Did Obama Pay a Lower Rate Than His Secretary?

[Trajan]

oh mycan it be?


The most recent information about salary regarding Obama’s secretary is for his former secretary, Katie Johnson, who is listed by the White House as having made $90,000 in 2010.

According to Wikipedia, Johnson is 31 years old and now attends Harvard Law School. I don’t know about her personal life or what her deductions would be, so I can’t assume any children or extra deductions.

On a $90,000 salary, she would pay $16,578 in federal taxes, $3,780 to Social Security, and $1,305 in Medicare taxes.

That adds up to a total federal tax burden of $21,663 on $90,000 in adjusted gross income, or a tax rate of 24 percent.

more at-
Did Obama Pay a Lower Rate Than His Secretary? | The Blog on Obama: White House Dossier


obamas totally liability was- 21.8 %

 

[Avorysuds]

You have to know this thread will go nowhere.

 

[VaYank5150]

Meanwhile, Romney paid 15%.....

 

[iamwhatiseem]

The rich bastard!!!

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

You'd think Obama would set an example and pay his "fair share" of 30%, like he's advocating all the other wealthy people pay.

 

[Conservative]

You'd think Obama would set an example and pay his "fair share" of 30%, like he's advocating all the other wealthy people pay.

Do as I say, not as I do!

 

[Dragon]

If he did, then the law needs to be changed so that in the future he won't, just as with Warren Buffett.

I don't believe anyone has suggested that Buffett is personally at fault for the situation. This thread therefore presents a non-argument.

 

[Skull Pilot]

If he did, then the law needs to be changed so that in the future he won't, just as with Warren Buffett.

I don't believe anyone has suggested that Buffett is personally at fault for the situation. This thread therefore presents a non-argument.

Buffett is 100% at fault because he pays himself 100K a year for running a multi billion dollar company.

Tell me how many other CEOs get 100K a year for running a comparable business?

 

[Ed Spacer]

Interesting......

 

[Dragon]

If he did, then the law needs to be changed so that in the future he won't, just as with Warren Buffett.

I don't believe anyone has suggested that Buffett is personally at fault for the situation. This thread therefore presents a non-argument.

Buffett is 100% at fault because he pays himself 100K a year for running a multi billion dollar company.

Tell me how many other CEOs get 100K a year for running a comparable business?

I can hardly "fault" Buffett for paying himself that salary. The real question is why capital gains tax rates are so much lower than income tax rates.

 

[Jackson]

If he did, then the law needs to be changed so that in the future he won't, just as with Warren Buffett.

I don't believe anyone has suggested that Buffett is personally at fault for the situation. This thread therefore presents a non-argument.

Buffett is 100% at fault because he pays himself 100K a year for running a multi billion dollar company.

Tell me how many other CEOs get 100K a year for running a comparable business?

I can hardly "fault" Buffett for paying himself that salary. The real question is why capital gains tax rates are so much lower than income tax rates.

Because people who invest put their money at risk in order to gain in the stock market. When the do make a profit, they are taxed at a lower rate. When they lose in the market, they have lost big.

People forget that retirement income is generally invested for citizens' later years. If that is taxed at a higher rate, that jeopardizes their retirement income which is something we all rely on.

It isn't just "fat cats" that get that tax rate.

 

[Seawytch]

If he did, then the law needs to be changed so that in the future he won't, just as with Warren Buffett.

I don't believe anyone has suggested that Buffett is personally at fault for the situation. This thread therefore presents a non-argument.

And neither Mr. Buffett or President Obama want to keep the tax breaks that favor them, in place.

 

[Trajan]

If he did, then the law needs to be changed so that in the future he won't, just as with Warren Buffett.

I don't believe anyone has suggested that Buffett is personally at fault for the situation. This thread therefore presents a non-argument.

no, the thread feeds the maw of the envious, jealous, inane, not very bright sheep...sound familiar?

 

[Trajan]

If he did, then the law needs to be changed so that in the future he won't, just as with Warren Buffett.

I don't believe anyone has suggested that Buffett is personally at fault for the situation. This thread therefore presents a non-argument.

And neither Mr. Buffett or President Obama want to keep the tax breaks that favor them, in place.

well goody for them.

they can always write a check, eh?

 

[Trajan]

Meanwhile, Romney paid 15%.....

h3s got a better accountant apparently than buffet does, sux to be buffett.

 

[Dragon]

If he did, then the law needs to be changed so that in the future he won't, just as with Warren Buffett.

I don't believe anyone has suggested that Buffett is personally at fault for the situation. This thread therefore presents a non-argument.

no, the thread feeds the maw of the envious, jealous, inane, not very bright sheep...sound familiar?

Yeah, it sounds like a typical Trajan diversion, full of noise and fury, signifying nothing.

 

[Trajan]

and here you are, rose to that like a brook trout....

 

[Dragon]

and here you are, rose to that like a brook trout....

Heh. Good point. I'll ignore you henceforth as you deserve.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

If he did, then the law needs to be changed so that in the future he won't, just as with Warren Buffett.

I don't believe anyone has suggested that Buffett is personally at fault for the situation. This thread therefore presents a non-argument.

And neither Mr. Buffett or President Obama want to keep the tax breaks that favor them, in place.

Of course not. O is just placating his followers, the one's who have the bitter envy. Not going to affect Buffet either since his income flows differently. I'm surprised that y'all can't see this.

 

[Skull Pilot]

If he did, then the law needs to be changed so that in the future he won't, just as with Warren Buffett.

I don't believe anyone has suggested that Buffett is personally at fault for the situation. This thread therefore presents a non-argument.

Buffett is 100% at fault because he pays himself 100K a year for running a multi billion dollar company.

Tell me how many other CEOs get 100K a year for running a comparable business?

I can hardly "fault" Buffett for paying himself that salary. The real question is why capital gains tax rates are so much lower than income tax rates.

No the real question is how come earned income is taxed at such a high rate.

And as I have said before if a small business owner like me paid himself too little of a salary so as to take more income as dividends the IRS would be all over me. How come Buffett gets a pass?