Taxes - McCain vs Obama

[Erin]

I received this email this morning. I can''t find anywhere to prove or disprove. Any help?


This is not idle e-mail chatter, but actual facts from the candidates'' campaign speeches. When put into print, it becomes more of a reality...not just idle
campaign blabbering. Proposed Changes In Taxes After 2008 General Election:


CAPITAL GAINS TAX
McCAIN - 15% (no change)
OBAMA - Increase to: 28%
How does this affect you? If you sell your home and make a profit, you will pay
28% of your gain on taxes. If you are heading toward retirement and would like
to down-size your home or move into aretirement community, 28% of the money you
make from your home will go to taxes. This proposal will adversely affect the
elderly who are counting on the income from their homes as part of their
retirement income.

DIVIDEND TAX

McCAIN - 15% (no change)
OBAMA - Increase to: 39.6%
How will this affect you? If you have any money invested in stock market, IRA,
mutual funds, college funds, life insurance, retirement accounts, or anything that
pays or reinvests dividends, you will now be paying nearly 40% of the money earned
on taxes if Obama becomes president. The experts predict that ''Higher tax rates on
dividends and capital gains would crash the stock market yet do absolutely nothing to
cut the deficit.''

INCOME TAX

McCAIN - (no changes)
Single making 30K - tax $4,500
Single making 50K - tax $12,500
Single making 75K - tax $18,750
Married making 60K- tax $9,000
Married making 75K - tax $18,750
Married making 125K - tax $31,250

OBAMA - Increase to:

Single making 30K - tax $8,400
Single making 50K - tax $14,000
Single making 75K - tax $23,250
Married making 60K - tax $16,800
Married making 75K - tax $21,000
Married making 125K - tax $38,750
How does this affect you? No explanation needed.

INHERITANCE TAX

McCain - 0% (No change, this tax has been repealed.)

OBAMA - keep the inheritance tax.

How does this affect you? Many families have lost businesses, farms and ranches,
and homes that have been in their families for generations because they could
not afford the inheritance tax.

TAXES BEING PROPOSED BY OBAMA

* New government taxes proposed on homes that are more than 2400 square feet.

* New gasoline taxes (as if gas weren''t high enough already).

* New taxes on natural resources consumption (heating gas, water, electricity).

* New taxes on retirement accounts, and last but not least....

* New taxes to pay for socialized medicine so we can receive the same level of medical care as other third-world countries!!!

Just think about it before you vote; it is your money!!!

 

[tanuki]

Why should I trust what you are saying based on the above post?

Please look over Obama''s economic plan and provide specific quotes and citations for your claims.

I am specifically inclined to disbelieve you.

 

[NewEnglandLady]

The first two taxes (capital gains and dividend) are pretty well known in his campaign. They've been quoted pretty frequently, but I'll post a couple of quotes here.

"As part of his 'Tax Fairness for the Middle Class' plan, Barack Obama is in favor of nearly doubling the capital-gains tax rate from 15 percent to 28 percent." – U.S. News and World Report

"Mr. Obama is not only proposing raising the capital gains and dividend tax to 25% but will allow much of the Bush tax cuts to expire, including allowing the top individual income tax rate to return to 39.6%." – The Sun (New York)

His income tax structure is debateable because everything I've read points that he only wants to tax the wealthy--I feel that www.taxfoundation.org has a good snapshot of his tax plan, but basically this is what I've heard/read about his income plan:

"In short, the Obama plan would redistribute more than $131 billion per year from the top 1 percent of taxpayers to all other taxpayers. In 2009, for example, Tax Policy Center figures show that after the income-shifting in the Obama plan, the top 1 percent of taxpayers would pay a greater share of the total federal tax burden than the bottom 80 percent of Americans combined. In other words, 1.13 million Americans would pay more in all federal taxes than 128 million of their fellow citizens combined."

One thing Starset didn't mention is his suggested increase on Social Security tax. Starset, thanks for posting, I know that you've done a great job of getting info on both sides of the fence, which I think is great.

We all have our own views about taxes--the amount, how they should be used, who should be taxed, but (obviously) it's important to know where they both stand.

 

[KCCutie]

Date: 7/16/2008 9:16:59 AM
Author: tanuki
Why should I trust what you are saying based on the above post?

Please look over Obama's economic plan and provide specific quotes and citations for your claims.


I am specifically inclined to disbelieve you.

I think Starset doesn't really believe this either and is hoping that if we have seen facts to support or disprove this information that we will share it.

I'd like to know too....time to do some digging of my own.

 

[jcrow]

Date: 7/16/2008 11:03:21 AM
Author: KCCutie

Date: 7/16/2008 9:16:59 AM

Author: tanuki

Why should I trust what you are saying based on the above post?

Please look over Obama''s economic plan and provide specific quotes and citations for your claims.

I am specifically inclined to disbelieve you.

I think Starset doesn''t really believe this either and is hoping that if we have seen facts to support or disprove this information that we will share it.

I''d like to know too....time to do some digging of my own.

ditto.

 

[NewEnglandLady]

haha, I don''t think anybody''s arguing that Obama wants to increase taxes--no matter how you slice it, that''s not a debate.

 

[tanuki]

The problem I have is that I don't understand why it becomes MY job to go thru Obama's plan and find the quote where the specific existing exemption for capital gains taxes on the sale of one's primary residence up to a gain in the amount of $500,000 is proposed to be discontinued (which is what the post says) - since there is no evidence that such a plan exists (and the above post specifically states that it is in the plan) - it causes me to waste my time proving a negative. Meanwhile the above poster has forwarded this misinformation to however many hundred forums they can find.

If there is a line in Obama's plan where college savings up to $235,000 per child are now going to be taxed while they are in the 529, UGMA, or Coverdell plans that currently exist I would expect that someone putting this information out on the internet should be able to provide the proof.

If you can't find the proof in Obama's specific plan then I have to assume you are just maliciously spreading misinformation on the internet.

It is just as easy for you to check your facts before you spread a bunch of foolishness as it is for the readers of whatever forum you put them on as for me to have to to clean up the mess.

And as long as we are talking about paying as we go or borrowing more money (which is how I see the Obama Plan vs the McCain plan) - how large do you think the National Debt would be at the end of 4 years under McCain's plan?

 

[Erin]

I thought the sale of your primary residence was exempt from the capital gains tax listed above as a reference. I also thought transactions in tax-exempt account were tax-exempt unless you are living off the dividend interest of stocks which you own outside of a tax deferred account (IRA, 401K). Before the Bush administration, dividends were taxed like normal income, with the rate for the wealthiest taxpayers reaching 39.6 percent. President Bush cut the tax rates on dividends to 15 percent, the same as capital gains taxes. Obama has said he will let the dividends tax cut expire so that dividends will be taxed at the same rate as normal income.

From what I've read Obama's economic plan would result in pretty much everyone in the bands quoted in the email paying less tax than McCain's. Plus, they actually have some services, whereas McCain can only meet his promise to balance the books by slashing non-military discretionary spending to almost zero.

Since taxes are such a complicated structure I was hoping someone more informed than I could succinctly put my suspicions to rest. Obama's website does not provide specific data tables to counter this EMAIL I RECEIVED. I have posted in other political threads and am by no means a malicious smear spreader.

Could you be any more grouchy with me?

Washington Post http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/06/09/ST2008060900950.html

 

[Ninama]

Tanuki.. the "This is not idle e-mail chatter, but actual facts " statement is from the email, not the OP. I would have put it in quotes and italicized it for distinction, but still...

I really wouldn''t take this so personally. SP asked for help, which you''re not obligated to provide. Based on SP''s avatar and signature, I''m assuming she''s an Obama supporter.

 

[LAJennifer]

The email is false (though there is some truth to some of it). Seems like no significantly large increases unless your family makes more than $250K a year, or if you will be receiving an inheritance.

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/would_obama_tax_my_profits_if_i.html

 

[Dancing Fire]

i''ll vote for the guy whom will tax me the least.

 

[mrs jam]

Date: 7/16/2008 8:29:52 PM
Author: Dancing Fire
i''ll vote for the guy whom will tax me the least.

Ditto. For this election, I''m a single-issue voter. Whichever one of these doofuses who will hurt me the least in the pocketbook is the one who will get my vote.

The inheritance tax makes my blood boil.

 

[LAJennifer]

Date: 7/16/2008 8:50:49 PM
Author: mrs jam

Date: 7/16/2008 8:29:52 PM
Author: Dancing Fire
i''ll vote for the guy whom will tax me the least.

Ditto. For this election, I''m a single-issue voter. Whichever one of these doofuses who will hurt me the least in the pocketbook is the one who will get my vote.

The inheritance tax makes my blood boil.

Same here.

 

[MoonWater]

I posted this a while ago in the Obama thread about their tax plans:

http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/11/news/economy/candidates_taxproposals_tpc/?postversion=2008061111

If I understand the side by side comparison correctly, I prefer Obama's plan.

 

[Miranda]

Date: 7/16/2008 8:50:49 PM
Author: mrs jam

Date: 7/16/2008 8:29:52 PM
Author: Dancing Fire
i''ll vote for the guy whom will tax me the least.

Ditto. For this election, I''m a single-issue voter. Whichever one of these doofuses who will hurt me the least in the pocketbook is the one who will get my vote.

The inheritance tax makes my blood boil.

Meeee too! I don''t mind paying taxes. My beef is with the waste! I''m not a big fan of most social spending, either. I am well aware that I am in the minority here.

 

[miraclesrule]

What most people don''t understand...well most of the middle class...is that when they discuss these tax cuts or increases, it rarely affects them. Most middle class live off of their earned income, not dividends, not capital gains, and not inheritance. So, the majority of working Americans will have a slight, not moderate, increase in their income taxes. Or maybe I have the whole thing confused.

I remember having to look it all up, because I once refused a raise that bumped me into the next tax bracket that would have yielded me less money. I don''t do that deal. The increase had to offset and yield me a bit more than the taxes took away.

We do need to sacrifice a bit if we expect to have the American economy stabilize any time soon. We need to slash the defense budget is what we need to do.

I participate in an annual "Peace of the Pie" campaign where we use a piechart delivered with an American Apple Pie to each congressional office. When you see that visual and the disproportionate funding for Education, State Dept, etc...as opposed to the Defense Dept...or let''s just call it what it really is...the War Dept....it makes you do a double take.

 

[Erin]

I am for Obama''s plan because the lower to lower-middle class are the groups that need relief. When they make $10/hour and are struggling to pay the gas that drives them to their job or buy the cornflakes and milk to feed their kids, I feel they would benefit the most from an extra 2% in their pocket books. People in this country are struggling. I work for a manufacturing plant in Illinois and we have had to lay off people because the economy is not strong enough for people to buy our high end products. This has always been a prosperous company and yet I am watching people struggle. I cannot get on board with a tax program which allows for the biggest tax relief being given to those who don''t live hand to mouth.

 

[NewEnglandLady]

Ah, the "let''s further tax those who are already shouldering the burden of paying 95% of the nation''s taxes and dissuade them from investing in the market INSTEAD of controlling our spending" mentality.

If I ran my household in the same manner as the goverment, we''d be in deep trouble. And if I went to my employer saying "my spending is out of control and I need you to fund it", I''d be fired.

It''s called a budget. Use it.

 

[MoonWater]

For those that have a sense of humor: http://sendables.jibjab.com/sendables/1191/time_for_some_campaignin#/teaser/1191

 

[Selkie]

Just got an email regarding this current topic: FactCheck.org just posted a point by point debunking of that email. It's here: http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/would_obama_tax_my_profits_if_i.html

Regarding sources, the intro states: "Alert readers may already have noted that this chain e-mail does not provide links to any of Obama's actual proposals or cite any sources for the claims it makes. That is because they are made up.This widely distributed message is so full of misinformation that we find it impossible to believe that it is the result of simple ignorance or carelessness on the part of the writer. Almost nothing it says about Obama's tax proposals is true. We conclude that this deception is deliberate.

Our own sources for the following are Obama's own Web site and other statements, interviews with Obama's policy advisers, and a comprehensive analysis of both the McCain and Obama tax plans produced by the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, plus additional sources to which we have provided links."

 

[brazen_irish_hussy]

Date: 7/16/2008 10:03:58 PM
Author: LAJennifer

Date: 7/16/2008 8:50:49 PM
Author: mrs jam

Date: 7/16/2008 8:29:52 PM
Author: Dancing Fire
i''ll vote for the guy whom will tax me the least.

Ditto. For this election, I''m a single-issue voter. Whichever one of these doofuses who will hurt me the least in the pocketbook is the one who will get my vote.

The inheritance tax makes my blood boil.

Same here.

Then stick with Obama. I love his plan to deny tax cuts to companies that outsource to other countries. Although I am moving on, my job will be in India this time next year and many like it and I work in insurance, a strong white collar job. Companies shouldn''t be rewarded for screwing the American people out of their hard earned jobs.

 

[LAJennifer]

Date: 7/17/2008 6:11:07 PM
Author: Selkie
Just got an email regarding this current topic: FactCheck.org just posted a point by point debunking of that email. It''s here: http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/would_obama_tax_my_profits_if_i.html

Regarding sources, the intro states: ''Alert readers may already have noted that this chain e-mail does not provide links to any of Obama''s actual proposals or cite any sources for the claims it makes. That is because they are made up.This widely distributed message is so full of misinformation that we find it impossible to believe that it is the result of simple ignorance or carelessness on the part of the writer. Almost nothing it says about Obama''s tax proposals is true. We conclude that this deception is deliberate.

Our own sources for the following are Obama''s own Web site and other statements, interviews with Obama''s policy advisers, and a comprehensive analysis of both the McCain and Obama tax plans produced by the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, plus additional sources to which we have provided links.''

Yeah, I posted that exact link in this thread yesterday. Here is another excerpt regarding the Inheritance Tax (since it may apply to several of us here):

Estate Tax. The claim that Obama proposes to "restore the inheritance tax" is also false, as are the claims that McCain would impose zero tax and that Bush "repealed" it. McCain and Obama both would retain a reduced version of the estate tax, as it is correctly called, though McCain would reduce it by more.

The tax now falls only on estates valued at more than $2 million (effectively $4 million for couples able to set up the required legal and financial arrangements). It reaches a maximum rate of 45 percent on amounts more than that. It was not repealed, but it is set to expire temporarily in 2010, then return in 2011, when it would apply to estates valued at more than $1 million ($2 million for couples), with the maximum rate rising to 55 percent.

Obama has proposed to apply the tax only to estates valued at more than $3.5 million ($7 million for couples), holding the maximum rate at 45 percent. McCain would apply it to estates worth more than $5 million ($10 million for couples), with a maximum rate of 15 percent

 

[Miranda]

Date: 7/17/2008 9:49:29 AM
Author: NewEnglandLady
Ah, the ''let''s further tax those who are already shouldering the burden of paying 95% of the nation''s taxes and dissuade them from investing in the market INSTEAD of controlling our spending'' mentality.

If I ran my household in the same manner as the goverment, we''d be in deep trouble. And if I went to my employer saying ''my spending is out of control and I need you to fund it'', I''d be fired.

It''s called a budget. Use it.

Ditto as usual NEL.

DH and I are people who came from the lower tax brackets when we were first married. We are now in the higher brackets. We accomplished this through hard work and diligence. Not relying on the government. We could have qualified for lots of social programs, but, instead we chose to get ourselves ahead. There are opportunities for every single American...Even Illegal Aliens have opportunities in this country! For goodness sake. People need to pull themselves up by their boot straps and learn to take care of themselves. We act as if there''s no choice for these people but to be poor. This Robin Hood mentality makes me crazy!

What we need to do is cut SOCIAL spending in order to have a more balanced budget.

 

[Selkie]

Doh, LAJennifer, that''ll teach me not to read the thread closely!

 

[NewEnglandLady]

Date: 7/17/2008 10:49:41 PM
Author: Miranda

Date: 7/17/2008 9:49:29 AM
Author: NewEnglandLady
Ah, the ''let''s further tax those who are already shouldering the burden of paying 95% of the nation''s taxes and dissuade them from investing in the market INSTEAD of controlling our spending'' mentality.

If I ran my household in the same manner as the goverment, we''d be in deep trouble. And if I went to my employer saying ''my spending is out of control and I need you to fund it'', I''d be fired.

It''s called a budget. Use it.

Ditto as usual NEL.

DH and I are people who came from the lower tax brackets when we were first married. We are now in the higher brackets. We accomplished this through hard work and diligence. Not relying on the government. We could have qualified for lots of social programs, but, instead we chose to get ourselves ahead. There are opportunities for every single American...Even Illegal Aliens have opportunities in this country! For goodness sake. People need to pull themselves up by their boot straps and learn to take care of themselves. We act as if there''s no choice for these people but to be poor. This Robin Hood mentality makes me crazy!

What we need to do is cut SOCIAL spending in order to have a more balanced budget.

I actually think it makes you more aware of how penalized you are when you start from nothing and work really hard to get ahead. DH and I both grew up with nothing and our parents were very similar in that they never took a handout even when available. When we first started out, we made very little, we were just always very fastidious about our budget and worked hard. Now we feel like we are finally doing really well and save/invest every penny we can (we still live like poor college students!).

It sort of feels like you''re surrounded in tax quicksand, huh? The harder you work, the more you get sucked into it.

 

[galeteia]

Date: 7/17/2008 7:49:41 PM
Author: brazen_irish_hussy
Then stick with Obama. I love his plan to deny tax cuts to companies that outsource to other countries. Although I am moving on, my job will be in India this time next year and many like it and I work in insurance, a strong white collar job. Companies shouldn''t be rewarded for screwing the American people out of their hard earned jobs.

HERE, HERE!

 

[iluvcarats]

Date: 7/17/2008 11:33:55 PM
Author: NewEnglandLady

Date: 7/17/2008 10:49:41 PM

Author: Miranda

Date: 7/17/2008 9:49:29 AM

Author: NewEnglandLady

Ah, the ''let''s further tax those who are already shouldering the burden of paying 95% of the nation''s taxes and dissuade them from investing in the market INSTEAD of controlling our spending'' mentality.


If I ran my household in the same manner as the goverment, we''d be in deep trouble. And if I went to my employer saying ''my spending is out of control and I need you to fund it'', I''d be fired.


It''s called a budget. Use it.

Ditto as usual NEL.

DH and I are people who came from the lower tax brackets when we were first married. We are now in the higher brackets. We accomplished this through hard work and diligence. Not relying on the government. We could have qualified for lots of social programs, but, instead we chose to get ourselves ahead. There are opportunities for every single American...Even Illegal Aliens have opportunities in this country! For goodness sake. People need to pull themselves up by their boot straps and learn to take care of themselves. We act as if there''s no choice for these people but to be poor. This Robin Hood mentality makes me crazy!


What we need to do is cut SOCIAL spending in order to have a more balanced budget.

I actually think it makes you more aware of how penalized you are when you start from nothing and work really hard to get ahead. DH and I both grew up with nothing and our parents were very similar in that they never took a handout even when available. When we first started out, we made very little, we were just always very fastidious about our budget and worked hard. Now we feel like we are finally doing really well and save/invest every penny we can (we still live like poor college students!).


It sort of feels like you''re surrounded in tax quicksand, huh? The harder you work, the more you get sucked into it.

Politically I don''t know where I stand, but I do agree with NEL on the tax issues. While 250K is a lot of money, it is not 10 or 20 million or the billions that some people have. This is the wealth that should be redistributed. Taxing those who make 250K is going to take away money from the economy because it will just halt their spending. If I had billions of dollars I think I would keep a million in checking and a billion in savings and give the rest away. I really don''t think that those who make 250K should be in the same tax bracket as Bill Gates.

 

[Rank Amateur]

Date: 7/17/2008 11:36:39 PM
Author: Galateia

Date: 7/17/2008 7:49:41 PM
Author: brazen_irish_hussy
Then stick with Obama. I love his plan to deny tax cuts to companies that outsource to other countries. Although I am moving on, my job will be in India this time next year and many like it and I work in insurance, a strong white collar job. Companies shouldn''t be rewarded for screwing the American people out of their hard earned jobs.

HERE, HERE!

That kind of stuff is easy to write, but it doesn''t hold water. It''s a global marketplace. You are not entitled to your "hard earned" job. Companies attempting to make a profit are not "screwing" the American people. Workers who make too much are cannot compete on the world marketplace are the ones "screwing" the companies they work for. Take a look at General Motors and let me know who is screwing whom. Mis-managemnet along with a bloated UAW has run that company into the ground.

Sometimes there is a correction. The value of the dollar plummets. It becomes more attractive for overseas companies to invest in the States. Toyota has built a couple of billion dollar assembly plants in the States in the last few years and VW just announced a new billion dollar plant of its own in TN. It has nothing to do with "screwing" anyone and everything to do with good business decisions. Michigan WAS in the running for the VW plant, but the UAW scared VW away.

Let the market decide, not the government. If the people want to by made in the USA goods, great. If not you can''t force them.

 

[goldenstar]

Date: 7/17/2008 10:16:51 AM
Author: MoonWater
For those that have a sense of humor: http://sendables.jibjab.com/sendables/1191/time_for_some_campaignin#/teaser/1191

That was AWESOME! I needed a laugh!

 

[miraclesrule]

Date: 7/18/2008 12:44:50 AM
Author: Rank Amateur

Date: 7/17/2008 11:36:39 PM
Author: Galateia

Date: 7/17/2008 7:49:41 PM
Author: brazen_irish_hussy
Then stick with Obama. I love his plan to deny tax cuts to companies that outsource to other countries. Although I am moving on, my job will be in India this time next year and many like it and I work in insurance, a strong white collar job. Companies shouldn''t be rewarded for screwing the American people out of their hard earned jobs.

HERE, HERE!

That kind of stuff is easy to write, but it doesn''t hold water. It''s a global marketplace. You are not entitled to your ''hard earned'' job. Companies attempting to make a profit are not ''screwing'' the American people. Workers who make too much are cannot compete on the world marketplace are the ones ''screwing'' the companies they work for. Take a look at General Motors and let me know who is screwing whom. Mis-managemnet along with a bloated UAW has run that company into the ground.

Sometimes there is a correction. The value of the dollar plummets. It becomes more attractive for overseas companies to invest in the States. Toyota has built a couple of billion dollar assembly plants in the States in the last few years and VW just announced a new billion dollar plant of its own in TN. It has nothing to do with ''screwing'' anyone and everything to do with good business decisions. Michigan WAS in the running for the VW plant, but the UAW scared VW away.

Let the market decide, not the government. If the people want to by made in the USA goods, great. If not you can''t force them.

I have to disagree somewhat with you post on GM. They screwed themselves. Toyota took over one of GM''s closed plants and hired back 85% of the same workforce and was able to turn it around in less than a year to be the top plant.

It didn''t have anything to do with the Union. If you take care of your people, value your employees, develop them and respect them, they don''t unionize. All those former unionized employees that Toyota had hired back, could have easily brought in a union. There was a reason they didn''t and that was because Toyota has a superior production system and taps into the needs of the public and their employees. GM was short-sighted....no...blind even...to the market and global trends. They deserve to go down in a blaze of shame. Good Riddance. They could have and should have been the leader in fuel efficient cars, but instead, they did everything they could to resist it and were in denial. Well, thanks to idiot corporate leaders, a lot of people will lose their jobs, but I think they will be better off because they can go to work for a much better employer....like Toyota.