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.
Government interference is a problem, and it seems to be getting worse. I think it needs to stop, but it isn't likely to happen, as we seem to have allowed government to dictate far too many standards, all of which interfere with the free market. I like your anology, and government setting standards for emmissions is another, and it is driving up energy costs, which hurts everyone. Recognize that these things are all supported by Leftists who claim they do these things for the "common good." But they hurt people who cannot afford the increase in their energy bills. That is of no concern to the Leftists, however, who insist that government mandate these standards. But Leftists wish to control people's behavior. That's what it is about.
Regarding home ownership, it is only one way to create wealth, however, and it isn't really even the best way. One assumes that the value of a home appreciates, but as we saw in 2008 when many home values plummeted, it isn't a 100% guarantee. As with any investment, there are risks. And a home has to be properly maintained as well. It is a hedge against inflation, however, as it stabilizes your housing costs, even though property taxes will still rise, and insurance costs will rise.
Investing your money (what my father used to call "putting your money to work") is another form of wealth creation. But, you need to envest wisely, and to do this, one should have the help of a professional. Buying stock in a company makes one part owner in that company. If the company does well, the value of your stock increases, creating wealth for you.
Unlike millions of middle class Americans, I do not view home ownership as a ticket to wealth through property appreciation. As a low earner. I see wealth created through stabilization of housing expenses, escaping rent inflation, and ultimately retiring the mortgage debt. Renters don't become wealthy when the rent is 2 damn high, keeps going up, and never ever ends.
How, exactly, do people with income taxed at 15% FIT pay a higher effective federal income tax rate than upper middle class professionals and small business owners whose income is taxed at 28% or more federal income tax?
They don't. Look at the IRS's actual data on effective federal income tax rates. The top 5% (income of $161,579 or more) pays an average effective income tax rate of 20% or more. Everyone else pays an average effective federal income tax rate below 12%. Latest IRS Federal Income Tax Data
Quote:
Are you playing linguistic sleight of hand with 'capital gains tax' as opposed to 'capital gains income subject to federal income tax'?
No. The IRS data reports the actual EFFECTIVE federal income tax rate for each income group. That incorporates earned income, as well as unearned income that is taxed at the capital gains tax rate.
Don't burger flippers have their boars in the water?
Some probably do. In your case......? It appears doubtful.
You're stuck in a whirlpool that seems to be of your own making....going round and round.......
Yep. People have to buy the product/service. But that does create wealth. Creating a product/service that people are willing to barter money for creates wealth.
Obtaining money is the result of creating wealth. It is not wealth. Bill Gates is wealthy because he created a product people are willing to buy. He didn't get wealthy because he sold stuff. He sold stuff people wanted.
Adam Smith explained this better than I can in Wealth of Nations.
I see what you're saying: money is an indication of wealth. However, it is also an indication of how willing a person is to consume. A person may want something, but he won't pull the trigger unless he can afford it. A producer won't sell unless he can make a profit. If the two desires don't cross then a deal won't be done.
Easily available credit messes up that observation, however.
I would not be surprised if the 1% is stashing their money - somewhere besides, investments, banks etc. I am sure these people are concerned with all the talk about 'wealth distribution'. I am not going to argue about how they acquired their wealth, some earned it, some were given it. Point is, it is their money.
I am not saying, there is not an issue with the economy. But, taking money from someone, just because, we think they 'have too much' is wrong. It is also wrong, to give 'money' to someone, because they are low income. The answer is not to take from one to give to the other. By doing this, we are putting a band-aid on a gapping wound.
They don't. Look at the IRS's actual data on effective federal income tax rates. The top 5% (income of $161,579 or more) pays an average effective income tax rate of 20% or more. Everyone else pays an average effective federal income tax rate below 12%. Latest IRS Federal Income Tax Data
Much is hidden in "averages." If I were to accept your data that the top 5% (income of $161,579 or more) pays an average effective income tax rate of 20% or more, we also know that billionaire hedge fund managers pay a top rate of 15% on there income. According to the New York Times, the top 400 richest taxpayers:
Quote:
And that data demonstrates that many of the ultrarich can and do reduce their tax liability to very low levels, even zero. Besides the six who paid no federal income tax, the I.R.S. reported that 27 paid from zero to 10 percent of their adjusted gross incomes and another 89 paid between 10 and 15 percent, which is close to the 13.9 percent rate that Mr. Romney disclosed that he paid in 2010. (At the other end of the spectrum, 82 paid 30 to 35 percent. None paid more than 35 percent.) So more than a quarter of the people earning an average of over $200 million in 2009 paid less than 15 percent of their adjusted gross income in taxes.
I would not be surprised if the 1% is stashing their money - somewhere besides, investments, banks etc. I am sure these people are concerned with all the talk about 'wealth distribution'. I am not going to argue about how they acquired their wealth, some earned it, some were given it. Point is, it is their money.
I am not saying, there is not an issue with the economy. But, taking money from someone, just because, we think they 'have too much' is wrong. It is also wrong, to give 'money' to someone, because they are low income. The answer is not to take from one to give to the other. By doing this, we are putting a band-aid on a gapping wound.
Hard assets and trust funds. Their money is not sitting in the bank in a money market fund
Their money is invested to make more money while an income stream provides them with discretionary spending.
But that type of strategy is not limited to rich people. Anyone can do that.
Stop buying STUFF and start investing.
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.
