~~ TAXES: MCCAIN vs. OBAMA ~~

[ElkHollow]

Well, ladies & gentlemen.... Here it is in black & white as presented in the mainstream media -- the tax structure proposed by each presidential candidate. Raise your hand high and vote for big-O if you want to pay more big-taxes beginning in November! Then go out and start looking for a 2nd and 3rd job, cuz you're gonna need it.

ELK...........................


Subject: INTERESTING INFO ON TAXES

You can verify much of this here: http://money.cnn.com/news/specials/election/2008/index.html

Of course, you may have noted that Obama's position appears to be changing, so you will have to pay attention to see what his latest approach is at buying votes.

INTERESTING DATA JUST RECEIVED ON TAXES

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 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!& nbsp;

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!
.
.
.

 

[les_stockton]

and people continue to support this guy, but cannot articulate their reasons for support. In most cases, it's valed in emotionalism, and in other cases, they're just uninformed or misinformed as to what the policies mean.

The biggest misinformation is that he's for "change". This guy is just a politician, out for himself. He promised labor unions that if he were sent to the Senate, that he'd renegotiate NAFTA. As soon as he was elected, the subject has never come up. The guy says whatever he has to to get elected. He's not interested in keeping his word. So how much of a change is that?

 

[Intergator]

and people continue to support this guy, but cannot articulate their reasons for support. In most cases, it's valed in emotionalism, and in other cases, they're just uninformed or misinformed as to what the policies mean.

The biggest misinformation is that he's for "change". This guy is just a politician, out for himself. He promised labor unions that if he were sent to the Senate, that he'd renegotiate NAFTA. As soon as he was elected, the subject has never come up. The guy says whatever he has to to get elected. He's not interested in keeping his word. So how much of a change is that?

Most are young people that couldn't even tell you who is in office now - much less name the cabinet members, House Speaker, Minority Leader, rules of succession, etc. Our education system has failed us....and the apathy of anyone 35 and under is depressing - but will be our undoing.

 

[Fisher]

Thanks Elkhollow, everyone needs to see this.

 

[mbo]

and people continue to support this guy, but cannot articulate their reasons for support. In most cases, it's valed in emotionalism, and in other cases, they're just uninformed or misinformed as to what the policies mean.

The biggest misinformation is that he's for "change". This guy is just a politician, out for himself. He promised labor unions that if he were sent to the Senate, that he'd renegotiate NAFTA. As soon as he was elected, the subject has never come up. The guy says whatever he has to to get elected. He's not interested in keeping his word. So how much of a change is that?

ir's based on self-loathing, and the government has fostered that self-guilt through careful planning


.




.

 

[ElkHollow]

May even need a 4th job with those increase!! And if no one's hiring, what are ya gonna do?

Mrs. E..............

.

 

[medic38572]

Snopes says false http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/taxes.asp

 

[Kalliope]

It is false - here is the real story, from the real CNN - the link you gave just goes to a bunch of political links.

What Obama means by tax the wealthy
Here's a closer look at how the Democratic candidate defines well-off for different households, and what his proposals will mean for them.
By Jeanne Sahadi, CNNMoney.com senior writer
Last Updated: June 28, 2008: 9:52 AM EDT
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Most voters are aware that Barack Obama wants to raise taxes on high-income taxpayers if he's elected president in November.

But what does the Democratic candidate mean by high-income? Who'd be affected and how? While the Obama campaign must still settle on more details about their plans, outlines are starting to emerge.

To start, Obama frequently cites $250,000 as the line between those who would be subject to higher taxesand those who wouldn't.

Indeed, under Obama's tax plan, married couples with at least $250,000 in gross income are likely to see their taxes go up if Obama is elected president.

But what about single filers? The line for them would likely be about $200,000, according to an Obama adviser.

Those groups could end up paying anywhere from several thousand dollars to tens of thousands of dollars more to Uncle Sam than they do now, according to estimates from the Tax Policy Center.

From income to Social Security to estates, we take a look at four areas where the high-income set and the very well off may be subject to a bigger tax bill in an Obama administration.

Income taxes
Obama would restore the top two income tax rates to their pre-2001 levels of 36% and 39.6%. Currently they're 33% and 35%.

Obama's proposal would also reinstate some limitations on how much of a given deduction or personal exemption high-income taxpayers may take.

However, not everyone in the top two brackets would necessarily be affected by the rate increase. Much depends on whether they've been subject to the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) in the past.

You're supposed to calculate your tax liability under both the regular income tax code and the AMT. If your bill under the AMT is bigger, you must pay that.

The Obama rate increase would certainly narrow the spread between the two - since the amount owed under the regular code would go up. The question is would the amount you owe because of the increase exceed your AMT bill.

"Until the regular tax starts exceeding the [AMT bill], you won't have an increase," said John Battaglia, a director in the private client advisors practice of Deloitte. "But if people are deep into AMT, it wouldn't matter."

For example, if the rate increase would mean you owe $2,500 more under the regular code, but your AMT bill is normally $5,000 more than your regular bill, you would still pay the AMT.

Payroll taxes
In addition to wages up to $102,000 - the current cap on salarysubject to the payroll tax, which funds Social Security - Obama would also tax amountsover $250,000.

In other words, income between $102,000 and $250,000 would be protected.

Obama's stated goals are to better fund the Social Security program - which faces a long-term shortfall - and to make the system more progressive. Currently, the vast majority of Americans pay the Social Security tax on 100% of their income because they don't make more than the $102,000 wage cap. By contrast, very highly paid taxpayers only pay Social Security tax on a portion of their income. People who make $204,000, for example, only pay the tax on 50% of their income.

The rate at which salary is taxed for Social Security is 12.4% (half of which is normally paid by employees and half by their employers).

Obama hasn't saidwhether the money from wages and salaries over $250,000 would be taxed at the same rate. If it were, the person making $300,000 in gross income - $50,000 above the $250,000 watermark - would pay an additional $3,100 into the system annually (6.2% x $50,000).

We also don't know whether the benefits promised to the highest income workers would go up as a result of their paying more into the system.

"Those are details that Senator Obama would want to work out on a bipartisan basis with Congress," an Obama adviser said.

That lack of specificity concerns some tax experts. "If Obama is hinting that those making more than $250,000 would pay a higher payroll tax rate ... it would fundamentally change the way Social Security operates and run the risk of making the program look less like social insurance and more like welfare," Tax Vox blog editor Howard Gleickman wrote for the Tax Policy Center.

Investment income taxes
Long-term capital gains used to be taxed differently than dividends, which were subject to one's top income tax rate. Under the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, gains and dividends are treated equally. Currently the most one would pay is 15%.

Both rates are scheduled to rise by 2011 - long-term gains to 20% and dividends would once again be taxed a taxpayer's top income tax rate for dividends.

Obama would continue to treat gains and dividends equally and would keep the current rate in place for everyone except high-income households.

He hasn't specified how high he'd like to make the rate, but observers expect and Obama himself has virtually said that the new rate likely would fall between 20% and 25%.

Estate tax
Finally, Obama's proposals to tax wealth are not only defined by income levels.

When it comes to family wealth, for instance, Obama favors maintaining the estate tax, which is scheduled to be repealed in 2010 for one year. But he would limit its reach.

Obama would freeze the estate tax exemption amount at $3.5 million - up from its current $2 million level and the $1 million level it's set to revert to in 2011. He would also keep the current top rate of 45%, which is below the 55% it is set to revert to in 2011.

First Published: June 27, 2008: 6:19 AM EDT

Find this article at:
http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/27/news/economy/obama_wealthy_taxes/index.htm

 

[mbo]

those are Obama's -additional- taxes


What Kalliope fails to mention is that Obama will let the "Bush" tax cuts expire while McCain would continue the current tax rates, Obama will let the tax cuts expire forcing what is shown in the original post...
.
.
.
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

What Kalliope (and CNN) are contending (politically-speaking), is that Obama will arrive at something else at some undefined time in the future with new legislation. uh huh

 

[Seeker]

The only way to counteract this will be to send fiscal conservatives to Congress from your districts - nationwide. Only Congress will have the potential to stop this. In addition, Congress must unite to prevent presidential vetoes and overrides. I don't see it happning. And, in the end, he can still issue Executive Orders. Destruction of the middle class to be assured.

 

[rhughe13]

Nice article you wrote. It almost looks like it came from CNN, but it didn't.

Probably none of Obama's taxes would come close to the loss of tax payer dollars through all the illegal immigrants McCain wants.

Do us all a favor and don't show us how bad either of these two crooks are.

Note: I guess you left out the 500 million tax payer dollars McCain wants to spend on battery development.

McCain is anti 2nd amendment
McCain is anti 1st amendment

Take your looser else where!!!!!!!

 

[ElkHollow]

Maybe the American people should start talking about how This damnable tax system is illegal and anti constitutional to begin with, instead of squabbling about who is gonna do what to whom for how much!!!

ELK...................
.
.
.

 

[Be Well]

Maybe the American people should start talking about how This damnable tax system is illegal and anti constitutional to begin with, instead of squabbling about who is gonna do what to whom for how much!!!

ELK...................
.
.
.

Yes!

 

[American Rage]

those are Obama's -additional- taxes


What Kalliope fails to mention is that Obama will let the "Bush" tax cuts expire while McCain would continue the current tax rates, Obama will let the tax cuts expire forcing what is shown in the original post...
.
.
.
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

What Kalliope (and CNN) are contending (politically-speaking), is that Obama will arrive at something else at some undefined time in the future with new legislation. uh huh

That's an extra $400 a month in taxes for me! I already pay 18% of my net on my student loans!


Rage

 

[hawkeye]

.



THE FIGURES CITED BY THE ORIGINAL POSTER COMPARING INCOME TAXES ARE NOT CORRECT:



EXCEPT FOR THOSE EARNING $250,000/YR INCOME TAXES WOULD BE SUBSTANTIALLY LESS UNDER OBAMA'S PLAN.


THE REDUCTION IN TAXES FOR THOSE EARNING LESS THAN $250,000 UNDER OBAMA'S PLAN WOULD BE IN ADDITION TO THE EXISTING BUSH TAX CUTS...


OBAMA WILL KEEP THE BUSH TAX CUTS IN PLACE EXCEPT FOR THOSE MAKING MORE THAN $250,000.


.........................


BREAKING DOWN THE NUMBERS

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


http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/11/new...roposals_tpc/index.htm?postversion=2008061115

..................

What they'll do to your tax bill

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.
By Jeanne Sahadi, CNNMoney.com senior writer
Last Updated: June 11, 2008: 3:59 PM EDT

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- John McCain and Barack Obama have starkly different philosophies about tax policy - how to raise the revenue needed to support government programs, spur growth and ensure economic fairness.

But voters really want to know one thing: How would the presidential candidates' views trickle down to their tax bills? A report released Wednesday by a nonpartisan policy group in Washington, D.C., takes a big first step toward answering that question.

According to the Tax Policy Center's findings, the common assumptions most people make about the plans of McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, and Obama, the Democrats' pick, are not wildly off-base.

McCain: The average taxpayer in every income group would see a lower tax bill, but high-income taxpayers would benefit more than everyone else.

Obama: High-income taxpayers would pay more in taxes, while everyone else's tax bill would be reduced. Those who benefit the most - in terms of reducing their taxes as a percentage of after-tax income - are in the lowest income groups.

Under both plans, all American taxpayers could pay a price for their tax cuts: a bigger deficit. The Tax Policy Center estimates that over 10 years, McCain's tax proposals could increase the national debt by as much as $4.5 trillion with interest, while Obama's could add as much as $3.3 trillion.

The reason: neither plan would raise the amount of revenue expected under current tax policy - which assumes all the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts expire by 2011. And neither plan would raise enough to cover expected government costs during those 10 years.

"Distributionally, they're markedly different. But in terms of their impact on revenue, the two plans are not terribly different," said Roberton Williams, principal research associate at the Tax Policy Center and the former deputy assistant director for tax analysis at the Congressional Budget Office.
A closer look

In addition to making the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts permanent, McCain says he would double the exemption for dependents, lower the corporate tax rate, make expensing rules more generous for small businesses and lessen the bite of the estate tax and Alternative Minimum tax.

The net result: compared with their tax bill today, taxpayers on average would see their tax bill cut by nearly $1,200. That means their after-tax income would rise by 2%.

But those in the lowest income groups would only see their after-tax income rise by less than 1% (or between $19 and $319). By contrast, the highest-income households - those with incomes of at least $603,000 - would see a boost in after-tax income of 3.4%, or more than $40,000.

Obama's plan would keep the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts in place for everyone except those making more than roughly $250,000, and he would increase the capital gains tax.

Obama would also introduce new tax breaks for lower and middle-income groups. Such breaks include expanding the earned income tax credit, giving those making less than $150,000 a $500 tax credit per person on the first $8,100 in income, giving those making under $75,000 a 50% federal match on the first $1,000 of savings, and exempting seniors making less than $50,000 from having to pay income tax.

Like McCain, Obama would lessen the bite of the estate tax and the Alternative Minimum Tax, but to a lesser degree.

The net result: compared with their tax bill today, taxpayers on average would see their tax bill cut by nearly $160 under Obama's plan. That means their after-tax income would rise by 0.3%.

But those in the lowest-income groups would enjoy the biggest after-tax income rise as a percentage of income - between 2.4% and 5.5% (worth between $567 and $1,042). By contrast, the highest-income households - those with at least $603,000 in income - would see a dramatic decline in their after-tax income - a drop of 8.7%, or $116,000.
The campaigns respond

Jason Furman, a newly appointed senior economic adviser to Obama, said his preliminary response is that the report's findings bear out what Obama's campaign has been saying: that he's for the middle class.

"Middle-class families get tax cuts that are three times larger from Obama than from McCain," Furman said. "And the McCain plan gives nearly one-quarter of its benefits to households making more than $2.8 million annually - the top 0.1%."

Douglas Holtz-Eakin, senior economic adviser to McCain, noted that the report does not take into account the spending reforms - such as eliminating earmarks - that are central to McCain's strategy to support tax relief and help reduce the deficit.

One of the center's co-directors, William Gale, conceded in a conference call that "if McCain succeeds (in achieving his proposed spending cuts), the fiscal cost of his plan does go down."

But spending cuts can be politically difficult to achieve, said Len Burman, the Tax Policy Center's director.

Holtz-Eakin characterized McCain's plan as one geared toward "reshaping federal bureaucracies and protecting taxpayers' money. [His] plan is based on kicking down doors in Washington, and delivering tax dollars back to the American taxpayers who are struggling with record gas prices, soaring food costs and a down economy."
Not the final word

Williams said the Tax Policy Center analysis should be viewed as a work in progress. Researchers plan to update it as they get more information about the plans from the campaigns and if the candidates introduce new tax policies between now and Election Day.

The center will also incorporate the tax elements of McCain's and Obama's health care proposals when they update their findings.

How the candidates' tax plans would affect economic growth is an open question. "It depends on how the deficits are closed," Burman said.

Tax studies have shown that when tax cuts are deficit funded and they're paid for by raising taxes in the future, "the economy is worse off than if you didn't cut at all," Burman said.
First Published: June 11, 2008: 10:31 AM EDT

http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/11/new...roposals_tpc/index.htm?postversion=2008061115

 

[Monty]

The key here is these are all pre-election PLANS. None of this is set in stone regardless of the candidate elected. You need to look at the candidates and what you think they would do. Most people think Obama will increases taxes on the "rich". What is "rich"? My guess is most people who have a decent paying job will be considered "rich" under Obama and will see their taxes go up. Under McCain I think that is a little less likely to happen. To argue over specifics and numbers at this point when all we are presented with are election year promises is foolish.

Which candidate do you think is most likely to raise YOUR taxes?

Monty

 

[Oilpatch Hand]

The key here is these are all pre-election PLANS. None of this is set in stone regardless of the candidate elected. You need to look at the candidates and what you think they would do. Most people think Obama will increases taxes on the "rich". What is "rich"? My guess is most people who have a decent paying job will be considered "rich" under Obama and will see their taxes go up. Under McCain I think that is a little less likely to happen. To argue over specifics and numbers at this point when all we are presented with are election year promises is foolish.

Which candidate do you think is most likely to raise YOUR taxes?

Monty

This is a good point. The Obama supporters are failing to tell us (or failing to remember, one or the other) that the limited number of taxpayers making $250,000/yr. creates a situation where, if Obama is to raise the revenue he needs to pay for even half of what he wants, that ceiling is going to have to come down, so as to snare more "wealthy" taxpayers. Probably down to $100,000/yr., or even less.

$100,000 per year these days is hardly wealthy. It's barely scraping by on the East or West Coasts. It's sufficient to maintain a decent standard of living in the middle of the country, but nobody making that level of income thinks of themselves as "rich."

But Obama will have no choice but to deem them "rich," once something dawns on him that should have occurred to him before he set forth this $250K figure...

There just aren't that many taxpayers with incomes above $250K, and they're already paying 40% of all federal income taxes. Raising taxes on that group alone will not generate the kind of revenue Obama's spending plans will require.

Of course, had Mr. Obama actually put in a few days as a U.S. Senator before running for President, he would already know that.