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 Today, 01:21 PM
 
39,385 posts, read 20,462,495 times
Reputation: 12837

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
There is no special code that separates pension/retirement account investment trades from any others when investment transactions are completed. All that's reported is volume, value, and a transaction fee, WHICH by the way is paid by the transactions' parties (IOW, both seller and buyer, regardless of type of account).

The financial transaction tax would work the same way and just be another added cost collected from both the sellers and buyers accounts regardless of whether they were plain old investment accounts or pension/retirement accounts.

Dividends are paid by the investments that yield such and are not a proposed taxable event under the financial transaction tax proposal. Typically, it's the plan administrator, not the financial institutions that complete the investment trades, that separates taxable from nontaxable dividends on the 1099s they issue every year as it is different in each individual 1040 filer's case.
Your post doesn't make sense or you didn't do a good job and left out a lot of different scenarios. There is different types of income so yes, there is a special tax code per se. Punch a time clock and you got W2 income, there is dividend income, there is long term and short term cap gains and losses.

What about the people who invest as individuals not through funds? You do know that plan administrators will just pass on the expense (tax) to the investor right?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old Today, 01:28 PM
 
Location: Milwaukee
4,440 posts, read 2,139,815 times
Reputation: 2771
Quote:
Originally Posted by vacoder View Post
You need to read your article again. 100K is for people not in HCOL areas. The threshold will be higher for people in HCOL.
Correct.

I guess I'm the only person that read your comment.



" . . . exempt households making below $100,000, along with a higher income threshold for middle-class families living in high-cost areas."

To offset the higher income threshold for premiums, Harris is proposing financial transaction taxes of 0.2 percent for stock trades, 0.1 percent for bond trades and 0.002 percent for derivative transactions. She's also proposing to tax corporations' overseas earnings at the same rate as their domestic earnings.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 01:28 PM
 
66,755 posts, read 30,489,232 times
Reputation: 8720
Quote:
Originally Posted by serger View Post
Just stop. First, the purpose of the whole exercise is to bring down the cost, say from 4 trillion to 2 trillion a year (Which would be in line what other developed countries spent).
Not going to happen. Americans expect better access to health care (e.g., no waiting for months on end to see a specialist or be scheduled for surgery, the ability to see the MD of your choice, etc.).

Quote:
Speaking of not understanding math. I gave you an example that put the current equivalent tax burden on 100k earner at 44% (if you use the average per capita cost). If you collect that from everybody that would be 8 trillion or something like that. So there is no reason for it to be 44%, that's the point.
No, you didn't. You added state and local taxes to your US total when neither were counted in the EU-28 total. As EU-28 national health care and Medicare for All in the US are/would both be funded by national/federal tax revenue, I compared only national/federal taxes in my EU-28 to US comparison in the other thread.

I'm sorry you're so blind to the truth.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 01:32 PM
 
Location: Upstate NY
35,854 posts, read 10,625,275 times
Reputation: 34062
Quote:
Originally Posted by k374 View Post
So how does Kamala Harris intend to pay for her Medicare For All plan? Tax households making $100k or more (which is squarely middle class in most HCOL areas) and charge taxes on stock trades which is again arbitrary theft from many hardworking middle class folks who are diligently trying to save in their 401k and other accounts for retirement. Disgusting and despicable!

https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics...ill-pay-for-it

"Harris’ rollout is a 3-part plan covering all medical essentials exempting households below $100,000, a higher income threshold for middle-class families living in high-cost areas"

$100,000/yr is NOT high income in high-cost areas!! Is this woman on drugs?

"To pay for these changes, she will tax Wall Street stock trades at 0.2%, bond trades at 0.1%, and derivative transactions at 0.002%."

Yeah, let's become another Europe where the government just steals and pillages from private enterprises and business, look how well it's worked for them... record unemployment, record negative business activity, horrible economies that they have not been able to jumpstart in decades.

The biggest losers will be current Medicare beneficiaries--or anyone who'd planned on becoming one after retirement lol.

But don't expect anyone to EVER ask any of these clowns to be asked HOW it will impact them.

Seniors (and those who paid into the system all of their working lives) will always be at the bottom of this totem pole.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 01:32 PM
 
Location: Florida
22,459 posts, read 9,552,530 times
Reputation: 18334
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
They all get traded by the same financial institutions from which the transaction tax will be collected. How do you propose pension/retirement account investment transactions be separated out? And what makes you think the Dems will keep their filthy paws off that $28 trillion worth of investments in pension/retirement accounts? All of the projections they've given for the tax revenue that would be generated from the transaction tax do not exclude that $28 trillion (and growing).
Lol. So you are 'fiscally concerned' about the Dems getting their "filthy paws" on other people's money? Meet Donald Trump.

Trump is the biggest spendthrift to come through the WH in years. He doesn't care where or who he steals the money from--he just wants to spend it. He is busting budgets all over the government with his own spendthrift ways and btw, passed a deficit-busting tax cut for himself and his friends.

We are currently worrying about now, with the extravagant, spoiled Trump, spenders of other people's money, keeping his filthy paws off of taxes paid by hard-working (working much harder than he) taxpayers.

The bankruptcy king takes our money and gives it to the farmers to alleviate the financial issues he created with his own bad judgment? Who'd of thunk that Trump was going to re-distribute wealth to cover up his own blunders?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 01:37 PM
 
39,385 posts, read 20,462,495 times
Reputation: 12837
Quote:
Originally Posted by AguaDulce View Post
Correct.

I guess I'm the only person that read your comment.



" . . . exempt households making below $100,000, along with a higher income threshold for middle-class families living in high-cost areas."

To offset the higher income threshold for premiums, Harris is proposing financial transaction taxes of 0.2 percent for stock trades, 0.1 percent for bond trades and 0.002 percent for derivative transactions. She's also proposing to tax corporations' overseas earnings at the same rate as their domestic earnings.
Today 0.2% tomorrow the skies the limit. Start it and the gov't will always want to increase the percentage.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 01:39 PM
 
39,385 posts, read 20,462,495 times
Reputation: 12837
Quote:
Originally Posted by Enigma777 View Post
Lol. So you are 'fiscally concerned' about the Dems getting their "filthy paws" on other people's money? Meet Donald Trump.

Trump is the biggest spendthrift to come through the WH in years. He doesn't care where or who he steals the money from--he just wants to spend it. He is busting budgets all over the government with his own spendthrift ways and btw, passed a deficit-busting tax cut for himself and his friends.

We are currently worrying about now, with the extravagant, spoiled Trump, spenders of other people's money, keeping his filthy paws off of taxes paid by hard-working (working much harder than he) taxpayers.

The bankruptcy king takes our money and gives it to the farmers to alleviate the financial issues he created with his own bad judgment? Who'd of thunk that Trump was going to re-distribute wealth to cover up his own blunders?
Obama spent more in his administration than the last 8 presidents. Of course liberal media will excuse that or never mention it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 01:40 PM
 
66,755 posts, read 30,489,232 times
Reputation: 8720
Quote:
Originally Posted by petch751 View Post
Your post doesn't make sense or you didn't do a good job and left out a lot of different scenarios. There is different types of income so yes, there is a special tax code per se. Punch a time clock and you got W2 income, there is dividend income, there is long term and short term cap gains and losses.
I explained that the plan administrator separates taxable and nontaxable dividends for each investor, NOT the financial institution that performs the investment trade (typically referred to as a clearing house). As far as investment trades? The clearing house charges both seller and buyer a transaction fee regardless of whether it's a wealth investment account or a pension/retirement plan. The financial transaction tax on both buying and selling is just another cost that will be deducted from everyone's pensions/retirement accounts.

(Much like buying or selling a home, the title company or closing agent charges both seller and buyer a service fee for the transaction.)

Quote:
What about the people who invest as individuals not through funds? You do know that plan administrators will just pass on the expense (tax) to the investor right?
Of course, they will. It's those advocating for the financial transaction tax that are clueless. Completely clueless. The FTT will hit most Americans. And it's a flat tax, at that. The way it will come down is that buying an investment will cost more, and selling an investment will yield less liquidity.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 01:44 PM
 
1,829 posts, read 1,001,363 times
Reputation: 889
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Not going to happen. Americans expect better access to health care (e.g., no waiting for months on end to see a specialist or be scheduled for surgery, the ability to see the MD of your choice, etc.).

No, you didn't. You added state and local taxes to your US total when neither were counted in the EU-28 total. As EU-28 national health care and Medicare for All in the US are/would both be funded by national/federal tax revenue, I compared only national/federal taxes in my EU-28 to US comparison in the other thread.

I'm sorry you're so blind to the truth.

Nice distraction.



I'm sorry you don't understand math.


No, I added just property taxes, that are essentially non-existent in EU, while huge here because they fund schools. Not going to go over this again.



You added VAT, which is not income based, so I added sales tax, there are no "sale taxes" in EU.



Second, there is no analog of "state income taxes" on individual income in Europe, with the exception of Switzerland (cantonal taxes), but then the national tax rates there are extremely low
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 01:46 PM
 
946 posts, read 204,447 times
Reputation: 1474
Quote:
Originally Posted by serger View Post
Just stop. First, the purpose of the whole exercise is to bring down the cost, say from 4 trillion to 2 trillion a year (Which would be in line what other developed countries spent).



Speaking of not understanding math. I gave you an example that put the current equivalent tax burden on 100k earner at 44% (if you use the average per capita cost). If you collect that from everybody that would be 8 trillion or something like that. So there is no reason for it to be 44%, that's the point.



Your EU 45% tax + plus VAT "on top" (which, of course it is not, it is on consumption) includes many things that we haven't discussed here, like college, retirement, other benefits



Yet, with your numbers it seems we are already close to 100% here (44% HC, federal tax, payroll taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, retirement contributions), lol... And that's before talking about the items listed in the previous paragraph.
The startup cost for medicare for all is $30 trillion and it will go up to $56 trillion within 5 year of starting. That is all detailed in the study that all these politicians are waving at you regarding "medicare for all". The folks in the study even say that doubling all taxes will not cover medicare for all.

Which European country has a population of 330 million people where we can compare costs apples to apples ?
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

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
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - 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 - Top