This post was contributed by a community member. The views expressed here are the author's own.

Health & Fitness

A Response to the State of the Dis-Union!

Mr. Obama might be fooling a large part of the people most of the time, but he is not fooling all the people!

We’ve heard a lot lately about so-and-so’s income and tax burden. Actually, it’s not just some generic so-and-so, rather, it gets very specific. We’ve been told what Mitt Romney earned and all about his tax liability, but is anybody curious about who was responsible for determining that tax liability? In another vein, we’ve learned that Warren Buffet’s secretary pays a higher tax rate than her boss, but we lack specifics about the woman who sat with the First Lady while they listened to Barack Obama deliver his State of the Union address.

So, in an attempt to clear the air, let’s try to get into some of the more boring specifics concerning who makes what and what they pay in taxes, i.e., let’s do away with all the smoke and mirrors.

First, in the way of full disclosure: This blog is not to be construed in any way as an endorsement for any candidate, Republican or Democrat. In fact, to be more transparent yet, I have never voted for any Democrat in my 40 years of voting with the exception of once voting for a Democratic candidate for Camden County sherriff.

Find out what's happening in Gloucester Townshipwith free, real-time updates from Patch.

Furthermore, as some have tried to imply, it is not because I am a racist that I would not vote for Mr. Obama. I am proud to be a social and fiscal conservative with libertarian leanings. It would be anathema for me to even consider casting a vote for a candidate that supported abortion. In fact, can anybody think of anything more despicable than a sitting president of the United States stating that he wants abortion to be freely available to our daughters so that they can have the same opportunities in life as our sons? Obama, it seems, would sanction the extermination of his own grandchild if it was thought that the existence of such would somehow limit the choices one of his daughters might want to make to further their career. Search the history books and show me one civilization that survived with such a mentality. Maybe you read the Bible, maybe you don’t; the point is that the killing of one’s young is considered a curse. As a nation we are bringing down a curse on ourselves when we sanction and participate in such activity.

Let us cut to the chase. Mitt Romney earned $21 million in 2010. Romney’s $21 million was not earned income; it was capital gains and interest earnings. Based on law put in place by Democratic president Bill Clinton, capital gains are taxed at 15 percent (Romney actually paid an effective rate of 13.9 percent). Romney’s earnings are expected to be similar in 2011 but his tax rate will rise to 15.4 percent. Part of the thinking here that prompted Clinton to sign such legislation into law was the fact that when capital gains are reinvested it is good for business and serves as venture capital. The alternative, when the tax is too high, is that the money is invested outside of the country.

Find out what's happening in Gloucester Townshipwith free, real-time updates from Patch.

Clinton, the authorizer of the 15 percent capital gains tax rate, earned $10.7 million in 2010 on the speaking circuit. This was his best year yet since leaving office in 2001, the total earnings of which now stand at $75.6 million…for speaking.

Consider that Mr. Romney did not inherit his money. It was earned in business and he was taxed on his earnings while he worked. He no longer works in that manner and his income is now all based on interest and capital gains. Clinton, on the other hand, has earned most of his money by profiting from his position as president and receives large stipends for offering his services to speak in that context. To my knowledge no one else other than Clinton himself benefited substantially from the income that he generated; in other words, zilch in the area of job creation unlike the results of Romney’s time in business.

Our second person of interest who has been in the news lately is Debbie Bosenak. She is Warren Buffet’s secretary of whom we have been informed lately has paid taxes at a higher rate then her billionaire boss. OK, what’s the deal here? A Google “average salary for a secretary” search returned this (check it out when you're done reading here). The highest non-medical or legal secretary position, “Secretary III,” reports a national average salary in the U.S. at $43,715 per year. The 10 percent point is at $35,305 and the 90 percent point is at $53,413. So, we are all astounded and outraged when we hear that the billionaire Warren Buffet pays taxes at a lower percentage than his secretary. And that’s really all the information we are given. Is that all there is to be known about this situation?

Look, I’m the first one that will say that our tax code is a complete train wreck and anybody that defends it does not have a leg to stand on. The 2011 tax code (“Title 26” of the United States Code) is comprised of more than 72,000 pages. Do you understand what that entails for a business owner? No one would dispute the fact that if a normal business submitted its yearly receipts and accounts payable to 10 different tax lawyers and/or tax accountants that they would come up with 10 different tax liability statements. Why is that?

Regarding our present dilemma, two additional points are instructive. Mr. Buffet, the billionaire who has stated that he should be paying more taxes, surely takes advantage of every loophole he can to reduce his tax burden. If he was really concerned over not paying enough in federal taxes, he has two readily available options to remedy that. Buffet is more than welcome to write out a check to the IRS. The IRS accepts just such payments from individuals who would like to contribute money towards our debt. If Buffet was not so disingenuous he would do that, but, alas, that is not the case.

But there is another option. Mr. Buffet can limit the number of loopholes he utilizes that reduces his tax rate below his secretary’s rate and thus not feel so guilty about paying such a low percentage, but, alas, that will not be forthcoming either.

Finally, and here is the hypocrisy of it all, Mr. Buffet knows, as well Mr. Obama, who has agreed to be part of this ploy, that Buffet (world’s third-richest person) is the CEO of Berkshire Hathaway (world’s eighth-largest public company), a company that is currently in arrears for its corporate taxes going back to 2002 through 2004 and 2005 through 2009. It is not a far-right-wing conspiracy that has made all this up; this is information contained in the Huffington Post, not your average bastion of conservative comment and news reporting.

Finally, Debbie Bosenak, Mr. Buffet’s secretary, has stated that she is just an “average citizen” and wants a fair tax system for all. In fact, Debbie sees herself as some type of representative secretary standing up for all her friends, a so-called “voice” of the average citizen. It is reported that Debbie pays taxes at the rate of 35.8 percent while her boss, Mr. Buffet, pays at the rate of 17 percent.

Well, we know what’s up with Mr. Buffet and all his pontificating, but what’s up with Debbie? Surely a secretary earning even a top rate of, say, $55,000 per year should not be in the top tax bracket. What’s up? With all the stammering coming out of the White House and the scandal of a poor little secretary paying a higher tax rate than her billionaire, tax-cheating CEO boss, have you read anywhere that Debbie owns two homes but is too poor to buy a third home? Would any of the propaganda coming out of the White House and the liberal media inform you that the Bosenak’s combined income was between $200,000 and $500,000 per year? Lo and behold, Ms. Bosenak is part of the One Percent. Her real problem is that she has not yet discovered the methods of manipulating the tax system that her boss has perfected over the years. And are we to feel sorry for Ms. Bosenak? The fact is that Ms. Bosenak falls into a tax bracket of people who earn more than $200,000 but less than $500,000. Maybe Mr. Buffet should take some of his tax savings and give her a raise so she can get into his lower tax bracket. BTW, all of this information was available to Mr. Obama before he began this ploy yet he continues to spur us all on to wage class warfare. In fact, in a continuation of the scam our president is perpetuating, Mr. Obama chose to prominently display the poor little secretary in the First Lady’s box to listen to his State of the Union address beside Mrs. Obama, who was adorned in a $2,000 outfit. Hypocrites, every one!

Look, it’s reported (IRS) that 1,400 millionaires paid no income taxes whatsoever in 2009. Is raising taxes on the rich really an answer to our present dilemma when these 1,400 pay nothing at all now? Mr. Obama, authorize a simplification of the tax code and stop with all the rhetoric when most of your rich friends probably pay little to no taxes already. You seem so concerned about establishing some kind of income equality, Mr. Obama, so let’s start here with a little equal justice under the law.

You might be fooling a large part of the people most of the time, Mr. Obama, but you are not fooling all the people, sir!

We’ve removed the ability to reply as we work to make improvements. Learn more here

The views expressed in this post are the author's own. Want to post on Patch?