Originally Posted by baddog

So, if I sell one of my houses I have to pay a higher tax. Why? I believe you neglected to mention inheritance taxes are going up too.

I am sure there are others, but I really don't feel like arguing with a wall right now.

Maybe later.

Originally Posted by nation-x

If it's investment property... yes... but you don't pay the tax on the whole amount of the sale in the case of Capital Gains tax... you only pay tax on the actual profit... at the same time you can offset those taxes with losses (like every investor does). If it's your primary residence and you haven't taken the one time tax exemption... then you won't pay ANY tax.

Originally Posted by baddog

So, if I sell one of my houses I have to pay a higher tax. Why? I believe you neglected to mention inheritance taxes are going up too.

I am sure there are others, but I really don't feel like arguing with a wall right now.

Maybe later.

Originally Posted by Sly

How is winning the lottery the same as receiving a large inheritance? Taxes on the large inheritance were already paid for by the person that earned the money.

Originally Posted by BFT3K

The person who earned the money is dead. It is an inheritance tax. The person receiving the money did not earn any of it - that's how it is like winning the lottery.

When you sell a used car it is taxed a second time, and if you sell it again, then it is taxed again.

Obama's inheritance tax is a bit more than McCain's only after you hit the 3.5 million or higher mark.

If your relative dies, and you receive more than 3.5 million in inheritance, try not to cry too much - you will be okay.

Originally Posted by Sly

If you sell a car, you are selling it. If you give your money to your child, you are giving it.

Big difference.

Oh well, the rich will just find another way to spin the money to avoid the tax.

Originally Posted by Sly

If you sell a car, you are selling it. If you give your money to your child, you are giving it.

Big difference.

Oh well, the rich will just find another way to spin the money to avoid the tax.

Originally Posted by tony404

You cant fight the war on terror with smiles. Also you plan on inheriting over 3 million dollars?

Originally Posted by BFT3K

It is true that under Obama the PROFIT portion of a home sale will be taxed at a slightly higher point than under Bush, but thanks to Bush how many people are selling homes for a profit these days?

Originally Posted by gornyhuy

Tax the living shit out of me.
$250k and above is RICH and should be taxed more heavily?

Fuck that.

I have trouble stomaching McCain, and Palin gives me violent diarrhea, but how can I elect a socialist that is specifically targeting me and intentionally penalizing successful people and companies that grow the economy and provide jobs?

Any Strong Obama Supporters:
Tell me why I'm wrong. What am I missing about the Obama tax plan.
Help!

Originally Posted by BFT3K

The person who earned the money is dead. It is an inheritance tax. The person receiving the money did not earn any of it - that's how it is like winning the lottery.

When you sell a used car it is taxed a second time, and if you sell it again, then it is taxed again.

Obama's inheritance tax is a bit more than McCain's only after you hit the 3.5 million or higher mark.

If your relative dies, and you receive more than 3.5 million in inheritance, try not to cry too much - you will be okay.

Originally Posted by Sly

Are we creating these laws simply because we "don't have" so we want to punish those that "do have"?

Originally Posted by Mike33

No, only those making over $600,000 are taxes heavily. If you make below that you either are getting taxed less or you're going to pay $12 more on your taxes.

Originally Posted by baddog

Blame deregulation of the mortgage industry that allowed people to get loans that they would not have qualified for prior.

Originally Posted by baddog

And an inheritance is not a lottery. It comes from family. Why should everything I worked for be tossed aside just because I died?

Originally Posted by baddog

If McCain's plan includes a cut of $7k, how do you figure it is only $12 more?

Originally Posted by nation-x

Most people don't even pay that tax unless they are stupid as fuck... rich people set up non profits... donate most of their money to it and set up their heirs as officers with a monthly salary.

Originally Posted by Mike33

I may be wrong but I think McCain's plan reduces taxes for those making $250k-$600k by $8k.

Originally Posted by baddog

As I recall, Obama wants to increase corp taxes as well, which would probably effect quite a few people here.

Originally Posted by gornyhuy

Tax the living shit out of me.
$250k and above is RICH and should be taxed more heavily?

Fuck that.

I have trouble stomaching McCain, and Palin gives me violent diarrhea, but how can I elect a socialist that is specifically targeting me and intentionally penalizing successful people and companies that grow the economy and provide jobs?

Any Strong Obama Supporters:
Tell me why I'm wrong. What am I missing about the Obama tax plan.
Help!

Originally Posted by gornyhuy

Tax the living shit out of me.
$250k and above is RICH and should be taxed more heavily?

Fuck that.

I have trouble stomaching McCain, and Palin gives me violent diarrhea, but how can I elect a socialist that is specifically targeting me and intentionally penalizing successful people and companies that grow the economy and provide jobs?

Any Strong Obama Supporters:
Tell me why I'm wrong. What am I missing about the Obama tax plan.
Help!

Originally Posted by crockett

Hell under McCain you could see more rules on adult which could cut your long term income.

Originally Posted by pocketkangaroo

The rules aren't the problems, it's the judges. A politician can put in any law they want, but if the people on the Supreme Court believe it's unconstitutional, we are safe. The issue is whether the President will add a conservative to the bench.

Originally Posted by J. Falcon

How can you vote for another republican after they have totally fucked up the country?

Originally Posted by nation-x

The only tax that Obama will raise is the Capital Gains tax... I don't consider repealing (or letting expire) Bush's stupid ass Trickle Down tax cuts as a tax increase...

Here are some facts:

Under the Republicans, corporations have seen HUGE increases in profits and reduced tax liability. A recent study (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d08957.pdf) put out by the Government Accountability Office estimates that during their study period 28% of LARGE corporations (estimated as companies with assets exceeding $250 million) didn't even pay income tax and that overall... more then 60% of corporations paid no tax across all income brackets.

Why is this important? Well, the Bush administration, led by Treasury Secretary Paulson and conservatives led by John McCain are mounting a major campaign to cut the corporate tax rate even more, arguing that we are crippled competitively by having a US rate higher than any industrial nation other than Japan. "America has the second highest business [tax]rate in the entire world," says John McCain. "Is it any wonder that jobs are moving overseas? We're taxing them out of the country." But the GAO study confirms what we already knew: whatever the nominal tax rate, US corporations pay an effective rate among the lowest in the industrial world.

Yet the core of McCain economic agenda consists of breath-taking corporate tax breaks. He calls for cutting the top corporate rate from 35% to 25% and allowing corporations to write off investments in the first year. Combined, the Tax Policy Center wonks cost these at over $1.3 trillion over 10 years. Len Burman of Tax Policy Center estimates that in total, McCain would cut corporate revenues by about 50% from current levels. They'll be making hundreds of millions of dollars and not paying taxes. This is no joke.

To pay for these tax breaks, sustain the Bush tax cuts, add more tax breaks AND balance the budget in four years, as McCain promises, will require heroic cuts in spending. Not military spending; McCain promises to increase that. How will he do this? On the stump, McCain promises to veto any earmarked spending. But that is a gesture, providing about $18 billion a year. (And he isn't exactly consistent. McCain often tells folks who defend a local project that it is the process, not the individual project that he opposes.) Perhaps that's why McCain calls for raising Medicare taxes on seniors with over $50,000 a year in income and taxing employer-based health care benefits for families. Working people and seniors will help pay the tab for the corporate tax give-away.

It's hard not to wonder about the pure, contrary, inanity of the current conservative position. Our military is by far the strongest in the world, while our trains are among the slowest and our sewers are collapsing. So they propose raising spending the military and cutting domestic investment. We suffer gilded age inequality, with the wealthiest 15,000 families -- one-one hundredth of one percent of the population -- capturing fully one-fourth of the entire income growth from 2000 to 2006. Their average income rose from $15.2 million per year to $29.7 million per year. Meanwhile, the rest of us -- 133 million households that make up 90% of the country -- divided up 4% of the nation's income, adding about $305 to our average $30,354 income. So conservatives push for more tax cuts for the wealthy, while proposing to tax employer based health benefits. Corporate profits (prior to the recession) have catapulted to what is by far the highest percentage of national income in the past half century. So they want to cut corporate taxes, inevitably increasing the burden on labor. The economic future looks dim because consumers, drowning in debt, are cutting back. So they suggest cutting taxes on corporate investments will generate new investments and growth -- as if companies don't need someone to buy the products they make.

America's strength lies in the hands of the middle class BECAUSE without consumers there is no wealth to distribute. Republicans will argue this point as most are globalists (or buy into what globalists are saying) and if consumer spending in the US is low they will just move their operations to a country where supply side economics works in the short term. Democrats, on the other hand, view the economy from the demand side and believe that placing money in the consumers hands will boost consumer spending, boost our economy and benefit everyone. Bush has even subscribed to this policy in the form of tax rebates recently when consumer spending was so low that it threatened the economy. Just this week, reports of poor consumer spending and rising unemployment caused the DOW to fall more then 300 points in a single day. Obama realizes that the way to grow our economy isn't to subscribe to failed "Trickle Down" policies and that introducing these tax credits will in fact boost the economy over the long term as the middle class grows. In addition to tax credits for individuals, he will also be providing credits to corporations who invest domestically to spurn employment. He will also reduce the amount of taxes a self employed person has to pay with these tax credits... currently, if your self employed, your tax burden is more then double an employed person because you have to pay the employee and employer parts of the income tax.

So... in review, Obama's plan is NOT wealth redistribution... it is capital investment to rebuild our economy from the ground up like fertilizer is to crops after a long drought. Yes... it takes money from the wealthy and invests it in the people... yes it's probably a socialist policy... but placing labels like these on good ideas doesn't magically make them bad ideas for our country over the long term. It's for the good of the country and our people and in no way put the wealthy at risk of losing their wealth... It merely requires that the wealthy reinvest in our country to improve our country as a whole. I am positive that he doesn't expect the rich to love him... but later on they will see the results and understand what he did.

Originally Posted by gornyhuy

To be honest, I live in a state that votes democratic in a landslide every time, and has every appearance of doing so again this time, so because of the electoral system it pretty much doesn't matter what I vote.

Originally Posted by buzzy

Because you have more money?

Very simple...

Are you suggesting someone who earns $20k a year should pay the same as someone $250k a year?

Originally Posted by gornyhuy

Tax the living shit out of me.
$250k and above is RICH and should be taxed more heavily?

Fuck that.

I have trouble stomaching McCain, and Palin gives me violent diarrhea, but how can I elect a socialist that is specifically targeting me and intentionally penalizing successful people and companies that grow the economy and provide jobs?

Any Strong Obama Supporters:
Tell me why I'm wrong. What am I missing about the Obama tax plan.
Help!

Originally Posted by gornyhuy

To be honest, I live in a state that votes democratic in a landslide every time, and has every appearance of doing so again this time, so because of the electoral system it pretty much doesn't matter what I vote.

Originally Posted by slapass

With you on this. And this is why we will vote Obama anyways. The war is why we need to raise taxes. Without that there is not a need to raise them so we need someone who will stop the war/wars.