dividend tax rate?

[Freeman]

In 2003; Bush admin have signed a law that decreased the tax-dividend from 35% to 15%..

it seems that it will last until 2010- do you agree rising this tax-rate again in its original value?

 

[Neubarth]

For people making over $30,000 a year, all income should be taxed at a 50% rate.

There, that was simple.

 

[Freeman]

For people making over $30,000 a year, all income should be taxed at a 50% rate.

There, that was simple.

50% is very abusive!; to bypass the crisis, lowering taxes should be continue at least 3 yeas more.

 

[chanel]

I'm no economist but I would venture a guess that higher taxes would be a disincentive to invest. But maybe that's what they want????

 

[midcan5]

For people making over $30,000 a year, all income should be taxed at a 50% rate.

There, that was simple.

50% is very abusive!; to bypass the crisis, lowering taxes should be continue at least 3 yeas more.

I hope he meant 300K as 30 is poverty today. But I agree taxes should return to their original levels as reducing them sure as heck hasn't accomplished a darned thing.

Firedoglake » Newsflash: Ronald Reagan Raised Taxes (You Idiots)

Hale "Bonddad" Stewart: Ronald Reagan: Fiscal Disaster

 

[midcan5]

I'm no economist but I would venture a guess that higher taxes would be a disincentive to invest. But maybe that's what they want????

"There is no historical evidence that tax cuts spur economic growth. The highest period of growth in U.S. history (1933-1973) also saw its highest tax rates on the rich: 70 to 91 percent. During this period, the general tax rate climbed as well, but it reached a plateau in 1969, and growth slowed down five years later. Almost all rich nations have higher general taxes than the U.S., and they are growing faster as well."

Tax cuts spur economic growth
The Idolatry of Ideology-Why Tax Cuts Hurt the Economy by Russ Beaton

"I’m fully aware that I risk excommunication from the Church of Economic Science when I argue exactly the opposite: Tax cuts actually hurt the economy. It isn’t just that they don’t help, or that they’re ineffective—THEY REALLY HURT!

I can hear you thinking (even if your values bias makes you otherwise eager to agree): “Here comes the bleeding heart liberal, anti-trickle down, do something for humanity mantra.” No, indeed. I’m talking data here—numbers and empirical evidence. Check your values at the door and come on in."

 

[Oddball]

In 2003; Bush admin have signed a law that decreased the tax-dividend from 35% to 15%..

it seems that it will last until 2010- do you agree rising this tax-rate again in its original value?

No.

All taxes on incomes should be abolished altogether.

 

[Rozman]

For people making over $30,000 a year, all income should be taxed at a 50% rate.

There, that was simple.

50% is very abusive!; to bypass the crisis, lowering taxes should be continue at least 3 yeas more.

I hope he meant 300K as 30 is poverty today. But I agree taxes should return to their original levels as reducing them sure as heck hasn't accomplished a darned thing.

Firedoglake » Newsflash: Ronald Reagan Raised Taxes (You Idiots)

Hale "Bonddad" Stewart: Ronald Reagan: Fiscal Disaster

I don't think he made a mistake.Most liberals hate people that have money unless you're
Nancy Pelosi,Joe Biden,Ed Shultz,Rachel Maddow,Keith Olberman you know that whole crew from MSNBC....The All Good News all the time Obama network.

 

[Neubarth]

For people making over $30,000 a year, all income should be taxed at a 50% rate.

There, that was simple.

50% is very abusive!; to bypass the crisis, lowering taxes should be continue at least 3 yeas more.

I hope he meant 300K as 30 is poverty today. But I agree taxes should return to their original levels as reducing them sure as heck hasn't accomplished a darned thing.

Firedoglake » Newsflash: Ronald Reagan Raised Taxes (You Idiots)

Hale "Bonddad" Stewart: Ronald Reagan: Fiscal Disaster

Nope, I ment $30,000. The first $30,000 that a person makes should be tax free and all above that should be taxed at fifty percent. That fifty percent would apply to everybody making more than $30,000.

 

[Neubarth]

In 2003; Bush admin have signed a law that decreased the tax-dividend from 35% to 15%..

it seems that it will last until 2010- do you agree rising this tax-rate again in its original value?

No.

All taxes on incomes should be abolished altogether.

Then how do you propose paying off the national debt which doubled when Dubya was president?

 

[Thinman]

In 2003; Bush admin have signed a law that decreased the tax-dividend from 35% to 15%..

it seems that it will last until 2010- do you agree rising this tax-rate again in its original value?

A publicly owned corporation pays taxes on its net income. Then it divides the net income by the number of shares of stock outstanding and pays out that amount to each shareholder as a dividend. Then the dividend is taxed to the individual, holding that share of stock, as income. So, the same money was taxed twice. I agree with taxing dividends, but 100% publicly owned companies should not be taxed.

 

[Oddball]

In 2003; Bush admin have signed a law that decreased the tax-dividend from 35% to 15%..

it seems that it will last until 2010- do you agree rising this tax-rate again in its original value?

No.

All taxes on incomes should be abolished altogether.

Then how do you propose paying off the national debt which doubled when Dubya was president?

First off, neither you nor I spent that money.

Secondly, that explosion in spending has been on autopilot for decades.

We should just do the Otter and tell the red bastards "you fucked up...you trusted us".

 

[Paulie]

For people making over $30,000 a year, all income should be taxed at a 50% rate.

There, that was simple.

Wow, that's just fucking crazy.

 

[Care4all]

the dividend tax rate was the same as one's income tax bracket, this is what it will go back to...did it stop investment under clinton?

IT WILL NOT be 35% for anyone in the middle class of upper middle class....the poor don't invest in the market so this is about the middle class and the wealthy, who invest and many do not earn income any other way but through investment.....most of the middle class is in the 15% tax braket and their dividends will also be 15%...

warren Buffet and Gates.... the richest men in America...should Buffet pay only 15% in taxes, with no Social security taxes, while his secretary has to pay 25% plus social security taxes as well on her entire income?

I dunno....i think all income is equal or should be equal and no favoritism given to investment over labor...when the fact of the matter is that LABOR IS MORE IMPORTANT...as many of our founding fathers extrapolated on.

 

[Oddball]

the dividend tax rate was the same as one's income tax bracket, this is what it will go back to...did it stop investment under clinton?

IT WILL NOT be 35% for anyone in the middle class of upper middle class....the poor don't invest in the market so this is about the middle class and the wealthy, who invest and many do not earn income any other way but through investment.....most of the middle class is in the 15% tax braket and their dividends will also be 15%...

warren Buffet and Gates.... the richest men in America...should Buffet pay only 15% in taxes, with no Social security taxes, while his secretary has to pay 25% plus social security taxes as well on her entire income?

I dunno....i think all income is equal or should be equal and no favoritism given to investment over labor...when the fact of the matter is that LABOR IS MORE IMPORTANT...as many of our founding fathers extrapolated on.

Dividends aren't only earned through investments.

And if labor is so important, then all taxes on incomes (i.e. LABOR) should be abolished altogether.

 

[Care4all]

the dividend tax rate was the same as one's income tax bracket, this is what it will go back to...did it stop investment under clinton?

IT WILL NOT be 35% for anyone in the middle class of upper middle class....the poor don't invest in the market so this is about the middle class and the wealthy, who invest and many do not earn income any other way but through investment.....most of the middle class is in the 15% tax braket and their dividends will also be 15%...

warren Buffet and Gates.... the richest men in America...should Buffet pay only 15% in taxes, with no Social security taxes, while his secretary has to pay 25% plus social security taxes as well on her entire income?

I dunno....i think all income is equal or should be equal and no favoritism given to investment over labor...when the fact of the matter is that LABOR IS MORE IMPORTANT...as many of our founding fathers extrapolated on.

Dividends aren't only earned through investments.

And if labor is so important, then all taxes on incomes (i.e. LABOR) should be abolished altogether.

i don't think labor was ever suppose to be taxed....it is gotten around by giving a personal deduction for each of us....gvt saying they are only taxing our profits over the deduction for our labor used.... or something of the sort...

but initially, anything we earned by our own work, was not taxed and ONLY investment gains were taxed, and now we have it ass backwards where we are reducing investment taxes and raising or keeping taxes on our labor high????

 

[Oddball]

Any...and I mean any...time an tax on income is levied it's a tax on one's labor.

Also, dividends aren't always the product of investments paying off.

 

[Care4all]

Any...and I mean any...time an tax on income is levied it's a tax on one's labor.

Also, dividends aren't always the product of investments paying off.

what else pays dividends?

 

[Oddball]

One's private business ventures, when operated through an LLC and trust structures.

 

[The Rabbi]

Unspoken here is that the tax cut produced MORE revenue for the Treasury, not less. Thus raising the rate will produce LESS revenue. Obama appears not to get this very simple concept, btw. He was asked about it specifically during hte campaign and basically said I dont know and I dont care.