I first floated this particular proposition back in the summer of 2008 and at the time, it did not draw any comments at all. But that was then and this is now. The so-called “Bush tax cuts” are set to expire and Republicans, together with more than a few panicked Democrats, are bucking the Obama administration and pushing to keep the Bush tax rates in place beyond their expiration on December 31.
President Obama opposes this initiative, particularly for those in the upper income brackets.
So Mr. President, I have a test of your sincerity on this subject. According to information from your 2009 tax return, you and Michelle had income of about $5.5 million. In very simple terms, your tax liability on that income using current tax rates was about $1,890,000. But if the Bush tax rates had not been in effect, if your tax liability were calculated based on the rates you believe we should have been paying all along, your tax liability would have been about $2,145,000; a difference of $254,900.
So write a check for that amount, Mr. President, and send it to the following address:
Gifts to the United States
Department of the Treasury
Credit Accounting Branch
3700 East-West Highway, Room 6D17
Hyattsville, MD 20782
This office exists because in 1843 the Congress enacted a law making it possible for patriots such as you and Michelle to voluntarily give money to the United States. If you feel that you are being under-taxed, you can simply make up the difference on your own – without having to wait for the Congress to change the rates. What a great way for you to lead by example.
And here’s the best part, Mr. President. You can spread the word to all your rich liberal friends to do the same thing. That way, the rich, which must include people in your rarefied circles, can pay their “fair share,” as you call it, irrespective of what Congress does.
But you’ll forgive me, sir, if I don’t hold my breath waiting for you or Steven Spielberg or Al Gore or any of you elite liberals to voluntarily write any checks. No matter what the tax rates are, all of you are going to do what you’ve always done; employ your respective armies of tax lawyers and accountants to do everything possible to minimize what you pay. Meanwhile, you’ll keep pandering to the Democrat base by demanding that some amorphous cohort of white Republican rich people – who are in greater reality guys who own car washes, insurance agencies, auto repair shops and plumbing companies – hand over their money instead of keeping it and spending or investing it as they see fit.
If you and your elite liberal colleagues won’t lead by example on this Mr. President, you have zero moral standing to make demands on those that actually produce income and pay taxes.
And that’s why your party is going to lose badly in November, sir, and why your presidency is, for all intents and purposes, finished.
A great Idea….however, we all know that the Obama family wants nothing to do with the United States…they cannot stand to be citizens of the US of A. That is why they are so intent on destroying the Constitutional Republic and installing their own perverted version of the failed Socialist Democracy. The poor fella won’t pay a nickle more than he has too. It just might cut into his vacation fund or Michelle’s trip allowances…
Absolutely great editorial comment on “you tell me” this morning. Simple yet powerful example of reality versus political rhetoric coming from the tax and spend crowd. Kudos to Paul Gleiser.. again!
It amazes me that people fall for this class warfare of the “rich” do not pay enough taxes and should be taxed more. Hasn’t anyone noticed WHO is saying this? Those who are claming the rich do not pay enough are multimillionaires themselves…obama included. So why shouldn’t they be putting back into the system instead of just taking out???? Look at what kerry did with his yachet and the taxes on it…always looking for a way not to pay in, but sure there with their hands out to TAKE out! obama, for sure needs to pony up considering what he has taken away!
Good idea but good luck with that. Too bad he can’t be taxed on the value of all those WH benefits as well.
As someone who has done okay financially I am waiting for those making less than 100-200k to start paying their “fair share”. You will never see Obama suggest that. It really is time for a flat income tax or a national sales tax coupled w/ the elimination of the income tax.
President Obama is simply trying to slow down the continued exploitation of the poor and oppressed members of our society by insisting that our progressive tax system be observed and remains fair. What he personally pays in taxes doesn’t matter. It is our COLLECTIVE responsibility to redistribute the wealth that is produced by those that create it with fairness and equality.
Everyone knows that most wealth accumulation is usually a selfish pursuit at the expense of those less fortunate or of those that are actually doing the work. How many wealthy business owners share the company’s income with his workers, commensurate with the value of the work they produce in order to make the company succeed?
A company’s payroll expense is a valid tax deduction. A business owner has every incentive to pursue a distribution of the wealth in a fashion that provides equality and fairness for all of his employees. If he allocates an unfair portion of the wealth produced for himself, then, he will be forced to pay a higher tax rate and the money goes to the government instead of to his employees. What is wrong with that? A lavish life style for a business executive cannot be justified if his income is greater than 4X the average middle class employee.
It is the responsibility of the government to encourage wealth distribution, voluntarily. Unfair wealth accumulation by individuals or corporations only hurts the nation at large and our progressive tax system is a method to share the prosperity with the less fortunate and reduce the spread of poverty. It is the US Government that makes prosperity even possible due to the laws that govern business and commerce. Otherwise, we would have unfettered exploitation of the public in the pursuit of profit. In the final analysis, “we are our brother’s keeper” and the nation cannot prosper without collective success in which everyone benefits.
I’ve always thought that our Country didn’t know what it wanted to be when it grew up. We rail against Socialism (and use Obama as its symbol) yet nobody wants to end the purely socialistic programs such as farm subsidies, Medicare, Medicade, or Social security. Hmmmm….
As for going back to a tax rate that costs Obama and his rich liberal friends money, who could possibly quarrel with that? – except someone who falls into the affected bracket (over $250,000 TAXABLE income) of course. I, not being in that bracket, am for it.
After all, I don’t think it’s fair that the wealthiest 1% of wage earners get to sail on their yachts while my children & grandchildren work two jobs to make ands meet AND pay down the national debt. I’m just sayin’…
Mr Hawk,
Educate yourself. Many of us so called “wealthiest 1%” are employing your children and grandchildren with businesses we built and operate which we work at 10-14 hours a day. Maybe I should take yor advice and shut down my businesses,lay off your kids, and buy a yacht.
Do you own a business? How often do you work more than 8-10 hrs a day? Do you get most holidays off as well? Do you get benefits provided by your employer? If so, talk to me when you are willing to get out of your comfort zone and take some risks with your own time, without the security of someone providing you a paycheck, and money to build something for yourself and your family.
This “proposition” is just nonsense. President Obama IS trying to raise his own taxes. So what Gleiser is saying is that he can’t possibly mean it. He isn’t sincere. Why not? Just because you and the KTBB base think he is always evil and wrong?
Mr. Josephs, I must assume from your contempt for people who don’t make as much as you because they clearly don’t work as hard that you have never met anyone who works 2 jobs and still makes less than 100-200k a year.
Mr. Channing, the only contempt I have is for those who whine about paying “their fair share” but actually don’t pay as much as others.
There are lots of good people who are hard workers who make less than 100k. For whatever reason they choose not to take the risks needed to make more. That is fine and I have no objection to that. It’s those in that group that think those of us who did take those risks should pay more that I speak of..