Who should this person vote for in the presidential election?

[Anonymous]

Let's call her Sandy.

Sandy is pretty socially liberal -- she supports gay marriage, a woman's right to choose, strict gun control laws.
Sandy and her husband are relatively high earners (around 500k) who got there through hard work and a little luck. And then some more hard work. No family money - paid their own way and have some remaining student loan debt as a result.
Sandy and her husband credit their "success" with fantastic teachers and a strong work ethic - a great education starting at a young age, so they pay for private school to try to mimic that experience as best they can, given the bad public school options where they live.
So, Sandy and her husband feel their tax burden is WAY too high, penalizing their many years of hard work and sacrifice, rather than rewarding it.
Sandy and her husband give generously to charities of their choosing.


Who should Sandy vote for? It seems she has no one to vote for in this election, right?

[Anonymous]

She should vote Democrat.

The only issue is taxes. Romney is never going to pass a tax cut and balance the budget at the same time. No point in voting for a promise that will never be kept.

Obama's plan will raise taxes on upper incomes, but the number is likely to get pushed closer to that $500K. But even in the worst case, assuming he gets everything he wants, the grand total impact to Sandy's family is $9K / year.

Her situation is pretty similar to mine, and I'm already giving more than that to groups defending all of those social rights that Sandy is concerned about. And she should enjoy rock bottom dividends and capital gains tax rates. At her annual income, this will eventually become her biggest tax issue anyway.

[Anonymous]

Hi, I am Sandy, except my husband and I aren't doing as well financially as we once were and our kids go to public school. I am like the OP in that I am not sure who to vote for. I worry about the Supreme Court and whether Mr. Romney really can pull off a smaller government without catering to the right wing nuts.

I worry that my family cannot afford any more in taxes because I need to save for my kids college, even though my student loans aren't paid off. DH has a job that pays much less than he made during the last election. Me too.

PP, you speak of $9K as being chump change. I drive a 12 year old car and pray it will last until I can find the money for a new one. I worry that Mr. Obama will not spend my $9K nearly as wisely as I would, and I wonder why, when I have made sound fiscal decisions and I am still afloat, I must pay for people that made bad financial decisions. It's like lending my irresponsible brother $500 knowing he won't spend it the same way I would, might spend it on beer instead of bills, and I will never get it back. Why isn't everyone dipping a little deeper into their pockets?

[Anonymous]

Harvard Professor Martin Feldstein’s Study

Harvard professor Martin Feldstein wrote a Wall Street Journal op-ed that purported to show that it was possible to close enough tax deductions and loopholes for the wealthy to pay for Romney’s tax cuts. In fact, Feldstein’s analysis shows the opposite. His study neglected the fact that lowering rates by 20% also reduces the value of deductions by 20%, while he also ignored Romney’s repeal of the estate tax. The Tax Policy Center found that “taking the estate tax and other effects into account, Feldstein’s proposals come up at least $90 billion short of revenue-neutral” in 2015. Tellingly, in his attempt to make the numbers add up for Romney, Feldstein redefines middle class as below $100,000, and his assumptions include significant cuts in tax deductions and exclusions for all families making more than $100,000 a year—an income level that reflects a family with a police officer and a teacher, for example. Even under an “illustrative” example Feldstein has given, these families would have to pay income and payroll taxes on their employer-sponsored health insurance for the first time, and they would lose their child tax credit. In other words, as the Tax Policy Center notes, Feldstein’s study demonstrates that Romney’s plan would indeed be a tax increase on middle-class families—he just denies that these families are actually middle-class

[Anonymous]

I understand. I am a socially liberal, but fiscally conservative person. I like some aspects of both candidates.

However, I believe that we need to vote for a Democrat this election. Why? Because 4 of the 9 Supreme Court justices are age 70+. And one, is 64. That means that almost 2/3 of the Supreme Court will be over standard retirement age during the next President's term. While, that means nothing to a bench judge, the average age of retirement was 68 pre-1970 and 79 post-1970. So with Ginsburg at 79, Kennedy and Scalia at 76, and Breyer at 74, it is likely that one or more of them will retire in the next term. In fact, in the last 30 years, one-term presidents have averaged closer to two replacements per term.

Other problems are solved in years. Changing the demographics of the Supreme Court takes decades. At this point, for those socially liberal viewpoints that you uphold, you may not be able to afford to vote for Romney.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hi, I am Sandy, except my husband and I aren't doing as well financially as we once were and our kids go to public school. I am like the OP in that I am not sure who to vote for. I worry about the Supreme Court and whether Mr. Romney really can pull off a smaller government without catering to the right wing nuts.

I worry that my family cannot afford any more in taxes because I need to save for my kids college, even though my student loans aren't paid off. DH has a job that pays much less than he made during the last election. Me too.

PP, you speak of $9K as being chump change. I drive a 12 year old car and pray it will last until I can find the money for a new one. I worry that Mr. Obama will not spend my $9K nearly as wisely as I would, and I wonder why, when I have made sound fiscal decisions and I am still afloat, I must pay for people that made bad financial decisions. It's like lending my irresponsible brother $500 knowing he won't spend it the same way I would, might spend it on beer instead of bills, and I will never get it back. Why isn't everyone dipping a little deeper into their pockets?

I didn't say $9K was chump change. But if you make 1/2 million per year, it's not devastating. But based on your financial situation, the tax difference may not be much at all.

[Anonymous]

I agree with the above poster regarding the Supreme Court. The Republicans have gone so far right on lgbt and women's issues that they cannot be ignored (the Congressional seats are most critical in this) if they had run Mass. Gov Romney, maybe I would consider him, but he's a puppet to the Right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hi, I am Sandy, except my husband and I aren't doing as well financially as we once were and our kids go to public school. I am like the OP in that I am not sure who to vote for. I worry about the Supreme Court and whether Mr. Romney really can pull off a smaller government without catering to the right wing nuts.

I worry that my family cannot afford any more in taxes because I need to save for my kids college, even though my student loans aren't paid off. DH has a job that pays much less than he made during the last election. Me too.

PP, you speak of $9K as being chump change. I drive a 12 year old car and pray it will last until I can find the money for a new one. I worry that Mr. Obama will not spend my $9K nearly as wisely as I would, and I wonder why, when I have made sound fiscal decisions and I am still afloat, I must pay for people that made bad financial decisions. It's like lending my irresponsible brother $500 knowing he won't spend it the same way I would, might spend it on beer instead of bills, and I will never get it back. Why isn't everyone dipping a little deeper into their pockets?

Honestly, how much of the federal govt budget is paying for people who made bad financial decisions? I think by the time you take defense, social security, medicare, discretionary domestic spending (which funds things like EPA, FDA, National Parks etc) out, what's left is going to a much smaller figure and you still would have to consider that many people receiving those benefits are not doing so because they made poor financial decisions.

Also, the $9k figure was for someone earning $500k in a year. I find it hard to believe that someone earning $500k could not find the money to replace a 12 year old used car.

[Anonymous]

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.

[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.

A lot of people work very very hard and don't make anywhere near $500k.

All of HUD's budget together is maybe 1% of the federal budget.

What drives the federal budget right now is health care costs-- if we can get those under control under Obamacare or something else then we will be fine. If not, we will have problems. But to me it's hard to see how paying 40% taxes on a $500k income is a hardship or unfair.

[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.

Pretty much the same here, but I make less than $50K per year.

The programs that irritate you are not the big items in the budget. The problem is that making changes to significant things is political suicide. No one wants to touch it.

[Anonymous]

^ 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.

Secondly, only about 13% of fed tax dollars goes towards unemployment and welfare, which is a minuscule portion of the whole budget, so I don't see the point of whining about having to be a member of the community and help our fellow citizens.

Oh right, because everybody's circumstances are exactly the same and those poors can be just like you if they just try hard enough and you have luxuries to finance so screw the disabled, laid off, and all those other leeches@@

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
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.

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. Obama's proposal is a 3.8% increase on income above $250,000. I can easily understand your frustration with that, but hopefully you can see the bigger picture. That money will not be going for Escalades for poor people. I would also caution you that Romney has been very scarce with details of his own tax plan. While he has claimed that he will lower taxes on all income levels, he has also said he will close loopholes (without specifying which ones). I'm reminded of Walter Mondale saying that either he or Reagan would raise taxes, Reagan wouldn't tell you, but he (Mondale) just did. Of course Reagan did raise taxes. Given that the Simpson Bowles proposal included tax increases and the establishment seems to be very much in love with that plan, I would not be surprised at all to see Romney embrace tax increases were he to be elected.

[Anonymous]

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?"

[jsteele]

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%.