| Jul 20 @ 9:44 AM |
Read my lips?
|
|
EternalFlame
Posts: 3,202
|
I got this in my email, and of course went to research it. From what I've read, it's basically true... Obama plans on taxing the sht out of us. Discuss.
(INTERESTING DATA JUST RECEIVED ON TAXES & PROPOSED CHANGES IN TAXES
AFTER 2008 GENERAL ELECTION.)
Time to consider your pocketbook:
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 (find your bracket)
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 (reverse all 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 will more than double!
How does this affect you? No explanation needed. This is pretty
straight
forward.
INHERITANCE TAX
MCCAIN 0% (No change, Bush repealed this tax)
OBAMA Restore the inheritance tax
How does this affect you?
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 BEING 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!!!
THE FOREGOING IS SOMETHING YOU SHOULD BE AWARE OF. . .. IT SHOULD MAKE
YOU THINK BEFORE YOU CAST YOUR VOTE IN NOVEMBER.
Capital Gains Tax
Just Google "obama mcain ______ tax" Fill in the blank with whichever you're looking into.
And before ya'll condemn me, I'm a registered Dem with Repub tendencies. And don't shoot the messenger. 
|
|
  |
|
| Jul 20 @ 12:35 PM |
Read my lips? |
|
Angel54214
Posts: 12,429
|
Well, Snopes says this is FALSE:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/taxes.asp
|
| |
|
| Jul 20 @ 12:47 PM |
Read my lips?
|
|
alivenwell351
Posts: 1,307
|
Well, Snopes says this is FALSE:
But in reading the Snopes report, one can still easily see that Obama is inclined to increase taxes on the wealthy (ie:productive) to subsidize the poor (ie: non productive/parasites)...a typical liberal attempt to create unnatural equality...
And he does favor a 45% estate tax on estates valued at over 3.5 million...an amount that's not THAT significant these days...not to mention that the $$ in an estate like that has already been taxed to the hilt one way or another...
|
|
| |
|
| Jul 20 @ 2:43 PM |
Read my lips? |
|
Heaveninawildflower
Posts: 14,375
|
But in reading the Snopes report, one can still easily see that Obama is inclined to increase taxes on the wealthy (ie:productive) to subsidize the poor (ie: non productive/parasites)...a typical liberal attempt to create unnatural equality...
For those who didn't bother looking at the Snopes link (thanks Angel):
Income McCain Obama
over 2.9 Million -269,364 +701,885
603K to 2.9M -45,361 +115,974
161K to 603K -7,871 +12
161K to 227K -4,380 -2,789
112K to 161K -2,614 -2,204
66K to 112K -1,009 -1,290
38K to 66K -319 -1,042
19K to 38K -113 -892
<19K -19 -567
By the way, I'm one of the productive ones whose taxes would probably go up 12 bucks a year - although a year from now, as a retiree, I'll no longer be 'productive'. I've never had a problem with paying taxes, only with seeing Washington treating those hard-earned bucks as if it were play money.
|
| |
|
| Jul 20 @ 2:59 PM |
Read my lips?
|
|
Angel54214
Posts: 12,429
|
Your welcome heaven 
I read all of the snopes too and came to the same conclusion you did heaven. 
|
|
| |
|
| Jul 20 @ 3:31 PM |
Read my lips? |
|
EternalFlame
Posts: 3,202
|
From what I'm reading, while the percentages might not be accurate, the basic premise of the taxes Obama is proposing is true. Hence why I said "basically true" in the OP. 
With all the recent income and asset changes in my life, perhaps it's time for me to consider voting Republican 
|
| |
|
| Jul 20 @ 3:37 PM |
Read my lips?
|
|
SweetNapaGuy
Posts: 3,928
|
Are you making more than a quarter-million in taxable income every year, EF?
Pretty much, that's the premise. Does giving tax breaks to the wealthiest 2% of the country "trickle down" to the rest of the population? We're still waiting for Reagan's "trickle down" to appear, some 20 years later...
If only for a third party, one that would actually speak the truth, and not use the scare tactics that both parties use. Le sigh...
|
|
| |
|
| Jul 20 @ 3:57 PM |
Read my lips? |
|
Heaveninawildflower
Posts: 14,375
|
Does giving tax breaks to the wealthiest 2% of the country "trickle down" to the rest of the population? We're still waiting for Reagan's "trickle down" to appear, some 20 years later...
That was pretty much my point - all told, I expect to be in the 161-227K range next year, so my bracket would be the lowest one where Obama would increase taxes, by a whopping 12 bucks a year! Anyone making less than that would do better with Obama.
Reading emails like this one without checking them on Snopes or UrbanLegends is really 'internet-naive'. 99.9% of them are total bunk. That's not a slam at EF, who's probably similar to me in political outlook, it's a general statement. I really get tired of finding my inbox filled with this crap.
|
| |
|
| Jul 20 @ 4:49 PM |
Read my lips?
|
|
Nightowl001
Posts: 3,119
|
Well, not only is it tiresome to see these false e-mails trotted out with bad numbers and a lot of scare tactics. The fact is, these are changes to the tax structure each of these candidates would like to see. Flatly stating "You'll be paying more in taxes under Obama!" is crap, unless you've been to the future and seen what the House and Senate will pass.
There are some generalizations one can make. Many of the Bush tax cuts will be allowed to sunset if we have a Democratically controlled Congress under a President Obama (the most likely scenario). It is unlikely that there will be enough Republican votes in either house to get any bills continuing the tax cuts passed. So even if McCain is President, those cuts will likely sunset.
A lot of people are scared by numbers. And I'm always amazed that so many people get all huffy and red-in-the-face about capital gains taxes. So, you bought a house 30 years ago, for $50,000. And now you're going to sell it and retire, and thanks to real-estate inflation over the years, you can now sell that house for $150,000. You'll walk away from the table after paying 28% capital gains taxes with $122,000. But that is only if Congress passes legislation changing the current laws! (Unlikely.) From: Increase your buying power with Capital Gains reinvestmentThe Internal Revenue Service allows gain generated by the sale of a home to be excluded from federal tax returns. The homeowner must meet the IRS requirements for exclusion. Eligibility for exclusion is based on the five-year period prior to the sale. If a homeowner has owned the property for at least five years and lived in it as a primary residence for at least two years, as much as $250,000 of the gain does not have to be reported on the yearly tax return. The above sale wouldn't even be subject to capital gains under current guidelines. And please note, it says that as much as a quarter-million dollars of the GAIN, may be excluded. If you sell a house you bought for $200,000 for $400,000, you're still probably not paying any capital gains tax on it (if the sale was done by qualified professionals and you have a good accountant at tax time).
And none of this addresses the fact that for most people, this is a once-in-a-lifetime type transaction. They try to make you scared of it when it: 1) Probably won't affect you anyway; 2) is highly unlikely to affect you in any given year even if you do find yourself subject to it; and 3) Is unlikely to be passed by Congress anyway.
|
|
| |
|
| Jul 20 @ 7:45 PM |
Read my lips? |
|
EternalFlame
Posts: 3,202
|
I DID check it out...not on Snopes, but on another one, and dammit I can't remember which it was....but it said it was still 'under investigation'. So I looked for NEWS stories about this topic and drew my own conclusions.
Blah...I don't feel like debating right now. Maybe later. I'll be back.
|
| |
|
| Jul 20 @ 8:01 PM |
Read my lips?
|
|
Nightowl001
Posts: 3,119
|
But in reading the Snopes report, one can still easily see that Obama is inclined to increase taxes on the wealthy (ie:productive) to subsidize the poor (ie: non productive/parasites)...a typical liberal attempt to create unnatural equality... There is something truly wrong about characterizing people who spend a couple hours a day trading paper stocks around to increase their wealth as "productive," while devaluing the millions of "working poor" in this country who don't have the basic necessities of health care, education and housing, whose very labor creates the profit those "productive" people benefit from. Some people need a reality check about what it is like to actually work for a living.
|
|
| |
|
| Jul 20 @ 8:09 PM |
Read my lips? |
|
alivenwell351
Posts: 1,307
|
And none of this addresses the fact that for most people, this is a once-in-a-lifetime type transaction.
Unless it's been done away with, doesn't everyone get one exemption in a lifetime on any capital gains having to be paid on the sale of a house??
Some people need to learn not to make blanket assumptions based on a statement or two of opinion...they just might not have a clue what they're talking about!!!
|
| |
|
| Jul 20 @ 8:30 PM |
Read my lips?
|
|
SweetNapaGuy
Posts: 3,928
|
Unless it's been done away with, doesn't everyone get one exemption in a lifetime on any capital gains having to be paid on the sale of a house??
If I recall correctly, it's been changed. Now it's a blanket exemption on every time you sell your primary residence. Cite
Some people need to learn not to make blanket assumptions based on a statement or two of opinion...they just might not have a clue what they're talking about!!!
Indeed. *tongue firmly in cheek*
|
|
| |
|
| Jul 20 @ 8:30 PM |
Read my lips? |
|
EternalFlame
Posts: 3,202
|
Whoa whoa, Night. I take offense at your statement.
I have been a member of the 'working poor' for my entire freaking LIFE. The most I've ever made in a single year was 27K. And I've got three daughters to support on that.
My bf, however, leaves for work by 5:30 every morning, and he's not home until 6 pm, on average. Some nights he doesn't roll in till 8 pm. He works HARD for that paycheck he brings home! Just cuz he makes more than 6 figures doesn't mean 'trading paper stocks around to increase' his wealth. He WORKS. HARD. Don't lump all the so-called "wealthy" into the same group. He's VERY productive.
|
| |
|
| Jul 20 @ 9:19 PM |
Read my lips?
|
|
Heaveninawildflower
Posts: 14,375
|
EF, I don't think NO meant that as a slap at the more 'productive' as much as a defense of the 'unproductive' folks like you (tongue in cheek here). Congrats to your BF, and I've defended the overworked but well-compensated before - I gave up a lot of my life for financial security, as he apparently is now - and given the same conditions, I'd do the same again. However, the super-rich, the ones who have spectacular yachts and homes and such, wouldn't even notice that amount, where the working mother who's making 27K a year would be paying $892 less a year in taxes under Obama, and $113 less a year under McCain.
As NO said though, this isn't totally within the control of the Prez, it needs to go through Congress as well. And by the way, I wasn't thinking of you when I griped about these emails - it's my friends. Much as I love them as people, they tend to jump on anything that appeals to their leanings and send it out to everyone they know. I keep sending back Snopes links to try to enlighten them, but no luck so far....in fact I'd already seen this one anyway.
|
|
| |
|
| Jul 20 @ 9:43 PM |
Read my lips? |
|
EternalFlame
Posts: 3,202
|
I pay my income taxes with each and every paycheck, but I get EVERY SINGLE PENNY back at the end of the year, plus EIC. My average tax payment is less than 2K a year (head of household, 4 dependents) and I get more than 5K back. I don't think Obama is going to save me any money on my income taxes.
I think of the EIC as a "Thank you for NOT going on welfare this year" payment. It's the government's way of thanking me for living at poverty level without public assistance.
|
| |
|
| Jul 20 @ 11:14 PM |
Read my lips?
|
|
Nightowl001
Posts: 3,119
|
EF, I'm sorry if you took offense. And I'm glad your BF works as much as he does trying to make a better life for himself. But you don't say what he spends all those hours doing, and without knowing that I don't know that I would describe him as "productive" or not.
What I take exception to is this idea that the wealthy in general are more productive than the poor. To me, being productive means that at the end of the day, you have a tangible result of what you produced. A higher stack of tires, 200 more feet of trench dug out and a bigger dirt pile is being more productive. At the end of my day, I figuratively have a stack of medical reports 100 pages deep. That was what I "produced." It wasn't there before I started, and now it is. Frankly, all of the people whom I have ever known who I would class as "wealthy" weren't "producers" of anything. At the end of the day, they sold something they didn't produce, or they moved money from one place to another, taking a cut somewhere along the way. (There are also entertainers, which includes sports figures, but that's an entirely separate class.) Calling that "productive" has always been a thorn in my side.
|
|
| |
|
| Jul 21 @ 8:23 AM |
Read my lips? |
|
vinnytmd
Posts: 2,159
|
From the Wall Street Journal. This should dispel the myths that Democrats want us to believe regarding the Bush Tax cuts.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121659695380368965.html?mod=opinion_main_review_and_outlooks
Washington is teeing up "the rich" for a big tax hike next year, as a way to make them "pay their fair share." Well, the latest IRS data have arrived on who paid what share of income taxes in 2006, and it's going to be hard for the rich to pay any more than they already do. The data show that the 2003 Bush tax cuts caused what may be the biggest increase in tax payments by the rich in American history.
The nearby chart shows that the top 1% of taxpayers, those who earn above $388,806, paid 40% of all income taxes in 2006, the highest share in at least 40 years. The top 10% in income, those earning more than $108,904, paid 71%. Barack Obama says he's going to cut taxes for those at the bottom, but that's also going to be a challenge because Americans with an income below the median paid a record low 2.9% of all income taxes, while the top 50% paid 97.1%. Perhaps he thinks half the country should pay all the taxes to support the other half.
Aha, we are told: The rich paid more taxes because they made a greater share of the money. That is true. The top 1% earned 22% of all reported income. But they also paid a share of taxes not far from double their share of income. In other words, the tax code is already steeply progressive.
|
| |
|
| Jul 21 @ 9:02 AM |
Read my lips?
|
|
EternalFlame
Posts: 3,202
|
So then, Night, by your definitions, I've never been 'productive'. The only tangible result of my work I have ever seen at the end of the night was sore feet, a sore back, and aching muscles. That's what you get when you bust your arse all night waiting tables. There is nothing to look at, nothing to be proud of at the end of a shift except a tidy pile of tips.
|
|
| |
|
| Jul 21 @ 10:31 AM |
Read my lips? |
|
Nightowl001
Posts: 3,119
|
No, EF. LABOR is productive. You moved all that stuff from the service window to the table. At the end of your shift, your "production pile" figuratively consists of all the plates and glasses and coffee cups and silverware that represents the "tonnage" of all the meals you delivered to consumers.
Service jobs are a bit different than production jobs, but they are still direct labor. The "product" of service jobs is just a little more abstract, not quite such a literal interpretation. But if you worked for McDonald's, rather than a full service restaurant, iit doesn't matter how hard you work in a given day. One day you can work a shift that does $4000 in sales and spend a good portion of your day standing at the register waiting for someone to come in the door. The next day you may work a shift that has $8000 in sales, and you don't have time for a break the entire shift. Do they get paid more when they work harder? In your particular case, you may make more in tips on a busier shift than you did on a slow one, but even if you worked a heavy shift every single day and were great at your job, are you going to see 6 figures for it? Do the cooks who puts up the plates for you get paid more when they are more productive? Does the dishwasher get paid per plate washed, so that they are the beneificiary of how much work they do? My argument is that these people ARE productive, but they aren't compensated MORE when they are MORE productive, and they should be! Meanwhile, AW's basic position seems to be that because they somehow don't produce income they must be "non-productive/parasites."
You mentioned receiving EIC. I don't have a problem with EIC. You're right. It is a "thank you for not going on welfare." But that makes you exactly who AW characterized as one of the "non-productive/parasites" being subsidized by the "productive" who paid more in taxes.
I'm not sure why you seem to be looking for a way to interpret what I'm saying as offensive to you.
|
| |
|
|
|
|