AP calls out President/Buffet's claim that secretaries pay more than their bosses

[eflatminor]

Once again, our President is happy to mislead the public if it supports his agenda. I'm beginning to think all this talk about taxes and class warfare is just a distraction, anything to keep the public from talking about the debt and our march towards European-style socialism. Whatever the case, millionaires do NOT pay a lower portion of their income than their secretaries.

An overview of the AP article:

AP Debunks Obama's Claim Millionaires Don't Pay Their Fair Share of Taxes | NewsBusters.org

and the AP article itself:

FACT CHECK: Are rich taxed less than secretaries? - AP Washington Heads - MyNorthwest.com

 

[grunt11b]

If Buffet feels so bad, why don't he just start cutting some checks? Because he doesn't feel bad, Obama actually used a real strawman this time, buffet!

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Many outlets and people are calling him on his bullshit but it will be ignored or dismissed by the left as usual.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Once again, our President is happy to mislead the public if it supports his agenda. I'm beginning to think all this talk about taxes and class warfare is just a distraction, anything to keep the public from talking about the debt and our march towards European-style socialism. Whatever the case, millionaires do NOT pay a lower portion of their income than their secretaries.

An overview of the AP article:

AP Debunks Obama's Claim Millionaires Don't Pay Their Fair Share of Taxes | NewsBusters.org

and the AP article itself:

FACT CHECK: Are rich taxed less than secretaries? - AP Washington Heads - MyNorthwest.com

They don't and he should be ashamed at making such a straw argument. It's petty but that's what he does.

 

[Avatar4321]

Considering Buffet is currently under scrutiny by the IRS for not paying taxes, I would think that it would be quite possible that she is paying more. After all, when your boss refuses to pay taxes, then those who do are clearly paying more.

 

[rdean]

Once again, our President is happy to mislead the public if it supports his agenda. I'm beginning to think all this talk about taxes and class warfare is just a distraction, anything to keep the public from talking about the debt and our march towards European-style socialism. Whatever the case, millionaires do NOT pay a lower portion of their income than their secretaries.

An overview of the AP article:

AP Debunks Obama's Claim Millionaires Don't Pay Their Fair Share of Taxes | NewsBusters.org

and the AP article itself:

FACT CHECK: Are rich taxed less than secretaries? - AP Washington Heads - MyNorthwest.com

Where do I sign up for this 6 and 7% tax bracket? Because I'm not seeing it.

Tax Brackets (Federal Income Tax Rates) 2000 through 2011

 

[Avatar4321]

Once again, our President is happy to mislead the public if it supports his agenda. I'm beginning to think all this talk about taxes and class warfare is just a distraction, anything to keep the public from talking about the debt and our march towards European-style socialism. Whatever the case, millionaires do NOT pay a lower portion of their income than their secretaries.

An overview of the AP article:

AP Debunks Obama's Claim Millionaires Don't Pay Their Fair Share of Taxes | NewsBusters.org

and the AP article itself:

FACT CHECK: Are rich taxed less than secretaries? - AP Washington Heads - MyNorthwest.com

Where do I sign up for this 6 and 7% tax bracket? Because I'm not seeing it.

Tax Brackets (Federal Income Tax Rates) 2000 through 2011

You only qualify when you are rich and contribute to Obama.

 

[norcal21jg]

hmm

 

[Listening]

Thank you for posting this article.

It seems that once again we are mixing the points of the argument and I really don't know how President Obama makes this claim without making sure he understands everything that comes with it.

If you read the article it does a good job of explaining things.

My question to everyone is that if even if we raised the marginal tax rate to 50% on everything above 1 million and taxed all capital gains above a million at 50% (and I don't believe there is a progressive tax rate on capital gains is there ?), how much money would that mean and what would that do to our deficity ridden government ?

 

[Kuros]

The rich aren't taxed less than their secretaries.

The claim that Buffet made was that he is taxed at a lower rate on his income than his secretary is. His secretary is taxed on her earnings. She works as a secretary. Thus, she is taxed on ordinary income. Most of Warren Buffet's income comes from the sale of stock held for over a year, so it is characterized as long-term capital gain. In addition, he benefits from the special low rate for carried interest taxation.

Carried interest or carry, in finance, is a share of the profits of a successful partnership that is paid to the manager of the partnership (a private equity fund or hedge fund) as a form of compensation that is designed as an incentive to the manager to maximize performance of the investment fund. A manager's carried-interest allocation is in addition to any investment that the manager may have in the private equity fund or hedge fund.

In private equity, in order to receive carried interest, the manager must first return all capital contributed by the investors, and, in certain cases, the fund must also return a previously agreed-upon rate of return (the "hurdle rate") to investors.[1] Hedge funds often are able to pay carried interest annually.

. . .

Because the manager is compensated with a profits interest in the fund, the bulk of his or her income from the fund is taxed, not as compensation for services, but as a return on investment.

Now, did Obama misrepresent the situation? Did he claim that millionaires are taxed at a lower rate than their secretaries?

"Warren Buffett's secretary shouldn't pay a higher tax rate than Warren Buffett. There is no justification for it," Obama said as he announced his deficit-reduction plan this week. "It is wrong that in the United States of America, a teacher or a nurse or a construction worker who earns $50,000 should pay higher tax rates than somebody pulling in $50 million."

No. He claimed that Buffet's secretary pays a higher tax rate than Warren Buffett.

Thus, it appears that all the people in this thread complaining about Obama's strawman are indulging in a strawman of their very own.

 

[Listening]

No. He claimed that Buffet's secretary pays a higher tax rate than Warren Buffett.

Thus, it appears that all the people in this thread complaining about Obama's strawman are indulging in a strawman of their very own.

Not totally.

The rich pay a higher rate on ordinary income. In that sense, there is misrepresentation.

If you weigh all the taxes they pay, the net rate COULD be lower, but won't necessarily be lower.

As we discussed on another thread, such a statement is correct part of the time.

So, it isn't a total strawman on either side.

What is bothersome is that those making the claim don't qualify it. They don't explain it. They just state it as an out and out fact.

I'll bet there are millionaires who pay a higher tax than Warren Buffet's secretary.

I'd also be willing to bet that there are people who make 60 K a year (Buffet's secretary's salary) who pay no income taxes at all. If you had a mortgage, a couple of kids, and a few other deductions.....it would not be long before your federal income tax liability would be nothing.

So, I think it is necessary that people qualify this entire argument in terms of it's components. Otherwise, it is my opinion that it is being used for political purposes and not as good information.

One question I have for people is why don't we have a progressive tax on capital gains ?

 

[Zoom-boing]

Now, did Obama misrepresent the situation? Did he claim that millionaires are taxed at a lower rate than their secretaries?

"Warren Buffett's secretary shouldn't pay a higher tax rate than Warren Buffett. There is no justification for it," Obama said as he announced his deficit-reduction plan this week. "It is wrong that in the United States of America, a teacher or a nurse or a construction worker who earns $50,000 should pay higher tax rates than somebody pulling in $50 million."

No. He claimed that Buffet's secretary pays a higher tax rate than Warren Buffett.

Thus, it appears that all the people in this thread complaining about Obama's strawman are indulging in a strawman of their very own.

If you pay more for a gallon of gas than I do then that implies that I pay less for a gallon of gas. Right?

If Obama claimed that Buffet's secretary pays a higher tax rate then that implies that Buffet pays a lower tax rate. Right?

No strawman.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

The rich aren't taxed less than their secretaries.

The claim that Buffet made was that he is taxed at a lower rate on his income than his secretary is. His secretary is taxed on her earnings. She works as a secretary. Thus, she is taxed on ordinary income. Most of Warren Buffet's income comes from the sale of stock held for over a year, so it is characterized as long-term capital gain. In addition, he benefits from the special low rate for carried interest taxation.

Carried interest or carry, in finance, is a share of the profits of a successful partnership that is paid to the manager of the partnership (a private equity fund or hedge fund) as a form of compensation that is designed as an incentive to the manager to maximize performance of the investment fund. A manager's carried-interest allocation is in addition to any investment that the manager may have in the private equity fund or hedge fund.

In private equity, in order to receive carried interest, the manager must first return all capital contributed by the investors, and, in certain cases, the fund must also return a previously agreed-upon rate of return (the "hurdle rate") to investors.[1] Hedge funds often are able to pay carried interest annually.

. . .

Because the manager is compensated with a profits interest in the fund, the bulk of his or her income from the fund is taxed, not as compensation for services, but as a return on investment.

Now, did Obama misrepresent the situation? Did he claim that millionaires are taxed at a lower rate than their secretaries?

"Warren Buffett's secretary shouldn't pay a higher tax rate than Warren Buffett. There is no justification for it," Obama said as he announced his deficit-reduction plan this week. "It is wrong that in the United States of America, a teacher or a nurse or a construction worker who earns $50,000 should pay higher tax rates than somebody pulling in $50 million."

No. He claimed that Buffet's secretary pays a higher tax rate than Warren Buffett.

Thus, it appears that all the people in this thread complaining about Obama's strawman are indulging in a strawman of their very own.

The problem is, Obama is comparing "capital gains tax" to "federal income tax" and that is not a fair comparison. It's comparing apples to oranges.


Wise up!

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Once again, our President is happy to mislead the public if it supports his agenda. I'm beginning to think all this talk about taxes and class warfare is just a distraction, anything to keep the public from talking about the debt and our march towards European-style socialism. Whatever the case, millionaires do NOT pay a lower portion of their income than their secretaries.

An overview of the AP article:

AP Debunks Obama's Claim Millionaires Don't Pay Their Fair Share of Taxes | NewsBusters.org

and the AP article itself:

FACT CHECK: Are rich taxed less than secretaries? - AP Washington Heads - MyNorthwest.com

So at least geitner admitted the misdirection and misrepresentation by buffett and obama...i mean he didn't straight up say "They misdriected/misrepresented" but he did admit that if your talking in terms of pure employment income the rich always pay more, as a percentage, then those in the income brackets under them.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

The rich aren't taxed less than their secretaries.

The claim that Buffet made was that he is taxed at a lower rate on his income than his secretary is. His secretary is taxed on her earnings. She works as a secretary. Thus, she is taxed on ordinary income. Most of Warren Buffet's income comes from the sale of stock held for over a year, so it is characterized as long-term capital gain. In addition, he benefits from the special low rate for carried interest taxation.

Carried interest or carry, in finance, is a share of the profits of a successful partnership that is paid to the manager of the partnership (a private equity fund or hedge fund) as a form of compensation that is designed as an incentive to the manager to maximize performance of the investment fund. A manager's carried-interest allocation is in addition to any investment that the manager may have in the private equity fund or hedge fund.

In private equity, in order to receive carried interest, the manager must first return all capital contributed by the investors, and, in certain cases, the fund must also return a previously agreed-upon rate of return (the "hurdle rate") to investors.[1] Hedge funds often are able to pay carried interest annually.

. . .

Because the manager is compensated with a profits interest in the fund, the bulk of his or her income from the fund is taxed, not as compensation for services, but as a return on investment.

Now, did Obama misrepresent the situation? Did he claim that millionaires are taxed at a lower rate than their secretaries?

"Warren Buffett's secretary shouldn't pay a higher tax rate than Warren Buffett. There is no justification for it," Obama said as he announced his deficit-reduction plan this week. "It is wrong that in the United States of America, a teacher or a nurse or a construction worker who earns $50,000 should pay higher tax rates than somebody pulling in $50 million."

No. He claimed that Buffet's secretary pays a higher tax rate than Warren Buffett.

Thus, it appears that all the people in this thread complaining about Obama's strawman are indulging in a strawman of their very own.

However, Buffetts tax rate on personal income is indeed higher than his secretaries.....so......there is a giant hole in your statement .