[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Flat tax anyone ?[/quote]
That will never happen in a thousand years. The jealous will claim that those making more than them should pay a higher rate.
Just forget the flat tax idea it makes way, way too much sense.
Capital gains taxes, estate taxes and all these other fucking double taxations drive me dilly. Complete bullshit.
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
Capital gains taxes, estate taxes and all these other fucking double taxations drive me dilly. Complete bullshit.[/quote]
But, you have to pay them in order to make our government even larger and help pay for the care of many who don’t even bother to provide for their own family!
I want someone, anyone to explain to me how this entire system doesn’t collapse in under a decade if we don’t do something to fix it right now.
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
Capital gains taxes, estate taxes and all these other fucking double taxations drive me dilly. Complete bullshit.[/quote]
Please explain this double taxation of Capital gains
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Flat tax anyone ?[/quote]
That will never happen in a thousand years. The jealous will claim that those making more than them should pay a higher rate.
Just forget the flat tax idea it makes way, way too much sense.[/quote]
Not to mention how much better this will be for people as they make more money. The narrative in the media is “the tax code favors the rich.” This is so fucking ludicrous it isn’t even funny. But put a flat tax in place, L-O-L!
As evidenced by the radio call-in’s, facebook, google+ and here, most people don’t even know how much they pay in tax. Let me say that again so it sinks in, most people, a vast majority, haven’t a single clue how much they pay in tax. I can literally destroy the argument of 90% of the people bitching about the tax code using their “tax rate” in 20 seconds by knowing what they make and a trip to irs.gov.
People see Romney’s returns, don’t understand shit, and think all “rich” people pay like that… A flat tax will benefit the rich so much more than the current system, that is why we have the current fucking system. Holy shit, it blows my mind. You know what, put in a flat tax, because I will laugh my ass off when 60-70% of this country are suddenly paying more, and the top 30% are paying less.
trust me, God is a capitalist, and Warren buffet is going to rot in fucking hell for the shit he has pulled. He has caused an en mass complaint from people that don’t understand the first thing about taxes to suddenly become scholars on the situation.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
How dare I have an opinion that is not sanctioned by the Beancounter.[/quote]
It isn’t that your opinion is different, it is that you don’t understand the reason why LTCG are taxed differently than earned income.
You don’t know the difference between passive and active, you don’t understand what phantom income is, and you don’t get what happens when you sell stocks.
Look at it like this:
I own 100k of GE. I want to sell. My cost basis is 50K. So when I sell I have LTCG of 50k, taxed at 15%. When I sell I keep 92.5k, and buy Google with that, the other 7.5k going to tax.
When you up the rate to, 30+%, you are taking more money out of the economy, more money out of Google’s capitalization and more money out of the hands of people that know what to do with it. Because if you notice from above, assuming a gain, when I reinvest, I do so with less money than I started because of taxes.
This is basics man. Basics.
God I hope you pay a financial planner to manage your retirement.
I’m not even being a dickhead when I say that, even though I sound like it. I’m being serious. Please look into someone to look over your plan.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
IMO capital gains should be taxed at the normal rate with exceptions to with Ma and Pa selling their house for retirement.
[/quote]
This serves as a dis-incentive to investing in the market.
If that is what you are looking for, fine, but understand that will put a few companies out fo business. GM for example. Based on what we know, they would go under having to fund everything through operations. But, best case you are looking at a very large shift in how companies operate. I would expect a drop in payroll expense when they have to fund so much more through operations rather than market capital.
Thing is, I don’t see bonds doing any better either. Interest is already taxed at OI rates, so…
Yeah, you’d be playing with fire.[/quote]
I think profit is enough incentive . As you say bonds are paying so low almost no one will invest in them . Corporations are making record profits
[/quote]
I don’t think you understand what I’m saying here based on your response.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
It isn’t that your opinion is different, it is that you don’t understand the reason why LTCG are taxed differently than earned income.
I own 100k of GE. I want to sell. My cost basis is 50K. So when I sell I have LTCG of 50k, taxed at 15%. When I sell I keep 92.5k, and buy Google with that, the other 7.5k going to tax.
When you up the rate to, 30+%, you are taking more money out of the economy,
God I hope you pay a financial planner to manage your retirement.
I don’t think you understand what I’m saying here based on your response. [/quote]
I know you like to talk shop but expecting me to understand LTCG could be deemed as a smoke screen
If you tax any income you take it out of the economy
I do pay a financial planner
It is quite possible I do not understand what you are saying , I personally think I do . No one likes taxes There are all kinds of employment that have as many risks as investing money . I do not buy this bull shit that corporations are people but I do buy the fact that time is money
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I know you like to talk shop but expecting me to understand LTCG could be deemed as a smoke screen
[/quote]
Sorry, LTCG = Long Term Capital Gain.
Right, so if you are suddenly increasing someone’s tax rate on LTCG, why wouldn’t they just sell off before the end of the year, and put their money somewhere else where the tax rate isn’t so high? (Rather than buy more stocks?)
Their may be positions who whether or not you have a job tomorrow is risky, but sure as shit you will get paid for your labor in America.
Back wages don’t ever go away. You call the Atty General, and you will get paid one way or another.
[quote]I do not buy this bull shit that corporations are people but I do buy the fact that time is money
[/quote]
Dude they are treated like people in the eyes of the law because they have to be. And that affords them certain abilities above and beyond what the intention of them having that status under the law.
Sort of like abortion. Women’s right wasn’t intended to give them the choice to vacuum a baby out of their body, it is an ability granted to them above and beyond the rights originally intended to be respected.
Paraphrasing a quote from Steinbeck:
“Americans will never believe that they are taken advantage of by the rich, but instead temporarily poor millionaires”.
[quote]Explosiv wrote:
Paraphrasing a quote from Steinbeck:
“Americans will never believe that they are taken advantage of by the rich, but instead temporarily poor millionaires”.
[/quote]
More of your idiotic liberal drivel.
[quote]Explosiv wrote:
Paraphrasing a quote from Steinbeck:
“Americans will never believe that they are taken advantage of by the rich, but instead temporarily poor millionaires”.
[/quote]
Paraphrasing your paraphrase:
“Americans will never believe that they have to work hard to become rich, but instead can blame millionaires”.
The insinuation that poor people in American can’t and don’t blame the wealthy is absurd, that’s all many of them do.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]Explosiv wrote:
Paraphrasing a quote from Steinbeck:
“Americans will never believe that they are taken advantage of by the rich, but instead temporarily poor millionaires”.
[/quote]
Paraphrasing your paraphrase:
“Americans will never believe that they have to work hard to become rich, but instead can blame millionaires”.
The insinuation that poor people in American can’t and don’t blame the wealthy is absurd, that’s all many of them do.[/quote]
Your logic doesn’t follow the historic political progression in the US.
If all the “poor” did is blame the “rich”, socialism would be a system that is employed in the US. But it’s not.
The point here is creating conditions that benefit both sides. Destroying the middle class, which is precisely what the wealth gap that is shown statistically through economic data, is not beneficial for those that are “rich” just like it doesn’t benefit those that are poor.
[quote]Explosiv wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]Explosiv wrote:
Paraphrasing a quote from Steinbeck:
“Americans will never believe that they are taken advantage of by the rich, but instead temporarily poor millionaires”.
[/quote]
Paraphrasing your paraphrase:
“Americans will never believe that they have to work hard to become rich, but instead can blame millionaires”.
The insinuation that poor people in American can’t and don’t blame the wealthy is absurd, that’s all many of them do.[/quote]
Your logic doesn’t follow the historic political progression in the US.
If all the “poor” did is blame the “rich”, socialism would be a system that is employed in the US. But it’s not.
The point here is creating conditions that benefit both sides. Destroying the middle class, which is precisely what the wealth gap that is shown statistically through economic data, is not beneficial for those that are “rich” just like it doesn’t benefit those that are poor.
[/quote]
BS. a demotivated lazy victim class seeking to blame others doesn’t mean the whole political system follows. There are in-fact resistances to them, like the constitution, and the hard working.
You also ignore the possibility that personal action is responsible for the gap. You have the complete inability to see action outside of the current social or political grouping. You only see unequal results and ignore unequal effort.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]Explosiv wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]Explosiv wrote:
Paraphrasing a quote from Steinbeck:
“Americans will never believe that they are taken advantage of by the rich, but instead temporarily poor millionaires”.
[/quote]
Paraphrasing your paraphrase:
“Americans will never believe that they have to work hard to become rich, but instead can blame millionaires”.
The insinuation that poor people in American can’t and don’t blame the wealthy is absurd, that’s all many of them do.[/quote]
Your logic doesn’t follow the historic political progression in the US.
If all the “poor” did is blame the “rich”, socialism would be a system that is employed in the US. But it’s not.
The point here is creating conditions that benefit both sides. Destroying the middle class, which is precisely what the wealth gap that is shown statistically through economic data, is not beneficial for those that are “rich” just like it doesn’t benefit those that are poor.
[/quote]
BS. a demotivated lazy victim class seeking to blame others doesn’t mean the whole political system follows. There are in-fact resistances to them, like the constitution, and the hard working.
You also ignore the possibility that personal action is responsible for the gap. You have the complete inability to see action outside of the current social or political grouping. You only see unequal results and ignore unequal effort.[/quote]
Hard work doesn’t make the wealth gap exponentially bigger.
That is the result of economic policies. It’s like compounding interest. At first, it’s not all that big of a deal.
As certain policies compound over time, a certain percentage are far better off than a different percentage.
[quote]Explosiv wrote:
Hard work doesn’t make the wealth gap exponentially bigger.
That is the result of economic policies. [/quote]
That is factually incorrect…like most of your “liberal logic.”
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Explosiv wrote:
Hard work doesn’t make the wealth gap exponentially bigger.
That is the result of economic policies. [/quote]
That is factually incorrect…like most of your “liberal logic.”
[/quote]
So, by your logic, after Reagan’s term in office with his famous “supply side economics” the wealth gap didn’t become much bigger.
But, the statistical analysis of economic benchmarks shows otherwise.
So, it is in fact factually correct. Unless under Reagan a few people who were already rich all of a sudden started working so hard that the wealth gap increased dramatically.
[quote]Explosiv wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Explosiv wrote:
Hard work doesn’t make the wealth gap exponentially bigger.
That is the result of economic policies. [/quote]
That is factually incorrect…like most of your “liberal logic.”
[/quote]
So, by your logic, after Reagan’s term in office with his famous “supply side economics” the wealth gap didn’t become much bigger.
But, the statistical analysis of economic benchmarks shows otherwise.
So, it is in fact factually correct. Unless under Reagan a few people who were already rich all of a sudden started working so hard that the wealth gap increased dramatically.[/quote]
Why is the wealth gap greater now than when Reagan was President? Think little Timmy…think.
You all know, I’m sick of the shit. “Class” membership is not fixed. Virtually nobody is in the same class at the 10 year mark and as soon as people start talking to me about “classes” they have tipped their hand that they, in fact, have no understanding of economics.
So here is a story that starts with the Great Depression… of 1890. My family was a bunch of farmers that damn near lost everything (look it up, it was far worse than the one in 1929). They decided to never again be beholden to others for capital. They banded together to make what is, in effect their own private bank. In each generation, one person (not me now, btw) inherits all the money and uses it for loans, educational grants and such for members of the family. This gives us a generally higher standard of living. Their descendants and there are a lot of them, are now all prosperous professionals, like doctors, engineers and such. Not wealthy, but comfortable, well educated and much better off than being dirt poor farmers in the rural South.
Question #1 for you all: is this good or bad? Should poverty programs do this?
Money is property and managing it requires maintenance no different from keeping your car running. Most people I talk to who are poor either have no earning potential or are arguably stupid about what money is (hint, it ain’t evil and any economist would refer to it as information for allocation of resources). When do-gooders talk about “spreading the wealth” what we hear is taking a very well run private institution that has lifted more people out of poverty (large family) than any program (on a cost-per-person basis) in the history of the US, and giving the assets mostly to a bureaucracy to administer what’s left (as in most goes to admin costs, not the poor). You wonder why I get hostile at threads like this?
The War on Poverty has been the singularly least effective government program. This is because it accepts the Marxist line that wealth is finite and needs to be redistributed for “equality”. Far from this is the idea that wealth is created by the industry of people. That last statement is the crux of the matter.
Question #2: “Where does wealth come from?”
Answer this before you talk about anything else. If you say “the rich” this begs the question – where did they get it? If you think “the government” then they should just print more of it and quit taxing us completely. If you think all is oppression and the poor were robbed, then are you pointing a finger at yourself? The Marxist line is that the poor in Africa were brutally exploited by First Worlders, so that you have a standard of living higher than sub-Saharan Africa means you have to explain who you robbed an how to get so rich. Even our poorest in the US are vastly wealthy compared to many. On an international scale, we’re all guilty if you accept this reasoning.
Question #3: How does your theory about where it comes from apply to you?
– jj
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Explosiv wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Explosiv wrote:
Hard work doesn’t make the wealth gap exponentially bigger.
That is the result of economic policies. [/quote]
That is factually incorrect…like most of your “liberal logic.”
[/quote]
So, by your logic, after Reagan’s term in office with his famous “supply side economics” the wealth gap didn’t become much bigger.
But, the statistical analysis of economic benchmarks shows otherwise.
So, it is in fact factually correct. Unless under Reagan a few people who were already rich all of a sudden started working so hard that the wealth gap increased dramatically.[/quote]
Why is the wealth gap greater now than when Reagan was President? Think little Timmy…think.[/quote]
The wealth gap started becoming larger during Reagan’s term and became larger once the side effects of his economic policies could take full effect. It’s not like you enact a policy and you see results immediately.
[quote]jj-dude wrote:
You all know, I’m sick of the shit. “Class” membership is not fixed. Virtually nobody is in the same class at the 10 year mark and as soon as people start talking to me about “classes” they have tipped their hand that they, in fact, have no understanding of economics.
So here is a story that starts with the Great Depression… of 1890. My family was a bunch of farmers that damn near lost everything (look it up, it was far worse than the one in 1929). They decided to never again be beholden to others for capital. They banded together to make what is, in effect their own private bank. In each generation, one person (not me now, btw) inherits all the money and uses it for loans, educational grants and such for members of the family. This gives us a generally higher standard of living. Their descendants and there are a lot of them, are now all prosperous professionals, like doctors, engineers and such. Not wealthy, but comfortable, well educated and much better off than being dirt poor farmers in the rural South.
Question #1 for you all: is this good or bad? Should poverty programs do this?
Money is property and managing it requires maintenance no different from keeping your car running. Most people I talk to who are poor either have no earning potential or are arguably stupid about what money is (hint, it ain’t evil and any economist would refer to it as information for allocation of resources). When do-gooders talk about “spreading the wealth” what we hear is taking a very well run private institution that has lifted more people out of poverty (large family) than any program (on a cost-per-person basis) in the history of the US, and giving the assets mostly to a bureaucracy to administer what’s left (as in most goes to admin costs, not the poor). You wonder why I get hostile at threads like this?
The War on Poverty has been the singularly least effective government program. This is because it accepts the Marxist line that wealth is finite and needs to be redistributed for “equality”. Far from this is the idea that wealth is created by the industry of people. That last statement is the crux of the matter.
Question #2: “Where does wealth come from?”
Answer this before you talk about anything else. If you say “the rich” this begs the question – where did they get it? If you think “the government” then they should just print more of it and quit taxing us completely. If you think all is oppression and the poor were robbed, then are you pointing a finger at yourself? The Marxist line is that the poor in Africa were brutally exploited by First Worlders, so that you have a standard of living higher than sub-Saharan Africa means you have to explain who you robbed an how to get so rich. Even our poorest in the US are vastly wealthy compared to many. On an international scale, we’re all guilty if you accept this reasoning.
Question #3: How does your theory about where it comes from apply to you?
Well number two is easy to answer from a liberal viewpoint. “Wealth comes from the government.”