Proud fans of a 128-year old tradition

It is currently Thu Oct 23, 2014 1:31 pm

All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 15 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Taxes and who pays what
PostPosted: Wed Sep 21, 2011 12:08 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:11 pm
Posts: 3364
Location: Wheeling, WV
This attached article is in the Washington Post today. It is not a paper that has a liberal bias. Even Fox News (fair and balanced?) does not claim it a "liberal rag".

Please note that on average no one group pays 36% as things like deductions and Social Security and Medicare lessen the rates of the rich. Cerainly not the 50/60% claimed by mouthy Fox commentators.

Make note also of the fact that while the working poor may pay no income tax, they do pay soc. security and Medicare so the argument thjat half the country pays nothing is also wrong headed.

Point here is that the rich are not paying the terrible rates claimed on Fox and by Republicans and the argument that many pay nothing is simply wrong as demonstrated by the article and the inclosed chart.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fac ... ml?hpid=z2

_________________
2011 Will Be Our Year -- well make that 2012 (just saying) So it looks like 2013 now - how long must this go on!
THIS IS IT-- NO MORE STREAK!!! *** Finally*** Time to win it in 2014


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Taxes and who pays what
PostPosted: Tue Oct 11, 2011 5:55 pm 
Online
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:44 pm
Posts: 10718
Substitute2 wrote:
This attached article is in the Washington Post today. It is not a paper that has a liberal bias.

The Post is a paper with a very well-recognized liberal leaning in its editorial pages. The paper has not endorsed a Republican for national office since Teddy Roosevelt, I suspect.

Substitute2 wrote:
Please note that on average no one group pays 36% as things like deductions and Social Security and Medicare lessen the rates of the rich. Cerainly not the 50/60% claimed by mouthy Fox commentators.

Sub - you are misunderstanding what is being reported by all media sources relative to who pays taxes, and what the story reports. The percentages reported in the article are the total percent of income paid in "taxes" (including social security, etc. and including deductions), and as you can see, the more you earn, the more you pay - contrary to the mantra that the "rich" do not pay "their fair share."

(P.S. Once the word "fairness" is brandished in a debate, then analysis takes a back seat. Who the hell is somebody else to tell me what is "fair" and vice versa?)

The report that the top 1% of wage earners pay 40% of the Federal income tax is based on numbers from the IRS, not from a "news agency." The data show the following about who pays what in Federal income taxes:

Image

In terms of Fed income tax, as of 2007, the top 1% paid 40% of such taxes - more than the bottom 95% combined.

Substitute2 wrote:
Make note also of the fact that while the working poor may pay no income tax, they do pay soc. security and Medicare so the argument thjat half the country pays nothing is also wrong headed.

Two points, Sub. First, the statement that the bottom 47% of wager earners pay no Federal income tax is a fact. It is not an opinion, or a question of "fairness." It is a simple and provable fact:

In 2009, roughly 47% of households, or 71 million, will not owe any federal income tax, according to estimates by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center.

http://money.cnn.com/2009/09/30/pf/taxe ... /index.htm

Dout that news source? How about NPR, saying the same thing?

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... =125997180

Second, Medicare and Social Security are not a typical "tax." They have always been represented to me, as a taxpayer, as an "investment." I spend money on these programs and put in my contributions and later, I am eligible to get a return on my (considerable, for me as a self-employed business owner) investment.

That is why the amount you paid in and the span of time you paid determine how much you get back, at least for Social Security.

Substitute2 wrote:
Point here is that the rich are not paying the terrible rates claimed on Fox and by Republicans and the argument that many pay nothing is simply wrong as demonstrated by the article and the inclosed chart.

The data show that the Federal income taxes are paid to a significant extent by a very small percentage of taxpayers, and almost entirely by the top 20% of wage earners.

This is a fact, Sub. Denying data from the IRS as to who pays what does not change the facts:

Image

Note that the top 1% and 20% of wage earners paid more than their percentage of all income dervied in the country for the year 2010, while the bottom 60% paid far less than the percentage of the nation's income they earned.

Also, I think you miss the key part of the story you cite. Specifically, the author takes exception to the claim by Obama that Buffet's secretary pays more in taxes than Buffet does. Specifically, the artice concludes:

We don’t have enough data to make a Pinocchio ruling, but we were struck by the fact that at a White House briefing, administration officials resolutely refused to explain how the Buffett Rule would be put into effect. “Now, there are lots of different ways to achieve that principle,” Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said. “How you do it depends on what you do to the broader tax system as a whole. … We’re going to fight to make sure that's part of what Congress considers and ultimately delivers.”

In other words, it may be an effective political argument, even if it’s not really much of a problem.


The "Pinocchio ruling" referred to is a determination that the person making the statement lied. He cannot say that Obama is lying because he does not have enough data on what exactly Obama is proposing.

Finally, the concern I have is that once less than 50% of wage earners are obligated to pay for new programs, then the majority are gong to be expected to deny themselves a freebie because of admirable self-control, and for no other reason.

They will not reject the new freebie on what it costs, obviously, since it would cost them nothing (or so they are told).

So when I hear a politician saying that "millionaires" need to pay their "fair share" to fund a new program, I am dubious. Such statements are not part of a solution to any potential economic problem the country faces.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Taxes and who pays what
PostPosted: Tue Oct 11, 2011 11:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 4:52 pm
Posts: 5419
Location: Pittsburgh
Bucfan, those number look really impressive, but only because they treat payroll taxes as taxes on businesses, which they really aren't, and because they only take into account earned income, which consists of about 100% off all income for the poor and middle classes, but only a fraction of that for the 95th percentile. The only two number that really matters is all income divided by all taxes paid.

You have the 95th percentile paying a 40% of all income taxes. They control over 50% of the wealth. You don't hear that second fact from Fox or Rush very often.

I'm all for flat taxes, just as soon as somebody proposes a flat tax plan that treats all income equally, instead of giving generous breaks to the wealthy by calling their incomes by another name.

_________________
"Enjoy every sandwich." - Warren Zevon


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Taxes and who pays what
PostPosted: Thu Oct 13, 2011 2:36 am 
Online
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:44 pm
Posts: 10718
sisyphus wrote:
Bucfan, those number look really impressive, but only because they treat payroll taxes as taxes on businesses, which they really aren't.

False. Only the MATCHING funds paid by business are considered business taxes.

The taxes paid by the wage earners are credited to them.

Where do you get your information??

sisyphus wrote:
and because they only take into account earned income, which consists of about 100% off all income for the poor and middle classes, but only a fraction of that for the 95th percentile.

Capital gains are taxed at capital gains rates, but are NOT immune to the higher income taxes.

Specifically, the original investment came from income, taxed at a high rate. The money is invested and, if it returns a profit, is taxed again.

You are complaining that duplicate taxes need to be higher.

Why? To generate more revenue? No, actually. The punitive proposed capital gains tax rates have nothing to do with raising revenue to pay for government, and instead are nothing more than purported "fairness." Who says so?

This guy:



The tax system should be "fair," even if it reduces the tax yield?

As soon as something as ephemeral as "fairness" is offered as a justification, then productive discourse ends.

sisyphus wrote:
You have the 95th percentile paying a 40% of all income taxes. They control over 50% of the wealth. You don't hear that second fact from Fox or Rush very often.


What do Rush and Fox have to do with my points? Oh, I get it. Those are shibboleths that you throw out, awed by their power and fearful of their vengeance, in the hope that I am similarly affected.

Sorry to disappoint you. I think for myself.

Maybe you should give it a try.

sisyphus wrote:
I'm all for flat taxes, just as soon as somebody proposes a flat tax plan that treats all income equally, instead of giving generous breaks to the wealthy by calling their incomes by another name.


Yield envy?


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Taxes and who pays what
PostPosted: Thu Oct 13, 2011 4:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:18 pm
Posts: 5060
Location: Scotch Plains, NJ
Bucfan wrote:
sisyphus wrote:
and because they only take into account earned income, which consists of about 100% off all income for the poor and middle classes, but only a fraction of that for the 95th percentile.

Capital gains are taxed at capital gains rates, but are NOT immune to the higher income taxes.

Specifically, the original investment came from income, taxed at a high rate. The money is invested and, if it returns a profit, is taxed again.

You are complaining that duplicate taxes need to be higher.


Bucfan, you're hiding the ball here. You fail to mention that capital losses can be claimed and deducted against one's gross income, which is taxed at a higher rate than capital gains. So tell me: why should capital gains be taxed at a lower rate than ordinary income when capital losses can be deducted from ordinary income (which, again, is taxed at a higher rate) and lower one's tax burden? Why the double standard?

You seem to be treating capital gains as money that gets taxed twice. How? If the capital investment eventually makes a profit (i.e., a capital gain), that profit is not money that you had before the investment. So how does that profit get taxed twice?

You pooh-pooh appeals to fairness by labeling as destructive to reasonable discourse, but that's exactly what you're doing above: appealing to fairness. Please don't treat the lowered capital gains tax as anything other than it is: an incentive to invest.

_________________
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
~H. L. Mencken


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Taxes and who pays what
PostPosted: Thu Oct 13, 2011 7:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 4:52 pm
Posts: 5419
Location: Pittsburgh
Bucfan wrote:
sisyphus wrote:
and because they only take into account earned income, which consists of about 100% off all income for the poor and middle classes, but only a fraction of that for the 95th percentile.

Capital gains are taxed at capital gains rates, but are NOT immune to the higher income taxes.

Specifically, the original investment came from income, taxed at a high rate. The money is invested and, if it returns a profit, is taxed again.

Don't bullshit me with that double tax crap. A capital gain is income. Money earned by the sweat of your brow is income. Inherited money is income. Differentiating between them is one of the successful tactics used by the winning side in the class war that has been going one for over thirty years now.

Quote:
You are complaining that duplicate taxes need to be higher.

Nope, I saying that income is income. You're saying that it's income when you work for it, but not when you're rich.

Bucfan wrote:
sisyphus wrote:
You have the 95th percentile paying a 40% of all income taxes. They control over 50% of the wealth. You don't hear that second fact from Fox or Rush very often.


What do Rush and Fox have to do with my points? Oh, I get it. Those are shibboleths that you throw out, awed by their power and fearful of their vengeance, in the hope that I am similarly affected.

Sorry to disappoint you. I think for myself.

Maybe you should give it a try.

Maybe you should address the fact that the folks who have way more than 50% of the nation's wealth pay only 40% of the nation's taxes.

Bucfan wrote:
sisyphus wrote:
I'm all for flat taxes, just as soon as somebody proposes a flat tax plan that treats all income equally, instead of giving generous breaks to the wealthy by calling their incomes by another name.


Yield envy?

A search for justice. When over 50% of the wealth is paying only 40% of the taxes, that is an unjust system. When an American corporation turns an $11 Billion profit and pays $0.00 in federal taxes, that's an unjust system.

_________________
"Enjoy every sandwich." - Warren Zevon


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Taxes and who pays what
PostPosted: Thu Oct 13, 2011 11:55 pm 
Online
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:44 pm
Posts: 10718
Willton wrote:
You seem to be treating capital gains as money that gets taxed twice. How? If the capital investment eventually makes a profit (i.e., a capital gain), that profit is not money that you had before the investment. So how does that profit get taxed twice?

The only party who can actually print money is the Fed.

Since everybody else, including investors, needs to earn that money, the original earning is subject to income tax.

All investment subject to capital gains has, at its origin, been subjected to the higher income tax.

Further, you conveniently ignore the point:

Increased capital gains = reduced tax revenue.

Reduced capital gains tax reate = increased revenue. The CBO reports:

The sensitivity of realizations to gains tax rates raises the possibility that a cut in the rate could so increase realizations that revenue from capital gains taxes might rise as a consequence.

http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=3856&type=0

So increasing capital gains to "show them," despite the fact that the increase yields LESS revenue, is the model of the current administration's economic policies.

Who cares if it works, so long as it LOOKS GOOD!!

Image


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Taxes and who pays what
PostPosted: Fri Oct 14, 2011 10:48 am 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:18 pm
Posts: 5060
Location: Scotch Plains, NJ
Bucfan wrote:
Willton wrote:
You seem to be treating capital gains as money that gets taxed twice. How? If the capital investment eventually makes a profit (i.e., a capital gain), that profit is not money that you had before the investment. So how does that profit get taxed twice?

The only party who can actually print money is the Fed.

Since everybody else, including investors, needs to earn that money, the original earning is subject to income tax.

All investment subject to capital gains has, at its origin, been subjected to the higher income tax.

I don't think you understand how capital gains are taxed. Yes, the original money that went into an investment was likely subject to tax as ordinary income at some point (unless of course it was originally a capital gain that was later reinvested, but that's another topic). But if the investment makes a profit, the only thing that's subject to a capital gains tax is the profit itself, not the original investment. Furthermore, if you suffer a loss, not only is that loss not taxed, but it can be deducted from your taxable income. Therefore, you have no basis for saying that a capital gain subject to a capital gains tax is money that is taxed twice.

Bucfan wrote:
Further, you conveniently ignore the point:

Increased capital gains = reduced tax revenue.

Reduced capital gains tax reate = increased revenue. The CBO reports:

The sensitivity of realizations to gains tax rates raises the possibility that a cut in the rate could so increase realizations that revenue from capital gains taxes might rise as a consequence.

http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=3856&type=0

So increasing capital gains to "show them," despite the fact that the increase yields LESS revenue, is the model of the current administration's economic policies.

I don't think you read that article very thoroughly. In fact, I don't think you thoroughly read the paragraph from which that line was quoted. Allow me:
Quote:
"The sensitivity of realizations to gains tax rates raises the possibility that a cut in the rate could so increase realizations that revenue from capital gains taxes might rise as a consequence. Rising gains receipts in response to a rate cut are most likely to occur in the short run. Postponing or advancing realizations by a year is relatively easy compared with doing so over much longer periods. In addition, a stock of accumulated gains may be realized shortly after the rate is cut, but once that accumulation is "unlocked," the stock of accrued gains is smaller and realizations cannot continue at as fast a rate as they did initially. Thus, even though the responsiveness of realizations to a tax cut may not be enough to produce additional receipts over a long period, it may do so over a few years. The potentially large difference between the long- and short-term sensitivity of realizations to tax rates can mislead observers into assuming a greater permanent responsiveness than actually exists.

Because of the other influences on realizations, the relationship between them and tax rates can be hard to detect and easy to confuse with other phenomena. For example, a number of observers have attributed the rapid rise in realizations in the late 1990s to the 1997 cut in capital gains tax rates. But the 45 percent increase in realizations in 1996--before the cut--exceeded the 40 percent and 25 percent increases in 1997 and 1998 that followed it. Careful studies have failed to agree on how responsive gains realizations are to changes in tax rates, with estimates of that responsiveness varying widely."

Based on the above quote from the article you cite, something tells me that you either did not read the line you quoted very carefully, or you do not understand what the "=" sign means. "Raises the possibility", "could" and "may" are not the same as "equals".

Bucfan wrote:
Who cares if it works, so long as it LOOKS GOOD!!

Says the guy who's hiding the ball.

_________________
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
~H. L. Mencken


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Taxes and who pays what
PostPosted: Tue Oct 18, 2011 12:55 am 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:11 pm
Posts: 3364
Location: Wheeling, WV
Bottom line here is what should be taxed and what is it used for. Clearly there are services that we all need like roads, police, defense, etc. How to raise the monies necessary to provide these needs. Today there is a movement to reduce those services and thereby cut spending. I guess it depends on whose ox is gord. The Tea Party movement (which is losing steam) says to cut, cut, cut. When we look at the benefits or services being cut (i.e. aarp adds), there will be an increasing question as to the worth of doing the cutting. Everyone agrees the waste and fraud need to be gone, but what else is debateable.

But here the question is who should pay what for those services necessary to our way of living and how much??? It is easy to suggest that the rich are paying too much, but are they? A huge majority of Americans don't agree with Bucfans argument and something over 70% want to increase taxes on the rich to find some of the necessary money. If you don't agree, just look at the demonstrations happening all over our country. Some network tries to suggest that they are just a bunch of radicals but how many radicals does it take to be the norm? No this movement is not going away and is going to continue to grow. The point is that the banks and corporate officiers are continuing to rake in huge bonus and pay while the average guy's standard of living is going down.

Those who continue to think that making fun of those demonstrating will make them go away, had better watch who's toes they are stepping on as the movement continues to grow. That is after all what democracy is all about. And the rich had better start to prepare themselves for higher taxes.

_________________
2011 Will Be Our Year -- well make that 2012 (just saying) So it looks like 2013 now - how long must this go on!
THIS IS IT-- NO MORE STREAK!!! *** Finally*** Time to win it in 2014


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Taxes and who pays what
PostPosted: Tue Oct 18, 2011 7:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 4:52 pm
Posts: 5419
Location: Pittsburgh
Substitute2 wrote:
Bottom line here is what should be taxed and what is it used for. Clearly there are services that we all need like roads, police, defense, etc. How to raise the monies necessary to provide these needs. Today there is a movement to reduce those services and thereby cut spending. I guess it depends on whose ox is gord. The Tea Party movement (which is losing steam) says to cut, cut, cut. When we look at the benefits or services being cut (i.e. aarp adds), there will be an increasing question as to the worth of doing the cutting. Everyone agrees the waste and fraud need to be gone, but what else is debateable.

But here the question is who should pay what for those services necessary to our way of living and how much??? It is easy to suggest that the rich are paying too much, but are they? A huge majority of Americans don't agree with Bucfans argument and something over 70% want to increase taxes on the rich to find some of the necessary money. If you don't agree, just look at the demonstrations happening all over our country. Some network tries to suggest that they are just a bunch of radicals but how many radicals does it take to be the norm? No this movement is not going away and is going to continue to grow. The point is that the banks and corporate officiers are continuing to rake in huge bonus and pay while the average guy's standard of living is going down.

Those who continue to think that making fun of those demonstrating will make them go away, had better watch who's toes they are stepping on as the movement continues to grow. That is after all what democracy is all about. And the rich had better start to prepare themselves for higher taxes.

The Tea Partiers and Occupy Wall Streets do share at least a little common ground. Both wonder why none of the crooked bankers who nearly destroyed our economy are being prosecuted. I believe that the S&L crisis back in the 80s resulted in over 1,000 prosecutions, including top S&L execs. That crisis was a tempest in a teapot compared to what we just went through.

_________________
"Enjoy every sandwich." - Warren Zevon


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Taxes and who pays what
PostPosted: Mon Oct 24, 2011 8:49 pm 
Online
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:44 pm
Posts: 10718
Willton wrote:
Bucfan, you're hiding the ball here. You fail to mention that capital losses can be claimed and deducted against one's gross income, which is taxed at a higher rate than capital gains. So tell me: why should capital gains be taxed at a lower rate than ordinary income when capital losses can be deducted from ordinary income (which, again, is taxed at a higher rate) and lower one's tax burden? Why the double standard?

Talk about hiding the ball ...

The limit for capital losses is $1500 per person, $3000 per couple.

Further, capital losses are first deducted from capital gains. Only if the capital loss is greater than the gain can the income deduction take place.

Further, the deduction is not permitted for strategic investments to gain a capital loss, the so-called "wash rule."

So why is a capital loss that is greater than a capital gain allowed to be deducted from income, up to $1500 per individual, so long as it passes the "wash rule"?

Who the hell knows? You think the nonsense in the tax code weighs in favor of a higher capital gains tax? Go ahead and explain that one.

The tax system SHOULD be designed to garner necessary revenue at the lowest harm possible to the economy. The concept of "fairness" has no business here.

Finally, it is a fact that higher capital gains yield LOWER revenue, and lower capital gains generate more revenue.

Image

http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=3856&type=0

Note the inverse relationshipe between higher capital gains tax rates and resulting revenue.

Willton wrote:
You seem to be treating capital gains as money that gets taxed twice. How? If the capital investment eventually makes a profit (i.e., a capital gain), that profit is not money that you had before the investment. So how does that profit get taxed twice?

The money invested was, at its origin, income. Whether it was originally earned in 1928 or yesterday, it was income, subject to income tax. Indeed, for income earned before 1981, the tax burden would have been potentially onerous.

If that investment yields a return, then it is subject to taxation at the capital gains rate - a second tax.

If the remaining capital gain is realized, taxed, and re-invested, and it yields further gain, it is taxed AGAIN.

Get it?

Willton wrote:
You pooh-pooh appeals to fairness by labeling as destructive to reasonable discourse, but that's exactly what you're doing above: appealing to fairness. Please don't treat the lowered capital gains tax as anything other than it is: an incentive to invest.

Fairness? According to whom?

The information I posted shows that higher capital gains tax rates yield LOWER revenue.

Is the point just to "punish"?

Fairness has no place in tax policy. The goal, for reasons of economic production and no other, should be, "The needed revenue at the lowest harm to the economy."

P.S. If you believe that fairness is a proper force for tax policy, then I think it would be really fair for you to pay my tax bill this year. So how far does your "fairness" argument go? Only to what YOU think is fair?


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Taxes and who pays what
PostPosted: Mon Oct 24, 2011 9:07 pm 
Online
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:44 pm
Posts: 10718
sisyphus wrote:
Don't bullshit me with that double tax crap. A capital gain is income. Money earned by the sweat of your brow is income. Inherited money is income. Differentiating between them is one of the successful tactics used by the winning side in the class war that has been going one for over thirty years now.


False. All investment funds were, at one time, taxed as income.

"Well, what about inheritance?"

Whoever croaked and passed on wealth paid income tax for the income earned that generated the wealth that was invested (and became a capital investment) or passed on.

You saying "bullshit" and invoking class warfare does not actually constitute evidence or persuasive reasoning. It is simple-minded table-pounding.

sisyphus wrote:
Nope, I saying that income is income. You're saying that it's income when you work for it, but not when you're rich.

Get off your rant, for crying out loud.

Income is taxed as income. Investments (the origin of which was taxed as income) are taxed at capital gains rates.

Why? Well, partly because for investments, those who have the money to invest are NOT going to accept a second raping on their money (after having the origin of the investment taxed at the income tax rate).

That is why lower capital gains tax rates generate MORE CAPITAL GAINS TAX REVENUES:

Image

http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=3856&type=0

So is your goal to raise tax revenue, a lot of it, while encouraging investment and production?

Or simply to "get those rich fuckers"?

Your rants suggest an answer, but I think you should give your own reasoning.

sisyphus wrote:
Maybe you should address the fact that the folks who have way more than 50% of the nation's wealth pay only 40% of the nation's taxes.

False. They pay 40% of the income taxes, and a massive percentage of property taxes, capital gains taxes, inheritance taxes, etc.

You are just wrong.

sisyphus wrote:
I'm all for flat taxes, just as soon as somebody proposes a flat tax plan that treats all income equally, instead of giving generous breaks to the wealthy by calling their incomes by another name.


Sisyphus, I supect that if if a flat tax were in place, then the wealthy would save massive amounts of money on tax lawyers, accountants, etc., and would probably be thrilled with having capital gains taxed at the same flat rate as income.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Taxes and who pays what
PostPosted: Tue Oct 25, 2011 10:37 am 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:18 pm
Posts: 5060
Location: Scotch Plains, NJ
Bucfan wrote:
Willton wrote:
You seem to be treating capital gains as money that gets taxed twice. How? If the capital investment eventually makes a profit (i.e., a capital gain), that profit is not money that you had before the investment. So how does that profit get taxed twice?

The money invested was, at its origin, income. Whether it was originally earned in 1928 or yesterday, it was income, subject to income tax. Indeed, for income earned before 1981, the tax burden would have been potentially onerous.

If that investment yields a return, then it is subject to taxation at the capital gains rate - a second tax.

If the remaining capital gain is realized, taxed, and re-invested, and it yields further gain, it is taxed AGAIN.

Get it?

You still don't understand how capital gains are taxed, and if you had read my posts, you would have understood it better. So allow me to repeat myself:

I don't think you understand how capital gains are taxed. Yes, the original money that went into an investment was likely subject to tax as ordinary income at some point (unless of course it was originally a capital gain that was later reinvested, but that's another topic). But if the investment makes a profit, the only thing that's subject to a capital gains tax is the profit itself, NOT the original investment. Furthermore, if you suffer a loss, not only is that loss not taxed, but it can be deducted from your taxable income. Therefore, you have no basis for saying that a capital gain subject to a capital gains tax is money that is taxed twice.

Either you need to get better at reading comprehension, or you need a lesson in how to argue honestly.

Bucfan wrote:
Willton wrote:
You pooh-pooh appeals to fairness by labeling as destructive to reasonable discourse, but that's exactly what you're doing above: appealing to fairness. Please don't treat the lowered capital gains tax as anything other than it is: an incentive to invest.

Fairness? According to whom?

The information I posted shows that higher capital gains tax rates yield LOWER revenue.

Is the point just to "punish"?

Fairness has no place in tax policy. The goal, for reasons of economic production and no other, should be, "The needed revenue at the lowest harm to the economy."

P.S. If you believe that fairness is a proper force for tax policy, then I think it would be really fair for you to pay my tax bill this year. So how far does your "fairness" argument go? Only to what YOU think is fair?

Again, I think you need a lesson in arguing honestly. I am certain that you don't actually think that it would be fair to have someone else pay your tax burden and that you are merely presenting the option to make "fairness" a bogeyman. Stop swinging at strawmen.

What is fairness? Unfortunately, fairness and equity are difficult to define in terms of tax policy. Thankfully, the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants offered the following principles to help determine fairness in tax policy:

1. Exchange Equity and Fairness – Over the long run taxpayers receive appropriate value for the taxes they pay.
2. Process Equity and Fairness – Taxpayers have a voice in the tax system, are given due process and are treated with respect by tax administrators.
3. Horizontal Equity and Fairness – Similarly situated taxpayers are taxed similarly.
4. Vertical Equity and Fairness – Taxes are based on the ability to pay.
5. Time-Related Equity and Fairness – Taxes are not unduly distorted when income or wealth levels fluctuate over time.
6. Inter-Group Equity and Fairness – No group of taxpayers is favored to the detriment of another without good cause.
7. Compliance Equity and Fairness – All taxpayers pay what they owe on a timely basis.

Perhaps that should help you figure out how to properly ground an argument in fairness.

_________________
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
~H. L. Mencken


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Taxes and who pays what
PostPosted: Tue Oct 25, 2011 10:42 am 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:18 pm
Posts: 5060
Location: Scotch Plains, NJ
Bucfan wrote:
Finally, it is a fact that higher capital gains yield LOWER revenue, and lower capital gains generate more revenue.

Image

http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=3856&type=0

Note the inverse relationshipe between higher capital gains tax rates and resulting revenue.

No, that is an opinion, based on a graph provided by an institution who does not share your opinion. Again, as I said in my prior post, you clearly did not thoroughly read the article from which that graph was taken. Otherwise, you would have read the following:

Quote:
"The sensitivity of realizations to gains tax rates raises the possibility that a cut in the rate could so increase realizations that revenue from capital gains taxes might rise as a consequence. Rising gains receipts in response to a rate cut are most likely to occur in the short run. Postponing or advancing realizations by a year is relatively easy compared with doing so over much longer periods. In addition, a stock of accumulated gains may be realized shortly after the rate is cut, but once that accumulation is "unlocked," the stock of accrued gains is smaller and realizations cannot continue at as fast a rate as they did initially. Thus, even though the responsiveness of realizations to a tax cut may not be enough to produce additional receipts over a long period, it may do so over a few years. The potentially large difference between the long- and short-term sensitivity of realizations to tax rates can mislead observers into assuming a greater permanent responsiveness than actually exists.

Because of the other influences on realizations, the relationship between them and tax rates can be hard to detect and easy to confuse with other phenomena. For example, a number of observers have attributed the rapid rise in realizations in the late 1990s to the 1997 cut in capital gains tax rates. But the 45 percent increase in realizations in 1996--before the cut--exceeded the 40 percent and 25 percent increases in 1997 and 1998 that followed it. Careful studies have failed to agree on how responsive gains realizations are to changes in tax rates, with estimates of that responsiveness varying widely."

_________________
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
~H. L. Mencken


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Taxes and who pays what
PostPosted: Sun Nov 06, 2011 6:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 4:52 pm
Posts: 5419
Location: Pittsburgh
Bucfan wrote:
sisyphus wrote:
Don't bullshit me with that double tax crap. A capital gain is income. Money earned by the sweat of your brow is income. Inherited money is income. Differentiating between them is one of the successful tactics used by the winning side in the class war that has been going one for over thirty years now.


False. All investment funds were, at one time, taxed as income.

So is the money that I invest at the track or the poker table. My winnings are treated as income, not capital gains, believe me.

Income is income. You will never find a way to convince me that income earned through investment is somehow nobler than income earned through work, and deserving of preferential treatment.

Quote:
"Well, what about inheritance?"

Whoever croaked and passed on wealth paid income tax for the income earned that generated the wealth that was invested (and became a capital investment) or passed on.

Whoever croaked is not receiving the income from the inheritance.

Quote:
You saying "bullshit" and invoking class warfare does not actually constitute evidence or persuasive reasoning. It is simple-minded table-pounding.

Class warfare has been going on since the country became independent. For the last 30 years the rich have been winning, and blaming anyone who dares to point that fact out by saying that they are invoking class warfare, in between trips to their vaults to count their money.

Quote:
sisyphus wrote:
Nope, I saying that income is income. You're saying that it's income when you work for it, but not when you're rich.

Get off your rant, for crying out loud.

Income is taxed as income. Investments (the origin of which was taxed as income) are taxed at capital gains rates.

Why? Well, partly because for investments, those who have the money to invest are NOT going to accept a second raping on their money (after having the origin of the investment taxed at the income tax rate).

Right, dirty earned income deserves to be taxed more heavily than investment income.

Quote:
That is why lower capital gains tax rates generate MORE CAPITAL GAINS TAX REVENUES:

Image

http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=3856&type=0

So is your goal to raise tax revenue, a lot of it, while encouraging investment and production?

Willton already pointed out that you're full of crap on that one.

Quote:
Or simply to "get those rich fuckers"?

My goal is a tax system where those who control over 50% of the wealth pay over 50% of the taxes. A just, fair system.

Quote:
Your rants suggest an answer, but I think you should give your own reasoning.

sisyphus wrote:
Maybe you should address the fact that the folks who have way more than 50% of the nation's wealth pay only 40% of the nation's taxes.

False. They pay 40% of the income taxes, and a massive percentage of property taxes, capital gains taxes, inheritance taxes, etc.

You are just wrong.

When did the Federal Government start assessing property taxes?

I'm already aware that the federal tax code unjustly gives preferential treatment to most of the income that only the wealthy have access to, while taxing the shit out of what people earn through labor.

Quote:
sisyphus wrote:
I'm all for flat taxes, just as soon as somebody proposes a flat tax plan that treats all income equally, instead of giving generous breaks to the wealthy by calling their incomes by another name.


Sisyphus, I supect that if if a flat tax were in place, then the wealthy would save massive amounts of money on tax lawyers, accountants, etc., and would probably be thrilled with having capital gains taxed at the same flat rate as income.

I'm sure that they would save a ton on tax lawyers, which would free up a whole new class of people to do actual productive work. But it's pretty clear that they wouldn't save enough by their actions to stay on the gravy train that they're riding today.

_________________
"Enjoy every sandwich." - Warren Zevon


Top
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 15 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group  
Design By Poker Bandits