Red- Why would you tax investment income the same? Rich people have a lot of cash. They stick it in the bank they draw interest , or they put it in an investment that other companies use to build businesses up and pay employees etc. etc. What are they suppose to do with their money? Just stick it in a box? Wouldn't that be bad for the economy? If there wasn't a benefit to "loaning" their money out they would take their ball to the next court.
Red, do you suggest the top marginal tax bracket for long term capital gains should be the same as for ordinary income?
Just curious...what's worse: GREED or JEALOUSY? There sure seem to be a lot of people who chose low salary careers or took the unproductive "government cheese" route that absolutely HATE the fact others have more than they do. They quickly label anyone with more than them as "Evil Rich" and want laws designed to take the money and redistribute it to them. So...are these "evil rich" the bad guys or could it be the envious, hateful, jealous people who are the bad guys? I just find it amazing how people hate those who work for a living but never take the time to look in the mirror. :thumb: I live quite comfortably but came from nothing and had to work my butt off to get where I'm at. There was no college fund, trust, quota program, or affirmative action route to take. I donate a very large percentage of my income to taxes and charity but obviously it's not enough to avoid the "evil rich" tag. I'm trying hard to remember the last time I saw someone on public assistance giving time or money to help the community. If those people expended a fraction of the energy they use to protest, march, picket, whine, or complain...it's amazing to think what they could accomplish. Many people SAY they want opportunity when in reality they just want easy street.
It was a non-question. Give me a break. "Unfairness" is subjective. I don't see the need to back up statements that are common knowledge, but chew on this. The cost of extending the Bush tax cuts for everybody for 10 years is 3 trillion dollars. The cost of extending them for just those who make under 250K is 2.2 trillion dollars. That means individuals who earn about 60% of the income get 73% of the tax breaks. Individuals who earn 40% of the income get 27% of the income. Seems pretty progressive to me. I qualified it from the begining to address your errant point. Your point was raising the cap gains tax would lead to increased revenues. I argued the opposite is true and pointed to the fact that when the cap gains rate was lowered associated revenues increased. That means revenues associated with capital gains taxes. Your failure to comprehend is not my problem. It was pretty clearly stated. No hoss. You misunderstood what I was saying. I was saying. I don't consider the tax on intra fund stock sales to be much of a tax because it is carried forward and reduces liabilities when you actually sell the fund and realize the gain. It is a PITA, but at the end of the day you end up paying the same amount on a dollar gain. was down a bit off its high and the I have actually sold funds at a long term gain and received a refund because the fund had done some trades in the short term for gains. The taxes paid on the individual stock trades more than off-set the gain on the long term fund. The inverse can happen as well, where you sell a fund at a loss and owe tax because of the intra fund short term trades. Very inefficient process. No. For a variety of reasons income from different sources is treated differently. I don't know why you won't acknowledge this.
Dude, you are being as bad as the liberals with the us vs them thing. I do enough volunteer work to know poor folks, even those on various government assitance programs do a lot of volunteer work. To suggest otherwise is just dishonest.
Everybody should invest their money. I would tax all income the same because income is income. Taxing those who make 90% of their money on investments income at 15% while taxing those that make 90% of their income on salaries or business profits at full rates is unfair and is costing the country billions that we badly need. Money, big money, is being made on capital gains. It's income. It should be fully taxable.
So what? It is still a real issue and the one we happene to be debating. I knew you couldn't back it up with a source. Sounds like a good place to cut $2.2 to $3 Trillion from the debt. Temporarily as people took advantage of the new supposedly temporary tax break to take profits. That was the idea-a quick economic boost. In the long term, lowered taxes result in lowered income. That is why is was always planned to be temporary. Post the ten-year chart. Uhhhh, . . . OK. Now back to my point. If your funds incur capital gains reported on a 1099, then you owe taxes on them at some point. Even if you took no active decision to take profit. Don't pretend that you are stupid. Of course I acknowledge that income from different sources is treated differently. Why the fugg do you think I'm arguing about the inequality of these distinctions? If you are just being contrary now, ala martin, then we're done with this discussion.
I'm happy to hear you're seeing it. I don't...at least not at a recognizable/significant level. Do I occasionally meet someone helping as we build or rebuild their home? Yes Do I meet someone (who I assume is low income / possibly on assistance) helping at a foodbank? Yes What I'm saying is we have FAR TOO MANY unproductive people on public assistance who have NO DESIRE to work or contribute. These are almost always the first too complain about the "evil rich". We need to stop catering to this group. You know it won't happen because it BUYS VOTES! Regardless of anyone's political beliefs and/or party affiliation no honest person can say otherwise. It's common knowledge and it's effective. Keeping uneducated, non-productive voters on public assistance means keeping their votes in your back pocket. Throw these people an occasional "bone", spin them up with a claim of discrimination, or use a scare tactic and you've got them under your finger for life. We need to reduce goverment assistance to levels lower than minimum wage...require able-bodied people on goverment assistance to contribute (pick up trash, wash city buses, rake leaves...ANYTHING!), suspend voting privileges while on assistance, limit the amount of time on assistance,etc. If you're going to arbitrarily place a cap on what someone can EARN in a free market...then you can damn well impose regulations on those taking advantage of the situation. Will this reduce the overall budget significantly? Maybe not but it would provide additional funding for those truly in need (elderly, abused, disabled, victims, children) instead of those who abuse it. It may actually help overall long-term U.S. production if we could break the family tradition of being born into (and remain on) assistance. Some are quite proud they've had generations living in the same goverment housing and on goverment cheese without ever working a day in their life.
