« previous   politics   next »

Democrats Like a Romney Idea on Income Tax


By IDDQD   Follow   Mon, 12 Nov 2012, 11:53pm PST   1,792 views   22 comments
Watch (0)   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/13/us/politics/democrats-like-a-romney-idea-to-cap-tax-deductions.html?source=Patrick.net\\&hp&_r=0

The proposal by Mr. Romney, the Republican presidential nominee, was envisioned to help pay for an across-the-board income tax cut, a move ridiculed by President Obama as window dressing to a “sketchy deal.” But many Democrats now see it as an important element of a potential deficit reduction agreement — and one they can claim to be bipartisan.

The cap — never fully detailed by Mr. Romney — is similar to a longstanding proposal by Mr. Obama to limit income tax deductions to 28 percent, even for affluent households that pay a 35 percent rate. But a firm cap of around $35,000 would hit the affluent even harder than Mr. Obama’s proposal, which has previously gotten nowhere in Congress.

Comments 1-22 of 22     Last »

Vicente   Tue, 13 Nov 2012, 12:24am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (3)   Dislike     Comment 1

Income is purely symbolic for richie rich. It is the stalking goat to distract from their real wealth.

Bellingham Bill   Tue, 13 Nov 2012, 1:57am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 2

In an October 1 interview with a Denver TV station, Mr. Romney mentioned a cap of $17,000

that was just a number thrown out there, but it would really put it to high income - high tax states like CA & NY.

$600,000 house at 4.4% (3.2% + 1.2% prop tax) is a $26,400 deduction. . .

$200,000 income CA income tax is another $13,000, 10% tithe $20,000

So this imaginary family has $60,000 in itemized deductions, LOL.

When I was looking to buy in 2001-2002 I didn't calculate the tax advantage of the MID, like an idiot, and that helped to keep me on the sidelines (GIGO).

Back then rates were 8%, so that would have been a $40,000 deduction for the market I was looking at, good for $16,000 lower taxes or more.

My housing costs were $8500/yr at the time time so I wasn't that motivated to buy, not seeing the suicide lending bubble coming (until it was already past, actually).

thomaswong.1986   Tue, 13 Nov 2012, 2:05am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 3

Vicente says

Income is purely symbolic for richie rich. It is the stalking goat to distract from their real wealth.

So now you want to go after peoples assets.. and your a govt worker to boot.

Nobody   Tue, 13 Nov 2012, 2:18am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 4

I thought Republicans' idea of taxation was "You pay, and I don't."

Nobody   Tue, 13 Nov 2012, 2:20am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 5

Vicente says

Income is purely symbolic for richie rich. It is the stalking goat to distract from their real wealth.

Ah, most rich does not earn any income. They earn capital gains in which you practically pay no tax. So you pay tax, and I will switch my salary to restricted shares of stock to avoid paying tax altogether. Any questions?

thomaswong.1986   Tue, 13 Nov 2012, 2:28am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 6

Nobody says

They earn capital gains in which you practically pay no tax.

well if your holding it under 12 months.. its ordinary income rates.

the whole idea is that you actually save your money for the future.

as such lower taxes on already taxed income is a great incentive to save
given you also are at risk of losing it as well.

but if you havent saved a dime in your life, you dont have any rights on other
peoples savings ...

Homeboy   Tue, 13 Nov 2012, 3:43am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 7

Kind of explains why Romney came up with that idea, huh?

lostand confused   Tue, 13 Nov 2012, 4:22am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 8

Democrats like a lot of Romney's ideas. The whole Obamacare was modeled on Romneycare.

justme   Tue, 13 Nov 2012, 4:24am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 9

thomaswong.1986 says

well if your holding it under 12 months.. its ordinary income rates.

No, it is still only 28% for short term capital gains. 15% and 28%, those are the numbers.

Nobody   Tue, 13 Nov 2012, 11:08am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 10

thomaswong.1986 says

the whole idea is that you actually save your money for the future.

First, learn to capitalize and learn English, so you can read the federal guideline on tax.

thomaswong.1986   Tue, 13 Nov 2012, 3:42pm PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 11

justme says

No, it is still only 28% for short term capital gains. 15% and 28%, those are the numbers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_gains_tax_in_the_United_States#Regular_and_capital_gains_tax_rates_for_2009

if your in 10% bracket your tax on short term gain is 10% and so on 15,25,28, 33 and 35%

Bracket STCG
10% 10%
15% 15%
25% 25%
28% 28%
33% 33%
35% 35%

thomaswong.1986   Tue, 13 Nov 2012, 3:49pm PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 12

Nobody says

First, learn to capitalize and learn English, so you can read the federal guideline on tax.

fuck it.. the golden rule when using email/new groups/chat...

it your worried about spelling and grammer then your wasting to much time.

Homeboy   Wed, 14 Nov 2012, 3:44am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 13

Literacy is never a waste of time.

CaptainShuddup   Wed, 14 Nov 2012, 3:47am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 14

Homeboy says

Literacy is never a waste of time.

...as the fool stood there reading the sign, "watch out for falling rocs", the Idiots around him took two steps back.
"Falling Rocs?!?" What in the hell is a "Falling Roc?" asked the Elitist fool.
It was precisely at that moment a Roc fell from the scy and crushed him flat as a pancake.

See the Idiots, while they might have not know what a falling roc is. They knew a falling anything isn't anything to trifle with.

chemechie   Wed, 14 Nov 2012, 5:51am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 15

IDDQD says

What 'richie rich'? A firm cap of $35K will hit typical SFBA couple with 2 mid-level engineering jobs and $600K mortgage like a ton of bricks

Sorry, but if you have a $600k mortgage, there is NOTHING typical about you! it may be common in certain overinflated areas like SF, but it isn't typical even there.
Average home price across the US is about $150k.

dodgerfanjohn   Wed, 14 Nov 2012, 7:22am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 16

IDDQD says

chemechie says

Sorry, but if you have a $600k mortgage, there is NOTHING typical about you! it may be common in certain overinflated areas like SF, but it isn't typical even there.

Average home price across the US is about $150k.

I don't have a mortgage, but $600K is fairly typical across decent areas of SFBA where 2-income families working for tech companies prefer to live. And I'm not talking about uber-crazy places like Palo Alto or Cupertino where it is even higher. Average home price across the US is as irrelevant to this conversation as average household income across the USA.

Maybe it's par for the course, but that income still makes your family "rich", especially when you consider that rentals in the same neighborhood are vastly cheaper.

In other words, own or not own has absolutely zero bearing on whether or not one is in a high income household.

Bellingham Bill   Wed, 14 Nov 2012, 7:50am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 17

chemechie says

but it isn't typical even there

http://www.zillow.com/local-info/CA-San-Jose-home-value/r_33839/

says the ENTIRE CITY of San Jose is at a $525k median/average whatever.

Anyplace actually worth living is $600,000 easily.

$600,000 is a ~$3300/mo cash outgo, including paydown.

PITI minus the P is $2400/mo starting out, and after 30 years the holding cost will be $800/mo.

Average cost of ownership is $1600/mo over those 30 years.

Renting a shitty one bedroom is hard at that price now.

Bellingham Bill   Wed, 14 Nov 2012, 7:53am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 18

dodgerfanjohn says

especially when you consider that rentals in the same neighborhood are vastly cheaper

only if you forget that principal repayment is a form of savings and shouldn't be counted.

Also important is that the ITI part of PITI goes down over time, and since 1932 rents HAVE NOT.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/CUUR0000SEHA

dublin hillz   Wed, 14 Nov 2012, 8:01am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 19

Bellingham Bill says

only if you forget that principal repayment is a form of savings and shouldn't be counted.

Yup, I view ammortized principle as a form of illiquid assets while a checking/savings account in a bank is liquid assets. However, they are both assets from a net worth standpoint.

dodgerfanjohn   Wed, 14 Nov 2012, 8:52am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 20

Lol since when has that been the standard?

I swear California libtards are ridiculously out of touch with reality. First world problems.

thomaswong.1986   Wed, 14 Nov 2012, 8:56am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 21

IDDQD says

I don't have a mortgage, but $600K is fairly typical across decent areas of SFBA where 2-income families working for tech companies prefer to live.

all bubble prices as equally tallied in Obama's own neighborhood of Chicago.

FWIW, just a last kick to the final correction of the RE bubble. Bellingham Bill says

says the ENTIRE CITY of San Jose is at a $525k median/average whatever.

Anyplace actually worth living is $600,000 easily.

$600,000 is a ~$3300/mo cash outgo, including paydown.

Fantasy, there are fewer and fewer people who work in tech and make that kind of salary.. again most tech employees are outside of SCC.

chemechie   Wed, 5 Dec 2012, 1:18am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 22

IDDQD says

Average home price across the US is as irrelevant to this conversation as average household income across the USA.

We're talking about national tax policy, so yes, it IS relevant - those with high incomes in high cost areas will be hit much harder than those with lower incomes in lower cost areas.
It is the biggest reason I can think of to set a percentage cap instead of a numerical cap.
Oh, but wait - progressives think those who have more should pay more, so by their logic your high living costs don't excuse your high salary - aren't you willing to pay your "fair share"?

IDDQD is moderator of this thread.

Email

Username

Watch comments by email

home   top   share   link sharer   users   register   best of   about   questions or suggestions? write p@patrick.net