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.
This year, we hit the 33% marginal tax bracket - alternative minimum tax and all of that. We don't own a home or have kids, so we don't really get to deduct anything.
I'm grateful for our income, and I'm not fundamentally complaining about having to work hard for it and pay my fair share. I know that we're very fortunate.
But why is it fair for my personal share to be up to TWICE the rate of the fair share of people with gargantuan incomes like Romney and Buffett who will never have real financial worries again in their lives? We're doing well, but unlike those guys, we do depend heavily on our cash flow to generate our critical savings for future needs as well as to cover our day-to-day expenses. We get hurt by the loss of that marginal dollar A LOT more than the multi-millionaires and billionaires ever would be.
And why is it "class warfare" whenever I point this out? How is it not "class warfare" for me to be reamed porportionally so much more than the super rich - many of whose enterprises I also have to pay to bail out of their bad business decisions?
I'm not saying that the Buffett rule is the way to go, but why can't we have a tax system that institutes some sense of consistent fairness relative to income all the way across the income spectrum? Why is this concept so fundamentally controversial and anti-American for conservatives?
You need to invest and spend that money in ways the governamnt incourages you to not balme other for doig the same.
It's because you're confused about what the word "earn" means.
Their overall rates are lower because they make most of their money from investments, not wages.
You WANT wealthy people investing their money. That job you "aren't fundamentally complaining" about would likely disappear without those evil rich people pumping their cash into the economy.
Exactly. They've already been taxed on their wages. Presumably at a higher rate than you. They've then taken their already taxed wages and DONE something with them to produce more money, thereby taxing them again and again and again.
The left doesn't understand this. They just think "rich guy bad", but rich guy created your job with that money (again, TAXED money) that he was smart with.
The left sits and waits for you to find a dollar on the ground and then jumps in with their hands out saying they want you to give them $0.25 of that dollar because you found it. They think they can tax every dollar out there over and over and over, even though it's already been taxed multiple times.
Until we get spending cut down to where it should be (as outlined by the Constitution), we will NEVER reign this monster in. You could tax every American at 100% of what they make and we'll still be in a deficit because we're spending more than we take in.
Exactly. They've already been taxed on their wages. Presumably at a higher rate than you. They've then taken their already taxed wages and DONE something with them to produce more money, thereby taxing them again and again and again.
The left doesn't understand this. They just think "rich guy bad", but rich guy created your job with that money (again, TAXED money) that he was smart with.
The left sits and waits for you to find a dollar on the ground and then jumps in with their hands out saying they want you to give them $0.25 of that dollar because you found it. They think they can tax every dollar out there over and over and over, even though it's already been taxed multiple times.
Until we get spending cut down to where it should be (as outlined by the Constitution), we will NEVER reign this monster in. You could tax every American at 100% of what they make and we'll still be in a deficit because we're spending more than we take in.
It's stupid.
Stupid is the stuff of Liberals, Progressive and most DemocRATS.
Exactly. They've already been taxed on their wages. Presumably at a higher rate than you. They've then taken their already taxed wages and DONE something with them to produce more money, thereby taxing them again and again and again.
The left doesn't understand this. They just think "rich guy bad", but rich guy created your job with that money (again, TAXED money) that he was smart with.
The left sits and waits for you to find a dollar on the ground and then jumps in with their hands out saying they want you to give them $0.25 of that dollar because you found it. They think they can tax every dollar out there over and over and over, even though it's already been taxed multiple times.
Until we get spending cut down to where it should be (as outlined by the Constitution), we will NEVER reign this monster in. You could tax every American at 100% of what they make and we'll still be in a deficit because we're spending more than we take in.
It's stupid.
They also fail to realize, if someone makes 10 Million on their investments, 15% is more than most people make ANYWAYS.
This year, we hit the 33% marginal tax bracket - alternative minimum tax and all of that. We don't own a home or have kids, so we don't really get to deduct anything.
I'm grateful for our income, and I'm not fundamentally complaining about having to work hard for it and pay my fair share. I know that we're very fortunate.
But why is it fair for my personal share to be up to TWICE the rate of the fair share of people with gargantuan incomes like Romney and Buffett who will never have real financial worries again in their lives? We're doing well, but unlike those guys, we do depend heavily on our cash flow to generate our critical savings for future needs as well as to cover our day-to-day expenses. We get hurt by the loss of that marginal dollar A LOT more than the multi-millionaires and billionaires ever would be.
And why is it "class warfare" whenever I point this out? How is it not "class warfare" for me to be reamed porportionally so much more than the super rich - many of whose enterprises I also have to pay to bail out of their bad business decisions?
I'm not saying that the Buffett rule is the way to go, but why can't we have a tax system that institutes some sense of consistent fairness relative to income all the way across the income spectrum? Why is this concept so fundamentally controversial and anti-American for conservatives?
The money you got to keep.... If you invest it should you pay the same % on what you make on it or more or less? That is the question.
The rich who pay a smaller % to taxes are not wage earners, they are investors or business owners. Either way it took wage earner money that was taxed when earned. Just because they saved or bought a business or invested it instead of spending it foolishly should they be punished more than the person who is at step one of the money ladder. They are at step 2 or 3 of that 1st dollar level. What you do with that 1st dollar is your business. They make that $1 into $2 or $3. They pay taxes on the profits and should but should they pay more? If you push it too high in taxes they will not see the profit in trying to make it into $2 or $3.
When taxes cause the $1 to equel $1 or less then why try to increase when its better to put it in your matress? Those who believe in thier fair share better worry when that happens.
Now if you want to cut loopholes and make it a flat rate that is fair for everyone thats fine. Make a certain $ a yr tax exempt and tax a flat rate over that.
The quick and simplistic answer to the silly question is, the money that is earned and taxed at 15%, has been taxed once prior to capital gains taxes.
That means it has been taxed a second time at the 15% capital gains tax.
No it hasn't. Those are unrealized gains. Capital gains taxes tax the profit of the capital gain, which was never taxed.
This is the example:
You bought 1,000 shares of Apple stock in 1999 for $10, for a total of $10,000. Yes, you paid taxes on that $10,000.
Now, that stock is worth $700,000. You didn't already pay tax on that $700,000. You only paid tax on the initial $10,000. Should you sell, your gain would be $690,000 -- and that would be the portion subject to capital gains tax.
Why should that gain only be taxed at 15%? If it was earning income it would be taxed at a much higher rate and would be subject to SSA and Medicare tax too.
No it hasn't. Those are unrealized gains. Capital gains taxes tax the profit of the capital gain, which was never taxed.
This is the example:
You bought 1,000 shares of Apple stock in 1999 for $10, for a total of $10,000. Yes, you paid taxes on that $10,000.
Now, that stock is worth $700,000. You didn't already pay tax on that $700,000. You only paid tax on the initial $10,000. Should you sell, your gain would be $690,000 -- and that would be the portion subject to capital gains tax.
Why should that gain only be taxed at 15%? If it was earning income it would be taxed at a much higher rate and would be subject to SSA and Medicare tax too.
Well, there are several reasons. First, as an investor, you are a part owner of that company and as such profit from it's success. However...the company is first taxed under corporate tax laws, which can be as high as 40%. Then, whatever profits are left either paid out as dividends, which ARE taxed as ordinary income, or in your esample, that investment is tied up until the stock is sold. In which case capital gains ARE taxed at a lower rate.
The reason that capital gains are taxed at a lower rate is to encourage investment in businesses. When you are paid a wage, that is "guaranteed income" while you work and are paid by that company. If the company goes under, the money you have been paid is not retroactively taken from you. If you buy stock, or create a company, you have a good chance of LOSING some or all of your investment (something I'm all too familiar with as a former GM stockholder). The government doesn't just hand you a pile of money to make up for your losses as an investor (in general...mortgage bailouts being the obvious exception). As such, capital gains taxes are kept lower to encourage and reward the risk associated with investment. The belief being that business investment is a positive thing, providing jobs and revenue to the government.
Well, there are several reasons. First, as an investor, you are a part owner of that company and as such profit from it's success. However...the company is first taxed under corporate tax laws, which can be as high as 40%. Then, whatever profits are left either paid out as dividends, which ARE taxed as ordinary income, or in your esample, that investment is tied up until the stock is sold. In which case capital gains ARE taxed at a lower rate.
The reason that capital gains are taxed at a lower rate is to encourage investment in businesses. When you are paid a wage, that is "guaranteed income" while you work and are paid by that company. If the company goes under, the money you have been paid is not retroactively taken from you. If you buy stock, or create a company, you have a good chance of LOSING some or all of your investment (something I'm all too familiar with as a former GM stockholder). The government doesn't just hand you a pile of money to make up for your losses as an investor (in general...mortgage bailouts being the obvious exception). As such, capital gains taxes are kept lower to encourage and reward the risk associated with investment. The belief being that business investment is a positive thing, providing jobs and revenue to the government.
A) Why do taxpayers have to "encourage investment in businesses?" Why isn't encouraging labor and getting up and going to work equally as important? Isn't the lure of making a profit on an asset sufficient encouragement?
B) As an investor, you may be a part owner of that company, but the success to is only reflected in dividends and the stock price. As such, the taxes the company may or may not of paid is irrelevant. Those aren't your taxes no more than the taxes my employer pays are my taxes. GE hasn't paid income taxes in a decade but GE investors still get the 15% rate.
What you are really asking is if capital gains taxes should be taxed the same as income taxes. I would say taxes on capital need to be lower for one simple reason; capital can flee a nation's borders much easier than labor.
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.
