FACT: Why the Rich should pay LOWER tax rates than the Poor

[tooAlive]

No it doesn't. As long as the asset has been held more than a year it doesn't matter one bit how long you've had it.



That's total baloney. You just made that up.

Capital gains tax - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nothing in that link contradicts anything I have told you. To reiterate:

a) the cap gains tax does not care how long you've held the asset if its more than a year

b) since your premise is wrong, your conclusion is BS as well.

I said "for example." The 5 or 10 years thing is purely an example, just as was said in the video.

My point was that capital gains taxes are taxed lower because they aren't guaranteed. Income is guaranteed; capital gains aren't. You're not going to sell the same investments ever year for the same gains.

 

[tooAlive]

You lost 3-1/2 out of the last 4 elections. The future is not shaping up in your favor.

Here is a clue for you retards in The Sixth Sense video below. Replace the word dead with stupid.

Stop spamming my thread with stupidity.

If you have nothing worthwhile to say, don't say anything.

Back on topic -

The middle class can invest money, and reap the benefits of lower capital gains tax as well. Investments aren't just things allowed to the rich.

So exempt the first 20K of capital gains from tax to benefit small investors. Stop subsidizing the rich.

No. How are the rich being subsidized? Just because there's a lower rate on capital gains and an investor gets to keep more of what his investments gained him doesn't mean he's being subsidized.

Do you even know what subsidize means?

Sibsidize - Support (an organization or activity) financially. Pay part of the cost of producing (something) to reduce prices for the buyer.

Nobody is subsidizing anything for them. Where are you getting this stuff man?

 

[konradv]

What did he say? I have no sound

Muost of the income earned by the wealthy are capital gains, and not taxed at the same rate as regular income because they aren't present at any given year.

For example, you may have stock options that have been accumulating for 5 or 10 years. The year you cash these out, your income will spike up. But only for that year. Capital gains tax takes into account that the income you've just cashed out on has been earned throughout a period of time.

Which is why it is taxed at a much lower rate. Combine that with the income they earned that is taxed at the highest rate, and that's how you have the rich paying a lower effective tax rate. Which in reality, is perfectly fine.

That reason for a lower rate on capital gains doesn't make sense, because the tax code provides several different means for spreading out the effects of a one-year earnings spike.

 

[KissMy]

Stop spamming my thread with stupidity.

If you have nothing worthwhile to say, don't say anything.

Back on topic -

The middle class can invest money, and reap the benefits of lower capital gains tax as well. Investments aren't just things allowed to the rich.

So exempt the first 20K of capital gains from tax to benefit small investors. Stop subsidizing the rich.

No. How are the rich being subsidized? Just because there's a lower rate on capital gains and an investor gets to keep more of what his investments gained him doesn't mean he's being subsidized.

Do you even know what subsidize means?

Sibsidize - Support (an organization or activity) financially. Pay part of the cost of producing (something) to reduce prices for the buyer.

Nobody is subsidizing anything for them. Where are you getting this stuff man?

Carried interest is not risking capital investment. It is evading earnings taxes.

You don't pay taxes if you lose money you risk, you get a tax cut on loss.

Exempt the first 20K of capital gains to benefit the middle class investor & stop subsidizing the rich.

Subsidy Definition from Merriam Webster Dictionary:

Financial assistance, either through direct payments or through indirect means such as price cuts and favourable contracts, to a person or group in order to promote a public objective. Subsidies to transportation, housing, agriculture, mining, and other industries have been instituted on the grounds that their preservation or expansion is in the public interest. Subsidies to the arts, sciences, humanities, and religion also exist in many nations where the private economy is unable to support them. Examples of direct subsidies include payments in cash or in kind, while more-indirect subsidies include governmental provision of goods or services at prices below the normal market price, governmental purchase of goods or services at prices above the market price, and tax concessions. Although subsidies exist to promote the public welfare, they result in either higher taxes or higher prices for consumer goods. Some subsidies, such as protective tariffs, may also encourage the preservation of inefficient producers. A subsidy is desirable only if its effects increase total benefits more than total costs.
.
.
.
I have to go check on a employee. I will rejoin this this fantasy thread later.
.

 

[DiamondDave]

Exemptions.. yeah.. all we need is more subjective criteria in the tax code

 

[tooAlive]

So exempt the first 20K of capital gains from tax to benefit small investors. Stop subsidizing the rich.

No. How are the rich being subsidized? Just because there's a lower rate on capital gains and an investor gets to keep more of what his investments gained him doesn't mean he's being subsidized.

Do you even know what subsidize means?

Sibsidize - Support (an organization or activity) financially. Pay part of the cost of producing (something) to reduce prices for the buyer.

Nobody is subsidizing anything for them. Where are you getting this stuff man?

Carried interest is not risking capital investment. It is evading earnings taxes.

You don't pay taxes if you lose money you risk, you get a tax cut on loss.

Exempt the first 20K of capital gains to benefit the middle class investor & stop subsidizing the rich.

Subsidy Definition from Merriam Webster Dictionary:

Financial assistance, either through direct payments or through indirect means such as price cuts and favourable contracts, to a person or group in order to promote a public objective. Subsidies to transportation, housing, agriculture, mining, and other industries have been instituted on the grounds that their preservation or expansion is in the public interest. Subsidies to the arts, sciences, humanities, and religion also exist in many nations where the private economy is unable to support them. Examples of direct subsidies include payments in cash or in kind, while more-indirect subsidies include governmental provision of goods or services at prices below the normal market price, governmental purchase of goods or services at prices above the market price, and tax concessions. Although subsidies exist to promote the public welfare, they result in either higher taxes or higher prices for consumer goods. Some subsidies, such as protective tariffs, may also encourage the preservation of inefficient producers. A subsidy is desirable only if its effects increase total benefits more than total costs.
.
.
.
I have to go check on a employee. I will rejoin this this fantasy thread later.
.

Those "Tax Concessions" you speak of apply to everybody.

You mentioned the poor are subsidizing the rich. No they aren't. They can invest and attain the benefit of lower capital gains tax the same as any rich investor.

And exempt on the first 20k? That's nonsense. So you want to punish the more successful investors just because they're successful? That seems a little unfair to me. And all for what? To fund an incompetent government? No thanks.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

No, this is not how it should be.

So you think the world would be better off if we dismantled the "1%" and redistributed their wealth among everyone else?

No, that's not how it works. There are countless amounts of people who have started out with nothing, and ended up in the 1%. Giving everyone else a free ride to the top is beyond immoral.

That, my friend, would be unfair.

I have explained many times to you personally, why redistributing a large portion of 1% wealth is only restoring fairness to some extent. Because it is the 1% who are getting an easy ride -- their efforts are compensated disproportionately.

....Not-to-mention the HELP they receive!!!​

"There's nowhere else in the world, nowhere else in the world, that people can accrue the kind of fortunes that happen here. And that's because of the kind of country we have.

And the kind of country we have is a function of the taxes that we pay to provide security, we have a stable market, you can predict next week will be pretty much like the week before.

We have the most immense investment being made by our government in advancing businesses by supporting the enormous research industry that's going on in this country. And it's that piece of government expenditure that which has everything to do with the health and robustness of our economy."

- Bill Gates, Sr.​

 

[Old Rocks]

Lately I've heard the argument that the rich are paying a lower effective tax rate than the poor used quite a bit. And while that is true, there is a very good reason for that.

Here's why there is nothing wrong with the rich actually paying a lower effective tax rate than the average worker. And no, it has nothing to do with the fact that 20% of the wealthiest Americans are already paying for 70% of all federal taxes. (Although that is also true. )

RTS: Thomas Sowell vs Occupy Wall Street and Obama - YouTube

-- For those that would rather not watch the video --

Most of the income earned by the wealthy are capital gains, and not taxed at the same rate as regular income because they aren't present at any given year.

For example, you may have stock options that have been accumulating for 5 or 10 years. The year you cash these out, your income will spike up. But only for that year. Capital gains tax takes into account that the income you've just cashed out on has been earned throughout a period of time.

Which is why it is taxed at a much lower rate. Combine that with the income they earned that is taxed at the highest rate, and that's how you have the rich paying a lower effective tax rate. Which in reality, is perfectly fine.

So we have extremely wealthy people paying far less percentage on millions than the kid just out of school making minimum wage. And that is the ideal according to fools like you.

Here is what the goal is. All income from whatever source taxed at the same rate. And nobody in the upper brackets pays a lessor percentage of their income from whatever source than does the middle class earner.

Start moving the distribution of income down the hill, instead of up the hill as it has been for the last 33 years.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

There's nothing fair about redistributing the wealth.

Then why EVERY civilized country is doing it?

Just because they're doing it doesn't mean it's fair.

Do you think it's right that terrorists blow up buildings? But they're ALL doing it! That's like what a little kid would say.. "But MOM!! All my friends are doing it!!"

I pretty-certain that's still the Teabaggers' rallying-cry.

 

[Old Rocks]

Lately I've heard the argument that the rich paying a lower effective tax rate than the poor used quite a bit. And while that is true, there is a very good reason for that.

Here's why there is nothing wrong with the rich actually paying a lower effective tax rate than the average worker. And no, it has nothing to do with the fact that 20% of the wealthiest Americans are already paying for 70% of all federal taxes. (Although that is also true. )

RTS: Thomas Sowell vs Occupy Wall Street and Obama - YouTube

Right wing lies debunked countless times:
* very few people reach 1%
* the rich pay more in taxes because they receive more income

Thee vast majority of the wealth held by the top 1 percent doesn’t come from income, but from stocks, securities, business equity and other investments.

I see. So their dollar is taxed at a much lower rate because they did nothing to earn it. Now that is real 'Conservative' logic.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

There's nothing fair about redistributing the wealth.

Then why EVERY civilized country is doing it?

Because you are misuing the word civilized. Civilized people dont rob their neighbors to give money to themselves or others.

True!

They help-out....​

....each other!!!!​

 

[DiamondDave]

Right wing lies debunked countless times:
* very few people reach 1%
* the rich pay more in taxes because they receive more income

Thee vast majority of the wealth held by the top 1 percent doesn’t come from income, but from stocks, securities, business equity and other investments.

I see. So their dollar is taxed at a much lower rate because they did nothing to earn it. Now that is real 'Conservative' logic.

Yeah.. investing is SO easy.. that is why EVERYONE gets rich off it and nobody fails...

Capital gains at 15%... hell, nobody should be paying more than 15% in income tax to the fed IMHO ... so if federal income tax were at 15% just like capital gains, for EVERYONE without exception, you would then applaud that??

 

[BlindBoo]

Personally I think long term capital gains should be taxed as income along with wages. Nothing special about holding on to an investment for more than a year before selling it.

 

[tooAlive]

Thee vast majority of the wealth held by the top 1 percent doesn’t come from income, but from stocks, securities, business equity and other investments.

I see. So their dollar is taxed at a much lower rate because they did nothing to earn it. Now that is real 'Conservative' logic.

Yeah.. investing is SO easy.. that is why EVERYONE gets rich off it and nobody fails...

Capital gains at 15%... hell, nobody should be paying more than 15% in income tax to the fed IMHO ... so if federal income tax were at 15% just like capital gains, for EVERYONE without exception, you would then applaud that??

All they want is for the people that are successful and making more money to simply be forced to pay more.

So the government can continue to pump out free shit and waste our money.

 

[ilia25]

There's nothing fair about redistributing the wealth.

Then why EVERY civilized country is doing it?

Just because they're doing it doesn't mean it's fair.

Not necessarily. But it does highlight the extent to which you lack common sense.

Most people agree that it's the efforts that the society should reward, not the luck. And that the rich are very fortunate.

But not you.

 

[KissMy]

Personally I think long term capital gains should be taxed as income along with wages. Nothing special about holding on to an investment for more than a year before selling it.

exactly I have worked on many projects that have taken over a year to pay off. Most fall into the next fiscal year.

 

[KissMy]

No. How are the rich being subsidized? Just because there's a lower rate on capital gains and an investor gets to keep more of what his investments gained him doesn't mean he's being subsidized.

Do you even know what subsidize means?

Sibsidize - Support (an organization or activity) financially. Pay part of the cost of producing (something) to reduce prices for the buyer.

Nobody is subsidizing anything for them. Where are you getting this stuff man?

Carried interest is not risking capital investment. It is evading earnings taxes.

You don't pay taxes if you lose money you risk, you get a tax cut on loss.

Exempt the first 20K of capital gains to benefit the middle class investor & stop subsidizing the rich.

Subsidy Definition from Merriam Webster Dictionary:

Financial assistance, either through direct payments or through indirect means such as price cuts and favourable contracts, to a person or group in order to promote a public objective. Subsidies to transportation, housing, agriculture, mining, and other industries have been instituted on the grounds that their preservation or expansion is in the public interest. Subsidies to the arts, sciences, humanities, and religion also exist in many nations where the private economy is unable to support them. Examples of direct subsidies include payments in cash or in kind, while more-indirect subsidies include governmental provision of goods or services at prices below the normal market price, governmental purchase of goods or services at prices above the market price, and tax concessions. Although subsidies exist to promote the public welfare, they result in either higher taxes or higher prices for consumer goods. Some subsidies, such as protective tariffs, may also encourage the preservation of inefficient producers. A subsidy is desirable only if its effects increase total benefits more than total costs.

Those "Tax Concessions" you speak of apply to everybody.

You mentioned the poor are subsidizing the rich. No they aren't. They can invest and attain the benefit of lower capital gains tax the same as any rich investor.

And exempt on the first 20k? That's nonsense. So you want to punish the more successful investors just because they're successful? That seems a little unfair to me. And all for what? To fund an incompetent government? No thanks.

I never said that the poor subsidize the rich. You are trippin dude.

You want to continue to use the tax code punish the successful hard working middle class by stealing their hard earned money & giving it to the rich. That is communisic redistribution of wealth by government imposed taxes.

All they want is for the people that are successful and making more money to simply be forced to pay more.

So the government can continue to pump out free shit and waste our money.

You actually believe that increasing taxes increases how much free shit the government hands out!

Like I keep telling you time after time. You have no idea how the economy, taxes, government spending or the federal reserve works.

If the rich do not pay their taxes, debt goes up & we all pay with inflation. That increases government hand-outs. If the rich got off the government tax tit & paid what they owe, debt would go down & the hand-outs will go down because inflation goes down.

The more debt inflation climbs due to non-payment of taxes by the rich, more voters will depend on government & vote for more handouts & more taxes on the rich. Dumb ***** like you & Grover Norquist screaming STARVE GOVERNMENT caused this debt inflation cycle nightmare & created all these government dependants who vote against you economic retards.

 

[bripat9643]

Then why EVERY civilized country is doing it?

Just because they're doing it doesn't mean it's fair.

Not necessarily. But it does highlight the extent to which you lack common sense.

Most people agree that it's the efforts that the society should reward, not the luck. And that the rich are very fortunate.

But not you.

Speaking of lacking common sense, when have politicians every demonstrated the ability to reward people according to what they deserve?

Here's a thought for you to consider: the free market is where consumers reward produces according to the merits of what they produce. Government is where people who suck-hole politicians get rewarded.

 

[tooAlive]

Carried interest is not risking capital investment. It is evading earnings taxes.

You don't pay taxes if you lose money you risk, you get a tax cut on loss.

Exempt the first 20K of capital gains to benefit the middle class investor & stop subsidizing the rich.

Subsidy Definition from Merriam Webster Dictionary:

Financial assistance, either through direct payments or through indirect means such as price cuts and favourable contracts, to a person or group in order to promote a public objective. Subsidies to transportation, housing, agriculture, mining, and other industries have been instituted on the grounds that their preservation or expansion is in the public interest. Subsidies to the arts, sciences, humanities, and religion also exist in many nations where the private economy is unable to support them. Examples of direct subsidies include payments in cash or in kind, while more-indirect subsidies include governmental provision of goods or services at prices below the normal market price, governmental purchase of goods or services at prices above the market price, and tax concessions. Although subsidies exist to promote the public welfare, they result in either higher taxes or higher prices for consumer goods. Some subsidies, such as protective tariffs, may also encourage the preservation of inefficient producers. A subsidy is desirable only if its effects increase total benefits more than total costs.

Those "Tax Concessions" you speak of apply to everybody.

You mentioned the poor are subsidizing the rich. No they aren't. They can invest and attain the benefit of lower capital gains tax the same as any rich investor.

And exempt on the first 20k? That's nonsense. So you want to punish the more successful investors just because they're successful? That seems a little unfair to me. And all for what? To fund an incompetent government? No thanks.

I never said that the poor subsidize the rich. You are trippin dude.

You want to continue to use the tax code punish the successful hard working middle class by stealing their hard earned money & giving it to the rich. That is communisic redistribution of wealth by government imposed taxes.

All they want is for the people that are successful and making more money to simply be forced to pay more.

So the government can continue to pump out free shit and waste our money.

You actually believe that increasing taxes increases how much free shit the government hands out!

Like I keep telling you time after time. You have no idea how the economy, taxes, government spending or the federal reserve works.

If the rich do not pay their taxes, debt goes up & we all pay with inflation. That increases government hand-outs. If the rich got off the government tax tit & paid what they owe, debt would go down & the hand-outs will go down because inflation goes down.

The more debt inflation climbs due to non-payment of taxes by the rich, more voters will depend on government & vote for more handouts & more taxes on the rich. Dumb ***** like you & Grover Norquist screaming STARVE GOVERNMENT caused this debt inflation cycle nightmare & created all these government dependants who vote against you economic retards.

What you fail to understand is that they're already paying too much.

We're not in debt because the rich aren't paying enough, but because the government is spending way, way too much.

 

[KissMy]

What you fail to understand is that they're already paying too much.

We're not in debt because the rich aren't paying enough, but because the government is spending way, way too much.

You are the one who fails to understand & that thinking is why the repubs lost 4 in a row now. But keep repeating that every hour like it's true or something. You could be a talking head on TV & radio yelling it into the mic confounded as to why we don't get it. The thing is we got it & know what to do with it.

It is quite possible that to much damage was already done by retards trying to starve the beast to avert the coming disaster & that is why I have a shit load of gold that I bought way back as the debt started rising from the communist redistribution to the rich tax cuts funded by the Social Security Trust Fund. Then like clock work inflation hit & subsequent spending rescue. Now the crying, whining & temper tantrums when they have to pay it back to the trust fund with interest.

Either way I make a bunch of money. It's just your way is austerity, crash, massive unemployment, riots & then a total communist takeover, loss of personal property rights & a failed US dollar. My way would bring back fiscal sanity & what is left of freedom.