Fri Apr 13, 2012, 06:33 PM
Hissyspit (43,177 posts)
Obama Likely Paid Higher Tax Rate Than Romney in 2011
Obama likely paid higher tax rate than Romney in 2011
By Andy Sullivan
Fri Apr 13, 2012 5:29pm EDT
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama released tax forms on Friday that reveal he will probably pay a higher tax rate on much lower income than likely Republican opponent Mitt Romney in 2011, adding fuel to a Democratic election-year effort to raise taxes on the rich.
Obama and his wife, Michelle, paid an effective tax rate of 20.5 percent on income of $789,674 last year, the White House said. Romney has estimated he will pay a 15.4 percent tax rate on income of $20.9 million.
Obama and his fellow Democrats have spent much of the week touting the "Buffett Rule," a plan to ensure that millionaires like Romney pay at least 30 percent income tax. The rule is named after Warren Buffett, the billionaire investor who has noted that he pays a lower tax rate than his secretary.
Obama's return shows that he pays a lower effective rate than the 35.8 percent rate that Buffett's longtime secretary, Debbie Bosanek, has said she pays. Obama also pays a slightly lower rate than his own secretary, the White House said.
Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE83C0ZB20120413?irpc=932
6 replies, 1907 views
Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Obama Likely Paid Higher Tax Rate Than Romney in 2011 (Original post)
Response to kestrel91316 (Reply #3)
Fri Apr 13, 2012, 09:19 PM
OnlinePoker (1,747 posts)
4. I'm sure a lot of DUers are in that 46% that didn't pay any federal income taxes.
It's hard to pay taxes when you don't even earn enough to house and feed yourself.
Response to Hissyspit (Original post)
Fri Apr 13, 2012, 09:23 PM
24601 (3,028 posts)
5. So what equity did the President have at stake? Right, his income wasn't derived from services
as a politician and author. If te nation goes deeper in dept, is he personally bankrupt? No. When "business" doesn't go well, his book sales might lag, but he still gets his salary and, after leaving office, retirement pay immediately and for life.
Conversely, investors assets are at risk - not just at risk for making no gain (no income) but at risk for losing the actual investment.
Sometimes it's because they get scammed (a'la Madoff) sometimes the demand for a perfectly ethical product just goes away (the best buggy-whip maker was the last to go out of business) and sometimes it's a success.
If you want to tax investment income the same as ordinary income - fine - remove the risk and guarantee that no one will ever lose money on an honest investment. The problem with that strategy is that eventually, you'll run out of everybody else's money.