Taxes and Candidates?
 

Yes, CHANGE we can count on……….





INTERESTING DATA JUST RECEIVED ON TAXES

Spread the word.....


This is something you should be

aware of so you don't get blind-sided.
This is really going to catch a lot

of families off guard. It should
make you worry.

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 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


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MCCAIN 0% (No change, Bush repealed this tax)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

That can't be real. I'm not a big fan of Obama, but I highly doubt he'd nearly double the tax liability of the lowest bracket.

Tom, what's the source for that information?


It looks like an email forward, and those aren't real accurate.

ETA: from snopes.com

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

It doesn't seem to be accurate at all if you consider snopes good at analysis and using good sources.

Dude, it was an email forward. It HAS to be accurate.

Yes it was a forward email so that makes it in error or wrong?

So people who find things cannot pass them along?:rolleyes:

I am not saying it is correct, it is something to think about!

If you do not accept it that is fine, but just a thought process to expand yourselves!

I want my vote to count!;)

Well, as a forward, it's probably wrong. Especially when the numbers are so out of whack.

There are plenty of things to think about in the election. I just prefer to get my information from more reliable sources (like candidates' websites, reports in the media, media experts, and friends I have working for the campaigns).

Don't know how y'all feel about Business Week but:

http://www.businessweek.com/investor...ndex_top+story

Haven't you been asked to stop cleaning out your damn inbox on this board?

Whatever the real numbers are, YES taxes will need to increase in order to level the playing field (including "middle class Americans" who had more income than wealth and are struggling in this recession) and invest in social programs.

NO this is not ridiculous or unheard of. If Americans only knew what our tax dollars were being wasted on every year, the smart ones would be thrilled to invest in something that actually HELPED its citizens and invested in the future. And I'm talking the average citizen. Not the top 3% or the hoitytoity Americans who confuse coming from generations of wealth with actually having WORKED/EARNED for it themselves.

This isn't about Politics: Obama, McCain, Democrat, or Republican. They can all go to hell, as far as I'm concerned. What it is about is Americans knowing what's going on around them and knowing that stuff isn't FREE. Hell, we invest in domestic and global capitalism so why not invest in the overall wellbeing of our nation?

Woooooooooosaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhh.... :D

Tom, Tom, Tom......
"What is wrong with it?" you ask.
Tom, read the link from Snopes.com or pick any other urban legion Web site you care to locate (I do not have my personal list handy or I would send it to you)
The whole point of these "e-mail to everyone you know" is to send and help spread some sort of usually false rumor.
If not crime related, it is politics.
If not about some sort of charity, it is about a celebrity.
The lists, just on snopes goes on on on.
If you would like my personal list (which I may have posted on GC at some point-could be in web sites thread)-let me know.
ETA-found an old posting here. I may have update mine but any of this should work for you Tom.
Please make use of them before you send anyone else any more of your e-mails:
About com/Urban Legends, Folklore & Myths:
http://www.snopes.com
http://urbanlegends.about.com
http://kumite.com/myths/
http://truthorfiction.com/
http://hoaxbusters.ciac.org/

That's a typical Liberal Democrat method of rebalancing the scale and finding an alternative to redistributing wealth (which can't be done under this capitalism, anyway).

He's just reversing the wealthfare that's been going on for decades. This shouldn't be seen as a punishment to the wealthy or the rich (who aren't always one in the same). They should think of it as an ongoing charity ball, which we all know are wonderful. :)

And, no, you don't have to be of the NONwealthy or the NONrich to feel that this is a good idea. You have to be able to see the world through a more objective lens and through the lens of others.

Nope a conservative.

But my post must have been in error.;)

Well I guess the vote will tell won't it?;)

So, I guess pee off will suffice if some do not like my post and that is fine!:rolleyes:

Oh, I wonder if this will get me banned again?:rolleyes:

I can see what you're saying, there's a lot of ridiculous spending going on out there, no question.

But, it's not just the top 3% or the hoitytoity who want a stop to the over-spending or who believe in some sort of financial conservatism. There are a lot of us who grew up in lower-middle class households (like myself) who also hold those beliefs. Some of us think that private industry can take up some of these costs, and that the investment in domestic and global capitalism helps in that way.

Either way you feel, it's a big topic that's not adequately covered by email forwards...

And Tom - I'm guessing the offensive remarks in other threads will get you banned faster than posting forwards.

Nothing wrong with your post Tom at all.
Just:
1) The facts within it.
2) That you have been advised before to check your facts before sending
"forwards" to anyone.
3) That you sent out a false "urban legend".
4) You have been asked to download the spell check and to use it. I know I suggested that to you at least once before. If I did not use it, my own posts would look a great deal worse than they already do.:p;):D
But I do have to wonder,every so often, if your posting style is all an act.

You misinterpreted my post or I didn't convey the point clearly.

I wasn't talking about over-spending and financial conservatism when I referenced the top 3% and the hoitytoity. I was talking about the fact that these social programs are designed as safety nets for* those who are not of the top 3% or who come from generations of wealth (which isn't the same thing as "hoitytoity" unless you have a sense of entitlement (often for money that you didn't work for yourself) that translates to your views on certain social policies). These people represent the minority but are the majority in terms of power.

* Of course, technically, social programs are available to all citizens but there tend to be maximum income requirements, etc.

ETA: And I only included those two categories because there's a HUGE difference wealth and income. I should've included the wealthy who don't come from generations of wealth. :) Anyway, a lot of people confuse living comfortably and affording certain luxuries with having a safety net in times of recession. Families don't invest or build wealth. They accumulate debt because they overestimate their income's worth. That goes for folks making 60K and folks making 200K who aren't putting money away in investments and wealth-building assets.

I agree with everything you've said. Perhaps it was the title I quoted that prompted this post? The reality is that Obama's tax plan will more significantly impact the wealthy/rich, but I don't believe that's a bad thing.

Get over it.

If this doesn't, your asking for opinions from "N-land" in the other dumbass thread you started should. You moron.

Many have wondered that.

*waving* hey, MC! :)

You've got nothing else to do this Saturday night either, huh? :p :D

LOL. I'm supposed to be sitting here catching up on work while the husband is busy fixing the track on the sliding door, but I can't seem to stop playing on GC... must. work. on. willpower... :D

Awww. That's what tomorrow is for! :p

I don't mean to be disrespectful, but there are many of us out here in American who don't believe this is a good thing. Because people are created equal does not mean they do with their lives and assets what they could. If they don't end up equal at the middle or the end of their lives, it's not the government's place to play Robin Hood.

To me, this statement spells socialism, and I want no part of it. Would I be helped by it? Probably. But it feels dishonest.

Differing opinions aside, only clueless and socially irresponsible Americans feel this way. :) People who see capitalism as some self-selection, survival-of-the-fittest giant have completely missed the boat. Safety nets have existed for generations but they were never protested because they benefited a certain segment of the population.

This isn't enough of a redistribution of wealth to be socialism. The goal of these particular tax programs is not to erase the "haves" and "have nots." The goal is not to make the rich and the poor equal so that no one can truly see the fruits of their labor. Higher taxes, even those that tax the rich more, will not level the playing field in that manner.

Which part are you responding to, her first statement, or her comparison to socialism? Because, I agree that comparing "leveling the playing field" to socialism is going overboard.

However, if her first point (if I'm reading it correctly) means that the government can't be everything to everybody, then I'll agree with that.

And I'm fairly well-read on government aid programs and the legislative process as a whole, so I don't consider myself clueless about it, although you may disagree. :) I'll agree that the vast majority of the U.S. doesn't get it, and argues from a purely personal view (how will this affect my taxes, how will it affect my daily life, etc.)

Also, I disagree that safety nets "were never protested," because I think most every type of safety net, (such as college loan programs, benefits to corporations, lower mortgage rates for those with children, etc.) have been debated and protested over the years.

I think there's misunderstandings on both sides; fiscal conservatives who ignore the safety nets in place for corporations and those with high wealth, and those who want to throw money at social aid programs with no understanding of how they'll get paid for (the old "give money to everyone but don't raise my taxes" argument).

ETA: I'm not an economist, or an econ major, so I won't vouch for the technical truth of my statements (although I read a lot and try to stay educated on the issues). I'm trying to be more general in what I'm saying. Plus, it's tough to go really in depth on these issues over a message board, where you don't have the instant give and take.

When I mention socialism in my post, I'm responding to her comparison to socialism. :)

The fact that the government can't be everything to everybody goes without saying. It just can't be and isn't realistically expected to be.

There are different levels of debate and protest because there are different types of "safety nets" that target a different segment of the population.

I'm talking about the social welfare of the 1920s and 1930s, which many people credit to be the beginnings of the social welfare system as we know it. There were naysayers but there wasn't the same widescale protest that the more recent social welfare/social program models received. People pretty much felt that these programs were helping those who "truly needed/deserved it." There are race, gender, and social class implications in that.

Ok, fair enough. Also, thanks for the clarification on your earlier point. I had misinterpreted the statement in the context of your post - that was my fault.

I also want to add that a safety net can't be your everything. This is where it is important to distinguish between the different types of social programs and safety nets. Some are intended to be short term fixes (i.e. you can't live off of unemployment or AFDC forever) and others are meant to be more longterm.

Understanding the purposes, origins, and transformations of the different social welfare programs is important when discussing this issue. It also makes it easier to tell the difference between adjusted-capitalism and pure socialism. One perspective on the longetivity of capitalism is that it will have to adjust to avoid falling apart.

You have a point there.

Life is not fair. The playing field is never level, nor should it be.

Ouch

im gonna make a HUGE assumption based on your posts, but methinks that you make this statement because you are on the side of the field where it works in your favor, and any "leveling" thereof would threaten your societal position.

its similar to people who say they are against affirmative action in universities.

oooooooooooo...donchugo talkinto hurrrr like dat!!!! Whut we gondoifn she get madntell bossman on us?!?!?!?!?!

Praise the God for an unlevel playing field. America wouldn't be America without it. And God bless America.

team DSTCHAOS.

On some level, I see what you're saying. I grew up in a household where there wasn't much money, and I've had to work my tail off for everything I've gotten, including paying for college (earning lots of scholarship and paying out of pocket), and doing the same thing through law school.

At the same time - that's one heck of an over-generalization you're making. As a white male, I know I've had a TON of advantages that people of other races and backgrounds don't enjoy. To say that the playing field should never be "level" implies that these racial and cultural inequalities, still existing today, are OK.

KSigkid:

You get much respect for being a hardworker but also acknowledging that there is white privilege and male privilege that have helped you along the way in certain contexts.

So, I am amazed that a white person who supposedly is no way construed as being privileged is that much different from anyone who is poor?

Hell, I grew up much poorer than some of you!

So, I do not agree with a candidate then I am racist?

I do have not have the spelling ajendas or typing skills then I am wrong and some decide they want to make fun of me in their snarky comments as they do to new members.

So DSTCHOAS, does this make you and Sunsuert feel and be a better person?

Your belittleing of people on G C show the type of people you really are!

Oh, prove me wrong and show me how much you and others are so much better?;)

I feel that some of you have ruined G C with your snarky and small mined comments! How may people have you run off?

Oh, I am sure I will catch hell about this post, but you know what I do not care!

You do it to yourselves.

Oh, did I spell everything to everyones expectations?:rolleyes:

Not even sure what that means - DSTChaos was just agreeing with me that white males have it pretty good in this country, and that, despite some of the things I've had to work through, I at least have not had to battle through any barriers based on my race or sex.

This isn't a contest as to who is the poorest. This thread isn't about that.

No - if people think you're a racist, it's because of comments you made in other threads, including the "N-Land" comment in the recently closed thread in this forum. Maybe you don't give your posts proper context, maybe you just post stream of conscience, who knows.

People make comments because they can't understand you, and if they can't understand you, they're not going to take your argument seriously.

I wouldn't think so - they both seem to be pretty decent people in how they treat others on the board. I don't know either of them in real life, but neither has done anything to make me or anyone else think that they're bad people.

So, do your comments show how you really are?

No one is saying they're any better than you; they're just disagreeing with your comments, and the things you post on the board.

And some people feel that your comments and posts have driven others off the board, particularly when you remained a moderator, despite your transgressions.

You yourself bring on a lot of the criticism you get. Your posts can be incomprehensible at times, and when they are understandable, you have a tendency to make racist and/or bigoted remarks. Those comments will elicit reactions from people, most of them negative.

Not really, but that's besides the point. Everyone makes the occasional spelling mistake, but you just happen to make many more of them.

Look, you may be a great guy in real life, who has done a lot of wonderful things for Lambda Chi. It sounds like you have given a lot back to your fraternity, and that's admirable. But, many of the posts you have made on this board don't speak so well of you. You should probably just think more carefully before you post things, so as not to elicit anger from others.

I stopped reading here because I know that the more you type the dumber you type.

Haha, trying to say I went a little overboard in my response...