Except he's not doing that. He's slamming them for not supporting the elimination of loopholes and raising the tax rates on the rich, not because they are simply paying that rate. He's mentioned many times that he should be required to pay that amount. He's never stated that Romney should voluntarily pay that amount, but he has criticized him for not supporting legislation that would make that happen. However, if you want to add this to the fray, Obama paid $172,000 to charity last year, raising the amount of money he gave to charity or taxes to about 42% of his income. So, in theory, he could argue that he DID voluntarily give up the tax rate he advocated.
ummm he gets a tax deduction for those charitable gifts so i'm not sure your math works. and once again how is the capital gains rate being a set amount a "loophole?" obama is taking itemized deductions. that's a hell of a lot more of a loophole than the majority of romney's income.
I've been waiting for this response. If you do this across the board, this would be true for the fast majority of millionaires. You throw that in and quite a few suddenly hit the 30% level. And, since we're on the subject, did you not the government won't let you deduct more than 50% of your income in charitable deductions. Given your statement, is this also unfair? In addition, has Obama called for the extension of no phase outs of charitable deductions? Because, currently, next year charitable deductions will be phased out once you reach a certain income level. And this is different from the 50% cap mentioned above. And would you support this if it was done?
So? My math states that he is without about 42% of his income through taxes and charitable deductions, correct?
Loophole = liberal word to describe a perfectly legitimate deduction in order to vilify wealthy people and coroporations
I will say this - the Obamas are a lot more charitable since he's been in the White House than they were before.
Some of those charitable donations are including the Church of LDS, aren't they? I don't know how I feel about that in terms of "contributing to the good of society."
We invented that word? And there are plenty of bullshit loopholes, so give me a break with the abused rich folk line.
If we do that, then I'm going to find ones I don't think do either. I think for comparisons sake we just use the standard definition of what falls under 501(c)(3).
If we do that, then I'm going to find ones I don't think do either. I think for comparisons sake we just use the standard definition of what falls under 501(c)(3).
Of course there are plenty that either one of us would think aren't for the good of society. I bet there are some we'd both agree on too. So I can see why some would want to further limit how much of one's donations are deductible.
No, I don't think he's paying his fair share. He's still at a lower rate than his tax rate should be under the Clinton tax code I desire. Like I said previously, this argument is not necessarily about the tax rates paid, it's the discussion as to should they be raised.
yes there are plenty of bullshit loopholes, but not a one is the primary reason buffett or romney are paying less than 40% of their income in taxes. why focus on capital gains rates if all he is doing is eliminating loopholes? i'll answer that for you. because obama is playing politics and he knows the american people are too stupid to realize that eliminating say tax free exchanges for non resident real estate raises far more money than raising capital gains rates for people making over $1 mil. he doesn't give a shit about loopholes. he has not suggested a single thing that eliminates tax loopholes. what he does care about is making it seem like he is taking his pound of flesh from the rich.
