For those of you who support Obama...

[Momo]

Re: For those of you who support Obama...

Lily* wrote:Personally, I would like to see all candidates for national offices wear Nascar-like jumpsuits with patches showing the name of every company and special interest group who has donated to their campaigns.

Can you imagine if Obama wore a jumpsuit w/the names of all of his doners on it?
It would have to have a train,the length of Princess Di's weding dress, just to get everyone's name on it!

Re: For those of you who support Obama...

My understanding was that the tax revenues brought in enough to build the stadium.

It's a "right" that the "owners" of the field (or the team) sell to the highest bidder. When the ballpark in Cleveland first opened, it was Jacob's Field. Named after the Indian's owner, Dick Jacobs. When the Jacobs family sold the team 4 (or so) years ago, the name was auctioned off, and now it's "Progressive Field" (the car insurance giant is headquartered in Cleveland). I hate it.

The basketball arena was called Gund Arena, for the then-owner of the Cavs, Gordon Gund. Not sure if he just sold the rights or the whole team, but now it's called Quicken Loans Arena, and referred to as the Q.

The new Brown Stadium is still called Cleveland Browns Stadium, and I hope it stays that way.

Oh - and all 3 of these venus were built via an additional tax - a "sin tax" on liquor and cigarettes.

As far as $$ you could get to brand yourself, I did see something where you can have ads plastered on your car and make some $$. It's all terribly annoying.

[SuzySunshine]

Re: For those of you who support Obama...

Sponsorship (which is what stadium naming is) is big business. Look at NASCAR. I believe the Kansas City Chiefs and Royals are two of the last stadiums in the country that aren't corporately named, they both badly need remodels but the owning families aren't willing to sale out. But naming is a local issue, unless some sweeping legislation were to be passed (which it won't) it has nothing to do with the presidential race.

I don't think Kris and I agree on much when it comes to politics but I agree with pretty much everything she said.

I also wonder how much of this discussion has to do with those of us still in training versus those of you that are done and already making six figures. Your finances are established, investments already going or planned and while we don't know what healthcare will be like in the next presidency if there were a major change you would probably be hurt a lot less then those of us still coming out of training. Those of us still in training can only imagine six figures and we can only imagine how much losing 55% of that would feel.

I'm sorry if my earlier comments offended anyone, DH and I both know we will have more money then we grew up with, we know our kids will be comfortable but I agree with whoever said, the plans they put out that now won't fly once they're elected so what are we supposed to vote on.

Re: For those of you who support Obama...

Part of my disclaimer should have been that it isn't related to things presidential but is related to Angie's comment about paying taxes (in this case local). Regarding the Denver stadiums, it wasn't an issue of tax revenue -- I think there was enough to pay for the stadium without selling sponsorship. I don't know exactly how it worked but I do know that naming Invesco stadium offset the final taxpayer "bill" and the amount of bonds sold to finance it. I think city officials could also make an argument that they were MORE responsible with taxpayer dollars because they found a way to reduce the total cost. I just don't like it.

[spotty_dog]

Re: For those of you who support Obama...

I was thinking the opposite, that maybe it's easier as a resident family to contemplate post-training taxes because it's all so abstract. We're so comfortable on roughly $50K gross that it's almost inconceivable that we could quintuple our income and no longer afford to pay taxes, even if the rate were higher? I mean, we're already above the median, so half of all families in the United States are doing worse than we are, without the guarantee of upward mobility.

I do know though that, post-training, expenses will go up in some areas (like a mortgage), and we'll be accelerating our savings (DH wouldn't mind retiring by 40) so maybe it'll be harder than I think to see one figure on the pay check and a much different figure actually coming into the bank account. :huh:

Re: For those of you who support Obama...

Those of us still in training can only imagine six figures and we can only imagine how much losing 55% of that would feel.

I thought we'd determined earlier in the thread that 55% was a red-herring type figure (and inaccurate??).

[PrincessFiona]

Re: For those of you who support Obama...

I think it depends on how you figure the loss. Will we be taxed at 55%? no. At the same time, rolling back the tax cuts will result in an increase that will be felt. The main loss in dollars though will be caused by raising the social security cap. That is a much larger sum that will be paid out .... for nothing. We count on that money in our family budget as an additional source of income for part of the year...and if you figure that in with the addition of the loss of the tax cuts (that I so strongly opposed in the first place, so call me on it!) it will be a lot more than you think.

[Sheherezade]

Re: For those of you who support Obama...

Agreed about SS cap. That's the one that will hurt most to those of us making 250 K and above. I don't really understand the proposal....something about the income between 101 K (current cap) and 250 K not being subject to withholding? It confusing. I think it reads that if you make 250 K and above, they plan to withhold from all of it; if you make 180 K, you still keep the 101 cap. Very odd. If that is the case, I think we will be wrangling the salary to get under 250 K. I've got to look in to all the pre-tax dollar programs! I don't understand how they can charge the SS on all income for some people (both those on the lower end and those on the upper end) and not the ones in the range from 101K to 250 K a year. I guess that's the middle class they are trying to help out? *sigh* That's the idea that most worries me financially.

ETA: Something has to be done about the program though...and I give Obama credit for addressing it when it is clearly a vote losing situation. Nobody cares about SS goind bankrupt....until they aren't getting a check personally and they need it. I think most pols can get away with handwringing and lip service and never actually propose anything be done to fix it. (I think that crisis is years down the road yet.)

Still, I am still in the same mindset as spotty.....we makes so much more than residency/fellowship and our lifestyle hasn't changed dramatically except for luxury expenses, travel and savings. Those are all nice to have, but we were happy in residency, too. :huh: I'm not sure how bad the tax hit will be. FYI, we have yet to pay the AMT. I think we may get caught in it next year. I think the AMT is a bigger hurt than the tax hike idea! I think it is bizarre that larger families get hit with it so easily and that should be corrected immediately.

As for the naming rights. I'm just so these days about corporate sponserships and privitization of ....everything. I'm getting more pro-gorvernment all the time. I guess that's because we aren't tied to a church and we don't want to pump up big business....so the government is our umbrella organization. I'd like to see them do the big projects - and I think they shouldn't be giving away these stadiums anyway. I think they should retain control if they pay the moola to build them. The Cavs did get bought out by Dan Gilbert of Quicken Loans, BTW. At least he called the stadium "the Q" instead of Quicken Arena. I've heard people trying to get the Progressive Field nicknamed "the P" so we could have the P and Q downtown. I just wish everything wasn't for sale. Sad times.

[Sheherezade]

Re: For those of you who support Obama...

I know I'm posting to myself here but I've been thinking that our individual circumstances probably strongly influence my casual attitude towards giving more money up each year. We moved to Ohio from Boston and our COL went down dramatically. Dramatically. Our mortgage on a five bedroom house here is less than our rent on a two bedroom apartment was in Boston. At the same time, our household income increased 4-5 times. So.....that's a big, big change. Cost down, income up. We are still adjusting to that change, so increased tax wouldn't startle our budget now. Just FYI. I think that makes a huge difference in perception.

[JaneDoe]

Re: For those of you who support Obama...

I'd like to add another post-training perspective. Despite Obama's proposed tax increase, Dh and I are still heavily leaning towards him. (For what it's worth, Dh's partners who make a lot more than Dh at this point tend to vote democrat too.) Obama's tax increase would impact us; however, we are more concerned with other issues than taxes. The Iraq war and the environment are much bigger issues for us and we feel that Obama would handle these issues better than McCain.

Back to the tax issue, Dh's accountant is anticipating that he will owe around $50,000 in taxes for 08. Although Dh is a part of a group, he is technically self-employed. The doctors in the group where he works come together to share overhead, but after that each doctor keeps everything they bill for and collect. As a self-employed businessman, Dh already pays 50% in taxes up and above a certain income threshold (I don't recall what that number is). He also pays both sides of the payroll taxes: the employer and the employee portions. We're hit big time with taxes and it isn't pleasant. But, the way we see it is that it's a fact of of life living in a civilized society. We pay less in taxes than most industrialized countries. We also do not feel we are punished for working hard and earning a good living. We live a comfortable life, better than many people who pay less of a tax percentage than Dh. We would not trade places.

Although we have a very comfortable income, I would hardly call us settled. Other than maxing out on a Roth for 07 because it was the last year we would qualify, Dh is not contributing anything to retirement right now because he is paying off his buy-in of the practice. We still have a lot student loan debt. I think it was Kris who once said that it takes about 5-7 years post-residency to really feel settled. She was spot on!

I guess for us the tax issue is just not a deal breaker.

[mommax3]

Re: For those of you who support Obama...

After reading all of the thoughtful responses to this thread, and not being able to post right away (I can't post from my phone..... :huh: :anyolne: PM if you have an idea) I have had awhile to think about my response.

The point, to me, is not how much we have/how much we can pay in taxes without it "hurting". The point is that I would prefer to choose *myself* how I would like to contribute to my community, and not turn addtional money over to the gov't, especially the federal gov't. DH's eight years of active duty in the military showed us how wasteful and inefficient the gov't is at spending our tax money, and I don't think you have to have military experience to know that, honestly. We think we can make better choices about how to spend our money. I am all for small gov't, and would prefer that most of my tax dollars would stay in my community, rather than go to the feds and be *redistributed*.

Here is my small tangent.....I teach in a very old school building. Sometime during the next school year, we will be moving into a new building, far from being state of the art, but much better than our current building, which has been in use for over 50 years. The community in which I teach is largely rural, with no factories or industry to pump up the tax base. My students are not poor (mostly) but very few families are as well off as my family, for example. I was venting one day about the lack of technology in the new building, and one of our administrators very kindly explained to me that our district is *too rich* to qualify for federal and state funds that would help with our technology needs. (FYI, the teacher salaries where I teach are, on average, about 3K less than the salaries in the larger district (suburb/bedroom community) where I live.....also where all the shopping is for the county and thus the tax base.) The district where I first taught after college was full of poor kids/families and has had a program in place for the past 12 years in which the middle school students are all given laptops to take home. The kids where I teach now (some of whom don't have internet access at home due to the rural nature of the district) will be behind the kids in the other community in how comfortable they are using technology.....because where I am now, parents work and contribute their tax $$ so that the poor kids can have laptops? How f'ed up is that?

Tangent over....but I firmly believe that big government will not make the best choices about how to spend tax dollars. I would be much happier to pay higher taxes if I knew that all but a bare minimum would be staying close to home.

[Sheherezade]

Re: For those of you who support Obama...

...DH's eight years of active duty in the military showed us how wasteful and inefficient the gov't is at spending our tax money...

ITA. I am hoping that people will becoming more active in our government and force it to make better choices. I think that we *are* the government - several places removed - and we've just been doing a lousy job with our finances. As it is now, I think we are going to have to make cuts (both domestic programs and military actions) and pay more to get the debt under control. I think both candidates are nuts when they start proposing all these new spending packages. Do they have to do that to get votes?? It seems irrational. We are so far in the hole, I can't imagine rolling out a big stimulus package now!!

I do realize that money needs to be spent, though. We need to start having *real* conversations about what we need to spend on and what we don't. I think this country has wasted so much time on issues that don't ultimately belong in the realm of "government". We've done so at the expense of our infrastructure, security, financial solvency.....lots of important stuff.

So...if this was to be resolved by larger control at a local level, would you advocate a reduction of federal taxes with a concurrent rise in local and state taxes? The problem with state/local control now - as I see it with limited research - is they don't have much money.

I think your tangent is actually very telling. We've had similar issues with money here. Our school district is "rich" too (inelibible for grants) and we can't get our property owners to cough up teacher salaries or tech money via tax levy anymore. Many "no" voters don't want to pay new taxes because they think the district is financially "irresponsible", so I suppose the communication disconnect between those paying the taxes and those spending the money can happen even in a small local setting. The district's financial reality is that utility costs rose 35% this year (due to utility deregulation that no longer discounts to schools), the town assessed the school district with a big tax to pay a portion of water main reconstructions because the infrastructure here is 100 years old, and heath care coverage has risen at 10% a year for the last 5 years. As a result of these new expenses, the district has had to lay off 11 teaching positions. I'm not sure that's "fiscal irresponsible" - and I feel bad for the administrators that are blamed by voters with little understanding of the balance sheet they face. Some around here claim that the changing demographics have been the "real" reason for levy failures. More households are older and have no children in the schools. They don't connect to these needs and can't imagine voting in a tax increase to pay for something with no immediately tangible pay off to them. As a result of all the levy issues, we are currently working to change the school funding system. As it is, it appears doomed. I'd think this was a pretty small system....and we've still got the higher taxes =irresponsible issues. I'm not sure what the solution is. :huh:

[SuzySunshine]

Re: For those of you who support Obama...

I think the reason people vote no on school bonds and other local things is because they pay so much in other places. I think it would be different if we weren't paying so much on income taxes to the government. I think if it were one or the other most people would prefer local control. At some point people have to say enough is enough and when you hear stories about multi million dollar DOD deals going to a pair of 20-year olds in a small office you can only continue to shake your head. :huh:

Re: For those of you who support Obama...

[quote="mommax3"]After reading all of the thoughtful responses to this thread, and not being able to post right away (I can't post from my phone..... :huh: :anyolne: PM if you have an idea) I have had awhile to think about my response.

The point, to me, is not how much we have/how much we can pay in taxes without it "hurting". The point is that I would prefer to choose *myself* how I would like to contribute to my community, and not turn addtional money over to the gov't, especially the federal gov't. /quote]

ITA. Again, I am not opposed to paying taxes, quite the opposite, but this topic makes me think -- how much is enough and how much is too much?

Beyond the matter of whether or not we have it to pay, dollars that we pay in taxes are dollars that we don't spend, save, or share. Period. If our tax bill increased too much, we would slow down some work on our house. That certainly isn't the end of the world but it bites for the "little guy" business that we have contracted with to do the work. (And if that happens to us, surely it happens to others and cuts into his business). We might also not save as much and that doesn't help the already abysmal savings rate in this country. Also, we might not donate as much to charitable organizations -- that is a great way to put your dollars to use on a local level (or broader if you like).

Re: For those of you who support Obama...

ITA with Sally about government showing that it doesn't spend $$ wisely. With respect to who one should vote for, however (which is where this thread started), I can't say that McCain would be a better choice! He'd continue with the Iraq war - indefnintely - and honestly probably start another one!