Democrats Like a Romney Idea on Income Tax


By IDDQD   Follow   Tue, 13 Nov 2012, 7:53am   1,644 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.

Viewing Comments 1-22 of 22     Last »     See most liked comments

  1. Vicente


    Follow
    Befriend (8)
    268 threads
    5,926 comments
    Davis, CA

    1   8:24am Tue 13 Nov 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (3)   Dislike  

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

  2. Bellingham Bill


    Follow
    Befriend
    77 threads
    3,215 comments
    Bellingham, WA

    2   9:57am Tue 13 Nov 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    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).

  3. thomaswong.1986


    Follow
    Befriend
    27 threads
    6,131 comments

    3   10:05am Tue 13 Nov 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    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.

  4. Nobody


    Follow
    Befriend
    10 threads
    285 comments
    San Jose, CA

    4   10:18am Tue 13 Nov 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike  

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

  5. Nobody


    Follow
    Befriend
    10 threads
    285 comments
    San Jose, CA

    5   10:20am Tue 13 Nov 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    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?

  6. thomaswong.1986


    Follow
    Befriend
    27 threads
    6,131 comments

    6   10:28am Tue 13 Nov 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    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 ...

  7. Homeboy


    Follow
    Befriend
    39 threads
    3,546 comments

    7   11:43am Tue 13 Nov 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike  

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

  8. lostand confused


    Follow
    Befriend (9)
    520 threads
    3,099 comments

    8   12:22pm Tue 13 Nov 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

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

  9. justme


    Follow
    Befriend (2)
    38 threads
    4,080 comments

    9   12:24pm Tue 13 Nov 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    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.

  10. Nobody


    Follow
    Befriend
    10 threads
    285 comments
    San Jose, CA

    10   7:08pm Tue 13 Nov 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    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.

  11. thomaswong.1986


    Follow
    Befriend
    27 threads
    6,131 comments

    11   11:42pm Tue 13 Nov 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    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%

  12. thomaswong.1986


    Follow
    Befriend
    27 threads
    6,131 comments

    12   11:49pm Tue 13 Nov 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    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.

  13. Homeboy


    Follow
    Befriend
    39 threads
    3,546 comments

    13   11:44am Wed 14 Nov 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike  

    Literacy is never a waste of time.

  14. CaptainShuddup


    Follow
    Befriend (1)
    927 threads
    11,747 comments

    14   11:47am Wed 14 Nov 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    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.

  15. chemechie


    Follow
    Befriend
    102 comments
    Wheeling, WV

    15   1:51pm Wed 14 Nov 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    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.

  16. dodgerfanjohn


    Follow
    Befriend
    37 threads
    1,511 comments
    Los Angeles, CA

    16   3:22pm Wed 14 Nov 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    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.

  17. Bellingham Bill


    Follow
    Befriend
    77 threads
    3,215 comments
    Bellingham, WA

    17   3:50pm Wed 14 Nov 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    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.

  18. Bellingham Bill


    Follow
    Befriend
    77 threads
    3,215 comments
    Bellingham, WA

    18   3:53pm Wed 14 Nov 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    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

  19. dublin hillz


    Follow
    Befriend
    52 threads
    1,855 comments
    Dublin, CA

    19   4:01pm Wed 14 Nov 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    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.

  20. dodgerfanjohn


    Follow
    Befriend
    37 threads
    1,511 comments
    Los Angeles, CA

    20   4:52pm Wed 14 Nov 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    Lol since when has that been the standard?

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

  21. thomaswong.1986


    Follow
    Befriend
    27 threads
    6,131 comments

    21   4:56pm Wed 14 Nov 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    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.

  22. chemechie


    Follow
    Befriend
    102 comments
    Wheeling, WV

    22   9:18am Wed 5 Dec 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    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   Tips and Tricks   Questions or suggestions? Mail p@patrick.net   Thank you for your kind donations

Page took 183 milliseconds to create.