Vote today... Mitt Romney or Barack Obama

[RBFC]

To be more clear about my earlier post, it doesn't matter to what group the entitlements are distributed. The pool of "contributors" will continue to shrink as they tire of paying more to support others. It ends up being a matter of ideology and the ethic of work-produces-standard-of-living.

Yes, there are some tax breaks and loopholes that need to be examined in regards to the ultra-wealthy. Human nature dictates that many will vote for "stuff for me" if they have the opportunity. The salary-level pension-for-life for a single term in Congress is an example. So is the Congressional Health Care that is exempt from the Affordable Health Care Act. If they said, "Would you like to receive all the audio equipment of your choosing for free for life.... please vote!", what do you think most folks would say? There are fundamental problems that partisan politics cannot repair, and fundamental problems with our country experimenting with political ideologies that have historically failed throughout history.

Lee

 

[audioguy]

I will get a tax hike too if Obama makes good on his promises. I hope he does. Heaven forbid I could not afford another $2000 powercord as a result.

Poor you. No new power cord. If only my Obama tax increase were $2,000 or even $10,000.

The current capital gains tax rate is 15% scheduled to be 20% next year. Obama's plan for higher earners: 30%.

 

[rockitman]

so edorr, let me get this straight..pay a little bit more as our liberal friends say...many buisnes owners pay themselves in the form of stock dividends...which is 15%...if their income is over 200k, their rate goes from 15% to 43%. That is a job killer my friend (Trippling tax reates). I think europeans should mind their own business when it comes to taxes. Remember our Boston teaparty ? And clearly, from a fiscal standpoint, Europeans aren't doing to well fiscally and they still have the highest taxes in the world. I hear there is a big exodus in France with their new 75% tax rate for the wealthy.

 

[FrantzM]

HI

The dust has settled. The Popular vote was close as it was supposed to but the Electoral College vote is the closest thing to a landslide. The Republican nominee lost all but one of the battleground states. meanwhile up to the election they seem to think they would win itl.. That tells me a few things:

Echo chamber is a dangerous state of operation. Repeating the same things and refusing to accept facts is a strategy for failures. This was nowhere as apparent to see how sincerely K. Rove believed they were going to win. I will give him that. He believed. I will say little of his politics and his antics on the air that election night.

Citizen well-being or welfare seems to be a concept well understood by the American people. To paraphrase Supreme Court Justice, Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr: "Taxes are the price we pay for civilization.". We find absolutely normal that prices increase for everything nowhere more accepted than in our dear High Audio acquisitions for "better" things.. We find difficult to digest that Taxes would raise to correct things within the country very own finances and welfare. Oh! I wil grant you that there is a limit and taxes should not become an impediment to what drives growth and sustainability in the USA , businesses but ...

How do we pay for those things we have come to take for granted: Our infrastructure, Our roads, Our Army, Our increasingly graying population, Our way of life. etc? Haven't prices increased, across the board? And this is thoroughly ignoring the consequences of wars we have been fighting (or fought) at least one of them infinitely (and interestingly the costlier in all cost financial and prestige) Questionable and a financial situation which can be only be described by "Depression" rather than the more euphemistic "Recession".. People! We almost drowned in the 2008 Financial crisis and came back from the dead at GREAT COST!!. Do we really think that the model of granting exemptions that allow really, but really wealthy people to pay proportionally less taxes is the answer? Is it really possible to progress without any sacrifices in a changing world ? With more enemies and much more powerful challengers than ever before? because let's face it the USA are facing challengers they never did in their glorious history. The USSR was a formidable military foe but a weak industrial state .. They produce nothing except a few cyborgs that won some medals and sent a few things up there in the sky what else ? Not the same with China and India...Please people have a serious a look at India and China .. They are formidable, especially India, the largest Democracy in the World .. Those challenges will be met but, at a cost and with sacrifices .. No other way.

Not saying that we should not press them to find better solutions and be vigilant and offers criticisms. The current financial atmosphere allows too many to just hoard money and not release it in the market. The banks in particular made so much profits that they paid almost everything they were loaned in a startingly short time, I think even they, were surprised by the celerity of their reimbursements. The system must be tweaked.. We must look for beter solutions but not to cling to notions for the sake of ideology.. To conclude I am again citing Oliver Wendell Homes Jr: who believed that the United States Constitution as "an experiment, as all life is an experiment" and believed that as a consequence "we should be eternally vigilant against attempts to check the expression of opinions that we loathe and believe to be fraught with death." (Entire quote from Wikipedia, emphasis is mine)

 

[Andre Marc]

It amazing that so many people voted (essentially) for more taxes. More income taxes, more capital gain taxes and much higher estate taxes.

Ok, its time set some things straight. First, taxes are at a historical LOW for the past 80 years.

When taxes were "high" under Mr. Clinton there more millionaires and billionaires created then at ANY other time in US history.

When the biggest Icons of American Business were created, Intel, Apple Computer, IBM, Amazon, etc. What were the
top Federal rates? Apple computer was founded during a top rate of SEVENTY PERCENT.

The Republicans just killed a study by a non partisan group that concluded that tax rates within certain parameters
have NO bearing on economic growth. What drives growth is real INNOVATION. (That in my opinion, excludes innovation
in the financial sector, which is a code word for paper shuffling, profit squeezing, and massive risk taking.)

The wealthy have been subsidized for over ten years with their 15% Capital Gains tax. Mutt Romney and Warren Buffet pay
a lower rate than YOU. (13-15%) Are you pleased?

George Romney would have turned in his grave if he lived to see his son run. This was a man who paid 35% Federal Taxes,
even eschewing certain deductions he was entitled too, and released THIRTEEN tax returns!!!!!!! when he ran for office.

Let's also end the illusion that the wealthy pay the the actual top rate. No they don't.

Funny how Bill Clinton was a rock star for Obama. Mutt and his party wanted to bring back the policies of the Bush Admin,
yet NOT ONE SINGLE one of their operators were allowed to show their faces. No Bush, no Cheney, no Rice, no Rumsfeld...LOL.

Bye Mutt...enjoy your hundreds of millions stashed in Switzerland and the Caymans, go take a road trip, and don't forget to s
secure the dog to the top of the car.

 

[jazdoc]

Actually the US Tax system is quite progressive:

More important than tax rates is the actual amount of income tax paid which is quite progressive:

And income inequality is dropping as per this chart from the AFL-CIO. Note that the real inequality rise occurred during the 1990's, fed by the stock market bubble:

 

[RBFC]

The additional "fees", many contained in Obamacare, were not labeled "taxes" for a reason. There are additional costs far beyond the return of tax-cut expiration.

Also, $15 billion was already set aside in the big $700+ billion bail-out stimulus for the Office of Medical Information Technology. Where was that noted in any news reports? There is much more of our money going to virtually-undisclosed projects contained in the "vote on it & then we'll find out what's in it" bills.

Lee

 

[steve williams]

Is there any truth to the allegation made by Romney that in order to make Obamacare work, Obama filtered huge amounts from the Medicare system or was that blowing smoke

 

[steve williams]

Change coming to Obama's team, just not right away

By JULIE PACE, AP

WASHINGTON — Big changes are coming to President Barack Obama's administration — just not right away.

The White House is making the nation's high-stakes fiscal crisis its top priority coming out of the election, underscoring the vital importance of averting severe year-end tax increases and spending cuts, not just for the economy but in setting the tone for Obama's second term.

Still, Obama is weighing replacements for high-profile officials expected to leave his Cabinet and the White House soon. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton both want to step down but have indicated a willingness to push their departures into next year, or at least until successors are confirmed. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta also wants to retire next year.

"The first thing is to try to find a way out of the box we're in with regards to the fiscal cliff," said Tom Daschle, the former Senate majority leader who is close to Obama. "When the new Congress convenes they'll begin the nominating process for what I expect will be a good number of vacancies."

Obama privately delved into both issues Thursday, his first full day back in Washington following his re-election on Tuesday. The president and his team were also assessing how congressional Republicans were positioning themselves following the election before saying much publicly about his second term.

The president will make his first postelection comments on the economy and the fiscal cliff Friday at the White House.

In his victory speech Tuesday night, Obama offered a call for reconciliation after a divisive campaign. But he made clear he had an agenda in mind, citing a need for changes in the tax code, as well as immigration reform and climate change.

Obama aides want to avoid what they believe was an overreach by President George W. Bush, who declared after narrowly winning re-election that he had "political capital" and intended to spend it. One of Bush's first moves was to push to privatize Social Security, a plan that was roundly rejected by Congress and the public.

The White House believes Obama has a clear mandate on one key issue: raising taxes on families making more than $250,000 a year. Obama senior adviser David Plouffe said voters "clearly chose the president's view of making sure the wealthiest Americans are asked to do a little bit more" to help shrink the federal deficit.

The president has long advocated allowing tax cuts first passed by Bush to expire for upper income earners. But he gave in to Republican demands in 2010 and allowed the cuts to continue, angering many Democrats.

Both parties agree that the combination of tax increases and spending cuts set to hit on Jan. 1 could plunge the economy back into recession.

Republican House Speaker John Boehner said Wednesday that he wanted to compromise with the re-elected president. And he said the House would be willing to accept higher tax revenue under the right conditions as part of a more sweeping attempt to reduce deficits.

The White House wants consistency in its "fiscal cliff" negotiating team, meaning Geithner is likely to put off his departure from Treasury until Obama and lawmakers can reach some agreement.

White House chief of staff Jack Lew is seen as a leading candidate to replace Geithner. Lew is well-respected in Washington by both parties and served as budget director under both Obama and former President Bill Clinton.

Another person often mentioned as a possible successor to Geithner is Erskine Bowles, a White House chief of staff under Clinton and the co-chief of the White House's 2010 deficit reduction commission.

Both Lew and Bowles would bring an intimate knowledge of the intricacies of the federal budget and could be expected to take a leading role in trying to negotiate a broad budget agreement with Congress. The selection of either would signal that the administration intends to make resolution of the government's deficit problems a priority.

At State, the leading candidates to take over as the nation's top diplomat are Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., and Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.

But Rice has faced criticism this fall from Republicans for providing initial accounts about the deaths of Americans in Benghazi, Libya, that later proved false. The White House has vigorously defended Rice, but the prospect of starting a second term with a contentious confirmation hearing may be unappealing.

Kerry, an early Obama backer, has long coveted the State Department job. He made a well-regarded foreign policy speech at the Democratic convention and even played the role of Romney during campaign debate preparations this year.

Other Cabinet secretaries who have talked about leaving are Attorney General Eric Holder and Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, the only Republican in the Cabinet. Both have said they would speak with the president before making a final decision.

Second term shake-ups are also sure to hit Obama's West Wing inner circle. Plouffe is expected to be among those departing, while Obama's senior adviser and close friend Valerie Jarrett is staying on.

And if Obama taps Lew for the Treasury Department, he'll have to add chief of staff to the list of vacancies

 

[mojave]

That argument is such a farce to be comical. Just who are these people who don't pay taxes? Senior citizens? Armed forces? Disabled? Yes, millionaires? How about religious institutions? Corporations?

Everyone that works pays 4.2% for FICA and 1.45% for Medicare for the first $110,000 earned. This will go up to 6.2% for FICA and 2.35% for Medicare for the first $112,500 earned in 2013. However, for anybody with kids that makes under $50-70,000 not only do they not usually have to pay federal income taxes, but they can get tax credits greater than the taxes that have been withheld. In other words, they get paid by the government. I have been refunded my entire federal tax withholding for the past 3-4 years. I own my own house, pay my own health insurance for my family, pay all medical bills, and contribute about 15% to church so my itemized deductions are far greater than the standard deduction.

 

[Andre Marc]

Is there any truth to the allegation made by Romney that in order to make Obamacare work, Obama filtered huge amounts from the Medicare system or was that blowing smoke

A total lie.

 

[MylesBAstor]

Actually the US Tax system is quite progressive:

More important than tax rates is the actual amount of income tax paid which is quite progressive:

And income inequality is dropping as per this chart from the AFL-CIO. Note that the real inequality rise occurred during the 1990's, fed by the stock market bubble:

I think the top graph is baloney; that's not even close to what I pay. Like to know what the hell they were averaging.

 

[steve williams]

A total lie.

why was Romney always so anxious to make that point if it was a lie. I never saw Obama try to refute that point in any of the 3 debates when Romney brought it up

 

[edorr]

so edorr, let me get this straight..pay a little bit more as our liberal friends say...many buisnes owners pay themselves in the form of stock dividends...which is 15%...if their income is over 200k, their rate goes from 15% to 43%. That is a job killer my friend (Trippling tax reates). I think europeans should mind their own business when it comes to taxes. Remember our Boston teaparty ? And clearly, from a fiscal standpoint, Europeans aren't doing to well fiscally and they still have the highest taxes in the world. I hear there is a big exodus in France with their new 75% tax rate for the wealthy.

First, I may be am native European but I and am paying US taxes, my wife is American and my kids were born here, so I think I am entitled (that word again!) to express an opinion on the subject.

Second, Obama's 2013 plan calls for taxing income over $200,000 at 33%. Income over $400,000 would be taxed at 40%. So lets say your small business makes $400,000 a year, and you pay yourself $100,000 salary and $300,000 stock dividends. Your current tax bill is say 20% of 100,000 + 15% of $300,000 = $65,000. Effective rate is 16.5%. (Your effective rate would go up only marginally under the Obama plan - his plan really starts to hurt when you make 7 figures or more).

I say if you make $400,000 and pay less than 20% effective taxes you are exploiting a loophole (not to mention Romney's 15% on 8 figure income), and I applaud Obama for trying to close it. By the way, my wife has a small business, she is busting her ass and we get taxed at 35% on our marginal income generated by the business (I would not want it any other way). Why should someone with a better tax accountant pay less?

In my view the real entitlement problem in this country is guys like Romney feeling they are entitled to paying 15% taxes on 8 figure income - but hey, that is just me.

 

[edorr]

why was Romney always so anxious to make that point if it was a lie. I never saw Obama try to refute that point in any of the 3 debates when Romney brought it up

Bill Clinton totally exposed that lie in his convention speech. Unfortunatly Bill was not running.

 

[Andre Marc]

why was Romney always so anxious to make that point if it was a lie. I never saw Obama try to refute that point in any of the 3 debates when Romney brought it up

From FactCheck.org:

"Romney said Obama “cut Medicare by $716 billion to pay for Obamacare,” but these cuts in the future growth of spending prolong the life of the Medicare trust fund, stretching the program’s finances out longer than they would last otherwise."

The 716 Billion are cuts strictly to admin and provider costs. ZERO benefits are cut. ZERO.

BTW, Paul Ryan had the identical dollar amount cut from his "budget proposal".

Obama DID refute the fact that these were not cuts in benefits.

 

[A.wayne]

I wouldn't care about paying more taxes to provide basic health care and necessary social services for those in need. But the amount of corruption and waste is headache inducing.

Bingo ,

When these corrupt insiders start talking about reducing waste and corruption then we can put more taxes on the table ...!!!

 

[edorr]

From FactCheck.org:

"Romney said Obama “cut Medicare by $716 billion to pay for Obamacare,” but these cuts in the future growth of spending prolong the life of the Medicare trust fund, stretching the program’s finances out longer than they would last otherwise."

The 716 Billion are cuts strictly to admin and provider costs. ZERO benefits are cut. ZERO.

BTW, Paul Ryan had the identical dollar amount cut from his "budget proposal".

Obama DID refute the fact that these were not cuts in benefits.

You don't have to be overly cynical to make the inference the only reason Romney does not want to improve Medicare efficiency in the short run is so it will go broke quicker. He can then tell the world "I told you so", and introduce vouchercare as payback to his corporate donors (and look compassionate to current Medicare recipients in the process. I brilliant ploy.

 

[jazdoc]

First, I may be am native European but I and am paying US taxes, my wife is American and my kids were born here, so I think I am entitled (that word again!) to express an opinion on the subject.

Second, Obama's 2013 plan calls for taxing income over $200,000 at 33%. Income over $400,000 would be taxed at 40%. So lets say your small business makes $400,000 a year, and you pay yourself $100,000 salary and $300,000 stock dividends. Your current tax bill is say 20% of 100,000 + 15% of $300,000 = $65,000. Effective rate is 16.5%. (Your effective rate would go up only marginally under the Obama plan - his plan really starts to hurt when you make 7 figures or more).

I say if you make $400,000 and pay less than 20% effective taxes you are exploiting a loophole (not to mention Romney's 15% on 8 figure income), and I applaud Obama for trying to close it. By the way, my wife has a small business, she is busting her ass and we get taxed at 35% on our marginal income generated by the business (I would not want it any other way). Why should someone with a better tax accountant pay less?

In my view the real entitlement problem in this country is guys like Romney feeling they are entitled to paying 15% taxes on 8 figure income - but hey, that is just me.

Well that's not quite right...If you own 100% of a business, your dividends are paid with after tax money. So if you pay a 20% corporate rate, that is an additional tax of $60,000 that you have effectively paid (your 100% owned company acting as collector for the government). As you correctly noted, you would then pay an additional 15% on the dividend. You pay $125,000 of tax on your income of $400,000 for a rate of 31.25%, not 16.5%. This is the reason someone who owns a small business tries to avoid dividends.

 

[A.wayne]

I find it amusing that everyone is having a hissyfit over out of control taxation when taxes are at an historically low, and all Obama is talking about is letting the Bush cuts on high income expire, so levels move closer to the historical and (global) norm, which was completely uncontroversial under along line of Republican presidents. Note that these high earners are the only ones that have seen their (after tax) real income raise over the last few decades, while low income and middle class was getting hammered.

This country has lots of problems. Punitive taxation is not one of them. Stop whining. And yes, - in case you are wondering -I will get a tax hike too if Obama makes good on his promises. I hope he does. Heaven forbid I could not afford another $2000 powercord as a result.

Tax increase's hurts the poor , not the rich and it drives corruption , there is nothing wrong with the current platform , what they need to do is squeeze out the puss before attempting to change the status quo .. Anyway if Obama was intent on helping his tax policies would include tax breaks for hiring , not increases and penalties for doing so .