Ready for election season to be over? Maybe it's time to curl up with a good sitcom and wait this thing out. Except new research out of Australia suggests that, sometimes, we actually find the presidential debates funnier than sitcoms. Through non-invasive procedures, such as monitoring the muscles used in smiling, researchers determined that subjects laughed more on average during popular sitcoms but that the intensity of laughter was higher in moments of the presidential debates. (Obama's zinger about Romney having a big pension rated high on the funny scale.) No word on if they'll renew the debates for another season. [PhysOrg]
No comment on how funny the President was in the first debate? How about that Bengazi zinger - where "acts of terror" references on 9/11 outway weeks of blame put on a movie that had nothing to do with anything in Lybia?
What was funny about the pension line? That Obama has the greatest penion plan on Earth as President? That the President's millions of dollars are somehow cleaner, since they came from taxpayers and cashing in on his political fame through books and speaking engagements - rather than buisness?
Another political ad on popsci/polsci.
If I go with the belief of what both the negative candidates have to say about the other as correct, I like to go with the concept of acceptance and propose a 'do-over election'.
Or in other words with all the negative things been said, both candidate be given their walking papers and we start a new election of anybody else!
I find neither candidate funny. I find candidates will lots to say and no actual real world solutions for the economy, social security and Medicare. I find them both talking about distracting things, except what is really important.
Now there is a good idea. Wash them both out and start over. Who would you like to see Robot?
Chris Christy or Ron Paul vs Joe Lieberman would be interesting.
I believe in the right of privacy for voting sir.
Take care. ;)
Oakspar77777 This is ad seems pretty neutral to me, and the president makes 400,000 dollars a year 35 percent of which goes to taxes, Romney makes 13,000,000 dollars a year 13 percent of which goes to taxes. As far as Obama's books goes none of them have been big sellers in years and all the proceeds go to financing his complain, so you're claim that he has a better retirement waiting for him than Romney has about as much weight as the claim that global warming isn't real, not that I'd expect you to believe that one either.
I have to agree with Oakspar77777 about this being a biased political ad. That last part of the article was unnecessary and Romney may make more but he has worked hard to get where he is and Obama might pay more in taxes but he has no cost of living while he is in the white house and he gets paid that much for the rest of his life.
No worries Robot, just thought a hypothetical match up would be fun, but I respect your privacy.
Have a good one.
(1) Go and research what a pension is and compare that to investment income. They are two different things. The President also has investment income (which he pays the lower capital gains rate on). The Presidential pension includes a health salary for life, secret service protection, and plenty of other taxpayer funded benefits. I would love to be President for a day so that I could immediatly retire into the sweet life for life.
(2) Your numbers are off on % tax for both candidates and Romney's earnings (he actually earned more than that). You also should research the difference between income tax and capital gains tax. Romney's money was ALREADY taxed at the Corporate Rate before he paid any tax on it. If you stopped taxing Corporations like people, then you could tax CG at income levels. As it is, the combination of the two (CIT and CG together) put CG income among the highest of tax rates (which stinks when you are a small time investor).
(3) Romney pays millions of dollars in tax every year (in 2011 he paid more in tax than Obama made - and Obama made millions). If you want to talk about what % is fair, what is the % of your taxes to his. The $5k or so I pay in federal income taxes each year isn't even .1% of what he contributes.
(4) I agree that Obama has been financing his "complain[ing]" about the previous administration - but he is doing that with donated money, not his own.
(5) The purpose of my comment was to expose the fact that a nuetral article would have been maintained had the parenthetical comment either been omitted or had the examples included both candidates "zingers."
if what you romney cheerleaders were saying were true, romney would be winning by a mile. but we all know how that is going. Obama is one of the best presidents ever other than clinton. The fact that he beat mccain in a landslide, and is winning in all the swing states says the country wants what he is selling. like it or not, nothing you can do about it.try to give away our medicare if you want, us young people will put a stop to it. remember this tuesday night. romney/ryan are tools
Good use of my typo, but if you think it's ethical for a man who makes 13,000,000 a year to pay a lower tax percentage than a middle class American making 50,000 dollars a year then you are seriously out of touch with the struggles the common man has to endure.
As far as Barack Obama's investments go I'll be honest with you I have no idea what he makes on a yearly basis, nor do I have the desire to Google it. However I do know that he only managed to pay off his student loans two years before his first presidential run and that before he became a senator he spent well over a decade as a community organizer earning city worker's salary.
There are some similarities between Obama and Romney, but common sense tells me income and wealth is not one of them.
This however I did find on Google after a 15 second search, enjoy.
Of the two candidates to choose from, lean towards Mitt Romney.
While the world was annoyed he did not review in income history, unless he broke the law and the IRS said so, I think it's none of the world’s business. If someone body asks how much I make, I say none of their business too. Since he is running for President, the only thing that is important is he hadn't broken the law.
Yes he is rich and has much money out of the country and much business overseas. These types of people in business deal with business and represent stock holders. They have an obligation to make a profit and yes follow the law too. If he has business overseas, it'ts to make a profit for his stock holders and the law allowed him to do so. If they want to keep more business in the USA, it has to be profitable and so the laws and taxes have to change, it’s just plane economics.
I do believe Mitt Romney has the knowledge to help our economy. I just wish to his more of his plan and less of two candidates slandering each other.
I think Obama is a good guy, but just does not have the tools to fix our economy.
I am so tired of hearing all the slander from both candidates!
Robot, I think you meant to direct that comment to Oakspar77777.
It's ok. I vented an opinion for anyone to read and or disagree.
PLEASE VOTE TODAY!
A person who makes $50k a year pays almost no income tax.
His rate is 15% (or $7.5k) from which he deducts $2k for a tax rate of about 11% and a $5.5k payment. Unless he pays a mortgage, donates more than $2k to charity, pays for college, or has kids.
Any of those would likely reduce his amount even lower. If he has $10k in mortgage interest and two kids, his tax rate is about 4%.
Romney's 15% capital gains rate (investment income) is after those investment already paid 20% corporate rates (for a tax rate of around 33%).
Do I think it is moral for someone who makes millions more than me to pay less than me? If it is legal, I don't expect the rich person to pay more when they do not have to - expecting them to would be immoral.
Do I think the tax code should be built so that I don't pay a higher % in taxes than those who are richer than I? Yes, preferably by reducing my tax rate.
What is immoral is that anyone should be able to benefit from the programs of the government and not pay ANY tax (18% of Americans). There are another 29% of Americans who pay payroll taxes (Social Security and Medicare), but no income tax (adding up to that infamous 47%).
Everyone deserves the privaledge of paying taxes and supporting the government of their country. If you complain about the rich and coorporations controling government - you have to ask yourself "who is funding government." If 18% fund nothing, and 47% only fund their own entitlement benefits - then you should expect a government run by the 53% of us who are paying for everything else.
This, of course, is why a Fair Tax (national sales tax) would be a great replacement of the Income Tax: no deductions, easier collection, and 100% participation.
I'm impressed, don't see many conservatives nowadays with a fondness for math, if you want to get into numbers though I'm happy to oblige :)
Between 1979 and 2007, the top earning 1 percent of Americans have seen their after-tax-and-benefit incomes grow by an average of 275%, compared to around 40-60% for the lower 99 percent.
Since 1979 the average pre-tax income for the bottom 90% of households has decreased by $900, while that of the top 1% increased by over $700,000.
From 1992-2007 the top 400 income earners in the U.S. saw their income increase 392% and their average tax rate reduced by 37%
During the economic expansion between 2002 and 2007, the income of the top 1% grew 10 times faster than the income of the bottom 90%. In this period 66% of total income gains went to the 1%, who in 2007 had a larger share of total income than at any time since 1928.[
In 2007 the richest 1% of the American population owned 34.6% of the country's total wealth, and the next 19% owned 50.5%. Thus, the top 20% of Americans owned 85% of the country's wealth and the bottom 80% of the population owned 15%.
And those are just the pre-recession figures, after the recession started back in 2008, the share of total wealth owned by the top 1% of the population grew from 34.6% to 37.1%, and that owned by the top 20% of Americans grew from 85% to 87.7%. The Great Recession also caused a drop of 36.1% in median household wealth but a drop of only 11.1% for the top 1%.
Now I know you love math, so you tell me, based on the percentage of this country's wealth that people in Mitt Romney income bracket control, do you honestly believe that a 15% tax rate is in any way shape or form a fair tax obligation given that most Americans in the bottom 80% are forced to pay a significantly higher percentage?
Counting down to 4 years later...