Obama Pay a Lower Rate Than His Secretary?

[UltimateHoboW/Shotgun]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/...11-tax-returns

Today, the President released his 2011 federal income and gift tax returns. He and the First Lady filed their income tax returns jointly and reported adjusted gross income of $789,674. About half of the first family’s income is the President’s salary; the other half is from sales proceeds of the President’s books. The Obamas paid $162,074 in total tax.

The President and First Lady also reported donating $172,130 – or about 22% of their adjusted gross income – to 39 different charities. The largest reported gift to charity was a $117,130 contribution to the Fisher House Foundation. The President is donating the after-tax proceeds from his children’s book to Fisher House, a scholarship fund for children of fallen and disabled soldiers.

The President’s effective federal income tax rate is 20.5%. The President believes we must reform our tax system which is why he has proposed policies like the Buffett Rule that would ask the wealthiest Americans to pay their fair share while protecting families making under $250,000 from seeing their taxes go up. Under the President’s own tax proposals, including the expiration of the high-income tax cuts and limitations on the value of tax preferences for high-income households, he would pay more in taxes while ensuring we cut taxes for the middle class and those trying to get in it.

The President and First Lady also released their Illinois income tax return and reported paying $31,941 in state income tax.

Download the Obamas’ tax returns

The Vice President and Dr. Jill Biden also released their 2011 federal income tax returns, as well as state income tax returns for both Delaware and Virginia. The Bidens filed joint federal and combined Delaware income tax returns. Dr. Biden filed a separate non-resident tax return for the state of Virginia. Together, they reported adjusted gross income of $379,035. The Bidens paid $87,900 in total federal tax for 2011. They paid $13,843 in Delaware income tax and $3,614 in Virginia income tax. The Bidens contributed $5,540 to charity in 2011.

Download the Bidens’ tax returns

American taxpayers are able to go online and see exactly how their federal tax dollars are spent. You can visit the taxpayer receipt and after entering a few pieces of information about your taxes, the taxpayer receipt will give you a breakdown of how your tax dollars are spent on priorities like education, veterans benefits, or health care.

http://www.whitehousedossier.com/201...pay-secretary/

President Obama paid a total federal tax rate in 2011 on adjusted income of $789,674 that may be lower than that of his secretary, even though she earned substantially less.

Obama has spent the past week touting the Buffett Rule, which calls on those who make $1 million – just a little more than Obama made – to pay at federal tax rate of at least 30 percent. The rule was inspired by Buffett’s comment that he paid a lower tax rate than his secretary.

The most recent information about salary regarding Obama’s secretary is for his former secretary, Katie Johnson, who is listed by the White House as having made $90,000 in 2010.

According to Wikipedia, Johnson is 31 years old and now attends Harvard Law School. I don’t know about her personal life or what her deductions would be, so I can’t assume any children or extra deductions.

On a $90,000 salary, she would pay $16,578 in federal taxes, $3,780 to Social Security, and $1,305 in Medicare taxes.

That adds up to a total federal tax burden of $21,663 on $90,000 in adjusted gross income, or a tax rate of 24 percent.

Obama’s federal income tax rate was 20.5 percent. If you include the Medicare and Social Security taxes paid by Obama, his total federal tax liability is 21.8 percent, fully two percent less than that of his secretary even though his adjusted gross income was nearly nine times hers.

[snowspot66]

And?

[cutthemdown]

Whats even worst is Obama wouldnt get affected by the buffet rule. Sort of shows the number he throws around aren't just because some people make 1 or 2 million a yr.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Romney pays 14% and Obama pays 20%, what's your point? You really can't think for yourself and continually spam the board with NOTHING but cut and paste.

That's your only talent, being ignorant and uneducated.

[UltimateHoboW/Shotgun]

Originally Posted by Bronco_Beerslug

Romney pays 14% and Obama pays 20%, what's your point? You really can't think for yourself and continually spam the board with NOTHING but cut and paste.

That's your only talent, being ignorant and uneducated.

I love how you forget he got taxed 35% on his investment capital before he got taxed 14% on his investment return. Keep digging.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Originally Posted by UltimateHoboW/Shotgun

I love how you forget he got taxed 35% on his investment capital before he got taxed 14% on his investment return. Keep digging.

Like I said, being ignorant and uneducated is NOT a virtue...

-----------------------------------------------------------
Obama beats Romney for tax-return political savvy
By Allan Sloan, Published: April 16

Happy Tax Day. That’s the thought that ran through my mind last week when I looked at President Obama’s 2011 tax return, which the White House released Friday.

Forgive my skepticism — all right, I guess you can call it cynicism — but the more I look at Obama’s return, the more it strikes me as being much more a political document than a financial document.

Despite Obama having significant net worth, his return shows not a penny of tax-advantaged capital gains or dividend income. That’s a striking contrast to Mitt Romney’s 2010 return and projected 2011 return, which show income consisting primarily of low-taxed capital gains — some from investments, some from Romney’s share of the fees that his former employer, Bain Capital, collected as its share of its buyout investors’ gains. The latter, the “carried interest” loophole, is the most egregious single piece of the personal income tax code, allowing investment managers to treat what is really fee income (taxable at up to 37.9 percent, including Medicare tax) as capital gains (taxable at 15 percent).

What’s more, politics, including presidential politics, is clearly the reason the White House and congressional Democrats are pushing for the Buffett rule, which would establish a 30 percent federal tax rate for people with incomes of $1 million and up. (Not to be confused with millionaires, which I define as someone who’s worth $1 million or more.) The Buffett rule has no chance of becoming law — but it makes for good talking points, especially on the presidential campaign trail, where Obama will laud it and Romney will lacerate it.

When I first read Romney’s 2010 tax return, which he released in January under pressure from his Republican opponents, I was shocked by how politically clueless it felt. Here were all sorts of games — obscure tax credits, a Swiss bank account — that were legitimate and above board, but didn’t save much money if any, and that looked and smelled bad to an average person.

I mean, come on. Romney has been running for president for years. You’d think that somewhere along the way, someone would have explained to him that it was better to pay a few extra bucks to the IRS and clean up his return for public consumption by forgoing some deductions and credits, rather than having to explain a Swiss bank account and tacky-looking tax credits.

By contrast, Obama’s tax return is politically astute. Even his biggest tax maneuver — sticking $49,000 of his book income into a retirement plan — doesn’t leap out as egregious, the way Romney’s capital gains income does. Obama’s retirement deduction helps explain why his effective tax rate was 20.5 percent and mine was 25.1 percent, even though he earned more than twice what I did, and (since I’m not running for public office) my return shows tax-exempt income and tax-advantaged dividends.

By contrast to both Obama and me, and to other people whose income comes primarily from work rather than from investments, Romney’s effective tax rate was only 13.9 percent in 2010, and was projected at 15.4 percent for 2011.

It will be interesting to see if Romney’s people figure out how to handle his 2011 situation without kicking off another storm of coverage. For 2010, Romney’s tax advisers took advantage of the automatic six-month extension available to most taxpayers, and filed his return Oct. 15, 2011. If he files his 2011 return this October, it will hit at the height of the presidential campaign. I can’t imagine that his outfit is that clueless — but then again, there is that 2010 return.

So Happy Tax Day. And let’s hope that next year, things will have calmed down enough in our country for the presidential tax return to be a financial document, not a political one.

Sloan is Fortune magazine’s senior editor at large. To read his previous columns, go to postbusiness.com.

[cutthemdown]

It's getting scary. Men who do nothing wrong, who merely use the deductions the govt sets forth, are now being treated as though they are doing something wrong. Just make a flat tax if people don't like it. Obama has no intention of doing major tweaks to the tax code. The Buffet rules is a joke and could never pass. The only reason the majority of the public is for it is because the media and Obama have lied to them.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Originally Posted by cutthemdown

It's getting scary.

If the truth is "scary" then you Right Wingers should be shivering in your boots.

What's really scary is the thought that any sane human would support an admitted war monger like Romney.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Romney caught again, lying about "taxes".

--------------------------------------------------------
ROMNEY LIES: Claims John Kerry Released 2 Years Of Tax Returns But Kerry Actually Released 20
By Judd Legum on Apr 17, 2012 at 6:15 pm

In a CNBC interview with Larry Kudlow to air later tonight, Mitt Romney defends his decision to release only two years of tax returns — both filed after he decided to run for President — by claiming that 2004 Democratic nominee John Kerry also released two years. From an advanced transcript:



KUDLOW: Why not release your tax returns? Why not go back 10 years?

Gov. ROMNEY: Well, we’ve had people run for president before, and they’ve released two years. John Kerry released two years of taxes.. I’ve released one already, put the estimate out for the next year. We’ll have two years of taxes..

In fact, John Kerry released not two years of returns, but 20. From an April 14, 2004 article by Byron York:

In addition to his 2003 returns, Kerry also released federal tax returns from the years 1999 to 2002 yesterday. There has been some dispute about returns for those years. Kerry has claimed that he had already released the returns — in January of this year, he said, “I released all my tax returns for 20 years. I have never not released my tax returns throughout my political career.” But aside from releasing details from his 2002 taxes — which showed a total income of $144,091 — it is not clear that Kerry has ever made public his returns from 1999 or 2000 or 2001 before now.

Thus far, Mitt Romney has only released one year of returns. Romney’s father, George Romney, released 12 years of returns, stating “one year could be a fluke, perhaps done for show.”

[UltimateHoboW/Shotgun]

BTW, this is about Obama paying less than his own secretary.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Originally Posted by UltimateHoboW/Shotgun

BTW, this is about Obama paying less than his own secretary.

BTW, your attempt to paint Obama as someone who isn't paying his fair share of taxes, blew up in your face.

[DenverBrit]

Originally Posted by Bronco_Beerslug

BTW, your attempt to paint Obama as someone who isn't paying his fair share of taxes, blew up in your face.

An intelligent person wouldn't be spamming the board with this nonsense.

[UltimateHoboW/Shotgun]

Originally Posted by Bronco_Beerslug

BTW, your attempt to paint Obama as someone who isn't paying his fair share of taxes, blew up in your face.

He isn't according to "him".