Who should this person vote for in the presidential election?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

$5000 is the max for an IRA. I will assume that the couple had other retirment income accounts such as pre-tax 407K.

[Anonymous]

Not Sandy because HHI closer to $150k. What frustrates me about raising taxes is, when does it stop? So many are ok that we are pushing 40%. That is so crazy. I paid 36% income tax. I can't believe in someone who thinks raising taxes is the answer. That is no solution - it is a cop-out. Fix the budget and stop spending money you don't have. I don't have answers, but I know we can't continue this. When does it stop? 50%? 60? I oppose anyone who sees raising taxes as a solution.

[Anonymous]

Hey, guess what? The wars cost money. Now we have to pay for them.

The tiny percentage of us who opposed them have a right to be pissed. The vast majority of you who supported them don't.

We have to bring down the deficit, address climate change, and hold the line on progressive social issues. The Supreme Court is a *massive* priority. I don't believe there's any other choice.

And I don't believe for a hot second Romney will lower taxes *and* the deficit.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Not Sandy because HHI closer to $150k. What frustrates me about raising taxes is, when does it stop? So many are ok that we are pushing 40%. That is so crazy. I paid 36% income tax. I can't believe in someone who thinks raising taxes is the answer. That is no solution - it is a cop-out. Fix the budget and stop spending money you don't have. I don't have answers, but I know we can't continue this. When does it stop? 50%? 60? I oppose anyone who sees raising taxes as a solution.

Based on the independent analysis I've seen, Obama's tax plan will not raise your taxes. However, Romney's plan will raise your taxes (though he denies it).

See this report, for example:

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/1001631-FAQ-Romney-plan.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

$5000 is the max for an IRA. I will assume that the couple had other retirment income accounts such as pre-tax 407K.

I assumed they were married, and I didn't have the ability to back out 401(k) contributions, so that's why I went with a $10K IRA, which is very conservative.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not Sandy because HHI closer to $150k. What frustrates me about raising taxes is, when does it stop? So many are ok that we are pushing 40%. That is so crazy. I paid 36% income tax. I can't believe in someone who thinks raising taxes is the answer. That is no solution - it is a cop-out. Fix the budget and stop spending money you don't have. I don't have answers, but I know we can't continue this. When does it stop? 50%? 60? I oppose anyone who sees raising taxes as a solution.

If your HHI is $150k, you paid nowhere near 36% income tax. Your top federal income tax rate is 28%, and the vast majority of your income is taxed at a dramatically lower rate. Even if you factor in state income tax, you aren't close to 36% when you consider marginal rates and deductions. Just stop.

Wait a minute - "I don't have answers, but I know we can't continue this." Holy crap, Mitt Romney posts on DCUM. Wait, no, that can't be it - the purported tax rate is far too high. Paul Ryan?

[Anonymous]

Many good points here. Sandy is thinking hard.
(also, I did not realize I was talking about 9k additional in taxes. I really thought it was more. Admittedly, I need to pay closer attention to the details. That is why I posted here - I knew some people here would be able to steer me to some good info. Thx)

[Anonymous]

If you even make a decent living you will be targeted to pay for the absolutely huge numbers of people B O is throwing into poverty. Obama hates you and your independence. Until your finances are destroyed you are not reliable . Vote for Romney believe in America not B O,

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you even make a decent living you will be targeted to pay for the absolutely huge numbers of people B O is throwing into poverty. Obama hates you and your independence. Until your finances are destroyed you are not reliable . Vote for Romney believe in America not B O,

Please. Six months ago, YOU would not vote for Romney. You wanted Thudbolt Perry. Why should anyone listen to you?

[Anonymous]

I'm libertarian so similar to Sandy but not on gun rights, which I am not that worried about either way.

I am voting for Romney. Most but not all of the libertarians I know are doing the same, including several gay libertarians. My vision of individual liberty is closer to Romney's than Obama's. I do have a serious problem with national health care.

On taxes, I'm not convinced I'll end up paying less under Romney but I am turned off by the "fair share" rhetoric and it makes me less favorable toward Obama. We also have a high income not related to family wealth or early priviledge. Our combined tax rate, all taxes (not sales) approaches 50%. It's just too much to do that and take the idea that we need to give more and that we are somehow sucking the country dry by virtue of being evil rich folks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm libertarian so similar to Sandy but not on gun rights, which I am not that worried about either way.

I am voting for Romney. Most but not all of the libertarians I know are doing the same, including several gay libertarians. My vision of individual liberty is closer to Romney's than Obama's. I do have a serious problem with national health care.

On taxes, I'm not convinced I'll end up paying less under Romney but I am turned off by the "fair share" rhetoric and it makes me less favorable toward Obama. We also have a high income not related to family wealth or early priviledge. Our combined tax rate, all taxes (not sales) approaches 50%. It's just too much to do that and take the idea that we need to give more and that we are somehow sucking the country dry by virtue of being evil rich folks.

Then you either live in Sweden or you need a better accountant.

What's your serious problem with national health care? It wouldn't prevent you from buying private insurance, it would just make health care available to everyone -- like every other democracy in the world currently does.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm libertarian so similar to Sandy but not on gun rights, which I am not that worried about either way.

I am voting for Romney. Most but not all of the libertarians I know are doing the same, including several gay libertarians. My vision of individual liberty is closer to Romney's than Obama's. I do have a serious problem with national health care.

On taxes, I'm not convinced I'll end up paying less under Romney but I am turned off by the "fair share" rhetoric and it makes me less favorable toward Obama. We also have a high income not related to family wealth or early priviledge. Our combined tax rate, all taxes (not sales) approaches 50%. It's just too much to do that and take the idea that we need to give more and that we are somehow sucking the country dry by virtue of being evil rich folks.

Then you either live in Sweden or you need a better accountant.

What's your serious problem with national health care? It wouldn't prevent you from buying private insurance, it would just make health care available to everyone -- like every other democracy in the world currently does.

Romney thinks it's great. He praised the Israeli system.

[Anonymous]

Where does Sandy live that she and hubs make 500K and the public schools are crap? WTH?

[Anonymous]

I have no sympathy for the 500k poster who has three kids in private school. Anyone making that kind of money can move to a good school district. Basically what he/she is asking is that we keep their taxes unsustainably low so that the rest of the taxpayers can susidize their choice: preference for private school. Welfare for the wealthy.

[Anonymous]

I don't like the 250,000. I believe Pelosi even had come up with a higher amount at some point-please her constituents in a high cost of living area. Obama had an idea to apply additional soc sec tax on amounts over 250 but nothing between 102 and 250 :
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25143640/ns/politics-decision_08/t/obama-tax-incomes-above/

http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2010/1119/Why-taxes-should-be-adjusted-for-geographic-cost-of-living
http://cgi.money.cnn.com/tools/costofliving/costofliving.html

It was about $50,000 less for comparable living in Chicago v DC/Alexandria/Arlington.

250,001 in Albany NY is $410,379 in Brooklyn NY