The Obama Tax Returns: By The Numbers, And With His Own Tax Increase

I know revealing their tax returns is supposed to be in the public interest but could you tell me why the public should be interested in seeing their taxes?

So in other words, his increase on taxes on the wealthy would have decreased his take from $1.8 million to… $1.7 million.

Chester, Basically. Though you would also have to factor in state taxes.

So, short version: The wealthy would still be wealthy.

MS: BTW, thanks for posting the breakdown.

To fully understand what an uncharitable, greedy, typical socialist Obama is, check out his own charitable giving history.

-

“Barack Obama and his wife Michelle gave $10,772 of the $1.2 million they earned from 2000 through 2004 to charities, or less than 1 percent, according to tax returns for those years released today by his campaign.” http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=apR1J1py2Ouc&refer=home

-

Less than 1 percent given to charity! Obama, though, actually thinks that his confiscation of other peoples’ property and subsequent redistribution of that property to those people who pay no taxes (i.e., Democrat voters) is evidence of his charitableness.

textee — I’m pretty sure that you and your hero Joe the plumber pay very little if anything in taxes because unless you inherited some money you sound too ignorant to make very much of it on your own. Now while conservative talking heads constantly feed you this crap, the truth is that Obama voters were disproportionately college educated and wealthy, so clearly these were not voters who didn’t pay taxes or are they waiting around for government to redistribute wealth in their direction.

Dee: McCain/Palin did have the uneducated, white redneck vote pretty well locked up. Joe the Plumber, now Joe the Media Whore, is the republican base now. The top tax rate under Eisenhower was 90%. Obama wants the top tax rate to go back up to where it was AFTER Saint Ronnie’s tax cut. If Obama would just call his tax plan the Reagan Tax Rate Plan, the conservatives would clutch their pearls and support it.

textee, out of fairness, I think you need to give the amount you donated to charities during 2000-04.

They should have included a summary of the reduction in tax that the average fool at the tea party would pay next year. The ones who are employed that is.

Textee, you shouldn’t have led with the Obamas’ charity donations as a percentage of income if your overall argument is that it’s wrong to tax higher earners at a higher percentage. I don’t have the data, but I’d guess that 10k plus in charitable donations is a relatively large amount in gross terms.

Um txtee, also, can you give me one single good reason why I should consider taxation a problem when my taxes just went down by $78/month?
.
Also, Micheal, what about that? Also, it looks like that the Obamas paid about 6 to 7 percent of their gross income in charitable contributions.

“To fully understand what an uncharitable, greedy, typical socialist Obama is, check out his own charitable giving history.”
From Textee’s own link:
“Since 2005, {the Obamas} have given between 5 percent and 6.5 percent of their income to charity, more than the national average.”

Typical greedy socialists, giving more than the national average to charity. How dare they??!!

Just curious, Textee. What percentage of their income from 2000-2008 went to charity, and how does that compare with the national average? Do the labels ‘uncharitable’ and ‘greedy’ apply to everyone who gives more than the national average, or are we allowed to cherry-pick data in order to make our points? Also, as Yogi requested, can you please make public your last 8 years of tax returns, just so we can evaluate how much (presumably) non-greedy folks donated to charity?

The percentage of income that you give to charity can be misleading. What about volunteer work? What about lending your name, time and fundraising ability to various organizations? I do some charity work, cut the grass frequently for the parsonage next door ( over an acre using my tractor, my time, my gas), donate money to police/firefighter charities, donate blood 5 times a year, volunteer for neighborhood projects etc. and I NEVER try to deduct any money or expenses for them. Money is only a part of charity giving.

anon76:

Sorry, but you have been taken in by the Obamas’ transparent scam. You do understand why all of a sudden in 2005 the Obamas’ charitable giving dramatically increased after giving chump change to charities prior to 2005? Try: Obama decided to run for president. That is the only reason the Obamas began to give more than a whopping 1% of their income to charity. Who do you believe? Obama or your liein’ eyes? Do you think despite the long history of giving chump change to charity prior to 2005 that the Obamas would be giving more than 1% of their income to charity if Obama had not run for president?

Bless you, sacredh. Money’s a great thing, but it can’t push a lawnmower, give blood, or relocate a piano. Money is absolutely hopeless at singing in achoir, too, BTW.

That’s “a choir”. Groan.

Obama graduated at the top of his class at Harvard. He turned down very lucrative offers to work for peanuts as a community organizer in a poor neighborhood. How charitable should he have been? Get real.

I think it’s fairly obvious that textee’s not going to say anything about his/her/it’s charitable activities. Charity, after all, is for losers.

textee if you want to know why Republicans are a minority party it’s because, if you are any kind of representation, you’re so mean spirited no one wants to share a label with you.

Friar tuck: Thanks for the kind words. Writing a check is the easiest thing a person can do. It takes seconds. Driving some old lady with flatulence to the grocery store is a b!tch. Helping a 300 pound woman out of the car and getting a shot of something that’d make Hugh Hefner swear off women is another ball of wax. Shoveling the snow off an elderly neighbor’s 200 foot sloping driveway when you get off of night shift BEFORE you go to bed is charity.

People who have their own taxes increased should be allowed to complain, but they should tell us the dollar amount of the increase and the dollar amount of their post-tax income. That way we can get a better feel for how tough they have it.
.
People whining about somebody else’s tax increase should STFU.

Why does everyone think Socialism is stealing everyone’s land and giving it to the poor?

We’re not Communists, you know.

Record number of federal taxes still unpaid on April 15th, Obama hopes to change late receipts pattern by quadrupling deficit and killing unborn.

++++++++++++++++++++++

http://twitter.com/HULAgate

IRS says last day to file 2008 extension and put off 1040 mailing (until October 15th or Obama Nation’s Chapter 7, whichever comes first).

+++++++++++++++++++

http://twitter.com/HULAgate

[...] most of the Obamas’ income last year came from Barack’s book [...]

sacredh, that’s not true, the top tax rate has not been as low since Reagan left, Bush Jr. decreased it from Clinton but not to the depth that it was under Reagan.
.
Really though, I think it’s stupid how people care so much about politicians’ taxes, so long as they paid them.

Textee-

Obama started giving more money to charity once he became a US Senator and had a) More disposable income and b) less time to volunteer. Also, as sacredh points out, Obama gave up hundreds of thousands of dollars and a relatively cushy job at a law firm in order to do community organizing. On top of that, I’d be willing to bet that Obama’s $10,000 ‘chump change’ is more money than you have donated in your life. Personally I agree with sacredh and FT that giving of yourself is much more important than just giving money, but I’m interested to see if you can even back up your weak money argument. Bring it Textee- let’s hear about your amazing charitable donations that give you the right to call Obama’s $10,000 donation greedy or uncharitable. I’m ready to be dazzled.

“You do understand why all of a sudden in 2005″

Perhaps the massive increase in his income from a combination of a new job in the Senate and increased sales of his books?

“In sum, if Obama’s proposed tax changes had been in effect in 2008, the Obamas would have paid an additional $148,000 in federal income tax. That’s 19% more than they actually paid. Their effective tax rate would have risen from the actual 28.7% to 34.1%.”
.
I suppose if someone is proposing to increase taxes as Obama has on the mega rich such as himself and Michele, then I am perplexed as to why they didn’t just go ahead and give the Government the $148,000 now instead of waiting until after 2010 changes.
.
Hmmmmm
.
Set the example Mr President. Give Give Give now! Show us that this is “Change we can believe in”!!!

I don’t think the Obamas could have handled paying 150k more We’ll have our first bankrupt president when his tax changes go through…

http://www.political-buzz.com/

right, yep, we know that extra 19% is killing all those millionaires, because they just can’t do without that extra 150k. Oh wait, that’s right, the GOPs argument is that in fact with that extra 150k a millionaire would go out hire more people, spend more..blah blah blah. Nope, that’s not what happens. How many more times do we have to show over and over again – welcome anyone with links to sources – that supply side economics do not work
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply-side_economics

Can someone explain to me why so many in the GOP have a hard time with math?

ymmartin —
.
“Can someone explain to me why so many in the GOP have a hard time with math?”
.
Because many in the GOP refused to support increased funding for public education.

[...] here’s a take on the Obamas taxes, courtesy of Michael Scherer at Time. “Barack and Michelle Obama released their tax returns this afternoon, proving what we all [...]

You know, I wonder if Obama has gotten good with the income tax ramifications of his home purchase, aided by Rezko. Remember, he got a benefit for bringing Rezko to the table, yet all of that benefit went to reduce the purchase price Obama paid. Instead, for tax purposes, the benefit should have been allocated between the two properties.

ymmartin – ye were just askin’ fer tha’ from Dee, me bucko .

ahh Dee, pirate wench, I definitely was hoping someone would state the obvious. I like it when more of us share reality with the trolls.

ymmartin, reality? Maybe someone from the “reality based community” should ask aloud about the tax implications of Rezko’s involvement with Obama’s home purchase.

And speaking of “reality”, any of you guys catch Obama’s speech at G-town? Gotta love the “reality” of his history of the financial crisis . . . . No mention of the CRA, Fannie/Freddie, Franklin Raines. I wondered where I had seen that before, and remembered the revisionist history where Jamie Gorelick’s wall was curiously left out of the 9/11 narrative.

Something here doesn’t make much sense… Michelle is listed as having only $62,709, but her salary at UCH was $319K… http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2009/01/chart-michelle-obamas-salary.html

And she didn’t resign her position until Jan, 2009, so she should have received the full yearly salary. http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/01/happy-birthday.html