Obamas paid $1.79M in taxes on income of $5.5M for 2009

sabra

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Apr-15-10 12:13 PM
Original message

Obamas paid $1.79M in taxes on income of $5.5M for 2009

Source: CNN

Washington (CNN) - The first family paid $1.79 million in taxes for 2009 on income of $5.5 million, mostly from the sale of President Barack Obama's books, the White House announced Thursday.

Read more: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/04/15/obamas-paid-1-79-million-in-taxes-on-income-of-5-5-million-for-2009/?fbid=VP2LgjjHQ1T

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

onehandle

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Apr-15-10 12:14 PM
Response to Original message

1. That's not even close to 12 million. nt

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Xenotime

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Apr-15-10 12:17 PM
Response to Original message

2. Way to lead by example!!

:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

theoldman

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Apr-15-10 12:22 PM
Response to Original message

3. So how much did Palin pay on her 12 million income?

I will bet that it was not 32% like Obama paid.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

BolivarianHero

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Apr-15-10 12:24 PM
Response to Original message

4. Too low..

Edited on Thu Apr-15-10 12:24 PM by BolivarianHero

Should be 2 - 2.5 mill when you're that wealthy. Not sure it's his fault though. At least he's not hiding it between some Thai hooker's ass cheeks like most Repukes would do.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

okieinpain

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Apr-15-10 01:36 PM
Response to Reply #4

10. 1.8 mil on 5.5mil is too low. you're kidding right. n/t.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

mainer

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Apr-15-10 01:39 PM
Response to Reply #10

11. Not too low according to some on DU.

They want to tax him at 90%. Anything above $100,000 makes him a bastard fat cat. Surprised they aren't already here ranting about it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

David__77

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Apr-15-10 01:46 PM
Response to Reply #11

12. Straw man.

I don't know about $100,000 being the threshold, I wouldn't support that. But we do need much higher marginal tax brackets above a certain point. The key here is *marginal*. For instance, I see nothing wrong with a bracket of, say, 50% above 1,000,000 or 1,500,000, for instance. But the earned income below that threshold would be taxed at lower levels. There's no other way to reduce the Gini index and rein in polarization, which is an important social goal.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

mainer

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Apr-15-10 02:15 PM
Response to Reply #12

15. I'm good with 50%. But you'll hear calls for 90% on these boards.

Essentially, there are some DUers who believe that no one should be rich.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

David__77

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Apr-15-10 06:41 PM
Response to Reply #15

24. Well, 90% wouldn't prevent people from being rich.

There used to be a rate that high, and it certainly didn't prevent concentration of wealth. It's a question of what is done with income - is it reinvested or is it consumed? I think that the point of the previous rate was to ensure that the money was invested rather than consumed - there were myriad means to shield the income that was utilized in various manners.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

okieinpain

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Apr-15-10 03:00 PM
Response to Reply #12

19. i don't agree with that. if someone earns the income, no one, and

Edited on Thu Apr-15-10 03:00 PM by okieinpain

i do mean no one should come and decide how much they get to keep. having said that I believe in my heart that 30% for the individual is more then enough. haven't made my mind up on corporations. but it shouldn't be much higher then that.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

David__77

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Apr-15-10 06:39 PM
Response to Reply #19

23. So you are against any income tax at all?

You said, "no one should come and decide how much they get to keep." So if I decide I want to keep 100%, and pay no income taxes, and opt out of Social Security or Medicare, I should be able to do that?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

florida08

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Apr-15-10 12:25 PM
Response to Original message

5. damn skippy

and how much did GE or Exxon pay?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

OnlinePoker

(837 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Apr-15-10 02:04 PM
Response to Reply #5

14. GE (due to GE Capital's losses) -$1.1 Billion on $10.3 Billion income

Exxon $17.6 Billion on $37.3 Billion (47%)

http://www.forbes.com/2010/04/01/ge-exxon-walmart-business-washington-corporate-taxes_slide.html

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

florida08

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Apr-15-10 02:35 PM
Response to Reply #14

16. Not to the US

http://motherjones.com/mojo/2010/04/exxon-mobil-paid-zero-income-tax-offshore%20shelter-wal-mart-general-electric-forbes?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Motherjones%2Fmojoblog+%28MotherJones.com+|+MoJoBlog%29

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

SomeGuyInEagan

(872 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Apr-15-10 02:38 PM
Response to Reply #14

18. GE has that uncanny ability to lose money in the U.S. but make money overseas ...

... where corporate income tax rates are lower. Hmmmmm ....

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

SomeGuyInEagan

(872 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Apr-15-10 02:36 PM
Response to Reply #5

17. Exxon paid ZERO in U.S. income taxes in 2009

$17.6 billion in taxes paid on $37.3 billion in pretax income ... none of the taxes were paid to the U.S., however.

This is according to the Forbes link posted above (and I recall reading the same in another article last week).

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

florida08

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Apr-15-10 03:12 PM
Response to Reply #17

21. Thank you

:thumbsup:

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Democat

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Apr-15-10 12:34 PM
Response to Original message

6. Republicans love rich people!

Maybe this will turn Obama's poll numbers around.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

fugop

(901 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Apr-15-10 12:44 PM
Response to Original message

7. Bush tax cuts in action!

As Bill Clinton argued, all the GOP tax cuts over the years went disproportionately to people in the upper bracket, not to the rest of us. Obama ought to use his taxes to point that out. "Yep, I paid what I owed. But isn't it shameful that this is so low? Thanks, Dubya!"

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Doremus

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Apr-15-10 12:55 PM
Response to Reply #7

8. He paid over 30%. That's probably twice or three times as much (or more) than puke fat cats.

His message is:

THIS is how you support America, by paying your fair share.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

fugop

(901 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Apr-15-10 01:46 PM
Response to Reply #8

13. Agree wholeheartedly! nt

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

dhill926

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Apr-15-10 01:11 PM
Response to Original message

9. that's a lot of income for a socialist........n/t

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

SammyWinstonJack

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Apr-15-10 03:34 PM
Response to Reply #9

22. ...

:evilgrin:

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Commie Pinko Dirtbag

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Apr-15-10 03:09 PM
Response to Original message

20. 32.5% is sensible. Could be 40%, but it is OK.

In Brazil, the top income tax bracket is 27.5% and the fat cats still whine a lot.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

SomeGuyInEagan

(872 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Apr-15-10 08:33 PM
Response to Reply #20

25. So *you're* the one who took what my brother-in-law calls me for a DU name ..

... but only to my face. Very pleased to meet you! :)

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Political Heretic

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Apr-15-10 09:59 PM
Response to Original message

26. Truly an everyman.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

DU AdBot (1000+ posts)

Tue May 07th 2024, 07:52 PM
Response to Original message

Advertisements [?]

Top

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.