What happens to families earning over 200k a year under Obama vs Romney, Results are SHOCKING
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
|
Finally, an un-bias and comparative article between Obama vs Romney Tax Plans.
Besides the high earner income tax changes, notice what is going to happen to investors capital gains which will affect start up and business investments. You add all these small tax hikes up and they result in a large tax increase for those who hit the 200k a year threshold. Imagine not being able to deduct your mortgage because you hit that 200k a year limit and maxed out deductions? Overall no matter how much money you make, the best outcome will be the Romney tax plan which will slash lower end income taxes down to 8%. Romney's plan incentives investors to spend money and invest in companies because of the reduction in capital gains taxes which is good for the economy. http://money.cnn.com/2012/09/07/news/economy/tax-obama-romney/index.html?iid=HP_LN |
Anonymous
| Gee, Romney also wants to balance the budget. So what cuts make all of this possible? Any tax promise is meaningless without that. |
Anonymous
|
Except Romney's plan would blow a hole in the federal budget that would sink the Titanic in 10 minutes. His tax cuts make the Bush tax cuts look like kids stuff. So, as Clinton said, either the deficit would soar, the govt would have to cut back everything by a 1/3 or so, or he would get rid of the middle class deductions for mortgage interest and health insurance. That's probably a good deal for the rich, who get millions of $ of tax relief, but not such a good deal for most of us.
The idea that people are waiting to invest money until the cap gains rate gets lower seems stupid to me. |
Anonymous
Ok think about it, if investors aren't waiting to invest money until the rate goes down, people are going to be worried when the capital gains tax goes UP. Nothing in Obama's plan is going to spur for private sector job growth and creation as strongly as Romney . New private sector job growth comes from VC and other investment firms creating new companies. I don't see anything from obama that is going to motivate a VC investors. |
Freeman
Member Offline
Member Offline
|
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. |
Anonymous
The tax rate on all forms of income should be the same and then VCs and everyone else can make their investment decisions based on what is likely to give them the best return (i.e. best economically), not making investments in order to get a tax break-- that's how we ended up with overbuilt real estate in the 80s and similar problems. Frankly, I don't want VC investor who are only "motivated" by paying zero taxes on their investment. |
Anonymous
| I love how all these anti-Obama/Democratic party post titles use either all caps, or lots of !!!!, or words like SHOCKING. |
Anonymous
Add it up and it is shocking, it's not mearly letting the bush cuts expire it's much more. Obama has pulled the wool over your eyes let me add it up for you based on a family that makes 250k a year (typical for DCUM standards). 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%. 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. Obama: Would permanently adjust the AMT for inflation. Romney: Would abolish the AMT. 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 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 |
Anonymous
Let's clarify a few things. The 200,000 threshold is for individuals. For married couples it's $250,000. That's TAXABLE income, not AGI. And nothing says you can't deduct your mortgage interest. What Obama has proposed is a haircut on the deduction -- not a disallowance. For a married couple with taxable income of $260,000 and are in the 31% marginal tax bracket, it means the tax savings on their deduction would be worth 28%, not 31%. Considering the mortgage interest deduction skews its benefits up the income ladder, this isn't such bad policy. |
Anonymous
If you get a "haircut" on itemized deductions, does that not increase taxes you must pay? Add that to the 4% increase. Because itemized deduction are complicated and different for each person the result of that can be HUGE. |
Freeman
Member Offline
Member Offline
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.
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.
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.
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.
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. |
Anonymous
You don't seem to understand how marginal tax rates work. Or the legislative process. Or how DCUMers make their money. Since you're talking about a "typical DCUMer" who makes $250,000. -- That's probably all salary, and not investment income, so the .9% tax increase is likely to be negligible. -- They are not affected at all by the top two income tax rates. The 33% rate kicks in for married couples with more than $212,300 of taxable income, which means that if they are homeowners with typical deductions and exclusions (such as FSAs, etc), they probably have to gross around $260,000 to be affected. And even then, the 33% rate only applies to a fraction of their income. The top rate doesn't kick in until taxable income of $379,150, which means a family would have to have a gross income around $425,000 with normal deductions and exclusions to be affected. -- Your comment about the beneficiaries of carried interest creating private jobs is demonstrably false. Even so, it doesn't justify a lower tax rate than the worker bees. -- Your comment about a 4% tax hike implies that is on a couple's entire income. That is false. Look up the definition of "marginal" tax rates. -- The limitation on itemized deductions really isn't a "killer" as you say. Your typical DCUMer (your words) who makes $250,000 and has, say, $50,000 of itemized deductions. Assuming they even pay IN the 33% bracket (see my second point), the additional tax on that is 50,000 X .05, or $2,500. Yes, it's not nothing, but "killer?" Come on. |
Anonymous
Yes, but you implied that people lose their entire mortgage deduction, which is not the proposal. And people don't get a 4% rate increase. It's a MARGINAL RATE. If they have $260,000 of taxable income, the additional tax is $400, not $10,400, as you are directly implying. |
Anonymous
| See, all the BOLDED and CAPITALIZED words don't mean much if you can't even understand and explain the story correctly. Kind of undermines your message. |
Anonymous
The message is YOUR TAXES ARE GOING UP under Obama Your TAXES ARE GOING DOWN under Romney. Case closed. |