# Obama reduces $250K to $200K for tax limit



## JustAnotherDog (Oct 16, 2005)

Instead of lower taxes for those making less than $250,000 it's now changed to $200,000.

No wonder nobody can find a reason other than "Change" to vote for Obama and now "Change" has come to Obama's tax plan.


----------



## ruger1 (Aug 16, 2006)

If that is in fact true. That's less of a reason for me to vote for him.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Now how many more people in the US will that impact.....

Also with that changing how will his cap gains proposed tax change?? Think of it this way with the down investment market most people now only have there homes and lands to rely on for retirement......now add a huge cap gains....

More and more reasons why not to vote for him based on issues and political platform.


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

No it's not $250,000 or $200,000, now it's $150,000

http://embeds.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/10 ... interview/



> Joe Biden's in trouble again over a local TV interview - this time for defining the middle class as anyone making less than $150,000.







Now he wants to increase taxes on those making over $150,000. How long will it be before it's on anyone making over $50,000?


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

Hey guys...how many times do you have to lie to be a liar?

This should shock absolutely no one, since to be shocked you would've first had to believe them. But I am surprised to see they've let the cat out of the bag this soon.

Like I said in another thread...how many more opportunities will he have to "change his mind" in the near future? 

Shameless......absolutely shameless uke:


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

Doesn't this remind anyone of the Bill Clinton campaign .......Then after one month in office he screwed everyone even the people he said that would be safe. :wink:


----------



## backhome (Oct 25, 2004)

Obama has said for months that nobody making less than $250k would see a tax increase and those below $200k would get a tax break. Doesn't seem that hard to understand. If you need it broken down further, let me know.


----------



## JustAnotherDog (Oct 16, 2005)

> Obama has said for months that nobody making less than $250k would see a tax increase and those below $200k would get a tax break. Doesn't seem that hard to understand. If you need it broken down further, let me know.


If Obama/o'Biden get elected, I'll meet you back here in Oct/Nov 2010 and you can explain it then.

:wink:


----------



## Bgunit68 (Dec 26, 2006)

backhome said:


> Obama has said for months that nobody making less than $250k would see a tax increase and those below $200k would get a tax break. Doesn't seem that hard to understand. If you need it broken down further, let me know.


Actually, I would because Obama certainly hasn't. He just promises the world to get elected but as soon as he goes off script his socialism shines strong. So, as I've been told, this means that anyone under 200,000 will get a tax break. I believe I heard that would be 90 to 95% that are under 200K. Of that 90+% I understand that approx 40% don't pay federal taxes and they will be getting their break in the form of a check. How is that not welfare and how is that not socialism? Listen, I work for a large company that has given 1 raise in 4 years. We have been letting people go at an alarming rate. If you tax rape them what's going to happen? I don't know too many people whose employer makes less than 200K (Gross). I think this country is in a world of hurt regardless of who gets in. I don't believe either can get us above water in 4 years. I think McCain's plan is much more sensible. It's not what everyone wants to hear but it will work. But as far as every thing else going on in the world I am steadfast with McCain. Obama and McCain with both be tested on a world stage. When the test is given whom do you think will pass? McCain with a PhD in world affairs (Metaphorically Speaking) or Obama who has a sixth grade education in world affairs (and wants to be a brain surgeon). Sorry for the Jethro reference. Couldn't resist. McCain will pass with flying colors while I don't think Obama could get past his name.


----------



## Bgunit68 (Dec 26, 2006)

By the way Alaskan Brown Bear that is an Awesome Avatar. Every time I've seen it I've wanted to say something.


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

> How is that not welfare and how is that not socialism?


Remeber that this is an earned income tax credit... so, these people need to have a job first (earned income) to get any tax benefit.


----------



## JustAnotherDog (Oct 16, 2005)

Blind & Deaf  seabass said:


> Remeber that this is an earned income tax credit... so, these people need to have a job first (earned income) to get any tax benefit.


Just like Obama changed his original plan that required anyone getting tax benefits must be working? This was after he was called on the fact that non-tax-paying people would be getting tax breaks.

(just kidding on the blind & deaf part you know)


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

I posted this in another thread....but it has to do with his cap gain tax....

Here is another tax example......

Homeowners...... what is your most valuable investment.....YOUR HOME. Under obama he wants to redefine capital gains tax laws. So now your biggest investment will get taxed even harder than it would have under current tax laws.

Now some might not think this is that big of a deal. But look at people's retirement investments (gone), 401K's (shrinking daily), Mutual Funds (falling fast), etc.

So if you are one of these situations in the next 4-8 years....
1. Retiring and selling your home to move to a warmer climate. You will lose money.

2. If you are selling your home and down sizing.....you will lose money.

3. If you are selling your home and wanting to get bigger....you will lose buying power for your new home (down payment, cash at closing, etc.)

Now again why would any baby boomer want to vote obama? This is going to effect one of the largest classes of US Citezens out there now. I am confused on why he is still winning?


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

JustAnotherDog said:


> Blind & Deaf  seabass said:
> 
> 
> > Remeber that this is an earned income tax credit... so, these people need to have a job first (earned income) to get any tax benefit.
> ...


I don't quite follow what you are saying. Because lots of people earn income, yet do not pay taxes because their income is low, right? So they would potentially be people who a)earn income, b)paid no taxes, c)yet get a rebate check. These are just the people who are struggling to get by, no? Maybe it's because I am blind and deaf, but I don't see a problem with this. I don't mind my taxes going to help these people.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

seabass said:


> > How is that not welfare and how is that not socialism?
> 
> 
> Remeber that this is an earned income tax credit... so, these people need to have a job first (earned income) to get any tax benefit.


Earned income my ***. Just how did they earn it? Sitting on their sofa sucking suds???


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

backhome said:


> Obama has said for months that *nobody *making less than $250k would see a tax increase and those below $200k would get a tax break. Doesn't seem that hard to understand. If you need it broken down further, let me know.


And you *believe* that? :eyeroll: 
He's got a bridge to no where for sale..... do you want in on that too?


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

Bgunit68 said:


> By the way Alaskan Brown Bear that is an Awesome Avatar. Every time I've seen it I've wanted to say something.


Thanks...
That's my picture in a F-15 taken before I flew from Nellis AFB to Death Valley and back.....it was cool.


----------



## rberglof (May 17, 2007)

I was listening to Obama in an interview where he said we need an across the board tax increase and as he is prone to do said it three times. Was unable to listen to the complete interview so can't say who he was talking to.


----------



## JustAnotherDog (Oct 16, 2005)

This is who Obama talks to:






This is who Obama listens to:

http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/video.aspx?v=e46UaG2GaG


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Chuck Smith said:


> I posted this in another thread....but it has to do with his cap gain tax....
> 
> Here is another tax example......
> 
> ...


I've asked this question several times of late.

Why is your home considered your most valuable investment? Do you own your home outright right now or are you paying mortgage payments? Do you know why that matters? Just curious if you ever taken a college upper level finance class at a 4 year university?

Let me ask it a different way, as I've asked on this forum several times in the past months.

"Is your home an asset on your balance sheet?" Where does it get categorized then?


----------



## JustAnotherDog (Oct 16, 2005)

> Why is your home considered your most valuable investment? Do you own your home outright right now or are you paying mortgage payments? Do you know why that matters? Just curious if you ever taken a college upper level finance class at a 4 year university?


Who gives a $**t, is it subject to capital gains tax when sold or not?" And will Obama increase it or not?

Some people live paycheck to paycheck & their house *is* the most money they will ever spend in their lives.

How that figures in to the tax refunds Obama is going to give to those who don't live with a paycheck at all, is a question for those with college upper level finance classes at a 4 year university, I guess.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

JustAnotherDog said:


> > Why is your home considered your most valuable investment? Do you own your home outright right now or are you paying mortgage payments? Do you know why that matters? Just curious if you ever taken a college upper level finance class at a 4 year university?
> 
> 
> Who gives a $**t, is it subject to capital gains tax when sold or not?" And will Obama increase it or not?
> ...


ding ding ding... you proved my point. Thanks.

btw.. to clarify my earlier question. It was meant as a general question to everyone about a more fundamental problem. It wasn't directed at anyone in general, but was intended to make a general point about the fallacy of people considering their homes as an investment.


----------



## JustAnotherDog (Oct 16, 2005)

Is it subject to capital gains or not?

Will it go up under the Obama tax promises?

Don't answer half the questions.

(maybe it was only half a question )


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Just curious if you ever taken a college upper level finance class at a 4 year university?


 :bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown:

I hope were not going down that road for the umpteenth time.

A house is an investment. It's not an investment you will cash in on. Your children cash in on it when you die. Obama will take a pile from your kids. People without kids never think of this angle.

In that event:


> ding ding ding... you proved my point. Thanks.


 it's not a point if you have a will and testement. It is a point if you don't give a rats behind about anyone after your dead. Then your right. Then it's only an expense. Better to live in a shoebox and spend money on things you enjoy. But if Obama sees you having to much fun he will get you some way.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Plainsman said:


> A house is an investment.


_wrong. _

Where does it go on your balance sheet if you are still paying a mortgage?

In the asset or liability column?

It is a liability if you are paying a mortgage and living in an area that isn't appreciating by greater than 7% year over year. Unless you are living in a very small house that is completely within your means... e.g, your mortgage payment comprises less than 25% of your monthly net income, you carry very little (if any) balance on your credit cards and you fund other diversified investments vehicles each month, (that make up at least 10% of your net), you shouldn't be in a house. There is too much of a "margin loan" concept attached to it, and most folks will come out losers in the end.

That logic is the old wive's tale about "solid investment strategy" passed down by less than informed folks from earlier generations.

Seeing as I'm so completely stupid, I won't reply further.

It's not worth my time when I so obviously out of my league. Sorry for intruding. I should have known better.

:roll:


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

R y a n said:


> Plainsman said:
> 
> 
> > A house is an investment.
> ...


SHOULDA :wink:


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Alaskan Brown Bear Killer said:


> R y a n said:
> 
> 
> > Plainsman said:
> ...


:lol:

my bad. :thumb:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Many blame the lenders for the trouble with people getting into houses they couldn't afford. They call it predatory lending. There is another aspect. Those that had no intention of paying their loan. Sort of parasitic borrowing.

I guess houses are only an investment if you intend to pay for them, if you can afford them, and if you live in them you never see the equity you build up anyway. Houses increase in value, but with heavy capitol gains taxes and inheritance taxes thresholds lowering the kids will get about half under Obama that they would now under Bush.

I'm not insinuating your stupid Ryan, far from it. I think you very intelligent.


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

I guess that 4 years of college gives you enough extra time you need to reinvent the wheel, so to speak, because I just checked the dictionary...that any 5th grader could read, and it simply defines investment as "using money to make money". And I think it's more than fair to say that with very few exceptions homes always increase in value (before Fannie Mae :wink: ).....which means you used money to make money.

Unless I'm missing something...which is ENTIRELY possible.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I know a couple of guys who bought houses and rent them. They also speculate on land. They think that both are gaining value faster than the rate of interest paid at the bank. House prices have not dropped as bad here in Jamestown as in other areas of the country. Still if capitol gains taxes go up the game is up on this type of investing.


----------



## JustAnotherDog (Oct 16, 2005)

> I know a couple of guys who bought houses and rent them.


That's NOT FAIR ! ! It's cheating some poor person out of access to those houses.

Oops, Sorry, it was my left side coming out. The side next to my sarcastic side and sometimes they overlap. :wink:

Here, take a look at Michelle Obama tell about Barack's accomplishments:


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Ryan.....way to divert from the subject about cap gains taxes buy arguing if your home is an asset or not. But here is some info

Your home is an asset when it is paid off on a balance sheet. But you home is called a Liquid Asset use you can sell it and make money. Just like inventory is a LIQUID ASSET. A 4 year degree or anyone who took business accounting should teach that.

Another way to look at it.....Cars. one of the worst investment you can make in the world. But your car is considered an asset that you can claim depreciation on....again business accounting.

Now back on the Cap Gains issue.....

Ryan with all the Baby Boomers (who typically own there homes out right) and are losing money on 401K's, Mutual Funds, other investments in the stock exchange..... why would they vote obama when he is going to tax there investment! Because we are talking about people who are in the bracket like you stated...there mortgage is less than 25% of there income. For your example of an asset.

Example.....People bought a home $150,000 is roughly $1000 a month payment on your mortgage. The household brings in $75K. That is less than 25%. So it effects more people than you would think.

Or people who own a home outright.

But lets look at it in another light .... So you have people living pay check to pay check. Buying down the mortgages. Paying a little extra off each month. Now why would these people want to get taxed more when they decide to sell their home?

How about Farmers looking to see off land? Huge cap gains there.

Again.....why would anyone who owns real estate and are looking to sell with in a few years 4-8 want to vote Oboma?


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Oh and buy the way.....

I have taken a few upper level financing classes at a 4 year university. BA in Business Administration, minor in marketing and financing. Plus being a real estate broker for the past 8 years I think my level of knowledge on this subject is just.

:beer:


----------



## JustAnotherDog (Oct 16, 2005)

> Plus being a real estate broker for the past 8 years


It's money-hungry thugs like you that caused all this mortgage meltdown, don't you know? :wink:

At least that's what I tell my mother, the real estate agent, when she talks about voting for the Obama/o'Biden ticket.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

> It's money-hungry *thugs* like you that caused all this mortgage meltdown, don't you know?


Instead of thug I would rather be called bandit. :beer: :lol: 8)


----------



## nd_hunter (Nov 5, 2007)

I don't do much posting on this site...mostly just a LOT of reading, but I've seen enough to prompt one question for you ryan. What is it exactly is it that makes you think you can be so arrogant and talk down to people? I'm half offended by the way you talk to some people on here...

I eagerly await your response to chuck


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Back in 2003 when Obama was running for Senate (unopposed), he said that he was opposed to the Bush tax cuts for "people who didn't need then and didn't ask for them."

That's original :roll: .

But then he goes on to say that we should have given a tax cut to working families ... okay, that sounds like what we've heard on the presidential campaign trail. But then he continues to say that these "working families" would be those making 50, 60, 70 thousand dollars a year. Hmmm $70,000 is a long ways from the $250,000 that Obama started with in his presidential run.

Now that figure is creeping further and further down, why because it has to other wise his socialist math cannot work. And math is math


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

seabass says



> > I don't quite follow what you are saying. Because lots of people earn income, yet do not pay taxes because their income is low, right? So they would potentially be people who a)earn income, b)paid no taxes, c)yet get a rebate check. These are just the people who are struggling to get by, no? Maybe it's because I am blind and deaf, but I don't see a problem with this. *I don't mind my taxes going to help these people.[/*quote]


What you don't mind is forcing other people who do mind to do so!

Why not just give to the poor you so admire voluntairily instead of having some socialist politicain who doesn't really give a damn about the poor and just cares about personal power not charity have the right to take from us and buy votes with it encourageing bad behavior.

Seabass This is the mentality of the next president of the United States.

See if you can follow his reasoning:

"The reason that we want to do this, change our tax code, is not because I have anything against the rich ... I love rich people! I want all of you to be rich. Go for it. That's the American dream, that's the American way, that's terrific. The point is, though, that -- and it's not just charity, it's not just that I want to help the middle class and working people who are trying to get in the middle class -- it's that when we actually make sure that everybody's got a shot - when young people can all go to college, when everybody's got decent health care, when everybody's got a little more money at the end of the month - then guess what? Everybody starts spending that money, they decide maybe I can afford a new car, maybe I can afford a computer for my child. They can buy the products and services that businesses are selling and everybody is better off. All boats rise ..."

Then he comes up with this line: "John McCain and Sarah Palin they call this socialistic ... You know I don't know when, when they decided they wanted to make a virtue out of selfishness."

So there you go. Now, if you do not want the government to take your wealth and redistribute it to people who don't pay taxes, this makes you a selfish person. 

On the other hand, if you do not work and you want the government to take money from someone who does and give it to you, you are not selfish. Not even greedy - whatever that is.

If you want to talk about selfish, why not take a look at statistics which clearly show that Conservatives - those who would most likely not support Obama's spread the wealth mentality - donate more to charity.

Even though liberal households tend to have incomes, conservatives households give 30% more to charity than the average liberal household. *And guess what? It didn't take the force of government to do that.*

Heres a good article you might find interesting, and suprising

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl ... l_giv.html


----------



## JustAnotherDog (Oct 16, 2005)

Relax Bobm, because they are only communists with a "small 'c'" - direct quote from Bill Ayers.


----------

