What they'll do to your tax bill

[wmenorr67]

FROM CNN MONEY
> McCain and Obama want to change the bottom-line effects of the tax code. Here's a dollars-and-cents breakdown of what their plans could mean for you.

This makes me a bit upset to say the least!!!!!!!!!!!!
> Proposed changes in taxes after 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 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 MCCAIN   0%     (No change, Bush repealed this tax)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.

[dogmush]

Umm... I hate Socalism as much as the next guy, but that's not what CNN Money actually says.

http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/11/news/economy/candidates_taxproposals_tpc/index.htm

Here's how the average tax bill could change in 2009 if either John McCain's or Barack Obama's tax proposals were fully in place.
                     MCCAIN             OBAMA
Income          Avg. tax bill      Avg. tax bill
Over $2.9M     -$269,364       +$701,885
$603K and up  -$45,361         +$115,974
$227K-$603K   -$7,871          +$12
$161K-$227K   -$4,380          -$2,789
$112K-$161K   -$2,614          -$2,204
$66K-$112K    -$1,009          -$1,290
$38K-$66K      -$319            -$1,042
$19K-$38K      -$113            -$892
Under $19K     -$19               -$567
 

I think we can come up with plenty or good reasons to dislike Mr. Obama without resorting to fake news quotes.

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

Come on, that doesn't even sound like CNN

[taurusowner]

                   MCCAIN             OBAMA
Income          Avg. tax bill      Avg. tax bill
Over $2.9M     -$269,364       +$701,885
$603K and up  -$45,361         +$115,974
$227K-$603K   -$7,871          +$12
$161K-$227K   -$4,380          -$2,789
$112K-$161K   -$2,614          -$2,204
$66K-$112K    -$1,009          -$1,290
$38K-$66K      -$319            -$1,042
$19K-$38K      -$113            -$892
Under $19K     -$19               -$567
 

Great, cause I REALLY want my employer to lose money.  Yeah, that will definitely mean more money for me

[Ben]

What happened to Obama's "only those making over $250K will be affected" bullcrap? There's tons of dual income households and small businesses in the $161K - $249K range that will see their taxes double or quadruple. I thought those were the hardworking middle Americans he was going to give a break to?

[Nitrogen]

Please provide link to the CNN money article.
(Hint.  You won't find it.)

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/taxes.asp

[MicroBalrog]

$227K-$603K   -$7,871          +$12

This doesn't SEEM that bad.

[Ben]

Please provide link to the CNN money article.

Unless I'm reading it wrong, Snopes is confirming that the CNN numbers (Dugmush's post) are the correct ones.

This doesn't SEEM that bad.

Unless I'm reading it wrong, that's a $7859 difference in taxes paid.

[Firethorn]

Unless I'm reading it wrong, that's a $7859 difference in taxes paid.

I hate to say it, but I'd be more concerned about balancing the budget than cutting higher income people big tax breaks right now.

I'd prefer to keep tax rates the same as now, but the bigger concern is controlling spending.

[Boomhauer]

Unless I'm reading it wrong, that's a $7859 difference in taxes paid.

I hate to say it, but I'd be more concerned about balancing the budget than cutting higher income people big tax breaks right now.

I'd prefer to keep tax rates the same as now, but the bigger concern is controlling spending.

So you want controlled spending and balanced budget...the only way that is going to happen is to cut gov't programs and get rid of pork. Raising taxes is like giving a fat kid free roam in a candy store. Cause that's what the gov't really needs...more money to waste. They have NO interest in a balanced budget or anything approaching that.

[HankB]

. . .  Raising taxes is like giving a fat kid free roam in a candy store. Cause that's what the gov't really needs...more money to waste. They have NO interest in a balanced budget or anything approaching that.

I've read that historically, each $1 of increased revenue results in an additional $1.50 or so of spending.

Extra income to the government will NOT be applied to the deficit - it WILL be spent on new stuff or expansions of old stuff.

[MechAg94]

So you want controlled spending and balanced budget...the only way that is going to happen is to cut gov't programs and get rid of pork. Raising taxes is like giving a fat kid free roam in a candy store. Cause that's what the gov't really needs...more money to waste. They have NO interest in a balanced budget or anything approaching that.

I have to agree with that.  The government has a very poor history of any sort of fiscal responsibility.  Raising taxes won't do anything but hurt all or some tax payers.  Voting for Congressman who really want to cut government programs and spending is the way to go.

[longeyes]

Let's cut to the chase, we are moving toward a government of protected elites and a growing underclass.

Obama plans to be the President of that Underclass.

"Working families" is code for the proletariat, whether here legally or illegally.

If you own your own business, happen to be single, or, worst of all, have accumulated some assets over the years, beware.

[Manedwolf]

Let's cut to the chase, we are moving toward a government of protected elites and a growing underclass.

Obama plans to be the President of that Underclass.

"Working families" is code for the proletariat, whether here legally or illegally.

If you own your own business, happen to be single, or, worst of all, have accumulated some assets over the years, beware.

No, I think he wants to be President by and for the protected elites that he's part of, and "protector" of the underclass, like communist leaders like Mao were "protectors" of the "workers".

[longeyes]

Manedwolf, we're saying the same thing, different words.  He's another defender of the people, an American Hugo Chavez.  That's what I meant.  He talks underclass but of course is part of the overclass.

[Scout26]

If you own your own business, happen to be single, or, worst of all, have accumulated some assets over the years, beware.

I believe the word your looking for to describe those with some wealth is "Kulak".

[MechAg94]

I think the proper description is:  Preserving the elite's status while protecting the working class and making sure they stay as working class.  You can look at their tax policy and see that.  Taxing the rich doesn't hurt the rich, it hurts those trying to become rich. 

[longeyes]

I think we all see the logical extrapolation of the current trends: insolvency on the state and muncipal levels, attempted confiscatory taxing that will destroy the middle-class, hyperinflation at the grand (Federal) level.

What will stop it?  Fiscal collapse, economic catastrophe, refusal of our creditors to lend us more without strict controls.

The nation needs strict AUSTERITY, and that, of course, is the last thing anyone is ready to sign on for.

[Firethorn]

So you want controlled spending and balanced budget...the only way that is going to happen is to cut gov't programs and get rid of pork. Raising taxes is like giving a fat kid free roam in a candy store. Cause that's what the gov't really needs...more money to waste. They have NO interest in a balanced budget or anything approaching that.

I specifically said 'keep taxes where they are now', so where do you get increasing the tax rate from?

If I was in charge I'd freeze everybody's funding levels at current amounts, and require anybody wanting an increase to identify a program that can be cut that provides less advantage than what they'd provide with an increase.  Along with me going around with a red pen killing programs.  Figure, combined with the few things I'd increase spending on, we end up about even.  Given average national growth, we'll be in a surplus in less than 5 years.

I figure I'd let the surplus get to be ~10% of overall revenue, then allow increases in programs, not to exceed GDP growth.  If revenue grows faster, then we can look at tax cuts.

[grey54956]

Balancing the budget is easy.

Money In = Money Out...

Oops, too many folks on the Gov't dole.  Sorry, no checks for you.

Oops, too many inefficient and largely worthless agencies.  Sorry, your fired.

Oops, too much military spending.  Sorry, building weapons "for the next war" is fine.  Building weapons "for the war after the war after the war after the war after the next war" is probably going a little far.  If you haven't noticed, our current technology level is pretty darn high compared to the enemies we are currently fighting.  They recently graduated from throwing rocks.  Why drop a single million dollar precision guided munition when you can drop several thousand dollars of dumb ordance and achieve the same result.  To hell with collateral damage.

[taurusowner]

For all his faults, Gov. Schwarzenegger set a good example for the rest of politicians to follow.  In light of a terribly unbalanced budget, he did what had to be done and fired 22,000 govt employees, and the other 200,000 are having their wages dropped to minimum wage until the budget is balanced.  Now put Washington on the chopping block next.  IRS, you're fired.  Dept of Ed., you're fired.  DHS, you're fired.  Dept of Housing and Urban Development, you're fired AND you owe us back all the money you were paid in the past.

[roo_ster]

I think the proper description is:  Preserving the elite's status while protecting the working class and making sure they stay as working class.  You can look at their tax policy and see that.  Taxing the rich doesn't hurt the rich, it hurts those trying to become rich. 

We have a winner.

High tax rates tend to freeze the status quo, leaving the rich at the top and hte poor at the bottom.  Low tax rates insert mobility into the equation, allowing others to rise to the top and to displace trustafarians like the Kennedys in absolute wealth.

[roo_ster]

The original, unsourced post included more than just income tax rates.  The sourcing may be bogus, but the analysis is straight and it is more comprehensive.

[wmenorr67]

The original, unsourced post included more than just income tax rates.  The sourcing may be bogus, but the analysis is straight and it is more comprehensive.

The original, "unsourced" was attributed to CNN Money.  It says so right at the top.

[K Frame]

I missed this one yesterday.

Let's stick to discussing true tax proposals and impacts.

Closed.