I just want to take a quick poll...

[slowbubblecar]

Originally Posted by MATCHBX

You pay capital gains at the end of the tax year on anything higher than your regular income if I remember correctly. My mother had to go out and buy a new car in 2001 with what was left over from when she refinanced her home. If she hadn't, she would've been hit with capital gains on what was left.

That is wrong... What is considered regular income? If I get a new higher paying job, do I have to pay capital gains tax? No. The statement about needing to buy a car to ofset capital gains tax is completely wrong also. If you refinance a home, you don't have to pay any taxes. You aren't making any more money. Capital gains tax is used for investments greater than a year. You would only have to pay them on a home if you sold a house that wasn't your primary residence for a profit, if you made money on a home you were living in between 1 and 2 years, or if you made more than 250k (for a single person) or 500k (married couple) on a home you lived in 2 years or greater. Currently, the capital gains rates are much lower than ordinary income rates regardless of what income bracket you are in

[john]

Originally Posted by MATCHBX

You pay capital gains at the end of the tax year on anything higher than your regular income if I remember correctly. My mother had to go out and buy a new car in 2001 with what was left over from when she refinanced her home. If she hadn't, she would've been hit with capital gains on what was left.

YOU HAVE NO IDEA AT ALL WHAT CAPITAL GAINS TAX IS.

If you want to post about it, do some reading first. A house refinance is not a taxable event, buying a car is not a tax deduction, and capital gains has nothing to do with a higher than regular income.

[MATCHBX]

Originally Posted by john

YOU HAVE NO IDEA AT ALL WHAT CAPITAL GAINS TAX IS.

If you want to post about it, do some reading first. A house refinance is not a taxable event, buying a car is not a tax deduction, and capital gains has nothing to do with a higher than regular income.

Sorry that I misspoke myself. It was a home improvement loan that she needed use up the money from. She wasn't looking for a tax deduction, just not get hit at the end of the year.

And yes I do know about capital gains tax. I was generalizing when I typed instead of reciting volumes of text from the IRS site. There are a few levels of tax rates for the long terms and short terms are at income tax levels. These things I do know as well as others. I just don't feel the need for typing everything all at once. So is there anything else that you want to recite from the tax code to me? I'm not trying to be a dick, but when you come after many people like a pompous ass, you're gonna get it back a little.

[slowbubblecar]

[QUOTE=MATCHBX;263720]Sorry that I misspoke myself. It was a home improvement loan that she needed use up the money from. She wasn't looking for a tax deduction, just not get hit at the end of the year.
QUOTE]

Either way, you aren't taxed on loans. Taking a loan out doesn't constitute income so you aren't taxed on obtaining a loan. Just because you borrowed money, doesn't mean you don't have to repay it.

[scheides]

Bacon.

[Kracka]

Originally Posted by scheides

Bacon.

I now have a craving for Triple Rock bar.

[mdost03]

From another forum, thought it was funny. Obama's plan in action:

"Today on my way to lunch I passed a homeless guy with a sign that read "Vote Obama, I need the money." I laughed. Once in the restaurant my server had on a "Obama 08" tie, again I laughed as he had given away his political preference--just imagine the coincidence. When the bill came I decided not to tip the server and explained to him that I was exploring the Obama redistribution of wealth concept. He stood there in disbelief while I told him that I was going to redistribute his tip to someone who I deemed more in need--the homeless guy outside. The server angrily stormed from my sight. I went outside, gave the homeless guy $10 and told him to thank the server inside as I've decided he could use the money more. The homeless guy was grateful. At the end of my rather unscientific redistribution experiment I realized the homeless guy was grateful for the money he did not earn, but the waiter was pretty angry that I gave away the money he did earn even though the actual recipient needed money more. I guess redistribution of wealth is an easier thing to swallow in concept than in practical application."

[Kracka]

Originally Posted by totaleclipse_05

From another forum, thought it was funny. Obama's plan in action:

"Today on my way to lunch I passed a homeless guy with a sign that read "Vote Obama, I need the money." I laughed. Once in the restaurant my server had on a "Obama 08" tie, again I laughed as he had given away his political preference--just imagine the coincidence. When the bill came I decided not to tip the server and explained to him that I was exploring the Obama redistribution of wealth concept. He stood there in disbelief while I told him that I was going to redistribute his tip to someone who I deemed more in need--the homeless guy outside. The server angrily stormed from my sight. I went outside, gave the homeless guy $10 and told him to thank the server inside as I've decided he could use the money more. The homeless guy was grateful. At the end of my rather unscientific redistribution experiment I realized the homeless guy was grateful for the money he did not earn, but the waiter was pretty angry that I gave away the money he did earn even though the actual recipient needed money more. I guess redistribution of wealth is an easier thing to swallow in concept than in practical application."

This is great! People are in for a rude awakening when they see this economic plan actually put into practice!

[Febo]

I have to agree with slowboy right now. You guys earlier up on this page are blaming a man who isnt even president. If anything you should all be bashing the rock brained idiot who is sitting in the big chair right now. Hes the one who has effed this economy by out sourcing jobs, improper tax cuts, and non govt regulation of the health care system which has rocked employers who want to offer benifits, and has rocked people dependant on medicine. Everyone says trickle down economics is the way to go, the only problem with a trickle is it only takes one stone to stop it and have it pool.

[merkzu]

Originally Posted by RLFebo

I have to agree with slowboy right now. You guys earlier up on this page are blaming a man who isnt even president. If anything you should all be bashing the rock brained idiot who is sitting in the big chair right now. Hes the one who has effed this economy by out sourcing jobs, improper tax cuts, and non govt regulation of the health care system which has rocked employers who want to offer benifits, and has rocked people dependant on medicine. Everyone says trickle down economics is the way to go, the only problem with a trickle is it only takes one stone to stop it and have it pool.

I'm not a big Bush fan, but can you explain what jobs Bush outsourced, or why outsourcing has effed the economy? If I wanted to start a gig selling ethanol gauges and had the guys in Belgrade making them for me, am I effing the economy? Should the government step in and say I can't do that?

What improper tax cuts were made, and how did they eff the economy? Can you explain how the government removing capital from private businesses and consumers improves an economy?

What non gov regulation in healthcare has rocked employers? How has government regulation made health care cheaper? Do you think it would be cheaper if competition was encouraged instead of restricted?

Have you thought about any of these questions?

The economy is mostly screwed because of the housing market collapse, and Bush had pretty much nothing to do with it. Maybe you should look into who the politicians were that encouraged subprime lending and who was involved at Freddie/Fannie. As a hint you will find a lot of "D"s

I'm not blaming Obama (tho his stint as a lawyer representing ACORN is pretty bad), but you sound like a lot of Bush haters I know that just kind of repeat what they hear

[john]

Originally Posted by merkzu

The economy is mostly screwed because of the housing market collapse, and Bush had pretty much nothing to do with it. Maybe you should look into who the politicians were that encouraged subprime lending and who was involved at Freddie/Fannie. As a hint you will find a lot of "D"s

Here you are trying to point the housing crisis at the democrats, F-ing rediculous. It is america that is to blame for the housing crisis, if the demand wasn't pushing the mortgage lenders, this wouldn't have happened. It is easy to blame this on Freddie/Fannie but this wouldn't have happened if the opportunity wasn't there. If were were responsible people who knew that not all of us could afford a house, there wouldn't have been any pressure on them to act.

I agree that this is not bush's fault but don't try and point the finger at democrats. They couldn't do anything on their own.

[slowbubblecar]

Originally Posted by merkzu

The economy is mostly screwed because of the housing market collapse, and Bush had pretty much nothing to do with it. Maybe you should look into who the politicians were that encouraged subprime lending and who was involved at Freddie/Fannie. As a hint you will find a lot of "D"s

Since when do politicians grant loans???? Last time I checked it was financial institutions making these loans. Fannie and Freddie bought the loans from financial institutions if you didn't know. They don't have offices open for people to go into to get a loan. The only reason Fannie and freddie are having problems is from people not paying their loans. It has nothing to do with home values. Regardless of home values, if people were paying their loans as the terms stated, they would be doing just fine.

[JET]

Originally Posted by RLFebo

I have to agree with slowboy right now. You guys earlier up on this page are blaming a man who isnt even president. If anything you should all be bashing the rock brained idiot who is sitting in the big chair right now. Hes the one who has effed this economy by out sourcing jobs, improper tax cuts, and non govt regulation of the health care system which has rocked employers who want to offer benifits, and has rocked people dependant on medicine. Everyone says trickle down economics is the way to go, the only problem with a trickle is it only takes one stone to stop it and have it pool.

Outsourcing of jobs was done with NAFTA (remember when CLINTON passed this through? ) and how can lowering taxes possibly hurt the economy? Lowering taxes means there is more money in the economy, which actually strengthens it. We are a capitalist society, why should goverment control our private party health care system? It doesn't work well in any other country where it is implemented, so why do that here?

[john]

Originally Posted by JET

Outsourcing of jobs was done with NAFTA (remember when CLINTON passed this through? ) and how can lowering taxes possibly hurt the economy? Lowering taxes means there is more money in the economy, which actually strengthens it. We are a capitalist society, why should goverment control our private party health care system? It doesn't work well in any other country where it is implemented, so why do that here?

How can lowering taxes ever help a country which is trillions in debt and struggling to balance the budget? There is no proof that lower taxes means more spending, especially in a recession. People are more likely to save the money as they do not know how bad times are going to get. I know that I didn't do anything special when I recieved my stimulus check, did you?? It just went in my account and was used like normal. No increase in spending.

[JET]

Originally Posted by john

How can lowering taxes ever help a country which is trillions in debt and struggling to balance the budget? There is no proof that lower taxes means more spending, especially in a recession. People are more likely to save the money as they do not know how bad times are going to get. I know that I didn't do anything special when I recieved my stimulus check, did you?? It just went in my account and was used like normal. No increase in spending.

Now how about actually reading my post? I know you have taken economics classes, so you know lower taxes raise the amount of money in the economy. A stimulus check is not lower taxes. Lower taxes will always mean more money in the economy, whether the money is in a bank where they can use it for more loans or if it is spent. I said nothing about this being good for the country's budget. So if your stimulus check "went into your account and was used like normal", does that mean you spent the money and it went into the economy?

[john]

Originally Posted by JET

Now how about actually reading my post? I know you have taken economics classes, so you know lower taxes raise the amount of money in the economy. A stimulus check is not lower taxes. Lower taxes will always mean more money in the economy, whether the money is in a bank where they can use it for more loans or if it is spent. I said nothing about this being good for the country's budget. So if your stimulus check "went into your account and was used like normal", does that mean you spent the money and it went into the economy?

Ok, this is for sure my last post on the thread, but I want to respond to this.

I did read your post, I talked about the stimulus check as the stimulus check is also a way of keeping money in the economy. What is the difference if the government lowers your taxes, or takes your tax, and gives money back???? No difference, it has the same effect, more money in the economy.

As far as my check went, my spending did not increase because of it, nor do I know anyone who said, "wow, I can go buy this now."

Matchbox - If I see wrong information, I am going to try and correct it. I am a tax accountant (business taxes) and know that most people don't care about taxes aside from wanting to pay less. Taxes didn't get us into this mess, and they are not going to get us out.

It has a bad few years for the republican party mostly because the state of our economy. Not that it is Bush's fault, or the republicans, but it is easy for people to point the finger at the man at the top.

Ok, now I am done on here. Maybe someone should payban me to raise money for the site as I probably pissed alot of you off

[Febo]

I still havent read anywhere yet that says he is litterally taking rich peoples money and giving it to the poor. Hes just making the rich pay more for being rich. and its only a matter of less than 10% increase. I dunno. I wanna find all these websites that claim this stuff, but I guess thats what happens when you search non partisan sites.

[mdost03]

Originally Posted by RLFebo

I still havent read anywhere yet that says he is litterally taking rich peoples money and giving it to the poor. Hes just making the rich pay more for being rich. and its only a matter of less than 10% increase. I dunno. I wanna find all these websites that claim this stuff, but I guess thats what happens when you search non partisan sites.

How is that right though? Even if it was a flat percent tax for everyone, the rich would pay more. How is it fair to them that they have to pay a percent increase just because they are successful?

[Febo]

While I may not agree to taxing certain good wealthy people and businesses, I have to look at alot of the companies and individuals who have cut jobs, pay, and benefits to save money, while not taking pay cuts, themselves, or increasing their salary. And just like everything else in life, a few wreck the many. So this is the sad reality you must face to be wealthy. Just like everyone assumes that since your unemployed your lazy and therefore dont deserve welfare, or just because your a single mom who is on welfare, that you are milking the system, rather then you fell on hard times. Generalization is the price we all must pay.

Ill start searcing merkuz, but a couple quick responses, how is outsourcing good for the economy when you are robbing jobs from americans who need those jobs to live and provide for their familys. Also, health care has shown to milk the system. Especially the pharmacuticals they found out they can raise prices, and still stay in competition and so they do so. I dunno, a couple billion in profit seems like a little too much dont ya think?

[Kracka]

When you are saving lives and allowing people to live longer (or keep children alive that even just a few years ago would have died) then yes, billions in profits is acceptable. They are supplying a great service to this world and deserve to be rewarded for it. If they were not rewarded for it, do you think they'd being doing it?