Thread: Obama Campaign Swipes At Mitt Romney With Tax Calculator

Obama Campaign Swipes At Mitt Romney With Tax Calculator

The Huffington Post | By Max J. Rosenthal | 04/11/2012 4:01 pm

“As Americans file last-minute tax returns over the next few days, the Obama campaign is giving them an opportunity to compare their tax rates to Mitt Romney's.

In a jab at the likely Republican presidential nominee, who famously pays 15 percent or less on his sizable income, an Obama campaign website on Wednesday unveiled a tax calculator that allows users to enter their own income and filing status, and then compares their likely tax rate with Romney's. Many people, of course, will see that they're paying an overall higher rate than Romney, whose wealth is taxed as capital gains rather than income.

The calculator is just the latest element in President Barack Obama's push to promote the Buffett Rule, which would ensure that millionaires pay at least a 30 percent tax rate and thus contribute more than middle-class Americans to the federal treasury. The president has argued for the rule in recent campaign appearances, and the calculator is hosted on his campaign's Pass the Buffett Rule website.

"Mitt Romney opposes the Buffett Rule because he wants to protect tax loopholes and give millionaires like himself trillions of dollars in tax breaks paid for by either increasing the deficit or by cutting programs critical to the middle class and economic growth," the site charges.

Romney's economic advisers attacked the Buffett Rule in a Wednesday conference call, describing it as “obviously politically motivated" and saying it would have little impact on the economy.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...tml?ref=topbar
.......

Actually a 30% hike in the tax rate would be ok but it must be accompanied by an additional 20% temporary tax imposed on the top 1%ers, plus the top 10%ers at a lower rate. That would help lower our national debt, an over $10TRILLION DOLLAR national debt left by ex-president GW Bush, as President Obama started his tenure in January 2009.

I am still wondering why there was no outcry when Reagan, HW Bush and GW Bush raised taxes....Reagan raised taxes every year of his tenure; HW and GW raised taxes a few times. So why are republican vehement about keeping any tax hike “off the table”?? Could it be they do not want President Obama to successfully get us out of this Bush-induced recession in a much shorter time?

Why aren’t corporations that receive so many subsidies, perks, tax incentives, etc. from the government, creating more jobs out there for people? That is what republicans spouted when they received the “Bush Tax Cuts” which would presumably create new jobs.....

Politics of begrudgement.

Nothing positive to hang their hats on leaves ObamaCo grasping for any port in a storm.

I am astonished that the political culture we live in actually accepts "No Tax Hikes EVER" as a legit tax policy. It's like a bunch of children trying to run a candy business. "We'll never charge money for candy EVER!"

TheTaoOfBill:

Absolutely unprecedented that republicans can rule tax hikes "off the table" and Democrats accepting that blatantly biased non-option as viable in the economic state our government is in from a previous republican administration leaving us with a gigantic deficit that everyone knows has to be alleviated by raising taxes on the wealthy.

I don't know about you, but I don't like paying more taxes than a CEO at a Wall Street bank. I don't receive any perks, subsidies, or incentives so I am forced to pay taxes on my full earnings. I think all Americans feel the same way.

Originally Posted by Agent_286

TheTaoOfBill:

Absolutely unprecedented that republicans can rule tax hikes "off the table" and Democrats accepting that blatantly biased non-option as viable in the economic state our government is in from a previous republican administration leaving us with a gigantic deficit that everyone knows has to be alleviated by raising taxes on the wealthy.

I don't know about you, but I don't like paying more taxes than a CEO at a Wall Street bank. I don't receive any perks, subsidies, or incentives so I am forced to pay taxes on my full earnings. I think all Americans feel the same way.

As a Democrat, I have to say that most proponents of the Buffett Rule are completely off-base at this point. The Keynesian recommendation for tax policy during an economic downturn is tax cuts, not tax increases or silly extensions of existing law. You want your tax increases? Wait for another one to two years, when increasing taxes will actually be a viable option, not just for dealing with the deficit, but for economic growth. People have a severe misunderstanding of basic fiscal policy.

Originally Posted by thediplomat2.0

As a Democrat, I have to say that most proponents of the Buffett Rule are completely off-base at this point. The Keynesian recommendation for tax policy during an economic downturn is tax cuts, not tax increases or silly extensions of existing law. You want your tax increases? Wait for another one to two years, when increasing taxes will actually be a viable option, not just for dealing with the deficit, but for economic growth. People have a severe misunderstanding of basic fiscal policy.

I think Bush's Tax cuts quite clearly illustrated that giving tax breaks does not always boost the economy. I don't want to see taxes raised absurd levels like 20% mentioned in the OP... But I do think something seems inherently wrong with the system when I will pay a higher rate then a guy that has a Car elevator in his houses.

Originally Posted by iJoeTime

I think Bush's Tax cuts quite clearly illustrated that giving tax breaks does not always boost the economy. I don't want to see taxes raised absurd levels like 20% mentioned in the OP... But I do think something seems inherently wrong with the system when I will pay a higher rate then a guy that has a Car elevator in his houses.

I agree, yet tax increases are not the solution to such a problem. The Buffett Rule is only expected to generate a couple billion dollars over the next ten years. That is no solution to deficit and debt reduction. What is a solution is eliminating the $1.1 trillion in tax expenditures discovered by the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform.

Originally Posted by thediplomat2.0

I agree, yet tax increases are not the solution to such a problem. The Buffett Rule is only expected to generate a couple billion dollars over the next ten years. That is no solution to deficit and debt reduction. What is a solution is eliminating the $1.1 trillion in tax expenditures discovered by the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform.

I don't think the 40 billion dollars over the next 10 years is anything to sneaze about but Obama was never intending to solve the deficit by just raising taxes. The Buffett rule made sense when Ronald Reagan made similar suggestions. Investments are being made overseas. Why does eveyone stupidly think that the well off want to make sure you have a job in this country?

Originally Posted by Frowning Loser

I don't think the 40 billion dollars over the next 10 years is anything to sneaze about but Obama was never intending to solve the deficit by just raising taxes. The Buffett rule made sense when Ronald Reagan made similar suggestions. Investments are being made overseas. Why does eveyone stupidly think that the well off want to make sure you have a job in this country?

In my opinion, Reagan was a horrific President. He passed the Tax Reform Act of 1986, which raised taxes on the lowest income bracket while lowering taxes on the upper income bracket.

Obama should drop the Buffett Rule. Such a policy can wait one to two years. He should be targeting the tax expenditures that lead to investments being made overseas.