Anonymous wrote: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

According to the description and assumptions used by Romney economic adviser Martin Feldstein in a recent WSJ OP-ED piece, a family making between $100k-$200k would pay on average $2000 more under Romney's plan. So the OP would actually pay more in taxes under Romney's plan. The issue is the number of tax breaks and deductions that Romney would have to eliminate to pay for his tax cuts.(Yes, he has stated they would do this, but refuses to disclose exactly how it would be implemented) You are focusing on the tax rate instead of the total tax liability. Again, do you know what deductions and credits would be eliminated, and at what income level, under Romney's plan?

Anonymous wrote:Once we get the economy moving again we can raise taxes.

Why wait? Historically in the US, taxes have had little to no impact on the overall economy. The economy doesn't surge when they are dropped, and it doesn't dip when they are raised. Other factors have always been the driving force behind economic recessions and recoveries. It is time the politicians stopped kidding themselves about the impact of tax policies on the economy and started acting on fiscal responsibility instead of public opinion.

Anonymous wrote:I don't agree with Biden in saying paying more taxes is patriotic. My love of country is not defined by what taxes I pay because I feel that the money I don't pay in taxes can be used to directly hire more people or buy more goods to help America.

And would you be willing to pay more in taxes to prevent Medicare insolvency and reduce the deficit/debt? Because that is the primary issue here. We need to reduce spending and raise taxes to achieve a sound fiscal footing. In your scenario under Romney, how are we going to reduce the deficit by simply cutting taxes? He has given no specifics as to how he will make up for the shortfall his actions would create, and the traditional government response has been to simply borrow more money. Our taxes are currently much lower than they were for most of the previous century, during which we had a long, prosperous economy. But for some reason, any attempt to raise taxes from unsustainable levels, even though they still wouldn't approach the highest points in the past 50 years, are portrayed as horrific. The current tax rates were never meant to be permanent, despite the mindset of some people.

Anonymous wrote:The message is YOUR TAXES ARE GOING UP under Obama

Your TAXES ARE GOING DOWN under Romney.

Case closed.

I'm willing to pay more in taxes to help our country in this time of need. Why do you hate America?

Anonymous wrote:Romney hasn't suggested eliminating TANF, just reinstating the work requirement. I don't think that's inconsistent with having been on welfare as a child.

Reinstating what? The work requirement that was never eliminated?

Anonymous wrote:Obama would preserve the Bush tax rates at the low end (10%, 15% and 25%) but raise the top two rates to 36% and 39.6%.

From 33% and 35%, a 3% or 4.6% increase. Assuming someone makes $250k, as you stated in the first paragraph of your post, this would result in a total tax increase of $0.00. How will those poor people ever survive that hardship? If you make twice that, $500k, the total increase would be around $9300, or approximately 1.8% of your income. Oh, the humanity.

Anonymous wrote:Romney would also like to repeal the new health reform law. If he succeeds, that would mean a repeal of the 0.9 percentage point increase in the Medicare tax on high-income households called for under that law. A .9% tax increase.

And how is he going to pay for the shortfall it will create in Medicare this will result in? More deficit spending? I'd rather be taxed now and avoid the interest payments later.

Anonymous wrote:Obama: Would permanently adjust the AMT for inflation.
Romney: Would abolish the AMT.

Again, how is he going to make up for the revenue shortfall this will create? Adjusting it for inflation is what tax experts have wanted for a long time, and it should be done. Congress won't abolish it because it represents too much revenue.

Anonymous wrote:Obama: Has proposed limiting the value of itemized deductions and other tax breaks such as exclusions for those with adjusted gross income over $200,000. Today, many filers in that group can deduct 33% or 35% of a qualified expense. Obama would limit that to 28%. THIS one is a real killer for us.

So has Romney, except he hasn't given any specifics as to the exact numbers for income or which deductions or breaks he's referring to. He has to pay for his other cuts somewhere. Can you point to a source that definitely states this won't happen under Romney's plan? Since he hasn't said what his actual plan is, that may be difficult.

Anonymous wrote:So under Obama your tax rate will go up 3% and another .9% and then you would lose your itemized deductions if you make over 200k% which is probably your mortgage. Add these all up and it is about a 4% tax hike and you will lose your itemized deductions. IT IS SHOCKING.

Romney is actually pledging to LOWER the tax rate for everyone. 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%. Romney would also abolish the AMT, Obama would just extend it.

The above are only how it will affect families directly. Obama is proposing to increase capital gains and remove carried interest tax benefits for investment firms. Ok great SCREW them right? Not so fast, guess who hires and creates new businesses that create private jobs? The above people. Those same people are the ones that hire the above families. I know a lot of DCUMers and I would say about 30%-40% of area are on the government dole (government jobs, contractors etc...) but outside of this area the majority of jobs (85%) are in the private sector. So you can see the disconnect of washington vs the country.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/141785/gov-employment-ranges-ohio.aspx

I'm all for lowering taxes, but our country simply can't afford it. You haven't answered any of my posts or addressed any of my points though, so I doubt you will actually be able to back up your rhetoric with logic or facts.

You do realize that according to the article you linked, Romney has also stated he plans to reduce tax breaks and deductions for high income filers to pay for his other tax cuts, right? Of course, he hasn't specified which ones, how they would be implemented, or any of the other details that would make it possible to actually do an accurate analysis of his plan. IMHO, that's because he really has no intention of reducing tax breaks for wealthy people, but either way, your scenario is possibly under either candidate, making it a wash.

As for capital gains, since 2004 they have been at the lowest rate in history. How's the economy working out for you under that scenario? Raising the rate to levels it held for decades during which the economy prospered doesn't strike me as nearly as frightening as you make it out to be.

For me, personally, I'll likely pay a little more under the Obama tax plan. I'm fine with that, since I believe that our tax rates cannot be sustained at the currently record low levels without severe decreases in spending, which no one(Democrat or Republican) seriously wants to consider.(Yes, many give lip service to spending reductions, until they are asked to reduce the portion of spending that benefits them) The Romney plan, or the parts that they've actually been willing to share, would cut my taxes, leave everything else the same, and somehow magically fix everything with the economy and deficit. That doesn't instill me with confidence, particularly given the trends I've seen in Republican policies lately.

Two dogs and two cats here. Our original idea was for two dogs and one cat, but we gained the second cat when we took him in as a stray about 7-8 years ago. As for the comment about the smells, I run into far more people that smell simply because of their personal grooming habits than because of any issues with pet odors. It isn't hard to keep your house and pets reasonably clean. Either way, I'd rather smell like pets than sound like many of the assholes that complain about them.

I love Argia's as well, so good choice. My favorite dish is the Italian Shrimp and Grits

Anonymous wrote:Not the PP, but I guess I am in your 1%. I am right on that margin, and I hired a nanny. That negligible increase does make a difference to me and if it increases too much, I will have to let my nanny go.


I am a believer in we all got ourselves into this mess, we should all be a part of getting ourselves out of it. The democrats seem more intent on paying entitlements to more than 50% of Americans than getting at the root cause of our fiscal problems. All I hear is that I make too much. I don't make too much. It would be different if I lived in Iowa, but I live in suburban DC, and my $200K, which varies with the economy, doesn't go very far. If I have a successful year in my business, I'll get hit. Why should I bust my butt to have a successful year, then? Such a disincentive.

You'll "get hit" with what exactly? If the proposed changes were implemented(Taxing income over $250k), do you realize how you would be affected? I have no idea what you make in a successful year, so I'll use a $300k year for my example. Under current rules with no deductions, credits, or other factors taken into account, that extra $100k(Going from $200k to $300k) would mean you would pay an additional $33k in taxes, at a 33% rate. If the proposed taxes on those making greater than $250k was passed, the rate on the amount above $250k would be taxed at 36% instead, meaning you would pay a total of $34,500. A grand total of an extra $1500. I'd hardly call that getting "hit", particularly when it would only amount to .5% of your annual income. If you only made $260k, the difference would be $300.

Given those numbers, under what circumstances under the proposed tax system would you feel it would not be worth it to have a successful year? By your own statement, you can get by with $200k. To pay even that extra $1500 in taxes, you would have to earn an extra $100k above that. I can't see any scenario where you wouldn't still have a strong incentive to earn more money. My household income is actually close to the $250k mark as well, and I expect to surpass it within the next two years or less. However, I understand that the differences under either scenario are minor at that level of income, and the only way it would affect anyone's incentive to earn more is if they truly don't understand how the marginal tax rates work. Would you really turn down a $100k in order to not pay $1500 in taxes?

I made it through the entire program over the summer.(I started in May and didn't let up, even on the 100 degree afternoons) I loved the program overall, and even though I finished week 9 over a month ago, I'm still running for 30 minutes, 3 times a week. It was rough at first, but I realized after week 5 that it was more of a mental challenge than physical at that point.(My body could run the required times, I just had to make sure I didn't convince myself otherwise) The biggest benefit to me was how much better I felt overall, particularly after the week 4-5 point. At a certain point, I even started looking forward to the runs, although I've learned not to over-do it, no matter how good I feel at the time.

I've also since started supplementing my runs with other exercises(pushups, crunches, squats, and some light weights) on the my off days. There are similar programs for those as well, which I'm currently working my way through.(Although I'm not sure how far I'll get through the 100 pushups program) I think the biggest thing I learned from the C25K program is not to worry about starting small, and just keep at it until you get the results you want.

Best joke I heard back when this all first came out: "Mark Sanford believes that marriage is a sacred union between one man, one woman, and another woman in Argentina."

The only new show that looks interesting to me so far is the new Sherlock Holmes series, Elementary, but I've always been a fan of the many incarnations of Holmes. I'm looking forward to more Doctor Who as well, but I agree with the PP that said most scifi series generally don't live up to expectations. No matter how interesting the premise may be, they always seem to quickly fall back into the same repetitive themes and ideas.

I wouldn't have a problem with the owner giving money to any particular causes. What I do have a problem with is when Chick-fil-A as a company gives money to organizations whose sole purpose is to deny civil rights to a particular group. As long as Chick-fil-A as a company is donating money to organizations such as the Family Research Council(Which bills itself as pro-family, but their actions are effectively anti-gay), I will not give them a single penny to put towards those donations. Again, this isn't money that Dan Cathy as an individual is donating, this is money that the company itself donates directly from profits generated by customers. There is a difference between a private individual using money he earned to support a cause and a company giving its official support and using its profits to support the same cause.

I'm reminded of when the Southern Baptists called for a boycott of Disney because of Disney's stance on same-sex partner benefits and general policies. People laughed at how silly the Baptists convention was being, but no one tried to claim they had no right to call for the boycott. Now, when people are protesting a company's anti-gay actions(And yes, donating money to anti-gay groups is an anti-gay action), those same Baptists are saying the protests are uncalled for and they should just let people have their own opinions.

Several years ago, I found a good antidote to having a song stuck in my head. I just go to this site, http://www.badgerbadgerbadger.com/ and listen to it for a bit.(At least to the part about the snake) By that point, whatever was stuck in my head is usually completely gone. It also works for times when you see or hear something that you'd rather not think about.(As in, "I didn't need to see that" moments) For dire emergencies, I break out my old "Bananaphone" clips.