I received this from a friend this morning. Thought I'd pass it along. If this is really the way it's being proposed and you think the economy is bad now and you can't afford anything, if Clinton or Obama get in the White House, then you haven't seen anything yet!

Proposed changes in taxes after 2008 General election:


CAPITAL GAINS TAX

MCCAIN
15% (no change)

OBAMA
28%

CLINTON
24%

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 a retirement 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
39.6%

CLINTON
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 or Clinton become president. The experts predict that "Higher tax rates on dividends and capital gains would crash the stock market yet do absolutely nothing to cut the deficit."


INCOME TAX

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

OBAMA
(reversion to pre-Bush tax cuts)
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

CLINTON
(reversion to pre-Bush tax cuts)
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. This is pretty straight forward.


INHERITANCE TAX

MCCAIN
0%
(No change, Bush repealed this tax)

OBAMA
keep the inheritance tax

CLINTON
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. Those willing their assets to loved ones will not only lose them to these taxes.

NEW TAXES BEING PROPOSED BY BOTH CLINTON AND 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!!!

Can you afford Clinton or Obama? I can't!!!!!

(in case you want more information on Obama's tax and spend agenda:

If Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) Could Enact All Of His Campaign Proposals, Taxpayers Would Be Faced With Financing $874.35 Billion In New Spending Over One White House Term:
Updated February 14, 2008: Obama's National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank Will Cost $60 Billion Over Ten Years; Equal To $6 Billion A Year And $24 Billion Over Four Years. Obama: "I'm proposing a National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank that will invest $60 billion over ten years." (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks On Economic Policy, Janesville, WI, 2/13/08)
Obama's Health Care Plan Will Cost Up To $65 Billion A Year; Equal To $260 Billion Over Four Years. "[Obama] campaign officials estimated that the net cost of the plan to the federal government would be $50 billion to $65 billion a year, when fully phased in, and said the revenues from rolling back the tax cuts were enough to cover it." (Robin Toner and Patrick Healy, "Obama Calls For Wider And Less Costly Health Care Coverage," The New York Times, 5/30/07)
Obama's Energy Plan Will Cost $150 Billion Over 10 Years, Equal To $15 Billion Annually And $60 Billion Over Four Years. "Obama will invest $150 billion over 10 years to advance the next generation of biofuels and fuel infrastructure, accelerate the commercialization of plug-in hybrids, promote development of commercial-scale renewable energy, invest in low-emissions coal plants, and begin the transition to a new digital electricity grid." (Obama For America, "The Blueprint For Change," Welcome to Obama for America, Accessed 1/14/08, p. 25)
Obama's Tax Plan Will Cost Approximately $85 Billion A Year; Equal To $340 Billion Over Four Years. "[Obama's] proposed tax cuts and credits, aimed at workers earning $50,000 or less per year, would cost the Treasury an estimated $85 billion annually." (Margaret Talev, "Obama Proposes Tax Code Overhaul To Help The Poor," McClatchy Newspapers, 9/19/07)
Obama's Plan Would Raise Taxes On Capital Gains And Dividends, And On Carried Interest. Obama's tax plan includes: "[i]ncreasing the highest bracket for capital gains and dividends and closing the carried interest loophole." (Obama For America, "Barack Obama: Tax Fairness For The Middle Class," Fact Sheet, Welcome to Obama for America, Accessed 1/8/08)
Obama's Economic Stimulus Package Will Cost $75 Billion. "Barack Obama's economic plan will inject $75 billion of stimulus into the economy by getting money in the form of tax cuts and direct spending directly to the people who need it most." (Obama For America, "Barack Obama's Plan To Stimulate The Economy," Fact Sheet, Welcome to Obama for America, 1/13/08)
Obama's Early Education And K-12 Package Will Cost $18 Billion A Year; Equal To $72 Billion Over Four Years. "Barack Obama's early education and K-12 plan package costs about $18 billion per year." (Obama For America, "Barack Obama's Plan For Lifetime Success Through Education," Fact Sheet,Welcome to Obama for America, 11/20/07, p. 15)
Obama's National Service Plan Will Cost $3.5 Billion A Year; Equal To $14 Billion Over Four Years. "Barack Obama's national service plan will cost about $3.5 billion per year when it is fully implemented." (Obama For America, "Helping All Americans Serve Their Country: Barack Obama's Plan For Universal Voluntary Citizen Service," Fact Sheet, Welcome to Obama for America, 12/5/07)
Obama Will Increase Our Foreign Assistance Funding By $25 Billion. "Obama will embrace the Millennium Development Goal of cutting extreme poverty around the world in half by 2015, and he will double our foreign assistance to $50 billion to achieve that goal." (Obama For America, "The Blueprint For Change," Welcome to Obama for America, Accessed 1/14/08, p. 53)
Obama Will Provide $2 Billion To Aid Iraqi Refugees. "He will provide at least $2 billion to expand services to Iraqi refugees in neighboring countries, and ensure that Iraqis inside their own country can find a safe-haven." (Obama For America, "The Blueprint For Change," Welcome to Obama for America, Accessed 1/14/08, p. 51)
Obama Will Provide $1.5 Billion To Help States Adopt Paid-Leave Systems. "As president, Obama will initiate a strategy to encourage all 50 states to adopt paid-leave systems. Obama will provide a $1.5 billion fund to assist states with start-up costs and to help states offset the costs for employees and employers." (Obama For America, "The Blueprint For Change," Welcome to Obama for America, Accessed 1/14/08, p. 15)
Obama Will Provide $1 Billion Over 5 Years For Transitional Jobs And Career Pathway Programs, Equal To $200 Million A Year And $800 Million Over Four Years. "Obama will invest $1 billion over five years in transitional jobs and career pathway programs that implement proven methods of helping low-income Americans succeed in the workforce." (Obama For America, "The Blueprint For Change," Welcome to Obama for America, Accessed 1/14/08, p. 42)
Obama Will Provide $50 Million To Jump-Start The Creation Of An IAEA-Controlled Nuclear Fuel Bank. Obama: "We must also stop the spread of nuclear weapons technology and ensure that countries cannot build -- or come to the brink of building -- a weapons program under the auspices of developing peaceful nuclear power. That is why my administration will immediately provide $50 million to jump-start the creation of an International Atomic Energy Agency-controlled nuclear fuel bank and work to update the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty." (Sen. Barack Obama, "Renewing American Leadership," Foreign Affairs, 7-8/07)

Well, that certainly is an eye opener. More to think about. Thanks for the post, OP.

__________________
Mary

The email is more then a little misleading. Suggest you check the site below for information on just some of the discrepancies.

The Tax Foundation - Comparing Income Taxes under Bill Clinton and George Bush

I am curious to know how we are going to pay off our debt if there are not some changes in our tax system. For those of you who supported the current administration and its invasion of Iraq its time to pay up. I'm prepared to have my taxes raised because its inevitable --

BTW, for those who didn't notice, we just ponied up $30 billion to get a wallstreet investment firm out of trouble --

Most people have no idea just how bad the economic crisis is that face the US. There is not enough money in the system to cover everything.
Of course, with the fiat money system the Federal Reserve will just print more whenever they want to. This process over time causes the dollar to be worth less. Nothing solid backs our money anymore.
If there was a run on the banks today..the FDIC would have to get the Federal Reserve to print more money.
We are no longer a country that produces alot of stuff. Alot of jobs have went overseas. The US has turn into a nation whose whole economy revolves around credit. Some credit is healthy in a system but not high percentage like it is now.

Either President or Congress wants to spend money that we do not have on either the war or social programs. Soon or later the system will crash,
Even now the stock market is being propped up mainly for the benefit of the rich.

Prices are going up because our dollar is worth less. The oil is traded in US dollars so actual the oil cost the same it is just our purchasing power is less. The yen and others are stonger so they are getting the same amount of oil for less.

Will any of the 3 top candidates accomplish what they are promising? I do not think so ..because we are not going to be able to afford it.
We have got to reduce spending ..either cut some things down or learn to live without. It is not fair to leave this mess to our grandchildren.

YouTube - Jim Rogers: FED is using taxpayers money to buy BS maseratis

Jim Rogers uses terms that are easy to understand.
The top people got billions and billions in Jan. of this year. The regular workers got screwed.

Some of his other videos are listed there. Makes for some interesting watching.

the stocks are up over 300 points today

cheney just announced that the war in iraq was a complete success

Keep looking for doom and gloom to say about Bush, the real nightmare will be if a democrat gets elected.

The stocks up because the Presidents Working Group (also know as the Plunge Protection Team) are using taxpayers money to buy stock. It gives the idea all is fine.

I guess the war is a success in some people's eyes. I do not agree.
The miltary reports have said we are weaker now than 5 years ago.
The idea for the war was from the republican way of thinking that it would pull the US out of the resession that we was in at that time. Wrong..because we do not manufactor stuff anymore, it just sent us farther in debt.

We would be safer having our miltary here in the US protecting our broders like it was indeed to be.

WAS? As in, past tense? As in the war is over??

Well, where have I been? I assumed that since we were continuing to send troops, equipment, money, etc., to Iraq that the war was still going on! Wow! I wonder if my friend over there knows it's all over? Apparently, he's over there bcause he enjoys it so much! Apparently he's patrolling during massive sandstorms, getting shot at, dodging IEDs for the fun of it! Oh, and he knows he'll be over there for at least 5 more months! And this is not his first deployment in this war--and he was deployed the first time we battled Saddam! Maybe someone should tell our military the war "was" a success--so they can pack up and come home....

The US Govt just bailed out a private industry (again). The US does not produce enough of our own expendable materials--we import, outsource, depend on cheap immigrant labor, we're heading for a complete and huge meltdown. God help us...

__________________
Mental that one, I'm telling you. ---Ron Weasley, "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets"

I agree that the OP is misleading... The capital gains tax does NOT hurt the elderly counting on the sale of their home as a source of income. You only pay capital gains on a home you own for less than 2 years, or investment homes. So if it's your home of 10 + years which it would need to be if it's to be used as a source of income, especially for the elderly, then they get to keep the profits, I believe it's up to $250K for a single person, and $500K for married. The capital gains would hurt real estate investors, and people who keep flipping their houses.

Thanks OP this very good info.
Do not kid yourselves out there if you think Hillary or Obama are not for Socialism, that is just one step under Communism~

__________________
Lizzzz
Haunted_Studio

This may surprise you, but, I actually agree with every one of these statements.

For those who want to retire and downsize their homes, there is a one time tax exemption as long as you're 65 or older.

Sale of principal residence
A capital gain on the sale of a principal residence is afforded special treatment for Federal income tax purposes. Married sellers of a principal residence may generally exclude up to $500,000 of gain ($250,000 of gain in the case of single individuals) from gross income, provided the real estate was used as the sellers' primary residence for at least two years during the five year period ending with the date of the sale.

However, if a single person owned the residence and then married and put their new spouse on the deed, and they sold the house before the new spouse had lived in the residence for two years, they would have to pay the capital gains tax.

If a person has rental property and doesn't live IN the rental homes for two years and sells the rental property, they, too, have to pay capital gains tax.

Suppose there is no house and only land is sold (i.e., farmers selling their property for retirement), then I believe they'd have to pay capital gains tax, too.

Also if there are two residences (a beach cottage, condo) and the owners don't live in it - only for a few months during the summer, etc., then that doesn't qualify as a 'principal residence'. If they sell it, then they'd have to pay capital gains taxes.

I believe there are a lot of instances where capital gains taxes would have to be paid. And if Obama or Clinton are in the White House, you can watch those taxes rise.

Once again....I completely agree....God help us if Democrats run everything Sherri

__________________
"It isn't that liberals are ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so."
- Ronald Reagan

I totally understand all these scenarios(sp?)... However in your original post you said

"If you are heading toward retirement and would like to down-size your home or move into a retirement 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."

That is the part that is not true. Most elderly people have lived in their homes for more than 2 years, so this will not affect them, it will affect those wealthy enough to just own land, have another home, or rental property... I'm not saying I agree with these taxes, I think we are taxed enough already and need to cut the spending. I just think that using scare tactics when talking about taxes how it's hurting the elderly who need to retire, that's just not right.

Originally Posted by ana21

BTW, for those who didn't notice, we just ponied up $30 billion to get a wallstreet investment firm out of trouble --

More news:
ABC News: Bear Stearns Calls in Grief Counselors

An average Bear Stearns employee who had $200,000 in a retirement fund last week now has just $2,000.

Employee assistance professionals, who compare their work to grief counseling, told ABC News that the sudden shock of learning that you have lost your life savings or job is akin to the emotional jolt felt when learning you have a terminal disease.

Edit to add: Will we see more of this in the future. Maybe?

Someone has to pay for the policies of the current administration. Time to pony up people.

Actually I think we need to change the tax rules. You have to pay for the stuff the person you voted for, spends. The only problem with my clever plan is that no one would vote anymore. Oh well, a girl can dream.

Well, I'm not rich. I am disabled, receive disability but my husband works. However, we DO own quite a bit of land (thanks to my parents), who we inherited it from. They were not wealthy. They just happened to have the land for many years. We had to put the house (and land) in our names with them having a lifetime estate). They've passed on now, but we have the land. We sold the house. It's not a scare tactic. It's the truth. People have a one-time 'freebie' on capital gains tax. After that, even though you call certain people wealthy, that have an extra condo or land, when in fact, they could have inherited it from their parents. That's the generation that's coming into the capital gains taxes in a few years. Things they've inherited from their parents. I know because I'm one of them.

To me, I really don't understand why unearned income should be taxed at a lower rate than earned income.

Also, when real estate is sold, only the gain is taxed.

That would be sweet. Imagine the screaming when all the Bush fans have to pony up the 12 billion a month that war is costing.

Or Obama's people paying back for his “Global Poverty Act” (S.2433). He sponsored this bill. The legislation would commit the U.S. to spending 0.7 percent of gross national product on foreign aid, which amounts to a phenomenal 13-year total of $845 billion over and above what the U.S. already spends.
This money is not being spent in the US the UN will decide the countries the funds goes to.

The problem is almost everyone in Congress and the President wants to spend way too much!

Here's that bill. Why don't you read it and tell me where it says anything those numbers? That's just more right-wing propaganda.

Search Results - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

More liberal viewpoint

UN Millennium Project | About Us

Message to Washington: Get Serious About Development by Jeffrey D. Sachs - The Globalist > > Global Development

Jeffrey D. Sachs - "As a nation, we committed to 0.7% — and to do so along a specific timetable. The President of the United States himself was present at Monterrey.
United States stands at 0.15% of GDP — the lowest share of income given by any rich country — and we do not see any concrete efforts underway to close that gap.
We are short by $65 billion each year, which may seem like a vast sum, but it represents just 0.5% of our GNP. Our financing gap is short by only 50 cents of every $100 of our national income."

65 billion (short each year) x 13 years (2002-2015) = 845 billion more

Yes -- President BUSH. So why are you blaming this on Obama when it was BUSH that agreed to it? All the bill does is legislate that which BUSH already agreed to.

Bush agreeded but Obama is continuing it. Obama is the one talking about change.

No, the bill is making sure the promise Bush made is met by the deadline already established (2015).

__________________
@@@
l/ l/ l/
Dont go through life,
GROW through life

Real eyes...realize...real lies.

So Obama and the rest of Congress should NOT follow through on the things Bush goes around promising?

That's ridiculous. You're blaming Obama and Congress for making it possible for Bush to keep a pledge. How silly.

Should Congress and Obama follow Bushs's pledge about the Iraq war? Seems Bush followed Clinton's ideas on that one.

Each side has their own reason for staying the course.
"Obama wants to engage in charity at my expense for the greater good of mankind, while the GOP wants to show their Christian spirit at my expense!"

What is wrong with it in the simplest way...taking money from the working class of America and giving it to others while people in the US suffer. If someone wants to donate to places to help with poverty that is their business.

Back to OP. What we can't afford is even four more years of Bush, which is what we will get with Bush Lite, (McCain).

I'm sorry, I have no idea what you're saying here. Can you rephrase? How did Bush follow Clinton on the war?

Iraqi Liberation Act

Clinton Signs Iraq Liberation Act

Transcript: President Clinton explains Iraq strike - December 16, 1998

(very intersting article)
Hillary Clinton Again Lies about Iraq - CommonDreams.org

I asked you to tell me what you mean. Can't you do that in your own words?

Are you trying to convince me that HIllary Clinton lies? Well, no kidding. I don't support her. We were talking about Obama, though, not Clinton.

I had a headache last night so I just provide links because I knew you was going to ask for that also.

In my own words: I believe the problem is that the different presidents continue the Foreign Policy that has been in place. You asked me to explain how Bush followed Clinton into war. President Clinton had laid the ground work for the invasion. He was also conviced they were building WMD.
What he says is that he would have went into Iraq differently. With politicians you have to listen to excatly what they say..they chose their words a certain way so that they are not acutally lying to us. The country laughed about Clinton "is defintion" but that that is a normal politican.

Back to the subject on spending.
Until politicans realize that throwing more money at a problem does little to help.Example: We spend more money on education in this country than any
other country and we are losing ground against other countries each year.

Study: Presidential Frontrunners Would Boost Federal Budget by Range of $7 Billion to $287 Billion Annually

Obama and Clinton both want to spend more than we are spending now. They want to add more programs and fund more money to alot of the same programs we have in place now.
Can the country afford to keep spending and spending and only raising taxes from somewhere?

The only way to solve the economy problem, is to reduce spending. People need to be able to keep more of their money, so that they can save. Our country is being run on "credit", most people run their own life on "too much credit".

Sure they may say "no new taxes" but they did not say they would not raise taxes. The policitians that say they will "not raise taxes" just add other types of hidden taxes. Most people do not realize all the types of hidden taxes" that they pay.

America will fall because of our economy situation. We can not continue with the policy we have in place.
Spending out of control, running on credit, massive inefficient programs,taxing people too much and a foreign policy that makes matters worst.

No, that's not what I asked. You made the comparison between Obama, in the Congress, putting Bush's promises into law. That is not the same thing as Bush "following" Clinton into war as you alleged. And I see no comparison between Bush, as president, choosing to go into a voluntary war and Obama, in the Senate, sending Bush a bill that puts into law a promise that Bush made.


Support for that? Right off the bat, you need to recognize that they'll save nearly 12 billion each month by stopping the war in Iraq. That buys a lot of education.

Of course not. But who's been the bigger spender for 7 years -- never met a spending bill he didn't like while the Republicans were in charge in Congress? That would be GWB.

[quote=truble2301;No, that's not what I asked. You made the comparison between Obama, in the Congress, putting Bush's promises into law. That is not the same thing as Bush "following" Clinton into war as you alleged. And I see no comparison between Bush, as president, choosing to go into a voluntary war and Obama, in the Senate, sending Bush a bill that puts into law a promise that Bush made.



Support for that? Right off the bat, you need to recognize that they'll save nearly 12 billion each month by stopping the war in Iraq. That buys a lot of education.



Of course not. But who's been the bigger spender for 7 years -- never met a spending bill he didn't like while the Republicans were in charge in Congress? That would be GWB.[/QUOTE]

Obama and Hillary Clinton did pass the funding for the war. Following Bush's pledge by giving him the funds to continue the war.

Obama will only spend that 12 billion a month somewhere else. Probably on the military going into a different country (Afghanistan, Iran, etc) Last report I read said Obama now does not support an immediate withdrawal of troops..but rather a 5 year plan. That means you will still be spending money in Iraq.

Spending more money is not going to help the overall problem with our education system. More money has been spent on the Dept of Education since Bush took office. Mainly because of the "No Child Left Behind",
Taking the 12 billion a month and saving (not spending) most of it would help the economy the most.

It is the fault of both the President and Congress on allowing the spending to grow to where it is now.
Not just the Dem or Rep. but BOTH.

Yes, I know. That's exactly what the Global Poverty bill does as well. Not sure where you're going, because so far you seem to be agreeing with me.


Are you a mind-reader? Where are you gettting this from?

What report?

Spending less isn't going to help, either. Spending smart is the answer. That's why NCLB is a joke.

Who's supposed to be saving it? Saving it where? What do you mean?

Obama's on withdrawing the troops from Iraq.

Power on Obama's Iraq plan: "best case scenario" - Ben Smith's Blog - Politico.com

The Swamp: Democrats don't vow full Iraq withdrawal by 2013

"Among all of the leading Democratic candidates for president, none was willing to commit to a promise in a campaign debate that all of the U.S. combat forces deployed in Iraq will be gone by 2013, the end of the next president’s term in office."

Obama does believe in preemptive measures toward other countries. He thinks we need to be in the different regions for stabilization. Which means we will have US miltary still in countries for years.
Foreign policy will change some but we will still have a present in the region than upsets the native people in those countries.


My earlier statement: "Taking the 12 billion a month and saving (not spending) most of it would help the economy the most."

One idea is to use the $12 billion a month for payment to the US National Debt. Which is over $9 Trillion and increases every day by $1.65 billion, because of interest added.