If I make $1,000,000, Romney's plan will save me $245,000 while Obama will only save me $8,000. I'm voting for Romney.

As was said in a thread yesterday by a TFer (on Romney's plan)

"We've been waiting for 30 years for the wealth to trickle down, if we give up now that will all have been for nothing".

Well, I'm planning on winning the lottery next year, so I think I'm going to vote for Romney.

There can never be enough tax cuts for the wealthy.

Pretty clever making you actually enter a number.

Why not cut out the middle man and just allow rich people to own slaves again?

Lando Lincoln: Well, I'm planning on winning the lottery next year, so I think I'm going to vote for Romney.

Step back, biotch. That money is mine.
I'm a temporarily embarassed millionaire.

ricewater_stool: Why not cut out the middle man and just allow rich people to own slaves again?

Considering their union busting efforts, this seems to be the ultimate goal. The Bible actually permits them to own slaves for six years . . . So . . .

Provided you make over a million - Romney's plan is going to save you a shiatTON of money.

/does not make over a million

Rev.K: As was said in a thread yesterday by a TFer (on Romney's plan)

"We've been waiting for 30 years for the wealth to trickle down, if we give up now that will all have been for nothing".

That's priceless. If poor people want more crumbs to fall off the table, they better help the rich get larger meals.

mrshowrules: That's priceless. If poor people want more crumbs to fall off the table, they better help the rich get larger meals.

The sad part is that a lot of people believe that bullsh*t.

You can hear Romney saying that right now, can't you.

Wow, all I need to do is add another zero to my income, and suddenly President Romney makes sense!!!


/note: even if I made that much money, I would not vote for Romney because I believe that my fellow citizens shouldn't be made to live in squalor so I can buy a prettier saddle for my dressage horse.
//Rafalca is so pretty. I want to feed her a carrot and braid ribbons into her mane.

If I lived in the US, I don't think it would matter much between Romney or Obama, I'd pay a SH*TLOAD less in taxes than I do in socialist Canada.

I sometimes wonder exactly how much.

Rev.K: I sometimes wonder exactly how much.

here you go:

Currency Convertor

Put in your income, and your wife's (we do joint returns here), convert it into 'Merican, and use this chart.

what_now: Wow, all I need to do is add another zero to my income, and suddenly President Romney makes sense!!!


/note: even if I made that much money, I would not vote for Romney because I believe that my fellow citizens shouldn't be made to live in squalor so I can buy a prettier saddle for my dressage horse.
//Rafalca is so pretty. I want to feed her a carrot and braid ribbons into her mane.

Hahahah holy shiat, if I add a zero onto what I make, Romney would save me like 60% of what I currently make now.

Lsherm: Provided you make over a million - Romney's plan is going to save you a shiatTON of money.

/does not make over a million

Technically, you start saving as soon as you make $197,500. $197,450, though, and you're still boned.

From the linked report:

"Specifically, it is not possible to design a revenue-neutral plan that does not reduce average tax burdens and the share of taxes paid by high-income taxpayers under the conditions described above, even when we try to make the plan as progressive as possible. For instance, our calibration of the upper limit suggests that even by eliminating tax expenditures 'starting at the top'-where we combine the proposed rate cuts with complete elimination of tax expenditures for taxpayers with income over $200,000-after-tax income would still increase by 4.1 percent among taxpayers with income over $1,000,000 and 0.8 percent for taxpayers earning between $200,000 to $500,000. (That translates to a tax decrease of $87,000 and $1,800 for those two groups.) However, on average, after-tax income for taxpayers earning less than $200,000 would need to decrease by 1.2 percent, an effective tax increase of $500 per household"

and

"...if tax expenditures were completely eliminated for households above $200,000 and reduced across-the-board by 58 percent for taxpayers below $200,000 then taxpayers with children who make less than $200,000 would pay, on average, $2,000 more in taxes, whereas taxpayers without children who make less than $200,000 would receive a small tax cut of, on average, $75."

I'm sure there are plenty of stupid conservatives who will gladly pay $500 to $2,000 more in taxes just to get the black man out of the White House, because the money the rich get from their huge tax cuts will eventually trickle down to them, just as it did in the 1980s.

I think everybody analyzing Mitt Romney's tax plan and saying that he's screwed up by making pie-in-the-sky arguments is completely ignoring the past thirty-some years of American political history. Since sometime in late 1978, Republican economic policy has been focused on two things: starving the beast, and further enriching the wealthy. In recent years, ensuring all Americans have skin in the game has been added to this list. Looked at from this perspective, Mitt Romney's tax plan makes perfect sense. If Mitt Romney were to not make his plan revenue-neutral, he would explode the deficit and force the starve the beast strategy into its endgame. If Mitt Romney were to make his plan revenue-neutral, he would be jacking up taxes on the poor and increasing the chances that everyone contributes to general revenues. In both cases, he would be handing himself and people like him a gigantic tax break. The impossibility of his tax plan is not a bug; it's a feature.

t3knomanser: If I make $1,000,000, Romney's plan will save me $245,000 while Obama will only save me $8,000. I'm voting for Romney.

Well? Do you make $1,000,000?

Wow, at my current salary I'm apparently getting a tax INCREASE under Rmoney.

Fark that noise.

Anybody who has been paying attention has known that Romney's plan overwhelmingly favors the wealthiest Americans at the expense of everyone else for a while.

Romney 2012
Plutocracy for all. Tax breaks for me and my buddies.

I come out pretty much even under either plan.

Still going to vote for Obama based upon "intangibles"

/aka, Obama doesn't strike me as an asshole

t3knomanser: If I make $1,000,000, Romney's plan will save me $245,000 while Obama will only save me $8,000. I'm voting for Romney.

Only problem here is you don't make $1mil a year so GBTW and get me my fries or I will tell your manager

If I'm reading it right, this calculator is a little disingenuous. The 2013 number they give for Obama appears to also include 2009-12, but that's not readily indicated. Romney numbers only include a single year.

Looks like I need to get married and find a couple dependents.

Lorelle: I'm sure there are plenty of stupid conservatives who will gladly pay $500 to $2,000 more in taxes just to get the black man out of the White House, because the money the rich get from their huge tax cuts will eventually trickle down to them, just as it did in the 1980s.

The stupid conservatives just flatly deny reality. I was looking at one of the Freeper threads about a story showing Obama had lowered taxes and there were a bunch of people who said "This isn't true! I'm paying more taxes then ever and it's because this usurper is the tax-raisingist taxer in American history!"

Arkanaut: t3knomanser: If I make $1,000,000, Romney's plan will save me $245,000 while Obama will only save me $8,000. I'm voting for Romney.

Well? Do you make $1,000,000?

Well, no. But I will someday, just you wait!

Jonnadiah: Wow, at my current salary I'm apparently getting a tax INCREASE under Rmoney.

Fark that noise.

This....surprises you? He's made it pretty clear that his plan will only benefit people like him.

Wow, I make a good amount of money so I thought I might be paying more under Obama (which I would still vote for him if I did) but I would pay about $2000 less under Obama.

Jonnadiah: Wow, at my current salary I'm apparently getting a tax INCREASE under Rmoney.

Fark that noise.

Most people are. Fark that candidate.

Only a complete idiot would fall for this nonsense.

Agneska: Only a complete idiot would fall for this nonsense.

Who are you going to believe, Me, or you own lying eyes?

So according to that website if you make over $497,500 (point where Romney saves you more than Obama) you should vote for Romney. If less than Obama is the man for you.

Lost Thought 00: I come out pretty much even under either plan.

Still going to vote for Obama based upon "intangibles"

/aka, Obama doesn't strike me as an asshole

How about that under Romney he will deregulate business causing another economic collapse and you will lose 50% of your stock value like under Bush. That to me is worth A LOT MORE than paying a couple grand in stock.

What I find amazing isn't that Mitt Romney will significantly raise my taxes, and Obama will lower them.

What really gets me is that even if I TRIPLE my income, that will STILL be the case. I lead a pretty cushy life. I'm single, no kids, solid middle class income.

If I made THREE TIMES what I make now, I would STILL not qualify as a "job creator" even though that extra money would be spent in my community on home repair, book stores, restaurants, spas and liquor stores.

t3knomanser:
If I make $1,000,000, Romney's plan will save me $245,000 while Obama will only save me $8,000. I'm voting for Romney.

And another $50,000 in donations to lobbyists could help deprive twenty poor people of their vote through voter ID and other suppression schemes, so it's really like you are voting twenty more times!

IrateShadow: If I'm reading it right, this calculator is a little disingenuous. The 2013 number they give for Obama appears to also include 2009-12, but that's not readily indicated. Romney numbers only include a single year.

The 2013 number doesn't include 2009-2012, what gave you that impression?

You have been in the Senate since JFK was President.

That's more pathetic than anything else.

what_now: If I made THREE TIMES what I make now, I would STILL not qualify as a "job creator" even though that extra money would be spent in my community on home repair, book stores, restaurants, spas and liquor stores.

IrateShadow: If I'm reading it right, this calculator is a little disingenuous. The 2013 number they give for Obama appears to also include 2009-12, but that's not readily indicated. Romney numbers only include a single year.

No it doesn't. That's a seperate number. The 2013 is for that year only.

t3knomanser: If I make $1,000,000, Romney's plan will save me $245,000 while Obama will only save me $8,000. I'm voting for Romney.

Which is the EXACT mindset of most of the Romney voters

So based on our income last year (self-employed so it varies greatly from year to year) my taxes would still go up under Romney's plan even though we were just above the poverty line when all was said and done after the 4th Quarter.

So, yeah, go fark yourself, Romney...

Of course you will pay more in taxes under Romney than Obama, you'll have a job.

Agneska: Only a complete idiot would fall for this nonsense.

Idiots like the Tax Policy Center?

Holy fark.

In my current situation, I save about $400 under Obama, and I'd owe $400 more under Romney.

I add one zero to my income, I save $5300 under Obama and (only) $4000 under Romney.

I add another zero to my income (now we're in mid-7 figures), and I still only save $5300 under Obama, but now I save $245,000 under Romney.

No wonder our voices get drowned out by the wealthiest 400 families in the country - economies of scale. A percentage point increase in tax rates means more to those 400 families than our (that is, the bottom ~50% of earners') entire yearly salary, no matter if that means the difference between me having $400 extra in savings for the year. Nope, I need an extra $250k - you know, for dry-erase markers and such.

// it'd be nice if we could completely move to a barter system overnight
// cut out consumer spending entirely for a week or two
// then watch as they start begging for our business again
// the preceding was a fantasy of DreidelCo Industries, and may not be used or reproduced without the implied vaginal consent of Major League Soccer. Also, drugs are bad.

soy_bomb: Of course you will pay more in taxes under Romney than Obama, you'll have a job.

Whar "Not Smart" Button

I am a job creator and I make less than $100,000 a year.

Suck it neocons!

barneyfifesbullet: You have been in the Senate since JFK was President.

That's more pathetic than anything else.

Did you mean to put that in the Daniel Inouye thread? I'm not surprised to find out that someone with opinions as stupid as yours is also too stupid to notice what thread they're in.

thurstonxhowell: The 2013 number doesn't include 2009-2012, what gave you that impression?

You're right, I was reading it wrong. There's still something weird going on there. I don't understand why the 2013 numbers are so high when compared to the 9-12 cumulative.

Poor people : millionaires :: voting republican : lobbying

Nice try, Fartbama. I know a honeypot when I see one. Keep your government hands off my tax information.