patrick.net

Let me do the math here:

$40,000 represents 20% of your 2011 federal taxes. That means you paid $200,000 in federal taxes for 2011.

Assuming you are married filing jointly, that means you paid $97,426 at the 35% rate. So your AGI at that rate was 97426/.35 = $278,360.

Add this to $379,150 and your AGI was $657,510. Considering you live in California this puts your total income, depending on other deductions, around or north of $750k.

Absolutely. If you are a single issue voter, and that issue is taxes, and your income is at or north of $750k per year, you should vote for Romney. Your taxes will go down.

I cannot fault anyone who has that kind of income from voting that way.

However, if this post is what I suspect, a mountain of bullshit, and you make less than 500k - you should consider voting for Obama - especially if you're a single issue voter and that issue is taxes. Because if that is the case - you will be paying MORE in taxes if Romney's plan goes through.

I'm in the same boat, but will be voting for Romney anyway because I really hate the local state Democrats more (Because Governor O'Malley is actually worse than Obama) and want Obama to win the slimmest margin possible.

Multiple-choice Romnesia's numbers are irrelevant because he won't remember them next year. Remember, he campaigned saying he'd be to the left of Ted Kennedy, then said he governed as a "severe conservative." Voting Romnesia is a mistake for anyone other than his immediate patronage network:

http://www.thenation.com/article/170470/tagg-team-romney-family-recipe-crony-capitalism?page=full

He gives a lot to his cult, so most of them will vote for him. Also his military plans would probably set off more wars, so the merchants of war stand to profit, at the expense of everyone else's blood and treasure. At least 90% of Americans would be worse off with Romnesia.

If you want lower taxes, vote Gov. Gary Johnson (Libertarian). If you want more services in exchange for your taxes, vote Jill Stein MD (Green). If you want someone who has the experience of doing the job for four years without blowing up the world, vote for President Obama; I disagree with ObamneyCare, but Mittens would only worsen that.

david1 says

$40,000 represents 20% of your 2011 federal taxes. That means you paid $200,000 in federal taxes for 2011.

I paid about 180k in federal taxes. Didn't go over the numbers in detail with the CPA - we were just chatting.

Yup says

Really, where did your CPA get the Romney tax plan? Oh that's right there isn't a Romney tax plan.

Actually, there is a plan. You are just being distracted by his current bs.

I own a small business and fall into the 3% that fall into the above 250k category. But I am, way, way under what a lot of so called "small businesses" net.

Anyway, I am voting and hoping Obama wins. Yes, I have a lot of issues with his record, but Mitt would be a disaster, imo. There are a lot of people who vote against their pocketbooks, and I guess I am one of them. Ironically, most who vote against their own personal best interests vote Republican.

I have enough income that I would probably benefit under a Romney plan, although it remains to be seen what deductions would be ripped away. Very likely the mortgage interest deduction would fall under Romney, among others that we take for granted (child care deductions).

But I look at it this way. Would I rather live in a country where the mantra is "Horray for me, to hell with you." or one that thinks we are all members of a community and those that can, pitch in a little more to help those having a rough go of it, and to make our community better..

Frankly, you could take another $20k in taxes from me and I wouldn't even feel it. My lifestyle wouldn't change at all, and I am not even in the top 1%. I might put off a major purchase (Got my eye on a Tesla Model S) one year or so, but otherwise its a non-issue.

"In spite of Romney’s claims that a businessman can fix what’s broken, his record in one term as Governor of Massachusetts tells another story. In one term, he managed to explode the debt per capita and decimate job growth, in addition to raising taxes and fees on everyone but the wealthiest residents."

...

“If his latest ad is any indication, Mitt Romney’s Romnesia is only getting worse. But he is right on one point- he only needed four years as governor of Massachusetts. That’s because in just one term, Romney drove the state down to 47th out of 50th in job creation, increased per capita debt to the largest in the nation, left his successor a $1 billion deficit, and pushed through a tax cut that overwhelmingly benefited 278 of the wealthiest residents while raising taxes and fees on everyone else. And he did all of this while refusing to work across the aisle. Mitt Romney wouldn’t make Washington better- he’d make it worse.”

In one term, Romney did manage to decimate job growth. “Unlike Obama, Romney took office during an economic uptick. Massachusetts had a net job growth of 1.4 percent under Romney. However, that was far slower growth than the national average of 5.3%. As Romney’s opponents have frequently, and correctly, noted, Massachusetts ranked 47th in job growth over the entirety of Romney’s term. The only states that did worse: Louisiana, Michigan and Ohio.” [Fact Check, USA Today, 1/5/12]

ummm, is Snoopy or Pat Paulsen running anymore? What about Bill the Cat & Opus, from the Meadow Party?

Other notables:

http://www.avclub.com/articles/dont-blame-me-i-voted-for-bill-and-opus-13-fake-pr,2501/