Rant, Anti-Romney - Page 5 - Miata Turbo Forum - Boost cars, acquire cats.

Welcome to Miataturbo.net   Members
 


Current Events, News, Politics Keep the politics here.

Reply
 
 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 08-26-2012, 11:02 PM   #81
:(
iTrader: (7)
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: nowhere
Posts: 8,281
Total Cats: 2
Default

As everyone and anyone knows once we are mandated to buy a product then the free market is broken and the corporations can join in collusion and be just barely above what the government minimum is. If you are going to mandate that we have health care role it into fica or something else and be done with it nothing pisses me off more than to be told i have to buy something that i have been fine without for the last 15 yrs. Just becouse everyone else sees it as a neccesity. Insurance is not insurance if it is mandatory its just a fancy tax paid to indivual business's and corporations. For some reason people got along just fine with out it for thousands of years before.
magnamx-5 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-2012, 09:33 AM   #82
Boost Czar
iTrader: (61)
 
Braineack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 72,833
Total Cats: 1,786
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by blaen99 View Post
Could you link me to sources elaborating on this please? Or further elaborate on this statement?
IRS geared to collect taxes from Obamacare mandate

Quote:
According to Brady, a new analysis by the Joint Economic Committee and the House Ways & Means Committee staff estimates up to 6,500 new IRS personnel will be necessary to collect, examine and audit new tax information mandated on families and small businesses as a result of the Affordable Care Act.
Quote:
Scores of new federal mandates and about 21 different tax increases totaling $400 billion are imposed under Obamacare, many of the increases hidden from voters, according to finance experts such as Fox Business Channelís Stuart Varney.
Obama administration diverts $500M to IRS to implement healthcare reform law - The Hill's Healthwatch

Quote:
The Obama administration is quietly diverting roughly $500 million to the IRS to help implement the presidentís healthcare law.
The American Spectator : The New Face of Health Care -- the IRS

Quote:
When President Obama's Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA, aka "Obamacare") goes fully into effect in 2014, the American people will only then begin to see the implications of its thorough government takeover of health care, in all its glory. But what they are not expecting is the massively expanded role of the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") in our lives, as the IRS is the chief agency responsible for enforcing the Act.

...

Pilla estimates that it will take a minimum of 5,000 and perhaps as many as 16,000 additional IRS employees to carry out the "massive expansion of the power and reach of the Internal Revenue Service" under the PPACA.

...

Perhaps the most important and complex new IRS responsibility is to enforce the act's individual and employer mandates requiring individuals and employers to buy the health insurance not that they want, but that the federal government says they must have.
Braineack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-2012, 04:37 PM   #83
Elite Member
iTrader: (6)
 
blaen99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 4,112
Total Cats: 27
Default

First off Spare....I'm loving this debate with you.

Secondly, oh god did this thread ever expand while I didn't have time to properly respond. And I still owe Spare a response from his previous post.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sparetire View Post
The diff is that....you raised everyones taxes by 1K first.

So instead of a basic individual punishment, you have now done a blanket one and then allowed a way out through a certain behavior. This is not the same as an incentive. It has a similar effect. But it is not the same.

I'm not saying that what you outline in this particular example is new. It is not. But that does not make it good. And it does not make it the same as every sort of tax deduction.
It has the same net result. This is the problem with our tax system, our politicians are crafty ******* bastards.

Let me use another example. My state had our politicians advocating for a lottery system, with the proceeds from it going to the education fund. They promised increased funding, that everything and the kitchen sink would go to education, *if only it would pass*.

What they forgot to tell us is that they were going to remove all the other funding the education system got.

I long ago gave up the idea on a deduction or a penalty having any meaningful distinction. Every deduction I've gotten has always seemed to have been accompanied by a tax increase of some sort. Anything that politicians as a whole promise tax-wise always has some hidden catch. They *are* going to get money to offset that deduction no matter what.

Quote:
Lets say a group of people in a room can give me a high 5 and get a bag of chips. Now we mix it up. If I beat the crap out of everyone in a room save for the people who give me a high 5, its not the same as offering to trade bags of chips for high 5s. The beatings are left out of one and not the other. As are the chips. But both ways will likely result in high 5s.
This is not the same.

To be the same, it would have to be...oh...

Option 1: If you give me a highfive, I'll give you a bag of chips.

Option 2: I'm giving you a bag of chips, but if you don't highfive me, I'm taking it away.

I understand what you are saying, but it's an argument in semantics. The net result is the same either way - if I get highfived, you get a bag of chips.

It's also a great example of just how fucked up some of the taxation schemes can be. Look at Scrappy's analysis of Romney's tax plan for a great example - a lot of people are seeing a large tax increase from his plan (Note: I am *absolutely* not claiming a majority here, just merely a lot) based on Scrappy's analysis. Just because a politician may say something is a penalty or a deduction doesn't always make it so -

Quote:
And I have no doubt the internet and news networks are afire with debates about how auto-insurance and health-insurance are sooo different or exaaacly the same. I realize we are sort of debating here, but one of the most important things I have learned with my feeble little mind in 30 years of Forrest Gumping my way through life: The better debater is....the better debater. Not nessesarily right. Or influential in any way. I have gotten ripped apart in arguments where I was stone cold 100% right as borne out by facts later on. I have won arguments where I later realized I was full of crap. IMHO this also aplies to your experience with arguing about incentives and penalties.
Okay. Can we agree on this much then, so I know where we are arguing from: There's no difference legally between forcing people to buy auto insurance and forcing them to buy health insurance? It's the underlying motives that we seem to be arguing about, not the concept of forcing someone to buy something from a private corporation (Which I've already admitted I hate, I'll note. If you have a better solution to the numerous problems both types of forced-insurance-purchasing tries to solve, I'm ALL ears!).

Quote:
One thing: The mandated min auto insurance legally is basically to protect other people from your screwups. Additionally, banks can demand full coverage insurance of the vehicle in order to protect their investment from harm. I have more or less the absolute minimum insurance. It's 95% to protect the person I hit, not me. Existing is not identical to existing....at 65 MPH 10 feet from other fragile people while in control of 2500LBs of glass and steel.

I do feel you owe me compensation and indeed the ability to compensate me if you hit me with your car.
I completely agree with you here, I'd like to note, before I respond to the next part (I don't want someone on here taking my argument into something it's completely not.) I have also slightly mangled quoting you to put relevant parts in the relevant sections, so as to make responding easier.

Quote:
Health insurance is covering me from life. I will deteriorate and die. I dont feel that you owe me that protection.

And I dont subscribe to the idea that because something is theoretically beneficial, it is therefore a moral requirement. And I dont subscribe to it being a legal requirement either.
This is the point where I disagree. As an example, if you take a trip to the emergency room and can't pay for it, *it does affect me*. It directly affects me, in fact!

Quote:
I am not savy on the details, I feely admit that. But what really kills me about this country is our inability to just face up to what we do. From foreign policy to this legislation to our own personal actions, we label and conceal crap to a rediculus degree.
I agree. However, you have to understand something - people lacked personal responsibility wrt auto insurance. We eventually started forcing people to buy auto insurance.

People lack personal responsibility when it comes to their health in America (...and no, this forum is a giant exception to that statement, so please don't distort it). Ultimately, this legislation tries to solve many problems in the health industry, whether it's a lack of personal responsibility, corporate abuse, or dozens of other things.

I don't know what else we could have done, except instead of creating legislation that was centrist-to-moderate right, creating legislation that was much more to the left. You can argue "But the better solution would have been to create NO legislation!", but due to politics, there was no way it would have happened. Both parties were making a huge deal about healthcare in the 2008 elections - legislation was coming no matter who won.

I suppose you could argue we could have shot all the politicians, but I don't know how particularly sound that solution would have been - although entertaining to speculate about.

Quote:
What we are in the process of doing is forcing people to buy a product by virtue of existing on the premise that the new system will be socially beneficial and that people who do not buy the product are harming society.
I'm going to blow your mind for a moment here. For me, the best thing the supreme court could have ever done would have been to rule the individual mandate was severable - and to throw it out.

The individual mandate was a very minor part of the ACA/Obamacare - and a part that was added in due to Republicans throwing a shitfit over it.

Quote:
I do not 100% accept the premise and even if I did I would still have a problem with the method. It is that simple for me. Take comfort that I am dying breed. Maybe there is a reason for that. In any case I have but one vote and no super-PAC...and no candidate in any preidential election I was actually excited about. Ever.

So I am probably 100% wrong on pretty much all of this. And it doesnt matter if I am not.

You think I *don't* have a problem with the method? I've already said I hate it, Spare.

What I like about the ACA has nothing to do with the individual mandate crap. I *hate* the individual mandate, and wish it would have never been added. I accept it as a necessary evil, however, because of similar reasons of auto insurance.

I *hate* the gov't legislating any kind of personal responsibility. But there's a certain point where the gov't always has came up and legislated it for the country and/or state if people don't do it.

One good counter-example to this personal responsibility rant is look at Jason's ever-so-favorite Scuba example. It's *not* regulated, but people stepped up and took personal responsibility.

If you have some way that I don't that will get people to take personal responsibility, I'm all ears. People on this forum are *great* about it, but people on this forum represent such a tiny, miniscule portion of the US population it's depressing in a way. You have to remember we have a *huge* amount of people in the US that don't understand that if they keep shoveling pounds of food into their mouths, they are going to get fatter and fatter untill they kill themselves, and it's far larger than the amount of people that *can* take personal responsibility.
blaen99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-2012, 04:41 PM   #84
Boost Czar
iTrader: (61)
 
Braineack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 72,833
Total Cats: 1,786
Default

Attached Thumbnails
Rant, Anti-Romney-health-policy-spectrum.jpg  
Braineack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-2012, 04:44 PM   #85
Boost Czar
iTrader: (61)
 
Braineack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 72,833
Total Cats: 1,786
Default

topical:





Braineack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-2012, 05:34 PM   #86
Elite Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 3,284
Total Cats: 178
Question

Quote:
Originally Posted by blaen99 View Post
It's also a great example of just how fucked up some of the taxation schemes can be. Look at Scrappy's analysis of Romney's tax plan for a great example - a lot of people are seeing a large tax increase from his plan (Note: I am *absolutely* not claiming a majority here, just merely a lot) based on Scrappy's analysis. Just because a politician may say something is a penalty or a deduction doesn't always make it so -
I don't know how you came up with that conclusion. I said I would see a ~3% increase of my effective taxable income rate. I also noted that only about 1/3 of tax filers itemize at all and that I have a higher-than-average level of deductions related to real estate.

While "a lot" of people might see what I would call a moderate to minor tax increase if they are in the same position as my household, there is no way - based on what's been reviewed in this thread - to reasonably make that assertion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by blaen99
I don't know what else we could have done, except instead of creating legislation that was centrist-to-moderate right, creating legislation that was much more to the left. You can argue "But the better solution would have been to create NO legislation!", but due to politics, there was no way it would have happened. Both parties were making a huge deal about healthcare in the 2008 elections - legislation was coming no matter who won.
[Emphasis added]

Are you talking strictly in terms of trying to have all persons covered by insurance or health care and insurance reform in general?
Scrappy Jack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-2012, 05:40 PM   #87
Elite Member
iTrader: (6)
 
blaen99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 4,112
Total Cats: 27
Default

Brainy, my primary interest was in your claimed bankrupting of states.

I've been unable to find any primary sources backing this claim, although I have found a lot of heavily partisan secondary and tertiary sources making this claim from an uncited primary source, and have been unable to verify any of the claims they have made via primary sources.


...? Did anyone here not expect that the IRS would have to hire more employees to enforce Obamacare?

This isn't a surprise to me Brainy, and is actually a great argument that I'm going to adopt in future anti-mandate arguments once we get actual hard numbers from the IRS as to the costs and employees.

The numbers your sources quote are inflated according to less partisan sources, but they are correct (Notably, they engage in substantial amounts of speculation and sensationalism within the article text, but the sentiment they express are correct in a general sense wrt the IRS). Obamacare creates more work for the IRS, the IRS has to hire more people, and more people cost more. This is no different than any other tax-related legislation the gov't has passed in any other administration.

Last edited by blaen99; 08-27-2012 at 06:00 PM.
blaen99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-2012, 05:43 PM   #88
Elite Member
iTrader: (6)
 
blaen99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 4,112
Total Cats: 27
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scrappy Jack View Post
I don't know how you came up with that conclusion. I said I would see a ~3% increase of my effective taxable income rate. I also noted that only about 1/3 of tax filers itemize at all and that I have a higher-than-average level of deductions related to real estate.

While "a lot" of people might see what I would call a moderate to minor tax increase if they are in the same position as my household, there is no way - based on what's been reviewed in this thread - to reasonably make that assertion.
You'll note that I nowhere claimed a majority, or even a specific number Scrappy. My experience is that if you can find an example that affects you personally, it also affects a lot of other people. But I will happily rewrite if you want and cite the non-partisan Brookings study instead of citing you if you want - and that pretty clearly establishes the case for a majority.

Quote:
[Emphasis added]

Are you talking strictly in terms of trying to have all persons covered by insurance or health care and insurance reform in general?
I'm talking in the latter sense. Both parties were campaigning on health care reform, we were getting it no matter who was elected - R or D.

Last edited by blaen99; 08-27-2012 at 06:17 PM.
blaen99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-2012, 06:30 PM   #89
Elite Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 3,284
Total Cats: 178
Arrow

Quote:
Originally Posted by blaen99 View Post
You'll note that I nowhere claimed a majority, or even a specific number Scrappy. My experience is that if you can find an example that affects you personally, it also affects a lot of other people. But I will happily rewrite if you want and cite the non-partisan Brookings study instead of citing you if you want - and that pretty clearly establishes the case for a majority.
Again, I am very likely a minority of the minority (individual filers that itemize and have large real-estate related tax deductions). You cannot reasonably say, based on what I posted, that "a lot" of people would be affected in the same way that I would be, based on what I found with my situation. While it may be true, you have no way of knowing one way or another. [Edit: And, I am not sure if a 3% increase from 16 -> 19% effective taxable income rate qualifies as "a large tax increase."]

The Brookings Institute report I read had a number of holes and was, in my opinion, based on even less probable speculation than my own guesstimation.

Quote:
I'm talking in the latter sense. Both parties were campaigning on health care reform, we were getting it no matter who was elected - R or D.
I must be missing something in the way you are phrasing this. Are you saying you have not heard or read of any other options for health care and insurance reform other than those tied to individual mandates?
Scrappy Jack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-2012, 06:45 PM   #90
Elite Member
iTrader: (6)
 
blaen99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 4,112
Total Cats: 27
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scrappy Jack View Post
Again, I am very likely a minority of the minority (individual filers that itemize and have large real-estate related tax deductions). You cannot reasonably say, based on what I posted, that "a lot" of people would be affected in the same way that I would be, based on what I found with my situation. While it may be true, you have no way of knowing one way or another.
Are you trying to argue for a definition of "a lot" Scrappy?

'Cause that's what it sounds like to me. To me, a lot of people would number in the tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands - there's a reason I explicitly disclaimed majority there and made zero attempt whatsoever to try to claim it was going to be a majority of the US.

Quote:
[Edit: And, I am not sure if a 3% increase from 16 -> 19% effective taxable income rate qualifies as "a large tax increase."]
[Edit for Scrappy's edit] I would define a 3% absolute tax increase as a large tax increase period. For you, that's what Scrappy, 10k? I think most posters on here would reasonably define a 10k increase as "a large increase". I know I would personally be livid if someone increased my taxes by 10k while trying to claim they were *really* cutting them. (Edit) Or, if you want it in relative percentages, close to a 20% tax increase (15->18% would be an exact 20%). I think most people would reasonably say a double-digit tax increase is a large tax increase if speaking in percentage gains relative to tax.

Quote:
The Brookings Institute report I read had a number of holes and was, in my opinion, based on even less probable speculation than my own guesstimation.
What holes? Could you elaborate please?

Quote:
I must be missing something in the way you are phrasing this. Are you saying you have not heard or read of any other options for health care and insurance reform other than those tied to individual mandates?
Where did I say anything about mandates in that part? I said that both McCain and Obama were running with health care reform as a big part of their re-election campaign. Now, if you want me to expand substantially on that statement, I think McCain's plan was idiotic, foolish, and nothing more than an attempt to grab more power out of the hands of the states. I absolutely hate several parts of Obamacare - but I thought McCain's plan was a lot worse. Those were our choices in 2008 - McCain's plan or Obama's. Secondly, it sounds like you are trying to make me support the mandate - I've explicitly stated I hate the mandate and would have been very happy if the SC would have just declared it unconstitutional and severed it from Obamacare.

Seriously, Scrappy. My stance isn't *that* nuanced. Obamacare with all of the stuff I hate is better than no Obamacare. As a result, I view all the stuff I hate about Obamacare as a necessary evil (See: Mandate I've bitched about at length in this thread as one example). Obamacare is also better than McCaincare imo. We were going to get McCaincare or Obamacare based on what was happening in the '08 elections. As a result, I have things I would like to improve about Obamacare, and things that I don't like or even hate about it, but I would rather have it than not have it or have McCaincare.

Last edited by blaen99; 08-27-2012 at 07:25 PM.
blaen99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-2012, 07:27 PM   #91
Elite Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 3,284
Total Cats: 178
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by blaen99 View Post
Are you trying to argue for a definition of "a lot" Scrappy?

'Cause that's what it sounds like to me. To me, a lot of people would number in the tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands - there's a reason I explicitly disclaimed majority there and made zero attempt whatsoever to try to claim it was going to be a majority of the US.
I am saying that you have ZERO WAY OF KNOWING how many. It might be "a few" it might be "a lot" or it might be "a metric ****-ton of people, the likes of which I cannot fathom." You saying, based on what I posted a lot of people are going to see a large tax increase is like you saying I am wearing a blue shirt right now.

I might be, I might not be, but you have zero way of knowing.

Quote:
I would define a 3% tax increase as a large tax increase period. For you, that's what Scrappy, 10k?
I am probably in the Top 1% of Miataturbo.net but not the Top 1% of the USA. $10k is 3% of $333k taxable income (i.e. net of all exemptions and deductions). Per my earlier post, our household income is (well) under $250k.

Quote:
What holes? Could you elaborate please?
I'll go through in more detail in another post, but it's based on the assumptions they make.


Quote:
Where did I say anything about mandates in that part? I said that both McCain and Obama were running with health care reform as a big part of their re-election campaign. Now, if you want me to expand substantially on that statement, I think McCain's plan was idiotic, foolish, and nothing more than an attempt to grab more power out of the hands of the states. I absolutely hate several parts of Obamacare - but I thought McCain's plan was a lot worse.
That helps me some. I am not trying to blaen you into posting something. My point of confusion came from you saying, "I don't know what else we could have done, except instead of creating legislation that was centrist-to-moderate right, creating legislation that was much more to the left."

It's probably me being too picky on word choice, but that read to me as though you had not heard any other reform ideas being proposed, which is now clear was not the case. I think what you are elaborating on with the above was that the Obamacare option was less crappy than the other options floated, not that there were no other options floated.
Scrappy Jack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-2012, 07:34 PM   #92
Elite Member
iTrader: (6)
 
blaen99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 4,112
Total Cats: 27
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scrappy Jack View Post
I am saying that you have ZERO WAY OF KNOWING how many. It might be "a few" it might be "a lot" or it might be "a metric ****-ton of people, the likes of which I cannot fathom." You saying, based on what I posted a lot of people are going to see a large tax increase is like you saying I am wearing a blue shirt right now.

I might be, I might not be, but you have zero way of knowing.
You are correct. I made an error in that respect, and it's the error I always make: I assume people aren't stupid.

I don't think it's unreasonable to assume people will do what is best for them tax-wise, which is what bit me in the *** there. People do tons of **** that aren't what is best for them, and point conceded.

Quote:
I am probably in the Top 1% of Miataturbo.net but not the Top 1% of the USA. $10k is 3% of $333k taxable income (i.e. net of all exemptions and deductions). Per my earlier post, our household income is (well) under $250k.
I was incorrect in my napkin math. Your earlier post quoted a tax increase of 6k-10k for you - so I quoted the high end of your estimate because it's what I remembered you as saying your tax increase was (Fallible memory is fallible). But I'd still argue most posters would argue even 6k is a large tax increase, myself included.

Quote:
I'll go through in more detail in another post, but it's based on the assumptions they make.
If I miss it, please PM me when you do go through in detail. I'm actually rather interested in this topic.


Quote:
That helps me some. I am not trying to blaen you into posting something. My point of confusion came from you saying, "I don't know what else we could have done, except instead of creating legislation that was centrist-to-moderate right, creating legislation that was much more to the left."

It's probably me being too picky on word choice, but that read to me as though you had not heard any other reform ideas being proposed, which is now clear was not the case. I think what you are elaborating on with the above was that the Obamacare option was less crappy than the other options floated, not that there were no other options floated.
I've heard lots of reform ideas. I could give you dozens that would be, IMO, superior to Obamacare.

We had two choices in '08 - Obamacare and McCaincare. I'd prefer Obamacare over McCaincare, and I would prefer *either* to no reform. I feel somewhat slighted in your assumption that I had heard of no other reform in a statement that implicitly noted our lack of choice for healthcare options (Remember, voters soundly rejected McCain in '08, so going right of an already centrist-to-moderate right plan wasn't an option).
blaen99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-28-2012, 12:09 PM   #93
Elite Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 3,284
Total Cats: 178
Lightbulb

Quote:
Originally Posted by blaen99 View Post
You are correct. I made an error in that respect, and it's the error I always make: I assume people aren't stupid.

I don't think it's unreasonable to assume people will do what is best for them tax-wise, which is what bit me in the *** there. People do tons of **** that aren't what is best for them, and point conceded.
Blaen - For ****'s sake, just say: "You know what - you are right. Given the information discussed in your post, it might be reasonable to think a lot of people could be affected, but we have no way of knowing for sure."

It has nothing to do with people being stupid or not. In fact, I just glanced through a bunch of 1040s with household gross income ranging from just under $30k up to just under $300k. Only one had sales tax and real estated related itemized deductions anywhere close to mine as a percentage of their gross income.

A more realistic example might be:
* a married couple making $75k gross income
* real estate related deductions of 10% of GI (on the high side by my guess) = $7500
* charitable gifts of 5% of GI (again, on the high side unless they are deeply religious in which case it might be closer to 10%) = $3750
* assuming negligible taxable interest and no sales-tax related deductions
* assuming no children

Under the 2012 tax code, they would owe about $7500 in taxes on $55,500 taxable income (13% effective rate of TI). Under the assumptions I used for Romney's plan (20% reduction to each marginal bracket rate and elimination of real estate and sale tax deductions), they would owe...

... wait for it...

About $7500 $6000.


Unless they have deductions greater than $11,900, they (like about 67% of the USA) don't itemize. In other words, they would need more than about 16% of their gross income in deductions for changes in those deductions to have any effect on them at all because that's the amount of the standard deduction. [Edit: That percentage changes as your income goes up and down. The standard deduction is a static dollar amount, not a percentage.]


All that said, the elimination of the mortgage interest deduction would potentially hurt a portion of the population that is already struggling: those overleveraged on housing carrying costs (i.e. mortgage payment is a very high percentage of their income). There are pros and cons to that scenario, though.


Quote:
I was incorrect in my napkin math. Your earlier post quoted a tax increase of 6k-10k for you - so I quoted the high end of your estimate because it's what I remembered you as saying your tax increase was (Fallible memory is fallible). But I'd still argue most posters would argue even 6k is a large tax increase, myself included.
You are absolutely correct. In this post, I did say my guesstimation of the tax changes vaguely outlined (dropping marginal rates by 20% per bracket and eliminating sales tax and real estate related deductions) would increase our household tax liability by about $6k.

You are also correct that I would consider a $6k increase in my taxes without an increase in income to be a lot. You were also right to say that, if I voted for Romney with the expectation of seeing a tax decrease and instead owed an extra $6k, I'd be pissed.

That's $6k less going to some combination of aggregate demand for the economy (i.e. consumer spending), our retirement savings and our charitable gifting.

Last edited by Scrappy Jack; 08-28-2012 at 03:40 PM. Reason: Corrected error in tax obligations for $75k married couple.
Scrappy Jack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-28-2012, 12:17 PM   #94
mkturbo.com
iTrader: (24)
 
shuiend's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Charleston SC
Posts: 13,775
Total Cats: 1,106
Default

shuiend is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-28-2012, 03:11 PM   #95
Elite Member
iTrader: (6)
 
blaen99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 4,112
Total Cats: 27
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scrappy Jack View Post
Blaen - For ****'s sake, just say: "You know what - you are right. Given the information discussed in your post, it might be reasonable to think a lot of people could be affected, but we have no way of knowing for sure."
I thought I stated that you were correct, Scrappy? I had just done some quick napkin mental math and assumed a reasonable guess would be if 1/3rd of people in your income bracket were using deductions, it would be acceptable to guesstimate we'd see in the 10s of thousands to 100s of thousands affected. I was wrong - you are right in that we cannot know for sure, although I would sure argue it would be reasonable to think that it would be so.

Quote:
A more realistic example might be:
* a married couple making $75k gross income
* real estate related deductions of 10% of GI (on the high side by my guess) = $7500
* charitable gifts of 5% of GI (again, on the high side unless they are deeply religious in which case it might be closer to 10%) = $3750
* assuming negligible taxable interest and no sales-tax related deductions
* assuming no children

Under the 2012 tax code, they would owe about $7500 in taxes on $55,500 taxable income (13% effective rate of TI). Under the assumptions I used for Romney's plan (20% reduction to each marginal bracket rate and elimination of real estate and sale tax deductions), they would owe...

... wait for it...

About $7500.
Wait. Romney's plan doesn't even give them a tax cut? What?

Goddamnitsomuch....

Quote:
You are absolutely correct. In this post, I did say my guesstimation of the tax changes vaguely outlined (dropping marginal rates by 20% per bracket and eliminating sales tax and real estate related deductions) would increase our household tax liability by about $6k.

You are also correct that I would consider a $6k increase in my taxes without an increase in income to be a lot. You were also right to say that, if I voted for Romney with the expectation of seeing a tax decrease and instead owed an extra $6k, I'd be pissed.

That's $6k less going to some combination of aggregate demand for the economy (i.e. consumer spending), our retirement savings and our charitable gifting.
Well, ****. Let me savor this moment, 'cause I doubt I'll ever hear this again from you in a tax discussion Scrappy.
blaen99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-28-2012, 03:37 PM   #96
Elite Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 3,284
Total Cats: 178
Exclamation

Quote:
Originally Posted by blaen99 View Post
Wait. Romney's plan doesn't even give them a tax cut? What?

Goddamnitsomuch....

Whoops! Copy-pasta error on my part. Their tax obligation went from ~$7500 to $6000 with an effective tax rate (of TI) dropping from 13% to 11%.
Scrappy Jack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-28-2012, 03:46 PM   #97
Elite Member
iTrader: (6)
 
blaen99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 4,112
Total Cats: 27
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scrappy Jack View Post
Whoops! Copy-pasta error on my part. Their tax obligation went from ~$7500 to $6000 with an effective tax rate (of TI) dropping from 13% to 11%.
I come up with ~7000 based on your assumptions, Scrappy. Am I doing the math completely wrong? (55,500 + 7500 real estate deduction * .11)

(Edit) I have to be doing something wrong. At 13% and 55,500, I get ~7.2k in taxes, at 11% with the above criteria, I get ~7k in taxes. My napkin math has to be wrong. Busting out the trusty old ti-89 for this Scrappy

(Edit2) Goddamnit Scrappy. I apparently don't understand tax code. In your 13% example, my napkin math is close to being right. 11%, my napkin math is close to being right. But that's assuming the math I understand is right. What am I doing wrong?

Case 1: 55,500*.13
Case 2: (55,500+7500)*.11

I *think* these are the right equations. What am I doing wrong?

Last edited by blaen99; 08-28-2012 at 03:56 PM.
blaen99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-28-2012, 04:21 PM   #98
Elite Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 3,284
Total Cats: 178
Post

Probably just rounding issues.

Code:
			 2012		2013 Romney		
Gross Income	 	 $75,000 	 $75,000 		
Taxable Interest	 $-   	  	 $-   		
Deduction - Taxes	 $-   	 	 $-   		
Deduction - Interest	 $7,500 	 $-   		
Deduction - Charity	 $3,750 	 $3,750 		
Deduction - Standard	 $11,900 	 $11,900 		
Standard Exemption	 $7,600 	 $7,600 		
Taxable Income	 	 $55,500 	 $55,500 		
				
Total Tax	 	 $7,455.00 	 $5,964.00 	 $(1,491)	
Effective Tax Rate (TI)	 13%		 11%		-3%	
Effective Tax Rate (GI)	 10%		 8%		-2%	
				
				 $-   
 $-   	 	 $17,400.00 	 $-   		10%	 $17,400 
 $17,400.00 	 $70,700.00 	 $1,740.00 	15%	 $70,700 
 $70,700.00 	 $142,700.00 	 $9,735.00 	25%	 $142,700 
 $142,700.00 	 $217,450.00 	 $27,735.00 	28%	 $217,450 
 $217,450.00 	 $388,350.00 	 $48,665.00 	33%	
	
				 $-   
 $-   	 	 $17,400.00 	 $-   		8%	 $17,400 
 $17,400.00 	 $70,700.00 	 $1,392.00 	12%	 $70,700 
 $70,700.00 	 $142,700.00 	 $7,788.00 	20%	 $142,700 
 $142,700.00 	 $217,450.00 	 $22,188.00 	22%	 $217,450 
 $217,450.00 	 $388,350.00 	 $38,932.00 	26%

Last edited by Scrappy Jack; 08-28-2012 at 04:23 PM. Reason: cleaned up formatting
Scrappy Jack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-28-2012, 04:22 PM   #99
Elite Member
iTrader: (6)
 
blaen99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 4,112
Total Cats: 27
Default

If you can't deduct Real Estate with Romney, doesn't that alter the equation substantially? I.e., why is it 55,500 on both sides of the equation, Scrappy? The Romney side doesn't add up no matter how I try running the numbers, and I do trust my TI-89. (Unlike my Napkin Math, I'll note.)

(Edit) I'm not able to duplicate their numbers. Apparently, the equations I am using are wrong - but I have trouble believing I can't add. So I must misunderstand how deductions work. I also must misunderstand how percentages work, because I cannot get rhyme or reason from your posted numbers.

(Edit2) I have to be doing something wrong. I cannot duplicate those numbers unless I gave an approximate 13.5% tax rate to current numbers, and an approximate 9.5% tax rate under Romney. I don't understand why their math differs so much from mine.

(Edit3) There has to be something wrong with the numbers you've posted, Scrappy. I've been spending the past 15-20 minutes on trying to duplicate their results. I can't, unless I alter the numbers that they are giving me substantially. Considering my mathematical background, I am pretty confident I can add and subtract correctly, and do percentages correctly if I have done it this many times (Especially with a TI-89, that has never given me an incorrect result in over a decade). So either I am misunderstanding how taxes are calculated, which if I do (And I'm not denying that I could be wrong here mind you), they substantially differ from any standard mathematical model I've ever used, or their numbers are wrong.

(Edit4) Here are the numbers I get and get repeatably, Scrappy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scrappy Jack View Post
Probably just rounding issues.

Code:
			 2012		2013 Romney		
Gross Income	 	 $75,000 	 $75,000 		
Taxable Interest	 $-   	  	 $-   		
Deduction - Taxes	 $-   	 	 $-   		
Deduction - Interest	 $7,500 	 $-   		
Deduction - Charity	 $3,750 	 $3,750 		
Deduction - Standard	 $11,900 	 $11,900 		
Standard Exemption	 $7,600 	 $7,600 		
Taxable Income	 	 $55,500 	 $63,000	
				
Total Tax	 	 $7,215.00 	 $6,930.00 	 $(285)	
Effective Tax Rate (TI)	 13%		 11%		0%	
Effective Tax Rate (GI)	 9%		 9%		0%
You have to go to decimals to see a difference statistically (I used no rounding), but the change in tax rate is between .3% and .4% or less between them Scrappy.

Last edited by blaen99; 08-28-2012 at 05:01 PM.
blaen99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-28-2012, 05:09 PM   #100
Elite Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 3,284
Total Cats: 178
Question

You are probably being thrown off by my formatting. I'll look closer later.

You take either the total of itemized deductions or the standard deduction ($11,900), whichever is greater. I use an "IF()" formula in my spreadsheet.

[Edit: And the effective tax rate is calculated as a percentage of gross or taxable income after calculating taxes owed.]

Again, taxes are confusing.

If that doesn't clear it up, send me a PM and I will email you a spreadsheet tonight or tomorrow.
Scrappy Jack is offline   Reply With Quote
 
 
Reply

Related Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Another Rant from Joe Perez Stein Insert BS here 60 08-07-2017 04:33 PM
My adventure-filled road trip (AKA careful when you load your old .msq) kotomile Insert BS here 7 03-27-2011 06:28 AM
Naming young-uns is harrrrrrdddddd (rant inside) kotomile Insert BS here 38 03-16-2010 09:01 AM
picture threads .... 56K need not apply jayc72 Insert BS here 31 08-11-2008 08:35 PM
How the fuck to you guys get anything done? miatamania Insert BS here 41 05-14-2007 05:25 PM


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:30 AM.