A few days ago we posted a piece about whether people were gullible enough to swallow the nonsense concerning Obama’s new proposed “Buffett Tax.”
You know the one, the tax that says that rich people (previously defined as anyone making more than $250,000) should pay income tax at a rate of at least 30% so they would be sure to pay more than their secretaries. It’s all about “fairness” ya’ know…
It is also claimed that we could balance the budget with the proceeds, or at least make a big dent. I’m guessing that no regular readers of this blog bought into that nonsense, but in that article we gave a mathematical illustration just in case they wanted to explain the whole thing to their more gullible friends.
So why am I talking about this again? Well, it’s because President Obama’s tax return was released today. So let’s continue the “Gullible Gazette” series with another Jeff Foxworthy question and answer gag by saying;
If you think that Obama really believes that everybody who makes $789,674 per year (like Obama himself did last year) should pay at least 30%….you just might be gullible.
You see, he paid his taxes at the rate of 20.5% instead of the 30% he thinks should be willingly paid by his goofy buddy Warren Buffett and anyone else who dares to succeed financially.
No word yet on why he doesn’t just skip a bunch of deductions himself so he can cough up the other 10%. Maybe it’s because he has redefined “rich”- for this piece of legislation only- as anyone making a million dollars a year instead of the measly $789,674 he made after his deductions.
Pretty convenient I’d say. At least I’d say that if I was gullible.
If you enjoyed this post you can read more like it Here.
Late breaking news! Since this piece was posted I came across a new news item from ABC news. Yep, you guessed it, President Obama’s Secretary Paid Higher Tax Rate Than He Did. The spin on this one is likely to be sufficient to back a golf ball up from Augusta to Pebble Beach.
Why do we pay the President anyways? Do any of us really think he pays for anything? People fall over themselves to give him stuff for free.
ReplyDeleteAnyhoos…
When I consider this 'Buffet Rule' thing, I think of the liberals in Hollywood and demented rich freaks like Soros who will be forced to pony up. Not to mention the two lefties of Ben and Jerry's fame.
Has anyone asked them how they feel about this? Not that it matters, no, but…I wonder what they would say. Or professional sports jocks. They would definitely fall prey to this nightmare.
The funny part is, as you well know, if you and I took 100 bucks and invested it in an American company that makes a solid American product and employs Americans, why shouldn't we be given a tax break on the profits from this? It's still 100 bucks that we could have used to feed our families, or give to charity, or what have you. But we decide to invest in in American greatness, and for this we are vilified as richie-rich white people.
I personally find Romney to be a douchebag of epic proportions, but if he is smart enough to take his liquid assets and invest them into American companies to strengthen America, then why would this be an issue? Good for him, and good for those he is supporting through his daring investments.
Of course I am not saying anything that common-sense folks do not already know. I find it reprehensible that this topic is portrayed so blatantly class-warfarish as it has been by the leftist media. A secretary pays more in taxes than her billionaire boss? Of course she does. If she had any sense she would take a portion of her wages and invest them at the lower tax bracket.
It is tedious to foment class-warfare. But damn it sure makes for goooood politics.
LMAO!
ReplyDeleteI hope you saw the updated part of the post, it's delicious!
DeleteThanks for the comments OneGuy.
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to tax policy; In my opinion, the "go to" guy is Dan Mitchell. You would be doing yourself a favor to visit his blog as often as possible.
His site is http://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/
BTW, he's a terrific guy as well as a terrific wonk. And he's pretty damn funny too. I'm proud to have him as a "guest commentator" on my blog from time to time.
Grant,
DeleteThank you for the tip. I am woefully ill-prepared to debate tax policy stuff with anyone, since my take is simply, "Damn, you are taxing the crap outta us! Stop it!" It will be a good exercise for me to journey there and take notes.
The update regarding the secretary is, as you say, delicious! Savagely delicious, at that.
I'll let Dan know you recommended him, and will probably post a bloggity-blog about it for further exposure. We gotta stick together, after all.
We certainly do, after all, "if we don't stick together we shall all surely stick alone"… Or something like that.
DeleteOn the topic of other blogs, I hope you have visited my new blog, cheekyhistory.blogspot.com. It's not a political blog.
If not I invite you to try it out and see if you like it. The launch is starting to pick up steam. As you can see, I'm shamelessly promoting it where ever I can. (Tim has given me permission to do so here.)