Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Reply To Thread

Obama should give back his tax refundFollow

#1 Apr 18 2011 at 3:28 PM Rating: Sub-Default
*
123 posts
ABC story

Basically Obama got a 12k income tax return. IMO since he is for taxing the rich and against the Bush era tax cuts, he should lead by example and return the 12k to the government and pay extra according whatever he wants the rates to be.

If he believes in a higher tax rate for the wealthy, it's only fair that he put his own money where his mouth is... If wealthy liberals don't overpay in accordance to whatever they think the rate should be, I don't think have any rights to make others pay more.

BTW, I'm trying to be neutral on this. If you believe in tax rate whatever, that's fine, but if you think the rates should be higher than what they are, don't you have a moral responsibility to overpay and let the government keep the extra?
#2 Apr 18 2011 at 3:37 PM Rating: Good
**
272 posts
Empty effort.

If he pays it back he'll be viewed as some sort of richy rich smug *******. If he doesn't (likely nothing will actually happen) other people might call him a hypocrite.

There is no right decision when you're a celebrity, even more so when you're a political celebrity.
____________________________
Always check for black-on-black text.
#3varusword75, Posted: Apr 18 2011 at 3:44 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Swiftless,
#4 Apr 18 2011 at 3:47 PM Rating: Good
******
49,667 posts
If he has to, they all have to.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#5 Apr 18 2011 at 3:48 PM Rating: Decent
******
21,720 posts
It's likely that 12k return will be more than made up for in charitable donations elsewhere, especially considering such donations last year totaled $245k, so its kind of a moot point, don't you think?

12k is peanuts at that level.
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#6varusword75, Posted: Apr 18 2011 at 3:49 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) lolgaxe,
#7varusword75, Posted: Apr 18 2011 at 3:50 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) brownd,
#8 Apr 18 2011 at 3:55 PM Rating: Good
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
KingWinterclaw wrote:
ABC story

Basically Obama got a 12k income tax return. IMO since he is for taxing the rich and against the Bush era tax cuts, he should lead by example and return the 12k to the government and pay extra according whatever he wants the rates to be.

If he believes in a higher tax rate for the wealthy, it's only fair that he put his own money where his mouth is... If wealthy liberals don't overpay in accordance to whatever they think the rate should be, I don't think have any rights to make others pay more.

BTW, I'm trying to be neutral on this. If you believe in tax rate whatever, that's fine, but if you think the rates should be higher than what they are, don't you have a moral responsibility to overpay and let the government keep the extra?
Not really, Obama paid his fair share of taxes ($453,770), and then $12,334 more, because it was paid to the government during 2010 before he knew how much he'd actually owe for the year. Now, are you implying that he should be paying more? Or are you just saying he should have the precognition to already know exactly what to pay at the end of the year as early as January 1st, 2010?

KingWinterclaw wrote:
if you think the rates should be higher than what they are, don't you have a moral responsibility to overpay and let the government keep the extra?
Sure, but if you're actually a member of the government, a better idea would be to push a change in the tax code rather than just pay the wrong numbers. Just like how everyone over 65 who abhors government health care and welfare will opt out of Medicare and either refuses to cash their Social Security check or pays it back to the IRS in full on top of their yearly taxes, right?

Right? That's what they do?

Get back to me on that.



Edited, Apr 18th 2011 4:58pm by bsphil
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#9 Apr 18 2011 at 3:56 PM Rating: Good
******
49,667 posts
varusword75 wrote:
Only the people that support Obama's tax plan.
No, everyone.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#10 Apr 18 2011 at 3:57 PM Rating: Excellent
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,646 posts
KingWinterclaw wrote:
ABC story

Basically Obama got a 12k income tax return. IMO since he is for taxing the rich and against the Bush era tax cuts, he should lead by example and return the 12k to the government and pay extra according whatever he wants the rates to be.

If he believes in a higher tax rate for the wealthy, it's only fair that he put his own money where his mouth is... If wealthy liberals don't overpay in accordance to whatever they think the rate should be, I don't think have any rights to make others pay more.

BTW, I'm trying to be neutral on this. If you believe in tax rate whatever, that's fine, but if you think the rates should be higher than what they are, don't you have a moral responsibility to overpay and let the government keep the extra?


What I get from this is that Republicans are not allowed to file for unemployment or live on welfare at all.

Right?
#11varusword75, Posted: Apr 18 2011 at 3:58 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) bsphil,
#12 Apr 18 2011 at 3:59 PM Rating: Decent
**
272 posts
No, you missed my point entirely.

Whether he gives it back or not the GOP will call him on it in some form or another. It's what you do in a political party. You demonize the other guy no matter what decision he makes.

Thankfully we've gotten passed demonizing the opposite candidate for "masticating" as they used to do some time ago.
____________________________
Always check for black-on-black text.
#13 Apr 18 2011 at 3:59 PM Rating: Decent
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
varusword75 wrote:
bsphil,

Quote:
Just like how everyone over 65 who abhors government health care and welfare refuses Medicare and either refuses to cash their Social Security check or pays it back to the IRS in full on top of their yearly taxes, right?


And these baby boomers are bankrupting the nation. Of course they don't care they won't be here when the sh*t hits the fan anyway.
Glad to hear your opposition to a significant portion of your own party. Come into the light.
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#14 Apr 18 2011 at 4:00 PM Rating: Good
******
49,667 posts
Belkira wrote:
What I get from this is that Republicans are not allowed to file for unemployment or live on welfare at all.
Not much of a worry. Its next to impossible to lose a government job, anyway.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#15 Apr 18 2011 at 4:17 PM Rating: Excellent
****
4,158 posts
Who gives a toss about $12K?

If he gives anything back he should return his Nobel Peace Prize as he is wholly undeserving of it.
____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#16 Apr 18 2011 at 4:18 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
34,867 posts
First off, let me state for the record that the whole "if you want tax rates to be higher, why don't you pay more yourself" argument is pretty weak. It's just a bad argument because it ignores the basic assumption of taxes in the first place. To be honest, it moves the whole thing in the wrong direction as far as I'm concerned. But having said that...

bsphil wrote:
Sure, but if you're actually a member of the government, a better idea would be to push a change in the tax code rather than just pay the wrong numbers. Just like how everyone over 65 who abhors government health care and welfare will opt out of Medicare and either refuses to cash their Social Security check or pays it back to the IRS in full on top of their yearly taxes, right?

Right? That's what they do?

Get back to me on that.


...this is an even more bogus argument. People pay into social security and medicare over the course of their lives. In the case of most middle class workers, they pay more into them than they are likely to get back out. And I'd wager that most of those people who argue against paying higher taxes would happily forgo receiving social security or medicare if we could turn back time and let them keep all the money they paid into them over their lifetimes.


At least the argument in the first case can be expressed as a "charity by choice versus charity by force" question. While it's weak in the context of taxes as a whole, at least there's some validity to saying to someone who believes that the government is a better charity service than private charity that if they think so then they can donate to their charities on their own and let the rest of us donate to the private ones we choose. Arguing that someone should be opposed to receiving benefits for which they have paid (in most cases overpaid) is a pretty horrible counter to that.


The better argument is that the government shouldn't be in the charity business in the first place. Then we don't have this problem at all.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#17 Apr 18 2011 at 4:22 PM Rating: Decent
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
gbaji wrote:
bsphil wrote:
Sure, but if you're actually a member of the government, a better idea would be to push a change in the tax code rather than just pay the wrong numbers. Just like how everyone over 65 who abhors government health care and welfare will opt out of Medicare and either refuses to cash their Social Security check or pays it back to the IRS in full on top of their yearly taxes, right?

Right? That's what they do?

Get back to me on that.
...this is an even more bogus argument. People pay into social security and medicare over the course of their lives.
Obama paid his yearly federal taxes over the course of the year.

How is that any different?

gbaji wrote:
The better argument is that the government shouldn't be in the charity business in the first place. Then we don't have this problem at all.
We've tried it and were much worse off as a society.

By the way, you have yet to respond to this post of mine in another thread. I can only assume you're working on a response right now, correct?



Edited, Apr 18th 2011 5:24pm by bsphil
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#18 Apr 18 2011 at 4:34 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
KingWinterclaw wrote:
IMO since he is for taxing the rich and against the Bush era tax cuts, he should lead by example and return the 12k to the government and pay extra according whatever he wants the rates to be.

IMO, he should make a real effort to revise the tax code rather than make symbolic efforts that do nothing to change the present situation.

IMO, anyone actually interested in changing the present situation rather than trying to make lame political points would also be uninterested in meaningless symbolic gestures.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#19 Apr 18 2011 at 4:36 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,594 posts
KingWinterclaw wrote:

BTW, I'm trying to be neutral on this. If you believe in tax rate whatever, that's fine, but if you think the rates should be higher than what they are, don't you have a moral responsibility to overpay and let the government keep the extra?
The government isn't npr. Do you think people sending the government money all willy-nilly based on what they think is fair is going to fix the economy and/or the income gap? Cripes the IRS would go into melt-down.

I would encourage the Obama's to do a better job withholding taxes so they don't end up getting a refund (and avoid one more stupid talking point about his behavior).
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#20 Apr 18 2011 at 5:10 PM Rating: Good
***
2,069 posts
KingWinterclaw wrote:
ABC story

Basically Obama got a 12k income tax return. IMO since he is for taxing the rich and against the Bush era tax cuts, he should lead by example and return the 12k to the government and pay extra according whatever he wants the rates to be.

If he believes in a higher tax rate for the wealthy, it's only fair that he put his own money where his mouth is... If wealthy liberals don't overpay in accordance to whatever they think the rate should be, I don't think have any rights to make others pay more.

BTW, I'm trying to be neutral on this. If you believe in tax rate whatever, that's fine, but if you think the rates should be higher than what they are, don't you have a moral responsibility to overpay and let the government keep the extra?


So basically, you don't think the rich should pay more in taxes, but you think Obama should pay more because he's rich?

0/10
____________________________
http://www.marriageissogay.com/

Song of the day:
May 26, 2011 -- Transplants
#21 Apr 18 2011 at 5:18 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,867 posts
bsphil wrote:
gbaji wrote:
People pay into social security and medicare over the course of their lives.
Obama paid his yearly federal taxes over the course of the year.

How is that any different?


You honestly can't see why? I'll give you a hint: No one is demanding that Obama *not* receive government benefits he's due from his taxes. What they are arguing is the opposite. If Obama (liberals in general) think that the government should provide more benefits than it is, then perhaps they should be the ones to pay for those extra things. As I said earlier, there's at least some logic to this on the grounds that those extra benefits are charity (intended for people other than those who pay for it), so why not let people choose which extra benefits they care about and let those people pay for them?

Surely you can see the massive logical gulf between that and arguing that people should give up benefits that they paid for themselves, right? So because I think that if you want to help out some specific group of people, that you should be the one to pay for it, that it's fair in return for me to give up something I paid for as well? How does that even work logically? It doesn't.


Quote:
gbaji wrote:
The better argument is that the government shouldn't be in the charity business in the first place. Then we don't have this problem at all.
We've tried it and were much worse off as a society.


Really? Care to be more specific about that?

Quote:
I can only assume you're working on a response right now, correct?


Um. Sure. To be honest, I went home for the weekend and I've been busy today and haven't had a chance to read very many threads. Not like I'm ignoring you or anything.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#22 Apr 18 2011 at 7:25 PM Rating: Decent
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
gbaji wrote:
bsphil wrote:
gbaji wrote:
People pay into social security and medicare over the course of their lives.
Obama paid his yearly federal taxes over the course of the year.

How is that any different?


You honestly can't see why? I'll give you a hint: No one is demanding that Obama *not* receive government benefits he's due from his taxes. What they are arguing is the opposite. If Obama (liberals in general) think that the government should provide more benefits than it is, then perhaps they should be the ones to pay for those extra things. As I said earlier, there's at least some logic to this on the grounds that those extra benefits are charity (intended for people other than those who pay for it), so why not let people choose which extra benefits they care about and let those people pay for them?

Surely you can see the massive logical gulf between that and arguing that people should give up benefits that they paid for themselves, right? So because I think that if you want to help out some specific group of people, that you should be the one to pay for it, that it's fair in return for me to give up something I paid for as well? How does that even work logically? It doesn't.
So only liberals should pay higher taxes? Hahahaha. Only people that provide aid to those less fortunate? What about people that increase spending on programs that don't help people overall? What about people that increase spending to wage war? Shouldn't they pay even more still?
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#23 Apr 18 2011 at 7:51 PM Rating: Decent
Repressed Memories
******
20,908 posts
I'm less annoyed by the flawed argument for voluntary taxes, and more annoyed at Winterclaw failing to make the point he is trying to make. Your return is based on how much you over/underpaid during the year. You should be making the point that he should be paying what he believes should be paying in taxes, not that he should return his refund arbitrarily.
#24 Apr 18 2011 at 10:29 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,546 posts
OP I don't think you know how tax returns work.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#25 Apr 18 2011 at 10:43 PM Rating: Decent
Repressed Memories
******
20,908 posts
It's hard to say this without merely sounding spiteful, but I've noticed fiscal conservative posters here making a lot of factual errors in regards to business and finance.

Example, example, example, and of course this thread.

#26 Apr 19 2011 at 1:18 AM Rating: Good
Everyone's Oiran
*****
15,952 posts
I don't know how things work in America on this issue, but in Australia I'm pretty certain the tax office and the Centrelink welfare office won't accept "donations" back. Once the legal obligation of your net tax payments for the year is established, (returns, credits and all), then the Tax office insists on you paying that exact amount, no less, and no more.

Same with welfare entitlements. There was a woman who didn't think she needed the entitlements she was receiving. She owned her own home, lived very simply, and just didn't have need for much money. She tried to return thousands of dollars in benefits, and was told that Centrelink could not accept the money back. They advised her that it was entirely at her own disposal. Thus if she wanted to give it on to private charity she was welcome.

One can simply neglect to apply for benefits you qualify for, and thus not receive them, but once you are in the system, if you are qualified for something, and don't show up as a fraud, then you are going to get the legal set entitlement.

Edited, Apr 19th 2011 3:21am by Aripyanfar
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 79 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (79)