Proposed changes in taxes after 2008 General election
 

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 haa 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.ha
hahaha
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 ha
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 haha
Married making 60K - tax $16,800
Married making 75K - tax $21,000 haha
Married making 125K - tax $38,750 ha
ha
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 haha
Married making 60K - tax $16,800
Married making 75K - tax $21,000 haha
Married making 125K - tax $38,750 haha

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

INHERITANCE TAX

MCCAIN
0%
(No change, Bush repealed this tax)

OBAMA
keep the inheritance tax

CLINTON
keep the inheritance tax

How else would you pay for Socialism?











</sarcasm>

There you have it.

McCain's got the opposition licked on that front.

Fucking crazy.

Now come on, I am sure the snake and pussy show will be appearing soon.

At first, it seems like the republican candidate is the obvious choice if you're looking at your wallet. But think of how much the war is costing tax payers. Over the course of 4 more years under Mccain, the war will cost trillions and trillions of dollars. All for what? To try and maintain peace and stability in Iraq? Fuck those negros.

Thanks to all the mistakes that fucking prick, G.W. Bush made during his term, this election now boils down to one issue: Does the war end or continue?

The stance of the candidates is clear. Obama will do his best to put an end to the war. Mccain will do his best to keep the war going on as long as possible.

In the long term, I believe no war benefits our wallets, economy, and way of life more than being at war.

Is there a black guy in office now?

Like it or not, we're there. We should have never been there to start with. George Bush was an idiot's idiot and will go dwon in history as such. If we pull out now it will have all of radical Islam somewhere to point thier finger at the US and say "WE WON!"

:2 cents:

highly misleading post


The things you forgot to mention like..... why and how and whats related

the very fact that Mccain wants to keep anything the same ( as they were / are all failures ) as the Bush administration

let me ask you..

would you prefer paying less tax to producing the types of technology and infrastructure that has made us so strong in the first place?

would you rather save a few tax dollars.... or educate American youth and give them the tools they need to remain competitive in a global economy?

would you rather save a few bucks .... or not have a government in extreme debt?

outsource every aspect of american life.... or subsidie tools and programs to boost our own country

save a buck ..... or recession

how do you think we are ever going to recover from bush without a slight increase in taxes to help support our country?

I guess Mccain wants to keep the recession as well.... hell maybe he will finish Bush's job and give us a depression for desert:Oh crap

republicans have a hard time seeing the big picture with anything... I have noticed this. They make chocies based on imediate personal gains and situations but cannot reliably plan for the overall future.:2 cents:

so it appears, but appearences are deceiving. Would you still want to be in Iraq, when his term ended, wasting another few thousand American lifes ?:2 cents:

Looks like Canada

So, I presume you prefer Clinton's plan over Obama's then.

Not sure what the source of those numbers are but I always heard that Obama and Clinton wanted to keep the Bush tax cuts for ppl making under 200k a year. Honestly, im not sure any republicain is on solid ground when talking about the economy. For being fiscal conservatives they really have done a shitty job. Government spending and structure is way up and deficit is at all time high. This administration has been the most liberal fiscal administration in the history of the US.

I would prefer either plan over anything thought up by or implemented by Bush / Mccaine ( both admited financial retards)

That may indeed be the most clever thing I have ever seen you write. Nice one. :thumbsup

What's wrong with the higher taxes? Nothing.

I wouldn't mind paying taxes so damn much if they went to a good cause like national health care rather than imperialistic ambitions.

Bush Sr: Read my lips, no new taxes.

Do you really trust McCain to continue the Bush Jr. plan? Of course, he'll say it until elected even if he doesn't intend to actually follow through.

I'd always prefer to pay lower taxes, but someone is going to have to pay off all the spending Republicans and Democrats have been doing for the past decade. Both plans are the same. Obama/Hillary want us to pay for the stuff now, McCain wants to put it on the plastic.

What's funny too? ... advertising. it's tax deductible, so we all pay for the privilege of being manipulated and controlled.

let me get my glasses:upsidedow

That's not entirely true. There is a 250K exemption (500K for a married couple) when selling your primary residence. That's 250K in profit, not 250K total price...so if your grandparents want to sell their house the only tax they'll pay is on profit over 500K.

The parts I've made bold are places where these taxes don't apply. These are tax deferred accounts where capital gains and dividend taxes don't apply....people pay regular income tax rates on the money when they withdraw it. (In the instance of college funds such as 529's or coverdale's, no taxes are paid on the earnings as long as they are used for qualified educational expenses)

These so-called experts must be the same ones that said Bill Clinton's tax plan in 1993 would cause a recession, when in fact, it helped to pull us out of a recession.
Also, the stock market did a hell of a lot better under the Clinton administration than it has under the Bush administration.

This is also terribly innacurate. Both Clinton and Obama want to revert to the pre-Bush tax levels for the TOP TWO BRACKETS ONLY!!
All of the other income tax rates would remain the same as they are now.

Also, if McCain becomes president the exact same thing will happen to income taxes, because the democrats control congress and all they have to do is not extend the Bush tax cuts for the top two brackets and they will go up automatically....it isn't something McCain would be able to veto....so this is going to happen regardless of who wins in November.
This is also patently false. The estate tax has not been repealed, it has been reduced.

My understanding is the democrats want the estate tax rates to go back to pre-Bush levels but with an exemption on the first 7.5 million, which means that only a fraction of 1% of estates would be subject to any tax at all.

Where did you get this crap from? Is it a cut and paste from an RNC fundraising email? Whoever put this together needs a lesson in fact-checking. :2 cents:

Which is best, and why?

Also don't forget, McCain was against the Bush tax cuts when they were passed, he voted against them.
He wasn't "for" them or for "extending them" until he started running for the republican nomination....a place where tax cuts are a religion.

Who knows whether he'll be for them or against them once he's in office. He'll most likely only serve one term so pissing off the base won't bother him a bit....if nothing else it's pretty obvious that he won't be fighting tooth and nail to keep the Bush tax cuts intact.

That's a lot where you live. Here, not so much.

None of the tax plans presented here are accurate anyways....so it's pointless to choose between them.

Obviously I don't want to pay more in taxes, but it's like this......every dollar we spend today that we don't have is a dollar that my kids and grandkids are going to have to pay in taxes....so you're not really "cutting taxes"....you're just raising taxes on my kids, and they'll have to pay back every dollar with interest.

We need to bring in enough revenue to cover our nut....period. The baby boomers will be retiring soon and we'll be looking at the mother of all tax increases or the mother of all federal deficits, or both, when that time comes.
The longer we wait to do something about it, the more drastic a measure we'll have to take.

You think the government spends too much? Me too, so let's start by not spending 12 billion a month in Iraq.

Spending and the size of government increased by an astronomical amount when the republicans had control of both houses and the white house, so it's not like we can trust them to balance the books.

I'm sick of hearing about tax cuts for the sake of tax cuts....it's an easy way to get elected, but it's a shitty plan for our long term future.
If tax cuts are so great for the economy then why is the economy in the shitter right now after 7 years of super low taxes. Why is the stock market below where it was during the Clinton administration even with super low cap gains and dividend taxes?

You ask which plan is best? I'd say that putting tax rates back where they were during the Clinton administration, when the budget was in surplus and the economy was strong is a good start. :2 cents:

Remember, it's a 500K exemption on PROFIT, not 500K total....and you can do it every two years.

This exemption BTW is something that Clinton signed into law....before that if you sold a house you were forced to put the profit towards your next home purchase or else you had to pay cap gains tax on every penny.

Clinton also lowered cap gains tax rates from where they were under Reagan/Bush. I don't think going from 15% back up to 23% is unreasonable.

Why should a hedge fund manager making $10M+ a year pay a lower tax rate than his secretary who makes $50K?

Convince me that McCain can adapt his intended tax policies _and_ maintain a budget surplus to start paying off our debt.

_Then_, I feel, the matter would require some serious consideration.

Until then, I feel it's just another song-and-dance routine that's tossing the burden on future generations to win votes today.

You're right that it is just smoke and mirrors, but the truth is, few people care about 'future generations'. Most of us only care about the time and space in which we live. So, do you vote to not have your taxes increase (and there is no telling if McCain will stay true to his word since his track record is one of flip flopping in this department), or do you vote to shell out 1/3 of what you make to help 'future generations'?

I don't think we're pulling out of Iraq for many more years regardless of who gets elected. The only thing that will change are the words used to describe our occupancy. Instead of an army, it'll be a 'residual force' or an outpost or some other shenanigans.

They're winning every day. American troops and Iraqi civilians are still dying all the time (ok a couple dozen instead of hundreds, what progress!), and hatred for America is still fermenting. The 'surge' has only put a temporal cap on the horrendous levels of violence and only in isolated areas. American concessions to various factions in the region have contributed to the decrease in violence as have American barriers strategically placed between feuding ethnic populations.

good info Jay!

Without a strong American presence, the old violence will erupt again. This is hardly the first time an empire has tried to subdue populations. Russia tried it as the USSR - today, all those little conquered countries have split up and become independent states along historic ethnic and religious lines. Same for the lands once ruled by Rome, ditto for the Mongol Empire, and so on. And the whole Christian vs Islam contest has also raged gone on for centuries.

too bad somebody can't inject mccain's financial ideas into Obama. I don't understand why Democrats have to take people to DEATH!....

Thanks for the clarification Snake Doctor. I was under the impression that Obama and Clinton both argue for reduced taxes on all but the top 2%. They repeated this many times and it seems you've done your homework and confirms this. Therefore this thread is highly inaccurate.

Here's my drunken taken... like it or not, helpful probably not...

Iraq v.2003-2008 failure... US has to make right

Us Election v.2008 Interesting... First female and black front runners with an actual chance...

Us Economy v.2008 failure... but I still live and make money here, so something needs to make right

Munki v.2008 ... "Outside of California, it's foreign policy..." NOFX - Phat Mike (2003)