My view on why our economy is pure shit.

[BillyV]

Yeah, the Founders were all about fairness, that's why they put a progressive tax into place, right?

It's not fair that some have a higher IQ than others or that some are more successful than others. Let's drop everyone down to your level, just to make it fair.

Nope - I'm not opposed to making money. I think that every American is born with the right to make as much as he can. I just don't see why people who make more should be entitled to pay a lower percentage. That's nuts.

You got any cites about what the founding fathers had to say about progressive taxation? Or do you simply feel entitled to speak on their behalf?

No need to look for pigs, just see what happened to revenues the last time they raised the CG rate. Or what happened to them when they were cut after that.

But it sounds like you don't want the tax to collect revenue, just to punish those mean rich guys. Just to make it fair.

I don't even meant to be expressing an opinion about whether the raise or lower the CGT rate. Just build some progressivity into it. The 2 are mutually exclusive concepts.

And listen to me, Kid. *EVERYBODY* feels punished by taxation. *EVERYBODY*. The rich, the working poor, and especially the middle class. Waah fucking waah if the rich feel so put upon because they have to pay their fair share - which I assure you is more than 15%. They're just going to have to tough it out.

They're bitching and moaning because a reasonable tax increase is "class warfare"? Perhaps one day they'll learn what real class warfare is.

Actually, the capital gains tax is progressive. The tax is 0% when your regular income (not including the capital gains) is taxed at less than 25%. For 2011, that level for a single taxpayer is $34,500, married filing jointly $69,000. So in other words, if you are single, have $40,000 of taxable income and $20,000 is capital gains, you would pay 0% on the capital gains because all of your other non-capital gain income ($20,000) is taxed partly at 10% and partly at 15%. Feel better now?

 

[samjones]

Actually, the capital gains tax is progressive. The tax is 0% when your regular income (not including the capital gains) is taxed at less than 25%. For 2011, that level for a single taxpayer is $34,500, married filing jointly $69,000. So in other words, if you are single, have $40,000 of taxable income and $20,000 is capital gains, you would pay 0% on the capital gains because all of your other non-capital gain income ($20,000) is taxed partly at 10% and partly at 15%. Feel better now?

That's an inconsequential measure of of progressivity. A "progressive" tax would ensure that each additional dollar earned would raise your effective tax rate. Like income tax. That way Mitt Romney would likely pay more in effective income tax than I do.

First you need to understand what a progressive tax is, then you'll understand what I mean.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Actually, the capital gains tax is progressive. The tax is 0% when your regular income (not including the capital gains) is taxed at less than 25%. For 2011, that level for a single taxpayer is $34,500, married filing jointly $69,000. So in other words, if you are single, have $40,000 of taxable income and $20,000 is capital gains, you would pay 0% on the capital gains because all of your other non-capital gain income ($20,000) is taxed partly at 10% and partly at 15%. Feel better now?

That's an inconsequential measure of of progressivity. A "progressive" tax would ensure that each additional dollar earned would raise your effective tax rate. Like income tax. That way Mitt Romney would likely pay more in effective income tax than I do.

First you need to understand what a progressive tax is, then you'll understand what I mean.

He does pay more in income tax than you do.

 

[Big Fitz]

Mitt Romney has a lower effective tax rate than me.

You said the rich pay lower rates than the middle class. You both pay 15% on capital gains and dividends. Why is that making you sad?

but I do think it's awful that this amounts to welfare for the wealthy.

How? What was your effective rate?
He probably paid more taxes than you. How is that welfare?

See, I don't understand why you won't simply read what I wrote and comprehend my message. It's almost like you're going out of your way to try to misunderstand so instead of disagreeing with me you can instead just be belligerent by disagreeing with something that was never said. It's weird.

My effective tax rate is higher than Mitt Romney's. I don't know why you can't simply read that statement and then say whatever it is you have to say without making some inventing some baffling contradiction.

Qualified dividends should be taxed at a higher rater

When you include the 35% corporate rate, I'm sure that's much, much higher than the rate you pay.

But's that's not progressive. All people who receive those dividends still pay the same tax rate regardless of their ability to pay.

Tax law should operate on 2 fundamental principles.

1. People should be taxed based on their ability to pay
2. Tax law should be designed to maximize revenue.

A flat dividends rate achieves neither. Uncle Sam could get more revenue by taxing dividends for the rich at a higher rate and the rich can more easily afford it than a guy like me.

It's a twisted and corrupt piece of the tax code and it needs to be redone.

My effective tax rate is higher than Mitt Romney's

His income is taxed at the same, or higher, rate as your income.

His capital gains and dividends are taxed at the same rate as yours.

My effective tax rate is higher than Mitt Romney's.

If your income is mostly salary and his is mostly dividends and capital gains, that makes sense. So what? Invest your money and you can get dividends too.

But's that's not progressive.

It's not progressive. It is nearly 50%.

People should be taxed based on their ability to pay

Da, comrade.

Tax law should be designed to maximize revenue

Another good reason to keep capital gains taxes at a low level.

from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.*







*omitted by Marx.

"as determined by a bureaucrat or official exempted from this doctrine."

 

[samjones]

He does pay more in income tax than you do.

How do you know?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

He does pay more in income tax than you do.

How do you know?

Because you're too busy whining to make more than he does.

 

[BillyV]

Actually, the capital gains tax is progressive. The tax is 0% when your regular income (not including the capital gains) is taxed at less than 25%. For 2011, that level for a single taxpayer is $34,500, married filing jointly $69,000. So in other words, if you are single, have $40,000 of taxable income and $20,000 is capital gains, you would pay 0% on the capital gains because all of your other non-capital gain income ($20,000) is taxed partly at 10% and partly at 15%. Feel better now?

That's an inconsequential measure of of progressivity. A "progressive" tax would ensure that each additional dollar earned would raise your effective tax rate. Like income tax. That way Mitt Romney would likely pay more in effective income tax than I do.

First you need to understand what a progressive tax is, then you'll understand what I mean.

I’m quite sure I know more about taxes, progressive or otherwise, than you do; that much is obvious from your argument. You say the tax is not progressive, I show you that it is, and now it’s not “progressive enough.” Yes, it “feels good” to get the rich guy, the successful guy, but in a free country it’s not nearly as easy as playing with rates. Apparently there’s something you don’t understand about capital gains and, to a great extent, dividends as well; they’re VOLUNTARY. The rich guy (or the lower middle class guy, for that matter) is under no obligation to sell an asset and create a capital gain. He is also under no obligation to invest in stocks that pay dividends. It is quite clear from the results of capital gains rate changes over the last 30 years or so that high capital gains rates result in lower federal revenues, because at certain levels (which vary for each situation and asset), owners of capital choose not to sell because the tax penalty overrides the economics of the transaction. In fact, lower rates have always resulted in higher revenues. On qualified dividends, high rates incentivize the investor to choose growth stocks that reinvest their profits and do not pay dividends. The dividend paying companies (mainly mature, slow growth companies with lots of employees) are forced to increase their dividends to compensate or look to other sources of capital (debt); that raises their overall cost of capital. They then have to reduce costs elsewhere or raise prices, hurting mainly the middle class employee and/or the middle class consumer. It’s interesting to note that Microsoft didn’t pay its first dividend until after the capital gains tax rate was reduced in 2003. There is probably a capital gains rate that is neutral with respect to the revenue raised vs. the incentive not to create a gain; that rate may be higher or lower than 15%, but it is clearly not ordinary rates.
So feel good in your populist rage and raise the rate, while reducing both tax revenues and transactions that make economic sense, where assets are put to their highest and best use. Remember, capital gains don’t only apply to stocks; they also apply to real estate and other capital assets.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Actually, the capital gains tax is progressive. The tax is 0% when your regular income (not including the capital gains) is taxed at less than 25%. For 2011, that level for a single taxpayer is $34,500, married filing jointly $69,000. So in other words, if you are single, have $40,000 of taxable income and $20,000 is capital gains, you would pay 0% on the capital gains because all of your other non-capital gain income ($20,000) is taxed partly at 10% and partly at 15%. Feel better now?

That's an inconsequential measure of of progressivity. A "progressive" tax would ensure that each additional dollar earned would raise your effective tax rate. Like income tax. That way Mitt Romney would likely pay more in effective income tax than I do.

First you need to understand what a progressive tax is, then you'll understand what I mean.

I’m quite sure I know more about taxes, progressive or otherwise, than you do; that much is obvious from your argument. You say the tax is not progressive, I show you that it is, and now it’s not “progressive enough.” Yes, it “feels good” to get the rich guy, the successful guy, but in a free country it’s not nearly as easy as playing with rates. Apparently there’s something you don’t understand about capital gains and, to a great extent, dividends as well; they’re VOLUNTARY. The rich guy (or the lower middle class guy, for that matter) is under no obligation to sell an asset and create a capital gain. He is also under no obligation to invest in stocks that pay dividends. It is quite clear from the results of capital gains rate changes over the last 30 years or so that high capital gains rates result in lower federal revenues, because at certain levels (which vary for each situation and asset), owners of capital choose not to sell because the tax penalty overrides the economics of the transaction. In fact, lower rates have always resulted in higher revenues. On qualified dividends, high rates incentivize the investor to choose growth stocks that reinvest their profits and do not pay dividends. The dividend paying companies (mainly mature, slow growth companies with lots of employees) are forced to increase their dividends to compensate or look to other sources of capital (debt); that raises their overall cost of capital. They then have to reduce costs elsewhere or raise prices, hurting mainly the middle class employee and/or the middle class consumer. It’s interesting to note that Microsoft didn’t pay its first dividend until after the capital gains tax rate was reduced in 2003. There is probably a capital gains rate that is neutral with respect to the revenue raised vs. the incentive not to create a gain; that rate may be higher or lower than 15%, but it is clearly not ordinary rates.
So feel good in your populist rage and raise the rate, while reducing both tax revenues and transactions that make economic sense, where assets are put to their highest and best use. Remember, capital gains don’t only apply to stocks; they also apply to real estate and other capital assets.

I tried to explain that to him before.
He's not very bright.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

You would not be so quick to support total deregulation if you found out all the money in your bank account was gone because the bank was crooked.... if you had a bank account, that is.

1) even libertarians want the police to arrest crooked people

2) the banks could hardly have been more corrupt and inept under post Enron excessive regulation

3) if the liberals would back off the people would need to know their bank was safe, THere would be 300 million regulators. Now they assume the liberals have their backs so no one cares and no one noticed while the whole system fell apart. A liberal federal monopoly is always the problem.


Quick Sam, what libertarian books have you read? NOw you understand why you're always stepping in it.?

era

 

[samjones]

I’m quite sure I know more about taxes, progressive or otherwise, than you do;

I'm not. I'm sure you don't know what you're talking about because your post is full of fundamental misunderstandings of the bases of tax policy.

I'll help you by clearing some of the more glaring problems you have in you understading of how good tax policy is developed.

1. Giving poor people a break on their taxes isn't really "progressivity". A tax code that raises the effective tax rate for each additional dollar earned is a "progressive" tax. First you need to educate yourself about the structure of the income tax, for instance, and you'll understand what I mean.

2. We don't tax the rich at a higher rate because "it feels good". We tax them at a higher rate because they are more able to pay it. And as that genius Toddster points out, in a progressive system (like income tax) the rich pay the same amount on the first X numbers of dollars that they make as everyone else. THey're only taxed at a higher rate on the additional money they make.

3. All taxes are *VOLUNTARY*, including income, property and sales. I don't have to work, own real estate, or buy things.

4. AND 4 is a BIG ONE FOR YOU, so READ CAREFULLY. Arguing for progressivity in a tax is not the same thing as asking for higher taxes. It could very well result in a lower, fairer tax. Read #4 again, because it's going to take awhile for it to sink in for you.

Now tht you've read and comprehended #4 I think you'll agree that your rant about the evils of raising the CGT is totally irrelevant.

 

[editec]

47 posts later, and people are still confusing capitalism with corporatism/cronyism. This is why we walk in this circle. State craft divide and conquer - working brilliantly for a very, very long time.

Lets review our terminology and what it means.

Corporatism: the organization of a society into industrial and professional corporations serving as organs of political representation and exercising control over persons and activities within their jurisdiction.

Cronyism: partiality to cronies especially as evidenced in the appointment of political hangers-on to office without regard to their qualifications

Capitalism: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market


Since we have "political hangers-on", who work within government office and grant partiality, or special interest through lobbying within their "jurisdiction" and since we have no free market, but a centrally planned one through all of above as well as a central bank, WE DO NOT HAVE CAPITALISM HERE.

Calling what is happening capitalism is gross neglect of economic understanding.[/QUOTE]

I agree.

And calling it socialism is likewise a mistake.

What we have, economically speaking, is neither fish nor fowl.

There has never been PURE CAPITALISM.

Really if you think about it, it isn't possible for such a thing to exist.

The hallmark of capitalism is that it DEMANDS that a society recognize a CAPITAL as the specie of that land.

THAT requires a government to IMPOSE it on the people.

But if your point is that we can have a capitalistic economy with more freedom, you are right about that.

But we could also have a capitalitic economy with less freedom, too.

CAPITALISM is actually a very healthy vibrant system that will adapt to all but the most harsh regualtory environment.

I lived though a period where our capitalistic system was quite healthy and anyone my age did, as well.

A capitalistic economy needs regulating, too.

It needs that regulating if for no other reason to keep one capitalist from screwing over another.

And if you doubt that one capitalist will screw another, then let me introduce you to this guy

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I’m quite sure I know more about taxes, progressive or otherwise, than you do;

I'm not. I'm sure you don't know what you're talking about because your post is full of fundamental misunderstandings of the bases of tax policy.

I'll help you by clearing some of the more glaring problems you have in you understading of how good tax policy is developed.

1. Giving poor people a break on their taxes isn't really "progressivity". A tax code that raises the effective tax rate for each additional dollar earned is a "progressive" tax. First you need to educate yourself about the structure of the income tax, for instance, and you'll understand what I mean.

2. We don't tax the rich at a higher rate because "it feels good". We tax them at a higher rate because they are more able to pay it. And as that genius Toddster points out, in a progressive system (like income tax) the rich pay the same amount on the first X numbers of dollars that they make as everyone else. THey're only taxed at a higher rate on the additional money they make.

3. All taxes are *VOLUNTARY*, including income, property and sales. I don't have to work, own real estate, or buy things.

4. AND 4 is a BIG ONE FOR YOU, so READ CAREFULLY. Arguing for progressivity in a tax is not the same thing as asking for higher taxes. It could very well result in a lower, fairer tax. Read #4 again, because it's going to take awhile for it to sink in for you.

Now tht you've read and comprehended #4 I think you'll agree that your rant about the evils of raising the CGT is totally irrelevant.

We don't tax the rich at a higher rate because "it feels good".

You want to make the CG rate higher for rich people, even though raising the rate has been shown to reduce CG revenues to the Treasury, so why do you want to do it?
Because it would raise less money?
Or because it feels good?

 

[Big Fitz]

I’m quite sure I know more about taxes, progressive or otherwise, than you do;

I'm not. I'm sure you don't know what you're talking about because your post is full of fundamental misunderstandings of the bases of tax policy.

I'll help you by clearing some of the more glaring problems you have in you understading of how good tax policy is developed.

1. Giving poor people a break on their taxes isn't really "progressivity". A tax code that raises the effective tax rate for each additional dollar earned is a "progressive" tax. First you need to educate yourself about the structure of the income tax, for instance, and you'll understand what I mean.

2. We don't tax the rich at a higher rate because "it feels good". We tax them at a higher rate because they are more able to pay it. And as that genius Toddster points out, in a progressive system (like income tax) the rich pay the same amount on the first X numbers of dollars that they make as everyone else. THey're only taxed at a higher rate on the additional money they make.

3. All taxes are *VOLUNTARY*, including income, property and sales. I don't have to work, own real estate, or buy things.

4. AND 4 is a BIG ONE FOR YOU, so READ CAREFULLY. Arguing for progressivity in a tax is not the same thing as asking for higher taxes. It could very well result in a lower, fairer tax. Read #4 again, because it's going to take awhile for it to sink in for you.

Now tht you've read and comprehended #4 I think you'll agree that your rant about the evils of raising the CGT is totally irrelevant.

3. All taxes are *VOLUNTARY*, including income, property and sales. I don't have to work, own real estate, or buy things.

You're fucking high. Ask Westley Snipes how VOLUNTARY taxes are. Try to not pay sales tax. Yeah, real voluntary.

4. AND 4 is a BIG ONE FOR YOU, so READ CAREFULLY. Arguing for progressivity in a tax is not the same thing as asking for higher taxes. It could very well result in a lower, fairer tax. Read #4 again, because it's going to take awhile for it to sink in for you.

Riiiiiiight.

Dumbass Progressive: "I'm not asking you to pay more in taxes, I'm just saying you should pay MORE in percentage of your income."

Taxpayer: "But that means you get more of my money!"

DP: "No it doesn't, just a higher percentage of your earnings."

Taxpayer: "That still means I have less money."

DP: "But you have too much anyway!"

Taxpayer: "Says who?"

DP: "Says me because you have a lot more than those poor people over there that YOU should be helping out. What's your problem? Why won't you do the right thing?"

Taxpayer: "If you feel so strongly about it, you help them!"

DP: "I don't have as MUCH money as you, so I shouldn't help them. I actually need some help from you too, so we should raise your taxes more."

Taxpayer: "But that's not fair to me!"

DP: "Yes, well that's what will make it a parTICularly nice gesture on your part." (calls armed officer over) "If this taxpayer won't pay, throw him in prison and confiscate his property to pay his new 'fair' taxes.

 

[rdean]

So, I have realized that since the Occupy movement, quite a few people do not understand capitalism. OWS was convinced that capitalism was the cause of their problems and personal failures. Unfortunately, they succumbed to mistaking capitalism for corporatism. If you do not know the difference, please google it. If you think corporatism is capitalism, you will seek government intervention in a way that surpasses corporatism, and that is socialism. These OWSers have it backwards, as do many of Americans.

Capitalism is not the problem, it is the solution. Capitalism has not existed for a century. How about we give it another shot? Get government out of the subsidy game, get government out of anything involving business. Government's only job is to regulate currency and they can't even get that right (see article 1 section 8).

Corporatism is not capitalism...and socialism is not the answer. Get the government out. Restore capitalism.

Thank you.

Perhaps the reason you think America is shit is because you have no ability to "reason"?

Nothing like an ignorant person to rant against the beliefs they assigned to others. Stupid beliefs that simply don't exist in anywhere except their tiny mind.

 

[BillyV]

I’m quite sure I know more about taxes, progressive or otherwise, than you do;

I'm not. I'm sure you don't know what you're talking about because your post is full of fundamental misunderstandings of the bases of tax policy.

The goal of tax policy is to generate tax revenue in amounts that will sufficiently fund the functions undertaken by the government as decided by the people. “Good” tax policy is subjective; however, here in the US we have a progressive income tax system which asks more from those who earn more. We also use tax policy to create incentives for people to act in a way that is deemed “good” by the policymakers. Therefore, mortgage interest is deductible to encourage home ownership; charitable contributions are deductible to encourage giving; accelerated depreciation of business assets to encourage investment in plant and equipment; credits for green energy, etc.

1. Giving poor people a break on their taxes isn't really "progressivity". A tax code that raises the effective tax rate for each additional dollar earned is a "progressive" tax. First you need to educate yourself about the structure of the income tax, for instance, and you'll understand what I mean.
2. We don't tax the rich at a higher rate because "it feels good". We tax them at a higher rate because they are more able to pay it. And as that genius Toddster points out, in a progressive system (like income tax) the rich pay the same amount on the first X numbers of dollars that they make as everyone else. THey're only taxed at a higher rate on the additional money they make.

A progressive tax system is one in which those who earn higher incomes pay a higher percentage of their income than those with lower incomes. Therefore, by definition, if the tax rate on capital gains is lower for lower income earners, it is progressive. In fact, a flat tax with some income exempted at the bottom for everyone is, by definition, a progressive tax system, because as income rises relative to the exemption amount, your effective rate increases. For ordinary income, our tax system is one of the most progressive in the world.

3. All taxes are *VOLUNTARY*, including income, property and sales. I don't have to work, own real estate, or buy things.

Let me try again, it doesn't seem to be getting through. You are right; you can just not earn a living and not buy anything and legally avoid income taxes. But that has a pretty deleterious effect on your wealth, and if you decide to work or buy things, the tax is generally withheld with or without your permission. Since most people don’t really have the luxury of the choice not to earn a living or buy anything (unless they live in the wild and hunt their own food), your point is simply argumentative with no real value.

On the other hand, not selling something that you already own because you don’t want to incur the tax penalty not only does not reduce your wealth, you could say it increases it with every year that goes by that you can defer that tax. The more wealthy you are, the less likely that you will be forced into a position where you would have to sell something to support your lifestyle. Increasing the capital gains tax gives the wealthy owner even more incentive to hold on to the asset and not create a taxable event, and that is why the tax revenues fall as capital gains rates rise, even though each individual transaction that does occur generates a higher rate of tax. I know, it’s a difficult concept unless you really spend some time thinking about it.

4. AND 4 is a BIG ONE FOR YOU, so READ CAREFULLY. Arguing for progressivity in a tax is not the same thing as asking for higher taxes. It could very well result in a lower, fairer tax. Read #4 again, because it's going to take awhile for it to sink in for you.

And now the BIG ONE FOR YOU, so READ CAREFULLY. Arguing for progressivity in a tax (remember, we are talking specifically about capital gains taxes, and your deflection that this will somehow result in a lower tax is disingenuous) that can easily be deferred, delayed and avoided simply by not doing something will result in less taxes being collected; that doesn’t seem like the goal you had in mind. Not only that, but you are giving the greatest disincentive to those who are the most likely to generate the maximum amount of income (and tax) from these transactions; as you go up the income scale, these transactions get much larger. If in fact you want to raise revenue, “good” tax policy would dictate that you raise the rate on something that is not easily avoidable, like salaries, wages, business income, etc. And for the record, I don’t object to higher tax rates on higher income individuals as Step 2 after the excessive spending has been brought under control; the 39.6% rate we had in the 90’s didn’t bankrupt anyone. However, any rate increases should be on ordinary income, not capital gains.

 

[samjones]

A progressive tax system is one in which those who earn higher incomes pay a higher percentage of their income than those with lower incomes. Therefore, by definition, if the tax rate on capital gains is lower for lower income earners, it is progressive. In fact, a flat tax with some income exempted at the bottom for everyone is, by definition, a progressive tax system, because as income rises relative to the exemption amount, your effective rate increases. For ordinary income, our tax system is one of the most progressive in the world.

With income tax, for example, 2 tax payers with the same marginal tax rate will have different effective tax rates based on where there are in their marginal tax bracket. This provides a pretty good basis for fairness, not only to make sure that the rich pay more than the poor, but also to make sure that the very rich pay more than the merely well off.

It serves to make sure that the upper-middle class pays more than the working class. It's a good thing. This is what we need for the CGT.

The singular exception that if you're poor enough you don't have to pay. That doesn't really qualify as a progressive tax in my mind.

Increasing the capital gains tax gives the wealthy owner even more incentive to hold on to the asset and not create a taxable event, and that is why the tax revenues fall as capital gains rates rise, even though each individual transaction that does occur generates a higher rate of tax.

That's only a temporary thing. You have to sell eventually. CGT is already a complex tax. I would imagine that you would have to have something along the lines of a 5 year window for determining tax rate (how much Capital Gains have your earned in the last 5 tax years) plus people would need to be able to write off against capital losses, etc. You phase in the progressivity so that people don't suddenly all sell one year to try to avoid a big tax hike the next. It's easy.

If in fact you want to raise revenue, “good” tax policy would dictate that you raise the rate on something that is not easily avoidable, like salaries, wages, business income

The wealthy structure their income to avoid taxes all the time. They avoid paying business income taxes by making capital investments in the business. The avoid paying personal income tax by keeping their salary low and increasing the value of their ownership in the business. They structure their payouts in the form of dividends and stock transfers designed to avoid taxes.

Bottom-line, Mitt Romney should not be paying a lower tax rate than I do. The super-rich are simply manipulating the tax code to improve their bottom line without regard for what is right or fair. It's raw greed to the point of being unpatriotic.

You should anticipate, as you make more money, that you will pay a larger share of it in taxes. This should affect all of us, including those who have made that giant leap from the barely-middle class to the almost-upper middle class. You shouldn't suddenly be subject to a different set of rules simply because you're richer than Satan.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Bottom-line, Mitt Romney should not be paying a lower tax rate than I do.

1) who said he was?? To get a capital gain you have to firstly invest your income on which you pay tax. Then the business through which you invest your income must pay a business tax on the capital gain income and then it gets passed on to Mitt whereupon he has to pay an addition 15% more.


2) the more you tax capital the less capital there is for new ventures like HP Google Apple Facebook, Intel. Now you can see that the liberal is not thinking just reacting to his brainwashing, THe smartest way to end the recession is to eliminate the cap gains tax!!

 

[samjones]

2) the more you tax capital the less capital there is for new ventures like HP Google Apple Facebook, Intel. Now you can see that the liberal is not thinking just reacting to his brainwashing, THe smartest way to end the recession is to eliminate the cap gains tax!!

This really disappoints me, Ed. I expect it from the other Ron Paul Idiots, but I thought you thought you read a little more carefully than the others.

Progressive CG tax does not necessarily mean "more tax". Progressive doesn't mean taxes are raised. It could easily mean they are lowered over all. The structure of the tax isn't that closely related to the revenue generated. You read my post and then you totally failed to comprehend it. You intentionally misread it to say something that you wanted to argue against. I expected better from you.

You should re-read now and then come back with a response that realistically addresses the idea of progressivity in the CGT.

 

[Big Fitz]

Progressive CG tax does not necessarily mean "more tax".

Oh but it does!

10% for example IS a smaller percentage than say 40%. That means 10% is less tax than the example of 40%. Four TIMES less.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8M00OxlUjno]Rowan Atkinson: Blackadder "Adding" - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Uncensored2008]

That's an inconsequential measure of of progressivity. A "progressive" tax would ensure that each additional dollar earned would raise your effective tax rate. Like income tax. That way Mitt Romney would likely pay more in effective income tax than I do.

Mitt Romney pays more in effective income tax each year than you will earn in your entire life.

First you need to understand what a progressive tax is, then you'll understand what I mean.

I think we know;

{1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c.

When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organised power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organise itself as a class, if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class. }

Communist Manifesto (Chapter 2)

Your agenda has been around for 170 years.