Proposed changes in taxes

redsfann

ale connoisseur
Forum Member
Aug 3, 1999
9,276
428
83
61
Somewhere in Corn Country
Redsfan--As I said I'm trying to uncover the truth here as well--so far I have checked everywhere even in far left forems--aqll have been basically the same even Snopes--forum members say it can't be true and will be back with the goods--and have yet to see 1st one come back-with the goods.

My initial take was it was bogus but after snopes and others-its starting to get interesting.
I would imagine on the #'s chosen (30K for instance) are chosen to show the extreme which is ploy both sides use--I will look around each day from left side of media to look for rebuttles--another very odd thing is you can do search on --
'Proposed changes in taxes after 2008 General election' and seems left leaning sites are avoiding issue--which is rarily the case.
Will let you know what I find and you and others do the same-if you would.

yeah, Dogs, thats kind of what I was trying to say but not doing a very good job of it..I'm not sure why the 30K figure was thrown out there, either, other than to try and distract us from the larger picture, which is??
Its just another Presidential election cycle, DTB. They all trot out some arcane hard-to-understand 'plan' to fix/change/end some part of the tax code and the media either lap it up or if they oppose said tax 'plan', criticize it--meanwhile the rest of us know full well that said 'plan' has no chance of being passed in Congress...:shrug:
 

WhatsHisNuts

Woke
Forum Member
Aug 29, 2006
28,287
1,498
113
50
Earth
www.ffrf.org
It's not just a sale of 500K, it has to be 500K IN PROFIT. Any couple clearing 500K in profit on their home should not be suffering financially. Keep in mind, all these levels are is a return to pre-deficit budget levels.

I made out like a bandit on my house, and I still didn't meet the 250K profit required for a single person to be taxed.

Indeed - very deceptive email "facts". Many more will follow I'm sure.

I'm guessing Wayno is going to continue to avoid this. Good post Smurph.
 

djv

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 4, 2000
13,817
17
0
I do believe our Gov should be honest. They know there is not enough fluff in budget to balance it. At least when this war in Iraq continues. So they borrow from all of us. And now have got S S fund in trouple. Well in 24 years it will be. If left alone it would be find till something like 2065. And a simble fix is alowing tax on payroll to 125k from 95.
Thats one fix. Then the war if they wish to keep it going. Tax might have to go up. And if you believe war is necessary to keep us safe. Then you should be wiling to pay what ever to be safe. Or get out of the war. Then maybe we can start to get things back in order. But as it is now we cant. And don't start with can S S Gov if truth is told cant run with out it
 

The Sponge

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 24, 2006
17,263
97
0
It's not just a sale of 500K, it has to be 500K IN PROFIT. Any couple clearing 500K in profit on their home should not be suffering financially. Keep in mind, all these levels are is a return to pre-deficit budget levels.

I made out like a bandit on my house, and I still didn't meet the 250K profit required for a single person to be taxed.

Indeed - very deceptive email "facts". Many more will follow I'm sure.

Smurph one of those tax hikes he put up was from that one jackass Democrat (about six or eight months ago)who said he wanted to tax people on homes bigger than 2400 sq feet and 50cents on Gas.(also the only place i heard this was on Fox so who knows if it was true or bullshit) Everyone shot him down but somehow dogs trust worthy news sources put that joke in there. IM not even sure the guy actually said it. I also was under the Impression that no matter what capital gains were on the first(first time buyer) house you sold, you didn't lose a penny of it.
 

The Sponge

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 24, 2006
17,263
97
0
Can someone please explain to me why SS is always in trouble? I pay my share the company pay's theirs. How does this have problems? There should be trillions in that fund unless someone has their greasy fingers on it paying for god awful stuff like tax breaks for oil companies or useless weapons or interest on debts. Is this what Al Gore was talking about when he talked about a lock Box? Gore seems to have some foresight (global warming, internet, SS). Seems to know when one side cries about a program hurting the country that if you look deeper the same guys crying can't keep their hands out or off of it.
 

Tenzing

Registered
Forum Member
Jun 14, 2002
274
0
0
56
Austin, Texas
You won't

You won't

Funny that Dems speak of helping out the lower end of the income spectrum, yet the largest % income tax hike if we revert to pre-Bush tax cuts is for the lowest single and married bracket.......:mj07: I'd love to hear the spin you diehard libs will put on this one:0corn


The dividend taxation at nearly 40% would be a concern for me.

Inheritance tax of 0% is not a good idea. We need 0% inheritance tax for estates under 5 or 10 million. Make the actual wealthy pay heavily though.....


Instead what you'll get is "Texas" or "get mental help" or "even tho this link says its' own numbers are wrong, they can't get no righter."

It really is sickening that they wail against bush for giving them what they wanted meanwhile the dems make it to seem as if tho life was better under carter, than either bush...
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,515
211
63
Bowling Green Ky
I'm guessing Wayno is going to continue to avoid this. Good post Smurph.

Is an interesting point Gary--as far as I can tell the only way statement would be correct--is if the Dems were wanting to repeal -Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997-which I can find no evidence of--even if so it was not presented that way on comparison so would agree we should flag it as deceptive--unless proven otherwise--here is best answer I found on it--

Retired Homeowner's Question
Can Going Backwards Help Me Go Forward Now?
The kids are gone, the house is empty and you've now got time to spend life how you want. For some that's downsizing to a smaller place, for others that's buying a mountain or lake retreat.

For many people, their home is their biggest asset. And, if your home has appreciated in value and you're well on your way to getting your mortgage paid off, this could, in fact, be the case. However, you will still need to live somewhere and will need to plan for how to convert some of that asset into money for retirement.

And, you need to ask yourself if you really want to move out of the family home. Many retirees have made the choice to stay put and enjoy living where they have for years - in communities where they've solidly established roots, among lifelong friends and family. Others find that they need to hold on to their larger home in order to accommodate grandchildren or parents who need their support.

However, it's true that the equity you've built up in your home could provide for you in your retirement years. There are certainly options.

? The Decision To Downsize
? 15 Year Mortgages And Other Financing Options
? Reverse Mortgages
? How Does A Reverse Mortgage Work?

The Decision To Downsize
Downsizing has become an increasingly popular trend, particularly with baby boomers whose children are out on their own and who have extra room they don't need. Some even make the choice so the kids don't have the comfortable option of moving back. Not only can this free up capital for you to invest, but the costs of a smaller home, townhouse or condominium can help reduce other expenses as well (upkeep, property taxes, utilities and the like). Downsizing can also mean moving to a less expensive part of the country or a smaller community where living expenses are less - maybe it even means moving to a second home where you've spent your vacations.

In the past, homeowners only had two ways to avoid capital gains on the sale of their primary residence. Section 1034 allowed home sellers to avoid capital gains tax as long as they purchased a more expensive home, often forcing a purchase of more house than necessary. The other, Section 121, allowed a once- in-a-lifetime $125,000 exclusion on capital gains which often went unused due to saving it for the right time.

Today, that's changed. Thanks to the 1997 Taxpayer Relief Act, married taxpayers filing jointly can exclude up to $500,000 of gain on the sale of a home, and single taxpayers can exclude up to $250,000 of gain - even if the old one-time exclusion has been taken. Homeowners are allowed to take the exclusion once every two years, and as of May 1998 there is no cap on how much total gain can be excluded during a lifetime. To qualify the home must be your primary residence for two of the last five years.

Among the groups benefiting from cashing-in on their equity while avoiding a major tax bite are empty nesters and retirees who can now downsize or rent. As with all tax, legal or real estate matters, you should consult with a professional regarding your own specific situation.
http://www.rbccentura.com/solutions/home/retired_owner.html
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,515
211
63
Bowling Green Ky
Did the #'s on taxes and these are what I come up with--

Single making 30K - Rebs 4,099 Dems 4,988
Single making 50K - tax Rebs 8,844 Dems 10,588
Single making 75K - tax Rebs 15,094 Dems 17,931
Married making 60K- tax 11,424 Dems 14,161
Married making 75K - tax 15,456 Dems 18,881
Married making 125K - tax 30,850 Dems 36,542

source yearly tax calculator--
http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm

Note: Married were tabulated at filing seperately
 

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
So, to sum it up, the point in question about excluding $500K on the sale of a house, and to downsize, (or upsize, I guess...lol) and not paying Cap Gains tax until going over that is correct, according to "all Wayne could find on it."

Hope this helps.
 

escarzamd

...abides.
Forum Member
Dec 26, 2003
1,266
1
0
57
5ft, pin high......
Can someone please explain to me why SS is always in trouble? I pay my share the company pay's theirs. How does this have problems? There should be trillions in that fund unless someone has their greasy fingers on it paying for god awful stuff like tax breaks for oil companies or useless weapons or interest on debts. Is this what Al Gore was talking about when he talked about a lock Box? Gore seems to have some foresight (global warming, internet, SS). Seems to know when one side cries about a program hurting the country that if you look deeper the same guys crying can't keep their hands out or off of it.

This one is easy......see Social Security Act of 1965. Thats when Medicare was added to the rolls, and is just now hitting logarithmic portion of the curve. Call it what you will, its our nation's first foray into socialized medicine. How's it going for you guys so far? How myopic are we that we blather on and on about access (not really a problem in the abstract) or spiraling costs (call the insurance, pharma, and trial lawyer lobbyists @ 1-888-BIG-SCAM) without one word about refinement of the one program we all take for granted? "The Third Rail....." probably b/c Fla still has all those electoral votes. And nobody has the stones to bring it up. And they never will. Who wants to visit this one? Some of you guys are closing in on your draw. I, for one, am planning on a day where it does not provide for me. Thats OK, because less MDs/less nurses + more patients = job security for me, assuming the process doesn't drive me in to a self-medicated haze of beer/Ativan/OxyCodone first; Or worse, just killing me off at the ripe old age of 58! But what about the masses?:shrug: Serious problem, imho. If 70 is the new 60, we should put it on paper somewhere. That's the elephant in my room. I don't mind the taxes.......seriously. Price of freedom:mj07: but don't think for even one minute that I'm counting on the gov't to provide for my mother's sunset years, much less my own.
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,515
211
63
Bowling Green Ky
So, to sum it up, the point in question about excluding $500K on the sale of a house, and to downsize, (or upsize, I guess...lol) and not paying Cap Gains tax until going over that is correct, according to "all Wayne could find on it."

Hope this helps.

I think I can sum it up this way Chad
To find out what it will cost you to vote dem-

You can use calculator--on your taxes

http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm

--and capital gains go from 15% to 39.6%

Thats basically all you and I need to know.

Now for those that don't pay taxes or never anticipate capital gains--it will be business as usual and can't say I blame them.

per CNN 2004 Exit Poll

highest % of wage earners voting for Kerry in 2004
Those earning under $15,000 > 63%
 

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
From a financial standpoint, I am not concerned with the tax situation returning to pre-Bush years. I was doing just fine then, doing just fine now, and can see other areas of American behavior that can change that perhaps could afford tax cuts in the future. Some areas where people I support for several reasons are deserving of scrutiny, and blame. We all need to be somewhat realistic - and give in on some things, myself included.

But, the point of my post was to focus on, well, the point of my post. Which, you continue to ignore, which is fine. Extremely typical of late - either ignoring them, or changing the complete subject of them.

Carry on, lad. :thumb:
 
Bet on MyBookie
Top