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.
Stock option $17.9 mil. Hold it for a year, pay 15% capital gain tax. 15% of $17,900,000 is $2,685,000 Someone a few posts back wrote 'middle class taxpayers pay far more' Really? Taxable income of $60,000 is single person $11,131 [18.5%] What's more- $2,685,000 or $11,131?
The class envy thing is getting worn out.
and yet when the numbers are analyzed at the end of the year, one things remains true;
the top 1% take in about 19% of the income in this country, and they pay 38% of the income taxes in this country.
so given that, again i ask, how much more do you want the rich to pay in taxes? what do you consider fair? to date NO ONE has answered that question. why? because when you get down and think about it, the rich are already paying more than their fair share of the taxes collected in this country.
I don't know about your numbers, there is a difference between income and capital gains. When you indicate income what are you referencing.
Once again the issue is the unfairness of the capital gains, assuming your numbers are correct, where specifically is the unfairness in the current tax structure to the 1%.
Stock option $17.9 mil. Hold it for a year, pay 15% capital gain tax. 15% of $17,900,000 is $2,685,000 Someone a few posts back wrote 'middle class taxpayers pay far more' Really? Taxable income of $60,000 is single person $11,131 [18.5%] What's more- $2,685,000 or $11,131?
The class envy thing is getting worn out.
The question isn't who pays more, it's the rate, sorry if I wasn't clear. Why would you not expect someone making $17.9 M to pay a larger amount in taxes?
I don't know about your numbers, there is a difference between income and capital gains. When you indicate income what are you referencing.
Once again the issue is the unfairness of the capital gains, assuming your numbers are correct, where specifically is the unfairness in the current tax structure to the 1%.
so in other words you would sacrifice investments in this country to raise the capital gains tax rate? that is stupid. it has been shown time and again that when the capital gains tax rates go down, revenues to the government go UP. when the capital gains tax rates go up revenues to the government go DOWN.
the reason capitals gains tax rates are lower than earned income rates is because of the risk involved. raise the rates on capital gains, and the risk remains the same, but the potential reward goes down. and when that happens, investments in this country go down.
so in other words you would sacrifice investments in this country to raise the capital gains tax rate? that is stupid. it has been shown time and again that when the capital gains tax rates go down, revenues to the government go UP. when the capital gains tax rates go up revenues to the government go DOWN.
the reason capitals gains tax rates are lower than earned income rates is because of the risk involved. raise the rates on capital gains, and the risk remains the same, but the potential reward goes down. and when that happens, investments in this country go down.
That REALLY is what they want. Remember Obama and his "leveling the playing field" rhetoric? That's what he wants.
Another example of the problem with the tax structure, Exxon CEO Tillerson gets $17.9 M in stock, $6.8 M in salary. One year from today he can turn around and sell his stock and be taxed at only 15%,similar situation for the Chevron CEO. Meanwhile middle class americans are paying higher rates on salary.
Why he should get that amount is another story, the investors contested the amount.
"The CEO of U.S. rival Chevron Corp, John Watson, collected a total of $24.7 million in 2011, his second year in the job. .........
....
Tillerson's pay package included stock awards valued at $17.9 million and bonus and salary totaling $6.8 million. Watson received $5.6 million in salary and non-equity incentives, and the rest in stock, options, pension and deferred compensation."
Exxon awarded CEO total pay of $34.9 million in 2011 - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/exxon-awarded-ceo-total-pay-34-9-million-000743009.html - broken link)
And one year from now his stocks could be worthless. It's called "risk". It's also the way the law works. Change the law, but don't condemn the guy that's playing by the current rules.
I don't understand why capital gains and dividends are taxed at a different rate... I do agree the investment taxes need to be increased on all investments... fair is fair...
because capitol gains are taxed more than once. The money that is made by the corp is taxed, and then the proceeds of those earnings are taxed when they are paid to shareholders.
It's stunning that people can not understand the basic unfairness and defend this system, what is so difficult to comprehend. CEO's on the top end cashing in millions for 15% while middle class taxpayers pay far more.
What's more stunning is all this call for "fairness", yet 41% pay NO taxes.
so in other words you would sacrifice investments in this country to raise the capital gains tax rate?
You spelled the problem, while supporting it. Capital Gains should not be a refuge from income taxes. If I had millions laying around, I won't mind taking such "risks". It is why, for certain duration of investments, capital gains should be regarded as income, with rates progressively reduced for long term investments.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ringwise
What's more stunning is all this call for "fairness", yet 41% pay NO taxes.
That includes millionaires, not just those who can barely make their ends meet.
and yet when the numbers are analyzed at the end of the year, one things remains true;
the top 1% take in about 19% of the income in this country, and they pay 38% of the income taxes in this country.
so given that, again i ask, how much more do you want the rich to pay in taxes? what do you consider fair? to date NO ONE has answered that question. why? because when you get down and think about it, the rich are already paying more than their fair share of the taxes collected in this country.
Because those making from $33k to $380,353 (the top 50%) pay 97% of the taxes and take in 87% of the income in this country. 1.4 million "filers" compared with 69.9 million "filers".
So given that, who do you really think is carrying the burden? The "rich" or the rest of the country? With an effective tax rate of just over 23% for the 1% compared with a avg. tax rate of 17.18% of the top 50, who is really having more of their "disposable" income taken?
87% of income vs. 97% of the taxes paid. OR 19% of the income vs. 38% of the taxes paid. Who's getting the free ride? The 1.4MM who pay "just" 38% or the 69.9MM who are in the negative supporting the top 1% and their "investments" The math really is that simple.
Math at it's finest. Post hoc ergo propter hoc.
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.
