[While I found this article interesting, I should note that 401K
investments (cashed in) I believe are not taxed as capital gains, but at
regular income rates. Either way however, the tax rate will increase as
the 2001/2003 Bush tax cuts expire. It answers the question about where
the money Obama needs for his campaign promises will come from.]







October 27, 2008


Senator Obama's Four Tax Increases for People Earning Under $250k


By Ned Barnett

I confess. Senator Obama's two tax promises: to limit tax increases to
only those making over $250,000 a year, and to not raise taxes on 95% of
"working Americans," intrigued me. As a hard-working small business
owner, over the past ten years I've earned from $50,000 to $100,000 per
year. If Senator Obama is shooting straight with us, under his
presidency I could look forward to paying no additional Federal taxes --
I might even get a break -- and as I struggle to support a family and
pay for two boys in college, a reliable tax freeze is nearly as welcome
as further tax cuts.

However, Senator Obama's dual claims seemed implausible, especially when
it came to my Federal income taxes. Those implausible promises made me
look at what I'd been paying before President Bush's 2001 and 2003 tax
cuts, as well as what I paid after those tax cuts became law. I chose
the 2000 tax tables as my baseline -- they reflect the tax rates that
Senator Obama will restore by letting the "Bush Tax Cuts" lapse. I
wanted to see what that meant from my tax bill.



I've worked as the state level media and strategy director on three
Presidential election campaigns -- I know how "promises" work -- so I
analyzed Senator Obama's promises by looking for loopholes.



The first loophole was easy to find: Senator Obama doesn't "count"
allowing the Bush tax cuts to lapse as a tax increase. Unless the cuts
are re-enacted, rates will automatically return to the 2000 level.
Senator Obama claims that letting a tax cut lapse -- allowing the rates
to return to a higher levels -- is not actually a "tax increase." It's
just the lapsing of a tax cut.



See the difference?



Neither do I.



When those cuts lapse, my taxes are going up -- a lot -- but by parsing
words, Senator Obama justifies his claim that he won't actively raise
taxes on 95 percent of working Americans, even while he's passively
allowing tax rates to go up for 100% of Americans who actually pay
Federal income taxes.



Making this personal, my Federal Income Tax will increase by $3,824 when
those tax cuts lapse. That not-insignificant sum would cover a couple
of house payments or help my two boys through another month or two of
college.



No matter what Senator Obama calls it, requiring us to pay more taxes
amounts to a tax increase. This got me wondering what other Americans
will have to pay when the tax cuts lapse.



For a married family, filing jointly and earning $75,000 a year, this
increase will be $3,074. For those making just $50,000, this increase
will be $1,512. Despite Senator Obama's claim, even struggling American
families making just $25,000 a year will see a tax increase -- they'll
pay $715 more in 2010 than they did in 2007. Across the board, when the
tax cuts lapse, working Americans will see significant increases in
their taxes, even if their household income is as low as $25,000. See
the tables at the end of this article.



Check this for yourself. Go to http://www.irs.gov/formspubs/ and pull
up the 1040 instructions for 2000 and 2007 and go to the tax tables.
Based on your 2007 income, check your taxes rates for 2000 and 2007, and
apply them to your taxable income for 2007. In 2000 -- Senator Obama's
benchmark year -- you would have paid significantly more taxes for the
income you earned in 2007. The Bush Tax Cuts, which Senator Obama has
said he will allow to lapse, saved you money, and without those cuts,
your taxes will go back up to the 2000 level. Senator Obama doesn't
call it a "tax increase," but your taxes under "President" Obama will
increase -- significantly.



Senator Obama is willfully deceiving you and me when he says that no one
making under $250,000 will see an increase in their taxes. If I were
keeping score, I'd call that Tax Lie #1.



The next loophole involves the payroll tax that you pay to support the
Social Security system. Currently, there is an inflation-adjusted cap,
and according to the non-profit Tax Foundation, in 2006 -- the most
recent year for which tax data is available -- only the first $94,700 of
an unmarried individual's earnings were subject to the 12.4 percent
payroll tax. However, Senator Obama has proposed lifting that cap,
adding an additional 12.4 percent tax on every dollar earned above that
cap -- and in spite of his promise, impacting all those who earn between
$94,700 and $249,999.



By doing this, he plans to raise an additional $1 trillion dollars
(another $662.50 out of my pocket -- and how much out of yours?) to help
fund Social Security. Half of this tax would be paid by employees and
half by employers -- but employers will either cut the payroll or pass
along this tax to their customers through higher prices. Either way,
some individual will pay the price for the employer's share of the tax
increase.



However, when challenged to explain how he could eliminate the cap AND
not raise taxes on Americans earning under $250,000, Senator Obama
suggested on his website that he "might" create a "donut" -- an
exemption from this payroll tax for wages between $94,700 and $250,000.
But that donut would mean he couldn't raise anywhere near that $1
trillion dollars for Social Security. When this was pointed out,
Senator Obama's "donut plan" was quietly removed from his website.



This "explanation" sounds like another one of those loopholes. If I were
keeping score, I'd call this Tax Lie #2.



Senator Obama has also said that he will raise capital gains taxes from
15 percent to 20 percent. He says he's aiming at "fat cats" who make
above $250,000. However, while only 1 percent of Americans make a
quarter-million dollars, roughly 50 percent of all Americans have
capital investments -- through IRAs, 401Ks, in pension plans and in
personal portfolios. Most of that half of all Americans will feel this
rise in their capital gains taxes.



Under "President" Obama, if you sell off a $100,000 investment --
perhaps to help put your children through college -- instead of paying
$15,000 in capital gains taxes today, you'll pay $20,000 under Obama's
plan. That's a full one-third more, and it applies no matter how much
you earn.



No question -- for about 50 percent of all Americans, this is Tax Lie
#3.



Finally, Senator Obama has promised to raise taxes on businesses -- and
to raise taxes a lot on oil companies. I still remember Econ-101 -- and
I own a small business. From both theory and practice, I know what
businesses do when taxes are raised. Corporations don't "pay" taxes --
they collect taxes from customers and pass them along to the government.
When you buy a hot dog from a 7/11, you can see the clerk add the sales
tax, but when a corporation's own taxes go up, you don't see it -- its
automatic -- but they do the same thing. They build this tax into their
product's price. Senator Obama knows this. He knows that even people
who earn less than $250,000 will pay higher prices -- those pass-through
taxes -- when corporate taxes go up.



No question: this is Tax Lie #4.



There's not a politician alive who hasn't be caught telling some minor
truth-bender. However, when it comes to raising taxes, there are no
small lies. When George H.W. Bush's "Read my lips -- no new taxes"
proved false, he lost the support of his base -- and ultimately lost his
re-election bid.



This year, however, we don't have to wait for the proof: Senator Obama
has already promised to raise taxes, and we can believe him. However,
while making that promise, he's also lied, in at least four significant
ways, about who will pay those taxes. If Senator Obama becomes
President Obama, when the tax man comes calling, we will all pay the
price. And that's the truth.



Tax Rates - and the Obama Increase - $50,000/year Taxable Income





2000 Tax Tables



2003 Tax Tables



2004 Tax Tables



2010 Tax Tables - (Bush Tax Cuts have Expired)



Increase with Obama Tax Increase*



Taxable Income



$50,000



$50,000



$50,000



$50,000



$50,000



Tax: Single



$10,581



$9,304



$9,231



$10,581



$1,350



Tax: Married - Filing Joint



$8,293



$6,796



$6,781



$8,293



$1,512



Tax: Married - Filing Separate



$11,143



$9,304



$9,231



$11,143



$1,912



Tax: Head of Household



$9,424



$8,189



$8,094



$9,424



$1,330





Tax Rates - and the Obama Increase - $75,000/year Taxable Income





2000 Tax Tables



2003 Tax Tables



2004 Tax Tables



2010 Tax Tables - (Bush Tax Cuts have Expired)



Increase with Obama Tax Increase*



Taxable Income



$75,000



$75,000



$75,000



$75,000



$75,000



Tax: Single



$17,923



$15,739



$15,620



$17,923



$2,303



Tax: Married - Filing Joint



$15,293



$12,364



$12,219



$15,293



$3,074



Tax: Married - Filing Separate



$18,803



$16,083



$15,972



$18,803



$2,831



Tax: Head of Household



$16,424



$14,439



$14,344



$16,424



$2,080





Tax Rates - and the Obama Increase - $100,000/year Taxable Income





2000 Tax Tables



2003 Tax Tables



2004 Tax Tables



2010 Tax Tables - (Bush Tax Cuts have Expired)



Increase with Obama Tax Increase*



Taxable Income



$100,000



$100,000



$100,000



$100,000



$100,000



Tax: Single



$25,673



$22,739



$22,620



$25,673



$3,053



Tax: Married - Filing Joint



$22,293



$18,614



$18,469



$22,293



$3,824



Tax: Married - Filing Separate



$27,515



$23,715



$23,504



$27,515



$4,011



Tax: Head of Household



$23,699



$20,741



$20,594



$23,699



$3,015





* When "President" Obama allows President Bush's tax cuts of 2001 and
2003 to expire,
this will amount to a de facto tax increase -






Recent Articles


* Senator Obama's Four Tax Increases for
People Earning Under $250k

* The Left Tries to Find John McCain's
Bill Ayers

* Libelous allegations of 'fifth column
conspiracies' from prominent progressives

* Democide

* Why the Mortgage Crisis Happened

* The Economic Meltdown and Obama's
Bounce: An American Paradox

* The Dangerous Reasoning of the
Connecticut Supreme Court

FWIW. http://alchemytoday.com/obamataxcut/

-----Original Message-----
From: Bob F ]
Posted At: Friday, October 31, 2008 12:15 PM
Posted To: alt.home.repair
Conversation: Senator Obama's Four Tax Increases for People Earning
Under $250k
Subject: Senator Obama's Four Tax Increases for People Earning Under
$250k

FWIW. http://alchemytoday.com/obamataxcut/
----------------------------------------

********Please read the article.
Chicken today....feathers tomorrow.



[While I found this article interesting, I should note that 401K
investments (cashed in) I believe are not taxed as capital gains, but at
regular income rates. Either way however, the tax rate will increase as
the 2001/2003 Bush tax cuts expire. It answers the question about where
the money Obama needs for his campaign promises will come from.]


October 27, 2008


Senator Obama's Four Tax Increases for People Earning Under $250k
By Ned Barnett

I confess. Senator Obama's two tax promises: to limit tax increases to
only those making over $250,000 a year, and to not raise taxes on 95% of
"working Americans," intrigued me. As a hard-working small business
owner, over the past ten years I've earned from $50,000 to $100,000 per
year. If Senator Obama is shooting straight with us, under his
presidency I could look forward to paying no additional Federal taxes --
I might even get a break -- and as I struggle to support a family and
pay for two boys in college, a reliable tax freeze is nearly as welcome
as further tax cuts.

However, Senator Obama's dual claims seemed implausible, especially when
it came to my Federal income taxes. Those implausible promises made me
look at what I'd been paying before President Bush's 2001 and 2003 tax
cuts, as well as what I paid after those tax cuts became law. I chose
the 2000 tax tables as my baseline -- they reflect the tax rates that
Senator Obama will restore by letting the "Bush Tax Cuts" lapse. I
wanted to see what that meant from my tax bill.

I've worked as the state level media and strategy director on three
Presidential election campaigns -- I know how "promises" work -- so I
analyzed Senator Obama's promises by looking for loopholes.

The first loophole was easy to find: Senator Obama doesn't "count"
allowing the Bush tax cuts to lapse as a tax increase. Unless the cuts
are re-enacted, rates will automatically return to the 2000 level.
Senator Obama claims that letting a tax cut lapse -- allowing the rates
to return to a higher levels -- is not actually a "tax increase." It's
just the lapsing of a tax cut.

See the difference?

Neither do I.

When those cuts lapse, my taxes are going up -- a lot -- but by parsing
words, Senator Obama justifies his claim that he won't actively raise
taxes on 95 percent of working Americans, even while he's passively
allowing tax rates to go up for 100% of Americans who actually pay
Federal income taxes.

Making this personal, my Federal Income Tax will increase by $3,824 when
those tax cuts lapse. That not-insignificant sum would cover a couple
of house payments or help my two boys through another month or two of
college.

No matter what Senator Obama calls it, requiring us to pay more taxes
amounts to a tax increase. This got me wondering what other Americans
will have to pay when the tax cuts lapse.

For a married family, filing jointly and earning $75,000 a year, this
increase will be $3,074. For those making just $50,000, this increase
will be $1,512. Despite Senator Obama's claim, even struggling American
families making just $25,000 a year will see a tax increase -- they'll
pay $715 more in 2010 than they did in 2007. Across the board, when the
tax cuts lapse, working Americans will see significant increases in
their taxes, even if their household income is as low as $25,000. See
the tables at the end of this article.

Check this for yourself. Go to http://www.irs.gov/formspubs/ and pull
up the 1040 instructions for 2000 and 2007 and go to the tax tables.
Based on your 2007 income, check your taxes rates for 2000 and 2007, and
apply them to your taxable income for 2007. In 2000 -- Senator Obama's
benchmark year -- you would have paid significantly more taxes for the
income you earned in 2007. The Bush Tax Cuts, which Senator Obama has
said he will allow to lapse, saved you money, and without those cuts,
your taxes will go back up to the 2000 level. Senator Obama doesn't
call it a "tax increase," but your taxes under "President" Obama will
increase -- significantly.

Senator Obama is willfully deceiving you and me when he says that no one
making under $250,000 will see an increase in their taxes. If I were
keeping score, I'd call that Tax Lie #1.


The next loophole involves the payroll tax that you pay to support the
Social Security system. Currently, there is an inflation-adjusted cap,
and according to the non-profit Tax Foundation, in 2006 -- the most
recent year for which tax data is available -- only the first $94,700 of
an unmarried individual's earnings were subject to the 12.4 percent
payroll tax. However, Senator Obama has proposed lifting that cap,
adding an additional 12.4 percent tax on every dollar earned above that
cap -- and in spite of his promise, impacting all those who earn between
$94,700 and $249,999.

By doing this, he plans to raise an additional $1 trillion dollars
(another $662.50 out of my pocket -- and how much out of yours?) to help
fund Social Security. Half of this tax would be paid by employees and
half by employers -- but employers will either cut the payroll or pass
along this tax to their customers through higher prices. Either way,
some individual will pay the price for the employer's share of the tax
increase.

However, when challenged to explain how he could eliminate the cap AND
not raise taxes on Americans earning under $250,000, Senator Obama
suggested on his website that he "might" create a "donut" -- an
exemption from this payroll tax for wages between $94,700 and $250,000.
But that donut would mean he couldn't raise anywhere near that $1
trillion dollars for Social Security. When this was pointed out,
Senator Obama's "donut plan" was quietly removed from his website.

This "explanation" sounds like another one of those loopholes. If I were
keeping score, I'd call this Tax Lie #2.


Senator Obama has also said that he will raise capital gains taxes from
15 percent to 20 percent. He says he's aiming at "fat cats" who make
above $250,000. However, while only 1 percent of Americans make a
quarter-million dollars, roughly 50 percent of all Americans have
capital investments -- through IRAs, 401Ks, in pension plans and in
personal portfolios. Most of that half of all Americans will feel this
rise in their capital gains taxes.

Under "President" Obama, if you sell off a $100,000 investment --
perhaps to help put your children through college -- instead of paying
$15,000 in capital gains taxes today, you'll pay $20,000 under Obama's
plan. That's a full one-third more, and it applies no matter how much
you earn.

No question -- for about 50 percent of all Americans, this is Tax Lie
#3.



Finally, Senator Obama has promised to raise taxes on businesses -- and
to raise taxes a lot on oil companies. I still remember Econ-101 -- and
I own a small business. From both theory and practice, I know what
businesses do when taxes are raised. Corporations don't "pay" taxes --
they collect taxes from customers and pass them along to the government.
When you buy a hot dog from a 7/11, you can see the clerk add the sales
tax, but when a corporation's own taxes go up, you don't see it -- its
automatic -- but they do the same thing. They build this tax into their
product's price. Senator Obama knows this. He knows that even people
who earn less than $250,000 will pay higher prices -- those pass-through
taxes -- when corporate taxes go up.

No question: this is Tax Lie #4.


There's not a politician alive who hasn't be caught telling some minor
truth-bender. However, when it comes to raising taxes, there are no
small lies. When George H.W. Bush's "Read my lips -- no new taxes"
proved false, he lost the support of his base -- and ultimately lost his
re-election bid.

This year, however, we don't have to wait for the proof: Senator Obama
has already promised to raise taxes, and we can believe him. However,
while making that promise, he's also lied, in at least four significant
ways, about who will pay those taxes. If Senator Obama becomes
President Obama, when the tax man comes calling, we will all pay the
price. And that's the truth.

Tax Rates - and the Obama Increase - $50,000/year Taxable Income
Tax: Single
2000 Tax Tables $10,581
2003 Tax Tables $ 9,304
2004 Tax Tables $ 9,231
2010 Tax Tables $10,581
Increase with Obama Tax Increase* $1,350

Tax: Married - Filing Joint
2000 Tax Tables $8,293
2003 Tax Tables $6,796
2004 Tax Tables $6,781
2010 Tax Tables $8,293
Increase with Obama Tax Increase* $1,512


Tax: Married - Filing Separate
2000 Tax Tables $11,143
2003 Tax Tables $9,304
2004 Tax Tables $9,231
2010 Tax Tables $11,143
Increase with Obama Tax Increase* $1,912

Tax: Head of Household
2000 Tax Tables $9,424
2003 Tax Tables $8,189
2004 Tax Tables $8,094
2010 Tax Tables $9,424
Increase with Obama Tax Increase* $1,330



Tax Rates - and the Obama Increase - $75,000/year Taxable Income
Tax: Single
2000 Tax Tables $17,923
2003 Tax Tables $15,739
2004 Tax Tables $15,620
2010 Tax Tables $17,923
Increase with Obama Tax Increase* $2,303

Tax: Married - Filing Joint
2000 Tax Tables $15,293
2003 Tax Tables $12,364
2004 Tax Tables $12,219
2010 Tax Tables $15,293
Increase with Obama Tax Increase* $3,074

Tax: Married - Filing Separate
2000 Tax Tables $18,803
2003 Tax Tables $16,083
2004 Tax Tables $15,972
2010 Tax Tables $18,803
Increase with Obama Tax Increase* $2,831

Tax: Head of Household
2000 Tax Tables $16,424
2003 Tax Tables $14,439
2004 Tax Tables $14,344
2010 Tax Tables $16,424
Increase with Obama Tax Increase* $2,080



Tax Rates - and the Obama Increase - $100,000/year Taxable Income
Tax: Single
2000 Tax Tables $25,673
2003 Tax Tables $22,739
2004 Tax Tables $22,620
2010 Tax Tables $25,673
Increase with Obama Tax Increase* $3,053

Tax: Married - Filing Joint
2000 Tax Tables $22,293
2003 Tax Tables $18,614
2004 Tax Tables $18,469
2010 Tax Tables $22,293
Increase with Obama Tax Increase* $3,824

Tax: Married - Filing Separate
2000 Tax Tables $27,515
2003 Tax Tables $23,715
2004 Tax Tables $23,504
2010 Tax Tables $27,515
Increase with Obama Tax Increase* $4,011

Tax: Head of Household
2000 Tax Tables $23,699
2003 Tax Tables $20,741
2004 Tax Tables $20,594
2010 Tax Tables $23,699
Increase with Obama Tax Increase* $3,015

* When "President" Obama allows President Bush's tax cuts of 2001 and
2003 to expire, this will amount to a de facto tax increase

On Oct 31, 12:39*pm, Joe Doe wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 12:10:16 -0500, Coleah wrote:

Did you notice that this is a home repair group that you are trolling you
stupid whore.

Close up your crack and take it someplace else.





[While I found this article interesting, I should note that 401K
investments (cashed in) I believe are not taxed as capital gains, but at
regular income rates. *Either way however, the tax rate will increase as
the 2001/2003 Bush tax cuts expire. *It answers the question about where
the money Obama needs for his campaign promises will come from.]

October 27, 2008

Senator Obama's Four Tax Increases for People Earning Under $250k

By Ned Barnett

I confess. *Senator Obama's two tax promises: to limit tax increases to
only those making over $250,000 a year, and to not raise taxes on 95% of
"working Americans," intrigued me. *As a hard-working small business
owner, over the past ten years I've earned from $50,000 to $100,000 per
year. *If Senator Obama is shooting straight with us, under his
presidency I could look forward to paying no additional Federal taxes --
I might even get a break -- and as I struggle to support a family and
pay for two boys in college, a reliable tax freeze is nearly as welcome
as further tax cuts.

However, Senator Obama's dual claims seemed implausible, especially when
it came to my Federal income taxes. *Those implausible promises made me
look at what I'd been paying before President Bush's 2001 and 2003 tax
cuts, as well as what I paid after those tax cuts became law. *I chose
the 2000 tax tables as my baseline -- they reflect the tax rates that
Senator Obama will restore by letting the "Bush Tax Cuts" lapse. *I
wanted to see what that meant from my tax bill.

I've worked as the state level media and strategy director on three
Presidential election campaigns -- I know how "promises" work -- so I
analyzed Senator Obama's promises by looking for loopholes.

The first loophole was easy to find: *Senator Obama doesn't "count"
allowing the Bush tax cuts to lapse as a tax increase. *Unless the cuts
are re-enacted, rates will automatically return to the 2000 level.
Senator Obama claims that letting a tax cut lapse -- allowing the rates
to return to a higher levels -- is not actually a "tax increase." *It's
just the lapsing of a tax cut.

See the difference?

Neither do I.

When those cuts lapse, my taxes are going up -- a lot -- but by parsing
words, Senator Obama justifies his claim that he won't actively raise
taxes on 95 percent of working Americans, even while he's passively
allowing tax rates to go up for 100% of Americans who actually pay
Federal income taxes.

Making this personal, my Federal Income Tax will increase by $3,824 when
those tax cuts lapse. *That not-insignificant sum would cover a couple
of house payments or help my two boys through another month or two of
college.

No matter what Senator Obama calls it, requiring us to pay more taxes
amounts to a tax increase. *This got me wondering what other Americans
will have to pay when the tax cuts lapse.

For a married family, filing jointly and earning $75,000 a year, this
increase will be $3,074. *For those making just $50,000, this increase
will be $1,512. *Despite Senator Obama's claim, even struggling American
families making just $25,000 a year will see a tax increase -- they'll
pay $715 more in 2010 than they did in 2007. *Across the board, when the
tax cuts lapse, working Americans will see significant increases in
their taxes, even if their household income is as low as $25,000. *See
the tables at the end of this article.

Check this for yourself. *Go tohttp://www.irs.gov/formspubs/and pull
up the 1040 instructions for 2000 and 2007 and go to the tax tables.
Based on your 2007 income, check your taxes rates for 2000 and 2007, and
apply them to your taxable income for 2007. *In 2000 -- Senator Obama's
benchmark year -- you would have paid significantly more taxes for the
income you earned in 2007. *The Bush Tax Cuts, which Senator Obama has
said he will allow to lapse, saved you money, and without those cuts,
your taxes will go back up to the 2000 level. *Senator Obama doesn't
call it a "tax increase," but your taxes under "President" Obama will
increase -- significantly.

Senator Obama is willfully deceiving you and me when he says that no one
making under $250,000 will see an increase in their taxes. *If I were
keeping score, I'd call that Tax Lie #1.

The next loophole involves the payroll tax that you pay to support the
Social Security system. Currently, there is an inflation-adjusted cap,
and according to the non-profit Tax Foundation, in 2006 -- the most
recent year for which tax data is available -- only the first $94,700 of
an unmarried individual's earnings were subject to the 12.4 percent
payroll tax. However, Senator Obama has proposed lifting that cap,
adding an additional 12.4 percent tax on every dollar earned above that
cap -- and in spite of his promise, impacting all those who earn between
$94,700 and $249,999.

By doing this, he plans to raise an additional $1 trillion dollars
(another $662.50 out of my pocket -- and how much out of yours?) to help
fund Social Security. *Half of this tax would be paid by employees and
half by employers -- but employers will either cut the payroll or pass
along this tax to their customers through higher prices. *Either way,
some individual will pay the price for the employer's share of the tax
increase.

However, when challenged to explain how he could eliminate the cap AND
not raise taxes on Americans earning under $250,000, Senator Obama
suggested on his website that he "might" create a "donut" -- an
exemption from this payroll tax for wages between $94,700 and $250,000.
But that donut would mean he couldn't raise anywhere near that $1
trillion dollars for Social Security. *When this was pointed out,
Senator Obama's "donut plan" was quietly removed from his website.

This "explanation" sounds like another one of those loopholes. If I were
keeping score, I'd call this Tax Lie #2.

Senator Obama has also said that he will raise capital gains taxes from
15 percent to 20 percent. *He says he's aiming at "fat cats" who make
above $250,000. * However, while only 1 percent of Americans make a
quarter-million dollars, roughly 50 percent of all Americans have
capital investments -- through IRAs, 401Ks, in pension plans and in
personal portfolios. Most of that half of all Americans will feel this
rise in their capital gains taxes.

Under "President" Obama, if you sell off a $100,000 investment --
perhaps to help put your children through college -- instead of paying
$15,000 in capital gains taxes today, you'll pay $20,000 under Obama's
plan. That's a full one-third more, and it applies no matter how much
you earn.

No question -- for about 50 percent of all Americans, this is Tax Lie
#3.

Finally, Senator Obama has promised to raise taxes on businesses -- and
to raise taxes a lot on oil companies. *I still remember Econ-101 -- and
I own a small business. *From both theory and practice, I know what
businesses do when taxes are raised. *Corporations don't "pay" taxes --
they collect taxes from customers and pass them along to the government..
When you buy a hot dog from a 7/11, you can see the clerk add the sales
tax, but when a corporation's own taxes go up, you don't see it -- its
automatic -- but they do the same thing. *They build this tax into their
product's price. *Senator Obama knows this. *He knows that even people
who earn less than $250,000 will pay higher prices -- those pass-through
taxes -- when corporate taxes go up.

No question: this is Tax Lie #4.

There's not a politician alive who hasn't be caught telling some minor
truth-bender. *However, when it comes to raising taxes, there are no
small lies. *When George H.W. Bush's "Read my lips -- no new taxes"
proved false, he lost the support of his base -- and ultimately lost his
re-election bid.

This year, however, we don't have to wait for the proof: Senator Obama
has already promised to raise taxes, and we can believe him. However,
while making that promise, he's also lied, in at least four significant
ways, about who will pay those taxes. *If Senator Obama becomes
President Obama, when the tax man comes calling, we will all pay the
price. *And that's the truth.

Tax Rates - and the Obama Increase - $50,000/year Taxable Income

2000 Tax Tables

2003 Tax Tables

2004 Tax Tables

2010 Tax Tables - (Bush Tax Cuts have Expired)

Increase with Obama Tax Increase*

Taxable Income

$50,000

$50,000

$50,000

$50,000

$50,000

Tax: Single

$10,581

$9,304

$9,231

$10,581

$1,350

Tax: Married - *Filing Joint

$8,293

$6,796

$6,781

$8,293

$1,512

Tax: Married - Filing Separate

$11,143

$9,304

$9,231

$11,143

$1,912

Tax: Head of Household

$9,424

$8,189

$8,094

$9,424

$1,330

Tax Rates - and the Obama Increase - $75,000/year Taxable Income

2000 Tax Tables

2003 Tax Tables

2004 Tax Tables

2010 Tax Tables - (Bush Tax Cuts have Expired)

Increase with Obama Tax Increase*

Taxable Income

$75,000

$75,000

...

read more »- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Did YOU notice that the subject was very clear but being a complete
moron you opened and read it anyway just so you could bitch about it.

On Oct 31, 1:10*pm, "Coleah" wrote:
[While I found this article interesting, ...


We according the the news the morning, the increased taxes
(overall) do not occur until you get to 250,000 or some such number,
well above my income and the income of any taxpayer who would be
classified as middle income.

How about taking this somewhere where it's ON TOPIC?

In article 99110DDA95D142AB98140345D4658AB2@MomsNewComputer ,
"Coleah" wrote:

October 27, 2008

Senator Obama's Four Tax Increases for People Earning Under $250k

By Ned Barnett

snip

I've worked as the state level media and strategy director on three
Presidential election campaigns

Gee, I wonder whose campaigns he worked for. Funny he doesn't tell us.
In fact, he doesn't even say on his Web site. What's he hiding?

For a married family, filing jointly and earning $75,000 a year, this
increase will be $3,074.

He's lying here. Obama will _save_ this family at least $1,000. This guy
is not taking into account the new tax credits that Obama is calling
for. Among those credits are the ³Making Work Pay² credit (a refundable
$500 for workers or $1,000 for working couples) and a 10% refundable
credit to offset mortgage interest payments.

For those making just $50,000, this increase will be $1,512.

Wrong. They'll save at least $1,000.

Despite Senator Obama's claim, even struggling American
families making just $25,000 a year will see a tax increase -- they'll
pay $715 more in 2010 than they did in 2007.

Wrong again. A family of three earning $20,000 will save $1,619.

snip

Check this for yourself.

Yeah, check for yourself with the calculator at
http://taxcut.barackobama.com/

snip

Senator Obama is willfully deceiving you and me when he says that no one
making under $250,000 will see an increase in their taxes. If I were
keeping score, I'd call that Tax Lie #1.

So far, the author has completely misrepresented Obama's tax plan. If I
were keeping score, I'd call that Barnett Lie #1.

The next loophole involves the payroll tax that you pay to support the
Social Security system. Currently, there is an inflation-adjusted cap,
and according to the non-profit Tax Foundation, in 2006 -- the most
recent year for which tax data is available -- only the first $94,700 of
an unmarried individual's earnings were subject to the 12.4 percent
payroll tax. However, Senator Obama has proposed lifting that cap,
adding an additional 12.4 percent tax on every dollar earned above that
cap -- and in spite of his promise, impacting all those who earn between
$94,700 and $249,999.

Obama does _not_ support lifting the cap on FICA. His plan is to
increase the tax on those making over $250,000 by 2 to 4 percentage
points more in total (combined employer and employee).

snip

This "explanation" sounds like another one of those loopholes. If I were
keeping score, I'd call this Tax Lie #2.

Lie #2 goes to Barnett.

Senator Obama has also said that he will raise capital gains taxes from
15 percent to 20 percent. He says he's aiming at "fat cats" who make
above $250,000. However, while only 1 percent of Americans make a
quarter-million dollars, roughly 50 percent of all Americans have
capital investments -- through IRAs, 401Ks, in pension plans and in
personal portfolios. Most of that half of all Americans will feel this
rise in their capital gains taxes.

No, they won't. Any change in the capital gains tax will _not_ affect
IRAs, 401(k)s or other qualified pension plans. The gains in such plans
are not taxed while in the plan, and when withdrawn are taxed at
ordinary income rates.

Also, he's said that any proposed increase will affect only those making
more than $250,000. People earning less than that will pay the current
rate.

No question -- for about 50 percent of all Americans, this is Tax Lie
#3.

Barnett Lie #3.

Finally, Senator Obama has promised to raise taxes on businesses -- and
to raise taxes a lot on oil companies. I still remember Econ-101 -- and
I own a small business. From both theory and practice, I know what
businesses do when taxes are raised. Corporations don't "pay" taxes --
they collect taxes from customers and pass them along to the government.
When you buy a hot dog from a 7/11, you can see the clerk add the sales
tax, but when a corporation's own taxes go up, you don't see it -- its
automatic -- but they do the same thing. They build this tax into their
product's price. Senator Obama knows this. He knows that even people
who earn less than $250,000 will pay higher prices -- those pass-through
taxes -- when corporate taxes go up.

No question: this is Tax Lie #4.

This isn't just a lie, it's also straight out of the Republican bible -
don't tax corporations, shift the burden to the individual taxpayer. As
a result, corporations in this country pay very low taxes due to the
myriad loopholes and exemptions and deductions for corporations..

The people who own corporations should pay their fair share of taxes.

Besides, Obama would exempt small businesses and start-up firms from
capital gains tax, lower tax rates for companies that expand or start
operations in the U.S., offer small businesses tax credits on their
health plan premiums, and generally limit the impact of higher taxes to
big businesses, like the oil companies and those that ship jobs overseas.

snip

If Senator Obama becomes
President Obama, when the tax man comes calling, we will all pay the
price. And that's the truth.

This guy wouldn't know the truth if it bit him in the ass.

--
D.F. Manno |

Corporation: n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit
without individual responsibility. (Ambrose Bierce)

On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 13:02:56 -0700, BobR wrote:
snip

Did YOU notice that the subject was very clear but being a complete
moron you opened and read it anyway just so you could bitch about it.

Isn't Google great.
http://groups.google.com/groups/sear...=Search+Groups

Want me to add your groups to the address so they know what an ass you
are? Then who do you suspect they will call a moron?

Now take it some place else. This political crap has continued too long.
It always involves the stupid that can't read the name of the group.

Any type of repair question is always welcome here. I offer a thanks for
cooperating from the majority of the group, I'm sure.

Very truly yours,
Joe The Usenet Nanny

On Oct 31, 3:42*pm, Joe Doe wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 13:02:56 -0700, BobR wrote:

snip



Did YOU notice that the subject was very clear but being a complete
moron you opened and read it anyway just so you could bitch about it.

Isn't Google great.http://groups.google.com/groups/sear...Creed1%40r-a-r...

Want me to add your groups to the address so they know what an ass you
are? Then who do you suspect they will call a moron?

Now take it some place else. This political crap has continued too long.
It always involves the stupid that can't read the name of the group.

Any type of repair question is always welcome here. I offer a thanks for
cooperating from the majority of the group, I'm sure.

Very truly yours,
Joe The Usenet Nanny

Ok, lets put it on topic....how do you repair of a worn out useless
USNET NANNY?

PS: I don't give a flying flip if you add every usenet group.

In article ,
"D.F. Manno" wrote:


The people who own corporations should pay their fair share of taxes.
You mean the shareholders and the others who are also paying taxes on
the same money as dividends? Of course that could be taken care of by
allowing corps to deduct dividends or allowing shareholders to do the
same.
This is a bipartisan slam since both sides tend to pretend (albeit
from opposite sides of the equation) that corporations exist as
something other than the property of shareholders. If you hit big oil,
you also take a bite out of most pension funds, individual investors,
others who are largely collateral damage.

wrote:
On Oct 31, 1:10 pm, "Coleah" wrote:
[While I found this article interesting, ...


We according the the news the morning, the increased taxes
(overall) do not occur until you get to 250,000 or some such number,
well above my income and the income of any taxpayer who would be
classified as middle income.

Assume a couple in the city of Vallejo (suburb of San Francisco). They've
both been on the job about 25 years. The husband is a cop and he's married
to an elementary school principal - your typical upper-middle-class family.
Their combined salary of $282,000 easily exceeds the 250K threshold.

Cop salary
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1225...googlenews_wsj

Principal salary
http://www.simplyhired.com/a/salary/...+Francisco,+CA

D.F. Manno wrote:
This isn't just a lie, it's also straight out of the Republican bible
- don't tax corporations, shift the burden to the individual
taxpayer. As a result, corporations in this country pay very low
taxes due to the myriad loopholes and exemptions and deductions for
corporations..

The people who own corporations should pay their fair share of taxes.

That's absurd. Of the millions of corporations in this country, only a
handful have specific tax loopholes carved out for them. The rest pay the
second highest corporate tax rate in the world.

In my view, the "fair share" of corporate income tax is ZERO. Distribute the
profits as dividends and tax that as income or, in the reverse, exempt
dividend income from the personal income tax. Otherwise you're taxing money
that's already been taxed. Same with the death tax.

HeyBub wrote:
wrote:
On Oct 31, 1:10 pm, "Coleah" wrote:
[While I found this article interesting, ...

We according the the news the morning, the increased taxes
(overall) do not occur until you get to 250,000 or some such number,
well above my income and the income of any taxpayer who would be
classified as middle income.

Assume a couple in the city of Vallejo (suburb of San Francisco). They've
both been on the job about 25 years. The husband is a cop and he's married
to an elementary school principal - your typical upper-middle-class family.
Their combined salary of $282,000 easily exceeds the 250K threshold.

Cop salary
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1225...googlenews_wsj

Principal salary
http://www.simplyhired.com/a/salary/...+Francisco,+CA


And the cost of living there is what? I'll bet their
expenses in the country of California are a lot higher
than where I'm from. I don't think of their income as
that high for Californiastan. If a cop and a principal
at an elementary school pulled in $282,000 dollars a
year in Alabamastan, there would be an investigation
for criminal activity.

TDD

Kurt Ullman wrote in news:kurtullman-
:

In article ,
"D.F. Manno" wrote:


The people who own corporations should pay their fair share of taxes.
You mean the shareholders and the others who are also paying taxes on
the same money as dividends? Of course that could be taken care of by
allowing corps to deduct dividends or allowing shareholders to do the
same.
This is a bipartisan slam since both sides tend to pretend (albeit
from opposite sides of the equation) that corporations exist as
something other than the property of shareholders. If you hit big oil,
you also take a bite out of most pension funds, individual investors,
others who are largely collateral damage.


Lastest reports have that $250K figure chopped to $120K ...by DemocRAT
Senators.
Considering all the lies and evasions from the Obama campaign,it's clear
you can't trust them.

Lies; to accept only public campaign financing
2nd Amendment "support"
Ayers is "just a guy who lives down the street"
"I was not connected to ACORN"
Obama:I'm not a Marxist.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

"HeyBub" writes:

Same with the death tax.

Funny thing about the "death tax",
the person paying the tax isn't actually dead.


There are politics groups on Usenet.

Did you read the article????


-----Original Message-----
From: ]
Posted At: Friday, October 31, 2008 3:04 PM
Posted To: alt.home.repair
Conversation: Senator Obama's Four Tax Increases for People Earning
Under $250k
Subject: Senator Obama's Four Tax Increases for People Earning Under
$250k

On Oct 31, 1:10 pm, "Coleah" wrote:
[While I found this article interesting, ...


We according the the news the morning, the increased taxes
(overall) do not occur until you get to 250,000 or some such number,
well above my income and the income of any taxpayer who would be
classified as middle income.
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.8.4/1754 - Release Date:
10/31/2008 8:22 AM

Did you read the article??????
It is not about Obama's 'plan'....

-----Original Message-----
From: D.F. Manno ]
Posted At: Friday, October 31, 2008 3:35 PM
Posted To: alt.home.repair
Conversation: Senator Obama's Four Tax Increases for People Earning
Under $250k
Subject: Senator Obama's Four Tax Increases for People Earning Under
$250k

In article 99110DDA95D142AB98140345D4658AB2@MomsNewComputer ,
"Coleah" wrote:

October 27, 2008

Senator Obama's Four Tax Increases for People Earning Under $250k

By Ned Barnett

snip

I've worked as the state level media and strategy director on three
Presidential election campaigns

Gee, I wonder whose campaigns he worked for. Funny he doesn't tell us.
In fact, he doesn't even say on his Web site. What's he hiding?

For a married family, filing jointly and earning $75,000 a year, this
increase will be $3,074.

He's lying here. Obama will _save_ this family at least $1,000. This guy
is not taking into account the new tax credits that Obama is calling
for. Among those credits are the ³Making Work Pay² credit (a refundable
$500 for workers or $1,000 for working couples) and a 10% refundable
credit to offset mortgage interest payments.

For those making just $50,000, this increase will be $1,512.

Wrong. They'll save at least $1,000.

Despite Senator Obama's claim, even struggling American
families making just $25,000 a year will see a tax increase -- they'll
pay $715 more in 2010 than they did in 2007.

Wrong again. A family of three earning $20,000 will save $1,619.

snip

Check this for yourself.

Yeah, check for yourself with the calculator at
http://taxcut.barackobama.com/

snip

Senator Obama is willfully deceiving you and me when he says that no
one
making under $250,000 will see an increase in their taxes. If I were
keeping score, I'd call that Tax Lie #1.

So far, the author has completely misrepresented Obama's tax plan. If I
were keeping score, I'd call that Barnett Lie #1.

The next loophole involves the payroll tax that you pay to support the
Social Security system. Currently, there is an inflation-adjusted cap,
and according to the non-profit Tax Foundation, in 2006 -- the most
recent year for which tax data is available -- only the first $94,700
of
an unmarried individual's earnings were subject to the 12.4 percent
payroll tax. However, Senator Obama has proposed lifting that cap,
adding an additional 12.4 percent tax on every dollar earned above
that
cap -- and in spite of his promise, impacting all those who earn
between
$94,700 and $249,999.

Obama does _not_ support lifting the cap on FICA. His plan is to
increase the tax on those making over $250,000 by 2 to 4 percentage
points more in total (combined employer and employee).

snip

This "explanation" sounds like another one of those loopholes. If I
were
keeping score, I'd call this Tax Lie #2.

Lie #2 goes to Barnett.

Senator Obama has also said that he will raise capital gains taxes
from
15 percent to 20 percent. He says he's aiming at "fat cats" who make
above $250,000. However, while only 1 percent of Americans make a
quarter-million dollars, roughly 50 percent of all Americans have
capital investments -- through IRAs, 401Ks, in pension plans and in
personal portfolios. Most of that half of all Americans will feel this
rise in their capital gains taxes.

No, they won't. Any change in the capital gains tax will _not_ affect
IRAs, 401(k)s or other qualified pension plans. The gains in such plans
are not taxed while in the plan, and when withdrawn are taxed at
ordinary income rates.

Also, he's said that any proposed increase will affect only those making
more than $250,000. People earning less than that will pay the current
rate.

No question -- for about 50 percent of all Americans, this is Tax Lie
#3.

Barnett Lie #3.

Finally, Senator Obama has promised to raise taxes on businesses --
and
to raise taxes a lot on oil companies. I still remember Econ-101 --
and
I own a small business. From both theory and practice, I know what
businesses do when taxes are raised. Corporations don't "pay"
taxes --
they collect taxes from customers and pass them along to the
government.
When you buy a hot dog from a 7/11, you can see the clerk add the
sales
tax, but when a corporation's own taxes go up, you don't see it -- its
automatic -- but they do the same thing. They build this tax into
their
product's price. Senator Obama knows this. He knows that even people
who earn less than $250,000 will pay higher prices -- those
pass-through
taxes -- when corporate taxes go up.

No question: this is Tax Lie #4.

This isn't just a lie, it's also straight out of the Republican bible -
don't tax corporations, shift the burden to the individual taxpayer. As
a result, corporations in this country pay very low taxes due to the
myriad loopholes and exemptions and deductions for corporations..

The people who own corporations should pay their fair share of taxes.

Besides, Obama would exempt small businesses and start-up firms from
capital gains tax, lower tax rates for companies that expand or start
operations in the U.S., offer small businesses tax credits on their
health plan premiums, and generally limit the impact of higher taxes to
big businesses, like the oil companies and those that ship jobs
overseas.

snip

If Senator Obama becomes
President Obama, when the tax man comes calling, we will all pay the
price. And that's the truth.

This guy wouldn't know the truth if it bit him in the ass.

--
D.F. Manno |

Corporation: n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit
without individual responsibility. (Ambrose Bierce)
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.8.4/1754 - Release Date:
10/31/2008 8:22 AM

"Coleah" wrote in message
news:F498F09408D94950812F8D317D861E09@MomsNewCompu ter...
Did you read the article????

Their minds are made up. Don't confuse them with the facts.

--
js

A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the
support of Paul. ----George Bernard Shaw

The Daring Dufas wrote:
HeyBub wrote:
wrote:
On Oct 31, 1:10 pm, "Coleah" wrote:
[While I found this article interesting, ...

We according the the news the morning, the increased taxes
(overall) do not occur until you get to 250,000 or some such number,
well above my income and the income of any taxpayer who would be
classified as middle income.

Assume a couple in the city of Vallejo (suburb of San Francisco).
They've both been on the job about 25 years. The husband is a cop
and he's married to an elementary school principal - your typical
upper-middle-class family. Their combined salary of $282,000 easily
exceeds the 250K threshold. Cop salary
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1225...googlenews_wsj

Principal salary
http://www.simplyhired.com/a/salary/...+Francisco,+CA


And the cost of living there is what? I'll bet their
expenses in the country of California are a lot higher
than where I'm from. I don't think of their income as
that high for Californiastan. If a cop and a principal
at an elementary school pulled in $282,000 dollars a
year in Alabamastan, there would be an investigation
for criminal activity.


You make a good observation, but federal taxes don't take into account local
costs of living. I suppose if the middle-class folks in San Francisco or
Boston or New York get hit with a tax increase...

wrote:
More off topic ****ing politics from some asshole who dont understand
how to use the newsgroups. A complaint has been issued about the
abuser "Coleah" and sent to

alt.home.repair is NOT a political newsgroup!

It is now.


Once again......
alt.home.repair is NOT a political newsgroup!

Once again. It is now.


PLONK

Patience, cricket, it'll all be over on Tuesday. Then folks can get back to
posting queries on how to deal with damage done by rioters...

HeyBub wrote:
The Daring Dufas wrote:
HeyBub wrote:
wrote:
On Oct 31, 1:10 pm, "Coleah" wrote:
[While I found this article interesting, ...
We according the the news the morning, the increased taxes
(overall) do not occur until you get to 250,000 or some such number,
well above my income and the income of any taxpayer who would be
classified as middle income.
Assume a couple in the city of Vallejo (suburb of San Francisco).
They've both been on the job about 25 years. The husband is a cop
and he's married to an elementary school principal - your typical
upper-middle-class family. Their combined salary of $282,000 easily
exceeds the 250K threshold. Cop salary
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1225...googlenews_wsj

Principal salary
http://www.simplyhired.com/a/salary/...+Francisco,+CA


And the cost of living there is what? I'll bet their
expenses in the country of California are a lot higher
than where I'm from. I don't think of their income as
that high for Californiastan. If a cop and a principal
at an elementary school pulled in $282,000 dollars a
year in Alabamastan, there would be an investigation
for criminal activity.


You make a good observation, but federal taxes don't take into account local
costs of living. I suppose if the middle-class folks in San Francisco or
Boston or New York get hit with a tax increase...


That's why a consumption or sales tax is better. Like
what's called The Fair Tax. The only problem I have with
that proposal is "the prebate". I asked one of the people
who was promoting the plan "Who will administrate this
prebate?". His answer was The Social Security Administration.
Geez! That herd of Affirmative Action bureaucrats
electronically kills thousands of American citizens every
year and those killed on paper, as it were, have one hell
of a time getting their life back. That's who he said would
administer the program. What we need is some sort of national
sales tax and nothing else. It has to be low enough so that
people won't try to evade it. You pay your tax when you buy
something new at retail and that's it. No more government
intrusion into your life but the powers to be don't want to
give up control over you.

TDD

In article ,
Dan Espen wrote:

"HeyBub" writes:

Same with the death tax.

Funny thing about the "death tax",
the person paying the tax isn't actually dead.


Of course it is. The tax isn't paid by those who are inheriting
it is paid by the estate of the dead dude.

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Dan Espen wrote:

"HeyBub" writes:

Same with the death tax.

Funny thing about the "death tax",
the person paying the tax isn't actually dead.


Of course it is. The tax isn't paid by those who are inheriting
it is paid by the estate of the dead dude.

And the IRS does not care what you have to do to come up with the cash to
pay it if you inherit property or a business. Many a family had to sell
their house and move or sell a business to raise the cash. Proper planning
is essential if you have a decent sized estate.

In article ,
"Ed Pawlowski" wrote:

"
And the IRS does not care what you have to do to come up with the cash to
pay it if you inherit property or a business. Many a family had to sell
their house and move or sell a business to raise the cash. Proper planning
is essential if you have a decent sized estate.

Why should it be? I think 2/3 of the tax code isn't to collect money
for the government, but to collect money for insurance agents, CPAs,
etc.

The Daring Dufas wrote:

That's why a consumption or sales tax is better. Like
what's called The Fair Tax. The only problem I have with
that proposal is "the prebate". I asked one of the people
who was promoting the plan "Who will administrate this
prebate?". His answer was The Social Security Administration.
Geez! That herd of Affirmative Action bureaucrats
electronically kills thousands of American citizens every
year and those killed on paper, as it were, have one hell
of a time getting their life back. That's who he said would
administer the program. What we need is some sort of national
sales tax and nothing else. It has to be low enough so that
people won't try to evade it. You pay your tax when you buy
something new at retail and that's it. No more government
intrusion into your life but the powers to be don't want to
give up control over you.


I like your idea of the Fair Tax.

Many years ago, during the McGovern campaign, I came up with the Fair-Fair
Tax. Take the budget of the United States and divide it by the number of
folks in the country. Let's say that comes to $10,000 per person. Each
person, then, has to pay $10,000 per year in taxes. I tried to work out the
difficulties with this new plan.

In the case of a poor person who doesn't have $10,000, I figured that person
could donate one unit of blood plasma per month (at $1,000 credit per unit)
for ten months and have their tax bill for the year paid. Sort of like the
current withholding plan.

But what about the 20-year old mother of four? She couldn't donate FIVE
units of plasma and taking blood from her children would be cruel. Well, she
could donate a kidney. The credit awarded for that donation could easily
cover her and her brood for five years. After five years, she could donate a
cornea and get five years more credit.

At the end of that time, her eldest would be out making babies and she could
drop back to the blood plasma routine.

On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 21:07:26 -0500, Coleah wrote:

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxx

Did you read the article??????
It is not about Obama's 'plan'....

-----Original Message-----
From: D.F. Manno ]
Posted At: Friday, October 31, 2008 3:35 PM
Posted To: alt.home.repair
Conversation: Senator Obama's Four Tax Increases for People Earning
Under $250k
Subject: Senator Obama's Four Tax Increases for People Earning Under
$250k

In article 99110DDA95D142AB98140345D4658AB2@MomsNewComputer ,
"Coleah" wrote:

October 27, 2008

Senator Obama's Four Tax Increases for People Earning Under $250k

By Ned Barnett

snip

I've worked as the state level media and strategy director on three
Presidential election campaigns

Gee, I wonder whose campaigns he worked for. Funny he doesn't tell us.
In fact, he doesn't even say on his Web site. What's he hiding?

For a married family, filing jointly and earning $75,000 a year, this
increase will be $3,074.

He's lying here. Obama will _save_ this family at least $1,000. This guy
is not taking into account the new tax credits that Obama is calling
for. Among those credits are the ³Making Work Pay² credit (a refundable
$500 for workers or $1,000 for working couples) and a 10% refundable
credit to offset mortgage interest payments.

For those making just $50,000, this increase will be $1,512.

Wrong. They'll save at least $1,000.

Despite Senator Obama's claim, even struggling American
families making just $25,000 a year will see a tax increase -- they'll
pay $715 more in 2010 than they did in 2007.

Wrong again. A family of three earning $20,000 will save $1,619.

snip

Check this for yourself.

Yeah, check for yourself with the calculator at
http://taxcut.barackobama.com/

snip

Senator Obama is willfully deceiving you and me when he says that no
one
making under $250,000 will see an increase in their taxes. If I were
keeping score, I'd call that Tax Lie #1.

So far, the author has completely misrepresented Obama's tax plan. If I
were keeping score, I'd call that Barnett Lie #1.

The next loophole involves the payroll tax that you pay to support the
Social Security system. Currently, there is an inflation-adjusted cap,
and according to the non-profit Tax Foundation, in 2006 -- the most
recent year for which tax data is available -- only the first $94,700
of
an unmarried individual's earnings were subject to the 12.4 percent
payroll tax. However, Senator Obama has proposed lifting that cap,
adding an additional 12.4 percent tax on every dollar earned above
that
cap -- and in spite of his promise, impacting all those who earn
between
$94,700 and $249,999.

Obama does _not_ support lifting the cap on FICA. His plan is to
increase the tax on those making over $250,000 by 2 to 4 percentage
points more in total (combined employer and employee).

snip

This "explanation" sounds like another one of those loopholes. If I
were
keeping score, I'd call this Tax Lie #2.

Lie #2 goes to Barnett.

Senator Obama has also said that he will raise capital gains taxes
from
15 percent to 20 percent. He says he's aiming at "fat cats" who make
above $250,000. However, while only 1 percent of Americans make a
quarter-million dollars, roughly 50 percent of all Americans have
capital investments -- through IRAs, 401Ks, in pension plans and in
personal portfolios. Most of that half of all Americans will feel this
rise in their capital gains taxes.

No, they won't. Any change in the capital gains tax will _not_ affect
IRAs, 401(k)s or other qualified pension plans. The gains in such plans
are not taxed while in the plan, and when withdrawn are taxed at
ordinary income rates.

Also, he's said that any proposed increase will affect only those making
more than $250,000. People earning less than that will pay the current
rate.

No question -- for about 50 percent of all Americans, this is Tax Lie
#3.

Barnett Lie #3.

Finally, Senator Obama has promised to raise taxes on businesses --
and
to raise taxes a lot on oil companies. I still remember Econ-101 --
and
I own a small business. From both theory and practice, I know what
businesses do when taxes are raised. Corporations don't "pay"
taxes --
they collect taxes from customers and pass them along to the
government.
When you buy a hot dog from a 7/11, you can see the clerk add the
sales
tax, but when a corporation's own taxes go up, you don't see it -- its
automatic -- but they do the same thing. They build this tax into
their
product's price. Senator Obama knows this. He knows that even people
who earn less than $250,000 will pay higher prices -- those
pass-through
taxes -- when corporate taxes go up.

No question: this is Tax Lie #4.

This isn't just a lie, it's also straight out of the Republican bible -
don't tax corporations, shift the burden to the individual taxpayer. As
a result, corporations in this country pay very low taxes due to the
myriad loopholes and exemptions and deductions for corporations..

The people who own corporations should pay their fair share of taxes.

Besides, Obama would exempt small businesses and start-up firms from
capital gains tax, lower tax rates for companies that expand or start
operations in the U.S., offer small businesses tax credits on their
health plan premiums, and generally limit the impact of higher taxes to
big businesses, like the oil companies and those that ship jobs
overseas.

snip

If Senator Obama becomes
President Obama, when the tax man comes calling, we will all pay the
price. And that's the truth.

This guy wouldn't know the truth if it bit him in the ass.

--
D.F. Manno |

Corporation: n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit
without individual responsibility. (Ambrose Bierce)
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.8.4/1754 - Release Date:
10/31/2008 8:22 AM

Kurt Ullman wrote in
:

In article ,
"Ed Pawlowski" wrote:

"
And the IRS does not care what you have to do to come up with the
cash to pay it if you inherit property or a business. Many a family
had to sell their house and move or sell a business to raise the
cash. Proper planning is essential if you have a decent sized
estate.

Why should it be? I think 2/3 of the tax code isn't to collect
money
for the government, but to collect money for insurance agents, CPAs,
etc.


the "death tax" is not about collecting revenue,it's about bringing wealthy
people back down to ordinary levels.
Not letting people pass on their accumulated wealth.


That wealth has already been taxed,thru income and capital gains taxes.
(probably twice-taxed.)

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 13:04:56 -0700, "Suzy"
wrote:

How about taking this somewhere where it's ON TOPIC?


Then he would have to ask "Joe the Plumber" for some
butt-crack spackle--and Joe does not seem to be the
"sharing" type (does he?).

HeyBub wrote:
The Daring Dufas wrote:
That's why a consumption or sales tax is better. Like
what's called The Fair Tax. The only problem I have with
that proposal is "the prebate". I asked one of the people
who was promoting the plan "Who will administrate this
prebate?". His answer was The Social Security Administration.
Geez! That herd of Affirmative Action bureaucrats
electronically kills thousands of American citizens every
year and those killed on paper, as it were, have one hell
of a time getting their life back. That's who he said would
administer the program. What we need is some sort of national
sales tax and nothing else. It has to be low enough so that
people won't try to evade it. You pay your tax when you buy
something new at retail and that's it. No more government
intrusion into your life but the powers to be don't want to
give up control over you.


I like your idea of the Fair Tax.

Many years ago, during the McGovern campaign, I came up with the Fair-Fair
Tax. Take the budget of the United States and divide it by the number of
folks in the country. Let's say that comes to $10,000 per person. Each
person, then, has to pay $10,000 per year in taxes. I tried to work out the
difficulties with this new plan.

In the case of a poor person who doesn't have $10,000, I figured that person
could donate one unit of blood plasma per month (at $1,000 credit per unit)
for ten months and have their tax bill for the year paid. Sort of like the
current withholding plan.

But what about the 20-year old mother of four? She couldn't donate FIVE
units of plasma and taking blood from her children would be cruel. Well, she
could donate a kidney. The credit awarded for that donation could easily
cover her and her brood for five years. After five years, she could donate a
cornea and get five years more credit.

At the end of that time, her eldest would be out making babies and she could
drop back to the blood plasma routine.


I think someone worked that one out already.
Soylent Green:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soylent_Green

TDD

Kurt Ullman writes:

In article ,
Dan Espen wrote:

"HeyBub" writes:

Same with the death tax.

Funny thing about the "death tax",
the person paying the tax isn't actually dead.


Of course it is. The tax isn't paid by those who are inheriting
it is paid by the estate of the dead dude.

I stand corrected.

According to this page:

http://www.willsandprobate.com/FAQ/i...nce-estate.htm

The US has an Estate Tax and no Inheritance Tax.

According to this page:

http://www.willsandprobate.com/FAQ/estate-tax.htm

Only the extremely rich that wish to pass on huge fortunes intact
would be worried about this issue.

Personally, I know too many people that have inherited large
fortunes that have completely ruined their lives. Not that
I favor the government using taxes to impose social policy.

Still, the tax is assessed against the estate but the only
meaningful impact is on the heirs, which are, after all,
alive.

(Well, at least this isn't exactly politics.)

In article ,
Dan Espen wrote:

K
The US has an Estate Tax and no Inheritance Tax.

According to this page:

http://www.willsandprobate.com/FAQ/estate-tax.htm

Only the extremely rich that wish to pass on huge fortunes intact
would be worried about this issue.

Personally, I know too many people that have inherited large
fortunes that have completely ruined their lives. Not that
I favor the government using taxes to impose social policy.


Yet with the "extremely rich" "pass on huge fortunes" and many people
who have had their lives ruined, sounds like you are edging toward the
social policy part.
Many of the "extremely" rich are those who have started a company,
been successful and now want to not have to sell it from the family for
tax purposes. Know, in the old days before the phase out started, a few
big farmers who had to sell out upon their death to pay for the estate
taxes. But it is convenient for some to pretend that they are all just
Rockefellers, etc (or Kennedy) who sit around and clip coupons. Many of
those getting stuck were first generation wealthy. By the time you get a
couple of generations in, you are pretty adept at avoiding estate taxes.

Dan Espen wrote:
Kurt Ullman writes:

In article ,
Dan Espen wrote:

"HeyBub" writes:

Same with the death tax.
Funny thing about the "death tax",
the person paying the tax isn't actually dead.

Of course it is. The tax isn't paid by those who are inheriting
it is paid by the estate of the dead dude.

I stand corrected.

According to this page:

http://www.willsandprobate.com/FAQ/i...nce-estate.htm

The US has an Estate Tax and no Inheritance Tax.

According to this page:

http://www.willsandprobate.com/FAQ/estate-tax.htm

Only the extremely rich that wish to pass on huge fortunes intact
would be worried about this issue.


Actually they don't need to worry. One might wonder why a smart,
conservative, business minded guy like Warren Buffet would support
Obama. That is because the bulk of the businesses held by BRK are
insurance companies. If elected Obama will need to greatly raise taxes
to pay for his socialist agenda. Wealthy folks can buy insurance
policies to pass on their estates without tax consequences since
proceeds from insurance are considered outside of the estate for tax
purposes.



Personally, I know too many people that have inherited large
fortunes that have completely ruined their lives. Not that
I favor the government using taxes to impose social policy.

Still, the tax is assessed against the estate but the only
meaningful impact is on the heirs, which are, after all,
alive.

(Well, at least this isn't exactly politics.)

The Daring Dufas wrote:


I think someone worked that one out already.
Soylent Green:


Oh well then. Never mind.

Gerald Abrahamson wrote in
:

On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 13:04:56 -0700, "Suzy"
wrote:

How about taking this somewhere where it's ON TOPIC?


Then he would have to ask "Joe the Plumber" for some
butt-crack spackle--and Joe does not seem to be the
"sharing" type (does he?).


who likes being FORCED to "share"?

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net