Forum Index
»
Political Discussion
obama's tax calculator site
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
Well, PP, quite honestly, you have to understand that you are doing really really well. On ONE income, you are able to live in an expensive area. 400K house is twice what mine is worth BTW. You are able to max out your 401K. You are able to have enough to save for college. You have 70K in the bank. You don't appear to be concerned about how to pay for food on the table, medical care for the kids issues that so many are concerned about. That's what you have been able to do on ONE income, which I am presuming isn't $250K all by itself. And not using credit cards or debt. That's great! If your spouse is right now earning less than $200K you guys would qualify for a tax reduction -- a small one I think. If your spouse is making $200 to $250 K your taxes would stay the same. But now you are saying that IF you go back to work, your income will rise to over $250K and you will have to pay more taxes. Well, that's true. The amount over $250K will be taxed at some 3% higher rate. So if your income goes up to $260K, you will have to pay 3% extra taxes on $10,000, or $300 extra per year. If with your job your income goes up to $270K, you'll need to spend $600 more per year on taxes. I can certainly understand that no one wants to pay MORE of anything. But it seems to me that you would be bringing home a LOT more than$300 a year if you went back to work, and as you are already in a family that is earning plenty enough for a decent house, food on the table, a car and medical care, that people in your income bracket can better afford the extra money, than, say the working poor. Even the people only making $80K (like my DH) -- we have half the house worth you do, and we aren't able to sock money away as you guys are doing. Trust me, it isn't because we aren't frugal! |
Anonymous
Oh, please. You will keep doing what you do. You are not going to punish charities because you don't like Obama. And don't pretend this is going to squeeze your budget. Just take your ball and go home if you want. Then hold your breath until you turn blue, and refuse to eat your vegetables. |
Anonymous
|
The phrase for working families implies that the rest of us are not working. Any government supported organization like Fannie and freddie should be on the same pay scale as other GOVT operations like the FBI, IRS, CIA. Check out the homes of Raines and ex or soon to be ex wendy.
http://www.washingtonian.com/articles/homegarden/8835.html Obama got his property via sleazy political ties. We worked and no sleaze. he's a tammany hall kind of guy for the year 2008. |
Anonymous
|
I always understood the term "working families" to imply, those who did not get significant money from investments in stocks and real estate.
I've also understood it to include the 95% of small business owners whose businesses do NOT see $250,000 in profit each year. |
Anonymous
Chicago machine politics are making their way to DC. It will be a rough ride for those of us who work hard and try to save our own money to send our own kids to college, pay for our own retirement, help our own elders who are in need. Also, anyone remember the Cuban missile crisis and how is was mismanaged by JFK? (another naive, charismatic, untested , inexperienced politician.) |
Anonymous
That description describes my family to a T! DH works VERY hard for his salary, and we try to save our own money, save for our kids' college. AND we pay taxes for the common good, like to fund our military and to pay for critical infrastructure improvements, and to fund much needed research (yes, even fruit flies can be important to research, thank you very much Sarah Palin.) Right now DH earns less than $250,000 so we wouldn't expect to see our taxes (which are large enough) go up any more under Obama. But if DH did happen to earn more, or if I went back to work and started earning a fortune, well then, a tax rate increase seems fair to me. We'd STILL be paying the same rate as usual, for the amount we earned UNDER $250K. We'd only be taxed a higher amount, an extra 3% for the salary OVER $250,000. So every additional $10,000 over $250,000 we earned, we'd be taxed an additional $300. Honestly, that seems fair to me. |
Anonymous
"Working families" has a simple meaning: - You are employed (not unemployed or retired) - You have children It's not code for people with high unearned income (e.g., dividends). As for small businesses and the $250K profit figure PP mentioned, you're confusing small business owners' profits with their salaries. A small business need not see $250K in profit for the owner to earn $250K in salary. We think of "small business" as mom-and-pop operations, but plenty of contractors are small businesses (as determined by their industrial code and revenues) who earn large salaries. Regardless, salary and profit are two different things. |
Anonymous
Yes. He is simultaneously incapable as a leader and paradoxically able to run the Chicago machine like a master politician. He's an idiot and an evil genius at the same time. |
Anonymous
No, of course he's not evil or dumb, just naive and inexperienced! |
Anonymous
| You know if you look at the campaign dynamics McCain is the naive one. Either he doesn't have good political skills or simply can not run organizations. The economy and Palin can't explain what a mess his campaign has been and this isn't the first time he has had problems running a national campaign at the operational level. (Don't forget they did pick Palin and the nominee is responsible for vetting his pick and living with the political consequences). McCain has no experience running any type of organization at all. |
Anonymous
And Obama does? McCain is doing an incredible job against enormous odds (the war, the economy, 8 years of a Republican presidency.)I'll take McCain's political and organizational skills over Obama's any time. |
Anonymous
Eh, I don't know I'd say "incredible job". Face it -- a certain portion of the country will vote for the "pro-life" candidate above all else. And then another percentage absolutely refuses to vote for an African American. Add those two together and that's McCain's vase, that he really ouldn't lose if he tried, although some of them could have just stayed home. So he selected Sarah Palin to make sure they came out and voted. But that probably gets him to about 43% of the electorate, without having to do a darn thing. |
Anonymous
Again the phrase is 95% of working families would receive the tax break, thus indicating that 5% of working families will not get the tax break. So you are in that 5%. Tough luck for you but not insulting. |