Tax System Seen as Unfair, in Need of Overhaul

[haymarket]

I challenged apdst to tell us why capital gains are not INCOME

Oh really!?!?!?!? And where do you get this revelation from? A minute ago you were insisting that you reported them on your federal income tax form. Please make up your mind.

the wikipedia entry on CAPITAL GAINS clearly identifies the such as INCOME



If it is not money coming into a person pocket or account, then just what is it and why is it on the income tax form that you touted a few moments ago?

he then denied he said it

I never made that claim.

but here it is in his own post 694

Except that capital gains aren't, "income", hence they're taxed differently than, "income".

Please pick one position and defend it.

Are they income or are they not income? In your opinion of course.

 

[TurtleDude]

Except that capital gains aren't, "income", hence they're taxed differently than, "income".

the left wants "equality" when it means imposing tax hikes on the rich" and want Inequality when it means the rich have to pay higher rates than others so the dem masters can pander to envy in order to win votes.

Some constantly bray that if the public-through government-has determined that a progressive income tax is proper that settles all debate but when that same government has determined that investment income should be taxed differently than wage income they whine that this different table of taxes is wrong because they think God himself ordained that the rich should pay the top possible rate on all sorts of revenue

 

[Mycroft]

the left wants "equality" when it means imposing tax hikes on the rich" and want Inequality when it means the rich have to pay higher rates than others so the dem masters can pander to envy in order to win votes.

Some constantly bray that if the public-through government-has determined that a progressive income tax is proper that settles all debate but when that same government has determined that investment income should be taxed differently than wage income they whine that this different table of taxes is wrong because they think God himself ordained that the rich should pay the top possible rate on all sorts of revenue

That's about it...in a nutshell.

 

[haymarket]

the left wants "equality" when it means imposing tax hikes on the rich" and want Inequality when it means the rich have to pay higher rates than others so the dem masters can pander to envy in order to win votes.

Some constantly bray that if the public-through government-has determined that a progressive income tax is proper that settles all debate but when that same government has determined that investment income should be taxed differently than wage income they whine that this different table of taxes is wrong because they think God himself ordained that the rich should pay the top possible rate on all sorts of revenue

Yet again, you are intentionally confusing and combining two very different things. When we discuss a policy of taxation, there are many facets and issues which make it up. One is the issue of taxing sources of income. Wages are a source of income as are capital gains. A different and separate issue is the matter of progressivity where the poor are taxed only a little or not at all and the rich pay a larger share of their income because it is deemed that much of their income goes for things other that to keep body and soul together.

So we have two distinct and separate issues:
1- INCOME SOURCES
2- A PROGRESSIVE TAX SYSTEM

Your assertion about God ordaining the system is foolish and silly. This is yet another strawman employed to attack those who disagree with your views by perverting and distorting their actual position. If you cannot produce quotes from anyone saying that God himself ordained this system you should refrain from using it as it does not further intelligent debate and only serves to wallow in intellectual fraud.

 

[Mycroft]

Yet again, you are intentionally confusing and combining two very different things. When we discuss a policy of taxation, there are many facets and issues which make it up. One is the issue of taxing sources of income. Wages are a source of income as are capital gains. A different and separate issue is the matter of progressivity where the poor are taxed only a little or not at all and the rich pay a larger share of their income because it is deemed that much of their income goes for things other that to keep body and soul together.

So we have two distinct and separate issues:
1- INCOME SOURCES
2- A PROGRESSIVE TAX SYSTEM

Your assertion about God ordaining the system is foolish and silly. This is yet another strawman employed to attack those who disagree with your views by perverting and distorting their actual position. If you cannot produce quotes from anyone saying that God himself ordained this system you should refrain from using it as it does not further intelligent debate and only serves to wallow in intellectual fraud.

LOL!!!

Admit it...you see a cash cow in those who are taxed at only 15% and will jump through numerous mental hoops to make it sound reasonable to bleed that cow.

How about we just reduce spending so we don't need to bleed ANY Americans, eh?

 

[haymarket]

LOL!!!

Admit it...you see a cash cow in those who are taxed at only 15% and will jump through numerous mental hoops to make it sound reasonable to bleed that cow.

How about we just reduce spending so we don't need to bleed ANY Americans, eh?

How is saying that all income should be taxed according to the same rate schedules "jumping through hoops"? It is intellectual hoop jumping that your side engages in when it attempts to pretend that different sources of income should be taxed at different rates because the wealthy benefit from one more than others do.

As to decreasing spending, I strongly favor looking at both sides of the budget. I can think of over $400 billion I could cut right away.

 

[apdst]

I challenged apdst to tell us why capital gains are not INCOME


he then denied he said it



but here it is in his own post 694



Please pick one position and defend it.

Are they income or are they not income? In your opinion of course.

Why is an orange and orange? An orange can't be an apple. Can it?

The question I have is, why do you even care? I mean, so what, people make money through investments and they get a lower tax rate. It's their money, not your's. Why not just worry about you and let everyone else worry about themselves?

Keep your laws off my pocketbook.

 

[apdst]

LOL!!!

Admit it...you see a cash cow in those who are taxed at only 15% and will jump through numerous mental hoops to make it sound reasonable to bleed that cow.

How about we just reduce spending so we don't need to bleed ANY Americans, eh?

Nothing more than government greed. I thought the Libbos hated greed.

 

[Centinel]

Why is an orange and orange? An orange can't be an apple. Can it?

The question I have is, why do you even care? I mean, so what, people make money through investments and they get a lower tax rate. It's their money, not your's. Why not just worry about you and let everyone else worry about themselves?

Statists don't consider it to be your money. They consider it to be their money. The only question in their mind is how much of their money do they deign to allow you to keep.

 

[haymarket]

Why is an orange and orange? An orange can't be an apple. Can it?

The question I have is, why do you even care? I mean, so what, people make money through investments and they get a lower tax rate. It's their money, not your's. Why not just worry about you and let everyone else worry about themselves?

Keep your laws off my pocketbook.

It seems you have posted in the wrong thread with your inquiries about fruit.

Tax policy, as it is governmental policy, is indeed the concern of a citizen. Why would you attempt to silence any citizens right to discuss it? That is dangerous and extremely anti-American.

here is your first statement about capital gains as income

Except that capital gains aren't, "income", hence they're taxed differently than, "income".

When I corrected you and challenged you to explain how they were not income as you stated you believed, you backed down and attempted to wriggle out of that right corner you painted yourself into

I never made that claim.

And now its fleeing into the warm glow of the local fruit stand.

Amazing.

 

[haymarket]

Statists don't consider it to be your money. They consider it to be their money.

That is not at all true. Perhaps you can quote from one of these demonized enemies you call STATISTS to show us that you are accurately quoting their beliefs?

Anyone who does not want to live in a state where taxation is used to raise revenue is bound by no Berlin Wall to keep them in. Continuing to do so when you know how the system works speaks volumes.

 

[What if...?]

Why is an orange and orange? An orange can't be an apple. Can it?

The question I have is, why do you even care? I mean, so what, people make money through investments and they get a lower tax rate. It's their money, not your's. Why not just worry about you and let everyone else worry about themselves?

Keep your laws off my pocketbook.

Ok, people who work are commodities. Like a box of nails.

When one acquires enough capital, they stop being a commodity. Their "capitals" work for them instead.

Why should money earned by their "capitals" be taxed at a lower rate than money earned by a flesh and blood person with a limited number of hours to sell?

For those who own capital, that capital functions as a "slave", it labors instead of its owner.

Can't see a single reason "capitals" should pay lower taxes than actual people.

Frankly, I reject being a two by four myself. I never agreed to be a commodity.

And I certainly never agreed some should escape BEING a commodity through hoarding.

 

[MaggieD]

And I certainly never agreed some should escape BEING a commodity through hoarding.

Yours is an interesting and not uncommon enough opinion that those who save their money....who live beneath their means...are hoarders. I guess it fits right in with our whole economy, though, which has been built on the notion that we must spend-spend-spend and owe-owe-owe to be patriots.

As for capital gains? Our government has practiced social engineering through our tax codes forever. And now their engineering wealth redistribution, as 47% of taxpayers pay no Federal Income Tacx at all.

The answer is and always has been: STOP SPENDING!!!

 

[apdst]

Ok, people who work are commodities. Like a box of nails.

When one acquires enough capital, they stop being a commodity. Their "capitals" work for them instead.

Why should money earned by their "capitals" be taxed at a lower rate than money earned by a flesh and blood person with a limited number of hours to sell?

For those who own capital, that capital functions as a "slave", it labors instead of its owner.

Can't see a single reason "capitals" should pay lower taxes than actual people.

Frankly, I reject being a two by four myself. I never agreed to be a commodity.

And I certainly never agreed some should escape BEING a commodity through hoarding.

Are you willing to allow deductions, credits and breaks to apply to capital gains, just like salary and wages?

You're probably getting more tax revenue from a flat 15% tax, than you would if deductions started applying to capital gains. If people were allowed to slam deductions onto the capital gains, the way they do with normal income, you might end of up with people paying nothing in capital gains taxes.

But hey! I know how Libbos like to fix things that aren't broken.

Don't let that knife get too close to your nose. :rofl

 

[iguanaman]

You may not like it because it doesn’t screw the successful enough, but it fulfills the goal of a tax structure that is progressive, but fair, and doesn’t create negative incentives to minimize productive behavior in order to maximize tax avoidance behavior.

The only tax avoidance behavior that is productive is one that values investment in their business over hoarding in hedge funds. Reducing rates on the upper brackets has destroyed corporations incentive to reinvest profits in their companies. The record CEO payouts, and salaries at a record low % of GDP are all related to this imbalance in tax rates. The poor growth in the economy under Bush despite the housing bubble is evidence that reducing top rates reduces economic growth.

It would have been one thing if the Bush tax cuts had at least bought the country a higher rate of economic growth, even temporarily. They did not. Real G.D.P. growth peaked at just 3.6 percent in 2004 before fading rapidly. Even before the crisis hit, real G.D.P. was growing less than 2 percent a year.

By contrast, after the 1982 and 1993 tax increases, growth was much more robust. Real G.D.P. rose 7.2 percent in 1984 and continued to rise at more than 3 percent a year for the balance of the 1980s.

Real G.D.P. growth was 4.1 percent in 1994 despite widespread predictions by opponents of the 1993 tax increase that it would bring on another recession. Real growth averaged 4 percent for the balance of the 1990s. By contrast, real G.D.P. growth in the nonrecession years of the 2000s averaged just 2.7 percent a year — barely above the postwar average.

Bruce Bartlett: Are the Bush Tax Cuts the Root of Our Fiscal Problem? - NYTimes.com

 

[haymarket]

Are you willing to allow deductions, credits and breaks to apply to capital gains, just like salary and wages?

You're probably getting more tax revenue from a flat 15% tax, than you would if deductions started applying to capital gains. If people were allowed to slam deductions onto the capital gains, the way they do with normal income, you might end of up with people paying nothing in capital gains taxes.

The only thing that would change is that your profit from capital gains would be taxed at whatever income bracket you are in at the applicable rate that would be applied to ALL SOURCES OF INCOME.

But by all means apdst, do indeed present your verifiable data which supports this theoretical allegation. I will be happy to examine such information.

 

[What if...?]

I was speaking in gross generalities.

Wealth concentration that is problematic is not the result of people that work hard and save.

It is the fiscal masturbation on Wall St that does.

Capitalism is concentrative by nature. One must amass capital to be a capitalist.

And the best "jobs" for "capitals" today are largely unproductive, dog-in-the-manger-with-a-cash-register speculation, for instance.

And "capitals" can work in China today and Eastern Europe tomorrow, another ridiculous advantage for those who own "capitals" over organic workers with finite life-hours to sell. "Capitals" are immortal.

 

[apdst]

The only thing that would change is that your profit from capital gains would be taxed at whatever income bracket you are in at the applicable rate that would be applied to ALL SOURCES OF INCOME.

But by all means apdst, do indeed present your verifiable data which supports this theoretical allegation. I will be happy to examine such information.

If you start classifieing capital gains as income and taxing it as such, you will have the allow deductions.

That's how the tax code is written. Sorry for ya.

 

[haymarket]

If you start classifieing capital gains as income and taxing it as such, you will have the allow deductions.

That's how the tax code is written. Sorry for ya.

Present your data and I will examine it.

So far, all you are presenting is your own opinion based on your own belief about something which has not been verified by you.

You seem to conveniently forget or perhaps are ignorant of the reality that if Congress votes to increase capital gains taxes to the applicable bracket as all other forms of income, they also control the deductions applicable. So any problem, even a theoretical one that you are touting, can be remedied in the same legislation. That is how legislation works. Sorry for ya.

In the meantime, from the September 12 Washington Post/Bloomberg News article

http://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...both-parties/2011/09/06/gIQAdJmSLK_story.html

For the very richest Americans, low tax rates on capital gains are better than any Christmas gift. As a result of a pair of rate cuts, first under President Bill Clinton and then under Bush, most of the richest Americans pay lower overall tax rates than middle-class Americans do. And this is one reason the gap between the wealthy and the rest of the country is widening dramatically [...] Advocates for a low capital gains rate say it spurs more investment in the U.S. economy, benefiting all Americans. But some tax experts say the evidence for that theory is murky at best. What is clear is that the capital gains tax rate disproportionately benefits the ultra-wealthy.

Most Americans depend on wages and salaries for their income, which is subject to a graduated tax so the big earners pay higher percentages. The capital gains tax turns that idea on its head, capping the rate at 15 percent for long-term investments. As a result, anyone making more than $34,500 a year in wages and salary is taxed at a higher rate than a billionaire is taxed on untold millions in capital gains. While it’s true that many middle-class Americans own stocks or bonds, they tend to stash them in tax-sheltered retirement accounts, where the capital gains rate does not apply. By contrast, the richest Americans reap huge benefits. Over the past 20 years, more than 80 percent of the capital gains income realized in the United States has gone to 5 percent of the people; about half of all the capital gains have gone to the wealthiest 0.1 percent.

 

[apdst]

Present your data and I will examine it.

So far, all you are presenting is your own opinion based on your own belief about something which has not been verified by you.

You seem to conveniently forget or perhaps are ignorant of the reality that if Congress votes to increase capital gains taxes to the applicable bracket as all other forms of income, they also control the deductions applicable. So any problem, even a theoretical one that you are touting, can be remedied in the same legislation. That is how legislation works. Sorry for ya.

In the meantime, from the September 12 Washington Post/Bloomberg News article

You mean I actually have to show you that deductions are allowed on income?

The reason that deductions aren't allowed on capital gains, is because they're not taxed as income. If you want to start counting capital gains as income, then you're going to have to live with the fact that deductions on capital gains will be allowed.

Can't have your cake and eat it, too.

 

[haymarket]

You mean I actually have to show you that deductions are allowed on income?

The reason that deductions aren't allowed on capital gains, is because they're not taxed as income. If you want to start counting capital gains as income, then you're going to have to live with the fact that deductions on capital gains will be allowed.

NO. You have to show data that your theory, raising capital gains taxes will actual lower the amount paid in those taxes, is accurate and valid. Moving the goal posts does not do that.

And still you ignore the reality that any legislation can limit deductions as the law is changed. Why are you ignoring that reality in favor of your own unsubstantiated theory?

In summary:

1- you have offered no data to show that your theory is valid or in any way a problem.
2- and even if you were able to - which you are not able to - that potential problem (if it exists in any way shape or form) could be remedied through legislative changes as the capital gains law itself is changed.

 

[apdst]

NO. You have to show data that your theory, raising capital gains taxes will actual lower the amount paid in those taxes, is accurate and valid. Moving the goal posts does not do that.

This is hillarious! You don't understand that allowing deductions on capital gains taxes could lower revenues collected from capital gains? :lamo

Really?

And still you ignore the reality that any legislation can limit deductions as the law is changed. Why are you ignoring that reality in favor of your own unsubstantiated theory?

In summary:

1- you have offered no data to show that your theory is valid or in any way a problem.
2- and even if you were able to - which you are not able to - that potential problem (if it exists in any way shape or form) could be remedied through legislative changes as the capital gains law itself is changed.

Then, you'll start limiting the deductions on all other incomes and I can't wait to see the fall out from that. :rofl

The best part, will be when lower and middle class folks, who currently pay no capital gains taxes, start having to py 10-15%. It'll be tough as hell for the poor man's party to deal with that one. :rofl

 

[haymarket]

This is hillarious! You don't understand that allowing deductions on capital gains taxes could lower revenues collected from capital gains? :lamo

Really?



Then, you'll start limiting the deductions on all other incomes and I can't wait to see the fall out from that. :rofl

You seem to find lots of your own statements hilarious and laughter inducing. I find debate to be the opposite of that which is why I engage in it instead of dabbling in stand up comedy.

Again, your statement that income tax has deductions is irrelevant to your claim that if we raise the capital gains tax it would bring in less money. You have to demonstrate this with valid data.

Here is what you said in 714

You're probably getting more tax revenue from a flat 15% tax, than you would if deductions started applying to capital gains. If people were allowed to slam deductions onto the capital gains, the way they do with normal income, you might end of up with people paying nothing in capital gains taxes.

So please do that... feel free to laugh about it and enjoy yourself... personal happiness is a good thing.....but present your data and case just the same.

You have to show data that your theory, raising capital gains taxes will actual lower the amount paid in those taxes, is accurate and valid. Moving the goal posts does not do that.

And still you ignore the reality that any legislation can limit deductions as the law is changed. Why are you ignoring that reality in favor of your own unsubstantiated theory?

In summary:

1- you have offered no data to show that your theory is valid or in any way a problem.
2- and even if you were able to - which you are not able to - that potential problem (if it exists in any way shape or form) could be remedied through legislative changes as the capital gains law itself is changed.

 

[MaggieD]

You mean I actually have to show you that deductions are allowed on income?

The reason that deductions aren't allowed on capital gains, is because they're not taxed as income. If you want to start counting capital gains as income, then you're going to have to live with the fact that deductions on capital gains will be allowed.

Can't have your cake and eat it, too.

If capital gains were treated as ordinary income, then the big advantage would be that capital losses would be fully deductible from ordinary income. Right now, only $3,000 in losses over and above one's capital gains is deductible. That would make a tremendous difference in revenues, I think. Especially during down market cycles.

The difference in actual deductions wouldn't be much. There are no deductions lost because one has capital gains...one can still take them all against other ordinary income. In fact, when it comes to deductions that depend on one's income being lower, deductions would be lost...such as medical not deductible 'til over 7% of ordinary income.

To begin to again tax long-term capital gains as ordinary income would have tons of unintended consequences, I'm afraid. It's simply not as straight-forward as it seems.

 

[apdst]

If capital gains were treated as ordinary income, then the big advantage would be that capital losses would be fully deductible from ordinary income. Right now, only $3,000 in losses over and above one's capital gains is deductible. That would make a tremendous difference in revenues, I think. Especially during down market cycles.

The difference in actual deductions wouldn't be much. There are no deductions lost because one has capital gains...one can still take them all against other ordinary income. In fact, when it comes to deductions that depend on one's income being lower, deductions would be lost...such as medical not deductible 'til over 7% of ordinary income.

To begin to again tax long-term capital gains as ordinary income would have tons of unintended consequences, I'm afraid. It's simply not as straight-forward as it seems.

If capital gains were treated as ordinary income, they would be lumped in with a person's regular income and be subject to all of the deductions that are allowed on ordinary income.

Unless someone wants to do away with the earned income credit, child tax credit and itemized deductions. I would love for the Libbos to go after those. Now, that would be funny!

I think, ultimately, the "raise capital gains taxes" don't have a clue what capital gains really are, nor how they're earned and for damn sure are clueless about how the tax code works.