69% Increase in Capital Gains Taxes under Pelosi/obamacare (election, money, state)
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.
Deceptive title. The idiots who can't count will fixate on the 69% headline number when in reality, the cap gains tax rate will go up from 15% to 20%.....which is still lower than the 26% we had under Reagan, and the 28% under Clinton. Last time I checked, the stock market boomed under both presidents. So sanrene, are you saying the Reagan years were a failure?
20%...and then what? Don't forget the tax increases from Pelosi.
20%...and then what? Don't forget the tax increases from Pelosi.
The tax increase from Pelosi will put the tax rate up to 25% --- still less than the Reagan and Clinton era cap gain tax rates rates. I don't know about you, but I made lots of money in the stock market during the Clinton era 28% tax regime.
I am simply commenting on the fact that some retirees will be affected, as opposed to your point that no retiree will be.
I have not made that point. I have made the point that capital gains taxes do not occur inside a 401-k, and it was then suggested that NUA's provide a possible exception to that, which they do not. That eventually morphed into a claim that well, an investor intending to retire and do an NUA five years from now would be adversely affected if capital gains rates were to increase between now and then which is entirely obvious and not at all related to the original points under discussion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by old_cold
Another point you made was they wouldn't be affected anyway since their income will be less than it was when working. In fact, on that point, two of the last five retirement years our income has been greater than some of the previous 10 pre-retirement years.
That's great, and it also works as an anecdote. However, it is an argument from the outliers. The preponderance of all workers can look forward to being in a lower tax bracket in retirement than they are during their working years.
Quote:
Originally Posted by old_cold
You are using one narrow circumstance to support your arguments....that people have 401K or that type of retirement plan and that their income will be reduced. Many planned and saved so they might have more money to enjoy once they had more time to enjoy it.
I am using the broad, typical, plain-vanilla circumstances. It is others who are raising all the special cases. Most people are apt to delay taking distributions from a 401-k for as long as they can. This is why Minimum Required Distributions kick in after one turns 70½. That you personally would not be one to follow them does not negate the existence of such patterns...
I prefer to make sure I know what my costs are getting out of an investment before I get in.. Those who dont.. are SUCKERS!!
I suggest you put your money in a coffee can. That way, you can be perfectly sure of how much will be there when you come back. Most other people will prefer to be cognizant of the risk-reward continuum. They will hope to take sensible risks in order to earn higher returns. That does not make them suckers...
What is not well founded or even marginally realistic is any belief that the government somehow owes it to you to freeze capital gains tax rates at levels that happen to be favorable to your personal long-term planning. Perhaps, though, you could simply root for more substantial increases in ordinary income tax rates to occur. That would help preserve the advantage inherent in any planned NUA.
The government OWES it to taxpayers to practice fiduciary responsibility. How about if the government STOPS SPENDING SO MUCH and LOWERS EVERYONE'S TAXES.
Even Obama knows the government is notoriously ineffective and inefficient.
And...how's that projection working out? Totally wrong and bogus
No, unemployment will peak earlier and at a lower level with the stimulus bill than without one, just as was originally indicated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanrene
...and since this is one of the analysis tools they used to convince a wary public of spending $1 Trillion, they are stuck with it. It is theirs, he owns it.
And the other government and private entities who were doing projections from the same data and getting results in the same range own all of their work also. The fact that someone somewhere doesn't understand any of that work and can't put or keep any of it in a proper context is none of their fault.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanrene
Except that the numbers completely prove that you are wrong. It is a fact the deficit was reduced under bush for those years that were listed. Now, how is that done? Revenues to the treasury or did they cut spending? It is clearly shown that revenues increased, deficit decreased all under the Bush tax cuts. Fact. Inescapable. It makes no difference what the opinion of those you listed say...the proof is in the actual numbers. It's easy to wave away those opinions when the actual numbers prove the contrary.
I see. You are right and these many different experts from within the Bush administration itself are too dumb to see what you see and are therefore off in their unanimous conclusion by 180 degrees.
It is also a given that these and all other tax rates tend to go up and down as circumstances arise that convince rate-makers to cause them to go up or down. If people cannot accept the rules of the game, perhaps they should not be playing the game to begin with.
That's anathema to saggy, Obama, Pelosi, Reid, and the Dems.
The Dems are notorious for spend and tax.
This false promise of no taxes and wild spending is pure kool-aid.
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.
