Proposed changes in taxes after 2008 General election:

[Cardinal Joe]

Proposed changes in taxes after 2008 General election:



CAPITAL GAINS TAX



MCCAIN

15% (no change)



OBAMA

28%



CLINTON

24%



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%



CLINTON

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 or Clinton become 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



CLINTON

(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



How does this affect you? No explanation needed. This is pretty straight forward.





INHERITANCE TAX



MCCAIN

0%

(No change, Bush repealed this tax)



OBAMA

keep the inheritance tax



CLINTON

keep the inheritance tax



How does this affect you? Many families have lost businesses, farms and 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 not only lose them to these taxes.



NEW TAXES BEING PROPOSED BY BOTH CLINTON AND 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!!!



Can you afford Clinton or Obama? I can't!!!!! Cardinal Joe

[Banshee]

Ihear ya, With the way the dems are fighting, mccain will win hands down. Obama should self destuct soon, hilary is hilary. Nuff said.
JW

[Glenn W]

Another internet saga of misinformation. I make no position on my opinion for any of the three candidates, but I do hate to see misinformation by any party. It's hard enough to truely understand candidates positions at times without biasing reality--- or fabricating positions that don't exist.
Here is a resonably accurate position on the candidates' tax proposals
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/tpcco..._matrix15a.pdf

[Capt. Lyndon]

The way capital gains works on residential property is you are NOT subject to cgt if you have lived in the residence for 2 of the previous 5 years, and then only if your gain is more than $250,000.00 if single, or $500,000.00 if married. I don't know about most of you, but capital gains is not a issue with me.

[Sterling]

Reading the Democrats proposal it seems they feel like working hard and earning money is a bad thing. These households brining in > 250k must be evil.

Basically, lower taxes for the people who pay the least already, and tax the crap out of people who are already paying the most. That doesn't seem to be an incentive to go out and work hard for a living and it's this kind of thinking that moves wealth, corporations and the associated jobs and taxes overseas.

Clinton:

Health plan caps the tax exclusion for employer health
benefit contributions for households making more than
$250,000

Obama:

Pay for middle class tax relief by increasing the
highest bracket for capital gains and dividends and
closing the carried interest loophole

It reminds me of a story:
---------------------------------------------------------
I was having lunch with one of my favorite friends last week and the conversation turned to the government's recent round of tax cuts. “I'm opposed to those tax cuts,” the retired West coast college instructor declared, “because they benefit the rich. The rich get much more money back than ordinary taxpayers like you and me and that's not fair.”


“But the rich pay more in the first place,” I argued, “so it stands to reason that they'd get more money back.” I could tell that my friend was unimpressed by this meager argument.


So I said to him, let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand. Suppose that every day 10 men go to a restaurant for dinner. The bill for all ten comes to $100. If it was paid the way we pay our taxes, the first four men would pay nothing; the fifth would pay $1; the sixth would pay $3; the seventh $7; the eighth $12; the ninth $18. The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.


The 10 men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement until the owner threw them a curve. Since you are all such good customers, he said, I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20. Now dinner for the 10 only costs $80.


The first four are unaffected. They still eat for free. [Ah, what a sweet deal that man who cleans the airport urinals for $6 an hour has. He eats for free! Or how about that woman who cleans your hotel room. She, too, eats for free! Except for the payroll tax taken out of their checks and the sales tax they pay. And the tax they pay on their gasoline and their phones if they can afford gas or a phone. Why should the rest of us pay taxes to help educate their kids and provide them with health care? They shouldn’t be allowed to have kids. And if they have them anyway, those kids don’t deserve decent schools and health care. Our first priority has got to be cutting taxes for the top, not providing good schools and health care to deadbeat six year olds.] Can you figure out how to divvy up the $20 savings among the remaining six so that everyone gets his fair share? The men realize that $20 divided by 6 is $3.33, but if they subtract that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would end up being paid to eat their meal.


The restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same percentage, being sure to give each a break, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay. And so now the fifth man paid nothing, the sixth pitched in $2, the seventh paid $5, the eighth paid $9, the ninth paid $12, leaving the tenth man with a bill of $52 instead of $59.


Outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. “I only got a dollar out of the $20,” complained the sixth man, pointing to the tenth, “and he got $7!” “Yeah, that's right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got seven times more than me!”


“That's true,” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get $7 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!” “Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison. “We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor.”


The nine men surrounded the tenth man and beat him up. The next night he didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They were $52 short! And that, boys, girls and college instructors, is how America's tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes should get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table any more.

[JUST RELEASED 34]

Originally Posted by Sterling

Reading the Democrats proposal it seems they feel like working hard and earning money is a bad thing. These households brining in > 250k must be evil.

Basically, lower taxes for the people who pay the least already, and tax the crap out of people who are already paying the most. That doesn't seem to be an incentive to go out and work hard for a living and it's this kind of thinking that moves wealth, corporations and the associated jobs and taxes overseas.

Clinton:


Obama:


It reminds me of a story:
---------------------------------------------------------
I was having lunch with one of my favorite friends last week and the conversation turned to the government's recent round of tax cuts. “I'm opposed to those tax cuts,” the retired West coast college instructor declared, “because they benefit the rich. The rich get much more money back than ordinary taxpayers like you and me and that's not fair.”


“But the rich pay more in the first place,” I argued, “so it stands to reason that they'd get more money back.” I could tell that my friend was unimpressed by this meager argument.


So I said to him, let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand. Suppose that every day 10 men go to a restaurant for dinner. The bill for all ten comes to $100. If it was paid the way we pay our taxes, the first four men would pay nothing; the fifth would pay $1; the sixth would pay $3; the seventh $7; the eighth $12; the ninth $18. The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.


The 10 men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement until the owner threw them a curve. Since you are all such good customers, he said, I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20. Now dinner for the 10 only costs $80.


The first four are unaffected. They still eat for free. [Ah, what a sweet deal that man who cleans the airport urinals for $6 an hour has. He eats for free! Or how about that woman who cleans your hotel room. She, too, eats for free! Except for the payroll tax taken out of their checks and the sales tax they pay. And the tax they pay on their gasoline and their phones if they can afford gas or a phone. Why should the rest of us pay taxes to help educate their kids and provide them with health care? They shouldn’t be allowed to have kids. And if they have them anyway, those kids don’t deserve decent schools and health care. Our first priority has got to be cutting taxes for the top, not providing good schools and health care to deadbeat six year olds.] Can you figure out how to divvy up the $20 savings among the remaining six so that everyone gets his fair share? The men realize that $20 divided by 6 is $3.33, but if they subtract that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would end up being paid to eat their meal.


The restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same percentage, being sure to give each a break, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay. And so now the fifth man paid nothing, the sixth pitched in $2, the seventh paid $5, the eighth paid $9, the ninth paid $12, leaving the tenth man with a bill of $52 instead of $59.


Outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. “I only got a dollar out of the $20,” complained the sixth man, pointing to the tenth, “and he got $7!” “Yeah, that's right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got seven times more than me!”


“That's true,” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get $7 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!” “Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison. “We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor.”


The nine men surrounded the tenth man and beat him up. The next night he didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They were $52 short! And that, boys, girls and college instructors, is how America's tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes should get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table any more.

well said mike.......politics are simple


republicans are employers'
democrates are employees'

[trollman]

Originally Posted by Glenn W

Another internet saga of misinformation. I make no position on my opinion for any of the three candidates, but I do hate to see misinformation by any party. It's hard enough to truely understand candidates positions at times without biasing reality--- or fabricating positions that don't exist.
Here is a resonably accurate position on the candidates' tax proposals
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/tpcco..._matrix15a.pdf

Glenn, i see Joe's write up here as pretty close, what misinformation? According to your link, Obama for instance would not (as would John McCain) "keep the current tax regime for capital gains." that means that when you sell ur house, you have no $250K ($500K if maried) TAX EXCLUSION and you pay at the full ordinary income rates.

he is the most liberal person on the earth and would significantly increase taxes! just listen to him and it is clear.

[captbones]

As far as capital gains is concerned my girlfriend is an accountant in Baltimore and just last night we were discussing me selling my sportfisher and taxes. She told me that I would have to pay gains taxes on anything over what I originally paid for the boat which is 15% right now. If I do sell I hope to do it before 2009 in hopes of not giving away anymore free money to the govt.

[Sterling]

Just the suggestion of it is having impacts just like captbones. By the way, nice choice in boats if you're able to sell for more than you paid.

Can you imagine the sell-off in the markets in 2007 if this is still on the table and a Dem wins it? Everyone will want to drop their long term holdings before the tax doubles on them. I'm all in favor of closing some loopholes but let's start with that, and some controlled spending. I heard last week that NJ lost 17,000 jobs this year...but the Government grew by 400.

I do like the story I posted previously, I grabbed that off a website and didn't notice some of the text inserted in the middle. The point still comes across.

[Glenn W]

Originally Posted by trollman

Glenn, i see Joe's write up here as pretty close, what misinformation? According to your link, Obama for instance would not (as would John McCain) "keep the current tax regime for capital gains." that means that when you sell ur house, you have no $250K ($500K if maried) TAX EXCLUSION and you pay at the full ordinary income rates.

he is the most liberal person on the earth and would significantly increase taxes! just listen to him and it is clear.

I'm not supporting nor condeming Obama's positions on taxes, but from what I understand, you are simply incorrect on his position regarding capital gains taxes. I have not seen where Obama suggests that the exclusion for primary residences be repealed-- He does advocate increasing other traditional capital gains taxes however. Obama also recommends several tax credits and deductions that McCain does not propose.
From what I have seen thus far, for the most part McCain doesn't have many noval proposals for taxation-- not that that is necessarily a bad thing.
One thing that is obvious even to the most uninformed voter, deep down is the common sense knowledege that our government must be funded somehow--- the right wing republican philosophy has been to promote lower taxes and fund current and future budgets with additional debt--- an obvious popular tactic for election purposes. It is rare indeed for a polititian to look the deficit and debt burdon in the face as to say publicly-- who's is going to pay for this mess?---- to compound matters, we have a situation with McCain almost identical to that of Regan in terms of fiscal policy--- military build up (or in McCain's case) proliferation of the cost of continuing our involmentin Iraq). As we all know, the public debt under Regan grew by more than any other president in history--- we are still paying for these decisions today and it looks like our kids will be paying for this "spend more money collect less tax revenue" for eons to come.
It may be popular, but is certainly shortsighted in my opinion. McCain does not appear to be focused on the revenue side at this point in his campain--- other than shallow mention of reducing upper income tax burdons. It will be interesting to see what his policy will be as the campain matures this summer.