Don't be a moron. The return is in the investment, not in the taxation. That's just idiotic.
What you're saying is the government should now control your rate of return on investments. I thought you conservatives were anti-government control?
No, I think you're all just lying to try and feel good.
I have no idea what you are ranting about. Tonton was equating Buffet's investing with his secretary working. I was showing the two are not the same. Buffet receives a salary that he is taxed at 35% on. The secretary was being taxed at 30% (now 28%) on her salary. Tonton was declaring something with regards to his overall tax rate only being 3% because of returns on investments. This was questioned because the current tax on dividends is dropping to 15%, not 3%.
The real point is that he wasn't comparing apples with apples. The secretary is welcome to start an investment house, or use her own after tax dollars to buy stocks just as Buffet does. Instead Tonton was comparing apples with oranges.
Buffet gets a return (hopefully) from his investments. The return is not guaranteed. If taxation occurs at such a high rate as to discourage investment, then a problem occurs since no investment, no growth.
The only way the government could control your return rate is to tax it to the point of it being nonexistant. I wasn't advocating some sort of governmental control on securities or investments. I have no idea what gve you that impression.
You said there's much more risk and hence reward for investing. The reward in this discussion is lower taxes. You're being silly if you think investors should be rewarded with lower taxes, rather than people who actually go to a 40 hour a week job and work.
You're being silly if you think investors should be rewarded with lower taxes, rather than people who actually go to a 40 hour a week job and work.
Again, the class warfare shows itself. This isn't about people who invest vs. people who work 40 hours a week. This is about people who work 40 hours a week and DON'T invest vs. people who work 40 hours a week and DO invest. Note that BOTH sides work 40 hours a week.
It drives me crazy when people assume "rich" people don't work. They may have more free time, as the wealthiest people generally run their own business and set their own hours. But to make it out as if they don't work like "the common man" is just ridiculous.
Yes, it's very sad that more "regular Americans" can't afford to invest, so they don't get anything back on the dividend tax cut. That doesn't mean that the dividend tax cut isn't completely fair to those who do invest. Dividends were overtaxed, now they won't be. Who the money is going back to is NOT the relevant issue, except to those in favor of income redistribution which has no place in a capitalist society.
If you want "the common man/woman" to get more money back in taxes, figure out a system that allows them to get THEIR OWN MONEY BACK. I'm all or it. But giving them someone else's money by overtaxing "those who can afford it" is not a solution.
Because he's talking about 2004, when the divended tax is slated to be completely gone, and not 2003, when it's "merely" going to be halved?
If anyone is playing anyone else for a sucker, it's Bush and the Republicans with these accounting tricks of doing phase-ins like this, and sunset dates that are only gimmicks.
The sunset dates are incredibly dishonest. They exist for only two reasons:
1) So Republicans can say that this tax cut is "only" a $350 billion over the next tens years, when the real intention is more like a trillion-dollar tax cut. Smoke and mirrors. If you think a trillion dollar tax cut is the right thing to do, be honest about it rather than trying to dress it up as being less.
2) To bludgeon any Democrat for being "in favor of a huge tax increase!!!" when the sunset dates come up (sunsets designed by Republicans), and the Democrat favors letting the Republicans own sunset date proceed as planned rather than extending the dates.
That isn't what I have read.
Quote:
Capital Gains and Dividends
The law reduces tax rates on long-term capital gains and qualified dividend income. Between 2003 and 2008, the law reduces tax rates on both capital gains and dividends to 5% for the 10% and 15% brackets and to 15% for taxpayers in the remaining tax brackets. The law reduces the 5% rate to 0% in 2008, which means that taxpayers in the lower two brackets will pay no taxes on capital gains and dividends that year. This provision would expire in 2009. The effective date for the dividend provision is January 1, 2003. However, the effective date for the capital gain provision is May 6, 2003.
Nothing like being reactionary without information or thought. The rate goes to and stays at 15% for all but the lowest two brackets. The lowest two brackets drop even further to zero for one year, 2008. The lowest two brackets are not the rich, they are the poor. What you have stated is a minumum a misunderstanding and at maximum an outright lie.
The sunset days are the purest example of spin in this thread.
Democrats should just be honest and say they aren't in favor of the cuts. If you aren't for the cuts, then sunsetting is exactly what you want. Instead they feign support and are upset over the truth coming home to roost not once but twice.
You make this sound like a gimmick. That is is pure spin. Items sunset and are reauthorized all the time.
There have been Republicans as well as Democrats who have both raised and cut taxes. The fact that it sunsets means the issue will be up for debate again. It could come out in favor of either party depending upon the variables and climate then.
You said there's much more risk and hence reward for investing. The reward in this discussion is lower taxes. You're being silly if you think investors should be rewarded with lower taxes, rather than people who actually go to a 40 hour a week job and work.
What you are reflecting is your own ignorance on money matters. I state quite clearly that Buffet and his salary would be taxed at 35%. Most people work on their investments in addition to their jobs. Mr. Buffett's job just happens to be investing and owning companies.
So to summarize
a)work
b)work, own, invest.
/singsong One of these things has more than the other....
i am not going to go into all the specifics for a reason, i am just going to explain why if you make twice as much as somone that u shouldn't get twice as much 'stuff' (food, vacations, land, cars etc)
For our economy to be its best, you NEED a large middle class. If the gov. didn't step in, the rich/upper middle class would get richer and the poor/lower middle class would get poorer. I can't think of ONE civilization that good came because of large devisions between rich and the poor.
i am not going to go into all the specifics for a reason, i am just going to explain why if you make twice as much as somone that u shouldn't get twice as much 'stuff' (food, vacations, land, cars etc)
For our economy to be its best, you NEED a large middle class. If the gov. didn't step in, the rich/upper middle class would get richer and the poor/lower middle class would get poorer. I can't think of ONE civilization that good came because of large devisions between rich and the poor.
I am in agreement with this sentiment. It is at the very cruxt of the issue, and needs to be kept clear as the overlying goal. It is all the economic vehicles, policies, motions that come thereafter in an attempt to address what is a fair interpretation of this goal that generates such impassioned controversy. Suffice to say, these motions often come up imperfect, less than ideal, or plainly unfair to certain groups of society. My hunch is that the solution lies with a more direct solution to the original goal rather than endless patches, corrections, and add-ons in hopes of bringing about "fairness" to the system.
I don't see why a candidate for the president doesn't just run on a platform of tax hikes for the rich and exemption to anyone making < 150k/yr. The majority of Americans fall into the < 150k/yr crowd and it would have to pass in congress because the majority of the constituents in each state also fall into the < 150k/yr crowd. If any senator votes against it it is obvious they are in the pocket of the rich and they'll get railroaded right out of office next election. I'm not saying that is the best thing for our country but I'm just wondering out loud why no presidential candidate has ever done such a thing.
No, what I've refelecting is the fact that you said investors deserve more tax breaks because they take more risks.
That's what you said.
That's silly. That's what I say.
No I have said a couple of things and that was part of it.
First investments typically occur with after tax dollars. So the money has already been taxed once.
The investment has no guarantee of return. It carries risk but also possibly reward. However people will risk their after tax dollars in hopes of growing their own net worth or pocketbook.
The stocks could go up, the company could pay a dividend, or the stock could sink and cost the investor his/her hard earned aftertax dollars.
The company makes a profit and pays a dividend. That dividend is taxed at 15%. If the investor sells the stock they will pay capital gains tax on the increase in stock price.
It shouldn't be taxed like income because it isn't income. It is investment. I don't believe it should be taxed at the same rate as income because income in guaranteed. If you do the work you can expect the pay or expect to sue to be paid. Investment doesn't carry such comfort. You seem to treat the two as the same, I don't.
You consider it a "tax break" because you believe it should be taxed as income is taxes I suppose. I see no problem with the government being content with 15% of a non-guaranteed return, especially when it often requires aftertax dollars to attempt that return.
I don't see why a candidate for the president doesn't just run on a platform of tax hikes for the rich and exemption to anyone making < 150k/yr. The majority of Americans fall into the < 150k/yr crowd and it would have to pass in congress because the majority of the constituents in each state also fall into the < 150k/yr crowd. If any senator votes against it it is obvious they are in the pocket of the rich and they'll get railroaded right out of office next election. I'm not saying that is the best thing for our country but I'm just wondering out loud why no presidential candidate has ever done such a thing.
You have pretty much stated the history of all taxation. Just tax the rich and no one elese pretty much was the motto for getting just about any tax passed.
Tax is passed...rich avoid it...promised services must now be paid for my middle class.
Class dismissed.
You do know that the income tax was originally only suppoed to apply to the top 1% of all earners right? Literally the super rich. 1% became 5%, etc...
The government has a very large stomach. Little can be done to fill it.
You have pretty much stated the history of all taxation. Just tax the rich and no one elese pretty much was the motto for getting just about any tax passed.
Tax is passed...rich avoid it...promised services must now be paid for my middle class.
Class dismissed.
You do know that the income tax was originally only suppoed to apply to the top 1% of all earners right? Literally the super rich. 1% became 5%, etc...
The government has a very large stomach. Little can be done to fill it.
Nick
That's why in such a hypothetical platform it must be a flat tax with no exemptions. No way around it other than criminal tax evasion (which will carry stiffer penalties...10+ years in a federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison).
Comments
Originally posted by bunge
Don't be a moron. The return is in the investment, not in the taxation. That's just idiotic.
What you're saying is the government should now control your rate of return on investments. I thought you conservatives were anti-government control?
No, I think you're all just lying to try and feel good.
I have no idea what you are ranting about. Tonton was equating Buffet's investing with his secretary working. I was showing the two are not the same. Buffet receives a salary that he is taxed at 35% on. The secretary was being taxed at 30% (now 28%) on her salary. Tonton was declaring something with regards to his overall tax rate only being 3% because of returns on investments. This was questioned because the current tax on dividends is dropping to 15%, not 3%.
The real point is that he wasn't comparing apples with apples. The secretary is welcome to start an investment house, or use her own after tax dollars to buy stocks just as Buffet does. Instead Tonton was comparing apples with oranges.
Buffet gets a return (hopefully) from his investments. The return is not guaranteed. If taxation occurs at such a high rate as to discourage investment, then a problem occurs since no investment, no growth.
The only way the government could control your return rate is to tax it to the point of it being nonexistant. I wasn't advocating some sort of governmental control on securities or investments. I have no idea what gve you that impression.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
I have no idea what you are ranting about.
It's simple.
You said there's much more risk and hence reward for investing. The reward in this discussion is lower taxes. You're being silly if you think investors should be rewarded with lower taxes, rather than people who actually go to a 40 hour a week job and work.
Originally posted by bunge
You're being silly if you think investors should be rewarded with lower taxes, rather than people who actually go to a 40 hour a week job and work.
Again, the class warfare shows itself. This isn't about people who invest vs. people who work 40 hours a week. This is about people who work 40 hours a week and DON'T invest vs. people who work 40 hours a week and DO invest. Note that BOTH sides work 40 hours a week.
It drives me crazy when people assume "rich" people don't work. They may have more free time, as the wealthiest people generally run their own business and set their own hours. But to make it out as if they don't work like "the common man" is just ridiculous.
Yes, it's very sad that more "regular Americans" can't afford to invest, so they don't get anything back on the dividend tax cut. That doesn't mean that the dividend tax cut isn't completely fair to those who do invest. Dividends were overtaxed, now they won't be. Who the money is going back to is NOT the relevant issue, except to those in favor of income redistribution which has no place in a capitalist society.
If you want "the common man/woman" to get more money back in taxes, figure out a system that allows them to get THEIR OWN MONEY BACK. I'm all or it. But giving them someone else's money by overtaxing "those who can afford it" is not a solution.
-- Ensoniq
Originally posted by shetline
Because he's talking about 2004, when the divended tax is slated to be completely gone, and not 2003, when it's "merely" going to be halved?
If anyone is playing anyone else for a sucker, it's Bush and the Republicans with these accounting tricks of doing phase-ins like this, and sunset dates that are only gimmicks.
The sunset dates are incredibly dishonest. They exist for only two reasons:
1) So Republicans can say that this tax cut is "only" a $350 billion over the next tens years, when the real intention is more like a trillion-dollar tax cut. Smoke and mirrors. If you think a trillion dollar tax cut is the right thing to do, be honest about it rather than trying to dress it up as being less.
2) To bludgeon any Democrat for being "in favor of a huge tax increase!!!" when the sunset dates come up (sunsets designed by Republicans), and the Democrat favors letting the Republicans own sunset date proceed as planned rather than extending the dates.
That isn't what I have read.
Capital Gains and Dividends
The law reduces tax rates on long-term capital gains and qualified dividend income. Between 2003 and 2008, the law reduces tax rates on both capital gains and dividends to 5% for the 10% and 15% brackets and to 15% for taxpayers in the remaining tax brackets. The law reduces the 5% rate to 0% in 2008, which means that taxpayers in the lower two brackets will pay no taxes on capital gains and dividends that year. This provision would expire in 2009. The effective date for the dividend provision is January 1, 2003. However, the effective date for the capital gain provision is May 6, 2003.
Nothing like being reactionary without information or thought. The rate goes to and stays at 15% for all but the lowest two brackets. The lowest two brackets drop even further to zero for one year, 2008. The lowest two brackets are not the rich, they are the poor. What you have stated is a minumum a misunderstanding and at maximum an outright lie.
The sunset days are the purest example of spin in this thread.
Democrats should just be honest and say they aren't in favor of the cuts. If you aren't for the cuts, then sunsetting is exactly what you want. Instead they feign support and are upset over the truth coming home to roost not once but twice.
You make this sound like a gimmick. That is is pure spin. Items sunset and are reauthorized all the time.
There have been Republicans as well as Democrats who have both raised and cut taxes. The fact that it sunsets means the issue will be up for debate again. It could come out in favor of either party depending upon the variables and climate then.
Nick
Originally posted by bunge
It's simple.
You said there's much more risk and hence reward for investing. The reward in this discussion is lower taxes. You're being silly if you think investors should be rewarded with lower taxes, rather than people who actually go to a 40 hour a week job and work.
What you are reflecting is your own ignorance on money matters. I state quite clearly that Buffet and his salary would be taxed at 35%. Most people work on their investments in addition to their jobs. Mr. Buffett's job just happens to be investing and owning companies.
So to summarize
a)work
b)work, own, invest.
/singsong One of these things has more than the other....
Nick
For our economy to be its best, you NEED a large middle class. If the gov. didn't step in, the rich/upper middle class would get richer and the poor/lower middle class would get poorer. I can't think of ONE civilization that good came because of large devisions between rich and the poor.
Originally posted by Ensoniq
Again, the class warfare shows itself.
No actually, it doesn't. This has nothing to do with 'class warfare' and income redistribution.
The dividend tax was not unfair. Repealing it is.
Originally posted by trumptman
What you are reflecting is your own ignorance on money matters.
No, what I've refelecting is the fact that you said investors deserve more tax breaks because they take more risks.
That's what you said.
That's silly. That's what I say.
I want my tax break
Hey I´m taking risks too. I play Lotto.
sorry, i don't think there's anything lined up to cut back on the Stupid Tax.?
Originally posted by ast3r3x
i am not going to go into all the specifics for a reason, i am just going to explain why if you make twice as much as somone that u shouldn't get twice as much 'stuff' (food, vacations, land, cars etc)
For our economy to be its best, you NEED a large middle class. If the gov. didn't step in, the rich/upper middle class would get richer and the poor/lower middle class would get poorer. I can't think of ONE civilization that good came because of large devisions between rich and the poor.
I am in agreement with this sentiment. It is at the very cruxt of the issue, and needs to be kept clear as the overlying goal. It is all the economic vehicles, policies, motions that come thereafter in an attempt to address what is a fair interpretation of this goal that generates such impassioned controversy. Suffice to say, these motions often come up imperfect, less than ideal, or plainly unfair to certain groups of society. My hunch is that the solution lies with a more direct solution to the original goal rather than endless patches, corrections, and add-ons in hopes of bringing about "fairness" to the system.
Originally posted by bunge
No, what I've refelecting is the fact that you said investors deserve more tax breaks because they take more risks.
That's what you said.
That's silly. That's what I say.
No I have said a couple of things and that was part of it.
First investments typically occur with after tax dollars. So the money has already been taxed once.
The investment has no guarantee of return. It carries risk but also possibly reward. However people will risk their after tax dollars in hopes of growing their own net worth or pocketbook.
The stocks could go up, the company could pay a dividend, or the stock could sink and cost the investor his/her hard earned aftertax dollars.
The company makes a profit and pays a dividend. That dividend is taxed at 15%. If the investor sells the stock they will pay capital gains tax on the increase in stock price.
It shouldn't be taxed like income because it isn't income. It is investment. I don't believe it should be taxed at the same rate as income because income in guaranteed. If you do the work you can expect the pay or expect to sue to be paid. Investment doesn't carry such comfort. You seem to treat the two as the same, I don't.
You consider it a "tax break" because you believe it should be taxed as income is taxes I suppose. I see no problem with the government being content with 15% of a non-guaranteed return, especially when it often requires aftertax dollars to attempt that return.
Nick
Originally posted by alcimedes
because almost every canidate needs the money and backing of major business, all of which are run by folks making more than $150k per year.
That's why you have to go mainstream and then present such a platform during a national debate.
Originally posted by BR
I'm not saying that is the best thing for our country but I'm just wondering out loud why no presidential candidate has ever done such a thing.
Because the President's salary is $200 K a year.
Originally posted by BR
I don't see why a candidate for the president doesn't just run on a platform of tax hikes for the rich and exemption to anyone making < 150k/yr. The majority of Americans fall into the < 150k/yr crowd and it would have to pass in congress because the majority of the constituents in each state also fall into the < 150k/yr crowd. If any senator votes against it it is obvious they are in the pocket of the rich and they'll get railroaded right out of office next election. I'm not saying that is the best thing for our country but I'm just wondering out loud why no presidential candidate has ever done such a thing.
You have pretty much stated the history of all taxation. Just tax the rich and no one elese pretty much was the motto for getting just about any tax passed.
Tax is passed...rich avoid it...promised services must now be paid for my middle class.
Class dismissed.
You do know that the income tax was originally only suppoed to apply to the top 1% of all earners right? Literally the super rich. 1% became 5%, etc...
The government has a very large stomach. Little can be done to fill it.
Nick
Originally posted by alcimedes
because almost every canidate needs the money and backing of major business, all of which are run by folks making more than $150k per year.
Not with this mythical platform they wouldn't...
Originally posted by trumptman
You have pretty much stated the history of all taxation. Just tax the rich and no one elese pretty much was the motto for getting just about any tax passed.
Tax is passed...rich avoid it...promised services must now be paid for my middle class.
Class dismissed.
You do know that the income tax was originally only suppoed to apply to the top 1% of all earners right? Literally the super rich. 1% became 5%, etc...
The government has a very large stomach. Little can be done to fill it.
Nick
That's why in such a hypothetical platform it must be a flat tax with no exemptions. No way around it other than criminal tax evasion (which will carry stiffer penalties...10+ years in a federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison).