How can a President of the United States impose taxes?

My understanding of the US Constitution is that taxation is solely the prerogative of the Congress.

The President has limited latitude as to how to allocate the funds authorised, AFAIK.

Maybe I'm wrong?

I think it's more like impose tax breaks for the wealthy, and that's the problem! Warren Buffett wants himself and his fellow "Mega Rich" fellows to pay more taxes. http://www.forbes.com/sites/susanadams/2012/11/26/doesnt-anyone-disagree-with-warren-buffett-about-taxes/

Here's how the wealth is distributed in the US now.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM

The solution is so simple... tax the rich, invest in the middle class and we all pay more taxes in the long run, simply because we all have higher incomes.

Yes... increasing taxes on the rich makes them wealthier!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKCvf8E7V1g

Wow- so much misinformation.

If Buffett wanted to pay his taxes, he wouldn't be fighting the IRS right now, and he would also be donating money to the government.

You forget, it's every american's right and responsibility to pay as little tax as is allowed. The problem is, our tax code is so difficult to interpret that if you give the same information to 12 different CPA's, you'll get 12 different returns. It's time for a flat tax.

I agree with that. If you did that though, you'd have a ton of CPA's looking for new jobs.

And a myriad others: tax lawyers, Federal employees etc, all of whose lobbyists would militate against reform.
The Politicians also of course - the convoluted tax laws enable them to obtain exemptions for some of their constituents/contributors etc.

Ever hear of "The Fair Tax"?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DsqjW3_5Lhw

BTW, Western Europe is more or less as bad as the US, some countries a bit better, some same, some worse.

Not really, most people think CPA's only make their living preparing income tax returns. That would be H&R Block, Liberty Tax.. etc.

CPA's make a ton of income auditing non-profit organizations. Those who don't pay income taxes at all, but still must file informational returns. In order to keep their non-profit status they must invest their fund raising properly, and not pay their directors exorbitant salaries, unlike for-profit corporations. The very best CPA's make money throughout the year reviewing financial statements and advising business owners. If we do have a flat tax, that tax will still be based on net income, so... we need to have careful record keeping and sound financial statements to base that on. (Bookkeepers like me are insured a job in a flat-tax environment.)

Warren Buffet pays an effective tax rate of only 17%. The people who pay the highest (% of income) taxes are those who work for an hourly wage. The poorest amongst us. While I do understand that there are those who take advantage of welfare, etc... When a family of four with two full-time working parents who must also pay daycare, must rely on welfare to make ends meet. That's just wrong.

Tax the rich, raise the hourly wages, get people off welfare. Invest in the middle class. It's been proven time and again that "trickle-down" economics does not work. The rich only create more jobs when the demand for their product or service increases. No one creates jobs for the fun of it, to throw money out the window? No... they create jobs only when they are motivated by profits.

With the middle class having a larger discretionary % of income, their spending will create greater demand, and therefore more jobs... "bottom-up" economics.

No, I think the ones who will suffer most in a flat-tax system will be the "Arts" and those non-profits who rely on tax deductible contributions to operate. How do we accomplish the flat income tax and still fund the non-profits? Now that's the question to ponder.

I have a fundamental issue with public funding (from our taxes) of the Arts, non profits, etc.

Such activities are good, no argument, but why should anyone be forced to contribute money to a particular work of art that some politician considers worthy? Ultimately,at the point of a gun, unless you go to jail without protest when the IRS turns the Justice Dept. on you?

If those activities deserve support, might be that some people would fund them voluntarily?

If not...?

They are being funded privately now, and the amount you contribute is a tax deductible expense. If we adopt a flat tax, there will be no more tax loop-holes, no more deductions for giving to charity, or the Arts.

I work for a non-profit. Most of our revenue comes directly from the government- state and federal.

Interesting... the non-profits I've worked with had to fundraise. Oh, are you talking about government grants? I can see where there'd be politics involved there.

I once helped a gentleman get a 503c started from scratch, it was a lot of work, and something you just need to have a driving passion to do, more-so than starting your own for-profit business.

All the non-profits I've worked for have relied heavily on private donations. The five-county food bank in Tucson gets 94% of its $54 million budget from private donors. Less than 5% comes from the government.