President Obama and the Tax effect on you

[RunInRed 16,454]

http://www.ontheissues.org/Economic/Barack..._Tax_Reform.htm

Significant* why can't you edit polls? blah, oh well

[Justin5 20]

Odd, judging by the number of views you would think there would be more votes.

[bigsixfive 328]

I don't have a viable option.

[AUTiger1 0]

Odd, judging by the number of views you would think there would be more votes.

Some people aren't comfortable with divulging their income level.

RIR,

Significant* why can't you edit polls? blah, oh well

you could always create a new one and have one of the mods remove this one.

[RunInRed 16,454]

Odd, judging by the number of views you would think there would be more votes.

Some people aren't comfortable with divulging their income level.

I don't see how voting in an anonymous poll such as this is divulging income level.

[AUTiger1 0]

Odd, judging by the number of views you would think there would be more votes.

Some people aren't comfortable with divulging their income level.

I don't see how voting in an anonymous poll such as this is divulging income level.

Since you started the poll do you not see the who voted what? I have been on other sites where even though you list it as anonymous it will allow the thread starter to see all the info.

[1CopaceticTiger 0]

I would have voted, but I didn't see the following option:

"I think this poll was only created to make me think that if I make less than $200,000 a year, my taxes won't go up under BHO."

[Tigermike 3,046]

I would have voted, but I didn't see the following option:

"I think this poll was only created to make me think that if I make less than $200,000 a year, my taxes won't go up under BHO."

And to be honest I would think that is the same reason this poll and the discussion so far has been lacking. Everyone knows what is coming if Obama is elected. In fact the one who started this poll knows what is coming but would never admit it in these forums.

[autigeremt 6,660]

There's not enough up there. It needs to be more widespread.

[otterinbham 0]

Yep. And it's also a lead in to the very dangerous populist mentality of, "Oh, heck, I'll vote for him because only people who make lots of money will get soaked."

[RunInRed 16,454]

Odd, judging by the number of views you would think there would be more votes.

Some people aren't comfortable with divulging their income level.

I don't see how voting in an anonymous poll such as this is divulging income level.

Since you started the poll do you not see the who voted what? I have been on other sites where even though you list it as anonymous it will allow the thread starter to see all the info.

No, you can't see who voted for what.

For the rest of you who are whining about Obama tax hikes that don't exist and he has not put forward, why don't you "add to the discussion" by providing specific examples of where taxes would increase for those making less than 200k.

[TheDrewYouKnew 3]

It isn't fair to punish us for making over $200k. That discourages hard work.

[1CopaceticTiger 0]

Odd, judging by the number of views you would think there would be more votes.

Some people aren't comfortable with divulging their income level.

I don't see how voting in an anonymous poll such as this is divulging income level.

Since you started the poll do you not see the who voted what? I have been on other sites where even though you list it as anonymous it will allow the thread starter to see all the info.

No, you can't see who voted for what.

For the rest of you who are whining about Obama tax hikes that don't exist and he has not put forward, why don't you "add to the discussion" by providing specific examples of where taxes would increase for those making less than 200k.

I got this from a friend. Don't know the source the CPA used to arrive at this, but it sure does show a different side of things.........................

My CPA sent this to me today. She is warning her clients what is likely to result from this next election cycle based on the current choices for the presidency.

" This is something you should really be aware of, don't get blindsided. This is really going to catch a lot of families off guard.

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!!!

[OldNewby 27]

How would you be affected by an Obama Administration:

1. Significantl Negative Effect, I absolutely hate jumping through hoops.

2. Significant Positive Effect, I absolutely love jumping through hoops.

[AURaptor 1,125]

Am I bound to reply if the tax hike won't affect me at all ? Sorry, but if something is ok with me, or neutral in how it affects my life, can't I still see it as a detriment to the nation as a whole ? Tax hikes are bad for those who are paying more than their fair share, even if they're making several times what I make. It's not the Government's place to tell the producers of this great nation they're making " too much ", and need to give even more. I find that tyrannical, and flat out wrong.

[RunInRed 16,454]

Capital gains was noted above...and I'm not in favor of increasing it. I think this is an example where I strongly disagree with Obama. However, I would like to find a way to close the loop hole that currently exists where many wealthy individuals realize the majority of their incomes at 15% instead of at standard ordinary income rates. That is not fair and in theory, I do think that's what Obama is trying to address when he talks about increasing this tax. However, it is worth noting that he has not committed to or put forth a number - so I'm not sure where the 28% comes from.

[Auburn85 432]

Capital gains was noted above...and I'm not in favor of increasing it. I think this is an example where I strongly disagree with Obama. However, I would like to find a way to close the loop hole that currently exists where many wealthy individuals realize the majority of their incomes at 15% instead of at standard ordinary income rates. That is not fair and in theory, I do think that's what Obama is trying to address when he talks about increases this tax. However, it is worth noting that he has not committed to or put forth a number - so I'm not sure where the 28% comes from.

easy... create a new capital gains tax bracket.

not saying that you are saying it, but several middle-class people shouldn't be thrown under the bus just to make a handful of people pay their fair share.

[au2004ece 30]

Odd, judging by the number of views you would think there would be more votes.

Yeah, and I wonder why all the polls in this country come out with a liberal answer.

IT ALL DEPENDS ON HOW THE QUESTION IS ASKED.

I have two problems with the questions in the poll:

1. I don't believe Obama will only increase taxes for those over 250,000.

a. He is going to let the Bush tax cuts expire, creating a tax increase

b. I believe he will decide that 250 is to high of a threshold and bring that number down.

2. If I did believe only those that make 250,000 or more would be taxed, I would still expect a negative impact for those that do not make that much.

a. This is because taxes take away from investment, etc which will cause less jobs to be created in America. Higher taxes on corporations will force them to locate elsewhere for lower costs.

b. Higher taxes results in lower revenue for the government. Read this:

"The fact that Americans can't afford the massive tax increases Barack Obama is proposing shouldn't obscure another truth: those increases are likely to do nothing at all to increase federal revenues. There was a fascinating piece in the Wall Street Journal a few weeks ago that showed federal revenues holding steady at about 19.5% of GDP for the last 50 years. This number hasn't budged "no matter what the tax rates have been." So not only are higher taxes going to hurt the economy, but the evidence shows they will also reduce overall federal revenue (19.5% of what will be a smaller GDP). Read the Journal piece here http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1211244605...news_wsj."

Does this make anybody in favor of the tax increase even question there beliefs? Probably not, but it should.

[TheDrewYouKnew 3]

Odd, judging by the number of views you would think there would be more votes.

Yeah, and I wonder why all the polls in this country come out with a liberal answer.

IT ALL DEPENDS ON HOW THE QUESTION IS ASKED.

I have two problems with the questions in the poll:

1. I don't believe Obama will only increase taxes for those over 250,000.

a. He is going to let the Bush tax cuts expire, creating a tax increase

b. I believe he will decide that 250 is to high of a threshold and bring that number down.

2. If I did believe only those that make 250,000 or more would be taxed, I would still expect a negative impact for those that do not make that much.

a. This is because taxes take away from investment, etc which will cause less jobs to be created in America. Higher taxes on corporations will force them to locate elsewhere for lower costs.

b. Higher taxes results in lower revenue for the government. Read this:

"The fact that Americans can't afford the massive tax increases Barack Obama is proposing shouldn't obscure another truth: those increases are likely to do nothing at all to increase federal revenues. There was a fascinating piece in the Wall Street Journal a few weeks ago that showed federal revenues holding steady at about 19.5% of GDP for the last 50 years. This number hasn't budged "no matter what the tax rates have been." So not only are higher taxes going to hurt the economy, but the evidence shows they will also reduce overall federal revenue (19.5% of what will be a smaller GDP). Read the Journal piece here http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1211244605...news_wsj."

Does this make anybody in favor of the tax increase even question there beliefs? Probably not, but it should.

Excellent point so don't expect any response.

[RunInRed 16,454]

Capital gains was noted above...and I'm not in favor of increasing it. I think this is an example where I strongly disagree with Obama. However, I would like to find a way to close the loop hole that currently exists where many wealthy individuals realize the majority of their incomes at 15% instead of at standard ordinary income rates. That is not fair and in theory, I do think that's what Obama is trying to address when he talks about increases this tax. However, it is worth noting that he has not committed to or put forth a number - so I'm not sure where the 28% comes from.

not saying that you are saying it, but several middle-class people shouldn't be thrown under the bus just to make a handful of people pay their fair share.

I 100% agree. I think most people would be affected when they cash out of their 401k...however, with some basic planning, there are even shelters around this. I don't buy the cap gains on real estate b/c as long as you stay in your house 2 years (which most do), you can avoid the tax.

[quietfan 233]

I still say treat all income identically--wages, capital gains, inheritance, interest/dividends, gambling winnings, change left by the tooth fairy, profits from criminal acts--it's all just new money in someone's pocket and should be taxed identically. JMO.

[au2004ece 30]

I still say treat all income identically--wages, capital gains, inheritance, interest/dividends, gambling winnings, change left by the tooth fairy, profits from criminal acts--it's all just new money in someone's pocket and should be taxed identically. JMO.

WRONG. Only income should be taxed. Capital gains/Interest/Dividends are not the same as income.

You must have income before you can make investments that yield Capital gains/Interest/Dividends. So when those items are taxed, it is really a double tax since the money used to make the original investment was already taxed (therefore already reducing the amount of the original investment).

[1CopaceticTiger 0]

I still say treat all income identically--wages, capital gains, inheritance, interest/dividends, gambling winnings, change left by the tooth fairy, profits from criminal acts--it's all just new money in someone's pocket and should be taxed identically. JMO.

WRONG. Only income should be taxed. Capital gains/Interest/Dividends are not the same as income.

You must have income before you can make investments that yield Capital gains/Interest/Dividends. So when those items are taxed, it is really a double tax since the money used to make the original investment was already taxed (therefore already reducing the amount of the original investment).

I agree completely, only income should be taxed. IMO inheritance tax should be eliminated as well for the reasons stated above. In addition, since the beginning of history, man's right to pass on his belongings and wealth to his heirs has been universally accepted. I can't understand why anyone would think the government has the right to seize a portion of anyone's inheritance.

[quietfan 233]

I still say treat all income identically--wages, capital gains, inheritance, interest/dividends, gambling winnings, change left by the tooth fairy, profits from criminal acts--it's all just new money in someone's pocket and should be taxed identically. JMO.

WRONG. Only income should be taxed. Capital gains/Interest/Dividends are not the same as income.

You must have income before you can make investments that yield Capital gains/Interest/Dividends. So when those items are taxed, it is really a double tax since the money used to make the original investment was already taxed (therefore already reducing the amount of the original investment).

No...the money you put into the initial investment isn't taxed again. You're taxed on the GAINS (hense the term), i.e., the new money you earned on the investment. Buy stock at $200K, sell stock for $250K = $50K of taxable gains. I'm saying treat that $50K just like $50K I earn by the sweat of my brow, or $50K I get from my lottery ticket, or $50K my long lost uncle leaves me in his will.

But even if the original was taxed, who came up with this idea that there's a rule against double taxation?--I pay income tax on my paycheck when I receive it it, plus social security/Medicare taxes, then pay sales tax/liquor tax/gasoline tax on that money again when I spend it.

[au2004ece 30]

I still say treat all income identically--wages, capital gains, inheritance, interest/dividends, gambling winnings, change left by the tooth fairy, profits from criminal acts--it's all just new money in someone's pocket and should be taxed identically. JMO.

WRONG. Only income should be taxed. Capital gains/Interest/Dividends are not the same as income.

You must have income before you can make investments that yield Capital gains/Interest/Dividends. So when those items are taxed, it is really a double tax since the money used to make the original investment was already taxed (therefore already reducing the amount of the original investment).

No...the money you put into the initial investment isn't taxed again. You're taxed on the GAINS (hense the term), i.e., the new money you earned on the investment. Buy stock at $200K, sell stock for $250K = $50K of taxable gains. I'm saying treat that $50K just like $50K I earn by the sweat of my brow, or $50K I get from my lottery ticket, or $50K my long lost uncle leaves me in his will.

But even if the original was taxed, who came up with this idea that there's a rule against double taxation?--I pay income tax on my paycheck when I receive it it, plus social security/Medicare taxes, then pay sales tax/liquor tax/gasoline tax on that money again when I spend it.

Obviously there is no law against double taxation. But, there should be. Government should pick one source of revenue and stick to that. If they want a tax on wages, then that's it. If they want a sales tax, then that should be it. Of course, once we consolidated to one tax source, that tax would have to be raised to cover the other removed taxes.

In some other countries, investment gains are not taxed. This removes a disincentive to investment which increases the economic potential.

Look at it this way, for example say you earn 50K per year. After income taxes, you have 40K. You invest 5K because you live off of 35K. The 5K turns into 6K. But now you owe taxes on the extra 1K.

But, if government had not taxed the money as you received it, you would have had 15K to invest.

That 15K would have turned into 18K. So, the government has already reduced your ability to profit from investment by 200% by taxing your investable income (3K profit vs. 1K profit). So, why should they take more after you do make money investing?