Navy SEALS slam Obama.

#126
#126
lawgator1 said:
LOL. Just because you think it is possible doesn't mean its true.
Seriously, credible link he could takeout bin Laden in 2010 with same certainty as when he did in 2011 or gtfo.
Click to expand...

If we can hold you to that standard, I will abide by it also.
 
#128
#128
BigPapaVol said:
hold up, are you really stupid enough to argue against trickle down economics?
Click to expand...


Its a matter of degree and timing. Certainly, wealthy investors having more to invest means more industry, demand, and jobs.

But its far more complicated than that.

For one thing, giving huge tax breaks for the wealthy to spend overseas or just hoard more cash or buying of empty equities or commodities will not have the same effect as when such breaks are, for example, rationally tied to industry that will yield more development and jobs.

I think the record on where the Bush tax cut money went (i.e. not invested in industry or jobs) is pretty apparent on its face.

In this case -- and we can debate forever why -- the trickle down never occurred. In fact, quite the opposite.



T-TownVol said:
If we can hold you to that standard, I will abide by it also.
Click to expand...

Dodge much?
 
#130
#130
lawgator1 said:
Its a matter of degree and timing. Certainly, wealthy investors having more to invest means more industry, demand, and jobs.

But its far more complicated than that.

For one thing, giving huge tax breaks for the wealthy to spend overseas or just hoard more cash or buying of empty equities or commodities will not have the same effect as when such breaks are, for example, rationally tied to industry that will yield more development and jobs.

I think the record on where the Bush tax cut money went (i.e. not invested in industry or jobs) is pretty apparent on its face.

In this case -- and we can debate forever why -- the trickle down never occurred. In fact, quite the opposite.
Click to expand...
it is not in the least a matter of degree and timing. economies are pyramids in their very nature and that isn't open for debate.

The structure of our economy and its tie to the world economy is a different matter. Our economic policies, safety net and education all have to deal with globalization gutting the lazy asses that tend to now populate our workforce. We have some growing pains in figuring that out and are unlikely to ever effectively manage the fact that we have priced ourselves onto the road back to the poor house. Regardless, trickle down economics is absolutely the rule and not some amateur idea that a politician tossed out there.

And, mischaracterizing "tax breaks" is about your speed. Acting as if the wealthy in America don't earn their keep is retarded.
 
#131
#131
BigPapaVol said:
And, mischaracterizing "tax breaks" is about your speed. Acting as if the wealthy in America don't earn their keep is retarded.
Click to expand...


Let's make sure we are talking apples and apples.

You use the phrase "don't earn their keep."

I have no objection to people, including investors, making as much as they can. No limits, other than following the same legalities and rules everyone else follows. If they invest well and earn big returns, I say good for them.

BUT, they should not be able to buy special treatment for their incomes with political influence earned with contributions to campaigns, PACs, or other interests ... shall we say ...near and dear to the hearts of government officials.

That would mean two things. One, no special taxbreaks or loopholes for them or their investments businesses. Two, they pay the same rate on income that is earned through investment returns as any other person would who makes the same money by work.

I have used this analogy, and will use it again.

If a fellow makes $2 million by owning stock in a company that pays houses, he ought to pay the same exact income tax on that as a worker for the company who makes $2 million out there actually painting the houses.
 
#132
#132
lawgator1 said:
If a fellow makes $2 million by owning stock in a company that pays houses, he ought to pay the same exact income tax on that as a worker for the company who makes $2 million out there actually painting the houses.
Click to expand...

why raise the tax rate on capital gains? Why not lower the income tax rate?

you're obsessed with raising taxes when history has proven that lowering the rate on capital gains results in revenue increases to the government
 
#133
#133
MG1968 said:
why raise the tax rate on capital gains? Why not lower the income tax rate?

you're obsessed with raising taxes when history has proven that lowering the rate on capital gains results in revenue increases to the government
Click to expand...


You could lower the rate, I'd be fine with that -- if everyone paid the same rate on the same amount, regardless of the source of the income.

I have a fundamental problem with the unfairness and the inconsistency in treating income earned one way as subject to half the tax paid on the identical amount of income earned another way.

I have yet to see anyone here defend that practice.

It makes no sense.
 
#135
#135
volinbham said:
Plenty have defended it with any number of reasons. You don't agree with those reasons but that's different than saying it hasn't been defended.
Click to expand...


I genuinely missed it. I've been going on and on about it for awhile and seriously hadn't seen a reply -- must have missed it.

Why should someone who makes $2 million a year owning stock pay half as much tax as someone who makes $2 million by working at a job.
 
#136
#136
Has that person already paid taxes on the money earned to make the investment that makes him the extra income?

Is the painter earning/being taxed on that money for the first time?
 
#137
#137
T-TownVol said:
Has that person already paid taxes on the money earned to make the investment that makes him the extra income?

Is the painter earning/being taxed on that money for the first time?
Click to expand...


That makes no difference.

If I have worked and earned $10 million in 2011 and paid taxes, then invest the rest to earn an additional $2 million in 2012, I ought to pay the same tax as someone who made $2 million paving roads in 2012.

The $2 million does not become sacrosanct because it was earned from investing money anymore than it becomes sacrosanct because it was sweat and labor that earned the next $2 million.
 
#138
#138
lawgator1 said:
That makes no difference.

If I have worked and earned $10 million in 2011 and paid taxes, then invest the rest to earn an additional $2 million in 2012, I ought to pay the same tax as someone who made $2 million paving roads in 2012.

The $2 million does not become sacrosanct because it was earned from investing money anymore than it becomes sacrosanct because it was sweat and labor that earned the next $2 million.
Click to expand...

No one is stopping you from doing that there big guy. Even WB does not do what you are saying he should do. Matter of fact, WB is only current on his taxes through about 2006 and fights the IRS every year to not have to pay.

It is a sad day when investing your money, that you have already been taxed on once, is treated the same as first time income. It is called an income not an investment tax. We already have one of those and we call it a Capital Gains Tax. It should be treated different because it IS different.
 
#139
#139
lawgator1 said:
I genuinely missed it. I've been going on and on about it for awhile and seriously hadn't seen a reply -- must have missed it.

Why should someone who makes $2 million a year owning stock pay half as much tax as someone who makes $2 million by working at a job.
Click to expand...

because he already paid taxes on the $2MM he bought the stock with
 
#140
#140
vol_in_il said:
because he already paid taxes on the $2MM he bought the stock with
Click to expand...

No, in my hypothetical he paid taxes on the initial ten million. He ought to pay taxes on future income in the same manner all income is taxed.

Consider:

Able works hard and builds a ten million dollar nest egg selling insurance. As he earned his salary over the years, he paid taxes at same rate as anyone in his income bracket.

Beta is young and just starting selling insurance.

In the same year, Able invests his ten million and earns a return of $1 million. Beta sells insurance to a big company with many employees. He also earns $ 1 million.

I am saying both $1 million incomes should pay the sane tax. Roughly $300,000. Able is not being re-taxed on the ten million dollar best egg. Just the $1 million return.

The claim he is being double taxed is incorrect.

Again, I apply the same rate to $1 million. Able does not pay on the ten again.
 
#141
#141
You can type any hypo you want LG and in what ever language you want....you are still wrong.
 
#143
#143
lawgator1 said:
No, in my hypothetical he paid taxes on the initial ten million. He ought to pay taxes on future income in the same manner all income is taxed.

Consider:

Able works hard and builds a ten million dollar nest egg selling insurance. As he earned his salary over the years, he paid taxes at same rate as anyone in his income bracket.

Beta is young and just starting selling insurance.

In the same year, Able invests his ten million and earns a return of $1 million. Beta sells insurance to a big company with many employees. He also earns $ 1 million.

I am saying both $1 million incomes should pay the sane tax. Roughly $300,000. Able is not being re-taxed on the ten million dollar best egg. Just the $1 million return.

The claim he is being double taxed is incorrect.

Again, I apply the same rate to $1 million. Able does not pay on the ten again.
Click to expand...

Would you begrudge Able if he took his 10 mil (which he has already paid US taxes on when it was earned) out of the US economy and put it overseas?
 
#144
#144
BeecherVol said:
Would you begrudge Able if he took his 10 mil (which he has already paid US taxes on when it was earned) out of the US economy and put it overseas?
Click to expand...

I would not. But to what end would Abel do this? Is whatever income he derives from that investment (assuming it is an investment) taxable by the IRS?

I am trying to learn something here.
 
#145
#145
Danl said:
I would not. But to what end would Abel do this? Is whatever income he derives from that investment (assuming it is an investment) taxable by the IRS?

I am trying to learn something here.
Click to expand...

Im sure there are ways around the IRS when you get outside the borders of the US. There are ways around it now inside the borders to extents.

My point was geared more toward his plan for investment. The government and citizens of the US hopes he puts that money (in full) back into companies that benefit the US. But if he can make 1 million off the money he made here and pay less in taxes overseas why wouldn't he?
 
#146
#146
BeecherVol said:
Im sure there are ways around the IRS when you get outside the borders of the US. There are ways around it now inside the borders to extents.

My point was geared more toward his plan for investment. The government and citizens of the US hopes he puts that money (in full) back into companies that benefit the US. But if he can make 1 million off the money he made here and pay less in taxes overseas why wouldn't he?
Click to expand...

I hear you. I have done some investigation into trying this kind of thing. AFAIK, unless you physically move (300+ days per year) outside the US, you get dinged at the prevailing income, not capital gains, rates.

But, again, I'm married so I'm used to being wrong. If someone knows a little more about this, I'd be interested.
 
#147
#147
I make 10K - pay 25% tax so I have 7.5K to invest.

I invest the 7.5K in Company A stock. Each year my portion of Company A's earnings are $200.00. They pay taxes of 25% on that so I get $150.00 in dividend income (Assume I hold for 10 years). You want me to pay 25% on the $150.00 so I net out 112.50 annually on the risk capital I invested.

After 10 years, I sell the stock for 10K. I pay 25% on capital gains (on $2500)

Here are the taxes:

$2500 on original earnings
$500 on corporate earnings (my share)
$375 on dividend earnings
$625 on capital gains after 10 years.

My $10K in original earnings generates $4000 in revenues to the government. My total usable cash from this over 10 years is $11,125.

My earnings were taxed three times (original, corporate, dividend) plus I paid tax on the appreciation in value.
 
Last edited:
#148
#148
Another scenario:

Person A: Makes $100K/year for 30 years. Pays 25% annually to the government in taxes and spends all the rest. With no retirement savings, Person A is wholly dependent on the state at retirement totally exhausting all the money he put in plus some through various government programs.

Person B: Makes $100K/year for 30 years. Pays 25% annually to the government in taxes and saves 15%. Has to pay 25% on all the savings income. Still has a mild nest egg and is partially dependent on the state at retirement. (LG's world)

Person C: Same scenario except puts away 25% and is taxed at 15% annually so nest egg is large enough to sustain person who makes no extra draws on the state's resources.

Which is the net best for the economy and deficit?
 
#149
#149
volinbham said:
I make 10K - pay 25% tax so I have 7.5K to invest.

I invest the 7.5K in Company A stock. Each year my portion of Company A's earnings are $200.00. They pay taxes of 25% on that so I get $150.00 in dividend income (Assume I hold for 10 years). You want me to pay 25% on the $150.00 so I net out 112.50 annually on the risk capital I invested.

After 10 years, I sell the stock for 10K. I pay 25% on capital gains (on $2500)

Here are the taxes:

$2500 on original earnings
$5000 on corporate earnings (my share)
$375 on dividend earnings
$625 on capital gains after 10 years.

My $10K in original earnings generates $8500 in revenues to the government. My total usable cash from this over 10 years is $11,125.

My earnings were taxed three times (original, corporate, dividend) plus I paid tax on the appreciation in value.
Click to expand...

I'm trying to follow your example. If your part of the earnings are $200 per year for 10 years, that (according to my calcs) is $2000. How do you pay $5,000 in taxes on $2,000 in earnings?

It's late for me and I may be missing something.
 
Last edited:
#150
#150
Danl said:
I'm trying to follow your example. If your part of the earnings are $200 per year for 10 years, that (according to my calcs) is $2000. How do you pay $5,000 in taxes on $2,000 in earnings?

It's late for me and I may be missing something.
Click to expand...

The company who's earnings I draw my dividends from is paying taxes on those earnings before I get my cut.

So $200 in earnings for the company - $50/year in corp taxes for 10 years. Then I get dividends out of the after tax earnings and pay taxes on that money again (hence the old double taxation argument on dividends)
 
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top