- Joined
- Oct 24, 2009
- Messages
- 11,005
- Reaction score
- 5,433
- Location
- Southeast Michigan
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Liberal
I certainly don't demand that you pay for what I use.
Many see investment as an evil activity of the rich, not as necessary for economic growth.
Catawba said:Let's see how your bio stacks up against Bruce Bartlett. Here is his bio:
Bruce Bartlett - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Your turn now! Let's see your bio.
Yeah, hard to believe that a man twice my age would have a more distinguished working history.
He went to Rutgers and Georgetown. I went to Michigan. If you want to compare academic legitimacy, I defy you to find one credible list of business schools that ranks the Ross School of Business below anything either Rutgers or Georgetown puts out there.
He even grew up in Ann Arbor. He had the chance to get the quality of education I have, and didn't. Instead he settled for lackluster schools.
Am I supposed to be impressed? Sorry, not happenin'.
He went to Rutgers and Georgetown. I went to Michigan. If you want to compare academic legitimacy, I defy you to find one credible list of business schools that ranks the Ross School of Business below anything either Rutgers or Georgetown puts out there.
He even grew up in Ann Arbor. He had the chance to get the quality of education I have, and didn't. Instead he settled for lackluster schools.
Bull. You want the rich to pay less taxes, which, assuming the change would be revenue neutral, would mean that the poor and middle class would have to pick up the slack. So you do want others to pay more for what you use, and yourself to pay less. Honestly, that's pretty much what everyone wants.
Yeah, hard to believe that a man twice my age would have a more distinguished working history.
He went to Rutgers and Georgetown. I went to Michigan. If you want to compare academic legitimacy, I defy you to find one credible list of business schools that ranks the Ross School of Business below anything either Rutgers or Georgetown puts out there.
He even grew up in Ann Arbor. He had the chance to get the quality of education I have, and didn't. Instead he settled for lackluster schools.
Am I supposed to be impressed? Sorry, not happenin'.
the rich pay far more than their share.
If the middle class and the poor continue to want massive government spending its only fair that they shoulder more of the bill. Its like saying ten people go to a dinner and everyone had a 15 dollar meal and one guy pays 130 dollars and the other 9 pay 20 and the guy paying the most says he wants to only pay 70 dollars. well yes if the rest want 16 dollar meals they are going to have to come up with the 80 bucks.
You labor under the delusion that the current system is fair-where one percent that makes 22% of the income and certainly does not use anywhere NEAR 22% of the government services funded by the income tax, yet pays 40% of the income tax (and then add the estate-death tax surcharge).
I did use RED as an example earlier but I could just as easily have used "Lucky Lady in the 5th" for betting on a horse and it wouldn't be much different than what you described - past history of both the horse and jockey. :shrug:
I will give you the last bit, though, your winnings are deferred when you gamble on stocks. If you want a fast return you might consider a savings account. CD's also pay with deferred savings but it's still taxed as regular income. Why is that???
I'm not sure we should necessarily give people tax breaks for "investing in the economy" when that economy could just as easily be in China or India. Why should we care if money builds a plant in China to make widgets for Germans or other Chinese?
If you would like a break for American investment then I might see it as reasonable. Otherwise it's just an excuse for some to pay less than others.
Are you trying to say you can't deduct losses from gains? Or can't defer losses?
By your definition of fair. Clearly not everyone agrees with you.
You can justify it however you want, but the fact of the matter is, you want to do the exact same thing that the poor people you villify so much want to do. You want to shift the tax burden off your shoulders and onto the shoulders of someone else. That's just human nature though, I can hardly blame you for it.
I don't labor under any delusions. The current system sucks, and is unfair in a lot of ways, that's why I want to change it. And I do care about whether the tax system is fair (though that's not my primary concern). I'm simply not willing to let you get away with the hypocrisy of slamming the poor and middle class for wanting to shift their tax burden onto the shoulders of the wealthy when you come in here and want to do the exact same damn thing in reverse.
If you believe horse racing is random chance you'll have to prove it. Many people say otherwise. It's a race, a competition - it's not throwing dice.Sorry but that still not comparable.
Companies make money, from productive activity, while horse betters make money from the randomness of one horse winning.
Someone else loses in every case of gambling, while with investing, most people can "win."
Sorry, your gambling comparisons fall flat on their ass.
You haven't shown me compelling evidence to the contrary. I'm willing to be convinced - do your best.Investing isn't gambling.
You should stop repeating this nonsense, it makes your arguments look silly.
That's only true if it's FDIC insured - not all banks are.CD's are insured by the government, your principle is guaranteed, if the bank goes under.
Your only losses being interest and time preference.
And until all businesses and people in all countries are living with the same rules it's not the "same old lame protectionism" - it's leveling the playing field. If China wants to waste it's people by burning them out in 5-10 years (maybe less!) that's up to them but I don't expect our companies or our government to be so callous - DO YOU? We can't stop China from abusing it's people or letting it's companies abuse it's people, but we can sure as hell level the playing field by making it more costly for Americans to invest over there and there's not a damn thing wrong with that.We live in a global economy, giving tax breaks for Americans only, is just the same old lame protectionism.
So, just to be clear, if you have capital gains of $2M but loose $1M you have to pay taxes on $1.997M? Or do you owe taxes on $1M?Up to $3000, which you can carry the extra over to the next year.
That's so great, when you may lose several thousand, to million dollars.
Nope! Sorry, a lot of that money is protection money in the form of military expenses (and police and firefighters locally). My wealth is nowhere near as much as yours. Shall we base taxes - or at least military expenses - off our insurance coverage? That seems fair. Your life is worth $2M or more, mine's a whole $100k, maybe. Your house is $5M, mine's $150k. Why the hell should I be forced to pay an equal share of protection compared to you???The rich objectivly pay for services that benefit eeryone else. Everyone else is subsidized by the rich
Nope! Sorry, a lot of that money is protection money in the form of military expenses (and police and firefighters locally). My wealth is nowhere near as much as yours. Shall we base taxes - or at least military expenses - off our insurance coverage? That seems fair. Your life is worth $2M or more - mine's a whole $100k, maybe. Your house is $5M, mine's $150k. Why the hell should I be forced to pay an equal share of protection compared to you???
Nope! Sorry, a lot of that money is protection money in the form of military expenses (and police and firefighters locally). My wealth is nowhere near as much as yours. Shall we base taxes - or at least military expenses - off our insurance coverage? That seems fair. Your life is worth $2M or more, mine's a whole $100k, maybe. Your house is $5M, mine's $150k. Why the hell should I be forced to pay an equal share of protection compared to you???
Of course it's relevant since we're talking about money. Bring a wrongful death suit about a dead millionaire compared to a dead janitor and see what the courts say about what a human life is worth.military expenses benefit everyone. if we were to be invaded by hordes of chinese, you will lose everything you have, same as a rich guy. the net worth of "everything you have" is irrelevant.
No, that would be using TD's logic. I was just applying that logic a little more fairly than he was.My kids are home schooled. using your logic I shouldn't have to pay property tax because I don't use the service that those taxes fund.
Of course it's relevant since we're talking about money. Bring a wrongful death suit about a dead millionaire compared to a dead janitor and see what the courts say about what a human life is worth.
So, just to be clear, if you have capital gains of $2M but loose $1M you have to pay taxes on $1.997M? Or do you owe taxes on $1M?
Insurance seldom covers everything, though the Cadillac policies and people mis-representing values might make the difference. In any event, I have insurance and I still don't have that much to loose compared to Daddy Warbucks.Let's use a simple burglery as an example. Who would lose more, a poor uninsured household or a rich insured household? Even discounting the insurance factor, the rich can easily replace the lost property with little or no effect on their ability to feed and clothe their family or pay their mortgage/rent. ;-)
If we get invaded, win or loose, I most likely won't survive anyway. I'd rather die defending my home than give it up. I'm not sure the rich would be as willing.it is not relevant at all because, after the fact, you both would have NOTHING. preventing that end state is what defense spending is about.
"Fair market value"? You're kidding, right? Even with cars and real estate it's an illusion - didn't the housing bubble just prove that?If you buy an asset (say a house), at fair market value, and later sell that assest, at fair market value, did you really make any gain (or loss)? While that asset may have gone up (or down) in dollar value you still have exactly enough pre-tax dollars left to buy only that same asset. Capital gains, if not adjusted for inflation, are basically meaningless "paper" profits/losses.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?