Obamas plan, the “Buffet Rule” and economic illiteracy = Politics

[ABikerSailor]

Capital gains should be taxed at no less than 25 percent. Why? Because all the money that the "job creators" are holding onto is what they're currently earning with via the capital gains, but they AREN'T investing any money into this economy, it's all going overseas.

Nope, my personal opinion is return this countries tax rate back to when it was booming, the same tax rate as what was under Clinton.

 

[Trajan]

Capital gains should be taxed at no less than 25 percent. Why? Because all the money that the "job creators" are holding onto is what they're currently earning with via the capital gains, but they AREN'T investing any money into this economy, it's all going overseas.

Nope, my personal opinion is return this countries tax rate back to when it was booming, the same tax rate as what was under Clinton.

I don't agree with your synopsis there, but in any event, *shrugs* watch the you tube video on page 1 in the OP, it speaks to this directly and in his own words and the friendly questioner's as well, unimpeachable sources I'd say.

 

[asterism]

Highlights of Obamas Plan can be found here;

Obama Proposes New Plan to Cut Deficit - WSJ.com



First- investment income; capital gains, dividends ,( taxed presently at a flat 15%) is 90% of Buffetts “income”, as opposed to the income tax rate(s) which uses as an example of how badly taxs are skewed as he pays less of a RATE than his secretary.

Well Warren, for a smart guy you sound awfully dumb or you are in fact being willfully duplicitous.

Investment income is taxed at a lower rate than the progressive income (job) tax rates BECAUSE they are investments, long term vehicles that may OR not pay off, INCOME via a job is taxed on the progressive scale because it is straight pay for work, a known, short term quantity that needs little encouragement as we all must work, where in investments are rewarded with a lower rate as they incur risk.



Further he conveniently slides by the fact that this income stream was already taxed once as corporate income at the 35% rate (- deductions). The 15% on capital gains and dividends to individuals is in effect a second tax on the same money, which takes the rate closer to 45%.

Hell, if you want to continue your stupidity, you could argue the same money was taxed 3 times. After all, the consumer who spent money for the goods and services of the corporation paid tax on that money.

The fact remains the INDIVIDUAL who has a cap gain pays no tax on that gain as it grows and grows, like an unlimited IRA but with no penalties, until it is "realized." If the investor/speculator looses money he gets to deduct it, so "risk" is minimized and profit is maximized. But having the advantages of an unlimited IRA taxed at a low rate is not enough for these people, they have their paid shills, the GOP, arguing to eliminate the cap gains tax.

The purpose of the cap gains tax was to discourage SPECULATION, which is why it was originally set much higher. A lower or zero cap gains tax encourages speculation and boom and bust markets, the worst atmosphere for a stable economy. That's why the cap gains tax should be high and never ever changed.

You cannot deduct investment losses. You can carry forward previous qualified investment losses at a maximum rate of $3000 per year.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

....I live and die on MY ability to make things happen in MY life........any failures are MINE and MINE alone, therefore victories and their Fruits? They are mine and my tribes too.

Its called personal responsibility. There fore I admire these folks, good for them, cause it aint easy.

WHEN you get all that? then you'll know why I don't have the envy and jealously masquerading as that mewling concern you folks parade around for the sheeple to convince them that you love them and care.

I care for the helpless, the clueless? you are on your own.

Hot damn this is a good post!
This is what 'cry me a river' liberals simply cannot focus on...that in this country, what you get - is a sum total of what you put in. Their erroneous belief that millionaires are a bunch of undeserving exploitative bastards that sit around all day in cigar clubs overlooking the city laughing at the homeless. It doesn't occur to them for a minute that MOST millionaires are at any given moment one bad year from financial ruin. That many of these people have poured everything they have - sometimes mortgaging their homes 3 times, racking up 3 figures in signature loans and credit cards to get their business going - and when they start succeeding - liberals want the money they earn - and just can't belieeeeve that anyone would defend them!

Jackasses.
Jobs bill...what a friggin bunch of court jesters that they actually believe this thing is a jobs bill.

 

[edthecynic]

Highlights of Obamas Plan can be found here;

Obama Proposes New Plan to Cut Deficit - WSJ.com



First- investment income; capital gains, dividends ,( taxed presently at a flat 15%) is 90% of Buffetts “income”, as opposed to the income tax rate(s) which uses as an example of how badly taxs are skewed as he pays less of a RATE than his secretary.

Well Warren, for a smart guy you sound awfully dumb or you are in fact being willfully duplicitous.

Investment income is taxed at a lower rate than the progressive income (job) tax rates BECAUSE they are investments, long term vehicles that may OR not pay off, INCOME via a job is taxed on the progressive scale because it is straight pay for work, a known, short term quantity that needs little encouragement as we all must work, where in investments are rewarded with a lower rate as they incur risk.



Further he conveniently slides by the fact that this income stream was already taxed once as corporate income at the 35% rate (- deductions). The 15% on capital gains and dividends to individuals is in effect a second tax on the same money, which takes the rate closer to 45%.

Hell, if you want to continue your stupidity, you could argue the same money was taxed 3 times. After all, the consumer who spent money for the goods and services of the corporation paid tax on that money.

The fact remains the INDIVIDUAL who has a cap gain pays no tax on that gain as it grows and grows, like an unlimited IRA but with no penalties, until it is "realized." If the investor/speculator looses money he gets to deduct it, so "risk" is minimized and profit is maximized. But having the advantages of an unlimited IRA taxed at a low rate is not enough for these people, they have their paid shills, the GOP, arguing to eliminate the cap gains tax.

The purpose of the cap gains tax was to discourage SPECULATION, which is why it was originally set much higher. A lower or zero cap gains tax encourages speculation and boom and bust markets, the worst atmosphere for a stable economy. That's why the cap gains tax should be high and never ever changed.

You cannot deduct investment losses. You can carry forward previous qualified investment losses at a maximum rate of $3000 per year.

Your capital losses can be deducted from your capital gains to reduce the tax on your gains. Only if your losses exceed your gains are you limited to the $3,000 write off per year. You can carry your losses forward to future years until you completely use them up.

 

[edthecynic]

Highlights of Obamas Plan can be found here;

Obama Proposes New Plan to Cut Deficit - WSJ.com



First- investment income; capital gains, dividends ,( taxed presently at a flat 15%) is 90% of Buffetts “income”, as opposed to the income tax rate(s) which uses as an example of how badly taxs are skewed as he pays less of a RATE than his secretary.

Well Warren, for a smart guy you sound awfully dumb or you are in fact being willfully duplicitous.

Investment income is taxed at a lower rate than the progressive income (job) tax rates BECAUSE they are investments, long term vehicles that may OR not pay off, INCOME via a job is taxed on the progressive scale because it is straight pay for work, a known, short term quantity that needs little encouragement as we all must work, where in investments are rewarded with a lower rate as they incur risk.



Further he conveniently slides by the fact that this income stream was already taxed once as corporate income at the 35% rate (- deductions). The 15% on capital gains and dividends to individuals is in effect a second tax on the same money, which takes the rate closer to 45%.

Hell, if you want to continue your stupidity, you could argue the same money was taxed 3 times. After all, the consumer who spent money for the goods and services of the corporation paid tax on that money.

The fact remains the INDIVIDUAL who has a cap gain pays no tax on that gain as it grows and grows, like an unlimited IRA but with no penalties, until it is "realized." If the investor/speculator looses money he gets to deduct it, so "risk" is minimized and profit is maximized. But having the advantages of an unlimited IRA taxed at a low rate is not enough for these people, they have their paid shills, the GOP, arguing to eliminate the cap gains tax.

The purpose of the cap gains tax was to discourage SPECULATION, which is why it was originally set much higher. A lower or zero cap gains tax encourages speculation and boom and bust markets, the worst atmosphere for a stable economy. That's why the cap gains tax should be high and never ever changed.

you don't even know how to read and, how to craft an argument.....and, you're an angry crank.....*shrugs*


Definition of REALITY
1
: the quality or state of being real
2
a (1) : a real event, entity, or state of affairs <his dream became a reality> (2) : the totality of real things and events <trying to escape from reality> b : something that is neither derivative nor dependent but exists necessarily
3
: television programming that features videos of actual occurrences (as a police chase, stunt, or natural disaster) —often used attributively <reality TV>
— in reality
: in actual fact



In philosophy, reality is the state of things as they actually exist, rather than as they may appear or might be imagined.[1] In a wider definition, reality includes everything that is and has been, whether or not it is observable or comprehensible. A still more broad definition includes everything that has existed, exists, or will exist, not just in the mind, or even more broadly also including what is only in the mind.

Historically, philosophers have sometimes considered reality to include nonexistent things such as "gold mountains" in a sense referred to as a subsistence, as well. By contrast existence is often restricted solely to being (compare with nature).

Reality is often contrasted with what is imaginary, delusional, in the mind, dreams, what is abstract, what is false, or what is fictional. To reify is to make more real, and to abstract is the opposite. The truth refers to what is real, while falsity refers to what is not. Fictions are not considered real.

the fact that you could not argue any point, but could merely stoop to arrogant condescension reveals everything.
Thank you.

"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one."
Albert Einstein

 

[Trajan]

Hell, if you want to continue your stupidity, you could argue the same money was taxed 3 times. After all, the consumer who spent money for the goods and services of the corporation paid tax on that money.

The fact remains the INDIVIDUAL who has a cap gain pays no tax on that gain as it grows and grows, like an unlimited IRA but with no penalties, until it is "realized." If the investor/speculator looses money he gets to deduct it, so "risk" is minimized and profit is maximized. But having the advantages of an unlimited IRA taxed at a low rate is not enough for these people, they have their paid shills, the GOP, arguing to eliminate the cap gains tax.

The purpose of the cap gains tax was to discourage SPECULATION, which is why it was originally set much higher. A lower or zero cap gains tax encourages speculation and boom and bust markets, the worst atmosphere for a stable economy. That's why the cap gains tax should be high and never ever changed.

you don't even know how to read and, how to craft an argument.....and, you're an angry crank.....*shrugs*


Definition of REALITY
1
: the quality or state of being real
2
a (1) : a real event, entity, or state of affairs <his dream became a reality> (2) : the totality of real things and events <trying to escape from reality> b : something that is neither derivative nor dependent but exists necessarily
3
: television programming that features videos of actual occurrences (as a police chase, stunt, or natural disaster) —often used attributively <reality TV>
— in reality
: in actual fact



In philosophy, reality is the state of things as they actually exist, rather than as they may appear or might be imagined.[1] In a wider definition, reality includes everything that is and has been, whether or not it is observable or comprehensible. A still more broad definition includes everything that has existed, exists, or will exist, not just in the mind, or even more broadly also including what is only in the mind.

Historically, philosophers have sometimes considered reality to include nonexistent things such as "gold mountains" in a sense referred to as a subsistence, as well. By contrast existence is often restricted solely to being (compare with nature).

Reality is often contrasted with what is imaginary, delusional, in the mind, dreams, what is abstract, what is false, or what is fictional. To reify is to make more real, and to abstract is the opposite. The truth refers to what is real, while falsity refers to what is not. Fictions are not considered real.

the fact that you could not argue any point, but could merely stoop to arrogant condescension reveals everything.
Thank you.

"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one."
Albert Einstein

you don't have a point to be argued. thats what my comment;
"you don't even know how to read and, how to craft an argument" meant.


here;

agreiwcn&, dfcnweoergbsc gdt -rfbvasi^4 ffgdj, ghyywe.

argue that....

 

[rdean]

Highlights of Obamas Plan can be found here;

Obama Proposes New Plan to Cut Deficit - WSJ.com



First- investment income; capital gains, dividends ,( taxed presently at a flat 15%) is 90% of Buffetts “income”, as opposed to the income tax rate(s) which uses as an example of how badly taxs are skewed as he pays less of a RATE than his secretary.

Well Warren, for a smart guy you sound awfully dumb or you are in fact being willfully duplicitous.

Investment income is taxed at a lower rate than the progressive income (job) tax rates BECAUSE they are investments, long term vehicles that may OR not pay off, INCOME via a job is taxed on the progressive scale because it is straight pay for work, a known, short term quantity that needs little encouragement as we all must work, where in investments are rewarded with a lower rate as they incur risk.



Further he conveniently slides by the fact that this income stream was already taxed once as corporate income at the 35% rate (- deductions). The 15% on capital gains and dividends to individuals is in effect a second tax on the same money, which takes the rate closer to 45%.

200k/250K the new ‘Millionaires’ – the Tale of the tape;

Lets see;

-In 2009, 8,274 filers had income above $10 million, and they paid apporx. $54 billion in taxes.

-In 2009, 237,000 taxpayers had incomes above $1 million and they paid approx. $178 billion in taxes.

-In 2009, there were 3.9 million people who reported income over $200,000, there net tax’s?

$434 billion.


So, some back of the envelope numbers …….it appears approximately 90% of the tax filers who would pay more under Mr. Obama's plan, are the 200/250Ker’s, NOT the millionaires and 99.99% aren't billionaires…..

I am just a schmuck in my jami's behind a keyboard and I can find this information and the WH can’t?

Item-

Jan 2013-

>an Obamacare 3.8 % surtax on investment income on the 200/250ker's goes into effect.

>Medicare payroll tax on the 200/250ker's goes up 1.45% to 2.35%.

Why this is never discussed or part of the conversation?



Item-

>The expiration of the Bush tax cuts would push capital gains rates to 20%, a 25% increase.

> Dividends will be taxed at the 'income tax rate' , as high as 39%.

The 200/250k and above set already pays 90% of the fed.
taxes collected, 48% of folks pay no NET Federal taxes and half of those get taxes 'refunds' ( earned income 'EIC's') back, which in effect refunds their Fica contributions thereby taking them off the hook for their social security insurance and Medicare ….so who picks up that tab?

The 'evil rich' have shared the sacrifice I’d say. In fact, I'd say their is a lack of responsibility by those under that threshold.

Item-

His plan includes a 1.1 Trillion “cut” (which in effect already cooked into the books), for the Iraq and Afghanistan draw down, this nonsense was tried by Harry Reid back in the April/May dust up over closing the 2010 budget, it was rightly dismissed even by the left as BS to be kind.

And of course his plan calls for these taxes to start AFTER 2012 btw.



Unless there is some unknown Entitlement cuts, restructuring etc. we have not heard about? This is just Chicago soup kitchen Community Organizing populism, nothing more.



Here we are near 3 years in and hes never ever had one original idea/thought on the economy, seriously, this is just another punt, who saw that coming?

I didn’t, I thought at the very least he’d exhibit some outside the box thinking, what a sap I was, AND even after seeing the original debate on the you-tube below, goes to show how easy it is to be led when the media is completely in the tank and the populist bandwagon is running full steam ahead.

And a blast from the past, Charlie Rose puts the magic investment income question to Obama during a debate ( he drags out the higher rate sec. crap here to in 2008)…..this whole segment, as seen now is surreal, talk about coming full circle;


Obama: Raise Taxes, Capital Gains - "For Purposes of Fairness" - YouTube

None of the Right wingnuts on this board are millionaires. Why are so worried about people they can't really relate to? People who certainly don't care about them.

...so if you are not a member of a particular group you cannot be of the opinion that targeting them is unfair? GTFO with that shit...

Yea, Republicans feel exactly the same way about Hispanics, blacks and gays. Hilarious!

 

[asterism]

Hell, if you want to continue your stupidity, you could argue the same money was taxed 3 times. After all, the consumer who spent money for the goods and services of the corporation paid tax on that money.

The fact remains the INDIVIDUAL who has a cap gain pays no tax on that gain as it grows and grows, like an unlimited IRA but with no penalties, until it is "realized." If the investor/speculator looses money he gets to deduct it, so "risk" is minimized and profit is maximized. But having the advantages of an unlimited IRA taxed at a low rate is not enough for these people, they have their paid shills, the GOP, arguing to eliminate the cap gains tax.

The purpose of the cap gains tax was to discourage SPECULATION, which is why it was originally set much higher. A lower or zero cap gains tax encourages speculation and boom and bust markets, the worst atmosphere for a stable economy. That's why the cap gains tax should be high and never ever changed.

You cannot deduct investment losses. You can carry forward previous qualified investment losses at a maximum rate of $3000 per year.

Your capital losses can be deducted from your capital gains to reduce the tax on your gains. Only if your losses exceed your gains are you limited to the $3,000 write off per year. You can carry your losses forward to future years until you completely use them up.

That's true, but that's not what you said....

"If the investor/speculator looses money he gets to deduct it, so "risk" is minimized and profit is maximized"

If the investor loses money he does not get to deduct it and risk is not minimized. If an investor loses money in one investment an makes more than enough through another investment to cover that loss in the same tax year he can deduct it.

 

[AquaAthena]

and from the AP;

FACT CHECK: Are rich taxed less than secretaries?

By STEPHEN OHLEMACHER, Associated Press – 12 hours ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama says he wants to make sure millionaires are taxed at higher rates than their secretaries. The data say they already are.

"Warren Buffett's secretary shouldn't pay a higher tax rate than Warren Buffett. There is no justification for it," Obama said as he announced his deficit-reduction plan this week. "It is wrong that in the United States of America, a teacher or a nurse or a construction worker who earns $50,000 should pay higher tax rates than somebody pulling in $50 million."

On average, the wealthiest people in America pay a lot more taxes than the middle class or the poor, according to private and government data. They pay at a higher rate, and as a group, they contribute a much larger share of the overall taxes collected by the federal government.

The 10 percent of households with the highest incomes pay more than half of all federal taxes. They pay more than 70 percent of federal income taxes, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

In his White House address on Monday, Obama called on Congress to increase taxes by $1.5 trillion as part of a 10-year deficit reduction package totaling more than $3 trillion. He proposed that Congress overhaul the tax code and impose what he called the "Buffett rule," named for the billionaire investor.

The rule says, "People making more than $1 million a year should not pay a smaller share of their income in taxes than middle-class families pay." Buffett wrote in a recent piece for The New York Times that the tax rate he paid last year was lower than that paid by any of the other 20 people in his office.

"Middle-class families shouldn't pay higher taxes than millionaires and billionaires," Obama said. "That's pretty straightforward. It's hard to argue against that."

There may be individual millionaires who pay taxes at rates lower than middle-income workers. In 2009, 1,470 households filed tax returns with incomes above $1 million yet paid no federal income tax, according to the Internal Revenue Service. But that's less than 1 percent of the nearly 237,000 returns with incomes above $1 million.

This year, households making more than $1 million will pay an average of 29.1 percent of their income in federal taxes, including income taxes, payroll taxes and other taxes, according to the Tax Policy Center, a Washington think tank.

Households making between $50,000 and $75,000 will pay an average of 15 percent of their income in federal taxes.

Lower-income households will pay less. For example, households making between $40,000 and $50,000 will pay an average of 12.5 percent of their income in federal taxes. Households making between $20,000 and $30,000 will pay 5.7 percent.

The latest IRS figures are a few years older — and limited to federal income taxes — but show much the same thing. In 2009, taxpayers who made $1 million or more paid on average 24.4 percent of their income in federal income taxes, according to the IRS.

Those making $100,000 to $125,000 paid on average 9.9 percent in federal income taxes. Those making $50,000 to $60,000 paid an average of 6.3 percent.

much more at-
The Associated Press: FACT CHECK: Are rich taxed less than secretaries?

Even Obama really knows you don't raise taxes in the middle of a recession:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwNWtWLSyYE]Obama says NO to recession tax hikes - YouTube[/ame]