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.
Agree completely. I was only presenting a theoretical argument. Most people have no clue on how economies operate. All they know is taxes go up, taxes go down, prices go up, prices go down. This is why people are easily persuaded by politicians.
seems like we have three debates at once, the economy, capital gains, and taxing the rich, in some ways intertwined and in some ways very different.
All very interesting, and hopefully others can see all sides, I know I can.
seems like we have three debates at once, the economy, capital gains, and taxing the rich, in some ways intertwined and in some ways very different.
All very interesting, and hopefully others can see all sides, I know I can.
Par for the course around here. Were you expecting differently?
The republicans will never see anything for what it is. Your thread makes perfect since but you should know the lieing gop will never fess up to it. Dont expect a republican response to this but put up a thread about a birth certificate and WOW......
I am a Republican but this is not really a political issue. It says a lot about the people generally. Most American's have the idea of borrowing at much as you can and paying it later or maybe not having to pay it at all. The President's have really no concern about the debt because it has become just a part of the world economy. The national debt will cause major problems in the next several years (I think) but it is a case of "out of sight, out of mind".
As far as the birth certificate goes, I find it bothersome that so many people want to trust a President who won't show that he is qualified to hold the office. I belive he does quality, but if you will hide the big stuff, what damaging small stuff will be hide from us? Got to love that transparent Obama!!!
WRONG. The "surplus" you speak of has always existed because more was being paid into SS annually by the tax payers than was being paid back to recipients. The Congress started paying that money into foreign loans in the 1950s as if it were just tax revenue. Very dishonest of them but it was never stopped until 1983 and they have been spending what was surplus ever since then.
Nope, you are wrong, the Social Security system is a pay-as-you-go system, meaning that payments to current retirees come from current payments into the system.
you seem to think anyone that has a cap gain is rich and very far from the truth
Well, not all that far considering that the average taxpayer in the middle quintile (41-60%) pays about $20 per year in capital gains taxes. Only about one taxpayer in twenty in this group pays anything at all. For the next quintile (61-80%), about one in ten pays anything and the average is up to $82. For the top 1% on the other hand, one in two pays and the average is $61,447 per year. Among the top one-tenth of 1%, two out three pay, and the average is $404,643. So I'd say capital gains income and taxes are pretty highly concentrated at the top of the income scale.
So everyone is entitled to the rich's money? Why don't people just work harder to become wealthy on their own? No one is entitled to other people's hard earned money.
You'e asking the wrong question. Someone has to pay for the goods and services that the public sector provides. The question is who? The poor already kick in a much higher percentage of their incomes as payroll and federal excise taxes. Is it too much to ask for the rich to pick up some of the slack when it comes to income taxes???
It's simple to deduce that if the investment class wants to sell goods, we need enough money to purchase these goods.
This was part of the problem leading to the credit cruch. Tax cuts for the rich and diversions of productivity gains into corporate profits rather than wage increases left consumers with incomes that were insufficient to clear the shelves of all the inventory those productivity gains were spitting out. Solution? Keep interest rates low and encourage people to borrow from the rich the money that should have gone to them as wages to begin with. They won't let you earn-and-spend, so you have to borrow-and-spend. It's A-OK by them, just as long as you keep spending somehow...
Well, not all that far considering that the average taxpayer in the middle quintile (41-60%) pays about $20 per year in capital gains taxes. Only about one taxpayer in twenty in this group pays anything at all. For the next quintile (61-80%), about one in ten pays anything and the average is up to $82. For the top 1% on the other hand, one in two pays and the average is $61,447 per year. Among the top one-tenth of 1%, two out three pay, and the average is $404,643. So I'd say capital gains income and taxes are pretty highly concentrated at the top of the income scale.
those are your stats, but do not include me in it. not even close to those numbers, but I guess I need to pay the same cap gains as the really rich, right?
for the third time, how about income limits, or basing cap gains simply based on gross income for developing a percentage paid by individuals, its called a fair playing field.
Were the unfunded tax cuts of Reagan/Bush41 and George W. Bush with the wealthy getting richer with dollars borrowed from Japan, Canada and China worth it?
How exactly did the wealthy get richer with dollars borrowed from these places? I'm not saving they didn't; just curious what mechanism you refer to.
The truly wealthy manage to keep and expand their wealth, and since government needs their support (how much does it cost to run a Presidential campaign today?), it will not hamper them in any way. I'd love to see that system changed, but people (and society) are easily manipulated by those who instinctively know how to do it.
I'm a Libertarian now, since the Republicans abandoned fiscal responsibility a long time ago. The less money the government takes from me, the better. Also, the less money government spends, the better. If it didn't have so much power to confiscate the wages of the population, it wouldn't be constantly waging new wars in foreign countries and promising more and more benefits to the people who are CURRENTLY receiving benefits. At the same time everyone working now knows that the age when you can start to collect Social Security will continue to be raised, and any money you save for your own retirement will be used to deny you benefits.
Government produces nothing, it takes from $100 one person to give to $20 another (you have to pay the cost of the bureaucracy). Its size has created a huge burden on the economy, from both compliance with infinite regulations and a ridiculously complex tax system. The Federal appropriation and consolidation of the wealth of the wage-earning citizenry is an irresistible lure for fraud and manipulation of the system.
The problem is never a reduction in the amount government takes out of my pocket (and everyone else's, at a hundred different levels and points in the economic system), but in the fact that if you gave the Federal government a HUNDRED trillion a year, they'd find a way to spend it all, borrow tons more, and print even more.
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.
