Obama campaign slams Romney for not paying "fair share" of taxes

It amazes me how this man can trot out these warn out bumper sticker issues over and over again with a straight face. He calls for “fairness” and says that taxing 1% of the population more when almost 50% of the population doesn’t pay anything in federal taxes is beyond belief. Every American who earns a salary of any kind should pay at least something. That’s the beginning of fairness.

C’mon America. Wake up. Think for yourselves.Taxing the 1% may make some feel better and feed the class jealousy but it won’t make a hill of beans difference to the deficit. We are in desperate need of a courageous president who will address reality instead of catching the mice while the elephants are getting away.

Completely agree with VPMC. Those who tout “fairness” seem to keep trotting out the phrase “everybody should pay their fair share.”

That would seem to mean that everybody should pay something.

The current system in which half the people pay no income taxes makes a mockery of the “fair share” argument.

Let’s see, as an American who can still do simple math, 21,000,000 * 13.9% = 2,919,000 … So exactly how many secretaries in the country are paying more than 2 million in taxes ?

Go for flat tax, that’s the only thing truely fair.

You want to talk about paying your fair share? END THE CHILD TAX CREDIT. Why do I have to pay for your kids to be educated, policed, fed, kept healthy, transported, &c.? It makes zero sense that someone who adds such a huge burden to the government is then required to pay LESS.

I agree that to be fair, everyone who has an income should pay at least some federal taxes.

But it also seems like basic fairness, that as your income rises you should be paying at least the same income tax rate, not a LOWER rate, than people who make less than you do.

Both aspects are part of fairness.

The simple fact here is that those with more income shouldn’t pay a lower tax rate. Whether people living at poverty or subsistence level should pay taxes is another matter. To me it’s a no-brainer. Can we really be talking about, for example, people employed by places like Walmart which barely pay enough to live on and can fire people at any time? Have you read Nickel and Dimed by Barbara Ehrenreich about how much of American lives? I’m guessing you earn enough yourself to live comfortably, or your opinions would be contrary to your own interests, which happens a lot I find.

It’s is amazing how Obama continues to neglect the enormous issues facing this country and instead, just as VPMC says, he continues to tout a few insignificant bumper sticker lines to rally the ignorant.

@Randy…we do have a progressive income tax system. Buffet’s comments are misleading because he pays capital gains tax, not income tax like his secretary; therein lies the difference. Buffet doesn’t have to pay himself a giant salary because he is already so wealthy. .

Now, if you want to debate the rate at which you tax capital vs labor, that is a different argument all together. I think we need to gut ALL loopholes, both corporate and personal, lower rates significantly for both personal and corporate and that way we have an efficient and transparent tax system to work with. Call me radical but we need radical change.

Absolutely incredible. This is close to insanity – is it too much to ask for any politician to stick to the facts? First, we pay too much in taxes across the board – the problem is Government spending. The Buffet rule is to ensure that entry into the elite Buffet status of wealth is harder to acheive, as the Government will take a bigger share of your earnings. We are on the wrong track and need to correct this mess of a Government and get back to the original intent of our Constitution.

While I agree with tgtnft about government spending, we probably disagree on where spending should be cut.

To the rest of you, there is an interesting article in the NYTimes regarding the tax system and the “50% that doesn’t pay taxes.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/14/business/economy/14leonhardt.html

In any case, I think it’s hard to argue against that state and local taxes are progressive. And sales tax is regressive.

@VPMC, what is the fair share tax that should be paid by a homeless shopping cart pusher? By a child? By a previously abused 35 year old female counter clerk with three children, no husband? By a previously employed shelf stacker in his fifteenth week of unemployment? By an 85 year old woman receiving $1500 a month in Social Security benefits? By a black 70 year old male on $557 a month Social Security? These are your elephants getting by on peanuts while the mice quietly and secretly gnaw large holes in our wealth.

And if you raise taxes on these “millionaires” how are the millionaires going to recoup their losses? By finding other loopholes, or worse – laying off people who work for them. Everybody knows the ones with the money have the advantages, and it’s the middle class who pays in the end. So how is that “fair”, Mr. Obama?

All you people posting here against ending tax cuts for the rich need to take a reality check. Did you guys completely miss the Occupy movement? Middle and lower class Americans are sick and tired of the disparity in the US economy, where rich lobbyists are the ones calling the shots, and democracy is given mere lip service.

Hey, Mr. President. You now belong to the “rich guy club” too. Are you voluntarily OVERPAYING your taxes (or any of your advisors and cabinet members) . . . ? Or are you just trying to appeal to the voters with glib but meaningless lip service?

I think it’s a losing proposition to bash someone who gives as much as he does to charity as Romney for not paying his “fair share”. I think this will backfire on Obama.

If millionaires need to pay more, then change the tax code. In Romney’s defense, he has paid everything required by law. When he drew a salary, he paid at the proper tax rate (probably over 30%). Now that he is not drawing a salary, the tax rate on his investment income is 15%. He has probably also taken any deductions, tax shelters he is entitled to. Why would he or anyone else want to pay more taxes than they are required to pay? Come on Nobama, focus on the problems.

In order for a tax increase to result in a material increase in revenue, it will need to include more than just those making over $1M per year. Look for increases in dividends and capital gains taxes to be across the board (affecting everyone). This will mean ANY taxpayer who has managed to save and make investments will be penalized. This is how government works. Deception is a weapon to be used against an unsuspecting public. No economist that I am aware of believes that the US savings rate is sufficient. These tax increases will have the consequence of further reducing savings (investments) in this country.

nields;
Well said,, I wonder id POTUS made a gift to the IRS of more than required by law. What a stupid statement by a president.

@neids. Yes. Romney has not done anything against the law, or inappropriate. He has followed the tax code and utilized all the legal loopholes and breaks he can. Would any of us do differently? NO. Would Obama? NO. If the code needs changing (and it does-I am for flat tax personally, with no loopholes or breaks for any one) change it. But if you want to go after Romney you need to find another avenue Obama, this one has not weight.

tgtnft – “First, we pay too much in taxes across the board”

Tax revenues are the lowest they’ve been in over 60 years. How exactly do you figure ‘we pay too much’?

Sensibility – “By finding other loopholes, or worse – laying off people who work for them”

For the most part the “millionaires” are not the employers and job creators the Republicans would like to make them out to be. The majority of employers are small business owners who make (and are taxed on) a small fraction of what the millionaires are raking in.

” taxes on the wealthy would do nothing to create jobs or lower gasoline prices at the pump, which are the issues they say ordinary Americans care most about. ”

I want to live in a fair society. The money generated won’t save us from our financial problems, but it would help motivate us knowing that we are participating in a fair and moral society. THAT is what is important to me. The rest will fall into place as a result of a good housecleaning.

RE: Flat tax. It sounds appealing, but it really isn’t fair mathematically speaking if you look at where the revenue comes from. It would generate more revenue from the poor and middle class wages than today, and consequently give the wealthy yet another tax break on investments. The wealthy do not make an ‘income’ in wages so they would basically pay even less tax. “Fair share” does not necessarily mean “equal percentage” when analyzing the dollar value difference in income and investments between the rich, middle class, and poor.

Seems to me that people who read and listen and get informed all agree that everybody should pay something not just the rich that Obama seems to be focusing on. However, I’m afraid that he is going to reach the 50% that don’t pay anything and want lots of freebies to vote for him. He bad mouths Romney but praises Buffet who has even more money than Romney I don’t get it. This administration really believes he can pull the wool over our eyes. If they want fair then everyone should pay.

Well, he doesn’t know how to do anything but campaign certainly not govern. I just feel sorry for the poor idiots who eat this stuff up. BUT they are not doing so well under this President, so they may think that over come November.

I think everyone needs a lesson in two words, fairness and equality.

Fairness is the idea that everybody is going to start the race at the same time and have the same opportunity.

Equality is saying that, no matter where you finish the race, you will all get the same style, color and size ribbon.

Very few people are calling for equality. But, everyone knows that fairness is absolutely necesary in order to have a free and just democratic society.

It is “fair” to try and level the playing field so that the poor have a chance to move up in socioeconomic status. It is not fair to have the ultra rich keep the poor, poor. In order to be fair, some taxes will be charged at un-EQUAL rates. That’s the deal. If you are ultra rich, and you pay more taxes, then you have a problem that 99% of the people in this country would gladly trade with you.

It is surely unequal. As an ultra rich person you are not equal to others. You have more, and there is true unequality between you and the poor. But, it is absolutely true that if you have more, you pay more. To me, that is FAIR.

Ocala123456789 In a vacuum, or a closed system like a terrarium, then you are right. However, YOU did not make ALL OF THAT MONEY, with hard work or intelligence. There are a lot of smart hard working people that do NOT make all of that money. There are a lot of people that have worked very hard over decades that now find themselves faced with poverty in middle age or retirement. Besides, you used the infrastructure that we all participate in to leverage your wealth. It’s not accurate to associate hard work and intelligence with wealth. Simply a myth. I would associate greed and lack of ethics with wealth. That is the problem with an unfair society. The masses loose the motivation to participate because there is no way to assure relative middle class success with effort.

Ocala123456789 – I sincerely hope you never experience a catastrophic illness or accident, because if you do, you may hear an awful lot of people saying “Why should this loser take 30% of my income just because he has cancer? Let him die.”

Grant_X – Very well said. Your lesson should be particularly directed at all the idiots that insist on calling Obama a Socialist. Socialists believe in economic equality. Neither Obama, nor the Democrats, nor really anyone in this country are asking for equality. Just fairness.

The Buffet Rule is just one in a very long line of changes we need in our tax code. Our tax code is just a giant welfare system for the rich to get richer with loopholes giving away our tax revenues. It is time to remove all exemptions,all deductions,all tax credits, get rid of capital gains, and all loopholes. Just a progressive flat tax and everyone pays- individuals and corporations. This will save billions of dollars for the IRS and for companies who currently need a whole tax department. Everyone, rich and poor will pay a income tax – some at a greater % than others but everyone will pay. We need to do this NOW!

Very well said @Grant_X

There is a certain mean spirit and sycophantic ideology inspiring the right-wing. It’s bolstered by profound ignorance of the entire situation. For example, 50% of people don’t pay income tax. That’s Federal income tax. That doesn’t mean they don’t pay taxes. They do. Many states have property taxes, income taxes and sales taxes. They pay all of those. As a matter of fact, here in Washington the poor pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes. Somewhere in your confused brains you got the notion that the wealthy are this oppressed minority. Nothing could be further from the truth. The wealthy in this country are doing extremely well, with historically low taxes. Your other fear is that if you tax them, money is mobile, and they will leave? So now your being held hostage? There is no historical precedence for this. Taxes where higher under Reagan and Clinton but wealth certainly didn’t exodus the US. Once again, your all pathologically broken and moreover un-Christian if you think that the poor and working class of America aren’t saddled with their fair share of the burden. There is nothing right or good about @Ocala123456789 racist comments. Of the 30% he claims to pay, only 2.2% of that 30% go to “Travon Martin’s” food stamps and wellfare payments. The vast majority of that money goes to payments to his own grandma and grandpa for SSN and medicare and the rest goes to the military with a nice slice going to pay interest on the debt. That’s where his money goes. ALL other spending … ALL OF IT … is less then 12% of the budget; that includes all the programs and payments that he fault for bankrupting his country. The GOP has become a party steered by wealth and power and propelled by ignorant mean-hearted fools. Obama 2012.

@VPMC You don’t think rolling the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy would help?

That’s one of the things that got us into this mess.

Mommy Mitt isn’t paying fair wwwwaaaaa! JulsMan guess you thought that was mean-hearted to show Obama’s ignorance like that, oh well.

I agree that the tax system is unfair,but the answer is not higher tax rates for a small group as Mr. Axelrod proposes. A better remedy would expand the tax base by eliminating the miasma of exemptions,deductions,and credits that would allow reductions in rates for a large group.

It’s funny how so many people just go LALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALA…I can’t hear you…what?…something about LALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALA. ONE SUPER RICH PERSON SCAMS MORE FROM OUR COUNTRY THAN 100,000 POOR FOLKS SCAMMING A $400 CHECK. There’s always the people that take advantage of the system, RICH OR POOR. The poor lazy people argument doesn’t hold water, try something different..AND REAL.

@derdutchman…All of those situations you mentioned are individuals paying 0% in income tax.

But, considering that 48% of Americans pay 0% in income taxes, there are many more than just the homeless, children, or the elderly that pay 0% income tax.

In the meantime, the President continues to borrow money with no plan of ever repaying it; he does have a plan to repay it, you say? enlighten me.

People like Mitt and Warren pay a “lower tax rate than their secretary” because the have no salaried or hourly wages, their income is derived exclusively from capital gains.

Point being, as I alluded to previously, the issue is that while Obama raves about his millionaires tax, the truth is that it will not even begin to reduce our fiscal woes; It wouldn’t account for one single slice of the proverbial pie, perhaps not even a crumb.

We have BIG problems and need a LEADER with the moxy, courage, and candor to address them and explain to the American people what, why, how and when he’s going to do something about it. Sadly, Obama is not that leader.

Lastly…if the millionaires tax is such a central issue to American prosperity, why didn’t he enact it during the two years he had a Dem supermajority?

Hey, anyone can open an account in the kaymen islands and use a team of accountants, lawyers and loopholes to pay less then everyone else. What’s the beef here? Look at all the people he is putting to work with the money he is saving.

What about PARENTS paying their fair share? Kids are HUGE consumers of government programs, and their parents get a tax break just for having them? What sense does that make?

@Julsman….”here in Washington the poor pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes”

NOWHERE in the United states does a “poor” person pay a higher nominal rate than a “rich” person. The wealthy are not an oppressed, but rather a chastized minority who will not solve our fiscal problems by way of being taxed at higher nominal tax rates.

Speaking of PROFOUND IGNORANCE and gross disingenuity, it is the liberals who have lead Americans, such as yourself, to believe that we have a tax revenue problem. We have a SPENDING problem which is perhaps best demonstrated by taking Obama’s precious “millionaires tax” issue to the hypothetical extreme: If you taxed the wealthiest 1% of Americans at 100% it would STILL not put a measureable dent in our budget deficit or national debt. In fact, we have so much debt at this point that when rates begin to rise our debt payment will exceed our entire defense budget!

What will liberals say then, when we are taxing millionaires at exorbitant rates and have a debt payment that exceeds our defense budget – might you then concede that we have a spending problem and not a revenue problem? Further, if you now realzie that $15T in debt is scary, we have a projected $65T unfunded Medicaire liability projected before I retire.

Most importantly, what is the President going to do about this? HE HAS NO PLAN! Instead he criticizes the Right for the plan that they have put forth. Maybe it’s not a perfect plan, but WE HAVE A LEADER WITH NO PLAN! It’s easy to paint the finger, but much more diffuclt to offer a sound solution.

We need a leader with business savvy who will address these issues; something Obama, frankly, is not.

@savannahmike, it’s simple: an uneducated kid will cost the government more in handouts than helping them get educated and potentially working. Your ability to sit on a computer, type, and write something properly in english is a testament to your consumption of the government program you kvetch about and those kids will be footing the bill on your future overinflated Social Security payments.

Funny considering Romney has given away higher percentage of his money as donations than Obama, Biden, and Clinton combined.

We have a short memory. The tax breaks for the rich have not been around for a very long time. They were instituted under the Bush administration to stimulate growth. The idea failed. We are not asking to unprecedentedly raise tax on the rich. We are simply asking to unroll the tax breaks that were given relatively recently in a failed attempt to redirect the money to the economy. It does not trickle down. That has been proven.

In the context of THAT conversation, it becomes apparent that a more robust reform is necessary.

@Grant_X…I completely agree with you, the problem with your agrument is that we already have a progressive tax system. The “poor” struggle not because they are taxed too much (48% of Americans pay 0% income tax); yhey struggle because they do not have good jobs and opportunity.

Obama has turned this into a tax debate when it should be a jobs debate. If the “poor” and working class had well paying jobs we would not be having this discussion.

Let us explore and focus pointedly on that issue: The GOP assertion is that we do not have an adequate number of jobs with sufficient pay and benefits because we are not competitive globally for business investment. Businesses create jobs and hire employees and they don’t choose to deploy their capital outside fo the US solely due to cheap labor. There are many other issues such as the tax environment, regulatory environment, infrastructure, education and business climate certainty of a given nation that figure in heavily.

Therein lies the issues: we are not competitive on any of these fronts. We are slipping in educationa nd infrastructure, we have a terribly inefficient and overburdening regulatory regime and we have the highest corporate tax rate in the world!

We need a President who is business savvy who will explain this the American people and will effect efficient regulation and repeal that regulation which is not effective. We need to complete gut both our personal and corporate tax code, removing all loopholes, keeping a progressive rate structure and lowering nominal rates across the board. Specifically we need to lower our corporate rate down to at least 15% from the current 35%…0% would be better in my mind (remember we are competing globally to attract business investment and jobs).

Our issue is that our current President not only suffers a dearth of leadership qualities but he also has no business experience and both he and his administration frankly DO NOT UNDERSTAND the whole of this argument.

I assert that Mitt Romney is the perfect man for the job because America inc. is in trouble and needs a serious restructuring and turnaround job on the fronts aforementioend and in many other areas as well. He has also possesses the business experience to udnerstand that we must be competitive on a global level for business investment in roder for the middle class to prosper and for America to return to prosperity.

BTW, the same goes for fostering small business investment. We need to lubricate the means by which small business is formed, foster innovation, and facilitate organic business development.

Obama is not a businessman nor a leader as is evidenced by the fact that he is misleading the public, diverting their attnetion from the core of our problems, and has not even put forth even a HINT of a plan to address these issues or our fiscal imbalance

@jaham – regarding your comment: “NOWHERE in the United states does a “poor” person pay a higher nominal rate than a “rich” person. ”

You have to look at the aggregations. The poor and the middle class are larger proportionally than the rich. A greater amount of the total budget revenue comes from the poor and middle class than the rich. Therefore, the spending and policy should be reflected on the needs of the poor and middle class, not the rich. No one is saying that each poor person pays more dollars than each rich person. And when you look at resources as a whole including wages, interests, income, expenses, etc, then the poor and middle class actually do pay a higher percentage of their ‘worth’ in taxes. Therefore, the poor and middle class have a higher ‘burden’ than the rich. Whereas the rich can afford the burden easier than the poor and middle class. Oh, they may have to park one of their jags….

@jaham – regarding your comment: “NOWHERE in the United states does a “poor” person pay a higher nominal rate than a “rich” person. ”

You have to look at the aggregations. The poor and the middle class are larger proportionally than the rich. A greater amount of the total budget revenue comes from the poor and middle class than the rich. Therefore, the spending and policy should be reflected on the needs of the poor and middle class, not the rich. No one is saying that each poor person pays more dollars than each rich person. And when you look at resources as a whole including wages, interests, income, expenses, etc, then the poor and middle class actually do pay a higher percentage of their ‘worth’ in taxes. Therefore, the poor and middle class have a higher ‘burden’ than the rich. Whereas the rich can afford the burden easier than the poor and middle class. Oh, they may have to park one of their jags….

The Republicans blather on about God the Father and the sanctity of life but when it comes to getting a little help from them, don’t hold your breath. Their true god is God the Dollar.

Let me get this right. Timothy Geithner didn’t pay social security or Medicare taxes for several years while he worked for the International Monetary Fund and he employed immigrant housekeepers who lacked proper work papers. Mitt Romney has abided by every applicable tax rule and paid 100% of the taxes he’s owed. And who’s being demonized here?

@explorer08: that is the least insightful thing I’ve read today.

@SeaWa…you are correct in terms of TOTAL budget revenue, primarily due to payroll tax. But, the overall point to my comments was to highlight that:

1)We have a spending problem, not a tax problem.

2) Even if you tax “the rich” at nearly 100%, it will not even begin to put a dent in our fiscal problem (an exemplification of point #1).

3) Obama is misleading the public in focusing on a relatively insignificant issues (that only bode well for his campaign, if anything) while he continues to borrow and spend money at an unprecedented rate.

4)Obama refuses to address our core issues and has not put forth a plan as to how we will EVER achieve a balanced budget, pay down our debts, service our debt, fix unfunded entitlement liabilities, or even how that increased tax revenue from the rich is going to create organic job growth which is the TRUE driver of prosperity for the middle and lower class.

For the record, you might want to blame this on Clinton, not Bush. Remember his campaign promise about excessive executive compensation? Well guess what. Because of that, we now have a hedge fund managers like Buffet, whose compensation is based on a formula that, in part, pays according to the returns on funds invested. That portion of compensation is taxed at capital gains rates (15%). It’s the same way all hedge funds compensate managers. The propaganda that the POTUS disseminates would have you believe that all millionaires are compensated under the same arrangements and pay taxes at the same rate, which is completely false. In my book, not telling the truth is no different than telling a lie. How do you take serious someone who doesn’t tell the truth?

I agree with you completely VPMC. People have to realize who pays most of the taxes and employs most of the people in this country. It’s the 1% who start and run businesses. Also, everyone is going to get clobbered next year when huge tax increases go into affect if Obama is re-elected.

Romney is not being “demonized”. he is already in the spotlight by his choice to run for president. No one is saying he’s being illegal. He just happens to be a very good example of WHY we need to reform our tax laws to make it equally FAIR for everyone. I mean, if you were running for president and this was one of your issues, who would you single out? It’s just common sense.

@jaham – does it only show FDIC on your pay slip? How about all those other taxes? Shut up already with the “48% pay 0 taxes”. FDIC is NOT the only tax. SSN, Medicare, Sales tax, property tax, all the levies, not to mention huge taxes on tobacco and alcohol (which are used a lot by the poor). Add these up. They come out to more then 15%, especially when your income is at the poverty line and you can’t hide money offshore. So what’s your vision? Eric Cantor’s plan? You want to gut the 12% of the Fed that covers all spending outside of military, SS, Medicare, and servicing the debt while increasing the military? Why don’t you go live in a 3rd world country … their governments don’t waste money on the poor.

@explorer08 – totally agreed.

My problem with this whole argument is that according to IRS statitics, returns reporting over $1 million AGI represented somewhere around .1% of total returns filed, but paid over 17% of total taxes collected by the treasury. The bottom 50% paid less about 1.85% of total taxes received by treasury. Asking .1% of the population to foot 17% of the bill I think is asking enough. Maybe we should be saying thank you.

At the rate we’re going, we won’t have to go live in a 3rd world country. It will come to us.

@hotmess I would challenge you not to feel like the .1% is doing you such a big favor. They aren’t. No more or less then I am and I pay thousands of dollars in taxes. I don’t get a thank you card and I don’t need one. I participate in a system where my basic rights are protected against criminals big and small and if someone infringes on those rights the system will spare no expense to bring them to justice. The very rich have gotten a thank-you card already, they’ve got a chance to play at the highest levels of a system that generates more wealth then any society at any other time on the earth, and that wealth is being legal protected for them by the same system. Taxes are the price we all pay to live in a civilized society. It’s how we keep the motor running. Despite the thinking of our conservative friends, no man is an island. Our success/failure is as much about our birth as it is about our capabilities.

@jaham – I will agree with you that no matter what we do with tax and revenue (and I support reform), the government also needs to cut expenses. Just like we have to do at home. But this can be done over a decade or so. If we try to do it all at once it can destabilize the economy which will hurt almost everyone. A lot of the bickering is the result of the difference between economic Fairness and economic Equality as Grant_X so eloquently explained.

I still believe that what is the most important is not financial at all. The population must believe (at least the majority) that by putting forth effort and making a commitment they can elevate their standard of living to a reasonable and secure middle class. You know, the ‘ole concept of the American Dream. A fair tax system will go a long way to encourage people to trust the American dream and participate in education and production (a.k.a. Jobs). An unfair tax system is an indication of a sick society that makes people feel that there is no reason to bother; they won’t be able to get ahead anyway.

Between Wall Street and Government Bureaucracy many people are feeling disconnected, left out, disillusioned, and frankly questioning what exactly the rules to survival are.

@jorge “It’s the 1% who start and run businesses”

I think this is a myth. Business will start, people will provide necessary services for each other, etc, regardless of whether it’s the 1% or not. We will even produce (sans the middleman). If there is a void, people will step up to the opportunity. At best the rich invest money into the startups hoping to suck money out of it later. That’s money that a lot of 99 percenters did the actual work to create. Nothing admirable about that. They may not even be startups that contribute to the economy or our daily lives. Just money making schemes. Think “Instagram”. The company that didn’t exist a few years ago but worth a billion today. How exactly has it benefited society or the economy other than for the rich 1% you are crediting? Oh, a lot of the poor and middle class wasted money on the apps, the morons that we are, to make the rich richer.

I believe in fairness. Everybody should be paying. When the 50% of the deadbeat leeches who pay nothing start throwing something into the pot, then we can talk about the 1% who are already paying 40% of all taxes.

This class warfare nonsense may play well with social parasites like the Occupy clowns, but the majority of our society is well past this absurd attempt at divide-and-conquer.

jaham – “We have a spending problem, not a tax problem”

We actually have both. Tax revenues as a percentage of GDP are the lowest they’ve been in the last 60 years. If you truly believe that deficit spending is a problem (and I don’t disagree), then you should be supporting the party who wants to both cut spending AND raise revenues, not the party who wants to make draconian cuts to programs that benefit the poor and middle class while INCREASING spending on the military and further REDUCING revenue by giving even more tax breaks to the wealthy.

jorge62 – “It’s the 1% who start and run businesses”

Not hardly. Small business owners, who are this country’s biggest employers, are a tiny fraction of the 1%. The 1% are not the job creators. That is Fox News propaganda BS.

@jaham, you really should research your “facts” a little before posting. To start from the beginning.

“@Randy…we do have a progressive income tax system. Buffet’s comments are misleading because he pays capital gains tax, not income tax like his secretary; therein lies the difference.” The IRS considers both capital gains and wages to be sources of income, even though they are taxed at different rates. Yes, the words are important.

“But, considering that 48% of Americans pay 0% in income taxes, there are many more than just the homeless, children, or the elderly that pay 0% income tax.” Continued repetition of this tiresome old line does not make it any more relevent or any less disingenuous. 48% of Americans may well pay no federal income taxes but that doesn’t mean they don’t pay taxes. Sales, property and excise taxes are paid by nearly everyone in the US and they are all regressive. All states except Vermont have regressive overall state and local taxes. As a retired person who derived all of my income from dividends and interest last year I paid no federal income taxes yet my state and local taxes totalled 39% of my income not including sales and excise taxes. Add in sales and excise taxes and my effective tax rate is close to 50% of my income. You think I should pay federal income tax on top of this?

“In the meantime, the President continues to borrow money with no plan of ever repaying it; he does have a plan to repay it, you say? enlighten me.” Another flaming non sequitur. What president has ever had a plan to repay the debt? None of them. The reality is, according to a recent article on Bloomberg, that Obama’s plan will result in a lower debt than Romney’s. “The BGOV Barometer shows Obama’s 2013 budget calls for boosting debt held by the public to 77 percent of U.S. gross domestic product by 2021 from a projected 74 percent in 2012. That compares with an increase to 86 percent of GDP for Romney and 104 percent for Santorum, according to an analysis by the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.” If debt is truly your concern then Romney is the one you should be badmouthing here. But I’m sure that’s just a political thing.

“@Julsman….”here in Washington the poor pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes”
NOWHERE in the United states does a “poor” person pay a higher nominal rate than a “rich” person.” Now this is just plain disingenuous. @Julsman never said that “a “poor” person pay[s] a higher nominal rate than a “rich” person”. What @Julsman said is that “the poor pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes” which is an entirely different thing. As I’m sure you are well aware, nominal tax rates are nearly meaningless. Someone who has an income of a billion dollars could have a nominal income tax rate of 35% (the highest nominal rate on wages) and still have an effective tax rate of less than 20% if the vast majority of that income is derived from long term capital gains or carried interest. Effective rates are what matter since they are what people pay. Nominal rates are nearly meaningless unless of course you are trying to mislead people.

“We have a SPENDING problem which is perhaps best demonstrated by taking Obama’s precious “millionaires tax” issue to the hypothetical extreme: If you taxed the wealthiest 1% of Americans at 100% it would STILL not put a measureable dent in our budget deficit or national debt.” This is just plain and simple rubbish. Why wouldn’t you bother to look this up before posting and making a fool of yourself? According to the IRS there were 1.2M households in the top 1% of income earners in the US in 2007. These households generated average pretax income of $1,873,000. Since you’re obviously math challenged I’ll do the multiplication for you. That’s $2.25T. The CBO estimates the budget deficit for 2012 to be $1.2T. If the top 1% paid 53% income taxes not only would it “put a measureable dent in our budget deficit”, it would completely cover the entire federal budget deficit for 2012. How could you be this wrong? More importantly, how can you expect anyone to believe anything you say after putting forth such blatant misinformation? Not only that, you did it twice.

Finally the tired old “We have a spending problem, not a tax problem.” A sound bite reminiscent of Reagan’s pathetic old one liners. Then there’s reality. Here’s a challenge for you, find one significant nation on the entire planet that does a better job of governing with less money. Of the 33 nations which the OECD monitors 29 of them take in more money (as a percentage of GDP) in taxes than the United States does. The three that don’t? Turkey, Chile and Mexico, not exactly shining examples of government. And none of these countries spends even remotely close to what the US does on defense. I don’t recall anywhere near the current level of tax whining when Bush was president, yet now that taxes are actually lower for most Americans than they were then the whining has become incessant. I think that makes it quite apparent that this has little to do with taxes, or any actual issue for that matter, and that it has everything to do with politics.

i’d be happy if people like buffett just paid the taxes they are currently be charged much less his “fair share”; how much does he owe?

Both the far left and the far right are both wrong. Doesn’t matter though, as both sides are merely playing games for power and influence. In the end both sides will lose when thy kill the golden goose.

@AZWarrior – You may be surprised to find out many of those that seem extreme to you are actually fairly moderate. When arguing against the extreme left or right, their comments tend to sound extreme in the opposite direction. I know I am not a socialist, but reading my comments defending fair economics and taxation may make me look that way! Wall street and the 1% truly do take advantage of the situation to the extent of exploitation. The 99% do to in their own way too, each at a smaller scale. What we must do is reduce the opportunity. One of the problems is that it has become institutionalized in our government policy, especially for the so called rich that supposedly prop the rest of us up (myth of course).

@SeaWa – How much hiring are the poor doing these days? The rich will continue to find loopholes. The middle class will pay in the end no matter how much we tax the rich. 40 cents out of every dollar I make goes to some form of tax. To me that’s insane. A low flat consumption tax is a fair answer. This way we get illegal immigrants, drug dealers, and anyone else who spends money. If you are rich you will pay more because you buy more stuff and more expensive stuff. If you are not rich then you will pay less because you will buy less. This does not rule out the fact that we have to get government spending under control. Just think of the money that will be saved by eliminating the IRS, tax forms, and deductions.

Hear hear, jtfane. If we had more people whose gears were still turning as yours obviously are, this country would be a very different place, indeed; a much more hospitable and efficiently run place. Post more often.

WeRAllAmericans – “A low flat consumption tax is a fair answer”

Not even close. The poor, and more and more so the middle class, ‘consume’ 100% of their income. Replacing income tax with a consumption tax would be an unprecedentedly massive tax cut for the rich and a crippling tax increase for the working class.

You want to talk about being able to do simple math? Try this out.

Our national debt is $16 TRILLION dollars.
The US is going into debt at the rate of $1.5 trillion per year.

The value of the Bush tax cuts is $1 trillion dollars…
OVER 10 YEARS.

Do the math.

When you are going into debt to the tune $1.5 trillion annually…squabbling over some meaningless, immaterial tax cuts for a few wealthy people is basically like squabbling over the rearrangement of deck chairs on the Titanic.

WeRAllAmericans: “How much hiring are the poor doing these days?” Why do you even say that? The only thing posting that demonstrates is that you are taking your talking points from some rightwing source, probably FOX, because no real source of information makes that meaningless statement. How many classrooms have been taught by rich people these days? There. That’s at least as relevant as your statement, and actually more so.

For the right to gain any legitimacy beyond their own circles they need to start talking more coherently. Show the logic to your arguments. Don’t just regurgitate FOX/Rush talking points.

The amount of hiring done by the poor has no relevance to anything. Are you suggesting that we hand the reigns of power over to the rich because they might hire some of us? Without further explanation, that’s the conclusion I reach.

To suggest that we don’t ask the wealthy to pay any taxes or very little because poor people don’t do much hiring is a non sequitur for many reasons, not the least being that the rich don’t hire people based on how little or how much they are taxed. There’s only one reason the wealthy hire people and that is because they need workers to make themselves money. That’s it. If they could make more money by not hiring anyone, then that’s what they’d do, regardless of how high or low their taxes are.

There were 20 million jobs created during the Clinton Presidency. Clinton, along with a Republican Congress, raised taxes. The highest tax bracket was 39.6% under Clinton. Bush lowered taxes, especially on the rich and there was a zero net increase of jobs over the entire 8 years Bush was President. Take a close look at the following chart: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=213 The top tax bracket under Eisenhower, a Republican, was 91%, and yet our country had unprecedented growth. That would be utterly impossible if your theory of low taxes = job creation were true. Obviously, it’s not true. Obama is not asking that we raise taxes on the rich to where they were under Eisenhower. He’s advocating that we raise the top tax bracket to where it was under Clinton, a level that used to be agreeable to the Republicans before they radicalized.

One last point. Under Eisenhower, and other American Presidents, America had the best schools in the world. That was American taxes at work. Our country benefited enormously with higher taxes. It was the opposite from where we are now. An excellent public school system served our nation well. A healthy democracy can’t function adequately without a strong public school system and it doesn’t come free, but the entire country, rich and poor, derive enormous benefit from it.

Nobody appears to be accusing Romney of illegal tax evasion.

So what’s the problem? THE LAWS ARE WRONG.

After four years in the White House, with control of both houses of Congress for extended periods of time; who is responsible for the tax laws?

Who has been kicking these issues into the long grass for the last four years???

Hey, that’s all well and good. Now show us a chart that shows how “taxing the rich at 39%” will even mean anything to our economy…while we are going to into debt at the rate of $1.5 trillion per year. lol

Again, you are just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

You don’t turn an entire country around and get it out of a $16 trillion dollar abyss by trying to tax the hell out of everyone.

Think about it.

matthewslyman: I’ll tell you what’s wrong with it. As you, yourself, state, the laws are wrong. Romney is running for President and he’s taking full advantage of these bad tax laws. Don’t expect Romney to fix what is wrong with our tax code when he and his buddies are all gaining from it, even though it’s at our country’s expense.

Who has been kicking these issues into the long grass? If you’d pay attention you’d have notice that it’s not the Republicans who are advocating closing the tax loopholes. Our tax code is a Frankenstein that’s been in the making for a long time. I don’t know of a single source where you can find who created what loopholes, though I imagine there’s plenty of blame to go around. But don’t pretend that Romney would somehow be this President who would press for closing tax loopholes, loopholes that have proven very lucrative to him and his friends. Have you heard him say he’d put an end to allowing Americans to avoid taxes in overseas bank accounts? I haven’t. All I hear from him is how he’ll lower taxes for himself and people of his class. Don’t promote Romney by saying he’s going to do things that he hasn’t said he’s going to do. Obama is going to fix our education system without costing tax payers a dime. How’s that? I haven’t heard him say this, but I’m sure he’ll do it.

I should also remind you that the Republicans won the House in 2010 and they abuse the filibuster in the Senate to prevent Democrats from accomplishing anything, so don’t try to fault Democrats for not closing tax loopholes. The Republicans could do it tomorrow if they wanted to, but the Democrats couldn’t. There’s your answer.

CF137: By arguing that it’s useless to raise any taxes at all because unless we cut spending it’s not going to make a difference, you, in turn, defeat your own argument because the same argument could be made about any spending cuts being recommended. That’s why we need both spending cuts and tax increases. Take the Bush tax cuts. We can either continue adding that amount to our debt or subtracting that amount from our debt. Which makes more sense to you?

Most credible economists agree that the US will have to cut spending AND raise taxes in order to reel in our deficit spending. What makes no sense at all on the tax side of the equation is why Republicans insist on, not just keeping taxes near historical lows, where they are now. They want to cut them further to MATCH our historical lows. This is lunacy at a time when our Fed gov. is in such financial dire straights and unemployment is high.

Answer me this. Why are the Republicans refusing to pay for the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars? Up until Bush, the US always paid for their wars by raising taxes. It’s common sense and an example of why we hadn’t incurred such longterm debt like we have now. That was the way the US had previously paid for conducting our wars. Bush and the Republicans come along, engage in 2 wars, and not only do they not raise taxes to pay for the wars (which has the added advantage of making all Americans have some skin in the game), but they actually cut taxes at a time of war. The result? Massive debt. Duh. That’s why smarter Presidents and Congresses in the past never did it that way.

Okay, we now know that’s a bad idea, but it’s not too late to fix it. We can pay for them now. Better late than never, right? But no, not only do Republicans continue to refuse to pay for the wars they conducted, but they want to make the same mistake they made with Bush, they want to cut taxes even further. It’s dangerously stupid. We know it is bad policy. Why turn right around and do it again? I’m sure you’ve heard Einstein’s definition of insanity.

The US economy has thrived under higher taxes. The only other time we’ve had taxes at levels that the Ryan plan is advocating was during the roaring twenties which led to the Great Depression. Why not do what has already worked for us? Why repeat our mistakes? Mistakes are for learning and avoiding repeats.

@jtfane…

“The IRS considers both capital gains and wages to be sources of income, even though they are taxed at different rates.” Yes, one is income on capital and one is income on wages and they are taxed at different rates. Using Buffet as an example is misleading because Obama is focused on changing income tax. If he raises the income tax on millionaires it will not change Romney nor Buffet’s tax liability; in that sense it’s not really a Buffet tax at all!

““But, considering that 48% of Americans pay 0% in income taxes, there are many more than just the homeless, children, or the elderly that pay 0% income tax.” Continued repetition of this tiresome old line does not make it any more relevant or any less disingenuous.” Again, since Obama is focused on INCOME TAX, that fact is relevant and not disingenuous. You are tired of hearing it because it is the truth and is a portion of the “fairness” argument that liberals don’t want to bring up. That said, if you read my other comments, like my response to seawa, I concede that the overall tax burden is greater on the poor – it doesn’t take a genius to figure that out. what is Obama’s plan for reducing that burden? He doens’t have one. And no you shouldn’t pay federal income tax on dividend income; what’s your point? Again, Obama is talking about raising nominal income tax rates and we have (hopefully) clearly made a distinction between taxes on capital and wages at this point.

“What president has ever had a plan to repay the debt?” Well Clinton very nearly DID pay off our national debt to the point that many thought that the issuance of treasury securities would be a relic of the past. Further, in a time when we only have to look to Europe to see the perils of borrowing more than you can service or repay I would expect a President who has spent more federal dollars THAN ANY OTHER PRESIDENT IN HISTORY to have a plan to repay it or at least be able to service it; something we will not be able to do when rates begin to rise. I won’t play number games with your “facts” from Bloomberg for as you hopefully know, budget numbers can be painted in a very misleading manner. Romney has endorsed the Ryan plan which will spend $40T to Obama’s $47T over the next ten years. If debt is my concern I will badmouth a President who has put forth a budget with a deficit of $1T+ for ALL FOUR YEARS of his term with no plan to repay it; again, unprecedented.

“Now this is just plain disingenuous. @Julsman never said that “a “poor” person pay[s] a higher nominal rate than a “rich” person”. What @Julsman said is that “the poor pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes” which is an entirely different thing. As I’m sure you are well aware, nominal tax rates are nearly meaningless.” Again, I make the focus on income taxes because THAT is where Obama has chosen to fight this battle. By your own admission we have unrelenting tax burdens that come in many different forms and Obama’s fix for that is to raise nominal rates on the rich? Yes, to use your own words, nominal rates are meaningless…then why does Obama expect to raise them on the rich with any efficacy or material outcome?

@jtfane…continued….

AGAIN, if you read my comments you will see that I do concede that tax burdens come in many form but AGAIN, I am focusing on income tax because that is where Obama has chosen to focus…he has made no mention of reducing the burden on the middle class. Instead he is using the raising of nominal rates on the rich as a disingenuous ploy to rally the ignorant of his voting base, and apparently you are falling for it.

“nominal rates are meaningless unless of course you are trying to mislead people.” Emmm…that would be OBAMA trying to mislead people, you make my point for me!

BTW, thank you for the simple math calculation. “These households generated average pretax income of $1,873,000″. Again, you are talking in NOMINAL rates and pretax income. As you well know, the rich have the resources to have the most experienced CPA’s to use a plethora of tax deductions, loopholes and shelters. Example: I know a man who is a doctor and has had pretax income of $3+ million and has not paid income tax for 20+ years. Multiplying nominal rates by pretax income is not going to reveal anything because the rich often end up with a negative AGI. I’ll leave the condescending remarks aside.

Here’s a challenge for you, find one significant nation on the entire planet that spends more money than we do…

Other countries take in more money as a percentage of GDP because of the inefficient tax system we have. We have the highest nominal corporate rates but it gets diluted down to a low effective rate, that is not a model of efficiency. Why then does that President refuse to reform taxes, refuse his own Simpson bowles plan, and instead want to focus on increasing nominal rates?

You have said only ONE THING that is correct in your whole spiel: this is about politics not taxes. Obama is a poor leader and has done nothing to address our fiscal problems, nothing to create organic job growth, nothing to make America competitive for business investment, nothing to ease the burden on or return prosperity to the middle class and most relevant to this article: his idea of raising nominal rates does nothing to change any of those issues.

You have done nothing but make my case for me. Nominal rates don’t matter as they get diluted down to puny effective rates; why then does Obama choose to harp on this issue of raising nominal rates instead of lowering the OVERALL tax burden on the middle class.

@4ngry

“Tax revenues as a percentage of GDP are the lowest they’ve been in the last 60 years.” As you know, tax revenues and tax rates are two very different beasts under the current tax system. That’s why I am for the party who wants to reform taxes and cut spending.

@SeaWa…”the government also needs to cut expenses. But this can be done over a decade or so. If we try to do it all at once it can destabilize the economy which will hurt almost everyone.”

You are exactly right and that is the exact time period in which the Ryan plan effects those cuts. My issue is that we have a President who is pointing the finger at the Ryan plan and telling the american people how awful it is as a purely political re-election ploy. What Obama has not done is put forht his own plan, he simply does not have a plan. THAT is my concern; you are the leader of the US, NOW LEAD!

Further, what amazes me is that the left simply agrees with him and joins the Ryan and GOP bashing without pausing to think…wait, what’s OUR plan?

I do agree that a fair and transparent tax system is needed (reform) and it could provide greater incentive for the poor to work harder. But, AGAIN Obama has no plan for lowering taxes for anyone, he simply wants to tax the rich which is a moot point in the grand scheme of things…that is my frustration; he has no plan for anyhting of these issues.

Further, as I have mentioned in previous posts, what will lift the middle and poor classes into prosperity is jobs with good income, and opportunity. Obama AGAIN has no plan to create jobs. He does not believe in an opportunity society, he prefers a welfare handout society. I believe in a safety net and a hand up when people fall on hard times, not a hand up to live off government welfare in perpetuity. I like having programs unemployment, medicaid, welfare, and foodstamps ( in fact I think we need to expand these offerings to focus more on substance abuse and addiction as well) in the end it is a well paying job that lifts you out of poverty and it is opportunity to start your own business and innovate that will typically lift you out of the middle class into the upper class. Obama is not fostering opporunities in either of these areas.

Bottom line is, we have a leader who is not taking the reigns and leading and it is terribly disheartening that he can say “tax the rich” or “they want to remove all of your entitlements” and get re-elected. It is truly scary.

@flashrooster…”Why are the Republicans refusing to pay for the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars? Up until Bush, the US always paid for their wars by raising taxes. It’s common sense and an example of why we hadn’t incurred such longterm debt like we have now. That was the way the US had previously paid for conducting our wars. Bush and the Republicans come along, engage in 2 wars, and not only do they not raise taxes to pay for the wars (which has the added advantage of making all Americans have some skin in the game), but they actually cut taxes at a time of war. The result? Massive debt. Duh.”

I’m glad it is at least easy to concisely sum up George Bush’s err and how he added to our debt (You will not find me defending the fiscal record of Bush or the GOP during Bush’s presidency). Now, let us move on to Obama who has added more to the debt in his 4 years as Bush did in his 8 years…Bush added $607 billion a year to our national debt, on average, for each year in office. Obama has increased the national debt by $1.723T per year.

Complain about the GOP and their precious defense budget all you want. But when rates begin to raise (inevitably), just our payment to service our debt will be greater than our ENTIRE defense budget.

In the meantime, he hasn’t created organic job growth, hasn’t lowered the tax burden on the middle class, didn’t follow his own Simpson Bowles commission plan, hasn’t fixed the regulatory issues that lead to the crash in the financial sector, and hasn’t followed through on countless other promises. He is not a leader and doesn’t understand business or job creation…we need a President who possesses both of those qualities.

PLEASE do not elect this man for four more years; we may not survive it.

jaham: It’s interesting that you respond to my post but avoid the central question. That’s the usual way conservatives deal with that question–they just ignore it. I suspect it’s because they are most interested in promoting Romney and attacking Obama, and answering my question on paying for the wars in the ways we had successfully done in the past conflicts with Republican policy today. After all, today’s Republican Party knows better than our past administrations and Congresses, right? This puts “conservatives” squarely on the irresponsible side of conducting wars and leaving the bill for future generations. There’s nothing conservative about that, and until recently, it wasn’t considered very American either.

I know a lot of Republicans would like to pretend that George Bush’s Presidency never happened, but the reality is that it did happen and the consequences are still very much with us. It’s time to man up and pay for the wars the Republicans refused to pay for under Bush. And if you want to return to the types of policies we saw under Bush, vote for Romney, because Romney, too, is talking about war with Iran while cutting taxes. Republicans just don’t seem to have the capacity to learn from past mistakes. Even recent past mistakes.

@flashrooster…a direct and relatively concise answer to your question: Conservatives and supply-siders, such as myself, believe that the lowering of taxes is an incentive for economic growth. Bush engaged in a war that on 9/11/01, I would say 90%+ of Americans were in agreeance with; hindsight is 20/20. He lowered taxes, along with Dems (let me remind you that Bush did not do any of these things with a supermajority that Obama had the luxury of squandering) in Congress in a relatively strong economy, although it was still recovery from the Dotcom crash, with the belief that growth would lift us out of the fiscal hole we were creating. Speaking historically, as you have alluded to, it was not the first nor last time that growth was sought to bail us out of debt nor the first time that taxes were lowered to encourage economic growth. As it turned out, the timing was poor because the rebound from the dotcom boom was fueled by a government manipulated housing market that was set to implode. When it did, the benefits of low taxes and the dependence on economic growth to pay for those wars became an impossibility; again, hindsight is 20/20.

Now that I have done you the favor of answering the central question of your post, I would like you to answer mine as you have completely avoided it in the same manner you have accused me of:

At least Bush added to the debt with a (at the time apparently justifiable) war, tax cuts intended to spur economic growth, and an unforeseen housing and financial crisis that made the timing of the aforementioned decisions very poor; he had A PLAN. Obama, on the other hand, inherited the financial crisis very near the bottom, squandered a supermajority in which he failed to follow through on the majority of his promises, has ballooned the fiscal debt in 4 years more than GWB did in 8 and is running an election campaign based on taxing the rich (to the tune of an immaterial $50B in additional revenue) and bashing the GOP budget. Meanwhile, he has no plan (that I am aware of) to get our fiscal house in order, create jobs (Solyndra doesn’t count), reform taxes, lower the tax burden on the middle class, or effect much needed reform of entitlements (specifically, Medicare), et cetera.

So, since you seem to understand Obama’s ideology better than I, if you don’t mind answering my central question: what is Obama’s PLAN (he didn’t do it in the first 4 years) to address these very serious and pressing issues facing our nation? I assert that he doesn’t have one; enlighten me.

and why don’t the people who write about a 15% capital gains rate bother to mention that capital gains are paid from what is left after a corporate tax (as much as 40%) is paid on earnings?

Excuse me, but didn’t Romney pay his taxes in accordance with the laws passed by the U.S. Congress? It’s funny how Obama gripes about someone paying millions to the government by obeying the laws and yet seeks to give citizenship to twenty million illegal immigrants who have entered our country illegally and trampled our laws and its citizens. Obama is the embodiment of Orwells double speaking Big Brother.