Paying a "fair share"

President and Mrs Obama's tax return is now public.

They paid 18.8%. Is that a "fair share"?

 

its much higher than most people pay. everyone should pay the same rate

 

Why? I think taxes and expenses should be balanced and those who can most afford it pay the most.

 

I don't agree. You should pay for what you use and if you cannot afford what you use, you sure shouldn't be engaging in behavior that causes others to have to pay more. Your existence is not a just claim on my wealth.

 

Depends on where they derived their income. As has been discussed here over the course of the last election, Romney derived most of his from investments and paid a little over 15%. If the Obama's derived most of theirs from investments, then 18.8% is probably correct.

 

Should the taxpayer paid costs of their vacations count as taxable income? NOT just them but all Presidents?

 

"fair" is pretty much a worthless term since it means so many different things to so many different people

My concept of fair is PAYING for what you use or for the value you receive. If I buy a cheeseburger its price should not be dependent on how much I make but what value I receive. So when I buy the same cheeseburger as another guy, we each should pay the same since we received the same value

to others fair is based on what you can pay. IF a burger is "valued" at one fourth your hourly pay, its 2 dollars for a poor man and 100 bucks for a good attorney. Of course that value of fair is far more subjective because the person selling the burger gets radically different fees that has nothing to do with what he has traded.


and of course to some-fair means others need to pay more and they need to pay less!

 

The guy lives for free, eats for free, travels for free, gets his haircuts for free and much more. He should pay a much larger percent when you consider he has no expenses.

 

You can bet your boots that if I could retire from a $400,000 salaried government job after just four years and receive almost $200,000 a year for life I wouldn't blink at paying $18.8% back to the government.
(Pension: The Former Presidents Act, as amended, provides each former President
a taxable pension that is equal to the annual rate of basic pay for the head of an executive
department (Executive Level I), currently $191,300. The pension begins immediately
upon a President’s departure from office at noon on Inauguration Day, January 20.)

 

I think the income tax should be abolished. I am with Thomas Jefferson on this. "Man should not be taxed on the sweat of his brow."

 

You cant run a country like that. Who is going to pay for years/decades of military investment (for example) and what will you do to those who dont want to pay for that?

Everyone benefits from a stable country.

Living in any country comes with it rights and duties. Do you think the US would be better of if there was no social security or military (for example)?

I dont think so, in either case it would be a serious mistake to elleminate those departments.

Military seems obvious, SS (less to you probably) but just as vital. Having an extra tens of millions of unemployed homeless US citizens will not give a better more stable US , on the contrary .

 

Here's a little more info.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/11/us/politics/obamas-tax-return-shows-most-income-is-from-salary.html

 

Hard to tell with only the effective tax rate being given. But the Obama's are paying more than some Billionaires.

 

But you are not pahiing more, are you? Percentage wise that is.

The problem with the Use tax, or the NRST is that it will hurt elderly, young, and poor people all at once. This is why that such a singular tax system will nover be passed here nor will a flat income tax be passed either.

 

Yes, and if you "use" that money to save, then it should be taxed based on the principle, not the interest.

How you define use is pretty much meaningless as the same way as you define fair share.

Again, the NRST is not going to be passed here nor will a pure flat tax. Those are two of the biggest wealth redistribution schemes that will greatly elaborate the income and wealth gap to areas that cannot be imagined by even the far right.

 

Comparing the Obama's AGI and effective rate to mine. I can only say they must have a pretty good accountant.

- - - Updated - - -

I am. The Obama's rate is about 5% less than what I am paying.

 

During the last POTUS election sticky-fingers Romney was shown to be paying only 11% on 20 x Obama's earnings.

 

Common refrain of those who can't, or won't, earn a decent living and are envious of successful people.

 

You need to research how the country "paid" before the income tax was enacted.

 

The concept of "fair share" is only for those who are not Democrats.

 

Quibbling over presidential expenses is stupid whether is Barack Obama or anyone else from either side of the asile. These guys have what is arguably the most stressful job in the world, just look at them. You can see them getting worn down day after day. Most of the appear to age 30-40 years during their term of 4-8 years. I think a few free lunches is a small enough perk.

 

its hilarious to call taxing those who pay less than what they use more and taxing less those who pay too much "income redistribution"

in the left wing world, they assume that the rich should pay most of the taxes and anything that disturbs that is "income redistribution" to the rich

- - - Updated - - -

and what you fail to note is he is paying far far more actual dollars and getting far less from the government

 

The amount of taxes you pay is dependent on how much you spend on lawyers and accountants. It is totally unrelated to how much benefit you receive from the government.

Sticky-fingers Romney pays less as a a percentage of gross income than Warren Buffets secretary.

 

that is because Buffett (whose secretary made about 300K a year) chose to pay her straight salary while Romney had mainly investment income like Buffett. Romney paid the highest rate under the law.

Lefties pretend that the progressive tax structure for wages ought to apply to every tax-tax on dividends, capital gains, dog licenses, state taxes etc

in other words, the laws that make salary subject to progressive rates is proper but the same laws that make dividend taxes different are improper

 

What part of "20% of $100 is far far less than 20% of 1,000,000" do you not understand?