'Taxing the Rich'

[OohPooPahDoo]

401(k) plans are already taxed as ordinary income upon withdrawal, the special capital gains rate does not apply and never has. So removing the capital gains tax on non-tax deferred gains would have zero effect on 401(k)'s. You're an ignorant twat.

Good god are you a stupid fuck.

{Depending on whether the plan allows, employees can make contributions to the 401k on a pre-tax or post tax basis. With either pre-tax or after-tax contributions, earnings from investments in a 401(k) account (in the form of interest, dividends, or capital gains) are tax deferred.}

401(k) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's not a savings account, shit fer brains. Anything earned above the initial investment is a capital gain, and taxed as such.

Jesus but you're fucking stupid.

Seriously.

I was right. You can't comprehend English. Or you're too lazy to read. The quote below is from the same link you posted. I have underlined the section that you actually quoted just to show you how close you came to actually learning about your ignorance. The larger font at the end is what you need to know.

Depending on whether the plan allows, employees can make contributions to the 401k on a pre-tax or post tax basis. With either pre-tax or after-tax contributions, earnings from investments in a 401(k) account (in the form of interest, dividends, or capital gains) are tax deferred. The resulting compounding interest with delayed taxation is a major benefit of the 401(k) plan when held over long periods of time. Starting in the 2006 tax year, employees can also elect to designate contributions as a Roth 401(k) deduction. Similar to the provisions of a Roth IRA these contributions are made on an after-tax basis and all earnings on these funds not only are tax deferred but could be tax free upon a qualified distribution. However, to do so, the plan sponsor must amend the plan to make those options available.

For pre-tax contributions, the employee does not pay federal income tax on the amount of current income that he or she defers to a 401(k) account. For example, a worker who earns $50,000 in a particular year and defers $3,000 into a 401(k) account that year only recognizes $47,000 in income on that year's tax return. Currently this would represent a near term $750 savings in taxes for a single worker, assuming the worker remained in the 25% marginal tax bracket and there were no other adjustments (e.g., deductions). The employee ultimately pays taxes on the money as he or she withdraws the funds, generally during retirement. The character of any gains (including tax favored capital gains) are transformed into "ordinary income" at the time the money is withdrawn.

There's also this:

All distributions from a standard 401(k) are taxed as ordinary income.

How is money taken from a 401k taxed? - Yahoo! Answers

and this

With rare exceptions, all 401K withdrawals are taxable as ordinary income.

401K Withdrawals - Rules for 401K Withdrawals and Early Withdrawals



Yeah sorry, you're wrong. 401(k)'s are taxed as ordinary income. Everyone knows this. Except you I guess.

Its really hard to debate tax policy with someone who lacks a fundamental understanding of how the tax code works.

 

[Bern80]

Hey who needs workers? We'll tax the hardest workers at 35% so the investors can enjoy a 15% rate, that's fair.

Another lib pretending they care about a fair tax code. That's rich (pardon the pun). If you really were after fair, you would support a measure that treats everyone the same under the tax code.

So that's your explanation for why its fair to tax workers 35% and investors 15%?

I have never made the argument that it was fair.

Yet when these solutions to make the tax system fair are proposed you libs ignore them.

You mean like you're doing RIGHT NOW you hypocritical douchebag?

Yes like I'm dong right now. Being hypocrtical would be ignoring your suggestions as to what would make a fair tax code, which I can't say I've seen out of Poo's pages of poo so far.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Another lib pretending they care about a fair tax code. That's rich (pardon the pun). If you really were after fair, you would support a measure that treats everyone the same under the tax code.

So that's your explanation for why its fair to tax workers 35% and investors 15%?

I have never made the argument that it was fair.

Yeah, whose the one "pretending" they care about a fair tax code.


It is fundamentally unjust to tax someone who makes $1,000,000 in the stock market less than someone who makes $1,000,000 from his own physical and mental labor.

It also results in an distortion of the market, the "encouragement" to invest is an artificial one created by the tax code, not actual market fundamentals.

Consider two people with $1,000,000 in savings. Person A takes the money and buys a pizza shop. Person B takes it and buys low risk stocks on the open market. Person A will have to pay ordinary income tax on the profits from his enterprise (until the day he sells it) - person B will get a special, lower rate. Person A has in fact taken a greater risk with his capital - person A also has to put sweat equity into his business - person B just sits around as his relatively lower risk investment gains value and pays qualified dividends over time. The tax code as it stands now encourages people to become person B - not person A - but inarguably person A is actually producing more. Why should the tax code encourage people to produce less? The reason is that person B has more time to hire lobbyists to go to washington to secure his special tax rate - while person A, the small businessman, the lifeblood of this nation, is too busy actually working to worry much about politics.

 

[Bern80]

So that's your explanation for why its fair to tax workers 35% and investors 15%?

I have never made the argument that it was fair.

Yeah, whose the one "pretending" they care about a fair tax code.


It is fundamentally unjust to tax someone who makes $1,000,000 in the stock market less than someone who makes $1,000,000 from his own physical and mental labor.

It also results in an distortion of the market, the "encouragement" to invest is an artificial one created by the tax code, not actual market fundamentals.

Consider two people with $1,000,000 in savings. Person A takes the money and buys a pizza shop. Person B takes it and buys low risk stocks on the open market. Person A will have to pay ordinary income tax on the profits from his enterprise (until the day he sells it) - person B will get a special, lower rate. Person A has in fact taken a greater risk with his capital - person A also has to put sweat equity into his business - person B just sits around as his relatively lower risk investment gains value and pays qualified dividends over time. The tax code as it stands now encourages people to become person B - not person A - but inarguably person A is actually producing more. Why should the tax code encourage people to produce less? The reason is that person B has more time to hire lobbyists to go to washington to secure his special tax rate - while person A, the small businessman, the lifeblood of this nation, is too busy actually working to worry much about politics.

It shouldn't. It should treat everyone the same. I am just so tired of this one sided argument of unfairness. Because the poor, which you most certainly can be and still have a job earning an income, also pay a lot less than many in income tax. Where is the indignation over the break they're getting? Why is it fair for person A making $1,000,000 to pay a higher percentage rate than person B making $25,000?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

It shouldn't. It should treat everyone the same. I am just so tired of this one sided argument of unfairness. Because the poor, which you most certainly can be and still have a job earning an income, also pay a lot less than many in income tax.

No shit. The poor have less to spare. Duh. On the other hand, a doctor who make 500k a year and a stock broker who make 500k - have the same income, yet get treated vastly differently by the tax code.

Where is the indignation over the break they're getting?

Why would their be indignation over the POOR getting a break?

Why is it fair for person A making $1,000,000 to pay a higher percentage rate than person B making $25,000?

Because the poor person needs their $1 more than the rich person. This should be blatantly obvious. If we tax the poor more, its not going to make them MORE able to take care of their children ,it will make them LESS able - and when the poor can't take care of their children, who do you think winds up footing the bill?

That being said, to close the deficit will require higher taxation on everyone.

 

[DiamondDave]

It shouldn't. It should treat everyone the same. I am just so tired of this one sided argument of unfairness. Because the poor, which you most certainly can be and still have a job earning an income, also pay a lot less than many in income tax.

No shit. The poor have less to spare. Duh. On the other hand, a doctor who make 500k a year and a stock broker who make 500k - have the same income, yet get treated vastly differently by the tax code.

Where is the indignation over the break they're getting?

Why would their be indignation over the POOR getting a break?

Why is it fair for person A making $1,000,000 to pay a higher percentage rate than person B making $25,000?

Because the poor person needs their $1 more than the rich person. This should be blatantly obvious. If we tax the poor more, its not going to make them MORE able to take care of their children ,it will make them LESS able - and when the poor can't take care of their children, who do you think winds up footing the bill?

That being said, to close the deficit will require higher taxation on everyone.

There is indignation because it is unequal treatment by government based on subjective FEELINGS...

You have the freedom to succeed that goes hand in hand with the freedom to fail... as justice is blind to income, race, creed, situation, so should the tax code be

It is not up to you nor the government to tell me how much is enough for my need... just as it is not up to you nor the government to take care of my personal responsibilities for me

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

There is indignation because it is unequal treatment by government based on subjective FEELINGS...

Sorry its not based on feelings, its based on practical economic realities. And it isn't unequal. Two identical tax returns results in identical taxation regardless of race, creed, religion, or anything really.

You have the freedom to succeed that goes hand in hand with the freedom to fail... as justice is blind to income, race, creed, situation, so should the tax code be

Great. I don't really see your point.

It is not up to you nor the government to tell me how much is enough for my need...

They aren't.

 

[DiamondDave]

There is indignation because it is unequal treatment by government based on subjective FEELINGS...

Sorry its not based on feelings, its based on practical economic realities. And it isn't unequal. Two identical tax returns results in identical taxation regardless of race, creed, religion, or anything really.

You have the freedom to succeed that goes hand in hand with the freedom to fail... as justice is blind to income, race, creed, situation, so should the tax code be

Great. I don't really see your point.

It is not up to you nor the government to tell me how much is enough for my need...

They aren't.

No... it is based on your SUBJECTIVE view of fair... whereas the rest of us are basing it on completely equal treatment... taxing the dollar earned equally (each and every one of 'em) without regard to semantics

And it is YOU that stated that that a poor person NEEDS a dollar more than a rich one... in a feeble attempt to state who needs what... a typical liberal winger move..

Look.. you want to donate more... you are free to do so... you feel some moral need to give more to the government than what others give, knock yourself out, nothing is stopping you

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

No... it is based on your SUBJECTIVE view of fair...

No, it isn't.

whereas the rest of us are basing it on completely equal treatment... taxing the dollar earned equally (each and every one of 'em) without regard to semantics

Semantics? You're a fucking moron.

 

[Bern80]

It shouldn't. It should treat everyone the same. I am just so tired of this one sided argument of unfairness. Because the poor, which you most certainly can be and still have a job earning an income, also pay a lot less than many in income tax.

No shit. The poor have less to spare. Duh. On the other hand, a doctor who make 500k a year and a stock broker who make 500k - have the same income, yet get treated vastly differently by the tax code.

Where is the indignation over the break they're getting?

Why would their be indignation over the POOR getting a break?

Why is it fair for person A making $1,000,000 to pay a higher percentage rate than person B making $25,000?

Because the poor person needs their $1 more than the rich person. This should be blatantly obvious. If we tax the poor more, its not going to make them MORE able to take care of their children ,it will make them LESS able - and when the poor can't take care of their children, who do you think winds up footing the bill?

That being said, to close the deficit will require higher taxation on everyone.

What they NEED has NOTHING to do with what is FAIR. Fair means those who benefit from taxes need to contribute to it. Fair is not defined by what you NEED it is defined by who receives the benefits from the the taxes. And a very large segment of the population is receiving benefits they aren't paying for. Some are paying for benefits they receive. Others don't need the benefits but are paying for them anyway.

The simple fact is your excuse that it's fair for the poor to not pay because they can't afford it, fits no known definition of th word 'fair'. You can call it a lot of things if you like; charitable, compassionate, freeloading, but fair isn't one of them.

 

[boedicca]

Fair means the Government not mugging one person to buy votes from another.

 

[daveman]

Fair means the Government not mugging one person to buy votes from another.

According to the left, that IS the definition of fair.

 

[boedicca]

Well yes. To them, fair means suspension of the rules so they are WINNING!

 

[daveman]

Well yes. To them, fair means suspension of the rules so they are WINNING!

 

[Luissa]

Well that was a fun read.

Mr. Nick is really dumb. For real.

 

[Cecilie1200]

So that's your explanation for why its fair to tax workers 35% and investors 15%?

I have never made the argument that it was fair.

Yeah, whose the one "pretending" they care about a fair tax code.


It is fundamentally unjust to tax someone who makes $1,000,000 in the stock market less than someone who makes $1,000,000 from his own physical and mental labor.

It also results in an distortion of the market, the "encouragement" to invest is an artificial one created by the tax code, not actual market fundamentals.

Consider two people with $1,000,000 in savings. Person A takes the money and buys a pizza shop. Person B takes it and buys low risk stocks on the open market. Person A will have to pay ordinary income tax on the profits from his enterprise (until the day he sells it) - person B will get a special, lower rate. Person A has in fact taken a greater risk with his capital - person A also has to put sweat equity into his business - person B just sits around as his relatively lower risk investment gains value and pays qualified dividends over time. The tax code as it stands now encourages people to become person B - not person A - but inarguably person A is actually producing more. Why should the tax code encourage people to produce less? The reason is that person B has more time to hire lobbyists to go to washington to secure his special tax rate - while person A, the small businessman, the lifeblood of this nation, is too busy actually working to worry much about politics.

Frankly, Poo went wrong way back when he started trying to argue an adult subject - taxes - from a fundamentally childish premise - fairness - so it's really not surprising that everything that has come after was juvenile garbage.

There is no such thing as "fair". How can there be, when the word itself has no real meaning? It's the most subjective word in the English language, meaning something different to each and every person who hears it. Only children in schoolyards believe there is such a thing as "fair", or that the universe and anything in it is ever going to comply with that imaginary concept.

 

[AVG-JOE]

It shouldn't. It should treat everyone the same. I am just so tired of this one sided argument of unfairness. Because the poor, which you most certainly can be and still have a job earning an income, also pay a lot less than many in income tax.

No shit. The poor have less to spare. Duh. On the other hand, a doctor who make 500k a year and a stock broker who make 500k - have the same income, yet get treated vastly differently by the tax code.

Why would their be indignation over the POOR getting a break?

Why is it fair for person A making $1,000,000 to pay a higher percentage rate than person B making $25,000?

Because the poor person needs their $1 more than the rich person. This should be blatantly obvious. If we tax the poor more, its not going to make them MORE able to take care of their children ,it will make them LESS able - and when the poor can't take care of their children, who do you think winds up footing the bill?

That being said, to close the deficit will require higher taxation on everyone.

What they NEED has NOTHING to do with what is FAIR. Fair means those who benefit from taxes need to contribute to it. Fair is not defined by what you NEED it is defined by who receives the benefits from the the taxes. And a very large segment of the population is receiving benefits they aren't paying for. Some are paying for benefits they receive. Others don't need the benefits but are paying for them anyway.

The simple fact is your excuse that it's fair for the poor to not pay because they can't afford it, fits no known definition of th word 'fair'. You can call it a lot of things if you like; charitable, compassionate, freeloading, but fair isn't one of them.

Fair, at least when it comes to taxes, is we all pay the same. That is to say we all feel the same pinch.

Fairest tax structure I've ever heard of?

7 + 7 on 3

7% general sales tax on retail transactions
+
7% 'winners' tax on personal income in excess of $3 million.

Everybody earns their first $3 million per year free of ANY income tax, no corporate income taxes AT ALL and no corresponding loop holes - every entity, both corporate and living, just pays its fair share of 7% on every consumption purchase and lease whether business or personal and the living strive for the $3 million winners circle.

 

[AVG-JOE]

I have never made the argument that it was fair.

Yeah, whose the one "pretending" they care about a fair tax code.


It is fundamentally unjust to tax someone who makes $1,000,000 in the stock market less than someone who makes $1,000,000 from his own physical and mental labor.

It also results in an distortion of the market, the "encouragement" to invest is an artificial one created by the tax code, not actual market fundamentals.

Consider two people with $1,000,000 in savings. Person A takes the money and buys a pizza shop. Person B takes it and buys low risk stocks on the open market. Person A will have to pay ordinary income tax on the profits from his enterprise (until the day he sells it) - person B will get a special, lower rate. Person A has in fact taken a greater risk with his capital - person A also has to put sweat equity into his business - person B just sits around as his relatively lower risk investment gains value and pays qualified dividends over time. The tax code as it stands now encourages people to become person B - not person A - but inarguably person A is actually producing more. Why should the tax code encourage people to produce less? The reason is that person B has more time to hire lobbyists to go to washington to secure his special tax rate - while person A, the small businessman, the lifeblood of this nation, is too busy actually working to worry much about politics.

Frankly, Poo went wrong way back when he started trying to argue an adult subject - taxes - from a fundamentally childish premise - fairness - so it's really not surprising that everything that has come after was juvenile garbage.

There is no such thing as "fair". How can there be, when the word itself has no real meaning? It's the most subjective word in the English language, meaning something different to each and every person who hears it. Only children in schoolyards believe there is such a thing as "fair", or that the universe and anything in it is ever going to comply with that imaginary concept.

I disagree. I think that there are many ways for people to be fair with each other - usually in a mutually beneficial way. If there weren't, the 'free market' would be impossible and slavery would still reign as the most effective method of putting people to work and maintaining trust within production organizations.

 

[AVG-JOE]

No shit. The poor have less to spare. Duh. On the other hand, a doctor who make 500k a year and a stock broker who make 500k - have the same income, yet get treated vastly differently by the tax code.

Why would their be indignation over the POOR getting a break?



Because the poor person needs their $1 more than the rich person. This should be blatantly obvious. If we tax the poor more, its not going to make them MORE able to take care of their children ,it will make them LESS able - and when the poor can't take care of their children, who do you think winds up footing the bill?

That being said, to close the deficit will require higher taxation on everyone.

What they NEED has NOTHING to do with what is FAIR. Fair means those who benefit from taxes need to contribute to it. Fair is not defined by what you NEED it is defined by who receives the benefits from the the taxes. And a very large segment of the population is receiving benefits they aren't paying for. Some are paying for benefits they receive. Others don't need the benefits but are paying for them anyway.

The simple fact is your excuse that it's fair for the poor to not pay because they can't afford it, fits no known definition of th word 'fair'. You can call it a lot of things if you like; charitable, compassionate, freeloading, but fair isn't one of them.

Fair, at least when it comes to taxes, is we all pay the same. That is to say we all feel the same pinch.

Fairest tax structure I've ever heard of?

7 + 7 on 3

7% general sales tax on retail transactions
+
7% 'winners' tax on personal income in excess of $3 million.

Everybody earns their first $3 million per year free of ANY income tax, no corporate income taxes AT ALL and no corresponding loop holes - every entity, both corporate and living, just pays its fair share of 7% on every consumption purchase and lease whether business or personal and the living strive for the $3 million winners circle.

I forgot the second most important part. The Government has to figure out how to live on whatever 7 + 7 on 3 generates.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Yeah, whose the one "pretending" they care about a fair tax code.


It is fundamentally unjust to tax someone who makes $1,000,000 in the stock market less than someone who makes $1,000,000 from his own physical and mental labor.

It also results in an distortion of the market, the "encouragement" to invest is an artificial one created by the tax code, not actual market fundamentals.

Consider two people with $1,000,000 in savings. Person A takes the money and buys a pizza shop. Person B takes it and buys low risk stocks on the open market. Person A will have to pay ordinary income tax on the profits from his enterprise (until the day he sells it) - person B will get a special, lower rate. Person A has in fact taken a greater risk with his capital - person A also has to put sweat equity into his business - person B just sits around as his relatively lower risk investment gains value and pays qualified dividends over time. The tax code as it stands now encourages people to become person B - not person A - but inarguably person A is actually producing more. Why should the tax code encourage people to produce less? The reason is that person B has more time to hire lobbyists to go to washington to secure his special tax rate - while person A, the small businessman, the lifeblood of this nation, is too busy actually working to worry much about politics.

Frankly, Poo went wrong way back when he started trying to argue an adult subject - taxes - from a fundamentally childish premise - fairness - so it's really not surprising that everything that has come after was juvenile garbage.

There is no such thing as "fair". How can there be, when the word itself has no real meaning? It's the most subjective word in the English language, meaning something different to each and every person who hears it. Only children in schoolyards believe there is such a thing as "fair", or that the universe and anything in it is ever going to comply with that imaginary concept.

I disagree. I think that there are many ways for people to be fair with each other - usually in a mutually beneficial way. If there weren't, the 'free market' would be impossible and slavery would still reign as the most effective method of putting people to work and maintaining trust within production organizations.

Of course there are "many ways for people to be fair". Y'know why? Because there are many definitions of "fair". As many definitions as there are people trying to use the word to justify their own particular agenda.

What's "fair" to you is almost certainly not what's "fair" to me, but we can each make an equally valid argument for our own particular perspective on it . . . which is why it's an utterly subjective word.