Obamas paid $1.79M in taxes on income of $5.5

[THE MATRIX]

link

Washington (CNN) - The first family paid $1.79 million in federal taxes for 2009 on adjusted gross income of $5.5 million, mostly from the sale of President Barack Obama's books, the White House announced Thursday.

Obama and first lady Michelle Obama reported $329,100 in donations to 40 different charities, with the largest reported contributions being $50,000 each to CARE and the United Negro College Fund, according to their federal tax return posted on the White House Web site.

In addition, Obama donated the $1.4 million Nobel Prize money to 10 charities, the White House said.

[preacherman76]

He "donated" billions of our tax dollars to extremly wealthy bankster's as well.

[J.B.]

Yeah. . . not sure that's an example setting thing. It's not percentage that counts, it's how much you keep for yourself. He gave less than 2 million in taxes on over 5 million in income? Even with the donations, he's still left with over a million.

[bigdaddyinge]

plus some dough every year for the rest of his life...

[zenfahr]

Yeah. . . not sure that's an example setting thing. It's not percentage that counts, it's how much you keep for yourself. He gave less than 2 million in taxes on over 5 million in income? Even with the donations, he's still left with over a million.

well its an example to the 46% of tea partiers who do not pay taxes.

[danielost]

question has any president ever been audited.

[Black Coyote]

Yeah. . . not sure that's an example setting thing. It's not percentage that counts, it's how much you keep for yourself. He gave less than 2 million in taxes on over 5 million in income?

Ah, no. It very much is a percentage thing. That's how our income tax system works - it's calculated as a percentage of your income. And that's perfectly fair, as far as taxation goes... unless you're just a petty little pedant who thinks that he should pay more just because of who he is.

He paid his fair share, end of story. 1.6 million is a little over 1/3 of 5 million - 33%. I'm not even that good at math, but I can still figure that out with some scrap paper, a backup calculator, and a basic knowledge of percentages.

Conversely, most people only pay an average of 25-27% of their income in taxes.

The only reason anyone is getting their feathers in a ruffle over this is because either:

a.) It's Obama and they don't like him, so they think he should have to pay more in taxes than other people (and these are more often than not the exact same people who think that nationalized health care is "evil" because "Oh, it would raise taxes on the wealthy and that's not fair!" ...but apparently it's fair to want to raise taxes on people based on something as idiotically petty as voting or identifying as a "liberal"; )

...or b.) All the zeroes cause their cognitive processes to short-circuit. That's more forgivable, because an inability to work with large numbers is simply a failure of the educational system to adequately do its job, and not just a symptom of bitter "sour grapes" party politics.

[danielost]

Ah, no. It very much is a percentage thing. That's how our income tax system works - it's calculated as a percentage of your income. And that's perfectly fair, as far as taxation goes... unless you're just a petty little pedant who thinks that he should pay more just because of who he is.

He paid his fair share, end of story. 1.6 million is a little over 1/3 of 5 million - 33%. I'm not even that good at math, but I can still figure that out with some scrap paper, a backup calculator, and a basic knowledge of percentages.

Conversely, most people only pay an average of 25-27% of their income in taxes.

The only reason anyone is getting their feathers in a ruffle over this is because either:

a.) It's Obama and they don't like him, so they think he should have to pay more in taxes than other people (and these are more often than not the exact same people who think that nationalized health care is "evil" because "Oh, it would raise taxes on the wealthy and that's not fair!" ...but apparently it's fair to want to raise taxes on people based on something as idiotically petty as voting or identifying as a "liberal"; )

...or b.) All the zeroes cause their cognitive processes to short-circuit. That's more forgivable, because an inability to work with large numbers is simply a failure of the educational system to adequately do its job, and not just a symptom of bitter "sour grapes" party politics.

yes but according to him and you those making over 200,000 a year should pay a minimum of 38% a year.

[J.B.]

Ah, no. It very much is a percentage thing. That's how our income tax system works - it's calculated as a percentage of your income. And that's perfectly fair, as far as taxation goes... unless you're just a petty little pedant who thinks that he should pay more just because of who he is.

He paid his fair share, end of story. 1.6 million is a little over 1/3 of 5 million - 33%. I'm not even that good at math, but I can still figure that out with some scrap paper, a backup calculator, and a basic knowledge of percentages.

Conversely, most people only pay an average of 25-27% of their income in taxes.

The only reason anyone is getting their feathers in a ruffle over this is because either:

a.) It's Obama and they don't like him, so they think he should have to pay more in taxes than other people (and these are more often than not the exact same people who think that nationalized health care is "evil" because "Oh, it would raise taxes on the wealthy and that's not fair!" ...but apparently it's fair to want to raise taxes on people based on something as idiotically petty as voting or identifying as a "liberal"; )

...or b.) All the zeroes cause their cognitive processes to short-circuit. That's more forgivable, because an inability to work with large numbers is simply a failure of the educational system to adequately do its job, and not just a symptom of bitter "sour grapes" party politics.

LOL. No, not because of who he is. Because of how much he makes. Ugh. Such a contradiction in me, eh? I really don't think there need to be millionaires at all, yet I'm all for the free market, without the government stepping in. Like, once you earn enough for you to live comfortably for the year, you should donate the rest to all sorts of things. Some to government, some to charity, the rest to those in your family who need it, and you only keep what you need and several thousand for play cash. But it's a morals thing, and should not be ****ing legislated.