The Injustice of Obama raising the capital gains tax

[RDD_1210]

I'm not sure how you can be taxed 100%, turd.

Because you have no intelligence that's why.

It's very EASY to understand if you OPEN YOUR MIND to reality.

If you buy a stock at 5,000 dollars in 2000, and sell it in 2010 for 6,000 (but with inflation you really lost money).

You lose money, thus they are taxing 100% of the suppsed "gain." Watch the video.

That's a fundamental (and elementary) misunderstanding of what's happening here.

Let's say you invest $5,000 in 2000. You made a decision to allocate $5,000 in 2000 towards what you believe to be the most productive place (you could have put it into TIPS and never worried a wink about inflation, right? Right.)

Ten years later, the total value of that investment has grown to $6,000. You now have an investment worth $1,000 more than you paid for it. That's a capital gain of $1,000 - And that $1,000 is paid to you in 2010 dollars.

And you are assessed a tax on the realized gain - in this case, a tax of $150. You are paying a tax of 15% on the realized 2010 gain. You walk away from this transaction with $850 more dollars than you started. The fact that you chose an investment that does not grow as fast as inflation isn't relevant. What's relevant is that you now have $850 more than you would have in 2010 if you invested the money in a box underneath your bed.

Somehow, I know she still wont get this concept.

 

[teapartysamurai]

I'm not sure how you can be taxed 100%, turd.

Because you have no intelligence that's why.

It's very EASY to understand if you OPEN YOUR MIND to reality.

If you buy a stock at 5,000 dollars in 2000, and sell it in 2010 for 6,000 (but with inflation you really lost money).

You lose money, thus they are taxing 100% of the suppsed "gain." Watch the video.

That's a fundamental (and elementary) misunderstanding of what's happening here.

Let's say you invest $5,000 in 2000. You made a decision to allocate $5,000 in 2000 towards what you believe to be the most productive place (you could have put it into TIPS and never worried a wink about inflation, right? Right.)

Ten years later, the total value of that investment has grown to $6,000. You now have an investment worth $1,000 more than you paid for it. That's a capital gain of $1,000 - And that $1,000 is paid to you in 2010 dollars.

And you are assessed a tax on the realized gain - in this case, a tax of $150. You are paying a tax of 15% on the realized 2010 gain. You walk away from this transaction with $850 more dollars than you started. The fact that you chose an investment that does not grow as fast as inflation isn't relevant. What's relevant is that you now have $850 more than you would have in 2010 if you invested the money in a box underneath your bed.

Yeah, the only problem is 2010 dollars BUYS less than did the 2000 dollar because of the 27+% inflation that's tacked onto those 2010 dollars.

Do you get it???????

A box of mac and cheese that you paid .50 cents for in 2000 might cost 85 to 95 cents today. HELLOOOOOOOOOOOOO your dollar lost value. It buys less.

That's why that candy bar that only cost 10 cents in the 70s now costs almost a dollar. You might think you've made money but what is its buying power compared to where you started?

That's inflation.

Thus if you are taxed as if your dollar still can buy .50 mac and cheese you are going to get ripped off.

 

[teapartysamurai]

I'm not sure how you can be taxed 100%, turd.

Because you have no intelligence that's why.

It's very EASY to understand if you OPEN YOUR MIND to reality.

If you buy a stock at 5,000 dollars in 2000, and sell it in 2010 for 6,000 (but with inflation you really lost money).

You lose money, thus they are taxing 100% of the suppsed "gain." Watch the video.

if you took that $5000, 5 years ago, and put it in a lock box, how much money would you have in 2010 when you opened it????

Bingo, you would lose money.

Same thing if you make 20% on an investment but the inflation rate is 27+%, you lost money.

Just as I pointed out with the simple example of mac and chees and a candy bar.

If you dollar bought two boxes of mac and cheese in 2000 and now it only can buy one, then you have lost buying power, you essentially have lost money.

But if you are being taxed as IF you can still buy two boxes of mac and cheese, refusing to take into account inflation, then you are going to get ripped off.

Bottom line.

 

[8537]

Yeah, the only problem is 2010 dollars BUYS less than did the 2000 dollar because of the 27+% inflation that's tacked onto those 2010 dollars.

That is not at all relevant. The person was paid a return over the course of the investment. The total value of that return was equal to $1,000. The person buying the stock is - or should be - well aware of the changes in purchasing power, yet that person still made a decision to allocate the resources towards the investment. They should have chosen TIPS, it appears, but their stupidity is not the government's concern. The Government offered the person a better opportunity with less risk, which they declined.

Thus if you are taxed as if your dollar still can buy .50 mac and cheese you are going to get ripped off.

You're taxes on Mac and Cheese based on the nominal value of the dollar. You're taxed on capital gains based on the nominal value of the appreciation.

Should someone who realizes a $1,000 loss in 2010 only be able to claim 700 of that against gains?

Do you really want to incent short-term risky products?

 

[McDowell's]

I'm not sure how you can be taxed 100%, turd.

Because you have no intelligence that's why.

It's very EASY to understand if you OPEN YOUR MIND to reality.

If you buy a stock at 5,000 dollars in 2000, and sell it in 2010 for 6,000 (but with inflation you really lost money).

You lose money, thus they are taxing 100% of the suppsed "gain." Watch the video.

That's a fundamental (and elementary) misunderstanding of what's happening here.

Let's say you invest $5,000 in 2000. You made a decision to allocate $5,000 in 2000 towards what you believe to be the most productive place (you could have put it into TIPS and never worried a wink about inflation, right? Right.)

Ten years later, the total value of that investment has grown to $6,000. You now have an investment worth $1,000 more than you paid for it. That's a capital gain of $1,000 - And that $1,000 is paid to you in 2010 dollars.

And you are assessed a tax on the realized gain - in this case, a tax of $150. You are paying a tax of 15% on the realized 2010 gain. You walk away from this transaction with $850 more dollars than you started. The fact that you chose an investment that does not grow as fast as inflation isn't relevant. What's relevant is that you now have $850 more than you would have in 2010 if you invested the money in a box underneath your bed.

Do you know the difference between nominal and real gdp? Probably not, but the difference is the same in this situation. An increase in the nominal dollar amount caused by inflation is UNIVERSALLY recognized to not be an ACTUAL gain. Even the government recognizes that fact as evidenced by them reporting real gdp numbers. The nominal gain caused by inflation does not add anything to an individuals purchasing power, therefore, no gain has occurred. The person can not use those additional dollars caused by inflation to purchase more goods or services than they could 10 years ago. So tell me how have they somehow gained? Please tell me you attended the McCombs school of business at UT. If you did, you overpaid for your education by the exact amount of the tuition, fees, books, and incidental costs you incurred while there.

This is introductory finance. If you do not adjust the return on an investment (business or personal) for inflation to find the ACTUAL return, you will eventually go bankrupt. You will constantly be investing in projects and assets which provide a "return" but do not increase your purchasing power. GET A FREAKING EDUCATION! This is so basic it hurts my soul that people don't know this shit.

If the government does not take into account inflation when taxing you on a "gain", they are at LEAST partially taxing you on an artificial gain. If you can not see the injustice of that, you're a mindless imbecile.

For those of you who don't know if there is inflation right now, go to the freaking BLS website and see if there is a positive or negative number there. IT IS FREAKING POSITIVE. And indexing for inflation would or should include indexing for deflation if that were to occur. It should swing both ways. If we're in a deflationary cycle, the government is being ripped off if they don't adjust gains for deflation. The only reason the government doesn't want to take into consideration currency fluctuations is because the historical trend is almost entirely inflationary and foreseeable monetary policy is inflationary! GET A FREAKIN CLUE!!

 

[uscitizen]

How does an over 100% tax work out?

OHH this is one of the Saint Beck threads, Sorry to intrude on your religion.
I am not an atheist about Beck, he does unfortunately exist.

 

[teapartysamurai]

Yeah, the only problem is 2010 dollars BUYS less than did the 2000 dollar because of the 27+% inflation that's tacked onto those 2010 dollars.

That is not at all relevant. The person was paid a return over the course of the investment. The total value of that return was equal to $1,000. The person buying the stock is - or should be - well aware of the changes in purchasing power, yet that person still made a decision to allocate the resources towards the investment. They should have chosen TIPS, it appears, but their stupidity is not the government's concern. The Government offered the person a better opportunity with less risk, which they declined.

Thus if you are taxed as if your dollar still can buy .50 mac and cheese you are going to get ripped off.

You're taxes on Mac and Cheese based on the nominal value of the dollar. You're taxed on capital gains based on the nominal value of the appreciation.

Should someone who realizes a $1,000 loss in 2010 only be able to claim 700 of that against gains?

Inflation is not relevant??????????

Then explain why other taxes have inflation indexing, if it is not relevant?

What a joke!

This is akin to you stating 1000 dollars never changes in value!

You could practically buy a car in 1960 (you sure could in the 1950s) with 1000 dollars.

CAN YOU NOW???????????

1000 bucks MIGHT be a downPAYMENT on some cars (and on other cars, they would LAUGH at you, if you tried to use a 1000 as a down payment)

So, if you are taxed as IF that 1000 bucks can still practically buy a car, how fair is that?

How obtuse do you have to be not to see this?????

 

[Chris]

The Koch brothers campaign to lower taxes for the rich and deregulate the oil and petro chemical industry is working perfectly thanks to dupes like the Tea Party.

 

[uscitizen]

Because you have no intelligence that's why.

It's very EASY to understand if you OPEN YOUR MIND to reality.

If you buy a stock at 5,000 dollars in 2000, and sell it in 2010 for 6,000 (but with inflation you really lost money).

You lose money, thus they are taxing 100% of the suppsed "gain." Watch the video.

if you took that $5000, 5 years ago, and put it in a lock box, how much money would you have in 2010 when you opened it????

Bingo, you would lose money.

Same thing if you make 20% on an investment but the inflation rate is 27+%, you lost money.

Just as I pointed out with the simple example of mac and chees and a candy bar.

If you dollar bought two boxes of mac and cheese in 2000 and now it only can buy one, then you have lost buying power, you essentially have lost money.

But if you are being taxed as IF you can still buy two boxes of mac and cheese, refusing to take into account inflation, then you are going to get ripped off.

Bottom line.

On the other hand I bought gold eagles at about $550 and put them in a "lockbox".

 

[McDowell's]

Yeah, the only problem is 2010 dollars BUYS less than did the 2000 dollar because of the 27+% inflation that's tacked onto those 2010 dollars.

That is not at all relevant. The person was paid a return over the course of the investment. The total value of that return was equal to $1,000. The person buying the stock is - or should be - well aware of the changes in purchasing power, yet that person still made a decision to allocate the resources towards the investment. They should have chosen TIPS, it appears, but their stupidity is not the government's concern. The Government offered the person a better opportunity with less risk, which they declined.

Thus if you are taxed as if your dollar still can buy .50 mac and cheese you are going to get ripped off.

You're taxes on Mac and Cheese based on the nominal value of the dollar. You're taxed on capital gains based on the nominal value of the appreciation.

Should someone who realizes a $1,000 loss in 2010 only be able to claim 700 of that against gains?

Did you seriously just post that? Seriously? Inflation causes the loss to increase not decrease!!! Adjusting the nominal dollars received in the current year for inflation would decrease the real amount received. You would be subtracting the initial outlay from an EVEN SMALLER NUMBER. Thus causing the loss to be larger. You obviously don't know what the hell you're talking about right now. My suggestion: shut up. At least you'll save what little face you have left.

 

[teapartysamurai]

The Koch brothers campaign to lower taxes for the rich and deregulate the oil and petro chemical industry is working perfectly thanks to dupes like the Tea Party.

Tax cuts for the "rich."

Man liberals just HATE the idea of people keeping more of what they earn, don't they?

 

[teapartysamurai]

Yeah, the only problem is 2010 dollars BUYS less than did the 2000 dollar because of the 27+% inflation that's tacked onto those 2010 dollars.

That is not at all relevant. The person was paid a return over the course of the investment. The total value of that return was equal to $1,000. The person buying the stock is - or should be - well aware of the changes in purchasing power, yet that person still made a decision to allocate the resources towards the investment. They should have chosen TIPS, it appears, but their stupidity is not the government's concern. The Government offered the person a better opportunity with less risk, which they declined.

Thus if you are taxed as if your dollar still can buy .50 mac and cheese you are going to get ripped off.

You're taxes on Mac and Cheese based on the nominal value of the dollar. You're taxed on capital gains based on the nominal value of the appreciation.

Should someone who realizes a $1,000 loss in 2010 only be able to claim 700 of that against gains?[/QUOTE]

Did you seriously just post that? Seriously? Inflation causes the loss to increase not decrease!!! Adjusting the nominal dollars received in the current year for inflation would decrease the real amount received. You would be subtracting the initial outlay from an EVEN SMALLER NUMBER. Thus causing the loss to be larger. You obviously don't know what the hell you're talking about right now. My suggestion: shut up. At least you'll save what little face you have left.

Why did you modify the post to make it look as if I posted the latter in bold?

I did not.

As for the former, all you are saying is because he is an investor, he CHOSE to get ripped off, so he deserves all he gets.

This is the attitude of your class envy crowd people.

Don't you love it?

 

[teapartysamurai]

if you took that $5000, 5 years ago, and put it in a lock box, how much money would you have in 2010 when you opened it????

Bingo, you would lose money.

Same thing if you make 20% on an investment but the inflation rate is 27+%, you lost money.

Just as I pointed out with the simple example of mac and chees and a candy bar.

If you dollar bought two boxes of mac and cheese in 2000 and now it only can buy one, then you have lost buying power, you essentially have lost money.

But if you are being taxed as IF you can still buy two boxes of mac and cheese, refusing to take into account inflation, then you are going to get ripped off.

Bottom line.

On the other hand I bought gold eagles at about $550 and put them in a "lockbox".

You do realize that the value of gold is different from the value of the dollar don't you? For one, the dollar is no longer backed by gold, and hasn't been for years.

 

[McDowell's]

I modified his post to emphasize the party I was responding to, the tags got screwed up so I went back and corrected them.

 

[8537]

Do you know the difference between nominal and real gdp?

I have a passing familiarity with the topic at hand.

Probably not, but the difference is the same in this situation.

no, it's not. By that way of thinking, all incomes should be taxed based on their previous value since GDP is a measure of income.

An increase in the nominal dollar amount caused by inflation is UNIVERSALLY recognized to not be an ACTUAL gain.

indeed. It's so universal that even investors are aware of it! That doesn't change the fact that a 5K investment that is now worth 6K is more profitable than a 5K investment under your mattress - though not as profitable as a 5K investment in TIPS.

Even the government recognizes that fact as evidenced by them reporting real gdp numbers. The nominal gain caused by inflation does not add anything to an individuals purchasing power, therefore, no gain has occurred.

The government measures real GDP in order to measure the total amount of goods and services produced. The GDP deflator is how they separate actual production from income due to changes in the money supply.

So tell me how have they somehow gained? Please tell me you attended the McCombs school of business at UT. If you did, you overpaid for your education by the exact amount of the tuition, fees, books, and incidental costs you incurred while there.

The opportunity cost of investing money in something that creates a $1,000 nominal return is the $0 return they would have made had they kept it under their mattress. Of course, another opportunity cost would be TIPS, but they didn't buy TIPS. They risked capital instead.

GET A FREAKING EDUCATION! This is so basic it hurts my soul that people don't know this shit.

I had a class at the local juco once. how about you?

If the government does not take into account inflation when taxing you on a "gain", they are at LEAST partially taxing you on an artificial gain. If you can not see the injustice of that, you're a mindless imbecile.

Oh, speaking of mindless imbeciles then: Does the IRS allow your employer to collect less in taxes and allow you to pay less in nominal taxes as the year goes on to make up for the inflationary effects on your income over the course of the year? I'm sure they do and I'm just a mindless imbecile who never noticed this.

For those of you who don't know if there is inflation right now, go to the freaking BLS website and see if there is a positive or negative number there. IT IS FREAKING POSITIVE.

if you had invested in, for example, June of 2008 and realized those gains today, you would need to pay additional taxes because the adjusted value of your investment has greater purchasing power now than it did then.

But with your superior intellect, I'm sure you know this already. After all, I'm just a mindless imbecile.

GET A FREAKIN CLUE!!

That's exactly what I was thinking.

 

[teapartysamurai]

I modified his post to emphasize the party I was responding to, the tags got screwed up so I went back and corrected them.

No problem!

 

[Chris]

The Koch brothers campaign to lower taxes for the rich and deregulate the oil and petro chemical industry is working perfectly thanks to dupes like the Tea Party.

Tax cuts for the "rich."

Man liberals just HATE the idea of people keeping more of what they earn, don't they?

This is a perfect example of a Tea Party member who has been duped by corporate interests.

If you want to know the real story behind the scenes go to...

The Center for Public Integrity

 

[McDowell's]

Do you know the difference between nominal and real gdp?

I have a passing familiarity with the topic at hand.

Probably not, but the difference is the same in this situation.

no, it's not. By that way of thinking, all incomes should be taxed based on their previous value since GDP is a measure of income.



indeed. It's so universal that even investors are aware of it! That doesn't change the fact that a 5K investment that is now worth 6K is more profitable than a 5K investment under your mattress - though not as profitable as a 5K investment in TIPS.



The government measures real GDP in order to measure the total amount of goods and services produced. The GDP deflator is how they separate actual production from income due to changes in the money supply.



The opportunity cost of investing money in something that creates a $1,000 nominal return is the $0 return they would have made had they kept it under their mattress. Of course, another opportunity cost would be TIPS, but they didn't buy TIPS. They risked capital instead.



I had a class at the local juco once. how about you?


Oh, speaking of mindless imbeciles then: Does the IRS allow your employer to collect less in taxes and allow you to pay less in nominal taxes as the year goes on to make up for the inflationary effects on your income over the course of the year? I'm sure they do and I'm just a mindless imbecile who never noticed this.

For those of you who don't know if there is inflation right now, go to the freaking BLS website and see if there is a positive or negative number there. IT IS FREAKING POSITIVE.

if you had invested in, for example, June of 2008 and realized those gains today, you would need to pay additional taxes because the adjusted value of your investment has greater purchasing power now than it did then.

But with your superior intellect, I'm sure you know this already. After all, I'm just a mindless imbecile.

GET A FREAKIN CLUE!!

That's exactly what I was thinking.

The bolded part is all I need to know to realize you don't know what the hell you're talking about. Current year income, i.e. from a job, is paid in current year dollars. We're talking about comparing prior year outlays with current year receipts. They are apples and oranges. If you don't understand that, go back to school. You learned nothing. I don't have time to waste with the rest because I'm in school actually learning something, so I have other responsibilities to attend to.

 

[teapartysamurai]

Do you know the difference between nominal and real gdp?

I have a passing familiarity with the topic at hand.

Probably not, but the difference is the same in this situation.

no, it's not. By that way of thinking, all incomes should be taxed based on their previous value since GDP is a measure of income.



indeed. It's so universal that even investors are aware of it! That doesn't change the fact that a 5K investment that is now worth 6K is more profitable than a 5K investment under your mattress - though not as profitable as a 5K investment in TIPS.



The government measures real GDP in order to measure the total amount of goods and services produced. The GDP deflator is how they separate actual production from income due to changes in the money supply.



The opportunity cost of investing money in something that creates a $1,000 nominal return is the $0 return they would have made had they kept it under their mattress. Of course, another opportunity cost would be TIPS, but they didn't buy TIPS. They risked capital instead.



I had a class at the local juco once. how about you?


Oh, speaking of mindless imbeciles then: Does the IRS allow your employer to collect less in taxes and allow you to pay less in nominal taxes as the year goes on to make up for the inflationary effects on your income over the course of the year? I'm sure they do and I'm just a mindless imbecile who never noticed this.

For those of you who don't know if there is inflation right now, go to the freaking BLS website and see if there is a positive or negative number there. IT IS FREAKING POSITIVE.

if you had invested in, for example, June of 2008 and realized those gains today, you would need to pay additional taxes because the adjusted value of your investment has greater purchasing power now than it did then.

But with your superior intellect, I'm sure you know this already. After all, I'm just a mindless imbecile.

GET A FREAKIN CLUE!!

That's exactly what I was thinking.

Look, your desperate spin to ignore the reality of inflation is laughable.

You think people who are now paying more for their house than it's worth can ignore such realities and inflation and deflation?

This is a joke what you are saying.

It's as if you believe someone making 20,000 in 1965, would have the same standard of living now as he did in 1965.

Are you just not old enough to have lived in the real world, and experienced the reality of the shrinking dollar, or are you still insulated in the college world or something?

I'm beginning to wonder about you. No one paying a mortgage and buying groceries for a week is going to think like you do about 1,000 dollars and what it can do in 2000 vs. 2010.

 

[8537]

That is not at all relevant. The person was paid a return over the course of the investment. The total value of that return was equal to $1,000. The person buying the stock is - or should be - well aware of the changes in purchasing power, yet that person still made a decision to allocate the resources towards the investment. They should have chosen TIPS, it appears, but their stupidity is not the government's concern. The Government offered the person a better opportunity with less risk, which they declined.




You're taxes on Mac and Cheese based on the nominal value of the dollar. You're taxed on capital gains based on the nominal value of the appreciation.

Should someone who realizes a $1,000 loss in 2010 only be able to claim 700 of that against gains?[/QUOTE]

Did you seriously just post that? Seriously? Inflation causes the loss to increase not decrease!!! Adjusting the nominal dollars received in the current year for inflation would decrease the real amount received. You would be subtracting the initial outlay from an EVEN SMALLER NUMBER. Thus causing the loss to be larger. You obviously don't know what the hell you're talking about right now. My suggestion: shut up. At least you'll save what little face you have left.

Why did you modify the post to make it look as if I posted the latter in bold?

I didn't.

As for the former, all you are saying is because he is an investor, he CHOSE to get ripped off, so he deserves all he gets.

No, he chose to take a risk. It didn't pay off. The government isn't responsible for your bad choices - heck, the government even offered you a risk-free investment with a guaranteed higher return.