Who should this person vote for in the presidential election?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Sandy doesn't need or want your sympathy. sandy told you about the private school not because she needs you to pay for it, but so you could see where she is coming from - paying 200k into a system that delivers a crap product in many areas, including education.
Many people would feel differently about taxes if they felt the government did a good job with the money they are given. But they don't. They are fine at the hard services - road construction, garbage collection, etc. They suck at other things and I am tired of funding their crappy performance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Many people would feel differently about taxes if they felt the government did a good job with the money they are given. But they don't. They are fine at the hard services - road construction, garbage collection, etc. They suck at other things and I am tired of funding their crappy performance.

This is the reason I hate government growing and I'm pretty liberal on all other fronts. But, the idea of a few swindling CEOs bringing the economy to its knees also makes me extremely uncomfortable. In theory, the free market should adjust and put bad business people out of a job. The reality is they can suck tons of money out before bailing, leaving their shareholders and clients holding the debt.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Sandy doesn't need or want your sympathy. sandy told you about the private school not because she needs you to pay for it, but so you could see where she is coming from - paying 200k into a system that delivers a crap product in many areas, including education.
Many people would feel differently about taxes if they felt the government did a good job with the money they are given. But they don't. They are fine at the hard services - road construction, garbage collection, etc. They suck at other things and I am tired of funding their crappy performance.

Honestly, what do you think the govt is bad at that could save lots of $?

The budget deficit is driven by the defense dept/war, the Bush tax cuts, and health care costs. I have no idea whether our DoD does a "crappy" job on a value basis, but generally I find most people, certainly most non-left-wingers are evaluating them on whether they can accomplish missions (not how much it costs them to do so).

The govt actually does a much better job at controlling health care costs than the private sector-- which is why if you go looking for a doctor for your parents who takes medicare you might have problems finding one. Plus social security has much lower admin costs than, say, Fidelity.

Is the govt perfect? Of course not. Are there programs that any one of us would cancel? Yes-- but chances are each of us would choose different ones to cancel.

Frankly the idea that our budget problems are rooted in waste and/or fraud is wishful thinking from people who want something for nothing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Sandy doesn't need or want your sympathy. sandy told you about the private school not because she needs you to pay for it, but so you could see where she is coming from - paying 200k into a system that delivers a crap product in many areas, including education.
Many people would feel differently about taxes if they felt the government did a good job with the money they are given. But they don't. They are fine at the hard services - road construction, garbage collection, etc. They suck at other things and I am tired of funding their crappy performance.

Honestly, what do you think the govt is bad at that could save lots of $?

The budget deficit is driven by the defense dept/war, the Bush tax cuts, and health care costs. I have no idea whether our DoD does a "crappy" job on a value basis, but generally I find most people, certainly most non-left-wingers are evaluating them on whether they can accomplish missions (not how much it costs them to do so).

The govt actually does a much better job at controlling health care costs than the private sector-- which is why if you go looking for a doctor for your parents who takes medicare you might have problems finding one. Plus social security has much lower admin costs than, say, Fidelity.

Is the govt perfect? Of course not. Are there programs that any one of us would cancel? Yes-- but chances are each of us would choose different ones to cancel.

Frankly the idea that our budget problems are rooted in waste and/or fraud is wishful thinking from people who want something for nothing.

Oh, we are always hoping the problem is waste, fraud, and abuse.

In reality, it's that we the people ask for expensive things.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Sandy doesn't need or want your sympathy. sandy told you about the private school not because she needs you to pay for it, but so you could see where she is coming from - paying 200k into a system that delivers a crap product in many areas, including education.
Many people would feel differently about taxes if they felt the government did a good job with the money they are given. But they don't. They are fine at the hard services - road construction, garbage collection, etc. They suck at other things and I am tired of funding their crappy performance.

A real person who has three kids in private school year can just move. She has the means. You are complaining about paying property taxes for a bad school district. This has almost nothing to do with federal taxes yet this is your example of paying taxes for a bad product. You don't want to move for personal reasons and you live in a subpar school district. And you want this to be your excuse for not paying your fair share of taxes. Sounds like you are looking for a handout to live where you want to live. N

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Sandy doesn't need or want your sympathy. sandy told you about the private school not because she needs you to pay for it, but so you could see where she is coming from - paying 200k into a system that delivers a crap product in many areas, including education.
Many people would feel differently about taxes if they felt the government did a good job with the money they are given. But they don't. They are fine at the hard services - road construction, garbage collection, etc. They suck at other things and I am tired of funding their crappy performance.

A real person who has three kids in private school year can just move. She has the means. You are complaining about paying property taxes for a bad school district. This has almost nothing to do with federal taxes yet this is your example of paying taxes for a bad product. You don't want to move for personal reasons and you live in a subpar school district. And you want this to be your excuse for not paying your fair share of taxes. Sounds like you are looking for a handout to live where you want to live. N

Not to mention the illogic here. She pays $15K in property taxes. How does she imagine that pays for a top flight education for three children???

[Anonymous]

Sandy, below is a quote from a speech that Romney gave at a Rally this morning in Ohio:

"We have got to reform our tax system," Romney said at a morning event here. "Small businesses most typically pay taxes at the individual tax rate. And so our individual income taxes are the ones I want to reform. Make them simpler. I want to bring the rates down. By the way, don't be expecting a huge cut in taxes because I'm also going to lower deductions and exemptions. But by bringing rates down we will be able to let small businesses keep more of their money so they can hire more people."

What I am taking from this is that most of the tax releif is his plan (which is very short on details) will be to person who (corporatiosn are people too) who can claim business deductions.

[Anonymous]

It depends on what is most important to Sandy. If taxes piss her off enough and she's sure she'd have lower taxes under Romney, then she should vote Romney. In my case, I make a lot of money but I'd rather pay higher taxes than have anti-choice Republicans gain any more power. I won't budge on this issue. So I'll pay more.

[Anonymous]

These people probably became prosperous under a Democratic administration (most people do).

Social policy has a bigger impact on each person't life than financial policy. There is no reason to think things will be better under Romney. $500,000 is chump change to him.

[Anonymous]

Listen, Sandy, no matter what you will likely be paying a very high tax rate, whether the President is D or R.

Why?

Because most likely, you are falling within the group that pays the Alternative Minimum Tax, which taxes most people who make between 250-500k in income, as opposed to capital gains.

No one, and I mean NO ONE is going to ease that burden on you, because the AMT raises such a huge chunk of revenue for the federal gov't, it would be catastrophic to get rid of. Romney pays lip service to lowering taxes on people like you, but you're not his demographic. The people making hundreds of millions of dollars are his demographic. Your 500k is chump change.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Listen, Sandy, no matter what you will likely be paying a very high tax rate, whether the President is D or R.

Why?

Because most likely, you are falling within the group that pays the Alternative Minimum Tax, which taxes most people who make between 250-500k in income, as opposed to capital gains.

No one, and I mean NO ONE is going to ease that burden on you, because the AMT raises such a huge chunk of revenue for the federal gov't, it would be catastrophic to get rid of. Romney pays lip service to lowering taxes on people like you, but you're not his demographic. The people making hundreds of millions of dollars are his demographic. Your 500k is chump change.

Bush passed his tax cut knowing that a huge chunk of it would be offset by hitting people with AMT but he thought it was a better headline to have a tax cut that sounded big than to actually fix the AMT. You won't go broke overestimating the cynicism of politicians.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Listen, Sandy, no matter what you will likely be paying a very high tax rate, whether the President is D or R.

Why?

Because most likely, you are falling within the group that pays the Alternative Minimum Tax, which taxes most people who make between 250-500k in income, as opposed to capital gains.

No one, and I mean NO ONE is going to ease that burden on you, because the AMT raises such a huge chunk of revenue for the federal gov't, it would be catastrophic to get rid of. Romney pays lip service to lowering taxes on people like you, but you're not his demographic. The people making hundreds of millions of dollars are his demographic. Your 500k is chump change.

Bush passed his tax cut knowing that a huge chunk of it would be offset by hitting people with AMT but he thought it was a better headline to have a tax cut that sounded big than to actually fix the AMT. You won't go broke overestimating the cynicism of politicians.

But not a huge enough chunk.



This graph shows government revenues, expenses, and debt as a percentage of GDP. So the graph actually compensates for the economic downturns and booms to show the real taxation and spending rate as a proportion of the size of the economy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Many people would feel differently about taxes if they felt the government did a good job with the money they are given. But they don't. They are fine at the hard services - road construction, garbage collection, etc. They suck at other things and I am tired of funding their crappy performance.

This is the reason I hate government growing and I'm pretty liberal on all other fronts. But, the idea of a few swindling CEOs bringing the economy to its knees also makes me extremely uncomfortable. In theory, the free market should adjust and put bad business people out of a job. The reality is they can suck tons of money out before bailing, leaving their shareholders and clients holding the debt.

A well-regulated free market (which is what a real free market is) would not allow CEOs to lie to investors, thus bringing the economy to its knees. I wish that more people who support free markets would understand that regulations and well-funded regulatory agencies are essential to protect the integrity of a free market.