• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Time to tax capital gains as ordinary inc [W167]

The ever-benevolent government.

Yeah, democracy and self-government sucks. Why can't you just get your way all the time, like any teenage boy wants?
 
I understand that. The point is, you could exempt those lower brackets from income tax without lowering rates on the upper brackets. The two are totally unrelated.

My suggestion for lowering the top tax bracket was a practical one, for political reasons. It would also involve raising the capital gains tax to the same rate as income from work, so it seems like a politically viable option. It's a compromise position.

yes, if we needed even more progressivity in the income tax, we could make the flat tax as high or as low as we needed it to be to accomplish whatever the objective is. You are correct that there is no real need for any particular rate tied to my idea of having a huge standard deduction.

Flat taxer AND mindreader, eh. Somehow they seem to fit together.

I just call'em as I see'em.
 
You can do that without lowering rates on the upper brackets. So why again, why a flat tax?

Flat because it simplifies our tax system, but more importantly because the idea of a "flat tax" would pick up some political support from those on the right, while if I suggested increasing capital gains to 38.6% those on the right are going to flat out reject it.

Honestly, for the life of me I can't figure out what advantage exists to our economy by having a bunch of different tax brackets. What I am proposing could be looked at two different ways. It could be considered a two tier tax system with the 0% rate and a higher rate for income that exceeds the norm for income earned at a job. Or, it could could be considered a flat tax, with a large standard deduction. Either way, it is the same thing.

I was trying to come up with a solution that would satisfy those on the left and the right, while accomplishing my goal of simplification and having a more progressive tax system.
 
...Even flat taxers don't propose a flat tax on gross receipts (except the particularly loony ones)...

Ah, so you were assuming me to be "particularly loony". I get the picture. I must come across as a total whacko.
 
Flat because it simplifies our tax system, but more importantly because the idea of a "flat tax" would pick up some political support from those on the right, while if I suggested increasing capital gains to 38.6% those on the right are going to flat out reject it.

Honestly, for the life of me I can't figure out what advantage exists to our economy by having a bunch of different tax brackets. What I am proposing could be looked at two different ways. It could be considered a two tier tax system with the 0% rate and a higher rate for income that exceeds the norm for income earned at a job. Or, it could could be considered a flat tax, with a large standard deduction. Either way, it is the same thing.

I was trying to come up with a solution that would satisfy those on the left and the right, while accomplishing my goal of simplification and having a more progressive tax system.

I don't think you're ever going to satisfy the left and the right on this, and I doubt you should try. There is a genuine difference in values and theoretical and factual assumptions. I don't think the right has a leg to stand on any of these, but regardless the differences are real.

Regarding the brackets system, I think the purpose is clear. A dollar of income to a person who makes $15K a year is different from a dollar income to a person who makes $15M a year. And it's true of various states in between. So they should be taxed at different rates. You know that. I simply disagree that this is profoundly complex. All most taxpayers have to do is look at the tax rate schedule at the back of their 1040 instructions and see what their taxable income is. The tax rate is applied. Heck if you got Turbo it will do it for you. What's complex about that?

Business taxation is complex, but you've already noted that you can't apply a flat tax on businesses, so that takes care of that. Economic reality is complex, so taxing economic activity is complex. That's why we have CPAs.

I don't mind excluding lower brackets from any income taxation; indeed I would recommend that (though even I think $400K is a bit high). But I don't want to lower the tax rate on the top brackets. I want to raise it. It's too low now, leading to too much cash in the hands of too few wealthy people who invest in bubbles with the inevitable result of recession.
 
So do you consent to having your money taken to provide national defense?

Technically no, but for the purposes of this debate, lets assume I still consent to the US constitution, in which case, yes, I consent to defense, since its an authorized power.
 
Simplifying the tax system is not about making it easier to file taxes. Most of us can figure out Turbo Tax, and those who have more complex returns are well advised to pay a CPA. No, simplifying and getting rid of this deduction, that deduction ,and simply lowering the overall rate makes taxes more fair. Why, for example, should a family who is paying off a mortgage at a grand a month get to subtract $12,000 from their net income, but a family paying the same in rent can not?

And why, to go back to the premise of this thread, should a family making $50,000 in earned income and another $50 in capital gains pay less than the family that makes the whole hundred grand in earned income?

Technically its about the same.

Income Tax on 50k is about 5k
Tax on 50k in capital gains (short term gain rate of 25%) would be 12k

Income Tax on 100k income is about 17k..

Of course that hypothetical is unlikely, and so irrelevant. 77% of all Capital Gains taxes is paid by people who make over 200k in come and averages 20k per filing. The current system us designed to make the rich pay more no matter where their income comes from.

Who Pays Capital Gains Taxes?
 
and what of the poor who, because of mental or physical issues, or perhaps extreme age, are unable to work?

How about if we just lay them down across puddles in streets so we don't have to get our feet wet when we cross?
 
You should read Pauline Maier



American Scripture: Making the Declaration of Independence: Pauline Maier: 9780679779087: Amazon.com: Books

She has done extensive research about the DofInd and she points out that after it was written and announced that it basically vanished from the national scene in importance for many years. And even then it was used mainly for partisan poitical purposes by the supporters of Jefferson. It served a very utilitarian purpose and was then replaced by the far more important Constitution. It was not elevated to the romanticized ideal it has become in the minds of many until decades later.

Nice dodge...typical...thx
 
Nice dodge...typical...thx

Is this simply another irrelevant drive by cliche or do you actually have an argument to make which can negate the Maier research?
 
Is this simply another irrelevant drive by cliche or do you actually have an argument to make which can negate the Maier research?

Try a mirror. YOUR response to MY question was 'another irrelevant drive by cliche'...typical. I do not care about Maier's research as she is not posting.
 
Technically no, but for the purposes of this debate, lets assume I still consent to the US constitution, in which case, yes, I consent to defense, since its an authorized power.

But that's just it, you're not consenting to the Constitution. The Constitution is just a piece of paper. It tells us are rights aren't given to us, but that they are already ours, but this isn't true, at least in the a priori sense. It's only true because enough people believe it's it's true and are willing to take action to uphold it's ideas. Very good ideas, a fantastic framework unequaled throughout history, but it requires cooperation of those that believe in it.

It appears from my point of view (lest I be accused of putting words in your mouth) that you think that expecting your cooperation (in this case the compulsory surrendering of a portion of your income) is unjust. You describe it as "stealing", which frankly is just silly. It's silly because, first, the rules can be changed, and second, technically you aren't being forced to stay and consent to the rules. You are free to go. Now I don't expect that you will really go, since our rules and agreements are set upon the best framework in the world.

In-so-far as calling the taking of your money as "theft". I'd like to address this tired and often repeated slogan. Theft is to steal. To steal is; to take (another person's property) without permission or legal right and without intending to return it.

It would seem that stealing is really between people, but let's say that I concede that governments can steal, the next issue is "legal right". Does the government have "legal right"? It would seem that it does. Now you can go back to quoting portions of the Constitution if you wish, but remember, that the Constitution is only a piece of paper that derives it's value solely from the number of people that believe in it. it would appear that not everyone puts equal value in all the ideas within it. Keep that in mind.

Having said that, I don't like when the constitutional amendment process isn't followed, even if I agree with the outcome, but at the end of the day, even if you make the argument that the Constitution upholds your arguments regarding the "theft" of your money, you are forgetting that it is a document designed to change. The fact that the overwhelming majority of people understand the necessity of taxes demonstrates that if the issue of taxes were ever amended to the Constitution, NOTHING would change, thus you are holding on to idea because it is written, but your forgetting that it derives it's authority from the group (hint: even if it says it doesn't) At best you have an argument about the failure to follow the process, but at the end of the day, if the process were followed (and I agree that it should) nothing would change.

You need to come to terms with the idea that you live in a group and the group succeeds because there is a framework of rules and agreements. A flawed framework, but again, it's the best we have.
 
Technically its about the same.

Income Tax on 50k is about 5k
Tax on 50k in capital gains (short term gain rate of 25%) would be 12k

Income Tax on 100k income is about 17k..

Of course that hypothetical is unlikely, and so irrelevant. 77% of all Capital Gains taxes is paid by people who make over 200k in come and averages 20k per filing. The current system us designed to make the rich pay more no matter where their income comes from.

Who Pays Capital Gains Taxes?

More as a percentage or more in total dollars?
 
But that's just it, you're not consenting to the Constitution. The Constitution is just a piece of paper. It tells us are rights aren't given to us, but that they are already ours, but this isn't true, at least in the a priori sense. It's only true because enough people believe it's it's true and are willing to take action to uphold it's ideas. Very good ideas, a fantastic framework unequaled throughout history, but it requires cooperation of those that believe in it.

It appears from my point of view (lest I be accused of putting words in your mouth) that you think that expecting your cooperation (in this case the compulsory surrendering of a portion of your income) is unjust. You describe it as "stealing", which frankly is just silly. It's silly because, first, the rules can be changed, and second, technically you aren't being forced to stay and consent to the rules. You are free to go. Now I don't expect that you will really go, since our rules and agreements are set upon the best framework in the world.

In-so-far as calling the taking of your money as "theft". I'd like to address this tired and often repeated slogan. Theft is to steal. To steal is; to take (another person's property) without permission or legal right and without intending to return it.

It would seem that stealing is really between people, but let's say that I concede that governments can steal, the next issue is "legal right". Does the government have "legal right"? It would seem that it does. Now you can go back to quoting portions of the Constitution if you wish, but remember, that the Constitution is only a piece of paper that derives it's value solely from the number of people that believe in it. it would appear that not everyone puts equal value in all the ideas within it. Keep that in mind.

Having said that, I don't like when the constitutional amendment process isn't followed, even if I agree with the outcome, but at the end of the day, even if you make the argument that the Constitution upholds your arguments regarding the "theft" of your money, you are forgetting that it is a document designed to change. The fact that the overwhelming majority of people understand the necessity of taxes demonstrates that if the issue of taxes were ever amended to the Constitution, NOTHING would change, thus you are holding on to idea because it is written, but your forgetting that it derives it's authority from the group (hint: even if it says it doesn't) At best you have an argument about the failure to follow the process, but at the end of the day, if the process were followed (and I agree that it should) nothing would change.

You need to come to terms with the idea that you live in a group and the group succeeds because there is a framework of rules and agreements. A flawed framework, but again, it's the best we have.

The constitution is a social contract betweent he govt and individuals, and lays out the right and responsibilites of each party. By choosing to be a citizen, you agree to it. And the govt is required to follow the rules. One of which is to only tax and spend money on the powers given to it. We never gave it the power to spend on at least 75% of what it does, thus is illegaly taking and spending my money. Theft. Its pretty simple. You even appear to agree with me, you just dont care becasue youre getting something you want.
 
More as a percentage or more in total dollars?

As a percentage of what? More as in the govt takes more of their property than other people, to pay for the same services. There really no reason to tax capital gains at 0%, 100%, whatever your income is, or any other number. The tax code, tax rates, and sources of taxation are totally arbitrary based on the political wants of the time it gets passed. They are not relevent to whats efficient or neccesary or legal. So this argument that cap gains should be taxed at regular income is no more valid than the argument that they should be taxed at all.

FYI, cap gains ARE taxed at the same rate as income over the short term. Its only long term gains that are taxed at 0-20% depending on your income, plus 3.8% special tax introduced with obamacare on high wealth people.
 
The constitution is a social contract betweent he govt and individuals, and lays out the right and responsibilites of each party. By choosing to be a citizen, you agree to it. And the govt is required to follow the rules. One of which is to only tax and spend money on the powers given to it. We never gave it the power to spend on at least 75% of what it does, thus is illegaly taking and spending my money. Theft. Its pretty simple. You even appear to agree with me, you just dont care becasue youre getting something you want.

Well the devil is in the details. There are some things that are being done that I agree with and others I don't. As I said, I advocate following the process, not because I necessarily think that it will change the things that I don't like, but that the saying, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. In other words, if someone can justify breaking the rules to do something "good", then someone can can break the rules to do something "bad".

Having said that, I still think "stealing" is a dramatic use of the term as I don't think that theft is really what's happening. I think it has more to do with human nature. The best social contract is one where people pursue things that are in their best interest, and simultaneously it provides some benefits, or at the very least opportunity for benefits for others in society.

What's happening now is that one part of society is getting more of the benefits, which are being used to increase their share of benefits at the expense of others, rather than providing increased opportunity, generally speaking.
 
As a percentage of what? More as in the govt takes more of their property than other people, to pay for the same services. There really no reason to tax capital gains at 0%, 100%, whatever your income is, or any other number. The tax code, tax rates, and sources of taxation are totally arbitrary based on the political wants of the time it gets passed. They are not relevent to whats efficient or neccesary or legal. So this argument that cap gains should be taxed at regular income is no more valid than the argument that they should be taxed at all.

FYI, cap gains ARE taxed at the same rate as income over the short term. Its only long term gains that are taxed at 0-20% depending on your income, plus 3.8% special tax introduced with obamacare on high wealth people.

Well it's all relative. The point I think is that Cap gains, (all cap gains) should be taxed at the same rate as income, whether that is 0% or 50%, otherwise it's just a way for people with wealth to pay less on more money.

I don't think we'd need taxes, or they could be taxed at very, very small rates used to control inflation if the government would stop borrowing money from banks (debt based money) and just print what it needs (with certain limits of course). But again, that is a conversation for another thread.
 
Try a mirror. YOUR response to MY question was 'another irrelevant drive by cliche'...typical. I do not care about Maier's research as she is not posting.

It is called USING VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE to support a claim. You should try it sometime in place of endless pompous personal pontifications. It is an essential part of debate.
 
Well it's all relative. The point I think is that Cap gains, (all cap gains) should be taxed at the same rate as income, whether that is 0% or 50%, otherwise it's just a way for people with wealth to pay less on more money.

I don't think we'd need taxes, or they could be taxed at very, very small rates used to control inflation if the government would stop borrowing money from banks (debt based money) and just print what it needs (with certain limits of course). But again, that is a conversation for another thread.

And I think there should be no cap gains tax. Its the same thing in the end. It doesnt matter what rate, or where you get your taxes from, so long as everyone is treated the same, and it collects enough to pay for spending.
 
It is called USING VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE to support a claim. You should try it sometime in place of endless pompous personal pontifications. It is an essential part of debate.

What does Maier's 'VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE' on the DoI have to do with the Preamble which you purported in #311? I then questioned your position on the Preamble based on your previous thread about its legitimacy have not been ratified. Then YOU go off the rail wanting to discuss the DoI...

Another very essential part of debate is to not wonder off in other directions erecting strawmen...unless you realize your position is weak...:lamo
 
What does Maier's 'VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE' on the DoI have to do with the Preamble which you purported in #311? I then questioned your position on the Preamble based on your previous thread about its legitimacy have not been ratified. Then YOU go off the rail wanting to discuss the DoI...

Another very essential part of debate is to not wonder off in other directions erecting strawmen...unless you realize your position is weak...:lamo

Questioned my position?!?!?!? :doh:roll: What are you talking about? :roll: I have no idea what you are attempting to say here.

Simply reproduce with quotations the relevant issues in contention and I will be glad to speak to them.
 
Back
Top Bottom