Republicans now want to eliminate taxes on most of the rich

Five GOP Presidential Candidates Have Proposed Eliminating Capital Gains Tax, A $1 Trillion Giveaway To The Rich | ThinkProgress



Awesome. So for those unaware - the way MOST of the filthy rich make their income is by capital gains. They pay 15% on their income obtained by capital gains. The exceptions would be those filthy rich that actually get up and work everyday - successful businessmen, salaried CEO's, highly paid doctors, etc. - those rich folk have to pay bout 35% on their income.

Now the Republicans propose we allow the former class - those that make their money off of pushing electronic pieces of paper around without actually producing anything - should pay ZERO taxes.

The richest of the rich presently average 17% in income tax because most of their income is taxed at the 15% rate. Under the Republican plan to eliminate taxes on capital gains - their tax rate would drop down to 2%.



2% tax on the uber rich

While I pay 15%

And no doubt many posters on this board pay considerably more.

The Republican plan is the fuck the middle class as hard as possible and give everything to the rich - especially the unproductive rich


Nope--Mitt Romney's plan is to eliminate capital gains tax for those making under 200K per year which is the MIDDLE CLASS-----:cuckoo:


Yeah- I don't see him in the OP list:


We know the difference, thanks. That's in fact the entire point of the OP. You're fucking stupid.

If Warren Buffet really wanted to pay his fair share in taxes all he needs to do is give himself a PAYCHECK--and get hammered like the rest of us. ]/quote] The "rest of us" doesn't include most of the uber-rich - almost all of their income is by capital gain.

BUT--it does no good to raise capital gains tax because you would be hitting the majority of the middle class--for their 401'K's and savings for their kids college funds.

401(k)'s do not pay capital gains tax
And there are already numerous benefits to paying for someone's tuition in the tax code that offset any taxes on those savings. Plus tax advantaged savings plans like the 529.


For example, a middle class person might put in $10,000 to a college fund over time, it could go up to $20,000. Some of those gains would be interest dividends, taxed at about 15% for the middle class, and some would be capital, taxed at about 5%. So lets say around $1200 in taxes on the gains. But as that money was spent on education, they can deduct it - or take education credits - and get back around %20 usually as they spend it back out - prolly around $4000 in tax credits after spending the whole thing. There's a net tax benefit really.


SO--IOW you're against eliminating capital gains tax for the middle class? 401-K's ARE TAXED upon withdrawals--and penalized if you need to get into it early for an emergency--along with college funds.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/401(k)

You know you haven't got much to crow about--you liberals are ALWAYS complaining that the middle class is getting a stick shoved up their behinds--but yet you don't want to give them a break on capital gains--or the investments they make--that would inevitably lift them up to a higher class.

Pick a Lane and stay in it--would ya!
 
Last edited:
Jesus christ are you DENSE...

I said no such things.. let's take this one partat a time... idiot...

Your taxes (aka the ones YOU pay... not rich peoples... not mine.. YOURS)
at 0% (showing that I state you probably fall into the ~50% that pay no federal income taxes... as evidenced by your low intelligence quotient and abysmal reading comprehension)
are the lowest they have been (as in you don't get lower than 0 unless you are going into negative rates and numbers)
Maybe we should raise yours too (as in maybe you would prefer your rates on every dollar earned to be that which you wish upon those you deem the 'evil rich')

Not hard to understand if you get the McDonalds fry grease out of your ears

I took a look at your post just to see what you have to say. I was mistaken as to what you meant by the 0% tax rate comment (not that you made it very clear in the first place). Your problem is that you assumed that I pay no taxes and therefore you can safely call me a mooch and all of the other asinine things that you cons come up with. One thing though, I do pay income taxes, and just like those that don't earn enough to pay income taxes, I also pay gasoline taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, etc.

So don't you look like the asshole? 1. You wrongly assumed that I pay no income taxes 2. Just like most ultra-right partisans, you wrongly assume that those who don't earn enough to be taxed on their income pay no taxes at all.

Judging by your insistence on throwing out insults with no substance, putting you on ignore was a wise move on my part. Ok, I'm done. You can put your head back up your as now.

We all pay taxes in one way or another BUT--the complaint is that there are people who make 60 -70K per year and because they have a couple of kids and a home mortgage end paying no FEDERAL INCOME TAX. This represents 47% of the working class in this country.

From what I understand (and I'm not claiming to be an expert here), a family's income is not taxed if they're living below the poverty line, which means a family of four earning less than 20-something-thousand per year. 20k per year is crap. I have no problem with those individuals paying no income taxes. However, I'm sure there are loopholes; and if there are people paying no taxes on 60 - 70k, I do have a problem with that. I earn a lot less than that and I pay my taxes. But if the right is going to complain about those people then they should be fair and complain about the corporations that pay no income taxes and enjoy tax breaks that the poor don't; and the right should be complaining about the rich that pay a lower tax rate than some of those people who earn 60 - 70k or less.
 
who signs the front of your check.....

do you want them to have enough money to pay you or do you want to rely on handouts from the govt...
 
I took a look at your post just to see what you have to say. I was mistaken as to what you meant by the 0% tax rate comment (not that you made it very clear in the first place). Your problem is that you assumed that I pay no taxes and therefore you can safely call me a mooch and all of the other asinine things that you cons come up with. One thing though, I do pay income taxes, and just like those that don't earn enough to pay income taxes, I also pay gasoline taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, etc.

So don't you look like the asshole? 1. You wrongly assumed that I pay no income taxes 2. Just like most ultra-right partisans, you wrongly assume that those who don't earn enough to be taxed on their income pay no taxes at all.

Judging by your insistence on throwing out insults with no substance, putting you on ignore was a wise move on my part. Ok, I'm done. You can put your head back up your as now.

We all pay taxes in one way or another BUT--the complaint is that there are people who make 60 -70K per year and because they have a couple of kids and a home mortgage end paying no FEDERAL INCOME TAX. This represents 47% of the working class in this country.

From what I understand (and I'm not claiming to be an expert here), a family's income is not taxed if they're living below the poverty line, which means a family of four earning less than 20-something-thousand per year. 20k per year is crap. I have no problem with those individuals paying no income taxes. However, I'm sure there are loopholes; and if there are people paying no taxes on 60 - 70k, I do have a problem with that. I earn a lot less than that and I pay my taxes. But if the right is going to complain about those people then they should be fair and complain about the corporations that pay no income taxes and enjoy tax breaks that the poor don't; and the right should be complaining about the rich that pay a lower tax rate than some of those people who earn 60 - 70k or less.

Let's say a family with 3-4 kids--meaning 6 deductions right off of the bat--(mom and pop) included and they pay out thousands of dollars in mortgage interest every year and walla--no federal income tax necessary.

What is the real corker on lower incomes is the Earned income tax credit--where they end up paying no Federal Income tax--but yet get a check back FROM the Federal government anyway.

There's no doubt about it that the tax code needs to be changed. Because as it stands we have 1/2 the country that pays no federal income tax--continually asking for others to pay their way.
 
Last edited:
We all pay taxes in one way or another BUT--the complaint is that there are people who make 60 -70K per year and because they have a couple of kids and a home mortgage end paying no FEDERAL INCOME TAX. This represents 47% of the working class in this country.

From what I understand (and I'm not claiming to be an expert here), a family's income is not taxed if they're living below the poverty line, which means a family of four earning less than 20-something-thousand per year. 20k per year is crap. I have no problem with those individuals paying no income taxes. However, I'm sure there are loopholes; and if there are people paying no taxes on 60 - 70k, I do have a problem with that. I earn a lot less than that and I pay my taxes. But if the right is going to complain about those people then they should be fair and complain about the corporations that pay no income taxes and enjoy tax breaks that the poor don't; and the right should be complaining about the rich that pay a lower tax rate than some of those people who earn 60 - 70k or less.

Let's say a family with 3-4 kids--meaning 6 deductions right off of the bat--(mom and pop) included and they pay out thousands of dollars in mortgage interest every year and walla--no federal income tax necessary.

What is the real corker on lower incomes is the Earned income tax credit--where they end up paying no Federal Income tax--but yet get a check back FROM the Federal government anyway.

There's no doubt about it that the tax code needs to be changed. Because as it stands we have 1/2 the country that pays no federal tax--continually asking for others to pay their way.

Reform the tax code and make things fair; then maybe those poor wouldn't have to rely on assistance. But the poor are not the demons here.
 
Let's say a family with 3-4 kids--meaning 6 deductions right off of the bat--(mom and pop) included and they pay out thousands of dollars in mortgage interest every year and walla--no federal income tax necessary.

Since mortgage interest is deducted from gross income, I have a hard time believing someone making $60K owns a house where they are paying $30K-$40K in interest per year.
 
The government pandering to the poor, hence not giving equal treatment, is at fault here... and those voting for such representatives to keep this practice going are the 'demons'...

Fair is subjective.... equal treatment under law is not
 
SO--IOW you're against eliminating capital gains tax for the middle class? 401-K's ARE TAXED upon withdrawals--and penalized if you need to get into it early for an emergency--along with college funds.

The middle class ALREADY DO NOT PAY CAPITAL GAINS ON THEIR REINVESTED RETIREMENT EARNINGS. Yes 401(k)'s are taxed at withdrawal - they aren't tax on deposit. And they are taxed as ordinary income at withdrawal, you can eliminate all the capital gains taxes you want, it won't reduce taxation on 401(k) withdrawals.

Mitt Romney's proposal is just a clever way of jumping on the eliminate capital gains bandwagon without actually reducing revenue much. How much money would this actually save the average middle class person? Why not give a tax cut to ALL income that the middle class earn - why just a special, and usually small, subset of it?
 
Last edited:
As for the "rich," who you want to go after for their capital gains, my guess is you think that stocks are pretty much tax free. The truth is that every bit of income from stocks is taxed twice before it even gets to the stockholder that actually owns the stock. Add in the capital gains tax and it is taxed three times.
Could you please explain. I am unaware of how they are triple taxed.
Here's an idea for you radical lefties, try living with lower taxes, you might like it and it might jump start the economy and create jobs. If you don't like it just donate half your assets to the government every year.

We are living with lower taxes (of course, the rich have an even lower rate than the rest of us). Tax rates are the lowest they've been in 60 years. So, where are those jobs again?


Are you against Mitt Romney's plan of eliminating capital gains tax on the middle class--who earn less that 200K per year?
Yes, absolutely. I don't care what they make.
Democrats don't talk about it much but capital gains tax and it's related "death tax" do more to hurt the middle class. Farms and property and homes that have been in the same family for generations are often forced to be sold because family members can't afford the "death tax".

There is presently a 5 million dollar exemption. This exemption is portable between spouse's - for example, your wife dies, leaving you 3 million. You die with 7 million. All 10 million are exempt.

I've seen a relatively low income person win a new car in a raffle and be forced to sell it and continue riding in a junker because they couldn't afford the up front "capital gains" tax.

Then they were stupid, because a car won in a raffle is taxed as ordinary income, not as a capital gain.
Honestly, they should not be taxed at all. I don't see the value in taxing an item that was won. It is an asinine concept created because the government can't stand to not get a piece of the action.

All in all, I fail to see any reason to reduce the capital gains tax at all. It is an asinine concept. As a matter of fact, capital gains taxes should be removed completely and treated as income. There is no reason whatsoever that one set of cash is treated differently than another. My labor is not less valuable then your investment. They are mutually beneficial and rely on each other. All this plays into this statement:
We are living with lower taxes (of course, the rich have an even lower rate than the rest of us). Tax rates are the lowest they've been in 60 years. So, where are those jobs again?


Are you against Mitt Romney's plan of eliminating capital gains tax on the middle class--who earn less that 200K per year?

I don't know much about finances, but anything that helps out the middle class sounds good to me. Just so long as it doesn't have an unintended negative impact elsewhere in the market.
ALL government social engineering through the tax code is harmful. I don't give a rats ass if reducing the tax code would boost the economy. It is an artificial boost through the manipulation of the tax codes. Taxes are required and should be levied as a NEED never as way to encourage one behavior over another. While I cannot espouse a complete flat tax as I do believe in a certain amount of tears like the system we currently have, there should be zero deductions, zero credits and all dollars earned weather through sales, paycheck, stocks or any other form should be taxed in an identical fashion. Period. We need to get the government out of social engineering and the only way to do that is to cut off their power - the tax code. On top of that, 90% of the corruption in Washington would end which is one reason that I don't think it will ever happen. Tweaking the tax code is to lucrative.
 
From what I understand (and I'm not claiming to be an expert here), a family's income is not taxed if they're living below the poverty line, which means a family of four earning less than 20-something-thousand per year. 20k per year is crap. I have no problem with those individuals paying no income taxes. However, I'm sure there are loopholes; and if there are people paying no taxes on 60 - 70k, I do have a problem with that. I earn a lot less than that and I pay my taxes. But if the right is going to complain about those people then they should be fair and complain about the corporations that pay no income taxes and enjoy tax breaks that the poor don't; and the right should be complaining about the rich that pay a lower tax rate than some of those people who earn 60 - 70k or less.

Let's say a family with 3-4 kids--meaning 6 deductions right off of the bat--(mom and pop) included and they pay out thousands of dollars in mortgage interest every year and walla--no federal income tax necessary.

What is the real corker on lower incomes is the Earned income tax credit--where they end up paying no Federal Income tax--but yet get a check back FROM the Federal government anyway.

There's no doubt about it that the tax code needs to be changed. Because as it stands we have 1/2 the country that pays no federal tax--continually asking for others to pay their way.

Reform the tax code and make things fair; then maybe those poor wouldn't have to rely on assistance. But the poor are not the demons here.

No one is suggesting they are. But at the same time--there are very some very irresponsible people out there that take advantage of government assistance at every opportunity. And they're not necessarily POOR.
 
As for the "rich," who you want to go after for their capital gains, my guess is you think that stocks are pretty much tax free. The truth is that every bit of income from stocks is taxed twice before it even gets to the stockholder that actually owns the stock. Add in the capital gains tax and it is taxed three times.
Could you please explain. I am unaware of how they are triple taxed.
Are you against Mitt Romney's plan of eliminating capital gains tax on the middle class--who earn less that 200K per year?
Yes, absolutely. I don't care what they make.

Honestly, they should not be taxed at all. I don't see the value in taxing an item that was won. It is an asinine concept created because the government can't stand to not get a piece of the action.

All in all, I fail to see any reason to reduce the capital gains tax at all. It is an asinine concept. As a matter of fact, capital gains taxes should be removed completely and treated as income. There is no reason whatsoever that one set of cash is treated differently than another. My labor is not less valuable then your investment. They are mutually beneficial and rely on each other. All this plays into this statement:
Are you against Mitt Romney's plan of eliminating capital gains tax on the middle class--who earn less that 200K per year?

I don't know much about finances, but anything that helps out the middle class sounds good to me. Just so long as it doesn't have an unintended negative impact elsewhere in the market.
ALL government social engineering through the tax code is harmful. I don't give a rats ass if reducing the tax code would boost the economy. It is an artificial boost through the manipulation of the tax codes. Taxes are required and should be levied as a NEED never as way to encourage one behavior over another. While I cannot espouse a complete flat tax as I do believe in a certain amount of tears like the system we currently have, there should be zero deductions, zero credits and all dollars earned weather through sales, paycheck, stocks or any other form should be taxed in an identical fashion. Period. We need to get the government out of social engineering and the only way to do that is to cut off their power - the tax code. On top of that, 90% of the corruption in Washington would end which is one reason that I don't think it will ever happen. Tweaking the tax code is to lucrative.


AGREED--that is why I am for a flat tax--no deductions. Everyone pays some income tax regardless. In this way we won't end up with a President who sounds more like we live in a 3rd world country who is continually attacking the successful in this country--and has 1/2 of the countries support--in slamming them continually with a higher portion share of the tax base.
 
Let's say a family with 3-4 kids--meaning 6 deductions right off of the bat--(mom and pop) included and they pay out thousands of dollars in mortgage interest every year and walla--no federal income tax necessary.

What is the real corker on lower incomes is the Earned income tax credit--where they end up paying no Federal Income tax--but yet get a check back FROM the Federal government anyway.

There's no doubt about it that the tax code needs to be changed. Because as it stands we have 1/2 the country that pays no federal tax--continually asking for others to pay their way.

Reform the tax code and make things fair; then maybe those poor wouldn't have to rely on assistance. But the poor are not the demons here.

No one is suggesting they are. But at the same time--there are very some very irresponsible people out there that take advantage of government assistance at every opportunity. And they're not necessarily POOR.

Agreed. Some of them are extremely rich and don't need a dime of my tax dollars. Unfortunately, the GOP seems to disagree. They'd rather keep those loopholes for the rich and eliminate them for the poor. What's fair in that?
 
Here's an idea for you radical lefties, try living with lower taxes, you might like it and it might jump start the economy and create jobs. If you don't like it just donate half your assets to the government every year.

One question.

In order to balance the current budget without any tax raise, you'd have to cut 40% of what we're spending.

How many jobs will that cost, and how will those jobs be replaced? Answer that and we'll be back to even...

...then we can talk about actually growing the job situation.
 
I did not put words in your mouth, you did. You are the one that wants to raise capital gains taxes. FYI, the median home price in LA is $360,000. That $250,000 exemption does not go very far.

The exemption is on the gain not the price of the home.

Do you know what that same median home went for 30 or 50 years ago? There are homes that people paid less than $50,000 for that are worth over $1 million today. That, in case you have trouble with math, is over $250,000 gain.
 
Why do you try to put words in people's mouths like a jackass bitch?
There's already a 250k exclusion on capital gains from sale of a primary residence. Seems reasonable to me.

I did not put words in your mouth, you did. You are the one that wants to raise capital gains taxes. FYI, the median home price in LA is $360,000. That $250,000 exemption does not go very far.

Do we have to go through this again? Its a tax on the capital GAIN? Do you know what friggin GAIN is?

Unless you bought your 360k home for less than 110k - NO TAXABLE GAIN.


We bought ours to live in.



Why? Because they have to pay

15% X ($1,000,000 sale price - $80,000 purchase price - $250,000 exclusion) = $100,500 in capital gains taxes, with net proceeds of $819,500 after the purchase price and taxes? Yeah - poor babies - my heart goes out to them. If I see them on the street I'll make sure to give them a dollar.

They also get to tack any addition of capital to the house itself to the cost basis - so if they add a $50,000 extra room, that is subtracted from the sale price when figuring gains. So it really is an actual GAIN - you aren't being taxed on the money you put into the house to increase its value.



Your guesses so far about what I think have been woefully inaccurate.


No it isn't. Capital gains from sale of stock by the investor does not trigger any taxation at all on the underlying corporation. Corporate entities are taxed as any other legal entity is - based on their profits - not their market capitalizations.


.
No it isn't. You can't do math.

If I spend $100 of my after tax income on a stock - then that $100 has been taxed already.

If I then sell the stock for $150, only my gain, the $50 is taxed. The original $100 was already taxed, and is not taxed again.

No double taxation.

Sit around a Starbucks sometime and find out how many people are there for stock tips, and how few of them can afford to by even single shares of Apple. Yet they still have to pay capital gains taxes.
Dude what the fuck are you talking about?

Is it my fault you are stupid?
So now anyone who is against giving favored tax status to paper pushers is stupid. Got it.



The capital gains tax is already structured to favor the rich. There are even net regressive taxes. Take the depreciation of rental property. When you depreciate the property, your tax benefit is equal to your marginal tax rate times the depreciation amount. So those with the higher marginal tax rates have the higher benefit due to depreciation. But when you sell the property, the capital gains tax on the recaptured depreciation is 25% no matter what. So the rich get a higher tax benefit from the depreciation of the property than the middle class and poor - while everyone has to pay the same tax penalty when they sell their property- thus a net regressive tax.

Take my case. Marginal rate is 15%. Depreciation recapture is 25%. Thus the benefit from depreciation minus the penalty from depreciation recapture is 15% - 25% = -10%. I LOSE 10%. On the other hand, someone who is in the 35% bracket - will get a 35% benefit minus a 25% penalty = +10%. They GAIN 10% in the exchange! So essentially the net tax CREDIT on the depreciation and its recapture that the rich enjoy is PAID FOR BY POOR AND MIDDLE CLASS PEOPLE.

Don't you understand? THE RICH WRITE THE TAX CODE. This is why they generally pay a LOWER RATE THAN YOU on their INCOME. They decree their income to be special - different than yours - so its OK to tax it differently -or now, as we see, NOT AT ALL.

I know the rich write the tax code, which is why I am always amused when people like you try to use the tax code to punish the rich.

If you think about for more time it takes for you to get outraged you will realize that, even if we do rewrite the tax code the way you want to, the rich will still be writing it. What makes you think that they will do more to punish themselves than they have in the past?

That is what makes you stupid, but thanks for playing.

It makes more sense to rewrite the tax code form the aspect of making sure it is designed to get revenue for the government than to try to use it for social policy. Capital gains are social policy, not revenue. They are designed to encourage and discourage certain actions, which is why Buffet is so happy about rewriting them to make it harder for poor people to get rich.

Or did you believe that a man that is working hard to make sure the government is not going to get any of his money is worried about how little he pays in taxes?
 
[

Republicans now want to eliminate taxes on most of the rich
You were saying? Bitch?

The Republican candidates named above want to eliminate cap gains. The rich mostly pay cap gains. They want to eliminate most of the riches taxes.

I fail to see what you can't get.

The rich have always made special exceptions for their income - especially the paper pushing rich that don't produce anything. The rich that actually produce things are too busy - producing - to be worried about lobbyists to get their income excluded from taxation.

The "rich" mostly avoid capital gains by not selling things and putting their homes and land into a trust for their children. You pointed out earlier that the rich write the tax code, and then you act like the rich actually pay taxes on the code they write.

:cuckoo:
 
You what other group would benefit from losing the capital gains tax?

Pensioners and people in 401k's. Without that tax the overall tax burden on the funds in those plans goes down, lowering costs, and increasing return.

401(k)'s are excluded from the capital gains tax already, as Roth IRA's and Traditional IRA's. Upon withdrawal, the earnings are taxed as ordinary income. Eliminating the capital gains tax would not affect the tax liability of a 401(k).


Wouldn't taxing them as capital gains result in a lower tax liability? Isn't that why rich people prefer to invest where their income is not subject to income taxes? Shouldn't regular people be entitled to the same tax breaks as the rich?

Why do you hate the middle class?
 
They don't even have to do that

250k is excluded.

Also excluded are the total cost of any improvements to the home - such as additional rooms, a swimming pool, etc.

Then its only 15% on what remains. What remains is the actual gain due to the market - forces the home owner can't really control. They can pay for an addition to the home and increase its value that way, but they have at best indirect control over the market forces that determine the house's value. So the taxation is actually only on the amount they didn't have to work for minus 250k.


Example:

You buy a house for 100k

Over the years, you put in 125k worth of additions - a pool, a larger bedroom, a garage, a burgular alarm - etc.

Also over the years, the house gains an additional 400k in value because the neighborhood is great and prices in general are rising.

You sell the house for 400k+125k+100k=625k

The 100k and 125 are part of the basis and not taxed.

You get taxed on only that 400k - 250k.



And we're supposed to fucking cry for them.

You're supposed to learn from them and try to be like them when you grow up


Why the fuck would I want a million dollar home? Do you know how much the property taxes and insurance would run on such a place? Its high enough on the 197k home we have now. Not to mention the upkeep! Sorry, but we're too proud to hire a maid.

For me, that capital would be best invested elsewhere.

Sorry, but I'm not about consuming much more than I need just to feel good about myself.


If you live in California your property taxes are limited to a 2% increase per year on the initial value. There are people here who have million dollar homes that are paying taxes on less than $100,000 dollars worth.

Upkeep is actually pretty low on those homes, and insurance is whatever you want to pay for, or the value of the mortgage.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top