In reality, there is a whole lot on the table, at least if you believe the talk.
Women's rights, social programs, healthcare, "jobs", the direction of energy development, how we will address our national debt, and everyone's favorite, TAXES are all up for grabs. Not to mention the future of the Supreme Court, and the fallout that can happen if appointments go one way or the other.
But on taxes..
Obama Basics:
Extends Bush tax cuts, except for individuals over $200k and families over $250k/year. Capital gains and invesetment income taxed harder, Obamacare tax built into capital gains, increased dividends tax, potential limits on itemized deductions.
Take away: wealthy tax payers and those with substantial investment portfolios are going to pay more tax. Middle class largely spared.
Romney Basics:
Extends Bush tax cuts for everybody, cut rates an additional 20%, if you are under $200k you pay no capital gains/dividend/interest taxes, repeal the estate tax. Pays for it by getting rid of "loophole deductions," which we are not sure what those are.
Take away: wealthy tax payers and those with substantial investment portfolios will make out like bandits. Everyone else pays their "fair share," with the middle class coming out about the same and the poor not getting much extra relief.
I found an interesting calculator that will tell you how each candidate's tax plan will affect your bottom line. Try it for yourself, here. No idea if it is accurate, just a fun tool. Interesting to see what happens at lower incomes, and extreme upper incomes, though (start at $500k, then keep going up. See a trend?)
I don't really care who, or what you believe in or support, and I will not tell you who to vote for. Mainly, because neither candidate has chosen to request an endorsement from Yourtexasestateplan.com.
Also, while you are here, vote in our scientific straw poll on the right.
Just go vote. It is your right and your duty. Then lets talk. About taxes.
Like BANDITS? Excuse me, I'm sorry, I have to interject something here: taxpayer's need incentive to save for their future. That won't happen when the feds incessantly dig in to our capital gains, dividends, and interest income to spend it on God-knows-what (besides SS, Medicare, Medicaid, national defense, big industry bailouts, and now, Obamacare).
Our problems aren't political, they're cultural. Most of us blow our entire paychecks and borrow to make up the difference. What's the remedy for that?
Stick to writing about Halloween candy, counselor.
Jack, a wise man once told me to "vote your pocketbook." Another wise man also said "if you're young and not a liberal, you don't have a heart, but if your old and not a conservative, you don't have a brain." Take axioms for what they are.
Check the calculator link I provided, and see the differences in results for different levels of income. I think you will find my analysis accurate.
I, seemingly like you, have not provided any answer for our societal issues. That is beyond the scope of this discussion. If you would like to discuss it further, my contact information is available.
I agree with CBJ your out of your element Pelley! Green Party Movement LIVES!
I don't need your contact information because I can set you straight here and now. The fate of the nation has been left to the caprice of housewives living in suburbs outside Cleveland, Ohio. You think they vote their pocketbook? Or do they vote pro-choice and "free" healthcare because it's "the right thing to do"?
How many of them can explain to me the difference between Keynesian economics and supply side economics? Which one can name me a member of the House Ways and Means Committee?
Yet each one of them can listen to some hot-shot attorney like you who says, "Here, put your income in this magic calculator and vote accordingly."
Vote your pocketbook . . . Ha! I'll leave you with this quote from Michael Corleone, counselor: "We're both part of the same hypocrisy, Senator, but never think it applies to my family."
Mr. Jack,
I am all about spirited discourse. That is one of the goals of this website. However, I have not, and will not (until, as aforementioned, the candidates ask me to endorse one or the other) ask my readers to vote one way or the other. Voting is a personal as religion, and no man or woman has the right to impose their beliefs on another. At least not in this country, and I would hope that in no way my posts impose that suggestion. The intent, as it always has been, has been to be educational and informative.
That said, it is very difficult task to educate the populace, and often in our partisan country elections can end up being decided by a small group of individuals (See West Palm Beach, Florida, 2000). In today's electronic age, avenues such as this website are meant for just that purpose, but what good is the information if it falls on deaf ears? Is there a fact checker? Who checks the fact checkers? Not me.
Let's see what happens tonight, and discuss the fallout tomorrow.
Post a Comment