• After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.

Romney vs. Obama

Status
Not open for further replies.
gamblor01 said:
I have yet to see any evidence that income tax should be raised on people making $45-55k. In fact, I think that is a terrible idea but you seem quite convinced. I make considerably more than that and I am struggling right now to keep my family of 4 afloat. I have even taken many steps in the past 2 years to save money and I'm still struggling to keep my credit card debt down and my mortgage paid. Some things we have done to save money:

- Got rid of the housekeepers that came and cleaned our house once every 2 weeks
- Got rid of cable TV
- Switched from my own cell phone plan to my parents' family plan (note that I am grandfathered into VOIP service with Ooma that is absolutely free so we don't pay anything for home phone service)
- Stopped eating lunches out every day at work (instead I only go out to lunch on Fridays and pack my lunch Monday-Thursday)
- Stopped playing in my weekly pool league (which also cuts down the amount of beer I drink as well)
- Cancelled gym memberships and instead just run, bike, and do workouts at home

Etc. etc. There are probably other things I could cut back on as well. Maybe I don't need to contribute as much money as I do to my 401k? Maybe I could contribute a bit less to my college savings funds for my children -- though I'm kicking in very little each month (right now). Note that I don't drive fancy cars by any stretch of the imagination. I have a Ford Focus that I bought used and my wife drives a Ford Escape that is nearly paid off. I have seriously considered selling the Focus and having a single vehicle between us.

I agree we could increase the marginal tax rate on a few of the highest earners, but increasing it on people that make less than $55k/year would give the already strained low and middle class even less spending power. While I generally tend to agree with almost everything you have said, this is one idea I think is terrible, especially when we are trying to revive a sluggish economy.
Click to expand...
Firstly, I obviously mean that the tax rate should be raised on income above $45-55K, but I'm not going to contradict you here as such. I'm really not sure what benefits having several kids will get you in the US, how your healthcare is covered etc. I'm more going on the basis of what money buys you in the USA, and what kind fiscal measures need to be taken.
 
A.Nonymous said:
Unnamed sources are only useful if their information is corroborated by real sources. Any article is only as good as it's primary sources. If your primary source is an unnamed source your information is crap IMO until you can verify it. Only thing better than an unnamed source is an unnamed source with no paper trail.
Click to expand...

It was sarcasm LOL
 
A.Nonymous said:
So you're still going with a guy citing "unnamed sources" is more credible than the Anti-Defamation League and a journalist for the Chicago Tribune? I could cite "unnamed sources" that tell me that Obama is a communist plant. Does that mean it's true?
Click to expand...

I take it you're referring to the claim that $1.5 million compensation was paid to P. Bush made by former US attorney who prosecuted Nazi war criminals in the 70s. ?

Your cited source:
The Straight Dope: Was President Bush's great-grandfather a Nazi?

supports this claim "... supposedly he got $1.5 million when UBC was liquidated in 1951. I'll buy the claim...":D
 
as for both Romney & Obama they both need to just QUIT and give all them billions back to the people who are out of work and loosing their homes .Neither on of them really care about any of us I vote for MICKEY MOUSE
 
maxgamez said:
as for both Romney & Obama they both need to just QUIT and give all them billions back to the people who are out of work and loosing their homes .Neither on of them really care about any of us I vote for MICKEY MOUSE
Click to expand...

Yeah, like giving back billions will help. This has been done so many times in history; it works only for a short period of time.
 
ElasticNinja said:
Firstly, I obviously mean that the tax rate should be raised on income above $45-55K, but I'm not going to contradict you here as such. I'm really not sure what benefits having several kids will get you in the US, how your healthcare is covered etc. I'm more going on the basis of what money buys you in the USA, and what kind fiscal measures need to be taken.
Click to expand...

It's not people earning $55K that's the issue. The issue is the significantly wealthy paying a disproportionate amount of tax compared to us Joe & Jane Schmoes. I left the UK because I was paying nearly 60% tax on my still very definitely middle class income.
 
Rachel_Ambler said:
It's not people earning $55K that's the issue. The issue is the significantly wealthy paying a disproportionate amount of tax compared to us Joe & Jane Schmoes. I left the UK because I was paying nearly 60% tax on my still very definitely middle class income.
Click to expand...

No, the issue is that too many people are on government dole and continue making babies, including illegal immigrants. Spending is out of control; there are too many government programs. And when people on food stamps buy soda and potato chips with government money, that's just wrong.
 
Rachel_Ambler said:
It's not people earning $55K that's the issue. The issue is the significantly wealthy paying a disproportionate amount of tax compared to us Joe & Jane Schmoes. I left the UK because I was paying nearly 60% tax on my still very definitely middle class income.
Click to expand...

It's an issue that the wealthy are paying several times more than my entire income? Nah, not really.
 
Rachel_Ambler said:
It's not people earning $55K that's the issue. The issue is the significantly wealthy paying a disproportionate amount of tax compared to us Joe & Jane Schmoes. I left the UK because I was paying nearly 60% tax on my still very definitely middle class income.
Click to expand...

According to the internet, a single person earning
 
ylexot said:
It's an issue that the wealthy are paying several times more than my entire income? Nah, not really.
Click to expand...

It's an issue when the average American pays between 15% and 25% whilst the super rich can seemingly get away with paying little or nothing. I just like to feel that we're all paying our way is all.

The way the system is gamed right now, the lower and middle classes bear significantly more of the brunt of the economic blow than the upper class do. I'd just like to see a fairer tax system myself and I don't think we should be saying that $55K puts you in the upper class which is what I feel the message stated.

My apologies if I've misread it.
 
Rachel_Ambler said:
It's an issue when the average American pays between 15% and 25% whilst the super rich can seemingly get away with paying little or nothing. I just like to feel that we're all paying our way is all.

The way the system is gamed right now, the lower and middle classes bear significantly more of the brunt of the economic blow than the upper class do. I'd just like to see a fairer tax system myself and I don't think we should be saying that $55K puts you in the upper class which is what I feel the message stated.

My apologies if I've misread it.
Click to expand...

Give me an example of someone who is super rich and pays little to nothing.
 
ylexot said:
Give me an example of someone who is super rich and pays little to nothing.
Click to expand...

Warren Buffet by his own admission stated he doesn't pay enough when compared to other people. I'm sure he's not the only one either. I couldn't explain quantum physics either but I'm pretty sure that goes on as well. It's fairly well known that the elite take advantage of tax shelters that us normal folk wouldn't even have a chance of using.
 
ElasticNinja said:
Firstly, I obviously mean that the tax rate should be raised on income above $45-55K, but I'm not going to contradict you here as such. I'm really not sure what benefits having several kids will get you in the US, how your healthcare is covered etc. I'm more going on the basis of what money buys you in the USA, and what kind fiscal measures need to be taken.
Click to expand...

Just FYI each dependent gives you a $1000 credit and a $2500 deduction on your taxable income (or maybe it was $3500). Healthcare for low income Americans may change due to the affordable care act, but for me the premiums are the same. At IBM I was only paying like $150/month but at my new company (roughly 70 employees) we pay something like 700/month for the PPO, and $500/month for the high deductible plan (that is family coverage though...a single employee pays $36/month for their coverage). Thank goodness I got a 17% increase in salary so that I actually wind up still making more net.

I'm not sure we should increase taxes on those making over $55k either...at least not those who make slightly more. I would set the cutoff around $200k or more, and the increase would be small, say 2 or 3%. Again, I'm still struggling and I make pretty good money. We dont have a crazy expensive house either...just a 3 bedroom in the burbs with something like 1470 sq ft.
 
Rachel_Ambler said:
Warren Buffet by his own admission stated he doesn't pay enough when compared to other people. I'm sure he's not the only one either. I couldn't explain quantum physics either but I'm pretty sure that goes on as well. It's fairly well known that the elite take advantage of tax shelters that us normal folk wouldn't even have a chance of using.
Click to expand...

Umm...Warren Buffet pays millions of dollars in taxes each year. I'd say that is several times more than his secretary's entire salary...even if she makes the estimated $200k+ that has been reported (wouldn't that make her "rich"?). I'd also consider that to be alot more than little to nothing. And if he doesn't think he pays enough, he's free to pay more. There's an IRS form for that.
 
ylexot said:
Umm...Warren Buffet pays millions of dollars in taxes each year. I'd say that is several times more than his secretary's entire salary...even if she makes the estimated $200k+ that has been reported (wouldn't that make her "rich"?). I'd also consider that to be alot more than little to nothing. And if he doesn't think he pays enough, he's free to pay more. There's an IRS form for that.
Click to expand...

But he pays less as a percentage. Is it fair that some one earning $55K pays, say 15%, $100K pays 25% and the second richest man in the world only paid 18%? Yes, he could contribute to the national debt but his point is that he's not compelled to and he feels that the super rich should be. And I agree.

I can only assume Mitt Romney's refusal to show more than 1 (or 2) years of tax returns is that he's embarrassed for people to find out how little (again in percentage terms) he pays in tax. Obama however has followed the trend of all the other recent presidential candidates and released multiple years.
 
Rachel_Ambler said:
I was interested in continuing our discussion but after that statement I shall cease to converse any further with you. This is a forum were we discuss issues, not make personal attacks on each other. I have tried to keep things civil but I feel you're not able to do that given the tone of your last reply.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I did not mean it to be a personal attack. It was just my honest unfiltered reaction. I would immigrate for other reasons but not just to pay less taxes.
I have removed the part of the comment that offended you.
 
Rachel_Ambler said:
But he pays less as a percentage. Is it fair that some one earning $55K pays, say 15%, $100K pays 25% and the second richest man in the world only paid 18%? Yes, he could contribute to the national debt but his point is that he's not compelled to and he feels that the super rich should be. And I agree.
Click to expand...
First, it is irrelevant that he is the second richest man in the world. His previous income has already been taxed.
Second, people like Mitt Romney get income primarily from capital gains. It means that you have to invest, and investment has its risks. For example, you can lose the value of your investment if the stock market crashes or if the company goes bankrupt. I think it is reasonable to tax capital gains at lower rate because neither capital not gains are guaranteed.
 
ylexot said:
Give me an example of someone who is super rich and pays little to nothing.
Click to expand...

Tax returns are private. So you may want to ask how many of the super rich are caught cheating on taxes. A quick Google search will give you an extensive list.

You may want to look into the carry trade only being taxed at 15%.
 
OutofDate1980 said:
I take it you're referring to the claim that $1.5 million compensation was paid to P. Bush made by former US attorney who prosecuted Nazi war criminals in the 70s. ?

Your cited source:
The Straight Dope: Was President Bush's great-grandfather a Nazi?

supports this claim "... supposedly he got $1.5 million when UBC was liquidated in 1951. I'll buy the claim...":D
Click to expand...

Out of context much? Did you look at the entire quote? "supposedly he got $1.5 million when UBC was liquidated in 1951. I'll buy the claim that Bush got his share of UBC back
 
OutofDate1980 said:
Tax returns are private. So you may want to ask how many of the super rich are caught cheating on taxes. A quick Google search will give you an extensive list.

You may want to look into the carry trade only being taxed at 15%.
Click to expand...

Lots of the non super rich cheat too. Cheating is not indicative of wealth level.

What's the carry trade? :confused:
 
OutofDate1980 said:
Neither is wage income.
Click to expand...

No, it is guaranteed. You work - company pays you. In the worst case scenario, you will just lose some of your time if you are not paid. In capital investment, you can lose the invested capital itself.

I am not sure whether you really don't see the difference between the two or just argue for the sake of it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom