Reason Writers Around Town: Shikha Dalmia on Why Obama Needs the Gandhi Rule, Not the Buffett Rule
The Buffett Rule might be dead. But that doesn't mean Americans are going to get any respite from all the yammering about "tax fairness" because President Obama is determined to make his tax-the-rich agenda the dominant plank of his reelection campaign. However, Reason Foundation Senior Analyst Shikha Dalmia notes in her column for The Daily today that if the president were sincere about his cause, he would replace the Buffett Rule with the Gandhi Rule and apply it to his own tax returns. Gandhi said – and the president oft repeated during his last campaign – "be the change you wish to see." That means the president should have at least calculated his taxes in order to maximize his giving to Uncle Sam. But he didn't. She notes:
Obama's tax returns (released last week) show that he paid a 20 percent effective tax rate on his $790,000 income — slightly lower than his secretary's and a whole four points lower than the average rate for people in his income category. He could have easily avoided this by filing his tax returns the way he advocates millionaires do — by forgoing all deductions. But he didn't. Not only did he claim a $47,564 mortgage deduction on his $1.6 million home in Chicago, he also claimed tax breaks on the $172,130 — about 22 percent of his gross adjusted income — he gave to charity….
It almost seems that the president would rather give his money to literally anyone but the government. He didn't break any laws in the process, but many of his fellow tax-and-spend liberals in fact do.
Read the whole thing here.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
It only works if we're all in it together!
Then we can all be equally worthless.
Exactly. Why should he bother doing what's "right" when all those meanie millionaires are getting away with murder?
OT: A Treasure Trove of Girls for John
Hilarious!
Thank god Pelosi and Hillary weren't in that collection. But who were these MILFs and not so MILFS? Delegates to the Libertarian National Convention?
Guaranteed to give John a chubby.
http://freecodesource.com/peop.....f-Walmart/
*barf*
Voice over PA: "Attention Wal-Mart shoopers, will the fat sloth with absolutely no dignity, shame, or fashion sense whatsoever please report to the front of the store to recieve a special 'prize' for being the most repulsive human being on the planet."
[ground begins to shake from stampede of fatties as Wal-Mart completely empties]
Guy I knew said he had worked at Walmart and at the time the PA was just another phone extension.
So a couple times he called in to the clueless girl who answers the phone and asked for it by number.
Then he'd blare obscenities to the entire store.
I have no reason to disbelieve him.
*baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarf*
*barf*
You can't barf enough to make up for that, Barfman.
+666 internetz for sarcasmic.
Ms. "Cool Hat" in the plaid was alright. Otherwise...
Oh geez, I remember those.
I'm proud to say I didn't like them when they were... "cool"*
*Euphemism for "people were doing it".
Oh my, that Dawn is hot.
gosh, reid cant count votes or, 2/3rds of americans agree the buffett rule lives!...for the campaign.
*barf*
1/3rd honest at least
Engrish please.
You mean the Gandhi who didn't get a Nobel Peace Prize? That Gandhi?
Proof again that Obama is better than Gandhi.
Really, the evidence is incontrovertible. One has the hardware, the other does not. Plain as day.
Of course, my advice to the president at the time was to give the trophy to the Indian government in honor of their snubbed spiritual leader.
There's no mystery as to why Gandhi was never awarded the prize, yet Obama was. Gandhi was darker than Obama.
You mean to tell me that the Anointed One is a massive hypocrit? I'm shocked! Shocked I tell you!
Just like libertarians, liberals see taxes as punitive. But whereas we think that's a bad thing, the left loves it when they can punish a rich guy for the base crime of making money. (Excuse me, I meant exploiting the poor, working man.) Of course, the punitive nature of taxation shouldn't apply to good, right-thinking liberals. Thus, Obama can take all the deductions he likes but still insist that those OTHER people should pay their fair share. You know, to make up for how evil they are.
What? How can he deduct the place in Chicago? How is that a second home?
Bad enough I have to pay for the Penn-Ave digs, I have to subsidize his investment properties too?
There is no hypocrisy in advocating a prospective change in the rules while you play by the rules that are in place for the time being.
Libertard failure to grasp this very basic and simple concept justifies all the contempt, derision, and marginalization that they suffer, plus more.