Yor Taxes and the Obama Tax Cuts

[Guest]

I Googled "senator Obama's capitol gains tax plan" and got this article from the Washington Post. I was interested in how his capitol tax changes would effect the people living in TV, specially all the people that move an average of three times after moving to TV. To all that think Obama's tax cuts are the main reason for voting for him, think about how they will affect you and your family. This assumes that not everyone in TV makes $250,000 or more! :1rotfl:



To be sure, these "tax cuts" contain some sleight of hand. More than $400 billion of the money over the next 10 years would take the form of refundable tax credits paid in cash to people who already pay no federal income tax. It would be more accurate to refer to these cash outlays as cuts in payroll tax or -- even more accurately -- as transfer payments. Regardless of what the credits are called, though, they would put more money in the pockets of some American families. That sounds great in these tough economic times. Who can be against a boost to spending power and consumption?

We can. While a few of Obama's proposals may be sensible, the overall package would be bad for the economy. Unlike rate cuts for high incomes or reductions in investment taxes, most of Obama's proposed tax cuts would do little to reduce the tax penalty on work and saving. For some households, the penalty on work and saving would even increase because the new tax credits would be phased out as income rises. These proposals wouldn't deliver the economic growth that incentive-based tax cuts would.

Furthermore, there is no free lunch. Obama's middle-class tax relief would have to be paid for, either now or later. Middle-class tax cuts might make sense if they were paid for by spending cuts, but that is not Obama's plan. Like his opponent, Obama points to vague savings from reducing waste, the kind of savings that never seem to materialize. He also hopes to reap savings by accelerating our redeployment from Iraq, a project with an uncertain fiscal impact. At the same time, he proposes a wave of new spending on health-care, education, energy and infrastructure programs and declares his opposition to reforms that would reduce the growth of Social Security and other entitlement benefits.

So where would the money come from for the tax cuts and new spending? Largely from raising other taxes: the ones that have the biggest impact on economic growth. Obama would let key parts of the Bush tax cuts expire, causing the top tax rate on ordinary income to go back to 39.6 percent, up from 35 percent today. The capital gains and dividend tax rates would rise to 20 percent from today's 15 percent. Obama might also impose Social Security tax at a rate of up to 4 percent on wages and self-employment income above $250,000, starting in 2019.

[Guest]

I Googled "senator Obama's capitol gains tax plan" and got this article from the Washington Post. I was interested in how his capitol tax changes would effect the people living in TV, specially all the people that move an average of three times after moving to TV. To all that think Obama's tax cuts are the main reason for voting for him, think about how they will affect you and your family. This assumes that not everyone in TV makes $250,000 or more! :1rotfl:



To be sure, these "tax cuts" contain some sleight of hand. More than $400 billion of the money over the next 10 years would take the form of refundable tax credits paid in cash to people who already pay no federal income tax. It would be more accurate to refer to these cash outlays as cuts in payroll tax or -- even more accurately -- as transfer payments. Regardless of what the credits are called, though, they would put more money in the pockets of some American families. That sounds great in these tough economic times. Who can be against a boost to spending power and consumption?

We can. While a few of Obama's proposals may be sensible, the overall package would be bad for the economy. Unlike rate cuts for high incomes or reductions in investment taxes, most of Obama's proposed tax cuts would do little to reduce the tax penalty on work and saving. For some households, the penalty on work and saving would even increase because the new tax credits would be phased out as income rises. These proposals wouldn't deliver the economic growth that incentive-based tax cuts would.

Furthermore, there is no free lunch. Obama's middle-class tax relief would have to be paid for, either now or later. Middle-class tax cuts might make sense if they were paid for by spending cuts, but that is not Obama's plan. Like his opponent, Obama points to vague savings from reducing waste, the kind of savings that never seem to materialize. He also hopes to reap savings by accelerating our redeployment from Iraq, a project with an uncertain fiscal impact. At the same time, he proposes a wave of new spending on health-care, education, energy and infrastructure programs and declares his opposition to reforms that would reduce the growth of Social Security and other entitlement benefits.

So where would the money come from for the tax cuts and new spending? Largely from raising other taxes: the ones that have the biggest impact on economic growth. Obama would let key parts of the Bush tax cuts expire, causing the top tax rate on ordinary income to go back to 39.6 percent, up from 35 percent today. The capital gains and dividend tax rates would rise to 20 percent from today's 15 percent. Obama might also impose Social Security tax at a rate of up to 4 percent on wages and self-employment income above $250,000, starting in 2019.

Great post GNU....in my opinion as well as many economists his plans will destroy our economy.

He has packaged everything to appeal but it just does not wash at all when you look at it. He is telling us how bad we got it and telling us EXACTLY what will go directly at our "bad" times.

[Guest]

Just want to add one more thing and then will go away as nobody wants anything but the silver tongue oratory....

Sen Obama's election will essentially finish off our free enterprise system !!

It is not all his fault, but this election will seal the deal !!!

[Guest]

Bucco

I recall in one of your prior posts, you questioned why somebody who had the audcacity to critize the developer was still living here and hadn't moved somewhere else if they didn't like it in TV.

So with all your gloom and doom predictions regarding the Obama presidency, and your staunch belief that if you don't like someplace, you should leave. One can only assume you will leave the US after he wins.

Where will you be moving to on November 5? I have heard Belize is nice.

No doubt you do practice what you preach, don't you?

[Guest]

Bucco

I recall in one of your prior posts, you questioned why somebody who had the audcacity to critize the developer was still living here and hadn't moved somewhere else if they didn't like it in TV.

So with all your gloom and doom predictions regarding the Obama presidency, and your staunch belief that if you don't like someplace, you should leave. One can only assume you will leave the US after he wins.

Where will you be moving to on November 5? I have heard Belize is nice.

No doubt you do practice what you preach, don't you?

First of all, you sarcasm aside, I never said what you attributed to me. I have WONDERED why someone would live here if they felt this was a regime.

To your second immature point, I have also said on here A NUMBER OF TIMES..many actually, that while I am voting for Sen McCain who I do not support but fear Sen Obama, that if he is elected he is MY PRESIDENT....OF Course you dont see fit to quote any of that and that is ok. I am an American who is proud of his country and if you dont find my feelings on this campaign to your liking you certainly have the right and responsiblility to disagree, but NEVER QUESTION MY PATRIOTISM as I took your remarks. I have defended this country through my service...I have defended Presidents that I did not agree with when they were threatened or coerced by other countries and will do the same for any President.

[Guest]

It is hard to find a country that isn't socialistic. I've lived in two different ones. Trust me you don't want that kind of government. However, many are realizing socialism can work for only so long and are turning a little more to capitalism.

[Guest]

I need to make one more point to BIMMERT1 who found it necessary to attack my motives and character...

you said...."you questioned why somebody who had the audcacity to critize the developer was still living here and hadn't moved somewhere else if they didn't like it in TV. "

Not only did I never say that, it was AS I KNOW YOU ALREADY AWARE referring to ONE situation and was never ever even close to a general statement. I also said, but you either failed to read or just omitted it that I felt this kind of general non specific criticism was unfair, but then you wouldnt understand it as you just did it to me !

[Guest]

Bucco

I recall in one of your prior posts, you questioned why somebody who had the audcacity to critize the developer was still living here and hadn't moved somewhere else if they didn't like it in TV.

So with all your gloom and doom predictions regarding the Obama presidency, and your staunch belief that if you don't like someplace, you should leave. One can only assume you will leave the US after he wins.

Where will you be moving to on November 5? I have heard Belize is nice.

No doubt you do practice what you preach, don't you?


Nice to hear from you too bimmertl!:)

I do believe the "audacity" comes from those that knew the rules in TV, signed papers that they would agree to those rules, that they think that they are above the rules and think rules are only for other people. As in all conflicts one of the options is "if you don't like it, get out". Why would anyone stay in TV if they didn't like living in a community where rules are the norm.

You assume that on November 5th that I will move anywhere! Because I pointed out something in my post that you take offense to you think I can't deal with whoever wins? Contrarie! I've lived with every president since I was old enough to remember who they were, (Eisenhower) and haven't left the country except to serve it and vacation. Is Belize the new hot spot to vacation?

I do practice what I preach! Conservatism, honor, trust, patriotism, and a strong belief that we live in the greatest nation in the world.

P.S. I don't recall all those people that said they would leave the country if Bush won ever left, or did you?:boxing2:

[Guest]

I need to make one more point to BIMMERT1 who found it necessary to attack my motives and character...

you said...."you questioned why somebody who had the audcacity to critize the developer was still living here and hadn't moved somewhere else if they didn't like it in TV. "

Not only did I never say that, it was AS I KNOW YOU ALREADY AWARE referring to ONE situation and was never ever even close to a general statement. I also said, but you either failed to read or just omitted it that I felt this kind of general non specific criticism was unfair, but then you wouldnt understand it as you just did it to me !

:coolsmiley:Hi Bucco, I think Bimmert was referring to me in his lovely post? Anyway, glad that you jumped in because I feel that many were offended buy that post.

[Guest]

This is fake but kind of funny none the less.

Dear Fellow Business Owners,

As a Business owner who employs 30 people, I have resigned myself to the fact that Barack Obama, wlll be our next President, and that my Taxes and Fees, will go up in a BIG way.

To compensate for these increases, I figure, that the Customer, will have to see an increase in my fees to them of about, 10%. I will also have to lay off 6 of my employees.

This really bothered me as I believe we are family, here and didn't know how to choose who will have to go. So, this is what I did. I strolled thru the parking lot and found, 8 Obama bumper stickers on my employees cars. I have decided these folks will be the first to be laid off.

I can't think of another fair way to approach this problem. If you have a better idea, let me know.

Sincerely,
Ward

[Guest]

dklassen Fantastic way to decide who gets the axe!!

[Guest]

It is hard to find a country that isn't socialistic. I've lived in two different ones. Trust me you don't want that kind of government. However, many are realizing socialism can work for only so long and are turning a little more to capitalism.

Dont move to Alaska. I thought that Alaska was a state, But Palin keeps telling everyone we do things differently in Alaska, we share the WEALTH. Socialism, only if it was Obama as GOv. of ALaska..

[Guest]

This is fake but kind of funny none the less.

Dear Fellow Business Owners,

As a Business owner who employs 30 people, I have resigned myself to the fact that Barack Obama, wlll be our next President, and that my Taxes and Fees, will go up in a BIG way.

To compensate for these increases, I figure, that the Customer, will have to see an increase in my fees to them of about, 10%. I will also have to lay off 6 of my employees.

This really bothered me as I believe we are family, here and didn't know how to choose who will have to go. So, this is what I did. I strolled thru the parking lot and found, 8 Obama bumper stickers on my employees cars. I have decided these folks will be the first to be laid off.

I can't think of another fair way to approach this problem. If you have a better idea, let me know.

Sincerely,
Ward

Maybe you should move your company to alaska, Then again you would have to share with Palin, but that might be better than a Obama sticker.

"Moral courage is the most valuable and usually the most absent characteristic in men."
- General George S. Patton, Jr

[Guest]

Dont move to Alaska. I thought that Alaska was a state, But Palin keeps telling everyone we do things differently in Alaska, we share the WEALTH. Socialism, only if it was Obama as GOv. of ALaska..


You really need to work on your listening skills ~ You missed the part about NATURAL RESOURCES !!!

[Guest]

I believe she was talking about sharing the wealth of their natural resources with the citizens if Alaska which is quite different than confiscating payroll taxes from one person and giving it to others who don't pay taxes at all which is what BO wants to do.

[Guest]

You really need to work on your listening skills ~ You missed the part about NATURAL RESOURCES !!!

Try this one out for her pipline deal

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/10/palin_and_the_maybe_pipeline.html

[Guest]

Try this one out for her pipline deal

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/10/palin_and_the_maybe_pipeline.html


WHOA..WHOA...you made an accusation concerning the sharing of wealth and were called on it and you are not responding....you just keep throwing stuff out there...there is a name for that !

How about you respond to your first accusation on this thread where you tried to imply, weakly, that somehow in Alaska there is some kind of socialism or redistribution of wealth as Sen Obama has publicly called for in his Global Poverty act !

How about it ???????

[Guest]

WHOA..WHOA...you made an accusation concerning the sharing of wealth and were called on it and you are not responding....you just keep throwing stuff out there...there is a name for that !

How about you respond to your first accusation on this thread where you tried to imply, weakly, that somehow in Alaska there is some kind of socialism or redistribution of wealth as Sen Obama has publicly called for in his Global Poverty act !

How about it ???????


Simply stated Collectively owned is a socialist term. means what it implies. Seems alot of people think the same since it came up in the news. Must be nice to know that everyone is wrong and your the only right one. that is why i posted the other day, you can sing till the cow comes home and will never be able to change ones opionion. Pipline article still stands,, Khalidi still stands, all of it still is there.

Global Poverty Act fact sheet
http://www.bread.org/take-action/ol2008/gpa-fact-sheet.pdf

[Guest]

WHOA..WHOA...you made an accusation concerning the sharing of wealth and were called on it and you are not responding....you just keep throwing stuff out there...there is a name for that !

How about you respond to your first accusation on this thread where you tried to imply, weakly, that somehow in Alaska there is some kind of socialism or redistribution of wealth as Sen Obama has publicly called for in his Global Poverty act !

How about it ???????

alot of names on this deal,, funny how only Obama is ever mentioned??? Things that make you go HHHUUUMMMMMMMMMMMMM
:faint:

The Global Poverty Act (H.R.1302) was introduced in the House of Representatives by Reps. Adam Smith (D-WA) and Spencer Bachus (R-AL) and collected 84 cosponsors before it was passed on September 25, 2007. A companion bill (S.2433) was introduced in the Senate by Senators Barack Obama (D-IL), Chuck Hagel (R-NE), and Maria Cantwell (D-WA) on December 7, 2007. There are currently 16 cosponsors in the Senate, including Christopher Dodd [CT], Richard Durbin, Richard [IL], Russell Feingold [WI], Dianne Feinstein [CA], Tom Harkin [IA], Tim Johnson [SD], Richard Lugar [IN], Robert Menendez [NJ], Patty Murray [WA], Olympia Snowe [ME], Joe Biden, [DE], Gordon Smith [OR], John Kerry [MA]

The Global Poverty Act breaks new ground in three important ways:

http://www.undp.org/mdg/
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s110-2433

For the first time achieving one of the Millennium Development Goals will be included in U.S. law.

Over 20 government agencies currently participate in development activities, sometimes at cross purposes. The Global Poverty Act would ensure the maximum benefit to those in greatest need by coordinating the efforts of each agency that administers aid.

13 of the world's major donors have reported on their progress towards meeting the Millennium Development Goals, while the U.S. has not. This legislation would require a regular report to Congress on U.S. progress towards meeting the first Millennium Development Goal.

[Guest]

alot of names on this deal,, funny how only Obama is ever mentioned??? Things that make you go HHHUUUMMMMMMMMMMMMM
:faint:

The Global Poverty Act (H.R.1302) was introduced in the House of Representatives by Reps. Adam Smith (D-WA) and Spencer Bachus (R-AL) and collected 84 cosponsors before it was passed on September 25, 2007. A companion bill (S.2433) was introduced in the Senate by Senators Barack Obama (D-IL), Chuck Hagel (R-NE), and Maria Cantwell (D-WA) on December 7, 2007. There are currently 16 cosponsors in the Senate, including Christopher Dodd [CT], Richard Durbin, Richard [IL], Russell Feingold [WI], Dianne Feinstein [CA], Tom Harkin [IA], Tim Johnson [SD], Richard Lugar [IN], Robert Menendez [NJ], Patty Murray [WA], Olympia Snowe [ME], Joe Biden, [DE], Gordon Smith [OR], John Kerry [MA]

The Global Poverty Act breaks new ground in three important ways:

http://www.undp.org/mdg/
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s110-2433

For the first time achieving one of the Millennium Development Goals will be included in U.S. law.

Over 20 government agencies currently participate in development activities, sometimes at cross purposes. The Global Poverty Act would ensure the maximum benefit to those in greatest need by coordinating the efforts of each agency that administers aid.

13 of the world's major donors have reported on their progress towards meeting the Millennium Development Goals, while the U.S. has not. This legislation would require a regular report to Congress on U.S. progress towards meeting the first Millennium Development Goal.

:ohdear:"Your Taxes and the Obama Tax Cuts" is how this thread started and received little direct response to the article quoted. We do like to divert onto different tangents in the political posts.don't we? Me included!:boxing2:

[Guest]

I have a question.... Obama seems to be ahead in most polls. There are many of us who find his position frightening and at odds with capitalistic free market principles BUT, the polls suggest that the majority of voters do not have these fears. Here's my question: Are there historical precedents for a country of people to embrace socialistic principles thinking that their future will improve and be better only to learn, in time, this is not the case. Historians, step foreward and educate us.

[Guest]

dgu, Bucco, Sally Jo, dklassen, - at last, a little voice of reason in The Villages. What do you think they will do to us if Obama stumbles into the White House? Back into uniform, I guess.

[Guest]

rshoffer: I wish I had seen your comment before I posted mine. Be afraid, be very afraid...... I will add your name to those of us showing some common sense.

[Guest]

First, I should tell you that my opinion is that both candidates are smoking funny cigarettes if they think a tax cut of any kind makes sense. That kind of proposal is like the family with so many credit cards that they can't get any more having the husband tell his wife, "...go ahead honey, quit your job, we can get along without that income".

But back to your post. You said, "...there is no free lunch. Obama's middle-class tax relief would have to be paid for, either now or later. Middle-class tax cuts might make sense if they were paid for by spending cuts, but that is not Obama's plan. Like his opponent, Obama points to vague savings..."

Several non-partisan "fact-checking" websites have projectged that the economic plans presented by the Obama campaign would increase the national debt by $3.5 trillion dollars by the end of the first term. However, those same analysts estimate that McCain's economic plans would add $5 trillion to our debt in four years.

Personally, I think all this is moot because the countries in the world who buy our debt (mainly China, Japan and to a lesser extent the EU) have neither the capacity nor interest in continuing to fund U.S. deficit spending by continuing to buy our Treasury bonds and bills. I don't place much emphasis at all on the tax cut plans by either candidate because it's impossible for either plan to happen! If anything will be necessary, it will be massive cuts in federal spending and maybe even a tax increase.The U.S. simply has very little additional borrowing capacity and a very sick economy. Much of this campiagn posturing by both candidates is nonsense as far as I'm concerned.

[Guest]

alot of names on this deal,, funny how only Obama is ever mentioned??? Things that make you go HHHUUUMMMMMMMMMMMMM
:faint:

The Global Poverty Act (H.R.1302) was introduced in the House of Representatives by Reps. Adam Smith (D-WA) and Spencer Bachus (R-AL) and collected 84 cosponsors before it was passed on September 25, 2007. A companion bill (S.2433) was introduced in the Senate by Senators Barack Obama (D-IL), Chuck Hagel (R-NE), and Maria Cantwell (D-WA) on December 7, 2007. There are currently 16 cosponsors in the Senate, including Christopher Dodd [CT], Richard Durbin, Richard [IL], Russell Feingold [WI], Dianne Feinstein [CA], Tom Harkin [IA], Tim Johnson [SD], Richard Lugar [IN], Robert Menendez [NJ], Patty Murray [WA], Olympia Snowe [ME], Joe Biden, [DE], Gordon Smith [OR], John Kerry [MA]


The Global Poverty Act breaks new ground in three important ways:

http://www.undp.org/mdg/
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s110-2433

For the first time achieving one of the Millennium Development Goals will be included in U.S. law.

Over 20 government agencies currently participate in development activities, sometimes at cross purposes. The Global Poverty Act would ensure the maximum benefit to those in greatest need by coordinating the efforts of each agency that administers aid.

13 of the world's major donors have reported on their progress towards meeting the Millennium Development Goals, while the U.S. has not. This legislation would require a regular report to Congress on U.S. progress towards meeting the first Millennium Development Goal.


You have sort of side stepped the actual thread but just for a minute...

1. You asked why you hear Sen Obama's name.....lets see, maybe because he is running for President...you think ?

2. This from SEN Obama's website...

"With billions of people living on just dollars a day around the world, global poverty remains one of the greatest challenges and tragedies the international community faces," said Senator Obama. "It must be a priority of American foreign policy to commit to eliminating extreme poverty and ensuring every child has food, shelter, and clean drinking water. As we strive to rebuild America's standing in the world, this important bill will demonstrate our promise and commitment to those in the developing world. Our commitment to the global economy must extend beyond trade agreements that are more about increasing corporate profits than about helping workers and small farmers everywhere." (emphasis added)"

This means send money overseas !!!!!!!!!!!!

I will find and post his quote on this a few years ago..one of those "redistribute the worlds resources"

[Guest]

dgu, Bucco, Sally Jo, dklassen, - at last, a little voice of reason in The Villages. What do you think they will do to us if Obama stumbles into the White House? Back into uniform, I guess.

I suppose I will be accused of some kind of looney behavior when I post my response Cliff, but here goes....

No..no uniform....however, his plans seem to play entirely into the hands of all those who hate us...ie., dont use or even threaten to use our advantage of military power....negotiate. Now I am not against negotiation, but you have to negotiate from strength. I am not sure what Sen Obama will do with our military....he said before the Iowa caucas he would dismantle much of our missle system, reducde military spending etc. NOW, he says he will build a 21st century military so who knows !

In any case, if he actually negotiates with terrorists or terrorist states...we lose immediately NO MATTER THE RESULT OF THOSE NEGOTIATIONS.

Again, he says different things depending on his audience but if he in fact dismantles much of our military and dramatically cuts spending we will become very vulnerable to a lot of things that are nasty in this world. There are those who have said they will destroy us starting from within and then......well, depending on his mood I suspect we might be on THEIR GAME PLAN and not ours !

[Guest]

What's going on here? Kahuna sez we can't afford either candidate's programs. I wonder how THAT will play in Peoria for those expecting some kind of "Change"?

(VK is right though. Lock and load and get ready for a hot summer)

[Guest]

Per Bucco - Great post GNU....in my opinion as well as many economists his plans will destroy our economy.

(HuH???? aren't we in the clunker now????)
Why don't we let the majority speak by their vote. 3 hour lines in Orlando in early voting.

[Guest]

First, I should tell you that my opinion is that both candidates are smoking funny cigarettes if they think a tax cut of any kind makes sense. That kind of proposal is like the family with so many credit cards that they can't get any more having the husband tell his wife, "...go ahead honey, quit your job, we can get along without that income".

But back to your post. You said, "...there is no free lunch. Obama's middle-class tax relief would have to be paid for, either now or later. Middle-class tax cuts might make sense if they were paid for by spending cuts, but that is not Obama's plan. Like his opponent, Obama points to vague savings..."

Several non-partisan "fact-checking" websites have projectged that the economic plans presented by the Obama campaign would increase the national debt by $3.5 trillion dollars by the end of the first term. However, those same analysts estimate that McCain's economic plans would add $5 trillion to our debt in four years.

Personally, I think all this is moot because the countries in the world who buy our debt (mainly China, Japan and to a lesser extent the EU) have neither the capacity nor interest in continuing to fund U.S. deficit spending by continuing to buy our Treasury bonds and bills. I don't place much emphasis at all on the tax cut plans by either candidate because it's impossible for either plan to happen! If anything will be necessary, it will be massive cuts in federal spending and maybe even a tax increase.The U.S. simply has very little additional borrowing capacity and a very sick economy. Much of this campiagn posturing by both candidates is nonsense as far as I'm concerned.

Nice response Kahuna. How about this. Keep taxes as is, reduce spending with zero based budgeting and eliminating unneeded government programs? I think, but will have to look again, that we still have the Rural Electrification Program on the books. Who doesn't have electric in this country?:)

[Guest]

There is one thing that grows the economy and that's people having more money to spend on goods and more money to invest in their businesses. That comes in the form of TRUE tax cuts. It's worked every time it's tried and history has proven that over and over.

Economies don't tax themselves back into prosperity. I don't understand why more people don't understand that.

[Guest]

I have a question.... Obama seems to be ahead in most polls. There are many of us who find his position frightening and at odds with capitalistic free market principles BUT, the polls suggest that the majority of voters do not have these fears. Here's my question: Are there historical precedents for a country of people to embrace socialistic principles thinking that their future will improve and be better only to learn, in time, this is not the case. Historians, step foreward and educate us.


Mussolini and Franco come to mind but we could argue they are in another class...Facists.

It is common for people to vote values during good times and pocketbooks during lean times...when things really get bad we look toward the "other". Hitler did that successfully did that isolating the Jews and turning the nation against them as the cause of all the problems.

Just talking history here.