National Debt has increased more under Obama than under Bush

If you earned 100K extra one year...

And yopu paid 35K in taxes on it....

And then invested the remaining 65K in the market...

And a year later that 65K had a 10% return...or $6500.....

would you think it is right to pay $2300 taxes on it compared to $975?

why do you want to treat money earned through the stock market differently than money earned through a job?

if you are in the 30% tax bracket, all your income from any source should be taxed at the same rate. if i go to the casino and win $1M should i not have to pay taxes on it because i took the risk and earned it? what if i wont the lottery? should i only pay 15% in taxes on it even though i took the risk and earned it?

why are you advocating that earned money should be treated differently? what incentive does one have to actually keep and hold a job if they can sit at home invest, never actually work and pay a lower tax rate than those working 40-60 hours a week and help spur the economy?

have you ever performed a cost benefit analysis?

If yoiu have, you would not have prersented the post I just quoted.

Investors helpo businesses...not just public...but priovate as well.

You INCREASE the tax on an estimated ROI, the actual ROI is much less...and the chances one will still invest decreases dramatiucally.

For example.....

Will I risk LOSING 100K for a 10% return...that is really more like 8.5% after my cap gains tax?

Yes.

Will I rsik the same for a net ROI (after 35% tax) of 6.5%?

Less likely.
youre still advocating for earned money to be treated differently. i could make the same argument for lowering middle class tax rates. the more money the middle class has, the more money they can put into the economy which spurs economic growth. so why dont we make middle class tax rates 15% to spur growth?
 
why do you want to treat money earned through the stock market differently than money earned through a job?

if you are in the 30% tax bracket, all your income from any source should be taxed at the same rate. if i go to the casino and win $1M should i not have to pay taxes on it because i took the risk and earned it? what if i wont the lottery? should i only pay 15% in taxes on it even though i took the risk and earned it?

why are you advocating that earned money should be treated differently? what incentive does one have to actually keep and hold a job if they can sit at home invest, never actually work and pay a lower tax rate than those working 40-60 hours a week and help spur the economy?

have you ever performed a cost benefit analysis?

If yoiu have, you would not have prersented the post I just quoted.

Investors helpo businesses...not just public...but priovate as well.

You INCREASE the tax on an estimated ROI, the actual ROI is much less...and the chances one will still invest decreases dramatiucally.

For example.....

Will I risk LOSING 100K for a 10% return...that is really more like 8.5% after my cap gains tax?

Yes.

Will I rsik the same for a net ROI (after 35% tax) of 6.5%?

Less likely.
youre still advocating for earned money to be treated differently. i could make the same argument for lowering middle class tax rates. the more money the middle class has, the more money they can put into the economy which spurs economic growth. so why dont we make middle class tax rates 15% to spur growth?

you can not write off anything on cap gains....you arer taxed 15% on the entire gain.

You can write off on salaried and 1099 income.

When all is said and done, most middle class taxpayers are paying less tax percentage on their gross salary income than they do on their cap gains income.

Someone makes 80K with 2 kids and a spouse....they pay 6K in real estate taxes and18K in mortgage interest

that is about 39K in write offs....including the 3700 for each dependent....

So their taxable income is 40K....tax liability to them is about $5100

80K cap gains? Tax liabiulity is $12,000
 
Last edited:
have you ever performed a cost benefit analysis?

If yoiu have, you would not have prersented the post I just quoted.

Investors helpo businesses...not just public...but priovate as well.

You INCREASE the tax on an estimated ROI, the actual ROI is much less...and the chances one will still invest decreases dramatiucally.

For example.....

Will I risk LOSING 100K for a 10% return...that is really more like 8.5% after my cap gains tax?

Yes.

Will I rsik the same for a net ROI (after 35% tax) of 6.5%?

Less likely.
youre still advocating for earned money to be treated differently. i could make the same argument for lowering middle class tax rates. the more money the middle class has, the more money they can put into the economy which spurs economic growth. so why dont we make middle class tax rates 15% to spur growth?

you can not write off anything on cap gains....you arer taxed 15% on the entire gain.

You can write off on salaried and 1099 income.

When all is said and done, most middle class taxpayers are paying less tax percentage on their gross salary income than they do on their cap gains income.

Someone makes 80K with 2 kids and a spouse....they pay 6K in real estate taxes and18K in mortgage interest

that is about 39K in write offs.

So their taxable income is 40K....tax liability to them is about $5100

80K cap gains? Tax liabiulity is $12,000
you can not write off your salary... what world do you live in?

you can also write off losses in the stock market against your income. if you get laid off, you cant write off the lost income as a loss.

now youre trying to change the rules. you cant keep adding other taxes not associated with income into the mix.
 
youre still advocating for earned money to be treated differently. i could make the same argument for lowering middle class tax rates. the more money the middle class has, the more money they can put into the economy which spurs economic growth. so why dont we make middle class tax rates 15% to spur growth?

you can not write off anything on cap gains....you arer taxed 15% on the entire gain.

You can write off on salaried and 1099 income.

When all is said and done, most middle class taxpayers are paying less tax percentage on their gross salary income than they do on their cap gains income.

Someone makes 80K with 2 kids and a spouse....they pay 6K in real estate taxes and18K in mortgage interest

that is about 39K in write offs.

So their taxable income is 40K....tax liability to them is about $5100

80K cap gains? Tax liabiulity is $12,000
you can not write off your salary... what world do you live in?

you can also write off losses in the stock market against your income. if you get laid off, you cant write off the lost income as a loss.

now youre trying to change the rules. you cant keep adding other taxes not associated with income into the mix.

what are you talking about?
Trust me my friend...dont question me about taxes.

you write off 3700 per dependent, ALL real estate taxes and mortgage interest on primary residence....yopu make 80K and have 40K in write offs, your taxable income is 40K.

Say I am wrongf all you want...but I am 100% correct.

I personally dont agree with writing off stock market losses...the lower cap gains is MY insentive to invest......but I take it becuase it is offered....but that write off should go.

But then again, I dont believe in writing off donations...and for personal reasons, I dont...even though my account hates me for it.

I give becuase I want to...not becuase I get to write it off.
 
You cant really believe that no one would invest with a higher tax rate on Cap gains. thats ludicriously uninformed and short sighted.
 
fiscal year - The fiscal year is the accounting period for the federal government which begins on October 1 and ends on September 30. The fiscal year is designated by the calendar year in which it ends; for example, fiscal year 2013 begins on October 1, 2012 and ends on September 30, 2013. Congress passes appropriations legislation to fund the government for every fiscal year.
U.S. Senate: Reference Home > Glossary > fiscal year

Now, tell me how I am wrong, as usual.

And?

Obama signed the FY 2009 budget in March of 2009 because the Democrats in Congress didn't want Bush to get any credit for the recovery summer that didn't happen. He owns everything that happened after that.

National Coalition for Homeless Veterans - President Obama Signs FY 2009 Budget into Law

Obama signs earmark-laden budget bill - UPI.com

Obama Defends Budget, Says Spending Will Pay Off - WSJ.com

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/18/us/politics/18obama.html?_r=1

You as usual, are wrong.

The United States government runs on a fiscal year that runs October 1st to September 30th of the following year as stated by the Senate Reference Glossary. The first day of the government's fiscal year has started on October 1st since 1976.

Here. go here and learn aboput our government's budget process. United States budget process - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And Obama signed the 2009FY budget. Let us not forget that the stimulus, which was entirely on Obama, was also part of the overall 2009FY budget. Only a complete jerk would insist on laying something that he did not propose on Bush.

Not to mention that what we are talking about is not fiscal years, but the increase in debt under both Bush and Obama. Since I am holding Bush responsible for the portion of the 2001FY budget that came after he was sworn in, I get to hold Obama responsible for the 3 months between his swearing in and when the budget he signed went into effect.
 
Of course he increased the debt. He actually took the hit to his budgets, while Bush pushed them off to the future.

It's not enough to say," He increased it more!" You have to ask WHERE did the debt come from?

Two inherited wars, inherited tax cuts and inherited unpaid for social programs.

It's called context.

Do you have a brain? Are you aware that the debt under Bush actually includes the cost of fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq? Or that Obama actually borrowed money to help pay for both wars since he became president?

Oh I'm so going to have fun with you once I get link posting privledges. I'm going to make you cry.


But alas until then...

No. Bush didn't put a single penny of either Iraq or Aphganistan onto his own budget. You're flat out lying.

And you're blaming Obama for borrowing money to pay for wars Bush started?

The bottom line: Bush's projections of future defense spending "substantially understate" just how much money it will take to run Obama's Pentagon, the CSBA says in its report
Brainless doesn't even begin to describe your post.


Oh and...

This game of chicken occurs even though Congress has already sent the military $460 billion for its operations in fiscal 2008, which began October 1
The fiscal year begins Oct 1st, brainiac.

OK, genius, explain to me how the fact that I agree with about Bush's budgets you makes me wrong. I would love to see that one, if you can. I know you won't find a link that proves it.
 

Forum List

Back
Top