OT Taxes My Proposed Taxes Fairness Bill of 2012

Page 2 of 8  
wrote:

Doesn't seem like it.

Doesn't seem like it.

On average, perhaps. But why do you continue to refuse to acknowledge that those whose income is derived mostly, or entirely, from investments pay a lower rate than those whose income is derived mostly, or entirely, from salary or wages?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Didn't know I was doing that. So, why do you continue to refuse to acknowledge that those in the higher brackets pay a higher effective rate overall than those in the lower ones? That the Buffett rule is based on cherry picking a few special cases?
--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

We know there are some high income people like Buffet that are paying at a lower rate than many middle class people. The question is how many. This Buffet BS has been going on for a year now and you would think that we would have actual data from the IRS as to how many there are, what exemptions they are using, etc. Then at least we could have a debate on the actual data. The fact that we don;t tells me that those seeking to raise taxes are more interested in fanning the flames of class warfare than a real solution.
One thing that stinks here is that Obama keeps referring to Buffet's secretary as just that, a secretary. That leaves the impression that she's just a typical secretary earning maybe $40K. Yet she is supposed to be paying 30% in taxes. I've seen estimates that she must be earning more like $300K to be paying that high of a rate. Whatever she is earning, it's clear she's not your typical secretary. And working for Buffet, I'd be very surprised if she did not also have income that was being taxed at 15%, ie capital gains. Like she;s working for Buffet and she has no stock options at Bershire Hathway?
I say since they chose to make this an issue it's time for both of them to release their tax returns for the last 3 years so we can all see the truth.
Another thing that's rotten to the core is that in the case of Romney, they say he paid a tax rate of around 13%. They neglect to mention that the 13% is being calculated on his total income. He gave a substantial amount to charity, so that reduced his income subject to tax. He never really had the income. If you do the rate based on the amount he paid in taxes on the income that he kept, then it's not 13%, but significantly higher. Same thing may be going on with Buffet, but again, we don't know because we don't have his return.
But then this is part of the liberal agenda too. They don't want individuals to be encouraged to give directly to charity. They want you to send all your money to them so the govt can then decide where it should go and the liberals then get credit for "helping" folks, not you.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Although I have a different philosophy, I do agree with quite a bit of what you are saying here. OTOH, in previous decades we didn't have that much of a deficit as a % of GDP, even during recessions, but did have higher tax rates. Which points again to the nonsense of reducing taxes while increasing expenditures. Although combating unemployment and recession by stimulating the economy is a time-honored tradition. I also like to point to the drastic cuts in expenditures in some European countries, that is not yet helping their economies. We appear to live in times where the easy way to combat deficits isn't feasible anymore, due to the interrelatedness of the world's economies. That used to be devaluation of one's currency, a much used tactic in the past. When I was a teenager, the French franc had devalued so much that "new" francs were issued, valued at 1:1000 I believe ...
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
We appear to live in

Not really. It has been working OK for the US, at least so far. The Euro is another kettle of fish since it is more than one sovereign nation with more than one goal. Euro members really can't inflate their way out of the problems... at least until Germany and/or France run into stormy weather, then we'll see. We'd be having the same problems as Europe is Mississippi was trying to have a different monetary policy then California or Nevada. It is really hard (and I am leaning personally toward impossible) to have a situation where you have a single currency yet multiple soverign nations with multiple monetary needs.
--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

That's what the Europeans are finding out.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Soverignty without monetary control was a stupid idea; doomed to failure. If the Europeons weren't so toothless, a war wouldn't be surprising. History, and all that...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

If I remember correctly, the US was designed in stages. The current concept is one of the US overriding the individual states (in many aspects - we'll see about health care <grin>). This followed the failure of condfederated state envisioned by the original articles of confederation. The process leading to the Constitution didn't make the US a failure. Similarly, it was abominable nonsense for the Europeans to think that a common currency would work without a common and top-down fiscal and economical policy. That is what almost no state in Europe is willing to confront, yet. The US Constitution turned out much better, despite the continuing fights about "states' rights", and Eurpe will/should follow in those footsteps. I just hope that there will not be anything like what some here call the recent unpleasantness ...
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Heck Europe has been able to engage in multiple unpleasantnesses (WWI and WWII for example) even w/o the monetary overlay. I would posit that this probably main reason no one wants to even discuss giving up sovereigty for a true "United States of Europe".
--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The Constitution has been amended eighteen time, and several courts have invented "penumbras", and such, sure.

Considering that the current argument before the Court has nothing to do with "states rights", I'd say you're FOS, as usual.

It not considered a "failure" because it has lasted two hundred some odd years. The USE hasn't even been born yet, and it's already failing miserably. War will probably ensue. They're good at starting such things but again, they have no means to conduct it, anymore than my declawed cats have.

I think that's what I said. ;-)

There will. History puts the odds greatly in my favor.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Indeed
The current CONCEPT of the Constitution, not necessarily that of the currently greatest case before SCOTUS.

You didn't realize you had the right analogy? Before the Constitution there were the Articles of Confederation. That latter concept was discarded, since it didn't work without a strong central authority.

Yes.
War these days would be in the courts, I hope ...
As usually, we are closer in actual philosophies than you realize ...
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

"The current CONCEPT of the Constitution" says it all. You have no regard for it at all. It means whatever you want it to mean. You really don't like freedom, do you?

You really don't understand the Constitution, at all.

Laugh! That's certainly not the Europeon way.

Bullshit. You have no regard for the Constitution, or this country.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Once more. This is the last time I try to educate you. After this you are on your own.
When this country was started in a rebellion against the British, the individual colonies (now called states) wanted to have more sovereignty than they were accorded. A bunch of guys, now commonly called the Founding Fathers, came up with a first draft of the country's basic document, and they called it the Articles of Confederation. That very rapidly proved unworkable and they reworked it until they came up with the Constitution, but immediately they added a bunch of Amendments called the Bill of Rights. More and more amendments followed later through the years. Some were considered good immediately, at least until now, but some were subsequently changed or retracted. To me that shows that the Constitution is indeed a living document subject to amendments, clarification and expansion.
You heard it here first, I think.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Obviously you are, by your continuing insistence on the next sentence:

Because it's a false statement. The truth is that *some* in the higher brackets pay a higher effective rate, and some don't. To imply, as you consistently have, and continue to do, that this is true of *all* of them is false. Regardless of income level, income derived from long- term capital gains is *always* taxed at a significantly *lower* rate than income derived from wages or salaries.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

WHen have I said that. I have ALWAYS mentioned that these are on average which, by definition means that some are above and some are below. I have merely stated over and over again, that Buffett rule and similar are cherry picking a small group and then saying it is unfair that rich people get these benefits. While there are some that probably do, they are not only few and far between, but are usually related to some very individualized circumstances. If Buffett does, indeed, pay more than his secretary is largely because of choices he makes (and is in a relatively rare position to make), not because of large inherent inequities in the system. Most people in the higher brackets pay a higher percentage of their income than do those in the lower. Period. Yahoo's fact checkers note: On average, the wealthiest people in America pay a lot more taxes than the middle class or the poor, according to private and government data. They pay at a higher rate, and as a group, they contribute a much larger share of the overall taxes collected by the federal government. The 10 percent of households with the highest incomes pay more than half of all federal taxes. They pay more than 70 percent of federal income taxes, according to the Congressional Budget Office. There may be individual millionaires who pay taxes at rates lower than middle-income workers. In 2009, 1,470 households filed tax returns with incomes above $1 million yet paid no federal income tax, according to the Internal Revenue Service. But that's less than 1 percent of the nearly 237,000 returns with incomes above $1 million. This year, households making more than $1 million will pay an average of **29.1 percent** of their income in federal taxes, including income taxes, payroll taxes and other taxes, according to the Tax Policy Center, a Washington think tank. Households making between $50,000 and $75,000 will pay an average of **15** percent of their income in federal taxes. Lower-income households will pay less. For example, households making between $40,000 and $50,000 will pay an average of 12.5 percent of their income in federal taxes. Households making between $20,000 and $30,000 will pay **5.7 percent** (emphasis mine and note how the average goes up as the income goes down??). The latest IRS figures are a few years older and limited to federal income taxes but show much the same thing. In 2009, taxpayers who made $1 million or more paid on average 24.4 percent of their income in federal income taxes, according to the IRS. Those making $100,000 to $125,000 paid on average 9.9 percent in federal income taxes. Those making $50,000 to $60,000 paid an average of 6.3 percent.
Regardless of income level, income

But over ALL of the taxes, the rich pay a higher percentage of their income than do others. You are looking at a relatively small part of the income track even for most rich folks.
--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

About six lines above, for example. "those in the higher brackets pay a higher effective rate..." with no qualifiers such as "on average" or "some".
And I'm *still* waiting for you to admit that income from capital gains is taxed at a lower rate than income from wages or salaries.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 20 Apr 2012 03:49:54 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller

...or, of course, "all.

If you consider that capital gains has already been taxed as profit, you'd likely be wrong.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Apr 20, 1:37pm, " snipped-for-privacy@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"

There is only taxation involved if the capital gains stream came from a business that involved profit that was being taxed. I think what you're saying is that the business paid taxes over the years so when the business or stock in the business is sold, the lower rate is justified.
You could have capital gains from the sale of a house, land, coins, gold, corn futures, etc that don't involve an income stream.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:

By the same token, selling an item on Craigslist for 1/2 its purchase price can be a capital loss (taking into account depreciation, etc.).
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Depreciation is only of interest if you've claimed it.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Site Timeline

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.