[mspeasl]

Originally Posted by kmarei

yes
it's all money earned
how you earn it should make no difference to how you are taxed
so if i have no salary and i make 1 million a year in the stock market i should pay less tax than someone who has a salary of 1 million?

as long as its money earned
not inheritance (estate tax) etc
it should be taxed the same
why is that unfair?

Then you are saying "all income" of any kind, correct??????

[kmarei]

Originally Posted by mspeasl

Then you are saying "all income" of any kind, correct??????

excluding inhertance yes
any money that you generate
so if you have a million in the bank, with no interest, then you pay 0
but if you invest that million and you generate say 100,000 on it
you would pay tax on the 100,000 you made
and you would be taxed at the same rate as anyone else who makes 100,000
whether they make it from stocks, or a salary, or any other legal means

[smohr33]

Originally Posted by kmarei

excluding inhertance yes
any money that you generate
so if you have a million in the bank, with no interest, then you pay 0
but if you invest that million and you generate say 100,000 on it
you would pay tax on the 100,000 you made
and you would be taxed at the same rate as anyone else who makes 100,000
whether they make it from stocks, or a salary, or any other legal means

So when the Bush era tax cuts expire, capital gains of $400,000 and up should be taxed at 40%?????? Do you have any idea how crippling that is??

[kmarei]

Originally Posted by smohr33

So when the Bush era tax cuts expire, capital gains of $400,000 and up should be taxed at 40%?????? Do you have any idea how crippling that is??

if its crippling then change the tax rate, simple as that
i just think it's unfair that income is treated differently
we can't just keep extending the bush tax cuts
if they make sense then chage the tax law so it's not a temporary cut
but a permenant rate

as for the 40% rate
i am taxed at 40% on my annual bonus, but only 22% on my salary
is that fair?
never understood why my bonus is taxed at a higher rate than my salary

bottom line is the tax system is not fair
it needs major corrections
and i don't just mean raise taxes on the rich.
but more of a realignment, cut some silly loopholes, simplify it.

you want to give tax breaks then it should be for where you invest your money, not how
so if you choose to invest in the stock market, you don't get a break
but if you choose to hire people, or reduce energy usage etc
then you get a break

[MiddleAgedAl]

Originally Posted by kmarei

as for the 40% rate
i am taxed at 40% on my annual bonus, but only 22% on my salary
is that fair?
never understood why my bonus is taxed at a higher rate than my salary

Most payroll programs calculate the tax rate by extrapolating the current amount over the year to guess the annual income and thus the rate.

If you make the same amount each period, the program's assumption is very accurate, 3K twice a month is 72K a year, which yields a tax rate of X. However, if your bonus is larger than the normal paycheck, say 5K, the computer still takes that amount, multiplies it by 24, which then suggests you make 120K a year, so it applies a higher tax rate accordingly.

Obviously the technology exists to make the logic more sophisticated, but surprisingly many programs lack this ability. There's nothing sinister going on there. In the end, if you paid too much tax on your bonus, you'll get that back when your taxes are filed.

Originally Posted by kmarei

so if you choose to invest in the stock market, you don't get a break
but if you choose to hire people, or reduce energy usage etc
then you get a break

Investing in the stock market DOES enable others to hire people. That's why the tax code favors investment income over labor income as investment income leads to more overall economic growth.


If you earn 100K at a "job", that's great, you'll buy stuff with those earnings and help to employ others (ie: the guy who services the M3 you just bought).

If you earn 100K on your investments, you can still use that 100K to buy a BMW and keep the service tech employed, but on top of that, your investment income means that you dumped capital (more than 100K) into the system, so that some other entity can leverage that investment so that they can also employ people (ie: your shares in ABC widget company allows ABC to hire people, who can then go buy their own BMW's too, so now the dealer has to hire 2 service techs). There's a very desired multiplier effect there.

If you tax that the same as regular income, people will then be inclined to pull the money out of the markets, and then the folks at ABC dont have capital to keep their staff.

[MiddleAgedAl]

This is why Romney is taxed at a lower aggregate rate than you are, because a BIG chunk of his income comes from investments, not from punching a clock on a job every day.

"One of the most basic principles in economics is that the taxation of capital income is inefficient. Taxes on interest, dividends, and capital gains represent a sort of “double taxation”, of wage income. For some reason many people have difficulty grasping this concept, and one often sees even Nobel Prize-winning economists talking about “income inequality” using data that includes both wage and capital income. This makes about as much sense as adding up blueberries and watermelons and calling it the 'number of units of fruit' "

The quote is from this article:
http://www.economist.com/economics/b...al-income-zero

which does a good job of explaining this, and even has a compelling argument for reducing income on investments to zero as the results of that work has already been taxed.

[MiddleAgedAl]

Well, I guess now we know what "Balanced" truly means to Obama. Apparently, it's a ratio of 41:1.

According to the congressional budget office, the fiscal cliff deal increases tax revenues by $620 billion, while cutting a mere $15 billion in spending. That is a ratio of 41 dollars of revenue increase for every 1 dollar of spending reduction. Sounds pretty balanced to me. Can't wait to see what the debt will be in 4 years with that kind of balance.

For those who are mathematically challenged and still think that is a "win" for the democrats, I would agree only under the following clarification: if you are a democrat in your 70's with no children (or have anyone in your life you care about who is young enough to feel the full impact of this in 10-15 years time, when everything will essentially grind to a halt because just servicing the interest on the debt will consume all federal revenues.)

[OldArmy]

It boggles the mind that this president can't see that we absolutely must cut spending. He's certainly not a stupid man, nor is he incapable of thinking logically so the only conclusion can be that he is playing this out for politics, to be popular. Can't he see that the president has to lead, has to do what is right, even if it goes against his constituents? Is there a person alive that doesn't understand that the bread and circuses can't be sustained? It's starting to look a bit hopeless.

[M3Denver]

Originally Posted by OldArmy

It boggles the mind that this president can't see that we absolutely must cut spending. He's certainly not a stupid man, nor is he incapable of thinking logically so the only conclusion can be that he is playing this out for politics, to be popular. Can't he see that the president has to lead, has to do what is right, even if it goes against his constituents? Is there a person alive that doesn't understand that the bread and circuses can't be sustained? It's starting to look a bit hopeless.

He's a puppet of the groups that hate us and he loves it. Mr Soros I'm sure has his hand in it.

[mmcnulty]

Originally Posted by M3Denver

He's a puppet of the groups that hate us and he loves it. Mr Soros I'm sure has his hand in it.

As a % of GDP, the tax burden is the lowest it has ever been, and spending is the lowest it has ever been. Ignoring inflation and only citing "real" dollar amounts is wildly misleading.

Deciding the other side "hates america" is both intellectually dishonest and incorrect.

[panicos81]

maybe he can pull a Cyprus on you!!

10% cut on all bank deposits above $200000!!!

[mmcnulty]

Originally Posted by smohr33

So when the Bush era tax cuts expire, capital gains of $400,000 and up should be taxed at 40%?????? Do you have any idea how crippling that is??

Considering this was the case for the vast majority of the history of the country, I'd like to suggest you back up this assertion with facts. It *sounds* bad, but it is not actually bad unless you can cite figures to back it up.

The concept that people would stop investing because they would be taxed more is not supported by facts. I have money in the market, and I make money from my salary. I have a higher effective tax rate than nearly anyone else in the country. I don't understand why people who make more should pay less.

[mmcnulty]

Originally Posted by panicos81

maybe he can pull a Cyprus on you!!

10% cut on all bank deposits above $200000!!!

The idea that banks can gamble with depositors' money on greek debt, lose, and then the EU can take some of that money to bail them out is absurd, and I doubt there is anyone here who would disagree on either side of the spectrum.

The solution to this is to avoid preventing this circumstance in the first place. The solution is to cap the amount banks are allowed to be leveraged. Tell them they can't gamble with so much of our money.

This is not a right or a left issue. It is a fairness issue.

Edited to make more clear

[OldArmy]

Originally Posted by mmcnulty

I don't understand why people who make more should pay less.

Which brings to mind another persistently irritating issue, that of participation in this big experiment.

I don't understand why people who make less should pay nothing.

Understanding that it's a bit simplistic, nevertheless, I'll throw this one out anyway.

Individually, I pay more total dollars in income tax than tens of millions of my fellow working citizens combined.

Can that possibly be "right", equitable, good for the country?

[mmcnulty]

But they don't pay no taxes. They pay no federal income taxes, which is a large chunk but far from all. Their employers have to pay payroll taxes for their job. They have to pay social security and medicare taxes, state taxes, gasoline taxes, and even property taxes via landlords indirectly.

A large percentage of the people who pay no federal income tax are at or below the poverty level. Elderly people receiving some social security benefits that are not taxed, or the working poor. I am not sure a moral argument can be made that these people should be pushed further into poverty to the benefit of those above them on the ladder.

Of the much much smaller percentage who pay no payroll nor income tax, nearly all are elderly or make below $20k/year.

That said, I feel like it is worth making a few other points:

* The government should not be taxing people who don't have kids. This is, effectively, what is going on with the child tax credit. No kids, higher taxes. I often wonder how many people opposed to the penalties for not having insurance in Obamacare because it is an invasion of personal liberty would feel if they realized the government is already actually in their bedroom...

* I think the fact that many poor or near-poor people pay *zero* federal income tax rather than *extremely low* likely is detrimental to their cause because it allows this takers argument to exist.

* Ronald Reagan strongly supported the Earned Income Tax Credit, which he called a “sweeping victory for fairness” and “perhaps the biggest antipoverty program in our history.” This is a big reason a large % of the "takers" exist. Tt would be good for the more socially conservative to recognize that helping the poor and others was the prime directive of Jesus.

* People seem to forget that medicare and social security count as "taking", but are worthy programs with near-universal praise. There is definitely an information gap that exists where people don't understand the benefits their taxes go to fund.

* There is a high correlation between states that pay more than they get back from the federal government and their tendency to vote democratic for president, and the opposite.

* Calling this an "experiment" is ignoring vast swaths of human history both via government and organized religion and tithing.

I want to make sure people didn't miss what I feel is one of the most important facts in this whole debate that I mentioned earlier: Americans both support the concept of smaller government in the abstract, and support the specific programs it provides and are costing the most money. *Both* sides have a *legitimate* claim to popular opinion on the budget, and exploit this regularly. Those on the right need to understand that the abstract argument isn't intellectually honest. Those on the left need to understand that the position that we can afford the current track is intellectually dishonest as well. This will only get harder and more painful to solve as time goes on.

(Edited to make it not appear as if i was suggesting not following Jesus was somehow causing the takers problem)

[OldArmy]

Originally Posted by mmcnulty

But they don't pay no taxes. They pay no federal income taxes, which is a large chunk but far from all. Their employers have to pay payroll taxes for their job. They have to pay social security and medicare taxes, state taxes, gasoline taxes, and even property taxes via landlords indirectly.

A large percentage of the people who pay no federal income tax are at or below the poverty level. Elderly people receiving some social security benefits that are not taxed, or the working poor. I am not sure a moral argument can be made that these people should be pushed further into poverty to the benefit of those above them on the ladder.

Of the much much smaller percentage who pay no payroll nor income tax, nearly all are elderly or make below $20k/year.

That said, I feel like it is worth making a few other points:

* The government should not be taxing people who don't have kids. This is, effectively, what is going on with the child tax credit. No kids, higher taxes. I often wonder how many people opposed to the penalties for not having insurance in Obamacare because it is an invasion of personal liberty would feel if they realized the government is already actually in their bedroom...

* I think the fact that many poor or near-poor people pay *zero* federal income tax rather than *extremely low* likely is detrimental to their cause because it allows this takers argument to exist.

* Ronald Reagan strongly supported the Earned Income Tax Credit, which he called a “sweeping victory for fairness” and “perhaps the biggest antipoverty program in our history.” This is a big reason a large % of the "takers" exist. Tt would be good for the more socially conservative to recognize that helping the poor and others was the prime directive of Jesus.

* People seem to forget that medicare and social security count as "taking", but are worthy programs with near-universal praise. There is definitely an information gap that exists where people don't understand the benefits their taxes go to fund.

* There is a high correlation between states that pay more than they get back from the federal government and their tendency to vote democratic for president, and the opposite.

* Calling this an "experiment" is ignoring vast swaths of human history both via government and organized religion and tithing.

I want to make sure people didn't miss what I feel is one of the most important facts in this whole debate that I mentioned earlier: Americans both support the concept of smaller government in the abstract, and support the specific programs it provides and are costing the most money. *Both* sides have a *legitimate* claim to popular opinion on the budget, and exploit this regularly. Those on the right need to understand that the abstract argument isn't intellectually honest. Those on the left need to understand that the position that we can afford the current track is intellectually dishonest as well. This will only get harder and more painful to solve as time goes on.

(Edited to make it not appear as if i was suggesting not following Jesus was somehow causing the takers problem)

Everybody understands the difference between income and all other taxes. The current argument that the "rich" don't pay enough (rate) can't be dealt with in a vacuum. Everybody, no matter what they make or don't make, should pay an/some income tax. This is a valid "skin in the game" argument which can't be wished away. Folks who think they can make claims on the system should contribute--make it $100 a year for all I care but there is no logical explanation or justification that one man can pay more than about half of all workers.

[mmcnulty]

Originally Posted by OldArmy

Everybody understands the difference between income and all other taxes.

With all due respect, many many don't. The poor pay a much larger percentage of their argument in overall taxes than people give them credit for.

Originally Posted by OldArmy

The current argument that the "rich" don't pay enough (rate) can't be dealt with in a vacuum. Everybody, no matter what they make or don't make, should pay an/some income tax. This is a valid "skin in the game" argument which can't be wished away. Folks who think they can make claims on the system should contribute--make it $100 a year for all I care but there is no logical explanation or justification that one man can pay more than about half of all workers.

You'll note above that I do agree with this, somewhat. But just like you can't argue about the rate the "rich" pay in a vacuum, you can't deal with just federal income taxes in a vacuum.

They *are* making contributions to precisely the programs people are annoyed they are taking from - ones that are not funded through federal income tax.

The logical explanation is they can't afford it, and they are vastly more likely to spend the money they have, which contributes to the economy on a much more direct and amplified scale than those who can afford not to.

That said, the argument that people making below the poverty line should pay more taxes is more a moral one, not a logical one, though the logical reasons I state exist.