying an effective rate of 26%? That seems pretty normal given the other facts set forth. My point is that I don't think you are sufficiently knowledgeable about how income taxes work to make a credible argument of outrage here. You are confusing effective taxes (26%, in this case) with the marginal tax rate (35%)... and don't understand that the last dollars on the Obama tax return were indeed paid at the effective rate of 35%.
 
apdst said:
I'm not disputing how the tax code works. Are you yet another Liberal that is totally missing the ****ing point?
Click to expand...

Spaceman Spiff? :lamo
 
PeteEU said:
Yes, but you forgot... people with money will seek out ways to minimize their tax exposure... normal Americans dont have that luxury.



No that is false. Raising taxes WILL increase revenue. Problem is the US tax code is filled with loop holes put in place on behave of the rich and big business, so that these can avoid paying taxes.



The Ryan budget right? Stripping loopholes is commendable... the rest of the House Budget on the other hand is so pro big business and the rich that it is not even funny.
Click to expand...

I also seek out way, and so do other Americans....get a clue.
 
Serenity said:
this might be the first time I've ever heard a 'conservative' say that someone isn't paying enough in taxes, and it's happened on more than one occasion in this thread.

hypocrisy is awesome.
Click to expand...

conservatives aren't for not paying taxes any more than we are against government. we are for reasonable taxes and a minimal government. there's a pretty solid difference.

in the meantime, however, we are also in favor of Leadership. as the President insists that it is wrong of the wealthy to take these deductions, he might sort of - oh, i dunno - "set an example" by not taking them himself.
 
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...

Why would he voluntarily pay more taxes than he should? If anyone I knew did that, I'd call them an idiot. As long as the tax code is there, everyone should follow it. If that means you pay less tax....well, good!
 
cpwill said:
conservatives aren't for not paying taxes any more than we are against government. we are for reasonable taxes and a minimal government. there's a pretty solid difference.

in the meantime, however, we are also in favor of Leadership. as the President insists that it is wrong of the wealthy to take these deductions, he might sort of - oh, i dunno - "set an example" by not taking them himself.
Click to expand...

Of course, reasonable is defined to suit yourself...and minimal govt hasn't existed in a long time....who was the last president who actually accomplished the elimination of a program? or established a hiring freeze, or a pay freeze for govt workers?
 
cpwill said:
conservatives aren't for not paying taxes any more than we are against government. we are for reasonable taxes and a minimal government. there's a pretty solid difference.

in the meantime, however, we are also in favor of Leadership. as the President insists that it is wrong of the wealthy to take these deductions, he might sort of - oh, i dunno - "set an example" by not taking them himself.
Click to expand...
[emphasis added by bubba]

you misrepresent the president's position

Obama is opposed to the deductions being available to be taken - not that the available deductions are now used. eliminate the availability of the deductions and we are better able to close the deficit
 
UtahBill said:
Of course, reasonable is defined to suit yourself...and minimal govt hasn't existed in a long time.
Click to expand...

well, both of these are intents, not specific metrics.

who was the last president who actually accomplished the elimination of a program? or established a hiring freeze, or a pay freeze for govt workers?
Click to expand...

:shrug: i couldn't say off the top of my head. probably Truman at the end of WWII.
 
justabubba said:
[emphasis added by bubba]

you misrepresent the president's position

Obama is opposed to the deductions being available to be taken - not that the available deductions are now used. eliminate the availability of the deductions and we are better able to close the deficit
Click to expand...

eh, it still strikes me as poor leadership for him to take them when he is front and center on the importance of raising taxes on the wealthy. It's like your boss saying that everyone should be showing up 15 minutes early to make sure they're on time.... but he is always walking in at the last minute himself.
 
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...
Those big questions are going to persist til you learn to read dude.
 
cpwill said:
eh, it still strikes me as poor leadership for him to take them when he is front and center on the importance of raising taxes on the wealthy. It's like your boss saying that everyone should be showing up 15 minutes early to make sure they're on time.... but he is always walking in at the last minute himself.
Click to expand...

and now your analogy misrepresents his position

to make your analogy correct it would be as follows: it's like your boss showing up 15 minutes early because that is the present rule but he intends to change the rule so that expectation is no longer imposed in the future

notice the HUGE difference when his position is accurately represented. i knew you would
 
justabubba said:
and now your analogy misrepresents his position
Click to expand...

not really, both men are in leadership positions, and both are performing to the bare minimum, even as they decry it.

to make your analogy correct it would be as follows: it's like your boss showing up 15 minutes early because that is the present rule but he intends to change the rule so that expectation is no longer imposed in the future

notice the HUGE difference when his position is accurately represented. i knew you would
Click to expand...

umm..... i see very small qualitative difference whatsoever in that change. it's still a leader refusing to set the example.
 
cpwill said:
not really, both men are in leadership positions, and both are performing to the bare minimum, even as they decry it.



umm..... i see very small qualitative difference whatsoever in that change. it's still a leader refusing to set the example.
Click to expand...

since you missed it i will explain it for you

the leader plays by the rules as they are now constructed

but proposes better rules for the future
 
a leader needs followers....how many here will follow Obama's example if he should voluntarily add 10% to his taxes?
time to put up, or shut up.....?
BTW, many times I have not deducted things that I could have....partially because I am sloppy in my record keeping, partly because I don't mind paying taxes. My country has done much FOR me, damn little TO me.
Looks like a lot of posters on DP can only see themselves as some kind of victim.....instead of a recipient of the benefits of living in the U.S.A.
 
Last edited:
UtahBill said:
a leader needs followers....how many here will follow Obama's example if he should voluntarily add 10% to his taxes?
time to put up, or shut up.....?
Click to expand...

that is not change
there is nothing now which prevents one from stroking a check for more than they owe


that weakly constructed strawman was far beneath your abilities
 
UtahBill said:
a leader needs followers....how many here will follow Obama's example if he should voluntarily add 10% to his taxes?
time to put up, or shut up.....?
Click to expand...

Seriously? That's so unrealistic to expect. By that notion, if a president wants to cut taxes they need to lead by example and underpay for a few years to prove that he is serious about paying less? The salary is around $400,000, I believe, to be POTUS, so it's not like he is earning outrageous dollars anyway. He could raise the rates on the upper bracket and marginally it would not affect him too much.
 
justabubba said:
that is not change
there is nothing now which prevents one from stroking a check for more than they owe


that weakly constructed strawman was far beneath your abilities
Click to expand...

honest question, dishonest answer.....cowardly at best...
 
Conservatives complaining about Obama not willing to pay more... would be like Liberals expecting Conservatives to rejoice that Obama paid less, so the wealth can trickle down.

What do you Conservatives think about that? He is trying to help the poor by paying less, obviously...... duh
 
Obama paid 26% and id bet he paid alot higher percentage than most of the rich...thats why tax cuts for the wealthy in ryans plan is bs...So many intelligent people cant figure this out...Id expect the rich to keep beating that drum
 
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...

He should set an example and pay 65% at a minimum, and should have done it for years already. These leftists are such windbags. There is NOTHING stopping them from paying idiotic rates they'd love to levy on everyone else.

.
 
zimmer said:
He should set an example and pay 65% at a minimum, and should have done it for years already. These leftists are such windbags. There is NOTHING stopping them from paying idiotic rates they'd love to levy on everyone else.

.
Click to expand...

and if he paid more than what he was obligated, you would initiate a thread castigating him for such weak fiscal management skills

notice how your side will turn any action into a negative when it comes to Obama

is it because he is black or because he is a democrat?
 
Obama is perfectly allowed to be an evil rich person that is greedily trying to keep his money and not pay his fair share on the backs of the poor and grandmothers and children and puppies and angels.

;)

No seriously, I don't care. He's got the right to use loopholes just as much as everyone else. It just means, based on liberal logic that they apply to republicans who do somethign immoral while preaching about how the government should enforce moral laws, that he's an absolute hypocrite to sit there pushing for raising the taxes on "the rich" and removing loopholes when he's actively trying to use loopholes to pay less money.

I don't consider him a hypocrite for it, but then I don't use the same bat **** crazy logic many liberals use to call republicans hypocrites in the above type of social examples.
 
Zyphlin said:
Obama is perfectly allowed to be an evil rich person that is greedily trying to keep his money and not pay his fair share on the backs of the poor and grandmothers and children and puppies and angels.

;)

No seriously, I don't care. He's got the right to use loopholes just as much as everyone else. It just means, based on liberal logic that they apply to republicans who do somethign immoral while preaching about how the government should enforce moral laws, that he's an absolute hypocrite to sit there pushing for raising the taxes on "the rich" and removing loopholes when he's actively trying to use loopholes to pay less money.

I don't consider him a hypocrite for it, but then I don't use the same bat **** crazy logic many liberals use to call republicans hypocrites in the above type of social examples.
Click to expand...

What loophoes? I was under the impression that we were talking about marginal rates, in which case he is paying more than most rich people do.
 
"loopholes" half the time seems to be implying "write offs" or "deductions"..

Though I admit, I've not read very far into the thread. I just found the whole thing a bit stupid and funny, much like many of the "OMG Republican hypocrites" threads. Loopholes, deductions, whatever...I've got no problem with Obama trying to pay the least amount of taxes he could. And I don't think he's a hypocrite if he doesn't. But unless he gave up taking any deductions and paid as much of the tax money as he physically possibly could've without purposefully paying extra even after taking no deductions, then based on the way many liberals call some republicans (or some liberals on here call all republicans) Hypocrites for proposing or supporting some legislation and then doing something tangentally related badly then Obama would be a hypocrite to them for calling for higher taxes on the "rich" while doing anything at all to pay less taxes.

After all, if you're a "hypocrite" for being agaisnt gay marriage but cheating on your wife then you're a "hypocrite" for being for increased on taxes for "rich" people but doing anything to pay less taxes as a "rich" person.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom