Buffett and his taxes

[DaGoose]

please do me a favor and explain what you mean by this (in red)....exactly how are the wealthiest riding the backs of the ordinary people?

What the hell does a corporate executive do? He plans how working people will earn money for him. Have you ever stopped to think what would happen if the ordinary working people all over the world stopped working and went on a hunger strike? Rich people and their antics make my rectum crave buttermilk.

You think you can do it?? You think it's easy to run a company??... Start one and prove it

Do you think that a business will be as successful without roads, police or fire protection that ordinary taxpayers provide for that company?

 

[Si modo]

Ok...then let's tax ALL earnings at the same rate then whether it be through payroll or investment income.

Time for a lesson in economics.

Don't you wish to encourage investment? The NYTimes does.


"A basic tenet of American capitalism is that supply precedes demand, as can be see in the case of all airports being closed down: the long lines of people unable to get to their destinations is the demand that cannot be fulfilled. This is why entrepreneurs must be given a free hand to produce, to speculate, as the building of more and more airports will lower prices, increasing demand. This is especially true in the case of new technologies.

Both high taxation and over regulation place a damper on this freedom.

“The proceeds from these speculations? the capital paid for stocks and bonds ? may seem misspent. In the long run, the results are called infrastructure, and they are what economies are built on.”

“Many European postal systems, telegraph lines and railroads were built with government money, and sometimes with insufficient capacity. But in the United States, instead of burdening taxpayers, we sell investors the equivalent of high-priced lottery tickets each time one of these technologies arrives.”
On the Contrary - In Technology, Supply Precedes Demand - NYTimes.com

Want to withdraw your post?

Time for a lesson in human nature.

Do you really believe that someone will refuse to invest and make millions just because they have to pay a little higher percentage on the income that they earn from their investments?

I thought not. You may now alter or withdraw YOUR post....

And, human nature for some is to shoplift because the store with thousands of items won't notice your little theft. So, it's justified.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You weren't here when the coal miners and railroad workers first unionized. That was the beginning of the American middle class. The Republican party has resented and attempted to undo it ever since.

Because of the goddam mess George W. Bush and his "Tax Cuts For The Wealthy" policies plus two wars made we are back to the scenario where working people will once again put their lives on the line if it becomes necessary. 'Course I wouldn't want to tangle with one of those mean CEO's...they hire others to do their fighting. You know...like the Mafia bosses.

Now, now, Campy...neither were you.

1. Early on Eugene Victor Debs was quite properly seen not as a radical but as a decent Democratic politician and labor leader. In 1884, he wrote an editorial for the Brotherhood of Locomotive Fireman, stating that the union “is not to antagonize capital. Strikes do that; hence we oppose strikes as the remedy for the ills of which labor complains.” Nick Salvatore, “Eugene V. Debs: Citizen and Socialist,” p.49.

2. The Pullman strike of 1894 changed Debs. The issues of the day included the 8-hour day, and in its cause, the members of the railway firemen were grumbling about the no-strike policy. Pushed by the new militancy, Debs declared that “the men of brawn and brain who produce” should be given “a just proportion of the proceeds.”

a. George Pullman, of sleeping car fame, had constructed a workers’ community in which he owned the land, the workers’ houses, and ran the churches; the sewage was pumped into Pullman’s farm to be used as fertilizer.

b. When the Depression of 1893 hit, wages fell on average by 33 to 50 percent. While Pullman deduced from the workers’ wages the costs of rent and water, library fees, and grocery bills, he refused to lower rents commensurate with the drop in wages.

c. Pullman banned the eight-hour day, saloons, and trade unions.


The truth is that the middle class has neither stagnated nor fallen back. The standard of living of same has continued to increase.

Need I do the math for you?

You are so full of shit that I smell you:

• 83 percent of all U.S. stocks are in the hands of 1 percent of the people.
• 61 percent of Americans "always or usually" live paycheck to paycheck, which was up from 49 percent in 2008 and 43 percent in 2007.
• 66 percent of the income growth between 2001 and 2007 went to the top 1% of all Americans.
• 36 percent of Americans say that they don't contribute anything to retirement savings.
• A staggering 43 percent of Americans have less than $10,000 saved up for retirement.
• 24 percent of American workers say that they have postponed their planned retirement age in the past year.
• Over 1.4 million Americans filed for personal bankruptcy in 2009, which represented a 32 percent increase over 2008.
• Only the top 5 percent of U.S. households have earned enough additional income to match the rise in housing costs since 1975.
• For the first time in U.S. history, banks own a greater share of residential housing net worth in the United States than all individual Americans put together.
• In 1950, the ratio of the average executive's paycheck to the average worker's paycheck was about 30 to 1. Since the year 2000, that ratio has exploded to between 300 to 500 to one.
• As of 2007, the bottom 80 percent of American households held about 7% of the liquid financial assets.
• The bottom 50 percent of income earners in the United States now collectively own less than 1 percent of the nation’s wealth.
• Average Wall Street bonuses for 2009 were up 17 percent when compared with 2008.
• In the United States, the average federal worker now earns 60% MORE than the average worker in the private sector.
• The top 1 percent of U.S. households own nearly twice as much of America's corporate wealth as they did just 15 years ago.
• In America today, the average time needed to find a job has risen to a record 35.2 weeks.
• More than 40 percent of Americans who actually are employed are now working in service jobs, which are often very low paying.
• or the first time in U.S. history, more than 40 million Americans are on food stamps, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture projects that number will go up to 43 million Americans in 2011.
• This is what American workers now must compete against: in China a garment worker makes approximately 86 cents an hour and in Cambodia a garment worker makes approximately 22 cents an hour.
• Approximately 21 percent of all children in the United States are living below the poverty line in 2010 - the highest rate in 20 years.
• Despite the financial crisis, the number of millionaires in the United States rose a whopping 16 percent to 7.8 million in 2009.• The top 10 percent of Americans now earn around 50 percent of our national income.

Well, with you sitting there in your underwear, I'd rather not guess at what you smell.
But, that you smell? A foregone conclusion.

What I am going to provide is far beyond your capabilities...but for anyone interested in the statistics that would destoy this toad's post..

1. The percentage of households with real incomes higher than $50,000 increased from 24.9% in 1967 to 44.1% in 2003, and the percentage with real incomes lower than $35,000 fell from 52.8% in 1967 to 40.9% . More On The Certain Equality Of Reaganomics - Forbes

a. “…in 1967 only one in 25 families earned an income of $100,000 or more in real income, whereas now, one in six do. The percentage of families that have an income of more than $75,000 a year has tripled from 9% to 27%. But it's not just the rich that are getting richer. Virtually every income group has been lifted by the tide of growth in recent decades.” Great American Dream Machine

2. Mathematics is a factor in understanding the economy, as well: one must understand that the any average, or mean, of incomes in the top 20% will always be much higher than the median income in this group, for the simple reason that the top group has no ceiling…i.e., it is everyone with incomes above the 80% percentile. Of course, this description can be applied to any “top” group…1%, 5%, etc.

a. The median will consequently always provide a much more accurate reflection of the typical income earner in any top income group than any average or mean. So, changes in the “average” incomes of a top group are always misleading, and greatly exaggerates the level of typical income of top income groups.

b. “Mean income for the top 10% is about two-thirds larger than median income…” Reynolds, “Income and Wealth,” p. 21.

c. According to Federal Reserve data regarding incomes of different subgroups, the average or mean income of the top 10% households seems to increase much more from 1989 to 2004 than the average or mean of the next highest 10%, or of any lower income group. This would lead one to believe, mistakenly, that income inequality is growing, with the rich getting rich faster than any other group.

But when the more accurate median income is considered, the income of the top 10% grew virtually at the same rate from 1989 to 2004 as the bottom 20%, and as the second lowest 20%. Reynolds, “Income and Wealth,” p. 20-21.

3. Similarly, changes in the bottom limit, or threshold, of any top income group appears to be rapidly increasing the top groups income…when in reality, it is the increase of the group below the top that has the benefit.

a. Thus, as the incomes of those in the second 10% grows into the top 10%, we must now add incomes of those from the next group below. This makes the higher level appear to grow, while the lower group adds lower income earners in order to have the proper number to make 10% of the total. The effect is due to increase in incomes below the threshold!

b. In this case the average of the top 10% is being ‘pushed up’ from below by rising numbers of folks whose income has increased, with them leaving what had been a ‘middle class income’ and joining the ‘ranks of the rich.’

c. Example? The top fifth of household incomes began at $68,352 in 1980 (in 2004 dollars). But by 2004, the incomes of so many in the second 20% had increased above the former $68,352 threshold that the top 20% of earners now started at $88,029 in 2004! Therefore, if one calculates the mean average of all the incomes above $88,029 in 2004 it will be considerably higher than if you averaged all the incomes above the $68,352 as we did in 1980.
The essential point is that this statistical effect does not mean that the rich are getting richer…it means more people are getting rich, and reflects the rising general prosperity!
See chapter 9, Ferrara, "America's Ticking Bankruptcy Bomb."

 

[PoliticalChic]

Now, now, Campy...neither were you.

1. Early on Eugene Victor Debs was quite properly seen not as a radical but as a decent Democratic politician and labor leader. In 1884, he wrote an editorial for the Brotherhood of Locomotive Fireman, stating that the union “is not to antagonize capital. Strikes do that; hence we oppose strikes as the remedy for the ills of which labor complains.” Nick Salvatore, “Eugene V. Debs: Citizen and Socialist,” p.49.

2. The Pullman strike of 1894 changed Debs. The issues of the day included the 8-hour day, and in its cause, the members of the railway firemen were grumbling about the no-strike policy. Pushed by the new militancy, Debs declared that “the men of brawn and brain who produce” should be given “a just proportion of the proceeds.”

a. George Pullman, of sleeping car fame, had constructed a workers’ community in which he owned the land, the workers’ houses, and ran the churches; the sewage was pumped into Pullman’s farm to be used as fertilizer.

b. When the Depression of 1893 hit, wages fell on average by 33 to 50 percent. While Pullman deduced from the workers’ wages the costs of rent and water, library fees, and grocery bills, he refused to lower rents commensurate with the drop in wages.

c. Pullman banned the eight-hour day, saloons, and trade unions.


The truth is that the middle class has neither stagnated nor fallen back. The standard of living of same has continued to increase.
Need I do the math for you?

the line in bold.....the middle class has never had it better than they do now.

I grew up in a typical middle class environment. We had one TV in the living room of a small but well kept apartment....we had one car. I wore keds sneakers until the soles were worn out. I wore patches on my "dungarees"...I had a bike....a baseball mitt and a ball...that was my extracurricular "stuff".... we had fans, no AC...we had one phone number and 2 phones..one in the kitchen one in my parents bedroom.....

Now?

3 TV's per family of 4
2 cars per family of four
x-box
Nike's that are replaced when they get dirty
Designer jeans
A/C
3 cell phones per family of four.

Yeah...the middle class is struggling compared to what we had in the 60's.

The poor has never had it any better, either. If one is poor, the USA is the best place to be poor.

My fav from the census data....6% of the poor have a Jacuzzi!

Tough being poor today.

 

[Jarhead]

What the hell does a corporate executive do? He plans how working people will earn money for him. Have you ever stopped to think what would happen if the ordinary working people all over the world stopped working and went on a hunger strike? Rich people and their antics make my rectum crave buttermilk.

You think you can do it?? You think it's easy to run a company??... Start one and prove it

Do you think that a business will be as successful without roads, police or fire protection that ordinary taxpayers provide for that company?

the business owner also pays taxes to provide those services.
And the taxpayers in general also use those services.

So what exactly was your point?

 

[Si modo]

the line in bold.....the middle class has never had it better than they do now.

I grew up in a typical middle class environment. We had one TV in the living room of a small but well kept apartment....we had one car. I wore keds sneakers until the soles were worn out. I wore patches on my "dungarees"...I had a bike....a baseball mitt and a ball...that was my extracurricular "stuff".... we had fans, no AC...we had one phone number and 2 phones..one in the kitchen one in my parents bedroom.....

Now?

3 TV's per family of 4
2 cars per family of four
x-box
Nike's that are replaced when they get dirty
Designer jeans
A/C
3 cell phones per family of four.

Yeah...the middle class is struggling compared to what we had in the 60's.

The poor has never had it any better, either. If one is poor, the USA is the best place to be poor.

My fav from the census data....6% of the poor have a Jacuzzi!

Tough being poor today.

Yup. (And tough that I made a grammatical error - yikes, how embarasking!)

 

[Rocko]

the line in bold.....the middle class has never had it better than they do now.

I grew up in a typical middle class environment. We had one TV in the living room of a small but well kept apartment....we had one car. I wore keds sneakers until the soles were worn out. I wore patches on my "dungarees"...I had a bike....a baseball mitt and a ball...that was my extracurricular "stuff".... we had fans, no AC...we had one phone number and 2 phones..one in the kitchen one in my parents bedroom.....

Now?

3 TV's per family of 4
2 cars per family of four
x-box
Nike's that are replaced when they get dirty
Designer jeans
A/C
3 cell phones per family of four.

Yeah...the middle class is struggling compared to what we had in the 60's.

The poor has never had it any better, either. If one is poor, the USA is the best place to be poor.

My fav from the census data....6% of the poor have a Jacuzzi!

Tough being poor today.

Thats a great point PC..

People are always saying this country is screwed up, because the poor have nothing and the "rich" have it all, but i'd rather be poor in America, than anywhere else in the world.

 

[Jarhead]

You think you can do it?? You think it's easy to run a company??... Start one and prove it

Do you think that a business will be as successful without roads, police or fire protection that ordinary taxpayers provide for that company?

the business owner also pays taxes to provide those services.
And the taxpayers in general also use those services.

So what exactly was your point?

oh yeah...and may I add one more little tid bit.....?

The employees of those businesses have jobs and earn salaries becuase of those roads, police and fire protection.

So I think your point doesnt carry much water.

But certainly a valient effort.

 

[DiamondDave]

What the hell does a corporate executive do? He plans how working people will earn money for him. Have you ever stopped to think what would happen if the ordinary working people all over the world stopped working and went on a hunger strike? Rich people and their antics make my rectum crave buttermilk.

You think you can do it?? You think it's easy to run a company??... Start one and prove it

Do you think that a business will be as successful without roads, police or fire protection that ordinary taxpayers provide for that company?

You think that possibly everyone benefits from infrastructure???

You think that maybe we could upkeep things like public roads (most of which are state, not federal by the way) if so much were not spent on bullshit entitlements and handout to a large % of people who DO NOT PAY IN TO THE SYSTEM LIKE OTHERS DO??? The thing is that a large # of people in the population ARE NOT NORMAL TAXPAYERS...

 

[Cammmpbell]

If I'm not mistaken working people earn money for themselves when they have a job. You know money to pay bills and most have the HC payed for by their employer.

The workers on a hunger strike??

WOW you really need to try Fidel or Hugo.

You weren't here when the coal miners and railroad workers first unionized. That was the beginning of the American middle class. The Republican party has resented and attempted to undo it ever since. ....

If you were aware that a GOP dominated Congress passed the first laws for worker safety (Safety Appliance Act, 1893) - the seminal law for worker safety - then your post is beyond dishonest.

ROTFLMAO!!

Have you ever read the history of Kentucky coal miners. Republicans are and have always been pro corporations. Don't pull that shit on me. I lived this stuff. I was born in 1934 and before I started school half the people in west TN couldn't find a job...thanks to the big business Hoover who pulled the same kind of bank shit on the working man that Bernanke, Paulson and Bush did in 2008.

Stuff It!!

 

[Si modo]

You weren't here when the coal miners and railroad workers first unionized. That was the beginning of the American middle class. The Republican party has resented and attempted to undo it ever since. ....

If you were aware that a GOP dominated Congress passed the first laws for worker safety (Safety Appliance Act, 1893) - the seminal law for worker safety - then your post is beyond dishonest.

ROTFLMAO!!

Have you ever read the history of Kentucky coal miners. Republicans are and have always been pro corporations. Don't pull that shit on me. I lived this stuff. I was born in 1934 and before I started school half the people in west TN couldn't find a job...thanks to the big business Hoover who pulled the same kind of bank shit on the working man that Bernanke, Paulson and Bush did in 2008.

Stuff It!!

What I posted is a fact. It's a shame you don't like it.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The poor has never had it any better, either. If one is poor, the USA is the best place to be poor.

My fav from the census data....6% of the poor have a Jacuzzi!

Tough being poor today.

Yup. (And tough that I made a grammatical error - yikes, how embarasking!)

It is better to be financially strapped, but morally rich!

The welfare system produces social povery....far worse.

The government conducted a study, 1971-1978 known as the Seattle-Denver Income Maintenance Experiment, or SIME-DIME, in which low income families were give a guaranteed income, a welfare package with everything liberal policy makers could hope for. Result: for every dollar of extra welfare given, low income recipients reduced their labor by 80 cents. http://www.policyarchive.org/handle/10207/bitstreams/12794.pdf

a. Further results: dissolution of families: “This conclusion was unambiguously unfavorable to advocates of a negative income tax that would cover married couples, for two important reasons. First, increased
marital breakups among the poor would increase the numbers on
welfare and the amount of transfer payments, principally because the
separated wife and children would receive higher transfer payments.
Second, marital dissolutions and the usual accompanying absence of
fathers from households with children are generally considered unfavorable outcomes regardless of whether or not the welfare rolls increase.” http://www.bos.frb.org/economic/conf/conf30/conf30c.pdf

b. “When families received guaranteed income at 90% of the poverty level, there was a 43% increase in black family dissolution and a 63% increase in white family dissolution. At 125% of the poverty levels, dissolutions were 75% and 40%.” Robert B. Carleson, “Government Is The Problem,” p. 57.

 

[Si modo]

My fav from the census data....6% of the poor have a Jacuzzi!

Tough being poor today.

Yup. (And tough that I made a grammatical error - yikes, how embarasking!)

It is better to be financially strapped, but morally rich!

Totally agree! Somethings have much higher value in life.

(Thanks for the compliment.)

 

[DaGoose]

You think you can do it?? You think it's easy to run a company??... Start one and prove it

Do you think that a business will be as successful without roads, police or fire protection that ordinary taxpayers provide for that company?

You think that possibly everyone benefits from infrastructure???

You think that maybe we could upkeep things like public roads (most of which are state, not federal by the way) if so much were not spent on bullshit entitlements and handout to a large % of people who DO NOT PAY IN TO THE SYSTEM LIKE OTHERS DO??? The thing is that a large # of people in the population ARE NOT NORMAL TAXPAYERS...

Hmmmm....entitlements and handouts.

Entitlements are called as such because people ARE "entitled" to receive the benefits that they've paid their whole lives into.

Handouts (and I'm guessing you mean welfare) eats up less than 1/2 of 1% of tax dollars.

So what's your point again?

And what do you consider a "large number" of "not normal" taxpayers? What's "not normal"?

 

[Jarhead]

Do you think that a business will be as successful without roads, police or fire protection that ordinary taxpayers provide for that company?

You think that possibly everyone benefits from infrastructure???

You think that maybe we could upkeep things like public roads (most of which are state, not federal by the way) if so much were not spent on bullshit entitlements and handout to a large % of people who DO NOT PAY IN TO THE SYSTEM LIKE OTHERS DO??? The thing is that a large # of people in the population ARE NOT NORMAL TAXPAYERS...

Hmmmm....entitlements and handouts.

Entitlements are called as such because people ARE "entitled" to receive the benefits that they've paid their whole lives into.

Handouts (and I'm guessing you mean welfare) eats up less than 1/2 of 1% of tax dollars.

So what's your point again?

And what do you consider a "large number" of "not normal" taxpayers? What's "not normal"?

the exact definition of entitlements is not relevant.

The term "entitlements" refers to the recipient of anything....be it welfare, food stamps, unemployment, etc as the recipient beleives they are entitled to them for being a US citizen...not for paying into the system..

For as we all know, a good portion do not pay into anything except FICA...and not suprisingly (from a mathematical standpoint) that good portion that do not pay into the system make up the majority of those that get the entitlements.

So they are not entitled to it in return for paying into the system. They are entitled to it (in their eyes) for being a citizen.

Now, that being said, the only ones in MY eyes that are entitled to "entitlements" are those that wish they could, but cant...not those that can, but glad they dont have to.

 

[Barb]

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Billionaire investor Warren Buffett this week showed a little more leg in his campaign to get Congress to raise taxes on the uber-rich.

In a letter to Republican Rep. Tim Huelskamp Tuesday, Buffett revealed that his adjusted gross income last year was $62,855,038 and that his taxable income was $39,814,784. Buffett said he paid $15,300 in payroll taxes.

Buffett also said his federal income tax bill came to $6,923,494, or 17.4% of his taxable income -- two points he revealed in a New York Times op-ed in August urging Congress to tax the wealthy more.

Buffett provided a copy of his correspondence with Huelskamp to CNNMoney's Poppy Harlow.

He said in an interview that the roughly $23 million difference between his AGI and taxable income was due largely to deductions he took for charitable giving and local taxes.

Two key reasons he only paid 17.4%, however, is because a lot of his income came from investments, which are taxed at a lower rate than wages, and because payroll taxes are assessed only on the first $106,800 of wages.

"People who make money with money are getting taxed at a far lower rate than people who make money by their own labor," Buffett told CNNMoney.

Warren Buffett made $62,855,038 last year - Oct. 12, 2011

1. Are you supporting the idea of raising capital gains taxes?

2. Do you realize that the money invested in stocks has already been taxed when generated from earnings....and will now be taxed a second time when an investment profit is realized?

You do realize that the 2nd time tax on stock investments is utter bullshit, right? especially where it comes to 401k, which are PRE tax investments.

 

[Barb]

1. Are you supporting the idea of raising capital gains taxes?

2. Do you realize that the money invested in stocks has already been taxed when generated from earnings....and will now be taxed a second time when an investment profit is realized?

Do you realize that the people who enjoy millions of earnings in this country are riding the backs of ordinary people who can't even find a job? When and where did this feeling of entitlement by the richest 1% come from? Tax rates for the wealthy are at the lowest rate in 50 years. Pay your part or get the **** out! You might try moving to Maylasia or that Central American country where the company you're invested in is located.

WOW. Riding the backs of ordinary people. What a load of horseshit.

Entitlement?? How bout the poor and downtrodden who suck up entitlements like candy. Entitlments provided by the American taxpayer those who actually pay Fed taxes.

The "evil Rich" pay the lions share of the Fed taxes in this country already and anyone who invests is taking the RISK with their money. If they happen to make money on that RISK they pay again. Way more than the poor and downtrodden in this country will ever pay for anything.

Just think If there were no rich the rest of us would be paying all of the Fed taxes because the poor and downtrodden would still be paying nada.

As for pay your part there bud if you feel others should pay more then you should contribute. Whip out your checkbook and stroke a check to the IRS I'm sure they will take it.

Save your histrionics for someone you might impress.

Jesus. The whole system is rigged so that those who have money don't pay for the pile they sit on and profit from, and the highest paid among those that HOLD a paid position can DEFER their pay for thirty years into the future. This saves their employers tax, doesn't add to the actual bottom line, does not add to the company budget (and so must be made up by lowering wages, benefits, and hiring), and as the money is invested, it works to increase their wealth, and the do re mi THEY pay in the future costs them much less in real dollars than it would have had they had to pony up like the rest of us, AT the time we are paid. Meanwhile, CURRENT bills have to be paid, by greater government borrowing, and HIGHER TAXES ON THE REST OF US.

Good lord. You're so many of you like the stereotypical blonde walking into the stereotypical garage. They see you coming. A few well placed placebos and you simply hand over the bank book.

 

[PoliticalChic]

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Billionaire investor Warren Buffett this week showed a little more leg in his campaign to get Congress to raise taxes on the uber-rich.

In a letter to Republican Rep. Tim Huelskamp Tuesday, Buffett revealed that his adjusted gross income last year was $62,855,038 and that his taxable income was $39,814,784. Buffett said he paid $15,300 in payroll taxes.

Buffett also said his federal income tax bill came to $6,923,494, or 17.4% of his taxable income -- two points he revealed in a New York Times op-ed in August urging Congress to tax the wealthy more.

Buffett provided a copy of his correspondence with Huelskamp to CNNMoney's Poppy Harlow.

He said in an interview that the roughly $23 million difference between his AGI and taxable income was due largely to deductions he took for charitable giving and local taxes.

Two key reasons he only paid 17.4%, however, is because a lot of his income came from investments, which are taxed at a lower rate than wages, and because payroll taxes are assessed only on the first $106,800 of wages.

"People who make money with money are getting taxed at a far lower rate than people who make money by their own labor," Buffett told CNNMoney.

Warren Buffett made $62,855,038 last year - Oct. 12, 2011

1. Are you supporting the idea of raising capital gains taxes?

2. Do you realize that the money invested in stocks has already been taxed when generated from earnings....and will now be taxed a second time when an investment profit is realized?

You do realize that the 2nd time tax on stock investments is utter bullshit, right? especially where it comes to 401k, which are PRE tax investments.

Post #57, Daffy.


About half of working families have 401k's, but that doesn't mean that half of all investments are via same.
Further, there are limits on how much can be contributed to these vehicles, and time restraints and mandates on withdrawl.

In short, with reference to your "You do realize that the 2nd time tax on stock investments is utter bullshit, right?", it seems it applies more to your post.

 

[Jarhead]

Do you realize that the people who enjoy millions of earnings in this country are riding the backs of ordinary people who can't even find a job? When and where did this feeling of entitlement by the richest 1% come from? Tax rates for the wealthy are at the lowest rate in 50 years. Pay your part or get the **** out! You might try moving to Maylasia or that Central American country where the company you're invested in is located.

WOW. Riding the backs of ordinary people. What a load of horseshit.

Entitlement?? How bout the poor and downtrodden who suck up entitlements like candy. Entitlments provided by the American taxpayer those who actually pay Fed taxes.

The "evil Rich" pay the lions share of the Fed taxes in this country already and anyone who invests is taking the RISK with their money. If they happen to make money on that RISK they pay again. Way more than the poor and downtrodden in this country will ever pay for anything.

Just think If there were no rich the rest of us would be paying all of the Fed taxes because the poor and downtrodden would still be paying nada.

As for pay your part there bud if you feel others should pay more then you should contribute. Whip out your checkbook and stroke a check to the IRS I'm sure they will take it.

Save your histrionics for someone you might impress.

Jesus. The whole system is rigged so that those who have money don't pay for the pile they sit on and profit from, and the highest paid among those that HOLD a paid position can DEFER their pay for thirty years into the future. This saves their employers tax, doesn't add to the actual bottom line, does not add to the company budget (and so must be made up by lowering wages, benefits, and hiring), and as the money is invested, it works to increase their wealth, and the do re mi THEY pay in the future costs them much less in real dollars than it would have had they had to pony up like the rest of us, AT the time we are paid. Meanwhile, CURRENT bills have to be paid, by greater government borrowing, and HIGHER TAXES ON THE REST OF US.

Good lord. You're so many of you like the stereotypical blonde walking into the stereotypical garage. They see you coming. A few well placed placebos and you simply hand over the bank book.

excuse me...you made that up.

You most certainly do pay for the pile you sit on....WHEN YOU SELL IT.

Until then, it is worth absolutely nothing to you...so why should you pay taxes on it?

And in the meantime? Maybe it will lose its value.

Remember the dot com craze?

So many millionaires were created...on paper......and then poof....none of them ever got to live the life of a millionaire.

 

[Care4all]

1. Are you supporting the idea of raising capital gains taxes?

2. Do you realize that the money invested in stocks has already been taxed when generated from earnings....and will now be taxed a second time when an investment profit is realized?

the stock holder is only taxed on his profit when he sells the stock. HIS MONEY invested buyig the stock that was already taxed, is NEVER taxed again, only his capital gain of the investment he made is taxed, again, when he sells it.

he can hold on to these stocks for years or decades, while they go up up up in value, while paying no individual tax on that, year after year until he sells it....

this is/would be a tax haven for the stock holder....

he can hold on to it and not get taxed on the gains...yes....as you put it...as it goes up up up.....
But there is also a risk that it will lose value if he holds onto it.
Bottom line....it is just paper until he sells it....so to discuss taxes on it while it is still in possession as stock is rediculous.....

Bottom line....that stock has absolutely no value to the holder untilo it is sold.

it defers taxes owed, it brings in less to the federal treasury each year that he holds it, (while you and i pay in full on our own compensation each year) and his employer avoids paying other federal taxes that would be paid if he had been paid a salary for his compensation....(I'm talking about ceo/ and others, compensation in stocks)

and no, I do not believe the gvt should be compensationing investors for their risks....as Political chick thinks....

I think the investor would make wiser decisions if he had more at stake...like paying the same taxes on his money as we do as workers on the marginal rate. the gvt should not be in the business of compensating folks that invest in risk...