Anonymous wrote:You may get some benefits from Romney or you may not. You are not high enough to be in his target group, so it's hit or miss whether you gain more from the rate cut than you lose from the disappearance of deductions and government services.

Obama will probably be more intent on helping you, but there too it's no slam dunk, because as Bill said arithmetic is boss, and a lot of number-juggling will mold the plans of either side.

Anonymous wrote:If you only care about what will benefit you personally, rather than what will benefit your neighbors or your country, then vote Republican. You'll fit right in.

Freeman wrote:

Anonymous wrote:List a source from Romney's economic team that indicates part of his plan is to eliminate deductions for the middle class.

Go on the facts not 3rd party opinion narratives.

I can't list a source stating what they plan to do, simply because they refuse to release the information, unlike the Obama campaign. However, in Mitt Romney's own words in a CBS interview:

BOB SCHIEFFER: We-- we know, Governor, you've told us, you haven't been bashful about telling us where you want to cut taxes. When are you going to tell us where you're going to get the revenue? Which of the deductions are you going to be willing to eliminate? Which of the tax credits are you going to-- when will you going to be able to tell us that?

MITT ROMNEY: Well, we'll go through that process with Congress as to which of all the different deductions and exemptions are the ones--

BOB SCHIEFFER (voice overlapping): But do you have any ideas now, like, the home mortgage interest deduction, you know, various ones?

MITT ROMNEY: Well, Simpson-Bowles went through a process of saying how they would be able to reach a-- a setting where they had actually, under their proposal even more revenue for the government with lower rates. So mathematically, it's been proved to be possible. We can have lower rates, as I propose, that creates more growth, and we can limit deductions and exemptions--

BOB SCHIEFFER: But you're not--

MITT ROMNEY: --but my view-- my-- my view is the right way to do that is to limit them for high-income individuals because I want to keep the progressivity of the code. One-- one of the absolute requirements of any tax reform that I have in mind is that people who are at the high end, whether you call them the one percent or two percent or half a percent, that people at the high end will still pay the same share of the tax burden they're paying now. I'm not looking for a tax cut for the very wealthiest. I'm looking to bring tax rates down for everyone, and, also, to make sure that we stimulate growth by doing so and jobs. For me, this is all about creating good jobs.

By refusing to specify what income levels will be affected, what deductions and exemptions will be altered or revoked, and generally not being forthcoming with information, we are left to speculate based on the amount of tax cuts that he is implementing and the additional revenue that will be needed to offset those cuts. You'll note that he states he wants to reduce tax rates for everyone. That is not the same as the tax burden. If you want me to accept any statement about the affect of his tax plans as fact, then you'll have to be prepared to actually state the entirety of his tax plan, not just the bits and pieces that his campaign believes will appeal to people. If the rest is so beneficial to everyone, why not reveal it now and win more votes?

Anonymous wrote:If you only care about what will benefit you personally, rather than what will benefit your neighbors or your country, then vote Republican. You'll fit right in.

Anonymous wrote:List a source from Romney's economic team that indicates part of his plan is to eliminate deductions for the middle class.

Go on the facts not 3rd party opinion narratives.

BOB SCHIEFFER: We-- we know, Governor, you've told us, you haven't been bashful about telling us where you want to cut taxes. When are you going to tell us where you're going to get the revenue? Which of the deductions are you going to be willing to eliminate? Which of the tax credits are you going to-- when will you going to be able to tell us that?

MITT ROMNEY: Well, we'll go through that process with Congress as to which of all the different deductions and exemptions are the ones--

BOB SCHIEFFER (voice overlapping): But do you have any ideas now, like, the home mortgage interest deduction, you know, various ones?

MITT ROMNEY: Well, Simpson-Bowles went through a process of saying how they would be able to reach a-- a setting where they had actually, under their proposal even more revenue for the government with lower rates. So mathematically, it's been proved to be possible. We can have lower rates, as I propose, that creates more growth, and we can limit deductions and exemptions--

BOB SCHIEFFER: But you're not--

MITT ROMNEY: --but my view-- my-- my view is the right way to do that is to limit them for high-income individuals because I want to keep the progressivity of the code. One-- one of the absolute requirements of any tax reform that I have in mind is that people who are at the high end, whether you call them the one percent or two percent or half a percent, that people at the high end will still pay the same share of the tax burden they're paying now. I'm not looking for a tax cut for the very wealthiest. I'm looking to bring tax rates down for everyone, and, also, to make sure that we stimulate growth by doing so and jobs. For me, this is all about creating good jobs.

Freeman wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The piece you cited has been debunked because it makes assumptions that Romney will eliminate deductions for the middle class. NO WHERE does it state Romney will eliminate deductions for the middle class. This is based on an opinion not a fact "

"Gale says you can't pay for Romney's tax cuts for high earners just by eliminating deductions — unless you also raise taxes on the middle class."

"The $2000 "tax hike" figure that Warren cites is grounded in a third-party analysis that Romney has criticized, but one the authors stand by. The authors also note that their calculations are not precise because they lack some specifics of Romney's plan."

http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/07/politics/fact-check-manufacturing/index.html?hpt=po_c2

http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2012/08/27/160083532/romney-s-plan-to-broaden-tax-base-finds-critics

I thought you said it had been debunked? I read both links, and others. At no point has anyone definitively stated that the report was not accurate. No one can until we know exactly which deductions Romney would eliminate, information which he has stated he would not share until after the election. So we can only speculate, based on the facts and figures available to us. The report I originally mentioned was a Romney supporter detailing ways the tax cuts could be paid for. The only statements made against it are that the assumptions as to which deductions would be eliminated may not be accurate. That's hardly "debunking" the article.

Anonymous wrote:The piece you cited has been debunked because it makes assumptions that Romney will eliminate deductions for the middle class. NO WHERE does it state Romney will eliminate deductions for the middle class. This is based on an opinion not a fact "

"Gale says you can't pay for Romney's tax cuts for high earners just by eliminating deductions — unless you also raise taxes on the middle class."

"The $2000 "tax hike" figure that Warren cites is grounded in a third-party analysis that Romney has criticized, but one the authors stand by. The authors also note that their calculations are not precise because they lack some specifics of Romney's plan."

http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/07/politics/fact-check-manufacturing/index.html?hpt=po_c2

http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2012/08/27/160083532/romney-s-plan-to-broaden-tax-base-finds-critics

Anonymous wrote:Please state facts not boogie man stories and opinions. Financially speaking please lay out the changes financially for each candidate.

The main point is that the thing that affects OP directly would be taxes.

Freeman wrote:

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:

Anonymous wrote:For the moral and social issues, I know who would get my vote. But I want to understand who will hurt my family the least in a financial way. We have HHI of between $125 - $150K.

And would your answer change for some of my family's situations? Some of them are between $50-$75K.

In addition to the tax issues, you have to look at what public services your family uses. If anyone in your family (say retired parents?) gets social security benefits or Medicare or Medicaid benefits these programs will be cut. The Social Security impact will be long-term rather than short term. Right now, the program has the funds to last only a relatively short while longer (some say it will run out of money as early as 2029). And that is with benefits at the current level. However, with Romney, there is always the chance that to cut money from that program, they will attempt to reduce benefits to make the SS money last longer. With the Medicare cuts, elderly and other Medicare recipients may end up with more out-of-pocket expenses for their managed care. There's a lot more to this than just the income tax decrease. You can have more take-home pay from lower taxes, but still have a harder time if you have to pay for more services that you get through public assistance. All so that people like Romney, who will not be creating any jobs, can save more money than you make in a year.

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