Your tax dollars under Obama.

[Ollie]

Subject: Proposed income Tax changes after 2008 General Election

Here is a list of web sites all US voters SHOULD be required to read, and understand, before being allowed to vote.

Do you really understand just what the difference is
(and impact to you personally) between the two candidates?
Read carefully, check out the sites.



==========================================================================

Proposed changes in taxes after the 2008 General election:

==========================================================================

CAPITAL GAINS TAX

MCCAIN 0% on home sales up to $500,000 per home (couples).
McCain does not propose any change in existing home sales income tax.

OBAMA 28% on profit from ALL home sales

How does this affect you? If you sell your home and make a profit, you will pay 28% of your gain on taxes. If you are heading toward retirement and would like to down-size your home or move into a retirement community, 28% of the money you make from your home will go to taxes. This proposal will adversely affect the elderly who are counting on the income from their homes as part of their retirement income.

==========================================================================

DIVIDEND TAX

MCCAIN 15% (no change)

OBAMA 39.6%

How will this affect you? If you have any money invested in stock market, IRA, mutual funds, college funds, life insurance, retirement accounts, or anything that pays or reinvests dividends, you will now be paying nearly 40% of the money earned on taxes if Obama becomes president. The experts predict that 'Higher tax rates on dividends and capital gains would crash the stock market, yet do absolutely nothing to cut the deficit.

==========================================================================

INCOME TAX

MCCAIN (no changes)

Single making 30K - tax $4,500

Single making 50K - tax $12,500

Single making 75K - tax $18,750

Married making 60K- tax $9,000

Married making 75K - tax $18,750

Married making 125K - tax $31,250



OBAMA (reversion to pre-Bush tax cuts)

Single making 30K - tax $8,400

Single making 50K - tax $14,000

Single making 75K - tax $23,250

Married making 60K - tax $16,800

Married making 75K - tax $21,000

Married making 125K - tax $38,750

Under Obama, your taxes could almost double!

==========================================================================

INHERITANCE TAX

MCCAIN 0% (No change, Bush repealed this tax)

OBAMA Restore the inheritance tax

Many families have lost businesses, farms, ranches, and homes that have been in their families for generations because they could not afford the inheritance tax. Those willing their assets to loved ones will only lose them to these taxes.

==========================================================================

NEW TAXES PROPOSED BY OBAMA

New government taxes proposed on homes that are more than 2400 square feet.

New gasoline taxes (as if gas weren't high enough already)

New taxes on natural resources consumption (heating gas, water, electricity)

New taxes on retirement accounts, and last but not least....

New taxes to pay for socialized medicine so we can receive the same level of medical care as other third-world countries!!!

==========================================================================

You can verify a lot of the above at the following web sites:

http://money.cnn.com/news/specials/election/2008/index.html

http://money.cnn.com/news/specials/election/2008/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/issues/issues.taxes.html

http://elections.foxnews.com/?s=proposed+taxes<http://elections.foxnews.com/?s=proposed+taxes>

http://bulletin.aarp.org/yourworld/politics/articles/mccain_obama_offer_different_visions_on_taxes.html<http://bulletn.aarp.org/yourworld/politics/articles/mccain_obama_offer_different_visions_on_taxes.html>

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/candidates/barack_obama/<http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/candidates/barack_obama/>

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/candidates/john_mccain/<http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/candidates/john_mccain/>

Sean

Southern Pines, NC


=

This is for the OBama lovers out there.
If you don't think he is scary, this SHOULD change your mind.

 

[redlineguy]

I hate that SOB Obama more every day!!!



















.

 

[ruffryder]

How your bill will change

From link

McCain: The average taxpayer in every income group would see a lower tax bill, but high-income taxpayers would benefit more than everyone else.

Obama: High-income taxpayers would pay more in taxes, while everyone else's tax bill would be reduced. Those who benefit the most - in terms of reducing their taxes as a percentage of after-tax income - are in the lowest income groups.

 

[ruffryder]

More from the same link

Obama's plan would keep the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts in place for everyone except those making more than roughly $250,000, and he would increase the capital gains tax.

Obama would also introduce new tax breaks for lower and middle-income groups. Such breaks include expanding the earned income tax credit, giving those making less than $150,000 a $500 tax credit per person on the first $8,100 in income, giving those making under $75,000 a 50% federal match on the first $1,000 of savings, and exempting seniors making less than $50,000 from having to pay income tax.

Like McCain, Obama would lessen the bite of the estate tax and the Alternative Minimum Tax, but to a lesser degree.

The net result: compared with their tax bill today, taxpayers on average would see their tax bill cut by nearly $160 under Obama's plan. That means their after-tax income would rise by 0.3%.

But those in the lowest-income groups would enjoy the biggest after-tax income rise as a percentage of income - between 2.4% and 5.5% (worth between $567 and $1,042). By contrast, the highest-income households - those with at least $603,000 in income - would see a dramatic decline in their after-tax income - a drop of 8.7%, or $116,000.

 

[ruffryder]

Ollie, seems what you posted and what your references talk about are two completely different things. Seems most of the added or increased taxes occur for those that make more than 250k a year, but are listed as if everyone would be paying them.

You might want to verify the info on your post.

 

[ruffryder]

Better comparisons, all from CNN money

Personal Taxes

Taxing Businesses

Taxing Wealth

Anyone got any links to the inheritance tax info between the two? Verification about capital gains taxes that are use currently?

 

[Ollie]

Um Ruffy...
How do you think the guys making the big dollars will get the extra cash to pay the outragous taxes that are imposed on them??

When Reagon started the whole trickle down economics the Dems went balistic. Calling it a rich mans give away.
What happened??
The economy took off. The rich invested money, bought stuff and put a chingo of people to work.
Now what happens when Obama puts his tax and spend policies in place??
Companies won't be able to pay the taxes or will have to cut staff, lay people off.

King Obama (new term for ya) keeps talking about helping the poor. But at what cost??
If he really wanted to help them he would LEAVE THEM ALONE and let them get jobs instead of becoming dependant on the government.

Yes, most of his taxes would be on the rich. But you and I will pay for it, just as we did when the dems got their way the last time. Stand by for the highests taxes since the 70's.

 

[ruffryder]

Um Ruffy...
How do you think the guys making the big dollars will get the extra cash to pay the outragous taxes that are imposed on them??

When Reagon started the whole trickle down economics the Dems went balistic. Calling it a rich mans give away.
What happened??
The economy took off. The rich invested money, bought stuff and put a chingo of people to work.
Now what happens when Obama puts his tax and spend policies in place??
Companies won't be able to pay the taxes or will have to cut staff, lay people off.

King Obama (new term for ya) keeps talking about helping the poor. But at what cost??
If he really wanted to help them he would LEAVE THEM ALONE and let them get jobs instead of becoming dependant on the government.

Yes, most of his taxes would be on the rich. But you and I will pay for it, just as we did when the dems got their way the last time. Stand by for the highests taxes since the 70's.

Correct, I was only trying to show that some of your numbers were wrong or stated differently on the CNN website.

I understand the whole let the rich have more money so they will help out the economy argument and it does have some valid points to it. But then again so does taxing those that make more money also as it won't have the same impact as taxing Joe Broke.

I will not pretend to know which is better for the economy as there are many assumptions that are made with both arguments.

One thing I do know, it is the governments job to try and provide an equal and fair environment for business and capital markets. Those that benefit the most should pay more than those that don't, as they are getting more benefits from the government than others.

I haven't seen nor heard on concrete data one way or the other, so I have no way of determining which is better. The arguments for either sides are based on large assumptions of how money flows and for determining motivation based on financial reward.

Long way of saying I got no clue, and no one really does either.

 

[Ollie]

One thing I do know, it is the governments job to try and provide an equal and fair environment for business and capital markets. Those that benefit the most should pay more than those that don't, as they are getting more benefits from the government than others.

.

Why??
If you work harder or are smarter you should get slammed more for it??
If obama wanted to make things fair he would push for a flat tax with zero exemtions.
That is fair.
If I make 100k a year, I pay 15% or 15,000.
If you make 10k a year, you pay 15% or 1,500.
That is fair.
He is just telling people that if you become successful in this country I will destroy you with taxes. Redistrobution of wealth. Take from those that work hard and earn a good living and give to those that are too lazy or inept to work.
Tax and spend.

 

[duffman]

Correct, I was only trying to show that some of your numbers were wrong or stated differently on the CNN website.

I understand the whole let the rich have more money so they will help out the economy argument and it does have some valid points to it. But then again so does taxing those that make more money also as it won't have the same impact as taxing Joe Broke.

I will not pretend to know which is better for the economy as there are many assumptions that are made with both arguments.

One thing I do know, it is the governments job to try and provide an equal and fair environment for business and capital markets. Those that benefit the most should pay more than those that don't, as they are getting more benefits from the government than others.

I haven't seen nor heard on concrete data one way or the other, so I have no way of determining which is better. The arguments for either sides are based on large assumptions of how money flows and for determining motivation based on financial reward.

Long way of saying I got no clue, and no one really does either.

Have you read the constitution lately? I don't see where it says anything about the federal government providing a fair business environment. That is simply your opinion.

 

[ruffryder]

Have you read the constitution lately? I don't see where it says anything about the federal government providing a fair business environment. That is simply your opinion.

I read it all the time, just got done actually! What does the constitution have to do with this topic anyways?

To get an economy to prosper, you need to have rules and regulations that are enforced, it is a minimization of risk. It is hard to get an economy to prosper without rules being enforced, look at Mexico....

I think it is a fact, as it is necessary for commerce to thrive. There is a reason why people are in America and create businesses. It is easier to do it here, than other places that are more corrupt. Places that are corrupt only let the corrupt gain.

 

[ruffryder]

Why??
If you work harder or are smarter you should get slammed more for it?? Take from those that work hard and earn a good living and give to those that are too lazy or inept to work.

Your whole argument is an oversimplification of the complexities and probabilities of becoming rich in America. People that make a lot of money aren't getting slammed. If they were getting slammed they would be brought down to middle class. They are just paying a little more percentage wise, than the little guys.

I am starting to think that there is an abundance of people on snowest that make more than 250k a year.... and happen to view those in the middle class as lazy or inept.

 

[Ollie]

Your whole argument is an oversimplification of the complexities and probabilities of becoming rich in America. People that make a lot of money aren't getting slammed. If they were getting slammed they would be brought down to middle class. They are just paying a little more percentage wise, than the little guys.

I am starting to think that there is an abundance of people on snowest that make more than 250k a year.... and happen to view those in the middle class as lazy or inept.

First off, it is a simple thing.
If you had your take home hit for 39% tax, I bet you would scream bloody murder, but as long as it's the other guy it's ok??

Not an overabundance of people making 250k a year. Just people that are tired of listening to liberals scream about those nasty rich people.
Show me in the Constitution where it says, We will tax you into oblivian if you DARE to make more than the guy next to you.

I don't care if you make 10 million a year. Take away the loop holes and put them in the exact same tax bracket as me. They will still pay more in one year then I will my whole lifetime.

This is NOT a socialist country and I am sick of the liberals and the media trying their best to make it that way.

If you make it legally, it's yours.

 

[Ollie]

What does the constitution have to do with this topic anyways?

You said it was the governments job.
Show me where they were given that right in the constitution.

 

[ruffryder]

You said it was the governments job.
Show me where they were given that right in the constitution.

It is not a right, but if they want the country to prosper, that will need to be the basis for it. The government has many jobs that aren't in the constitution, so I don't know where this is going.

Wait, maybe it is? Maybe Pursuit of Happiness? With Pursuit being the means, and rules and regulations being the means of implementing it? Hey look what I just pulled out of thin air!

I am trying to say that it is not a necessity of life, but it does help an economy to grow, and with our government thinking that a strong economy is a good thing (free market based) having rules and regulations to even the playing field is the best way to get people to play the system.

Am I explaining this correctly? I think I am failing.....

Kind of like the fact that no one likes to play a game with a cheater. If the economy works on the number of players, allowing players to come into the system and do good and not get scammed keeps them playing.

 

[ruffryder]

First off, it is a simple thing.
If you had your take home hit for 39% tax, I bet you would scream bloody murder, but as long as it's the other guy it's ok??

If they don't like it, then they should move to another country. There are many people that would step into their place rather quickly.

A flat tax rate is actually regressive. 15% tax rate for someone that makes 25k a year effects them more than a 15% tax rate for someone that makes 250k a year.

I don't care if you make 10 million a year. Take away the loop holes and put them in the exact same tax bracket as me. They will still pay more in one year then I will my whole lifetime.

They will also spend more on luxuries in a year, than you will in your whole lifetime.

 

[weetee]

Look at the party platforms. That will give you your answer as to who will keep taxes low, (for all Americans) regaurdless of what obama is saying this week. Ask yourself, have I ever been hired by a poor person?

 

[MTm7]

Correct, I was only trying to show that some of your numbers were wrong or stated differently on the CNN website.

I understand the whole let the rich have more money so they will help out the economy argument and it does have some valid points to it. But then again so does taxing those that make more money also as it won't have the same impact as taxing Joe Broke.

I will not pretend to know which is better for the economy as there are many assumptions that are made with both arguments.

One thing I do know, it is the governments job to try and provide an equal and fair environment for business and capital markets. Those that benefit the most should pay more than those that don't, as they are getting more benefits from the government than others.

I haven't seen nor heard on concrete data one way or the other, so I have no way of determining which is better. The arguments for either sides are based on large assumptions of how money flows and for determining motivation based on financial reward.

Long way of saying I got no clue, and no one really does either.

uhh let me translate this... what O'Ruffy is basically saying is he is for socialism. because joe is broke and aaron is affluent lets tax the hell out aaron. nevermind the fact that joe isnt smart , motivated, creative(and by way of those qualities... is where he is financially) etc... screw all that... lets level the mystical playing field.

what do you mean you have no way of knowing which system works better?? what a crock! oppression whether it be by taxes, laws, larger government...never works for the "People" period. capitalism is great in the hands of honest men... so yes it has its flaws and needs oversight but faaarrr less oppressive than socialism(which imo only leads to tyranny). obama is DEFINITELY A SOCIALIST!!! are you for socialism??? just a yes or no answer will work but im sure you will pull the all spin zone again.

 

[jsledder]

Your whole argument is an oversimplification of the complexities and probabilities of becoming rich in America.

There are tooooo many big words in that sentence!!! Remember, most of us here are rednecks, even if some don't like to admit it.

 

[milehighassassin]

When Reagon started the whole trickle down economics the Dems went balistic. Calling it a rich mans give away.

Trickle down economics is bull$hit and never has worked.


For jumpstarting the economy I think we should spend money on public works improvements. It would kill multiple birds with 1 stone.

It would create and give people good jobs, it would fix our infrastructure which is in desperate need (roads, bridges, railways, cities, etc).