• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Proposed Changes in Taxes after 2008 election.

Faster horses

Well-known member
I'm got this in an email and it is VERY disturbing. I tried to look it up on snopes, but I couldn't find it. At the risk of being insulted by the libs here, I am posting it. I know that if they can refute them, they will. So here
goes. Please note that under the Income Tax the segement of our society that takes the biggest raise are those making $30,000 or less. So much for the Democrats helping the poor. The Democrats have got the country thinking that only the rich pay Capital Gains Tax. What a lie that is. Lower Capital Gains tax helps keep this country running. There was a big article on it not long ago in the Readers Digest about how much more the country took in under Bush's lower capital gains tax than under the higher Capital Gains tax under Clinton.

Anyway, read it and weep. And then VOTE FOR MCCAIN.

Subject: FW: Upcoming Election VS Your Economic Life?



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 $9,000Married making 75K -
tax $18,750Married 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!!!

Can you afford Clinton or Obama? I can't!!!!!
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
One thing....just because they Propose ' something' or " Stay the Course' on something.....DOES NOT mean that they won't change stance once elected.

Besides all of this would have have to go thru Congress anyway. So just because it's propsed....does not make it likely at all.
 

Steve

Well-known member
KolanuRaven
..DOES NOT mean that they won't change stance once elected.

Your right, to fund everything Clinton has promised she would have to double her proposed tax increases..

I would rather go with a person promising to not raise taxes, then one promising to raise my taxes.. :roll: :roll:
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
Steve said:
KolanuRaven
..DOES NOT mean that they won't change stance once elected.

Your right, to fund everything Clinton has promised she would have to double her proposed tax increases..

I would rather go with a person promising to not raise taxes, then one promising to raise my taxes.. :roll: :roll:


Daddy Bush promised NOT to raise taxes.....and did just that!!
 

Mike

Well-known member
kolanuraven said:
Steve said:
KolanuRaven
..DOES NOT mean that they won't change stance once elected.

Your right, to fund everything Clinton has promised she would have to double her proposed tax increases..

I would rather go with a person promising to not raise taxes, then one promising to raise my taxes.. :roll: :roll:


Daddy Bush promised NOT to raise taxes.....and did just that!!

No. The Democratic controlled congress raised them and he reached across the aisle, agreed to their proposal, just to balance the budget and reduce deficits.

Bush alone did not raise taxes. :roll: :roll:

What's ironic is that when he agreed to the tax increase, the Democrats (Clinton) used the phrase "Read My Lips: No New Taxes" against him in the election. :roll:
 

Mike

Well-known member
kolanuraven said:
He could have used the power of ' veto' just his boy has done over & over....

Why state the obvious? He vetoed many,many, many bills Bush did.

A lot more than his son has......... The point is he went along with the Dems, signed the bill knowing all along that he was breaking a campaign speech promise for what he thought was for the betterment of the nation.................. and the Dems used it against him later.

That's the lowest of the low....................
 

mrj

Well-known member
I don't believe that blip about inheritance tax is totally accurate.

It is due to go to "O" in 2010.....but for only that one year!

In 2011, it will revert to the confiscatory levels prior to the current law.

With escalating land prices and crop prices, a LOT of farmer/rancher families are going to be very shocked by the amount of death tax due.

When has there been a real income tax cut that did not result in MORE income to the government?

Does anyone have any figures on costs of collecting the various federal taxes?

I've read that for the inheritance tax it is at, or more than, 65% of the income, but don't recall which.

All too obviously, costs of collecting these taxes is prohibitive.

Isn't it time to get serious about alternative tax systems????

A system which would have no loopholes for the crafty and/or superwealth, doesn't penalize work and savings, and has some semblance of fairness while providing a reasonable amount for running a 'lean' government focused on needs rather than buying future votes by handing out the 'goodies' seems a reasonable goal.

mrj

mrj
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
kolanuraven said:
He could have used the power of ' veto' just his boy has done over & over....

Has done over and over? Who are you, Hillary Clinton? W didn't issue his first veto until 2006 - the first year of his SECOND TERM! :lol: :lol: :lol:
 

MoGal

Well-known member
Well, I guess the other side of it is........

why don't parents put it in their kids/heirs names before they pass on?? or have an attorney write it up so that its kind of like your vehicle title... a transfer on death (TOD)... don't know how other states are,but that is how MO is or rather you can do it that way.
 
Top