The Rich Don't Pay Enough?!

[8537]

Ditto.

That said, I may have missed the evidence you provided for your simpleton explanation...the "because I said so" link...it was right there all along!

The evidence is the tax code. Anyone who's done more than flip burgers is familiar with it. Why don't you explain which part you disagree with?

Oh, wait. You can't. Because instead of admitting you're wrong, you'd rather dodge and weave. Happy dodging!

I posted my position with logic and reason and backed it with a credible link. You...not so much.

No, you posted a position someone else wrote because you weren't capable of thinking it through for yourself. That's why it's a cut and paste (minus the link)

I laid out an actual example - one that you are incapable of disputing. So instead, you cry and demand a link to the most basic facts.

One more time - quit trying to dodge the truth: What part of my example do you disagree with?

Now where is that answer?

 

[eflatminor]

The evidence is the tax code. Anyone who's done more than flip burgers is familiar with it. Why don't you explain which part you disagree with?

Oh, wait. You can't. Because instead of admitting you're wrong, you'd rather dodge and weave. Happy dodging!

I posted my position with logic and reason and backed it with a credible link. You...not so much.

No, you posted a position someone else wrote because you weren't capable of thinking it through for yourself. That's why it's a cut and paste (minus the link)

I laid out an actual example - one that you are incapable of disputing. So instead, you cry and demand a link to the most basic facts.

One more time - quit trying to dodge the truth: What part of my example do you disagree with?

Now where is that answer?

Link, link come out come out wherever you are...

Nope, nothing.

 

[papagallo73]

When one group, the richest, triple or quadruple their wealth, and the rest and the country go to Hell, they're not paying enough. DUH.

^^^^^ Stay away from his grapes! They're extremely sour.

 

[8537]

I posted my position with logic and reason and backed it with a credible link. You...not so much.

No, you posted a position someone else wrote because you weren't capable of thinking it through for yourself. That's why it's a cut and paste (minus the link)

I laid out an actual example - one that you are incapable of disputing. So instead, you cry and demand a link to the most basic facts.

One more time - quit trying to dodge the truth: What part of my example do you disagree with?

Now where is that answer?

Link, link come out come out wherever you are...

Nope, nothing.

What part of my assessment do you disagree with and therefore wish me to link?

The income tax part or the capital gains part?

 

[eflatminor]

No, you posted a position someone else wrote because you weren't capable of thinking it through for yourself. That's why it's a cut and paste (minus the link)

I laid out an actual example - one that you are incapable of disputing. So instead, you cry and demand a link to the most basic facts.

One more time - quit trying to dodge the truth: What part of my example do you disagree with?

Now where is that answer?

Link, link come out come out wherever you are...

Nope, nothing.

What part of my assessment do you disagree with and therefore wish me to link?

The income tax part or the capital gains part?

Frankly, at this point, nobody gives a shit. But feel free to attempt to support your simpleton conclusions with whatever you like.

 

[8537]

Link, link come out come out wherever you are...

Nope, nothing.

What part of my assessment do you disagree with and therefore wish me to link?

The income tax part or the capital gains part?

Frankly, at this point, nobody gives a shit. But feel free to attempt to support your simpleton conclusions with whatever you like.

Ha! you go from demanding a link to the most obvious facts on earth - a dozen times or so - to now claiming you don't care.

So it's dodge, divert, duck...and then claim you don't care as soon as you garner enough brain cells to realize you're wrong.

Precious.

 

[eflatminor]

What part of my assessment do you disagree with and therefore wish me to link?

The income tax part or the capital gains part?

Frankly, at this point, nobody gives a shit. But feel free to attempt to support your simpleton conclusions with whatever you like.

Ha! you go from demanding a link to the most obvious facts on earth - a dozen times or so - to now claiming you don't care.

So it's dodge, divert, duck...and then claim you don't care as soon as you garner enough brain cells to realize you're wrong.

Precious.

Tell you what, just let us know when you find that link. Should be..."obvious"

 

[daveman]

How pathetic. Nothing what? You're the one claiming you can refute the following. Well, refute it then:

You earn $100 in labor income. You pay $20 in taxes. Of the remaining $80, you invest $10 in a pin factory.

Five years later, that pin factory is booming and your investment is now worth $25. Fearing a crash, you realize those gains....

And when you do so, you pay a tax - on the gain of $15. Not on the initial investment. The initial investment is not taxed. You pay a tax on the realized new income.

Now you can scream "I want a link to a "serious" economist", but the above is a fact. I'm sure it feels bad to be duped by the Tax Foundation but it happens. Check your facts next time.

Really? This is your argument?

The initial investment was taxed as labor income.

What in the world are you talking about? The initial investment was $10 dollars out of take-home pay of the individual. It was not taxed as anything.

And it also wasn't taxed when it was invested. His labor income in total was taxed, but his investment is never taxed.

The take-home pay was taxed. Every penny of it.

You know how percentages work, right?

 

[daveman]

You've backed them where? You said that the White House provided data for the CBO report, where is the proof of that?

I said considering the conclusions of the report, it was a reasonable assumption that the White House provided data.

Here's the report itself: http://cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/43539-08-22-2012-Update_One-Col.pdf

Looks like I was wrong, unless they've hidden their sources.

Oh, well.

Then Ryan must be hypocritical liar, because he is regularly citing similar CBO reports when it suits him.

And now CBO says that Ryan is opposing cutting the deficit in half in 2013.

Obama must be a liar, too, huh?

Huh? Is that supposed to be another "reasonable assumption" of yours -- if Paul Ryan is a pathetic liar, than Barack Obama must be liar too?

If Obama cites the CBO when it suits him, yes.

Or does the logic you apply to Ryan not apply to Obama?

 

[8537]

Frankly, at this point, nobody gives a shit. But feel free to attempt to support your simpleton conclusions with whatever you like.

Ha! you go from demanding a link to the most obvious facts on earth - a dozen times or so - to now claiming you don't care.

So it's dodge, divert, duck...and then claim you don't care as soon as you garner enough brain cells to realize you're wrong.

Precious.

Tell you what, just let us know when you find that link. Should be..."obvious"

"When a capital asset is sold, the difference between the basis in the asset and the amount it is sold for is a capital gain or a capital loss....If you have a net capital gain, that gain may be taxed at a lower tax rate than your ordinary income tax rates. The term "net capital gain" means the amount by which your net long-term capital gain for the year is more than the sum of your net short-term capital loss and any long-term capital loss carried over from the previous year. "

Notice how the income invested is not taxed? It's not taxed.

Tax Topics - Topic 409 Capital Gains and Losses

I know that's not nearly as reliable a source as a rightwing tax group, but it'll have to do.

But hey, I await your next attempt to spin, divert, dismiss and run.

 

[eflatminor]

Ha! you go from demanding a link to the most obvious facts on earth - a dozen times or so - to now claiming you don't care.

So it's dodge, divert, duck...and then claim you don't care as soon as you garner enough brain cells to realize you're wrong.

Precious.

Tell you what, just let us know when you find that link. Should be..."obvious"

"When a capital asset is sold, the difference between the basis in the asset and the amount it is sold for is a capital gain or a capital loss....If you have a net capital gain, that gain may be taxed at a lower tax rate than your ordinary income tax rates. The term "net capital gain" means the amount by which your net long-term capital gain for the year is more than the sum of your net short-term capital loss and any long-term capital loss carried over from the previous year. "

Notice how the income invested is not taxed? It's not taxed.

Tax Topics - Topic 409 Capital Gains and Losses

I know that's not nearly as reliable a source as a rightwing tax group, but it'll have to do.

But hey, I await your next attempt to spin, divert, dismiss and run.

When I suggested you need to site a source, I assumed you'd understand that the source should actually support your claim regarding the taxation of capital gains, which this link to the IRS clearly does not.

Now I'm starting to feel pity for you.

 

[8537]

Tell you what, just let us know when you find that link. Should be..."obvious"

"When a capital asset is sold, the difference between the basis in the asset and the amount it is sold for is a capital gain or a capital loss....If you have a net capital gain, that gain may be taxed at a lower tax rate than your ordinary income tax rates. The term "net capital gain" means the amount by which your net long-term capital gain for the year is more than the sum of your net short-term capital loss and any long-term capital loss carried over from the previous year. "

Notice how the income invested is not taxed? It's not taxed.

Tax Topics - Topic 409 Capital Gains and Losses

I know that's not nearly as reliable a source as a rightwing tax group, but it'll have to do.

But hey, I await your next attempt to spin, divert, dismiss and run.

When I suggested you need to site a source, I assumed you'd understand that the source should actually support your claim regarding the taxation of capital gains, which this link to the IRS clearly does not.

Yes. it does support it. It explains clearly that capital gains tax is a tax on the gain. The gain has clearly never been taxed because it's new income to you.

Now I'm starting to feel pity for you. I'm beginning to think you're not playing a game - you really are this dumb. You're so brainwashed you'd prefer I link to an opinion piece as you did rather than dealing in actual facts.

Less radio, more facts Eflat. And perhaps some economics coursework.

 

[Erand7899]

"When a capital asset is sold, the difference between the basis in the asset and the amount it is sold for is a capital gain or a capital loss....If you have a net capital gain, that gain may be taxed at a lower tax rate than your ordinary income tax rates. The term "net capital gain" means the amount by which your net long-term capital gain for the year is more than the sum of your net short-term capital loss and any long-term capital loss carried over from the previous year. "

Notice how the income invested is not taxed? It's not taxed.

Tax Topics - Topic 409 Capital Gains and Losses

I know that's not nearly as reliable a source as a rightwing tax group, but it'll have to do.

But hey, I await your next attempt to spin, divert, dismiss and run.

When I suggested you need to site a source, I assumed you'd understand that the source should actually support your claim regarding the taxation of capital gains, which this link to the IRS clearly does not.

Yes. it does support it. It explains clearly that capital gains tax is a tax on the gain. The gain has clearly never been taxed because it's new income to you.

Now I'm starting to feel pity for you. I'm beginning to think you're not playing a game - you really are this dumb. You're so brainwashed you'd prefer I link to an opinion piece as you did rather than dealing in actual facts.

Less radio, more facts Eflat. And perhaps some economics coursework.

Some capital gains are double taxed, and that applies to most of the income of the very wealthy. Corporate income is taxed, at the corporate rate, before any of it is distributed as dividends. It is then taxed again as capital gain by the recipients. However, the recipients of dividends are stockholders and owners of the corporation that was also taxed, so they have been taxed twice.

 

[edthecynic]

When I suggested you need to site a source, I assumed you'd understand that the source should actually support your claim regarding the taxation of capital gains, which this link to the IRS clearly does not.

Yes. it does support it. It explains clearly that capital gains tax is a tax on the gain. The gain has clearly never been taxed because it's new income to you.

Now I'm starting to feel pity for you. I'm beginning to think you're not playing a game - you really are this dumb. You're so brainwashed you'd prefer I link to an opinion piece as you did rather than dealing in actual facts.

Less radio, more facts Eflat. And perhaps some economics coursework.

Some capital gains are double taxed, and that applies to most of the income of the very wealthy. Corporate income is taxed, at the corporate rate, before any of it is distributed as dividends. It is then taxed again as capital gain by the recipients. However, the recipients of dividends are stockholders and owners of the corporation that was also taxed, so they have been taxed twice.

As has already been pointed out, a dollar is taxed every time it changes hands, so everyone's income has been taxed multiple times. That does not change the fact that the capital GAIN will be taxed only once while in the hands of the stockholders.

 

[8537]

When I suggested you need to site a source, I assumed you'd understand that the source should actually support your claim regarding the taxation of capital gains, which this link to the IRS clearly does not.

Yes. it does support it. It explains clearly that capital gains tax is a tax on the gain. The gain has clearly never been taxed because it's new income to you.

Now I'm starting to feel pity for you. I'm beginning to think you're not playing a game - you really are this dumb. You're so brainwashed you'd prefer I link to an opinion piece as you did rather than dealing in actual facts.

Less radio, more facts Eflat. And perhaps some economics coursework.

Some capital gains are double taxed, and that applies to most of the income of the very wealthy. Corporate income is taxed, at the corporate rate, before any of it is distributed as dividends. It is then taxed again as capital gain by the recipients. However, the recipients of dividends are stockholders and owners of the corporation that was also taxed, so they have been taxed twice.

Well, the example I provided doesn't relate to corporate income. But no mind, your example is not double taxation either. As far back as Santa Clara vs. Southern Pacific, corporations were recognized as separate, separable and unique identities for business purposes. When a company pays the corporate tax (which is to say, not very often since the corporate income tax only generates about 200B per year), the entity paying the tax is the company - no different than if it was a person and the person had to pay the tax.

The earnings that owners made on that company, either through dividends or through realized gains through sale of ownership, are a tax on the person receiving said income.

Now, you can argue that the corporation and the person are not separate. That's fine. But it's not congruent with case law on the matter and it produces results that I'm almost certain most conservatives don't want to embrace.

 

[eflatminor]

"When a capital asset is sold, the difference between the basis in the asset and the amount it is sold for is a capital gain or a capital loss....If you have a net capital gain, that gain may be taxed at a lower tax rate than your ordinary income tax rates. The term "net capital gain" means the amount by which your net long-term capital gain for the year is more than the sum of your net short-term capital loss and any long-term capital loss carried over from the previous year. "

Notice how the income invested is not taxed? It's not taxed.

Tax Topics - Topic 409 Capital Gains and Losses

I know that's not nearly as reliable a source as a rightwing tax group, but it'll have to do.

But hey, I await your next attempt to spin, divert, dismiss and run.

When I suggested you need to site a source, I assumed you'd understand that the source should actually support your claim regarding the taxation of capital gains, which this link to the IRS clearly does not.

Yes. it does support it. It explains clearly that capital gains tax is a tax on the gain. The gain has clearly never been taxed because it's new income to you.

Now I'm starting to feel pity for you. I'm beginning to think you're not playing a game - you really are this dumb. You're so brainwashed you'd prefer I link to an opinion piece as you did rather than dealing in actual facts.

Less radio, more facts Eflat. And perhaps some economics coursework.

I could point to one of my advanced degrees in Economics...but really, this is getting pretty silly, isn't it? Tell you what, you win! Rep coming your way...just for the tenacity with which you've stuck to your guns. Well done.

It's still double taxation...

 

[8537]

I could point to one of my advanced degrees in Economics.

On the interwebs, we're all Phd's in ever topic.

..but really, this is getting pretty silly, isn't it? Tell you what, you win! Rep coming your way...just for the tenacity with which you've stuck to your guns. Well done.

It's still double taxation...

Well played, thx.

 

[Polk]

I know! Why in the heck would you expect them to create primary data? They use the nonpartisan data generated by dozens of other government agencies.

The data is not "given to them" by politicians.

If you're going to shrink government small enough to fit into a tub, you really need to avoid duplicating efforts.

Yes the data is given to them by politicians.

It's provided to them by the relevant federal agencies.

Where do you think it comes from when they're asked to analyze the results of taxation or spending plans?

If they are asked to analyze the impact of an increase in reimbursement rates from Doctors, they get the information from CMMS. If they are asked to analyze the impact of a 10% increase in the top marginal rate they probably get data from the BEA, SOI data etc...

They don't get data from politicians

They also have the ability to read the legislative language.

 

[Polk]

Uh huh.

The agency produces several statutory reports needed for the budget process. In addition, CBO is required by law to produce a cost estimate for every bill that is reported by a full committee of either House of Congress. The only exception to this rule is for appropriation bills, which do not receive a formal cost estimate. We sometimes produce cost estimates at other stages of the legislative process if requested to do so by a relevant committee or by the Congressional leadership.​

Where do they get the numbers to estimate costs for bills?

From the BEA, CMMS etc...

"CBO is required by law to produce a cost estimate for every bill that is reported by a full committee of either House of Congress."

Those numbers come from Congress.

No, the legislative language they are examining comes from Congress.

 

[Polk]

Regardless of where the earnings of the wealthy come from (income or capital gains), it does not change the fact that they pay the majority of the taxes used to run government. The cap gains rate may be lower than high wage income rates, but it still produces massive tax revenues. Sorry, you can't wiggle your way out of this one. Hell, many countries have NO capital gains tax. We have the most progressive tax structure in the world, no matter how you cut it. Fact.

I just wanna know why passive income should be taxed less than earned income.

Several reasons. First, experience suggests that a low rate of tax on capital gains increases capital investment and new business formation. This is why many countries have NO tax on capital gains.

The justification for a lower tax rate on capital gains relative to ordinary income is threefold: it is not indexed for inflation, it is a double tax, and it encourages present consumption over future consumption.

Inflation: Cap gains is not adjusted for inflation, so any appreciation of assets is taxed at the nominal instead of the real value. This means investors must pay tax not only on the real return but also on the inflation created by the Federal Reserve.

Double taxation: The capital gains tax is part of a long line of federal taxation of the same dollar of income. Wages are first taxed by payroll and personal income taxes, then again by the corporate income tax if one chooses to invest in corporate equities, and then again when those investments pay off in the form of dividends and capital gains. This puts corporations at a disadvantage relative to pass through business entities, whose owners pay personal income tax on distributed profits, instead of taxes on corporate income, capital gains, and dividends.

Consumption: A capital gains tax, like nearly all of the federal tax code, is a tax on future consumption. Future personal consumption, in the form of savings, is taxed, while present consumption is not. By favoring present over future consumption, savings are discouraged, which decreases future available capital and lowers long term growth.

The inflation argument is a valid one, but doesn't set out an ethical argument against capital gains (only a potential technical one).

The other two are just inaccurate. The consumption argument is really a spin on the double taxation argument, so I'll focus on that one. The money is not being "double-taxed". It's the gains that are being taxed, not the entire sum.