Who should this person vote for in the presidential election?

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I'm a proud "tax and spender" but I'm willing to say that I have some sympathy for your situation. A 40% tax burden would be pretty close to most people's breaking point.

I think it all depends on what you are getting for that 40%. If we were getting national health insurance I'd happily pay 40%. On the other hand, OP is not even using the public schools, or apparently any other services, so she is getting frustrated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am the 500k poster -- not the same person who said she couldn't find money to replace a 12 year old car. The 12 year old car poster said they made considerably less. (Coincidentially, I have a 10 year old car that I am not going to replace unless it dies on me, but yes, I could find the money to replace it if I really wanted to.)

But the larger point is that it is hard to vote for higher taxes, despite the possible social implications of voting for Romney. We will pay almost 200k in taxes this year. We feel that at some point, and it is hard to say exactly where that point is, it is more than our fair share. We come from lower middle class families and have worked very, very hard for what we have. We have student loan debt. Our parents will soon likely need financial help from us. We have members of our extended families who could also use some help. We pay for private school for three kids, due to the horrid public school options available to us. Because we are not the super wealthy, we don't have unearned investment income or second homes or any "loopholes" available to us. We live in an economically diverse area where, yes, we see people living in housing projects with Escalades and expensive sneakers and we are bitter. We know, in our heads, that not everyone is like that -- that the people taking advantage are a small fraction. But it is getting harder and harder to fork over the 200k without feeling like something needs to change, like we are supporting those that are perfectly able yet not WILLING to support themselves.

Welfare is only 9-12% of the Federal budget, depending on whether it is a good economy or a bad one. And a fraction of the people receiving help are your sneaker wearing, escalade driving people.

Your money is going to defense, medicare/medicaid, social security, and interest payments on the debt. That's pretty much all of it. And the Republicans who profess to cut the budget won't even touch defense.

[Anonymous]

OP, please let us kwo if you live in Va., Md,, or DC, so we know whether it's worth out time to try to convince you one way or the other.

[Anonymous]

Is it OK for Sandy base her vote on something other than her own, near term financial situation? I know that's crazy talk to some folks (Mitt?) but it's how a lot of us vote.

If you're loaded (yes, $500k through your own hard work is loaded, even in Washington) then any of the Republican candidates is more favorable to your long term financial situation than any Democrat. The GOP's big achievement over the next decade will be to redefine income to exclude inheritance, dividends and capital gains. This will be huge for families that have accumulated a lot of wealth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:All of Romney's political positions can be boiled down to: "I like money. I don't care who I step on to get it. Do you like money too?"

This pretty much sums up what I was going to write. If the most important thing to you is to have an $10K in your bank account each year then by all means vote for Romney. Of course be prepared for the possibility that you may end up spending that extra tax "savings" on other things, like healthcare cost, for example. Also, what happens if one of your loose your job or get really sick - what then. Do you have enough assets in place to support your family if you cant collect unemployment or god forbig foods stamps if times really get tough for your family. What about social security and medicare? Also what kind of country do you want your children to grow up in? I tend to make my voting decsions based on a long-term view which is why I will vote for Obama (despite my $1m income and my disagreement with their fiscal policies). $10k a year will not make a difference in my life but clean air and water, equality, living in a society where there is not a huge gulf between the haves and the have nots - that is priceless.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is it OK for Sandy base her vote on something other than her own, near term financial situation? I know that's crazy talk to some folks (Mitt?) but it's how a lot of us vote.

If you're loaded (yes, $500k through your own hard work is loaded, even in Washington) then any of the Republican candidates is more favorable to your long term financial situation than any Democrat. The GOP's big achievement over the next decade will be to redefine income to exclude inheritance, dividends and capital gains. This will be huge for families that have accumulated a lot of wealth.

Not if its all wage income you are spending most of it on private schools. If you cant survive for at least 6 months without a paycheck then you are not loaded.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is it OK for Sandy base her vote on something other than her own, near term financial situation? I know that's crazy talk to some folks (Mitt?) but it's how a lot of us vote.

If you're loaded (yes, $500k through your own hard work is loaded, even in Washington) then any of the Republican candidates is more favorable to your long term financial situation than any Democrat. The GOP's big achievement over the next decade will be to redefine income to exclude inheritance, dividends and capital gains. This will be huge for families that have accumulated a lot of wealth.

That is a very good question. I think that Americans on a whole tend to think too short/near term, which is probably why so many people are unhappy with Obama. For example, Sandy is so focused on the short term implications of a lower tax rate instead of the long term implications of a lot of the GOP social policies. Not to mention that a lot of the promises that are being made re taxes may not work out in reality.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ i call shenanigans. First of all, if yih ate making 500, there is no way you re paying a 40% tax rate, as that doesn't exist until next year. Further, I find it hard to believe that you don't have any deductions that bring tha to a much lower effective tax rate. If you are including state taxes, that is another issue altogether.

I'm sure she is including state and local taxes in the 40%.

Doesn't Romney's plan also potentially include eliminating the deduction for state and local taxes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it OK for Sandy base her vote on something other than her own, near term financial situation? I know that's crazy talk to some folks (Mitt?) but it's how a lot of us vote.

If you're loaded (yes, $500k through your own hard work is loaded, even in Washington) then any of the Republican candidates is more favorable to your long term financial situation than any Democrat. The GOP's big achievement over the next decade will be to redefine income to exclude inheritance, dividends and capital gains. This will be huge for families that have accumulated a lot of wealth.

That is a very good question. I think that Americans on a whole tend to think too short/near term, which is probably why so many people are unhappy with Obama. For example, Sandy is so focused on the short term implications of a lower tax rate instead of the long term implications of a lot of the GOP social policies. Not to mention that a lot of the promises that are being made re taxes may not work out in reality.

Or, and I know this is a radical notion, whether her kids will be better off 10, 20, even 40 years doesn the road. If I made $500k a year, I'd be a hell of a lot more worried about that than about keeping the extra $9k each year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it OK for Sandy base her vote on something other than her own, near term financial situation? I know that's crazy talk to some folks (Mitt?) but it's how a lot of us vote.

That is a very good question. I think that Americans on a whole tend to think too short/near term, which is probably why so many people are unhappy with Obama. For example, Sandy is so focused on the short term implications of a lower tax rate instead of the long term implications of a lot of the GOP social policies. Not to mention that a lot of the promises that are being made re taxes may not work out in reality.

Well, what I was getting at was that she might vote for a candidate based on issues that had no effect (or even a negative effect) on her personal finances. You know, national security, climate change, small business,

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it OK for Sandy base her vote on something other than her own, near term financial situation? I know that's crazy talk to some folks (Mitt?) but it's how a lot of us vote.

If you're loaded (yes, $500k through your own hard work is loaded, even in Washington) then any of the Republican candidates is more favorable to your long term financial situation than any Democrat. The GOP's big achievement over the next decade will be to redefine income to exclude inheritance, dividends and capital gains. This will be huge for families that have accumulated a lot of wealth.

Not if its all wage income you are spending most of it on private schools. If you cant survive for at least 6 months without a paycheck then you are not loaded.

Oh come on, that's ridiculous. I just ran a tax return for a family with $500K of income, no dividends or capital gains, a reasonable mortgage, and no charitable deductions+ all I put in for retirement was $10K into IRAs. That family clears $358K after Federal taxes, and after VA + property taxes, it's still $314K.

Unless those kids are going to school on Mars, "most" of their money is not being spent on school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it OK for Sandy base her vote on something other than her own, near term financial situation? I know that's crazy talk to some folks (Mitt?) but it's how a lot of us vote.

If you're loaded (yes, $500k through your own hard work is loaded, even in Washington) then any of the Republican candidates is more favorable to your long term financial situation than any Democrat. The GOP's big achievement over the next decade will be to redefine income to exclude inheritance, dividends and capital gains. This will be huge for families that have accumulated a lot of wealth.

Not if its all wage income you are spending most of it on private schools. If you cant survive for at least 6 months without a paycheck then you are not loaded.

Oh come on, that's ridiculous. I just ran a tax return for a family with $500K of income, no dividends or capital gains, a reasonable mortgage, and no charitable deductions+ all I put in for retirement was $10K into IRAs. That family clears $358K after Federal taxes, and after VA + property taxes, it's still $314K.

Unless those kids are going to school on Mars, "most" of their money is not being spent on school.

Excuse me. I forgot AMT. WITH AMT, they clear $300K even.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I'm a proud "tax and spender" but I'm willing to say that I have some sympathy for your situation. A 40% tax burden would be pretty close to most people's breaking point.

I think it all depends on what you are getting for that 40%. If we were getting national health insurance I'd happily pay 40%. On the other hand, OP is not even using the public schools, or apparently any other services, so she is getting frustrated.

Yes, but PP used public schools to help her reach her half-million dollar salary. PP stated that she credits her achievement to great teachers and her hard work ethics. Who does she think paid for those great teachers, taxpayers. How did PP get back and forth to those public schools with those great teachers? Was it on the back of a horse or donkey on a unpaved dirt road. No. She traversed back and forth to school on paved roads and fortified bridges that were built with tax payers money.

PP also stated that she was able to attend school due to student loans and perhaps pell grants. Her student loan is at a record low interest rate. Romney wants to not only raise the current interest rate that she pays, but make it harder for young people to go to school. Romney said to borrow the money from your parents. PP keeps thinking that she did it all alone with just her work ethics, but somebody before her paid their taxes to make a way for her to earn her 500k. That somebody was both a low earning tax payer of 50k and a high earning tax payer of 500k.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it OK for Sandy base her vote on something other than her own, near term financial situation? I know that's crazy talk to some folks (Mitt?) but it's how a lot of us vote.

If you're loaded (yes, $500k through your own hard work is loaded, even in Washington) then any of the Republican candidates is more favorable to your long term financial situation than any Democrat. The GOP's big achievement over the next decade will be to redefine income to exclude inheritance, dividends and capital gains. This will be huge for families that have accumulated a lot of wealth.

Not if its all wage income you are spending most of it on private schools. If you cant survive for at least 6 months without a paycheck then you are not loaded.

Oh come on, that's ridiculous. I just ran a tax return for a family with $500K of income, no dividends or capital gains, a reasonable mortgage, and no charitable deductions+ all I put in for retirement was $10K into IRAs. That family clears $358K after Federal taxes, and after VA + property taxes, it's still $314K.

Unless those kids are going to school on Mars, "most" of their money is not being spent on school.

They're idiots. Seriously.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ i call shenanigans. First of all, if yih ate making 500, there is no way you re paying a 40% tax rate, as that doesn't exist until next year. Further, I find it hard to believe that you don't have any deductions that bring tha to a much lower effective tax rate. If you are including state taxes, that is another issue altogether.

I'm sure she is including state and local taxes in the 40%.

Doesn't Romney's plan also potentially include eliminating the deduction for state and local taxes?

Yes. He calls it a loophole. So maybe Sandy will pay more than 40% if all her income is from earned income and not investment income.