• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • 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!

Why should capital gains be taxed?

ARealConservative said:
we cut spending to lower the deficit.
Click to expand...

To cut the deficit created by 30 years of tax cuts to the rich and excessive military spending, which is coincidently exactly what Mitt is proposing for the next 4 years. Imagine that!!! It is going to make a grand ad!

but again, where is war declared?
Click to expand...

You haven't read Ryan's budget plan have you? Put it all together, or, do you know anyone in the bottom 50% of the country that earn on average, $15,800? You might ask them, especially the seniors.
 
Catawba said:
Cut spending on benefits for the working class to provide more tax cuts to rich and increase spending on the military! That is the plan of attack announced by the GOP.

That makes it more painful for the middle class and does nothing to lower the debt.
Click to expand...

the GOP cut income taxes on every single American that paid income taxes. Can you join in on a conversation without the lies and rhetoric?
 
ARealConservative said:
the GOP cut income taxes on every single American that paid income taxes. Can you join in on a conversation without the lies and rhetoric?
Click to expand...

I doubt it-he has been schooled on the fact that Romney's income tax (effective rate around 14%) is higher than 97% of the nation's and the only people paying a higher rate than Romney are people that Catawba wants to soak some more. (People with salaries over 200K are not the ones whining about Romney unless they are dem activists) yet he keeps repeating that lie or dishonestly includes FICA into the mix
 
Fruityfact said:
The statement you made is true it is very misleading. Who did the tax cuts benefit?

Tenth Anniversary of the Bush-era Tax Cuts | Economic Policy Institute
Take a look at number 1 and 2.
Click to expand...

If you wanted everyone to get the same benefits than by definition you want everyone to pay the same amount of taxes


EPI proposes public policies that protect and improve the economic conditions of low- and middle-income workers and assesses policies with respect to how they affect those workers.

Hmmm sounds pretty pink to me
 
Last edited:
Fruityfact said:
The statement you made is true it is very misleading. Who did the tax cuts benefit?
Click to expand...

a tax cut directly benefits everyone who's tax is cut. It indirectly affects everyone that buys goods and services as lower taxes equal lower prices in the aggregate. any other softballs you want to throw my direction?
 
CriticalThought said:
I'm just curious why should there even be a tax on capital gains? If people invest with money that they earned, then that income was already taxed, so why should they be taxed based on whatever that money earns? It isn't like the government pays people back if they lose money through investments so why should the government be free to tax money earned off of investments?
Click to expand...

Oops wrong thread
 
Last edited:
Catawba said:
Tax Cuts For Wealthy Americans Cost Treasury $11.6 Million Every Hour: Report
Tax Cuts For Wealthy Americans Cost Treasury $11.6 Million Every Hour: Report

Mitt Romney Embraces Failure By Doubling Down On Bush’s Cuts For Millionaires
Mitt Romney Embraces Failure By Doubling Down On Bush's Cuts For Millionaires
Click to expand...

this is based on the failed premise that the government owns us. allowing people to keep more of their property isn't a an expense, and as such has no "cost" associated
 
TurtleDude said:
I doubt it-he has been schooled on the fact that Romney's income tax (effective rate around 14%) is higher than 97% of the nation's and the only people paying a higher rate than Romney are people that Catawba wants to soak some more. (People with salaries over 200K are not the ones whining about Romney unless they are dem activists) yet he keeps repeating that lie or dishonestly includes FICA into the mix
Click to expand...

It is interesting how you take it upon yourself without election or appointment the duty of speaking for Americans.

I paid a higher percentage than Romney in two of the past four years and was about dead even in a third.

Forget about FICA for the minute.

A wage earner getting paid a million bucks in one year ends up with a tax bill of $326,000.00 without any other deductions.
An investor making the same million dollars from capital gains ends up with a tax bill of $150,000.00 without any other deductions.
Someone who inherits the same one million dollars pays NOTHING on that amount.

Each pile of one million dollars looks the same and spends the same. But becuase its origina and source are discriminated by the government, the result is blatant favoritism towards the income areas that benefit the rich more than anyone else.

All three should be taxed according to the same schedule without preference to source.

That is the issue here.
 
ARealConservative said:
this is based on the failed premise that the government owns us. allowing people to keep more of their property isn't a an expense, and as such has no "cost" associated
Click to expand...

The Somalian system of government is what you prefer. Got it!
 
Catawba said:
Actually, I am fine with the tax rates of the 1950s right here in the US of A!
Click to expand...

I'm not. You will never get that draconian level of taxation in this country again. haha
 
ARealConservative said:
I'm not. You will never get that draconian level of taxation in this country again. haha
Click to expand...

The 1950's in America is what you see as socialism, eh? That helps us understand your perspective better, thanks!
 
Catawba said:
The 1950's in America is what you see as socialism, eh? That helps us understand your perspective better, thanks!
Click to expand...

I said draconian levels of taxation.
 
imagep said:
Although the US system would be my first choice, Cuba would still be preferable to Somolia.
Click to expand...

still not sure what Somolia has to do with our discussion, but thanks for "contributing"
 
CriticalThought said:
I'm just curious why should there even be a tax on capital gains? If people invest with money that they earned, then that income was already taxed, so why should they be taxed based on whatever that money earns? It isn't like the government pays people back if they lose money through investments so why should the government be free to tax money earned off of investments?
Click to expand...

If the United States stopped providing services related to commerce and trade, American corporations would shutdown and the market would collapse, all investments would be worthless.

TurtleDude hates when I do this, but just follow along:

Tomorrow Morning, the Dept of Commerce shuts down, all services suspended including the patent and trademark office. Patents and trademarks are meaningless. I can freely sell my version of Coke-Cola and music I found on the internet.

The next day, DOJ announces they will no longer investigate or prosecute crimes against businesses. You know, bank robberies, credit card fraud, racketeering. Oh yeah, you can buy satellite/cable boxes from Canada no problem, no one has to pay the cable company any more.

No one will trade with the US because the full faith and credit thing is gone...

All farm subsidies stop.

Boarder patrol shuts down.

Contracts like credit card agreements are not longer enforced as the courts shutter their doors.

The Secret Service no longer investigate counterfeiting.

And the big one... All corporations doing business in foreign countries--no more military protection.

The market works because of a partnership with government. Those who benefit from a successful and thriving economy pay rent for all the things government does to facilitate and protect trade and commerce.
 
ARealConservative said:
I said draconian levels of taxation.
Click to expand...

And what were the horrible effects of 1950's levels of taxation. Were there no rich people? Was the standard of living worse for the middle class? Did we have greater debt? Did we have higher unemployment?
 
Last edited:
Catawba said:
And what were the horrible effects of 1950's levels of taxation. Were there no rich people? Was the standard of living worse for the middle class? Did we have greater debt? Did we have higher unemployment?
Click to expand...


when slavery existed, did we have no rich people. was the standard of living worse? did we have higher unemployment or greater debt?

tax rates found in the 50's were draconian in nature, government should never need to take that high a percentage of earnings.
 
An interesting essay today at the AEI blog:

The Forgotten Man of the Tax Debate

The 'Forgotten Man?' Cash, and the entrepreneur who has to fund, at least partially, a jobs-creating enterprise with it.

Here is the crux of the argument:

The economy thrives when businessmen can save the cash necessary to provide employment and expand their businesses. When tax rates are punitive, the ability to generate capital in the form of cash is drastically curtailed.

The more skillful the investor, the more cash is generated from profitable investments. Cash left in the hands of successful investors increases the chances that capital will be allocated in efficient and productive ways. The more profits invested in growing businesses by the founders and managers of those businesses, the more quickly the economy grows.

The more skillful the investor, the more cash is generated from profitable investments. Cash left in the hands of successful investors increases the chances that capital will be allocated in efficient and productive ways. The more profits invested in growing businesses by the founders and managers of those businesses, the more quickly the economy grows.
Click to expand...

An interesting point that sidesteps the arguable 'double taxation' thesis.

The author also ponders this:

Incidentally, it occurs to me that nobody has thought to ask Warren Buffett’s secretary about her investing philosophy. Is she as impervious to incentives as her boss?
Click to expand...

An interesting question since her capital gains tax rate (depending on how much Buffett pays her), could be zero.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom