Not sure how you will vote and it's none of my business to know but this may help some of your decisions... Thanks for reading guys. Sorry to solicit but I feel these facts need to be spread out around the nation. Please share the word. Thanks.

THIS IS FACT, NOT OPINION-------------------------------------------------

Read very carefully, it is your future. If you want "CHANGE", how you vote this year will do it.

CAPITAL GAINS TAX:

MCCAIN
Current 0% on home sales up to $500,000 per home (couples)
McCain does not propose any change in income tax on existing home sales

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% taxes on.your profit (Capital Gain)
If you are planning to retire and would like to down-size your home or move into a retirement community

28% of the money you make (CAPITAL GAIN) from your home will go to taxes.

This proposal will adversely affect retiring couples who are counting on the income (CAPITAL GAIN that is currently exempt from income tax)Â from their home as part of their retirement income.

DIVIDEND TAX:

MCCAIN

This will remain the same at 15% -- (no change)

OBAMA

39.6% (more thana double)

How w ill 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 (CLINTON TAX INCREASES WOULD BE REINSTATED)
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? Under Obama your taxes will more than double! 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MCCAIN 0% (No change, Bush repealed this tax)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 b een 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. (We are personally aware of a family in Kansas for whom this is true-- I used to hunt their land)

NEW TAXES BEING PROPOSED BY BARAK 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!!!

If YOU are qualified to vote, THE DON'T FAIL TO VOTE!!!

Don't forget: An uninformed voter is a poor citizen.

ACCORDING TO NANCY PELOSI (D) we also need to increase Social Security payroll deductions FICA --illegals don't pay -- but they can collect and can take it back home with them.

WRONG

the GOP does love the BIG LIE

Obama has said no raised taxes for those who make 250k and under
and wants a 3.5 trillion dollar tax cut mostly on the lower end earners

------------------
Question wonder and be wierd
are you kind?

quote Originally posted by unboundmo: THIS IS FACT, NOT OPINION

No, its not. I assume you cut and pasted that off some email you received but you should really get your facts straight before posting something like that. Took me about 10 seconds to google to verify...

http://money.cnn.com/2008/0...stversion=2008061113

quote Later in the discussion, co-host Gretchen Carlson asserted, "[P]art of the Barack Obama plan, I think, is to increase the tax when you try to sell your home, as well, which could affect, well, everyone, but retirees as well." In fact, Carlson's suggestion that everyone who sells a home would be affected by raising the capital gains tax is false. The law exempts profits from the sale of a primary residence up to $250,000 for single owners and $500,000 for married owners. Only home-sales profits exceeding those values would be affected by Obama's proposal. From the June 11 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends

quote From the June 10 edition of CNBC's Your Money, Your Vote: OBAMA: So the general principle of raising taxes on higher-income Americans like myself, and providing relief to those who haven't benefited as much from this new global economy, I think, is a sound one. And keep in mind on all of these proposals, what I have said is, let's make sure that we define the well-off so that we're not hitting the middle class. I generally define well-off as people who are making $250,000 a year or more, and that means, for example, if we raise the capital gains tax, I would exempt people who are essentially small investors, and really capture the -- those who have done very, very well over the last two decades.

[This message has been edited by NEPTUNE (edited 07-11-2008).]

When you introduce a penalty for success, there's no longer any incentive to succeed. Thus perpetuating and enlarging the welfare state.

Be sure to include a link to a credible news source before posting false information. It saves everyone time.

I received this same false information in a bogus forwarded email.

From the rigidly non-partisan FactCheck.org:

"Almost nothing [this piece] says about Obama's tax proposals is true. We conclude that this deception is deliberate. ... The short answer ... is, no, this message isn't real. It's a pack of lies."

http://www.factcheck.org/as...my_profits_if_i.html


"We reiterate: McCain's $32,000 figure is phony."

http://www.factcheck.org/el..._32000_question.html


There seems to me to be a pattern here. It remains to be seen whether Obama's more zealous backers can restrain themselves from similar fabrication, distortion, and outright falsehood. Somehow I doubt it, but the flying-monkey conservatives deserve full credit (and blame) for this one.

[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 07-12-2008).]

In all reality no matter who becomes president congress has to pass any of these so called tax increases/decreases. And another thing, eventually we will all have to pay more taxes because we can't recoup from the economy (in general), add social programs or shore them up, and pay for a war without some infusion of money and it always comes from the tax payer. Our current congress and president have been financially irresponsible and sooner or later we have to pay the piper. (IMAO)

quote Later in the discussion, co-host Gretchen Carlson asserted, "[P]art of the Barack Obama plan, I think, is to increase the tax when you try to sell your home, as well, which could affect, well, everyone, but retirees as well." In fact, Carlson's suggestion that everyone who sells a home would be affected by raising the capital gains tax is false. The law exempts profits from the sale of a primary residence up to $250,000 for single owners and $500,000 for married owners. Only home-sales profits exceeding those values would be affected by Obama's proposal. From the June 11 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends

Considering the median home price is close to $200,000 in much of the country, and over $250,000 in many places, that's going to affect a LOT of people.
The median home price in Raleigh NC is about $228,000. In Orlando FL it's about $232,000. And that's the "median."

Now, the next question is, "What does Obama and McCain propose to do about the Capital Gains tax rate?" Because that's what you're going to be taxed at when you sell your house.
Currently that rate is 15%, but that expires in 2011. McCain wants to make that rate permanent, but Obama is in favor of raising the rate.

In Obama's (and other Liberal's) rush to make "the rich pay their fair share" it's going to hammer a lot of hard working middle class families.

Half million dollar house is middle class? Life must be good in NC!

quote Originally posted by sostock: Half million dollar house is middle class? Life must be good in NC!

so true it needs to be shown again

quote Originally posted by AntiKev: When you introduce a penalty for success, there's no longer any incentive to succeed. Thus perpetuating and enlarging the welfare state.

That might be true if the amount of your success is less than the "penalty". However, in most cases, the success far outweighs the "penalty".

So are you saying if someone offered you $1 million, and you had to pay $250,000 in taxes, you would seriously say, "no, I don't want ANY of it!" Okay, then, give it to me. I'll take it - "penalty" and all.

The trouble is no one is giving successful people anything. They still have to work for what they have. It's not given to them. They weren't given more than someone else received. It's all about class envy. Dems have instilled in their constituants the impression that business and success are evil and got what they have due to some unfair advantage. Why is hard work and success demonized? I think they want most Americans to be dependent on the government. Cradle to grave care and anyone who has more than you have is bad and got that way by cheating the little guy. Its much easier to sit on your butt and collect a check every month than to go out and get a job. America is becoming a nation of beggars with their hands out waiting for government scraps and social programs. Just look at what social security has become.

quote Originally posted by ktthecarguy: That might be true if the amount of your success is less than the "penalty". However, in most cases, the success far outweighs the "penalty". So are you saying if someone offered you $1 million, and you had to pay $250,000 in taxes, you would seriously say, "no, I don't want ANY of it!" Okay, then, give it to me. I'll take it - "penalty" and all.

Like the poster below you said, if I had to work for that $1 million, and knew right away that the government was going to take almost half of it (as is the case here in Canada. Then there is much less incentive for me to work as hard to make that million. Now, there is (as always) a point where it becomes more beneficial to work harder and make the extra money, and I don't have the numbers handy to do the calculation, as an example, there's a grey area between tax brackets where they overlap. As an example (the numbers aren't right) you take home more making $30k than you would making $38k, but at $42k your take home equals that at $30k and it becomes beneficial again. Same thing happens in every bracket.

There are two fair ways to tax the public, either a flat tax say 15% on all income no matter the value, or a consumption-based flat tax on everything, say 7% on all purchases. Any other way is unfair to those who are successful and breeds laziness and dependence on the state, which is what the left wants in the end.

quote Originally posted by AntiKev: There are two fair ways to tax the public, either a flat tax say 15% on all income no matter the value, or a consumption-based flat tax on everything, say 7% on all purchases. Any other way is unfair to those who are successful and breeds laziness and dependence on the state, which is what the left wants in the end.

Speak for yourself, not for me. I don't want people dependant on the government.

And a 7% excise tax is inherantly unfair to poor people. If a millionaire makes 50 times what a poor person makes, does he buy 50 times more bread and eggs? No. So to tax them both at the same rate puts a 50 times higher burden on poor people. That's the unfair part.

quote Originally posted by ktthecarguy: Speak for yourself, not for me. I don't want people dependant on the government. And a 7% excise tax is inherantly unfair to poor people. If a millionaire makes 50 times what a poor person makes, does he buy 50 times more bread and eggs? No. So to tax them both at the same rate puts a 50 times higher burden on poor people. That's the unfair part.

Most national sales tax proposals I've seen exempt many staple items like bread and eggs. The poor would only pay on more discretionary items. BTW, I don't think there is any sales tax on those items *now*. Same diff.

I like the idea of a flat tax, with the first (example $30K tax exempt). So if you make $30K..no tax. If you make $130K, you pay a tax on the $100K. There are so many allowable deductions (loopholes) that the tax laws are unfathonable. For corporations there needs to be some similiar structure for setting taxable limits.

Sales taxes punish the poor more that the affluent. Any sort of sales tax rebate to the "working" poor created another boondoggle buracracy becoming unmanagable.

[This message has been edited by Old Lar (edited 07-13-2008).]

A millionaire usually doesn't spend 50 times more for bread and eggs than a poor person does. But they do buy yachts, expensive cars, jets planes, big houses, and things for their companies and businesses. They would still spend way more on taxes than any poor person.
I'm in favor of a flat tax because even drug dealers, prostitutes, criminals, welfare cheats, politicians, everyone, would be contributing everytime they purchased something. It's fair because the more you make the more you could afford to purchase and the more taxes you would pay. If you want to horde your money and not purchase as much I suppose you could do that too but everyone has to buy something sometime and when you did it would be taxed. Everyone consumes.

quote Originally posted by Puglet01: A millionaire usually doesn't spend 50 times more for bread and eggs than a poor person does. But they do buy yachts, expensive cars, jets planes, big houses, and things for their companies and businesses. They would still spend way more on taxes than any poor person. I'm in favor of a flat tax because even drug dealers, prostitutes, criminals, welfare cheats, politicians, everyone, would be contributing everytime they purchased something. It's fair because the more you make the more you could afford to purchase and the more taxes you would pay. If you want to horde your money and not purchase as much I suppose you could do that too but everyone has to buy something sometime and when you did it would be taxed. Everyone consumes.

But what you fail to see is that when a billionaire buys that new half-mil car, it is only a fraction of what they make. That would be like if you earned 60,000 a year and buying a brand-new car for $30, or 1/2 of 1/1000 of what you make. Poor and middle-class people pay a much higher percentage of their income on hard goods.

That is why, anyway you slice it, a flat tax is inherently more unfair to poor people than to rich people.

So, you saying it should be policy to penalize a person for being successful by taxing them more? Or is it more fair to tax less successful people less?

I've noticed something I find to be really strange. Most people, regardless of their financial standing, do not complain much at all about how much tax they pay. Instead, they complain mightily about what they percieve as others not paying enough.
These discussions rarely-if ever center on how much the poorest pay in taxes. They always center on how much or how little the rich pay.
The term covet comes to mind for some reason.

[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 07-14-2008).]

One major fault in your logic: it is not really a penalty to pay taxes. You are paying for government services that you may (or may not) use, like schools and public buses, courthouses, City offices, etc. Is it a penalty to have to pay for food you eat at a restaurant, or for a car? No, just capitalism.

So, since rich people tend to use government services more (or at least as much) as the rest of us, they should pay more. Fair is fair.

I am also curious - why do so many people who are not rich (don't know if you are or not, Maryjane) defend rich people so often? Believe me, they can afford to hire their own attorneys - and usually do!

quote Originally posted by ktthecarguy: One major fault in your logic: it is not really a penalty to pay taxes. You are paying for government services that you may (or may not) use, like schools and public buses, courthouses, City offices, etc. Is it a penalty to have to pay for food you eat at a restaurant, or for a car? No, just capitalism. So, since rich people tend to use government services more (or at least as much) as the rest of us, they should pay more. Fair is fair. I am also curious - why do so many people who are not rich (don't know if you are or not, Maryjane) defend rich people so often? Believe me, they can afford to hire their own attorneys - and usually do!

Defending the "rich" all depends on how you define "rich." Regardless of what people say, in practice the typical definition most people believe is anyone is rich who makes or has more then they do.

If you make $25k a year, you're a hard working Joe, and you want those people who make $50k a year pay their fair share. You don't like paying for welfare benefits for the poor because you earned your money.
If you make $50k a year, you're a hard working Joe, and you want those people who make $100k a year to pay their fair share. You don't like that the $25k a year person wants some of your money because you worked hard for your money.

Substitute whatever income level you want, the argument stays the same. I defend a person's right to try to become more successful and earn more money without an extra penalty just because they're successful.

Or to use your restaurant analogy, if you go into a restaurant and order a meal, it's free.
If you order two - you pay for two.
But, if you order three meals, you have to pay for four.
Where's the incentive to do anything but sit around and collect the single free meals?

quote Originally posted by Formula88: Defending the "rich" all depends on how you define "rich." Regardless of what people say, in practice the typical definition most people believe is anyone is rich who makes or has more then they do. If you make $25k a year, you're a hard working Joe, and you want those people who make $50k a year pay their fair share. You don't like paying for welfare benefits for the poor because you earned your money. If you make $50k a year, you're a hard working Joe, and you want those people who make $100k a year to pay their fair share. You don't like that the $25k a year person wants some of your money because you worked hard for your money. Substitute whatever income level you want, the argument stays the same. I defend a person's right to try to become more successful and earn more money without an extra penalty just because they're successful. Or to use your restaurant analogy, if you go into a restaurant and order a meal, it's free. If you order two - you pay for two. But, if you order three meals, you have to pay for four. Where's the incentive to do anything but sit around and collect the single free meals?

So you ARE suggesting that if someone offered you a job making $1 mil, you would turn it down, because you had to pay some of it back in taxes? "Give me all, or I want none of it! So there! Pfffft!" Sounds like what my 3-year-old would say.