DC Tom Posted June 24, 2012 Share Posted June 24, 2012 way to distract from the issue. we are not talking about the how of capital gains, rather when an investment takes losses, the state bails them out.... omg! THEY ARE NOT GETTING TAXED. WHEN THEY TAKE LOSSES, THEY GET FREE MONEY FROM THE STATE... why? No, you're talking about that. Everyone else was talking about assets vs. capital gains. "Waaaah! I hijacked the thread for my own pet stupidity, and now everyone's picking on me! Waaaaah!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARCELL DAREUS POWER Posted June 24, 2012 Share Posted June 24, 2012 No, you're talking about that. Everyone else was talking about assets vs. capital gains. "Waaaah! I hijacked the thread for my own pet stupidity, and now everyone's picking on me! Waaaaah!" WHEN THEY TAKE LOSSES, THEY GET FREE MONEY FROM THE STATE... why? why should the tax code change because you made a stupid decision? whether through a deduction or subsidy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted June 24, 2012 Share Posted June 24, 2012 WHEN THEY TAKE LOSSES, THEY GET FREE MONEY FROM THE STATE... why? why should the tax code change because you made a stupid decision? whether through a deduction or subsidy? You didn't answer Chef's question (which I'm curious about myself). How is the state giving the people who take losses free money? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted June 24, 2012 Share Posted June 24, 2012 WHEN THEY TAKE LOSSES, THEY GET FREE MONEY FROM THE STATE... why? why should the tax code change because you made a stupid decision? whether through a deduction or subsidy? Are you saying because they offset their gains with losses they got the gains for free? Really is that what you're saying? Because I really have no !@#$ing clue what you're talking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARCELL DAREUS POWER Posted June 24, 2012 Share Posted June 24, 2012 You didn't answer Chef's question (which I'm curious about myself). How is the state giving the people who take losses free money? because the tax code changes through deductions or they get subsidies. for example. if i buy a house, and the property value goes down, to bad. you still need to pay property taxes at the same rate as everybody else. otherwise the state is protecting bad investment. the burden of the market gets diminished greatly... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted June 24, 2012 Share Posted June 24, 2012 (edited) because the tax code changes through deductions or they get subsidies. for example. if i buy a house, and the property value goes down, to bad. you still need to pay property taxes at the same rate as everybody else. otherwise the state is protecting bad investment. the burden of the market gets diminished greatly... Property taxes are generally a % of the assessed value. If your assessed value goes up you pay the same % on the higher amount. If the assessed value goes down you pay the same % on the lower amount. What's the problem? Edit: And specifically, what subsidies are you referring to? Edited June 24, 2012 by Rob's House Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted June 24, 2012 Share Posted June 24, 2012 because the tax code changes through deductions or they get subsidies. for example. if i buy a house, and the property value goes down, to bad. you still need to pay property taxes at the same rate as everybody else. otherwise the state is protecting bad investment. the burden of the market gets diminished greatly... Wait so now you're equating property taxes to income and cap gains taxes??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARCELL DAREUS POWER Posted June 24, 2012 Share Posted June 24, 2012 Property taxes are generally a % of the assessed value. If your assessed value goes up you pay the same % on the higher amount. If the assessed value goes down you pay the same % on the lower amount. What's the problem? Edit: And specifically, what subsidies are you referring to? but you cant write off losses from the original value? correct? so if invest 100$ and lose 50$, i can deduct the 50.... in other words, a % based tax makes obvious sense. the taxes are the same regardless of income or loss. but thats not what happens. you can deduct taxes to actually make up for what you lost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted June 24, 2012 Share Posted June 24, 2012 but you cant write off losses from the original value? correct? so if invest 100$ and lose 50$, i can deduct the 50.... in other words, a % based tax makes obvious sense. the taxes are the same regardless of income or loss. but thats not what happens. you can deduct taxes to actually make up for what you lost. No. You cannot write off all your losses against your income. You can only write off like losses against like gains. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARCELL DAREUS POWER Posted June 24, 2012 Share Posted June 24, 2012 Wait so now you're equating property taxes to income and cap gains taxes??? if you want a more salient example, if you invest in a bar and the bar takes losses because of the market, just like a house, you should not have your taxes reduced, to make up for losses. the % of 20% or whatever it is, should stay the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted June 24, 2012 Share Posted June 24, 2012 No. You cannot write off all your losses against your income. You can only write off like losses against like gains. I think this guy is who Crayonz based his schtick on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARCELL DAREUS POWER Posted June 24, 2012 Share Posted June 24, 2012 (edited) So how does the state make up the loss? It's gone, kaput, lost, blown, disappeard, nonexistent, down the drain. In my example I lost $500k. Please explain how the state makes me whole. nt should you still pay taxes? or should you pay zero taxes? if you take the 500k loss, the tax rate shouldnt go from 15% to 0%. and remember, we are still not even talking about subsidies, ie corporate welfare. No. You cannot write off all your losses against your income. You can only write off like losses against like gains. so if you gained 20$ and then lost 30$, you can deduct the losses(10) and still come out with no loss. ie right back where you started.... Edited June 24, 2012 by MARCELL DAREUS POWER Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted June 24, 2012 Share Posted June 24, 2012 but you cant write off losses from the original value? correct? so if invest 100$ and lose 50$, i can deduct the 50.... in other words, a % based tax makes obvious sense. the taxes are the same regardless of income or loss. but thats not what happens. you can deduct taxes to actually make up for what you lost. No offense, but based on what you just wrote I can definitively say you don't understand the subject matter well enough to have strong opinions on it. I know, I've been guilty of the same hubris. But before you start deferring to authority and parroting the Chomsky's of the world you should stand back and question everything you think you've learned and really try to understand the counterarguments to your theories. Your example here is contrived in so many ways. First off, property taxes are typically implemented by municipalities and are in no way related to Federal taxation or similar to capital gains. Capital gains would not come in to play until you sell the house at which time you would either pay tax on the increased value or you could potentially deduct your loss (I don't know the specifics of how much you can and can't deduct. I suspect Chef could enlighen us on the subject), which is precisely how it works with investments. But regardless, you're conflating unrelated taxes and levels of government to reach your conclusion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted June 24, 2012 Share Posted June 24, 2012 (edited) nt should you still pay taxes? or should you pay zero taxes? if you take the 500k loss, the tax rate shouldnt go from 15% to 0%. and remember, we are still not even talking about subsidies, ie corporate welfare. so if you gained 20$ and then lost 30$, you can deduct the losses(10) and still come out with no loss. ie right back where you started.... You lose $30 and because you deducted it from your gain you have no loss? Um, yeah you do. You have a net loss of $10. If you're only source of income is from capital gains in your example there was no net income to tax. Doesn't matter if the rate is 15%, 50% or 100%. You remember simple math right. 100% of zero is zero. And what's this corporate welfare you keep bringing up. The two women in the article were not corporations. No offense, but based on what you just wrote I can definitively say you don't understand the subject matter well enough to have strong opinions on it. I know, I've been guilty of the same hubris. But before you start deferring to authority and parroting the Chomsky's of the world you should stand back and question everything you think you've learned and really try to understand the counterarguments to your theories. Your example here is contrived in so many ways. First off, property taxes are typically implemented by municipalities and are in no way related to Federal taxation or similar to capital gains. Capital gains would not come in to play until you sell the house at which time you would either pay tax on the increased value or you could potentially deduct your loss (I don't know the specifics of how much you can and can't deduct. I suspect Chef could enlighen us on the subject), which is precisely how it works with investments. But regardless, you're conflating unrelated taxes and levels of government to reach your conclusion. Let's not even bring property taxes into the discussion seeing they're 100% irrelevant in this discussion. The discussion here is capital gains/losses and how they're applied to a tax return. It's actually quite simple. You can offset any realized gain (an asset that was sold for a profit) by realizing a loss (an asset sold for a loss). They have to be a like asset (long term to long term/ short term to short term). Now if you had no realized gains and only losses you can deduct up to $3,000 off your income until those total losses are wiped out through these deductions or as offsets to like gains. I remember seeing day traders back in the day having about a thousand years of carry forward deductions. Edited June 24, 2012 by Chef Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 24, 2012 Share Posted June 24, 2012 so if you gained 20$ and then lost 30$, you can deduct the losses(10) and still come out with no loss. ie right back where you started.... What? What kind of logic is this? Deducting a $10 loss from what, exactly, gives you no loss? What the !@#$ are you talking about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted June 24, 2012 Share Posted June 24, 2012 So if they had ZERO INCOME what is it exactly they should be taxed on? Or should we impose a "just because" tax. That way we can tax the wealthy just because they're wealthy. I believe you just answered your own question. They should be taxed based on what some libtard feels they should have made that year. You know, because everyone has to pay their "fair share". So how does the state make up the loss? It's gone, kaput, lost, blown, disappeard, nonexistent, down the drain. In my example I lost $500k. Please explain how the state makes me whole. His bar is too big to fail, obviously. Were the gubment not able to bail out his bar, the entire economy would collapse. Alcoholics would take to the streets to find their booze. Bar food would be dripping grease with no one to eat them. The zombie apocalypse would take hold without booze to quell the storm. Well that or he's just not smart enough to understand the difference, and is painting broad generalizations based on his idiotic imagination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted June 24, 2012 Share Posted June 24, 2012 What? What kind of logic is this? Deducting a $10 loss from what, exactly, gives you no loss? What the !@#$ are you talking about? He probably worked for the NYS Thruway Authority in a past life. 'Why am I getting Call EZ-Pass notices when taking a 1 exit trip on the Thruway with the brand new tag you sent me; the one where the paperwork that came with it says it's all ready to go?' 'We can't activate your new tag because you have a negative balance.' 'What do you mean there's a negative balance, the balance is $3.97?' 'Right, that's below $4 and is therefore negative and you can't get a tag activated with a negative balance.' '$3.97 is greater than $0, right?' 'Yes, but it's negative. And because you were using an inactive tag, your account will get charged a max toll trip.' 'But the account is in good standing and my other tag works, and now I'm going to have a true negative balance because I used the tag like it was supposed to be used?' 'Yes, but once your account is no longer negative we can adjust the max toll off your account and then you can use the tag.' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted June 24, 2012 Share Posted June 24, 2012 Don't mean to get "all social" and offend some here... Does "net worth" garner any kind of societal power? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted June 24, 2012 Share Posted June 24, 2012 Don't mean to get "all social" and offend some here... Does "net worth" garner any kind of societal power? So are you insinuating we should be taxing societal power? Whatever that is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted June 24, 2012 Share Posted June 24, 2012 Don't mean to get "all social" and offend some here... Does "net worth" garner any kind of societal power? Sure, so do a lot of other things. Like looks, charisma, voice, social status, etc. There are only certain one's that you can adjust or compensate for, which doesn't level the playing field, just skews it in a different way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts