Obama Tax Cut Calculator online

casa_mugrienta

Duke status
Apr 13, 2008
43,214
17,644
113
Petak Island
From an e-mail I received this morning;

'Dear Fellow Business Owners:

As a business owner who employs 120 people, we have resigned ourselves to the fact that Barack Obama will be our next president, and that our taxes and fees will go up in a BIG way.

To compensate for these increases, we figure that the Customer will have to see an increase in our fees to them of about 8-10%. We will also have to lay off 25 of our employees. This really bothered us as we believe we are family here and didn't know how to choose who will have to go. So, this is what we did.

We strolled thru the parking lot and found twenty Obama bumper stickers on our employees cars. We have decided these folks will be the first to be laid off.

We can't think of another fair way to approach this problem. If you have a better idea, let me know.'
<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/roflmao.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/applause2.gif" alt="" />
 

LAisntsobad

Kelly Slater status
Oct 21, 2003
9,299
0
0
From an e-mail I received this morning;

'Dear Fellow Business Owners:

As a business owner who employs 120 people, we have resigned ourselves to the fact that Barack Obama will be our next president, and that our taxes and fees will go up in a BIG way.

To compensate for these increases, we figure that the Customer will have to see an increase in our fees to them of about 8-10%. We will also have to lay off 25 of our employees. This really bothered us as we believe we are family here and didn't know how to choose who will have to go. So, this is what we did.

We strolled thru the parking lot and found twenty Obama bumper stickers on our employees cars. We have decided these folks will be the first to be laid off.

We can't think of another fair way to approach this problem. If you have a better idea, let me know.'
BAWWW I have no management skills and therefore I can't compete without cutting employees bawwww. Even though foreign companies are doing fine setting up shop here and making a profit they're too smart bawww.
<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bawling.gif" alt="" />
 

Surfdog

Duke status
Apr 22, 2001
21,768
1,988
113
South coast OR
So, does anybody REALLY know where Obama is drawing the line on incomes he's increasing taxes on?

First he proposes over $250k. Then his infomercial says $200k. Then Biden mentions over $150k. Then Obama comes back to $250k again. Does his staff even know what the hell they're doing or talking about? I guess if they throw enough conflicting BS out there, nobody will be sure of what to expect, and will lower their expectations for "The One". Wasn't Nixon called that when he ran for president?

Why did Obama seal his birth certificate records when he went to Hawaii last week? Why has he sealed his college records from inspection? Does anybody really know what Obama's history is all about? We sure know about everyone elses, and they comply with records when requested. What does Obama have to hide?

It's not WHAT the liberal biased press tells us about Obama, it's what they DON'T tell us, or pursue to tell us. Not like they've done with EVERYONE else not on Obama's side. Deep scrutiny and investigations for everyone (even Joe da Plumber) questioning Obama, but ignoring and lightweight, softball scrutiny of "The Messiah" and his recent and past history.

Is this what we have to look forward to under a Obama administration? If you thought the Bush Administration threatened your privacy, you ain't seen nothin' yet under Obama. It will be Orwelles "1984" more than ever.
 

LAisntsobad

Kelly Slater status
Oct 21, 2003
9,299
0
0
You're giving Obama too much credit.

What you need to realize is many of the important voters (undec., indys) are not expecting much from Obama. They only expect him to be less worse than another 4 years of Republicans.

I think he'll safely meet those expectations.
 

blakestah

Phil Edwards status
Sep 10, 2002
6,139
0
0
So, does anybody REALLY know where Obama is drawing the line on incomes he's increasing taxes on?

First he proposes over $250k. Then his infomercial says $200k. Then Biden mentions over $150k. Then Obama comes back to $250k again. Does his staff even know what the hell they're doing or talking about? I guess if they throw enough conflicting BS out there, nobody will be sure of what to expect, and will lower their expectations for "The One". Wasn't Nixon called that when he ran for president?

Why did Obama seal his birth certificate records when he went to Hawaii last week? Why has he sealed his college records from inspection? Does anybody really know what Obama's history is all about? We sure know about everyone elses, and they comply with records when requested. What does Obama have to hide?

It's not WHAT the liberal biased press tells us about Obama, it's what they DON'T tell us, or pursue to tell us. Not like they've done with EVERYONE else not on Obama's side. Deep scrutiny and investigations for everyone (even Joe da Plumber) questioning Obama, but ignoring and lightweight, softball scrutiny of "The Messiah" and his recent and past history.

Is this what we have to look forward to under a Obama administration? If you thought the Bush Administration threatened your privacy, you ain't seen nothin' yet under Obama. It will be Orwelles "1984" more than ever.
1) You cannot "seal" your birth certificate records. People have actually contacted the State of Hawaii to verify his short form birth certificate and been successful.

2) You cannot "seal" your college records. The college will release them to the alumni. Given that Obama was Magna Cum Laude from Harvard Law it is a safe bet that he got better grades than most people. But, much like Bush, Obama doesn't release any of his records solely because his opponents want to search through them and use them against him. He was Magna Cum Laude from Harvard Law and president of its Law Review. Top 10% academically in the toughest law school in the USA and head of its most prestigious journal.

Obama has been consistent on the $250k number. Biden has diarrhea of the mouth. Half of the income in the USA occurs to families with over $250k/yr. He just wants to increase his revenue from the half that McCain wants to give a tax cut to.

The last 30 years have shown that median income and job creation do better under Democratic tax plans than under Republican. In the last 8 years both median income has decreased and job creation has been negative.

That's no way to run a country.
 

Surfdog

Duke status
Apr 22, 2001
21,768
1,988
113
South coast OR
So, does anybody REALLY know where Obama is drawing the line on incomes he's increasing taxes on?

First he proposes over $250k. Then his infomercial says $200k. Then Biden mentions over $150k. Then Obama comes back to $250k again. Does his staff even know what the hell they're doing or talking about? I guess if they throw enough conflicting BS out there, nobody will be sure of what to expect, and will lower their expectations for "The One". Wasn't Nixon called that when he ran for president?

Why did Obama seal his birth certificate records when he went to Hawaii last week? Why has he sealed his college records from inspection? Does anybody really know what Obama's history is all about? We sure know about everyone elses, and they comply with records when requested. What does Obama have to hide?

It's not WHAT the liberal biased press tells us about Obama, it's what they DON'T tell us, or pursue to tell us. Not like they've done with EVERYONE else not on Obama's side. Deep scrutiny and investigations for everyone (even Joe da Plumber) questioning Obama, but ignoring and lightweight, softball scrutiny of "The Messiah" and his recent and past history.

Is this what we have to look forward to under a Obama administration? If you thought the Bush Administration threatened your privacy, you ain't seen nothin' yet under Obama. It will be Orwelles "1984" more than ever.
1) You cannot "seal" your birth certificate records. People have actually contacted the State of Hawaii to verify his short form birth certificate and been successful.

2) You cannot "seal" your college records. The college will release them to the alumni. Given that Obama was Magna Cum Laude from Harvard Law it is a safe bet that he got better grades than most people. But, much like Bush, Obama doesn't release any of his records solely because his opponents want to search through them and use them against him. He was Magna Cum Laude from Harvard Law and president of its Law Review. Top 10% academically in the toughest law school in the USA and head of its most prestigious journal.

Obama has been consistent on the $250k number. Biden has diarrhea of the mouth. Half of the income in the USA occurs to families with over $250k/yr. He just wants to increase his revenue from the half that McCain wants to give a tax cut to.

The last 30 years have shown that median income and job creation do better under Democratic tax plans than under Republican. In the last 8 years both median income has decreased and job creation has been negative.

That's no way to run a country.
Wait now, Obama said $200k on his infomercial. I watched his "poor me and what are you gonna do about it" infomercial, and it was there in nice white numbers along with him saying it.

Now we have Richardson, who will most likely gain some post in a Obama administration, claim only families over $120k will be taxed higher. Now that directly impacts me. Even Bidens claim was close to me, but luckily we do have SOME tax deductions to lower my bottom line taxable income. So what the hell is it going to be?

The big hit to EVERY middle class taxpayer will be the expiration of the current tax cuts (reductions) we now enjoy. Your IRA, Roth and 401k contribution limits will be rolled back. So you will have less to invest tax-deferred or in the Roth case, tax-free of capital gains (best deal going). Along with all other income tax reductions we had since Bush's tax reduction plan was enacted (2002, not sure?). Hell, they may even get rid of or limit your mortgage interest deduction, too, if your "rich". They have so many disincentives to invest and take risk in our economy, that it will be lucky to survive the next 4 years.

But, if you think Obama is better than anything else, knock yourselfs out. Things can get A LOT worse than they are now. Today, our "poor" have cell phones, DVD players, PlayStations, at least 1 car if not 2 or more. Get plenty well fed, even if they choose junk food. Get free health care. And Earned Income Credit (money back without paying any taxes) to boot.

Talk to any old geezer who lived thru the Great Depression (my mom and dad for instance), that was tought living. We whine and cry about 6-7% unemployment. Try 10-20% unemployment, for many years straight. Try having to have 30-40% down to buy a house. Try working very hard grunt labor for minimal wages day in, day out. Like I said, things can get A LOT worse, and they have. Enjoy what you have now, but hold on to your wallet with Obama tugging all he can to get to it. After all, you're "rich". You deserve to share it with those less fortunate than you.
 

skip

Michael Peterson status
Mar 9, 2004
2,350
0
0
No, the only thing worse than cheney-Bush is Palin ..end of story. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/roflmao.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/roflmao.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/roflmao.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/roflmao.gif" alt="" />
 

blakestah

Phil Edwards status
Sep 10, 2002
6,139
0
0
So, does anybody REALLY know where Obama is drawing the line on incomes he's increasing taxes on?

First he proposes over $250k. Then his infomercial says $200k. Then Biden mentions over $150k. Then Obama comes back to $250k again. Does his staff even know what the hell they're doing or talking about? I guess if they throw enough conflicting BS out there, nobody will be sure of what to expect, and will lower their expectations for "The One". Wasn't Nixon called that when he ran for president?

Why did Obama seal his birth certificate records when he went to Hawaii last week? Why has he sealed his college records from inspection? Does anybody really know what Obama's history is all about? We sure know about everyone elses, and they comply with records when requested. What does Obama have to hide?

It's not WHAT the liberal biased press tells us about Obama, it's what they DON'T tell us, or pursue to tell us. Not like they've done with EVERYONE else not on Obama's side. Deep scrutiny and investigations for everyone (even Joe da Plumber) questioning Obama, but ignoring and lightweight, softball scrutiny of "The Messiah" and his recent and past history.

Is this what we have to look forward to under a Obama administration? If you thought the Bush Administration threatened your privacy, you ain't seen nothin' yet under Obama. It will be Orwelles "1984" more than ever.
1) You cannot "seal" your birth certificate records. People have actually contacted the State of Hawaii to verify his short form birth certificate and been successful.

2) You cannot "seal" your college records. The college will release them to the alumni. Given that Obama was Magna Cum Laude from Harvard Law it is a safe bet that he got better grades than most people. But, much like Bush, Obama doesn't release any of his records solely because his opponents want to search through them and use them against him. He was Magna Cum Laude from Harvard Law and president of its Law Review. Top 10% academically in the toughest law school in the USA and head of its most prestigious journal.

Obama has been consistent on the $250k number. Biden has diarrhea of the mouth. Half of the income in the USA occurs to families with over $250k/yr. He just wants to increase his revenue from the half that McCain wants to give a tax cut to.

The last 30 years have shown that median income and job creation do better under Democratic tax plans than under Republican. In the last 8 years both median income has decreased and job creation has been negative.

That's no way to run a country.
Wait now, Obama said $200k on his infomercial.
$200k for an individual filer.
$250k for joint.
Same as it ever was.


Now we have Richardson, who will most likely gain some post in a Obama administration, claim only families over $120k will be taxed higher.
I think he said all families under $120k will get a tax cut under Obama. At least that's what it said on my TV while Florida was destroying Georgia in football.


Now that directly impacts me. Even Bidens claim was close to me, but luckily we do have SOME tax deductions to lower my bottom line taxable income. So what the hell is it going to be?

The big hit to EVERY middle class taxpayer will be the expiration of the current tax cuts (reductions) we now enjoy. Your IRA, Roth and 401k contribution limits will be rolled back. So you will have less to invest tax-deferred or in the Roth case, tax-free of capital gains (best deal going). Along with all other income tax reductions we had since Bush's tax reduction plan was enacted (2002, not sure?). Hell, they may even get rid of or limit your mortgage interest deduction, too, if your "rich". They have so many disincentives to invest and take risk in our economy, that it will be lucky to survive the next 4 years.
You are projecting based on things that have not happened yet. And given the return of my 401k in the last six months, I woulda been better stuffing it in my mattress.

But, if you think Obama is better than anything else, knock yourselfs out. Things can get A LOT worse than they are now. Today, our "poor" have cell phones, DVD players, PlayStations, at least 1 car if not 2 or more. Get plenty well fed, even if they choose junk food. Get free health care. And Earned Income Credit (money back without paying any taxes) to boot.

Talk to any old geezer who lived thru the Great Depression (my mom and dad for instance), that was tought living. We whine and cry about 6-7% unemployment. Try 10-20% unemployment, for many years straight. Try having to have 30-40% down to buy a house. Try working very hard grunt labor for minimal wages day in, day out. Like I said, things can get A LOT worse, and they have. Enjoy what you have now, but hold on to your wallet with Obama tugging all he can to get to it. After all, you're "rich". You deserve to share it with those less fortunate than you.
You are great at painting a negative picture.

From my perspective, a once great nation has plummeted down and it has been accelerating.

We need change.

Economically, I think our Gini coefficient is too high. We have WAY too high a trade deficit. Our dependence on oil (which is 60% imported) is too high. Our budget deficit is too high. And each decade we slip relative to our peer nations.

From an international relations perspective, we spent several extra trillion dollars on defense under Bush, and well over half of that was spent on things totally unrelated to American security (Iraq). Bush pushed the DoD budget from the low $300 billion when he started to over $700 billion this year (including Iraq and Afghanistan appropriations). Wrong, wrong, wrong, and Bush has flatlined science funding for years and years as a partial money saver.

Great investment, that.

I envision an 8 year period under Obama. I envision leaving Iraq in the next 2-3 years, and Afghanistan in the 2-3 years after that, and spending $300-400 billion on defense instead of $700+ billion/year. I envision investment in science. I envision regulations ensuring banking stability. Investment in technologies that will relieve dependence on foreign oil. And creation of American jobs through that investment in science and technology. And on EVERY ONE of those issues, I feel confident that Obama will make more progress than McCain. EVERY ONE. I think that vision is appropriate and positive for the America of 2008.

I really wish one of the candidates would say SOMETHING about the long-term consequences of the trade deficit and why it needs to be brought under control, too...

And frankly, McCain is too old, too pwned by the neocons, and his backup plan (Palin) is too scary.

But I already voted, early, like 25% of the people in my battleground state. Turnout will be very very high, and the results will be historic. We will have either a black president or a woman vice president.
 

LAisntsobad

Kelly Slater status
Oct 21, 2003
9,299
0
0
Investment in technologies that will relieve dependence on foreign oil.
I hope that when Obama has to scale back delivery on what he promised (he will have to as would McCain), new energy is not the one he scales back.

Especially because on the recent black Friday, I made my first investment albeit tiny in stocks and gots me some of the leading solar and other green energy companies <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Was dirt cheap, relatively speaking <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/shrug.gif" alt="" />
 

obproud

Nep status
Sep 24, 2008
880
0
16
$200k for an individual filer.
$250k for joint.
Same as it ever was.
That's not what the calculator says. It says that if you are single and make $100k you get $0 tax cut.

The fact is that trying to redistribute wealth, and trying to shift the tax burden from one class to another is a shell game.

If you tax small business too much there are less jobs for the middle class and poor. If you tax the middle class and poor too much then you take away a lot of the business from the small business that provides the jobs.

Neither Obama, or McCain have a plan that solves the economic problems we face.
 

blakestah

Phil Edwards status
Sep 10, 2002
6,139
0
0
$200k for an individual filer.
$250k for joint.
Same as it ever was.
That's not what the calculator says. It says that if you are single and make $100k you get $0 tax cut.

The fact is that trying to redistribute wealth, and trying to shift the tax burden from one class to another is a shell game.

If you tax small business too much there are less jobs for the middle class and poor. If you tax the middle class and poor too much then you take away a lot of the business from the small business that provides the jobs.

Neither Obama, or McCain have a plan that solves the economic problems we face.
Its a load of BS.

The nation needs revenue.

That revenue must be derived from its people.

The revenue has NEVER been derived equally from everyone, nor is there anyone who claims it should be.

The services have NEVER been serving everyone equally, nor is there anyone who claims they should be.

Therefore ALL politicians propose tax plans that redistribute wealth.

It is just that to a first approximation, the McCain plan will rob the poor to pay the rich, and the Obama plan will rob the rich to pay the poor.

In an oversimplified way of stating things.

Which do YOU think is more appropriate?

And don't follow with some load of BS about fair or flat taxes. There is and has always been redistribution of revenues from taxation - at least as long as there've been taxes. Other tax plans simply have a DIFFERENT redistribution than the one currently in effect.

Assuming that benefits from the government are NOT distributed equally, explain why placing a small portion of the tax burden on the middle class is better than having that same small portion of the tax burden on the top 5%.

<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/socrazy.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/socrazy.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/socrazy.gif" alt="" />
 

obproud

Nep status
Sep 24, 2008
880
0
16
$200k for an individual filer.
$250k for joint.
Same as it ever was.
That's not what the calculator says. It says that if you are single and make $100k you get $0 tax cut.

The fact is that trying to redistribute wealth, and trying to shift the tax burden from one class to another is a shell game.

If you tax small business too much there are less jobs for the middle class and poor. If you tax the middle class and poor too much then you take away a lot of the business from the small business that provides the jobs.

Neither Obama, or McCain have a plan that solves the economic problems we face.
Its a load of BS.

The nation needs revenue.

That revenue must be derived from its people.

The revenue has NEVER been derived equally from everyone, nor is there anyone who claims it should be.

The services have NEVER been serving everyone equally, nor is there anyone who claims they should be.

Therefore ALL politicians propose tax plans that redistribute wealth.

It is just that to a first approximation, the McCain plan will rob the poor to pay the rich, and the Obama plan will rob the rich to pay the poor.

In an oversimplified way of stating things.

Which do YOU think is more appropriate?

And don't follow with some load of BS about fair or flat taxes. There is and has always been redistribution of revenues from taxation - at least as long as there've been taxes. Other tax plans simply have a DIFFERENT redistribution than the one currently in effect.

Assuming that benefits from the government are NOT distributed equally, explain why placing a small portion of the tax burden on the middle class is better than having that same small portion of the tax burden on the top 5%.

<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/socrazy.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/socrazy.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/socrazy.gif" alt="" />
The nation needs to lower federal spending.

Higher tax revenue comes from a better economy where more transactions are taking place.

If you impose too much tax burden on any group of people, rich or poor, you slow the economy, and lower tax revenue.

Our states and cities are being bankrupt because we send the vast majority of our tax money to the Federal Government, then our States and local governments have to beg and borrow to get a piece of the pie.

You are right that all taxes are wealth redistribution.

The problem is that we distribute most of our money to the federal government and they redistribute it inefficiently. State and local governments are better at solving state and local problems.

Any time you asses too much tax burden on anyone it is bad for everyone.

Neither Obama nor McCain have their eye on the problem. It's big government (along with big business).
 

Landloct

Kelly Slater status
Jul 18, 2002
9,371
12
38
It's simple.

Redistribution of wealth to the rich = good.

Redistribution of wealth to the poor = bad.

Gotta go, there's the factory whistle sounding.