Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-08-2011, 09:15 PM
 
7,237 posts, read 12,702,103 times
Reputation: 5659

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
If you need it linked, then you really lose any credibility to discuss the topic, but I will entertain you and provide you with the links
Capital Gains Taxes: The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics | Library of Economics and Liberty

A government can choose to tax either the value of an asset or its yield, but it should not tax both. Capital gains are literally the appreciation in the value of an existing asset. Any appreciation reflects merely an increase in the after-tax rate of return on the asset. The taxes implicit in the asset’s after-tax earnings are already fully reflected in the asset’s price or change in price. Any additional tax is strictly double taxation.6
What did they pull that out of? Their rear end?

You're being taxed on unearned income that was accrued by more wealth, how is that double taxation?

It would be like saying the government is "double taxing" you because you paid taxes on the money you used to invest in a small business and you're paying taxes on the profit you made in that small business. It makes no sense. You're only being taxed on the new income.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-08-2011, 09:16 PM
 
Location: Georgia
1,258 posts, read 2,305,452 times
Reputation: 675
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heritage Member View Post
Do the liberals realize raising revenue is not the same thing as raising tax rates? Raising revenue is done by growing the economy. This creates jobs, creating more tax payers and reducing the amount of people suckling on the government teet.

I know this drives the libs crazy, but look what happened when Bush lowered the tax rates in 2003. Historic revenues were generated in the 2005-2010 timeframe. The lower tax rates created growth, which created RECORD revenues unmatched by an POTUS in history.

So when you say that was not the case, please read the facts:

Historical Amount of Revenue by Source
This is 'trickle-on', 'regeanomics', nonsense...Their 'theories', 'evidence', etc., is so convuluted...Its like Sasquatch...If you are fruity enough you will believe it no matter what...If you are sane no matter how many times you try to give it a chance that it may be 'real', the end result will always be that its non-sense!

I know...I know...just make the richer richer and the rest of us will reap the benefits...Seriousely...if you are stupid enough to believe this, you deserve to spend the rest of your life living in a double-wide, listening to Rush/Glen/Sean all day in your boxers while Ma' knocks back a pack of Pall Malls!

GO REPUBLICANS!!!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-08-2011, 09:16 PM
 
7,237 posts, read 12,702,103 times
Reputation: 5659
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toyman at Jewel Lake View Post
Lets see...one source the Congressional Budget Office.
Yes, did you read it?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-08-2011, 09:18 PM
 
69,368 posts, read 63,901,626 times
Reputation: 9383
Quote:
Originally Posted by Konraden View Post
You've given me $100. I've given you $200. I'm well aware of what you're trying to argue.
Does this mean you wont do it? After all, according to you, it cost you nothing.. Where shall I send my check to?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Konraden View Post
The clock-radio is paid for (your income tax). The rebate would be your entitlements, which would be paid separate from the IRS tax-code.

So, to continue with the clock-radio, you pay your income tax. You just get the cost back in a rebate.
Not true. There is a reason why W-4 forms have an exempt option based upon your income. If YOU dont file exempt, then YOU are LOANING money to the IRS.

If you arent liable for taxes, then there is no "paying" for something you arent liable for. Where on gods earth did you go to school?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Konraden View Post
If you bought the car in such a fashion, you'd still being paying for the car (the 20,000, let's say), but your rebates are in-line with the rest of your bill, so it looks like you're not paying for the car.

You still pay your taxes, but the deductions and rebates are returned on the same revenue stream. The fact that it comes out near zero, zero, or positive isn't really the issue.
It absolutely IS the issue. If you pay for something that you arent otherwise liable for, and then get a refund, you cant say that you are contributing. YOU overpaid, YOU paid into something you SHOULDNT have. YOU gave up your money because of YOUR mistake. You dont give money to the government, get a refund back as a "seperate transaction" and then say you paid taxes. Thats one of the stupidiest things I've ever heard here on cd, and I've heard plenty!!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-08-2011, 09:19 PM
 
Location: The Twilight Zone
773 posts, read 501,645 times
Reputation: 363
Quote:
Originally Posted by GAisGreat View Post
This is 'trickle-on', 'regeanomics', nonsense...Their 'theories', 'evidence', etc., is so convuluted...Its like Sasquatch...If you are fruity enough you will believe it no matter what...If you are sane no matter how many times you try to give it a chance that it may be 'real', the end result will always be that its non-sense!

I know...I know...just make the richer richer and the rest of us will reap the benefits...Seriousely...if you are stupid enough to believe this, you deserve to spend the rest of your life living in a double-wide, listening to Rush/Glen/Sean all day in your boxers while Ma' knocks back a pack of Pall Malls!

GO REPUBLICANS!!!

Ummmmmm....did you bother to look at the link. It shows the massive amount of INCREASED revenue after the tax RATES were reduced. It isn't some right wing theory, it is the factual data.

How you can argue with numbers is beyond me. Oh wait, you didn't look at them did you?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-08-2011, 09:22 PM
 
69,368 posts, read 63,901,626 times
Reputation: 9383
Quote:
Originally Posted by 313Weather View Post
What did they pull that out of? Their rear end?

You're being taxed on unearned income that was accrued by more wealth, how is that double taxation?

It would be like saying the government is "double taxing" you because you paid taxes on the money you used to invest in a small business and you're paying taxes on the profit you made in that small business. It makes no sense. You're only being taxed on the new income.
Can I ask you how old you are? Seriously?

1) Corporation earns a profit, and is taxed
2) Corporation passes that profit onto the stock holders/investors/owners, who then receive that profit and is taxed

THATS DOUBLE TAXATION..

You are not being taxed on new income because you OWN the corporation. Furthermore, you arent being taxed on unearned income accumulating wealth because we DONT TAX WEALTH.. Buffet and Gates DO NOT PAY TAXES on their wealth, its only profit when they SELL THEIR STOCK..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-08-2011, 09:22 PM
 
7,237 posts, read 12,702,103 times
Reputation: 5659
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heritage Member View Post
Ummmmmm....did you bother to look at the link. It shows the massive amount of INCREASED revenue after the tax RATES were reduced. It isn't some right wing theory, it is the factual data.

How you can argue with numbers is beyond me. Oh wait, you didn't look at them did you?
Did you bother to look at my link?

Relative to the size of the economy revenue declined. You can spin it and say revenue increased all you want, if it's not at the pace of economic growth then it's the same as a revenue loss.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-08-2011, 09:26 PM
 
69,368 posts, read 63,901,626 times
Reputation: 9383
Quote:
Originally Posted by 313Weather View Post
Did you bother to look at my link?

Relative to the size of the economy revenue declined. You can spin it and say revenue increased all you want, if it's not at the pace of economic growth then it's the same as a revenue loss.
Tax revenues declined because LESS PEOPLE ARE PAYING INTO IT.. When you exempt more and more, you get less and less. Why is that surprising to you?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-08-2011, 09:28 PM
 
7,237 posts, read 12,702,103 times
Reputation: 5659
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
Can I ask you how old you are? Seriously?

1) Corporation earns a profit, and is taxed
2) Corporation passes that profit onto the stock holders/investors/owners, who then receive that profit and is taxed

THATS DOUBLE TAXATION..

You are not being taxed on new income because you OWN the corporation. Furthermore, you arent being taxed on unearned income accumulating wealth because we DONT TAX WEALTH.. Buffet and Gates DO NOT PAY TAXES on their wealth, its only profit when they SELL THEIR STOCK..
The money wasn't in the hand of the stock holders/investors/owners when the corporation was taxed, so it's not a double taxation. If you took a basic accounting class you would know stock holders are not guaranteed capital gains, thus when the corporation was taxed it was technically not their gain.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-08-2011, 09:30 PM
 
Location: The Twilight Zone
773 posts, read 501,645 times
Reputation: 363
Quote:
Originally Posted by 313Weather View Post
Did you bother to look at my link?

Relative to the size of the economy revenue declined. You can spin it and say revenue increased all you want, if it's not at the pace of economic growth then it's the same as a revenue loss.
So let's see. You are now admitting the lower tax rate caused the economy to GROW? Good for you. The light buld should be going on for you in 3...2...1.

So in the end, we had excellent economic growth as a result of lower tax rates, as well as historic revenues from the increased growth. And your beef with it is the percentages didn't work out the way you wanted them too? That's your complaint? GOOD GRIEF!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top