lawrocket 3 #26 April 13, 2012 Okay. I looked again. The tax return posted in the OP link was for 2010. (I really hate it when I miss foundational points like that) My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #27 April 13, 2012 QuoteMy accountant helps prepare in advance by employing tax strategies that defer tax liabilities. Apparently you missed the intent of the reference to HR Block as they simply prepare taxes (for the most part. Although they do have a Premier Service for coprporations). My point is that the disparity between Romney's rate and Obama's might be due to tax planning. there's not much to do about a return when more than half of a 770k total comes from salary. It doesn't take much of a wizard to get a guy with a quarter billion dollar net worth down low either. The bulk of his income is going to be from investments, which have favorable rates. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #28 April 13, 2012 QuoteQuoteMy accountant helps prepare in advance by employing tax strategies that defer tax liabilities. Apparently you missed the intent of the reference to HR Block as they simply prepare taxes (for the most part. Although they do have a Premier Service for coprporations). My point is that the disparity between Romney's rate and Obama's might be due to tax planning. there's not much to do about a return when more than half of a 770k total comes from salary. It doesn't take much of a wizard to get a guy with a quarter billion dollar net worth down low either. The bulk of his income is going to be from investments, which have favorable rates. Nah, it's government attorneys and accountants compared to those in private industry. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davjohns 1 #29 April 13, 2012 I'm curious how he makes $1.8M per year. Last I checked, POTUS was paid $400K. His position before IL Senator was community organizer. When did he or his wife become financial geniuses? I might actually read the return. Those deductions seem awfully high for a couple that has housing, travel, clothing, staff, etc. provided. What they heck expenses could they have that serve as deductions? I'm sure it's all legal. Just looks funny at first blush.I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #30 April 13, 2012 Apparently, Obama pays a lower tax rate than his Secretary. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #31 April 13, 2012 QuoteNah, it's government attorneys and accountants compared to those in private industry. Yes, we wouldn't want anybody to be boethered by facts in making up their minds. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davjohns 1 #32 April 13, 2012 Coincidentally, I noticed a piece on the news running in my office; POTUS rate was apparently just over 20% last year. Can't get to the tax return link on my government computer. Please tell me he did not get a refund. And...checked to confirm that the salary is $400K. Real curious where the other $1.4M came from when he is supposed to have a full time job working for US.I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jclalor 12 #33 April 13, 2012 QuoteObama has government lawyers and accountants Is that a serious statement? do you really think the President can use Government employees for his personal income tax returns? Dude... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #34 April 13, 2012 Your government computer cannot open a link from the whitehouse? http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/POTUS_taxes.pdf Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #35 April 13, 2012 QuoteQuoteNah, it's government attorneys and accountants compared to those in private industry. Yes, we wouldn't want anybody to be boethered by facts in making up their minds. I have no idea what you are trying to say. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Southern_Man 0 #36 April 13, 2012 QuoteCoincidentally, I noticed a piece on the news running in my office; POTUS rate was apparently just over 20% last year. Can't get to the tax return link on my government computer. Please tell me he did not get a refund. And...checked to confirm that the salary is $400K. Real curious where the other $1.4M came from when he is supposed to have a full time job working for US. Book Sales and investments. Why do you care if he got a refund or not A refund just means he overpaid (and very likely in estimated taxes since so much was not salary). That means he gave a free loan to the government. (Does the free loan mean he is not a hypocrite?)"What if there were no hypothetical questions?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davjohns 1 #37 April 13, 2012 Thanks for the link. Still a bit confused. He made $1.5M as an author, over half of it from foreign countries? $185K in professional expenses while a sitting president? $5M in income the previous year? Did his stuff really sell that well? Royalties that high? Highly commendable charitable giving, however.I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davjohns 1 #38 April 13, 2012 QuoteQuoteCoincidentally, I noticed a piece on the news running in my office; POTUS rate was apparently just over 20% last year. Can't get to the tax return link on my government computer. Please tell me he did not get a refund. And...checked to confirm that the salary is $400K. Real curious where the other $1.4M came from when he is supposed to have a full time job working for US. Book Sales and investments. Why do you care if he got a refund or not A refund just means he overpaid (and very likely in estimated taxes since so much was not salary). That means he gave a free loan to the government. (Does the free loan mean he is not a hypocrite?) Perfectly good question. I have no idea why I care about that.I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #39 April 13, 2012 Quote$5M in income the previous year? Did his stuff really sell that well? Remember he got the Nobel Peace Prize for his book. I still argue that it was an emolument that he could not accept without Congressional approval, but between the Peace Prize and the additional sales from it, yeah. I could see that type of scratch being pulled in. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #40 April 13, 2012 Quote$185K in professional expenses while a sitting president? Actually, it appears to me the majority of those deductions are for his profession of author. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davjohns 1 #41 April 13, 2012 Forgot about that. Not bad for a poor kid from Pacific islands.I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davjohns 1 #42 April 13, 2012 QuoteQuote$185K in professional expenses while a sitting president? Actually, it appears to me the majority of those deductions are for his profession of author. That's my confusion. If you are working full time as POTUS, when do you have time to rack up those kinds of expenses for something you already wrote? Again...probably legit. It all looks legit to me. Just kind of surreal.I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #43 April 13, 2012 Im going with mostly commission to his literary agents and a couple of pencils. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #44 April 13, 2012 QuoteI'm curious how he makes $1.8M per year. Last I checked, POTUS was paid $400K. His position before IL Senator was community organizer. When did he or his wife become financial geniuses? should reread his bio, - you missed a lot of jobs. After being a community organizer in the 80s, he became a lecturer at U of Chicago's Law school for 12 years. He also became a state senator during this time, before becoming a US senator. And in the years running up to the election, he wrote several books, as candidates often do. Looking at the huge income in 2009 and the much lesser amount in 2010, it looks like everyone that wanted to buy his books largely has. http://www.amazon.com/Barack-Obama/e/B001H6OA8E/ref=ntt_athr_dp_pel_1 Even though he donated the proceeds from the Nobel Prize, I believe it would show as taxable income in 2009 (1.4M), with a corresponding deduction for the gifting. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
champu 1 #45 April 13, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuotePerhaps Obama needs a better accountant. HR Block isn't the best a preparing complx tax returns. You don't improve your tax liability by way of how you prepare your return at the end of the year (at least not leagally). By the time you're filing it's all water under the bridge. If you give all your information to two accountants and they come up with different numbers then at least one of them is simply wrong. What you do with your money during the year, however, can have a large impact on your tax liability. There are simple measures that you'd rightly call someone a fool for not taking advantage of all the way to legal gray areas that many choose not to venture into. Given two people with very-high incomes paying disparate tax rates it's wrong to automatically conclude that one, "needs a better accountant." My accountant helps prepare in advance by employing tax strategies that defer tax liabilities. Apparently you missed the intent of the reference to HR Block as they simply prepare taxes (for the most part. Although they do have a Premier Service for coprporations). My point is that the disparity between Romney's rate and Obama's might be due to tax planning. Ah, it would have been more clear if you had originally said, "H&R Block isn't the best at complex tax planning." In any event I think we're on the same page regarding that issue. An additional point I was trying to make was that there are straight-forward tax planning measures to be able to do things like own a home, save for retirement/kids education/medical expenses, or pass money on to your kids that it's silly not to take advantage of, and these are the sorts of things that I don't think anyone faults others for doing. There are also "black-hat" tax planning things that technically fall under the category of "taking advantage of every possible way to lower your tax liability" that people have more of a problem with. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
headoverheels 333 #46 April 14, 2012 Quote OH BULLSHIT. When it came out that Romney paid and EFFECTIVE rate of 14% very few on the left said "it's just good that he follows the tax laws" Correct, they said the same thing as they are saying here: the tax rates for the upper incomes need to be increased, including closing loopholes and doing as Reagan said -- taxing capital gain at close to the same rates. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,108 #47 April 14, 2012 QuoteQuote OH BULLSHIT. When it came out that Romney paid and EFFECTIVE rate of 14% very few on the left said "it's just good that he follows the tax laws" Correct, they said the same thing as they are saying here: the tax rates for the upper incomes need to be increased, including closing loopholes and doing as Reagan said -- taxing capital gain at close to the same rates. The right pays lip service to Reagan as if he is a saint, but nowadays he'd be rejected by the GOP as way too moderate.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,108 #48 April 14, 2012 Quote Quote Quote that's about the stupidest example of 'hypocrisy' I have ever seen and even you, JohnRich, could do better than that - or maybe you can't..... One could applaud the President for following the tax law perhaps.... OH BULLSHIT. When it came out that Romney paid and EFFECTIVE rate of 14% very few on the left said "it's just good that he follows the tax laws" Obama has government lawyers and accountants Romney has private coporate attorneys and accountants. No wonder Romney pays a lower rate. And they want to manage my healthcare. Maybe Mitt will get you a deduction for your shoeshine too.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #49 April 14, 2012 QuoteThe right pays lip service to Reagan as if he is a saint, but nowadays he'd be rejected by the GOP as way too moderate. Yeah, you keep thinking that. "Well, let them be forewarned: I have my veto pen drawn and ready for any tax increase that Congress might even think of sending up. And I have only one thing to say to the tax increasers: ‘Go ahead, make my day.’” - Ronald Reagan, 1985Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,108 #50 April 14, 2012 QuoteQuoteThe right pays lip service to Reagan as if he is a saint, but nowadays he'd be rejected by the GOP as way too moderate. Yeah, you keep thinking that. "Well, let them be forewarned: I have my veto pen drawn and ready for any tax increase that Congress might even think of sending up. And I have only one thing to say to the tax increasers: ‘Go ahead, make my day.’” - Ronald Reagan, 1985 And then there's what he actually DID. The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982, then the largest tax increase in US history, scaled back corporate tax breaks, increased unemployment-insurance levies, and raised excise taxes on cigarettes, among other changes. “The goal is simple and just: to see to it that everyone pays his fair share,” Reagan said in August 1982. He predicted the tax increase would help the economy because it would reduce the deficit, which he said would lead to lower interest rates. Highway Revenue Act of 1982, “the next year 3.5 million jobs were created. When the Republicans rhetorically say now, ‘Who would raise taxes in a recession?’ the answer is Ronald Reagan.”; David Stockman, Reagan's budget director. Social Security Amendments of 1983; raised the Social Security payroll tax and, for the first time, began taxing the benefit checks of wealthier seniors. The Deficit Reduction Act of 1984; raised the estate tax, cut more business tax breaks and boosted taxes on distilled spirits, among other items.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
