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.
The rich should pay all the tax because they have the most to loose if the society and economy collapse. This is why I favor a progressive tax that deducts three times the average income and includes all income including capital gains, lottery winnings and inheritances.
The inheritance tax I do not understand. If the country were to put taxes on all investment gains, capital gains, etc. and eliminate the current loopholes, how is it then relevant to tax inheritance. Its like uncle sam raping you one last time before your corpse is buried. If a person was to work hard and pay taxes on everything their entire life, there is absolutely no logic in retaxing it when it is passed on to a child or heir.
I stand to gain a decent amount of property that will likely have a high value, but when I say high value, I'm still talking well below the million dollar mark, more like 100k-200k. Its family property and the town just happened to grow around it and we have had several commercial interest wanting to buy it for a pretty decent amount. If I inherit it, I will be fine with paying taxes when I sell it and profit from it. Are you suggesting it should be taxed first when it is passed to my hands, and again when I sell it?
Maybe we can have stores tax an item once when we set it on the counter, and then add tax again when they ring up the total.
Read my response to lordbalfor. Buffet is using creative math to make his claims and avoiding facts to create an issue. There is a lot of misinformation on the issue. This is VERY common in the "rich are getting away with money" claims. The "rich" pay your taxes. the top 10% earners pay 66% of the taxes. The bottom 50% earners pay roughly 3.2% taxes. They are not only paying "more" taxes than you and I, but they are paying a LOT more than you and I.
You don't know what tax bracket I'm in or what I pay (not that I would ever share that kind of information here). Let's keep it theoretical, thank you.
We weren't talking about wealth distribution. In fact, Mr. Buffet was saying he paid the same as his secratary. How did we go from "The rich aren't paying enough taxes" to "The rich have all the wealth"?
Lets finish our other thought before we get into this area. Its a different direction and is avoiding your initial point. Which is...
Why should the rich pay more taxes when they already pay most (close to all I mean, the top 50% being I think if I remember right with wages of 160k+ as paying roughly 93%) of the taxes?
Answer that, then we can go into the "wealth distribution" claim if you like, but then that one is really a wishy washy one because it involves many factors that most people are not willing to accept, primarily the fact that they have the opportunity to get up into those higher realms if they are willing, but again that is another discussion.
No, my initial point was - Why shouldn't the Capital Gains Tax be raised?
... and I've yet to see an answer.
So why should it be taxed less than income tax? Isn't it income? it's money coming in that you didn't have before. Whether it's a paycheck or Capital Gains, it still sounds like income to me.
So why should Capital Gains get such a break?
Sure, the money goes back into the economy, but lower income peoples' goes back into the economy too - in fact, when you are living hand to mouth ALL of your money goes back into the economy
Mine was a very specific question: Why shouldn't the Capital Gains Tax be raised?
The inheritance tax I do not understand. If the country were to put taxes on all investment gains, capital gains, etc. and eliminate the current loopholes, how is it then relevant to tax inheritance. Its like uncle sam raping you one last time before your corpse is buried. If a person was to work hard and pay taxes on everything their entire life, there is absolutely no logic in retaxing it when it is passed on to a child or heir.
I stand to gain a decent amount of property that will likely have a high value, but when I say high value, I'm still talking well below the million dollar mark, more like 100k-200k. Its family property and the town just happened to grow around it and we have had several commercial interest wanting to buy it for a pretty decent amount. If I inherit it, I will be fine with paying taxes when I sell it and profit from it. Are you suggesting it should be taxed first when it is passed to my hands, and again when I sell it?
Maybe we can have stores tax an item once when we set it on the counter, and then add tax again when they ring up the total.
The first $2,000,000 is currently tax free. In 2009 it will be 3.5 millon tax free. Supposedly it will end in 2010, but I seriously doubt it. When people talk about "eliminating" the inheritance tax, they are not trying to help lower level inheritances, they are primarly concerned with the multimillonaires.
The first $2,000,000 is currently tax free. In 2009 it will be 3.5 millon tax free. Supposedly it will end in 2010, but I seriously doubt it. When people talk about "eliminating" the inheritance tax, they are not trying to help lower level inheritances, they are primarly concerned with the multimillionaires.
Yet their laws always end up generalizing things. The only reason the "Death Tax" is now starting to be less of an issue is because it was set to go away. Before it was legislated to fade away, it was a problem for many people who "weren't multimillionaires".
Thats how many of these "get the rich" laws work. They are poorly thought out and end up milking the middle class more than they do the rich. (When I say milking, I mean they heavily tax incomes that create hardships on the income because it isn't that "rich" income people think it is)
Personally, I like the idea of taxing consumption, not income. That way everyone pays for what they are spending and that is really where the "claims" lie. That rich people are living so good and not paying for anything. This way, they will pay for as much as they buy and the poor will pay, but since they are buying so little, there won't be much taxes to pay.
That system would be to "fair" though and too many people don't want "fair" as much as they want "free".
No, my initial point was - Why shouldn't the Capital Gains Tax be raised?
... and I've yet to see an answer.
So why should it be taxed less than income tax? Isn't it income? it's money coming in that you didn't have before. Whether it's a paycheck or Capital Gains, it still sounds like income to me.
So why should Capital Gains get such a break?
Sure, the money goes back into the economy, but lower income peoples' goes back into the economy too - in fact, when you are living hand to mouth ALL of your money goes back into the economy
Mine was a very specific question: Why shouldn't the Capital Gains Tax be raised?
Ken
Why? Because the premise you used to support your point is false. you used an example that claimed the rich person was paying the same taxes as their employee and I already showed you that Mr. Buffet's claims are falsehoods.
If your premise is false, any conclusions based on that premise are also false. Simple logic.
Personally, I like the idea of taxing consumption, not income. .
The left doesn't generally agree with taxing consumption only because they will argue the rich have more money, meaning they can afford more taxes to be charged when they consume, and therefore it hurts the poor because they have to pay a higher consumption tax.
Nevermind the fact that if the rich person is spending 250K a year, they are going to pay WAY more into the system than someone spending 25K a year.
The left doesn't generally agree with taxing consumption only because they will argue the rich have more money, meaning they can afford more taxes to be charged when they consume, and therefore it hurts the poor because they have to pay a higher consumption tax.
Nevermind the fact that if the rich person is spending 250K a year, they are going to pay WAY more into the system than someone spending 25K a year.
Shhhhh you aren't supposed to speak with your mind, you are only supposed to speak with your heart! Heart trumps mind!! *chuckle*
Edit:
Oh btw, here is an interesting article about the "FairTax" , what he thinks needs to change if it is implemented and why he thinks it never will be. Interesting read.
Mine was a very specific question: Why shouldn't the Capital Gains Tax be raised?
Perhaps because it has already been taxed?
Whether I take $1000.00 and put it in a bank CD or purchase some IBM stock, the gains are going to be taxed. But the original $1000.00 came from my income which was already subject to a tax. So, its a double tax and it penalizes savings and investment, two things that most reasonable people would argue are good things.
Whether I take $1000.00 and put it in a bank CD or purchase some IBM stock, the gains are going to be taxed. But the original $1000.00 came from my income which was already subject to a tax. So, its a double tax and it penalizes savings and investment, two things that most reasonable people would argue are good things.
But stock to CEOs and payments to hedge fund operators did not come from their income- it IS their income.
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.
