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.
To quote Mark Cuban (he is a reasonably rich guy), there should be no special treatment to Capital Gains tax. "Capital Gains" should be treated as income, for tax purposes. Now what? He's a socialist?
Aren't capital gains based on invested money taxed already?
To quote Mark Cuban (he is a reasonably rich guy), there should be no special treatment to Capital Gains tax. "Capital Gains" should be treated as income, for tax purposes. Now what? He's a socialist?
MR. GIBSON: And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased. The government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down. So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?
SENATOR OBAMA: Well, Charlie, what I've said is that [b]I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness.[b]
They're based on the new profits off of that money, which have not yet been taxed.
If you want people to invest in business ventures, you DO NOT tax capital gains at the full income rate - otherwise people who want to invest won't - and you will starve the business venture that wants to get off the ground.
The lower capital gains tax encourages people to take a risk in a business investment - which INCREASES the possibility of employment. That's what we want, right?
Should the Roth IRA's be taxed next? That's money invested after taxes.
What risks? Bet they didn't loose a dime when the market tanks. If the company is publicly traded, they don't risk a thing. DH was employed by a Fortune 100. When those guys got a corner office on the top floor, they also got a paid for by the company financial advisor. Then came a private jet whenever they needed one, a medical person to explain whatever problem they had and the best way to deal with it. They got a paid for country club membership and a paid for social life, even the babysitter was a business expense. They all bought houses on a golf course in another state and a jet to take them and their families there every Friday and back on Monday morning. They even had a private elevator so they did not need to be in a car with the unwashed.This was all paid by the company. When they ran out of French wine in the executive dining room, instead of going to the local store, they sent a plane to France. Gimme a break. This was all a business expense. Don't tell me they earned it cause they were so good at their jobs. This was a regulated monopoly. The tab was picked up by rate payers and stockholders. Don't get me started on what happened after deregulation.
If you want people to invest in business ventures, you DO NOT tax capital gains at the full income rate - otherwise people who want to invest won't - and you will starve the business venture that wants to get off the ground.
First, if we taxed cap gains the same as income we could lower income tax rates. Secondly, I very much doubt people will stop investing if they had to pay income taxes any more than people have stopped working because of current income taxes.
Quote:
The lower capital gains tax encourages people to take a risk in a business investment - which INCREASES the possibility of employment. That's what we want, right?
Don't we want people to get jobs, too? Why are we discouraging people from working by taxing them at a higher rate?
Quote:
Should the Roth IRA's be taxed next? That's money invested after taxes.
Ideally I don't think retirement savings should be any more special than any other kind of savings (and so such programs shouldn't exist in the first place) - such programs needlessly complicate our tax code. We should end such programs and lower income tax rates across the board to make up for it.
I don't see what the problem is with what Obama said.
Furthermore, given how many tricks there are for rich people to reduce their AGI, it is stupid to use AGI as a measure of income.
I'm guessing that many on the upper end of the spectrum would be more willing to pay a higher rate if there weren't so many on the lower end of the spectrum that get more money back than they pay in simply for having more children.
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.
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.
