Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
heh heh no.You're missing the double taxation. The value of that stock equals the discounted present value of all of the companys future proceeds. If the company is expected to earn $100,000 a year for the next twenty years, the sales price of the stock will reflect those returns. The gain the seller realizes from the sale of the stock will reflect those future returns, and thus the seller will pay capital gains tax on the future stream of income. But the companys future $100,000 annual returns will also be taxed when they are earned. So the $100,000 in profits is taxed twicewhen the owners sell their shares of stock and when the company actually earns the income.
And if they allow a full deduction of capital loss it would create a bias in favour of risk taking. Which would also not be good. You can't have it both ways.Another lovely feature of the cap gains tax is that individuals are permitted to deduct only a portion of the capital losses they incur, whereas they must pay taxes on all of the gains. When taxpayers undertake risky investments, the government taxes fully any gain they realize if the investment has a positive return. But the government allows only partial tax deduction (of up to three thousand dollars per year) if the venture results in a loss. That introduces a bias in the tax code against risk-taking
What did they pay in capital gains taxes
Your attempt at an inflammatory headline fails miserably.
We don't. What you're describing doesn't happen. We're not mob rule.
Are you afraid to quote my entire post?
What I described is exactly what is happening, that's why we have a graduated tax code.
I quote parts that are relevant. It keeps posts from becoming a wall of texts.
As for what you described, no. It does not happen. When was the last time we voted on the tax code?
Are you afraid to quote my entire post?
What I described is exactly what is happening, that's why we have a graduated tax code.
I quote parts that are relevant. It keeps posts from becoming a wall of texts.
As for what you described, no. It does not happen. When was the last time we voted on the tax code?
I guess you don't understand what representation is.
why do we let the majority of lower income people decide that the upper income should be taxed at a different rate?
All he'll accept are posts saying, "Yes, merrill, you DO deserve what you haven't earned!"The top 400 earners in the U.S. paid an average tax rate of 18 percent, according to a Bloomberg TV report noticed by Think Progress. And though that's a far lower rate than the 26.5 percent that many families making less than $100,000 pay annually in taxes, some of America's super-rich have been able to whittle their tax bill down even more, paying a tax rate as low as one percent, according to Bloomberg.
How? Many of the super rich take advantage of a variety of tax loopholes to lower their tax burden. For some of America's rich, most of their wealth comes from stock appreciation, according to Bloomberg, which some billionaires don't end up defining as taxable income.
These findings echo earlier reports, which suggest that the super rich may not be paying their full share in taxes. More than 1,400 millionaires paid no U.S. income taxes in 2009, according to an August report from the Internal Revenue Service.
In addition, 25 percent of all millionaires pay a smaller percentage of their income taxes than millions of middle class households.
But billionaires aren't the only ones that use loopholes to pay lower taxes. Thirty of America's most profitable corporations used rules like the "active financing exception" -- allowing corporations to sidestep paying taxes on overseas profits if they were derived by "actively financing" some activity or deal -- to pay less than zero in income taxes, according to a recent report from the Center for Tax Justice.
Though many super wealthy Americans and very rich corporations use loopholes to lower their tax burden, some have advocated for raising taxes on themselves. Warren Buffett became the most prominent advocate for raising taxes on the rich when he wrote an op-ed in The New York Times in August encouraging lawmakers to raise taxes on millionaires so that they pay the same or higher rate as middle class earners.
Earlier this week, a band of millionaires went to Capitol Hill to lobby Congress to raise their taxes. And they seem to have the support of millionaires around the country, nearly 70 percent of whom said in a survey last month that they support raising taxes on those making $1 million or more.
Some Billionaires Paying Less Than One Percent In Taxes [WATCH]
Really? You don't know the answer to this by now? After all the goofy threads you have started on this type of thing, and after all the times you've been corrected you still don't get it?
You won't be able to convince any "conservatives" here of needed changes to the tax code. "Conservatives" incorrectly believe that taxes on capital gains are double taxation, that that money was earned first and they refuse to acknowledge capital loss.
They simply don't understand what's going on.
You are mistaken.
This conservative thinks the tax code needs a complete overhaul and rewrite.
Far too many pay zero federal taxes and that needs to change.
We don't let the majority of whites decide that the black or Hispanic minority should be taxed at a higher rate, we don't let the majority of heterosexuals decide that the minority of homosexuals should be taxed at a different rate, so why do we let the majority of lower income people decide that the upper income should be taxed at a different rate?
Edit to add---
Silly me, I think everybody should be treated the same.
In this election, conservatives are the only ones talking about changing the tax codes. The ignorance of the lefties never ceases to amaze. they believe any damn fool thing they are told to believe.
You are mistaken.
This conservative thinks the tax code needs a complete overhaul and rewrite.
Far too many pay zero federal taxes and that needs to change.
We don't let the majority of whites decide that the black or Hispanic minority should be taxed at a higher rate, we don't let the majority of heterosexuals decide that the minority of homosexuals should be taxed at a different rate, so why do we let the majority of lower income people decide that the upper income should be taxed at a different rate?
Edit to add---
Silly me, I think everybody should be treated the same.
In this election, conservatives are the only ones talking about changing the tax codes. The ignorance of the lefties never ceases to amaze. they believe any damn fool thing they are told to believe.
Like the Neocon whackjobs who believed in WMDs? Or that the 'mission was accomplished'? Or that the GoP really give a fuck about you? That kind of ignorance?
I quote parts that are relevant. It keeps posts from becoming a wall of texts.
As for what you described, no. It does not happen. When was the last time we voted on the tax code?
I guess you don't understand what representation is.
Oh I do. I just wonder if you do.
why do we let the majority of lower income people decide that the upper income should be taxed at a different rate?
Because that quote of yours certainly makes it sound like you don't.
I guess you don't understand what representation is.
Oh I do. I just wonder if you do.
why do we let the majority of lower income people decide that the upper income should be taxed at a different rate?
Because that quote of yours certainly makes it sound like you don't.
Again, you use the partial quote removing a significant part of the context. That makes it hard to take you seriously.
We could have an honest intellectual discussion, or we can use partial quotes and nitpick. I choose to not engage in the path you have chosen. Get back to me when you are ready to be honest.
So now that I've presented your entire post and turned this into a wall of text, perhaps you will finally explain to us all what you meant. I've bolded the particular portion that is in need of your explaining.You won't be able to convince any "conservatives" here of needed changes to the tax code. "Conservatives" incorrectly believe that taxes on capital gains are double taxation, that that money was earned first and they refuse to acknowledge capital loss.
They simply don't understand what's going on.
You are mistaken.
This conservative thinks the tax code needs a complete overhaul and rewrite.
Far too many pay zero federal taxes and that needs to change.
We don't let the majority of whites decide that the black or Hispanic minority should be taxed at a higher rate, we don't let the majority of heterosexuals decide that the minority of homosexuals should be taxed at a different rate, so why do we let the majority of lower income people decide that the upper income should be taxed at a different rate?
Edit to add---
Silly me, I think everybody should be treated the same.
You are mistaken.
This conservative thinks the tax code needs a complete overhaul and rewrite.
Far too many pay zero federal taxes and that needs to change.
We don't let the majority of whites decide that the black or Hispanic minority should be taxed at a higher rate, we don't let the majority of heterosexuals decide that the minority of homosexuals should be taxed at a different rate, so why do we let the majority of lower income people decide that the upper income should be taxed at a different rate?
Edit to add---
Silly me, I think everybody should be treated the same.
In this election, conservatives are the only ones talking about changing the tax codes. The ignorance of the lefties never ceases to amaze. they believe any damn fool thing they are told to believe.
Like the Neocon whackjobs who believed in WMDs? Or that the 'mission was accomplished'? Or that the GoP really give a fuck about you? That kind of ignorance?
Oh I do. I just wonder if you do.
Because that quote of yours certainly makes it sound like you don't.
Again, you use the partial quote removing a significant part of the context. That makes it hard to take you seriously.
We could have an honest intellectual discussion, or we can use partial quotes and nitpick. I choose to not engage in the path you have chosen. Get back to me when you are ready to be honest.
Ok.
So now that I've presented your entire post and turned this into a wall of text, perhaps you will finally explain to us all what you meant. I've bolded the particular portion that is in need of your explaining.You won't be able to convince any "conservatives" here of needed changes to the tax code. "Conservatives" incorrectly believe that taxes on capital gains are double taxation, that that money was earned first and they refuse to acknowledge capital loss.
They simply don't understand what's going on.
You are mistaken.
This conservative thinks the tax code needs a complete overhaul and rewrite.
Far too many pay zero federal taxes and that needs to change.
We don't let the majority of whites decide that the black or Hispanic minority should be taxed at a higher rate, we don't let the majority of heterosexuals decide that the minority of homosexuals should be taxed at a different rate, so why do we let the majority of lower income people decide that the upper income should be taxed at a different rate?
Edit to add---
Silly me, I think everybody should be treated the same.
We all await your response.
heh heh no.You're missing the double taxation. The value of that stock equals the discounted present value of all of the companys future proceeds. If the company is expected to earn $100,000 a year for the next twenty years, the sales price of the stock will reflect those returns. The gain the seller realizes from the sale of the stock will reflect those future returns, and thus the seller will pay capital gains tax on the future stream of income. But the companys future $100,000 annual returns will also be taxed when they are earned. So the $100,000 in profits is taxed twicewhen the owners sell their shares of stock and when the company actually earns the income.
The company pays taxes on the $100K in the future and you pay taxes on the increase in stock price. No double taxation.
And if they allow a full deduction of capital loss it would create a bias in favour of risk taking. Which would also not be good. You can't have it both ways.
[
How is risking one's capital on our economy not a good thing?
You did not have to earn it first. It could have been a gift or an inheritance.
Money given as a gift or through inheritance can also be taxed.
But lets say you did it earn it and paid taxes on it. Fine. Then you invest, say, $10,000 of your after tax income and it turns in to $15,000. Congrats.
Now, do you pay taxes on the full $15,000? Or just the $5,000 in gains? That's right, just the $5,000 because the other $10,000 has already been taxed.
Hence, no double taxation.
You're missing the double taxation. The value of that stock equals the discounted present value of all of the companys future proceeds. If the company is expected to earn $100,000 a year for the next twenty years, the sales price of the stock will reflect those returns. The gain the seller realizes from the sale of the stock will reflect those future returns, and thus the seller will pay capital gains tax on the future stream of income. But the companys future $100,000 annual returns will also be taxed when they are earned. So the $100,000 in profits is taxed twicewhen the owners sell their shares of stock and when the company actually earns the income.
Another lovely feature of the cap gains tax is that individuals are permitted to deduct only a portion of the capital losses they incur, whereas they must pay taxes on all of the gains. When taxpayers undertake risky investments, the government taxes fully any gain they realize if the investment has a positive return. But the government allows only partial tax deduction (of up to three thousand dollars per year) if the venture results in a loss. That introduces a bias in the tax code against risk-taking
What law is keeping those millionaires from voluntarily sending more of their own money to the government?
[
How is risking one's capital on our economy not a good thing?
How is working for a living a less good thing?
The value of a stock is whatever someone else is willing to pay you for it.
There are two groups who weasel out of paying income taxes. A large group, because they are poor and then a small group because they are rich. The poor group has law to protect them and actually allow them to profit from taxation. The rich group has found it cheaper to employ people to help them protect their legally gotten gains with law designed to exempt them from taxation.You won't be able to convince any "conservatives" here of needed changes to the tax code. "Conservatives" incorrectly believe that taxes on capital gains are double taxation, that that money was earned first and they refuse to acknowledge capital loss.
They simply don't understand what's going on.
You are mistaken.
This conservative thinks the tax code needs a complete overhaul and rewrite.
Far too many pay zero federal taxes and that needs to change.
We don't let the majority of whites decide that the black or Hispanic minority should be taxed at a higher rate, we don't let the majority of heterosexuals decide that the minority of homosexuals should be taxed at a different rate, so why do we let the majority of lower income people decide that the upper income should be taxed at a different rate?
Edit to add---
Silly me, I think everybody should be treated the same.
[
How is risking one's capital on our economy not a good thing?
How is working for a living a less good thing?
Where did I imply this? Hmm...
Tell you what, answer my question first and then I'll answer your question, even though it has nothing to do with the point at hand.
