PDA

View Full Version : Obama's Tax Evasion



Pagan Warrior
May 7th, 2008, 02:54 PM
The parsons of the press corps are furious with Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos of ABC News, which means the pair must have done a pretty good job moderating Wednesday's Democratic debate in Philadelphia. Barack Obama had an off-night, so his media choir wants to shoot the questioners.

We thought the debate was one of the best yet, precisely because it probed the evasive rhetoric we've heard from both Democratic candidates throughout the campaign. Nowhere was this more apparent than during the exchanges between Mr. Gibson and Mr. Obama over taxes.

....

Time and again, the rookie Senator has said he would not raise taxes on middle-class earners, whom he describes as people with annual income lower than between $200,000 and $250,000. On Wednesday night, he repeated the vow. "I not only have pledged not to raise their taxes," said the Senator, "I've been the first candidate in this race to specifically say I would cut their taxes."

But Mr. Obama has also said he's open to raising indeed, nearly doubling to 28% the current top capital gains tax rate of 15%, which would in fact be a tax hike on some 100 million Americans who own stock, including millions of people who fit Mr. Obama's definition of middle class.

....

By the way, a higher capital gains tax rate isn't the only middle-class tax increase that Mr. Obama is proposing. He also wants to lift the cap on wages subject to the payroll tax. That cap was $97,500 in 2007 and is $102,000 this year. "Those are a heck of a lot of people between $97,000 and $200[,000] and $250,000," said Mr. Gibson. "If you raise the payroll taxes, that's going to raise taxes on them." Ignoring the no-tax pledge he had made five minutes earlier, Mr. Obama explained that such a tax increase was nevertheless necessary.


*sigh* We're going miss the days when the amount taken out of your revenue was a smaller percentage than what you took home.

sarabethv
May 7th, 2008, 06:16 PM
I'm confused.

So this means if you sell your home, the gov. will take almost 30% off the top (well of the profit).

So a person who sells his house for 200,000 but owes 150,000 on it, would get a profit of 50,000 and pay a tax of $15,000 thus only making $35,000. Or do they figure the tax on the entire selling price in which case the individual would wind up owing $60,000 which would put him in the hole to the gov. (I used 30% for ease of numbers)

PaganLibrarian
May 7th, 2008, 06:30 PM
Stop complaining! You have a duty to give the government however much of your money they want and be grateful they don't take it all. It's not your money. They print it, it's their money!

bellamandu
May 7th, 2008, 06:48 PM
Stop complaining! You have a duty to give the government however much of your money they want and be grateful they don't take it all. It's not your money. They print it, it's their money!

please tell me that was sarcasm.

sarabethv
May 7th, 2008, 06:51 PM
Stop complaining! You have a duty to give the government however much of your money they want and be grateful they don't take it all. It's not your money. They print it, it's their money!

Render unto Ceasar and all that?

Philosophia
May 7th, 2008, 09:18 PM
Is there a link to the article?

Pagan Warrior
May 8th, 2008, 01:10 PM
Egads, I forgot the link!! Here it is: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120847505709424727.html

pawnman
May 8th, 2008, 01:49 PM
I'm confused.

So this means if you sell your home, the gov. will take almost 30% off the top (well of the profit).

So a person who sells his house for 200,000 but owes 150,000 on it, would get a profit of 50,000 and pay a tax of $15,000 thus only making $35,000. Or do they figure the tax on the entire selling price in which case the individual would wind up owing $60,000 which would put him in the hole to the gov. (I used 30% for ease of numbers)

Not only that, your 401(k) is going to be worth a LOT less when you retire and they start taking 30%+ off all your withdrawls.

And people wonder why corporations flock overseas to countries with lower tax rates.

As for houses, I'm pretty sure you only pay tax on the profit. So it's not even what you owe, but what you paid for it in the first place.

Ulfurskona
May 8th, 2008, 01:53 PM
actually depending on your income level and the amount you sell your house for, you're not subject to capital gains at all...especially if its your primary residence.

Capital Gains Taxes

If you sold your main home and made a profit, you may be able to exclude that profit from your taxable income. Here's how it works.
$250,000 Exclusion on the Sale of a Main Home

Individuals can exclude up to $250,000 in profit from the sale of a main home (or $500,000 for a married couple) as long as you have owned the home and lived in the home for a minimum of two years. Those two years do not need to be consecutive. In the 5 years prior to the sale of the house, you need to have lived in the house for at least 24 months in that 5-year period. In other words, the home must have been your principal residence. You can use this 2-out-of-5 year rule to exclude your profits each time you sell or exchange your main home. Generally, you can claim the exclusion only once every two years.


So quite frankly... most of the homes in this country are automatically excluded from capital gains with very few exceptions.

Stocks and such are probably different.