WHO'S GREEDY? Obama Gave 1% to Charity, Romney Gave 15% Fire it up310 Share AP File Democratic presidential candidate 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. The Obamas increased the amount they gave to charity when their income rose in 2005 and 2006 after the Illinois senator published a bestselling book. The $137,622 they gave over those two years amounted to more than 5 percent of their $2.6 million income. Romney charitable contributions Tax year Taxable income Charitable donations Donations as % of income 2010 $21.7 million $2.98 million 13.73% 2011 (est) $20.9 million $4 million 19.14% Read more: http://nation.foxnews.com/mitt-romn...a-gave-1-charity-romney-gave-15#ixzz1kPS10oZR
I'm not sure we should judge how much people choose to donate. And personally, I'd rather see Romney's money going to better causes than the church.
I guess you can afford to donate more when you evade taxes. Or at the very least, your donations look like a higher percentage of your income when you shelter/hide some of it elsewhere. Can we see all years instead of picking and choosing, eh?
I have Warren Buffett at around 50%+, should we elect him president? I'm guessing the answer will be no from certain circles because he's a Democrat, but eh. Also, for those people who bring out the old private charity schtick, Victorian England called, they want their laissez-faire noblesse oblige, and school-children with no arms, back.
$245,000 of $1,800,000 is about 14%. You want greedy? Look at Gingrich. (source is CNN which used their 2010 returns) It's funny you're using estimated 2011 returns. How about you use what they've actually filed? Or are you comparing Obama's least charitable period (you know, before he was popular) to a recent, most charitable period of Romney? How about you compare apples to apples, such as 2010 to 2010 (like the graphic above)? Or would that be too honest? Maybe if we had tax returns for Romney/Gingrich all the way back to 2000, we'd spot them not being so charitable close to an election as well. But we don't, so don't compare now to then. Edit: OK, it's not you being disingenuous, it's Fox News. But you're repeating them without actually looking at the situation critically. Use that noggin of yours sometimes.
assuming CNN hasn't been playing with the numbers (doubtful). also, i pay a higher tax rate than any of them.
But you don't also assume Fox News hasn't played with them? Come on man, now you're just being ridiculous. If you're going to use Fox News as a source, you have to accept CNN as one, too. CNN, at least, has less of an agenda than Fox News but that's a completely separate discussion here. As for the tax rates, I do as well, except for Gingrich I suppose. Romney's tax rate pisses me off. A lot. I am curious why capital gains is taxed differently...
because, typically, one has already paid taxes on the earned income. Mitt's case is somewhat extreme, but if one wants to (fairly) raise tax revenues, the solution is not to raise taxes on dividend income, but to lower income tax rates across the board, and close loopholes.
If anyone tries to call a tithe a "donation," I will flip. It's not a donation. If he chooses to give 7% of his income to a Church, I could care less. I find it ridiculous and silly, but I don't really mind. What I mind is his 14% tax rate.
Hmm, that's an interesting point that one has already paid taxes on the money invested. I've never really taken any economics classes and only loosely know how investing works, so I'll take your word for it. I'm not sure how I feel on it, still.
It might also be a little easier to donate a larger % of your income when you're worth 250 million bucks (Romney), just like its easier for Buffett to donate billions. To say its a poor reflection on Obama is somewhat silly.
This is not surprising. Studies have shown that overall, regardless of income level, Republicans give a much higher percentage of their income to charities than Democrats. The reason being that Republicans view it as a personal responsibility to help the less fortunate, whereas Democrats view it as a Government responsibility. It doesn't mean that Democrats, don't care.. it just boils down to the fundamental difference between the parties..less government intervention vs. more government intervention.
Yes it does. Democrats are more concerned with the concept of "fairness" when it's someone else's money at stake, when they're asked to put their money where their mouth is...? crickets.
Romney paid 42 percent of 2011 income in taxes and charity The article says his charity is mostly not with the Mormon church.
