Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: President Obama’s Secretary Paid Higher Tax Rate Than He Did

Posted 2 years ago on April 13, 2012, 3:30 p.m. EST by Jflynn1964 (-206)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Does anyone else wonder why he wasn't hit with AMT with those deductions?

President Obama today released his 2011 federal income tax, with he and his wife reporting an adjusted gross income of $789,674. The Obamas paid $162,074 in total tax – an effective federal income tax rate of 20.5%. The Obamas also reported donating approximately 22% of their income to charity — $172,130.

President Obama has been making a big political push for the “Buffett Rule,” which would require millionaires to pay a minimum of 30% of their income in taxes. To illustrate the point, the president has pointed out that billionaire investor Warren Buffett pays a lower tax rate than does his secretary.

President Obama’s secretary, Anita Decker Breckenridge, makes $95,000 a year. White House spokeswoman Amy Brundage tells ABC News that Breckenridge “pays a slightly higher rate this year on her substantially lower income, which is exactly why we need to reform our tax code and ask the wealthiest to pay their fair share. ”

It should be noted that president would not be impacted by the Buffett Rule, though he would see his taxes go up if the so-called Bush tax cuts on higher income wage-earners were allowed to expire, as the president says he wants.

-Jake Tapper

85 Comments

85 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 1 points by JonFromSLC (-107) from West Valley City, UT 2 years ago

Don't point out the truth. The truth has no place on this website. This is for radicals, and retards. Move on please, nothing to see here.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

And General Electric paid less than both of them - or you

[-] 3 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 2 years ago

He is the one saying that government is the solution. I don't agree with that. Why is he avoiding paying taxes. Why is he giving money to his daughters.

[-] 0 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

bwa hahahaha . … . hahaha HEHEHE BWA hahaha . . . hahaha . .bwa hahahaha . . . hahaha HEHEHE hahaha HEHEHE BWA hahaha . . . hahaha . .bwa hahahaha . …….. . hahaha HEHEHE BWA hahaha . . bwa hahahaha . … . ha BWA hahaha . . . bwa ha ha ha ha . . . hahaha HEHEHE BWA hahaha . . . hahaha . .bwa hahahaha . . . hahaha HEHEHE BWA hahaha . . bwa hahahaha . … . hahaha HE HE HE BWA hahaha . . . hahaha ….. .bwa hahahaha . . . hahaha HEHEHE BWA hahaha . . bwa hahahaha . . . hahaha HEHEHE BWA hahaha . . . hahaha . .bwa hahahaha . …….. . hahaha HEHEHE BWA hahaha . . bwa hahahaha . … . hahaha HEHEHE BWA hahaha . . . hahaha . .bwa hahahaha . . . hahaha HEHEHE……………………….. BWA hahaha . . . bwa ha ha ha ha . . . hahaha HEHEHE BWA hahaha . . . hahaha . .bwa hahahaha . . . hahaha HEHEHE BWA hahaha . . bwa hahahaha . … . hahaha HE HE HE BWA hahaha . . . hahaha ….. .bwa hahahaha . . . hahaha HEHEHE BWA hahaha . . bwa hahahaha . . . hahaha HEHEHE BWA hahaha . . . hahaha . .bwa hahahaha . …….. . hahaha HEHEHE BWA hahaha . .

[-] 1 points by TheMisfit (48) 2 years ago

And Obama's "Buffett rule" would leave him in the clear since he is setting the bar so high that he can avoid it.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by po6059 (72) 2 years ago

there is a different rate on "earned income " and "interest income". "interest income" already had the hgher rate applied to it when it was earned,thats BEFORE it was invested and taxed again. as for the "buffet rule", it will ( if enacted ) will raise about 3.2 billion a year,or about what the US govt borrows every 17 hours.So, in 514 years it will have raised enough additional revenue to payoff the 2011 federal budget deficit. obama said this "would help us close our deficit". what an idiot , and so is anyone who actually believes this dolt.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

One minute you like this kind of thing, next minute you're bitching about it.

You shouldn't be such a negative person. It clouds the mind.

[-] 0 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 2 years ago

Answer me, why no AMT. How come is effective rate is 21%, why not 38%

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Call the IRS. How would I know?

Now answer me!

Why are bitching about it now, when not too long ago you defended it.

[-] 0 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 2 years ago

I have never defended a complex tax scheme. This is exactly the point. A flat tax with no deductions and everybody pays the same rate - fair. But add deductions and a progressive code the incentive is there to cheat.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

A flat tax has proven to be the most unfair, numerous times and in many ways.

Are you incapable of learning?

[-] 2 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 2 years ago

By whom?

Are you incapable of learning, why are more and more countries adopting the flat tax then. It works and people like it. Maybe you are not learning.

yeah, really unfair to treat everybody the same. That seems really unfair.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (27682) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

And yet most of Europe is in the same economic mess we are in.

Huh.

Guess the flat tax has not caught up yet - Hey?

Could it really be the problem is not really all tax related?

Could it instead be partially criminal actions by financial markets?

Huh.

Such a global phenomenon - and no one apparently is wise to the cause (s).

Huh.

[-] 0 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

Right on the mark!

[-] -1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

Excellent point !

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (27682) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Well - I thank you much. Funny how the obvious is often ignored/denied.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

Criminals often deny the crimes they commit. In fact it is extremely rare when they don't ! ..Recently a judge just admitted to accepting bribery.. a very rarity .. must of had a slight bit of conscience to do such a thing .. But it won't encourage other criminals to do the same thing .. they will just be " more careful"

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (27682) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Hence the need to haul them-in kicking and screaming.

Hence the attacks on women the attacks on the environment etc etc etc, anything and everything to distract and point to another problem to point away from main cause and responsibility.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

Let's "root them out" one at a time !

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (27682) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Publicly aired trials - mandatory to be covered in full by all major media.

Get a couple of good sports casters to call the play by play.............

................and we're into the final inning and the defendant has started to cry as he realizes he can't buy his way out this time. What a display of poor sportsmanship on this gamblers part. It seems his wife and kids are not happy with the POS either...................

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

[-]1 points by DKAtoday (5815) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 minute ago

Have you ever heard this truism? - No one screams louder at being stolen from than a thief?

How outrageous - make a life of violating others - then scream bloody murder if someone of your kind does it to you.

Only with these criminals they knew what they were doing was wrong - they had the finest educations to inform them going in.

And Now instead of being stolen from they are liable to face justice for their crime and scream no-fair because they feel that they should not be held accountable for their actions - I mean it was only money - Right?

↥like↧dislikepermalink

reply-

The whole thing points back to the hotheaded merchants firing that first shot. In that case they did not like to have done to them what they do to others. Since than the whole system can be traced back to their lineage as to being who we have in control now .. The King was ousted and replaced by Merchants taking what they can .. who is to stand up to these merchants ?

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (27682) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

The government and the people for whom it was created.

The thing is to get the people on board because they apparently are not aware of their power or their rights.

And so we are here and the public begins to awaken.

And so the government begins to realize that they need to change their game-plan and the corrupt begin to understand that the clock is ticking and time is running out.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

there seems to be a link between crooks and poor losers.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (27682) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Have you ever heard this truism? - No one screams louder at being stolen from than a thief?

How outrageous - make a life of violating others - then scream bloody murder if someone of your kind does it to you.

Only with these criminals they knew what they were doing was wrong - they had the finest educations to inform them going in.

And Now instead of being stolen from they are liable to face justice for their crime and scream no-fair because they feel that they should not be held accountable for their actions - I mean it was only money - Right?

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

It's been explained in this very forum umpteen times.

It gets tiresome, explaining it over and over.

Where have you been?

If everybody jumped off a bridge, would you?

[-] 0 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 2 years ago

Well since most of economic literature, especially from written by those economist who are esteemed, disagrees with your statement and are in favor of a flatter tax system, then I think you have a real credibility problem.

But yeah, why not listen to people who write on message board under false names. That's the ticket.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

There are even more esteemed economists that are for a progressive tax.

Just because Heritage publishes more, doesn't mean they are correct.

There are even some that say we don't need federal taxes at all.

You should check out stuff that's out of your comfort zone.

I'm so sorry you haven't the imagination to come up with a username not based on your own name.

[-] 0 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 2 years ago

Don't get more esteemed than the Chicago Noble prize winners. The Heritage Foundation has nothing to do with it.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Yeah, but you never asked who actually holds them in esteem.

I mean, besides you.

There are other way to look it.

http://pragcap.com/understand-the-modern-monetary-system/understanding-modern-monetary-system

[-] 0 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 2 years ago

Well the Noble prize is a big one, so if you don't agree with that then you are really on an island.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Spoken like one more user that never reads the links posted.

The only island, is in your head, and it's your island.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

How about a corporate AMT ???

[-] 0 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 2 years ago

Sure, it's called a simplified tax structure including a flat tax.

Can't answer the question, why no AMT with those deductions.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

Corporate flat tax - no deductions - 25% sounds good

[-] -1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

It needs to be changed for everyone, not for one person. Romney paid 13.9%. That's wrong, not because he is a cheap bastard, but because the system allows it. The issue that needs correcting is the system, not the individual. At least Obama is trying to eliminate the Bush Tax cuts, something that would make his taxes, as well as Romney's go up. The other side staunchly defends those tax cuts.

You seem to want to have it both ways.

http://patrioticmillionaires.org/PM_Response_to_HATCH.pdf

[-] 3 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 2 years ago

You and your man Obama believe that the government is the best source of prosperity for all so why is he trying to avoid paying taxes? Why is he giving money to his daughters and not giving it to the government? Why is he donating money to charities when you and he tell us that the government does it better.

You don't want to treat people fairly you want those you have worked and earned their money to give to others. It's that simple.

[-] -2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

He paid MORE of a percentage of his income for taxes that your man Romney.

And of course you present a completely specious argument, again, lifted directly from the republitard talking points manual. The system that allows the wealthy to legally p[ay less than their fair share is the problem, not individuals who comply with the laws of that system. Volunteering to pay more than one has to in taxes does not solve that systemic problem. It does nothing in terms of the budget, it does nothing in terms of dealing with the debt or the funding government's required expenditures.

It's the system, stupid.

[-] 2 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 2 years ago

Romney isn't the one spouting off like you and Obama that government is the solution, a better allocator of assets than the market.

Can't get your argument across and you have to resort to names already. The government spends to much. These are not required expenditures. Over half of the budget are transfer payments, taking from one person and giving to another. That is out and out stealing and you try to call if fairness!!!

I agree, the code is convoluted. A system like what was proposed in SImpson Bowles would be preferential. But your man doesn't wan than because this is about power and the ability to take from one person to give to another.

[-] -1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

"Can't get your argument across and you have to resort to names already."

It was a paraphrase of the Clinton campaign's "It's the economy, stupid." Too bad you didn't pick up on that.

So it's OK for Romney to not pay his fair share because he doesn't believe there is such a thing as a fair share, but for Obama to actually pay MORE of his income is "bad" because he is trying to make laws that would require him and everyone else in his bracket to pay even more?

ALL of taxes are "taking". That is not stealing, that is the citizenry in a civil society paying for the operation of that civil society. People freely elected by that society determined, by majority vote and vetted for constitutionality by the courts, what this society should pay for, what the government should provide, what transfer payments should be made. That's not stealing. That's consent.

Simpson-Bowles was a disaster. It did nothing for the debt, for assisting in creating equality. It simply was another tax scheme designed to lower the burden on the wealthy.

Gee, that makes sense, NOT.

[-] 2 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 2 years ago

How is Romney not paying his fair share? If you and Obama believe that we are better off if the government takes more of your money, why not give them more? Your man is saying that he needs more money then why is employing tactics for him to avoid paying taxes.

Taxing somebody more just because they have more money like you and Obama want to do is immoral and is a kin to stealing.

Now the government has to assist in equality? What? Let's make everybody equal and move to a socialistic society. That' s your real point isn't it? That's what you want.

[-] 0 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

NO ONE in the top brackets are paying their fair share. Period.

Progressive taxation is not stealing. Regressive taxation is.

In 1960 Corporate taxes (to use one example) accounted for 4% of GDP. Today, it is 2% of GDP. Taxes overall have held steady at about 19%. Who had to make up the difference? The wealthy? Hell, no, their taxes have dropped, too. It is the middle class. In making up for corporate taxes alone, they are paying 3.3 TRILLION dollars per decade more. That is redistribution from the middle and bottom to the top. That is theft, especially as the tax break legislation was bought and paid for by corporate lobbyists and campaign contributors rather than agreed to by the public, who have less access to the halls of power and less money to field and fund candidates. Making the wealthy and the corporations pay more is simply restoring balance.

And to a small degree, yes, unfettered, unregulated capitalism is a horror, and needs to be mitigated. Unlike the core of OWS, I don't advocate the destruction of capitalism, but I do strongly advocate that it be reigned in and supplemented, much as it is in Scandinavia, Germany, or, for that matter, most of the free world.

[-] 0 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 2 years ago

Fair means treating everybody the same and that means the same rate. You want to take from group that has achieved to give to others. You want to pull down our successful people.

The middle class is not paying more taxes, they are paying less. Only 53% of our population are paying Federal taxes. And transfer payments have increased.

You want control - a government centric economy. I don't. I don't want you and your henchman trying to tell me how do live my life. You will tell me who to hire - has to be an union laborer - and what school to send my children to.

You have no faith in the people to make their own decisions, you want to make it for them.

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Fair means those who were LUCKY enough to have received more benefits from the system are more responsible for paying back into it.

[-] 1 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 2 years ago

No it doesn't because some people work harder than others and produce their own success. Luck has nothing to do with it. Was Steve Jobs lucky, or Jack Welch or Eli Manning?

The infield of the NY Yankees is payed more than the top five CEOs, are they lucky?

Fair means treating everybody the same with the same rules. It doesn't mean taking from one person to give to another. And it doesn't mean penalizing those who succeed.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Luck has everything to do with it. And the infrastructure in place that allows anyone success on any level was created and built and paid for by the whole populace. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcFDF87-SdQ&hd=1

Only ideologues like you look at the most exaggerated income disparity outside of the third world, in which the top 400 people own the same amount of wealth as the bottom 150,000,000, and believe that is fair in any way. ONly an blind ideologue like you don't see that such extreme concentrations of wealth, such extreme disparity, undermines the democratic process itself. It turns the principle of one man one vote into a cynical lie.

No one group has a right to own 375,000 times more than another. No one person is worth that much more economically than another. No one worked 375,000 times harder than the average person of that 150,000,000 group.

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/04/16

What's more , the wealthy don't play by the same rules as everyone else. It is a transparent lie to assert they do. They get to make their own rules, by buying them from congress. They get exemptions and subsidies that no one else gets.

http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2012/04/13/opinion/sunday/0415web-leonhardt2.html?ref=business http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2012/04/13/opinion/sunday/0415web-leonhardt.html?ref=business

They get away with fraud on a massive scale and get the population to pay the penalties while the wealthy continue to collect their own bonuses. Same rules? You are blind to the distortion of rules that happens when wealth is concentrated in the hands of a few.

[Removed]

[-] 2 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

Sure, if all things are externalities. Why should we all equally pay for the Super Fund?

[-] 0 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 2 years ago

Don't you think that if a corporation polluted the waterways then they should pay for it?

Don't you think if Bear Stearns or AIG or Lehman got themselves into trouble then they should pay for it?

[-] 2 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

Yes, if an industry pollutes the environment and a financial house pollutes the economy, then they both should pay more taxes than everyone else. I believe that is the point of a progressive tax scheme.

This idea even carries over to the individual entrepreneur who consumes more of the resources than the average person. Call it the pay to play tax.

Also, since you and another responder brought up major league sport personalities, they too should pay higher tax rates, especially considering most Major league sport franchises are just tax shelters for the affluent class. Read "Free Lunch: How the Wealthiest Americans Enrich Themselves at Government Expense (and Stick You with the Bill)" by David Cay Johnston.

[-] 0 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 2 years ago

What does breaking the law have to do with a progressive tax system? In my mind nothing.

A person who is successful is not neccessarily using more resources or society's goods than another person. This is the point, everybody needs to be treated the same and pay the same rate. I want to control the inputs and you want to control the outcome.

This is nothing but a land grab.

[-] -2 points by DKAtoday (27682) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Now you are just trying to insult everyone's intelligence. One of Mittens talking points is the price of gasoline and how it is Obama's fault and that Mitten would fix it immediately if not sooner were He in office.

[-] 2 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 2 years ago

I don't have to resort to insults, I just let the facts speak for themselves. I don't live in a fantasy world.

[-] -2 points by DKAtoday (27682) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

But apparently you do - I mean you have no facts to support your positions - everyone is pointing and laughing at you - but you say it is everyone else who is wrong - that is delusion or fantasy by a more polite phrasing.

[-] 2 points by Teacher12 (-33) 2 years ago

Dude, look at the audience. At least he and a few others here argue the other side.

[-] -1 points by DKAtoday (27682) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Seriously?

To attempt such a thing with no legs to stand on seems a little foolish don't you think?

If you come in with valid facts/proofs that is one thing - to come in with nothing but opinion is another.

[-] 2 points by Teacher12 (-33) 2 years ago

Chill

[-] -1 points by DKAtoday (27682) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

That is funny. 1st I would need to get worked-up. That has not happened - yet. It's funny though that you would come charging in to defend non-sense. Just because someone exhibits a different point of view does not make their comment worth anything more than a lame attack if it comes with nothing to support it.

[-] -1 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 2 years ago

You mean people are laughing at me, oh no. You mean the ones who use false names to make their statements.

Sorry if you don;t know the facts, but most of us you live in the real world realize the benefits of a flatter tax system, private property and incentives. We learned it first in school , and then really learned it in real life.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

what is the benefit of flatter tax systems ?

[-] 0 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 2 years ago

Simplicity, fairness and growth. There are no deductions and everybody pays the same rate for all type of income. There would be no difference between ordinary income (w2), dividend income and capital gains. For the folks here, they should love it for that reason alone as it would immediately increase the amount that the top 1% is paying.

By eliminating the incentive to cheat and the complexity, people will just pay their bill. These increased incentives will spur growth. It has worked and more and more countries are using it.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

income is already unfair in it's distribution

a flat tax won't fix that

[-] 1 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 2 years ago

Well if you mean that everybody should get exactly the same income, then I will agree with you. But then we are talking about a completely different society that what we have now and what we were founded on.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

private ownership sucks if one doesn't own anything

[-] 0 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 2 years ago

private ownership sucks if one doesn't own anything.

It sure does, save some money and buy something. It's the way to build a portfolio and safety. No more flat screen TVs, no more cigarettesm no more McDonalds for you.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago
[-] 0 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 2 years ago

Troll response: "But Obama is better than the secretary, so he DESERVES to pay less taxes. His secretary wants to pay less taxes? Tell her to become president!"

[-] 0 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

Santorum charitable contribution < 2%
Obama charitable contribution = 22%
Willard - your turn


Obama wants to raise his tax rate
Willard wants to lower his tax rate


Do you like the ryan plan that gives $1,000,000 earners an additional $100,000+ tax cut ?

[-] 0 points by RoosterCodburnSrEsq (2) 2 years ago

Let's get real, it hasn't taken 3 years for Obama to figure out that even outside the amazing tax free and unreportable perks that cost the people millions, that he pays far less of a percentage than most everyone else.

Of course you can defend his exploiting every single loophole he claims he will close, you should know it will never work out that way.

[-] 0 points by conservativemajority (-30) 2 years ago

But Obama's rate is what matters, nothing else. Well, isn't that what liberals say? How come it doesn't apply now? LOL.

Obama wants to pay more, but doesn't. Maybe he and Warren don't realize that the Treasury accepts donations. They even have a website, although contributions are almost unheard of. Shockingly, even Michael Moore contributes nothing. Go figure. LOL

Say, maybe you'd like to donate. No? I didn't think so. LOL http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/gift/gift.htm

[-] 0 points by takim (23) 2 years ago

buffet is fighting with the IRS over the billion $ they say he owes them. so much for the" buffet rule".

[-] 1 points by conservativemajority (-30) 2 years ago

Good point. What's funny too is that he's already an old man and is giving away his fortune (before it's simply taken from him at death). He's made a big deal about taxes being too low, even talks about it in moral terms. Yet even being old, even being in giving mode, even thinking taxes are shamefully too low, he still gives NOTHING to the government. It's quite a statement.

[-] 0 points by takim (23) 2 years ago

You're right. all the people that whine that they are not taxed enough ( liberals) , never offer to write out a check to the IRS.

[-] -3 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

so original


bwa hahahaha . … . hahaha HEHEHE BWA hahaha . . . hahaha . .bwa hahahaha . . . hahaha HEHEHE hahaha HEHEHE BWA hahaha . . . hahaha . .bwa hahahaha . …….. . hahaha HEHEHE BWA hahaha . . bwa hahahaha . … . ha BWA hahaha . . . bwa ha ha ha ha . . . hahaha HEHEHE BWA hahaha . . . hahaha . .bwa hahahaha . . . hahaha HEHEHE BWA hahaha . . bwa hahahaha . … . hahaha HE HE HE BWA hahaha . . . hahaha ….. .bwa hahahaha . . . hahaha HEHEHE BWA hahaha . . bwa hahahaha . . . hahaha HEHEHE BWA hahaha . . . hahaha . .bwa hahahaha . …….. . hahaha HEHEHE BWA hahaha . . bwa hahahaha . … . hahaha HEHEHE BWA hahaha . . . hahaha . .bwa hahahaha . . . hahaha HEHEHE……………………….. BWA hahaha . . . bwa ha ha ha ha . . . hahaha HEHEHE BWA hahaha . . . hahaha . .bwa hahahaha . . . hahaha HEHEHE BWA hahaha . . bwa hahahaha . … . hahaha HE HE HE BWA hahaha . . . hahaha ….. .bwa hahahaha . . . hahaha HEHEHE BWA hahaha . . bwa hahahaha . . . hahaha HEHEHE BWA hahaha . . . hahaha . .bwa hahahaha . …….. . hahaha HEHEHE BWA hahaha . .

[-] 0 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 2 years ago

What do charitable contributions have to do with anythiing. That is a personal decision. He is obvioulsy using them to reduce his taxable amount. He thinks government is the solution so pay up. I'm not getting 22%. This is not fair, how come he is paying less than me.

[-] 0 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

What do charitable contributions have to do with anythiing
..................................................just simple old fashioned christian hypocracy

[-] -1 points by po6059 (72) 2 years ago

obama and his wife gave a total of &48,000 ( tax free) to their daugters. they EACH gave $12,000 to each daughter. they are allowed to do that under the tax code. there is nothing illegal about it but it sure is hypocrisy on his part when he talks about the shelters that the " rich" use.

[-] 1 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 2 years ago

Sure he is, but that amount of deductions should prompt AMT,

[-] -2 points by DKAtoday (27682) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

The only thing wrong is what that money might be used for and that most Americans can not afford that kind of familial donation. I believe the donation in question was for an educational fund? Open to all to do - if they had the money in the 1st place. So nothing wrong with the donation or it's purpose just the fact that it is a very limited part of the population who can take advantage of it. This is also an area for closing off a rich benefiting loophole. Those who don't need it profit by it.

BTW - Obama didn't create the loophole nor is he the only rich person to use it.

[-] 2 points by po6059 (72) 2 years ago

if you had any reading comprehension you would know that i sadi ti wasnt illegal. anyone can gift up to $12,000 , tax free. regarding obama, it doesnt matter what the money will be used for, there is no need on his part to give a defintion of future use. what he did was shelter $ 48,000. he has said that he doesnt pay enough in taxes , yet he shelters money,..............that dear is hypocrisy.

[-] -3 points by DKAtoday (27682) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Is it sheltering money to provide for your children's future? Did He make the tax code? Was this his intent to dodge taxes or secure a financial future for his kids? If you want to charge hypocrisy 1st prove your facts. Intent and result are often differing subjects depending on rules and regulations in existence. Because this is an attached benefit does not go to show intent in donating to his children. Perhaps you should look into modifying the tax code for those with and without money.

[-] 1 points by po6059 (72) 2 years ago

obama did nothing illegal, he used the tax code as written. same thing the oil companies do .

[-] -1 points by DKAtoday (27682) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

The point you were trying to make is that he is sheltering money. Like the oil companies you said. I beg to differ they may be using things in the system that are legal but neither of them compare or add up to the same thing. One is a private citizen providing for his children and the other is a Business a fossil fuel business. There is no comparing the two.

Again we are here to end corporate abuse and loopholes. That is what people do through the legal process of government.

[-] 1 points by po6059 (72) 2 years ago

he IS sheltering his money, $48,000 of it , from being taxed. you really dont get it. obama used the tax( loophole) code to his advantage, the oil companies do the same thing. nothing illegal about either of them. you say whe obama does it , he's sheltering, but when an oil company does it its an abuse.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (27682) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Change the tax code - make it wrong to care for your children - or at least remove the tax break - I have no problem with removing the tax break as only the rich can afford to do this kind of thing in the 1st place.

But there is no way in hell that you can compare it to industry loopholes/gifts/subsidies/breaks.

BTW - Is the President and his wife the only people in government or government circles who are contributing to their children's future?

Or are they just a convenient target? Wonder what his opponents donations look like. Do they care for their children? One would hope.

[-] 0 points by po6059 (72) 2 years ago

ANYONE can gift ANY amount of money ( up to 12,000) tax free. you dont have to be rich ( or in govt)to use the tax code as it now stands. the obama s can " take care of their children" with without tax free gifts. the chose to use the tax code to shelter $48,000. the tax code is being use legally by oil companies. the "loopholes" are not the creation of the oil companies. they oil companes are not getting subsidies. the oil companies and other business's are using the tax code legally.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

yep

educations getting priced out again