You have shown zero connection between an investor getting a capital gains break and any actual real world job creation which helps Mr. Bartlett and gain his support for that discriminatory preference.
Sleep well. Get a good rest. And in the morning awake refreshed and please do find that section of the Constitution that you claim guarantees the pursuit of happiness.
the pursuit of Happiness" is a well-known phrase in the United States Declaration of Independence and considered by some as part of one of the most well crafted, influential sentences in the history of the English language.[1] These three aspects are listed among the "unalienable rights" or sovereign rights of man.
Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Throughout history, people have viewed the relationship between government and citizen as one of master and servant. It was always assumed that man’s rights came from government and, therefore, that it was entirely legitimate for government to regulate or even take away the “rights” that had been given the citizenry.
If the king, for example, decided to confiscate a farmer’s crops, there was nothing the farmer could do but obey, because the farmer held his land and grew his crops through the good graces of the king. If the king imposed a maximum price that could be charged for the farmer’s crops, the citizen obeyed because the king, as sovereign, was ultimately the owner of everything.
Let’s consider an example — Placido Domingo. Here is a person who was born with a voice that is different from everyone else’s. It is such a good voice that thousands of people are willing to exchange a large amount of money to listen to it. As Domingo performs in an increasing number of opera productions, his income or property increase. And he uses this property to pursue happiness in his own way, either through saving it, spending it, donating it, investing it, or some combination thereof.
Obviously, government officials are not responsible for Domingo’s voice or the fact that others place a high value on listening to it. What then is the role of government with respect to Domingo? To punish any person who inflicts violence against him, either in the form of a personal assault or in the form of a theft of the property that he has justly acquired through mutual trades.
This is what Jefferson was referring to when he wrote in the Declaration that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men. It is the process of engaging in economic enterprise, trading with others, and accumulating wealth that we call “economic liberty.” Of course, there are other aspects of human liberty besides the economic one, such as intellectual, religious, and procedural (due process of law), but the overall principle is the same: rights such as life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness preexist government and it is the duty of government to protect their exercise.
It is interesting to note that Adam Smith published his monumental work, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, in the same year — 1776 — that the Declaration of Independence was written. In that work, Smith argued that economic liberty was the key to rising standards of living, especially for those on the bottom rungs of the economic ladder.
the people of the United States brought into existence the Constitution, which in turn brought into existence the federal government. Therefore, there is no question, at least here in the United States, that the federal government is entirely a creation of the people, that the people preexist the government, and that the people have the right to dismantle it, abolish it, reform it, or limit its powers in any way they see fit.
And this was exactly what the Constitution was — an express limitation on the powers of government. After all, the people could have called into existence a government whose powers were total and absolute.
The Constitution established the federal government but, by its express terms and its express nature, it also limited its powers to those enumerated in the document. If the intention had been to establish a government of unlimited powers, there obviously would have been no need to enumerate powers or expressly restrict powers. The fact that powers were enumerated and restricted conclusively establishes that our Founding Fathers were not establishing a government with unlimited powers.
The Declaration and the Constitution
That is the theory of trickle down economics, where is the beef???
Where are the jobs that were supposed to be created by the last decade of tax cuts?
No evidence of that in the 90's. We created 22 million jobs.
None of that provides a single reason why an American would support such discriminatory preferences for capital gains which primarily benefit the wealthy over working people.
I await actual reasons why they should.
I'm not really sure I even know what you mean... We need taxes so that we can keep our society strong. It's in everybody's interests. You aren't an anarchist, so you agree, no?
Again, you pay a higher percentage in taxes overall than the super rich investor. It doesn't matter that the taxes you pay more of have different names.
There are thousands of studies finding that... And it's just obvious common sense. So, yeah, that argument is not remotely persuasive.
Legal? Yeah of course that's legal. That's the law I am saying should be changed.
Look, ask yourself this. If we ony had one tax and it was an income tax that covered both wages and investment income, and they set the rates as follows- people in the bottom 20% pay 16%, the average person pays 27%, upper middle class pays 32%, and super rich people pay 15%, would you think that was a good plan? If not, why do you support something that works out to exactly the same thing just because they obscure what they're doing by having multiple different taxes instead of just rolling it together?
A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
Americans know this as misapplication of the 16th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, 1913, The Social Security Act of 1936.; Joint House Resolution 192 of 1933; and various State "income" taxes. We call it "paying your fair share".
Communist Manifesto 10 Planks
So here is the challenge for any who want to take it - and even if those here are not up to the task - someone on the national stage will have to do it: lets take two people
A - Greg Bartlet - a successful record producer who makes $800,000 a year in salary. He pays a tax rate of 35% for a bill of $280,000.00 in federal income tax minus deductions.
B - Wesley Weston - who makes investments and this year reaped $800,000 in long term capital gains profits. He pays a tax rate of 15% for a bill of $120,000.00 minus deduction.
Please explain to Bartlet why he should support a national tax policy which has him paying over twice as much more in federal income taxes than another American who earns the exact same amount as he did.
If we are going to tax incomes and capital gains income, they should both be taxed at 15%.For someone against taxing income you certainly changed your tune fast.
Ah, but it does. See we are a nation known as a Representative Republic, NOT a pure Democracy, or for that matter a Monarchy, or Dictatorship. We are a nation of laws, not mob rule.
And with such abundance you choose to cite not one of them.
So, if I understand your argument, it is absolutely legal for Mitt Romney's taxation level to be at 15% due to the fact that his 'income' is derived solely from investment return, but you think that is wrong and Romney is somehow doing something wrong? Why is it Romney's fault, or anyone's fault that gets their income from that method that they follow the law? Do you think your own personal taxes are too low, then in turn send in more than you legally have to so that you can 'feel better' about your own participation in this country?
Well, one reason is largely because I know as I get older, at some point I will not be working anymore, and will hopefully, if I have done the right things, derive my own income off of the investments that I make now while I work. And for the years that I did the right things and socked money away for that time, why should at that point in my life have more than double of my real income taken from me?
Second, the problem with the 'progressive' taxation system are inherently flawed as such
1. a progressive tax system is a plank in the Communist manifesto....
I personally would like to see instead of an "income tax" a more reasonable means of taxation such as flat, or consumption taxation so that everyone participates, not just a constant attack on success.
tea:
based on your link provided Is it not supporting the fact that the top 5 income groups currently pay the highest "total effective tax rate" and "Shares of Total Taxes Paid by Each Income Group Were Similar to their Shares of Total Income in 2010"?
So are you advicating they should pay more.
No idea what relevance you think that has. I asked why it matters to you what the taxes are called.
It isn't Romney's fault. Nobody is saying it is. But Romney is the poster child now for why the policies Romney advocates are ridiculous.
Retirement savings are covered under lots of other stuff, so that isn't relevant. Regardless, even if those didn't exist, taxing investment like other income means it would be progressive. Unless you were making a ton of profit off the investments each year, you wouldn't pay higher rates than you do on income.
It's weird that you'd make like you were going to provide a list and then not be able to provide even one actual argument...
Consumption taxes are just a way to shift virtually the entire tax burden of the rich to the middle class. Your taxes would approximately double under a purely consumption based scheme. And for what? Just so super rich people have to pay basically no taxes at all? Why is that a good trade off?
Words matter, remember?
Center for Tax Justice is an organization linked to the Center for American Progress funded, and backed by Soros. It has ZERO credibility.
No, we understand that is the yoke you are dishonestly trying to hang around his neck to smear him, but as you say his dealings are 100% above board, so you have nothing.
Like I already proved, Progressive taxation is a plank of Communism. Are you a Communist?
It doesn't sound like you have a defense on this point, but if you can lay one out, I'm all ears.
That consumption taxes are regressive is not a controversial point. Everybody knows that. It's been firmly established always. Just look it up for yourself if you don't believe me. There is no economist in the world that would disagree with me on that.
It is a signal advantage of taxes on articles of consumption that they contain in their own nature a security against excess. They prescribe their own limit, which cannot be exceeded without defeating the end proposed—that is, an extension of the revenue. When applied to this object, the saying is as just as it is witty that, "in political arithmetic, two and two do not always make four." If duties are too high, they lessen the consumption; the collection is eluded; and the product to the treasury is not so great as when they are confined within proper and moderate bounds. This forms a complete barrier against any material oppression of the citizens by taxes of this class, and is itself a natural limitation of the power of imposing them. - Alexander Hamilton
Many economists and tax experts favor consumption taxes over income taxes for economic growth.[10][11][12] Consumption taxes are neutral with respect to investment.[3][11]
Consumption tax - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dishonesty? Again, you seem to completely misunderstand the whole issue. The issue is that Romney advocates on behalf of lowering taxes for the rich and cutting spending on the middle class. But there he is, a fat cat rich dude that doesn't pay much in taxes. His own example undermines his policy position. You see? Nothing to do with honesty or whatever.
You understand that just screaming "communist" isn't an actual argument, right? It's just right wing moronism running rampant.
Alexander Hamilton wrote:
In your own opening post, you described Romney, as a "Robber Baron".... Since then through the hundred plus pages of this thread you have been proven wrong in your assumptions over, and over again, yet you persist with them. THAT makes your argument dishonest.
I posted the exact plank of Communism it is from, and provided yet another concurring link that backed up the fact that a progressive tax is straight out of the Communist manifesto. Then you gave an argument that could have come straight out of Russia in Stalin's time. And I asked you directly, and will again here, keep in mind that your answer is important, Are you Communist?
Oh, maybe you don't know what that term means. A Robber Baron is somebody who buys companies just to shut them down and sell off the assets. That's what Romney's job was previously, that isn't anything about the taxes.
Just reducing consumption doesn't solve anything. If consumption goes down, the tax rates need to go up. So if everybody goes from buying $10k worth of stuff and paying $6k in consumption taxes to buying $5k worth of stuff, they'd need to pay $12k in taxes. That'd be paying more for less stuff. No good.
I bet Communists liked sandwiches too. Do you like sandwiches? Are you a Communist then?
Oh, maybe you don't know what that term means. A Robber Baron is somebody who buys companies just to shut them down and sell off the assets. That's what Romney's job was previously, that isn't anything about the taxes.
Now Romney's a robber baron? Oh, pulleeze. Link to any proof of that ridiculous ad hom.
See, but the fact was that you claimed that there were, and let me quote your own words here:
"There is no economist in the world that would disagree with me on that."
You were proven wrong on that, and now try to change the subject...Typical of your participation in this thread.
And yet, you refused to answer the simple question...Are you ashamed?
FWIR from 6th grade (like 50yrs ago), a robber baron was one who bought up companies as you said but rather than shut them down used them to build a monopoly. Has the definition changed?
If we are going to tax incomes and capital gains income, they should both be taxed at 15%.
Of course, my first choice would not to have taxes on income at all. But, you know, baby steps...
[/QUOTE]Yeah....
In U.S., 54% Have Stock Market Investments, Lowest Since 1999
View attachment 67121512
So it seems like about 54% still own stock and are affected by Capital Gains tax, including a huge swath of the electorate with retirement plans. Please define "wealthy" in real dollar terms instead of platitudes.
The benefits of low tax rates on capital gains accrue disproportionately to the wealthy. In 2013, an estimated 94 percent of the tax benefit of low rates on capital gains will go to taxpayers with cash incomes over $200,000, and three-fourths of the benefits will accrue to millionaires.
I am not sure you can be helped then.
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?