Why I am supporting Obama

[Jacob]

What is that reason? We just finished our taxes, and ended up paying about 20% on less than $100k, which is significantly more than than Mitt pays on his investment income. Why is it that public school teachers should pay a higher tax rate than Mitt Romney?

The reason is that Mitt doesn't really pay only 15% in income taxes. Mitt owns shares of corporations. Those corporations pay tax at a 35% rate. That comes from income that the owners of the shares would have been entitled to. Then, if the shareholders deem appropriate, they can pay themselves that income that they just just paid taxes on at 35%. When they do so, they pay additional taxes at the rate of 15% of whatever post-tax money they receive.

Sure, it makes no sense, but not in the way that you say. It makes no sense because there is no good reason to tax dividends at 15% when they've already been taxed at 35%. It's not fair to Mitt.

Also, if your effective tax rate is 20% you are doing something wrong. But I'm sure it's not. Your effective federal income tax rate is lower than that.

[Tim]

I'm voting for Obama for the following reasons:

• Capturing bin Laden
• Pulling us out of Iraq
• Timetable set for departure from Afghanistan
• Ending DODT
• Sponsorship of successful legislation geared toward minimizing decision-making capabilities of profit-driven health insurance companies.
• Increase in domestic oil production while working to minimize risks of offshore drilling.
• From a personal perspective, I've seen tremendous growth in own economic situation during his presidency.
• Lastly, I find him to be a decent, moral, intelligent man of the people.

Could those things continue under Romney? Perhaps. But I'd be happy if the trajectory we're on continued, so I see no reason to vote out the current president.

[Moliere]

What is that reason? We just finished our taxes, and ended up paying about 20% on less than $100k, which is significantly more than than Mitt pays on his investment income. Why is it that public school teachers should pay a higher tax rate than Mitt Romney?

David Frum talks about why it's good policy here.

The best reason, IMO, is simply that capital gains are entirely different than ordinary income. One is derived from the transfer of ownership of assets and the other is from the daily operations of the asset. I think a better question or starting point would be for someone to make the case as to why these two different types of income should be taxed the same....not differently.

[DU Ute]

RF 71

[byu71]

Condescension doesn't become you, 71.

and blowing smoke up people butt's doesn't become you. Your example is like Obama and others put out information. It is misleading to anyone who doesn't think it through.

First off the $100,000 in income. Is that before all allowable deductions including exemptions for you, your wife and child?

Second, if that number is $100,000, you didn't pay 20% federal income tax. You paid lower than that.

You know I like you RF, but that doesn't mean I am going to let you throw shit out there and get away with it. You treat me the same way and that is fine with me.

[RobinFinderson]

When one calculates the expected value of the ROI, they would utilize 15% as their tax rate. With the new proposal, that expected value would have to decrease by 15% strictly because of this rule. If an investor is debating between two different investing options, this could be the issue that pushes an investor to an alternative option. This would make it more difficult for municipalities to raise funds for capital investment.

And likewise, if prospective teachers knew that their rate would be 15% vs the rate they would get in other sectors, some highly qualified potential teachers might commit their talent to education rather than some other sector, and THAT might be a net benefit to society. But it wouldn't be fair. Let investors go to 'alternative options.' As with any change, it might hurt for a bit, but eventually smart entrepreneur-types will learn how to thrive under the FAIR system, those unable to adapt will die out as nature intended, and the world will be a better place.

[RobinFinderson]

There are so many good reasons, but RF you wouldn't understand them. You would just argue them.

However, I will give you some advice that will help you get down near Mitt's rate. Donate the same percentage of your income to charity that Mitt does.

Condescension doesn't become you, 71.

[doctorcoug]

WTF does that have to do with paying a lower rate?

When one calculates the expected value of the ROI, they would utilize 15% as their tax rate. With the new proposal, that expected value would have to decrease by 15% strictly because of this rule. If an investor is debating between two different investing options, this could be the issue that pushes an investor to an alternative option. This would make it more difficult for municipalities to raise funds for capital investment.

[byu71]

What is that reason? We just finished our taxes, and ended up paying about 20% on less than $100k, which is significantly more than than Mitt pays on his investment income. Why is it that public school teachers should pay a higher tax rate than Mitt Romney?

There are so many good reasons, but RF you wouldn't understand them. You would just argue them.

However, I will give you some advice that will help you get down near Mitt's rate. Donate the same percentage of your income to charity that Mitt does.

[RobinFinderson]

Because of people like Mitt, the city had enough money to build the school so you could have a job there.

WTF does that have to do with paying a lower rate?

[byu71]

Question for you...if there is a law similar to the buffet rule, it would have to be implemented at some date. Suppose this date is January 1, 2013. What do you think the stock markets will look like in December as investors prepare for a 100% increase in their tax rate? Another question, how will municipal binds do when investors are placed with the 100% increase on their tax rate? Will the investors send their money to other opportunities.

I'm not a big finance guy, but these questions pose significant issues in my mind. I believe Obama is playing politics here...he knows this can't pass because of how devastating it would be, so he milks it to rip on Romney.

I took crap for stating this, but it is a fact. A lot of people with investable money are sitting on a bigger than usual portion of cash, because they don't trust the Obama administration.

Now people can bitch and moan about that attitude, but it is their money. Of course Obama could get re-elected and then take that money from them and give it to people who will spend it.

[doctorcoug]

What is that reason? We just finished our taxes, and ended up paying about 20% on less than $100k, which is significantly more than than Mitt pays on his investment income. Why is it that public school teachers should pay a higher tax rate than Mitt Romney?

Because of people like Mitt, the city had enough money to build the school so you could have a job there.

[RobinFinderson]

Obama's rhetoric is simply (paraphrasing his tweets) "No secretary should pay a higher tax rate than their millionaire boss", which sounds good to the simpleton but in the larger scheme there is an arguably good economic reason for lower tax rates on investment income.

What is that reason? We just finished our taxes, and ended up paying about 20% on less than $100k, which is significantly more than than Mitt pays on his investment income. Why is it that public school teachers should pay a higher tax rate than Mitt Romney?

[doctorcoug]

Let me say that I firmly believe the economy is, and should be, the driving force behind deciding whom to support in the presidential election...and it is for me as well. Nothing else even comes close in my mind as to which issue to prioritize when choosing a candidate.

With that said, even though they adamanty claim different, I honestly cannot see where the Republicans have done a better job of dealing with economic issues than the Democrats. So...since there is no difference economically in my mind, I will move on to what I consider the second most important issue; social policies. The Democrats are much more in line with my beliefs in that regard so I'm going with Obama.

Question for you...if there is a law similar to the buffet rule, it would have to be implemented at some date. Suppose this date is January 1, 2013. What do you think the stock markets will look like in December as investors prepare for a 100% increase in their tax rate? Another question, how will municipal binds do when investors are placed with the 100% increase on their tax rate? Will the investors send their money to other opportunities.

I'm not a big finance guy, but these questions pose significant issues in my mind. I believe Obama is playing politics here...he knows this can't pass because of how devastating it would be, so he milks it to rip on Romney.

[Moliere]

Let me say that I firmly believe the economy is, and should be, the driving force behind deciding whom to support in the presidential election...and it is for me as well. Nothing else even comes close in my mind as to which issue to prioritize when choosing a candidate.

With that said, even though they adamanty claim different, I honestly cannot see where the Republicans have done a better job of dealing with economic issues than the Democrats. So...since there is no difference economically in my mind, I will move on to what I consider the second most important issue; social policies. The Democrats are much more in line with my beliefs in that regard so I'm going with Obama.

I don't at all agree with your rational on the economy. Maybe if you are comparing Bush/Obama, but not Romney/Obama. The more I read and listen to Obama and his administration, the more I believe that he is absolutely clueless on fiscal issues. He uses political rhetoric to the extreme when pushing for his policies, with no regard for the bigger picture fiscal issue at hand.

The Buffett Rule is a good example. He seems to like to demonize millionaires for the fact that they pay a lower ETR than the average Joe Citizen, but he fails to mention that it was under the Clinton administration that the capital gains tax rates were reduced to a level lower than ordinary income tax rates and it just so happens that under Clinton the economy flourished and we balanced the budget (certainly not 100% correlation here but there has to be some). Obama's rhetoric is simply (paraphrasing his tweets) "No secretary should pay a higher tax rate than their millionaire boss", which sounds good to the simpleton but in the larger scheme there is an arguably good economic reason for lower tax rates on investment income.

FTR, I'm fine with higher taxes on the rich and a progressive tax structure, but for the economy reason is more important than rhetoric, however for political gain rhetoric is more important than reason...and Obama knows this, unfortunately.