In a strictly financial sense, who should I vote for if my family makes < $200K/year

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This question only matters if you live in Virginia.

Sent too soon. I meant to say add that MD will vote Obama no matter how you vote.

OP here...I haven't read all the responses yet, but wanted to respond to this. I'm (along with my husband and 2 voting age daughters) a Florida absentee ballot voter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The economy does better under democratic presidents. The imaginary benefit of Romney's tax cuts (which I doubt would happen as advertised) won't matter if the economy is in the crapper. Plus, his tax cuts will necessitate government constriction, which means all jobs in our area will take a hit (not just gov't employees, but goods and services, education, real estate, etc). Unless you are wealthy, it's no contest that you need to vote for Obama.

I disagree, romney is attempting to start getting the private sector to hire. Traditionally The private sector employs more people.

How? By cutting taxes for the wealthy?

Because Bush did that and he's who caused this mess in the first place.

Data on economic growth under presidents since the Great Depression: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2008/10/14/opinion/20081014_OPCHART.html

First off you are listing a source of an OP-ED piece on the crazy left wing new york times.

HERE is a partisan analysis of Romney vs Obama. Note that Romney cuts taxes FOR ALL not just the rich.

"Romney: Would reduce each of the Bush-era income tax rates by 20%. So the top rate would fall to 28% and the bottom rate would fall to 8%."

http://money.cnn.com/2012/09/07/news/economy/tax-obama-romney/index.html?iid=HP_LN

The NYT is "Crazy left-wing?"

What are you smoking, and where can I get some? I need me some hallucinations too!

[Anonymous]

I've only scanned this thread because what each candidate promises is really a bunch of hot air, both ability to deliver and the typical questionable assumptions used to make the numbers work.

I believe the right answer depends on your definition of family. If yourselves, who knows? If your kids or your grandkids, then you need to think about our staggering deficits.

A B.U. economist recently presented data at an assembly of public finance experts. His conclusion, when adding state/local to federal deficits, gets us already to 12% of GDP.

Our problems may already be worse than that of any other developed country.

So--if you're scared for future generations you may have to swallow hard, overlook their (imho) grotesque social agenda, and vote Republican. That's what I'm wrestling with now.

Anyway, that's my viewfinder, and I find the rest to be just noise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I've only scanned this thread because what each candidate promises is really a bunch of hot air, both ability to deliver and the typical questionable assumptions used to make the numbers work.

I believe the right answer depends on your definition of family. If yourselves, who knows? If your kids or your grandkids, then you need to think about our staggering deficits.

A B.U. economist recently presented data at an assembly of public finance experts. His conclusion, when adding state/local to federal deficits, gets us already to 12% of GDP.

Our problems may already be worse than that of any other developed country.

So--if you're scared for future generations you may have to swallow hard, overlook their (imho) grotesque social agenda, and vote Republican. That's what I'm wrestling with now.

Anyway, that's my viewfinder, and I find the rest to be just noise.

OP here, I'm still trying to digest all of the responses. Honestly, I find much of it to be over my head. My definition of family, though, or actually who I should have referred to in my original question, is "people like me". People in my income bracket, my extended family members and community, my adult children and their future families. Not to say I don't give a damn about anyone else, either better or worse off than me, but I'm definitely not in that group of business owners, giant HHI or large capital gains earners.

Thank you all for the responses so far, I hope I'm able to discern some valuable info. This is the second election I feel like I'm finally "grown up" enough to not vote strictly on ballot side or only on moral issues.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I believe the right answer depends on your definition of family. If yourselves, who knows? If your kids or your grandkids, then you need to think about our staggering deficits.


So--if you're scared for future generations you may have to swallow hard, overlook their (imho) grotesque social agenda, and vote Republican. That's what I'm wrestling with now.

The Romney/Ryan plan to continue to slash taxes for the richest segment of the population while cutting back on the parts of government that allow an economy to thrive are not going to help reduce the deficit, so you don't have to vote Republican.

[Anonymous]

Romney.

Failure to extend the Bush tax cuts could cost you $800-$1000/month, maybe more. And Dems have fought the extension of these cuts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I believe the right answer depends on your definition of family. If yourselves, who knows? If your kids or your grandkids, then you need to think about our staggering deficits.


So--if you're scared for future generations you may have to swallow hard, overlook their (imho) grotesque social agenda, and vote Republican. That's what I'm wrestling with now.

The Romney/Ryan plan to continue to slash taxes for the richest segment of the population while cutting back on the parts of government that allow an economy to thrive are not going to help reduce the deficit, so you don't have to vote Republican.

I guess everyone is rich because everyones getting a tax break under romney

[Anonymous]

Here are the tax rates if you want to calculate your new taxes without the Bush Tax cuts (based on taxable income):

Pre-Bush Tax Cuts /(What the Dems want):
$0 to $25,750 = 15%
$25,750 to $62,450 = 28% + $3,862
$62,450 to $130,250 = 31% + $14,138
$130,250 to $283,150 = 36% + $35,156 $3,862.50 + 25,750
$283,150+ = 39.6% +$90,200

Bush Tax Cuts (Current Rates)
$0 to $8,500 = 10%
$8,500 to $34,500 = 15% + $850
$34,500 to $83,600 = 25% + $4,750
$83,600 to $174,400 = 28% + $17,025
$174,400 to $379,150 = 33% + $42,449
$379,150+ = 35% + $110,016

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I believe the right answer depends on your definition of family. If yourselves, who knows? If your kids or your grandkids, then you need to think about our staggering deficits.


So--if you're scared for future generations you may have to swallow hard, overlook their (imho) grotesque social agenda, and vote Republican. That's what I'm wrestling with now.

The Romney/Ryan plan to continue to slash taxes for the richest segment of the population while cutting back on the parts of government that allow an economy to thrive are not going to help reduce the deficit, so you don't have to vote Republican.

I guess everyone is rich because everyones getting a tax break under romney

I suppose everyone is a three year old kid who believes that Santa Claus is real.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Romney.

Failure to extend the Bush tax cuts could cost you $800-$1000/month, maybe more. And Dems have fought the extension of these cuts.

Obama has always talked about preserving the Bush tax cuts for the middle class, generally assumed to be either $200K or $300K. So don't worry about this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Romney.

Failure to extend the Bush tax cuts could cost you $800-$1000/month, maybe more. And Dems have fought the extension of these cuts.

Obama has always talked about preserving the Bush tax cuts for the middle class, generally assumed to be either $200K or $300K. So don't worry about this.

Then why did Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi and all the Dems fight the extensions so many times? Why did they oppose it? I know why - because Dems do, and Obama is a sh*t talker.

[Anonymous]

I guess if you would actually like to keep your job, Id go with Romney, in all seriousness. No matter how the dems spin it, i pay more for gas, groceries, and healthcare premiums now more than ever. Im voting with my wallet

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here are the tax rates if you want to calculate your new taxes without the Bush Tax cuts (based on taxable income):

Pre-Bush Tax Cuts /(What the Dems want):
$0 to $25,750 = 15%
$25,750 to $62,450 = 28% + $3,862
$62,450 to $130,250 = 31% + $14,138
$130,250 to $283,150 = 36% + $35,156 $3,862.50 + 25,750
$283,150+ = 39.6% +$90,200

Bush Tax Cuts (Current Rates)
$0 to $8,500 = 10%
$8,500 to $34,500 = 15% + $850
$34,500 to $83,600 = 25% + $4,750
$83,600 to $174,400 = 28% + $17,025
$174,400 to $379,150 = 33% + $42,449
$379,150+ = 35% + $110,016

Romney's plan drops the bush tax rates another 20% lower

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I believe the right answer depends on your definition of family. If yourselves, who knows? If your kids or your grandkids, then you need to think about our staggering deficits.


So--if you're scared for future generations you may have to swallow hard, overlook their (imho) grotesque social agenda, and vote Republican. That's what I'm wrestling with now.

The Romney/Ryan plan to continue to slash taxes for the richest segment of the population while cutting back on the parts of government that allow an economy to thrive are not going to help reduce the deficit, so you don't have to vote Republican.

last i checked budget bills originate in the house, not the (white) house.

both parties and candidates are deeply flawed on deficit issues..it can always be deferred, right? unless you're Greece, or Spain, Portugal, or Illinois.

I suspect the Repubs will be (weak praise) less dishonest about our challenges, that's the point I'm trying to make.

[Anonymous]

Th eproblem is that it is difficult to discern what Romney will do because he won't be specific. He claims to want to cut taxes, but he also wants to cut the deficit. Cutting taxes raises the deficit. When people point this out, he and Ryan say they will eliminate loopholes, but no one knows which ones. If they close the most expensive loopholes, that would include the mortgage deduction.

Cutting taxes (or increasing government spending) is stimulative in the short run. However, giving money to poor or middle class people is far more stimulative than cutting taxes for the rich. the poor and middle class spend, and they spend here in the US. WHen the rich get extra money, they tend to sock it away. As for where they sock it away, see Romney's asset allocation. (Hint: it involves skiing and lederhosen)