they changed that $250K...
Posted By: dnh on 2009-06-23
In Reply to: They've already spoken about TAXING sugar, which means..... - sm
Now they're saying more like $200K and going lower. And let's just face it. 20 bucks or $200K, everybody is gonna pay more taxes.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
the $250K
it's the business making $250K, not the man. Big difference.
MTs make under $250K
Just because plumbing seems like a crappy job, let's face it, I see those guys driving Jaguars where I live. They are expensive and make a lot. MTs work very hard for very little. Wise up people. Obama is our hope. All the BS about him being with terrorists is dangerous propaganda. That board who had Ayers and Obama on was a big Reagan supporter and actually the Anenbergs are McCain supporters so it's all crapola. Obama is a wonderful man and a smart man. McCain stutters and whistles through his teeth, clears his throat loudly. I thought he was rude in the debate. The losers usually feel desperate and he shows it.
He later corrected to $250K
He knows the middle class. I'm sure you make under $250K so why are you splitting hairs?
He never said that he made over $250K
He said that he wanted to buy a business that he thought made over $250K. I thought that it was okay to have dreams. How do you know what his intentions are? Even if he were a plant--which I think is silly--he is a citizen and ultimately has a right to propose a hypothetical question to someone asking for his vote to be the leader of our country. If he is attacked in this manner, should we not all fear what will happen if we say anything bad about Obama or ask a question that makes him look bad once he is--if he is--elected?
I understand the payroll tax on only over $250K....sm
I understand I won't pay more payroll tax and income tax at our low income, but it's the property taxes, fuel taxes, sales taxes, and capital gains taxes that are going to go up too, and being landowners and ranchers raising livestock, those taxes affect us big time and just add to the cost of our business, which already is hard to make a profit on.
I know it's hard for people whose income is from a job where you go to work and bring home a paycheck and taxes are simple to understand. But running a business isn't just about how much comes out of your paycheck for payroll tax and what you pay for income tax once a year. These corporate taxes he's talking about are going to affect so many small businesses because most of them make between $500,000-$1,000,000 a year, and increasing their tax rates is going to kill them. It's going to cause them to lay off employees, raise their prices, or simply close their doors.
I have several family members with mom-and-pop business in small towns from a beauty salon to a restaurant and a small computer fix-it business and they will really be hurt by this. They can't raise their prices because people in their small town can't afford to pay higher prices.
There are a lot of big farmers in our area who easily make over $250,000 a year, but what people don't realize is that probably 90-95% of what they sell their crops for has to go into planting and harvesting those crops and they have little to actually live on to pay their heating and food bills, etc., when it's all said and done, so where are they going to come up with the extra tax money?
By sticking it to the big corporate business, there's going to be a lot of collateral damage in the wake and those are going to be the small to mid-sized business of our friends and family. They need to raise the amount to 1-2 million or something because this is going to kill small town main street. JMHO
Oh, and BTW, $250K is not wealthy businesses
They're middle of the road, just making it businesses. They don't employ 3000 people like big business and they will be hurt the most. Big business will pass the tax increase onto the taxpayers. They'll be able to find loopholes with their 30+ laywers (exageration) who are paid to do that.
Wake up and take the blinders off!
If you make less than $250K you get tax break nm
nomopopo
Sorry Sam, but the Bush cuts were only for those over $250K nm
not us peons
It was $250K including a business....
and $250K for a business is nothing. and since when is rich a bad word. Only when someone is jealous.
Not unless I am making over 250K and that's not happening. nm
.
I never said I made $250K a year... where did you get that from my post?...sm
Actually, I work one full-time MT job and a part-time general transcription off and on. I make less than $38,000 a year. My husband is self-employed (we own a ranch) and everything we make from the sale of our livestock and grains has to go back into the operation of the ranch for property taxes, insurance, feed, equipment, repairs, so at best, we break even, and even that doesn't happen often. So we basically live on what I make as an MT, which is less than $38,000 a year.
Yes, it can be done. We do not apply for, nor take any of the government subsidies. We've worked hard and scrimped and saved, and have also sold aluminum cans to help with extra cash coming in, etc. I've always shopped thrift shops for clothes for us and the kids, I've never bought new furniture, have no china or crystal, and the only jewelry I've ever owned was my wedding ring, so couldn't fall back on having the option of selling things such as these to help out.
We've actually been rather comfortable with this and have always felt like we weren't missing out on anything by living a very simple and quiet life. But now I'm afraid we're going to lose what we've worked so hard for because we can't afford any more taxes to pay for those who won't work hard.
I could go on disability due to some physical problems and inability to do probably 99% of jobs out there, but my physical disability doesn't keep me from doing MT work, and I can make a decent living doing that, so why not? If at some point in my life something happens that I can no longer do MT, then I'll have no choice but go on disability because I can't stand/walk/move around in order to get most other jobs out there, but for now I have a choice to work doing something I can do, and I choose to do that.
Most people I know on disability have other skills and could be doing other jobs, but they'd rather take the label of disabled and never work again. I choose to work at what I can do until I can't do it anymore.
I know one gal who was on disability and was offered a great job that paid over $2000 a month, but she would lose her disability, so didn't take the job... when I asked her how much her disability was, it was only $1300 a month! Duh... And the thing is, she would be great in that position and would have been a wonderful asset to the community doing that job. Just didn't make sense to me.
I feel for your situation and I don't think that things like your disabled child being on SSI or whatever is ''on the dole'' because those are exactly the people we as fellow Americans need to be helping. I'm sorry for your health situation and that is most tragic as it can happen to anyone.
The people I'm talking about are the ones who have no major health problems, no job, but could get a job if they wanted to, but welfare pays better, so they don't. My daughter works in a field where she sees daily where parents are dropping kids off at a daycare which is paid for through the social services office, and they go sit in the casino and gamble and smoke cigarettes. How much is a pack of smokes these days, $5? That's $150 a month that could pay for heating your house, putting food on your table, etc., but they don't need the money for those things because they are on programs to get those paid for too.
I'm not pointing a finger at you or people who have real problems and can't work, it's the abusers of the system that I'm upset about. I know of one couple who just a few years ago traveled on a vacation to Tokyo and got to leave their five adopted children with a foster care service absolutely free. This woman used to complain that she only got 15 hours a week of ''respite'' babysitting service.... I raised my kids and probably never had 15 hours total away from them in all the years they grew up as I didn't have family around where I lived and couldn't afford a babysitter. This particular family drives new vehicles, has memberships to clubs, eat out all the time as it's too hard for the mom to cook for so many people, etc., and they have no jobs or any other income. How do they do that?
Again, I'm just saying, we have always made as much as we could and spent as little as we could get by with and were perfectly happy that it balanced out enough that we could live on our own without having to take any freebies from anybody, and if we have to pay more taxes in the future, that balance is going to be upset, and I don't want to lose what we've worked so hard for.
I don't know which candidate is going to be able to do anything about our healthcare situation, but I believe your medical situation is a prime example of how the messed up healthcare industry is bringing decent people down and something needs to be done about it... But I can't afford my own medical care, how can you expect me to pay for everyone else's?
Holycrap! You make more than 250K a year!
How did you do that with MT jobs?
I wouldn't mind making 250K and paying
25% in taxes....
Bidens words - no longer $250K - Now $150K (nm)
x
"Senator Obama's Four Tax Increases for People Earning Under $250k"...
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/senator_obamas_four_tax_increa.html
I confess. Senator Obama's two tax promises: to limit tax increases to only those making over $250,000 a year, and to not raise taxes on 95% of "working Americans," intrigued me. As a hard-working small business owner, over the past ten years I've earned from $50,000 to $100,000 per year. If Senator Obama is shooting straight with us, under his presidency I could look forward to paying no additional Federal taxes -- I might even get a break -- and as I struggle to support a family and pay for two boys in college, a reliable tax freeze is nearly as welcome as further tax cuts.
However, Senator Obama's dual claims seemed implausible, especially when it came to my Federal income taxes. Those implausible promises made me look at what I'd been paying before President Bush's 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, as well as what I paid after those tax cuts became law. I chose the 2000 tax tables as my baseline -- they reflect the tax rates that Senator Obama will restore by letting the "Bush Tax Cuts" lapse. I wanted to see what that meant from my tax bill.
I've worked as the state level media and strategy director on three Presidential election campaigns -- I know how "promises" work -- so I analyzed Senator Obama's promises by looking for loopholes.
The first loophole was easy to find: Senator Obama doesn't "count" allowing the Bush tax cuts to lapse as a tax increase. Unless the cuts are re-enacted, rates will automatically return to the 2000 level. Senator Obama claims that letting a tax cut lapse -- allowing the rates to return to a higher levels -- is not actually a "tax increase." It's just the lapsing of a tax cut.
See the difference?
Neither do I.
When those cuts lapse, my taxes are going up -- a lot -- but by parsing words, Senator Obama justifies his claim that he won't actively raise taxes on 95 percent of working Americans, even while he's passively allowing tax rates to go up for 100% of Americans who actually pay Federal income taxes.
Making this personal, my Federal Income Tax will increase by $3,824 when those tax cuts lapse. That not-insignificant sum would cover a couple of house payments or help my two boys through another month or two of college.
No matter what Senator Obama calls it, requiring us to pay more taxes amounts to a tax increase. This got me wondering what other Americans will have to pay when the tax cuts lapse.
For a married family, filing jointly and earning $75,000 a year, this increase will be $3,074. For those making just $50,000, this increase will be $1,512. Despite Senator Obama's claim, even struggling American families making just $25,000 a year will see a tax increase -- they'll pay $715 more in 2010 than they did in 2007. Across the board, when the tax cuts lapse, working Americans will see significant increases in their taxes, even if their household income is as low as $25,000. See the tables at the end of this article.
Check this for yourself. Go to http://www.irs.gov/formspubs/ and pull up the 1040 instructions for 2000 and 2007 and go to the tax tables. Based on your 2007 income, check your taxes rates for 2000 and 2007, and apply them to your taxable income for 2007. In 2000 -- Senator Obama's benchmark year -- you would have paid significantly more taxes for the income you earned in 2007. The Bush Tax Cuts, which Senator Obama has said he will allow to lapse, saved you money, and without those cuts, your taxes will go back up to the 2000 level. Senator Obama doesn't call it a "tax increase," but your taxes under "President" Obama will increase -- significantly.
Senator Obama is willfully deceiving you and me when he says that no one making under $250,000 will see an increase in their taxes. If I were keeping score, I'd call that Tax Lie #1.
The next loophole involves the payroll tax that you pay to support the Social Security system. Currently, there is an inflation-adjusted cap, and according to the non-profit Tax Foundation, in 2006 -- the most recent year for which tax data is available -- only the first $94,700 of an unmarried individual's earnings were subject to the 12.4 percent payroll tax. However, Senator Obama has proposed lifting that cap, adding an additional 12.4 percent tax on every dollar earned above that cap -- and in spite of his promise, impacting all those who earn between $94,700 and $249,999.
By doing this, he plans to raise an additional $1 trillion dollars (another $662.50 out of my pocket -- and how much out of yours?) to help fund Social Security. Half of this tax would be paid by employees and half by employers -- but employers will either cut the payroll or pass along this tax to their customers through higher prices. Either way, some individual will pay the price for the employer's share of the tax increase.
However, when challenged to explain how he could eliminate the cap AND not raise taxes on Americans earning under $250,000, Senator Obama suggested on his website that he "might" create a "donut" -- an exemption from this payroll tax for wages between $94,700 and $250,000. But that donut would mean he couldn't raise anywhere near that $1 trillion dollars for Social Security. When this was pointed out, Senator Obama's "donut plan" was quietly removed from his website.
This "explanation" sounds like another one of those loopholes. If I were keeping score, I'd call this Tax Lie #2.
(updated) Senator Obama has also said that he will raise capital gains taxes from 15 percent to 20 percent. He says he's aiming at "fat cats" who make above $250,000. However, while only 1 percent of Americans make a quarter-million dollars, roughly 50 percent of all Americans own stock – and while investments that are through IRAs, 401Ks and in pension plans are not subject to capital gains, those stocks in personal portfolios are subject to capital gains, no matter what the owner’s income is. However, according to the US Congress’s Joint Economic Committee Study, “Recent data released by the Federal Reserve shows that nearly half of all U.S. households are stockholders. In the last decade alone, the number of stockholders has jumped by over fifty percent.” This is clear – a significant number of all Americans who earn well under $250,000 a year will feel this rise in their capital gains taxes.
Under "President" Obama, if you sell off stock and earn a $100,000 gain -- perhaps to help put your children through college -- instead of paying $15,000 in capital gains taxes today, you'll pay $20,000 under Obama's plan. That's a full one-third more, and it applies no matter how much you earn.
No question -- for about 50 percent of all Americans, this is Tax Lie #3.
Finally, Senator Obama has promised to raise taxes on businesses -- and to raise taxes a lot on oil companies. I still remember Econ-101 -- and I own a small business. From both theory and practice, I know what businesses do when taxes are raised. Corporations don't "pay" taxes -- they collect taxes from customers and pass them along to the government. When you buy a hot dog from a 7/11, you can see the clerk add the sales tax, but when a corporation's own taxes go up, you don't see it -- its automatic -- but they do the same thing. They build this tax into their product's price. Senator Obama knows this. He knows that even people who earn less than $250,000 will pay higher prices -- those pass-through taxes -- when corporate taxes go up.
No question: this is Tax Lie #4.
There's not a politician alive who hasn't be caught telling some minor truth-bender. However, when it comes to raising taxes, there are no small lies. When George H.W. Bush's "Read my lips -- no new taxes" proved false, he lost the support of his base -- and ultimately lost his re-election bid.
This year, however, we don't have to wait for the proof: Senator Obama has already promised to raise taxes, and we can believe him. However, while making that promise, he's also lied, in at least four significant ways, about who will pay those taxes. If Senator Obama becomes President Obama, when the tax man comes calling, we will all pay the price. And that's the truth.
Tax Rates - and the Obama Increase - $50,000/year Taxable Income
|
2000 Tax Tables
|
2003 Tax Tables
|
2004 Tax Tables
|
2010 Tax Tables - (Bush Tax Cuts have Expired)
|
Increase with Obama Tax Increase*
|
Taxable Income
|
$50,000
|
$50,000
|
$50,000
|
$50,000
|
$50,000
|
Tax: Single
|
$10,581
|
$9,304
|
$9,231
|
$10,581
|
$1,350
|
Tax: Married - Filing Joint
|
$8,293
|
$6,796
|
$6,781
|
$8,293
|
$1,512
|
Tax: Married - Filing Separate
|
$11,143
|
$9,304
|
$9,231
|
$11,143
|
$1,912
|
Tax: Head of Household
|
$9,424
|
$8,189
|
$8,094
|
$9,424
|
$1,330
|
Tax Rates - and the Obama Increase - $75,000/year Taxable Income
|
2000 Tax Tables
|
2003 Tax Tables
|
2004 Tax Tables
|
2010 Tax Tables - (Bush Tax Cuts have Expired)
|
Increase with Obama Tax Increase*
|
Taxable Income
|
$75,000
|
$75,000
|
$75,000
|
$75,000
|
$75,000
|
Tax: Single
|
$17,923
|
$15,739
|
$15,620
|
$17,923
|
$2,303
|
Tax: Married - Filing Joint
|
$15,293
|
$12,364
|
$12,219
|
$15,293
|
$3,074
|
Tax: Married - Filing Separate
|
$18,803
|
$16,083
|
$15,972
|
$18,803
|
$2,831
|
Tax: Head of Household
|
$16,424
|
$14,439
|
$14,344
|
$16,424
|
$2,080
|
Tax Rates - and the Obama Increase - $100,000/year Taxable Income
|
2000 Tax Tables
|
2003 Tax Tables
|
2004 Tax Tables
|
2010 Tax Tables - (Bush Tax Cuts have Expired)
|
Increase with Obama Tax Increase*
|
Taxable Income
|
$100,000
|
$100,000
|
$100,000
|
$100,000
|
$100,000
|
Tax: Single
|
$25,673
|
$22,739
|
$22,620
|
$25,673
|
$3,053
|
Tax: Married - Filing Joint
|
$22,293
|
$18,614
|
$18,469
|
$22,293
|
$3,824
|
Tax: Married - Filing Separate
|
$27,515
|
$23,715
|
$23,504
|
$27,515
|
$4,011
|
Tax: Head of Household
|
$23,699
|
$20,741
|
$20,594
|
$23,699
|
$3,015
|
* When "President" Obama allows President Bush's tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 to expire, this will amount to a DE facto tax increase
Of course, this was all before 9/11, which, of course, changed everything. nm
He must have really changed
since the last time I watched his show then. Hmmm.
What has changed? sm
Obama stated after a landslide victory in 2004 in his bid for Illinois senator that he didn't feel he had the experience to run on a national ticket in 2008.
What has changed?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gexyfVpFMU
I see you changed your name.
Stop the dang bashing. This is not a board for spelling police.
yes, he changed the story
"just a bit" to better prove his point that she was a reformer. Like his cross in the dirt story as a POW. When he first told it, it happened to someone else. It went over better when he changed it to first person. That is dangerous behavior. We have been through 8 years of information manipulation. Please no more.
He's changed his plan but yet again..
The McCain-Palin campaign has critized his tax plans as welfare, so Barack’s campaign has come back and tweaked it to add a work requirement. (They will materialize things out of thin air as needed to get elected.) This comes from the New Hampshire Union Leader in reply.
Glad to see not much has changed :)
politics as usual! :)
they have not changed the rules yet
Hedge funds are still doing sneak attacks on companies, driving them into the dirt.
Citigroup got hit today, down 23%. It is worth 6 bucks and one year ago was 40. They need to change the rules on these hedge funds. They can pick on any company and kill it in a day.
The constitution will most likely be changed for him.
nm
I never changed my moniker and always
posted inside my messages so my thoughts would not get lost. I take full credit for what I post and usually try to post anything of interest to others, so I don't care who knows my moniker. They can read or discard, but I will get my reasoning and/or thoughs/suggestions out there.
I've been bashed plenty of times prior to the election but I don't care. I still don't care who likes me or not. I get my thoughts out there and that's all that matters. I don't hide like some people on this board do, or change names. Running a post through the name part does no one any good except to tell everyone they don't want to use the comment part of the board. I usually bypass those.
I also suggest if anyone posts that they use (nm) or NM in their subject if they have nothing else to say. I spend a lot of time opening a message to find nothing underneath that post. To me that is waste of time.
I thought they changed it to anyone
making over 235,000 now. I will have to look that up.
because the situation OVER THERE CHANGED,
Taliban in Pakistan is getting stronger!
Think and get more flexible.
Do you think men don't come back from all wars changed? SM
What war is worth fighting for? Explain that to me. During World War II, ten times the men that have died in Iraq in two years died in one day. How many is too many? What is worth fighting for?
So you think the genocidal Saddam changed
That's the real question here. Have you listened to his tirades during his circus of a trial? Anyone who believed Saddam changed from being mentally unstable genocidal megalomanic while still the dictator of Iraq has to be the most naive person on Earth. Because he is demonstrating in court that he's still a megalomanic. The U.N. gave them adequate time to straighten up and fly right, and as you know the U.N. is having major corruption problems, so any agreements we have with them are shaky at best. You are right on one statement. The war in Iraq was wayyyy overdue.
Maybe he changed his mind like Palin sm
changed her mind on the whole Bridge to Nowhere fiasco. She makes a bid to-do about it in her speech, about how she shot it down or opposed it, but in the beginning she was all for it. I guess she changed her mind like Biden changed his mind about McCain. Or how the McCain's changed their mind on what was behind the adoption of their daughter.
Okay....then let's just say neither of them are liars. They just changed their minds.
I'll go with that. My entire point is that you can't really call one of them a liar and say the other just "changed his/her mind."
Looks like McCain changed his mind again. sm
In October 2007 McCain had the following to say, referring to Romney and Giuliani I believe, when they were all starting out in the Rep. nomination process. I bolded the part he seemed to have changed his mind on. I am sure if SP wasn't his running mate now he might feel the same way he did back them.
"I have had a strong and a long relationship on national security, I've been involved in every national crisis that this nation has faced since Beirut, I understand the issues, I understand and appreciate the enormity of the challenge we face from radical Islamic extremism. I am prepared. I am prepared. I need no on-the-job training. I wasn't a mayor for a short period of time. I wasn't a governor for a short period of time."
has anyone changed Pres choice in
x
Nope, I haven't changed. s/m
I will be voting AGAINST McCain or for Obama whichever way you want to look at it. As I have listened carefully to Obama, particularly on his infomercial, I find that I like him more and believe in him more. I still have a problem with his church but then I guess there is still Congress and there is STILL the people who can put pressure on Congress if need be.
What I said was that I COULD change my mind, let's say if Obama pulled a really big boner (doubtful) between now or Tuesday or McCain said something that convinced me he was the better of the candidates. I don't expect either to happen. I don't know if the people voting for McCain have heard different speaches by him and Palin and I've been out in lala land or what but all I have heard them do is talk about what Obama is going to do and not do, scare tactics, nothing about their plans. In other words the whole McCain campaign has been about trashing Obama. I think that Obama has handled all the trashing very professionally and has looked quite presidential.
Okay - I agree that the site has been changed; however -
I think the first time it was posted, someone just did not put all the information there by mistake. You can see by the links I posted below that it was never the intent to make it mandatory for everyone, but mandatory in order to receive the college credit of $4000.
We are all transcriptionists and we all know how easy it is to make mistakes while typing - somebody just left out part of what they were supposed to type there.
Unfortunately changed started 8 years ago. n/m
x
Yes.....changed the subject from Obama.......sm
to anchor babies growing up to be president. And didn't I say that I would help you rant and rail over it when the time comes?
If a person is born on US soil, they are considered a US natural born citizen unless they choose to denounce it. They are therefore "endowned with certain inalienable rights" one of them being citizenship.
That is correct.... it can be edited and changed by
--
We haven't changed the rules at all. To what are you referring?
/
yeah well America's morals have changed
interracial marriages used to be illegal. One day we ill look upon the ban against gay marriage to be as rediculous of a notion as not allowing blacks to go to school with whites. The times, they are a changin!
This is the year 2008 - times have changed
So you think that because you work at home that's the way it should be for everyone. Sorry but this is the year 2008. I for one am glad that woman are out working in society/public. I'm glad that a mother can also be a govenor or senator or anything they want to be. My working at home is my choice. Thank goodness we as woman have that choice. And thanks to people like Sarah Palin it can only get better for us.
You changed your mind? your opinion from yesterday....sm
My, you are all over the board sometimes....
http://forum.mtstars.com/misc/v/11/33417.html
Changed my mind, wanta hear what I did?
First, husband went to bed. I'm watching SNL and dying laughing but can't stand commercials. Now that that is out of the way.
With that out of the way.........as for the face scratching...I dunno. Once I was addressing a rather respected, dignified person and being a person who can't talk without my hands, I realized instead of using my index finger for my emphasis, I was using my middle finger. I wasn't flipping him off but I'm surprised he didn't write me off. One of my most embarrassing moments.
Back to SNL at least until the next commercial
FYI - her original post didn't contain *****, it was changed
x
And if you notice it also says he changed his site and took the words out...
and I tend to believe the word require was actually there.
UPDATE II: Oopsie. Change-O, Government-O drops the word "require" from their vocabulary in Obama's Change.gov website on "voluntary service" for Obama's new "Youth Corps" program.
Right.
UPDATE III: Obama forgot to remove "require" in one of his Change.gov website on service requirement,
I guess the throngs that changed his name at rallies...
or at least SOME of them have become a little disenchanted. Good for them. Can we recall a President? lol.
First time I have been here in days, Demo. Nothing has changed. Carry on. nm
We were, you changed it to Bush hatred, another bin Coulter phrase.nm
zz
A lot of politicians on both sides changed their views on the war once the truth came out. nm
x
O Changed it from mandatory Comm Serv requirement after the outcry
MANDATED community service is not acceptable to me.
Florida has Bright Futures, a scholarship assistance program for State schools. This requires community service. My son did it, and may daughter will do it as well.
BUT it is VOLUNTARY .. you choose to do it or not ..
rewards for service, yes --
mandated, no way; kids will not get anything (or the vast majority anyway) if they are forced to do it ...
ps - I believe in Comm. Service and my kids both do it .. but because they want to do so.
Just my 2 center
|
