Shared publicly  - 
 
What do you call a guy who 'gives' his preteen daughter's a tax deductable $12,000, so he can deduct it from his taxes come April15, and his wife matches it?

Mr President.

http://freebeacon.com/obama-family-tax-shelter/
2
2
Jim Richardson's profile photoJames Barrow's profile photoMatthew Newberry's profile photoMorgan Laco's profile photo
12 comments
 
Remember when Biden said it was patriotic to pay taxes?
 
Giving gifts to children is a pretty widely used tax planning strategy to reduce the tax on your estate when you pass away. The logic is that the children will be better able to use the money when they are younger (can accrue interest, invest, pay off a house, etc), and that the family has already paid income tax on it (it came from somewhere, right?).
http://www.forbes.com/2007/01/26/estate-gift-tax-pf-ie-in_ae_0126taxspecial_inl.html

With that being said, you may not agree with the safe haven (I don't personally) of giving to children, but is most certainly not a loophole any more than it is a loophole to take the standard deduction on your 1040.
 
Yeah, but critical thinking wouldn't let us bash the President. I bet he deducted his mortgage interest too, the scoundrel...
 
I'd be so happy if I could pay a mere 20.5% of my income....
 
The "Buffet Rule" per se has no impact on people like me. While it attempts to levy a more reasonable share of taxation on the rich, it doesn't address the other side of the coin; taking more from millionaires does not automatically mean there will be any change in taxation on the middle class. I haven't seen any proposed law addressing that issue. Since we are currently in a deficit condition the effect of the rule would be only to bring the tax shortfall down, and reducing taxes on the middle class and self-employed (like me) would put the situation back into deficit, if I'm doing the math right. The Buffett Rule does not lower the tax burden on the middle class or self-employed, it only makes up the budget shortfall. Not that that's a bad thing, but it's not enough.
 
The Buffet Rule is just a band-aid, the problem is the sheer amount of loopholes available only to the highest income brackets coupled with nearly the lowest top tax bracket in US History.

There are some pretty gaping loopholes, like the Carried Interest loophole that lets people like Romney pay less than 15% of his income in taxes.
 
The problem is over spending. It is not under taxing the rich.
The deficit is 1.6 trillion I think. The Buffett rule will bring in 4.6 billion.
It is less than a rounding error.
 
There are problems on both ends of the equations, both taxes and spending. Trying to pretend the problem is only spending is not only dangerously short-sighted it is completely unsupported by facts.

The amount of cuts that would be required to fix the budget absent any revenue increases would decimate many beneficial domestic programs as well as defense spending.
 
+James Barrow Govt currently spends about 24% of GDP, that's simply unsustainable. Cut spending, cut it way back. Or we are doomed. Revenues are fine, it's spending that is the problem.
 
Where are you getting your information, why is it unsustainable?

We spend less as a percentage of GDP than Iceland (57.8%), France(52.8%), Sweden(52.5%), Denmark(51.8%), Belgium(50%), Italy(48.8%), United Kingdom(47.3%), Germany(43.7%), etc (Source: http://www.heritage.org/index/explore?view=by-variables 2011 data).

There is no evidence that our expenditure as a percentage of GDP (38.9%) is unusually high or unsustainable.

The 'We have a spending problem not a revenue problem' meme is completely baseless claim, it sounds good because it fits your preconceived notions about the size of the government but it does not stand up to facts and critical thinking.
Add a comment...