Proposed taxes and increases.
1.25 percent tax on their property insurance to pay for firefighting in areas prone to wildfires. This tax would be imposed on every homeowner, even those who do not live in wildfire areas. This would be a 5 million tax increase.

Democrats want to create a new split-roll property tax on businesses, which would be a billion to billion tax increase. Businesses would pay higher taxes on offices, warehouses, and storefronts by either paying a higher tax rate, having their property assessed at a higher value, or having their property reassessed more often.

They have suggested reducing the child dependent tax credit, which would be a .4 billion tax increase on families with children and eliminating the senior citizen tax credit, which would be a 5 million tax increase. They have also suggested eliminating the homeowners mortgage interest deduction, which will affect every California homeowner.
Also a .80 cent tax on a 6pack of beer…a 25 cent tax on grcery bags.
This is just a few of the new taxs they want to cover the budget problem….they are also proposing a 1 percent tax on Ipod downloads.

Both McCain and Obama will have to raise taxes to pay for programs for which the public is clamoring, whether those programs are universal health insurance, expanding the military, trying to retire the national debt, or simply trying to balance the budget.

McCain proposes to increase your tax exemption for children by something like 5/year. That’s it, if you have children you get something, otherwise not. This will increase the deficit.

McCain proposes a 00-00 "refundable" tax credit for the purchase of health insurance while apparently proposing, as I understand it, eliminating the deduction for employer provided health insurance. This is a tax increase for business to pay for a tax benefit to the public. This is, ostensibly deficit neutral.

McCain will cut the corporate tax rate from 35% to 25%. This is proposed to keep American companies on shore and to stimulate the economy. This will not keep companies on shore because the 10% tax savings on profits is miniscule compared to the as much as 80% operating cost savings of exploitation of cheap foreign labor. And since most corporations do not pay any taxes due to loopholes it is ridiculous. All that will happen is that those that are paying taxes domestically will pay less and increase the deficit.

All of this tinkering with tax cuts will result in a net tax increase because a higher percentage of the operation of government will be placed on your credit card.

Obama’s plan, a tax cut for the middle class, should be offset by rolling back the Bush 43 tax cuts for the wealthy. Curtailing tax loopholes for companies operating offshore will have far reaching effects including reducing the deficit. As far as funding for new programs goes, there is little doubt that these, like universal healthcare or improving public education and tuition programs, will go on your nation’s credit card.

What’s in it for me? After all, I’m paying for it.

Your taxes are going to go up with either Obama or McCain. For whom you vote, if that is your issue, depends entirely on how much they will go up and/or what you will get in return

Budget..entitled, ironically, “A NEW ERA OF FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY

AOL News ^ | March 13, 2009, 8:02am |

Sen. Dave Gregg points out blow by blow the HYPOCRISY riddled through Obama’s Budget entitled ironically, “A New Era of Fiscal Responsibility.”

Gregg writes, “The argument that this budget doesn’t have tax increases is, I think, an Alice and Wonderland view of the budget.”

-Raising the tax rate from 35% to 42%, eliminating deductions on mortgages and on charitable deductions. Small businesses will be feel the burden the most.

-“Cutting the debt in half in four years is truly spurious, because you take the deficit and quadruple it, and then you cut it in half, that’s like taking four steps back and two steps forward. You’re not making any progress. You’re still going backwards.”

-Raising “a massive sales tax, a national sales tax on everybody’s electric bill, especially people in the Midwest and the Northeast. And what do you do with that revenue? You don’t use it to contain the size of government. You use it to expand government.

"There’s a representation that 80 percent of the first billion is going to go for your make-work-pay tax credit, but the next 20 percent goes to raise the size of the government.
And then on top of that you’re going to get another 0 billion potentially, and there’s no representation of that coming back to taxpayers."

"In fact, there’s specific language which makes it pretty clear that that’s going to be used as walking around money for various constituencies that are interested in spending it."

"They may be worthwhile constituencies, but it’s a heck of a tax burden to put on the American people.
And it represents a massive expansion in the size of government.
I guess that’s my big problem here."
ooops, I got Gregg’s first name wrong…. but I think you know about this man…. smile..
yet, its AOL… because the major news networks have been discredited as purveyers of lies..
HAM O BAM A
for the record: obama’s goons approached Gregg…… then lied to cover their behinds since obama can’t stand to loose….ego-centric

I have to be honest, though, while Pres. Obama adopted the meat of McCain’s proposal, he sure made it less inclusive and more regressive. Being some DINO Mr Obama proves to us once again.

John McCain proposed 00 tax credit to EVERYONE for purchasing health care.
If you are wealthy and in the 38% tax bracket that would give you 00/38% = 94 worth of health care free to everyone.
If you are middle class and in the 25% tax bracket that would give you 00/25% = ,000 worth of health care free to everyone.
See? Wealthy people would enjoy less tax exemptions. That’s progressive.

Now goes Mr. Obama actual proposal to put a cap on health care tax deductions. Needless to say that people who by health care insurance privately do not need to apply. This is how Obama encourages small businesses in their mission of jobs creation. But lets forget about such small irrelevant things.

There is now 100% tax detectability of health care group policy provided by employers. Obama wants to put 00 cap on this tax deductible benefits. Meaning that compared to McCain’s plan wealthy people whose tax deduction would be only 94 anyway under McCain will get no tax hit, but those in the middle class will be liable for the difference ,000 – ,000 = ,000 to lose its tax deductible and hence pay ,000 x 25% = ,000 extra tax.

So much for taxing the rich.
Ref:

http://taxvox.taxpolicycenter.org/blog/_archives/2009/2/26/4105759.html

There are more and I admit that some of my input data are not accurate, but its only because

a) The liberal media ignores the misdeeds of Barack Obama
b) The plans are still in the making – and this is the best point to stop them.
Ref:

http://taxvox.taxpolicycenter.org/blog/_archives/2009/2/26/4105759.html

There are more and I admit that some of my input data are not accurate, but its only because

a) The liberal media ignores the misdeeds of Barack Obama
b) The plans are still in the making – and this is the best point to stop them.

I get these rich liberals in my store who want to maximize their deductions. Every little small business expense, every tax credit.

Yet these are the folks saying the rich should "pay more" in taxes. Well… wouldn’t just filling out the EZ form, or failing to take advantage of these deductions, result in "paying more" taxes?

I just find it fascinating. All these rich people brag that they’d be "happy" to pay more in taxes, yet here they are every year, lining up with their long lists of receipts to squeeze every last penny for themselves.

Would this do more to stimulate the economy?

http://www.reuters.com/article/governmentFilingsNews/idUSN2853502020090128

(I am not sure why, but some bot deleted this question)

* Cut the lowest two income tax rates for 2009 and 2010, from 15 percent to 10 percent and from 10 percent to 5 percent.

* Extend through 2010 a patch to the Alternative Minimum Tax, which was originally designed to ensure that wealthy people pay taxes, but instead would hit millions of middle-income families with higher taxes.

* Expand the ,500 first-time homebuyers tax credit for a principal residence to all homebuyers while limiting it to purchasers who can make a down payment of at least 5 percent of the purchase price.

* Provide a tax deduction for small businesses with less than 500 employees equal to 20 percent of their income.

* Offer new tax deduction for those who do not receive tax-preferred, employer-sponsored health care coverage. And provide assistance to the unemployed who do not qualify for a COBRA premium subsidy.

* Give tax exemption on unemployment benefits and extend temporary federal unemployment benefits through 2009, phasing it out through mid-2010.

* Allow companies to write off current losses against previous tax years for up to five years. Companies now can only "carry back" losses for two years. The tax break would not be available to banks and other companies receiving help from the 0 billion bailout package.

* Extend through 2009 a break for small businesses that allows them to immediately write off up certain capital expenditures. (Reporting by Jeremy Pelofsky, editing by David Wiessler)

— Broaden the 1.45-percent Medicare tax on earned income to “passive income,” which could include money from capital gains, rental properties and businesses that do not require direct participation. This could raise 0 billion.

— Levy a five-percent surtax on individuals who earn more than 0,000 and couples that make million.

— Tax health benefits at a higher level than had been considered. Two scenarios are in play. Taxing plans worth more than ,300 for a family and ,300 for an individual could raise 0 billion. Increasing the cut-off to plans worth more than ,000 would bring billion.

— Capping the tax break on itemized deductions at 28 percent, as President Barack Obama had proposed, or freezing the top deduction rate at 35 percent when the Bush tax cuts expire in 2010. The first scenario would raise 8 billion, while the second would collect billion.

— Issue tax credit bonds to pay for the proposed Medicaid expansion, raising billion.

— Charge fees to pharmaceutical manufacturers, bringing in as much as billion, and insurance providers, raising billion.

– Raise taxes on sodas and sugary drinks. A 3-cent hike could pick up billion, and a 10-cent hike could make 0 billion. This one already appears out of favor: Many senators have specifically ruled out the sugar tax, and a Senate Democratic source said it was the one option that was clearly not gaining traction with committee members.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/24752.html

— Broaden the 1.45-percent Medicare tax on earned income to “passive income,” which could include money from capital gains, rental properties and businesses that do not require direct participation. This could raise 0 billion.

— Levy a five-percent surtax on individuals who earn more than 0,000 and couples that make million.

— Tax health benefits at a higher level than had been considered. Two scenarios are in play. Taxing plans worth more than ,300 for a family and ,300 for an individual could raise 0 billion. Increasing the cut-off to plans worth more than ,000 would bring billion.

— Capping the tax break on itemized deductions at 28 percent, as President Barack Obama had proposed, or freezing the top deduction rate at 35 percent when the Bush tax cuts expire in 2010. The first scenario would raise 8 billion, while the second would collect billion.

— Issue tax credit bonds to pay for the proposed Medicaid expansion, raising billion.

— Charge fees to pharmaceutical manufacturers, bringing in as much as billion, and insurance providers, raising billion.

– Raise taxes on sodas and sugary drinks. A 3-cent hike could pick up billion, and a 10-cent hike could make 0 billion. This one already appears out of favor: Many senators have specifically ruled out the sugar tax, and a Senate Democratic source said it was the one option that was clearly not gaining traction with committee members.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/24752.html

My fiance owns his own business and it is incorporated. He has filed a loss the past two years on the business and his personal income is low. He has tax credit. I earn about 70,000 a year and have standard deductions.

I currently live in the US and am considering a move to Montreal. I operate a home business, and all of my income is coming from US sources, but I have been told that Canada taxes all worldwide income. Then it seems that the US would give me some sort of tax credit for what I paid to Canada.

I expect to make ,000 before deductions. Does Canada have a similar system as far as self-employment taxes? Do they have a self-employment tax?

What abouts would I have to pay for tax, including federal and provincial?