Mayor Bloomberg Speaks Out Against President Obama’s ‘Buffett Rule’

NEW YORK (CBSNewYork/AP) — Mayor Michael Bloomberg dismissed President Obama’s proposal to raise taxes on people who make more than a million dollars a year.

“The Buffett thing is just theatrics. If Warren Buffett made his money from ordinary income  rather than capital gains, his tax rate would be a lot higher than his secretary’s,” he said.

“I think it’s not fair to say that wealthy people don’t pay their fair share. They pay a much higher percentage of their income, they have a higher rate than people who make less,” Bloomberg added.

LISTEN: 1010 WINS’ Terry Sheridan reports

President Obama argues that the richest Americans generally pay a smaller share of taxes on their income because of lower rates on investment earnings.

Republicans call the Buffett Rule “class warfare.”

Mr. Obama left the White House Sunday for a Seattle fundraising trip where he told supporters the GOP would cripple America.

Bloomberg also said he thinks President Barack Obama could win re-election next year in spite of the country’s high unemployment rate, citing incumbency as one of his advantages.

“If I were the president, I’d go out there and I’d emphasize the things  I have done and I’d say some things haven’t worked and I’m sorry about but I’ll keep trying and I think the president is a very viable candidate and you’re going to have a real horse race here no matter who the Republican nominee is,” Bloomberg said.

Bloomberg was also asked if New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie would be a good candidate for the White House.

“I think he would be a credible, formidable candidate,” he said. “If you take a look at all the Republican field at the moment, there’s a number there who obviously don’t have a chance to influence the dialog or to be the nominee, but there are a number who do.”

But Bloomberg said that he probably won’t endorse a candidate. He didn’t make an endorsement in 2008.

(TM and Copyright 2011 CBS Radio Inc. and its relevant subsidiaries. CBS RADIO and EYE Logo TM and Copyright 2011 CBS Broadcasting Inc. Used under license. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.)

  • KPMc

    Michael Bloomberg’s personal fortune increased by $1.5 BILLION dollars in the last year.

    That is a gain of 1.5 BILLION in one year.

    My IMMA savings account will go from 3 dollars to 3 dollars.

    • midi-man

      I think you are wrong.
      You IMMA account will be hit with a fee since you do not have enough money in it. 3 Dollars will go to 2.50 Dollars. Bloomberg in fact will earn a nice interest rate.

      I am not saying the rich should pay for the people who do not want to work. But this is the middle class that cannot find jobs and did work. I just feel that the rich should pay the 3 % back to the country that gave them their wealth.
      Remember some of these are the CEO’s who have out sourced the jobs to India and China.

  • Stephen Schoenhoff

    Bloomberg’s not much of a student of political history. Historically, if the economy were the only problematic issues, Barry’s incumbency might be enough to eke out a win in a second term. However, whenever there has been an unpopular war or a major foreign policy gaffe in combination with a bad economy, the incumbent always loses. When there have been all three, in every case historically, this has led to a political revolution in which the ruling party not only loses power but loses a significant portion of its voting base. The last time we saw this happen was when millions of Democrats voted for Reagan. If Obama were to win re-election it would be the first time in the entire history of the nation that voters ignored economic and foreign policy mismanagement and not just one but three unpopular wars.

  • poorhardworker

    See,, Michael, I would normally agree with your advice about touting the positives…but there aren’t any! So what is he to do now..ObamaCare? Just another tax increase on people who cannot afford it (people who generate taxes that the wastrels spend frivolously .He can only do what he has been doing…blaming everyone else and vilifying everyone that doesn’t agree with his misguided vision for America…which is redistribution of wealth and raise taxes. It failed in other countries and will fail here.

  • DiegoT

    Warren Buffet is not only an atypical Billionaire, he is also an atypical person.

    Consider 1) WB is Rich but does not spend much money 2) Does not plan on leaving money to his kids or family 3) He is going to give his fortune to someone else to give to charity when he dies 4) He Treats making money as if it is a game

    Is WB really the best person ask about tax policy?

    There is no doubt that he is intelligent but so was Jimmy Carter.

    • taxpayer

      Warren Buffet will not leave his fortune to the government, he already made arrangements to give his estate to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

      His kids will not be getting much since he believes strongly that they should work and earn it.

      Why, because he doesn’t trust the government to spend it wisely!

    • Luke

      Honestly, he’s not all that atypical for first generation super-wealthy. In fact, it tends to be their MO. It’s usually the kids that live the extravagant life styles if mom and dad will allow it.

  • The Cryptojournalist

    This is theatrics in the respect that wealthy people know how to disperse their capital

  • Adam Smith

    If you took 100% of the earnings of the top 5% of the population – people earning $157,176 or above (well above Obama’s millionaires and billionaires) – you will find that they earned $895,117,000,000 – an amount well less than Obama’s deficit. Let me restate that. If everybody in the US who earned more than 157,176 or above paid 100% of everything they earned to the federal government (and that includes not paying their state and local taxes because they gave every dime they earned to the feds) AND assuming people could continue to work just as hard and earn just as much even though they earned nothing – it still could not pay for Obama’s deficits. Of course in the real world, people subjected to massive taxation shift their investing activities into non-taxable munis, retire, or just work less. Taxation is not the solution. Reducing spending is the solution. 

    • Roy N

      On the mark. Excellent comment.

    • arnoldripkin

      This is an argument Rush Limbaugh likes to point out. Notice the term “earning”. This does not include the billions “earned” from capital gains. That’s where the real money is. Why should a working man pay a higher percentage than the rich? Eliminate corporate tax and charge all income on the basis of the present income tax. At least that might help keep jobs here.

      • Luke

        Because that would be a net tax cut. Despite what you may believe, the majority of capital gains in this country are good old fashioned dividends, which have already been taxed at the 35% corporate rate. They are then further taxed 15% when they are disbursed to the owner for a net tax rate on capital gains of 50%.

        And you are correct, the number does not include capital gains. So let’s walk through including that number. The numbers are not easily available at the $157K mark, so let’s use households with household income above $200K. This amount is roughly $2.0 trillion Dollars. At the current tax rates, roughly 25% of this is paid in income and capital gains taxes. If you were to charge capital gains at the income tax rate, this would generate another $200 billion per year in taxes, leaving you $1.1 Trillion short of closing the current funding gap. In order to fully close the gap, you would need to charg a tax of 90% on both income and capital gains (which is still darn close the the 100% of income above that would not include the capital gains.)

        But here’s the kicker, if you were to increase the amount paid on capital gains, then companies would reduce their dividends because the best interest of the shareholders would be for them to find better ways to grow that investment at the much lower tax rate, which in turn would create the deficit to end all deficits. There is imperical proof of this, as evidenced by the fact that when the capital gains rate was cut to 15% companies increased the dividends they paid. Raising the rates back up would cause the opposite. The implications for this, especially on the groups that depend upon it the most (pension recipients) would be devastatingly profound.

      • mark


        Capital gains from what … the stock market is down … businesses are failing …

        • Luke

          Um… They’re called dividends. Just because your stocks are down does not mean that the company has stopped issuing dividends. In relationship to stock, capital gains are realized two different ways. One of those happen to be earnings disbursements, i.e. dividends.

          • Tommy

            Remember, before we can buy stocks and other “capital gains” investments we first have to pay ordinary income tax on the money we made in the first place. So add 35% to the 25%. It appears that both you and President Obama need an economics lesson.

    • Luke

      Kindly do not cloud the issue with facts. ;)

  • snowdog

    Ready . . . . this is how the rich keep getting richer and yes, they pay less than a secretary:
    Mayor Mike Bloomberg Salary = $1.00 for the YEAR based on Wikipedia

    According to 2011 IRS Federal tax brackets are:
    10% Federal and
    4% NY State so Bloomberg only pay .14 cents a year in INCOME TAXES! A true Genius!

    A secretary with a “real” salary, say $50,000 a year pays:
    25% Federal
    6.85% NY State so she pays almost 32% on a salary of 50,000 which is $16,000 in income taxes. Sucks for her.

    Who’s the one getting screwed? Of course Bloomberg is worth $18.1 BILLION but hey, it’s NOT his SALARY. The only thing he has to pay are Long Term Capital gain which are taxed at 15%. Still LESS than your secretary who is getting hit with 25% Federal.

    • Tommy

      Remember, he paid more than 35% when he earned his money in the first place. What do you want to do now? Tax the remaining money in his savings account for 35% every year? Get a job snowdog.

    • Certified Public Accountant

      Wow.. some people think they are so smart using bits and pieces of information. Yes, 25% tax rate for 50,000.. BUT NOT SALARY.. its taxable income, which takes into consideration the standard deductions and personal exemptions and credits and and filing statuses.. What if that secretary was married and had 5 kids and took care of 2 parents.. thats a standard deduction of 11400 for married filing joint, minus 25,550 for the personal exemptions of 5 kids and 2 parents, plus the earned income credits, plus additional child tax credits.. that drops the taxable income to under 10,000ish.. then you account for the federal and state taxes withheld from paychecks which are callculated to cover for taxes at the end of the year.. so it could be that the taxabale income is 0.. hence a refund.. or if there is a few hundred or thousand.. tax rate = 10%.. no where near the 25% or 16000 in income taxes…

    • jekyllisland

      That’s why the Obama plan is a joke – it call for raising taxes on Income from Wages not from Capital gains.

      Are you advocating this plan to go forth? If so you are asking to pay even more in taxes while the wealthy will pay the same or less.

      Wake up please

    • MidwestJim

      Hey Snowdog,

      Because you make really silly comments like yours – could you at least do 30 seconds of research first?? Someone with a 50,000 gross income does NOT pay 25% of their income in Federal taxes. The marginal rates on the majority of their income is FAR less than that – all you have to do is to google “IRS Tax Tables” to see that even in the “worst case”, a single secretary with no mortgage deduction only pays about $8500 in federal taxes. When you factor in even standard deductions, let alone itemized deductions, they will end up paying well under $10,000 total – NOT $16,000.

    • Luke

      The income he is paying the LTCG rate on was already taxed at the 35% corporate rate before he received it, so total tax on the income = 50%, not 15%. From a taxation perspective, he would be far better off if he invested in privately held companies that are LLCs or S-Corps where his tax rate would be 35% instead due to the pass-through taxation nature of those entities. 15% LTCG tax on dividends = tax solely due to the choice of owning a publicly traded entity with 10s of thousands of owners vs. owning privately held company with dozens of owners.

      • Phil McCrauck

        Good simple explanation, but I still doubt the liberals will understand.

    • Oliver

      The money was taxed when he first made it, libbie, at a much higher rate than 14%. Learn how taxes, income, and money from investments actually work. Man, I’m so sick of people trying to take things from other people because they “deserve” it.

  • jerseyjoey

    Oh Ok folks, let me type this in basic english, fed taxes are not the Only taxes, Again duhh duhh duhh and a big Duh, Lets delve deeper into this great deception supported by the rich tax dodging classes, humm as the one million aire says to another ( why do you think god created CPA’s and tax lawyers HaHaha for the poor) no for the rich cheats whom if you idiots can recall the Gov went after 2 years ago and the swiss banks where turning in for YES tax evasion. So how about state taxes, ciggerette taxes, liquar taxes, Property taxes, SALES TAXES, road n bridge taxes ETC ETC ETC, and we the Other 70% pay that every day, so if you whinning dems or rep rich cant deal with it, Move away we dont need your hoarded money anyway. OMG i almost forgot Bankruptcy 13 11 7 too yet another tool created for all but used by the wealthy.

    • Luke

      From a private citizen perspective, bankruptcy is used far more frequently by the poor and middle class, and it’s not even close.

      As far as the other taxes. The rich pay them too, and usually in greater amounts (Well, except maybe the cigarettes). But the one thing that distinguishes those taxes are you have some hand in determining how much you pay. Want to pay less in liquor taxes? Drink less. Want less in property taxes? Buy a cheaper house. Taxes on the rich are arbitrarily set at a higher level because they have more. I’m not saying that it’s wrong. Just that it’s arbitrary.

      As far as not needing the rich and their “hoarded money”. That’s just plain short-sighted. Taxes from those hoards generates more income tax revenue than the bottom 40% of taxpayers combined. You need and want that tax base. Because at the end of the day, the rich pay for a lot of services they will never personally consume.

    • j

      wah, wah… how many cpa’s and lawyers and all their respective employees do the “poor” employ? Your class-hating is stupid.

  • Eliot

    Buffet owes over $1 BILLION in back taxes that he refuses to pay, and the government is letting him get away with it! OF COURSE he want to raise taxes; he knows that HE won’t have to pay them!

    • Tommy

      Do you really believe that?

  • Ben Dover

    Yes it is theatrics. Buffet could very easily cut the IRS a check for whatever amount in extra “taxes” he wishes to pay. There is no law that says a citizen cannot voluntarily pay extra taxes.

  • Kevin Pearson

    For once I agree with Bloomberg, which is a shock. It is just theatre because no body gives any chance of this tax being implemented. All this is, is campaign theatre and Buffet getting his exemption from ObamaCare.

    Everyone knows that the “superrich” do not pay income tax because they have their assets set up in trusts and tax free munis, and so increases in income taxes doesn’t affect them because they already have their money, but they love to raise income taxes on everyone else so they cannot become rich and join their exclusive “club”

    • Luke

      This is patently false. The super-rich pay taxes. Trusts created for the pure purpose of avoiding taxes are illegal and catch up with you almost 100% of the time. Most of the loop-holes that permitted them were closed long ago, though this does not stop the perpetuation of the myth. As far as raising taxes for everyone else, when’s the last time a low wage earner actually received a tax increase? Especially if you consider the “special credits” that usually accompany any such hike.

      As far as the tax-free munis, this deal was struck for the advantage of the municipalities and not the super-rich. If the owners had to pay taxes on them, then the interest rates for the municipalities would be 35% higher due to the people buying them requiring a 35% greater interest rate to keep them whole. It’s basic market math.

  • bertaggle

    why should anyone in america want to work? you are taxed for working!! how can anyone justify that especially in this country where you are supposed to be free. you people need to wake up!!

    • CantStandMorons

      Of course!! We should pay no taxes at all! We don’t need roads! We don’t need Airports! We don’t need ANY of the stuff that the taxes (albeit only a portion of them) go to paying!! Let’s focus only on the waste and pay no attention at all to the good things done with tax dollars because that’s what Americans do! We get our news from talking heads and remain absolutely myopic on the few trees and IGNORE the forest! GREAT IDEA BERT! [/end sarcasm]

      • Luke

        Except for the federal highway system, the majority of these items are funded locally. Most people don’t argue against taxes when they are used for the benefit of all. They usually only argue against it when it is for the benefit of some, and they are not part of that some.

      • Ben Dover

        But why spend billions on a forest when It should only actually cost thousands?

    • Vince

      It’s too late bert. They’ll be no waking up until the revolution begins.

  • GigaWatts

    Outside of a Fair Tax (consumption tax) or a Flat Tax, here’s what I’d suggest. If you are not a retiree, and making your money purely off of Investments (in turn only paying capital gains), then your rate should rise to the income rate of your tax bracket. Otherwise, leave the system already in place. Those who are making income and paying income at the 35% rate, and have investments, should not be charged at the 15% capital gains rate, but instead the normal 15% rate.

    Some may reply that retirees should not be paying taxes; however, if they have investments that require a capital gains tax, then that means that those investments are returning income, and just as everyone else can be taxed, just at the lower rate.

    • Kevin Pearson

      How do you define retirees? If you are making all of your money purely off investments, then you are a retiree.

      That’s what “retirement” means, It means that you have assets generating enough income that no other income is needed. In other words, you have just just changed “jobs” from having a job title bestowed on you by some employer, to being a manager of your own assets

      Retirement does not mean that you reach a certain age. That is the government’s idea and it is completely arbitrary.

      • GigaWatts

        So by your definition, Warren Buffett is a retiree? What I mean is that they have retired from the job market, and are now living on their “retirement”.

        • Kevin Pearson

          He still holds a title as CEO – which means he still is an employee and draws a salary, and stills has a secretary and has an office to go to.

          And you have a lifer from the Air-Force receiving a military pension but still working as a manager or a foreman.
          Or you can have someone retired from one job and own a small print shop on the side. Or a retired journalism professor that owns a small town newspaper, because publishing a newspaper is his passion but the newspaper is his own investment.

          See it really isn’t easy to define “retiree”. so your input is pointless

          • GigaWatts

            Have you mentioned anything on the Capital Gains? No, sure didn’t. Retirees, are those who do not work for a living, and have left the work force, thos who may have invested in something so that they could live off of it otherwise. Those could be paying the Capital gains tax as is, yet those who are still working, yet retired from the military, are still employed, and unless they’re paying capital gains tax, then it has nothing to do with my point.

            Even if, as in your example, a retired journalism professor owns a small town newspaper, he is still employed, and paying the standard taxes as is anyway if he is making money off of that newspaper (if not there’d be fraud involved).

            My point on the “retiree” portion, is that those folks living solely off of their investments, and are not employed (aka not part of a company, either in their name or otherwise) would be taxed at the regular rate, but those who are, for example, hedge fund managers making money purely off their investments, but still employed, would pay the higher rate for their capital gains. Any additional income they might have would be taxed at the appropriate tax bracket.

          • jekyllisland

            Actually Kevin since 2008 Buffett has “refrained” from taking a salary as not to appear as greedy in such harsh economic times such as these.

            Thus he has no income from wages so he pays zero taxes to the Income Tables and pays only 10% – 15% on income from Capital gains.

            Why do you think the guys who ran GM after Obama took over were only happy enough to earn just $1 a year for a whole bunch of stock?

            And yes they sold out of it exactly one year later

    • bertaggle

      no one should be paying taxes on income no matter how it is made!!!!

  • Vince

    Owe-bama relies on ignorance of the people. There are 235,000 millionaires in this country. They pay 20% of ALL TAXES. They make up only one quarter of one percent of workers in the entire nation. How does that equate to them not paying “their fair share”?

    • VaDAve

      Now let’s not let the facts get in the way of good campaign rhetoric!

  • windy

    1st Question: Does Buffet believe what he is saying or is he looking for an opportunity to make more $$$$?

    2nd Question: Buffet & Gates donated over $60 Billion. Did he do this because he believes in the foundation or is he dodging paying taxes by investing in a foundation where he has complete control over the $$ he donated? where he can withdraw it at any time?

    Last Question: Buffet started Berkshire that is a conglomerate of corporations that were purchased on the cheap because they were failing but had a strong business model. If Buffet get’s his way, will there be more “buying” opportunities because more small business are being put out of business?

    • Daisy

      You’re correct. Mr. Buffet can avoid paying death tax by giving the money to a foundation. If he truly believes that the government can spend our money better than we can, why doesn’t he just leave that fortune to the government?

      • Luke

        Only by giving it to a qualifying foundation. You can’t give it to the foundation for the support of Warren Buffet’s pocket book. As far as being better able to spend his money, I don’t think that’s a statement that ever left Buffet’s lips. He’s only said the rich should pay their fair share of the public burden. You can do that through taxes or by contributing to foundations that work for the public good. Some would argue that the latter is doing far more good.

    • mark

      To the first question; it’s a scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours. Millioniare Buffet will rally behind Obama and champion raising taxed on the rich, helping insite class warfare. In return, Obama will not allow anyone to raise the Capital Gains Tax were Buffet really makes all his money. Truely wealthy people are smart and don’t pay that much in taxes. Yes, they may have million dollar salaries but the equity they also get paid is worth more. If they get a million shares of stock worth $100 each and sell them when the shares drop to $99 each, they get to report a tax loss against everything they’ve earned. Sweet, isn’t it!

      • Luke

        That’s not even close to correct. When they receive their grants, they pay their income tax rate against the market value of said stock grants (Stock options are similarly handled.) So when they go to sell the shares for $99/share, that they paid at their 35% rate on the $100/share, they then get to subtract $1/share * 15% LTCG rate from their current tax liability.

  • Josh

    48% of Americans pay NOTHING in federal income taxes. Any amount and any percentage is greater than this. These people have no investment in the government, and their mindset is to get as much out of the system as possible without being a productive member of society in any way whatsoever. “Fair share” is just code for the top 10% that funds 70% of our government should be funding the remaining 30% as well.

    • Vince

      You’re too generous Josh. The top 10% pay 86% of all federal taxes. The top 5% pay 70%. And the top 0,25% pays 20%. Those are the millionaires.

      • Harold Lowe


        The 10% of households with the highest incomes pay more than half of all federal taxes. They pay more than 70% of federal income taxes, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

        • Luke

          That statistic cuts both ways. They also make more than half of the country’s taxable income.

    • GigaWatts

      I agree mostly, but the only rebuttal is that some of this 48% also includes retirees who have paid their share in… but I do not have the numbers on how much of that 48% are those retirees.

  • I may be a birther but at least I'm not a forger

    20 years of listening to Rev. Wright will do that to you…

  • Hank Warren

    Endless tax increases for ALL, yet another violation of our rights. Add it to the list of gov’t violations of our rights:
    They violate the 1st Amendment by placing protesters in cages, banning books like “America Deceived II” and censoring the internet.
    They violate the 2nd Amendment by confiscating guns.
    They violate the 4th and 5th Amendment by molesting airline passengers.
    They violate the entire Constitution by starting undeclared wars for foreign countries.
    Impeach Obama, vote for Ron Paul.
    (Last link of Banned Book):

  • jerseyjoey

    Of course Duhhhh hes a billionaire jew Duhhhhhhhh

    • JustGettingDumberReading

      You moron, Warren Buffet is about as jewish as Mel Gibson! And, for the record to the “RealKing” of stupidity below, pay attention to the news cycle and less attention to the FoxNews ticker and you would see that a bunch of “American Jews” in NY just ousted a Democrat in favor of a republican.

      The only “mindless” thing I have read on here is that nobody should pay taxes. How do you think we have the little things that we take for granted like, oh, I don’t know, the POLICE or the HIGHWAYS or the FAA?????? Do you people know anything about civics?

      • bubbles

        Dumber you are the type that would ask in a socialist country “how do you think we have things like food and housing without the government taking all the money we earn?”
        Roads and air traffic control are among many things proposed to become privatized including even law enforcement. While I’m not necessarily advocating for all of them here, it is silly for you to assume that they can’t exist without the government doing it.
        Nobody paying taxes is a lot less silly than some paying taxes and not others. Besides why should anyone be taxed at all for just working?

    • gavin

      What does Jew have to do with anything?

      • TheRealKingMax


        Aside from American Jews being hopelessly and mindlessly linked to supporting communist Democrats obsessed with destroying the United States, I see absolutely no connection in jerseyjoe’s comment..

        • bertaggle

          and you think the repubs aren’t out to destroy america???? wake up!!

  • Jsmith

    Of course Buffett’s statements are all theater.

    If he were serious, he’d write a check instead of giving speeches –there’s no rule against paying more.

  • cv

    Obama supporters are all brain dead. Bloomturd is a super rich liberal, like most of the super rich and Obama and his life is the definition of theatrics.

  • Jack


  • taxpayer

    Just reading these comments should be clear why we are having economic problems.

    The old British union boss when seeing the boss drive a Rolls Royce, remarked that “we will take that car from him!”

    The American worker on seeing his boss drive a Cadillac (before it became GOVERNMENT MOTORS) used to say “what do I have to do to get me a car like that!”

    The top 10% of earners pay 70% of federal taxes.

    Almost 50% of workers pay NO federal taxes!

    And look at all the comments of those who so willingly want to put their hands into other peoples pockets.

    • jerseyjoey

      You are leaving out the simple fact that fed taxes are not the only taxes. DFA

      • Christine Guinn

        Doesn’t matter. The top 10% STILL pay more than the bottom 50%, even if you include all other federal taxes.

  • snapper

    Maybe Buffet took a page out of the Treasury Secretary’s playbook and just cheats.

    • Klaus

      I say tax Buffett’s capital gains at ordinary income rates. Plus institute an asset tax on billionaires. A big assett tax, like 90%. And end their tax-exempt sham organizations. They’re not charity organizations, they’re policy-making tax shelters. The world will not end if billionaires are taxed into extinction.

      • Christine Guinn

        If he really feels that he is not paying enough, nothing is stopping Mr. Buffett from writing a BIG check to the IRS! The IRS accepts donations.

      • Jsmith

        More class warfare.

        If you’re truly angry that his secretary pays more than he does, then why not tax them BOTH at the lower rate?

        • Poor Economics Student

          Why would anyone want to work hard to become a billionaire?

          I would like to see how much Buffet has paid in his lifetime in taxes.
          He paid a lot of money in taxes to get the money that he makes money with(“evil investment income”).

          Everyone should research double-taxation

          • Klaus

            You’re never gonna be a billionaire. Work doesn’t get you there. Insider deals get you there. Tax Buffett and Bloomberg into oblivion. Leave the rest of us alone.

            • Kevin Pearson

              You’ll never be a billlionaire because the tax code is set up by super rich Liberal Democrats to prevent anyone from becoming rich and joining their exclusive club

  • JayT

    It’s amazing in this country how u can fool the people, claim lies and half truths and dupe at least half of the voters into following u….. sad state.

  • Jay

    You guys are delusional. I’m not a Republican but Obama has done nothing to improve the economy. Zip, zilch, zero. He had a super majority in both houses when he took office and wasted the opportunity. I’m not going to blindly support a guy who clearly has no idea what he’s doing.

  • RichGetRicher

    Ready . . . . this is how the rich keep getting richer and yes, they pay less than a secretary:
    Mayor Mike Bloomberg Salary = $1.00 for the YEAR.

    According to 2011 IRS Federal tax brackets are:
    10% Federal and
    4% NY State so Bloomberg only pay .14 cents a year in INCOME TAXES! A true Genius!

    A secretary with a “real” salary, say $50,000 a year pays:
    25% Federal
    6.85% NY State so she pays almost 32% on a salary of 50,000 which is $16,000 in income taxes. Sucks for her.

    Who’s the one getting screwed? Of course Bloomberg is worth $18.1 BILLION but hey, it’s NOT his SALARY. The only thing he has to pay are Long Term Capital gain which are taxed at 15%. Still LESS than your secretary who is getting hit with 25% Federal. (

  • ennovy53

    any working man who pays taxes and have a mortgage and is a republican is a fool.

    • Kevin Pearson

      So what you are saying is that the 48% that pay no taxes and live in the projects should all be Republican?

    • mugsy

      uuummm, response not needed

    • Jsmith

      Anyone is doesn’t pay taxes and has someone else paying his mortgage is a democrat.

      OK, now where did this exchange get us? Nowhere. We need solutions, not accusations.

    • Please open your eyes!

      Anyone who uses sweeping generalizations to label individuals a fool is just that.

      Do you not get that the democrat and republican parties are hijacked?

      Is it not weird to you that Bush and Obama had/have the exact same foreign policies? Is it not weird to you that they both spent money in the same manner?

      Is it not weird to you that you have become so indoctrinated to think “right” when you hear/see Democrat and to think “wrong” when you hear/see Republican?

      Is it not weird to you that one of our two parties hates abortion but loves killing criminals and that the other hates killing criminals yet sees no harm in letting a mother kill her unborn child? Just one of many inconsistancies as they had to draw arbitrary party lines amongst social litmus tests.


      The divisiveness you are exemplifying is exactly what the agenda creaters want! Black/White, Illegal immigrant/legal immigrant, pro-life/pro-choice, blue/red…..ALL DISTRACTIONS

      The two party system has taken away much of our actual choice and has blinded most of us(YOU) into fighting amongst ourselves.

      Please watch Ferris Bueller’s Day off and learn not to believe in an ism before you believe in yourself. And listen to me wen I say do not believe in an ism before you believe in humanity.

      Dont hate someone because they are brainwashed differently then you. Hate the brainwash!

    • Jack

      Typical Liberal lack of logic. Anyone who pays taxes, doesn’t leach off the government and votes democrat is a fool.

      Show me a young Conservative and I’ll show you someone with no heart. Show me an old Liberal and I’ll show you someone with no brains. – Winston Churchill

      • GigaWatts

        I guess that I have no heart, or maybe just developed my brain before I could have… nah, I think that instead I grew up being taught that personal responsibility is an asset, and that there is no reason to USE assistance unless you absolutely have no other choice.

        I’m not even 30, and I pay taxes, and have a mortgage, and vore Republican more often then not. Mostly because I look at the facts and purposes behind decisions, not talking points and propaganda (from both sides).

    • steve

      Ennovy53: Why is that so obvious to you and me? Why do people seemingly vote against their own self intrests?

      • Oliver

        I am a Republican, with a mortgage, who has probably had times in my life where I’m sure I was poorer than either of you have ever been. I’ve always voted my principles. You probably think that if you don’t have cable you’re on skid row. The truth is that even though some in my family have and would qualify for government assistance, we don’t take it. If you need a mommy and daddy to help you go find one, and don’t turn the government into a parental unit. Principles over self-interests – something the liberal mind cannot grasp.

        • Steve

          Personal responsibility is lost to a liberal…it’s always the other guys fault they are poor.

  • roy

    Looks like the King of NYC is scared s*h*i*t about having to let go of a couple of millions. For someone who recently upped his fortune another billion he should be paying up… about time.

    • Oliver

      Yes, yes, Roy. I’m sure you had so much to do with Bloomberg’s success that you should get some of his money. When the return on investing in domestic markets is even further diminished, by things such as taxes, and a sluggish economy that the government cripples by taking more money out of, where do “rich” people invest their money? Anywhere but here, or in something that is tax-free, is the answer. Then, everyone’s investments, retirement, etc, go down even further than they have already.

  • goblin

    Uh oh, looks like someone is scared to pay more on his billions.

    • Oliver

      Goblin, do you think that you get to reach into Bloomberg’s bank account? You forget that money has already been taxed. The government doesn’t get to reach into his pocket on that money until he dies and they take about half like grave-robbers. However, I’m sure that you’d support a way to just take money straight out of accounts. Will you scream bloody murder when it happens to you? (Although, I know the chances of you being a productive member of society is probably minimal.)

  • Dakotahgeo, Pastor/Chaplain

    Double, TRIPLE Obama/Biden in 2012!!! No more Bush/Cheney traitors/ TEA-publicans to further ruin our country!!!

    • TheRealKingMax

      Dakotahgeo, Pastor/Chaplain/Assclown slobbered, “Double, TRIPLE Obama/Biden in 2012!!! No more Bush/Cheney traitors/ TEA-publicans to further ruin our country!!!”.

      Dakotahgeo, anyone who supports such a traitorous, destructive chunk of human waste like Obama has NO right to run around calling true Americans “traitors”. YOU ARE THE PROBLEM, and the traitor.

      And I treat traitors like any other enemy of my country.

      I strongly advise that you go back to your ghetto and SHUT UP.

    • Jack

      You need to add Socialist Leach to your name. Get a real job and pay your taxes.


  • Bushelfoote

    A CHANCE??? The people who ran us all into the ditch are the same people who also wouldn’t sign off on unemployment until they got ANOTHER tax cut….Why do they insist on being called “Job Creators” when that is NOT the case….unless you count all the jobs they’ve created in foreign countries using tax incentives to outsource AMERICAN jobs….Obama is doing good cleaning up the mess he found when he got there…..and we are feeling better…but to me he’s not done yet…..Obama in 2012!!!

    • Mikey

      Whatever you say, liberal. Just keep ignoring the 110th congress and all the damage they did.

      Never mind the fact that when Queen Pelosi took control of the gavel in January 2007, we had 5.4% unemployment and an annual deficit under 400 billion. Fast forward to 2010 and after only 4 years of democrat rule in congress we have over 9% unemployment and an annual deficit of 1.5 TRILLION.

      But yeah, you’re right, it’s all that evil Bush’s fault…..

    • Jack

      If Bush ran the car into the ditch, Obama pulled it out …filled it with the American public and ran it off a cliff.

    • midi-man

      Agreed Obama 2012. Let him finish and teach congress and the house they had better get along with him and get our country fixed.

      Also I need to see how Bloomberg will feel when he get his tax increase. This mad man had made me pay more, now it’s his turn. Only difference is Bloomberg has it to pay I do not.

      • gavin

        Aside from the fact that the man pays far more taxes than you will ever pay in your whole life, he gives more money to charity than you will ever make in your life. Stop looking to be a parasite and start helping yourself.

      • Jsmith

        Sorry — not going to vote for a dictatorship where the president “teaches congress a lesson”.

        You are right that you should pay lower taxes, but Bloomberg doesn’t control the federal income tax. Obama does, and he’s cranking it up on all of us who pay.

        • Luke

          Last time I checked, Congress determines the tax rates. Not the president. Congress makes the laws. The president and his branch enforce the rules.

        • m

          You must make bloombergs money since if Obama Passes this bill it will not effect me. I do not make a Million. Do you?

blog comments powered by Disqus
Giving Tuesday
Charles Osgood Event

Listen Live