Pay zero taxes thanks to 2003 Tax Cuts

[fleshconsumed]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: fleshconsumed
CsG
I wouldn't say 100K would let you have all the luxuries you want, but it would certainly allow for a comfortable living in SD. 100K filing jointly should be 25% tax bracket, so even before deductions you're left with 75K (and this is probably a conservative estimate). Say property taxes and state taxes are 10K, that leaves you with 65K in your pocket. Say your modest mortgage is 2K a month, which is not that unreasonable, that's 24K a year, take another 1K on insurance and you're still left with 40K in your pocket. Let's assume a generous $1500 for utility bills, phone, cable, gas, food, misc clothing items. With all of that you're still left with 20K a year to save for retirement, car loan, vacation, etc... Yes, you will have to budget even with 100K, but it is by no means a poor lifestyle.

No one said it was a "poor lifestyle" but people were suggesting that it wasn't middle class.

Sure, in SD you could do a lot better on 100K than you can in the area I live in, but you also don't have the opportunities that I do. I came from a small town in the middle of nowhere, where you could buy a nice house for 75-80K(probably nicer than the one I have now) but your employment opportunities weren't near as good as they are here. There were very very few families in that area that pulled in 100K gross because there just weren't that many jobs that paid that kind of money.

Anyway - this has gone way off track, but the point remains - 100K gross is middle class despite the protests of a few.

With the living costs you cited CsG you will have a really hard time arguing 100K is middle class where you live. It is a lower upper class, not because it's above national average/median but because of the low cost of living in your area. 100K would be middle class on both coasts and expensive areas like Chicago, Vegas, etc. where good house like yours cost 300K+ and still requires miscellaneous fixes around the house. However given your numbers and given 2K mortgage payments you would own your house in just 5 years. Only 5 years whereas it would take at least 15 to pay off mortgage otherwise. After that you could easily pull 40K a year after all living expenses. That's enough to save for comfortable retirement, kids college and still have one or two vacations a year.

You will still have to budget, you won't be able to afford expensive cars, but that is a way better living that the vast majority of the people. However, once again, that is based on the cost of living in your area.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: fleshconsumed

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: fleshconsumed
CsG
I wouldn't say 100K would let you have all the luxuries you want, but it would certainly allow for a comfortable living in SD. 100K filing jointly should be 25% tax bracket, so even before deductions you're left with 75K (and this is probably a conservative estimate). Say property taxes and state taxes are 10K, that leaves you with 65K in your pocket. Say your modest mortgage is 2K a month, which is not that unreasonable, that's 24K a year, take another 1K on insurance and you're still left with 40K in your pocket. Let's assume a generous $1500 for utility bills, phone, cable, gas, food, misc clothing items. With all of that you're still left with 20K a year to save for retirement, car loan, vacation, etc... Yes, you will have to budget even with 100K, but it is by no means a poor lifestyle.

No one said it was a "poor lifestyle" but people were suggesting that it wasn't middle class.

Sure, in SD you could do a lot better on 100K than you can in the area I live in, but you also don't have the opportunities that I do. I came from a small town in the middle of nowhere, where you could buy a nice house for 75-80K(probably nicer than the one I have now) but your employment opportunities weren't near as good as they are here. There were very very few families in that area that pulled in 100K gross because there just weren't that many jobs that paid that kind of money.

Anyway - this has gone way off track, but the point remains - 100K gross is middle class despite the protests of a few.

With the living costs you cited CsG you will have a really hard time arguing 100K is middle class where you live. It is a lower upper class, ...

:roll: You don't have a clue do you. Just because the raw 100K number looks like alot - there are many expenses that go along with it. First and foremost - daycare. Do you happen to know what daycare for 3 kids costs? Yeah, so while we pull in 100K as a household - it has costs associated with it. Without my wife working - we wouldn't have daycare costs and other expenses but we wouldn't be pulling in 100K gross either. So while you and a few others try to suggest 100K gross isn't middle class - I and other rational people understand that 100K gross combined household income most certainly is middle class.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: bozack

Originally posted by: Robor

A $100,000 salary is 'smack dab middle class'? Talk about out of touch.

What household is able to live off of one income? talk about out of touch.

Uh, I'm talking about a household income.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: fleshconsumed

With the living costs you cited CsG you will have a really hard time arguing 100K is middle class where you live. It is a lower upper class, ...

:roll: You don't have a clue do you. Just because the raw 100K number looks like alot - there are many expenses that go along with it. First and foremost - daycare. Do you happen to know what daycare for 3 kids costs? Yeah, so while we pull in 100K as a household - it has costs associated with it. Without my wife working - we wouldn't have daycare costs and other expenses but we wouldn't be pulling in 100K gross either. So while you and a few others try to suggest 100K gross isn't middle class - I and other rational people understand that 100K gross combined household income most certainly is middle class.

Disagree. Most people in that category don't have to worry about taxes on capitol gains because they don't have any. Also, if you can afford daycare for 3 kids I'd say you're doing all right. My wife and I both work full time and we couldn't afford 1 right now.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: bozack

Originally posted by: Robor

A $100,000 salary is 'smack dab middle class'? Talk about out of touch.

What household is able to live off of one income? talk about out of touch.

Uh, I'm talking about a household income.

You said "salary", that implies one income. A single person making $100,000 is definitely not "smack dab middle class" (in most parts of the country), I'll agree with you there. But a family household income of $100,000 is "smack dab middle class", at least where I live.

 

[dullard]

I really don't see how people can call 100K household income as middle class. The median HOUSEHOLD income is ~$50k for the US. So, already we are talking about double the median. Next, if you look at it by state, the highest state median income is still around $66k. Again, 100k is 50% above even the highest state's median income.

Less than 20% of housholds have a 100k income or higher. That really isn't solidly middle class. It is much more on the border between upper middle class and lower upper class. It is a fuzzy border, of course, that depends on location and time.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: bozack

Originally posted by: Robor

A $100,000 salary is 'smack dab middle class'? Talk about out of touch.

What household is able to live off of one income? talk about out of touch.

Uh, I'm talking about a household income.

You said "salary", that implies one income. A single person making $100,000 is definitely not "smack dab middle class" (in most parts of the country), I'll agree with you there. But a family household income of $100,000 is "smack dab middle class", at least where I live.

Let me just put something into perspective. I have a family of 3 with two incomes. We have one child at the age of 5. I do not own a home. I live in South Florida. We have one car that we make payments on. We have student loans. We have very little CC debt. We have a lot of various other expenses and most are necessary. Together, my SO and I pull in just under 90k gross.

What this means for us is that we do have some extra money, but that money needs to go to other places which are very important. I have rigorously gone through our current budget and our projected budget both short term and long term with a fine tooth comb. We need to buy a place eventually because we need to start making payments which go towards real estate instead of rent money if we have any plans to retire on time. We have our child to think about and saving for his college. We have our parents to think about in the future and one of them needs to go into a home soon. We undergo many unexpected expenses like most people do. One of which was recently finding out that I need to sell my SO's car and buy her another one because the engine will be dying soon. We would also like to have one more child to make a family of 4 sometime in our future. Basically, it all boils down to the fact that we need to save money and that "extra" money is pretty much spoken for if we have any desire to own a home and/or have 2 kids total.

That leaves pretty much nothing left over to take advantage of any kind of investments beyond 401k despite our household income which apparently labels us as "middle class". Taxes on capital gains? I don't make enough money to even hope for such a thing let alone loath it.

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: dullard
I really don't see how people can call 100K household income as middle class. The median HOUSEHOLD income is ~$50k for the US. So, already we are talking about double the median. Next, if you look at it by state, the highest state median income is still around $66k. Again, 100k is 50% above even the highest state's median income.

Less than 20% of housholds have a 100k income or higher. That really isn't solidly middle class. It is much more on the border between upper middle class and lower upper class. It is a fuzzy border, of course, that depends on location and time.

How is 100k lower upper class? I just don't see it.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: bozack

Originally posted by: Robor

A $100,000 salary is 'smack dab middle class'? Talk about out of touch.

What household is able to live off of one income? talk about out of touch.

Uh, I'm talking about a household income.

You said "salary", that implies one income. A single person making $100,000 is definitely not "smack dab middle class" (in most parts of the country), I'll agree with you there. But a family household income of $100,000 is "smack dab middle class", at least where I live.

Let me just put something into perspective. I have a family of 3 with two incomes. We have one child at the age of 5. I do not own a home. I live in South Florida. We have one car that we make payments on. We have student loans. We have very little CC debt. We have a lot of various other expenses and most are necessary. Together, my SO and I pull in just under 90k gross.

What this means for us is that we do have some extra money, but that money needs to go to other places which are very important. I have rigorously gone through our current budget and our projected budget both short term and long term with a fine tooth comb. We need to buy a place eventually because we need to start making payments which go towards real estate instead of rent money if we have any plans to retire on time. We have our child to think about and saving for his college. We have our parents to think about in the future and one of them needs to go into a home soon. We undergo many unexpected expenses like most people do. One of which was recently finding out that I need to sell my SO's car and buy her another one because the engine will be dying soon. We would also like to have one more child to make a family of 4 sometime in our future. Basically, it all boils down to the fact that we need to save money and that "extra" money is pretty much spoken for if we have any desire to own a home and/or have 2 kids total.

That leaves pretty much nothing left over to take advantage of any kind of investments beyond 401k despite our household income which apparently labels us as "middle class". Taxes on capital gains? I don't make enough money to even hope for such a thing let alone loath it.

I agree with you one hundred percent, that's why I find it a little bit silly when people claim that families with a household income similar to yours and mine are above middle class. I have 2 kids, a third on the way, and my wife does not work, so we are in somewhat of a similar situation.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: dullard
I really don't see how people can call 100K household income as middle class. The median HOUSEHOLD income is ~$50k for the US. So, already we are talking about double the median. Next, if you look at it by state, the highest state median income is still around $66k. Again, 100k is 50% above even the highest state's median income.

Less than 20% of housholds have a 100k income or higher. That really isn't solidly middle class. It is much more on the border between upper middle class and lower upper class. It is a fuzzy border, of course, that depends on location and time.

What does median income have to do with it? Middle class does not mean that you are in the "middle" as far as income is concerned. Again, if you were to judge "middle class" solely by median or average incomes, you'd always have the same amount of people in the middle class. Would you consider everyone in a communist society "middle class" just because they all make the same amount of money?

Edit - I'm not saying that the median income doesn't have anything to do with it, but some people here want to point to the median or average income and use that to say definitively what the middle class is. It's not that simple.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: dullard
I really don't see how people can call 100K household income as middle class. The median HOUSEHOLD income is ~$50k for the US. So, already we are talking about double the median. Next, if you look at it by state, the highest state median income is still around $66k. Again, 100k is 50% above even the highest state's median income.

Less than 20% of housholds have a 100k income or higher. That really isn't solidly middle class. It is much more on the border between upper middle class and lower upper class. It is a fuzzy border, of course, that depends on location and time.

What does median income have to do with it? Middle class does not mean that you are in the "middle" as far as income is concerned. Again, if you were to judge "middle class" solely by median or average incomes, you'd always have the same amount of people in the middle class. Would you consider everyone in a communist society "middle class" just because they all make the same amount of money?

Edit - I'm not saying that the median income doesn't have anything to do with it, but some people here want to point to the median or average income and use that to say definitively what the middle class is. It's not that simple.

If only 20% of the people in this country have a household income of $100K+ I don't they can be considered 'middle class'.

We're getting back off topic again though. The point is those in the lower tax brackets usually don't have to worry about a potential capitol gains tax because they don't have any. I know I don't...

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: BarneyFife

Originally posted by: spidey07
So the common misconception is the Tax Cuts were "only for the rich" when it was an across the board sweeping reduction. Found this neat little gem about the 2003 Tax Cuts - If you are in the 10 or 15% tax bracket, From 2008 to 2010 you pay NO long term capital gains tax. If you are in the higher brackets still stay at 15%.

So, the bottom brackets get the biggest breaks. Zero capital gains tax. They already had a big break and were only paying 5% instead of 15% like every other bracket. So again, these cuts were across the board and generally helped the lower brackets.

If you are in these brackets and were wary to do something capital gains wise, you've got two years, zero tax...may want to start planning now.

http://www.nysscpa.org/cpajour...206/essentials/p40.htm

Also keep in mind that Obama's platform believe and has stated that all capital gains tax should be 20% or more, across the board and does NOT want to maintain the tax cuts. McCain wants to keep ALL aspects of the cuts except real estate tax.

-edit-
For 2007 the 10 and 15 percent brackets were an AGI under 63,700, SQUARELY middle class.

Another smokescreen issue that effects 2 people in the country.

I'm one

Who's the other?

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: Brainonska511
How is 100k lower upper class? I just don't see it.

By making twice the median household income and by earning more than ~80% of other households. That is how.

No, there isn't any set definition. But the definition I used is fairly common. Even Wikipedia has 100k as the border.

Originally posted by: JD50
What does median income have to do with it? Middle class does not mean that you are in the "middle" as far as income is concerned. Again, if you were to judge "middle class" solely by median or average incomes, you'd always have the same amount of people in the middle class. Would you consider everyone in a communist society "middle class" just because they all make the same amount of money?

Edit - I'm not saying that the median income doesn't have anything to do with it, but some people here want to point to the median or average income and use that to say definitively what the middle class is. It's not that simple.

No, it isn't that simple. We can ask other questions. Can you afford vacations? Can you afford to own a house? Do you commonly purchase wants instead of only purchasing needs? Etc. I just used one of the more common (but simple) defintions of upper class. If your family makes more money in a year than what ~80% of families make in one of the most affulent countries, you are doing well. It is hard to argue that ISN'T borderline upper class.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: dullard
I really don't see how people can call 100K household income as middle class. The median HOUSEHOLD income is ~$50k for the US. So, already we are talking about double the median. Next, if you look at it by state, the highest state median income is still around $66k. Again, 100k is 50% above even the highest state's median income.

Less than 20% of housholds have a 100k income or higher. That really isn't solidly middle class. It is much more on the border between upper middle class and lower upper class. It is a fuzzy border, of course, that depends on location and time.

What does median income have to do with it? Middle class does not mean that you are in the "middle" as far as income is concerned. Again, if you were to judge "middle class" solely by median or average incomes, you'd always have the same amount of people in the middle class. Would you consider everyone in a communist society "middle class" just because they all make the same amount of money?

Edit - I'm not saying that the median income doesn't have anything to do with it, but some people here want to point to the median or average income and use that to say definitively what the middle class is. It's not that simple.

If only 20% of the people in this country have a household income of $100K+ I don't they can be considered 'middle class'.

Sure they can. Haven't you heard of "the shrinking middle class", and terms like that? How can the "middle class" shrink if it's always based on the median or average income? Class is defined by much more than just average or median income.

We're getting back off topic again though. The point is those in the lower tax brackets usually don't have to worry about a potential capitol gains tax because they don't have any. I know I don't...

I agree with you here.

 

[jonks]

But wait, capital gains tax is nothing, it's in the DEATH TAX that they really take all your hard earned middle-class money away!*




















*(if you leave an estate worth several million dollars)

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: Brainonska511
How is 100k lower upper class? I just don't see it.

By making twice the median household income and by earning more than ~80% of other households. That is how.

No, there isn't any set definition. But the definition I used is fairly common. Even Wikipedia has 100k as the border.

Wikipedia also puts those people into the Upper Middle Class:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U...s_in_the_United_States

"While many Americans see income as the prime determinant of class, occupational status, educational attainment, and value systems are equally important."

I'd say that the start of Upper Class is not just income based, but also on what you do.

100k/year is a nice sum of money to a make a year, but you aren't going to be buying congressmen or boats anytime soon....

Edit:
Also something to look at if you think 100k/year is the start of upper class or some nonsense like that:

Members of the upper class control and own significant portions of the corporate America and may exercise indirect power through the investment of capital

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...ted_States#Upper_class

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Xavier434
Let me just put something into perspective. I have a family of 3 with two incomes. We have one child at the age of 5. I do not own a home. I live in South Florida. We have one car that we make payments on. We have student loans. We have very little CC debt. We have a lot of various other expenses and most are necessary. Together, my SO and I pull in just under 90k gross.

What this means for us is that we do have some extra money, but that money needs to go to other places which are very important. I have rigorously gone through our current budget and our projected budget both short term and long term with a fine tooth comb. We need to buy a place eventually because we need to start making payments which go towards real estate instead of rent money if we have any plans to retire on time. We have our child to think about and saving for his college. We have our parents to think about in the future and one of them needs to go into a home soon. We undergo many unexpected expenses like most people do. One of which was recently finding out that I need to sell my SO's car and buy her another one because the engine will be dying soon. We would also like to have one more child to make a family of 4 sometime in our future. Basically, it all boils down to the fact that we need to save money and that "extra" money is pretty much spoken for if we have any desire to own a home and/or have 2 kids total.

That leaves pretty much nothing left over to take advantage of any kind of investments beyond 401k despite our household income which apparently labels us as "middle class". Taxes on capital gains? I don't make enough money to even hope for such a thing let alone loath it.

I agree with you one hundred percent, that's why I find it a little bit silly when people claim that families with a household income similar to yours and mine are above middle class. I have 2 kids, a third on the way, and my wife does not work, so we are in somewhat of a similar situation.

It is also worth mentioning that I do better than most people around me which includes many who own homes. They may own the home, but they are often left with less money to spend at the end of the month which is perfectly fine if they are making ends meet and are happy, but the point is that tons of them do not have the extra cash to toss at a bunch of additional investments. That sort of thing usually comes after the house and the family is established. Then you have to reduce your debt and/or increase your income to the point where you start to have additional money at the end of every month again so that you can start investing at a reasonable level. Of course, that doesn't even take into consideration all of the other additional expenses that come up in people's lives which add on to debt in the process or at least cause people to start over with their savings for things such as down payments. That is what is normal and that is why taxing capital gains is not a concern for most people.

 

[fleshconsumed]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: fleshconsumed

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: fleshconsumed
CsG
I wouldn't say 100K would let you have all the luxuries you want, but it would certainly allow for a comfortable living in SD. 100K filing jointly should be 25% tax bracket, so even before deductions you're left with 75K (and this is probably a conservative estimate). Say property taxes and state taxes are 10K, that leaves you with 65K in your pocket. Say your modest mortgage is 2K a month, which is not that unreasonable, that's 24K a year, take another 1K on insurance and you're still left with 40K in your pocket. Let's assume a generous $1500 for utility bills, phone, cable, gas, food, misc clothing items. With all of that you're still left with 20K a year to save for retirement, car loan, vacation, etc... Yes, you will have to budget even with 100K, but it is by no means a poor lifestyle.

No one said it was a "poor lifestyle" but people were suggesting that it wasn't middle class.

Sure, in SD you could do a lot better on 100K than you can in the area I live in, but you also don't have the opportunities that I do. I came from a small town in the middle of nowhere, where you could buy a nice house for 75-80K(probably nicer than the one I have now) but your employment opportunities weren't near as good as they are here. There were very very few families in that area that pulled in 100K gross because there just weren't that many jobs that paid that kind of money.

Anyway - this has gone way off track, but the point remains - 100K gross is middle class despite the protests of a few.

With the living costs you cited CsG you will have a really hard time arguing 100K is middle class where you live. It is a lower upper class, ...

:roll: You don't have a clue do you. Just because the raw 100K number looks like alot - there are many expenses that go along with it. First and foremost - daycare. Do you happen to know what daycare for 3 kids costs? Yeah, so while we pull in 100K as a household - it has costs associated with it. Without my wife working - we wouldn't have daycare costs and other expenses but we wouldn't be pulling in 100K gross either. So while you and a few others try to suggest 100K gross isn't middle class - I and other rational people understand that 100K gross combined household income most certainly is middle class.

I don't think 100K looks a lot and I know about expenses. However, your house costs about half the national median (should be about 210K I think right now, your house only cost you 130), and you make about twice the national median income, 100K vs 50K. I truly believe you when you say you're not rich, but you are far better off than vast majority of population, which does make you upper middle/lower upper class. And believe me, I'm not saying it in any negative sense, I'm glad you're that well off, no bad feelings, but you should realize that you're not middle class. Maybe you would be middle class if you lived on one of the coasts, but not when your gross income is almost as much as your house.

 

[PingSpike]

This has already been mentioned a million times in this thread, but...poor people don't have any capital gains to tax. And middle class families probably have none or almost none. If middle class people have investments they're in a 401K or a roth, which aren't taxed as capital gains/taxed at all. (I believe 401k distributions are INCOME tax right?)

Capital gains doesn't amount of a hill of beans for most people. I'm not going to get worked up over an 80% sales tax on italian suits...but I might get worked up over a 20% tax on blue jeans. I'd wager a guess that the majority of americans feel the same way. This entire thread is a smoke screen IMO, the middle class already has some tax advantaged retirement investment options that do an end run around the capital gains taxes anyway so who really gives a fuck about them?

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: PingSpike
This has already been mentioned a million times in this thread, but...poor people don't have any capital gains to tax. And middle class families probably have none or almost none. If middle class people have investments they're in a 401K or a roth, which aren't taxed as capital gains/taxed at all. (I believe 401k distributions are INCOME tax right?)

Capital gains doesn't amount of a hill of beans for most people. I'm not going to get worked up over an 80% sales tax on italian suits...but I might get worked up over a 20% tax on blue jeans. I'd wager a guess that the majority of americans feel the same way. This entire thread is a smoke screen IMO, the middle class already has some tax advantaged retirement investment options that do an end run around the capital gains taxes anyway so who really gives a fuck about them?

People that own stock. Could have been a gift from grandma, could be any number of things. Could have been a stock award for doing good at work. All kinds of things. Taxing that income on the middle class is just wrong as all it is doing is keeping them middle class and not allowing them to grow and grow the economy as well.

If you read earlier apparently over HALF of low-middle wage earners have some long term capital gains tax.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: spidey07
People that own stock. Could have been a gift from grandma, could be any number of things. Could have been a stock award for doing good at work. All kinds of things. Taxing that income on the middle class is just wrong as all it is doing is keeping them middle class and not allowing them to grow and grow the economy as well.

If you read earlier apparently over HALF of low-middle wage earners have some long term capital gains tax.

you really have no idea how capital gains tax works at all do you. your contention that taxing the modest capital gains that a middle-class family might earn is somehow keeping them middle class is amusing.

"how much we make this year?"
"well, we would made $50,000, but damnit, they taxed that stock sale and now we only made $49,000! We're never gettin out of the middle class now!"

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: PingSpike
This has already been mentioned a million times in this thread, but...poor people don't have any capital gains to tax. And middle class families probably have none or almost none. If middle class people have investments they're in a 401K or a roth, which aren't taxed as capital gains/taxed at all. (I believe 401k distributions are INCOME tax right?)

Capital gains doesn't amount of a hill of beans for most people. I'm not going to get worked up over an 80% sales tax on italian suits...but I might get worked up over a 20% tax on blue jeans. I'd wager a guess that the majority of americans feel the same way. This entire thread is a smoke screen IMO, the middle class already has some tax advantaged retirement investment options that do an end run around the capital gains taxes anyway so who really gives a fuck about them?

People that own stock. Could have been a gift from grandma, could be any number of things. Could have been a stock award for doing good at work. All kinds of things. Taxing that income on the middle class is just wrong as all it is doing is keeping them middle class and not allowing them to grow and grow the economy as well.

If you read earlier apparently over HALF of low-middle wage earners have some long term capital gains tax.

You're conveniently ignoring my last post, which tore your arguments to shreds. And you keep harping on this useless point that middle class taxpayers have small amounts of capital gains subject to taxation, which costs them on average less than $150 a year in taxes, a tax that will remain the same under both McCain and Obama.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: shira
You're conveniently ignoring my last post, which tore your arguments to shreds. And you keep harping on this useless point that middle class taxpayers have small amounts of capital gains subject to taxation, which costs them on average less than $150 a year in taxes, a tax that will remain the same under both McCain and Obama.

Well then he must have recently flip flopped on that issue then because all he's been preaching is raising capital gains tax across the board. He's never come right out and said he won't increase capital gains for the bottom brackets.

This is the disconnect between obama and understanding tax policy. He wants to punish the rich with capital gains tax raises but doesn't understand it isn't just the rich that benefit from lower capital gains, not to mention the economic impact.

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: shira
You're conveniently ignoring my last post, which tore your arguments to shreds. And you keep harping on this useless point that middle class taxpayers have small amounts of capital gains subject to taxation, which costs them on average less than $150 a year in taxes, a tax that will remain the same under both McCain and Obama.

Well then he must have recently flip flopped on that issue then because all he's been preaching is raising capital gains tax across the board. He's never come right out and said he won't increase capital gains for the bottom brackets.

This is the disconnect between obama and understanding tax policy. He wants to punish the rich with capital gains tax raises but doesn't understand it isn't just the rich that benefit from lower capital gains, not to mention the economic impact.

But capital gains taxes hit the rich much more so than increasing earned income taxes, which hit the middle to upper middle class (and even the lower-upper class if you want to refer to the people earning their money by going to work every day and being successful).

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: shira
You're conveniently ignoring my last post, which tore your arguments to shreds. And you keep harping on this useless point that middle class taxpayers have small amounts of capital gains subject to taxation, which costs them on average less than $150 a year in taxes, a tax that will remain the same under both McCain and Obama.

Well then he must have recently flip flopped on that issue then because all he's been preaching is raising capital gains tax across the board. He's never come right out and said he won't increase capital gains for the bottom brackets.

This is the disconnect between obama and understanding tax policy. He wants to punish the rich with capital gains tax raises but doesn't understand it isn't just the rich that benefit from lower capital gains, not to mention the economic impact.

No offense but based on this thread I think Obama understands tax policy far better than you give him credit for.