Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I think all this hype about income of successful people ignores one important point: successful people often are hard-workers and often serve others nonstop.Good for him! Capital gains are less because the person TAKES A RISK INVESTING! Romney could of lost that much. It shows that he is a smart investor.
Unfortunately most people are jealous and think Romney is out of touch with the "so called
average person". I want somebody smart like Romney as President!
Mitt Romney releases tax returns - The Washington Post
-
right. so why do you support this? why do you support higher taxes which holds the average person down, while rewarding those in congress or in power?"Only the little people pay taxes."
- Leona Helmsley
Why do you think the rich democrats want to raise taxes?
Because then the "little people" can't work themselves out of poverty and challenge their power base.
again, I respectfully disagree....75-80% of our economy is DRIVEN by the consumer....founding fathers would be quivering in their graves....they believed money earned from working was much more valuable than money earned from risk taking!Good for him! Capital gains are less because the person TAKES A RISK INVESTING! Romney could of lost that much. It shows that he is a smart investor.
Unfortunately most people are jealous and think Romney is out of touch with the "so called
average person". I want somebody smart like Romney as President!
Mitt Romney releases tax returns - The Washington Post
-
AND WHY do you think money earned from risk taking should be subsidized by our government with a lower tax rate for it than the man working for a living?????
Because the man working for a living has a much more limited positive effect on the economy and risks little or nothing while doing it while the person risking his/her property has a profound positive effect on the economy while genuinely risking losing the principle of the investment???? If you don't increase the odds of making a profit, fewer people will be willing to take the risk meaning there will be much fewer jobs for those who are working for a living?
Just my theory about it, but an informed one as I worked for a living all my life AND also take a risk investing some of the money I saved. You raise the taxes on that which I risk, and I won't be risking it.
again, I respectfully disagree....75-80% of our economy is DRIVEN by the consumer....founding fathers would be quivering in their graves....they believed money earned from working was much more valuable than money earned from risk taking!
AND WHY do you think money earned from risk taking should be subsidized by our government with a lower tax rate for it than the man working for a living?????
Because the man working for a living has a much more limited positive effect on the economy and risks little or nothing while doing it while the person risking his/her property has a profound positive effect on the economy while genuinely risking losing the principle of the investment???? If you don't increase the odds of making a profit, fewer people will be willing to take the risk meaning there will be much fewer jobs for those who are working for a living?
Just my theory about it, but an informed one as I worked for a living all my life AND also take a risk investing some of the money I saved. You raise the taxes on that which I risk, and I won't be risking it.
and yes, investors would still be risking it regardless, because they would not be happy with the 1.5% -2.0% interest that it would make letting it sit in the bank....
It is inherently unfair to tax the investor less on his earnings than the working man is taxed on his earnings....that's just how I see it...and I do live off of my investments....
If consumer spending does not drive the economy anymore, then what does or what will?again, I respectfully disagree....75-80% of our economy is DRIVEN by the consumer....Because the man working for a living has a much more limited positive effect on the economy and risks little or nothing while doing it while the person risking his/her property has a profound positive effect on the economy while genuinely risking losing the principle of the investment???? If you don't increase the odds of making a profit, fewer people will be willing to take the risk meaning there will be much fewer jobs for those who are working for a living?
Just my theory about it, but an informed one as I worked for a living all my life AND also take a risk investing some of the money I saved. You raise the taxes on that which I risk, and I won't be risking it.
and yes, investors would still be risking it regardless, because they would not be happy with the 1.5% -2.0% interest that it would make letting it sit in the bank....
It is inherently unfair to tax the investor less on his earnings than the working man is taxed on his earnings....that's just how I see it...and I do live off of my investments....
On that whole 'consumer driven economy' thing.... I'd like to just point out an inconvenient truth.... a huge part of the reason that our economy tanked so badly was exactly that. We were over-reliant on a 'consumer driven economy'. Now, a consumer driven economy is fine and dandy..... IF.... we are producing at an equal rate. But we were not. Globally, the US had (and will probably continue to have if we don't start electing smarter politicians) a huge differential between consuming and producing. At the same time, other countries were over producing and under consuming. Many economist pointed out the huge danger of that.... but we did not listen. Perhaps we should start listening?
Can you tell me how someone who works on a oil rig or as a police officer isn't taking a risk in their job? Maybe they should get special lower tax rates, too. By your logic they should.Good for him! Capital gains are less because the person TAKES A RISK INVESTING!
His losses count against his income.Romney could of lost that much. It shows that he is a smart investor.
Success in investing does not show you are a smart investor.
ok, i think i can agree with that...though it is NEVER EVER 35% on all of their earnings....no one, absolutely no one pays 35% on all of their earnings, because we have taxes on ''brackets'' of income....so the tops first +/- 10 k of earning is only taxed at 10%, the next bracket of his income at 15%, etc....35% rate is criminally high and obscene, that's the problem. It's not that CapGain are taxes too low, its that income is taxed too high
ok, i think i can agree with that...though it is NEVER EVER 35% on all of their earnings....no one, absolutely no one pays 35% on all of their earnings, because we have taxes on ''brackets'' of income....so the tops first +/- 10 k of earning is only taxed at 10%, the next bracket of his income at 15%, etc....35% rate is criminally high and obscene, that's the problem. It's not that CapGain are taxes too low, its that income is taxed too high
maybe, but i doubt it....ok, i think i can agree with that...though it is NEVER EVER 35% on all of their earnings....no one, absolutely no one pays 35% on all of their earnings, because we have taxes on ''brackets'' of income....so the tops first +/- 10 k of earning is only taxed at 10%, the next bracket of his income at 15%, etc....35% rate is criminally high and obscene, that's the problem. It's not that CapGain are taxes too low, its that income is taxed too high
could be 34.999999%
maybe, but i doubt it....ok, i think i can agree with that...though it is NEVER EVER 35% on all of their earnings....no one, absolutely no one pays 35% on all of their earnings, because we have taxes on ''brackets'' of income....so the tops first +/- 10 k of earning is only taxed at 10%, the next bracket of his income at 15%, etc....
could be 34.999999%
it would take a multi millionaire to billionaire making all of his money via a paycheck....and i just don't see that.....
If consumer spending does not drive the economy anymore, then what does or what will?again, I respectfully disagree....75-80% of our economy is DRIVEN by the consumer....
and yes, investors would still be risking it regardless, because they would not be happy with the 1.5% -2.0% interest that it would make letting it sit in the bank....
It is inherently unfair to tax the investor less on his earnings than the working man is taxed on his earnings....that's just how I see it...and I do live off of my investments....
On that whole 'consumer driven economy' thing.... I'd like to just point out an inconvenient truth.... a huge part of the reason that our economy tanked so badly was exactly that. We were over-reliant on a 'consumer driven economy'. Now, a consumer driven economy is fine and dandy..... IF.... we are producing at an equal rate. But we were not. Globally, the US had (and will probably continue to have if we don't start electing smarter politicians) a huge differential between consuming and producing. At the same time, other countries were over producing and under consuming. Many economist pointed out the huge danger of that.... but we did not listen. Perhaps we should start listening?
Though I can see your point on it being better when we produced everything here in the USA that we consumed vs consuming other country's products and having a trade deficit....
right. so why do you support this? why do you support higher taxes which holds the average person down, while rewarding those in congress or in power?"Only the little people pay taxes."
- Leona Helmsley
Why do you think the rich democrats want to raise taxes?
Because then the "little people" can't work themselves out of poverty and challenge their power base.
35% rate is criminally high and obscene, that's the problem. It's not that CapGain are taxes too low, its that income is taxed too high
If consumer spending does not drive the economy anymore, then what does or what will?again, I respectfully disagree....75-80% of our economy is DRIVEN by the consumer....
and yes, investors would still be risking it regardless, because they would not be happy with the 1.5% -2.0% interest that it would make letting it sit in the bank....
It is inherently unfair to tax the investor less on his earnings than the working man is taxed on his earnings....that's just how I see it...and I do live off of my investments....
On that whole 'consumer driven economy' thing.... I'd like to just point out an inconvenient truth.... a huge part of the reason that our economy tanked so badly was exactly that. We were over-reliant on a 'consumer driven economy'. Now, a consumer driven economy is fine and dandy..... IF.... we are producing at an equal rate. But we were not. Globally, the US had (and will probably continue to have if we don't start electing smarter politicians) a huge differential between consuming and producing. At the same time, other countries were over producing and under consuming. Many economist pointed out the huge danger of that.... but we did not listen. Perhaps we should start listening?
Though I can see your point on it being better when we produced everything here in the USA that we consumed vs consuming other country's products and having a trade deficit....
If consumer spending does not drive the economy anymore, then what does or what will?On that whole 'consumer driven economy' thing.... I'd like to just point out an inconvenient truth.... a huge part of the reason that our economy tanked so badly was exactly that. We were over-reliant on a 'consumer driven economy'. Now, a consumer driven economy is fine and dandy..... IF.... we are producing at an equal rate. But we were not. Globally, the US had (and will probably continue to have if we don't start electing smarter politicians) a huge differential between consuming and producing. At the same time, other countries were over producing and under consuming. Many economist pointed out the huge danger of that.... but we did not listen. Perhaps we should start listening?
Though I can see your point on it being better when we produced everything here in the USA that we consumed vs consuming other country's products and having a trade deficit....
I will agree that a healthy economy is consumer driven. I understand what California Girl is saying, but may or may not gently disagree on the factors that got us there. I do not think the problem was over producing, but rather was artificial producing to meet the demand of shaky buyers, courtesy of the U.S. government who promoted, in fact demanded that such a system exist.
THEN when those shaky buyers started defaulting on their loans, THAT created an instant over production in the housing market, and the whole thing collapsed in a matter of hours or at most a few days.
The whole point I'm making is that you cannot have consumers without the wherewithal to consume. Taking the money away from Citizen A and giving it to Citizen B so that Citizen B can consume, will almost always result in a job that won't be available to Citizen C who then will also need help to consume. Do this often enough and pretty soon Citizen A is out of money or he is sheltering it off shore or otherwise to protect his assets.
The economy is healthy when Citizen A is willing to risk his property in return for an acceptable profit. That will allow Citizen B and Citizen C to sell their labor to Citizen A who is risking his assets and thereby, all three realize a profit and are better off than they were before. Take Citizen A out of the equation, and nobody profits. Over regulation, too many mandates, and too high taxes will encourage Citizen A to sit on his assets rather than risk them. And Citizen B and C and all the rest of the alphabet will make do with less opportunity and less income.
