Can Someone on the Left Explain

[Alaska Darin]

1) I'm all for raising the capitol gains tax, however 35% is way to high even at it's peak.

 

2) It shouldn't be raised all at once. Highest it should go is 23%-25% and it should only go up 1% per year until it reaches those levels. Raising it too fast would be a shock to an already shaky economy.

The Capital Gains tax is the only FAIR tax we currently have in America.

 

Once again, the problem in this country isn't the amount of money the government takes in. It's the amount it spends and the return it gets on that "investment".

 

Try dealing with the actual problem for once. It's this ridiculous class warfare that allows **** like "ObamaCare" to pass.

[Nanker]

Yes, income tax and Capital Gains tax is different but it's not as different as apples and oranges.

 

Capital Gains in itself is still a form of income.

 

 

 

35% is much too high. 20% is just fine, but I'd also like to see a raise in the regular income tax rate.

 

I'll assume for sake of discussion that you're employed. You have a job, and let's say your take home after taxes for the services you render to your employer is $1,000.00 per week. Would you be willing to have your employer pay your wages based on his weekly profit? If he makes more, you get more - say, $1,500. If he loses money - you get less - say $500. In fact you might owe him money. But don't worry, you can pay for it with some of your wages from the next week or two or ten. Would you be willing to take that risk with your earned compensation? Is that fair?

 

Capital gains is profit based on putting capital at risk. Regular wage earners don't put their income at risk - unless they're working for a company that's quickly going out of business.

 

 

As for raising the income tax rate. I'm all for making the 45% of people that pay no federal income tax pay something. I'd be happy with even 1%. Without skin in the game it's easy to point envious fingers at the more fortunate and call for Big Brother to victimize them. Robbin' Hood was a fairy tale. The IRS is for real.

[John Adams]

Before I got the job I have now I was a general case worker for DEC. I really didn't see that many people who made it a lifestyle. You guys make is seem like most people on it lifetime club members. Most people use it for the same thing you did. I can't tell you how many people would break down in tears while signing papers and turning in info. .

 

Bull. I do work in the family court system in the initial visit to the family the case worker needs to ask the parent about their work history. To save time, their first question is "Have you ever worked?" the implication being that they haven't and no history review is needed. Most times the answer is no or a vague helped out some person in the neighborhood. Don't tell me it's not a lifestyle. It is.

 

It's sad. Awful. Entrenched. But it's reality for a lot of people.

Edited May 10, 2012 by John Adams

[3rdnlng]

Yes, income tax and Capital Gains tax is different but it's not as different as apples and oranges.

 

Capital Gains in itself is still a form of income.

 

 

 

35% is much too high. 20% is just fine, but I'd also like to see a raise in the regular income tax rate.

 

 

So, we should encourage not investing?

[Alaska Darin]

So, we should encourage not investing?

We don't care about the negative byproducts of our ridiculous "solutions".

 

Sincerely,

The Ignorant

[3rdnlng]

We don't care about the negative byproducts of our ridiculous "solutions".

 

Sincerely,

The Ignorant

 

 

I guess when your only criteria is "fairness"..............

[Chef Jim]

ever heard of the wild wild west?

 

really man?

 

you should read hobbes social contract. its a good starting point. jmo

 

So we should only have social programs for cowboys in the west? I'm not fure if I should read Hobbes Social Contract but you need to stop watching westerns.

 

So while guys riding horses and wearing funny hats drinking whiskey were getting in bar fights what was happening in the rest of the country?

 

Really man?

 

 

As for getting people who are making it a lifestyle, getting them off of cash assistance isn't as simple as you think.

 

 

 

Yeah you're right. Hard things suck.

[birdog1960]

You don't remember all the riot's prior to FDR? He settled things with the masses and the 1% where able to dismantle their private army's.

look up the coal wars in w virginia in the 20's....private armies masquerading as detective agencies. just one example.

 

and this relates to the felon garnering votes in wv. it was mostly to protest obama's coal positions.

[OCinBuffalo]

35% is much too high. 20% is just fine, but I'd also like to see a raise in the regular income tax rate.

20% is not fine...because why would I want to form capital in the USA, when I can form it elsewhere, and pay 10% or more likely less than 5?

 

This is a GLOBAL economy. It's far past time people woke up and got that. You want to make us go out and compete...with a massive disadvantage. Why don't you tie Fred Jackson's legs together before the game while you are at it?

 

What happens to the guy who has to go out and try to raise money? Thanks to you, and your dopey 20% cap gain tax, 70% of the funding is now unavailable.

 

And, the flip side of this is: I am sure some people could see some wisdom in 20%, and I'm sure that the guy who has to go out and raise money could sell it, if we knew that investors would at least break even on those taxes. However, what are the chances that the government is going to use that 20% properly? Answer: less than 5%.

 

IF you told could prove that 20% = infrastructure actually delivered, in a timely manner, I could sell that to investors, if I ran a business that depends on that stuff.

 

But let's be honest with ourselves: most new business doesn't rely on that infrastructure, and you aren't going to deliver it on time or properly anyway.

 

Why should anybody want to give you 20%, so you can FAIL, again, and then proceed to blame the people who you took the 20% from....for your failures?

Edited May 10, 2012 by OCinBuffalo

[MARCELL DAREUS POWER]

20% is not fine...because why would I want to form capital in the USA, when I can form it elsewhere, and pay 10% or more likely less than 5?

 

This is a GLOBAL economy. It's far past time people woke up and got that. You want to make us go out and compete...with a massive disadvantage. Why don't you tie Fred Jackson's legs together before the game while you are at it?

 

What happens to the guy who has to go out and try to raise money? Thanks to you, and your dopey 20% cap gain tax, 70% of the funding is now unavailable.

 

And, the flip side of this is: I am sure some people could see some wisdom in 20%, and I'm sure that the guy who has to go out and raise money could sell it, if we knew that investors would at least break even on those taxes. However, what are the chances that the government is going to use that 20% properly? Answer: less than 5%.

 

IF you told could prove that 20% = infrastructure actually delivered, in a timely manner, I could sell that to investors, if I ran a business that depends on that stuff.

 

But let's be honest with ourselves: most new business doesn't rely on that infrastructure, and you aren't going to deliver it on time or properly anyway.

 

Why should anybody want to give you 20%, so you can FAIL, again, and then proceed to blame the people who you took the 20% from....for your failures?

 

 

 

 

 

 

thats called a race to the bottom. this is why free trade makes no sense.

[OCinBuffalo]

thats called a race to the bottom. this is why free trade makes no sense.

 

Seriously....WTF are you talking about?

 

I promise to not make fun of you, or bring up anything just to piss you off, for the next 3 posts....if you can tell me what exactly you mean.

[3rdnlng]

Seriously....WTF are you talking about?

 

I promise to not make fun of you, or bring up anything just to piss you off, for the next 3 posts....if you can tell me what exactly you mean.

 

 

See what happens when you don't use Capital letters? He can't even type a coherent thought.

[TPS]

Bill Clinton understood the importance of capital formation and lowering the cost of capital. Raising capital gains taxes effects 401ks, pension retiree funds and most importantly negatively impacts capital formation which in turn deincentivizes expansion.

 

If you wanted to have a healthier economy, this would not be a good idea.

Are you sure about the impact on 401ks and pensions? Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but those entities don't pay any taxes on retirees' funds, so the capital gains tax is irrelevant for those funds. Income taxes are paid once someone starts collecting on pensions and 401ks at retirement.

 

 

And "capital formation"? That term is so 1990s.

 

As for this entire welfare debate, I thought Clinton and the Republicans "ended welfare as we know it?" There are limits on eligibility and there are work requirements now. Since it's been pushed down to the states, there are some differences by state, but didn't the notion of permanent welfare queens die in 1996?

[fjl2nd]

I'll assume for sake of discussion that you're employed. You have a job, and let's say your take home after taxes for the services you render to your employer is $1,000.00 per week. Would you be willing to have your employer pay your wages based on his weekly profit? If he makes more, you get more - say, $1,500. If he loses money - you get less - say $500. In fact you might owe him money. But don't worry, you can pay for it with some of your wages from the next week or two or ten. Would you be willing to take that risk with your earned compensation? Is that fair?

 

Capital gains is profit based on putting capital at risk. Regular wage earners don't put their income at risk - unless they're working for a company that's quickly going out of business.

 

 

As for raising the income tax rate. I'm all for making the 45% of people that pay no federal income tax pay something. I'd be happy with even 1%. Without skin in the game it's easy to point envious fingers at the more fortunate and call for Big Brother to victimize them. Robbin' Hood was a fairy tale. The IRS is for real.

 

Great comparison...not. This is like when people compare the government's budget to a household's. Not the same.

 

I understand there is more risk with capital gains obviously and that is why taxes are lower on them. The gains are much more extravagant than regular income which is why your theory really doesn't work.

 

I should have clarified that 20% would probably be my max number. 15% is fine. People invest in America still. This notion that we need to keep lowering taxes to lure people is a myth.

 

As for the income tax thing...rah rah rah Robin Hood! Huge tax reform would be ideal. No loopholes, just basic rates at different brackets. That would be my approach, probably you too. I just don't see it ever happening.

 

20% is not fine...because why would I want to form capital in the USA, when I can form it elsewhere, and pay 10% or more likely less than 5?

 

This is a GLOBAL economy. It's far past time people woke up and got that. You want to make us go out and compete...with a massive disadvantage. Why don't you tie Fred Jackson's legs together before the game while you are at it?

 

What happens to the guy who has to go out and try to raise money? Thanks to you, and your dopey 20% cap gain tax, 70% of the funding is now unavailable.

 

And, the flip side of this is: I am sure some people could see some wisdom in 20%, and I'm sure that the guy who has to go out and raise money could sell it, if we knew that investors would at least break even on those taxes. However, what are the chances that the government is going to use that 20% properly? Answer: less than 5%.

 

IF you told could prove that 20% = infrastructure actually delivered, in a timely manner, I could sell that to investors, if I ran a business that depends on that stuff.

 

But let's be honest with ourselves: most new business doesn't rely on that infrastructure, and you aren't going to deliver it on time or properly anyway.

 

Why should anybody want to give you 20%, so you can FAIL, again, and then proceed to blame the people who you took the 20% from....for your failures?

 

When looking at the United States, why do you only look at tax rates? Countries have more to offer than just tax rates. Just because a tax rate is lower in one country does not mean you will go invest there. People still love the United States! You want to punish our beloved country by lowering their tax revenue for no reason.

[WorldTraveller]

Are you sure about the impact on 401ks and pensions? Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but those entities don't pay any taxes on retirees' funds, so the capital gains tax is irrelevant for those funds. Income taxes are paid once someone starts collecting on pensions and 401ks at retirement.

 

 

And "capital formation"? That term is so 1990s.

 

As for this entire welfare debate, I thought Clinton and the Republicans "ended welfare as we know it?" There are limits on eligibility and there are work requirements now. Since it's been pushed down to the states, there are some differences by state, but didn't the notion of permanent welfare queens die in 1996?

Do pension funds invest in mutual funds? How about properties?

 

Regarding capital formation, who cares if from your POV it's a "1990s" term? It still applies.

Edited May 10, 2012 by WorldTraveller

[3rdnlng]

Great comparison...not. This is like when people compare the government's budget to a household's. Not the same.

 

I understand there is more risk with capital gains obviously and that is why taxes are lower on them. The gains are much more extravagant than regular income which is why your theory really doesn't work.

 

I should have clarified that 20% would probably be my max number. 15% is fine. People invest in America still. This notion that we need to keep lowering taxes to lure people is a myth.

 

As for the income tax thing...rah rah rah Robin Hood! Huge tax reform would be ideal. No loopholes, just basic rates at different brackets. That would be my approach, probably you too. I just don't see it ever happening.

 

 

 

When looking at the United States, why do you only look at tax rates? Countries have more to offer than just tax rates. Just because a tax rate is lower in one country does not mean you will go invest there. People still love the United States! You want to punish our beloved country by lowering their tax revenue for no reason.

 

 

I guess if you consider our beloved country the government and/or government workers then lowering tax rates would be a punishment. If you consider the country "the people" then lowering the tax rate wouldn't necessarily be a punishment.

[MARCELL DAREUS POWER]

Seriously....WTF are you talking about?

 

I promise to not make fun of you, or bring up anything just to piss you off, for the next 3 posts....if you can tell me what exactly you mean.

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_to_the_bottom#Political_theory

[fjl2nd]

I guess if you consider our beloved country the government and/or government workers then lowering tax rates would be a punishment. If you consider the country "the people" then lowering the tax rate wouldn't necessarily be a punishment.

 

I tend to think as everything as a whole. What's best for the entire country. Our views would probably differ on that. But, if we just looked out for "the people", then we'd 0% taxes on everything and there would be no government.

[Alaska Darin]

Regarding capital formation, who cares if from your POV it's a "1990s" term? It still applies.

Welcome to TPS. It doesn't get better.

 

But, if we just looked out for "the people", then we'd 0% taxes on everything and there would be no government.

[OCinBuffalo]

When looking at the United States, why do you only look at tax rates? Countries have more to offer than just tax rates. Just because a tax rate is lower in one country does not mean you will go invest there. People still love the United States! You want to punish our beloved country by lowering their tax revenue for no reason.

Go back and re-read my post. See the "flip side"? By definition, I did not "just look at tax rates". Now run along and re-read it.

 

No. I want you to refrain from punishing people who really create jobs(Hint: it's not millionaires and billionaires, it's the guy who takes his 50k he saved up and starts a company, and then has to raise money from millionaires and billionaires), just so your beloved government can continue to FAIL at delivering what they promise, or, deliver what small businesses don't need or use.

 

What you are not getting, or purposefully ignoring because you know it makes you flat out wrong: Investors only care about cost/benefit. If you have cost, you better show benefit, or it's your ass.

 

Now, exactly new what benefit will government definitely deliver on....that is worth an additional 5% of an investor's profit? 15% is already killing us. IF there was a benefit that came with your 20% capital gains tax, and it made sense, we could probably work with that and maybe convince investors it was worth it. But there is no benefit. And don't even think about saying Obamacare. That alone has screwed up the entire game more than your dopey tax increase ever could. At least we would have the certainty of 20% being 20%.

 

That's how this game is played. You don't get to B word about the game if you won't learn the rules.

 

http://en.wikipedia....olitical_theory

 

I promise to be serious....and you not only give me wiki....but don't even bother to read your own link? To wit:

 

However, it has been countered that the government who provides the most efficient services, including regulatory structure and welfare spending, will win through competition, and that race-to-the-bottom is not the norm, but applies only to special situations such as extradition and atmospheric pollution.

 

Methinks this is grounds for revoking my offer. But perhaps not. Explain how the above is not true...using what you know, not wiki.