.
Attachments:

Now THAT is hilarious!

Lopter performing self promotion.

That is hilarious.

Again, what relevance does your comic have in response to what I said?

ZERO

RV if you think I posted the RV got OWNED post your wrong, but that doesn't surprise me.

Oooooooh Yeeeeeah!

That's because I posted it, RV. Now concede before I spill fruit punch all over your 4 sizes too small Fruit-of-the-Loom t-shirt.

Attachments:

Wow, obviously you missed your calling Lopter (as has been pointed out many times by others here). Too bad you don't use your obvious photo manipulation skills for serious work.

You are seriously better than me, I admit it.

Lol.

If not lopter on the sidelines, then possibly voter or some other person that can only post in anonymity since they never say anything of relevance. Keep up the self-stroking though, I know it makes you all feel better. Lol.

Since you referenced me by name, I feel like I have to respond. How, exactly, are you less anonymous than me? Did you post your real name and address somewhere that I missed?

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Wow, obviously you missed your calling Lopter (as
> has been pointed out many times by others here).
> Too bad you don't use your obvious photo
> manipulation skills for serious work.
>
> You are seriously better than me, I admit it.
>
> Lol.
>
> If not lopter on the sidelines, then possibly
> voter or some other person that can only post in
> anonymity since they never say anything of
> relevance. Keep up the self-stroking though, I
> know it makes you all feel better. Lol.

I do not post as Lopter, or under any other name other than my own.




Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Wow, obviously you missed your calling Lopter (as
> has been pointed out many times by others here).
> Too bad you don't use your obvious photo
> manipulation skills for serious work.
>
> You are seriously better than me, I admit it.
>
> Lol.
>
> If not lopter on the sidelines, then possibly
> voter or some other person that can only post in
> anonymity since they never say anything of
> relevance. Keep up the self-stroking though, I
> know it makes you all feel better. Lol.

Yes well, I didn't mention you Meep now did I. I am only speaking of the folks her that aren't registered users such as Voter. Not that I care honestly - I think it is funny when you all post with such informative "names" when you want to make a point.

When you actually register voter, at least it implies you "might" post under the same moniker each time - although there have been indications in the past that you use multiple names as well.

Lopter though is just a troll.

That's it. I don't honestly care other than to point it out. Since Lopter doesn't seem to have anything to do other than post cute pictures - probably based on how he reads his magazines also.

But since I am just intruding on your self-stroking space, I am sure that soon, like many before me - I will get bored with your implied self-importance as well and move on. I am sure you wait with anticipation for the day.

Carry on :)

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Lopter though is just a troll.
>
> That's it. I don't honestly care other than to
> point it out. Since Lopter doesn't seem to have
> anything to do other than post cute pictures -
> probably based on how he reads his magazines
> also.

Register Voter I think you have been listen to much McCain double talk, it's melting you brain. Listen to what you saying, you are a hypocrite.

a) You don't care, but you want to point it out???

b) Lopter doesn't have anything better to do??? Well then you must not have anything better to do either.

After all is said and done the consensus seems to be that most small businesses do probably pull in over $250K. That sounds right to me. Obviously this is an informal and unscientific forum, but I was looking more for a general sense of things, a reality check if you will. Many thanks to the serious and not so serious posters who took the time to address the question or at least to amuse.

Libertarian1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> After all is said and done the consensus seems to
> be that most small businesses do probably pull in
> over $250K. That sounds right to me. Obviously
> this is an informal and unscientific forum, but I
> was looking more for a general sense of things, a
> reality check if you will. Many thanks to the
> serious and not so serious posters who took the
> time to address the question or at least to amuse.


Yes, they do "pull in" over $250k, but if you actually ever owned your own business, you would know that what you "pull in" and what you are taxed on are two different figures.

I ran an online business between 1996 and 1999, and at our peak, we had just over $290,000 in revenue. I never paid a dime in taxes, because all three years, we operated at a loss. The only income I received from that business was a few checks to pay the minimum payment on my credit card when I had paid a distributor with my credit card.

I know people who "pull in" well over a million dollars, and they are sole proprietors, but they are lucky to make $135,000 in profit after paying suppliers, leases, utilities, and salaries.

If you believe you'll have to pay taxes on revenue, you've been watching the wrong channel. If you don't understand the difference, you probably aren't a business owner. Either way, don't fall into the ideological trap of a campaign trying to create an advantage out of a disadvantage.

I forgot to mention, if we, as wage-earners, paid taxes the same way corporations paid taxes, we would practically pay nothing in taxes.

I cannot deduct all of my expenses and costs from my wages.

I pay taxes on my raw wages, before I pay $22 a day for parking ($5,500 a year), and the cost of gas and maintenance on my car in order to get to work, and I pay $10 for lunch in downtown DC, and have to pay for dry cleaning on my suit, and I pay for the cell phone and EVDO card for my laptop, plus the continuing education to advance my technical skills to add to the productivity of my company, plus there's the utilities and housing costs I need in order to be able to live and continue to work, and the food, and basic necessities, and everything else.

Corporations deduct all of those things from their revenue before reporting their taxable profits. We don't have that luxury.

If you are a corporation, and even if you're just "joe plumber", you should incorporate, you don't pay taxes on your raw income, you pay taxes on your profit, your after expense money.

Obama is not talking about changing the tax system, he is only saying the tax rate of the current system may go up for people who make more than $250,000 in PROFIT.

It is so discouraging that after all the information that's been posted in this thread, all Libertarian1 takes away from it is that "most small businesses do probably pull in over $250K." Did you read the thread? As Bob accurately points out there is a huge difference between revenue and profit. Most small businesses DO NOT make more than $250k IN PROFIT.



Libertarian1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> After all is said and done the consensus seems to
> be that most small businesses do probably pull in
> over $250K. That sounds right to me. Obviously
> this is an informal and unscientific forum, but I
> was looking more for a general sense of things, a
> reality check if you will. Many thanks to the
> serious and not so serious posters who took the
> time to address the question or at least to amuse.

Don't argue with Libertarian1. He's a dittohead.

Under Obama’s plan to let the scheduled 2011 tax rate hikes occur, and his plan to raise the self-employment tax on those making more than $250,000, the S corporation rate would rise from 35 percent to 39.6 percent. The sole proprietor and partner rate would rise from 37.9 percent all the way up to a staggering 50.3 percent. Many Democrats in Congress have proposed making all small businesses (including S corporations) pay this 50-plus percent rate. A small business tax rate that high would be the highest marginal rate faced by them in nearly a quarter-century.

owner Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Under Obama’s plan to let the scheduled 2011 tax
> rate hikes occur, and his plan to raise the
> self-employment tax on those making more than
> $250,000, the S corporation rate would rise from
> 35 percent to 39.6 percent. The sole proprietor
> and partner rate would rise from 37.9 percent all
> the way up to a staggering 50.3 percent. Many
> Democrats in Congress have proposed making all
> small businesses (including S corporations) pay
> this 50-plus percent rate. A small business tax
> rate that high would be the highest marginal rate
> faced by them in nearly a quarter-century.


I have an S-Corp. I don't pay taxes on my S-Corp. My S-Corp is a pass-through. I pay taxes on my personal income. Any business owner that is large enough to pay taxes on the corporate level should be an LLC, not an S-Corp. As for the sole proprietor and partner, it takes $500 to register as an S-Corp. It also makes sense from a liability and tax standpoint to be an S-Corp. Most "partners" I know of who work in lobbying and law firms know this and are S-Corps already.

I love how Republicans lump payroll taxes in with income taxes when they want to make tax rates seem high but then exclude them when they want to claim that lower income people pay no income taxes. So, you get "the sole proprietor rate would rise to a staggering 50.3%"--which includes both the employer and employee part of Social Security and Medicare, but "Obama wants to give a tax cut (refundable tax credit) to people who don't pay income taxes--that's welfare!"


owner Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Under Obama’s plan to let the scheduled 2011 tax
> rate hikes occur, and his plan to raise the
> self-employment tax on those making more than
> $250,000, the S corporation rate would rise from
> 35 percent to 39.6 percent. The sole proprietor
> and partner rate would rise from 37.9 percent all
> the way up to a staggering 50.3 percent. Many
> Democrats in Congress have proposed making all
> small businesses (including S corporations) pay
> this 50-plus percent rate. A small business tax
> rate that high would be the highest marginal rate
> faced by them in nearly a quarter-century.

Here is the Obama Tax Cut calculator. Notice that the income level starts at $20K. That's because people pay 15% taxes with an AGI of $15K. Obama takes into consideration the deductions you would get if you have kids by starting at $20K. This totally blows apart the rightwing nutjobs' contention that Obama gives tax breaks to people who pay no taxes...

http://taxcut.barackobama.com/



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/22/2008 10:57AM by WashingToneLocian.

The latest Congressional Budget Office data shows the bottom 40% of income earners already pays no income taxes. They actually receive a net payment from the federal income tax system (meaning from the taxpayers) equal to 3.8% of all federal income taxes, because of the refundable tax credits under current law. The middle 20% of income earners, the true middle class, pays 4.4% of federal income taxes.

Overall, the bottom 60% of income earners pay less than 1% of federal income taxes on net. When "tax credits" primarily go to this group in the form of checks from the government (rather than a reduction in their tax burden) it is simply an abuse of the language to call the spending a tax cut.

Consequently, to say, as Obama says, that his tax plan is a tax cut on net -- and that it would limit taxes to 18.2% of GDP -- is grossly misleading. The Obama tax plan would sharply increase real taxes. It also would come nowhere near to paying for the massive increases in federal spending he has proposed, including the spending that is disguised in the form of refundable tax credits.

Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I love how Republicans lump payroll taxes in with
> income taxes when they want to make tax rates seem
> high but then exclude them when they want to claim
> that lower income people pay no income taxes. So,
> you get "the sole proprietor rate would rise to a
> staggering 50.3%"--which includes both the
> employer and employee part of Social Security and
> Medicare, but "Obama wants to give a tax cut
> (refundable tax credit) to people who don't pay
> income taxes--that's welfare!"

I love how democrats conveniently ignore the fact that Obama wants to end the Social Security payroll tax cap for those over $250,000 in earnings. I also enjoy seeing Democrats ignore the hike in capital gains taxes that Obama wants to impose and my personal favorite, never mentioning the fact that Obama supports raising the inheritance "death" tax to 45% on estates over $3.5M. Any idea what an increase in capital gains taxes will do to an already volitile stock market? Take a look at the Tax Reform Acts of 1968 and 1976? Let's also take a look at venture capital investing when capital gains taxes are overly burdonsome. Even Bill Clinton recognized that when he signed legislation that cut the capital-gains tax rate back down to 20 percent. After he did that, the economy grew and investment, jobs, and federal tax receipts all increased. It is actually pretty fucking simple, and for Obama to ignore it is irresponsible.

I enjoy watching Republicans get all in a tizzy over fruitless issues while missing the big picture. That shows their fundamental lack of understanding. It's all about "ME, ME, ME" with you guys, when it should be about "US and WE".

Let's face it, you stand a snowball's chance in hell at winning the election thanks to the same policy that you stand behind. Concede.

Republicans are Useless Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I enjoy watching Republicans get all in a tizzy
> over fruitless issues while missing the big
> picture. That shows their fundamental lack of
> understanding. It's all about "ME, ME, ME" with
> you guys, when it should be about "US and WE".
>
> Let's face it, you stand a snowball's chance in
> hell at winning the election thanks to the same
> policy that you stand behind. Concede.

Do you really enjoy it? Your definition of big picture is the life size poster of George Michael you wank to daily.

Who's ignoring these issues? Obama has said clearly he wants to raise the payroll tax cap for people earning more than 250k. He's also said he wants to raise the capital gains tax rate to 20%--the rate you yourself said caused the economy to grow, and investments, jobs, and tax revenues to all increase. I agree, pretty fucking simple. I don't think changing the capital gains rate will actually have much effect this time around though--since nobody has any capital gains. Funny how that happened even though Shrub lowered the rate to 15%.


Laughable Wrote:
> I love how democrats conveniently ignore the fact
> that Obama wants to end the Social Security
> payroll tax cap for those over $250,000 in
> earnings. I also enjoy seeing Democrats ignore
> the hike in capital gains taxes that Obama wants
> to impose and my personal favorite, never
> mentioning the fact that Obama supports raising
> the inheritance "death" tax to 45% on estates over
> $3.5M. Any idea what an increase in capital gains
> taxes will do to an already volitile stock market?
> Take a look at the Tax Reform Acts of 1968 and
> 1976? Let's also take a look at venture capital
> investing when capital gains taxes are overly
> burdonsome. Even Bill Clinton recognized that
> when he signed legislation that cut the
> capital-gains tax rate back down to 20 percent.
> After he did that, the economy grew and
> investment, jobs, and federal tax receipts all
> increased. It is actually pretty fucking simple,
> and for Obama to ignore it is irresponsible.

And yet today, we have this from Camp Obama:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/10/obama-alters-ta.html

Quote

...
Facing criticism from John McCain that his tax plan constitutes "welfare," Barack Obama recently added a work requirement to one of his proposals.

"They started saying this was welfare," said Obama adviser Austan Goolsbee. "So, just so they would absolutely not be able to say that, we decided that for the last two percent we'll simply add a work requirement."

Goolsbee discussed the change to Obama's universal mortgage credit while debating McCain adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin at the Council on Foreign Relations on Tuesday.

The purpose of Obama's 10 percent universal mortgage credit is to aid taxpayers who do not itemize when filing taxes. The Obama campaign estimates that it would provide an average of $500 to 10 million homeowners, the majority of whom earn less than $50,000 per year.

Goolsbee referred to the number of non-working Americans who would benefit from the original understanding of Obama's plan as an insignificant "sliver" when compared to the much larger number of working Americans who would benefit from Obama's plan.

Although the number of non-working beneficiaries would have been just a "sliver" under the original understanding of Obama's plan, Goolsbee said the Democratic nominee's economic team decided to add a work requirement to it in order to block McCain from being able to characterize any aspect of his plan as "welfare."

"When did this change? I'm just curious," an incredulous Holtz-Eakin asked Goolsbee.

"About two weeks ago," replied Goolsbee, adding that when the proposal was announced in September 2007, 98 percent of its benefits went to workers.

The work requirement on Obama's universal mortgage credit was never announced publicly, prompting Holtz-Eakin to suggest that it was just made up for purposes of the CFR debate.

"I think they just made it up," Holtz-Eakin told ABC News. "They will say anything in the moment. This is like trying to pin Jello to the wall."
...

Evidently they thought that had some issues they had to address.

Again though, all of this is so ridiculous. In 2 years (or less) if Obama is elected, I guarantee their will be a HUGE tax increase. I don't have "factual" knowledge of this, but if you look at history (which many of you appear to dismiss as irrelevant) you will see that Democrats will run on tax cuts to the middle class to get elected, and then invariably raise taxes by large amounts once they are in office. Even many of the Republicans have had to do this, but usually they will temper the amount of the increase.

The liberal side argument folks here want to chide the conservatives for ignoring all this whoohah on the $250K tax issue. Lets say I personally will concede the point on that issue. Any of the libs here want to take a stab at telling me why Obama and a Democratic Congress won't blow tax rates off their skids once he is in office?

Well, I kind of believe that if McCain is elected he's going to personally burn to the ground the houses of anybody that ever opposed him. Mind you, I don't have any "facts" to back that up but you know, I just kind of think it's true. You want to take a stab at telling me why he won't do that?


Registered Voter Wrote:
> The liberal side argument folks here want to chide
> the conservatives for ignoring all this whoohah on
> the $250K tax issue. Lets say I personally will
> concede the point on that issue. Any of the libs
> here want to take a stab at telling me why Obama
> and a Democratic Congress won't blow tax rates off
> their skids once he is in office?

So you don't believe they will raise taxes? I gather from your idiotic response that you do, but are unwilling to acknowledge it. You want to believe in fantasies that is your own affair, but I would think you get enough of that when Vince comes over for "sleep overs"

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> The liberal side argument folks here want to chide
> the conservatives for ignoring all this whoohah on
> the $250K tax issue. Lets say I personally will
> concede the point on that issue. Any of the libs
> here want to take a stab at telling me why Obama
> and a Democratic Congress won't blow tax rates off
> their skids once he is in office?


Because they want to solidify their majority.

WashingToneLocian Wrote:

> Because they want to solidify their majority.

Barney Frank is already salivating over raising taxes and has stated that. He is not one that stops at the $250K barrier as has been shown in the past. I hope your faith in their restraint is rewarded.

Petty Punk Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Republicans are Useless Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I enjoy watching Republicans get all in a tizzy
> > over fruitless issues while missing the big
> > picture. That shows their fundamental lack of
> > understanding. It's all about "ME, ME, ME"
> with
> > you guys, when it should be about "US and WE".
> >
> > Let's face it, you stand a snowball's chance in
> > hell at winning the election thanks to the same
> > policy that you stand behind. Concede.
>
> Do you really enjoy it? Your definition of big
> picture is the life size poster of George Michael
> you wank to daily.

Oh, you mean like your poster of Mark Foley with his young boy intern sharing an ice cream float with two straws that happens to hang over your bed? Or is it the one of Larry Craig playing footsie? You likely own both.

The truth is, that no matter what you say, you'll still lose the election. Get used to life as a LOSER.

Republican Family Values? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The truth is, that no matter what you say, you'll
> still lose the election. Get used to life as a
> LOSER.


Does it hurt when all your other fast food coworkers call you that? Is that why you are so angry? I know it must suck to have some pimply faced immigrant call you a loser. Don't worry, they say low budget fast food chains do well in a tight economy. You may still hang onto your job.

WTL, you picking up on the Lopter tactics of engagement now? :)

This has as little relevance here as it does in the other thread you started for it.

Dude, I've been respectful to you and have tried to have a discussion based on facts, not grade school taunts. All I know to do is judge the candidates based on what they say they plan to do. You acknowledged that you weren't basing your "guarantee" on facts but on some history I don't think you can prove. My taxes haven't gone up (except as a result of my income increasing) my entire working life--have yours? Spare me your response if you can't keep it respectful.


Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So you don't believe they will raise taxes? I
> gather from your idiotic response that you do, but
> are unwilling to acknowledge it. You want to
> believe in fantasies that is your own affair, but
> I would think you get enough of that when Vince
> comes over for "sleep overs"

As if your response was respectful to my statement and question. Please don't get all bent that I "disrespect you" by bringing up Vince in the same sentance, when you can't even be bothered to make a respectful response.

You want to be flip with my question, I will flip it right back at you with interest.

Enough said.

Fooolio Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Republican Family Values? Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> Oh, you mean like your poster of Mark Foley with his young boy intern sharing >an ice cream float with two straws that happens to hang over your bed? Or is >it the one of Larry Craig playing footsie? You likely own both. The truth is, >that no matter what you say, you'll still lose the election. Get used to life >as a LOSER.
>
>
> Does it hurt when all your other fast food
> coworkers call you that? Is that why you are so
> angry? I know it must suck to have some pimply
> faced immigrant call you a loser. Don't worry,
> they say low budget fast food chains do well in a
> tight economy. You may still hang onto your job.

Spoken like a true irrelevant, entry-level drone. Perhaps one day, you'll fight your way up to middle management overseeing a call center in Bangalore. It's not my fault that your best years were in high school and you peaked too early in life.

So who's going to win the election again? Let's hear it. Concede already.

Republican Eye for the (Un-) Straight Guys Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Spoken like a true irrelevant, entry-level drone.
> Perhaps one day, you'll fight your way up to
> middle management overseeing a call center in
> Bangalore. It's not my fault that your best years
> were in high school and you peaked too early in
> life.
>
> So who's going to win the election again? Let's
> hear it. Concede already.

Good news for you, McD's stock is up 11% today. Do you get stock options as a cook? Oh, and next time, easy on the mustard.

Me = VP @ Fortune 100 Co. You = Entry-level ANALyst. Stress the ANAL, as we all know you like to do.

So, who's going to win the election? We all missed your response.

Chuck Norris Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Me = VP @ Fortune 100 Co. You = Entry-level
> ANALyst. Stress the ANAL, as we all know you like
> to do.
>
> So, who's going to win the election? We all
> missed your response.

Chuckie,
I don't care what they told you at the interview, VP does NOT stand for Vegetable Preparer. You are still a fry cook in the eyes of everybody else.

First, Chuck Norris believes he's a vice president at a fortune 100 company. Good for him, he's obviously had a few too many drinks before 6pm, and is trying to use bluster to win an argument.

Second, none of this matters anymore. Obama is dangerous now. That's the new mantra.

Third, next week we'll be treated to a "bin laden tape" that one way or the other will make people want to vote for McCain. Mister cave dwelling kidney dialysis patient will either endorse Obama or plead with us to not vote for McCain. Either way, it will be a convenient boost to McCain's sagging poll numbers.

Look for it somewhere between Wednesday and Friday. Friday is probably best, about mid-afternoon, because that is the best time in the news cycle, it leaves very little time for it to be disected by the media, and gives voters an entire weekend to be left to believe in it. Then only two days to decide to vote for McCain because otherwise, Bin Laden will destroy us for our freedoms.

Mrs.T. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Chuck Norris Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Me = VP @ Fortune 100 Co. You = Entry-level
> > ANALyst. Stress the ANAL, as we all know you
> like
> > to do.
> >
> > So, who's going to win the election? We all
> > missed your response.
>
> Chuckie,
> I don't care what they told you at the interview,
> VP does NOT stand for Vegetable Preparer. You are
> still a fry cook in the eyes of everybody else.


Funny enough, I saw a commercial tonight for some sort of microwavable food, where a tech support guy comes into the lunch room, and a "VP" is trying to figure out how to "add water, microwave, drain and serve" his lunch. The tech asks "How did you become a VP?" and the "VP" responds, "They didn't want to pay me more money, so they gave me this awesome title" (or something like that, you get the gist of it.)

So here we go again , with all the lies, I have a small satellite dish business in a good year I will clear 50 thousand. When I say clear thats the money I have to pay for my personal bills and fun. To me if your making over 250K your not a small business. US census say a small business is 500 employes or less. Well 100 or 200 employes seems very big to me. So lets be real and cut the crap. My dream is to make 500 k a year some day, thats the day I will turn in to a republican and spread the lies with the rest of the fat cats. rich get richer cause poor people are stupid.

satellite steve Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So here we go again , with all the lies, I have a
> small satellite dish business in a good year I
> will clear 50 thousand. When I say clear thats
> the money I have to pay for my personal bills and
> fun. To me if your making over 250K your not a
> small business. US census say a small business is
> 500 employes or less. Well 100 or 200 employes
> seems very big to me. So lets be real and cut the
> crap. My dream is to make 500 k a year some day,
> thats the day I will turn in to a republican and
> spread the lies with the rest of the fat cats.
> rich get richer cause poor people are stupid.


How much do you make in revenue? I'm sure if you can take home $50k, you bring in more than $250k. I bet you do at least $400,000 in sales.

The people who say they make more than 250k and will pay more in taxes either don't actually own a business or they are really bad at managing their money and don't understand enough about tax code to have any right to own a business.

You seem to know what your revenue is and what your profit is, and what the difference is. A lot of these people seem really confused, so I have to assume they work at a walmart but like McCain enough to latch onto this "talking point" because it makes them feel better about McCain and gives them a reason to hate Obama.

100 to 200 employees isn't "very big" but it certainly is an established and sizable business, and falls under totally different tax rules, seeing as those companies already exceed a million dollars in payroll alone. (most 100 to 200 employee companies have 5 to 10 million dollar payrolls.)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/27/2008 03:16AM by Bob.

Geeze....have you guys never done your own taxes??? Obama is NOT talking about gross income...he is talking about TAXABLE INCOME. That would be income after all deductions are taken. Man...no wonder it is so easy to hoodwink people. He is proposing to increase the marginal tax rate for TAXABLE INCOME over 250K from 35% to 39%. If your taxable income is 300K then you would pay 39% instead of 35% on the amount OVER 250K. That is an additional $2,000. Hell guys...it isn't that hard to understand. Turn off Fox news and Rush Limbaugh and think for yourselves.

Mike Coats Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Geeze....have you guys never done your own
> taxes??? Obama is NOT talking about gross
> income...he is talking about TAXABLE INCOME. That
> would be income after all deductions are taken.
> Man...no wonder it is so easy to hoodwink people.
> He is proposing to increase the marginal tax rate
> for TAXABLE INCOME over 250K from 35% to 39%. If
> your taxable income is 300K then you would pay 39%
> instead of 35% on the amount OVER 250K. That is
> an additional $2,000. Hell guys...it isn't that
> hard to understand. Turn off Fox news and Rush
> Limbaugh and think for yourselves.


Yeah but that tax hike will cause small business's to lay off people andcut their expenditures. It must be true, I heard it on Hammity.

It is important that you go out and vote for McCain. The new polling suggests in many states, OH, NH, PA, IN, etc it is too close to call! I heard that on Hammity too.

Mike Coats Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Geeze....have you guys never done your own
> taxes??? Obama is NOT talking about gross
> income...he is talking about TAXABLE INCOME. That
> would be income after all deductions are taken.
> Man...no wonder it is so easy to hoodwink people.
> He is proposing to increase the marginal tax rate
> for TAXABLE INCOME over 250K from 35% to 39%. If
> your taxable income is 300K then you would pay 39%
> instead of 35% on the amount OVER 250K. That is
> an additional $2,000. Hell guys...it isn't that
> hard to understand. Turn off Fox news and Rush
> Limbaugh and think for yourselves.


Well, in the interest of being completely truthful, it isn't taxing the amount over 250k, if you have $300,000 in taxable net income, your tax bracket will be 39% for ALL of your net income.

It's no different than if you earned $77,099 last year, and you earned $77,100 or more this year, your tax rate went from 25% to 28%.

You don't pay 28% on the amount above 77,100, you pay 28% on your entire taxable income.

EDIT --

I just went and looked up the tax code, and you were actually mostly correct, at least as far as part of the income is taxed at a lower rate.

in the 31,850 to 77,100 bracket, you pay 13% tax on the first 31,850, then 25% on anything above that. In the 77,100 to 160,850, you pay 20% on the first 77,100, and 28% on anything above 77,100.

However, the person earning $250,000 is currently paying 23% for the first 178,350, and 35% on anyting above 178,350. (the bracket, currently, is 178,350 to 349,700)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/29/2008 11:35PM by Bob.

An interesting exercise is to calculate your effective (as opposed to marginal) tax rate for the last five years. I challenged a co-worker to do this after growing tired of him inaccurately state how much the tax burden really is. To calculate yours: Add up your total income--salary (including 401k contributions, flex plan deductions, tax exempt health care payments, etc.), investment earnings, alimony, gifts, insurance payments, state tax refunds, refundable tax credits (such as EITC) etc. Divide this into your total tax payments. Run a few calculations to get the whole picture--first with just federal income tax (no Social Security or Medicare tax included), then add those back in, then add tax and local taxes. You'll probably be surprised at the results. Here are my numbers for total tax burden (including state taxes and real estate taxes). I had some unusual circumstances in 2006 and 2007 that led to lower overall taxes but the rate would have been about 18% without that. I have household income in the neighborhood of 200k. Anybody else want to take the challenge?

2003 18%
2004 16%
2005 22%
2006 12.6%
2007 12.9%

I just thought you all might want to know which party really is responsible for the problems we are in right now. Check out this article from the New York Times (a very liberal, possibly considered democratic paper) that was published 6 months before Clinton got out of office. Now, given, very few Republicans stood up and tried to stop this either, but McCain did! Just for your info, I am currently unaffiliated because I absolutely hate what these people in Washington are doing to our country!
And might I add, taxes are one of the main reasons that led our forefathers to fight for our independence. Taxes were without representation and too high. Raising taxes has never, and I mean never, been a good solution to anything. Money in the pockets of the private sector is always watched over better and spent more wisely. So, ask yourself these questions? Why did our forefathers think it was worth dying for to get rid of too high of taxes without representation? Has anything in the tax department, principle wise, changed in the last couple hundred years? Do you trust yourself with your hard earned money more than you trust the government, be they democrats, republicans, libertarians, greens, socialists, or whatever? In all simpleness and common sense, why would you vote for someone whose plan will raise taxes at all, and who's plan is so confusing it has taken this entire forum of arguing points to even attempt to try and explain it. Frankly, I don't want someone as my President whose tax plan cannot be clearly explained or understood. God bless America (because nobody in Washington has this in the forefront of their plans)!
Oh, and here is the article.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE7DB153EF933A0575AC0A96F958260&sec=&spon=&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

Sorry, two things.
The article was published 4 months before Clinton got out of office.
And if the link doesn't get you directly to the article, here is the link
without the http:// so it won't automatically change it to a shorter link and the name of the article is Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending. The author is Steven A. Holmes and it was published on September 30, 1999 in the New York Times (just in case you need to search for it).
query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE7DB153EF933A0575AC0A96F958260&sec=&spon=&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

his plan isn't just for profits its for anyone making over 250k thats gross, will pay more taxes. and even if it was just for profits, anyone with a subchapter S corportation or LLC would pay the high corporate taxes. Raising taxes in any form is bad, raising them durring a time of economic crisis is retarded. As for raising the taxes why? We need to reexamine the role of goverment, is it the role of goverment to redistribute wealth? to provide a welfare safetly net. no its not in the Constitution because that isn't the role of goverment. And last thing about that, Biden was on tv the other day lowering the bar saying it was anyone making less than 150k. As far as rich republicans being outta touch. Obama paid almost 2 million for his home how many of you can relate to him? Yes people will raise prices and and lay off people to make up for that tax increase, by taxing the rich *how many of you work for poor people* you only hurt everyone else. Corporate taxes will go up under his plan the highest bracket will be up around or over 50 percent go read his plan.

Greg Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> his plan isn't just for profits its for anyone
> making over 250k thats gross, will pay more taxes.
> and even if it was just for profits, anyone with a
> subchapter S corportation or LLC would pay the
> high corporate taxes.

You are an idiot. I have an LLC and an S-Corp. They are pass-throughs. I get a K-1 for the LLC. I pay taxes on personal income, not on the gross revenue of the business. I have a tax attorney prepare my taxes. This is how businesses do it. You know nothing about this, so stop embarrassing yourself.

Don't waste your time--this guy is beyond hope.

WashingToneLocian Wrote:
>
> You are an idiot. I have an LLC and an S-Corp.
> They are pass-throughs. I get a K-1 for the LLC. I
> pay taxes on personal income, not on the gross
> revenue of the business. I have a tax attorney
> prepare my taxes. This is how businesses do it.
> You know nothing about this, so stop embarrassing
> yourself.

personal attacks don't help I have an LLC. Ask your tax professional how it works.

Not a personal attack--just a statement of fact. You didn't bother reading any of the thread--if you had you wouldn't have posted what you did. There is just too much wrong with what you seem to believe to bother with correcting--you don't want to know the facts.

Greg Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> personal attacks don't help I have an LLC. Ask
> your tax professional how it works.

if you are being honest then you have to admit a passthough means that you file your business taxes on your own tax forms. that being the case if your business doesn't gross over 250k you aren't doing business

its not what i believe i read his policys so i had to put some corrections on there, if you believe thats whats best vote for him. don't attack me for brining to light obama's tax plans

Not a personal attack--just a statement of fact. You didn't bother reading any of the thread--if you had you wouldn't have posted what you did. There is just too much wrong with what you seem to believe to bother with correcting--you don't want to know the facts.

Greg Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> personal attacks don't help I have an LLC. Ask
> your tax professional how it works.

Read the thread.

greg Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> its not what i believe i read his policys so i had
> to put some corrections on there, if you believe
> thats whats best vote for him. don't attack me for
> brining to light obama's tax plans

how about the issues, is raising taxes good? is it a good idea in an economic downturn? is it the role of goverment to take your money and mine to give it to someone else?

All good questions that I'm happy to address if you want to stick to facts. First, your taxes have already been raised--you just haven't been given the bill yet. Taxes are inseparable from spending, and the Bush administration has spent plenty. Between the new entitlement programs and the war of choice with Iraq we have spent far more in the last eight years than we collected. That is raising your taxes, period. I am a fiscal conservative, which means I believe in paying my bills, investing in my future, and saving for a rainy day. Republicans are not fiscally conservative. They only believe in lowering payments for today's tax payers and shifting the burden to future tax payers. Raising taxes is probably not a great idea in a recession and it probably won't happen. However, if you are going to raise taxes, it makes sense to do it on the segment of the population who has excess disposal income. Contrary to the ignorant speculation I've read, the "rich" won't stop working or lay people off if they have to pay more in taxes. They already have more than they need. As far as the "income redistribution" argument goes, what do you think running massive deficits is? You are shifting your tax burden to future generations--that's income redistribution if I've ever seen it.

i think the budget should be balanced. yes the war has been costly about 1% of the GDP *figures from july 08* and so has hurricans katriana, Gaustav, Ike, rita and other natural disasters. as far as the bush administration goes it has had its downsides but congress has been controled by the demacrats the last 2 years i haven't seen anything from them about balancing the budget. and if you think that that will change Obama's plans will raise the deficit even more than McCain's plan. Not that McCain is my first choice for a Republican canadate but he is better than Obama. Also looking back at history we can clearly see that raising taxes will eventually cut productivity. And its mistaken to think that the cost of the taxes won't be passed onto the consumer. A good example of this is your phone bill. If you read all the taxes charged the FCC and other taxes they appear on your phone bill because the phone companies won't pay then you can raise them as much as you want they will just pass them onto the consumer via the phone bill. check out your phone bill it will agrivate you.

there are other ways like controlling spending to pay down the deficit

During World War II, some analysts calculate that the US spent as much as 30 percent of its gross domestic product (GDP) on the war effort. The Korean War, at its spending peak in 1953, represented 14 percent of GDP; Vietnam was about 9 percent. The current war, however, is less than 1 percent of America's annual $13 trillion GDP.

We have 10 TRILLION dollars in debt right now--who should pay that?

greg Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> there are other ways like controlling spending to
> pay down the deficit


Wrong.

No matter who takes office in January, at some point taxes are going to have to be raised.

Controlling spending is not going to get rid of 10 trillion in debt and a trillion in yearly deficits. Not to mention the fact that sometime between 2025 and 2040, Social Security and Medicare and other entitlements will grow to consume 100% of government revenue.

Vote for whoever you want, but taxes will go up no matter who wins.

You should read Running on Empty by Peter G. Peterson: http://books.google.com/books?id=8S2MHQAACAAJ&dq=Running+on+Empty

in 2002 alone we spent 4 percent of the gdp on welfare alone. thats over 4 times as much as the iraq war. the national debt will be paid by tax payers. earlier in the primarys there was a question about raising taxes on capital gains becasue when capital gains taxes were lowered the goverment took in more money due to increased investing. fiscal responsiblity is the answer not just raising taxes and i might be ok with paying more taxes if it actually went to the deficit but not for it to be spent on earmarks and even more socail programs or other unwise expenditures.

the problem in politics from both sides is everyone wants to put a bandaid on the problem instead of fixing the root cause. medicare is out of control because the money is being spent on things it wasn't designed for. and there are less and less people paying into the system. fix the problem not bandaid it by a short term solution which is what tax increases are.

Greg Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> personal attacks don't help I have an LLC. Ask
> your tax professional how it works.


Yeah. It's called a K-1. If your tax attorney isn't preparing one for you, you are screwing yourself.

Greg Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> if you are being honest then you have to admit a
> passthough means that you file your business taxes
> on your own tax forms. that being the case if your
> business doesn't gross over 250k you aren't doing
> business


My business grosses well over $250K. But I don't pay taxes on that. I write off business expenses, such as equipment, utilities, rent, etc. For a small business, most of the stuff isn't big enough to be impacted by depreciation. I have also used a SEP IRA and Keogh 401Ks to bring down my income while saving for retirement. It's not that complicated if you hire a tax professional.

Yes, I file tax forms for the LLC and S-Corp, but there are no profits. The profits are my personal income after business expenses.

greg Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> how about the issues, is raising taxes good?

It can be. Clinton raised taxes in the 1990s and we had the longest economic expansion in U.S. history. With our substantial national debt, foreign countries are lending to us at relatively low interest rates. If we continue our fiscal irresponsiblity, they will stop or force us to raise rates through the bond market, which would be bad.

> is it
> a good idea in an economic downturn?

I don't know. Is it good during an economic expansion? Republicans can always figure out reasons not to increase taxes. Seriously, though, our biggest problem is that consumer confidence is at its lowest level ever. If you give the Middle Class a tax cut, that could help alleviate that problem.

> is it the
> role of goverment to take your money and mine to
> give it to someone else?

Uh, actually it is. It has always been that. Whenever you have taxes, that is what happens. The Founding Fathers didn't Revolt against England because they had to pay taxes. They revolted because they had to pay taxes without representation. You have representation, so shut up and pay your taxes.

greg Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> i think the budget should be balanced. yes the war
> has been costly about 1% of the GDP *figures from
> july 08* and so has hurricans katriana, Gaustav,
> Ike, rita and other natural disasters. as far as
> the bush administration goes it has had its
> downsides but congress has been controled by the
> demacrats the last 2 years i haven't seen anything
> from them about balancing the budget. and if you
> think that that will change Obama's plans will
> raise the deficit even more than McCain's plan.
> Not that McCain is my first choice for a
> Republican canadate but he is better than Obama.
> Also looking back at history we can clearly see
> that raising taxes will eventually cut
> productivity. And its mistaken to think that the
> cost of the taxes won't be passed onto the
> consumer. A good example of this is your phone
> bill. If you read all the taxes charged the FCC
> and other taxes they appear on your phone bill
> because the phone companies won't pay then you can
> raise them as much as you want they will just pass
> them onto the consumer via the phone bill. check
> out your phone bill it will agrivate you.


I don't know where you get your figures. Our national debt, which is made up primarily of military spending, entitlement programs and servicing (interest payments) the national debt is at its highest level as compared to GDP since WWII.

greg Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> in 2002 alone we spent 4 percent of the gdp on
> welfare alone. thats over 4 times as much as the
> iraq war. the national debt will be paid by tax
> payers. earlier in the primarys there was a
> question about raising taxes on capital gains
> becasue when capital gains taxes were lowered the
> goverment took in more money due to increased
> investing. fiscal responsiblity is the answer not
> just raising taxes and i might be ok with paying
> more taxes if it actually went to the deficit but
> not for it to be spent on earmarks and even more
> socail programs or other unwise expenditures.


the "4 percent on welfare" includes Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and the new Republican creation "Prescription Drug Program".

The government didn't take in more money on capital gains because the tax was lowered, it took in more money because of the new instruments like Collaterized Debt Obligations and other creative investment instruments. These new instruments created a huge credit bubble, and just like in the dot com and housing bubbles, lots of capital gains were made, before the pyramid became too tall to keep building up, and the whole thing collapsed.

greg Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> the problem in politics from both sides is
> everyone wants to put a bandaid on the problem
> instead of fixing the root cause. medicare is out
> of control because the money is being spent on
> things it wasn't designed for. and there are less
> and less people paying into the system. fix the
> problem not bandaid it by a short term solution
> which is what tax increases are.

Nobody "pays into the system" as far as medicare is concerned.

You're thinking of Social Security.

Tax increases are not a short term fix.

What's funny is that you don't make the logical connection when saying things like "when capital gains taxes were lowered, the government took in more money due to increased investing" in order to see that those are short term fixes, and they only worked because of a bubble, in the first place.

Tax increases are a fiscal reality, and they are absolutely not short term fixes. They are intended to secure LONG TERM financial viability of government, and indirectly, the market and the economy.

Richard Cox Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I just thought you all might want to know which
> party really is responsible for the problems we
> are in right now. Check out this article from the
> New York Times (a very liberal, possibly
> considered democratic paper) that was published 6
> months before Clinton got out of office. Now,
> given, very few Republicans stood up and tried to
> stop this either, but McCain did! Just for your
> info, I am currently unaffiliated because I
> absolutely hate what these people in Washington
> are doing to our country!
> And might I add, taxes are one of the main reasons
> that led our forefathers to fight for our
> independence. Taxes were without representation
> and too high. Raising taxes has never, and I mean
> never, been a good solution to anything. Money in
> the pockets of the private sector is always
> watched over better and spent more wisely. So, ask
> yourself these questions? Why did our forefathers
> think it was worth dying for to get rid of too
> high of taxes without representation? Has anything
> in the tax department, principle wise, changed in
> the last couple hundred years? Do you trust
> yourself with your hard earned money more than you
> trust the government, be they democrats,
> republicans, libertarians, greens, socialists, or
> whatever? In all simpleness and common sense, why
> would you vote for someone whose plan will raise
> taxes at all, and who's plan is so confusing it
> has taken this entire forum of arguing points to
> even attempt to try and explain it. Frankly, I
> don't want someone as my President whose tax plan
> cannot be clearly explained or understood. God
> bless America (because nobody in Washington has
> this in the forefront of their plans)!
> Oh, and here is the article.
> http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0
> DE7DB153EF933A0575AC0A96F958260&sec=&spon=&partner
> =permalink&exprod=permalink


Our forefathers didn't die to get rid of "too high" taxes, they fought to end taxes without representation, to end taxes that paid for the crown's wars against france and to support the colonial ambitions that didn't affect the American colonists.

Don't forget the whiskey rebellion.

George Washington sent troops into western PA and actually used those troops to kill the grain farmers who were protesting the unfair taxes on their whiskey, which was the only form of their grain crops that was economically viable to ship over the mountains, in order to make money. If they could have shipped their grains over the mountains to make money, they would have, but it was too expensive, so they chose to refine those grains into alcohol, but then the new federal government imposed a tax on alcohol, and that made it cost prohibitive to ship the grain as raw grain or as alcohol, and they were losing money.

There's a huge difference between being taxed on something when you have no say and being taxed on something because you have a responsibility to your country.

But trying to invoke the founding fathers is a dead end. They did their share of bad tax policies, and even used the military to enforce their tax policies.

alot of misinformation thrown at me lets see
k-1 tax, yes i am familiar with it 1-100 shareholders ect. if the new plans go into affect you may lose you tax breaks.

as far as clinton he did a good job with the economy but acording to an economic study the best economic time was under President Regan, I'll post this link for your enjoyment http://www.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/barro/files/bw99_02_22.pdf
another shocker is the lowest unemployment in US history was under George Bush.
up until democrats messed up the housing market but i'm sure i'll get alot of comments on that just you tube some things before you post back please.

as for where i get my numbers from they are freely availble on goverment websites and watchdog groups. and the 4percent welfare programs didn't include medicare that was around 3 percent if i recall correctly.

as for the capital gains comment there may be some merit in that arguement but capital gains has gone down more than once and each time it produced more revenue thats clearly a pattern.

paying into medicare, simple people live longer after retirement thats a good thing but it shifts the tax burdern to younger people thats paying into it if you ask me.

as far as the founding fathers goes, we didn't have an income tax system on wages until 1913. they didn't consider labor taxable it was only land and tangable commodities they would tax. and of course they had a poll tax which i think we should bring back. The whiskey rebellion was more than just taxes but less than a rebellion he called out troops because they were rioting just as we would get out the riot gear today. it was more of a states rights concern they didn't like the new federal goverment implementing taxes.

i think i get the point of this thread i should run for office then you will be ok with giving me your money in ever increasing amounts. we are already among the higest taxed country in the world its time to start governing within a budget. i'll check this later to see what other misinformation you can come up with.

From the Curious Capitalist:

One of the most cherished beliefs of supply-side zealots is that cuts in capital gains tax rates always increase revenue. To be sure, there are often dramatic upward revenue swings right after the cap gains rate is cut. But that is in part because people can choose when to enter into the transactions that result in capital gains--and they'd be idiots not to hold off a few months if they know the tax rate is about to drop.

A better test is whether receipts are higher over the course of an entire business cycle. Last week, as part of its latest 10-year budget projections (pdf!), the Congressional Budget Office published its estimate of capital gains receipts in fiscal 2007. I'm willing to bet that, recession or no, FY 2007 will prove to be a peak in capital gains receipts that won't be matched for several years. Which means we can compare it with the peak of the last cycle, in 2000.

So no, the reduction in the capital gains tax rate from 20% to 15% in 2003 did not result in an increase in revenue over the course of the business cycle. In 2000 receipts totaled $119 billion, which equals $143 million in 2007 dollars. In 2007, they totaled $122 billion. That's a 15% decline.

Now I guess you could argue that 2000 was the peak of a once-in-a-lifetime stock market boom, making it an unfair comparison. But that would amount to admitting that forces other than the capital gains tax rate determine the course of the stock market. Perish the thought!


http://curiouscapitalist.blogs.time.com/2008/01/28/do_capital_gains_tax_cuts_incr/

http://www.apa.org/pi/wpo/myths.html


Myth: A Huge Chunk of My Tax Dollars Supports Welfare Recipients

Fact: Welfare Costs 1 Percent of the Federal Budget

Widespread misperception about the extent of welfare exacerbate the problems of poverty. The actual cost of welfare programs-about 1 percent of the federal budget and 2 percent of state budgets (McLaughlin, 1997)-is proportionally less than generally believed. During the 104th Congress, more than 93 percent of the budget reductions in welfare entitlements came from programs for low-income people (Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 1996). Ironically, middle-class and wealthy Americans also receive "welfare" in the form of tax deductions for home mortgages, corporate and farm subsidies, capital gains tax limits, Social Security, Medicare, and a multitude of other tax benefits. Yet these types of assistance carry no stigma and are rarely considered "welfare" (Goodgame, 1993). Anti-welfare sentiment appears to be related to attitudes about class and widely shared and socially sanctioned stereotypes about the poor. Racism also fuels negative attitudes toward welfare programs (Quadagno, 1994).

http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2006/05/the_us_tax_burd.html


The U.S. Tax Burden Is Low Relative to Other OECD Countries, by Sonya Hoo and Eric Toder, Tax policy Center: The United States raises significantly lower tax revenues as a percentage of gross domestic product than do most other countries in the OECD. In 2003 taxes in the United States, including all levels of government, amounted to 25.6 percent of GDP, down from 29.6 percent of GDP in 2000. Other countries in the G7 raised 33.9 percent of GDP, while non-G7 OECD countries raised 34.7 percent. Within the OECD, Mexico raised the least tax revenues at 19 percent and Sweden the most at 50.6 percent. (The recovery of corporate profits and the stock market since 2003 subsequently boosted U.S. tax revenues to 26.8 percent of GDP in the first three quarters of calendar year 2005.)

greg-

Let's clarify something about the housing crisis. The loosening of home ownership rules wasn't the main culprit. The main culprit was the lack of regulatory oversight that led to the creation of risky mortgage securities that were deemed "investment grade" by Moody's and S&P and that were backed up by Credit Default Swaps that had no money behind them. The biggest culprits in this were the institutions that put out the Credit Default Swaps and, frankly, Moody's and S&P for rating risky securities as investment grade, opening the doors for Pension Funds, Fannie Mae and foreign investors to stock up on them, which created even more demand. If anyone should go to jail, it should be the people at Moody's and S&P who readily admitted in front of Congress they were involved in fraud.

For the second time in a week, a prominent Democrat has downgraded Barack Obama's definition of the middle class -- leading Republicans to question whether he'll stick to his promise not to raise taxes on anyone making under $250,000.

The latest hiccup in the campaign message apparently came Friday morning on KOA-AM, when New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson pegged the middle class as those making $120,000 and under.


"What Obama wants to do is he is basically looking at $120,000 and under among those that are in the middle class, and there is a tax cut for those," Richardson said in the interview, according to a clip posted on YouTube.

There's no indication that Obama has changed his tax policy, which states that anyone making under $200,000 would get a tax cut under his administration.

But the Republican National Committee quickly blasted out an e-mail saying, "At this rate, it won't take long until Obama is again raising taxes on Americans making as little as $42,000 a year."

"When Barack Obama comes to your door this Halloween, there will be no treats -- just taxes," the e-mail said.

Joe Biden caused headaches for the campaign Monday when he told a Scranton, Pa., TV station that Obama's tax break "should go to middle class people -- people making under $150,000 a year."

John McCain said the tax threshold was "creeping down," while the Obama campaign accused him of lying about Obama's tax policies.

greg Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> alot of misinformation thrown at me lets see

And you throw misinformation as well...


> we are already among the higest taxed country in the
> world its time to start governing within a budget.
> i'll check this later to see what other
> misinformation you can come up with.

We are not among the highest taxed country in the world. Not in corporate taxes, and especially not in personal income tax.

http://www.cbpp.org/10-27-08tax.htm

The U.S. corporate tax burden is smaller than average for developed countries.[1] Corporations in 19 of the member states of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development paid 16.1 percent of their profits in taxes between 2000 and 2005, on average, while corporations in the United States paid 13.4 percent.

Nevertheless, some have argued that U.S. corporate tax rates unduly burden U.S. companies by pointing to the country’s top statutory tax rate, which is 35 percent. For example, a recent Wall Street Journal editorial calling for corporate tax cuts noted that this is the second highest top statutory tax rate among developed countries.[2] While true, this gives the false impression that the corporate tax burden is greater here than in other developed countries. Because the U.S. tax code offers so many deductions, credits, and other mechanisms by which corporations can reduce their taxes, the actual percentage of profits that U.S. corporations pay in taxes — or what analysts refer to as their effective tax rate — is not high, compared to other developed countries.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/31/2008 11:00PM by Bob.

thank you Bob...a great find

Once again I'd like to thank all of the folks who have taken this question seriously. I posed this question out of a genuine concern that honest Mom and Pop operations were potentially being lumped in as "fat cats" by the Obama tax plan that targets $250K as a cutoff point. I do wish you would all treat one another in a more civil fashion, but I understand the forum and thank you all for your generally thoughtful feedback. Most of all thank you all for caring about America.

Libertarian1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Once again I'd like to thank all of the folks who
> have taken this question seriously. I posed this
> question out of a genuine concern that honest Mom
> and Pop operations were potentially being lumped
> in as "fat cats" by the Obama tax plan that
> targets $250K as a cutoff point. I do wish you
> would all treat one another in a more civil
> fashion, but I understand the forum and thank you
> all for your generally thoughtful feedback. Most
> of all thank you all for caring about America.

So, do you think the overall consensus is that they are being lumped together with the fat cats, or not?

Greg....where DO you get your facts??? In 2007 the US GDP was over 13 trillion dollars. 4% of that is 560 BILLION dollars. I am not a fan of welfare either..but making up facts to fit your argument is not a good arguing method....although one practiced often by a lot of people. Take a look at this link...it is the official federal budget site. Yea....we give too much to welfare....but nowhere NEAR 4% of GDP. Christ....are you people that gullible and incapable of a little simple research????

BTW...I am one of 3 partners who own a sub chapter S corporation. We pay taxes at our individual marginal rates. We do not pay separate corporate taxes like a C corp does. Greg seems a bit like Joe the Plumber...he WANTS to own a business....but has no clue how one works except from what Hannity and Limbaugh put into is head.
Attachments:

Yes, I agree cut government spending but if you were watching the debates Obama wants to increase spending, not good.

Katie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yes, I agree cut government spending but if you
> were watching the debates Obama wants to increase
> spending, not good.


As did McCain. with the economy down the tubes..it's all a matter of priorities. As in...Do we really need to install Star Wars weapons in Western Europe..further threatening Russsia (just one example).

Katie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yes, I agree cut government spending but if you
> were watching the debates Obama wants to increase
> spending, not good.


Why is it all Republicans have no problem throwing $10 billion a month at Iraq but refuse to pay to replace bridges in the U.S. that are falling down?

WashingToneLocian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Katie Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Yes, I agree cut government spending but if you
> > were watching the debates Obama wants to
> increase
> > spending, not good.
>
>
> Why is it all Republicans have no problem throwing
> $10 billion a month at Iraq but refuse to pay to
> replace bridges in the U.S. that are falling down?

One kills brown people. The other employs brown people.

Republican: It doesnt matter what your income is your taxes will increase by double. Obama keeps talking about change.... the only change there will be is the little left in your pocket.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sen. Obama says the average small business makes
> less than $250,000 per year. How could that be?
> That just doesn't sound right.

Squash Bannana Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Republican: It doesnt matter what your income is
> your taxes will increase by double. Obama keeps
> talking about change.... the only change there
> will be is the little left in your pocket.
> --------------------------------------------------


Because we all know that a 3.5% increase for the top 5 percent of earners is the exact same thing as "increase by double."

Maybe you should cut back on the hyperbole. You might actually sound credible.

First lets get it right.VOTE INDEPENDENT Democrates and Replublicans for along time just do seam to get it.30 year ago maybe? I try to vote for someone who can do a good job.Problem is i have not seen one yet.Maybe they were over educated.Bussinesses in the 50s 60s a little 70s. were run by dropouts that learned the bussiness work the bussiness and ended up running the bussiness .Kept them in the US .Products made in the US and MADE THIS COUNTRY WHAT IT WAS. Yes we need a change. SOrry

Going a little off topic:

With the exception of a couple states and DC, it was my understanding that LLCs can exist with one member.

I thought K-1 was a W-2 equivalent for LLC member(s) and had to be declared as self-employment income, subject to all taxes.

Is this income filed as part of Schedule C and combined with personal income, or is it sheltered (reported on a separate tax filing)?

If a LLC Partnership is doing well and combined with personal income, couldn't this take a member over the top?

====

I'm a sole proprietor and thought about going LLC to add a layer of protection for my personal assets in the event of a law suit.


WashingToneLocian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> Yeah. It's called a K-1. If your tax attorney
> isn't preparing one for you, you are screwing
> yourself.

RestonLass Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Going a little off topic:
>
> With the exception of a couple states and DC, it
> was my understanding that LLCs can exist with one
> member.
>
> I thought K-1 was a W-2 equivalent for LLC
> member(s) and had to be declared as
> self-employment income, subject to all taxes.
>
> Is this income filed as part of Schedule C and
> combined with personal income, or is it sheltered
> (reported on a separate tax filing)?
>
> If a LLC Partnership is doing well and combined
> with personal income, couldn't this take a member
> over the top?
>
> ====
>
> I'm a sole proprietor and thought about going LLC
> to add a layer of protection for my personal
> assets in the event of a law suit.
>
>

I don't know if one person can do an LLC in Virginia. I have someone else on my LLC.

As for the K-1, it isn't exactly like a W-2 in the fact that it is less complicated to prepare. It is basically a record that you have received income from a pass-through entity, such as a corporation, partnership or trust. It might be more comparable to a 1099 in that no taxes are recorded as taken out in the K-1.

Basically the K-1 serves as documentation that you have received income from the LLC. You still take the taxes out of your s-corp and personal tax filing, where appropriate. You still have to file a tax return for the LLC. A schedule C is involved.

Suffice it to say, it's a lot of added paperwork, but you don't typically pay taxes on the LLC because if you do it correctly the LLC will show no net income and the tax burden is paid through your s-corp and personal taxes.

OK, Now I understand. If you have a few members, you spread it around so no one takes the full hit.

It doesn't seem worth the effort me to upgrade to a LLC; I don't think I have to worry about hitting the $250,000 income cap any time soon.

ADDED: I just went back and checked - the minimum number of members for a Virginia LLC is one. I thought so, but couldn't remember because it's been a while since I looked into this.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/18/2009 03:32PM by RestonLass.

Libertarian1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sen. Obama says the average small business makes
> less than $250,000 per year. How could that be?
> That just doesn't sound right.


okay cool. bobulas banana stand generates about 3 billion a year. you should probably check it out

Try again.
There is a massive unlikelihood you are showing a personal income of $250,000 if your business and taxes are managed properly at a 700,000 gross.

If you are netting over 1/3 of your gross , you are in sore need of a good tax accountant. Your operating costs are only a portion of your deductions. There is depreciation, amortization, depletion, deferred loss, and writeoffs galore. Plus your company is paying for your auto, gas, insurance, and health insurance.

As a tax accountant I know this. As a small business, if you aren't incorporated you are a fool not to take advantage of the deductions available
and if you are running a $700,000 s yr business through a personal proprietorship(schedeule C) you need to go corporate and get that income out of your personal return.

If you are a corporation you are likely entitled to far more deductions than you take. Very very, very few businesses do a net 37% on a tax return unless they have a worthless tax accountant. The net is more likely to be a loss.

In any case the taxable (personal)income, if you are paying yourself the entire net as income, which you say you arent, is not $250,000 after all personal deductions depreciations and market losses AND your taxes are not going up.

If you are not paying yourself all the net, you are sheltering the balance of net by reinvesting capital, and available tax shelters and inventory and loans.

You musty be the squeakiest clean businessman if your claim is true and you aren't typical in any way shape or form of small businessmen, certainly not wealthy ones.

In any case, you dont need to cut your staff by 14%(1).

Max Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Plus your company is paying for your auto, gas,
> insurance, and health insurance.

Is it true with the new health bill the employees will have to pay tax on the full cost of the health insurance benefit.

No, that isn't true.

http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2010-06-20/story/health-care-benefits-not-taxable-are-reportable

Btw, here is a story from today's Times about how the Health Care bill helps small businesses:

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/17/health-care-relief-for-small-businesses/?scp=3&sq=health%20insurance&st=cse


So Max Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Max Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Plus your company is paying for your auto, gas,
> > insurance, and health insurance.
>
> Is it true with the new health bill the employees
> will have to pay tax on the full cost of the
> health insurance benefit.