What they'll do to your tax bill (McCain Vs. Obama)Estimated deductions on income lvl

For a person who is earning 66K while also trying to save and/or invest, or has any type of chronic health issue, then that $200 can be at least somewhat significant.

 

i wonder how many people on cf.net that would be hit by obama's tax plan. i know i would but at least i don't have to pay into social security! but it's really gonna suck when he screws with the dividend and cap gains taxes.

 

there's no dividends this year anyway

 

So you are my accountant now.

Even though I don't make buffet money, I can assure you that I am above the 250k line Obama's proposing. Its really not that that much here in northeast.

Are you still saving up for the 1 bed room that's out of your reach?

 

Maybe you are holding the wrong securities. My Canadian oil/gas trust is paying very nice dividends.

 

You are so full of it. I live in the Boston area and have a household income of less than 66k and I am living quite comfortably. I live in a nice apartment and still manage to save about 1/3 of my income every year.

250k is a lot no matter where you live.

 

Wife, kids, house? What's the average house price in a town that has a good system?

66k might be comfortable living in an apartment with no family obligations. Try raising a family in Boston area.

 

sweet. everyone loves a pissing contest about how much they make.

 

hey, I don't mind the perspective of someone with a high income on this subject even with the pissing.

I would like them to at least acknowledge that bush cut their taxes while running up the deficit to extreme levels and someone's going to have to pay eventually.

 

In the latest issue of Business Week there is an article about how families making over 250k are terrified of these taxes because they are already feeling "squeezed". I think that's a load of bull**** - but feel free to explain why my take on someone't pity party is wrong.

I know cost-of-living can vary substantially - but if you make 250k+ and feel like your just barely making it each month - you own too much **** and you're probably an idiot with respect to your lifestyle.

IMHO.

 

Fair enough, but there's a difference between "perspective" and comments like "Are you still saving up for the 1 bed room that's out of your reach?".

Yes, Bush cut taxes significantly, and I didn't fell what it was like at those levels pre-Bush, so I can't comment on that. I have run the numbers under the old Clinton tax brackets to estimate what my post-election tax liability will look like, and it's frightening.

Yes, the difference is big, which implies, I saved a lot. But I can't be more sick of people forgetting that when they are out for a drink on Thursday night, I'm working. When some people are on vacation and leave work behind, I'm on calls or my blackberry. Having Obama saying we want to extend the tax cuts to "hard working" Americans makes me bitter, since it implies when I'm working my a$$ off, I'm not hardworking just because it happens to be in an office instead of on a construction site.

I saved a lot with the tax cuts. But I already pay more than my share.

I would like some people to at least ackowledge that, as well. And the "someone" that has to pay isn't just anyone. It's people like me.

Rhad - why is it surprising that when you are facing a $20+k reduction in your disposable income it's going to cause a squeeze? I could either cut my spending or my savings. I have targets for the savings and things I want to build. So, that means I cut my spending. And it sucks to have such a dramatic drop in spending.

 

I don't want to get into your personal situation but I do hate when politicians (including Obama) call middle income earners hard workers as if people who earn over $250K are just collecting checks. That kind of rhetoric gets us no where as a nation. its divisive, but all politicians do it.

 

That was a response to the "deepblue buffet" comment.

Exactly, Obama is pretty clever in drawing the line at 250k, this "uniter" clearly is pitting the people on either side against each other. He knows the math, since one side is about 95% of the population.

 

Because we have a progressive income tax code, which means that the people who make more pay more. That is the way a progressive tax code works.

Yes, it does because we have a progressive income tax. I would be all for scrapping it and going to a consumption tax, but as long as we have a progressive income tax, that is how it works.

The rich people owe a debt to the society that allowed them to become rich in the first place. The institutions that their tax dollars pay for allow people the opportunity to live the "American Dream," and people who become rich should not shirk their duty to assure that the dream remains alive for the next generation of Americans.

Since the income tax was implemented, the rich have seen their tax rates drop by over 2/3 while the rest of us have seen no net reduction in our rates. Coincidentally, as this has happened, we have begun to run massive deficits, our education system has gone down the tubes, and our infrastructure has suffered. Actually, I don't think it is coincidence at all.

 

I understand the sentiment - but perspective is in order. Savings and goals are not the same as basic needs. I guess I felt that the aforementioned article was acting like these folks were suffering and just barely staying above poverty - on 300k/year. I think that's flat-out ridiculous.

I make a good deal of money, and while my friends buy stuff and go out - I prefer to be frugal and save. So I can sympathize with what you're saying.

Although my previous post was pretty harsh, the reality is that I'm torn. I don't think it's right to place this burden on the poor, or jsut barely middle class, but what number really constitutes wealthy?

Frankly, the obvious solution is to just STOP THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FROM WASTING MY MONEY TO BEGIN WITH. Of course, that will never happen until we vote against both repubs and democrats since they both don't have a clue how to reign in idiotic spending.

 

The two candidates' plans would have sharply different distributional effects. Senator McCain's tax cuts would primarily benefit those with very high incomes, almost all of whom would receive large tax cuts that would, on average, raise their after-tax incomes by more than twice the average for all households. Many fewer households at the bottom of the income distribution would get tax cuts and those whose taxes fall would, on average, see their after-tax income rise much less. In marked contrast, Senator Obama offers much larger tax breaks to low- and middle-income taxpayers and would increase taxes on high-income taxpayers. The largest tax cuts, as a share of income, would go to those at the bottom of the income distribution, while taxpayers with the highest income would see their taxes rise.
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/url.cfm?ID=411693

 

I didn't say we DON'T have a system where the rich pay more. I'm saying it shouldn't be that way. I have no problem with them paying more "dollar wise" but for them to pay such a large portion of the overall tax revenue of the nation while so many are left paying next to nothing is not right. Even if you think it is, when we give tax cuts, the cuts should go to those who are paying the lion's share.

 

The cuts should go to those that it need it most. The wealthy don't need it most.

 

tons of dividends everywhere. i did see an interesting note that some analyst was saying utility stocks may get hit hard if obama is elected. it will be interesting to watch it unfold to see they do get sold as we get closer to the election.

 

nice divs but underperforming relative to energy and i am not sure they are subject to the div tax rate in the u.s. how does that div withholding from the canadian govt work also? a obviously depends on what you are holding and how they are organized. either way some of those trusts, reits, and some closed end funds have some very confusing and overly complicated tax rules. were you in them back when the canadian govt was screwing around with their tax status? how hard of a hold was that?

man i remember way back when the whole subprime thing started and there was some major margin calls. some of those pipeline/trust stocks were getting flat out raped one day. no one could find any news and it looked like a margin call to me since it was only high yield securities getting sold and obviously the subprime whores were yield whores as well so you had to figure it was those fools getting squeezed out of their stock positions to raise cash. anyhow, it ended up getting reported as a margin call by david faber on cnbc. that's my little story about trusts.