Payroll Income vs. Capital Income

[edthecynic]

Oh AND if any investment goes south no matter the amount of loss, you only get to write off $3000.00.

I never said I did , reading comprehension try it sometime.....here;

Reading Comprehension Connection: Home

and, what difference does it make btw? at 3K a year how long would that take doodles?

and in case you missed it I answered that misdirection of yours, one more time-

Caught lying about being LIMITED to deducting "ONLY" 3k, you stoop to your typical pompous condescension to deflect from your repeated lie.
Thank you.

asked and answered you buffoon, instead of trying to catch me in something I already explained, you should read whats being written here and learn.....you are now engaged in trying to salvage your usual slobbering wreck of partisan mish mash instead of trying to have an honest conversation......

you are also scrambling the supposedly contradictory statements you are trying to make it appear I made, with your attempt to frame them both as such ( ala I never said I lost 50k etc etc )...you're wasting time, I said I didn't mention carry over initially and why....you're not helping yourself jesus christ wipe your chin, put your big boy pants on and take your thorazine.

Doubling down on your pompous condescension does not make you any less of a liar.

 

[American Horse]

Not all Buffets income is from capital gains.'

Berkshire Hathaway Pays him 100K a year.

He is scamming the system. If I tried to pay myself 20K a year and took the rest of my salary as dividends from my S corp I'd be slapped with fines and penalties for not paying myself enough and could very well lose my corporate status

The question is, How can Buffett get away with it and still owe a billion in back taxes.

The answer is he has corrupt politicians like Obama in his pocket.

It's legitimate for him to not pay himself anything as earned income or payroll income which would require no payment in taxes for that 100 grand except for the cap gains.

By doing it he causes a tax event for FICA which he wouldn't otherwise have to pay, as well as Federal income taxes and state taxes. So he's paying more in taxes than he is required to pay. How is that a scam, unless you think that he is doing it as a diversionary tactic, and the $15,600 he's paying to FICA (plus incoe taxes) is too cheap a price to pay for the impression it makes?

I assume he's doing it for other benefits too, that the tax system provides to citizens which have earned income and corresponding allowable deductions. He's not required by law to set up a shell company as you are suggesting you could do. Creating a corporation for the purpose of calling all but a nominal amount of that income dividends isn't what he's doing.

 

[starcraftzzz]

Caught lying about being LIMITED to deducting "ONLY" 3k, you stoop to your typical pompous condescension to deflect from your repeated lie.
Thank you.

If your capital losses exceed your capital gains, the amount of the excess loss that can be claimed is the lesser of $3,000, ($1,500 if you are married filing separately) or your total net loss as shown on line 16 of the Form 1040 Schedule D, Capital Gains and Losses. If your net capital loss is more than this limit, you can carry the loss forward to later years. Use the Capital Loss Carryover Worksheet in Publication 550, to figure the amount carried forward.

Tax Topics - Topic 409 Capital Gains and Losses

Here you go idiot.

Yes you lying and being incorrect means others are idiots

 

[Dragon]

No altering quotes-Meister

Hmm, nothing left . . . Yep, as I suspected -- nothing there at all.

 

[Dragon]

here is the tax we paid, up front, to take possession of every share-

You pay that tax on the capital you invest in the shares. You do not pay it on the capital gains from sale of the shares. Nor do you pay capital gains taxes on the same money on which you pay the taxes you listed.

No matter how you try to obfuscate matters, that remains true.

 

[Trajan]

pointless personal insults utterly devoid of cognitive content and presenting zero in the way of argument or evidence snipped for brevity]

Hmm, nothing left . . . Yep, as I suspected -- nothing there at all.[/QUOTE]

especially when you avoid an answer you cannot or will not answer, but carry on...

 

[Trajan]

here is the tax we paid, up front, to take possession of every share-

You pay that tax on the capital you invest in the shares. You do not pay it on the capital gains from sale of the shares. Nor do you pay capital gains taxes on the same money on which you pay the taxes you listed.

No matter how you try to obfuscate matters, that remains true.

wtf are you talking about? post the whole quote and explain what you just said....this ought to be good...

 

[Dragon]

Capital is largely money that Warren has THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN TAXED.

He does not pay capital gains on the money he invests. He pays only on the returns over and above investment. The implication that the money is taxed twice is false.

So you are saying that the dividends are paid out before the company meets its tax obligation?

No, I am not saying that, nor does what you quoted say that, or imply that, or in any way suggest that.

 

[Dragon]

[pointless personal insults utterly devoid of cognitive content and presenting zero in the way of argument or evidence snipped for brevity]

Hmm, nothing left . . . Yep, as I suspected -- nothing there at all.

especially when you avoid an answer you cannot or will not answer, but carry on...[/QUOTE]

I did not avoid making an answer. I was asked nothing, merely called names, and so I answered nothing. I don't consider name-calling worthy of an answer and so I don't provide one.

 

[Dragon]

here is the tax we paid, up front, to take possession of every share-

You pay that tax on the capital you invest in the shares. You do not pay it on the capital gains from sale of the shares. Nor do you pay capital gains taxes on the same money on which you pay the taxes you listed.

No matter how you try to obfuscate matters, that remains true.

wtf are you talking about? post the whole quote and explain what you just said....this ought to be good...

No, I'm not going to do that, because you used the "blizzard" method of debate -- presenting huge amounts of data in a confusing format -- and the proper response to that tactic is to cut it down to the point, which I did.

You claimed that you paid various federal taxes "up front, to take possession of the shares that you did." Fine, but capital gains taxes on that money you did NOT pay. When you take money from your income, derived from salary or wages, and invest it in stocks, you pay income tax and payroll tax or self-employment tax on that money before you invest it. When you sell the stock, if you do so at a profit, you get back the money you invested and then some.

You pay capital gains taxes on the "then some." You do NOT pay it on the money you originally invested. If that's all you get back, you pay no tax on it at all. No matter how you parse it, you are only taxed once on any given income.

 

[Trajan]

blizzard method? huge amounts of data? you didn't post it becasue just made a mish mash of it.....

your post above a) contradicts itself, b) makes a mish mash of things I already stated ala paying the then some.... c) allows you to cherry pick, creating an illusion to fit your asnwer and disappearing other information I provided in one liners by the way ( HUUUUGE one liners you're history of such over 3 forums I have seen you practice this on)....d) you don't even know what constitutes caps gains, that much is clear.

 

[Dragon]

your post above a) contradicts itself,

How, exactly?

b) makes a mish mash of things I already stated ala paying the then some

On the contrary, it clarifies it and exposes the fact that you were full of shit. And what the hell is "paying the then some" supposed to mean?

The bottom line is that you paid taxes on that income ONLY ONCE -- not twice as you tried to suggest.

c) allows you to cherry pick

Why, yes, cutting your post down to size would indeed allow me to cherry-pick; however, I have not in fact done so.

Let's cut the bullshit and get down to cases, please. Answer the following questions.

1) Did you or did you not intend to create the impression that you had paid taxes twice on the income used to buy stocks? (That you were answering a statement by me that nobody does this would seem to suggest that you were.)

2) Do you or do you not, now, at this moment, claim that you did pay taxes twice on the income you used to buy stocks? Or that your wife did, whichever.

Answer these questions, thus removing all ambiguity, and we'll proceed from there.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Not all Buffets income is from capital gains.'

Berkshire Hathaway Pays him 100K a year.

He is scamming the system. If I tried to pay myself 20K a year and took the rest of my salary as dividends from my S corp I'd be slapped with fines and penalties for not paying myself enough and could very well lose my corporate status

The question is, How can Buffett get away with it and still owe a billion in back taxes.

The answer is he has corrupt politicians like Obama in his pocket.

It's legitimate for him to not pay himself anything as earned income or payroll income which would require no payment in taxes for that 100 grand except for the cap gains.

By doing it he causes a tax event for FICA which he wouldn't otherwise have to pay, as well as Federal income taxes and state taxes. So he's paying more in taxes than he is required to pay. How is that a scam, unless you think that he is doing it as a diversionary tactic, and the $15,600 he's paying to FICA (plus incoe taxes) is too cheap a price to pay for the impression it makes?

I assume he's doing it for other benefits too, that the tax system provides to citizens which have earned income and corresponding allowable deductions. He's not required by law to set up a shell company as you are suggesting you could do. Creating a corporation for the purpose of calling all but a nominal amount of that income dividends isn't what he's doing.

I have not set up a shell corporation. My legitimate business is an S corp. If the IRS deems that I don't pay myself a high enough salary then I will be fined and quite possibly lose my corporate status.

I couldn't get away with paying myself 10K a year and taking the rest of my compensation as dividends. So how can Buffett get away with only paying himself 100K for what he does unless he has someone in his pocket telling the IRS to stay off his back?

 

[Trajan]

your post above a) contradicts itself,

How, exactly?

b) makes a mish mash of things I already stated ala paying the then some

On the contrary, it clarifies it and exposes the fact that you were full of shit. And what the hell is "paying the then some" supposed to mean?

The bottom line is that you paid taxes on that income ONLY ONCE -- not twice as you tried to suggest.

c) allows you to cherry pick

Why, yes, cutting your post down to size would indeed allow me to cherry-pick; however, I have not in fact done so.

Let's cut the bullshit and get down to cases, please. Answer the following questions.

1) Did you or did you not intend to create the impression that you had paid taxes twice on the income used to buy stocks? (That you were answering a statement by me that nobody does this would seem to suggest that you were.)

2) Do you or do you not, now, at this moment, claim that you did pay taxes twice on the income you used to buy stocks? Or that your wife did, whichever.

Answer these questions, thus removing all ambiguity, and we'll proceed from there.

you cannot even read. this is past farce.....I never said I 'bought' them for Christ sakes....you're worse than ed, I swear to god.

so now you want to make demands? oh yeah, I'll get right on that..., you could not even post a simple quote due toa " blizzard" of data.....I have to remember that one....I'll string that together...yea, blizzard of data, I am sorry homer, you asking for a blizzard of data since I would be re-explaining what I sad back there, so looks like you'll just have to remain as ignorant as you came here......


here, some for you;

do you know what a short term or long term capital gain is?

are dividends taxed twice?


and this:

"paying the then some"

I was quoting your phrase you fruit loop...

 

[LeftofLeft]

If a investor loses money it is a capital loss too. That goes to adjusted income. Income should be income. It should be taxed as income. If you live on investments(capital gain or intrest) and make 100,000 dollars a year you should be taxed in the income bracket for 100,000 dollars.

I am not suggesting that capital gains tax rates be eliminated......just that they (at least) stay the same. You want any and all income to be taxed the same. What impact will that have on Capital markets? Are people going to invest more, hold their money, or seek alternative investments (foreign) where they are protected from a high capital gains tax rate in the US? Some of the wealthiest elite who will be taking this path bear the names of Kennedy, Pelosi, Kerry......and, they should.

Capital is not a bad word. When it comes to Capital tax rates, I subscribe to JFK's notion that these should be kept low so that a "a rising tide can be created to raise all ships." Economic policies rooted in envy along with elite-led specious promises of equal redistribution for all only serve to accomplish two things:
1) Entrench the Elite
2) Eliminate The Middle Class

Yes because trickle down has worked so well... wait no it hasn't. Plz enter reality.

REALITY: Real Unemployment has hovered above 9% since 2009. Capital is already staying on the sidelines or going overseas because of uncertainty over taxes and more government regulation. Small business is afraid to hire. You want reality, go ask a sampling of small business person which environment they are more likely to hire....an environment of Redistribution or Trickle Down? Asail trickle down all you want and blame it for the problems exacerbated by policies rooted in economic transformation with more government intervention vs. recovery focused on the small business.....many more smiling face of optimism during trickle down.

 

[Dragon]

you cannot even read.

I can read just fine. My problem may be that you can't write. Perhaps I was attributing to malice what can properly be explained by stupidity. If so, my bad.

If you were claiming that you paid double taxes on that income, you have been answered. If not, you have said nothing pertinent regarding the thread topic, in which case there's no need to answer you. Either way, no need to say more.

And no, I'm not going to play the game of "let's complicate the discussion so as to confuse matters even more and cover my trail better." The distinction between long and short term capital gains is of no importance to this discussion. Neither is the question of dividends.

 

[LeftofLeft]

This is nothing new but cannot be emphasized enough. The President and his Buffet Rule Mantra conveniently leave the distinction out of the debate. It is important for American people to realize that Warren Buffet's secretary is taxed more than Warren Buffet because his secretary's tax rate is largely based on her salary where has Warren himself is taxed at a lower rate BECAUSE all of his income is from Capital Gains, which is a lower rate. WHY is it a lower rate? Because it is a gain from capital invested by Warren. Capital is largely money that Warren has THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN TAXED.

Um no the proceeds of his capital gains have not been taxed.

This is all designed to increase taxes, salary and captial gains, to higher rates. This is being sold to the American people under the guise of "fairness" as the millionaires will now pay their share. But, Americans should think twice; in particular, Seniors living in retirement off the Capital Gains from their investments. Think Seniors are eager to pay 25% vs. 15% on income??

Um no because the capital gains taxes would only apply to rich people of which the vast majority of seniors are not effected. Furthermore how you republicans think poor people paying more taxes then billionaires is fair is just more evidence that you're idiot and tools.
Nice try at lying though

"Paying more taxes" needs a consensus. The Bottom 50% of income earners pay taxes totaling less tan 3% of the Federal intake. The top 10% of wage earners pay 70% of the Federal intake. The poor can keep paying at the current levels for all I care. But, keep punishing high annual income earners for success and you will see the pool of high income earners diminish. Then, the defnintion of high income earners will necessarily include middle class income earners in order to increase the pool and "keep things fair".

 

[Dragon]

The Bottom 50% of income earners pay taxes totaling less tan 3% of the Federal intake. The top 10% of wage earners pay 70% of the Federal intake.

Utterly and totally irrelevant. The important question is what percentage of their income each group pays, NOT what percentage of the total tax proceeds each group pays. The latter is in large measure a function of what percentage of the total income each group makes, and to use it without specifying that as well is in effect to lie.

 

[Trajan]

you cannot even read.

I can read just fine. My problem may be that you can't write. Perhaps I was attributing to malice what can properly be explained by stupidity. If so, my bad.

If you were claiming that you paid double taxes on that income, you have been answered. If not, you have said nothing pertinent regarding the thread topic, in which case there's no need to answer you. Either way, no need to say more.

And no, I'm not going to play the game of "let's complicate the discussion so as to confuse matters even more and cover my trail better." The distinction between long and short term capital gains is of no importance to this discussion. Neither is the question of dividends.

a stock grant isn't bought .....see? wow huh? I sure hid that didn't I? what a rambling wreck you are.


and my emphasis ala the bold, lack of understanding, proven...thx.

and dividends? wanna take a shot at that? come on, don't stop now, keep digging.

 

[Trajan]

The Bottom 50% of income earners pay taxes totaling less tan 3% of the Federal intake. The top 10% of wage earners pay 70% of the Federal intake.

Utterly and totally irrelevant. The important question is what percentage of their income each group pays, NOT what percentage of the total tax proceeds each group pays. The latter is in large measure a function of what percentage of the total income each group makes, and to use it without specifying that as well is in effect to lie.

I love it