<p>Obama has mentioned $250,000 and above as upper bracket. I don’t think anyone thinks $100,000 is rich, especially with a 2 wage earner family. Some colleges consider $100,000 still eligible for financial aid.
I don’t consider our family rich. But it’s all relative. I just know that we will not have to suffer as much in the downturn as those who have less because we are better able to weather the storm. We have savings, investments and continued earning potential.</p>
<p>From what I’ve read, phaseouts for credits would be in the $150,000 to $200,000 range. It appears that his plan works for those that have modest incomes but large assets. Those in that category are probably truly richer than those with high incomes and little in the way of assets. Wealth is what you have in assets; not necessarily what you earn in income. Though a high income should eventually generate assets. The negatives in Obama’s plan are the hikes in capital gains taxes and dividends. As these affect people at much lower incomes than $100,000.</p>
<p>I read about $100,000 as the area where the Obama campaign viewed earners as rich. This was quite some time ago so perhaps that has changed.</p>
<p>In Sept '07, Obama said he’d repeal the Bush tax cuts for the top “1%.” </p>
<p>[Obama</a> tax plan: $80 billion in cuts, five-minute filings - CNN.com](<a href=“http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/09/18/obama.taxplan/index.html]Obama”>Obama tax plan: $80 billion in cuts, five-minute filings - CNN.com)</p>
<p>I’ve never heard the $100 grand figure. </p>
<p>Even if the Bush’s tax cuts were rolled back for the top 2%, we’d still be talking about those making over $250,000.</p>
<p>I just had a look at the plans at Obama’s web site under Economy. I don’t see anything about repealing tax cuts for the wealthy. I actually went there to find details on his plans to raise taxes and I found no details; in fact I found no plans at all. Perhaps you could provide a link that has details on his plans. Or perhaps the hedge fund managers got to him.</p>
<p>The only place where I saw a tax increase on the Obama website was a speech in September 2007 indicating raising the dividends and capital gains taxes. There were no specifics on whether this would apply only to those making over any given amount. There are lots of people that get dividends and capital gains that make under $100,000. Even someone with a relatively small money market account at Fidelity will get snared in the tax hike.</p>
<p>Could you point to something that says that cap gains and dividends will raise only for people making over $250K? Or do the rate hikes apply to everyone?</p>
<p>Can we really get tax simplification? What would happen to Intuit, H&R Block, Kiplinger, accountants everywhere? Congress has always shown more willingness to increase the complexity of the tax code.</p>
<p>One way to simplify income taxes would be to get rid of the dividends and capital gains taxes as computing these is a royal pain in the neck because you have to get the cost basis of your securities. If you’ve held them for ten or twenty years, this can be a bit of work. And rolling over dividends and then computing capital gains on those small fractional shares over the years requires good records that are organized.</p>
<p>In the speech on the link I posted Obama mentions “the top 1%” twice as those who he sees received tax cuts, who neither need them nor asked for them.
I’ve also heard this figure as well as the “don’t need them and didn’t ask for them” wording in at least one debate. It’s clear that he wants to repeal the Bush tax cuts- he’s said it numerous times.</p>
<p>I certainly think we need and could achieve tax simplification. There will be lobbies against it of course, but this is exactly the type of special interest that Obama says shouldn’t be dictating policy if it’s bad for Americans.</p>
<p>“In the speech on the link I posted Obama mentions “the top 1%” twice as those who he sees received tax cuts, who neither need them nor asked for them. I’ve also heard this figure as well as the “don’t need them and didn’t ask for them” wording in at least one debate. It’s clear that he wants to repeal the Bush tax cuts- he’s said it numerous times.”</p>
<p>You posted a link to an article about his speech. I actually went to his website and read the speech. He plans to raise capital gains and dividends taxes to what it was during the Reagan years. My read of that is that this would increase capital gains and dividends taxes for everyone. Wealthy, middle-class and low-income if they have dividends and capital gains. Can someone with low-income have dividends and capital gains? Yes, widows living off investment assets. In many cases, I would expect their tax rate to be higher than if they had the equivalent earned income.</p>
<p>“There will be lobbies against it of course, but this is exactly the type of special interest that Obama says shouldn’t be dictating policy if it’s bad for Americans.”</p>
<p>I’ve heard politicians talk about tax simplification for decades. It doesn’t happen because it means that congress loses power. In the real world, politicians do not give up power easily. This sounds like Deval Patrick, part II.</p>
<p>
Why would I want to waste my vote voting for McCain in California. Ron Paul would certainly be the better vote. Certainly a lot more change in his campaign than Obama’s.</p>
<p>Ron Paul is against the war in Iraq. I had the feeling from your previous posts that you didn’t agree with this, but maybe I’m wrong about that. I respect Ron Paul, and agree that he is definitely a candidate for change.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The link directly linked to a video of the speech, where he talks about bringing the tax rate of the top 1% back to pre-Bush levels and closing the tax loopholes for corporations.
I understand the problem with dividends and capital gains, but I think that the issue is wealth, not necessarily income. If someone has little earned income but has much wealth in investments, that is income (in most cases) now according to the tax laws. Someone living on their 60 million in investment dividends, if in taxable investments, does owe taxes, and rightly so. Since dividend income is taxed as income, it counts in the total.
My mother is a widow, who lives off her investments- but she’s far from wealthy. She qualified for a portion of the Bush tax refund. Her income has been eroded by the low interest rates of today’s economy, so I do understand that not all with investments are rich. She files income taxes like everyone else, and pays taxes on that income. BUT, because her total income is so small, she wouldn’t be a target for Obama’s tax increase because she doesn’t make enough money from her investments. Obama is targeting the top 1-2%. Not people living on fixed incomes. Anyone who doesn’t understand this about Obama hasn’t been listening.</p>
<p>“BUT, because her total income is so small, she wouldn’t be a target for Obama’s tax increase because she doesn’t make enough money. Obama is targeting the top 1-2%. Not people living on fixed incomes. Anyone who doens’t understand this about Obama hasn’t been listening.”</p>
<p>Perhaps you could point out where the dividends and capital gains taxes don’t affect people making under a certain amount. I’ve been reading Obama’s website and he talks about raising cap gain and dividends taxes. I saw nothing about income limits on the higher rates. He can target those with high incomes - but what about collateral damage?</p>
<p>Look and listen to the speech on the link I posted. He talks about the top 1%. He has talked about this in other speeches. </p>
<p>I guess I don’t understand what you mean by collateral damage. I’m not trying to be dense, I just don’t get what you are saying. As I understand it, dividends are reported as income. If someone’s income is low, as is my mom’s, even if it’s all dividends, she is taxed at the low rate of her total income. Dividends are counted in the total, as are capital gains. It’s all income. Those in low income brackets, like my 80 year old mom living on her low fixed income, are the ones Obama is trying to protect.</p>
<p>He talks about raising the “top rate” on dividends. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>He would also like to eliminate taxes for seniors earning less than $50.000 per year. He’s not talking about wages here, but total earnings, including dividends, interest, capital gains, etc.</p>
<p>39.6%? Yeeeeooooooowwwwww!</p>
<p>I recall cap gains were higher than 20% before Bush. Perhaps there’s a mistake there.</p>
<p>39.6 sounds high (Reagan rates…
), but that’s only for the income in the very top bracket. This would not affect middle income people, only those who have enough income to put them in the top bracket, and then only that portion of their income that falls over into that bracket. In other words, only those making a good deal of moneywould ever see that rate.</p>
<p>I personally don’t think that dividends should be taxed at all at the personal level because they are already taxed at the corporate level. At any rate, that big a difference between capital gains and dividend rates will most likely change corporate behavior in how they deal with income. This will encourage the growth style of returning value to shareholders in the form of share repurchases and not distributing dividends. I don’t recall Berkshire Hathaway paying a dividend in this century so any gains the investor wants has to be taken in the form of a capital gain.</p>
<p>The thing about the growth model of investing is that companies can get away with more. Companies that pay dividends generally can’t get away with as much in the form of financial shenanigans as they have to pay out the profits regularly. If they’re not making profits, then they can’t pay dividends without selling things off or borrowing money and that would be noticed.</p>
<p>Can middle-class people get hit with top-rate capital gains? Sure. If you have a middle-class income and own stocks or other assets that have had a huge appreciation and sell them in one year, then you can have a massive capital gain.</p>