Green Room

Taxes: Obama’s adjusted gross for 2011 doesn’t meet criteria for Buffett Rule

posted at 1:26 pm on April 13, 2012 by

“I do not want, and I will not accept, a deal in which I am asked to do nothing,” the president told an audience last July, adding:

I’m able to keep hundreds of thousands of dollars in additional income that I don’t need, while a parent out there who is struggling to figure out how to send their [sic] kid to college suddenly finds that they’ve got a couple thousand dollars less in grants or student loans.

His solution to this “problem of income inequity,” as all the world now knows, is the Buffett Rule, which mandates that rich dudes like the president and billionaire Warren Buffett (whose misleading claim inspired the rule) pay out 30% of their earned and unearned income in the form of taxes. It is raising the tax rate on unearned income, which derives from capital gains and dividends on investments, that makes the Buffett Rule so pernicious.

Although increasing capital gains taxes is an ill-advised maneuver when the economy is in a fragile state, as Obama himself acknowledged in 2009, it always carries a risk. Historically, this action has had a paradoxical effect, resulting in a decrease in net revenue to the government.

Mindful of this, the conservative PAC American Crossroads created a petition on its Facebook page encouraging the president and Buffett to ease their consciences by voluntarily paying more taxes. When asked about the petition on Air Force One on Tuesday, White House spokesman Jay Carney dismissed it as a gimmick. He went so far as to chide the reporter who had asked the impertinent question:

You guys are seriously buying into this gimmick? And what the president has made clear that he does not believe that people like him who’ve been fortunate enough to succeed financially should pay taxes at a lower rate than middle-class Americans. He believes that we should ask people like him to pay a little bit more, people like Warren Buffett and others, millionaires and billionaires who have succeeded, to pay a little bit more.

As it turns out, however, the president did not earn enough this year to be affected by the Buffett Rule. Obama’s blog at Whitehouse.gov released his tax return for 2011. His reported adjusted gross income was $789,674. He paid $162,074 in taxes, which means his effective federal income tax rate was 20.5%. His net income was way short of the $1 million cutoff, which requires someone with “additional income” that he doesn’t need to pay federal tax at a 30% rate.

Naturally, there is nothing stopping the president from visiting the website TreasuryDirect, which allows anyone to donate to the U.S. Treasury, and making up the difference. Nothing, that is, beyond his press secretary’s having written off the idea as a “gimmick.”

Related Articles

Follow me on Twitter or join me at Facebook. You can reach me at howard.portnoy@gmail.com or by posting a comment below.

Recently in the Green Room:

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Posted elsewhere:

Did Barry Downgrayedd just raise taxes and screw ‘working’ folks of $800?

Am I missing something here?

Barry touted his Payroll “taxcut” as a way to pay for the higher gas prices he caused, but he and his Media sycophants conveniently forgot to mention that this PR gimmick that will de-fund Social security was meant to replace the “Making Work Pay” tax credit that has just expired.

The ‘voting present’ President told us that it would add about $40 – but the discontinuation of the “Making Work Pay” will take away $800/Year of that.

Our dear liar wanted to leave the vague impression that this social security de-funding gimmick would mean $40 ‘a paycheck’. But is that $40 per week, every 2 weeks or every month?

As was stated in this posting:

Obama’s Big Deception: $40 Per Paycheck from the Payroll Tax Cut
http://thevirtuousrepublic.com/?p=9770

Okay, now stay with me here. I know some people get payed monthly. Others, biweekly, but a majority of working people get payed weekly, and quite frankly, that is what the White House was banking on. Most people, would assume, that this tax cut was putting $40 per week into their pockets.

You will notice that the White House does nothing to dispel that impression. In fact, it says, the typical family earning $50,000 would see an extra $40 a paycheck. They don’t say a 2% cut in taxes or X dollars a week, but in fact, leave you with the impression, that on a weekly basis, one would see $40 more in their pay and over 52 weeks, that is $2080.

Kiplinger.com has a handy Social Security tax cut calculator that shows the reality for a family earning $50,000 a year.

As an example, if the husband makes $25,000, he gets an extra $10.42 a week in his paycheck.

So for some “working folks” the social security de-funding gimmick “Gave” them $521 and the ending of the “Making Work Pay” gimmick took away $800. Essentially raising taxes in some cases by $279

Galt2009 on April 13, 2012 at 1:53 PM

Also:

Eleven Things Your Tax Pro Doesn’t Want to Hear From You This Month

10. I owe more than I did last year. What did you do wrong? Even if your situation doesn’t change a whit – not even a penny – the Tax Code is constantly changing. For example, the Making Work Pay Credit expired in 2010 and was replaced in 2011 with the payroll tax cuts. The credit was a flat amount but the cuts are based on a percentage. So depending on your income level, you could see more of a cut – or less – or it might be the same.

Galt2009 on April 13, 2012 at 1:57 PM

I thought the story this week was that the Buffett Rule would only apply to something like 400 people in the whole country?

So why is it surprising Obama isn’t one of the 400 richest people in America? Did we think he was?

CoolCzech on April 13, 2012 at 3:30 PM

I’m able to keep hundreds of thousands of dollars in additional income that I don’t need, while a parent out there who is struggling to figure out how to send their [sic] kid to college suddenly finds that they’ve got a couple thousand dollars less in grants or student loans.

Howard, I’m surprised this stunning statement didn’t get more airplay and notice when Obama made it. Well, actually I’m not surprised, knowing our mainstream media. An American president, discussing “unneeded” or “excessive” income, and suggesting that said “unneeded” income be distributed by an inept government to others the government deems more worthy of that “excessive” income. Dovetails pretty nicely with his “spreading the wealth around” comments on the campaign trail.

Why won’t Buffet pay the back taxes he already owes and is contesting the federal government over, and why doesn’t Obama voluntarily give the hundreds of thousands of dollars “he doesn’t need” to the government? The rank hypocrisy is galling.

I’ll let others make conclusions as to what economic philosophy Obama is espousing here, but I know what it sounds like to me.

Cavalry on April 13, 2012 at 7:21 PM

Naturally, there is nothing stopping the president from visiting the website TreasuryDirect, which allows anyone to donate to the U.S. Treasury, and making up the difference.

The undeniable fact that wealthy Lefties do not contribute more, even though they could today in unlimited amounts, yet make YouTube videos proclaiming they wish to be “taxed more” speaks volumes about these individuals.

It speaks volumes about the motivations behind the modern Progressive ideology itself: It is based on one thing and one thing only. Self-congratulation.

visions on April 13, 2012 at 8:04 PM

Galt2009 on April 13, 2012 at 1:53 PM

Except for the fact that the money that isn’t being taken in due to the payroll tax holiday is taken out of the general fund and not the SocSecurity “Trust Funds”, good point.

Related – it would have been more honest, and cheaper, to have shorted the “Trust Funds”.

Steve Eggleston on April 14, 2012 at 8:56 AM

Silly – it’s all about the gummint forcing you to pay taxes, not enabling you to actually volunteer a charitable donation or gift.

I sent $10 to the Treasury a few years ago. They never even acknowledged my gift, the ingrates.

disa on April 15, 2012 at 8:38 AM